Forum Post: I don't want to become an Anarchist !
Posted 12 years ago on Aug. 1, 2012, 6:44 p.m. EST by FriendlyObserverB
(1871)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I would like to see equality and fairness spread across the World.
BUT, I don't want to become an Anarchist.
I want a proper functioning society , with rules and regulations.. appointed members of society that will make the appropriate decisions ..
I do not want .."total Anarchy" .. that would be absolutely horrible ..
I feel many people think and feel the same about this .. and this is why OWS has not grown beyond it's borders of but a few true - anarchists.. We simply do not support anarchism .. although we would like to see some changes .. it's too bad we can't have one without the other..
OWS , you people have fought a good fight.. but many of us did not join your cause .. because we do not support anarchism.
Thanks for reading .
EDIT: after a day of discussion, I am begining to respect the Anarchist's POV.
There's nothing wrong with being an anarchist, my friend. Become one and be proud of it :) Opponents of anarchism have done a lot to try to make people associate the word with lawlessness and chaos, but that's just propaganda.
Anarchism means a highly organized free society with democracy built from below; a society in which people are in control of their lives and work.
Ideas like that shouldn't be controversial, they're common sense.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-anarchism-is-the-way-to-go/
People can be anarchists. They might be harassed by the cops, like recently the cops of Seattle charged into a house by supposed anarchists looking for anarchist literature, is how I recall the event. . Most americans would not consider themselves as anarchist, because the commonly understood definition would be to involve living wit.hout laws or government-that's what people think it is, and we probably learned this in high school, or overhearing it.
Many Americans might think we have now " a highly organized free society with democracy from below and people in control of their lives and work.
Maybe just calling it true or real democracy would not confuse persons with strong feelings against the word. It is like many equate words like communism or socialism as contra- American ideology, and it is like group think. It's hard to unlearn a word, eispecially as it seems many people once they reach a certain age don't seem to be open to new things.
A more popular worrd, like true democracy, or people's democracy would be a good Public Relations for anarchists. Sometimes you have to word things differently according to your particular audience- a writer or speaker addresses a particular audience differently.
How is it highly organized and at the same time people have such freedoms.
Is there one example in history of a highly organized Anarchist civilization .. The dark ages were referred to as a period of ANARCHISM .. and chaos .. it was a horrible time..
Unless OWS is trying to change the definition of Anarchism.. it stands as a worldwide awful word ..
The spanish revolution was one of the greatests achievements by anarchists so far. "Anarchism=chaos" is just lies and propaganda. The word Anarchism means "without rulers/authority" The idea of anarchism is to create a society with workers' self management and democratic communities.
Please check out these two videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jRy5ZIYZok&feature=plcp
Anarchism sounds like a world without rules ..
Do anarchists want to be free to polute the world .. and do as they please without any rules ..? it's a horrible proposition .. and no one wants such a thing to happen .. we need rules ..
question:
If Anarchists and Hierarchists were to meet in the middle .. what would they have?
A disagreement to say the least.
LOL
It would be a solidaric society with democratically run workplaces, communities and so on. Please read and watch the links I provided before you respond.
"equality and fairness" is the root of anarchy,. did you miss this or do you not care? would you prefer the word egalitarian ? you seem to be pointing to semantics.
"appointed members of society that will make the appropriate decisions" this is oxymoronic, how can these individuals represent ALL the people? we have found that this simple does not happen, and does not work as a system for all. individuals can be bought and they are,. they will act in the interests of themselves and not the whole,. this is the root of the problems of society today.
The point I mostly am trying to make is simply, " if we take apart the system we have , what will we replace it with?" .. if you are suggesting we replace democracy with anarchism .. than you might have 3% of the population thet would agree with you .. nobody wants anarchism .. face it .. !
You are arguing that because the powers that currently control things, have run a strong campaign of disinformation about political terms and structures, to the point that the only thing most Americans understand is "USA, USA, USA,. We're number 1!!!", that we have to adopt stupidity? "Freedom good, Communism bad!" is that the basis of the debate?
How about this; how about we teach people about real political terms, what they mean, and what they represent,. then let people decided what sort of system they really want to live in? Perhaps the admission price to the debate is an understanding of the terms.
Just because the media corporations have pushed the idea that "anarchy = chaos" even though this is very far from the reality, does not make it so. We will not change the meanings of words to suit the corporate 1% elite, the language belongs to the people and the society, not the 1%.
Hear Hear - refute misinformation - how are we gonna defeat prejudice without education ?
"Face it", you are frightened of something that you have little or no idea about baring what you have been fed by the "'Consensus (Pseudo)Reality' Purveying State Education & Corporate MSM" !!
ad iudicium ...
Have you considered the possibility, that the majority of the 99% view anarchism as a bad idea.. ? no one wants to live in the lawless dark ages ..
