Sign in to follow this  
Harmonious Emptiness

Taoism & Anarchism

Recommended Posts

I found this excellent article on Taoism and Anarchism. I'm posting it because 1) it's excellent, relevant, and important and 2) because it was deleted from it's original source so I think it should appear here as well.

 

"Anarchy" is often thought to mean chaos, but it actually simply means "no hierarchy" or otherwise "no authority." Though Anarchism is primarily a political philosophy, it is also very much a moral philosophy, one which envisions a society which lives in harmony, while encouraging the full development of each individuals freedom to govern their own lives so long as they respect other's rights not be governed as well.

 

The philosophy arose in Europe with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in France, who influenced Bakunin and Kropotkin in Russia, all writing during the 1840's, at the same time as Karl Marx in Germany who actually started writing for radical newspapers when he moved to Paris in 1943, 3 years after Proudhon wrote "What is Property? Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right and Government."

 

Though the Anarchists borrowed economic ideas from Socialism and Communism, and had some influence on those philosophers as well, Anarchism's anti-authoritarian morality and philosophy did not have enough influence on the conscience of Socialists and Communists for the Anarchists to join forces with them. Proudhon and Bakunin leaned toward Federalism and Socialism, and Kropotkin to Communism. At the same time, they did not care for national identities. Their primary concern being the respect for each person's freedom to live their lives,

 

[from article below]

"By hard experience, they refrain from activity contrary to nature and realize that in order to grow plants they must understand and co-operate with the natural processes. And just as plants grow best when allowed to follow their natures, so human beings thrive when least interfered with.6 It was this insight which led the Taoists to reject all forms of imposed authority, government and the State. It also made them into precursors of modern anarchism and social ecology. "

 

As with Chuang Tzu and Lao Tzu:

 

"In their politics, they not only urged rulers to leave their subjects alone and opposed the bureaucratic and legalistic teaching of the Confucians, but advocated as an ideal a free and co-operative society without government in harmony with nature."

 

 

thanks for reading,

 

Harmonious Emptiness

 

 

 

 

(source: http://www.toxicpop.co.uk/library/taoism.htm)

 

Taoism & Anarchism

 

ANARCHISM IS USUALLY CONSIDERED a recent, Western phenomenon, but its roots reach deep in the ancient civilizations of the East. The first clear expression of an anarchist sensibility may be traced back to the Taoists in ancient China from about the sixth century BC. Indeed, the principal Taoist work, the Tao te ching, may be considered one of the greatest anarchist classics.

 

The Taoists at the time were living in a feudal society in which law was becoming codified and government increasingly centralized and bureaucratic. Confucius was the chief spokesman of the legalistic school supporting these developments, and called for a social hierarchy in which every citizen knew his place. The Taoists for their part rejected government and believed that all could live in natural and spontaneous harmony. The conflict between those who wish to interfere and those who believe that things flourish best when left alone has continued ever since.

 

The Taoists and the Confucians were both embedded in ancient Chinese culture. They shared a similar view of nature, but differed strongly in their moral and political views. They both had an attitude of respectful trust to human nature; the Christian notion of original sin is entirely absent from their thought. Both believed that human beings have an innate predisposition to goodness which is revealed in the instinctive reaction of anyone who sees a child falling into a well. Both claimed to defend the Tao or the way of the ancients and sought to establish voluntary order.

 

But whereas the Taoists were principally interested in nature and identified with it, the Confucians were more worldly- minded and concerned with reforming society. The Confucians celebrated traditionally 'male' virtues like duty, discipline and obedience, while the Taoists promoted the 'female' values of receptivity and passivity.

 

Although it has helped shape Chinese culture as much as Buddhism and Confucianism, Taoism by its very nature never became an official cult. It has remained a permanent strain in Chinese thought. Its roots lay in the popular culture at the dawn of Chinese civilization but it emerged in the sixth century BC as a remarkable combination of philosophy, religion, proto-science and magic.

 

The principal exponent of Taoism is taken to be Lao Tzu, meaning 'old Philosopher'. He was born around 604 BC of a noble family in Honan province. He rejected his hereditary positron as a noble and became a curator of the royal library at Loh. All his life he followed the path of silence- 'The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao', he taught. According to legend, when he was riding off into the desert to die, he was persuaded by a gatekeeper in north-western China to write down his teaching for posterity.

