DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Unghettoizing Anarchism

127 posts / 0 new
Last post
tastybrain
Offline
Joined: 11-11-07
Dec 19 2007 06:51
anarcho-punk wrote:
once you begin to attempt to ORGANISE anarchy it ceases to be true or anarchy at all. the aim of anarchy, for me, is a break from traditional conservative values and to create a society in which everyone is free to act in a way which makes them happy.

In all seriousness, anarcho-punk, who was advocating bureaucracy? Organization is not the same as bureaucracy. Don't confuse the two.

anarcho-punk wrote:
I am not saying that anything "shocking" is anarchy, I am saying that for anarchy to work as a means of protest or firm anti-statist movement it needs to avoid becoming a beurocratic group whose antics are yawned away by the boeugoise. The shock is needed to stop the descent into beurocracy.

I think the bourgeois yawn (and laugh) the loudest when unorganized groups attempt to be "revolutionary". Can you give me an example of a real social movement that has accomplished anything without serious organization? The impact of organized working class groups, such as the IWW in the early 20th century, pretty much destroys anything unorganized "movements" have done.

anarcho-punk wrote:
I would also appreciate it if you did not leap to conclusions about my taste in music, as my username suggests, I prefer punk music from the early period of the late sixties and early seventies to the pretentious hate- laden prancings of Marilyn Manson. I find his music somewhat directionless and altogether aimless whereas punk reflects a political view which i find to be agreeable. Please in future keep this discussion at the elevated level that i have come to expect from this site.

Relax dude. What I was trying to point out is the fact that an emphasis on "shocking people" is as immature and juvenile as the music of Marilyn Manson. If "anarchy" is going to work then it is going to have to be adopted by the majority, and hence ceases to be "shocking". In fact, the main problem is that people are alienated from the ideas of anarchism (what I am trying to address in this thread). An emphasis on being the rebel, the minority, the feeling of being cool and special, is what is truly holding anarchism back. Too many "anarchists" adopt this label in a pathetic attempt to feel like unique individuals, and surely are threatened by the popularization of libertarian communist ideas, as this would compromise their position as an "enlightened few" who can look down contemptuously on those stupid non-anarchist sheep.

Oh by the way, I've got a video you might like wink

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8zoC_PO1pk

anarcho-punk's picture
anarcho-punk
Offline
Joined: 13-12-07
Dec 19 2007 07:58

Organisation brings with it beuracracy, it is a by-product of our overly corrupt system.

Quote:
I think the bourgeois yawn (and laugh) the loudest when unorganized groups attempt to be "revolutionary".

This is a fair point, and no i cannot think of an unorganised revolutionary group who has had any real impact in society. However I still feel that a board of anarchist removes the soul of anarchy.

Your alienation theory is a very difficult idea for me to digest, i shall need to give it time to think about this and develop a response.