Anarchism has absolutely no problem with getting along with and working with democracy. I have tried to show you this before. You have a wrong understanding of what anarchy is.
Well perhaps it is my wrong understanding.. but the point stands that the majority of people have the same "wrong" understand as myself .. and that is where OWS shot themselves on the foot .. no one wants to join an anachist movement .. the dark ages were anarchism .. we don't want that.. OWS should have kept quiet about "anarchism" ..the word is sinking their ship.
Education outreach opening eyes - what do you think that means? Prejudices must be beaten down and destroyed with knowledge. With knowledge comes understanding.
You don't have to be an anarchist to be part of the cause.
The cause would have had a better chance if it weren't run by anarchists.. OWS made a BIG mistake with this.. There should have been no mention of Anarchism .. OWS was a "leaderless/ demandless movement, and it should have also been been labeled as "we the people" .. not anarchists.. being a group calling them selves anarchists discludes a majority of "we the people" when someone calls themself an anarchist, immediately a redflag goes up .. and most people stay away.. anarchists become a minority agenda movement .. and nothing else.
Yeah, it chased a lot of people away but it can't be undone. If you agree with the core issue being discussed, don't worry so much about that. By the way, most the people on this forum probably don't label themselves anarchist anyway. I just think you're too hung up on it.
How do people progress grow mature if their understanding does not grow? If you block your mind to new thoughts and concepts because you do not like a word or a term then you have pre-judged and will not look at the information and weigh it for it's own value.
Well, I consider myself to have a very open mind . It just so happens anarchism has a stygma attached to it .. and for a group asking for support , they should have considered this..
Question: if total anarchy were the system civilization used, what would the world be like?
Define your total anarchy as you understand it.
BTW - the concept of anarchy/anarchism "started" ( started ) "to be developed" around the beginning of the 17th century.
Total Anarchy: a very unsafe lawless world, where people make up their own rules and form gangs of powerful bad people ..controlling the weak and helpless ..
Well there is the problem - you don't have an understanding of anarchy - and I can only guess as how you came by it unawares through various outlets of propaganda. Yes I know - it sucks - you don't believe me as I have just challenged a core belief of yours that you have never taken out and examined thoroughly for yourself - you are probably not very happy with me at this very point in time for saying this to you - in fact you are probably more then a little pissed off / angry right about now and a good deal frustrated as well. Sorry. But the truth is Anarchy and Democracy and Republic and Socialism and yes even Communism have much in common. The chaos which is commonly associated with anarchy is not part and parcel of anarchy. You can have a chaotic democracy you can have a chaotic aristocracy you can have a chaotic love life you can have a chaotic family etc etc etc. Anarchy plainly put is about people being equal. Yep that is about it - equal - and in being equal no ones voice has anymore say than anyone else's voice - so finding consensus adds up to being the most popular choice of the people. Yes there are rules to live by societies rules and no one is above those rules. The rules are for living together and respecting each other. Not so different from your understanding of democracy now is it?
I am starting to believe there are two anarchist definitons .. one is an imposter! which one ?
The one with a few centuries of bad press by the ruling class.
Sounds exactly like the present world.
..good eye.. I was wondering if anyone would see the resmblence.. yes we have gangs of powerful bad people controling the weak and helpless .. they call themselves "the elite"
You are correct about the word having a stigma attached and it has been a detriment. But, it was completely understandable. They didn't realize it (this forum) was going to take the direction it did. Here's a comment from jart months ago responding to a question about the true purpose of this forum:
[-] 1 by jart (808) from Brooklyn, NY 4 months ago
"If you didn't create for debate and discussion, was it your intention (if you don't mind me asking) that the site be used more for action / planning of actions / spreading real news etc.?"
Bingo! We also had the same intention when we started /r/occupywallstreet but watched it quickly turn into a place where people talk about politics rather than actually working to make the event happen. That's just how reddit is, people like to debate. So I figured rather than fighting that tendency, letting reddit be the D&D board and whipping up a quick and dirty forum (based on the article commenting system I'd already written) that would be specifically for organizers and to build upon the map system which was already helping radicals get in touch with others in their local area.
jart's heart was filled with too much anger and would not change position on anything.
Anger? I don't see any anger in that statement, she's merely explaining why she set this site up. She's the one who started this site.
I asked jart for a link on this site to view and sign petitions.. my request was flat out denied.
You shared your thoughts. We had a great and civil discourse about it ( I thought ). That is what people should be able to do - freely express thoughts and then examine them - we may not always reach agreement - but we didn't kill each other or storm off either. You did not demand that I see things your way and I did not demand that you see things my way. It's all good.
