Friday, 27 February 2009
Tuesday, 24 February 2009
Sunday, 22 February 2009
Saturday, 21 February 2009
Thursday, 19 February 2009
Negras tormentas agitan los aires
El bien más preciado
Alza la bandera revolucionaria
¡A las Barricadas! ¡A las Barricadas!
Black storms shake the sky
The most precious good
Raise the revolutionary flag
To the Barricades! To the Barricades!
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
"An anarchist is anyone who doesn't need a cop to tell him what to do.
Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them, so what good are they?
Being a pacifist between wars is as easy as being a vegetarian between meals."
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
just underlines the fact that he's just another leader, just another politician
we don't need politicians and we don't need government. they are just the cogs of a system that is there to opress you and make money off of you.
You poor,poor,poor Americans. If someone wants to have political power over you, don't trust them. they are just parasites. I'll leave you with a good quote by Emma Goldman:
"if voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal"
I can safely "anarcho" capitalism is not market anarchism ( it supports capitalism, capitalism cannot exist without a state and anarchists have been against capitalism for the entire 150 years that anarchism has been around ) and neither is agorism (it came out of "anarcho" capitalism and supports capitalism, so it isn't anarchism either. I don't want people to think I'm somehow being bossy and insisting people take my view of what anarchism is and isn't. it's that just I, and a lot of other anarchists, actually know what anarchism is whereas "anarcho" capitalists have used the limited and inaccurate dictionary definition of anarchism as just not having government, whereas in actual fact there are a few basic tenets that all anarchists believe in that gives each school of anarchism a basic thread that ties them together in the broader tradition of anarchist thought,). I have previously shown that rothbardians (and therefore agoreists by assosiation) actually do support a state it's just they've twisted the definitions of what a state is, so that it looks like they don't.
this looking into market anarchism may prove to be interesting and I'll write my thoughts here.
Having anarchist-without-adjectives leanings I am very tolerant of other forms of anarchism, even types I don't particulary like, such as egoist-anarchism- but if it isn't anarchism but protends to be and basically subverts it then obviously I'll have a go at it every now and again
Monday, 16 February 2009
Sunday, 8 February 2009
the authoritarian state socialists (ie Marxists,Leninists etc) dominate this term quite a lot and this brings about a fair amount of confusion in some parts. it kind of plays into the hands of anarcho-capitalists (whose philosophy is largely propped up by misunderstandings of terms) who, when a genuine anarchist correctly says "anarchism is a type of socialism"will then say "anarchism isn't a type of socialism, you need a state for that. socialism is the state owning the means of production."
This is nonsense. Socialism has never been a single ideology, it is a multiple group of schools of thought and anarchism is one of them. when an anarchist says he or she is a socialist it means that person wants the workers to own the means of production and for the distribution of wealth to be equal and fair. Now of course all anarchists are against state socialism, where (in theory) the state is comprised of workers who own the means of production and share them out with the rest of the workers/people. in other words they want a dictatorship of the proletariat. this does not work. It always becomes a dictatorship OVER the proletariat. you take a proletarian out of his work and put him in charge of a council, pretty soon he's a bourgeoisie, you are just replacing one set of coercive bureaucracies with another.
In anarchism on the other hand this does not happen because there is no illegitimate authority and no middleman. It's just the people doing it for themselves.
Another group of terms that gets dominated are the terms "market" , "free-market" and "market anarchist".
capitalists, and by extension "anarcho"-capitalists like to make out that if you are against capitalism, then you are against markets.
There are anarchists who are against markets. I think they are wrong here, but I'm willing to agree to disagree on that one.
however, you can have a market without it being capitalist. it is perfectly possible to have groups of producers trading the fruit of their labours without it being capitalist. if you had group of individuals voluntarily coming together to form a cooperative, where every individual collectively owns the means of production and make decisions by discussing it with each other and trading with other cooperatives by making deals without outside regulation, that would be a non-capitalistic way of having a market. property would of course be based on personal use (in other words Proudhon's notion of "possessions" rather then the capitalistic notion of private property which is based on robbery).
Now how about the free-market?
a free market is a market that is unregulated by the state and the particular groups that are making the deal come to their own terms fairly without government bullying.
Any market in an anarchist society would be free-market because there would be no state to pass laws or boss the cooperatives around.
how about market anarchists?
