I am an Anarchist and Strive to Fight Injustice
 
“Dude. my opinion of you just soared to the floor, your recent positions have been,nothing short of theistic. Harmful ideology comes in more than spiritual or religious form.” – ex-friend
 
I like how some people think I have changed thinking that because I was not that political all most all the Obama, yes, I was not that fired up as an anarchist-socialist-collectivist-mutualist and I fight the hardest against fascism so the more rights the less I come in the more violations the more I rize with a raised fist. 
 
ps. Don’t like me, cool, find the door and take care. I am not changing this and have been so like 15 years. So, I am confident in my political thinking and I see no reason to change. 

Anarchy Atheism


 “You spend a lot of time listing your creedo and identities. You often make declarative statements about the “-ists and -isms” to which you ascribe. I think the criticism comes from your behavior indicating these are accessories for you to collect. Specifically, your detractors disagree with the principles of such accessories. I would criticize with the accessorizing, less so the actual nature of the accessories. I might surprise you how many of your labels I actually share. It feels odd to tell someone with multiple pages about himself, but sometimes you do make it a little too much about you. Your experience is supposed to color your ideology, but it seems ideologies define your experience. It’s supposed to be “Damien is an anarcho-socialist-collectivist-mutualist” but is seems that “anarcho-socialism-collectivism-mutualism is Damien.” Lots of people follow you because you’re an advocate for causes they agree with (atheism and secularism for me). For us, the cause is greater than your ego. I don’t think you disagree with that, or I would have unsubscribed long ago. I’ve followed for a couple years now, I see little reason to stop, but I roll my eyes when you do this.” – Commenter 

Libertarian “Anarchist” socialists are anti-capitalist, and can thus be distinguished from right-wing libertarians


Libertarian socialists generally regard concentrations of power as sources of oppression that must be continually challenged and justified. Most libertarian socialists believe that when power is exercised, as exemplified by the economic, social, or physical dominance of one individual over another, the burden of proof is always on the authoritarian to justify their action as legitimate when taken against its effect of narrowing the scope of human freedom. Contrary to popular opinion, libertarian socialism has not traditionally been a utopian movement, tending to avoid dense theoretical analysis or prediction of what a future society would or should look like. The tradition instead has been that such decisions cannot be made now, and must be made through struggle and experimentation, so that the best solution can be arrived at democratically and organically, and to base the direction for struggle on established historical example. They point out that the success of the scientific method comes from its adherence to open rational exploration, not its conclusions, in sharp contrast to dogma and predetermined predictions. Noted anarchist Rudolf Rocker once stated, “I am an anarchist not because I believe anarchism is the final goal, but because there is no such thing as a final goal”. Because libertarian socialism encourages exploration and embraces a diversity of ideas rather than forming a compact movement, there have arisen inevitable controversies over individuals who describe themselves as libertarian socialists but disagree with some of the core principles of libertarian socialism. For example, Peter Hain interprets libertarian socialism as minarchist rather than anarchist, favoring radical decentralization of power without going as far as the complete abolition of the state and libertarian socialist Noam Chomsky supports dismantling all forms of unjustified social or economic power, while also emphasizing that state intervention should be supported as a temporary protection while oppressive structures remain in existence. Libertarian socialists typically oppose rigid and stratified structures of authority, be they politicaleconomic, or social.Within anarchism there emerged a critique of wage slavery which refers to a situation perceived as quasi-voluntary slavery, where a person’s livelihood depends on wages, especially when the dependence is total and immediate. It is a negatively connoted term used to draw an analogy between slavery and wage labor by focusing on similarities between owning and renting a person. The term wage slavery has been used to criticize economic exploitation and social stratification, with the former seen primarily as unequal bargaining power between labor and capital (particularly when workers are paid comparatively low wages, e.g. in sweatshops), and the latter as a lack of workers’ self-management, fulfilling job choices and leisure in an economy. Libertarian socialists believe that valuing freedom, society works towards a system in which individuals have the power to decide economic issues along with political issues. Libertarian socialists seek to replace unjustified authority with direct democracy, voluntary federation, and popular autonomy in all aspects of life, including physical communities and economic enterprises. With the advent of the industrial revolution, thinkers such as Proudhon and Marx elaborated the comparison between wage labor and slavery in the context of a critique of societal property not intended for active personal use. Luddites emphasized the dehumanization brought about by machines while later Emma Goldman famously denounced wage slavery by saying: “The only difference is that you are hired slaves instead of block slaves.”. Many libertarian socialists believe that large-scale voluntary associations should manage industrial production, while workers retain rights to the individual products of their labor. They see a distinction between concepts of “private property” and “personal possession“. “Private property” grants an individual exclusive control over a thing whether it is in use or not, and regardless of its productive capacity, “possession” grants no rights to things that are not in use. Also “the separation of work and life is questioned, and alternatives suggested that are underpinned by notions of dignity, self-realization, and freedom from domination and exploitation. Here, a freedom that is not restrictively negative (as in neo-liberal conceptions) but is, as well, positive – connected, that is, to views about human flourishing – is important, a profoundly embedded understanding of freedom, which ties freedom to its social, communal conditions and, importantly, refuses to separate questions of freedom from those of equality.” Ref


