first a bit of wiki:
Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the 
state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful,[1][2] or alternatively as 
opposing authority and hierarchical organization in the conduct of human 
relations.[3][4][5][6][7][8] Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", 
advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical[3][9][10] voluntary 
associations.[11][12]



The "d'ont put your nose every where concept" came from the fact that groups 
takes decisions fasters if they are less people. 
to ensure to get the less and good people around a table. a common concept is 
to take part on a decision or meeting relatively to the impact that this 
decision will have on you. 
The other point is that a boy or a girl can exerce control on a non-hiearchical 
group by participating to organize task that he will not accomplish.
in some context(like Canada since 2002 ) it is to prevent the 
infiltrators(police) to be able to radicalise a group and pushing them to do 
thing that they will be acused with the objective to get pepole arrested or 
loose social empowering resulting of destroying or discredit a group.

For the explanations of anarchisme its hard to tell it in few words. Anarchism 
have lot of subgroup that are sometime opposed to each other. or had make sense 
only on certins political situation.  

An exemple that i like are the trafic lights:

 when i was young they tell me: you have voted for me so i have decided that 
when the light is red you have to stop and wait for the green if you dont do 
it, a cop  will punish you. that the autoritaran way to save people life.
In the anarchist way a group of citizen using this corner decide them self to 
do a meeting for finding a solutions they are ageed to put a light set they 
have exposed and understand the risks of crossing when its not your turn but 
are still free to do it.

now the big difference on the main 3 family of anar. (anarco-individualist and 
anarco-solialist/communist) 
the individualist will understand the risks and be free to take them if he want.
the socialist will understand the risk, concider group decisions and will not 
take a risk if it causes a risk to someone else that woud't  had taked it. 
communist will understand the risk and remembered group decision and will 
respect it until it will be debated agan for futur changes. 
(put in context that i have a preferance and a bether knowing of the 
anarco-socialisme )

Regarding this exemple the first big probleme of an anarchist is  the fact that 
IRL the rules and lights are already set. Citizen can't organize them self to 
take change without the aprobations of authority. That why the big fight aganst 
authority,state,country,oppression,religion....  

Now im interested in the internetz  and "the bazar way" because state and 
economic authority are not there yet but in the same time, Programing request a 
LOT of rules, conventions and groups organisation and debate.
So im searching how bazar inovations can profite and impact IRL for individuals 
and way to organize. 


P.S.: this my point of view only. others persons probably see it in an other 
way. 
PS:Assasinate and terrorism are the way of the small and/or poor groups 
whatever they are anarchist or not. 






> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 04:01:38 +0200
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Anarchism: tell me more (was RE: Nimrod)
> 
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
> Terry Maiden <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > Anarchists caused considerable trouble during the 19TH century.  An
> > Italian anarchist assassinated "Sissy", Empress of Austria Queen of
> > Hungary.  A Serbian anarchist later assassinated the Archduke and
> > Duchess of Austria, heir to the Austrian and Hungarian thrones and
> > this started World War 1.  This happened while the Duke and Duchess
> > were visiting Bosnia.  I think two American Presidents were
> > assassinated by anarchists as well.  I always thought slitaz was
> > French for "spider".
> 
> Probably because the word Anarchist in those days meant the same thing
> as "Extremist" or "Terrorist". It's been getting a bad rap by idiot
> historians :P
> 
> 
> -- 
> SliTaz GNU/Linux Mailing list - http://www.slitaz.org/
> 
                                          

Reply via email to