Anarchyland!

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]

I still don't understand anarchy even though I've read a lot about it. Can you help me to understand it?

Why should I want anarchy? I understand that it isn't all about lawlessness or having no rules or order. Even the old time pirates had their rules and order. They had their fair splitting of treasure, had rules about rightful conduct aboard the ship, they even had a form of rudimentary health insurance where if a crewman was injured in battle he was entitled to fair compensation according to the kind of injury, losing a hand or an eye would get them the most compensation of all. Some times the pirates were better off than the Navy sailors!

But why should I be an anarchist? I don't like the idea of anybody telling me what to be, including anarchists, so how would that come about if I don't agree with it?

 

[La Sagna]

good thing thoughts are mutable

lol
Well, I am open to change my mind about anything, but you have a long way to go. Some people I know would wish you good luck in changing my opinions .
To be honest, I just took a quick scan of the pamphlet you have posted but have not really read it. I'm somewhat overwhelmed right now with the stuff going on in my personnal life. I already have way too much to think about and worry about just right around me at the moment. I come on here for a bit of quick distractions here and there but my capacity for in depth discussions is not at its normal level. When things get a little more settled and I have less stuff to deal with I will read your pamphlet and give your ideas some thought.

 

[muir]

@muir

I still don't understand anarchy even though I've read a lot about it. Can you help me to understand it?

Why should I want anarchy? I understand that it isn't all about lawlessness or having no rules or order. Even the old time pirates had their rules and order. They had their fair splitting of treasure, had rules about rightful conduct aboard the ship, they even had a form of rudimentary health insurance where if a crewman was injured in battle he was entitled to fair compensation according to the kind of injury, losing a hand or an eye would get them the most compensation of all. Some times the pirates were better off than the Navy sailors!

But why should I be an anarchist? I don't like the idea of anybody telling me what to be, including anarchists, so how would that come about if I don't agree with it?

There is a process under way at the moment. This is what i've been speaking to lark about concerning the frankfurt school and the tavistock institute

If you think about what capitalism is and how the market is supposed to decide what works and what doesn't work and then you look at what is happening in actuality in our society you can see that capitalism isn't actually happening

For example the banks failed and they should have gone bust and been swept aside so that new capitalist institutions could have arisen out of the creative, innovative genius of humankind....that would have been capitalism

However the politicians stepped in and used the publics money to bail out the banks creating 'austerity' for the public which is going to put the squeeze on the public...some people might be feeling the strain already (eg unemployment, food banks, food stamps, cuts to pensions, cuts to public services etc)

This should be a wake up call to people! Why did the banks get special treatment?

if you or i started a business tomorrow and it failed we wouldn't be bailed out by the government would we?But the banks were; this has lead some to say that they capitalised their profits and socialised their loses

Lenin once said that the russian state did not behave how he wanted it to; he likened it to a car that wouldn't turn when you turn the steering wheel

Ok so the US and UK is not functioning like a capitalist state and yet our leaders tell us we live in a 'capitalist' country

What we are really seeing is 'state capitalism' where central controlling forces such as the government and the central banks (eg the federal reserve or the bank of england) are conspiring to control the interest rates as well as the levels of tax, not to mention saving some corporations but letting others fail

This is because the people behind the government (ie the big monied interests who pay for the political campaigns and careers of politicians) and the people behind the central banks (the same people who pay for the careers of the politicians!) do not want competition

They do not want people like you or me developing businesses that will threaten their control of the economy. If you managed to create a successful business on a grand scale then they would induct you into their groups such as the council on foreign relations; if you refused you would find the IRS knocking at your door and other strong arm tactics and if you still refused to do what they requested then you might end up dead (in the godfather films this would be called ''making them an offer they can't refuse'')

This is called 'monopoly capitalism' when a small group of people have control of the game....think of the board game 'monopoly' when one player owns all the hotels and properties and is squeezing everyone else (in the godfather film this would be the point where one mafia family controls all the other families and has all the politicians and judges and even the police in their back pocket)

So what do people who control capitalism want to do next? Well they control the game anyway so why not just make it official? They change the system so that there can be no competition. They change from state capitalism to state socialism where they control the economy centrally, protected by a powerful and all pervasive totalitarian police state which acts as their enforcer against the people (in the godfather films this would be like a mafia boss having a big tough guy to act as their 'muscle' as they extort the small business owners in their 'protection racket')

So some of our competing capitalist mafia families have become so powerful that they control the system. They keep a facade of democracy going while they consolidate their power to make the people think they have a say in things but once they become powerful enough they then say ''ok now we don't even need the illusion of democracy...now we are just going to grab unconditional power with no alternatives offered to the people'' (think nazi germany)

Now the ruthless mafia families have to hold onto the power that they've gained! How are they going to do that? They're going to be totally paranoid aren't they? Because they themselves rose to the top through murder and deceit so they are going to always fear that someone else might rise up and do the same to them.

