+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 79

Thread: Anarchy Is For Everyone

  1. Link to Post #1
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    22nd January 2013
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    764
    Thanks
    4,724
    Thanked 3,847 times in 715 posts

    Default Anarchy Is For Everyone



    an·ar·chy
    ˈanərkē/


    Quote the nonexistence of government. The theory became popular in the 80s punk/hardcore scene, but for the most part has since faded away. Mostly seen today when posers write it on their books and bags and anything else they can find to write on. its rare to find a true anarchist anymore, but they're out there, and when they talk about their beliefs, no one listens to them because they're "crazy" and the world "needs" structure. Contrary to most belief, Anarchy does not HAVE to be chaos (although it usually is)

    True freedom, equality and peace can ONLY exist in a perfect and untainted state of anarchy. [from urban dictionary]
    Quote Introduction

    Anarchism is the political philosophy which rejects (and supports the elimination of ) compulsory government or compulsory rule, and holds that society can (and should) be organized without a coercive state. This may, or may not, involve the rejection of any authority at all. Anarchists believe that government is both harmful and unnecessary.

    Philosophical Anarchism contends that the State lacks moral legitimacy, that there is no individual obligation or duty to obey the State and, conversely, that the State has no right to command individuals. However, it does not actively advocate revolution to eliminate the State, but calls for a gradual change to free the individual from the oppressive laws and social constraints of the modern state.

    The term "anarchy" is derived from the Greek "anarchos" ("without ruler"). Up until the 19th Century, the term was generally used in a positive manner, to describe a coherent political belief, and it was only later that it became used pejoratively (to mean something akin to chaos).

    Anarchism is related to Libertarianism (which advocates maximizing individual rights and free will, and minimizing the role of the state) and, in particular, to Libertarian Socialism (which advocates a worker-oriented system that attempts to maximize the liberty of individuals and minimize the concentration of power or authority), with which it is all but synonymous.

    There is no single defining position that all Anarchists hold, beyond their rejection of compulsory government or "the State", and proponents may support anything from extreme individualism (the political outlook that stresses human independence and the importance of individual self-reliance and liberty) to complete collectivism (the political outlook that stresses human interdependence and the importance of the collective). Thus, there are any number of diverse schools of thought within Anarchism, some of which are summarized in the Types of Anarchism section below.

    History of Anarchism

    Humans lived for thousands of years in societies without government, according to Anarcho-Primitivists. It was only after the rise of hierarchical societies that anarchist ideas were formulated as a critical response to, and rejection of, coercive political institutions.

    The "Tao Te Ching", written around the 6th Century B.C. by Lao Tzu, encouraged many Chinese Taoists to live an anarchistic lifestyle. In ancient Greece, Diogenes of Sinope (a Cynic) and Zeno of Citium (a Stoic) argued (in opposition to Plato) that reason should replace authority in guiding human affairs, and envisaged a free community without government.

    There were a variety of anarchistic religious and political movements in Europe during the Middle Ages and later, including the Brothers and Sisters of the Free Spirit, the Klompdraggers, the Hussites, the Adamites, the early Anabaptists, the Diggers and the Levellers, but none had much widespread influence.

    Modern Anarchism arose from the secular thought of the Enlightenment, particularly Jean-Jacques Rousseau's arguments for the moral centrality of freedom.

    Even though he did not used the term himself, the English political philosopher William Godwin (1756 - 1836) developed what many consider the first expression of modern anarchist thought and formulated the political and economic conceptions of Anarchism. Godwin opposed revolutionary action and saw a minimal state as a present "necessary evil", which would become increasingly irrelevant and powerless through a gradual process of reform and enlightenment. He also advocated extreme individualism, proposing that all cooperation in labour be eliminated.

    Edmund Burke, in his "A Vindication of Natural Society" of 1756, advocated the abolition of government, although he later claimed it was intended as a satirical work. Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826) spoke of his respect for a society with no government, such as he saw in many Native American tribes, and Henry David Thoreau was another influential American with Anarchist sympathies.

    The Frenchman Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809 - 1865) was the first self-described Anarchist, and has been called the founder of modern anarchist theory (as has Godwin). Proudhon proposed what he called spontaneous order, whereby organization (sufficient to maintain order and guarantee all liberties) emerges without central authority, and the institutions of the police, monarchy, officialdom, organized religion, taxation, etc, disappear or are reduced to a minimum. He published his "What is Property?", in which his famous accusation "Property is theft" appears, in 1840.

    Later in the 19th Century (sometimes called Anarchism's classical period), Anarchist Communist theorists, like the Russians Mikhail Bakunin (1814 - 1876) and Peter Kropotkin (1842 - 1921), built on the Marxist critique of Capitalism and synthesized it with their own critique of the state, emphasizing the importance of a communal perspective to maintain individual liberty in a social context.

    Around this time, there was also a spate of acts of violence in the name of Anarchism, such as sabotage and assassinations, as well as industrial actions and strikes, intended to further spark revolution, but these actions were regarded by many Anarchists as counter-productive or ineffective.

    In the 20th Century, Anarchists were actively involved in the labour and feminist movements, in uprisings and revolutions such as the Russian Revolution of 1917, and later in the fight against Fascism. Working Anarchist communes have been established at Cristiana in Denmark, Catalonia in Spain, and the Free Territory in Ukraine, among others.

    Types of Anarchism

    Philosophical Anarchism is the view that the State lacks moral legitimacy, that there is no individual obligation or duty to obey the State and, conversely, that the State has no right to command individuals. However, it does not actively advocate revolution to eliminate the State, but calls for a gradual change to free the individual from the oppressive laws and social constraints of the modern state.

    Philosophical Anarchists may accept the existence of a minimal state as an unfortunate "necessary evil" (usually considered temporary), but argue that citizens do not have a moral obligation to obey the state when its laws conflict with individual autonomy. The English philosopher William Godwin (1756 - 1836) is usually credited with founding Philosophical Anarchism, and is often called the father of modern Anarchism.

