Anarchism

[0th0d0xypr0xy]

I consider myself politically and philosophically associated with the label anarchism, meaning 'without rulers' - as I consider anarchism presenting the only pathway in achieving democracy (demo cratus = power to the people) It is interesting to note that the hailed 'Father of anarchism' has been chided as an antisemite kook:

All directly quoted from wikipedia:

"This whole Jewish world, comprising a single exploiting sect, a kind of blood sucking people, a kind of organic destructive collective parasite, going beyond not only the frontiers of states, but of political opinion, this world is now, at least for the most part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand, and of Rothschild on the other... This may seem strange. What can there be in common between socialism and a leading bank? The point is that authoritarian socialism, Marxist communism, demands a strong centralisation of the state. And where there is centralisation of the state, there must necessarily be a central bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, speculating with the Labour of the people, will be found" ~M. Bakunin

"Marx is a Jew and is surrounded by a crowd of little, more or less intelligent, scheming, agile, speculating Jews, just as Jews are everywhere -- commercial and banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades; in short, literary brokers, just as they are financial brokers, with one foot in the bank and the other in the socialist movement, and their arses sitting upon the German press. They have grabbed hold of all newspapers, and you can imagine what a nauseating literature is the outcome of it .... Now this entire Jewish world, which constitutes an exploiting sect, a people of leeches, a voracious parasite, closely and intimately connected with another, regardless not only of frontiers but of political differences as well -- this Jewish world is today largely at the disposal of Marx or Rothschild. I am sure that, on the one hand, the Rothschilds appreciate the merits of Marx, and that on the other hand, Marx feels an instinctive inclination and a great respect for the Rothschilds. This may seem strange. What could there be in common between communism and high finance? Ho ho! The communism of Marx seeks a strong state centralization, and where this exists, there the parasitic Jewish nation -- which speculates upon the labor of people -- will always find the means for its existence .... In reality, this would be for the proletariat a barrack-regime, under which the workingmen and the workingwomen, converted into a uniform mass, would rise, fall asleep, work, and live at the beat of the drum. The privilege of ruling would be in the hands of the skilled and the learned, with a wide scope left for profitable crooked deals carried on by the Jews, who would be attracted by the enormous extension of the international speculations of the national banks" ~ M. Bakunin

It will be interesting reading your responses..

[Michael K.]

@ 0th0d0xypr0xy:

anachronism : noun ə-ˈna-krə-ˌni-zəm

1: an error in chronology; especially : a chronological misplacing of persons, events, objects, or customs in regard to each other

2: a person or a thing that is chronologically out of place; especially : one from a former age that is incongruous in the present

The thing about Bakunin is that his viewpoint belongs to a period of time that no longer exists (i.e. the mid-late nineteenth century).  Talking about "Revolution" after witnessing the ideological excesses of the twentieth century, and the dawning of the New World Order in the twenty-first, one is compelled to take off the 'rose colored glasses'.

I do agree with some of what Bakunin offered in terms of criticism, but I don't see how "anarchism" can be implemented on a grand scale and work in the long term in the presence of occult global government, nuclear weapons, nano-weapons, weather warfare and ubiquitous surveillance technology.  It's sort of like 'becoming Amish' as a solution, or choosing the life of a hermit.  They are all valid personal choices, but should one attempt to philosophically universalize them in order to 'fix the world'?  Furthermore, should we believe that such a thing is actually possible, in light of what we know about those who have tried?

Warning - Kikish material follows.  Viewers use discretion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikkun_olam

Tikkun olam (Hebrew: תיקון עולם‎) is a Hebrew phrase that means "repairing the world" (or "healing and restoring the world") which suggests humanity's shared responsibility (with the Creator) "to heal, repair and transform the world." In Judaism, the concept of tikkun olam originated in the early rabbinic period. The concept was given new meanings in the kabbalah of the medieval period and further connotations in modern Judaism...

For some Jews, the phrase tikkun olam means that Jews are not only responsible for creating a model society among themselves but also are responsible for the welfare of the society at large. This responsibility may be understood in religious, social or political terms and there are many different opinions about how religion, society, and politics interplay.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/practic ... rld_.shtml

The phrase "tikkun olam" was first used to refer to social action work in the 1950s. In subsequent decades, many other organizations and thinkers have used the term to refer to social action programs; tzedakah (charitable giving) and gemilut hasadim (acts of kindness); and progressive Jewish approaches to social issues. It eventually became re-associated with kabbalah, and thus for some with deeper theological meaning...

Tikkun olam, once associated with a mystical approach to all mitzvot, now is most often used to refer to a specific category of mitzvot involving work for the improvement of society—a usage perhaps closer to the term's classical rabbinic origins than to its longstanding mystical connotations.

The Christian alternative:

The Christian answer is to work on the individual soul's salvation through Jesus Christ and personal holiness. And to forget about saving the social and political world of men which is doomed anyway.  Individual souls must be saved for eternal life in a new creation, the good fight must be fought for reasons of personal holiness, and each person must find his own right occupation which is not an offense to God.  However, it is considered vanity to believe that one can or will save this Kike world from its own pre-ordained, evil end.

