Nihilism and Anarchy
 

How come people always get these mixed up, even the people who support "Anarchy" tend to actually support Nihilism and just have this strange lamenised concept of what Anarchy is ?

It's more that people who 'support' 'anarchy' are pubescent teens who don't want to like anything anyone else likes.

Then again, the same thing is probably true for 'people' 'who' 'support' 'nihilism.'

i would think one is a philosohpy and the other is a system of non-government.

not too confusing if you keep it simple.

I think they're both gay.

Here! Here!

Chimp, have yourself a pint of stout on me.

Anybody that actually calls them self an anarchist deserves a fully paid vacation to somalia. :)

"Political Anarchists", which is probably a bad term for it, are alot more than people who just want no government, and act out doing stupid shit. There's an entire philosophy behind it. You could always go read up on it.

Assumptions make asses of us all.


Chaos: Broad sheets of ontological anarchism by Hekim Bey, temporary autonomous zone. http://www.hermetic.com/bey/taz1.html#labelChaosSection

CHAOS NEVER DIED. Primordial uncarved block, sole worshipful monster, inert & spontaneous, more ultraviolet than any mythology (like the shadows before Babylon), the original undifferentiated oneness-of-being still radiates serene as the black pennants of Assassins, random & perpetually intoxicated.

Chaos comes before all principles of order & entropy, it's neither a god nor a maggot, its idiotic desires encompass & define every possible choreography, all meaningless aethers & phlogistons: its masks are crystallizations of its own facelessness, like clouds.

Everything in nature is perfectly real including consciousness, there's absolutely nothing to worry about. Not only have the chains of the Law been broken, they never existed; demons never guarded the stars, the Empire never got started, Eros never grew a beard.

No, listen, what happened was this: they lied to you, sold you ideas of good & evil, gave you distrust of your body & shame for your prophethood of chaos, invented words of disgust for your molecular love, mesmerized you with inattention, bored you with civilization & all its usurious emotions.

There is no becoming, no revolution, no struggle, no path; already you're the monarch of your own skin--your inviolable freedom waits to be completed only by the love of other monarchs: a politics of dream, urgent as the blueness of sky.

To shed all the illusory rights & hesitations of history demands the economy of some legendary Stone Age--shamans not priests, bards not lords, hunters not police, gatherers of paleolithic laziness, gentle as blood, going naked for a sign or painted as birds, poised on the wave of explicit presence, the clockless nowever.

Agents of chaos cast burning glances at anything or anyone capable of bearing witness to their condition, their fever of lux et voluptas. I am awake only in what I love & desire to the point of terror--everything else is just shrouded furniture, quotidian anaesthesia, shit-for-brains, sub-reptilian ennui of totalitarian regimes, banal censorship & useless pain.

Avatars of chaos act as spies, saboteurs, criminals of amour fou, neither selfless nor selfish, accessible as children, mannered as barbarians, chafed with obsessions, unemployed, sensually deranged, wolfangels, mirrors for contemplation, eyes like flowers, pirates of all signs & meanings.

Here we are crawling the cracks between walls of church state school & factory, all the paranoid monoliths. Cut off from the tribe by feral nostalgia we tunnel after lost words, imaginary bombs.

The last possible deed is that which defines perception itself, an invisible golden cord that connects us: illegal dancing in the courthouse corridors. If I were to kiss you here they'd call it an act of terrorism--so let's take our pistols to bed & wake up the city at midnight like drunken bandits celebrating with a fusillade, the message of the taste of chaos.

He's one of my favorite writers.

Anarchy and Communism is the same end point. It's just that the way of getting there is different.

Also, anarchy wont work. NICE ON PAPER, BUT NOT IN REALITY.

Yeah communism supposedly is the groundwork for anarchism, which is why these 'political anarchists' are usually called anarchocommunists. The 'I BREAK CARS! I LISTEN TO PUNKN DUD PUNKS NOT DEADF!1' people would rather not be called anything remotely related to communism, hence the common term of anarchist. The modern day anarchist basically goes for the division of state goverment in small mobile self-sustained communes, skipping the socialistic groundwork that was once considered neccessary between capitalism and anarchism. Half of them are socially on the left, the others on the right because of being ultra-liberal.

I know one who fits the stereotype so nicley, and he refuses to acknowledge that a communist world and an anarchist world would be the same thing. This is stupid for the exact reason you stated about the anarchist not suporting socialist 'groundwork'.

STALIN; he says. STALIN.

All my opposition asside, I would rather see some punk kid protesting capitalism by throwing red paint or breaking windows than I would see another Vince.

right... the basic idea of actual anarchy is to basically have small tribes.

So NOT right!

I mean, to say "right" there is soooo wrong. I'm no anarchist, but there is no credible correlation between communism, which in any practical terms or in any actual application IS authoritarian PRIMARILY, and anarchy.

If that's not enough to warrant a flame from Zhukov then I'll go so far to posit that communism and capitalism are more the same in extreme than anything, forming the third dimension in the political universe.

There's alot of books on anarchy, let's all go read them and understand.