    Individualist Anarchism (or Libertarian Anarchism) holds that individual conscience and the pursuit of self-interest should not be constrained by any collective body or public authority, and that the imposition of democracy leads to oppression of the individual by the majority. It has been argued that Individualist Anarchism tends to emphasise negative liberty (i.e. opposition to state or social control over the individual), whereas Social Anarchism (see below) emphasises positive liberty (i.e. the achievement of potential and fulfilment of human needs by society). Individualist Anarchism, also unlike Social Anarchism, is supportive of property being held privately, often in a market economy, although some hold that any surplus should be given away.

    William Godwin (1756 - 1836) advocated an extreme form of Individualist Anarchy, proposing that all types of cooperation in labor should be eliminated. One of the earliest and best-known proponents of Individualist Anarchism,

    Max Stirner (1806 - 1856), proposed an extreme egoist form of it, which supports the individual doing exactly what he pleases, taking no notice of God, state or moral rules.

    The American version of Individualist Anarchism, such as that of Thoreau, Josiah Warren (1798 - 1874) and Benjamin Tucker (1854 - 1939), has a strong emphasis on non-aggression, individual sovereignty and the labour theory of value (that the values of commodities are related to the labour needed to produce them). While all supported private property and free markets (causing some to consider them pro-Capitalism), some, like Tucker, called themselves Socialist, and were vociferously anti-Capitalist.
    Within Individualist Anarchism there are different forms including the following:
    Mutualism is an anarchist school of thought, largely associated with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809 - 1865), that envisioned a society where each person might possess a means of production either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labour (the labour theory of value). Mutualists support markets and private property in the product of labour only insofar as they ensure the workers right to the full product of their labour. Some commentators suggest that Mutualists are more concerned with association, and so are situated somewhere between Individualist and Social or Collectivist Anarchism.

    Free-Market Anarchism (or Anarcho-Capitalism) is a more extreme form of Individualist Anarchism that attempts to reconcile Anarchism with Capitalism, and it forms part of the broader movement known as Libertarianism. It advocates the elimination of the state; the provision of law enforcement, courts, national defense, and all other security services by voluntarily-funded competitors in a free market rather than through compulsory taxation; the complete deregulation of non-intrusive personal and economic activities; and a self-regulated market.

    The Belgian-French economist Gustave de Molinari (1819 - 1912) is considered the single most important contributor to the theory, although the American Murray Rothbard (1926 - 1995) is perhaps its most outspoken proponent, and in general its popularity was centred in the United States.

    Agorism is an extreme form of Anarcho-Capitalism and Libertarianism, developed by Samuel Edward Konkin III (1947 - 2004) and building on the ideas of Murray Rothbard (1926 - 1995), which takes as its ultimate goal a society in which all relations between people are voluntary exchanges, a completely free market in an underground or "counter economy" in which the State is redundant.

    Social Anarchism is a broad category of Anarchism independent of, and in many ways opposed to, Individualist Anarchism. It emphasizes social equality, community, mutual aid and the communitarian and cooperative aspects of anarchist theory and practice. At its heart is the idea of Libertarian Socialism, which aims to create a society without political, economic or social hierarchies. There are several sub-categories within Social Anarchism:

    Collectivist Anarchism (or Anarcho-Collectivism) is the revolutionary doctrine, spearheaded by the Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin (1814 - 1876), that advocated the complete abolition of the state and private ownership of the means of production, which would instead be owned collectively and controlled and managed by the producers themselves. The revolution was to be initiated by a small cohesive elite group through acts of violence which would inspire the mass of workers to revolt and forcibly collectivize the means of production, and the workers would then be paid based of the amount of time they contributed to production. This wage system, and the idea of collective ownership (as opposed to a complete rejection of ownership) are the major differences between Collectivist Anarchism and Communist Anarchism (see below). Bakunin was vociferous in his opposition to Communism and state Socialism, which he regarded as fundamentally authoritarian.

    Communist Anarchism (or Anarcho-Communism) proposes a free society composed of a number of self-governing communes, with direct democracy or consensus democracy (as opposed to representational democracy) as the political organizational form, and related to other communes through federation. The means of production would be collectively used (as opposed to collectively owned) so that, rather than receiving payment for work done, there would be free access to the resources and surplus of the commune.
    Anarcho-Communism stresses egalitarianism (that all people should be treated as equals from birth) and the abolition of social hierarchy and class distinctions that arise from unequal wealth distribution, as well as the abolition of Capitalism and money.

    Early Anarchist Communist currents appeared during the English Civil War (1642 - 1651) and the French Revolution (1788 - 1799). Peter Kropotkin (1842 - 1921) and Emma Goldman (1869 - 1940) are perhaps the best known Anarcho-Communists, although the Frenchman Joseph Déjacque (1821 - 1864) was an earlier example.

    Anarcho-Syndicalism is a early 20th Century form of Anarchism, heavily focused on the labour movement. It posits radical trade unions as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing Capitalism and the State with a new society which would be democratically self-managed by the workers. It seeks to abolish the wage system and private ownership of the means of production, which they believe lead to class divisions. Anarcho-Syndicalists often subscribe to Communist or Collectivist Anarchism (see above), and the movement is more of a workplace organizational structure than an economic system in and of itself.

    The German Rudolf Rocker (1873 - 1958) is considered the leading Anarcho-Syndicalist theorist, and his 1938 pamphlet "Anarchosyndicalism" was particularly influential.
    There are any number of other, more specific, forms of Anarchism including:

    Religious Anarchism: a set of anarchist ideologies that are inspired by the teachings of organized religions, including Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism and Neopaganism.
    Anarcho-Pacifism: a form of Anarchism that emphasizes the complete rejection of violence in any form and for any purpose.

    Anarcha-Feminism: a synthesis of radical Feminism and Anarchism, which specifically opposes patriarchy as a manifestation of a hierarchical society.
    Green Anarchism: a form of Anarchism that emphasizes the protection of the environment.

    Anarcho-Primitivism: a form of Green Anarchism that believes civilization and technology inevitably lead to inequality and must be abolished.

    Eco-Anarchism: another subset of Green Anarchism that argues that society is best organized into small eco-villages of no more than 150 people.

