Slashdot Mirror

(which is always funny, anarchists being anarchists together)

Not if you know anything about anarchism.

Late response, but what the heck..

"Is "unfreedom" a word?"

Probably not, but you know what I mean, right?

"What you argue is that they should all grow, equally. It's so a antithetical to...life, that you would have to redesign the universe from the ground up to support it."

Where did I argue that? First of all I was only trying to clarify the Anarchist's view which is not necessarily my own. Second, you seem to assume that said view implicitly contains arguments put forward by state socialists (eg communists, anarchism is also referred to as libertarian socialism).

When anarchists talk about "equality" they don't mean mathemaical, == equality. No one wants everyone to be exactly the same, not even communists. "Equality" in a political context usually refers to a more abstract notion, which is perhaps better expressed by the Dutch word "gelijkwaardigheid", which more or less translates to "equally-worthyness". In the view of most anarchists this equality should be expressed in equality (== in this case) of power. Anarchists believe an equal division of power will lead to the greatest amount of freedom for all.

The biggest gripe anarchists have with capitalism is that it puts the means of production and land into the hands of a small elite. The majority of the people will thus have to sell their labour and freedom to make money for people who don't do anything except own things.

Anarchists are thus opposed to property. They make a distinction between "property" and "personal posessions", though. People should be able to have personal posessions like combs, tvs, cars, a house. No one should own land or means of production, though. Such things should be used communally.

"Lastly, while capitalism achieves inequality (with some people rich, and some people poor), and socialism does create equality, it's not in the manner that you think. Socialism, after a run of many years, creates equality by MAKING EVERYONE POOR. The U.S.S.R (putting aside the political figures) may have been one of the most equal states to ever exist, but I doubt the people saw it as that."

First of all, you are once again referring to state socialism, which is most definetely worse than our current system of capitalism. Bakunin, an anarchist who lived around the same time as Marx, already predicted that Marx's state socialism would lead to an unworkable bureaucracy. State socialism is also called state capitalism by anarchists, because it's a lot like capitalism except the state is the only employer, which is even worse than non-state capitalism.

Anyway, if you want a more thorough explanation of anarchist opposition to capitalism go to www.anarchistfaq.org and read the section called "Why do anarchists oppose capitalism". It's a long read, but maybe you'll find it interesting. The site seems to be offline right now, but hopefully it'll be up by the time you read this.

You have RMS' intentions spot on, sir.

The difference between you and I is that I applaud and support him. The GPL is, perhaps, one of the most successful acts of corporate sabotage in human history... the IWW would be proud ;)

RMS has made revolutionaries of people who'd otherwise be... I don't know, fighting each other over stock options, or something. Free software is the T.A.Z. of the information society.

And I don't give a whit what ESR has to say about that--nor the drones who follow him down the soulless, libertarian revisionism that free software has had no significant effect beyond more efficient markets.

It's refreshing to see the the good guys winning for a change.

And as far as Kevin goes, he's had a hard time so I forgive him for it. But I am not going to give stories so these corporate bastards can figure out how to keep people out. I am totally down with the grey-hat backlash that has started - people who are connected with the hacker scene and then go work for ISS or @stake or wherever, and make money off of it. Selling out is bad enough, worse is people who were with the hacker community, start working for security companies, and maintain contact with the active hacker community on an active and "professional" basis.

I am totally down the grey-hat backlash. I see there being two classes - workers and idle heirs. Idle heirs own the majority shares of corporations, thus they control the corporations, thus they control the means of production. I think they have no right to this, and thus I as a worker hacking into a corporate computer am more justified being on there than even another worker following orders from the heir (e.g. working at the company).

I think the fact that hacking machines is a crime is as much bullshit as the fact that more black men in the US go to prison than go to college. Yes, I DO think I have the right to hack anything I want, even if isn't mine - if you look at say bond ownership in the US, about half is owned by 0.5% of the population, and 90% is owned by the poorest 90% of Americans. I could give a flying fuck about these heirs and what they own. I am for anarchy and anarchism - fuck all authority, workers control the means of production. Parasitism like profits, interest, dividends, rent at an end. Up against the wall motherfuckers, this is a stickup!

