starfire_xes said:

the sociopaths/psychopathic manipulators who will find a way to subvert some of the people.

---

Bigbadwooof said:

Tipote said:

I heard of some interesting examples in South America of worker coops, ill see if i can remember the names...

---

Cuba is currently trying to build an economy composed of cooperatives. From what I have heard, they are making great advances toward the sort of 'anarcho-socialism' that we are talking about.

---

BoldAsLove said:

That's a text book false dichotomy. In a complex geo political struggle, there are more possible conclusions than complete eradication of either side. You can support Palestinians in many ways.

---

Quote:

Hamas was founded in 1987,[37][38] soon after the First Intifada broke out, as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood,[3][4] which in its Gaza branch had been non-confrontational towards Israel, refrained from resistance, and was hostile to the PLO.[39] Co-founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin stated in 1987, and the Hamas Charter affirmed in 1988, that Hamas was founded to liberate Palestine, including modern-day Israel, from Israeli occupation and to establish an Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.[40][41] The group has later stated that it may accept a 10-year truce if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders and allows Palestinian refugees from 1948, as well as their descendants, to return to what is now Israel.[42][43][44][45]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

---

Quote:

While the charter is indeed laden with warlike terminology that calls for Israel's destruction, in 2010 Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal referred to the document as "a piece of history and no longer relevant". However, despite the alleged irrelevancy, Meshaal now argues that the charter's language "cannot be changed for internal reasons". Dr Ahmed Yousef, an adviser to Meshaal's deputy, Ismail Haniyeh, believes that not only have the words in the charter, written in 1988, been taken out of context, but the movement's views have also clearly moderated over time.

The charter was referenced repeatedly during the last offensive to support Israel's claims that self-defence and security were behind the launching of "Operation Protective Edge". It was used to undermine the unity government, a historic move which may end years of division between Fatah and Hamas, and was also recruited to demonstrate that Hamas is not a potential "peace partner", which fed into the derailment of the most recent attempts to broker a peace deal as well as previous attempts. The reminder that the charter calls for the destruction or the dismantling of the State of Israel crops up at every possible turn.

Furthermore, such usage infers that, in contrast, Israel is pro-peace, pro-a Palestinian state and pro non-violence. Written over a decade after the Hamas Charter, however, the 1999 Likud Party Platform reflects a different reality. It reads:

a. "The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel."

b. "Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem."

c. "The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river."

d. "The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realisation of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel... The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."

from here

---

airclay said:

Shins said:

Yes voluntary is the key.  Anarchy is fundamentally about non-agression, if you use force against another, you are claiming authority over them.

The main reason national "left-anarchy" cannot exist is because you can never get every single person to join the national co-op voluntarily. ;you would need an authoritarian government to force everyone to join whether they do it voluntarily or not.  That is not anarchy any longer.

Voluntary trade and association is the keystone of free markets and right wing economics. A market based on completely voluntary trade is the right wing extreme in economics (on a nation wide scale) 

With collectivism on a national scale, not everyone will voluntarily want to join.  National collectivism requires an authoritarian state to enforce everyone into the collective who do not join by free choice.  That is no longer anarchy.

"National Left anarchism" and "national stateless communism are complete myths, works of fiction.  They do not logically make any sense.  You cannot force everyone to join a national collective without an authoritarian state.  That is not anarchism.

---

you still haven't looked up how Rojava works yet have you? It's the kurdish state currently doing all the things you claim are fiction.

http://anarchistnews.org/content/update-regarding-newly-formed-united-liberation-forces-kobane

Quote:

Recently a group of anarcho-environmentalists in Turkey and another in Spain, as well as anarcho-environmentalists from around the world together were added to the United Liberation Forces (BOG) "Birleşik Özgürlük Güçleri" of Kobane (Rojava), forming an internationalist front of anarchist and communist combatants.

They made a call not only for anarchists of various trends from around the world, but also for libertarians, environmentalists and anti-capitalists to join the fight and support this social revolution. Each with its language and color, through self-organization and solidarity, mobilizing in rebellion.

The anarchist guerrilla pledged to continue supporting the defense of Kobane and Rojava as a whole, as well as help in the reconstruction of communal life in the newly liberated areas.

The theorist that gave rise to "Democratic Confederalism", the revolutionary proposal currently being deployed in Rojava, Murray Bookchin, was a famous environmentalist very close to anarchist ideals, who wrote about "Libertarian Municipalism".

Original article (written in Portuguese) plus additional photos can be viewed here:
http://jornalbandeirapreta.noblogs.org/?p=57

---

Let me know when you're ready to take your foot out your mouth.

---

Tipote said:

Bigbadwooof said:

Tipote said:

I heard of some interesting examples in South America of worker coops, ill see if i can remember the names...