    Autarchism: a philosophy which holds that each person rules himself, and no other, and rejects compulsory government and supports "private capitalism".

    Insurrectionary Anarchism: a revolutionary theory within the Anarchist movement, which advocates direct action, violent or otherwise, and informal organization.

    National Anarchism: a movement which attempts to reconcile Anarchism with nationalism.

    Analytical Anarchism: a form that uses the methods of Analytical Philosophy to clarify or defend anarchist theory.

    Epistemological Anarchism: an epistemological theory, advanced by the Austrian philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend (1924 - 1994), which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge.

    Anarchism Without Adjectives: a movement which emphasizes harmony between various anarchist factions and attempts to unite them around their shared anti-authoritarian beliefs.
    http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_anarchism.html

  2. Link to Post #2
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    68
    Posts
    9,067
    Thanks
    10,013
    Thanked 56,431 times in 8,339 posts

    Default Re: Anarchy Is For Everyone

    In all of that, the words " community " and " family " don't appear once.
    ..................................................my first language is TYPO..............................................

  3. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Post:

    Bob (11th December 2013), dianna (12th December 2013), DNA (12th December 2013), giovonni (13th December 2013), GreenGuy (11th December 2013), panopticon (12th December 2013), rgray222 (12th December 2013), ulli (24th January 2014), Zanshin (12th December 2013)

  4. Link to Post #3
    Germany Avalon Member christian's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th February 2011
    Location
    Berlin
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,268
    Thanks
    15,595
    Thanked 23,191 times in 2,965 posts

    Default Re: Anarchy Is For Everyone

    Quote Posted by norman (here)
    In all of that, the words " community " and " family " don't appear once.

    In all of that, nowhere do you find anything against community or family, nothing that prohibits these things.

    There's been a good article on Activist Post recently, called Global Resistance and Rising Anarchism - The New Politics of the 21st Century, where the author did use the word 'community'!

    "Yet, what does this all mean? Why does it even matter? This global resistance is extremely important as it reveals to the elites that their façade of democracy and consumerism is falling rapidly apart in the face of lagging economies, high unemployment rates, and a political class that is more concerned with its own personal needs rather than that of the people who they have charge over. It shows the people that they can and must fight back against the current political, social, and economic systems if they are to survive, that they can create new communities and new institutions that don’t rely on the current systems of power and are organized horizontally rather than hierarchically."

  5. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to christian For This Post:

    DeDukshyn (11th December 2013), dianna (11th December 2013), DNA (12th December 2013), giovonni (13th December 2013), norman (11th December 2013), panopticon (12th December 2013), risveglio (11th December 2013), william r sanford72 (12th December 2013), Zanshin (12th December 2013)

  6. Link to Post #4
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    68
    Posts
    9,067
    Thanks
    10,013
    Thanked 56,431 times in 8,339 posts

    Default Re: Anarchy Is For Everyone

    Quote Posted by christian (here)
    Quote Posted by norman (here)
    In all of that, the words " community " and " family " don't appear once.

    In all of that, nowhere do you find anything against community or family, nothing that prohibits these things.

    There's been a good article on Activist Post recently, called Global Resistance and Rising Anarchism - The New Politics of the 21st Century, where the author did use the word 'community'!

    "Yet, what does this all mean? Why does it even matter? This global resistance is extremely important as it reveals to the elites that their façade of democracy and consumerism is falling rapidly apart in the face of lagging economies, high unemployment rates, and a political class that is more concerned with its own personal needs rather than that of the people who they have charge over. It shows the people that they can and must fight back against the current political, social, and economic systems if they are to survive, that they can create new communities and new institutions that don’t rely on the current systems of power and are organized horizontally rather than hierarchically."

    Firstly, I think the elites were well aware the model had a sunset coming. The 'resistance' has been multi-culturally softened up for decades and finally diluted to beyond Homeopathic obscurity in a technological form of Anarchy.

    I think about the numbers quite regularly, and how they matter. So far, I've not seen a critical count that was worth calling a recount over. The ball park scales of the numbers are still depressingly easy to glance at and understand the problem is huge.

    It's no less depressing, in the mid term, to detect that prolonged dire poverty has a slightly less techno-anrchistic effect and slightly more of a group building effect.

    Personally, right now, in 2013-14, I wouldn't put energy into broadcasting an idea of Anarchy at all. There's more than enough Anarchy already, but it's not "our" Anarchy, it's an imposed Anarchy via our very dysfunctional relationship with modern technology - that from the beginning, we adopted by consumer grazing it as if we found it lying on the ground looking like packets of sweets having been dropped on the planet by Aliens ( There's a whole other post in that ).

    An antidote to bring us back down off the Trip we've been on is what I'd like to see. Anarchy, really won't help do that, right now.
    ..................................................my first language is TYPO..............................................

  7. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Post:

    dianna (12th December 2013), DNA (12th December 2013), giovonni (13th December 2013), Miller (12th December 2013), Milneman (11th December 2013), ulli (24th January 2014), william r sanford72 (12th December 2013), Zanshin (12th December 2013)

  8. Link to Post #5
    Deactivated
    Join Date
    1st May 2011
    Posts
    1,363
    Thanks
    1,909
    Thanked 4,498 times in 1,175 posts

    Default Re: Anarchy Is For Everyone

    Philosophical Anarchism contends that the State lacks moral legitimacy, that there is no individual obligation or duty to obey the State and, conversely, that the State has no right to command individuals. However, it does not actively advocate revolution to eliminate the State, but calls for a gradual change to free the individual from the oppressive laws and social constraints of the modern state.

    Ok I can buy that. But what if you abstract that to any authority....oh oh.

    1. Who determines moral legitimacy of any principle?

    2. Anarchy seems to indicate that there is a sense of moral legitimacy in every human being. Am I correct here?

    3. If I am correct that every individual seems to have a sense of what moral legitimacy is, can you explain how an anarchist explains that everyone has the same sense of moral legitimacy?

    4. If, for example, we say that this sense of moral legitimacy is a result of natural selection, what purpose from a purely random process does moral belief have? If you believe it is totally random, then no matter what you believe, moral belief, or any belief, has any significance in terms of random selection. You can't even legitimately believe in random selection.

