HOME | DD
nick15 β Anarchy Brings Out The Psychos
Published: 2003-06-29 22:33:23 +0000 UTC; Views: 5277; Favourites: 34; Downloads: 429
Redirect to original
Description
EDIT 2016-03-12: Haha, I forgot this picture still existed. Bear in mind that this was made over a decade ago, so my views on these kinds of issues have evolved. However I'm keeping this post online for posterity; that is, I see no reason to remove any of my old stuff "just because". So, enjoy it for what it is, but keep in mind that there's no point in trying to refute it, because you're debating a point that is over 12 years old. I mean think about it: this picture is older than you are! :^)...
Everyone's talks about how anarchy will solve everyone's problems and how given their just deserts. Problem is that all these anarchists are nothing but all talk and very little action and productivity. I mean HOW MANY anarchists talk about how businesses treat their employees like shit, and yet how come NONE of these anarchists are running their own businesses to set an example? I mean they all seem to know how to cure this "epidemic", right?
No, Anarchy will just bring out all the psychos (one of them as seen in the above picture). The same psychos like the Son of Sam and Ted Bundy, but are kept dormant BECAUSE of the rules of society. If there were no rules, then these psychos would run wild and cut people up. Lord knows I'd be around some hardcore anarchists when the day comes like in my picture; I'd slice the shit up out of a couple of them and maybe pound their heads in with a sledgehammer. "You want your fucking anarchy?" I'd say, "You got it motherfucker." Yeah, it does kinda sound psychotic coming from me, the only real reason I'd do it is just to show these anarchist fuckers WHY we need rules in human society. I wonder how long it'll take before any one of these anarchists would be BEGGING for some law and order. I'd give them a week.
Related content
Comments: 103
"Everyone's talks about how anarchy will solve everyone's problems and how given their just deserts. Problem is that all these anarchists are nothing but all talk and very little action and productivity. I mean HOW MANY anarchists talk about how businesses treat their employees like shit, and yet how come NONE of these anarchists are running their own businesses to set an example? I mean they all seem to know how to cure this "epidemic", right?"
Anarchist political action has been global phenomena for hundreds of years. Anarchists have created vast amounts of social experiments and class consciousness. They have not been unproductive in the slightest.
Anarchists don't want to become business owners rather destroy business altogether. We do not want kinder gentler capitalism, rather the death of capitalism and the liberation of humanity from it's shackles.
"No, Anarchy will just bring out all the psychos (one of them as seen in the above picture). The same psychos like the Son of Sam and Ted Bundy, but are kept dormant BECAUSE of the rules of society. If there were no rules, then these psychos would run wild and cut people up. Lord knows I'd be around some hardcore anarchists when the day comes like in my picture; I'd slice the shit up out of a couple of them and maybe pound their heads in with a sledgehammer. "You want your fucking anarchy?" I'd say, "You got it motherfucker." Yeah, it does kinda sound psychotic coming from me, the only real reason I'd do it is just to show these anarchist fuckers WHY we need rules in human society. I wonder how long it'll take before any one of these anarchists would be BEGGING for some law and order. I'd give them a week."
#1 Even the chaotic society you describe would have rules. You can't have human society without rules. Al social relations weather they are the ones you envision in an anarchist society or the more orderly social relations of our society have conditions and limitations.
#2 Anarchism is not about the abolition of rules, rather the abolition of rulers that is to say the abolition of political masters. Anarchists seek to radically reorganize society to make all social relationships have a structure of shared power where no one party has no more power then the other. The anarchist plan for society is that of a highly organized society. We advocate society have many rules just different ones then we have now.
π: 0 β©: 0
Yeah, root for something that eventually turns against you, thats Anarchy, there is a good thick line between Righteous Rebellion, and plain idiotic nihilistic anarchy
π: 0 β©: 0
Anarchism is an ideology that supports an organised revolution with the purpose of replacing our current society with a more democratic one, built upon workers' control, consensus democracy, federalism, et.c. Anarchy isn't lawlessness.
π: 0 β©: 0
real anarchists are living in the wild Β they won't even have a job
π: 0 β©: 0
1. "everyone talks about how anarchy will solve everyone's problems" - everyone? really? are you sure about that?
