Anarchist Movement
The political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, or alternatively, as opposing authority is one way it can be viewed as. But also is viewed as the hierarchal organization in the conduct of human relations, which many have come to know as Anarchism. The term derives from the ancient Greek word “Anarchos”, meaning “without rulers”. This movement has been around for many centuries. These types of activities are still around to this day and aren’t showing any signs of ending. Anarchists can come in all shapes, sizes, ethnicities, and backgrounds. The clothing they choose to wear can be very unique to their organization. Origins of the movement can be traced back to as early as the 6th century B.C. From the 6th century to the present day world, quite a few influential anarchist figures, important to the movement, have risen to display and announce their strong beliefs to create an enormous following. Any anarchist movement group around the world should be classified as a terrorist organization because of their actions that occurred in history and also for the manner they handle themselves when trying to reach their objective.
In 1840, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a French political writer and socialist, became the first person to call himself an anarchist. In Proudhon’s book, “What Is Property”, he stated that the real laws of society have nothing to do with authority, but stem instead from the nature of society itself. Proudhon has also predicted the eventual dissolve of authority and the appearance of a natural social order. Proudhon was considered a peaceful anarchist; he believed that within existing society, the organizations could be created that would eventually replace i...
... middle of paper ...
...ists have been around to influence many people. According to a countless amount of anarchist, they’re not out to terrorize civilians, but they can be violent. In my humble opinion, anarchists are terrorists because their use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes, which is defined as terrorism. They can twist it any way they like, but they are a form of terrorists. They don’t really pose an immediate threat, but the threat is always there. So beware, anarchist have proven time and time again that if the opportunity should arise, they will stop at nothing to bringing the “evil” government burning down to the ground.
Works Cited
Crabtree, B. (1992). The History of Anarchism. Dallas, Texas. Anarchist and cyberpunk discussion
Amy Zalman, Ph.D. (XXXX). History of Terrorism: Anarchism and Anarchist Terrorism. About. P.1.
As Rand refutes a principal concept of socialism, she illustrates multiple counts of insubordination and social class structures. Socialism’s attempt to remove class structure fails miserably. The most prominent demonstration of rebellion rises from Equality 7-2521 and his emotions and desire for knowledge. After being denied by the Council of Scholars, Equality 7-2521 rashly breaks a window and flees “in a ringing rain of glass” (Rand 75). Equality 7-2521’s actions illustrate the ‘working class’ rebelling against the ‘elitists’ though this society attempted to eliminate social structures. Furthermore, Equality 7-2521 was not alone in rebelling against ‘the brotherhood’, Liberty 5-3000 followed his example. Unsatisfied with her life and the suppression of emotion, she followed Equality 7-2521’s example and “on the night of the day when we heard it, we ran away from the Home of Peasants” (Rand 82). The rebellion of the two members reflects the means of a social rev...
...y Him give great stories of their experiences through a change in government at the hands of corrupt and brutal regimes. They both tell how the regimes had no sense for the individual rights of the people in society. In the end, both regimes eventually fell, but not before millions of lives were taken. These stories shed light on how correct both Bastiat and Marx were about how government should be run. They show how a government that is too controlling and too forceful on its people will never have a long lasting existence. The power of government must have limitations, and the individual rights of the members of society must be taken account for and respected. Government is needed in society and plays a very crucial role in the longevity and successfulness of a nation. However, too much or too little government control will ultimately be the demise of a society.
“A society that seeks to operate outside the control of the American people and their governments. It involves thousands of criminals*, working within structures as complex as those of any large cooperation, subject to laws more rigidly enforced than those of legitimate governments. Its actions are not impulsive but rather the result of intricate conspiracies, carried on over many years and aimed at gaining control over whole fields of activity in order to amass huge profits” (P.C.C., 1970).
...on of the Anarchiste, we believe that man must feel pain, must know himself before others, must know his own pain and suffering to truly live.
