Tag Archives: anarchism

“Remember. Remember The 5th of November”

V FOR VENDETTA

V FOR VENDETTA (Photo credit: Adam Crowe)

So…once more we come to Guy Fawkes day. The day celebrated and, of late, remembered as a result of the 2005 movie ” V For Vendetta“. My question to you is this. Can any of you think of a reason to protest anything your government is doing currently?

Obviously I am not advocating any form of violence against individuals or even infrastructure as that path becomes self-defeating rather quickly. What I am saying is this. Find a way to voice your anger. Write on your blog. Add something to your Facebook page. Hell-send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper but do something.

The Governments of the world are in direct opposition now to the interests of the people who live on this planet. It is time we stood up, for those who have not been doing so, and let them know we know!!! The truth of the matter is that they are a bunch of rats that live in the dark and only attack when they can gang up on those who have become separated from the crowd. The young, the poor, the aged, the disabled. 

When the rest of us choose to become protective of those who cannot protect themselves and say NO MORE, things will begin to change. One example where people can stand up is in Colorado where this tax on cannabis will put the use of pot back into government control and will push the people who truly need it, or just want to use it for their own pleasure to a place where it is financially beyond their reach. A new black market will then start up and the drug war will continue.

Whatever the cause you choose, choose something today to speak out against. The Wars in…well where aren’t we fighting wars now? Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, several African nations and soon Iran. How about the NSA, CIA, TSA, DHS ect. ect. Or Fracking for gas or Fuckishima (It was deliberate). Or the fact that our President is quoted in a new book as saying he is “good at killing”.

Anyway, I am sure that everyone can come up with at least one thing that really bothers them about the US Government or whatever government claims to rule over them. Speak out. Be An Anarchist for a day!

Anarchism is a set of political philosophies that hold the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful

`

Revolution is Coming

Remember, Remember the 5th of November!”

`


Living the Lockdown Life

I trust people will take to heart what Thomas Knapp is implying here! (E)

Center for a Stateless Society

building public awareness of left-wing market anarchism

`

`

Posted by  on Apr 16, 2013 in Commentary

While watching coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing and its aftermath, I couldn’t help but notice multiple uses and variations of the word “lockdown” (e.g. “Boston is locked down”). Nor could I help thinking that I’ve been hearing that word used more and more frequently over the last few years, and finding its  connotations are troubling.

Internet etymological sources inform me that the word “lockdown” emerged in the 1940s to describe mechanical processes such as shutting down machines in an ultra-safe manner for maintenance (by the time I worked in factories, the term was “lockout,”). Its most well-known usage, however, dates from the early 1970s. Until the last decade or so it was nearly unique to “correctional institutions.”

A prison lockdown occurs in the context of a riot or other exceptional disciplinary situation: All inmates are ordered to their cells (as opposed to the cafeteria, the exercise yard or, in prisons which operate slave labor schemes, their work stations). The facility is temporarily closed to visitors, deliveries, etc. — only “essential personnel” may enter, leave, or move within the grounds.

A useful term to describe a common, or at least standardized, process. But in the early 1990s, the term vaulted over the prison wall and into more general usage. Google’s Ngram service, which traces the frequency of words in books, graphs slow, steady increase in the term’s appearance until 1990, followed by a  ”hockey stick”: Between 1990 and 2008, use of the term “lockdown” in English-language books ballooned to ten times that 1990 baseline.

Suddenly lockdowns were no longer just a prison thing. They became a school thing, and then an area, neighborhood, city thing.

As of Tuesday morning, April 16, 2013, Google News reported more than 50,000 uses of the word “lockdown” in the news media in the previous 30 days.

“Salem [Massachusetts] schools hold lockdown drills.”  “[Dallas, Texas] elementary to dismiss at normal time after lock down” (for nearly five hours because of a single shooting nearby, but not on campus). “Fallston [Maryland] High, Middle schools briefly placed on lockdown” (because a “suspicious person” was reported nearby). Lockdowns at hospitals. Lockdowns at military bases. Neighborhoods locked down for politicians’ social calls and cities locked down for politicians’ funerals.

Ironic? Portentous? Certainly not mere coincidence. The term is becoming so common because it works. It’s descriptive. Not just of the process, but of the societies in which the process is applied.

America in particular and western societies in general have, over the same decades producing that increased usage, degenerated into open air prisons. The inmates — us — although under nearly ubiquitous surveillance, are mostly left free to wander around (not all of them; last time I checked, one of every 32 Americans was “in the correctional system” — imprisoned or on parole, probation or house arrest), as long as we can produce paperwork on demand and “explain ourselves” to the guards if interrogated. And, of course, until the guards pick one of fifty bazillion reasons to “lock down” the block we happen to be on.

That’s not freedom. It’s highly conditional sufferance. And until we reject the lockdown life and abolish the states which impose it, things are going to get more and more conditional and less and less tolerable.