    5. If you believe that moral legitimacy isn't a result of natural selection, again...why do we all seem to have the same sense of morally legitimate ideas? If you say we've learned them from our parents, who taught our parents? If you say society, where did society learn them from? If you say aliens, where did the aliens learn them from?

    6. And finally...what is the organizing principle behind all anarchistic belief? Does not an organizing principle of anarchy not seem to be radically counter-intuitive?

    Just askin. Love the post!

  9. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Milneman For This Post:

    christian (11th December 2013), DeDukshyn (12th December 2013), dianna (11th December 2013), giovonni (13th December 2013), panopticon (12th December 2013), seko (12th December 2013), TargeT (12th December 2013), ulli (24th January 2014), william r sanford72 (12th December 2013), Zanshin (12th December 2013)

  10. Link to Post #6
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Language
    English
    Age
    50
    Posts
    9,394
    Thanks
    29,778
    Thanked 45,466 times in 8,541 posts

    Default Re: Anarchy Is For Everyone

    I'm good to go for responsible anarchy. I actually see this as an inevitability. We like to all say and think humans are "equal" -- but until there is anarchy (hopefully responsible anarchy) - there will be no equality among humans.

    I am sick of having been a sheep, I am sick of seeing everyone and hearing a ba-ahahahah in my head. As long as we have any form of "hierarchy of perceived value" (aka formal rigid government or religion (a form of government)) there will never be equality. Pretending so is to lie to ourselves to make the truth hurt less.

    All that said, the human heart needs a little more seasong en mass perhaps, before I would want to risk anarchy - en mass. But it certainly couldn't be worse that the way things are headed right now. My 2 cents
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  11. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    christian (11th December 2013), dianna (11th December 2013), giovonni (13th December 2013), mosquito (12th December 2013), Muzz (12th December 2013), RMorgan (12th December 2013), sandy (12th December 2013), seko (12th December 2013), TargeT (12th December 2013), ulli (24th January 2014), william r sanford72 (12th December 2013), Wind (12th December 2013), Zanshin (12th December 2013)

  12. Link to Post #7
    Germany Avalon Member christian's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th February 2011
    Location
    Berlin
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,268
    Thanks
    15,595
    Thanked 23,191 times in 2,965 posts

    Default Re: Anarchy Is For Everyone

    Quote Posted by norman (here)
    Firstly, I think the elites were well aware the model had a sunset coming. The 'resistance' has been multi-culturally softened up for decades and finally diluted to beyond Homeopathic obscurity in a technological form of Anarchy.

    [...]

    Personally, right now, in 2013-14, I wouldn't put energy into broadcasting an idea of Anarchy at all. There's more than enough Anarchy already, but it's not "our" Anarchy, it's an imposed Anarchy via our very dysfunctional relationship with modern technology - that from the beginning, we adopted by consumer grazing it as if we found it lying on the ground looking like packets of sweets having been dropped on the planet by Aliens ( There's a whole other post in that ).

    The elites were aware, so they did their best to make us as weak and disorganized as possible. Not a place to start Anarchy from. But the changes comes fluently, the empowerment movement and the rejection of the old structures go hand in hand. Many people who are intuitively 'anarchists' wouldn't even bother thinking about that word. I don't think it's necessary to push this word, just the general idea of "my body and the fruits of my labor are mine, you or any government have no right over that" and "the individual must be empowered."

    I think what's been imposed on humanity is disempowerment and manipulation, I wouldn't call that Anarchy.


    Quote Posted by Milneman (here)
    what is the organizing principle behind all anarchistic belief?

    Everybody is free to mind his own business, then people organize themselves freely in a very efficient and flexible way. But people have to build this up themselves, there is no short-cut. You can't "declare" Anarchy when people are not ready for it. "Declaring" Anarchy would mean "do what you want from now," so if people then say "we want rulers," then that was it with Anarchy.

    The moral law in Anarchy boils down to "do not interfere with somebody's free self-determination." Hence, when someone interferes with you, you may stop him, that would be moral. That's what people came up with, it's not God-given, it's just the sentiment of Anarchists, I think.

  13. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to christian For This Post:

    DeDukshyn (12th December 2013), dianna (11th December 2013), Eram (12th December 2013), Muzz (12th December 2013), panopticon (12th December 2013), risveglio (12th December 2013), TargeT (12th December 2013), ulli (24th January 2014), william r sanford72 (12th December 2013), Wind (12th December 2013), Zanshin (12th December 2013)

  14. Link to Post #8
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Language
    English
    Age
    50
    Posts
    9,394
    Thanks
    29,778
    Thanked 45,466 times in 8,541 posts

    Default Re: Anarchy Is For Everyone

    Great questions!

    Here's my take for fun: I'll start with two because it rather includes 1)

    2)I believe there is a sense of moral legitimacy in all. Whether that is respected or not is another thing.

    3)I think the diversity of humans is why the current control system are failing - they force us into moulds that are artificial, for the elite's own gain. Allowing the diversity of humans to shine will be anarchy's strength. In some there may be a pre-formed notion that if a person is allowed to think on their own - they will be morally bankrupt without exception - nothing could be further from the truth in reality -- we are programmed with this notion to keep the current control structures in place via this fear; we all know that we are controlled by being implanted with a fear we have not even experienced in reality, but will react to. Control is simple when you know the mechanisms.

    4) I don't believe that a sense of moral legitimacy is determined by natural selection. There are very obviously many, many factors at work. This said number 4 isn't relevant for my response.

    5) Foremost: Natural instinct. Like how a new mother cat just knows how to love and care for it's offspring.

    6) Freedom for all. Equality for all. (explained a bit better two posts previous)


    Hope that was at least entertaining if nothing else!


    Quote Posted by Milneman (here)
    Philosophical Anarchism contends that the State lacks moral legitimacy, that there is no individual obligation or duty to obey the State and, conversely, that the State has no right to command individuals. However, it does not actively advocate revolution to eliminate the State, but calls for a gradual change to free the individual from the oppressive laws and social constraints of the modern state.

    Ok I can buy that. But what if you abstract that to any authority....oh oh.

