|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 3:15 am
Okay, so I'm pretty new here and I really hope that this isn't a guild filled with hormonally stressed out, punk rock addicts who rally the streets advocating anarchy through protests and violence instead of maturity and actually doing something like advocating Anarchism and engaging in agorism.
Anyway, I'd like to see people's thoughts on what the word "anarchist" means. I'd like to see different perspectives. I'd also like to know what you guys do outside Gaia to advocate Anarchism and statelessness.
I'm curious to know.
For now, I only have an extremely small group on facebook for Filipino Anti-Statists, and I try to advocate it in a simple manner.
I have a profile on fringe elements on ning.com, and a channel on youtube. I'm more of a listener than a person who advocates so I don't have much to say.
mrgreen
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:10 pm
Anarchism to me means a society free of hierarchy in any way, shape, or form.
To me that also means elimination of capitalism, as well as the state.
It's a society made of people who respect other people's freedoms, so long as they do not violate the freedoms of another person.
I don't do much in the real world for anarchism aside from debate with people, sometimes friends, sometimes family members, but I bring it up almost every single day.
Not too much of a social guy, I don't have any anarchist friends irl.
Occasionally we get the punk rock straggler, but hey, as long as they're advocating a system of freedom, and they aren't conforming to the punk subculture, I ain't gonna hate on them.
As for advocating anarchism through protests and violence, then it boils down to what you consider violence.
I don't consider violence against property, violence.
Violence against people is violence though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 12:01 am
Haha well to say the least I guess I am a stressed out (not hormonally though) punk rock addict and I do rally the streets and I do advocate anarchy throough protests and violence, in addition of course to agorism. =)
I have to agree with awesome on this one, it's the abolition of hierarchy in every way. Not only of capitalism or the state, but all the manifestations of the use of force that are not self-defense which predate capitalism, governments, societies.
IRL I write articles, pamphlets, distribute pamphlets, organize demos and riots, teach other people about anarchism and get into every debate I can; in my personal life as well as in school, at my job, everywhere. I also have a youtube channel! But it's in spanish, lol; and I haven't uploaded anything in a while. My username is felipebistec in case you wanna add me. I also play in an anarchopunk band which I think does wonders to spread the word, at least where I live, cause we get lots of non-punks at our shows and we always make sure to talk more than play music. After shows people come talk to us and ask about anarchism, etc. It feels really good, personally! Like you accomplished something.
The state and the capitalist class know very well what they are doing and they have no use/need to engage in agorism. Maybe you can discuss materialism with friends, family, and random guys at shows, but there's no use in talking to the government or the capitalist class. They stand there by force, and got to where they are by murdering and imprisoning thousands of people, so when you talk about agorism and this pacified revolution, you're leaving way too many points aside. Maybe it's gonna be hard to fight the governments of the world, but violence (justified as self defense), to some extent at least, will be necessary to abolish capitalism and to reach freedom.
I vote we make a thread for violence/nonviolence and we talk about it there. Or let's just talk about it here and keep the ball going =)
Oh and welcome, fyodore! =) Hope you have a good time in this forum! I just recently started checking in (mostly cause my life just turned very very boring, lol) so I'm up to discuss anything! =)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 12:37 am
Awesome, * Main Entry: vi·o·lence * Pronunciation: ˈvī-lən(t)s, ˈvī-ə- * Function: noun * Date: 14th century 1 a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure 2 : injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage 3 a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force b : vehement feeling or expression : fervor; also : an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality : discordance
4 : undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)
I'm gonna go with the first one, physical force as to injure or abuse. You can't injure things like houses, etc, so that's not violent to me. It is violent, though to destroy something with an intent to harm someone. It's violent if you burn down my house, because you're leaving me homeless, and that harms me. So when you say it's not violent to break stuff, I say it's too.
I've seen a lot of primitivists throw this argument saying what's violent and what's not, and that it's bad to harm people but it's okay to break windows, etc.
