Anarchism- Most of you really don't know what it means.
an = without
archy = man made systems of rule
An true anarchist is one that isn't dependent upon man made systems of rule and lives in a way that doesn't attempt to impose rules on others.
If someone claims to own property, they are imposing their rules on others, restricting their movement by putting up fences.
If someone is dependent upon money, agriculture, government to meet their survival needs, they are supporting man made systems of rule.
If someone wants to organize with others and create a settlement, they'll need to protect the land they use and set up man made rule systems to distribute resources.
The only true anarchists are freegan, foraging, hunting, gathering, scavenging, nomadic people, living in small egalitarian tribes, practicing gift economy, that live in harmony with Nature's infallible resource based economy.
Those that don't practice what they preach are hypocrites and cowards, not anarchists.
After my understanding, anarchy merely means the absence of a ruler - not complete anomie.
Of course an anarchy needs a consensus everyone agrees upon to work. It needs not be carved in stone, or be enforced by any "authority", to give guidance and aim. It can be fluid, and be part of the process. I see no philosophical problem with that.
That's the definition as it's frequently used but the etymology of the word suggests that my anaylsis is more accurate. The term was watered down by those wishing to do only what they want and not willing to accept the consequences that their lifestyles impose upon others.
When man creates rule systems, even if at the beginning their intended purpose is solely to give guidance, the nature of psychopaths will cause them to expand upon and eventually take over those systems. It's happened in every civilization that we've experienced.
I've lived in and out of civilization and studied both concepts from inside and out. All I can conclude is that the rest of the life on the planet lives according to Nature's rules and humans are the only species that attempts to create rule systems of their own. The hurbris to think that human minds, in 12k years, can create a more sustainable system than the very algorithm of life evolving for millions of years will likely be the downfall of our species.
That is quite a broad brush considering the fine line I made between anomie and anarchy.
Then it comes down to the definition and interpretation of "rule systems". I posit that every civilization ever created rule systems and that that is the "natural" thing to do - and hence the trick is to give psychopaths something less dangerous to play with than whole economies. You don't amputate an arm because a fingernail could turn black one day.
What makes you sure that human attempts and rule system creation are not the natural extension of the natural rules all other beings follow? You can't be suggesting humanity give up its advances in technology and civilization altogether, even the aspects we welcome, and crawl back into the caves whence it came.
If there's a human or group of humans attempting to assert their will upon other beings, they are attempting to create a rule system. Civilization only came about 12k years ago. Humanity evolved sustainably through mass extinction events by living by the principles of true anarchy. Civilization itself is a cancer upon the planet that concentrates power in the hands of psychopaths. It's so out of the norm of Nature that I wonder whether there was alien or demonic influence involved in its adoption.
If you can't see that I'm right, it's because you're either uninformed or ignorant. You have now been informed. It's up to you whether or not you want to be ignorant.
Check out lectures from Derrick Jensen, John Zerzan, Christopher Ryan, Arthur Haines, Daniel Vitalis, Daniel Quinn. Maybe try living ethically and sustainably for bit and observing civilization from the outside.
You are here reaping the rewards of civilization and the accumulation of capital, yet you have the hubris to critique the very system while benefiting from it.
Yours is the dangerous ideology. The Luddite position has been shown to be false every time a Chicken Little pops up and every time we advance in both health and resources.
The sky is not falling, and if you change your head, you will realize who the problem is.
Most of all, it is not anarchic anymore by definition. So my point stands. Civilization and anarchy are not mutually exclusive.
I wasn't there, so I refrain from making such statements as if they were fact.
I disagree with the continued abuse of such broad brushes. Having a toilet, a computer, a roof over my head is civilization to me, and I do not consider these things "cancerous" or a means of concentrating wealth per se.
This gives us a clear idea how well your take on "true anarchy" is going to work. Let me explain to you my anarchy: the first time you pull this stunt, I kindly beg you to refrain from this sort of needless insult. The second time I demand. The third time I will warn you of the consequences. This is the first time, so pretty please don't insult me.
To be clear: you are trying to assert your will here. You are abusing the power of language you've been given; and exert verbal violence. Practice what you preach if you don't want to be considered a psychopath yourself.
No, I have been subjected to the attempt of talking down to me.
Yes, I will watch these lectures just as you watched yours: from outside civilization, without electricity and laptop, all naked and free out in the wilderness of nature's "true" anarchy.
There's no reply button on your post.
You don't know what civilization is.
It's clear that you've never studied anthropology, history, or psychology. I have, extensively.
Ignorant isn't an insult. It means that you're choosing to ignore information.
I'm not talking down to you, I'm just speaking the blatant truth.
Your little threats mean nothing to me. If you can't handle receiving new information or someone disagreeing with you, you might want to keep your ignorant/uninformed opinions off of the internet.
I never said all tech was bad. In fact, I believe that the only way our devolved species can become nomadic again is by using diy green tech build from recycled, natural, or scavenged materials.
I know what I know and live it. You live in a way that creates death, suffering, and environmental destruction all around the world. You're lucky I'm a pacifist and don't yet feel the need to defend Nature and myself from your destructive culture by using violence.
And last, welcome to my mute list. Have fun with the collapse! :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization
Since I can't reply to your ignorant comments and can't edit the top post due to site errors, here's the reply to anyone that wants to debate.
Attention subhuman civi scum planet rapists!
You can't argue anything I've posted here because it's all fact. I never advocated a return to primitive hunter gatherer culture. You've raped Nature too badly for that to be a possibility and put fences everywhere, preventing a return to primitivism. I'm advocating a culture of modern nomads that use DIY green tech to enable a nomadic, freegan, ethical lifestyle for those with the brains and balls to pull their own weight without being dependent upon and supportive of slavery systems and tyrants. If you don't see what's going on, you're too fucking stupid or ignorant for me to waste my time debating with you. I posted this to get people to attempt to think outside of their corrupt and destructive paradigm. When your precious civilization collapses and the stores run out of food, do not come to me for help. Those that rode the civ train all the way to the end despite knowing that it's killing everything will be fed to the dogs.
This will be my last post on this stupid site full of vapid capitalist pigs.
Nice @apocaloptimisto
Shot you an Upvote :)
Hi! This post has a Flesch-Kincaid grade level of 13.0 and reading ease of 49%. This puts the writing level on par with academic journals.