[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1738) 0 minutes ago
Well .. now I am starting to feel like .. the @ss .. I was just trying to make a point with this post .. that many people who would like to support OWS .. do not because of the anarchist stygma.. and this has been detrimental to progress. thanks for listening ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Well .. I haven't been totally honest .. /: you see I to like the idea of having no one run authority over my life .. especially in the work place.. as you know I am a strong advocate of equal pay .. IMHO a higher wage gives a person superiority .. and I just won't stand for it ..
LOL - the thing I see wrong is that all too often the wrong individual is getting paid more as they are riding on the achievements of others.
not only riding on the achievements of others, but gaining authority with the wealth they are making while riding on the achievements of others. the very dishonorable are making it to the top .. it disgusts me greatly..
And I. So much wrong in how this world currently runs - but there are those of us who are trying to make a better world. We do what we can - one day at a time.
Well , for what its worth, I think we are making progress.
I thought you meant anger in that particular statement. She probably denied your request because that is political, which she has no tolerance for.
No she denied the request for placing a petition segment on the site as she does not believe in on-line petitions. But she also has stated that she does not care if people post petitions. She just does not care for them.
Ah, you're right. I remember her saying that exact thing.
I can't blame her - she hates the on-line petitions - and that being so - I think it awful nice that she allows them to be posted on a site that she put together.
Yes. She didn't have to do that, but did. I think she's been extremely accommodating. So what if she's angry, as FOB suggests? You know what? So am I.
None of us are perfect - it is OK not to agree on everything - that is part of what being a free thinker is all about - being your own person. {:-])
Petition use is valuable. I've signed many from this site (and off) and the mods have never interfered so I think it works out ok.
You bet - after all don't we all have things that we absolutely can not stand?
Sure. They never get involved. I've had just a couple of exchanges (all positive) with mods. We get free reign. I wish they would make a rule about the abusiveness, vulgarity, and enforce it. Otherwise they're great. When people have threatened me mods were very responsive. So I think the world of them
No worries. I absolutely agree that there is needless bullying and that it should be confronted. I believe there is an awful lot of useless needless anger in the world as well. I believe that this anger leads to much violence and death. I believe that much of this anger is misplaced and is also a result of our deathly ill society/country/world. I also believe that we all need to do our best to have rational coherent debate/discussion/conversation/communication. And then I also think there is a place for righteous anger and the expression of it. But Hey - That's Me - You do not have to be me or agree with me.
[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (3075) 0 minutes ago
I think that there is too much negativity in the world. We excuse it amongst our kids, (boys will be boys, everyone has to deal with bullying, it's a right of passage) and we get extreme bullying the leads to suicide, We accept amongst our sports, (trash talking,) and we get parents attacking children athletes/refs, We excuse it in college and call it hazing ( and we get accidental deaths) We allow it in our politics, it has gotten progressively worse and the politics of personal destruction/demonization has cripple the discourse to the point where nothing gets done.
I know that's a lot. And I agree the realness can be positive. Unfortunately we've screwed things up so much that we must step back. And learn to discuss/debate in a civil way. We can be real without the vulgarity, or name calling. I say it often and I guess people find it funny but I honestly believe that I win when someone starts with the abusiveness.
Just imagine if we all conversed like Brucie. And if we allow some abusiveness, where do we draw the line? An escalation will occur and lines will be crossed, all will be nasty, mean spirited and nothing will be resolved.
I grew up on the street & I've seen ranking sessions turn very quickly into violence (we don't have that problem in a virtual world, but if we can't converse/debate in a respectful way I have very little hope the world will improve) I thought we were better than that. Sorry for the length.
V ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Well .. now I am starting to feel like .. the @ss .. I was just trying to make a point with this post .. that many people who would like to support OWS .. do not because of the anarchist stygma.. and this has been detrimental to progress. thanks for listening
I could be mistaken ( or even possibly wrong ) but I think it is useful to have much of the nastiness that happens. Why?
Because it is real! We do not live in a sheltered world - why should we expect a sheltered forum where we are challenging the status-quo? I think it is good to confront the opposition - I also think it is good for others to see the opposition at work. They provide confirmation that there are those who are actively working against healthy change/growth.
[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (3075) 0 minutes ago
Sure. They never get involved. I've had just a couple of exchanges (all positive) with mods. We get free reign. I wish they would make a rule about the abusiveness, vulgarity, and enforce it. Otherwise they're great. When people have threatened me mods were very responsive. So I think the world of them ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
I think that there is too much negativity in the world. We excuse it amongst our kids, (boys will be boys, everyone has to deal with bullying, it's a right of passage) and we get extreme bullying the leads to suicide, We accept amongst our sports, (trash talking,) and we get parents attacking children athletes/refs, We excuse it in college and call it hazing ( and we get accidental deaths) We allow it in our politics, it has gotten progressively worse and the politics of personal destruction/demonization has cripple the discourse to the point where nothing gets done.