 

It seems likely however that the Tao te ching which is attributed to Lao Tzu, was not written until the third century BC. It has been called by the Chinese scholar Joseph Needham 'without exception the most profound and beautiful work in the Chinese language'.3 The text consists of eighty-one short chapters in poetic form. Although often very obscure and paradoxical, it offers not only the earliest but also the most eloquent exposition of anarchist principles.

 

It is impossible to appreciate the ethics and politics of Taoism without an understanding of its philosophy of nature. The Tao te ching celebrates the Tao, or way, of nature and describes how the wise person should follow it. The Taoist conception of nature is based on the ancient Chinese principles of yin and yang, two opposite but complementary forces in the cosmos which constitute ch'i (matter-energy) of which all beings and phenomena are formed. Yin is the supreme feminine power, characterized by darkness, cold, and receptivity and associated with the moon; yang is the masculine counterpart of brightness, warmth, and activity, and is identified with the sun. Both forces are at work within men and women as well as in all things.

 

The Tao itself however cannot be defined. it is nameless and formless. Lao Tzu, trying vainly to describe what is ineffable, likens it to an empty vessel, a river flowing home to the sea, and an uncarved block. 'The Tao, he asserts, follows what is natural. It is the way in which the universe works, the order of nature which gives all things their being and sustains them.

 

The great Tao flows everywhere, both to the left and the right. The ten thousand things depend on it; it holds nothing back. It fulfils its purpose silently and makes no claim. (34)

 

Needham describes it not so much as a force, but as a 'kind of natural curvature in time and space'.4

 

Like most later anarchists, the Taoists see the universe as being in a continuous state of flux. Reality is in a state of process; everything changes, nothing is constant. They also have a dialectical concept of change as a dynamic interplay as opposing forces. Energy flows continually between the poles of yin end yang. At the same time, they stress the unity and harmony of nature. Nature is self-sufficient and uncreated; there is no need to postulate a conscious creator. It is a view which not only recalls that of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus but coincides with the description of the universe presented by modern physics. Modern social ecology, which stresses unity in diversity, organic growth and natural order, further reflects the Taoist world-view.

 

The approach to nature recommended by Lao Tzu and the Taoists is one of receptivity. Where the Confucian wants to conquer and exploit nature, the Taoist tries to contemplate and understand it. The Taoists' traditionally 'feminine' approach to nature suggests that their way of thinking may well have first evolved in a matriarchal society. While at first sight it might seem a religious attitude, in fact it encouraged a scientific and democratic outlook amongst Taoists. By not imposing their own preconceptions, they were able to observe and understand nature and therefore learn to channel its energy beneficially.

 

The Taoists were primarily interested in nature but their conception of the universe had important corollaries for society. A definite system of ethics and politics emerges. There are no absolute Taoist values; for good and bad, like yin and yang, are related. Their interplay is necessary for growth, and in order to achieve something it is often best to start with its opposite. Nevertheless, an ideal of the wise person emerges in Taoist teaching who is unpretentious, sincere, spontaneous, generous and detached. For the Taoists, the art of living is to be found in simplicity, non-assertion and creative play.

 

Central to Taoist teaching is the concept of wu-wei. It is often translated as merely non-action. In fact there are striking philological similarities between 'anarchism' and 'wu-wei'. Just as 'an-archos' in Greek means absence of a ruler, wu-wei means lack of wei, where wei refers to 'artificial, contrived activity that interferes with natural and spontaneous development'.5 From a political point of view, wei refers to the imposition of authority. To do something in accordance with wu-wei is therefore considered natural; it leads to natural and spontaneous order. It has nothing to do with all forms of imposed authority.

 

The Tao te ching is quite clear about the nature of force. If we use force, whether physical or moral, to improve ourselves or the world, we simply waste energy and weaken ourselves: 'force is followed by loss of strength' (30). It follows that those who wage war will suffer as a result: 'a violent man will die a violent death' (42). By contrast, giving way is often the best way to overcome: 'Under heaven nothing is more soft and yielding than water Yet for attacking the solid and strong, nothing is better; it has no equal. The weak can overcome the strong; the supple can overcome the stiff.' (78) The gentle peacefulness recommended by the Taoists is not a form of defeatist submission but a call for the creative and effective use of energy.

 

'Practise non-action. Work without doing' (63), Lao Tzu recommends. In their concept of wu-wei, the Taoists are not urging non-action in the sense of inertia, but rather condemning activity contrary to nature. It is not idleness that they praise, but work without effort, anxiety and complicati on, work which goes with and not against the grain of things. If people practised wu-wei in the right spirit, work would lose its coercive aspect. It would be undertaken not for its useful results but for its intrinsic value. Instead of being avoided like the plague, work would be transformed into spontaneous and meaningful play: 'When actions are performed Without unnecessary speech, People say, "We did it!"' (l7).

