|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:17 am
i got one, ''true democracy''
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:29 am
The problem is that Anarchism isn't democracy, true or otherwise. Democracy is government that rests upon the will of the majority. For the most part that is a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:41 pm
Welllllllll yes, but decisions are technically made by consensus or direct democracy. Anyway, as to the negative connotations of the word Anarchy, there are three reasons I see for why they exist. 1) The word 'anarchy' has been used for centuries in the english language to refer to chaos and disorder. Obviously this is not what the original greek word meant, but it has been used as such in english long enough that it is recognized as a valid definition by dictionaries. This naturally creates a bit of confusion as to our goals. 2) The government and media, as Famicommie was saying. We are depicted as violent bomb-throwing chaos mongers, and any time anarchists do something good, they are simply called 'activists'. People get no exposure to Anarchy as a positive force, only as a violent black bloc. 3) Hot topic. Rebellion sells. Stores like Hot Topic have made a fortune selling circle a wallets and che shirts to easily manipulated kids ("you learned to paint by numbers, but you knew it wasn't r-r-r-r-rock and rolll!") and these kids have turned peoples view of Anarchy into a more of a joke than a serious political philosophy. So what do we do? Take it back! Announce your beliefs unabashedly and when confronted, explain that the definition that your confronter has learned is an incorrect one and set them straight. I did this yesterday with a quite intelligent guy on our debate team, who's only previous exposure to Anarchy was as a condoning of disorder and violence. Some folks may be harder to convince of good intentions than others, but hey thats life. Write, draw, paint, sing, dance. Any way you want to convey a message, do it! Propaganda is a word that tends to leave a bad taste, but really propaganda has to be spread in order to expose people to our side of the story. Hand out literature, sing songs, wheatpaste posters, spray stencils, wear shirts and answer questions politely to flip one person's view at a time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:48 pm
I'm generally pretty quiet about my political ideals, seeing as most people who confronted me when I was less quiet were either to stupid to grasp what I was saying or to stubborn to listen to my side of the conversation at all. But after reading what 3lph just wrote I'm tempted to just say "******** them" and be vocal again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:26 pm
Arson Hiroha After hearing the word anarchy misunderstood over and over again, I started to wonder: What if we coined a new term for Anarchism, that didn't have all of the years of propoganda and bad pr/word misuse, one that described the true nature of what it is, yet doesn't immediately bring the long enforced vision of complete and utter chaos to mind? If we were able to to dthat, we may be able to not only get rid of years and years of misunderstanding, but even allow ourselves to gain public/political support. Any questions, comments? Any suggestions/corrections are welcome. (and anyone with a degree in Latin, lol)
:]
peace,
Trevor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:28 pm
Ignorance is Your Disease Anarchism needs to be stronger than the information war which mislabels it. Why change it when we can teach the truth. Though an alternative term might be "libertarian autonomism".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 9:11 am
Arson Hiroha Hmm, you see, my logic is, that by making a new term for the existing idea that's free of the connotations, it may be possible that we could literally undo (or correct) what's been said in the past. Teaching the truth has always been a large part of it, though it may sound simple and superficial, words themselves hold a lot of power, as many notorious dictators have always known. Because of that, it's always their method for keeping us down to secure their seats of power. For example, To see the impact the use of a symbol (such as a word, like Anarchism), take into consideration the swastika, before put into use by Hitler and Nazi Germany. Before it was forever connected with hatred and racism from use by the Third Reich, it was once religious symbology, meant to represent peace. So how could a symbol for world peace so quickly be twisted into a symbol for war, hatred, and racism? It was how it was used. Now Whenever you see it, you don't think "Oh hey, peace for all of mankind.", you think of racism, hatred and genocide. Now, for the word Anarchy and all other forms of the term, it's pretty much the same case, that a word that means a society (I use the term loosely) free of government and capital gain, and in a sense, at it's very core, thinking for yourself and being who you choose to be as a person. Since it's riginal use, it's been flipped to mean exactly what politicians and business executives try to make you believe it is: constant disorder and catastrophe. With a new word, my ambition is that we, as the people who *we* really are, could take a stand, and make a name, a new name for ourselves in the world. Though the word used may change, the words behind it will remain the same. That's my idea. i think they already named us...freedom haters, god haters, hethens, criminals, terrorists, you pic it theyve labled us with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 2:27 pm
BerettaPunk Arson Hiroha Hmm, you see, my logic is, that by making a new term for the existing idea that's free of the connotations, it may be possible that we could literally undo (or correct) what's been said in the past. Teaching the truth has always been a large part of it, though it may sound simple and superficial, words themselves hold a lot of power, as many notorious dictators have always known. Because of that, it's always their method for keeping us down to secure their seats of power. For example, To see the impact the use of a symbol (such as a word, like Anarchism), take into consideration the swastika, before put into use by Hitler and Nazi Germany. Before it was forever connected with hatred and racism from use by the Third Reich, it was once religious symbology, meant to represent peace. So how could a symbol for world peace so quickly be twisted into a symbol for war, hatred, and racism? It was how it was used. Now Whenever you see it, you don't think "Oh hey, peace for all of mankind.", you think of racism, hatred and genocide. Now, for the word Anarchy and all other forms of the term, it's pretty much the same case, that a word that means a society (I use the term loosely) free of government and capital gain, and in a sense, at it's very core, thinking for yourself and being who you choose to be as a person. Since it's riginal use, it's been flipped to mean exactly what politicians and business executives try to make you believe it is: constant disorder and catastrophe. With a new word, my ambition is that we, as the people who *we* really are, could take a stand, and make a name, a new name for ourselves in the world. Though the word used may change, the words behind it will remain the same. That's my idea. i think they already named us...freedom haters, god haters, hethens, criminals, terrorists, you pic it theyve labled us with it. True, but that isn't in any way who we are, a lot of it because of attempts to overthrow the government by our predecessors in the past. You see, before Anarchism gained the public image it has today, it was a popular political philosphy like any other, be it a lot more revolutionary. For example, try to imagine Mikhail Bakunin spraypainting an A on a wall. XD My point is, that by describing ourselves as we truly are, we can distance ourselves from over a century of radical direct- action anarchists in the 19-th to 20-th century and teenagers. Both have their merits, but I don't agree with their way of spreading their message; a big peak of it is that back in the 1900's, they actually asked you if you were an Anarchist before immigrating to the United States, and if they were, they would simply ship them off, and the people supported it as well. Mostly, it's about reputation, about instead of furthering the gap between Anarchism and the average person giving people words they can accept and bring themselves to understand. In other words, you can't spread Democracy by the barrel of a gun, as critics of the Bush family have often said. I believe there was some kind of ancient proverb, saying: "The words of the man who speaks the loudest are the most heard, but quickly forgotten ( the most heard, yet the least listened to)."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