To me, they (I don't know about you yet, you didnt really make it clear) are missing the point completely, because this violence is not inherently wrong.
The point, to me, is in which cases can violence be justified, and in which ones it can't. I don't really wanna get into what's violent and what's not, because I feel like we would be wasting our time. I advocate self defense. If to defend yourself you have to resort to violence, then, that violence is justified.
In that scenario, burning cars and fast food restaurants is completely justified, and I'd be willing to call it violence because it would be done with a purpose of hurting (economically) the owners. You would be trying to make the people who killed all those cows pay. You're trying to hold them accountable through violence. Justified violence.
I think the "what if you came and burned down my house" scenario is a pretty good example of why it's no use talking about whether it's violence or not. Clearly it is, and you're only burning my house down, I'm not necessarily in it! It's not justified because (I hope, lol) we're friends, and I haven't done any harm to you.
If, on the other hand, it was say, bush's house (lol), wherever the hell he lives right now.... okay well that's a bad example lol he has tons of houses. Maybe just some a*****e capitalist who paid to kill a worker of his or something like that would be a better example. If you burned down that capitalist's house, with an intent to hurt him and make him pay for that murder, it would (arguably though) be justified.
If you have to resort to violence to survive, as a person or as a community, then so be it. It's not bad... Imagine the jews having guns during the reich... or native americans having guns when the spanish worked them to death. What wouldve happened if the vietnamese weren't so good at guerilla warfare? I'm pretty sure the USA wouldnt have pulled out. etc.
I recommend you this book! If you have the time. It's really short. http://www.akpress.org/2005/items/hownonviolenceprotectsthestate
I read it like in two days. If you at least somewhat agree with me, please read it! He's better at explaining this point than I am.
=) well I'm going to bed now. goodnight everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 12:44 am
BTW I don't believe in revenge. My exgirlfriend always told me how she wanted rapists to be tortured to death, etc. I think that's sick and ******** up. I believe in practical violence, violence that will stop the crime. When you torture someone, thats not gonna prevent crime, you're just acting on your emotions, and then everything ******** up. I'm talking self defense, like shooting someone before he shoots you, hopefully in the knee or the leg so you don't kill him. Maybe everyone can carry tasers. Violence to stop violence. When you torture, that's not justified.
And maybe in that case, prisons and death sentences aren't justified; I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 6:10 pm
I was mainly talking about violence in the name of destroying capital, so the owners of said capital are unable to use it, it is violence, but I guess like you said, it's justified violence.
I was more specifically saying that if I were to just go up to some random person I don't know, and start beating on them that it would be violence, and there is no justification in it.
There is no way to distinguish between a normal person, and a bourgeois capitalist, like a store manager.
Or even those in the middle and lower middle class who actively support capitalism even though it's ******** them over.
Realistically, it would be weird if you could line up every business owner, and store manager against a wall, and just pick them off, it doesn't feel like I'm able to justify my actions by saying that it's for anarchism.
But at the same time, I don't think anarchism is possible when it's well known opponents are still alive.
I believe in freedom, and since I believe in freedom, I don't think I could bring my self to physically harm anyone except in the cases where my survival is on the line.
But that doesn't mean I wouldn't let someone else do it, just that I couldn't do it.
I understand justified violence in the way you're saying it though.
I believe in self defense, but until I feel like my life is on the line, I couldn't bring my self to attack anyone physically, maybe through their property, but not by physically attacking anyone.
Also, I don't agree with revenge either.
Rapists, and killers, and thieves, are the way they are for a reason, and killing them off doesn't fix that reason, and putting them in prison doesn't either.
We have to examine them, find out the reason they are the way they are, and do our best to prevent these things that corrupt people from corrupting people.
No amount of jail time will fix that, and killing them all off won't either.
And it's sick to even consider torture on anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 12:46 am
I agree completely! Just for the record, I would probably feel god awful if I ever shot someone, and even worse if I ever killed anyone; even in self defense. It's a pretty big deal, and I don't know how I would cope with myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