---

Cuba is currently trying to build an economy composed of cooperatives. From what I have heard, they are making great advances toward the sort of 'anarcho-socialism' that we are talking about.

---

this is what i was thinking of...

Quote:

Argentina

In response to the economic crisis in Argentina, many Argentinian workers occupied the premises of bankrupt businesses and began to run them as worker-owned cooperatives. As of 2005, there were roughly 200 worker-owned businesses in Argentina, most of which were started in response to this crisis.[36] The documentary film The Take described this phenomenon.

According to a recent statement by the International Co-operative Alliance, cooperative businesses in Argentina employ nearly 20 million people across a number of business sectors from health care to housing to factory work and beyond. These businesses are increasing in number at a drastic rate, with over 6000 having been created in 2012 alone.[37]

---

this is it if you want to watch it..very interesting stuff

---

airclay said:

Is the FBI's definition acceptable for you?
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/november/anarchist_111610/anarchist_111610

Quote:

Anarchist extremism in the U.S. encompasses a variety of ideologies, including anti-capitalism, anti-globalism, and anti-urbanization. There’s also “green anarchy,” an element of anarchist extremism mixed with environmental extremism. The extremists are loosely organized, with no central leadership—although they occasionally demonstrate limited ability to mobilize themselves.

---

---

Bigbadwooof said:

I am still watching your video, and it is great! However,  I wish they had English subtitles. I don't speak Portuguese...

---

airclay said:

I would pay someone to follow shins w camera to his local infoshop or antifa and film him telling them they aren't anarchist and are using leftist double talk cause they don't understand what anarchism means

---

Quote:

Anarchism is not "Libertarianism." Until relatively recently, the very useful term "libertarian" was used worldwide as a synonym for "anarchist." Indeed, it was used exclusively in this sense until the 1970s when, in the United States, it was appropriated by the grossly misnamed Libertarian Party.

This party has almost nothing to do with anarchist concepts of liberty, especially the concepts of equal freedom and positive freedom—that is, access to the resources necessary to the freedom to act. (Equal freedom and positive freedom are discussed in the following section of this pamphlet.) Instead, this "Libertarian" party concerns itself exclusively with the negative freedoms, pretending that liberty exists only in the negative sense, while it simultaneously revels in the denial of equal positive freedom to the vast majority of the world's people.

These "Libertarians" not only glorify capitalism, the mechanism that denies both equal freedom and positive freedom to the vast majority, but they also wish to retain the coercive apparatus of the state while eliminating its social welfare functions—hence widening the rift between rich and poor, and increasing the freedom of the rich by diminishing that of the poor (while keeping the boot of the state firmly on their necks). Thus, in the United States, the once exceedingly useful term "libertarian" has been hijacked by egotists who are in fact enemies of liberty in the full sense of the word, and who have very little in common with anarchists.

This is what anarchism isn't.

---

Quote:

In its narrowest sense, anarchism is simply the rejection of the state, the rejection of coercive government. Under this extremely narrow definition, even such apparent absurdities as "anarcho-capitalism" and religious anarchism are possible.7
But most anarchists use the term "anarchism" in a much broader sense, defining it as the rejection of coercion and domination in all forms. So, most anarchists reject not only coercive government, but also religion and capitalism, which they see as other forms of the twin evils, domination and coercion. They reject religion because they see it as the ultimate form of domination, in which a supposedly all-powerful god hands down "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots" to its "flock." They likewise reject capitalism because it's designed to produce rich and poor and because it's designed to produce a system of domination in which some give orders and others have little choice but to take them. For similar reasons, on a personal level almost all anarchists reject sexism, racism, and homophobia—all of which produce artificial inequality, and thus domination.

To put this another way, anarchists believe in freedom in both its negative and positive senses. In this country, freedom is routinely presented only in its negative sense, that of being free from restraint. Hence most people equate freedom only with such things as freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of (or from) religion. But there's also a positive aspect of freedom, an aspect which anarchists almost alone insist on.8

---

Quote:

Free society of free individuals

Let’s unpack this a bit. The etymology of the term traces back to the Greek word “anarkhia”, which means “without rulers” or “without authority”. It stands for the absence of domination, hierarchy and power over others.

Anarchism is a process whereby authority and domination is being replaced with non-hierarchical, horizontal structures, with voluntary associations between human beings. It is a form of social organisation with a set of key principles, such as self-organisation, voluntary association, freedom, autonomy, solidarity, direct democracy, egalitarianism and mutual aid.

Based on these principles and values, anarchism rejects both a capitalist economy and a nation state that is governed by means of a representative democracy. It is a utopian project that aspires to combine the best parts of liberalism with the best parts of communism.

At its heart is a mix of the liberal emphasis on individual freedom and the communist emphasis on an equal society. I particularly like the definition of Cindy Milstein about anarchism being a “free society of free individuals”.

---