 

If people followed their advice, the Taoists suggest, they would live a long life and achieve physical and mental health. one of their fundamental beliefs was that 'whatever is contrary to Tao will not last long' (55), while he who is filled with virtue is like a new-born child. In order to prolong their lives the Taoists resorted to yoga-like techniques and even alchemy.

 

The most important principle at the centre of their teaching however was a belief that 'The world is ruled by letting things take their course. It cannot be ruled by interfering.'(48) The deepest roots of the Taoist view of wu-wei probably lies in early matriarchal society in ancient China. The Taoist ideal was a form of agrarian collectivism which sought to recapture the instinctive unity with nature which human beings had lost in developing an artificial and hierarchical culture. Peasants are naturally wise in many ways. By hard experience, they refrain from activity contrary to nature and realize that in order to grow plants they must understand and co-operate with the natural processes. And just as plants grow best when allowed to follow their natures, so human beings thrive when least interfered with.6 It was this insight which led the Taoists to reject all forms of imposed authority, government and the State. It also made them into precursors of modern anarchism and social ecology.

 

It has been argued that Taoism does not reject the State as an artificial structure, but rather sees it as a natural institution,, analogous perhaps to the family.7 While the Tao te ching undoubtedly rejects authoritarian rule, it does read at times as if it is giving advice to rulers to become better at ruling:

 

If the sage would guide the people, he must serve with humility.

If he would lead them, he must follow behind.

In this way when the sage rules, the people will not feel oppressed (66)

 

Bookchin goes so far as to claim that Taoism was used by an elite to foster passivity amongst the peasantry by denying them choice and hope.8

 

Certainly Lao Tzu addresses the problem of leadership and calls for the true sage to act with the people and not above them. The best ruler leaves his people alone to follow their peaceful and productive activities. He must trust their good faith for 'He who does not trust enough will not be trusted.' (l 7) If a ruler interferes with his people rather than letting them follow their own devices, then disorder will follow: 'When the country is confused and in chaos, Loyal ministers appear.' (l 8) In a well-ordered society,

 

Man follows the earth.

Earth follows heaven.

Heaven follows the Tao.

Tao follows what is natural.(25)

 

However a closer reading shows that the Tao te ching is not concerned with offering Machiavellian advice to rulers or even with the 'art of governing'. The person who genuinely understands the Tao and applies it to government reaches the inevitable conclusion that the best government does not govern at all.9 Lao Tzu sees nothing but evil coming from government. Indeed, he offers what might be described as the first anarchist manifesto:

 

The more laws and restrictions there are,

The poorer people become.

The sharper men's weapons,

The more trouble in the land.

The more ingenious and clever men are,

The more strange things happen.

The more rules and regulations,

The more thieves and robbers.

 

Therefore the sage says:

I take no action and people are reformed.

I enjoy peace and people become honest.

I do nothing and the people become rich.

I have no desires and people return to the good and

simple life.(57)

 

Contained within the marvellous poetry of the Tao te ching, there is some very real social criticism. It is sharply critical of the bureaucratic, warlike and commercial nature of the feudal order. Lao Tzu specifically sees property as a form of robber: 'When the court is arrayed in splendour, The fields are full of weeds, And the granaries are bare.'(53) He traces the causes of war to unequal distribution: 'Claim wealth and titles, and disaster will follow '(9) Having attacked feudalism with its classes and private property, he offers the social ideal of a classless society without government and patriarchy in which people live simple and sincere lives in harmony with nature. It would be a decentralized society in which goods are produced and shared in common with the help of appropriate technology. The people would be strong but with no need to show their strength; wise, but with no presence of learning; productive, but engaged in no unnecessary toil. They would even prefer to reckon by knotting rope rather than by writing ledgers:

 

A small country has fewer people.

Though there are machines that can work ten to a hundred

times faster than man, they are not needed.

The people take death seriously and do not travel far.

Though they have boats and carriages, no one uses them.

Though they have armour and weapons, no one displays them.

Men return to the knotting of rope in place of writing.

Their food is plain and good, their clothes fine but simple, their homes secure;

They are happy in their ways.

