Anarchy cures the kakistocracy made by authoritarians.

[undergroundpanther]

A kak·is·toc·ra·cy
Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens.
Anarchy is anti-kakistocracy..anti authoritarian,anti fascist. It ia NOT the same thing as lawlessness.There is a BIG difference..Read on...if you want to understand that difference.

When the word "anarchy" is mentioned, most of us envision mayhem in the streets; societal collapse; roving bands of bikers marauding the citizenry and no government to protect us. We have been conditioned to perceive anarchy this way. Such a scenario is among the definitions of anarchy: "Absence of government; state of society where there is no law or supreme power; lawlessness or political disorder."
Those who hold the reins of political power prefer that we think this way. If we think that the absence of government will result in lawless mayhem, they stay empowered. So the corporate, government, media collective frequently reinforces the programming—life without them would be terrifying.

But like most things in the inverted reality we live in, it’s not exactly true.
Read more.....
http://proliberty.com/observer/20060301.htm

Kohlberg theorized that there are six stages of moral development, with Stage One being the lowest, most basic level of moral development, and Stage Six being the highest. He also developed the idea of cognitive dissonance, whereby people operating at different levels of moral development would find communication nearly impossible.

In other words, these people were operating from completely different paradigms -- speaking different moral languages, and would not be able to bridge that gap without considerable effort.

What does this have to do with anarchism? I think it has a great deal to do with it.

When you look at the stages of moral development, what becomes apparent is that the lower stages are more authoritarian, whereas the highest stage is the most libertarian. While much attention has been paid to Kohlberg's theories, I think that inner biases of researchers have led them to overlook that, for some operating at the highest stage of moral development (Stage Six), government can only be viewed as an evil -- an affront to their moral reasoning. The history of the 20th century backs this view.Kohlberg later sought to apply his theories in alternative education, whereby methods of teaching could be used to develop moral reasoning. His theories, naturally, are controversial, as is anything that challenges antiquated notions of right and wrong.
Read more...
http://a4a.mahost.org/moral.html

[corruptmewithpower]

1. I looked up anarchy some time ago some of the websites claiming to

represent the anarchist point of view had such an extensive list of specifications or rules about what is or is not anarchy, I'm certain any real anarchist wouldn't be bothered to read them all. Anyhow, if anarchy is not being pushed around by stupid thugs or control freak bureaucrats, I'm all for it.

[undergroundpanther]

4. Some anarchists

got lost in thier own heads.They wouldn't know anarchy if it bit them in the ass. However there are plenty of genuine anarchists out there,running free stores,helping the homeless,and grassroots peer run organizations that DO get it.

like these folks
Food
http://www.foodnotbombs.net/secondindex.html
Shelter
http://www.davidsheen.com/firstearth/film.htm
Free Stores
http://www.supernaturale.com/articles.html?id=222
My fave Bookstore
http://www.redemmas.org/

[corruptmewithpower]

11. Thanks for the good news.

I like to see folks taking the initiative to mitigate the troubles they see. God bless them.

[el_bryanto]

2. Is anarchism and libertarianism the same?

Doesn't government, authoritian or not, exist to solve problems that individuals cannot solve by themselves.

Bryant

[undergroundpanther]

3. Government

Is force.

As long as groups of people are so large and time so managed so they have no time for emotional growth or learning skills they seek to learn to enrich themselves and their communities or even connect with each other, as individuals feel powerless and are separated from the working of real power they will think they need a government..

Libertarians are NOT anarchists.Libertarians are capitalist anarchist wannabes they do not stand for anything ethical really,they see everyone as an island. Libertarians do not think helping your community is essential to peaceful co -existing and mutual benefits shared are what helps people survive.Anarchists realize we are not all individual islands,Anarchists acknowledge humanity needs each other and cooperation skills to survive.Libertarians deny this.

[el_bryanto]

6. I'm not sure if that's viable in the short term.

It sounds a bit like saying the solution to the world's problems is everybody committing themselves to Christ. Well, maybe, but it doesn't seem likely.

It also sounds like we would need to abandon both the problems and the benefits of a global economy.

Bryant

[undergroundpanther]

7. I agree it isn't a short term solution

And we do not have to be de-modernized however to be an anarchist culture,just more aware and empathetic to each other and recognize we all are related in some way and sharing a planet.