There used to be a good web page on the hacker backlash against security BS, but it shut down. Here are some links, maybe the page will pop back up. Or maybe YOU can join the movement.

Speech at H2k2

post to full disclosure

post to indymedia

This is good shit

And here are some links about other topics

Chomsky rules

Learn about anarchism

And there's lots of good books on how the working class is regularly ripped off by the man. Just remember - people like Paul Krugman are good, but light. Check out the more radical analysis as well. Workers of the world unite! No gods, no masters!

Ah, you're a deluded moron, then. Thanks for clearing it up.

L'anarchie c'est l'ordre.

Anarchy -- it's what's for dinner.

What do unruly mobs have to do with Anarchism?

Try following the link and opening your mind a little.

Here it is again.

No government == total freedom

Vote Anarchist! (Or not, as the case may be).

Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.

And in anarchism we will finally be free.

wait...

i'm not convinced that participatory democracy and progressive taxation are inherently un-anarchistic. anarchy is one of the most abused words in the media. why don't we educate ourselves

alternately apt-get install anarchism

I'm 28, and you're a troll, but I'm replying nontheless.

You're a flaming asshole who eats marshmallows for supper.

No I'm not flaming. I'm pointing out stuff that can and should be viewed in another perspective if one only cares to think for a while. What I was "flaming" about was the fact that the OP (you? I didn't really take note of who wrote it) assumed that he/she had some kind of moral right towards people with a totally different way of thinking.

I haven't had marshmallows for ages. Too much sugar. And I don't have supper, I have dinner.

So you're saying it was okay to kill 5000 people in the world trade center because morals are a relative thing?

Nope, I'm not saying that it's okay to kill 5000 people. I'm saying that the U. S. of A. is using the relatively small number of deaths in the WTC crash (and in terrorist attacks generally) as a means of expanding their economical influence in (and gain from) the middle eastern region. It's all economics. That's how countries work, and it doesn't have anything to do with moral.

There are other causes of death, some of which are directly sponsored by large industries (guns, tobacco, cars and oil), that are far more common than death by terrorist attack. The sad thing is that these other causes are all "normal" and "acceptable" due to them being part of the American way of life.

I'm also saying that the people who did the flying and they who did the planning of the WTC crash were "right". They thought they were right in just the same way as most Americans apparantly [we are told] thinks it's correct to bomb the living daylights out of Afghanistan and it's people. They would probably say, just as you are, that they had the "moral right" to do it.

Hey, I hope you get cancer. That's not wrong, because morals are all relative, and I believe that the good of the many makes it imperative that we pray to jesus, buddah, and allah that you get some horrible degenerative disease.

Did you say I was flaming? :-) Are you assuming that I am religious in any way? I'm an anarchist, I believe in my right to express myself and to think whatever thoughts I want. I don't believe in being opressed by imaginary entities.

People who do good in this world have a really strong moral compasses and understand the difference between right and wrong.

Sorry, but that is totally wrong.

People that do good doesn't need to know a thing about what's right and what's wrong for anyone. Only you can decide what's right for you.

I say to you "Grow up and join the human race".

It's a species, not a race. And I'm already part of it, thank you.

The VC doesn't have an incentive to invest in a safe and useful product, only to invest in something that is marketable fast and profitable. I.E. that isn't proved to be harmful and believed to be good in the short run. The long run isn't even known to exist to capitalism. I don't want to leave my health to people like that. You think GMOs are safe? I think they could have phenomenal possibilities. But messing with DNA before even understanding how it works is suicide. And it's starting to show off: genetic pollution, weakening effect on the immune system, ect.

And that's common good in the eyes of the gov. Which is why I am anarchist. Why are there only two alternatives to most people? Why couldn't the good of the individual and the "common good" be compatible?

www.anarchistfaq.org