12»
"Tierra y Libertad"
"El abismo no nos detiene, el agua es más bella despeñándose".
"El derecho de rebelión es sagrado".
"La rebeldía es la vida: la sumisión es la muerte".
"Vamos hacia la vida".
"Lo que el pueblo necesita para gozar de libertades es su emancipación económica, base inconmovible de la verdadera libertad.".
"El insulto, el presidio y la amenaza de muerte no pueden impedir que el utopista sueñe ... ".
"Cuando la tierra sea del pobre entonces será libre, porque dejará de ser pobre".
"Contra soberbia, humildad, suspira el fraile. Contra soberbia, ¡rebelión!, gritamos los hombres".
"El cambio de amo no es fuente de libertad ni de bienestar".
"Pueblo degradado, pueblo tiranizado".
"No soy magonista, soy anarquista. Un anarquista no tiene ídolos".
"Quiero que todo sea bello, en armonía con la Naturaleza".
"Soy anarquista, y no podría, sin remordimiento y vergüenza, recibir el dinero arrebatado al pueblo por el gobierno".
"Mi conturbado espíritu se regocija con la visión de un porvenir en que no habrá un sólo hombre que diga: Tengo hambre, en que no haya quien diga: No sé leer, en que en la Tierra no se oiga más el chirrido de cadenas y cerrojos".
"La libertad no se conquista de rodillas, sino de pie, devolviendo golpe por golpe, infringiendo herida por herida, muerte por muerte, humillación por humillación, castigo por castigo. Que corra la sangre a torrentes, ya que ella es el precio de su libertad".
"No habrá un solo mexicano que desconozca el aumento de nuestra enorme deuda extranjera."
"Solamente los anarquistas, sabrán que somos anarquistas y les aconsejaremos que no se llamen así para no asustar a los imbéciles."
"Que cada hombre y mujer que amen la libertad y el ideal anarquista, lo propague con empeño, con terquedad, sin hacer aprecio de las burlas, sin medir peligro, sin reparar en consecuencias; y manos a la obra camaradas y el porvenir será para nuestro ideal libertario."
“Yo quería hacer un hombre de cada animal humano; ellos, más prácticos, han hecho un animal de cada hombre y se han hecho ellos mismos pastores del rebaño. Sin embargo, prefiero ser un soñador que un hombre práctico.”
"La dictadura de la burguesía o del proletariado, es siempre tiranía y la libertad no puede alcanzarse por medio de la tiranía."
"¿Qué es lo que el hombre tiene que ofrecer a la gracia y al amor universal? Fue formado de tal manera que puede colocar firmemente su pie sobre la Tierra y levantar su cabeza al azul, de modo de circundar su frente con coronas de estrellas y de soles. Se le dieron las alas más poderosas con que pudiera explorar los rincones más remotos del infinito: las del pensamiento. Sin embargo, él se arrastra encadenado y azotado, llenando el espacio con sus lamentos, cuando debería de hacerlo estremecer con himnos de triunfo y alegría."
"Pero cualesquiera que sean mis sufrimientos, me complazco en haber tratado de hacer del hombre una parte de lo Hermoso.”
"Las relaciones sociales entre los hombres se han pervertido tanto, que es más fácil obrar mal que conducirse correctamente."
"Mientras el pobre se conforma con ser pobre; mientras el oprimido se conforma con ser esclavo, no hay libertad, no hay progreso. Pero cuando la discordia tienta el corazón de los humildes; cuando viene y les dice que mientras ellos sufren sus señores gozan, y que todos tenemos derecho a gozar y vivir, arden entonces las pasiones y destruyen y crean el mismo tiempo; talan y cultivan, derriban y edifican. ¡Bendita sea la discordia!"
“Ten fe en el progreso. La madre Tierra se enorgullecerá dentro de poco al ser pisada por hombres en vez de rebaños. El sol comienza a besar sus frentes en lugar de quemar sus espaldas. ¡Ánimo, hermano!”