I agree generally with most “Anarchism” but individualism besides the so called “Anarcho-Capitalism” or the anarcho-primitives if they try to force that extremism lifestyle on others as I am a collectivist and a mutualist also.


Damien, I’m a fan of your work, but I have a question for clarification. Do you see no inconsistency between claiming to being both anarchist and socialist? I do have a similar stance as I seem to be a socialist with libertarian tendencies, but anarchist would seem even further away from socialist.”- Questioner 

My response, well, relatively all anarchism is basically some form of socialism but the so called anarcho-capitalism/voluntaryism. “Libertarian socialism (or socialist libertarianism) is a group of anti-authoritarian political philosophies inside the socialist movement that rejects socialism as centralized state ownership and control of the economy, as well as the state itself. It is close to and overlaps with left-libertarianism. It criticizes wage labour relationships within the workplace, instead emphasizing workers’ self-management of the workplace and decentralized structures of political organization. It asserts that a society based on freedom and justice can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite. Libertarian socialists advocate for decentralized structures based on direct democracy and federal or confederal associations such as libertarian municipalism, citizens’ assemblies, trade unions, and workers’ councils. All of this is generally done within a general call for libertarian and voluntary human relationships through the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of human life. As such libertarian socialism, within the larger socialist movement, seeks to distinguish itself both from Leninism/Bolshevism and from social democracy. The first anarchist journal to use the term “libertarian” was Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social and it was published in New York City between 1858 and 1861 by French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque. The next recorded use of the term was in Europe, when “libertarian communism” was used at a French regional anarchist Congress at Le Havre (16–22 November 1880). January the following year saw a French manifesto issued on “Libertarian or Anarchist Communism”. Finally, 1895 saw leading anarchists Sébastien Faure and Louise Michel publish La Libertaire in France.” The word stems from the French word libertaire, which was used to evade the French ban on anarchist publications. In this tradition, the term “libertarianism” in “libertarian socialism” is generally used as a synonym for anarchism, which some say is the original meaning of the term; hence “libertarian socialism” is equivalent to “socialist anarchism” to these scholars. In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those who opposed state socialism, such as Mikhail Bakunin. The association of socialism with libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism with libertarianism in the United States. As Noam Chomsky put it, a consistent libertarian “must oppose private ownership of the means of production and wage slavery, which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer.” In a chapter recounting the history of libertarian socialism, economist Robin Hahnel relates that thus far the period where libertarian socialism has had its greatest impact was at the end of the 19th century through the first four decades of the twentieth century. Early in the twentieth century, libertarian socialism was as powerful a force as social democracy and communism. The Libertarian International– founded at the Congress of Saint Imier a few days after the split between Marxist and libertarians at the congress of the Socialist International held in The Hague in 1872 – competed successfully against social democrats and communists alike for the loyalty of anticapitalist activists, revolutionaries, workers, unions and political parties for over fifty years. Libertarian socialists played a major role in the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917. Libertarian socialists played a dominant role in the Mexican Revolution of 1911. Twenty years after World War I was over, libertarian socialists were still strong enough to spearhead the social revolution that swept across Republican Spain in 1936 and 1937. On the other hand a libertarian trend also developed within marxism which gained visibility around the late 1910s mainly in reaction against Bolshevism and Leninism rising to power and establishing the Soviet Union. Ref

“Thanks. That’s kind of what I assumed. It’s just the term anarchist that threw me a bit. Maybe it’s just me, but I tend to associate it with lawlessness. I am for all ethically justified laws.“- Questioner 

My response, “I am for all ethically justified laws that adhere to equality.

