RE: Anarchism: tell me more (was RE: Nimrod)

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: trixarian@xxxxxxxxx
> To: slitaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Anarchism: tell me more (was RE: Nimrod)
>
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
> Terry Maiden <t.maiden@xxxxxxx> 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/
>