"No queremos ricos, no queremos sacerdotes ni gobernantes; no queremos bribones que exploten las fuerzas de los trabajadores; no queremos bandidos que sostengan con ley a esos bribones, ni malvados que en nombre de cualquier religión hagan del pobre un cordero que se deje devorar de los lobos sin resistencia y sin protesta. Porque cualquiera que esté una pulgada arriba de nosotros es enemigo"
"Así viven las clases dominantes: del sufrimiento y de la muerte de las clases dominadas, y pobres y ricos, oprimidos y déspotas, en virtud de la costumbre y de las preocupaciones heredadas, consideran natural este absurdo estado de cosas"
"El derecho de rebelión es sagrado porque su ejercicio es indispensable para romper los obstáculos que se oponen al derecho de vivir. Rebeldía, grita la mariposa al romper el capullo que la aprisiona; rebeldía, grita la yema al desgarrar la recia corteza que le cierra el paso; rebeldía, grita el grano en el surco al agrietar la tierra para recibir los rayos del sol; rebeldía, grita el tierno ser humano al desgarrar las entrañas maternas; rebeldía, grita el pueblo cuando se pone de pie para aplastar a tiranos y explotadores. La rebeldía es la vida; la sumisión es la muerte."
«La ley conserva, la revolucion renueva, quien ajusta sus actos a la ley no es a lo sumo mas que un buen animal domesticado pero no un revolucionario».
Nuestra guerra social continuará, hasta última puesta de sol! Ya no tenemos que esperar a que los reformadores communistas derramen sus simpatías con la tinta inútil! No somos pajaritos esperando la madre roja para alimentarnos, somos cuervos que graznan con la gran fuerza y volando con el deseo armado! A la tierra y liberación!
Post self-deleted by Armed desire.
So open question to the Comrades...
Is violence when applied through the context of class war and propaganda of the deed valid or is all violence between individuals coercive and against the interests of Anarchists inherently?
Naradnoya Volya peoples, cool. :D very pleased for embassies with them.
While violence against unarmed people, such as women, children, pacifists etc. to ensure ideological dominance is abhorrent; the state and all of its entities are violent. They attack our lives through the market (high prices on vital necessities, such as, protein, shelter, medical care; and deforestation etc) and by brute force. The state will not stop until our environment, health and dignity are gone. Therefore, defending one's self with the aims of liberation has become a vital necessity. Yet, to force someone to defend themselves or to force someone into pacfism, is coercion. It is up to the individual to liberate themselves.
Propaganda of the deed: insurrectionary mutual aid http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/curious-george-brigade-insurrectionary-mutual-aid
Peter Gelderloos: How Nonviolence Protects the State http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state
Not sure what to think of this guy, but the article has some decent points of consideration.
I'm decidedly against violent coercion by any means, even as an implicit 'aid' for the state's monopoly on violence, any kind of coercive and positivist inspired reign of terrors ought to be nipped in the bud. It's a statist convention, its why fascists and state capitalists focus on the maximal concentration of force rather than on deconstructing the thoughtforms which lead people to believe political action undertaken by violent change is legitimate. As there is no basis in this game for nonviolence however, we are confrontational because it means nothing of real value is actually lost in the symbolic jousts for regions. It is inherently non-violent, if Black Bloc were in real life however it'd endorse a Comrade's action to take direct action against capitalists, but not in any Marxist/Blanquist attempts to overturn state in order to become solidified intensified red state which magically withers away.