2. if corporates are just shooting anarchists in the leg, cutting short any action they can take, are you surprised you don't hear about any action and productivity?
3. why would an anarchist, who is opposed to corporate culture, want to run their own business?
4. people seem to think that violence is human nature, and that we'd "run wild and cut people up" - only those with what i consider to be a warped sense of morality. which is equally evident in all political groups, not just anarchists.
/rant.
π: 0 β©: 0
If people are so terrible you certainly can't afford to have a government, where of course the worst of them will all want to congregate. Say what you want about people imposing evil on one another in private; private criminals have never been as destructive as public criminals. CEOs may be the ones paying governments to make wars, but they aren't the ones making the wars. They can't; it's beyond them to get the kind of money they'd need to afford it. Only taxation can raise the kind of money one needs to be evil on a truly grand scale.
π: 0 β©: 0
That's like asking somebody if they want ice cream, feeding them shit, and then being amused that they wanted ice cream. It doesn't make ice cream look bad, it just makes you look like an asshole.
π: 0 β©: 0
THANK YOU! Finally, someone with common sense! The only artwork pertaining to anarchy are pieces created by angsty teen praising about how wonderful the world would be without government or authority.
Yes, government can be corrupt, but in the end, government is needed to protect the rights of the individuals. Without government, there's nobody to protect your rights but yourself. It becomes an 'eat or be eaten' world, not a blessed utopia as anarchists envision.
As the ancient Greeks said: "Without law, there is no freedom."
π: 0 β©: 0
Somalia is not "anarchy", it's an example of chaos, anomie, civil war and social collapse. There's a big difference. By convention, anarchy can be described as one of two things:
1) A society of free equals organized along non-hierarchical, non-coercive, voluntary lines.
2) A breakdown of rule leading to an absence of authority, law and order. (This definition is, in fact, libelous since its purpose is to tarnish the image of anarchists in the public eye by knowingly projecting false aims onto them - but regardless, it is still a conventionally-accepted definition)
Within the first definition is where you would find the "anarchists". Where are they? Is ANYONE in Somalia involved in the precipitation and/or continuation of the current state of affairs - be it the warlords, the government, the Islamic Courts, or the clan system - striving to create the conditions of the first definition? Certainly not. The proof is in the number of IWW-card-carrying, Bakunin- and Goldman-thumpers you'll find rallying behind the warlords and Islamic extremists: zero.
Somalia doesn't even meet definition #2. There is no absence of authority or law in Somalia - absence of a CENTRAL authority, yes, but in its place are a plethora of hierarchical, patriarchal, authoritarian groups establishing their own authority over various parts of the country.
Calling Somalia an anarchy has about the same level of intellectual honesty as calling Iraq under Saddam Hussein a liberal democracy, because he held "elections".
π: 0 β©: 1
The thing is there's a difference between anarchy and Anarchy. I'm not necessarily against Anarchy, but the comic is really just to ridicule people who want an anarchy system, not the Anarchy system.
Somalia is anarchy. There are people who want to create an Anarchy. The only people who aren't thinking are:
1. People who don't realize there's a difference between anarchy and Anarchy; and,
2. Person A who criticize Person B, who criticize Anarchy, because Person A doesn't think that Person B realizes that there is a difference between anarchy and Anarchy.
I think these problems would be avoided if Anarchy would just be renamed to something like "Selfarchy", basically disassociating itself with anarchy. If anything, you'll just get less people mistaking anarchy with Anarchy.
π: 0 β©: 0
Dear Nazis.
Always sad to see that your "kind" is uneducated.
You rednecks are missing some steps here.
1.Read
2.Think about it
3.Discuss
Flame on!!
π: 0 β©: 0
looks like you have no idea what anarchy is really about!
you'd better face up to it before you draw such a crappy comic!
and by the way there are many people who call themselves anarchist and (like you say) talk more than do something about it, but that doesnt mean they're all the same.
look what happend in greece or the situation in oaxaca.
so you rather inform yourself before you annoy everyone with your unreflected opinion!
No God
No State
No Master
Fuck law and order
Fight the Police!