One thing that would help is NOT rewarding sociopathic and abusive behavior.
Another more controversial one is doing something to recognize change,seperate or eliminate sociopathy,authoritarians and toxic narcissists from the population.

Check this out..
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E6DB1E38F930A25757C0A9629C8B63

http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-news/Prey-not-hard-wired-to-fear-predators-5451-1/

To test reactions of animals living without their traditional predators, Berger played recordings of wolves and tigers and chronicled their reactions. As expected, in the absence of predators, the elk, moose, bison and caribou did not show the kind of vigilance, clustering behavior and flight observed in the same species living with wolves, bears or tigers.

Then if that is so,
We need to learn to recognize the human predators among us ASAP.
http://www.cix.co.uk/~klockstone/spath.htm
And we have to learn from the past,push them out of our lives and social structures or attack them to force them out or wipe them out.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/Columbus_PeoplesHx.html

We have to become aware of the signature behaviors of of predatory people (no consience)and take measures against them,to isolate them or destroy them . We have to become predators of the predatory.If we are to ever survive and not repeat this cycle of civilizations rising, falling and the destruction that psychopaths as tyrants cause again and again.


Jane M. Murphy describes the Inuit concept of kunlangeta, which refers to a person whose "mind knows what to do but does not do it."

Murphy writes that in northwest Alaska, kunlangeta "might be applied to a man who, for example, repeatedly lies and cheats and steals things and does not go hunting, and, when the other men are out of the village, takes sexual advantage of many women." The Inuits tacitly assume that kunlangeta is irremediable. And so, according to Murphy, the traditional Inuit approach to such a man was to insist that he go hunting, and then, in the absence of witnesses, push him off the edge of the ice.
http://www.ranprieur.com/readings/americanpsycho.html

[el_bryanto]

12. So we have to wipe out or isolate human predators by preying on them

Hmmmmmmm.

Have you ever heard of the law of unintended consequences?

Bryant

[readmoreoften]

5. My problem with self-avowed anarchists is that most spend more time regulating one another's habits

than building towards a movement that can end capitalism. At least in the US, the movement is stifled by people scolding one another over eating meat and not recycling, which makes it more like "hard-core liberalism" particularly in its inability to attack capitalism as system. When it does attack, it is pretty impressive on one hand--breaking windows and scaring the bejeebus out of cops--which I really respect, but on the other hand, their ability to obtain critical mass seems unlikely, since they are heavily monitored by the FBI, handed insane sentences for trivial offenses or sometimes no offense at all, which makes their legal bills astounding. Their lack of structure also leads them to being open to agent provocateurs. At the RNC, a solid 10% of the anarchist affinity groups were actually agents. The other problem is that, ironically, they act like a tiny, countercultural vanguard--despite the fact that they hate the concept.

I really like anarchists in Greece and Italy. I actually do have a lot of respect for the dedication of anarchists and I do agree that once we get rid of capitalism, we'll need to focus on insuring that bureaucratization doesn't ensue. But right now I think the answer lies in an organized socialist party. Socialists, because they have a structure and don't commit petty "crimes", have a line of defense against infiltration. Also, socialists aren't anti-structure and have little interest in "boycotts" which really only the wealthy can manage. For that reason, the socialists have made a lot of inroads into the military and returning vets--people who could "stand down" in the event of a true authoritarian assault against the people. And they also are successful in reaching out to regular working class people who aren't countercultural. If you're going to build a mass resistance in the U.S., it by definition can't be a small, hip counter-cultural group.

I also see anarchism, in its inability to address capitalism as structurally aligning with conservatism--I've seen anarchists argue that so long as we can have our free post-structuralist commune over here, I don't care if anti-authoritarian white-supremacists have their commune over there. That, in a nutshell, is a micro-version of a "state's rights" argument. It's also dependent on the total destruction of global corporations apriori. It doesn't really have a way to bring the system down, just a proscription for how to rebuild after.

That's my two cents. :shrug: But, at heart, I like anarchists believe it or not.

[undergroundpanther]

8. About nit picking anarchists..

Yeah some are nit picking nannies, sadly some anarchists are stupid that way.I blow them off. I stick my tongue out at them and say,so you wanna be the lord of the universe now? That shuts them up at least when they go nanny on me..controlling people playing as if they are not controlling really don't like their true motives exposed and ridiculed in front of others.