I know that's a lot. And I agree the realness can be positive. Unfortunately we've screwed things up so much that we must step back. And learn to discuss/debate in a civil way. We can be real without the vulgarity, or name calling. I say it often and I guess people find it funny but I honestly believe that I win when someone starts with the abusiveness.
Just imagine if we all conversed like Brucie. And if we allow some abusiveness, where do we draw the line? An escalation will occur and lines will be crossed, all will be nasty, mean spirited and nothing will be resolved.
I grew up on the street & I've seen ranking sessions turn very quickly into violence (we don't have that problem in a virtual world, but if we can't converse/debate in a respectful way I have very little hope the world will improve) I thought we were better than that. Sorry for the length.
V
There was an explanation .. but the point was (to me) jart had the authority ..and I had none .. jart is an Hierarchist ..but doesn't know it.
No it is Her site and she gets to run it the way she wants. She is not stopping anyone from posting petitions.
LOL .. okay .. I don't sign petitions anyway .. just love to stir the pot once in awhile LOL !
OH - Hell no - say it aint so - a pot stirrer(?) OH - um.... wait a sec.....um...stirring the pot can be a good quality in a protester....Hhmmm...OK...carry on. {:-])
.rememberized .. sounds like a word I would say.. :-]
keep on keepin on !
ps. about the pot stirring .. someone has to do it .. keep those petitions flowing/posting..I will offer a few suggestions when I can.
Does that mean you are still gonna write my name in on the ballot?
Do it to it. {:-])
Yeah ,, keep it a secret.. I like jart ..
Whew...for an awful moment there I was starting to feel bad about posting my open letters...good thing I rememberized that I am protesting.
Dunno about that, but those girls do despise the US government. They're far from alone.
Of course! someone with an authoritarian nature would be the first to despise authority..
nothing makes sense to me anymore
"The more I know, the less I understand." Don Henley.
I think.
I tend to see eye to eye with anarchists on a great many things. In fact, most people do. We have to find common ground, and it's easier than you'd think. It takes an open mind and a determined effort, and some serious research... Which, is why Americans just aren't ready to ponder a new "ism." But... the cultural change, changing people's attitudes is very doable. We're THAT close to getting it together, and too scared to open our eyes and look where we are actually standing.
Where is the 'common ground' ?
:) You have to seek it for yourself, you'll see a lot of folks wandering around near there-- you can't miss it. It's the neighborhood near the intersection of truth and reality, kitty corner to common sense. You know the solutions store in the red light district? Yeah, if you see that you're in the right area. Gotta ignore the detour signs and just keep on the path.
If Wall Street has its way you will have anarchy - when the economy crashes and the dollar is not worth the paper it's written on, what do you think will happen? When people start starving, do you think society is going to stay in civil? It will fall. 99 percent is the foundation holding up a building that's about to topple - I'd rather take the extra unbalanced 1 percent weight off the top before they come crashing down upon the rest of us.
The way you have used anarchy in a sentence, it makes anarchy look like a bad thing..? and this is the point I have been trying to get across to OWS .. people look at anarchy as a bad thing .. regardless of the cause.. people will not support anarchy
Occupy is not pushing anarchy at all instead they seek to prevent it - Americans are stocking up on guns, canned goods and ammo for a reason. People sense that this economy is going to crash down on us. I'm stocking up on protests and attention instead and feel that's the least violent thing we can do. I'd say everyone involved in the protest is ringing the warning bell. Not a bell that we will attack or create anarchy but a bell that Wall Street is attacking, has attacked and is planning another go round and will bring us all to chaos. So get caught up in a historical figure like Emma Goldman and worry about perception, I'm more worried about the violence that Wall Street will cause when they crash our economy.
Yes , many are afraid of an economic collapse. and rightfully so ..
You have provided no evidence of anything here bar your own deep intransigence, irksome pedantry, querulous nature and reactionary 'thinking'. NOT a fkn word that anyone has said on this thread has made you reflect on your ill informed prejudices and to be honest ... NOR WILL IT EVER DO SO !!!
You've spent a long time on these threads trying to cultivate a caring heart centred persona - but all your tedious bleatings here have shown, is that you only seek to propound "Fear Based Thinking" !!
You & your 'Friendly Observer Status' are fundamentally suspect & I openly question your motives here. Have you availed yourself of a single link here ? I doubt it ! Are you craving attention ? Or are you in two minds about what you are doing here ? I find that my trust & respect of you is seriously diminished !
Don't pretend to be an open minded person and though your mind is made up, go see IF you can engage with : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism .
caveat - anguis in herba ...
I am surprised you seem to be unaware of this concept I am trying to present .. and I present this fairly and openly .. knowing full well of its implications. And I do so because I believe in the cause .. I believe something needs to be done about all the subjects talked about on this forum . Also I believe in fullfilling our OWS commitments and goals we will need support .. in large numbers .. and that support has to come willingly .. it can not be forced or coerced.. but .. on the other hand .. support can be quite .. fickle .. and easily discouraged .. we don't want that response .. so we must consider carefully what the goals truly are. And how do we gain the trust and support of the people to achieve victory. and mostly we must put aside any thing that might hinder or impeded our chances of success..