“How do you have socialism wo a govt to extort $ from those who aquire wealth?“- Challenger 

My response, “Anarcho-socialism (aka libertarian socialism or social anarchism) would be based on direct democratic control of the means of production and society in general. For instance, instead of a person or a small group of persons owning and controlling a hospital or a factory, as is the case under capitalism, in an anarcho-socialist society the workers as a whole, in conjunction with citizen’s councils, would have democratic control over these operations. In such a society services would be rendered and production would be carried out to fulfill needs, not to make profits. All goods and services that are non-scarce would be freely available to all.”

Do you honestly think it will ever work? Define: living wage,  in Africa they live off 2$ a day, democracy or anarchy, pick one.”- Challenger  

My response, yes direct democracy is anarchism and I do think it would work better. Direct democracy (also known as pure democracy) is a form of democracy in which people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on) policy initiatives directly. This differs from the majority of modern democracies, which are representative democracies.”

“Direct democracy is mob rule, no limitations on govt.“- Challenger

My response, that is nonsence, provide a source that validates your claim? Direct democracy is similar to, but distinct from, representative democracy, in which people vote for representatives who then enact policy initiatives. Depending on the particular system in use, direct democracy might entail passing executive decisions, the use of sortition, making laws, directly electing or dismissing officials, and conducting trials. Two leading forms of direct democracy are participatory democracy and deliberative democracy. Semi direct democracies in which representatives administer day-to-day governance, but the citizens remain the sovereign, allow for three forms of popular action: referendum (plebiscite), initiative, and recall. The first two forms—referendums and initiatives—are examples of direct legislation. Compulsory referendum subjects the legislation drafted by political elites to a binding popular vote. This is the most common form of direct legislation. Popular referendum empowers citizens to make a petition that calls existing legislation to a citizens’ vote. Institutions specify the time frame for a valid petition and the number of signatures required, and may require signatures from diverse communities to protect minority interests. This form of direct democracy effectively grants the voting public a veto on laws adopted by the elected legislature, as is done in Switzerland. Ref

“And getting everyone to vote on every issue is not plausible. I believe in a constitutionally limited republic. Ochlocracy (Greekὀχλοκρατίαokhlokratía; Latinochlocratia) or mob rule is the rule of government by mob or a mass of people, or, the intimidation of legitimate authorities. As a pejorative for majoritarianism, it is akin to the Latin phrase mobile vulgus meaning “the fickle crowd”, from which the English term “mob” originally was derived in the 1680sOchlocracy is synonymous in meaning and usage to the modern, informal termmobocracy, which arose in the 18th century as a colloquial neologism. Ochlocracy, or mob rule, is often incorrectly equated with tyranny of the majority; however, ochlocracy involves illegal action and does not necessitate a majority. ref “- Challenger

My response, the earliest known direct democracy is said to be the Athenian democracy in the 5th century BC, although it was not an inclusive democracy: women, foreigners, and slaves were excluded from it. Modern-era citizen lawmaking began in the towns of Switzerland in the 13th century. In 1847, the Swiss added the “statute referendum” to their national constitution. They soon discovered that merely having the power to veto Parliament’s laws was not enough. In 1891, they added the “constitutional amendment initiative”. Swiss politics since 1891 have given the world a valuable experience base with the national-level constitutional amendment initiative. In the past 120 years, more than 240 initiatives have been put to referendums. The populace has been conservative, approving only about 10% of these initiatives; in addition, they have often opted for a version of the initiative rewritten by government.” Ref So, you say so “you believe in a constitutionally limited republic” as what so I know how you feel or you saying you are choosing to leave?

So u know how i feel, so u can explain your ideals better. I have too much respect for you to just “leave.”- Challenger

My response, I was explaining my ideas just fine without knowing where you were politically and please tell me how knowing your political thighs helps explain my thinking? And, you do as you want.

“I just want to know how it will work as im an atheist, capitalist, anarchist btw”- Challenger

My response, I figured as such (capitalist) by your questions.

“One cannot be an anarchist and a capitalist. Capitalism is the hierarchy of capitalism accumulation over labor power.” – Respondent One to Challenger

“Anarchy refers to lack of govt, it brings feudalism, i know.“- Challenger to Respondent One

“How do you have a constitutionally limited republic without a govt to extort $ from those who acquire wealth?- Respondent Two to Challenger

