“The wretched tribe of Nero”
Everywhere you go these days the false winds of change are in the air. The wretched few who dangle the carrot of hope before the mass snicker and plot while every four…
Milwaukee Anarchists Against The Elections
07
Feb
papasimian
February 7, 2010 at 9:57 pm
I’m not an anarchist, but an arsonist. How about we just burn it all down and start over….I’ll bring the marshmellows. Who wants to bring the chocolate and the grahams?
brockal
February 7, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Discussions of “ism”s lead to collectivist thought.I am sovereign. I swear by my life, & my love of it, I shall never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another to live for mine.Hang whichever label upon me you may wish; although I will not bear the yoke, nor care to encumber myself with one for the sake of another’s understanding. I am me. A=A. 2+2=4. I am.For any who would force-encumber me with their life, they will find war or futility in seeking my consent.Viva le’ Sovereign!
EthanSurbaugh
February 7, 2010 at 10:38 pm
I ride a fine line between a true liberal and anarchist.. For now I think I’ll stick with gun toting anarcholiberal! Viva la resistance!
kittiest34
February 7, 2010 at 11:13 pm
I am an anarchist to much like ParticleMan. We are for no governments or really for leaders. We are against war, but we will protect ourselves if needed. We stress the production for need only and emancipation from state. Most of us are equalitarians.
ParticleMan
February 7, 2010 at 11:41 pm
Well, Anarchism, Socialism, and Communism are all deeply related because all of which aim to improve the relationship between the worker and the means of production (institutions such as factories or places that produce a commodity). Many democratic socialists want to bring about this by election and litigation, communists want to do this by hijacking the state and using it to destroy capitalism, and anarchists want to do it by destroying the state and capitalism and authoritarian forces.
ParticleMan
February 7, 2010 at 11:59 pm
With that being said, If a community decides to be represented by a leader, they should have the power to remove the leader from office at any point in time, provided that it is the result of popular consensus.But more or less, I believe that people have the power to make decisions for themselves,and don’t need to elect others to make decisions for them.
Captain077
February 8, 2010 at 12:55 am
As I see it, anarchy and socialism are on opposite sides of the spectrum. Anarchy having limited to no governmental control, where socialism has huge governmental control (Example: Nazism, Communism, etc.) How do you mix the two? The only way I see it possible is if the people on an individual and voluntary basis contribute to social programs. Otherwise, the government/community would require it through taxes on an involuntary basis.
ParticleMan
February 8, 2010 at 1:06 am
Ha, I made a previous comment about this, but I don’t know if it posted (my internet is being annoying).However, I am currently undergoing a huge workload, so if my views have interested you in the least, please visit infoshop(dot)org, they have a very extensive FAQ on Anarchism. Sorry if this is a cop out, but I think that will be much more clear and concise. Thanks for listening.
kittiest34
February 8, 2010 at 1:12 am
In the mid 1800s to early 1900s most Socialists believed in decentralized workman’s counsels. When Lenin and what we call the 3rd Internation came in they twisted the idea of worker’s cousels and took power for themselves.
ParticleMan
February 8, 2010 at 2:11 am
I am an anarchist of the social persuasion. I see Anarchism as the only method to bring about socialism, or an environment in which one has the ability to control the world that they are part of. This control ranges from the conditions that they work in to the human interactions in which they choose to take part in. Thus, I am an advocate of communal autonomy, in which the community practices methods of direct democracy for problem solving.