Like i said, tribes. It's all in the tribes. Small commune groups, communism/sociology to the effect that, within the tribe, each person has a role. A shaman, a bard, a hunter, a cook, a fishermen and a gatherer. Farmers... etc.

Damn, read what i posted. It explains it all in intelligent terminology.

YES. LET'S.

They are both political in nature, so I will now agree that you are correct. They also both involve humans, such as us, here on Earth, so I will agree with you yet again.

Tribes. Yes. That, too. WOOT.

That's three times I have agreed with you. Now can I be accepted into your smart & edumucated person club?

Yes, but only if you make a required donation fee of 600 dollars.

it's not so much politics, so much as simply living; in the purest most efficient form.

I know exactly what you mean. Not that I agree with you, it's just I hear it so often, so I know what you mean. Communism is not authoritarian, Stalinism, however, is. That is the mistake you are making, that is your fault. Fix please!

Socialism is authoritarian, and a revolution is the most authoritarian thing there can be, but Communism is a stateless society. An anarchist society. The only authority for you is yourself.

It's a point that has been defended better by people other than me, so I implore you to not force me to copy and paste. Please.

Word.

Communism, even in the best case creates a very large and complex state goverment, and obviously any anarchist will argue that this creates the base for totalitarianism. I will not argue against this. I will merely regutitate Bakunin Cropotkin (sp? hey I read them in greek) etc by saying that this complex state machine is needed for a duration to create the foundation for the gradual dissasembly of the national state as a political force and the reenforcement of it as an executional force. Anyway, yeah what Zhukov said. Go read.

Small communal living didn't work on the Animal Farm. There are pigs everywhere, I tell ya ... even in small groups.

Communism=Submission=Authoritarian

I do read, and have read, and will continue.

I have read many words typed in various efforts to make Communism appear to be what it's just not. If you feel like you can (or have to) cut and paste something that's so superior to what I have read (and remained unconvinced by) knock yourself out.

On second thought, nevermind. I guess I was only trolling anyway. I don't really have any interest in vain attempts to convince the unconvinceable. Believe what you wish with my blessings.

...No takers on the Capitalism~=Communism thing?

Anarchy has already been attained, long long ago. Same with "Communism"/"Socialism" to an extant.

Cheers! :posh

Submission to what? We wont discuss, but c'mon, one sentence should be enough to pacify my curiosity.

Ooohhh... TOUCHE.

I knew this guy had a lot more going for him than the red star in his avatar.


Read your Marx, bitches. Zhukov is bang on in this one, regardless of the wool of deceit that the west has pulled over your eyes. Communism isn't the fascist dictatorships that have sprung up here and there accross the globe. Those are totalitarian governments that can only serve to supplement a capitalist economy by causing wars.
No, communism is so much more dangerous than these states run by brutal maniacs that capitalists are even more scared of it than they are of labor unions.
You've been deceived your entire life about the true meaning of the color red.
Read a book, it'll do you well.

Davin, I doubt anyone willing to discuss communism and Communism seriously is unable to distinguish between the two. You seem to believe the two divergent paths can meet again, which indicates your own understanding of their relationship with one another is flawed. Both small "c" communism and capitalism are economic concepts that can be extrapolated to form societal organization constructs without actually having to be capitalized.

Generally speaking, the problem with capitalizing either one is that the lowercase version of the other ideology always manages to sneak in and corrupt things. This is only natural, because the two are naturally and inseparably two parts of a single concept. People are inherently self-interested, placing their individual needs ahead of anything else. Large "C" Communism attempts to ignore this and bend nature to place the needs of the group over the need of the individuals tht compose it. Conversely, Capitalism tends to allow natural self-interest to become greed at the expense of the group.

We exist as individuals in a group, in that order. As individuals we compete on aggressive, capitalistic terms. As members of a larger group, we submit to communal agreements with those with which we share interests. It's a yin/yang type of duality which should be pretty easy to grasp, but most people still seem to struggle with the idea that the two natures of us are not mutually exclusive or even in conflict. Achieving is just as important as sharing. The problems begin when either is forced upon the less-than-willing-or-able by a government pretending to be based in only one nature.

Anyone who cares to know already is aware of why Communism, in the form of the USSR, has failed. Most people have yet to realize that America was not unique in it's formation because it was a strictly Capitalistic nation in concept. It wasn't meant to be that. You would not achieve that effectively with a loose federation of independent states subject to a weak federal government. Now that it has developed a powerful central bureaucracy at the expense of it's member states' sovereignity, what America was designed to be... a balanced mixture of yin and yang... has ceased to exist, replaced by the opposite of Stalin's USSR: a Capitalistic, individualist's government with a state run black-market in charity.

Old Soviet nomenklatura and black-market free-enterprise are the equivalents to New America's ineffective nanny-state and lionized poor. All are seen as impurities in the system by the true-believers in the idea that the group can exist independently from or regardless to the individual.

This is running long, and I need to check my e-mail before the end of my lunch, so I'll leave it here.

HAVE A NICE DAY.

By the way, I'm hoping that will suffice as your sentence, Zhukov...