My response Respondent One,  I agree One cannot be an anarchist and a capitalist to me either. I see the so called “anarcho-capitalism” as an anti-government political theory, just not anarchism to me. Anarcho-Hucksters: There is Nothing Anarchistic about Capitalism “Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions. These are often described as stateless societies, although several authors have defined them more specifically as institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful. While anti-statism is central, anarchism specifically entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of all human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system. Anarchism is usually considered an extreme left-wing ideology, and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflects anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, or participatory economics. Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy. Many types and traditions of anarchism exist, not all of which are mutually exclusive. Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism. Strains of anarchism have often been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications. The term anarchism is a compound word composed from the word anarchy and the suffix -ism] themselves derived respectively from the Greek ἀναρχία, i.e. anarchy (from ἄναρχος, anarchos, meaning “one without rulers”; from the privative prefix ἀν- (an-, i.e. “without”) and ἀρχός, archos, i.e. “leader”, “ruler”; (cf. archon or ἀρχή, arkhē, i.e. “authority”, “sovereignty”, “realm”, “magistracy”) and the suffix -ισμός or -ισμα (-ismos, -isma, from the verbal infinitive suffix -ίζειν, -izein). The first known use of this word was in 1539. Various factions within the French Revolution labelled opponents as anarchists (as Robespierre did the Hébertists) although few shared many views of later anarchists. There would be many revolutionaries of the early nineteenth century who contributed to the anarchist doctrines of the next generation, such as William Godwin and Wilhelm Weitling, but they did not use the word anarchist or anarchism in describing themselves or their beliefs. The first political philosopher to call himself an anarchist was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, marking the formal birth of anarchism in the mid-nineteenth century. Since the 1890s, and beginning in France, the term libertarianism has often been used as a synonym for anarchism and was used almost exclusively in this sense until the 1950s in the United States; its use as a synonym is still common outside the United States. On the other hand, some use libertarianism to refer to individualistic free-market philosophy only, referring to free-market anarchism as libertarian anarchism.” Ref

“But wo a govt, who stops the workers from doing same in a socialist anarchist state? And wo a govt, who is going to regulate the economy?“- Challenger

My response, prove to me that anarcho-capitalism is not just a selfish capitalist, not some humanitarian anarchist emancipating humans with the goal of the humanities human flushing? The only way I would ever take “anarcho-capitalism” as a real thing is if “they” see a beginning requirement of all current public private property (not per se personal private property) is restored to a beginning of universal starting, of everyone as the same starting point of property. Not some hypocrisy of do as I say not as I do, with regards to undue favor unjustly gotten and accumulated under the believed aggression of the state, welding its unfairness, corruption and abuse. That’s not what they support at all, no, they want to protect all undue favor unjustly gotten and accumulated under aggression of the state capitalism, why, they are not real anarchists, as they like it the way wanting to keep all abusive accumulation under the state of wealth and property, they only don’t seem to want a state now that they have benefited unethically but that is not enough to warrant a label of true anarchism, especially, with a willingness to continue a legacy contrived and compiled in injustice is it?

“I never claimed to be humanitarian, i only believe a free market brings faster innovations especially when profits can soar.“- Challenger

My response, ok, are you anti-humanity? States may often have powers, but only citizens have the glue of morality we call rights. And, you say, in my dream society lots of things are free (planting free food everyware free to everyone); but I wonder what you mean, how can I take free stuff from a free earth. How to show an anarcho-capitalism they practice anarcho-fraudism”, what do they want all the property that had been obtained from unjust forced under station to be redistributed equally or aloud to stay in the hands of the ones who reaped the most abusive entitlement benefits under the theft of station you so despise? I bet they want everything to stay the same right? They love all the abuse from every angle of capitulation but don’t like the one external pressure of the state. What confusion and as I see it they are just selfshism not Anarchism anything. One who exhibits quality in human character does not mean one never struggles, but that they triumph over them regardless, not that one never stumbles while trying to overcome detrimental obstacles, such as, one’s ego. To me human character is found in the best of human potential. Because character is one of the attributes or features that make up and distinguish an individual: a complex mix of behavioral/mental/ethical traits marking a main or essential nature especially as strongly marked and serving to distinguish ethical sensitivity, universal ethical standards, and boniface. Raise your head high my friend, for you are not some fallen wretch of a being, shackled with the notion of sin and inborn evil depravity. My “Atheistic Humanism,” is highly evolved yet simple, just one taking back their family name of self-ownership. l breath in the liberty and equality of free thinking glory, built on a godless realization and a connected compassion, seen to fruition as a passion for doing some good while you’re alive. Don’t be brought down by evilness of hate, instead rise to the goodness of kindness.

“Not anti humanity, just believe that noone is responsible for anyone except themselves and their families, but selfishism brings innovation, and thus the new Xbox 2035 version being even better.“- Challenger

My response, so how would you address world politics more war like now? How is your way better than now? The state brings innovation too so?

