I don't believe I am a Hobbesian. However I completely disagree with Locke's theory. Man is not a social animal. This is also personally not true. Every day shows that this is not factual. No man is forced to kill someone over a few dollars. No man is forced to rape a woman, in fact no man is forced to commit crime or harm to any other human. They choose to do so.
Anarchists should be punched right in the nose. Anyone who resorts to mob violence is a coward and a punk.
"The measure of the state's success is that the word anarchy frightens people, while the word state does not" - Joseph Sobran
"Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god. " -Aristotle Murderers, rapists and thieves are not the norm, and we do not live in a state of nature. In a state of nature criminals would be even more scarce because individuals would be capable of protecting themselves. Educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism Anarchism is the antithesis of "mob violence".
I don't read Wikipedia since it can be edited by anyone. Even the founder of Wikipedia says his site is not for scholarly study. Educate your own self.
"Anarchists should be punched right in the nose. Anyone who resorts to mob violence is a coward and a punk." anarchy isnt about mob violence, thats the stereotype.. anarchy is about peace and love
Okay. So all those punks who become a mob and resort to breaking windows and turning over cars and setting them on fire are not anarchists. So why do they call themselves "anarchists"? Are they mistaken?
So who are all those punks in the mobs who break windows and turn over cars and set them on fire? They call themselves "anarchists". Someone should set them straight.
ppl expressing anger, i dunno.. im saying that cuz why are they so angry with tha world that they would resort to that.. somethings not right
Good thing I'm a libertarian/voluntarist. Anarchy, as a word, has had its definition skewed by the authoritarians. The police are a bunch of thugs and tax-feeders.
I agree there are some thug cops. I've had personal experience with thug cops. I also agree that the pay and benefits can be outrageous in a lot of places. That by no means is an excuse to have no law enforcement. What we need to do is get rid of the unions that protect the thugs and prevent citizens from running the police force, which is the way it is supposed to be. Direct citizen oversight is what is needed. Get involved.
We police the world, we police our own state, we arrest people for possessing medicine and wiretap our own citizens, all in the name of promoting/maintaing democracy. Yet some "punks" are the real threat to society?
Anarchism is a political philosophy, you just gave a definition from a dictionary. Bakunin, Proudhon, Goldman, Mahkno, etc. all wrote extensively about anarchism. You're stupid, there's no point in trying to explain anything to someone like you. There is still "police', laws, and government in an anarchist society, what is so hard to comprehend about that?
Anarcho-syndicalism is a branch of anarchism which focuses on the labour movement.[1] Syndicalisme is a French word, derived from Greek, meaning "trade unionism"-hence, the "syndicalism" qualification. Syndicalism is an alternative co-operative economic system. Adherents view it as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the state with a new society, democratically self-managed by workers. Anarcho-syndicalists seek to abolish the wage system, regarding it as wage slavery, and state or private ownership of the means of production, which they believe lead to class divisions. Ralph Chaplin states that "the ultimate aim of the General Strike as regards wages is to give to each producer the full product of his labour. The demand for better wages becomes revolutionary only when it is coupled with the demand that the exploitation of labour must cease."[2] Additionally, anarcho-syndicalists regard the state as a profoundly anti-worker institution. They view the primary purpose of the state as being the defence of private property and therefore of economic, social and political privilege, even when such defence denies its citizens the ability to enjoy material independence and the social autonomy which springs from it.[3] In contrast to other bodies of thought (Marxism-Leninism being a prime example), anarcho-syndicalists deny that there can be any kind of workers' state, or a state which acts in the interests of workers, as opposed to those of the powerful. Reflecting the anarchist philosophy from which it draws its primary inspiration, anarcho-syndicalism holds to the idea that power corrupts.[4]. In contrast to a separate State apparatus exercising external agency, anarcho-syndicalists argue for the creation of organisational forms built from below, united through federalism and confederation. Stemming from anarchist principles, this has entailed experiments with organisations based on self-management and direct democracy - that is the use of mandated, binding and rotatable delegates always accountable to the base. Such organisational forms include, but are not limited to, networks of militant workers, economic fighting organisations and specific propaganda groups. These organisations can range from being permanent minority networks (eg: specific networks of libertarian workers) to the expression of heightened levels of class struggle itself (eg: strike committees, workers councils', revolutionary unions). Through the primacy of class-struggle, education and agitation for direct-action, self-organisation and mass-assemblies these organisations are seen as the seeds to 'building the foundations for the new world in the shell of the old'. Through the conflation of means and ends, this may, for example, take the form of a Federation of Workers' & Community Councils and the creation of a Central Assembly of Councils and of a Council Administration - the key factor being that such organisational forms do not constitute a delegation of popular power but are, on the contrary, an instrument of that power. This ideal of a libertarian, directly-democratic, experimental and communitarian society built from below for and by workers is sometimes referred to as Libertarian-communism. Examples often cited include the Paris Commune (1871), Kronstadt (1917-1921), Ukraine (Makhnovists 1920-22), Hungary (1956), on a large scale during the Spanish social revolution (1936-39), the struggle for workers control in Argentina (2005 onwards) as well as the Zapatista struggle in Chiapas (1994-Present). Anarcho-syndicalism originated close to the beginning of the twentieth century, and it remains a popular and active school of anarchism today and has many supporters as well as many currently active organisations. Anarcho-syndicalists, being socialist anarchists, vary in their points of view on anarchist economic arrangements from a collectivist anarchism type economic system to an anarcho-communist economic system.[5]
[quote name='schmidty797']Show me this definition. The only definition I know of are these: 1. A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. 2. Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal. Anarchist communism (also known as anarcho-communism and occasionally as free communism) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, markets, money, private property, and capitalism in favor of common ownership of the means of production,[1][2] direct democracy and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".[3][4] Some forms of anarchist communism such as insurrectionary anarchism are egoist and strongly influenced by radical individualism, believing anarcho-communism is the best social system for the realization of individual freedom.[5][6][7][8] Most anarcho-communists view anarcho-communism as a way of reconciling the opposition between the individual and society.[9][10][11] Anarcho-communism developed out of radical socialist currents after the French revolution[12][13] but was first formulated as such in the Italian section of the First International.[14] The theoretical work of Peter Kropotkin took importance later as it expanded and developed pro-organizationalist and insurrectionary anti-organizationalist sections.[15] To date in human history, the best known examples of an anarchist communist society, established around the ideas as they exist today, that received worldwide attention and knowledge in the historical canon, are the anarchist territories during the Spanish Revolution[16] and the Free Territory during the Russian Revolution. Through the efforts and influence of the Spanish Anarchists during the Spanish Revolution within the Spanish Civil War, starting in 1936 anarchist communism existed in most of Aragon, parts of the Levante and Andalusia, as well as in the stronghold of Anarchist Catalonia before being crushed by the combined forces of the regime that won the war, Hitler, Mussolini, Spanish Communist Party repression (backed by the USSR) as well as economic and armaments blockades from the capitalist countries and the Spanish Republic itself.[17] During the Russian Revolution, anarchists such as Nestor Makhno worked to create and defend-through the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine-anarchist communism in the Free Territory of the Ukraine from 1919 before being conquered by the Bolsheviks in 1921.