    1. Who determines moral legitimacy of any principle?

    2. Anarchy seems to indicate that there is a sense of moral legitimacy in every human being. Am I correct here?

    3. If I am correct that every individual seems to have a sense of what moral legitimacy is, can you explain how an anarchist explains that everyone has the same sense of moral legitimacy?

    4. If, for example, we say that this sense of moral legitimacy is a result of natural selection, what purpose from a purely random process does moral belief have? If you believe it is totally random, then no matter what you believe, moral belief, or any belief, has any significance in terms of random selection. You can't even legitimately believe in random selection.

    5. If you believe that moral legitimacy isn't a result of natural selection, again...why do we all seem to have the same sense of morally legitimate ideas? If you say we've learned them from our parents, who taught our parents? If you say society, where did society learn them from? If you say aliens, where did the aliens learn them from?

    6. And finally...what is the organizing principle behind all anarchistic belief? Does not an organizing principle of anarchy not seem to be radically counter-intuitive?

    Just askin. Love the post!
    Last edited by DeDukshyn; 12th December 2013 at 00:38.
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  15. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    christian (12th December 2013), dianna (12th December 2013), Milneman (12th December 2013), panopticon (12th December 2013), william r sanford72 (12th December 2013), Wind (12th December 2013), Zanshin (12th December 2013)

  16. Link to Post #9
    Australia Avalon Member panopticon's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    2,591
    Thanks
    8,262
    Thanked 8,008 times in 2,305 posts

    Default Re: Anarchy Is For Everyone

    Anarchism, in all its varied flavours, is about decentralisation, cooperation and empowerment.

    When a society is structured in a decentralised way then it is more difficult for it to be controlled by those who are so disposed.

    Central to Anarchism is the encouragement/education of people to be active members of their community/society.

    It is about empowering people, families and communities to be more self-reliant and not reliant on structural agents to provision goods, service etc to those individuals/families/communities.

    Beyond this the various perspectives on Anarchism come into play and that is a discussion that would take years to deconstruct and analyse.

    I personally think that Bookchin's Libertarian Municipalism (see here and here) is an interesting approach for transition away from a representative democratic model but others disagree with me and that's fine.

    The key things to remember is that Anarchism is about the empowerment of individuals and communities, the decentralisation of power leading to a lessening in the ability for control to be exerted and, in general though not exclusively, cooperation being used as opposed to competition (see Mutualism as an example, though it is not representative of all Anarchist philosophical positions).

    Remember Acton: Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    -- Pan
    "What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence.
    The only consequence is what we do."

  17. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to panopticon For This Post:

    christian (12th December 2013), DeDukshyn (12th December 2013), dianna (12th December 2013), Muzz (12th December 2013), sandy (12th December 2013), TargeT (12th December 2013), ulli (24th January 2014), william r sanford72 (12th December 2013), Wind (12th December 2013), Zanshin (12th December 2013)

  18. Link to Post #10
    Australia Avalon Member Zanshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    20th November 2013
    Age
    53
    Posts
    288
    Thanks
    4,668
    Thanked 1,522 times in 268 posts

    Default Re: Anarchy Is For Everyone

    I have heard it described that on a spectrum of forms of government the extreme left would be the abode of: military democracy (socialism by stealth), communism, fascism, nazism and any other state controlled centralization of power.
    Conversely the extreme right would be reserved for anarchy being the lack of need for governance, as all people governed themselves.
    Somewhere along that spectrum would be the Republic which still exists although the lights are on but no one is home.

    Source: This quote by Theodore Roosevelt in his address at the opening of the Jamestown Exposition on April 26, 1907, as reported in Presidential addresses and state papers (1910).

    Complete Sentence: It behooves us to remember that men can never escape being governed. Either they must govern themselves or they must submit to being governed by others. If from lawlessness or fickleness, from folly or self-indulgence, they refuse to govern themselves, then most assuredly in the end they will have to be governed from the outside. They can prevent the need of government from without only by showing that they possess the power of government from within. A sovereign cannot make excuses for his failures; a sovereign must accept the responsibility for the exercise of the power that inheres in him; and where, as is true in our Republic, the people are sovereign, then the people must show a sober understanding and a sane and steadfast purpose if they are to preserve that orderly liberty upon which as a foundation every republic must rest.

  19. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Zanshin For This Post:

    christian (12th December 2013), DeDukshyn (12th December 2013), dianna (12th December 2013), DNA (12th December 2013), panopticon (12th December 2013), ulli (24th January 2014), william r sanford72 (12th December 2013), Wind (12th December 2013)

  20. Link to Post #11
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    12th April 2012
    Location
    east coast suburban sprawl
    Posts
    2,896
    Thanks
    11,666
    Thanked 16,349 times in 2,716 posts

    Default Re: Anarchy Is For Everyone

    Successful anarchy presupposes the ability to take responsibility of nearly all involved. Tall order until at least a generation or two after we stop getting programmed from birth.

    I dream of a reality that we can get there though...and like Walter says: if you will it dude, it is no dream

  21. Link to Post #12
    Australia Avalon Member panopticon's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    2,591
    Thanks
    8,262
    Thanked 8,008 times in 2,305 posts

    Default Re: Anarchy Is For Everyone

    Quote Posted by Milneman (here)

    Ok I can buy that. But what if you abstract that to any authority....oh oh.

    1. Who determines moral legitimacy of any principle?

    2. Anarchy seems to indicate that there is a sense of moral legitimacy in every human being. Am I correct here?

    3. If I am correct that every individual seems to have a sense of what moral legitimacy is, can you explain how an anarchist explains that everyone has the same sense of moral legitimacy?

    4. If, for example, we say that this sense of moral legitimacy is a result of natural selection, what purpose from a purely random process does moral belief have? If you believe it is totally random, then no matter what you believe, moral belief, or any belief, has any significance in terms of random selection. You can't even legitimately believe in random selection.

    5. If you believe that moral legitimacy isn't a result of natural selection, again...why do we all seem to have the same sense of morally legitimate ideas? If you say we've learned them from our parents, who taught our parents? If you say society, where did society learn them from? If you say aliens, where did the aliens learn them from?