In the 1800’s, the social structure of Europe was changing. The industrial revolution brought new technologies and techniques that lead to more production, and a more prosperous European society. With these great changes to society and the way things were produced, changes in the government and how the society was run was imminent. Both The Law by Frederic Bastiat and Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx present new and fresh ideas on how society should be governed, Bastiat going into the concepts of liberalism and Marx the concepts of communism, both of which are oriented to the individual rights of people in these European societies.
For a movement that impacted the country both socially and politically, the occupy movement started out relatively small. According to Peter Katel of the CQ Researcher, a group of 1,000 protesters settled into Zuccotti Park, in New York City, in mid-September of 2011. This group, motivated by the growing chasm between the wealthy and middle classes hoped that non-violent protest could enlighten lawmakers and bring about economic change. The movement spread from New York to cities across America. The driving force behind the movement was a desire to change national policy, which favors the rich at the expense of the poor. There was a strong push against the movement as well. Many people (mainly conservatives) saw the occupy movement as an attempt to over through the American political system and in its place, impose a communist form of government. Major newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times compare the occupy movement to the Soviet communist uprising. William F. Jasper a writer for The New American, states, “The leading activists openly display their communist, Marxist, socialist, anarchist affiliations and orientations. One would have to be totally blind and totally dishonest not to notice this. The purpose of Mr. Jasper’s article was to show the contrast between the tea party who “paid for permits, police, security, and port-a-potties, and cleaned up after themselves; they did not stick the taxpayers with the tab,” and the occupy movement which he described as a violent communist uprising bent on overthrowing the government. Oddly enough the members of the occupy movement used this Marxist label as a rallying point. This created a peculiar situation in which each side used the term communism in an atte...
“Anarchism recognizes the rights of the individual, or numbers of individuals, to arrange at all times for other forms of work, in harmony with their tastes and desires.”(Goldman, 56) An Anarchic state provides the ability of equality not only between gender, and class, but also between race and religion. Emma Goldman fought for political and social equality between men and women. In some aspects Goldman argued that when a decision is freely chosen then the outcome can be drastically different compared to a decision that has been forced upon the person. In Goldman’s essay’s she propagates that by getting rid of the state it would not create chaos, but would help create harmony.
During this time, in 1910, one of her most distinguished pieces of literature was published. In Anarchism: What It Really Stands For, Goldman begins with a quote about anarchy from John Henry Mackay, a Scottish-German anarchist author and philosopher. This quote ends with a notable bit, in which Mackay declares, “I am an Anarchist! Wherefore I will not rule, and also ruled I will not be.” Goldman continues in, saying that the main issue the masses have with anarchism is born out of ignorance on the topic. Most people who are unfamiliar with this ideology peg it as being focused on violence and chaos. Goldman refutes this untrue claim, saying that the very thing anarchism is looking to combat is ignorance and nothing else. By its definition, anarchism strives to allow people to think for themselves, to break free from societal restraints, and unlearn the lies that have been spoon fed to us. Goldman says that anarchism is special, in that it is the only ideology that encourages humanity to think for themselves, and the only one that insists God, the state, and society are, and should remain, non existent. The only thing worth relying on to bring people together as a collective whole is anarchism, and it cannot and should not be ignored any longer. Further in her piece, she alludes to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s piece on property, and
Society is flawed. There are critical imbalances in it that cause much of humanity to suffer. In, the most interesting work from this past half-semester, The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx is reacting to this fact by describing his vision of a perfectly balanced society, a communist society. Simply put, a communist society is one where all property is held in common. No one person has more than the other, but rather everyone shares in the fruits of their labors. Marx is writing of this society because, he believes it to be the best form of society possible. He states that communism creates the correct balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of society. And furthermore thinks that sometimes violence is necessary to reach the state of communism. This paper will reflect upon these two topics: the relationship of the individual and society, and the issue of violence, as each is portrayed in the manifesto.
