Cost Of Hordourves For Wedding

L'anarchia NON è violenza

I write this post, now I put a video on the events in Genoa a few years ago that everyone will remember well. At that time someone said that during the G8 Ligurian there was the largest suspension of human rights in a Western country.
The summer of that bloody G8 was 18 years old, good times ... I was an idealist and I wanted to go with my girlfriend at the event. It seemed right to participate in such an event, to protest against something that seemed illegitimate.
All the money and the world's resources in the hands of a few people and everyone else in the cold? Unacceptable. I was only 18 years old, but already I knew that the world is so organized it made no sense and could not stand. I was just a boy however, and did not understand why everyone would not be outraged by such a blatantly unfair behavior on the part of the world leaders who wanted everything for themselves and their friends, taking it from anyone else (including me).
In the end I went and I was relieved, seeing the incident. Over the years I met several people who told me of the brutal violence committed against them by agents sent by the Italian State. The documents are there, you make a review.

What I do remember that summer and that all the newspapers were not talking about black block anarchists. These groups, according to the majority of journalists were organized with the purpose of carrying out violence against police.

The concept of "organized anarchists to do violence" is a contradiction, however.
First thing: the anarchist condemned the state, has condemned the army and condemned the violence.
Violence is the most commonly used by the company and individual to oppress others. If we follow the anarchist principle of equality for every individual, no oppression is tolerated, let alone perpetrated by the means of violence.

In history there were anarchists who committed violent acts? Yes, some. They were mostly isolated acts committed by an individual who, through various types of weapons or bombs, trying to eliminate hierarchy in sight. Sometimes they got it as well.
As mentioned, however, these actions were carried out by a single and without a doubt in the conduct un'eccezzione anarchist. All these attacks and have suffered harsh criticism from the same environments anarchists. Anarchy
but never had an army, an armed group or something like that.
It 'obvious that to be against his principles. But one day, that's born to spell this paramilitary organization which now is called "anarchic" by the media. An anarchist army?! It's roughly like a square circle, the two concepts are contradictory, no doubt about it. In addition, the army revealed itself only to the G8 events, limited to vandalism of street and urban warfare ... very strange. Despite these obvious
inaccuracies and many obscure points, most of the public did not take long to make good for these "truths".
Anarchists had made up an army to smash shop windows and set fire to rubbish bins.
Obviously this description given by the media had no effect, but it was fine because he could blame the riots on the anarchists, very easy target.
For most people the anarchist is one who occupies a social center, it is against the company and this is a dangerous and violent criminal.
In that case the violence was artfully created by groups infiltrators among the protesters, to divert attention from the decisions taken at the G8 as an excuse to give a lesson to those who want to rebel against a system controlled by few and inaccessible to many.

Anarchy has never had an army and has never fought a war weapon.
Army and war are out of the anarchist conception, because the direct consequences of the state.

South Park Online 777

Dirt Bike Themed Party

Il concetto di responsabilità

then Anarchy is order without power, without condition and without any hierarchy or authority.

How can I get order without all these superstructures?
We start by understanding how to operate the power, hierarchy and authority. In
any association or organization hierarchy, those in power to impose rules to follow under their jurisdiction. The individual must comply with these rules if you do not want to incur penalties. These rules are often adopted by those who command, without asking the opinion to the subject and without pretending to be shared by those who then must, in essence, to follow.
It therefore requires obedience, not critical. For the hierarchy generally not interested in knowing the degree to which these rules are considered positive, effective or intelligent the subject.
My speech is a general sense, it is obvious that there are many exceptions. For example

really easy, when the Italian state enacts a bill, not asking citizens if they agree or less (except in the case of a referendum). Democracy in fact the concept of a "delegate". When citizens go to the ballot box, choose which of the candidates will represent him in parliament. At that point his work is finished. The elected representative will be its extension policy. It may happen that a citizen does not agree with some of the initiatives of the party or candidate who voted, but can not interfere in its work. The only way to express political disagreement is not to vote more for that party, or abstain from voting altogether.

In essence the individual is taking responsibility away from political life. He is asked only to choose a representative e poi eclissarsi. Sarà poi l'uomo che ha scelto ad agire politicamente per lui.
Ovviamente in un regime democratico degno di tale nome è possibile manifestare il proprio dissenso ad azioni politiche(nei limiti delle leggi dello stato). Ciò però non significa che l'individuo abbia il diritto di agire per modificare le decisioni del parlamento o di altri organi di governo locale in modo diretto.
Ho preso il caso della democrazia perchè è la forma più vicina a noi e quindi più comprensibile. In democrazia l'individuo ha una certa responsabilità politica, in altre forme di governo questa responsabilità è molto minore. Pensiamo ad una dittatura ad esempio, dove al cittadino non viene assolutamente richiesto di partecipare in modo attivo alla politica del Paese.

Una società anarchica invece tende ad aumentare il più possibile la responsabilità politica del singolo. Qui l'individuo è chiamato a fare sempre politica attiva, ossia a partecipare all'organizzazione della società. Non vi è l'obbligo di "delegare", anzi in una società anarchica a tutti gli appartenenti viene chiesto di esprimere il proprio giudizio sulle proposte di altri e di farne di proprie.
La responsabilità politica del cittadino è quindi massima e questo si traduce anche in un aumento della responsabilità civile.