“Or a higher probability of cancer being cured if ppl can make a profit off the cure.“- Challenger

My response, profit makes care less affordable under capitalism (profit gouging), so it hinders things in the receiving of healthcare as well as limiting anything not somewhat quickly profitable.

“I think we need a modern written constitution that controls and limits govt better allowing more ppl to work for themselves. the state brings so little innovation that they hire out private engineering companies to do their innovating lol but private innovation with profits means we have treatment for everything from blood pressure to ding dong failure and more coming regularly, now, if they legalized weed so ppl could study it we could possibly have “affordable healthcare“- Challenger

My response, Steve Jobs was the ultimate entrepreneur. As Walter Isaacson noted in his biography, Jobs revolutionized seven industries and created the most valuable company in the world. We revere people like him, because they help create the future. Apple products are built on (and those of all tech firms), from the chips, to the Internet, to GPS, to the software protocols, were all supported or wholly developed by government programs. Here are four: DARPA, NIH, In-Q-Tel, & SBIR.
 
1. DARPA: In 1939, Leó Szilárd sent a letter to his friend Albert Einstein about the possibility of a mysterious device that could level entire cities. Einstein, in turn, passed it on to Franklin Roosevelt who, acutely aware that this otherwise unlikely idea had the sanction of the world’s most famous scientist, put the wheels of government in motion. The result was the Manhattan Project, the most consequential government science program ever, which gave an enormous advantage to America and its allies. After the war, the military looked for ways to keep scientists involved and in 1958 President Eisenhower authorized DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). Since then, DARPA has been a mainstay of technological development, funding development of the Internet, GPS and even Apple’s Siri, just to name a few. More recently, ARPA-E has been created to support similar development in energy.
 
2. NIH: We often fall into the trap of thinking about technology as mainly gadgets and gizmos. However, some of the most important innovations happen in the life sciences, much of it funded by the NIH (National Institutes of Health), a vast effort whose 2014 budget exceeds $31 billion. The impact of the NIH cannot be overstated. Researchers there have discovered vaccines for infectious diseases and innovative new treatments. A Congressional study found that as many as 60% of important drugs would not have been discovered without NIH support and that economic returns range from 25% to 40%. It also funded the Human Genome Project, a $3.6 billion undertaking that has not only revolutionized medical science, but whose economic benefits have been estimated to be nearly $800 billion as of 2011 and will likely multiply many times in the future.
 
3. In-Q-Tel: Government procurement is notoriously inefficient, especially with regard to military contracts, because there are multiple points of failure. First, specifications need to go through a cumbersome bureaucratic process, then bids are solicited and assessed not only on their merits, but amidst a political and greed ridden morass. In the case of technology, the problem is especially acute. Much like large corporations, government bureaucrats are ill equipped to judge the value of nascent technologies and, by the time they are finished wrangling through the procurement process, the technology is often already out of date. That’s why the CIA created In-Q-Tel, a government funded VC that invests in startup companies focused on cutting edge technology such as big data analytics and quantum computing. Rather than fully funding research programs, they can partner with entrepreneurs like Jeff Bezos and pursue a number of approaches. The In-Q-Tel program has become so successful that it is seen as a stamp of approval for start-ups, so it is often able to invest at attractive valuations even when a company is fully funded.
 
4. SBIR: Entrepreneurs are often seen as heroic, while many observers complain that government should just get out of the way. However, although nobody likes the regulation and red tape, the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program shows that government can play an important role in helping young, innovative businesses get started. The program has three phases. The first is a “proof of concept” phase in which funding is generally capped at $150,000. The second is a research phase in which grants can go up to $1 million. In the third phase, the company is expected to either get private funding or, in some cases, can receive funding from another government program. Qualcomm, iRobot and Symantec are just a few of the SBIR success stories. The combination of low grants (lower in fact, than most venture capitalists are willing to get involved with) and limited duration encourages entrepreneurs to embark on projects that aren’t yet developed enough to secure financing in the private sector. Ref And you said now, if they legalized weed so ppl could study it we could possibly have “affordable healthcare. I am against all drug laws for adults outside job safety issues restriction while on the job. Self-ownership: Abortion, Genital Mutilation, Prostitution, Drugs, and the Right to Die

I am a “Real Anarchist” not an “Anarcho-Capitalist”

Anarcho-Humanism

Racism Hate, is Psychological/Emotional Violence?

Slavery, Racism, Religion and the Confederate Flag

 

 

 


For those who wonder how I think politically I took the test for one’s Political Compass. I got left libertarian as I would expect. I’m curious as to your political leanings, If interested take it and post your results in the comment section.