Aint it the way of things after all, that after you build a house the foundation withers away, the timbers themselves which form the frame? If the house is built with such supports it cannot do with removing them, theyre a part of its structure and essence. We Anarchists are non-euclidean social architects, we don't believe in the fascism of formalism. A structure built rotten no matter how its painted will always be rotten and on borrowed time. A structure built on the same decaying precepts as the society it aims to replace is bound to follow same pattern. Let us live in tents, not houses. :D
As to why the region has anti-Communist tags:
-Communism is almost inherently identified by the masses as the only 'Marxisms' which ever developed into praxis which was Marxism Leninism and Maoism. Luxembourgism was a short strain as were the anti-authoritarian experimentations of the Paris Commune and primordial collectivist society at the tribal level in underdeveloped areas of world before colonization. Since Communism is, in spite of the contradiction of a free condition without any coercion and workers control of economy, controlled by a party which teaches to the masses in relationship of father and child, and an economy stifled by state capitalist precepts and central planning, these Communisms being the authoritarian strains. THis region is itself against those 'Communists', and against Marxist rhetoric which is at the same time deterministic (Communism is inevitable) yet completely control oriented (Communist needs x-y=z and to follow the fourth law of Lenin). We furthermore find Communism not to be 'scientific' socialism, as scientists do not throw out evidence which contradicts their expected outcome. THe hypothesis of a scientist is changed, and the hypothesis even is something that is different than what you'd expect. For example, when I was in high school, I did a science fair project on whether blue light or normal light or half light would grow the best plants. I hypothesized(in spite of knowing better, becuase I didn't want to be a person who agrees with my own hypothesis) that blue light would help it grow better. It turns out of course that normal sunlight did best, and therefore the hypothesis was shot down. Communists start with a hypothesis that resembles metaphysics instead of science, that the nature of all existence is material and yet at the same time dualistic. It is the inverse of monotheism and all theisms, in that it posits the same determinism, the same fatalism, the same two forces and ne'er the twain they meet. It falters in that the same dispondent sense of destiny, encouraged by a persecution complex, encouraged by messiahs and metaphysical figures who extort violence for a greater good, encouraged by an elite group of intellectual/true believers, who earnestly will carry out the plan, encouraged by a belief anything which stands against their circular determinations and 'logic' are tangential and irrelevant, logic only being logic when its 'class basis' is determined and whether or not it threatens Marxism-Leninism. In spite of Marx NEVER having determined there should be a Communist Party in charge of one country, and that it should be a one state revolution(everything in his and Engels work points to the contrary, global), etc. THese spots were filled in by positivists one shade left of Maximillien Robespierre and Auguste Blanqui, who determine that in order for statelessness to exist a new stronger, treasonous to question or overthrow state must be put in place. IN order for workers to have control they should have control taken from them and given in hands of educated bourgeois who rule in their stead. IN stead of egalitarianism there should be grades based on loyalty to the Party's program and not to the people. In the place of workers control of workplaces, hours, promotions, production, and business arrangements, the state should make them, collectivize all profit and determine, as a father does to his child, what he can and can't apport based on how good you've been to big brother. WE should rid the world of imperialist wars and war in general by intensifying the concentration of power and prestige on the warmakers and on armaments. WE should create a socially egalitarian existence where workers and peasants cease to be that and yet always be reminded of their pre-revolutionary class caste assignment, lest they revolt. It is a world where nothing changes, merely the flags change colors, immodest men and women with bloodlust tend to take power, and the lives of the people get further diluted and neglected in the face of this positive 'socialist' nationalism. WE are anti-communist because we are anti-fascist and anti-capitalist as well, we want new and dynamic living arrangements, in which we ask individuals, not entire societies forced to choose at gunpoint between left and right or center, but one where we are respected as individuals, free people, and the guardians of a new era and existence of true social concord and the elimination of all coercion. We don't stress out over people having differing opinions in real life, in fact, so long as their activities don't interfere immediately with ours (unlike capitalists, communists, and fascists) then they're welcome to hold those differing opinions. WE are intrinsically working towards novel concepts, landing on uncharted lands of thought and praxis, leaving the dogma of the near Catholic Communism to chart a new way.
If stalinists or Parti Ouvrier, Trot turncoat and hypocrite extraordinaire wish to trade verbal blows, come to Black Bloc. I promise I wont kick you out.
- You in The International.
I think I'll take you up on your offer.
Commence on whichever point you wish. If it were by my prompting, we'd debate the matter that Marxist Leninism is 'scientific' along with a definition of science, the scientific method in comparison to Marxist interpretation of history, etc.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-nypd-twitter-20140423-dto,0,32331.story
#myNYPD Twitter campaign boomerangs across the nation
While I would be happy to indulge that; I think the first order of business on my part would be to make my case against anarchism -- since we are both striving for the same goal, the means are the best way to proceed with this critique.