Un altro piccolo esempio:
poniamo che in un piccolo villaggio si instauri una società anarchica. Questo village is made up of 100 adults. Any meeting convened to decide what to do on an issue requires the participation of all 100 of its citizens. The anarchic spirit is the enemy of the majority vote because it would be regarded as a soppruso against the minority. The question then is discussed, who wants to express his opinion and try to find a compromise that will work for everyone.
The decision was then endorsed by all, maybe some are not fully satisfied, but they have accepted.
is the key point: sharing. The decision was taken is shared.
The individual will be led to follow the guidelines decided group in the assembly because it is convinced the best thing, sharing the decision.
His liability is greatest because now follow the directive does not because it was imposed by someone and is afraid of the consequences of any transgression will follow because we share the principles and purposes include.


is not a small thing ...

come back often on the concept of individual and collective responsibility because it is the principle on which an anarchist society.

How To Make A Dunking Tank

Che cosa NON è l'anarchia

Anarchy is a word that begins with a denial: "an".
to fully understand the meaning then it must understand that What is that which is denied by anarchy. What is not anarchy, then?
Anarchy is not "authority", so there is no "hierarchy" and not "state."
Anarchy is equality of all living beings, then it is not "capitalism" is not "racism" is not "sexism" is not "xenophobia".

This small step is crucial to understand such concepts can not be part of anarchist thought.
to start thinking about an anarchist is necessary to consider the "state" and any form of authority or hierarchy as alien and oppressive. Any company, group or individual wishing to order in an anarchic illegittimma considers the authority of hierarchical forms taxes as "superior."
It follows that by not recognizing the dominant social structure, the anarchist does not care to obey the moral rules or laws imposed by those structures, alien to him.

Moreover, assuming that no living being can be above or below another, the anarchist rejects any notion of racism or sexism.

Capitalism is against the spirit of anarchy because it still requires the soggezzione of labor over capital. The capital (shown by management) creates a hierarchy within the working environment. This establishes a hierarchy "Superior", which can impose his authority to an inferior. But as we have seen the anarchist does not accept hierarchy and authority.
discourse on capitalism from an anarchist point of view, and much longer and more articulated as described above, will be the subject of a separate post.

From these initial observations, you can already figure out how the anarchist in a radically opposite reasons, the common thought.

Penis Girthwomentoilet Roll

Canto Anarchico

Epson Scan Kodachrome

Storia dell'anarchia o del pensiero anarchico ?

The history of anarchy and the of anarchist thought are two different things.

E 'first born of anarchy or anarchist thought?

The easy answer is easy: it was born well before the anarchy that has virtually screen headed man from his descent from plants.

Examples of anarchist society in prehistoric times there are many. E 'is also evident that this organization would be neither defined, nor thought of as anarchy.

who took the trouble to give a definition and social policy as we understand today to anarchy, arrived several millennia later, in early nineteenth century. The

word "anarchy" but is of Greek origin, then vi era già consapevolezza della sua esistenza diversi secoli prima dell'arrivo dei vari Godwin, Bakunin e compagnia.

Insomma, per fare un paragone banale, un albero di mele esisteva anche prima che qualcuno decidesse di chiamarlo cosi', di studiarlo e di coltivarlo.

I greci, padri della nostra cultura occidentale, grandi filosofi, scienzati e pensatori avevano grande passione nello studiare e sviscerare sia fenomeni naturali che discipline “umanistiche” come la politica.

Nell'antica Grecia vennero definite gran parte delle strutture politiche che sono arrivate sino a noi: democrazia, oligarchia, monarchia, tirannia ecc. Ed in effetti tutte le parole che le definoscono sono di origine greca. Torneremo a parlare degli antichi greci, popolo politicamente evolutissimo, che aveva studiato e compreso I fenomeni e le strutture di organizzazione sociale molto più a fondo di quanto gran parte della società cosi detta “civile” le definisca e le comprenda oggi.

Non è però oggetto di questo post e non vorrei divagare troppo, volevo solo analizzare l'etimologia della parola “anarchia” per gli antichi greci, I primi che ne diedero una definizione arrivata sino a noi.

In Greco la “an” è un prefisso negativo come il nostro “non”. La parola “archein” significa: principiare (nel senso di agire da principe, ossia comandante diremmo oggi), dominion, rule. "Archon" it means sir, housekeeper (see Archon). Thus "anarchy" is the negation of the government of a prince or commander. In a less polished, but perhaps more effective and understandable, we might describe as an absence of a leader.

organizations or companies without a head are many existed long before the Greeks saddled a name. So the story is much longer than anarchy, and in my opinion infinitely more interesting than I thought by anarchist thinkers.

not my intention to embark on a draft of anarchist thought borrowed dai vari Bakunin, Godwin ecc. L'anarchia non può essere una dottrina per sua stessa definizione. Una dottrina è un insegnamento comunque imposto da un singolo o da un gruppo ad un altro e questa già non è più anarchia.

L'anarchia più pura in senso stretto è prorpio quella inconsapevole, ossia una società organizzata in modo anarchico senza nemmeno sapere di esserlo.

Parlerò comunque di questi pensatori, cosi' che la curiosità di alcuni venga soddisfatta, ma presterò molta più attenzione alla descrizione di società anarchiche consapevoli o inconsapevoli realmente esistite.

Insomma più attenzione alla pratica, ma con un doveroso eye for the theory.