Let us for discussion sake .. agree Anarchy has an honest soul and means very well by its intentions.. okay ..
Let us also agree Anarchy is a volatile word .. some run from others embrace it.. Those that embrace anarchy ..fine ..you have their support , but those that run , ..what shall you do about them .. when they are not running from the cause, in fact they would like to support the cause ..but it is the .. misunderstanding of what anarchism is all about ..that makes them fear and run ..
Do you not accept this ? do you deny the truth of this?
I am sorry if this hurts you.
From my understanding to this date of what anarchy might be .. a place where no one isbullied .. sounds pretty great.. where everyone treats everyone fairly .. based on ..their own consciousness ? It's a nice sweet dream it surely is .. but is it possible ? can we have a perfect world without some form of rules .. and law and order.. without some sort of governence? how would decisions be made .. will everyone be happy with the ecisions .. seems like a challenge to say the least ..
So the purpose of this post, is for OWS to explain clearly to their potential supporters .. everything .. clear up the misunderstandings .. provide a future scenario of what is hoped for .. of what the OWS is striving for .. because quite frankly .. all that I see the focus on is to take down the government .. and I am sure many others see the very same .. and with the propoganda' of anarchism .. and the banners of civil disobedience .. your actions have you fullfilling the very propoganda you declare to oppose. This was most possibly not your intention..
So It has come time for OWS to make their intentions clear ..to set the record straight .. to truly define anarchy in all its glory and amazement .. wear it proudly .. don't hide from , don't run fom it .. but show the worldwhat it is you so honorably cherish .. clear away the stygma .. place the stygma where it rightfully belongs .. on the backs of the hierarchists...They placed it on you long ago .. it may be propoganda , but propoganda is very effective .. OWS needs to counter the propganda /stygma placed on anarchism .. and to do that you need to put Anarchism in the spotlight .. show the world what Anarchism truly is. The people will decide.
Well said - education outreach open eyes promote awareness. Present the definition and values for those who are un or mis educated. {:-])
Further food for thought provided/shared by SFF80:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwQEgOKEEXI&feature=plcp
I regret the tone of my initial comment & apologise for the words used though the underlying sentiment remains. Further, I regard the above as more of the same. For example, from your 'forum-post' : " .. and this is why OWS has not grown beyond it's borders of but a few true - anarchists.."
Now consider : OCCUPY Is Worldwide ! There are varying degrees of 'Democratic Deficit' everywhere !! Resistance to Plutocracy ; Kleptocracy ; Corporatocracy & Criminal Bankster Oligarcy is Global !!!
Think - whAts in A word ? AnArchist ; AnArcho-SyndicAlist ; LibertAriAn SociAlist ? IF they would think about it, most of The 99% believe in The Free Association of Free People. The Global Parasite Class don't want us to do this. THEY would sooner keep us like pliant sheep !!
We are being sheared, fleeced, bled dry & being preyed upon !
Well, we here (& many other hundreds of millions tending to billions) - intend to at least bleat on the way to the slaughterhouse and shout that those who would claim to be our benevolent shepherds are actually Parasitic & Psychopathic Predators !
Educate, Agitate & Organise ~
ad iudicium ...
Apology unecessary..MY minds eye seeks the truth.. in fact I appreciate the direct nature of your tone .. ..and admire your courage to speak your mind as you see justified..
After last nights conversation , a thought occured to me ..:
I had considered anarchism to be the "achiles heel " in this movement .. but I have opened my eyes to see how wrong I was.
Anarchism is the strength of this movement ! ..As I understand the true defintion os Anarchism .. and I consider all the propoganda that led me to believe otherwise .. I realized the enemy ( hierarchists) fear the truth of anarchism.. which explains their need for false propoganda .. Hierarchists know that if the mass population were to understand Anarchy and its true beauty .. than the masses would reject the hierarchy system.. and that is when the propoganda began .. by defaming Anarchism .. they attempt to weaken the one opposition that could over throw their evil hierarchy power ..
Anarchism is the true strength of the occupy movement, not the weakness.. and it is I whom should apologize to you ..
I stand by what I said earlier.. place ANARCHISM in the spotlight.. show the world what Anarchism truly is.. because the world has a propogandacized view of anarchism and clearing up that view should be priority number one!
Thankyou for the civil discourse, FOB
I really appreciate your grace, intelligent comment and honesty - especially in the light of my earlier curmudgeonly and provocative comment. Stay well and aware 'FOB' and remember that under the skin ... we are all "one" human family :
pax, amor et lux ...