And so, it is there that I will critique. As I have said, anarchism's (or, at least, your vein of it, I presume) goal is the same as Marxism-Leninism's; that is, to create a classless, stateless society in which the means of production are owned collectively by the populace. Both also agree that revolutionary means are necessary for this. What we disagree on is the question of the state in the transition. As Comrade Lenin pointed out in State and Revolution (1917), anarchism promotes that the state not be replaced upon its destruction in the revolution; however, Lenin points out that the bourgeois will simply rebuild their state, or that an outside state can come in and either annex or create a puppet state in the area; the former is because society has not yet been rid of bourgeois influences. Thus, there must be a method of ridding society of bourgeois influences, and of creating a society in which communism can exist without interference. The method for this is the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat."
I'm quite certain you know what the DotP is, but in case there are newer comrades who have not yet encountered it (as we once all were, myself included) I will. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not a literal "dictatorship", but the contrast of the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" under which we now live; that is to say, a society in which one class is placed in political authority over another. In capitalism, it was the bourgeois in power over the proletariat; however, socialism will turn this on its head, making the proletariat the ones in power over the bourgeois.
Eventually, as the bourgeois and their remnants are assimilated into the proletariat, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat will become less and less necessary, until finally falling entirely out of existence due to there not being a bourgeois. When there are no bourgeois, there can also no longer be proletariat; thus, there can be no dictatorship of the proletariat, and the state will cease to exist, bringing a classless, stateless society.
Then speak on it...
That would be the positions of those present yes.
No. Casita may agree to that on a very nuanced level as he'll likely point out, but I disagree with 'revolution' by a vanguard or as a thing that can be determined as if the entire people within one set of borders were so of one mind and one will that they could be 'revolutionized'. There's a static intrasigence to 'Revolution' which belies its otherwise desired goal of turning society 360 degrees. Revolution would literally lead us back to where we started, if we pay attention to the word and to the eventual co-option of 'revolutions'.
We expect no transition, we expect classless society immediately. What one determines to be 'government', in most of the countries we live in to be 'voting', not voting in and of itself but the act of approving meaningless promises on paper, taking something and writing it out, the physical act. Simply because the state is a method of creating an image of the government formed of individuals and their own intrigues against each other, the State is not a bulwark but a grouping of individuals. If other individuals, namely those that form the majority were to adopt a condition of not endorsing the State/the individuals which call themselves that the power that they claim authority with, they'd be in no means to kill, jail, arrest, confront everyone. You can't overwhelm a rebellion when each member of the opposition is everyone outside of the State. Why am I so confident this can be achieved, because regardless of people's stances left/right, they can all agree to a proper viewpoint as an individual based on where their best interest lies regardless of a class origin, pointing out how things could be better without a centralizing force, just as it was in every science, means of organization, invention to now would, in tandem with actual actions aimed at liberating themselves and their conception of law, the state, liberty, etc through everyday action, not theoretical advances in clearly discernable stages(human history is never like this, its a philosopher/historian's decadence to think others think this way, time periods and their contradicting positions bleed into each other). There are no contradictions in history, no actual opposition of any two forces, its the chance happening of individual actions, not great men or great ideas, which form the substance of political history, economic interaction, and everyday life. Individuals will naturally gravitate with enough time to concepts and living arrangements which will benefit them, without the need for violent confrontation with the State as is except to defend their own individual rights to personal property. No violent overthrow of something that has no power anyways is necessary, its overkill and its a way to create resentment towards monolothic abstract arguments with faceless armies of revolutionaries changing your life as to you taking a change and working with it, experimenting with it, adopting it without coercion. The method we use as socialist matters a lot, and because your method is leading towards more confrontation by the State against the people and because the continuation of the State as this nebulous group of influential government officials and colleagues breed more amongst themselves, and the best place for them to be, the place they naturally end back up on is the new revolutionary state's government. The state has a commitment to survive, like a parasite on the people for as long as it can reproduce more parasites asexually. The new socialist state invariably ends up running the business of the country as state capitalists, centralizing profit and economic decision making to political comissars, introducing dangerous quota systems administrators are tempted to overstate production on for fear of reprisal, all create an economic system that is not worker's control of the means of production nor anything resembling it, but rather an evolved mercantilist state with its own inhouse elite and an even stronger grip on power, and a more destructive means of opposition, by making socialism look hardhanded and fascistic.