π: 0 β©: 1
Please visit Somalia for a month before talking about anarchy again. They have no God, State, Master or police there. And it isn't a dream, it's REALITY! C'mon, go for it! Frankly it's an insult to see you NOT there yet!
π: 0 β©: 1
first of all:
have you ever heard of wikipedia?
they have a very inetresting text about somalia which you should read before you write all that bullshit about no god, no masters!
and second:
the situation in somalia has nothing to do with anarchie!
READ AND REFLECT!
π: 0 β©: 0
Anarchy is NOT chaos and is ANTI-violent ,and if Bush dissolved the congress it would become a totalitarian state which is the OPPOSITE of anarchy.
π: 0 β©: 1
Idealistic anarchy is not chaotic and anti-violent. But realistic anarchy is quite the opposite. Take a look at Somalia for realistic anarchy.
Idealisms never work. I mean, in an ideal world, people would be giving ME money for nothing. But I guess if I wish hard enough as much as you anarchists wish for a peaceful anarchy, it'll happen, right?
π: 0 β©: 1
ANARCHISM is a political theory it doesn't limit itself to a dictionary definition plus dictionaries are not made to be politically sophisticated so instead of jumping to conclusion study actual anarchist political theory rather then 2 passages from wikipedia and a check in the dictionary for a definition
π: 0 β©: 0
I can see the real side of standard anti-anarchy people here.. And yeah, hell funny..
π: 0 β©: 0
Anarchy is the belief that man knows best how to take care of himself.
This picture is more like Anomie, than what a practicing Anarchy is supposed to be. Check out the Irish before their conquest by the Brits and Iceland before they regrettably sold themselves into Norse slavery.
π: 0 β©: 0
The funny part of this isn't the comic, so much as the kind of people the artist has supporting him. Everybody from Joe "Amerrcans ehnt PATRIOTIC 'nuf!" to Jim "If ther wuz no rulz id kill my mom". It seems that when government rules, all the psychos come out.
On the other hand, the author hasn't really responded to much of the more intelligent comments posted, directing him towards real-world examples of anarchism, such as the worker-seized factories in Argentina, or the EZLN territories in Chiapas, Mexico. If the idea were labeled 'direct democracy' rather than anarchy, the artist probably wouldn't be talking about going out and committing pointless murder.
I mean, I could make the same criticism of anything but fascism, right? Any freedom that is allowed could potentially be abused. And there are always a few psychopaths who abuse their freedoms to infringe on those of others. But they're always dealt with, and whether they're dealt with by an impersonal, immoral state, or by an anarchist community or neighborhood democratic council, they're still dealt with. The difference is, when it's the state, they also imprison those who think we could use more freedom.
π: 0 β©: 0
This is kinda funny but anarchy truly is the power of the people. Revenge is a strong thing. That is what the world would be based on. I am an anarchist and you have no idea the TRUE meaning of anarchy.
π: 0 β©: 0
well the thing is that i beleave in anarchism as a way to freedom from unfair treatment such as no gay marrage or interatial marrage it is just i don't beleave in total anarchyism just more freedom for people but you are correct in the example of how some people would react like the buisinessman shot the kid in the leg and peed on him but you potrait that this is how people would act not everyone would go up in arms and start shooting at grandma i would just wish to know if you get what i mean...
π: 0 β©: 0
I can see the humor in this, but I dont think you really understand what Anarchy means. Anarchy does not mean everyone will go around and shoot and pee on everyone else you see. When you said 'you'd have to somehow force everyone to think the same way YOU do in order to make it work' I would have to disagree with you on that. The point is not to force everyone to think the same, it's to bring everyone's minds and ideas together to work somehting out. Anarchy (to me) is about joining together and everyone sharing opinions and ways to live other than just a few 'high class' rich men leading all of society. Yes, most people would not be able to work with it because they are too ignorant or self-centerd or stupid (not saying you) to work with other people as a whole. If more people understood what Anarchy can really be, then I really think it would work out.
π: 0 β©: 0
this comic is really a win for the oppressed status quo. good job misleading people and reinforcing stereotypes. you're a joke.
