Anarchism & Affirmation

Any ideal can be taken to absurd and ridiculous extremes.

I don't think anarchism is anymore (or at least it's little more) intrinsically nihilistic, or idealistic, or otherworldly than aristocracy. The reason being - nothing is perfectly aristocratic. There have always been challenges to aristocracy and authority, from protesters, rioters, criminals, revolutionaries, hermits, vagabonds, with varying degrees of success/triumph, just as there have always been challenges to democracy and liberty, and there will always be, so long as life on planet earth remains fundamentally unaltered.

Yesterday, no one would've ever dreamt representative democracy would become the dominant form of social organization, today, just as today, few would ever dream anarchism will become the dominant form of social organization, tomorrow.

I wouldn't describe myself as an anarchist per say. I have flirted with it on and off throughout my life. I equate taxation with extortion. I'd never support the taking of my life, liberty and I see as my property under any circumstances. I don't believe man has rights in any absolute sense, and I don't believe all men are equal in any absolute sense. Relatively, we're all human, and this makes us equal in a relative sense. We're all far more like one another than we are like anything else.

There will always be conflict, between individuals, races, religions, sexes, and so on. However, violence waxes and wanes, it's been waning for the previous several centuries. I'd much rather see anarchism on the rise, and thus, a decline in violence, or at least the decline of monopolized/organized violence, where only the boys in blue are permitted to kill and maim on behalf of bureaucrats and businessmen, which is what the state is, than what I see going on today - the gradual and incremental ascendance of a global aristocracy/dictatorship. I'm not sure if there's anything I'm prepared to do about it at this point in time, except debate and discuss it. If the economy continues to decline, and it almost certainly will, there may be things I'm prepared to do about it in the future, violent things.

It wouldn't take a lot to satiate me, I don't need to change the whole world. Even a small change, in whatever neck of the woods I happen to be residing in at the time, would be sufficient for me.

I'd like to dedicate this thread to the discussion of anarchism, the potential benefits and detriments, and totalitarianism within what I see as an affirmative, as opposed to a nihilistic, rosy framework, as if all is, or could ever be, sugar, spice and everything nice. I'm interested in discussing different sorts of anarchism, as well as how such sorts could be practically implemented.

Manimals only follow and flow with the mainstream, obeying the political, social status quo. These types, the majority, do not resist the mainstream. Doubt and philosophy constitutes a metaphysical resistance. Faith and religion constitutes the average, normal, mainstream. Religion has numbers, quantity over quality. Philosophy has power and focus, quality over quantity.

Doubt and philosophy represent the ability to change and overcome the status quo. Therefore, philosophy represents those who are averse to the dominant theme of the day and age. Since liberalism, democracy, and humanist egalitarianism rule and dominant today......philosophy will cater to conservatism, autocracy, anti humanism, and inequality. Should the tides change, and power flow to the opposite side, then philosophy will invert and cater to the new minority.

History fluctuates between powers and directions. When one establishment becomes powerful, then it holds ground and resists change.

This is merely physics. It's physical, natural, scientific law. It is too easy to predict. People don't change their minds randomly, whimsically, but due to specific reasons.

Societies and nations represent individuals. A large country or society can be likened to a single man, woman, boy or girl. Hobbes called this individual "Leviathan", a great, large, immense, big, powerful entity. It is the social body, the "state politics". The State, from the atheist perspective. God, from the theist perspective. Different names referring to the same concept.

In time, as always occurs existentially, a new power will rise to replace the old power. Although the methods change, the fundamental reason does not. New males arrive to supplant the old males. Liberals overcome conservatives. And become the new conservatives. A new religion rises to supplant an old religion.

This is normal and expected to historians, form a historical perspective. Observing this politically, socially, and economically, you will gain the ability to foresee trends and become better and better and predicting the next course of action, taken by people. Society is predictable, seen from an inside perspective that participates within, or seen from an outside perspective that observes and does not participate, hands off.

Yeah it's always an elite minority that leads man into freedom or serfdom.

Usually the latter.

The distinction between a 'leftist anarchist' and a 'rightist anarchist' is in the degree of difference between one's 'anarchism' originates from arrested development and scyophancy. For the right-wing anarchist, it is a spiritual arrested development; desiring to please everyone - unwilling to 'harden their hearts' and enforce structure - including on themselves when perceived as unjust. For the left-wing anarchist, it is a heart hardened too early out of desperation in an adult world - attempting to rescue the perceived egalitarianism of childhood as a way to redeem their perceived faults. With more extremist factions like 'black bloc', you find the leftist that's obsessed with redemption against what they perceive as imposing shame/humiliation ('the regime'), but thinking no further than that and regular basic-bitch life (sycophantic); if not sadomasochist.

Both naive, one demonstrating by behavior more potential than another. Not entirely without crossover; you will find degenerates in both.

"Make yourself ungovernable" is just tantrum throwing. How useless a phrase, hollow, without a context - for any to exploit. All it demonstrates is the speaker has open hostility to the governing body - and encourages chaos, anarchy, over its sustaining. Only the infantile could adopt it, use it unironically - daft enough to believe that destroying a regime doesn't only pave a path for another via force - whether capitalist/monetarily, resource, driven, or power of quantity; or both.

Here is how the 'anarchist' reveals its shallow sycophancy or retarded development. Encouraging chaos is the last means of a desperate degenerate, as a 'clearing away' for a future, as if destroying the current regime would get rid of all ills, all ailments afflicting it - and as if nature, as if a 'noble savage', would be kind. If it is not a traitor, willing sycophantic subversive for a 'coming power', then it is arrestedly developed.