Though they live within sight of their neighbours,

And crowing cocks and barking dogs are heard across the way,

Yet they leave each other in peace while they grow old and die.(80)

 

The anarchistic tendency of the Taoists comes through even stronger in the writings of the philosopher Chuang Tzu, who lived about 369-286 BC. His work consists of arguments interspersed with anecdotes and parables which explore the nature of the Tao, the great organic process of which man is a part. It is not addressed to any particular ruler. Like the Tao te ching, it rejects all forms of government and celebrates the free existence of the self-determining individual. The overriding tone of the work is to be found in a little parable about horses:

 

Horses live on dry land, eat grass and drink water. When pleased, they rub their necks together. When angry, they turn round and kick up their heels at each other. Thus far only do their natural dispositions carry them. But bridled and bitted, with a plate of metal on their foreheads, they learn to cast vicious looks, to turn the head to bite, to resist, to get the bit out of the mouth or the bridle into it. And thus their natures become depraved.1O

 

As with horses, so it is with human beings. Left to themselves they live in natural harmony and spontaneous order. But when they are coerced and ruled, their natures become vicious. It follows that princes and rulers should not coerce their people into obeying artificial laws, but should leave them to follow their natural dispositions. To attempt to govern people with manmade laws and regulations is absurd and impossible: 'as well try to wade through the sea, to hew a passage through a river, or make a mosquito fly away with a mountain!'. 11 In reality, the natural conditions of our existence require no artificial aids. People left to themselves will follow peaceful and productive activities and live in harmony with each other and nature.

 

In an essay 'On Letting Alone', Chuang Tzu asserted three hundred years before Christ the fundamental proposition of anarchist thought which has reverberated through history ever since:

 

'There has been such a thing as letting mankind alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind. Letting alone springs from fear lest men's natural dispositions be perverted and their virtue left aside. But if their natural dispositions be not perverted nor their virtue laid aside, what room is there left for government?12

 

'The Taoists therefore advocated a free society. without government in which individuals would be left to themselves. But while pursuing their own interests, they would not forget the interests of others. It is not a sullen selfishness which is recommended. The pursuit of personal good involves a concern for the general well-being: the more a person does for others, the more he has; the more he gives to others, the greater his abundance. As the Taoist text Huai Nan Tzu put its, 'Possessing the empire' means 'self-realization. If I realize myself then the empire also realizes me. If the empire and I realize each other, then we will always possess each other.'13

 

Human beings are ultimately individuals but they are also social beings, part of the whole. Anticipating the findings of modern ecology, the 'Taoists believed that the more individuality and diversity there is, the greater the overall harmony. The spontaneous order of society does not exclude conflict hut involves a dynamic interplay of opposite forces. Thus society is described by Chuang Tzu as

 

an agreement of a certain number of families and individuals to abide by certain customs. Discordant elements unite to form a harmonious whole. Take away this unity and each has a separate individuality . . . .A mountain is high because of its individual particles. A river is large because of its individual drops. And he is a just man who regards all parts from the point of view of the whole.14

 

Taoism thus offered the first and one of the most persuasive expressions of anarchist thinking. Its moral and political ideas were firmly grounded in a scientific view of the world. Although Taoist philosophy (Tao chia) contains Spiritual and mystical elements, the early Taoists' receptive approach to nature encouraged a scientific attitude and democratic feelings. They recognized the unity in the diversity in nature and the universality of transformation. In their ethics, they encouraged spontaneous behaviour and self-development in the larger context of nature: production with possession, action without self-assertion and development without domination. In their politics, they not only urged rulers to leave their subjects alone and opposed the bureaucratic and legalistic teaching of the Confucians, but advocated as an ideal a free and co-operative society without government in harmony with nature.

 

Taoism was not aimed by an elite at peasants to make them more docile and obedient. The Taoists social background tended to be from the small middle class, between the feudal lords and the mass of peasant farmers. Nor were they merely offering advice on how to survive in troubled times by yielding to the strong, keeping a low profile, and by minding their own business. on the contrary, Taoism was the philosophy of those who had understood the real nature of temporal power, wealth and status, sufficiently well to find them radically wanting. Far from being a philosophy of failure or quietude, Taoism offers profound and practical wisdom for those who wish to develop the full harmony of their being.

Edited by Harmonious Emptiness
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ANARCHISM IS USUALLY CONSIDERED a recent, Western phenomenon
‚ÄĒ by Westerners ‚ĶConsidering the fact that the European Enlightenment only recently has come to pass within the last 500 years, anything the west "markets" is touted as a recent phenomena~ as long as someone will buy it. Would you buy a used idea from this man?