    6. And finally...what is the organizing principle behind all anarchistic belief? Does not an organizing principle of anarchy not seem to be radically counter-intuitive?
    Interesting questions that could be applied to any system of societal construction.

    Where does moral legitimacy originate and how does it propagate throughout society is the essence of your questions as I read them.

    I think the way 'moral legitimacy' is defined in the OP is to say that individuals of a society convey legitimacy to the structural actors working on and through them and that the individuals also believe that these structural actors make use of appropriate levels of power/control in their governing. That's the essence of 'moral legitimacy' from a political science perspective as I understand it (which is how it was used in the OP quote).

    From my perspective the understanding individuals have of the various structural actors moral legitimacy is part of the discursive dance of social norms that constantly evolve and are constructed then deconstructed, formulated and then challenged. There may be some areas that as individuals we agree on but others that are subjective and reliant on the cultural, social, political and philosophical positions of the individual and the society/culture in which they are either members of or come from.

    -- Pan
    "What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence.
    The only consequence is what we do."

  22. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to panopticon For This Post:

    christian (12th December 2013), DeDukshyn (12th December 2013), dianna (12th December 2013), william r sanford72 (12th December 2013), Zanshin (12th December 2013)

  23. Link to Post #13
    Australia Avalon Member panopticon's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    2,591
    Thanks
    8,262
    Thanked 8,008 times in 2,305 posts

    Default Re: Anarchy Is For Everyone

    Quote Posted by norman (here)
    In all of that, the words " community " and " family " don't appear once.
    Quote Posted by dianna (here)
    Social Anarchism is a broad category of Anarchism independent of, and in many ways opposed to, Individualist Anarchism. It emphasizes social equality, community, mutual aid and the communitarian and cooperative aspects of anarchist theory and practice. At its heart is the idea of Libertarian Socialism, which aims to create a society without political, economic or social hierarchies.
    The term 'Family' did not appear in the quoted material though it is usually viewed as a fundamental part of most anarchist philosophies. There are some who advocate a shared responsibility for the young and elderly (which is also part of most societies anyway) though the extent to which this shared responsibility is perceived varies.

    -- Pan
    "What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence.
    The only consequence is what we do."

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to panopticon For This Post:

    christian (12th December 2013), dianna (12th December 2013), Zanshin (12th December 2013)

  25. Link to Post #14
    Netherlands Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    16th January 2012
    Age
    52
    Posts
    2,688
    Thanks
    7,860
    Thanked 12,625 times in 2,401 posts

    Default Re: Anarchy Is For Everyone

    Quote We like to all say and think humans are "equal"
    I think this a good example of how things can be misinterpreted, imo were are equals as in having bellybuttons, but not equal as in all alike. What we ALL have in COMMON are our DIFFERENCES. No need to agree with me on this of course.

    This is hilarious.

    [QUOTE=dianna;770721]

  26. Link to Post #15
    Netherlands Avalon Member Eram's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th March 2012
    Age
    50
    Posts
    1,479
    Thanks
    65,666
    Thanked 11,038 times in 1,437 posts

    Default Re: Anarchy Is For Everyone

    Hmm... I don't know about this one dianna.

    I think anarchy leads to barbarism and stupidity.
    Just look at all places in society were anarchy rules, like between companies and nations.

    If there is no one to lead and educate...
    How will people come to wisdom?

    If not by some sort of structure, then by what?

    An infant, thrown into the wild, raised by wolves will grow up without a developed intellect and other tools that one needs to live in harmony.

    Quote The individualist will to power leads to division. The universalist will to unity shows the value
    and viability of our individualism.
    Last edited by Eram; 12th December 2013 at 11:25.
    hylozoic tenet: “Consciousness sleeps in the stone, dreams in the plant, awakens in the animal, and becomes self-conscious in man.”

  27. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Eram For This Post:

    dianna (12th December 2013), DNA (12th December 2013), giovonni (13th December 2013), panopticon (12th December 2013), ulli (24th January 2014)

  28. Link to Post #16
    Australia Avalon Member panopticon's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    2,591
    Thanks
    8,262
    Thanked 8,008 times in 2,305 posts

    Default Re: Anarchy Is For Everyone

    Quote Posted by Eram (here)
    Hmm... I don't know about this one dianna.

    I think anarchy leads to barbarism and stupidity.
    Just look at all places in society were anarchy rules, like between companies and nations.

    If there is no one to lead and educate...
    How will people come to wisdom?

    If not by some sort of structure, then by what?

    An infant, thrown into the wild, raised by wolves will grow up without a developed intellect and other tools that one needs to live in harmony.

    Quote The individualist will to power leads to division. The universalist will to unity shows the value
    and viability of our individualism.
    This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Anarchy means in this context.

    Throw out what you have been taught by the MSM "Anarchy Bad it means people blow stuff up, kill at will, rape & pillage! Anarchists will kill you while you sleep and take everything you own! Anarchy bad". That's the rhetoric they've been using for over a century!

    What it means in the context that I refer to is you get together with your friends and arrange who is going to drive who to the restaurant for dinner. That's anarchy. There's probably no-one telling you the required schedule, there's probably no-one saying "do this or else" (if there is then get out now!). You are just chatting with friends and decide to go out to dinner and someone says "I'll drive". That's anarchy. Nothing scary, nothing terrifying. Just normal human relations.

    The removal of hierarchically structured layers doesn't mean "without obligations". That's another misunderstanding. What it means is there is no pyramidal system of governance.

    When was the last time you chatted with your countries political leaders?

    The removal of a vertical hierarchy does not mean no organisation, unless you are an individualist anarchist in which case it does hehehe, rather it refers to people being active participants in the governing of their community. There may, or may not, be direct consultation on everything (depending on how the social organisation is formed) but transparency on all activities is usually viewed as essential.

    Personally I'm a social anarchist and I view that municipal councils and trade organisations (anarcho-syndicalism minus the revolution) are a possible means of transitioning into a less hierarchical society. In this way there is still a council but it is only one layer away from the community and directly responsible to the members of that community.

