David Icke's Official Forums (https://forum.davidicke.com/index.php)
-   Lawful Rebellion / Non Compliance / Sovereignty (https://forum.davidicke.com/forumdisplay.php?f=60)
-   -   ANARCHISM ~ For Or Against (https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=255876)

getagrip 11-09-2013 07:29 AM

ANARCHISM ~ For Or Against
 
I have just finished reading a book called 'Anarchism: Arguments For And Against.'

Anarchism
'A political theory advocating the elimination of governments and governmental restraint and the substitution of voluntary cooperation among individuals.'


Those belonging to or coming from authoritarian parties find it hard to accept that one can organise without 'some form' of government.
Therefore they conclude, and it is a general argument against Anarchism, that 'Anarchists do not believe in organisation'. But government is of people, organisation is of things.
There is a belief that Anarchists 'break up other people's organisations but are unable to build their own' often expressed where dangerous, hierarchical or useless organisations dominate and prevent libertarian ones being created. it can well be admitted that particular people in particular places have failed in the task of building Anarchist organisations but in many parts of the world they do exist.

An organisation may be democratic or dictatorial, it may be authoritarian or libertarian, and there are many libertarian organisations, not necessarily Anarchist, which prove that all organisation need not be run from the top downwards.

So, Anarchy in the u.k -could it work ? or do you need to be governed?

What would be your argument ~ for or against.

.

decoking 11-09-2013 10:13 AM

1957 - A Kid Explaining To An Old Man What An Anarchist Is And Why Government Equals Violence

This clip is from the 1957 British comedy film Á King In New York', directed by and starring Charlie Chaplin in his last leading role, which presents a satirical view of certain aspects of United States politics and society.

The film was produced in Europe after Chaplin's exile from the US in 1952. It did not open in the United States until 1967.

The young boy's name is Michael Chaplin, son of Charlie Chaplin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8jUxg81o8Q

decoking 11-09-2013 10:18 AM

A Conversation With Anarchist David Graeber

David Graeber was an Associate professor of anthropology at Yale University before they decided to not renew his contract with no explanation; he is a prominent anarchist and anti-globalisation activist and has participated in some of the largest public demonstrations in recent years...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVDkk...LTsUvOZUebvXoI

h2pogo 11-09-2013 10:24 AM

Anarchy is the only way.
 
There was a split in the anarchist philosophy with the volentary cooperation and just co-operation, ie anarcho comunism and anarcho capitalism..Anarcho comunism worked in spain for a short while but the pesants backin the day didnt have many possesions/property..I cant see it working in the uk today..But Anarcho capitalism could work but the UK would needs to spititualy evolve a bit first..

I think the word 'propertry' and the royal estate(real estate) and titles that go with it will have to be redefined for what it is, also for it to work.

If you want to eradicate tyranny.
Anarchy is the only way.

fluxed 11-09-2013 11:41 AM

Anarchy is for crack heads.

Common sense costs nothing.

Was it the Roman emperor, or the gladiators fault?

Who held his thumb up or down?

Who built the arena?

Those under anarchy, are as bad as the kings.
They have adopted the mentality of the kings.

bodycomputer 11-09-2013 02:53 PM

Anarchy is such a massive subject I think it takes a long time to come round to that understanding. People are of a mindset where they can't comprehend how an anarchist society could work and 5 to 10 years ago I was the same. But I slowly went towards realising that maybe the libertarians were onto something to now believing that anarchy is a solution although I am still very much within the anarcho-capitalist belief which I know some anarchists don't believe is "true anarchy".

Could an anarchist society work in the UK? I doubt it because many people here are so reliant on the state that they love it. I've spoke to a few people about it and they can't get their head round the concept that state interference often causes more harm than good, let alone start thinking about things like who would build and maintain roads.

For an anarcho capitalist society to work I believe that people have to be far more conscious of where they spend their money to punish companies that do wrong and fail to be good towards society as a whole. Too many people in the UK can't even do that simple task by taking their money elsewhere, they don't understand the power as a collective they could possess. They will get angry about things for a day or two and then continue to shop at those places or buy those products.

Some UK people don't even talk to their neighbours to discuss the maintenance of a fence between their properties, let alone talk to the other people on their roads about creating a fund to fix potholes.

andy1033 11-09-2013 02:59 PM

No i am for total control of society as i think humans need to be controlled, but from afar.

They should all be told that mind control exists and that it will be used if you step out of line.

I am all for the socialist nwo type scenario they want, and am against an anarchist system of no control.

I am all for control, a system based on socialism.

I think the masses are dangerous, and i think there should be control, but they will leave you with some freedoms.

Humans without control is chaos, and i am all for a system of control. Humans without the system, would be nout than stupid animals really. The system focuses you into making something out of your life. Although not everyone can have decent lifes, its better than anarchy.

Like even though uk gov ruined my life with mind control techs, i know without it, society would be chaos.

grandmasterp 11-09-2013 03:11 PM

Syndicates work.
We join syndicates for mutual benefit, all the syndicate members have an equal voice.
Anarcho-syndicalism is common sense, hence it has never really caught on.
Anarcho-syndicalists believe that workers’ organizations — the organizations that struggle against the wage system, and which, in anarcho-syndicalist theory, will eventually form the basis of a new society — should be self-managing. They should not have bosses or "business agents"; rather, the workers alone should decide on that which affects them.