π: 0 β©: 0
You have a really good point. Anarchy is like only a theory and it'll only work if everyone follows an unwritten law of not fucking people over, which would take years maybe decades to even come close to start.
The drawing and angles in the comic is great! Is it just me, or is it whenever there's a drawing with a slightly political message, people forget to mention how nice the art work is, lol!
π: 0 β©: 0
Learn the difference between anarcho-syndicalism (left anarchism) and anarcho-capitalism (right anarchism). You depict anarcho-capitalism which I do not support and I do not believe would work. You think its only an idea that would never work in reality but since it has worked in the past its not a valid point.
The spanish revolution used left anarchism to achieve a working society that was also able to fight against the fascist Francisco Franco. (theres a book called homage to catalonia written by george orwells first hand account of it)
[link]
[link]
π: 0 β©: 0
A major flaw to the belief that anarchy would birth an influx of violent crime and murder is the arrogance in assuming that there wouldn't be hell to pay for those actions.
You're trying to say anarchy wouldn't work because people would go around killing people and there'd be no laws to stop them? So if theres no laws to stop them from this, then as a result theres no law against a group of people hanging the fuckers for what they did (or maybe something worse.)
Theres always going to be consequences. So if anarchy ever exists, and someone wants to prove a point, they better know that vengeance is just as much a part of "human nature" as violence.
π: 0 β©: 0
The image didn't load when I clciked on it, so don't know what the comic actually said... Though the conversation around it has been interesting.
My two cents; as far as I've read, and from the people I know who loosely identify as "anarchist", it's a misconception that an inherent part of anarchism is a void of structure... in fact anarchists generally call for a highly organised society with decisions made from the bottom up, and by those that are affected by them... what anarchists do tend to call for is that all authority should be questioned, and foreced to justify itself, and removed if it cannot... seems reasonable to me.
The "but humans [or some humans] are fucked/rapists/pathological/murderers etc" argument doesn't make sense to me... I mean, if everybody was sweet gentle sunflowers then capitalism [or any other system with centralised power] would work...but it seems to me from personal and historical experience that we are flawed; '
As far as what would we do with violent and pathological people in an anarchist society, that would be for the people who are affected to decide... but i think it's important to remember that currently many pathological tendancies (such as ruthlessness, extreme competitiveness, lack of empathy etc) are quite useful for climbing the ladder in this system (specifically a corporate capitalist representative democarcy, where i'm writing from) and so are actively encouraged...so i reckon we have alot of scope to improve.
i feel a bit gross being so dry, but guess that's the mood i'm in...
π: 0 β©: 0
anarchy would bring the downfall of humanity.Without order we would tear each other apart.It is true that most,if not all,forms of government are flawed,but without them we'd fall apart at the seams and fall into the abyss.
π: 0 β©: 0
so if your religious wasteland and so called democratic process with its capitalism and its slaves is the solution then why is it that people like you end up in ditches?
π: 0 β©: 0
Silly anarchists.
Next thing you know, they'll be gathering together to overthrow the government, in order to force upon everyone else their own ridiculous ideology.
Anarchists assembling? Forcing an ideology? Now if that's not irony...
π: 0 β©: 0
Silly anarchists.
Next thing you know, they'll be gathering together to overthrow the government, in order to force upon everyone else their own ridiculous ideology.
Anarchists assembling? Forcing an ideology? Now if that's not irony...
π: 0 β©: 0
First off, i want to commend you on being absolutely right. Thanks to modern society, neither the Son of Sam killer nor Ted Bundy killed anyone. They were too busy being "kept dormant" to slaughter anyone. In fact, since the establishment of the British Monarchy, no one has been killed anywhere in the world.
