"Why do people consent to be governed? It isn’t only fear: what have millions of people to fear from a small group of politicians? It is because they subscribe to the same values as their governors. Rulers and ruled alike believe in the principle of authority, of hierarchy, of power. These are the characteristics of the political principle. The anarchists, who have always distinguished between the state and society, adhere to the social principle, which can be seen where-ever men link themselves in an association based on a common need or a common interest. ‘The State’ said the German anarchist Gustav Landauer, ‘is not something which can be destroyed by a revolution, but is a condition, a certain relationship between human beings, a mode of human behaviour; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently."

Colin Ward

  (via rykemasters)

It’s also because we are trained from birth to believe that it is the only way to live. That the world is inherently evil and government is the only thing that makes it just and livable. 

(Source: anticapitalist, via rykemasters)

mediaofthemovement:

Police: The Largest Street Gang in America (documentary)

This is by no means a “documentary” but its worth a watch.

(via anticapitalist)

"Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners."

— Edward Abbey. (via anarchyagogo)

It’s been a while and there are a few newer things on here. Also, I’ve gotten a few new followers since this went up last. This is my wordpress. Feel free to comment on any pieces in my ask.

Really?

One of the biggest arguments I hear against anarchist or communist or general revolutionary thought is that humans are not trustworthy. “Oh people are ignorant, and naturally greedy and naturally want to take advantage of people,” they’ll say.

"People are just violent, dominating creatures," many argue. They agree with Hobbes in his postulation that the life of man is "nasty, brutish and short" among other things. 

Let’s assume these people are correct for a minute. 

So, you’re going to tell me that people are naturally this way?

"Yes."

Then why on earth would you elect one of those kinds of creatures, give them uncontrollable power and allow them to rule the masses?

True anarchists don’t have computers.

atomicsocialist:

amouthygirl:

anticapitalist:

is this a joke?

please tell me this is a joke…

Is this like “Tru Punx don’t shower!”?

True communists don’t pay for electricity!!

True anarchists never refer to themselves or any one else as “True anarchists”

(Source: fasttogetaway, via huberthumphreydeathrally-deacti)

Wouldn’t Communism negate the value of money?

autumn-and-gomorrah:

If anyone is guaranteed to have ~$100 at the end of the month, whether they consume or produce or not, there is no need for money. It’s just like when everyone is rich, nobody is rich and when everyone is upper class, nobody is upper class.
Another legitimate question, course.

In pure communism (as I would argue to be nearly synonymous with anarchism) yes, this would be the case. As you said, if everyone has the same amount of money, then money becomes irrelevant. It is merely a middle man between man, his labor, and the fruits of said labor. It is an arbitrary value that attempts to classify the importance of a certain position in society or economics which of course is silly because no position can be factually be proven to be any more or less important than any other. It is entirely subjective. We should be able to realize that without ANY position of society, society would not function properly. Thus, they are all equally important. Or rather, if a position can be removed without consequence to society at large, then that position is pointless to begin with. 

Be careful however when you say “whether they consume or produce or not." In a true communist economy, this would never happen for many reasons:

First and foremost is the the societal rhetoric surrounding the idea of labor. People would see an importance in their work and all work would be valued. This is mostly because jobs would not be labeled with monetary and social importance. For instance, no one really wants to be a garbage man or work at McDonalds because it is not good money, it is not viewed as important and employees are viewed as social failures. This would have to change. 

Second, societies would be much more locally oriented and inward looking politically. People would be immediately and actively engaged. This goes very closely with the importance of the education process surrounding the stigma carried by certain jobs - that there would be none. People would view all jobs as important and be willing to do that which best suits their skill and interest level.

Really, the entire goal of communism, especially in this modern age, is to pull people away from the governmental dependency and bring them back to more actively engaged lifestyles; thus making people harder working, giving them immediate control over their own lives, and increasing the overall standard of living on a global level. 

(via autumn-and-eve-deactivated20120)

Why anarcho-capitalism, isn’t

autumn-and-gomorrah:

If anarchism’s goal is a society free of hierarchy, how can you then set up an economic system that thrives on class-based oppression? In capitalism, there will always be an upper class and a lower class, and therefore it defeats the point of anarchism.

I like you. How do I not know you?

(via autumn-and-eve-deactivated20120)

aplytos:

Society failed to tolerate me
And I have failed to tolerate society

an·ar·chy \ˈa-nər-kē,\ (noun)

ashley-ology:

chaos, lack of social order.

Haha. Hahahaha. Hahahahaha!

… wait are you furrealz?

(via ashley-mode-deactivated20130123)

Tags: anarchy vocab