I am in complete agreement with endlessness. Voting might be worthwhile if we actually had a democratic government. A polito-corporatecracy is a perfect way of putting it. Your vote does nothing but shift around the PR agents for the major corporations. They are the ones who make the decisions and hold the power. Politicians are controlled by them; they don't actually do any real decision making without approval from the corporatecracy. The situation is no different here in Canada.


I'm going to assume you're talking about Bernie Sanders. This may sound cynical and a bit jaded, but I think things would not really change that much with him as president. Unless he was assassinated or something equally horrifying and the American people finally had enough and found ways to retake the country from the corporations and the bankers. I do look with fascination on this man because he is a very unlikely politician. He seems to genuinely want to help his country and do away with a lot of things that probably should've been changed some time ago, or maybe should've never been allowed to happen at all.

How successful can he be? That's my question. He is one man with meager means, going up against some very rich and powerful men who will stop at nothing to ensure that their profits do not decline. Hence why I hinted at assassination; if he is elected and does what he says he will do, he will put himself in serious danger.

To address Nathanial's question, I mostly vote with my money. Like Continuum already said, that holds much more value in our society than an election ballot. I deliberately spend my money with local businesses and shy away from forking over any of my money that might even slightly benefit a large corporation. I even do my best to keep away from the big banks. I have attended protests and marches in the past, so I do practice some activism in that way. I just don't find it very efficient.

While I may not agree with thymamai about the firearms, I do agree about the heart I do everything I can to encourage others to act and speak from their heart, from love, and to promote connectedness rather than separation. I do everything I can to help those in need in my local area. But I also am finding myself on the internet more and more trying to spread this same ideology. I think how we'll bring about real change would be from grouping together, finding affinities, forcing the political system to change just from the sheer numbers of us no longer willing to participate in a sham government.

No, i am talking about Jeremy Corbyn.



But now you mention it Bernie Saunders looks interesting. I might have to read up a bit more on him.


@ thymami i am glad that i read you right and that no offence was caused.

In last 200,000 years of our species having existed on this planet, it seems we've totally lost focus on what our objective as a species really is, or could be. As hunter gatherers, most of our time was spent searching for food. Now, our technological advancements make it so that food and electricity production could be totally automated, and we could just sit back and enjoy the simple, happy life that our ancestors would have killed for...but no. We chose instead to maintain a ridiculously overcomplicated version of the medieval feudal system (and menatlity), where we must own things in order to be happy, where we absolutely must be working or producing for our lords, and where leisure (drugs, but not TV?) is nice, but not really desirable for the long term.

So anarchy, for me, is not the answer. A stucture is needed, 7 billion people cannot live without it. But that neededn't be in place only to keep itself going, but to serve the people. Socialist stucture, communist mentality of the individual = bliss & utopia

---

---

A beautifully true statement. I really don't doubt that, if Anarchy were the way in the modern United States, something far worse would emerge than the wild west. Most Americans don't have the mentality of the typical Nexian Anarchist (who I'd imagine as an open-minded, liberal, philosopher type haha).

Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies with voluntary institutions. These are often described as stateless societies, but several authors have defined them more specifically as institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations.-Wikipedia

---

Social anarchism (sometimes referred to as socialist anarchism[1]) is a non-state form of socialism[2] and is generally considered to be the branch of anarchism which sees individual freedom as being dependent upon mutual aid.[3] Social anarchist thought generally emphasizes community and social equality.[3]

Social anarchists advocate the conversion of present-day private property into social property or the commons, while retaining respect for personal property.[4] The term is used specifically to describe those who place a higher emphasis on supporting the communitarian and cooperative aspects of anarchist theory than other anarchists. It is generally considered an umbrella term which includes (but is not limited to) collectivist anarchism, anarchist communism, anarcho-syndicalism, and social ecology.