The truth is that their crimes pale in comparison to the crimes of government, which you fail to address here. Your paragraphs seem to denote that you adhere to this fallacy that the world is fine now, which could not be furthre from the truth. Somalia, Iraq, and dozens of other countries lie under assault at the moment at the hands of foreign governments. These governments are killing millions of people. (At least 755,000 since the escalation of hostilities in Iraq in 2003.) They not only decimate them through war, but also through economic policies that ensure that millions will starve to death this year, despite the fact that the technolgy to produce enough food for all not only exists, but said food is produced-and then wasted if no one can purchase it. Economic programs destroy the ability of the average person to work (NAFTA has deprived at least 1 million farmers of their land, and the estimates go as high as 2 million) for the benefit of business/corporate interests. Corrupt totalitarian government leaders in Africa Mobutu in Zaire, as an example), South America (Pinochet in Chile), and Asia (The Shah of Iran) all accepted massive loans and economic aid from western leaders for "their country" and proceeded to pocket massive fortunes for themselves andracking up huge debt for their socities, which after they were overthrown/left office/died, would have to paid back for by their citizens, who had had nothing to say in regards to the debt being incurred. These are the rules of your beloved government.
Seemingly, your concept of anarchy is synonymous with the concept of a ruleless society, which is just blatantly not so. If you were to actually research something as opposed to attacking it without knowledge ([link] ) then you might have saved yourself a lot of time and energy that you wasted on what would be tantamount to an assault on man-eating ice cream cones. In other words, you fought something that does not exist. The truth is that the political and social philosophy of anarchism has nothing to do with a ruleless society, nor does it have in basis in "might makes right" that you seem to think that it does. Within an anarchist society there would be rules. These rules, however, would emanate from the communities themselves, and not from within so-called "hallowed chambers" where lobbyists and politicians offer each other jobs, favours, and secrets in order to get any legislation passed that will enrich them in money, connections, or sheer power. There would be a particpatory society, and as many an anarchist would tell you, we cannot plan out every little aspect of this society, for to do so would not only be foolhardy in regards to the fact that such an undertaking will surely spawn some unforseen obstacles of its own, but also because to do so would be to sponsor a form of intergenerational tyranny that puts forth a rigid set of norms and mores within the political realm that are supposedly more "right" than others to people in the future. The importance of allowing generations (or even geographical areas and the like) to develop their own ideas, theories, and paraidgms in response to the demands and needs of their own society cannot be understated.
Peter Kropotkin, considered the father of anarchist communism ([link] ), espoused that mutual aid had as much to do with evolution than anything else within the biological realm, and mutual aid is a cornerstone of anarchism. Not "I shoot who I want when I want and Do Whatever I like". That's a form of tyranny. If you must call it any form of anarchy, then it's anarcho-fascism because that is what it would be; there would be no government and the strongest would rule.
As far as your assault on anarchists being unproductive, you could not be further from the truth once more. R-D-X really made some great points on this, but I'd like to toss in a few other areas. For instance, there is a sizable contingent of anarchists in New York ([link] ), an entire anarchist federation in the Northeast USA ([link] ), and a myriad of other anarchist groups from Birmingham, Alabama to Pertjh, Australia who are all doing things within their socities to help bring about anarchy as quickly as we can, and as best as we can, and also to assuage the damage done by years of governtment abuse. As we speak, in Argentina, there is a wave of anti-authoritarian factory takeovers engaging in what they are calling Horizontalism. The bosses left the country in waves and abandoned their proerty and their workers during the economic crisis of 2001. Now They are running the factories without bosses, and the bosses will not let them be again. Why? Because the workers are now starting to turn profits, and the bosses think that those profts should be theirs. Those are the rules of capitalism.
Speaking of, it's senseless for you to lambast anarchists for not "running their own business". Anarchists tend to be anti-capitalist (although R-D-X did mention the anarcho-caps/Libertarian party here in the states-the exception that therefor proves the rule...) and believe that capital exchange for labour is a form of slavery known as wage slavery. If we, as anarchists, are agains wage slavery and do not desire to be mere wage slaves ourselves, how could you possibly chastise us for not owning wage slaves ourselves? We as anarchists, blatantly state that we do not condone or desire bosses, and then you turn around and chastise us for not becoming them? That's inherently unfair.
Of course, I know you think that if we were so great that we could run our own business our own way then, and that is tried by a few people. There are several employee-owned and operated business here in the United States, and of course even more abroad. They do the best they can, but keep in mind that trying to practice anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist priniciples when all of your business suppliers and partners are operating from a philosophy directly opposite of that can be like trying to spit into a tornado. In some cases, things go well, however, and I would be remiss to not mention that.