So they need to spy on everyone to know what they are doing and thinking

They need to recruit lots of hoods to protect them and they need to arm and militarise these hoods so that they will always be stronger than the people; equally they must disarm the people so that the people can never be as strong as their hoods!

Any of this sounding familiar?

So we saw how capitalism merges into monopoly capitalism as some people rise to the top and begin to dominate the system; then we saw how they consolidate their control over the system, then we saw them change the system altogether to state socialism (fascism) where they say ''right that's it no more democracy...not even any illusion of democracy...now we call the shots and if you don't obey the gestapo are going to come to your door to dissapear you''

So capitalism leads to monopoly capitalism which then leads to fascism....basically it's a process of wealth and power becoming increasingly concentrated and as that happens the people weilding it become more and more paranoid and more and more apart from the rest of humanity

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]

Oh, I understand all that and agree that it is happening!

But why is anarchy - in principle - the solution?

Keep in mind that I'm a chaote. Some might conflate chaos with anarchy but they are NOT the same. It means I am willing to utilize anything that I find to be pragmatic at the moment and will not necessarily resist any particular thing based on mere principle. This means that some times I might be an anarchist if I think that is the right thing for the moment. Some times I also might support a hypothetical governance if I think that is the right thing for the moment.

I am not really on anyone's side.

 

[muir]

lol
Well, I am open to change my mind about anything, but you have a long way to go. Some people I know would wish you good luck in changing my opinions .
To be honest, I just took a quick scan of the pamphlet you have posted but have not really read it. I'm somewhat overwhelmed right now with the stuff going on in my personnal life. I already have way too much to think about and worry about just right around me at the moment. I come on here for a bit of quick distractions here and there but my capacity for in depth discussions is not at its normal level. When things get a little more settled and I have less stuff to deal with I will read your pamphlet and give your ideas some thought.

I totally understand

Its really not about saying ''this is how things are going to be''

Its really about trying to find what works for people organically

Women not having any rights...well that doesn't work because half the population are then pissed off and the other half have compromised their own morality by oppressing the other half...so that doesn't work...so its then about finding what does

I'm going to try and answer sprinkles question over a few posts and perhaps that might help explain why i feel the way i do

Why does it matter? Because there is a struggle for our soul here...do we become defeatist and say 'this reality is just bad to the bone, there's no hope here' or do we say 'yeah things are messed up right now but there is the possibilty of positive change'

That's a struggle we are all facing individually and together

 

[muir]

@muir

Oh, I understand all that and agree that it is happening!

But why is anarchy - in principle - the solution?

Keep in mind that I'm a chaote. Some might conflate chaos with anarchy but they are NOT the same. It means I am willing to utilize anything that I find to be pragmatic at the moment and will not necessarily resist any particular thing based on mere principle. This means that some times I might be an anarchist if I think that is the right thing for the moment. Some times I also might support a hypothetical governance if I think that is the right thing for the moment.

I am not really on anyone's side.

Ok...i'm laying the ground work

 

[muir]

So in the godfather films we have all the regular people with jobs, small businesses, families and so on who are just working to keep food on the table; they want to be honest, they don't want to hurt anyone else, they just want to run their business and provide a service for their community whether its baking bread or selling vegetables or whatever

But then you have the predators. They prey on the little guys which makes life harder for the little guy. The predator knows that they are only few whilst the people are many so they must control the people through fear...through startling acts of aggression and callous violence to cow the people into submission as they tax them of their hard earned fruits of their labour

When those predators get big enough they dictate to the little guys how things are going to be (dicators)

But they know that at any time if the little guys got together they could through sheer numbers overthrow the predators and their hoods so they have to manipulate them

So the predators want to change the system from the current 'state capitalist' system into a state socialist system (david Rockefeller for example wrote his thesis at university on fabian socialism)...that's the end game for these guys...a state socialist system and not just one that controls one country or a block of countries like the EU, these guys want a world government that they will control...power doesn't get much more centralised than that!

So to manipulate the public into going along with the shift into the new system they have to start putting pressure on them; the aim of putting the squeeze on the little guys is so that life becomes so unbearable and so full of injustice that when the mafia then offer their new solution (the state socialist, fascist 'new world order') the little guys say ''yes, yes anything but how things are now...please save us from this unbearable hell''

That is the job of the frankfurt school and the tavistock institute: to undermine capitalism (and anarchism) and to think up ways to put the squeeze on the public

So capitalism it appears doesn't work because it leads to monopoly capitalism as the predators use money and violence to take over the system

We are now at the cross roads in the west; life is going to get tougher here. The cabal want us to accept their new world order whilst many people are pulling in the other direction and saying ''we don't want to be ruled, we can rule ourselves''

That struglle between centralised power and decentralised power is manifesting around us in many ways

The 'libertarians' (this term is usually used in the mainstream media to mean right wing ibertarians), like the anarchists are for decentralised power but the anarchist-capitalists would still hand victory to the centralisation side if they had their way because they would get us playing the capitalism game again and from there we would then move to monopoly capitalism again and from there we would move to fascism

 

[muir]

So why is anarchy then the solution?