Note 'workers'. Anarcho- syndicalists believe in work whereas most anarchist groups comprise lazy feckers sitting on their erses and falling out with other anarchist groups after the fashion of the Judaean Popular front et al in Monty Python's Life of Brian.

vorwahr 11-09-2013 03:19 PM

Like the nzi party the bits of narchy that mke sense nexus ethey work are socialist ,
I'd say I'm.for anarchy but as a stepping stone .

bodycomputer 11-09-2013 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andy1033 (Post 1061726434)
The system focuses you into making something out of your life.

An anarchist system would allow you to focus on making something of your life, it would remove barriers which are placed designed to keep you down.

If you like the idea of socialism, this can still exist under anarchy, it just wouldn't be controlled by a government dictating the best place to focus and would be more locally based through cooperation.

If you are for a system of control as you say, then you are for the governments use of force which has killed 100s of millions of people over the last century. But I guess that is just fine?

bodycomputer 11-09-2013 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vorwahr (Post 1061726468)
I'd say I'm.for anarchy but as a stepping stone .

Out of interest, what would anarchy be a stepping stone to in your opinion? A new and refreshed government? If so how would you stop a new government from becoming power hungry as anarchists tend to see that any sort of government by its nature does everything it can to expand, meaning that 100 years down the line the same country would probably be in a similar position like the US is currently when their government was formed under the constitution which has subsequently failed to keep government under control.

bikerdruid 11-09-2013 04:03 PM

ANARCHISM ~ For Or Against?

absolutely ... for ...
"there's no government like NO government!"

grandmasterp 11-09-2013 04:06 PM

You can't really have 'legislative government' as such in an anarchist system as anarchy implies 'without laws'.
Not 'without rules' unions have rules , democratically agreed upon.
With anarchy you simply don't need a professional legislature nor a 'boss class'.

pepsi78 11-09-2013 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by getagrip (Post 1061725808)
I have just finished reading a book called 'Anarchism: Arguments For And Against.'

Anarchism
'A political theory advocating the elimination of governments and governmental restraint and the substitution of voluntary cooperation among individuals.'


Those belonging to or coming from authoritarian parties find it hard to accept that one can organise without 'some form' of government.
Therefore they conclude, and it is a general argument against Anarchism, that 'Anarchists do not believe in organisation'. But government is of people, organisation is of things.
There is a belief that Anarchists 'break up other people's organisations but are unable to build their own' often expressed where dangerous, hierarchical or useless organisations dominate and prevent libertarian ones being created. it can well be admitted that particular people in particular places have failed in the task of building Anarchist organisations but in many parts of the world they do exist.

An organisation may be democratic or dictatorial, it may be authoritarian or libertarian, and there are many libertarian organisations, not necessarily Anarchist, which prove that all organisation need not be run from the top downwards.

So, Anarchy in the u.k -could it work ? or do you need to be governed?

What would be your argument ~ for or against.

.


It's fine as long as it does not turn into Communism.
A little socialism is okay and necesary, but nothing beyond that.

bikerdruid 11-09-2013 04:25 PM

marx believed that anarchism would naturally follow from communism, as the workers took over control of all production.
he believed that government would become redundant.

anarki 11-09-2013 04:29 PM

I am 100% FOR anarchism.

I am not an anarchist because I believe it can be applied in today's society, I am an anarchist because I believe that when humans can live together and progress without the need for rules and draconian punishment is when we as a species have reached our maximum potential.

gremlin 11-09-2013 04:57 PM

I am still for that anarchy was invented for the idiots to shout and rave about getting rid of government's.

I agree with NON COMPLY with the governement and it's robots. No sides just be!

getagrip 11-09-2013 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grandmasterp (Post 1061726457)
Syndicates work.
We join syndicates for mutual benefit, all the syndicate members have an equal voice.
Anarcho-syndicalism is common sense, hence it has never really caught on.
Anarcho-syndicalists believe that workers’ organizations — the organizations that struggle against the wage system, and which, in anarcho-syndicalist theory, will eventually form the basis of a new society — should be self-managing. They should not have bosses or "business agents"; rather, the workers alone should decide on that which affects them.
Note 'workers'. Anarcho- syndicalists believe in work whereas most anarchist groups comprise lazy feckers sitting on their erses and falling out with other anarchist groups after the fashion of the Judaean Popular front et al in Monty Python's Life of Brian.


I would like to see something like this put in place as an alternative to the government.
small communities which could barter skills and produce.

bodycomputer 11-09-2013 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gremlin (Post 1061726691)
I am still for that anarchy was invented for the idiots to shout and rave about getting rid of government's.

I agree with NON COMPLY with the governement and it's robots. No sides just be!

Anarchy wasn't invented, it is the natural state. It is only the concept of government that was invented.

And if your non-compliance ended with you being locked up, such as if you refused to pay your taxes, then I wonder how you would think about being able to continue your thoughts of "No sides just be!" when they themselves through force refused to let you just be.

pepsi78 11-09-2013 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bikerdruid (Post 1061726608)
marx believed that anarchism would naturally follow from communism, as the workers took over control of all production.
he believed that government would become redundant.

Real anarchist system has nothing to do with Communism, it's totally or almost based on voluntary aplication. It has a governing structure but in a whole different way, the anarchist governing body (the government )is very different.

Where as in communism you get assigned and told what to do, who are you going to be, where you are going to work, really in a communist governing body the communists dictate and people become like drones.

There is no independence in Communism, the voluntary system slowly fades away and the worker drones take over.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:59 PM.