 

Intellectualists learn to trans-literate an ideal which has itself undergone countless changes within its host (insert exotic non-euro culture here) before gleaning its franchised "truth" in order to see itself transformed in its new hip fashion. Intellectualist pursuits such as this are for those old enough to know better and a perennial rallying cry for the 18~24yr set. In reality, anarchism is nothing more than a parasitic fantasy forever dependent on that which it is not: a mode of production. Since it can neither seduce, it must share the same fate as its equally contrived polemic counterparts.

 

But I digress ‚Ķwith apologies to Harmonious‚ÄĒ I would have enjoyed the excellent article, if I didn't know better!!‚̧

 

Taoism's function is a cultivation of secret anarchy. It doesn't have to oppose. This is authentic iconoclasm, for it has no need, or functional apparatus for opposition. Opposition can indeed be effected, but opposition or rejection is not what defines it. In this respect, taoism does not support government from without, only because it doesn't see it as something to oppose. That's why it can't be grasped itself. It's also why it has been around since the incipience of human culture‚ÄĒ it is the source of culture, not a product of it. How long has the class act that arrived at proper political anarchism been around?

 

That is not to say the substantial tao, which is what political anarchism would deny …and would take inconceivable ruthlessness of impersonal nature as a separate reality, apart from human organization which must somehow be avoided at all costs as the vapid polemic itself seeks to approach the very fantasy of its own non-organization. Too bad we can't approach the reality of our own non-origination with the same in-the-street fervor. It really is pathetic. My only hope is that an avid Sartre-phile will see this and be furious for my casual use of punctuation! Sartre himself didn't do punctuation but to please his publisher.

 

The reality, the ideal, the function, and the substance is already intact and functioning, thank you very much, is the answer to the question "…but how does it work?".

 

The outwardly expressed phenomena is puerile. As in all political organization, it is a matter of consensus. Well, there is no consensus in terms of the absolute, and there is no consensus of enlightening activity in terms of arriving at secret application of virtue in everyday ordinary affairs. Aside from the few charismatic autonomies and shamanic folk-taoism which predates this authors time-frame by eons, and the church taoism which imitated the newly arrived foreign phenomena of Buddhism (its tradition of celibate monasticism arbitrarily imposed by the Chinese elite for matters of national security), taoism has no basis in quantative authority. It is, in fact, an open secret shared by those who know whatever aspect of the reality they have the potential to arrive at in any given situation. Much like Gnosticism, it cannot live by decree, but by naturally exclusive knowledge and by the kind of practice that keeps the knowledge alive. And aside from the intellectual conceits of those who thrive by words who would imply influential hegemony by their own account and those who would know only enough to be a danger to at least themselves and resent it, taoism, in the practical sense, doesn't need to announce itself, nor can it‚ÄĒ in order for it to operate naturally according to the time, not by a country, but by inconceivability; not in service of people, but by reality.

 

The independent charismatic political organizations of the Celestial Masters, et al, were creations of their time by people in certain locations, never intended for mass consumption nor for coddling those with entitlement issues intent on garnering (in)dependent lifestyle guarantees. In short, taoism is not the product of an human yearning but a perennial nonpsychological adaption to reality, in order to follow it. The effective result is selfless realization and the kind of impersonal objectivity that defies description in terms of its application, which is spontaneous, effortless and spiritual.

 

Tell me, if I'm being dissy…

…insight which led the Taoists to reject all forms of imposed authority, government and the State. It also made them into precursors of modern anarchism and social ecology.

 

Insight of the most fallacious kind, perhaps‚ÄĒ by this author ‚Ķnot taoists. Taoists don't reject anything. Even buddhas don't reject anything‚ÄĒ that is something acolytes do. Immediate acquiescence and impersonal adaption is enlightening activity. Non-resistance isn't a matter of pacifism‚ÄĒ its a matter of knowledge. This is inconceivable to even noble intellectualism, not to mention authentically righteous and oppressed mobs being sold in public by users of users.

 

Who's co-opting the Wall Street protesters today, hmmmmm?

 

This article begins as an in situ view of the phenomena of the Zhao dynasty beginning to crack (without the author knowing it), but is actually describing the second manifestation of the Han after 200AD.

 

I just can't go on with this outsiders' pedantic balderdash and poppycock any longer! He tried, and I tried too, Harmonious!!

 

It's a re-recapitulated romanticization of the noble taoist at its…kindergarden yuckiest! Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

 

But you knew that!‚̧

 

(ed note: add (in) as in (in)dependent

Edited by deci belle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your response and comments deci belle!