Hello shadz66 my friend,
Stay well and aware 'FOB' and remember that under the skin ... we are all "one" human family :
Above the skin we are all part of the human race. It is below the skin where humans find their differences.. it is below the skin where our thoughts and feelings , ..our intentions lurk. We are all different in this regard.
Perhaps on similiarities we flock together? The one percent for instance .. flock together on their ruthlessness without remorse behaviour.
Thanx for your gracious and thoughtful comment.
Peace & Protection over your Home & Hearth 'FOB' .. ~*~ ..
pax, amor et lux ...
Further food for thought provided/shared by SFF80:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwQEgOKEEXI&feature=plcp
Exceptional 6 minute video. Thanx. fiat lux ...
I thought it was good even for being short as it briefly got into opposite meanings.
Damn, not being able to run YT clips makes me feel like the younger brother, and you guys won't let me play!
Whas-up with your PC? Or do you have a slow dial-up connect?
A couple things. I have a high-speed connection but the computer's 12 years old and I can't add any more RAM, but more importantly, I can't update Flash and a couple of other drivers. Don't have the minimum requirements (small processor, 762 meg, I think). And I'm stuck with Win2000 because a have one pretty expensive program I can't upgrade (unemployed).
I have another computer with a fried motherboard but, like I was telling shadz yesterday, my plans to get that running are on hold, which pisses me off. I sold a car to my nephew's son that he promised to pay for at the beginning of June and I'm still waiting and he's avoiding phone calls. That's the money I was gonna use to buy a board, processor (eBay), and a couple sticks of RAM. Ah, family.
Got a used motherboard laying around?
Sorry - hope your nephew gets his ass in gear - you could always take the car back and resell it - though that would totally fuck family relations - Hey?
I told my nephew that if his boy can't afford it he should give it back. No luck with that, and his kid still promises he's gonna pay. The kicker is, he cost me and his dad a fair amount of money a couple years ago as well. Now, you're probably wondering why I would 'front' him a car if he screwed me before, but that situation was almost forgivable considering his age. And, he is family. WTF is wrong with young people nowadays?
No used motherboard laying around the shack?
Sorry no miscellaneous parts lying around. Sounds like it might be time for some tough love - take it back - that is if you did not already sign over the title. Yeah - kids - what is up - well I think more than a little bit of the problem is the sickness of society and them growing-up seeing a no responsibility or accountability society in white collar crime and governmental abuse. Sickness is catchy.
Heh heh. Yeah, maybe it skips a generation or two, like a genetic trait. ;-)
That's a theory I have heard tossed around before - in some family's. Well Gnight.
Uhhh, . . . yeah, he's got the title. It was against my better judgement, but I did it anyway. I know, it was stupid. Lesson learned. What's ironic is he's the same guy I got the computer from with the fried board. He gave it to me.
You are probably correct in your assessment about the reasons. It's society, but a lot of the fault is with the parents. His mom sucked as a mom. His dad's not much better.
Sorry to hear that - I have a niece who seems to need to learn her lessons the hardway - worse she has a son - He seems to be a pretty good kid though. Hell maybe your gr8 nephew(?) will come through - I hear miracles have been known to happen from time to time.
Well, I believe in reality. Reality dictates that any type of anarchy that is in effect must have an opposite force to control it. That is the law of the land and has been since man stepped foot on this earth. People cannot rule themselves, they are too weak. Otherwise this world would not be in this dumb ass despairing state that it is in today. Let us understand what Anarchy is..."1. a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a utopian society ... Well, hell we know that the latter ain't happening any time soon, so number 1 is the answer? Now....what makes anyone think this "government" is going to permit total lawlessness by the masses? That ain't gonna happen either my friends. The best thing to do is to work intelligently to change the system internally, implement correct laws and have uncorrupted rulership. Without that...Anarchy remains, since that is where we are under the current Corporate rulership as it stands...don't you get it?
Wow I think you are working from a very poor definition of anarchy ( IMO ). Let me share another definition with you:
What is anarchism?
Anarchism is the movement for social justice through freedom. It is concrete, democratic and egalitarian. It has existed and developed since the seventeenth century, with a philosophy and a defined outlook that have evolved and grown with time and circumstance. Anarchism began as what it remains today: a direct challenge by the underprivileged to their oppression and exploitation. It opposes both the insidious growth of state power and the pernicious ethos of possessive individualism, which, together or separately, ultimately serve only the interests of the few at the expense of the rest.
Anarchism promotes mutual aid, harmony and human solidarity, to achieve a free, classless society - a cooperative commonwealth. Anarchism is both a theory and practice of life. Philosophically, it aims for perfect accord between the individual, society and nature. In an anarchist society, mutually respectful sovereign individuals would be organised in non-coercive relationships within naturally defined communities in which the means of production and distribution are held in common.