As Comrade Lenin pointed out in State and Revolution (1917), anarchism promotes that the state not be replaced upon its destruction in the revolution; however, Lenin points out that the bourgeois will simply rebuild their state, or that an outside state can come in and either annex or create a puppet state in the area; the former is because society has not yet been rid of bourgeois influences. Thus, there must be a method of ridding society of bourgeois influences, and of creating a society in which communism can exist without interference. The method for this is the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat."
I'm quite certain you know what the DotP is, but in case there are newer comrades who have not yet encountered it (as we once all were, myself included) I will. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not a literal "dictatorship", but the contrast of the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" under which we now live; that is to say, a society in which one class is placed in political authority over another. In capitalism, it was the bourgeois in power over the proletariat; however, socialism will turn this on its head, making the proletariat the ones in power over the bourgeois.
Eventually, as the bourgeois and their remnants are assimilated into the proletariat, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat will become less and less necessary, until finally falling entirely out of existence due to there not being a bourgeois. When there are no bourgeois, there can also no longer be proletariat; thus, there can be no dictatorship of the proletariat, and the state will cease to exist, bringing a classless, stateless society.[/quote]
Post self-deleted by Armed desire.
JV,
What revolutionary means are you talking about?
On violence:
The state didn't discover violence, they monopolized it. I am also against all state violence and violence that has not been monopolized by the state; such as, in places where violence are used individually to coerce a cultural norm. Nevertheless, I'm not against pacifism or self-defense against the onslaught of the state. In otherwords, it's going to take everything we got.
I enjoy talking philosophy, theory etc. But, really, things seem to be simple: don't wait for the masses or some vanguard to move or decide. If there'something wrong, try to stop it. If it can't be stopped immediately, then try to figure out a way to stop it. Imagination and discovery are more powerful than one might think. There are many forms of non-coercive organization and forms that have not been discovered, yet.
Youve been around quite a bit Armed Desire, met any mutualists? Any Stirnerist anarchists? I've met and spoken to one 'agora'ist anarchist, it was not pleasant.
Actually, in the past, most of the people that I have met weren't and aren't (if they are still around) conventional anarchist activists (haven't been to any fund raisers, other than the occasional punk show, and I didn't tour protests, if they were close then I would check them out) conventional activists tend to have their own thing. So that probably has a lot to do with the way I think. But if I were to apply an 'ist', I would say I definitely have not met any mutualists, at least ones that think some kind of workers' credit bank is the way to go. I've met people I would consider egoists/stirner etc, a-political nihilists, sedentary and nomadic primitivists, educational/propagandists (many varieties), individualists and a ton of pissed off poor people, similar to myself.
I can't stand market liberals. They open their mouths, I walk away. It's like horrible music, I mean horrible music that is planned. Not like fun horrble music. It's better to leave the show, so to speak.
Post by Baja california revolucionaria suppressed by a moderator.
Here we have the meanest, leanest crew in NS. We be freakin' awesome XD
XD
During our stay I'm going to post indigenous language sessions from YouTube. Seeing that there are 50+ dialects spoken in Mexico, I will only post one session from all the lessons I can possibly find. I encourage anyone that finds passion with one of these languages, to due further investigation.
War against ethnocide!
Zapoteco de Tlacochahuaya: www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkJ01rOiBwU
Some gameplay stuff:
It seems that North Korea has started their passive-aggressive war on anarchism by dredging up a refound of North Catalonia planting a NK flag while claiming to be anti-imperialists, shows the very familiar and hypocritical face of authoritarian intentions.
By this action, alone, shows that NK has no place in our struggles.
Vanguardist authoritarianism- can't live with it, can't live without it.
True. But we can fight and sabotage it XD
12»
Advertisement