 

From my own perspective on Anarchism, it's essentially something to be incorporated into the social-political set up. It doesn't have a mode of production on its own, which is why there is anarcho-socialism, anarcho-communists, anarcho-capitalitsts, and mixes between them as well. My preferred version had everyone work on a farm for 3 years, and then being provided food and basic shelter for the rest of their lives, while those who want more can become capitalists or work for capitalists, but if they want to drop out of that they will always be provided for by those continuing to work on the farms.

 

""

Taoism's function is a cultivation of secret anarchy. It doesn't have to oppose. This is authentic iconoclasm, for it has no need, or functional apparatus for opposition. Opposition can indeed be effected, but opposition or rejection is not what defines it. In this respect, taoism does not support government from without, only because it doesn't see it as something to oppose. ""

 

Unfortunately, at least 80% (in my estimation) of the people who call themselves anarchists while they break store windows and so forth, don't even know who Proudhon and Bakunin are, let alone having read their writings. Anarchism in itself is not bent on destruction. It respects people's lives more than anything else.. that is why it exists -- because all the "modes of production" are more concerned with the production than the people producing or being produced for.

 

The problem with Anarchism right now is that even the so-called Anarchists don't realize that it's essence is in its ability to make people reconsider power over other people, and how this is immoral at least 90% of the time. If people in government, law enforcement, and commerce all knew this then the human race would be allowed to thrive. If the morality of Anarchism were to penetrate these levels of society then Anarchism would achieve it's goal seamlessly, which is the desire of true Anarchists. This is why true Anarchists fight with art rather than arms. It's a cultural revolution that fits with any mode of production when it's morals are realized and implemented in society. It's really the same battle that's been fought for since the beginning of oppression..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, at least 80% (in my estimation) of the people who call themselves anarchists while they break store windows and so forth, ...

 

Those people are called assholes.

 

The first rule of anarchism is that the individual do the right thing. Destroying other people's property is not the right thing to do.

 

I think that anarchy is based in the idea that everyone within a society is going to work for there own personal freedom while also working for the betterment of the society as a whole so that no government is required. The first part is never a problem, it is the second part that always requires a government to oversee the society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those people are called assholes.

 

The first rule of anarchism is that the individual do the right thing. Destroying other people's property is not the right thing to do.

 

I think that anarchy is based in the idea that everyone within a society is going to work for there own personal freedom while also working for the betterment of the society as a whole so that no government is required. The first part is never a problem, it is the second part that always requires a government to oversee the society.

 

Well said Marblehead, I`m surprise you know this much about it actually..

 

I agree that there will still be some government necessary, but that government would have to recognize the same principles. Basically, the government would protect this structure from those who would take advantage of and destroy it. If you didn`t respect others freedom, then you wouldn`t deserve the benefits, however their was a more enlightened look in regards to the penal system as well. I wouldn`t be surprised if recidivism benefits from magic mushrooms would be employed (for those willing to participate) as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concord_Prison_Experiment).

 

So, as I said, I think the value of Anarchy is its core philosophies which ought to be studied by and incorporated into government, law, commerce, etc..

 

The USA was actually held with some admiration by Bakunin for their Federalist system, though of course there were points of contention due to class situations and other restrictions. Though now Jefferson is basically considered as little more than a terrorist by Homeland Security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said Marblehead, I`m surprise you know this much about it actually..

 

Yeah, I surprise people now and then. I mostly show Y'all only one side of me because I generally feel I must present alternative perspectives into most of the threads and this give a picture of only one aspect of my totality.

 

Though now Jefferson is basically considered as little more than a terrorist by Homeland Security.

 

Well, I still hold Thomas Jefferson in very high regard. He had more wisdom than most people have hairs on their head.

 

However, I will say that anarchy is not as bad as some people make it appear to be. The problem is with people, not the concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People as government, anarchy, is actually part in part of the whole point of the united states constitution, for the people, BY THE PEOPLE... Get the hint?

 

But alas, "the people" who become government forsake the best interests of THE PEOPLE, in lieu of their multi-billion-dollar-a-year income and "special interests" such as corporations and conglomerate business.

 

Revolution is necessary, peaceful or bloody is irrelevant, though the former is ideal.

 

 

In order to accomplish a peaceful revolt....

 

 

We'd have to establish a self sufficency of the people first; Farms, survival-in-the-wild education, and community support would be a prerequisite to the beginning of a peaceful revolution.