...ed with a moral or political obligation to the sacrifice of his own interests for the sake of greater social good, utilizes the same ‘common good’ as the tyrant. Both justify and execute, with a clear conscience, horrors that would never be considered for one’s own sake, but are more than worthy for the cause of the masses. Collectivism, in its raw, implemental form, results not only in mass delusion, but in the deconstruction of society by the tainted individuals in power portraying their goals as that of the masses. In reality, the masses suffer, while the authorities exist in a state of self-induced gluttony; an apparition that resembles progress, but actually symbolizes progress’s murder. By following the stories of these men, Ayn Rand provides a basis for how collectivism, even when masked by the guise of justice, results in nothing but the death of humanity.
When one thinks of Anarchy they will immediately think of destruction and chaos. Of course, one who knows the beliefs of Anarchy will know otherwise. Anarchism is a political philosophy that upholds the belief that no one should be able to coerce anyone and no society should contain a wide variety of groups who coordinate social functions. It is the opportunity to live the life that you decide is best for you. In the eyes of Anarchy, government is corrupt and the people of society should govern themselves. There should not be any rules, laws, or police officers to chastise or enforce anything on any individual. Anyone who knows Greek will know that the term Anarchy means no rulers; so an anarchist society is a society without rulers, not a chaotic society. Anarchy believes in liberty, solidarity, and equality.
Terrorism is not like the "ism" of communism; communism is a political ideology that infringed on our capitalistic ways, but terrorism is much more destructive. As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives". Terrorism is a technique, but as we have come to know it present day it is enacted by radical religious individuals who are opposed to globalization and the western way of life. The ideologies of these Islamic extremists do not transfer an ideology to terrorism, because it is spread among many groups and has become too broad a concept.
While the writings of Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau occasionally seem at odds with one another both philosophers needs to be read as an extension of each other to completely understand what human freedom is. The fundamental difference between the two philosophers lies within the way which they determine why humans are not free creatures in modern society but once were. Rousseau draws on the genealogical as well as the societal aspects of human nature that, in its development, has stripped humankind of its intrinsic freedom. Conversely, Marx posits that humankind is doomed to subjugation in modern society due to economic factors (i.e. capitalism) that, in turn, affect human beings in a multitude of other ways that, ultimately, negates freedom. How each philosopher interprets this manifestation of servitude in civil society reveals the intrinsic problems of liberty in civil society. Marx and Rousseau come to a similar conclusion on what is to be done to undo the fetters that society has brought upon humankind but their methods differ when deciding how the shackles should be broken. To understand how these two men’s views vary and fit together it must first be established what they mean by “freedom”.
Natural philosophers of every century of human existence have asked what we owe to each other, society or government. In The Origin of Civil Society, Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that the only natural form of duty is to one’s family, and all other obligations are based on agreement (57). Henry David Thoreau, in 1849, wrote in Resistance to Civil Government (sometimes known as Civil Disobedience), “it is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support” (143). This sort of conflict, which has accompanied all men at the great changes in society, is what drives conflict in Herman Melville’s Bartleby, the Scrivener. Melville, like the Byzantine architects, crafts a work of art that studies a microcosm of the macrocosm. That is to say, by looking at the relationship between two people, Melville is able to explore the larger context around them, specifically the radical change of society in the mid-19th century. Like Thoreau, Bartleby’s famous word, “I would prefer not to,” send a shockwave through contemporary expectations and give rise to how a person approaches a situation. Bartleby and Thoreau are both transcendentalists, and look to return to a Rousseauian state of nature. They have both arrived there after a journey of self-examination – most definitely in Thoreau’s case, and most probably in Bartleby’s – and their non-conformist attitudes raise questions of what is expected of people with regard to their duty to society and each other. Bartleby in particular makes the nameless...
John Locke’s views on property and liberty, as outlined in his Second Treatise of Government (1690), have had varying interpretations and treatments by subsequent generations of authors. At one extreme, Locke has been claimed as one of the early originators of Western liberalism, who had sought to lay the foundations for civil government, based on universal consent and the natural rights of individuals. [1] Others have charged that what Locke had really done, whether intentionally or unintentionally, was to provide a justification for the entrenched inequality and privileges of the bourgeoisie, in the emerging capitalist society of seventeenth century England. The crux of these arguments either way have centered on Chapter 5 in the Second Treatise, entitled ‘Of Property’.