Your little rant at the end where you threaten violence on anarchists is also a laugh riot. So, in a society without laws, you (and by extension your Falling Down lookalike corporate guy in your comic) are somehow going to become Mad Max, slicing and hammering whomever you see fit. No one will be able to stop you? Ummm....No. If you went around in such a manner in a society without rules, you would get put down. Just like if a rabid dog comes up on someone's proch in the country, they put it down without waiting for the humane society to get there. You and your corporate buddy would have just as much to lose in a society without rules as legitimate anarchists because eventually, someone would get tired of your wanton violence and put a stop to it. They might even organize a little non-hierarchical cadre to do so. Then, that would be anarchy.
So to sum this up in (the very likely) case that you don't want to read it, there is disorder, chaos, violence, and a cavalcade of terrible things happening right now. You say you don't like anarchy, but what you have now is not working either. In other words, you prove it to me, fucker. I've got thousands of years of government brutality, greed, violence, and exploitation on my side to prove my point. You have a comic strip that you drew, a litany of fallacies promulgated by the rulers of society, and a completely wrong understanding of the subject. Good Luck.
π: 0 β©: 1
hah! I also love what you have to say.
π: 0 β©: 0
Fucking amazing piece, Puts out a nice view.
π: 0 β©: 0
Still trying to figure out which guy i am but i love it anyway. People need to truly understand what they're getting themselves into before they comit to wearing the clothing and talking shit about the government.
π: 0 β©: 0
all that you need for anarchy to work is for everyone to respect each other, treat everyone as an equal, and take responsibility for your actions
if you killed someone, you better expect that someone will kill you back from their family or something
π: 0 β©: 0
Anarchists arenβt the pursuers of some idealistic utopia so much as they are keenly aware that human beings are capable of infinite improvement. You speak of their lack of action and conveniently omit from your account such events as the Zapatista uprising (which brought Mexico from a dictatorship to a democracy and gave rise to the creation of an autonomous community in the Lacandon jungle after the governmentβs failure to deliver promises made in the San Andres accords), the CNTβs bitter fight against General Franco during the Spanish civil war, and Nestor Makhnoβs black army and their struggle in the Ukraine during the Russian civil war. You then go on to describe how no anarchists are visibly engaging in corporate activity and thus completely overlook a recent strand of anarchist thought which has had a considerable vogue in the Libertarian Party of the US and the Conservative party of the UK β anarcho-capitalism (the individualist notion that we are all our own masters if we simply exploit a laissez faire set of market policies in order to privatize enough resources to render governments redundant). I think the βepidemicsβ highlighted by most anarchists would be: increasingly divided communities and a rise in xenophobia and apathy; the spread of misguided materialistic notions about life fuelled by the advertisers; and the way in which people start to behave like herd animals ready to blindly accept all that they read in the newspapers whilst their views are covertly shaped by the biased stories of an elite commentariat (Rupert Murdoch et al).
You then go on to make some presumptuous comments about how disorderly life would be without rulers and their law enforcement personnel to keep us all in line. You paint a very Hobbesian picture of life in the state of nature but, as the libertarian thinker Jean Jacques Rousseau once pointed out, we can make no accurate estimations of life in the state of nature when we are basing such an analysis solely on what we have witnessed of human behaviour under the guidance (and accompanying restrictions) of state rules. I certainly donβt claim to have all of the answers and I doubt that any other self-proclaimed anarchist would do either. But whilst there are a great many problems which produced the demand for government, it also produces more opportunities and temptations for new problems which are arguably worst (as William Godwin noted in his introduction to Political Justice). To put it an other way: βpower corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutelyβ (Lord Acton). As for the sort of people who βare kept dormant BECAUSE of the rules of societyβ: do you extend this notion to individuals such as Conrad Black, Lord Levy, Judge Albert F. Sabo and their ilk? Letβs not forget the whole host of US backed dictators and the human atrocities for which they are responsible: Sadam, Suharto, Duvalierβ¦ to name a few. It may also be of interest to you that the case for vigilante action has been put forward quite strongly in the past by writers such as John Locke β a reactionary measure admittedly but morally educating the young instead of swamping them with violent images and ideas about the importance of procuring greater wealth over the importance of developing a strong set of individual ethics might be a good place to start in order to negate the necessity of such retaliation tactics.