 

 

Otherwise, we jsut have to convicne texas to invest in farms, survival-in-the-wild education, community support, and lending us their piss-and-vinegar approach... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the "American revolution" (I have to put that in quotes out of respect of the fact that it didn't involve the rest of the Americas, ie, south, central, and north) was almost Anarchistic in principle, except of course for the numerous inequalities regarding race, sex, and non-Christian religions. It seems like Jefferson definitely had an Anarchist's revolutionary spirit to gain freedom for his people to live however they pleased. Where he fell short was in having his own people respect the same principles towards "outsiders" as they expected to benefit from. This may have been too "against the flow" for his time, which might have made the whole endeavor fail. Had it failed, things would be worse in terms of overall freedom. Over time, people have realized some required editing and the social masterpiece has been getting better and better while fighting off some serious threats to progress, and neglecting others which have had their time, in my estimation, and are soon going to have to pack up and move ahead with the ship or fall in their own pits.

 

 

We'd have to establish a self sufficency of the people first; Farms, survival-in-the-wild education, and community support would be a prerequisite to the beginning of a peaceful revolution.

 

Seriously, when are the governments going to take all the wasted, soil eroded, land and turn them into government run industrial hemp farms (makes 10 times ethanol of corn, which will easily be produced by this ethanol with strong momentum). Then no one has to import oil any more. All the jobs for stealing oil should go to building this infrastructure. That is the future of humankind for generations to come and I hope it seeps in soon.

Edited by Harmonious Emptiness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope is an action, not a desire. Put your cannabis where your mouth is! :lol:

 

 

Alas, legislature is far too enroached with politics (read as: back stabbing manipulative selfish profiteers) to leave room for a realistic or scientific approach to Hemp. :'(

 

 

But with time, effort, and most importantly, organized numbers, People CAN make a difference.

 

Let's work toegether for a better future, mmh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Alas, legislature is far too enroached with politics (read as: back stabbing manipulative selfish profiteers) to leave room for a realistic or scientific approach to Hemp. :'(

 

 

www.votehemp.com is a good organization in the US with interesting newsletters every couple weeks on the progress. You might want to check them out if you haven't already. I think making sell-able products with hemp is possibly the best route right now to increasing its production. It's just so damn expensive still, which is crazy because it's one of the most rugged plants, grows on any land you can grow dandelions, and grows fast fast fast.

 

There needs to be more opportunities for the manipulative profiteers to get in the game rather than only profiting off prohibiting it. All those FDA employees should be involved in growing it instead.. they can fabricate their BS beaurocracy to sit on the shitter and make $100,000 a year, but they need to be on the right side of the fence when doing so.. (hey, if they fertilize for the industrial fibre, their efforts might actually be useful this time.. budum pshh)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

laugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.gif

 

 

 

Seriously though, there are too many "private interests" and corporate gains to be had from prohibiting it to leave a hairwidth's space to entice profiteers to back it up.

 

 

Pharmicuticals gain more money by keeping people sick and dependant; cannabis cures more than alleviates, and alleviates enough to cure.

 

BIG Oil makes more money by demand than by supply; Cannabis is an infinite supply.

 

Timber is in cahoots with too many oil companies to stray into greener pastures.

 

Cotton is too selfish to splice with hemp. Hemp is rough and scratchy, but durable, while cotton is soft and softer, but weak. More profits from the wear and tear of clothes than from the durable and life long everlasting hemp.

 

Paper is in contract with timber, timber in contract with oil, oil is still the leader of the bunch.

 

and let's face it, farmers are controlled by big government, who is/are in with the afformentioned special interest groups, so that's something that is still a long ways off.

 

 

Frankly, Cannabis puts power to the people, and we cant have that if we're going to keep them dependant on consumerism.

 

Who profits from eliminating the afformentioned special interest groups? Oh, no one special, just WE THE PEOPLE.

 

dry.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What this reminds me of, is a real traditional South American culture who builds their houses together in a way that they will fall apart soon enough for everyone to get together again. This maintains the connection, bond, respect, etc..

 

In "consumerist culture" products are made to fall apart so that people keep buying, people stay employed, the wheel keeps turning. This is the rationale, I'm sure, that governments are sold hemp prohibition with.

 

However, those products are cheap because the jobs are overseas and at slave labour wages. The US oil industry has to import huge amounts of oil, and spend billions like every month to influence the exporter countries.

 

I'm sure most people would rather drive a tractor than a tank for a living, and have the security of knowing that there are always crops to be grown and a huge and growing market to sell them to, and there is always ample land to grow the crops (forests are not so reliable as a plant that produces 3 crops per year vs. once every 2 decades).