    Essentially there's a flavour of Anarchism for everyone.

    Have a look see and find one that works for you.

    -- Pan
    "What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence.
    The only consequence is what we do."

  29. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to panopticon For This Post:

    christian (12th December 2013), Conchis (12th December 2013), DeDukshyn (12th December 2013), dianna (12th December 2013), Eram (12th December 2013), Zanshin (12th December 2013)

  30. Link to Post #17
    United States Avalon Member DNA's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th May 2011
    Location
    S.W. Missouri
    Language
    English
    Age
    51
    Posts
    4,620
    Thanks
    34,234
    Thanked 27,947 times in 4,333 posts

    Default Re: Anarchy Is For Everyone

    Robert Anton Wilson
    I'm a libertarian because I don't trust the people as much as anarchists do. I want to see government limited as much as possible; I would like to see it reduced back to where it was in Jefferson's time, or even smaller. But I would not like to see it abolished.

  31. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to DNA For This Post:

    christian (12th December 2013), dianna (12th December 2013), Eram (12th December 2013), giovonni (13th December 2013), panopticon (12th December 2013), Zanshin (12th December 2013)

  32. Link to Post #18
    Netherlands Avalon Member Eram's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th March 2012
    Age
    50
    Posts
    1,479
    Thanks
    65,666
    Thanked 11,038 times in 1,437 posts

    Default Re: Anarchy Is For Everyone

    Basically,

    The problem with any system of government is that it depends on the level of consciousness for it to work properly.
    If the overall consciousness of humanity is high enough, any system will do.
    If the consciousness is low, no system will work as it is supposed to.

    Quote Posted by panopticon (here)
    What it means in the context that I refer to is you get together with your friends and arrange who is going to drive who to the restaurant for dinner. That's anarchy. There's probably no-one telling you the required schedule, there's probably no-one saying "do this or else" (if there is then get out now!). You are just chatting with friends and decide to go out to dinner and someone says "I'll drive". That's anarchy. Nothing scary, nothing terrifying. Just normal human relations.
    Hi Pan,

    Do you think that if all governments would retire tomorrow that this would result in the picture that you painted in your quote, even if all people would take this anarchy model as a point of exit?
    Is the consciousness level of humanity high enough to get this to work?

    I'm an optimist by nature, but not to that extend
    Last edited by Eram; 12th December 2013 at 14:42.
    hylozoic tenet: “Consciousness sleeps in the stone, dreams in the plant, awakens in the animal, and becomes self-conscious in man.”

  33. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Eram For This Post:

    christian (12th December 2013), dianna (12th December 2013), norman (12th December 2013), panopticon (12th December 2013)

  34. Link to Post #19
    Australia Avalon Member panopticon's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    2,591
    Thanks
    8,262
    Thanked 8,008 times in 2,305 posts

    Default Re: Anarchy Is For Everyone

    Quote Posted by Eram (here)
    Basically,

    The problem with any system of government is that it depends on the level of consciousness for it to work properly.
    If the overall consciousness of humanity is high enough, any system will do.
    If the consciousness is low, no system of government will work as it is supposed to.

    Quote Posted by panopticon (here)
    What it means in the context that I refer to is you get together with your friends and arrange who is going to drive who to the restaurant for dinner. That's anarchy. There's probably no-one telling you the required schedule, there's probably no-one saying "do this or else" (if there is then get out now!). You are just chatting with friends and decide to go out to dinner and someone says "I'll drive". That's anarchy. Nothing scary, nothing terrifying. Just normal human relations.
    Hi Pan,

    Do you think that if all governments would retire tomorrow that this would result in the picture that you painted in your quote, even if all people would take this anarchy model as a point of exit?
    Is the consciousness level of humanity high enough to get this to work?

    I'm an optimist by nature, but not to that extend
    Um, yes.

    I don't wait for a letter from the government for permission to go to a restaurant.
    Nor do I receive written instructions from the department of infrastructure on how to get there...

    Do you?

    All joking aside, that's why I advocate a transitional process (as I said in my previous post) that involves a devolution of power away from a centralised structure in the vertical and a relocalisation of power within the horizontal.

    In this way the money/control/power reinforcing mechanism of the Nation-State/transnational corporations and their 'legitimate coercion' can be circumvented through a more direct/participatory democratic model.

    Others have differing ideas on how to transition and that's fine.

    I just think that the easiest solution is based within grass-root activism as a means of regaining control/power from those who have a vested interest in retaining it. The grass-root activism I refer to is based within the principles of community organisation found in Permaculture (see here, here and here, refer post here).

    -- Pan
    Last edited by panopticon; 12th December 2013 at 14:49.
    "What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence.
    The only consequence is what we do."

  35. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to panopticon For This Post:

    christian (12th December 2013), dianna (12th December 2013), Eram (12th December 2013), Milneman (12th December 2013)

  36. Link to Post #20
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    22nd January 2013
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    764
    Thanks
    4,724
    Thanked 3,847 times in 715 posts

    Default Re: Anarchy Is For Everyone

    I like to think about the "everyman's" personal daily acts of anarchy ... which includes defining the concept of anarchy for ourselves ...


    http://thecloud.crimethinc.com/pdfs/...r_lives_lo.pdf


    Quote We dropped out of school, got divorced, broke with our families and ourselves and everything we’d known.

    We quit our jobs, violated our leases, threw all our furniture out on the sidewalk, and hit the road.

    We sat on the swings of children’s playgrounds until our toes were frostbitten, admiring the moon- light on the dewy grass, writing poetry on the wind for each other.

    We went to bed early and lay awake until well past dawn recounting all the awful things we’d done to oth- ers and they to us—and laughing, blessing and absolving each other and this crazy cosmos.

    We stole into museums showing reruns of old Guy Debord films to write fight foul and faster, my friend, the old world is behind you on the backs of theater seats.
    The scent of gasoline still fresh on our hands, we watched the new sun rise, and spoke in hushed voic- es about what we should do next, thrilling in the budding conscious- ness of our own limitless power.

    We used stolen calling card num- bers to talk our teenage lovers through phone sex from telephones in the lobbies of police stations.