< At least in the US, the movement is stifled by people scolding one another over eating meat and not recycling, which makes it more like "hard-core liberalism" particularly in its inability to attack capitalism as system.>

Agree with you there,but the central principle behind anarchy gets lost in the muck,I agree,But it IS about the rejection of authoritarians,domination and psychopathy.That idea is very valuable even if some anarchists STILL do not GET IT yet.

<When it does attack, it is pretty impressive on one hand--breaking windows and scaring the bejeebus out of cops--which I really respect,>

I respect that too. I have done a few annoyingly hilarious things,in my day too.lulz..I don't bust shit up,I just annoy the living shit out of TPTB.


<but on the other hand, their ability to obtain critical mass seems unlikely, since they are heavily monitored by the FBI, handed insane sentences for trivial offenses or sometimes no offense at all, which makes their legal bills astounding.>

True but..doesn't the insane reaction against Anarchists show you which group of resistance the capitalists fear the most?

<Their lack of structure also leads them to being open to agent provocateurs. At the RNC, a solid 10% of the anarchist affinity groups were actually agents. The other problem is that, ironically, they act like a tiny, countercultural vanguard--despite the fact that they hate the concept.>

I know,and I agree with all your points,but at the same time,if more people knew the enemies against humanity are AUTHORITY ,PSYCHOPATHY,ABUSERS and PREDATION then they might more see clearly what they really want out of their lives and if they kept focused on this personality type a predator in humanity that causes so much strife they wouldn't be prone to being so manipulatable or blaming a race politic or religion or listening to authority and be more effective in limiting abusers of power rather than get caught up in theories or minor rebellions??

<I really like anarchists in Greece and Italy. I actually do have a lot of respect for the dedication of anarchists and I do agree that once we get rid of capitalism, we'll need to focus on insuring that bureaucratization doesn't ensue. But right now I think the answer lies in an organized socialist party. Socialists, because they have a structure and don't commit petty "crimes", have a line of defense against infiltration. Also, socialists aren't anti-structure and have little interest in "boycotts" which really only the wealthy can manage. For that reason, the socialists have made a lot of inroads into the military and returning vets--people who could "stand down" in the event of a true authoritarian assault against the people. And they also are successful in reaching out to regular working class people who aren't counter cultural. If you're going to build a mass resistance in the U.S., it by definition can't be a small, hip counter-cultural group.>

Well,you'd be surprised who gravitates to which sorts of groups Anarchists can relate to.
Socialists are vulnerable because of their structures as well,remember what Lyndon LaRouche did? He really fucked over part of the the socialist party and has made his own fiefdom of paranoids and of course there is the demonization of the word socialist,and the failed socialist states and the spectre of stalin, and Mao that many are conditioned to fear that socialists have to overcome..So few know the truth.Let alone dare find it themselves.

< is a micro-version of a "state's rights" argument. It's also dependent on the total destruction of global corporations apriori. It doesn't really have a way to bring the system down, just a proscription for how to rebuild after.>

Agreed that is the LIBERTARIAN bullshit some anarchists have swallowed,and at that point it ain't anarchy anymore.

<That's my two cents. :shrug: But, at heart, I like anarchists believe it or not.>

I think the Anarcho-syndicalist and socialist-anarchist movements can be a blend of the best of both.With the socialists and anarchists working together,and sharing ideas strategies etc.They potentially could be very effective if they both got their shit together.

Ever hear of anonymous? They are fighting scientology..
Interesting to say the least..
http://www.whyweprotest.net/en/

[Edweird]

9. Whatever. There is no need to 'imagine' as suggested by that ridiculous manifesto.

All you have to do is look around the world where governments have failed and people took matters into their own hands. It isn't pretty. In fact, it is usually downright hellish and unimaginably brutal. It isn't the pipe dream of people holding hands and singing. It's people doing WHATEVER they have to in order to survive one more shitty ass day.

BTW, I'd like to point out that if you dictate to others what 'anarchy' means, you are governing their behavior and therefore, by default, it isn't 'anarchy' but government.

[burythehatchet]

10. good conversation. Thanks.