A market anarchist is simply an anarchist who advocates there being a free market in what he/she thinks of as the ideal society. That makes me a market anarchist. the reason I don't generally use that term is due to the fact "anarcho"-capitalists dominate it and too many people automatically think you are a capitalist or at least lump you in with that lot.
sure, I'm pro-free-market. But I am VERY anti- capitalist too.
since capitalism cannot, I repeat cannot exist without a state, the closest a capitalist society could come to free-market is if there were a market with minimal state interference.
Capitalism cannot exist without a state because it requires the state to protect the dishonest and vile practice of private property and to generally prop it up and maintain the inequality of wealth and therefore the crime it creates.
"anarcho"-capitalists advocate private defence agencies to fulfil the role. This is a idea they cribbed from tucker (who was a form of mutualist and always maintained was socialist). however, in a anarcho capitalist system, they would represent a monopoly of force in a certain area and would therefore be a sort of mini-state. The capitalist/landlord would be making the decisions and would therefore constitute a form of government. This means anarcho capitalists want there to be a state, albeit a set of small private police states.
One of the main problems i have with "anarcho" capitalism is that is forces anarchists to spend time argueing over terms in order to show them that they are not anarchist, when they could be talking about important issues.
do not confuse anarcho-capitalism with market anarchists. Thats what they want you to do.
Saturday, 7 February 2009
this is my emblem.
the squirrel= Independence, individuality and a lack of respect for authority and artificial borders.
the anarchy "a" as an eye= this represents my allegiance to anarchism and that I look at the world through anarchist eyes.
the colours= taken from the mutualist flag- the ochre= mutualism and the black= anarchism.
Friday, 6 February 2009
The BBC (Bolshevik broadcasting corporation) has stirred up a furore over the fact Carol Thatcher compared a black guy to a golliwog.
this politically correct nonsense is stupid. Now obviously I'm not a fan of thatcher or her vile mother Maggie, but she should be allowed free speech. Also this was in private, and not actually on air, so the public were not there to be offended. why is it in matters like these it is trendy left (as opposed to the genuine left) liberal white people who get offended by these things? I rarely see ordinary black or other "ethnic minorities "( How I loathe that term) kicking up a fuss.
these whingeing social engineers are always ready to moan when something that goes against their skewed viewpoint pops up. "ethnic minorities" are not "ethnic minorities". they are people who happen to be a different race and/or religion. stop pigeonholing and let them think for themselves. it is people like these pcliberals who stop them from being Incorporated into our society. constantly pointing their differences out turns them into outsiders. treat them as people not some hobbyhorse. I owned a golliwog as a child. never did me any harm. I don't really see them as hateful. if you think a black person looks like that, then who's the racist? not that hair-brained toff carol thatcher.
I want social,political and economic equality for everyone. black or white, male or female, gay,straight or bi. everyone. all people. dividing people along the lines of gender, race or sexuality is stupid and harmful. so is constantly pussy-footing around matters in case,gods forbid, one of your precious "minorities" might be offended. do I care? use your common sense. if this blog encourages one thing it is to think for yourself. always question the official line. always make your own mind up. don't just blindly follow the status quo.
Wednesday, 4 February 2009
The "new world order" is real and is coming. unless we do something there will be world government. you think normal governments are bad, you try a one world government police state where you are survailed 24 hours a day (we kind of are now but you know what I mean) and are even more of a slave. The idea of the world being run by one government is a horrifying one. in the current situation, if you don't like one government you can at least move somewhere with a slightly less awful government (although all governments are bad, of course).
Globalism is an awful menace and we must spread awareness and fight it.
Monday, 2 February 2009
the media should benefit and serve the community rather then a bunch of corporations who own a monopoly on the main stream mass media. it's probably the reason I prefer the non-mainstream media, because it shows alternative points of view and is interactive to a much higher level. This blog for example is completely interactive, in that anyone reading this can add a comment or question, and if it is legitimate, and polite I will answer and explain anything I say on here in further detail. would you truly get that with the mainstream media? course not. there have been rare occasions when I've had to delete a comment but there were only two occasions of that and they were both basically pieces of spam from a rothbardian feudalist who was patronising and was essentially using my blog to advertise his misguided books and site. do not use my blog to advertise your stuff. If you have a good political site/blog and I like it I may decide to add it to my link list, but only use the comments function to leave reasonable comments.