All of the anarchists Iβve had the good fortune to meet have turned out to be sociable, highly creative and well motivated individuals who are reluctant to put forward a blueprint of βthe good societyβ (whatever that may turn out to be) as it would go against their fervent advocacy of autonomy and free experimentation (hence the remarks of Fernando Tarrida Del Marmol, about the differing methodologies forwarded and hotly debated over by the anarcho-communists and the collectivist anarchists, that maybe we should all strive for a form of anarchism without adjectives as we all share the same ideals). I have posted this comment here because I consider your vituperation against anarchy to be too inconsistent with anarchist thought and, whilst I fully appreciate your right to form your own opinions, I think that itβs only fair of you to at least merit your attack with some greater degree of accuracy. Thanks.
π: 0 β©: 0
Anarchy doesn't mean no system, no order, no rules, etc. It means no rulers. Instead of being politically represented in a federal government, you represent yourself in a community 'government'. Instead of having a boss, you manage your workplace together with your fellow workers.
If you actually want to learn something about what you're criticizing, when it has worked, etc., read up on the Spanish Civil War, when the Anarchist labor unions collectivized cities while resisting Franco and the fascist army. Or the American labor movement in the late 19th century; Emma Goldman and many others.
Millions of people on this planet have lived in societies without government and gotten along just fine in the past; remember, human beings have been around for tens of thousands of years, much longer than recorded history.
Our society today would go to shit if the government just collapsed; Americans are so torn apart by racism, sexism, and all their other prejudices. They're raised in capitalism, to step on each other to get to the top; we're isolated, alienated, fed violence and war propaganda, fed false, 1 dimensional standards of beauty, masculinity, etc...
Anarchists don't envision the government collapsing and then a perfect society emerging. Anarchists are building the new society within the shell of the old; better alternatives in our own communities, real, empowering politics that's relevant to our lives rather than bullshit representation by rich white males.
We're working with our neighbors to grow food, building support systems for victims of domestic abuse, organizing 'gift economies' with "really, really free markets" ([link] ), as well as taking back workplaces and forming worker-run businesses (although we do hope to see the end of competition as a basis for an economy).
Please, don't judge us when your only knowledge of the subject is the sorry bull you've picked up in passing...
π: 0 β©: 1
I love what you've got to say :]
very descriptive.
Anyone who reads this...
visit crimethinc.com it's a good site
π: 0 β©: 0
Its people like you that are the reason that anarchy would not work. If the only reason you aren't out there killing people is because the government tells you not too, there is something wrong with you. Well i do respect your opinion, come on now, would you really act like that. And what would you do if tomorrow the government passed a law telling you it was illegal to wipe your ass? Would you walk around with a shit covered ass all the time. Come on now man, you make a valid point, but you picked a pretty pathetic way to do it.
π: 0 β©: 0
This is stupid.
It is not funny, it doesn't show anything on Anarchy, it makes just no sense and it shows that you have no fucking idea how Anarchy would work, dude.
I am sorry.
π: 0 β©: 0
this comic in no way represents what anarchy really is...anarchy has nothing to do with killing people and shooting ppl..no matter what the corporate media may say. my look on anarchy is....no one should be more qualifies to run ur life than urself...no gods...no masters..live ur own life...destroy capitalism...and tear down borders
π: 0 β©: 0
so if you're against anarchy, are you for democracy ? or dictatorship ?: )
π: 0 β©: 0
the fact that people believe anarchy would make a better country is a little scary. that makes a world without laws. anything goes. we have rules for a reason. so the retards dont fuck it up
π: 0 β©: 1
A lot of people keep saying that Anarchy has no rules. That there is utter bullshit. Everything has rules, you follow simple humanistic rules every day without knowing it. If the stupid dumbass people do fuck up then they will have to pay for it in one way or another. There is always someone watching that will disagree if you go out and beat someone for no reason.
π: 0 β©: 1
[link]
read'm and weep and stop making profiles for the sake of flaming someone on deviant art...
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>