[sullivan]

The Christian alternative:

The Christian answer is to work on the individual soul's salvation through Jesus Christ and personal holiness. And to forget about saving the social and political world of men which is doomed anyway.  Individual souls must be saved for eternal life in a new creation, the good fight must be fought for reasons of personal holiness, and each person must find his own right occupation which is not an offense to God.  However, it is considered vanity to believe that one can or will save this Kike world from its own pre-ordained, evil end.

Are you suggesting that Christianity is the sort of universal solution that Anarchism isn't?

[Michael K.]

sullivan wrote:

Are you suggesting that Christianity is the sort of universal solution that Anarchism isn't?

My answer is yes, but with qualifications.  "Catholic" literally means universal. However, since it is not 'of this world', salvation through Christ and striving for individual holiness will not force a happy outcome 'on the street'.

Don't construe this to mean that the grotesque edifice that sits squarely within the world of men, which falsely and as a Judas claims to represent Jesus Christ, is a solution to anything other than the question of, 'how do I go directly to hell?'

There are no solutions from within the world, to the world.  And revolutions eat their own offspring.

Think about the stark contrast between Christ's loving self-sacrifice for the mere potential salvation of the lowly individual's soul and the meaningful personal struggle for holiness on one hand; and the radical abnegation of the role of the individual psyche and holiness in war generally and in graphic theoretical terms within National Bolshevism and other eastern despotisms/communism.

Maybe Bakunin saw the most righteous vision of Anarchism, the one that struck the best balance between the competing values of individual and mass-social.  He should be commended for his due credit, but we can't make his theories a god to pray to and hope in.  He did the best he could, but in the end the entropy of evil took over and finally dragged him and his ideas down.  

We need a living God, and there is only one.

[0th0d0xypr0xy]

Sorry to resurrect what seems to be a dead thread, but haven't you deviated from the central premise here? That being namely, political thought.


Now I am happy to accept that anarchism does seem to be inherently atheistic. Certainly that espoused from Bakunin, who famously wrote what some considered his magnus opus: "God and the State" arguing that the Christian God was a God unworthy of worship. Adding also a revised form of Voltaire's famous maxim "If God didn't exist it would be necessary to abolish him".

But as a political philosophy it seems great, Leo Tolstoy developed a sort of 'Christian anarchism' which espoused no authority except that of God. His book 'The Kingdom of Heaven is Within You', the title itself an extract from the Bible makes interesting reading.

[Michael K.]

I haven't read Tolstoy's, 'The Kingdom of Heaven is Within You', but I agree with the idea that no authority is valid if it opposes God's justice.  In this way, you could call me a "Christian Anarchist."  This philosophy is at the root of the way many people see things in post-Puritan rural New England.  In fact, Anarchism is a productive discussion in this light, IMHO.  What do you have to say about its application in today's world?

[0th0d0xypr0xy]

What do you have to say about its application in today's world?

Well, as I look around I see political parties that promise the earth yet no longer function, a voting system which presents itself to the masses as a shining display of democracy.. Occurring only every 4 years and with the introduction of electronic voting machines producing no paper trail - well I think the ludicrousness of it is slowly emerging. Furthermore, issues affecting our socioeconomic and political life ultimately starts and finishes with the central banks producing the government bonds in order for said government to spend them.. No bonds, no money, unhappy and angry people.

My thoughts on anarchy's application in today's world would be people forging relationships or even friendships whereby problems get solved without the need for the enormous bureaucratic systems of government - thereby allowing the people themselves to take hold of their own life and begin to cherish more the direct relationship they have with their community and others.

Unlike mgt23, I harbor no great nationalism as I know longer see it as desirable and something to be maintained. Whilst I accept that it serves as a primal imprint upon the human psyche to distinguish friend from possible foe, I wholeheartedly believe it to be entrenching upon people's worldview, outlook and possible horizons. Whether we like it or not we do live within a international world with transport from London to Lhasa, and personally I don't think this is inherently a bad thing - only some 200 years ago most people did not leave their visit let alone journey to a neighboring country!

I think the act of people coming together - and when I mean this I mean 3 or 5 people which over time shall only surely increase is how things will change. Sure, anonymous and Lulzsec can hack away and do arguably important work attacking NATO, UN and other powerful governmental/non-governmental organisations - it remains however that people need to be a part of this and not just an expert hacker or a few of them. Change needs to start on the ground and it begins with everyday conversation, making friends and then starting from their in planning what can be done where you are.

This is just an example. Other then that I firmly believe that change cannot occur from the ballot box, no political party is invested with ANY ability to direct change and unless the   ish banking, media and cultural marxism that it espouses is exposed, damaged or destroyed we have only ourselves and those we can confide in to bring change about. Something which I consider within the bleak labyrinthine setting we find ourselves in the absolute, pure essence of anarchism.

And with that I leave you a quote from Mikhail Bakunin:

"Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it."