Anarchists, are not simply dreamers obsessed with abstract principles. We know that events are ruled by chance, and that people’s actions depend much on long-held habits and on psychological and emotional factors that are often anti-social and usually unpredictable. We are well aware that a perfect society cannot be won tomorrow. Indeed, the struggle could last forever! However, it is the vision that provides the spur to struggle against things as they are, and for things that might be.
Whatever the immediate prospects of achieving a free society, and however remote the ideal, if we value our common humanity then we must never cease to strive to realise our vision. If we settle for anything less, then we are little more than beasts of burden at the service of the privileged few, without much to gain from life other than a lighter load, better feed and a cosier berth.
Ultimately, only struggle determines outcome, and progress towards a more meaningful community must begin with the will to resist every form of injustice.
In general terms, this means challenging all exploitation and defying the legitimacy of all coercive authority. If anarchists have one article of unshakeable faith then it is that, once the habit of deferring to politicians or ideologues is lost, and that of resistance to domination and exploitation acquired, then ordinary people have a capacity to organise every aspect of their lives in their own interests, anywhere and at any time, both freely and fairly.
Anarchism encompasses such a broad view of the world that it cannot easily be distilled into a formal definition. Michael Bakunin, the man whose writings and example over a century ago did most to transform anarchism from an abstract critique of political power into a theory of practical social action, defined its fundamental tenet thus: In a word, we reject all privileged, licensed, official, and legal legislation and authority, even though it arise from universal suffrage, convinced that it could only turn to the benefit of a dominant and exploiting minority, and against the interests of the vast enslaved majority.
Anarchists do not stand aside from popular struggle, nor do they attempt to dominate it. They seek to contribute to it practically whatever they can, and also to assist within it the highest possible levels both of individual self-development and of group solidarity. It is possible to recognise anarchist ideas concerning voluntary relationships, egalitarian participation in decision-making processes, mutual aid and a related critique of all forms of domination in philosophical, social and revolutionary movements in all times and places.
Elsewhere, the less formal practices and struggles of the more indomitable among the propertyless and disadvantaged victims of the authority system have found articulation in the writings of those who on brief acquaintance would appear to be mere millenarian dreamers. Far from being abstract speculations conjured out of thin air, such works have, like all social theories, been derived from sensitive observation. They reflect the fundamental and uncontainable conviction nourished by a conscious minority throughout history that social power held over people is a usurpation of natural rights: power originates in the people, and they alone have, together, the right to wield it.
That's great...all the words, definitions and jargon, simply marvelous! Yet, I don't see where any of those definitions are being used across the globe now, or where those words put a stop to human carnage, murder of women and children, or whole nations when it involves the liberty and freedoms for human beings within their social existence. You see, man is good at talking, does a lot of it, but always, and I reiterate, ALWAYS....resorts to murder and mayhem to get to his end results..allegedly called peace. Somewhat oxymoronic so to speak. So my question is...who gives a flying fig, whatever you might call it...it always starts and ends with bloodshed. pure and simple! No more, no less!
I don't know about you - but I think part of the problem - besides having the wrong people in charge and allowing corpoRATions to run our country/world for profits over people - is that communications between people are pretty piss poor. Now I myself am trying to reach out and educate open some eyes and inspire awareness. Perhaps if we can educate and get more people to have the ability for critical thinking - then perhaps we can start ending the needless bloodshed.
I agree. Yet, who is ready to lay down arms? What we are seeing is "allegedly" civilized people (if all are truly human, I wonder about that) acting totally opposite the true meaning of civil. So. I don't see where this needless bloodshed will end. yet, I pray everyday that it does.
Thanks for the civil communication.... : )
Sorry to say but this is such a 'fear based', ill thought out, lazy and dare I say it - "reactionary" 'forum-post' and as such I append the following hopefully useful links :
http://wagingnonviolence.org/ ,
http://www.gandhiserve.org/e/ ,
http://www.gandhifoundation.net/ ,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha &
http://www.mettacenter.org/events/anarchism-and-nonviolence-exploring-common-ground .
The close ties between Mass Non-Violent Action and Anarchism are little known or appreciated and it is news & information that 'Consensus (Pseudo)Reality' Purveying State Education and Corporate MSM will NEVER give to The 99% !!!
Don't get so hung up on poorly understood words and dodgy definitions. Seek to open your mind in a different way perhaps. Thus, please do try to view the following short videos & reflect on jph's comment :
(a) "The Crisis Of Capitalism" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0 , where renowned academic David Harvey asks if it is time to look beyond capitalism towards a new social order that would allow us to live within a system that really could be responsible, just, and humane ?
(b) "Language as a Window into Human Nature" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-son3EJTrU , where Steven Pinker shows us how the mind turns the finite building blocks of language into infinite meanings.