    We broke into the private pools and saunas of the rich to enjoy them as their owners never had.

    We slipped into the offices where our browbeaten friends shuffled papers for petty despots, to draft anti-imperialist manifestos on their computers—or just sleep un- der their desks. They were shocked that morning they finally walked in on us, half-naked, brushing our teeth at the water cooler.

    We lived through harrowing, ex- hilarating moments when we did things we had always thought impossible, spitting in the face of all our apprehensions to kiss unap- proachable beauties, drop banners from the tops of national monu- ments, drop out of colleges . . . and then gritted our teeth, expecting the world to end—but it didn’t!

    We stood or knelt in emptying concert halls, on rooftops under lightning storms, on the dead grass of graveyards, and swore with tears in our eyes never to go back again.

    We sat at desks in high school de- tention rooms, against the worn brick of Greyhound bus stations, on disposable synthetic sheets in the emergency treatment wards of unsympathetic hospitals, on the hard benches of penitentiary dining halls, and swore the same thing through clenched teeth, but with no less tenderness.
    We communicated with each other through initials carved into boarding school desks, designs spray-painted through stencils onto alley walls, holes kicked in corporate windows televised on the five o’clock news, letters posted with counterfeit stamps or carried across oceans in friends’ packs, secret instructions coded into anonymous emails, clandes- tine meetings in coffee shops, love poetry carved into the planks of prison bunks.

    We sheltered illegal immigrants, political refugees, fugitives from justice, and adolescent runaways in our modest homes and beds, as they too sheltered us.
    We improvised recipes to bake each other cookies, cakes, break- fasts in bed, weekly free meals in the park, great feasts celebrating our courage and kinship so we might taste their sweetness on our very tongues.

    We entrusted each other with our hearts and appetites, together composing symphonies of caresses and pleasure, making love a verb in a language of exaltation.

    We wreaked havoc upon their gender norms and ethnic stereotypes and cultural expectations, show- ing with our bodies and our rela- tionships and our desires just how arbitrary their laws of nature were.

    We wrote our own music and performed it for each other, so when we hummed to ourselves we could celebrate our companions’ creativity rather than repeat the radio’s dull drone.

    In borrowed attic rooms, we tended ailing foreign lovers and struggled to write the lines that could ignite the fires dormant in the multitudes around us.

    In the last moment before dawn, flashlights tight in our shaking hands, we dismantled power boxes on the houses of fascists who were to host rallies the following day.

    We fought those fascists tooth, nail, and knife in the streets, when no one else would even confront them in print.

    We planted gardens in the abandoned lots of ghettos, hitchhiked across continents in record time, tossed pies in the faces of kings and bankers.



    We played saxophones together in the darkness of echoing caves in West Virginia.
    In Paris, armed with cobblestones and parasols, we held the gendarmes at bay for nights on end, until we could almost taste the new world coming through the tear gas.

    We fought our way through their lines to the opera house and took it over, and held discussions there twenty-four hours a day as to what that world could be.

    In Chicago, we created an under- ground network to provide illegal abortions in safe conditions and a supportive atmosphere, when the religious fanatics would have preferred us to die in shame and tears down dark alleys.

    In New York we held hands and massaged each other’s shoulders as our enemies closed in to arrest us.

    In Quebec we tore up the high- way and pounded out primordial rhythms on the traffic signs with the fragments, and the sound was vaster and more beautiful than any song ever played in a concert hall.

    In Santiago, we robbed banks to fund papers of transgressive poetry.

    In Siberia, we plotted impossible escapes—and carried them out, circumnavigating the globe with forged papers and borrowed money to return to the arms of our friends.

    In Montevideo, in the squatted township, we built huts from plywood and plastic sheeting, pirated electricity from nearby power lines, and conferred with our neighbors as to how we could contribute to our new community.

    In San Diego, when they jailed us for speaking our minds, we invited our friends and filled their prisons until they had to change their policy.

    In Oregon, we climbed trees, and lived in them for months to pro- tect the forests we had hiked and camped in as children.

    In Mexico, when we met hopping freight trains, we traded stories about working with the Zapatistas in Chiapas, about floods witnessed from boxcars passing through Texas, about our grand- parents who fought in the Mexi- can revolution.

    We fought in that revolution, and the Spanish civil war, and the French resistance, and even the Russian revolution—though not for the Bolsheviks or the Czar.

    Sleepless and weather-beaten, we crossed the Ukraine on horseback to deliver news of the conflicts that offered us another chance to fight for our freedom.

    Tense but untrembling, we smug- gled posters, books, firearms, fu- gitives, ourselves across borders from Canada to Pakistan.

    We lied with clean consciences to homicide detectives in Reno, to military police in Santos, to angry grandparents in Oslo.

    We told the truth to each other, even truths no one had ever dared tell before.
    When we couldn’t overthrow gov- ernments, we raised new generations who would taste the sweet adrenaline of barricades and wheatpaste, who would carry on our quixotic quest when we fell or fled before the ruthless onslaught of the servile and craven.

    When we could overthrow governments, we did.

    We stood, one after the other, decade after decade, century af- ter century, behind the witness stand, and shouted so the deafest self-satisfied upright citizen at the back of the courtroom could hear it:“...andifIcoulddoitallover again, I would!”

    As the sun rose after winter parties in unheated squats, we gathered up great sacks of broken glass and washed stacks of dishes in freezing water, while our critics, sequestered in penthouses with maid service, demanded to know who would take out the garbage in our so-called utopia.

    When the good intentions of liberals and reformists broke down in bureaucracy, we collected food from the trash to feed the hungry, broke into condemned buildings and transformed them into palaces fit for pauper kings and bandit queens, held the sick and dying tight in our loving arms.

    We fell in love in the wreckage, shouted out songs in the uproar, danced joyfully in
    the heaviest shackles they could forge; we smuggled our stories through the gauntlets of silence, starvation, and subjugation, to bring them back to life again and again as bombs and beating hearts; we built castles in the sky from the ruins of hell on earth.


    Accepting no constraints from without, we countenanced none within ourselves, either, and found that the world opened before us like the petals of a rose.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts