Post by thingstocome on Nov 15, 2007 14:45:35 GMT 10
Here are some of my own thoughts, feel free to post your own or debate mine.
Striking the balance (between individualism and communism)
Anarchy isn't just about fighting "Fascism" or being "communist".
To me, it is about fighting control over the individual and becoming 'self-liberated'. That means, essentially, owning yourself.
Mutual aid is acceptable, because where individualism may engender "selfishness" or "isolation", anarcho-communism promotes groups without any power (or the power is established in each individual). The individual must fight against control in all forms, and should such a 'community' ever become more than just a collection of individuals it should be disbanded - as the power should belong to the individual.
Groups may exist; but it is the responsibility and right of the individual to defend himself from external power (that is, non-individual power). Individual consciousness can exist within a voluntary, "mutual aid" group: provided each is determined not to let power take hold.
Unfortunately "anarchy" is perceived as "extreme" or "radical",
"violent" or punk. My mind harks back to the media coverage of the G20 summit where "anarchist groups" threw a sign through a police truck. The root or base of anarchy is a rejection of control by ideology and the 'constructs' which both disseminate and empower those ideologies. (Construct = man-made groups/systems which have power and control the individual e.g. the State, economics, religion etc.)
From this point one must ask the individual of his own opinion: how, where , to what ends, using what means etc.
The "State" is not the only enemy - it should be all powerful pursuits that extend beyond the individual. (And there is a distinction between "the individual" and "one individual").
I think direct democracy only makes the individual part of the system and one would be further controlled by it, in that case.
Anarcho-Intellectualism (self-titled)
Where the individual is self-liberated and the only thing between one and ideology is "consciousness" (thought, ability to question everything, search for objectivity etc.). Between the individual and ideology comes the 'constructs'/'systems of control....State, Religion, etc. etc.
The search for objectivity is only possible without any interrupting systems/'constructs'.
It recognises the propensity for any ideology (including it's own) can be a force for "good" or "bad" and that power can be negative or positive (although it is more likely to be the former). That said, I stress that it is the individual's right and responsibility to define, think about and always question everything before accepting any ideology.
Thanks.
Striking the balance (between individualism and communism)
Anarchy isn't just about fighting "Fascism" or being "communist".
To me, it is about fighting control over the individual and becoming 'self-liberated'. That means, essentially, owning yourself.
Mutual aid is acceptable, because where individualism may engender "selfishness" or "isolation", anarcho-communism promotes groups without any power (or the power is established in each individual). The individual must fight against control in all forms, and should such a 'community' ever become more than just a collection of individuals it should be disbanded - as the power should belong to the individual.
Groups may exist; but it is the responsibility and right of the individual to defend himself from external power (that is, non-individual power). Individual consciousness can exist within a voluntary, "mutual aid" group: provided each is determined not to let power take hold.
Unfortunately "anarchy" is perceived as "extreme" or "radical",
"violent" or punk. My mind harks back to the media coverage of the G20 summit where "anarchist groups" threw a sign through a police truck. The root or base of anarchy is a rejection of control by ideology and the 'constructs' which both disseminate and empower those ideologies. (Construct = man-made groups/systems which have power and control the individual e.g. the State, economics, religion etc.)
From this point one must ask the individual of his own opinion: how, where , to what ends, using what means etc.
The "State" is not the only enemy - it should be all powerful pursuits that extend beyond the individual. (And there is a distinction between "the individual" and "one individual").
I think direct democracy only makes the individual part of the system and one would be further controlled by it, in that case.
Anarcho-Intellectualism (self-titled)
Where the individual is self-liberated and the only thing between one and ideology is "consciousness" (thought, ability to question everything, search for objectivity etc.). Between the individual and ideology comes the 'constructs'/'systems of control....State, Religion, etc. etc.
The search for objectivity is only possible without any interrupting systems/'constructs'.
It recognises the propensity for any ideology (including it's own) can be a force for "good" or "bad" and that power can be negative or positive (although it is more likely to be the former). That said, I stress that it is the individual's right and responsibility to define, think about and always question everything before accepting any ideology.
Thanks.