Citations to this article:


A New Year of Global Protest

Original Article Link: http://heraldgoa.in/newpage.php?month=1&day=1&year=2012&catid=274

David D’Amato

In 2011, the protester so upset the prevailing order of things that Time magazine named her (or him, as the case may be) its Person of the Year. Recently, protesters in China, Russia and Yemen, to name a handful, went on the streets voicing opposition to the kinds of barefaced injustices that feature in human life in every corner of the globe.
In Yemen, Reuters reports, troops loyal to the country’s President Ali Abdullah fired on demonstrators, killing at least nine. In China, meanwhile, an uprising is under way against land grabs in Guangdong province pursuant to so-called “liberalisation policies begun in 1979.” However different the situations in China and Yemen, the demonstrations represent attempts of peaceful society to assert itself against and to repel the aggression of the state — “the political means.”
The state is fundamentally a way for organized groups of robbers and exploiters to control valuable resources. It has always been thus, but rather than simply acknowledging its own criminality, the state drapes its continuing mission of deprivation and violence in the robes of “public service.” Giveaways of land, cultivated and therefore owned for generations by, for example, small farmers, are granted the imprimatur of “free enterprise” and “liberalization.” Similarly, turning the military loose on unarmed citizens is defended with the language of social tranquility and respect for the rule of law. With the social upheaval and brutality that dominates the news today, the “law and order” justification for the state has grown ever more untenable, even preposterous. In 1970, advancing a more scholarly understanding of anarchism, James J Martin argued that there was “little justification” for the idea of anarchism as “a doctrine of destruction.” Martin explained that “a program of pure negation or obstructionism” is no “more than faintly related” to anarchism, which indeed sets forth in its literature a positive vision for a stateless future.
Individualist or market anarchism, contrary to flimsy caricatures, has never meant advocacy for disorder or for a society without substantive rules for conduct, one pushed into — in Hobbes’ words — a war of all against all. It is instead the state that has made war pass for society, a war that pits the privileged few against the productive many.
The protests materializing around the world in this moment are a reaction, consciously or not, to the chaos bred by political authority. If the state is in fact meant to build the conditions of law and order, then we have to wonder why we live in a world covered by states like Yemen and China, ruled by people like Vladimir Putin.
Though depicted as utopians, obsessed with pie in the sky daydreams, or as bomb-throwing provocateurs of pandemonium, anarchists petition simply for a society in which freedom is the guiding principle. Granted, on its own, that doesn’t mean much, but without aggression against innocents, the state could not exist.
Without the state, we would still be left with lots of questions, forced to deal with the logistical requirements of abstractions like justice, but we’d be closer — significantly so. And maybe that’s enough of a hope for the new year 2012, that we gnaw away even more at the systems of authority that oppress us and defile our communities.


Anarchy is order, whereas capitalistocratic government is civil war

Anarchy symbol - Basic traditional circumscrib...

Image via Wikipedia

by Darian Worden

The prospect of state collapse brings forth worries about a “power vacuum,” an unrestrained state of nature where chaos rules until the strong take over. But chaotic conflict is produced by efforts to seize power and exert power over other people. It is not the rejection of rulership, but the struggle to achieve rulership, that creates deadly conflict. The negation of authority, as advocated by anarchists, does not necessitate the chaotic mess associated with the phrase “power vacuum.”

Anarchy would mean that power is dispersed among individuals who would rather safeguard each others’ freedom than rule over each other. And if power is firmly in the hands of organized people then there is no power vacuum.

In politics, the word power generally signifies the ability of an individual or group of individuals to influence the decisions of others. Authority is an attempt to legitimate the exercise of power to compel obedience or allegiance to the higher ranks. Anarchists reject authority in favor of individual autonomy. Anarchy means that individuals have ultimate decision-making power over their own lives, and the only social arrangements recognized as legitimate are those that are based on consensual cooperation.

When authority amasses and exercises political power against people, it creates conflict. Hence the axiom that “anarchy is order, whereas government is civil war.”

The very concept of having no rulers often encounters fears of a power vacuum — an unsustainable, dangerous situation that can only end in the re-establishment of rulers. But the rejection of authority does not mean that power is up for grabs — it means that power is widely distributed, making it harder for tyrants to usurp.

The practice of anarchism fills society with empowered individuals, diffusing power throughout society so that no authority can take it over. Interactions of free individuals — the everyday pursuit of needs and desires combined with the recognition that mutual respect for freedom is the best way to realize needs and desires — build counter-power. Organizations of social cooperation established for the mutual benefit of participants, not for the power of some at the expense of others, help keep power dispersed in a fashion that safeguards individual liberty. Institutions of authority can be subverted or seized for the purpose of dispersing power.

Certainly, anarchy requires a number of people to accept the idea, but this true of any state of affairs that does not rest on brute force alone. A state can only exist so long as it can muster a significant level of allegiance. Every individual has the decision of whether to obey the decrees of those trying to amass power, or to follow the logic of appeals to disperse power. The creation of dispersed power establishes a basis from which authority can be effectively challenged.

When individuals possess power over their own lives, it means they have no personal power vacuum that tyrants could exploit. Power held by ordinary individuals gives them a greater stake in a functioning society as well as a more effective means of preventing social catastrophe.

The rejection of authority, as advocated by anarchists, does not mean that a nightmare scenario associated with the phrase “power vacuum” is likely. It means the power that authority monopolizes will be dispersed among the people.

About the writer:

C4SS News Analyst Darian Worden is an individualist  writer with experience in libertarian activism. His fiction includes Bring a Gun To School Day and the forthcoming Trade War. His essays and other works can be viewed at DarianWorden.com. He also hosts an internet radio show, Thinking Liberty.

Source: http://lecanadian.com/2011/02/13/anarchy-is-order-whereas-capitalistocratic-government-is-civil-war/

`


%d bloggers like this: