"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)

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.

"Journalism has exponentially less integrity during times of war."

— Anonymous (via redandblackrevolution)

(via redandblackrevolution-deactivat)

aatombomb:


The war on drugs is a war on minorities and the poor. The numbers don’t lie. The Civil Rights movement won a major victory in the late sixties, and in the early seventies we began to wage the war on drugs. We didn’t miss a beat.

— E.D. Kain

aatombomb:

The war on drugs is a war on minorities and the poor. The numbers don’t lie. The Civil Rights movement won a major victory in the late sixties, and in the early seventies we began to wage the war on drugs. We didn’t miss a beat.

— E.D. Kain

(via anticapitalist)

Tags: politics

kellyjsromance:

And that’s how that works. Enjoy shopping at Wal-mart.

FUCKING THIS.

(Source: kellyjacobsbooks)

liberationfrequency:

Whenever I hear someone refer to the President of the United States as “The Leader Of The Free World“…

(via brat-grrrl)

"When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion - when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed."

Ayn Rand (via ummagumma-)

Here, Rand posits that anything but unfettered capitalism is doomed because of the internal contradictions in other systems. Hilariously enough, her concepts uniquely apply to the “free-trade” version of Class Hierarchies. Let’s take a look at this idea, condition by condition. 

First, “When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion.” Remember what a job is. It’s a decision to sell your “labor power”, or time, in order to be earn a living wage. But, Rand along with other free-market gurus ignore that managerial-labor relations start not with labor entering into a contract, but instead with an empty stomach. Human beings, who are thrust into a system in which they work or perish have no choice but to sell their labor power. That’s compulsion. The only way to avoid this is to have a welfare state in which individuals may freely choose whether or not they wish to work. 

“when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing”. I’m not sure where to begin. How about the endless examples of patent law, or general “intellectual property” rights. Or, even better Credit Rating Agencies and the entire financial sector. The idea that our productive forces are largely dictated by financial entities which are truly self-serving and, in actuality produce nothing seems to perfectly fit Rand critique. 

“when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors”. You mean like the product corporate campaign finance in all of its forms? Or, as i mentioned in a previous post Credit Rating Agencies overrating private debt, while undervaluing public debt? Or the numerous examples of corporate bribery, especially in the developing world?

“when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you.” There are multitudes of examples of failed businessmen who have still accumulated personal fortunes, despite their destitute performance. Corporate and Capital failure most often hurts working people, not those who don’t “work”, but “organize” instead. 

“when you see corruption being rewarded”. Corruption is a means toward a reward for an individual - by definition it’s about skewing the laws which govern environments toward your interests. This is overwhelmingly true in capitalism, in which corporate embezzlement, collusion, patronage and general cronyism emerge the more markets are deregulated. If a profit incentive is held on the highest pedestal, it’s only natural to expect that goal to be pursued even beyond ethical limits. 

“and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice”. The numerous examples of companies like Monsanto silencing small farmers, or other giants like Enron and British Petroleum finding an incentive to hide secrets from stockholders and pension fund investors alike demonstrates the propensity for capital to engage in this sort of behavior.

“you may know that your society is doomed”. I can only hope you’re right.

Rand speaks with broad generalizations, forgetting that the devil, capitalism, is in her details. 

(via splinterinyoureye)

Yup, it’s really hard not to read this and apply basically every flaw to capitalism.

(via rykemasters)

(via rykemasters)

This is an essay I wrote to be voted on and published at my community college. I refer to it a lot, so I decided to publish it on my Wordpress. It is relatively long and it was written when I was still very new to communism and anarchism so be considerate of that when reading it. My thought has come very far since I wrote this and it is merely a glimpse into the past of my revolutionary history and should be read as such. 

Enjoy and please give me any feedback you have =)

Dictionary Thumpers

More often than I care to reminisce, people refute an actual anarchist’s definition of anarchism with the dictionary definition of the word. They will tell you:

Anarchy (n.):

a. absence of government.

b. a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority

c. a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

Etymologically, the letter “a” is correct. But then, what anarchism is is not as simple as the definition of some word. Because we can do absolutely the same thing to any other form of government - simplify it down to its definition.

Democracy (n.):

a. government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

b. a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Government by the people? Is this so? Who among you can claim to have any kind of direct hand in government? The only thing we may directly elect are representatives (because, contrary to popular belief, the president is NOT elected by the people. The presidential candidate who has the minority of the popular vote very often wins) and even then, you have no control over his or her actions once in power.

This is not even to say about the history of this disgusting word. We have seen this word used many times, all with different definitions of who exactly “the people” are. There have been times when certain groups were not even considered people at all. And in more recent history, particularly in the middle east, Haiti, and some minor Asian countries, America has spread “democracy” through a gun and placed leaders in power without real elections. Chomsky tells us of these events countless times in his books.

Then there is this business of people exercising powers directly which is not even legitimate enough to address. But through representatives, OK, we see this in America. Elected representatives make decisions, including who will be president. We can elect these representatives directly but once they win the election, who controls or limits their power? That responsibility is reserved to… well, THEM! This kind of activity causes the electoral process to become a popularity contest and is not based in fact, promise, or issues. All a representative has to do is convince enough people that he is not who he actually is and get more votes. Once that is accomplished, he is home free.

This MINORITY group of individuals rule the country unquestioned with an iron fist. In cooperation with their business investments to keep them and their immediate constituency rich and prosperous using the common “people”, as it were, as their pawns; mere tools of their success.

To get back to anarchism then, we can address this definition with the same logic. If in the definition of “democracy” the words hardly mean what they appear, we can address what THE ANARCHISTS think of the words in their definition.

If we were to reassess the meaning of the word “government” I would not have many quarrels with this albeit oversimplified definition of a very complex political structure. For really, what is government? Merriam-Webster says:

the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control

"Authoritative direction or control". If the simple definition of anarchy says I am opposed to this, then I say "AYE!" with every ounce of fervor I can muster.
The problem with defining a political ideology based on its etymology is the simple fact that language cannot possibly hope to describe ideas perfectly and accurately. If this were the case, there would not be volumes upon volumes of text describing the ideologies of the world.
"Language is simply not up to the task," my tri-lingual French teacher used to tell us.

If you want to understand ANY political ideology, talk to a person who classifies them-self as one. You cannot rely on such incomplete doctrines as the dictionary to hope to encompass all of political thought. Read, have conversations, and keep an open mind.
~ Kisses and Anarchy