(c) "The Empathic Civilisation" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g , where author, political adviser and social and ethical prophet Jeremy Rifkin investigates the evolution of empathy and the profound ways that it has shaped our development and our society.
~*~
fiat lux ...
The morning OWS news is written in large letters.. " CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE" ..
Dare I say, it is this type of advetising that keeps most of the population from supporting OWS.
I thought that was the government ignoring the demands of it's constituents
I think many would view my open letters to government to be civil disobedience. I look at them as my right.
I understand your intentions, but OWS must understand the effect of their actions and words .. CIVILITY will attract support for this cause, and it is support that is needed.
A thought that is hard to put into words.. has been forming..
Protests try to grow their movement by insighting public anger and outrage .. ..But the public sees right through these tactics ..
We have been living in a civilization of mostly peace and tranquility.. the last thing most people want is to start protesting for change .. it's just .. so ..uncivilized..
If change is going to take place .. which many people want .. we will have to pursue a peaceful / respectful course .. treating our supporters as intelligent human beings. with rights and respect.
Absolutely protests are hard for some people to understand - though the 1st thing they should wonder about is how did things get so bad that we have people taking to the streets in protest.
A vast number of people have yet to awaken to the fact that things in this country and in this world are very very bad/desperate and getting worse faster by the day.
That last paragraph goes two ways - everyone must stop and think - look at the information that is available - look into things that up till now has escaped notice or attention.
Having a good back and forth discussion such as this will help to get people seeing eye to eye. Reality can be very harsh and ugly - people need to see these truths accept them and then say well we gotta make things better.
What about all the supporters that will sink with this OWS ship .. all because of poor planning on the organizers part .. what do you tell them .. when the movement fails due to lack of support .. and turns out "anarchism" was the root of support lack...how do you tell everyone they misunderstand the meaning of "anarchism" .. how do you say it's really not so bad .. in fact anarchism is good lawlessness is good .. who needs authority anyway .. c'mon DKA... you are not going to sway public opinion with a newly reinvented definiton of Anarchism.
That is just it - it is not a new definition - just a definition that does not get wide use. Hell there are anarchists ( well they think they are ) that are confused about anarchy. Misinformation must be put down as it is found - that is how understanding grows - not by ignoring something as being unpleasant or difficult - things must be dealt with to be resolved or there is no real growth.
Anarchy is spoken of during the dark ages , but some think anrchism began in the 17th century .. there must be two Anarchisms ? out there ??? a good one and an evil twin !
Nope just the one and a whole lot of bad press - a few centuries worth of bad press. Don't you see how anarchy a belief in equality would be demonized by each successive ruling class?
The thought had crossed my mind.. the victor always writes history..
But anarchy does go back a lot further than the 17th century .. I've been googling .. the dark ages speak of anarchy..a very horrible time..
Yeah, but the Dark Ages weren't horrible because of anarchy and your sources aren't using the term in the strict political sense. Feudalism was the political reality of that time.
With all the discussion .. I think I make my point why so many stay away from Anarchism ..
Well in a sense. The concept of anarchy was a fairly recent thing as was the writing of many histories that had been prior verbal history. The chroniclers of history use the vernacular that they are familiar with. So to say the dark ages were anarchic would have been an improper use of the word as we now know it today. There was law in the dark ages - each little warlord or self proclaimed kings law - and therein was the chaos and blood shed - in the fighting for supremacy. Anarchy may well have been used to describe this chaos as there was no popular accepted rule of law.
yes , but thats what comes of a lawless world aka anarchy .. it turns into chaos.. who in their right mind would support/follow such a path !
Again a misuse of the word - anarchy is about equality and the rule of law. Anarchy does not recognize a hierarchy such as kings dictators warlords any one who exercises absolute power over other peoples fate/life. The mistaken use was by the undeveloped nature of anarchy ( largely unpublicized concept to the people of the time ) at the time and the fact that rulers write the history as to how they want it to be.
Hierarchists / anarchists.. "sworn enemies" .. both fighting to take away the others authority.
I vote for the anarchists as the anarchists share the responsibility and the Hierarchists hoard the power.
[Removed]
Thomas Jefferson was a philosophical anarchist. He begrudgingly accepted government as a necessary evil while knowing that the best government is less government. He believed that law should exist NOT to oppress the People but rather to protect the People from those who think they live above or beyond the reach of justice.
If calling yourself an Anarchist upsets your Mother, my friend, then call yourself a Jeffersonian. Your Momma will be proud, and the Angels will forgive the difference...
If Thomas Jefferson were here today ..would he be allowed to run for a third term in office?
On a serious note .. Civilization is a very very complex operating system .. with an outcome totally dependant on it's own rules of operation. Fortunately, " we the people" have the power to ..adjust those rules , in order to improve its outcome.. the question becomes .. what outcome are we hoping/trying to achieve?