johngaltsnipples:

transhumanisticpanspermia:

johngaltsnipples:

transhumanisticpanspermia:

fuckyeahanarchopunk:

Nihil Press comix

You know what’s interesting?

Every single anarchist movement that has happened or I see in the works of happening has had that same problem! It’s almost as if…

NOBODY WILL EVER ALL AGREE ON THE SAME THING AND LEADERSHIP IS THE ONLY WAY CHANGE HAPPENS, AND LEADERSHIP ALWAYS EVOLVES INTO SOME DEGREE OF STATE.

Holy shit.

Ever notice how the only true anarchists just sit around and argue with each other using big words?

Even if they decided to take action, they’d all disagree and probably wouldn’t succeed, and if they did succeed, there’d be so much disagreement that “horizontal organization” wouldn’t even start to form. There’d be someone grabbing power within 3 days.

Centralized government ≠ Leadership

Leadership ≠ a State

A state is the monopolized use of force, leadership does not have to use force to achieve results nor does it have to claim complete legal use of force against other people. 

Most anarchic movements have agreed on the same over-all agenda, maybe not every little bit and piece, but for the most part there is solidarity within all movements be them anarchic or not, that’s why they’re movements. No group of people will ever totally agree on every piece of everything, so why should anarchism be held to a different standard than other movements? 

Because in a system that require universal voluntary compliance, everyone has to agree. That’s kind of obvious. So it’s dead right out of the starting line. No other system has such a requirement, thus it is not a problem.

Actually that’s reversed. In a system that requires compliance by force then everyone has to agree or they are punished by either monetary means or violence depending on the extremism of the system. 

Anarchism would mean you a free to disagree, and you may agree with whomever you like, also known as free association. 

But you can’t disagree with anarchism itself, or the whole system collapses. That’s the problem. The species will not advance, it will exist for the sole purpose of constantly trying to organize itself.

A Leviathan type global federalism would be much more efficient, and it would be able to enforce the nonexistence of war and genocide. No such safeguard exists in any form of anarchy; no, “solidarity” doesn’t count. Because after a generation or two everyone becomes complacent and wouldn’t know how to defend themselves against a rogue community, which could easily conquer large swaths of land and form an empire. Plus, Leviathan is compatible with rights-restricted absolute democracy. All you need is two fundamental rights - the right to equal opportunity and a free democracy - and you’re good. Everyone on the planet would be guaranteed equal opportunity (which implies a basic standard of living.) Any economic systems could form locally as long as they preserved human rights - such as a true capitalism or a true socialism. And again plus, it allows the species to focus on more important things, like eventually expanding beyond the planet.