Anarchy potentially circumvents the power of the globalist mafia cabal in two ways. Firstly it decentralises power to the people making it much harder for pockets of power to form and secondly it could potentially do away with money altogether which is one of the primary tools of the cabal

Further to this the cabal are by their nature all about coercion; their state socialist system would be all about making people do what they're told

Anarchy by its nature is against coercion; so in a culture where coercion is seen as unacceptable then those who are attempting to coerce will be resisted

lets think of a hypothetical scenario where an anarchist communist group are holding one of their regular peoples asemblies and are voting on the issues that affect their community. Amongst the group is a dyed in the wool psychopath. That psychopath votes for an idea that would give them more power and would coerce others; the majority of people however.... because they actually have power (rather than defering all their power to politicans and police) would say out loud at the assembly ''hold on a minute...this guy here is trying to take more power which is against our whole ethos that we should share power and they are trying to coerce some of our fellow community members''. The assembly would then, if it were abiding by anarchist ethos, vote down the attempts by the psychopath to corrupt the system

Under capitalism however it is easy for the psychopath. First of all they need to get some money together which will be easy for them because in capitalism lying is advantageous and ruthless behaviour is often rewarded in many areas for example politics, banking, the military, the police etc

Once that psychopath has money they can then use that money to buy mercenary support, to bribe people, to pay hoods to use to threaten others, to buy favours from powerful people etc

Under an anarchist system there would potentially be no money therefore removing one of the main tools in the psychopath's armoury

Under capitalism the psychopath only has to influence the people higher up the power pyramid in order to control all the lower levels of the pyramid; but under anarchism they would have to corrupt the entire bottom level of the pyramid (as power would be exercised from the bottom of society upwards instead of from the top down)

Under capitalism the psychopath is provided with the perfect camoflage because in capitalism success is measured through material wealth so any ruthless behaviour can be excused away as being simply 'business' and the gains made from it are celebrated by society. Under an anarchist system however, that doesn't like coercion, the psychopath's behaviour would be resisted and could not hide behind claims of material success or of simply playing the capitalist game

So far this has all been focussing on protection from the predators

But what would anarchy mean for the individual?

You would no longer need to pay any bills, taxes, rents, mortgages, fines and so on. You would not need to clock in and out at work. You would not need to do what a boss told you to do (you and everyone ese would be the boss...or to put it another way...there would be no bosses)

Instead of voting every 5 years for a political party that you know is not going to keep its promises but instead is going to represent the interests of the big monied interests that fund it, you would yourself get to be a part of the decision making process whether within your immediate enterprise, community or in helping to create a mandate for your elected (and instantly revocable) delegate to take forward to a regional level (you could even put yourself forward to be the delegate)

In capitalism the ideology of 'consumerism' makes people confuse their wants with their needs in a process that puts profits before people, the truth and the environment; in an anarchist society you would be part of a culture that values NEEDS first

You would contribute something to the community store and then you could take from the store what you need; you would be free to try different things to contribute and would therefore be more likely to find what you have a natural aptitude for

because money would no longer exist all jobs related to money would dissapear. Other jobs relating to the aggressive coercive nature of capitalism for example the military and police would also become defunct. This would create a huge workforce able to focus not on creating wants in peoples minds and then supplying those wants (to the detriment of the environment and peoples mental and physical health, for example through the advertising and marketing industry) but rather on making sure that everyones needs were met

This focus of energy on needs would mean under the principle of 'many hands make light work' that everyone would need to work less. This would provide people with more spare time to put into their interests whether those were: art, family, socialising, science, computers, engineering or whatever

Because the focus of society onto needs would ensure that everyone was ok, poverty would be eradicated. With poverty gone the population numbers would stabilise and crime would decrease

Also because anarchists believe that people can do what they want with their own bodies as long as they don't hurt others, there would be no cultural prejudice against gay people or against people using drugs

The escapism that drives a lot of drug abuse would not exist anymore because grinding poverty would not exist and also people would have a stake in society and in the decision making process, bringing meaning and purpose to their lives and crucially self esteem

 

[muir]

Some interesting perspectives from a british socialist group:

[video=youtube;ZEQk4VvVUGw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEQk4VvVUGw[/video]