 

The other issue is that "people want their consumerist lifestyle, they will get bored." Impossible. There will be more time for creating and enjoying cultural diversions and they will be better since they won't be oversaturated by an economy that is reliant on creating useless diversions to keep itself afloat. There are plenty of occupations in a hemp based economy, and it would make every country be able to keep their their own jobs and produce their own resources.

 

So the arguments that it would jeaprodize the economy are false. It would reverse everything that is unstable in the economy's foundations, including the overcentralization of money in the hands of greedy selfish misanthropic people who want to keep everyone in dependence perpetually.

Edited by Harmonious Emptiness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the arguments that it would jeaprodize the economy are false. It would reverse everything that is unstable in the economy's foundations, including the overcentralization of money in the hands of greedy selfish misanthropic people who want to keep everyone in dependence perpetually.

 

 

 

I was not, nor would I ever, suggest that there were any rational arguments of the like!

 

 

Merely, i was saying that the rich get richer.

 

 

:lol: WE understand the subject at hand, but the powers that be.... well they might but they favor a different hue of green... D: (read as: mad.gif )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not, nor would I ever, suggest that there were any rational arguments of the like!

 

 

Merely, i was saying that the rich get richer.

 

 

:lol: WE understand the subject at hand, but the powers that be.... well they might but they favor a different hue of green... D: (read as: mad.gif )

 

No, I didn't think you were. But this is the ideology that sways people with the same mind as us, so this is more or less the battle: to show them that this ideology, though it seems logical, is total deception. I think there are actually a number of politicians with a decent fraction of integrity, but "every story sounds true until you hear the other side" and they too inundated with the first story to consider the second right now..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alas, the only means I can figure to show 'them' is by an example which will more likely get us arrested and entered into unrealistic statistics than show anyone anything... :(

 

 

So... where do we stand? Where do we then walk? If we can show anyone anything, it will only be seen or heard when presented through examples.... What examples wont get us arrested? Preaching is empty speech... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but, organization happens on ideas. It's the ideas that bring people together on common ground first. This information has to spread until it has a life of its own. Then wars are won before the fight begins.

 

Where do we go? Spread the message. You'd be surprised how fast it can spread. Say 50 people read this. 5 of those people mention it on other chat rooms where 50 people read it. Of those 250, 15 people spread it further. That's how it starts, and it already had momentum before it landed here. That is the power of the masses: to be en-mass, so getting everyone on the same page is like the power of water. Eventually it gets in everywhere as long as it keeps piling up. There's more that can be done to spread the message, but that's how it actually works to overcome longstanding foundations.

Edited by Harmonious Emptiness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. So all that is left is the waiting game.

 

Sooner or later, then, we must have to encounter some more prime examples of Anarchy in public display.

 

Then, i think, we would have to join in and contribute.

 

Just a matter of time now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, or if possible, entrepreneurialism. Start businesses that contribute to a conscious society by the products used and produced. This supports conscious businesses while allowing conscious employment and consumption..

 

keep thinking.. keep talking.. keep believing.. have faith in faith. It works! (for the naysayers: try doing something with no faith that it will succeed and see how much crap you can wade through for it. Faith in faith is confidence in confidence, my sympathies if you object...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've thought of trying to slap my avatar picture on t-shirts laugh.gif maybe it's a start tongue.gif

 

{Edit:}I jsut thought this might be relevant, from another thread:

 

....Revolutionary solutions are too easily corruptible and susecptible to violence and/or (civil)war.

 

A sit-out wouldnt work well, unless a vast majority of indivioduals participated willingly. and anything other than willingly would effectively fail. not many people are willing to abandon the epic constructs of the corporations to accomplish a sit-out.

 

Thus violence would sooner, rather than later, follow.

 

{edit:}

 

The overall answer, which i forgot to mention, is essentially self sufficency and interdependent community. Only in a society which does not require trade to acquire necessary goods and resources can prosperity flourish, thrive, or even stagnate. Without self sufficency, prosperity declines and/or dies.

 

In an interdependent society, everyone who is self sufficent will inevitably gain surpluses which they cannot consume by themselves, thus are able to share at inexpensive rates. Everyone who is not self sufficent can work for those who are and eventually become prosperous even without self sufficency.

 

 

In a nation who cannot keep it's resources to itself and further must trade for resources, it/they/we belong to our benifactors. (America: Made in China)

{/edit:}

 

{/Edit:}

Edited by Hot Nirvana Judo Trend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this