to be honest i think that the dualism of personal/soclal needs to be collapsed. the idea that individuals can gain freedom without wider emancipation seems crazy and is always going to be the pursuit of the elite. this does not mean for me that there is nothing to be gained from the pursuit of DIY in the here and now at an individual level (learning, food growing, housing). within these pursuits there are bound to be multiple opprtunities to explore the possibilities of the future and touch upon life beyond capitalism. but for this to be an end within itself is simply another bunch of consumer choices. the reality is that real sucess in these areas will always entail collective action. for me a key will be taking back the land into collective ownership and abolishing ASAP the monarchy and the land owning tribe.
The "Do It Yourself" philosophy has been the driving ideology of every revolution in history. When I use this phrase (D.I.Y) I am not referring to its common usage meaning an individual being self reliant, I am referring to the social D.I.Y in which the people are self-determined. And every call for rebellion in history has been a cry for self determination, self governance, or self management. For Example: A nation emancipating itself from colonialization proclaims "We need no colonial power governing us, we will govern ourselves." A nation overthrowing it's oppressive regime and instituting a more democratic political structure proclaims "We need no dictators, we the people will rule our own lives." An industry who's workers are fed up with working for someone else proclaim "We need no bosses, we will work for ourselves." In every instant where tyranny in any form has been challenged, the call for self-determination has been the dominant demand. If we apply D.I.Y to the revolution on all levels, we are left with the conclusion that no one can free the people but the people themselves. So no one, not a colonial power, a party (revolutionary or not), or a reformist can ever free you, freedom is something you have to claim for yourself. True freedom, that is of self determination, is usually associated with democracy. Power to the people should be parallel to the philosophy of D.I.Y. Democracy in its correct use, not a hypocritical oligarchy or mob rule, is D.I.Y applied to the organizational process. Anarchism is described as a society where democracy is found in every form of organization: the workplace, the political realm, and on a national level. And even though all of us promote self-determination on a personal level, most of us do not support the individualist-isolationist theory of total self-reliance. We believe that "All Power To the People" is freedom, and that only when it is used on every level, can we truly live in freedom. I want you to skim through our list of political parties and find just one that supports democracy on every level of society. Even the Libertarian Party believes in some form of tyranny. After all their talk of liberty, in the end they still promote a tyrannical form of industrial organization. Anyone who tries to tell you that they believe in the power of the people and support centralized authority in any way, should be discarded as reactionary instead of reformist or revolutionary. Revolution is the transfer of power from the minority elite, to the masses whom the organization being revolutionized effects. So "Libertarians" may support the transfer of political power to the people, but the control of industry remains in the hands of the elite. Marxist revolutions may have transferred political power from the imperialists to the nation, but in the end the party is all powerful. Unless the people free themselves, revolution is doomed to tyranny.
Can't say you've said anything anyone on here would disagree with, its all good standard anarchist stuff but to most people DIY means putting up shelves or relates to the crappier elements of a punk/activist subculture surely?
'Can't say you've said anything anyone on here would disagree with, its all good standard anarchist stuff but to most people DIY means putting up shelves or relates to the crappier elements of a punk/activist subculture surely?'
i hate the way DIY is always reduced to this stuff. seems to me that one of the real problems with punk is the suggestion that it appeared from nowhere and somehow has the copyrights on DIY. i honestly think this has stopped a stack of people understanding key cultural struggles of the working class. sad but true DIY was comodified by certian elements of punk and continues to be today by other, the ken livingstone machine is one of the latest. for me the understanding of DIY within the working class down through time is an essential part of hope and resistance. for examle, this may not go down that well on this sight (still have not totally sure) but this is why I think Colin Wards stuff on Arcadia; Allotments; and Cotter and Squatters, is really important.
To Makaira who was confused about my reference to national independence.... I was referring to territories being free from rule by other territories (anti-imperialism). In the context of an anarchist society, it would depend on if there were still territories in existence.
I was referring to territories being free from rule by other territories (anti-imperialism)
thats not anti imperialism, imperialism require the dominant country to recieve either markets, useful territory or resources out of the occupation.
So in fact the US relationship with brazil say, is more imperialist than UK's rule over scotland or France over the Basque country.
New clashes between locals and riot police erupt in the south Corfu town of Lefkimi over the construction of open refuse dump.
A short account of the assassination of King Umberto I of Italy in revenge for the brutal suppression of a workers' demonstration in Milan which left hundreds dead.
The "Do It Yourself" philosophy has been the driving ideology of every revolution in history. When I use this phrase (D.I.Y) I am not referring to its common usage meaning an individual being self reliant, I am referring to the social D.I.Y in which the people are self-determined. And every call for rebellion in history has been a cry for self determination, self governance, or self management. For Example: A nation emancipating itself from colonialization proclaims "We need no colonial power governing us, we will govern ourselves." A nation overthrowing it's oppressive regime and instituting a more democratic political structure proclaims "We need no dictators, we the people will rule our own lives." An industry who's workers are fed up with working for someone else proclaim "We need no bosses, we will work for ourselves." In every instant where tyranny in any form has been challenged, the call for self-determination has been the dominant demand. If we apply D.I.Y to the revolution on all levels, we are left with the conclusion that no one can free the people but the people themselves. So no one, not a colonial power, a party (revolutionary or not), or a reformist can ever free you, freedom is something you have to claim for yourself. True freedom, that is of self determination, is usually associated with democracy. Power to the people should be parallel to the philosophy of D.I.Y. Democracy in its correct use, not a hypocritical oligarchy or mob rule, is D.I.Y applied to the organizational process. Anarchism is described as a society where democracy is found in every form of organization: the workplace, the political realm, and on a national level. And even though all of us promote self-determination on a personal level, most of us do not support the individualist-isolationist theory of total self-reliance. We believe that "All Power To the People" is freedom, and that only when it is used on every level, can we truly live in freedom. I want you to skim through our list of political parties and find just one that supports democracy on every level of society. Even the Libertarian Party believes in some form of tyranny. After all their talk of liberty, in the end they still promote a tyrannical form of industrial organization. Anyone who tries to tell you that they believe in the power of the people and support centralized authority in any way, should be discarded as reactionary instead of reformist or revolutionary. Revolution is the transfer of power from the minority elite, to the masses whom the organization being revolutionized effects. So "Libertarians" may support the transfer of political power to the people, but the control of industry remains in the hands of the elite. Marxist revolutions may have transferred political power from the imperialists to the nation, but in the end the party is all powerful. Unless the people free themselves, revolution is doomed to tyranny.