The term "social anarchism" is often used interchangeably with libertarian socialism,[1] left-libertarianism,[5] or left anarchism.[6] It emerged in the late 19th century as a distinction from individualist anarchism.[7]-Wikipedia

---

Anarcho-syndicalism (also referred to as revolutionary syndicalism[1]) is a theory of anarchism which views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as a method for workers in capitalist society to gain control of an economy and, with that control, influence broader society. Syndicalists consider their economic theories a strategy for facilitating worker self-activity and as an alternative co-operative economic system with democratic values and production centered on meeting human needs.

The basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism are solidarity, direct action (action undertaken without the intervention of third parties such as politicians, bureaucrats and arbitrators) and direct democracy, or workers' self-management. The end goal of anarcho-syndicalism is to abolish the wage system, regarding it as wage slavery. Anarcho-syndicalist theory therefore generally focuses on the labor movement.[2]

Anarcho-syndicalists view the primary purpose of the state as being the defence of private property, and therefore of economic, social and political privilege, denying most of its denizens the ability to enjoy material independence and the social autonomy which springs from it.[3] In contrast with other bodies of thought, particularly with Marxism–Leninism, anarcho-syndicalists deny that there can be any kind of workers' state, or a state which acts in the interests of workers, as opposed to those of the powerful, and posit that any state with the intention of empowering the workers will inevitably work to empower itself or the existing elite at the expense of the workers. Reflecting the anarchist philosophy from which it draws its primary inspiration, anarcho-syndicalism holds to the idea that power corrupts.[3]-Wikipedia

---

Anarcho-primitivism

Anarcho-primitivism is an anarchist critique of the origins and progress of civilization. According to anarcho-primitivism, the shift from hunter-gatherer to agricultural subsistence gave rise to social stratification, coercion, alienation, and population growth. Anarcho-primitivists advocate a return to non-"civilized" ways of life through deindustrialization, abolition of the division of labor or specialization, and abandonment of large-scale organization technologies.

Many traditional anarchists reject the critique of civilization while some, such as Wolfi Landstreicher, endorse the critique but do not consider themselves anarcho-primitivists. Anarcho-primitivists are often distinguished by their focus on the praxis of achieving a feral state of being through "rewilding".-Wikipedia

---

I am an anarchist.

...but my views do not relate at all to your notion of what anarchism is, so I posted some brief descriptions of a few schools of anarchism (above) in an attempt to give you a better idea of what most anarchists mean when they say "I'm an anarchist"

Emma goldman would be spinning in her grave if she knew what most people think anarchism is...

-eg

---

---

My view of the flaws of each type of anarchy:

Social Anarchy: The basic idea is great, but I'd think that things would go to hell very fast without a state, some centralized authority. Especially with the current human mentality which is still dangerously close to that of a caveman. So unless someone drops a DMT bomb on the world real soon,I doubt people will be able to get along without a state for at least a few more thousand years. Which is why Socialism is the way (and a communist mentality). Everyone would simply donate a given amount of time towards maintaining the automated food/energy-production machine in their community,and receive a set amount of food, housing, electricity and travel time in return: no need for money.

---

Anarcho-syndicalism: This is within the capitalist framework: no one really wants capitalism (I hope).

---

Anarcho- primitivism: Why renounce technology? Technology can be great if used for the advancement of the individual instead of the advancement of society (a capitalist society).

obviously im a extreme libertarian fascist.

ill be supporting a friend this coming election.
(no other comments beyond the obvious)

---

I didn't realise Alex jones was running?

no silly , the " other one"
paris hilton was my first choice though.
but shes not campaigning this cycle.........

Here's my big concern about socialism:

It's a pretty much universally recognized fact that corporations, and the financial power they wield, gives them undue control over the State government, and that this corporatism is an increasingly severe problem in the United States (and around the world, really).

Given that this is so, and that corporations control government - is MORE government control really the answer? I could see that going wrong in all kinds of exciting ways.

I propose that a lot of the problems inherent in global capitalism are emergent properties of the views and opinions of all of us who take part in the economy, and that simply changing the legislative rules of play will inevitably fail to bring about meaningful change. What's needed is a more global shift in our culture, and maybe, or psychology.

Maybe it's time we think about undertaking the Nexian Manhattan Project.

Blessings
~ND

This

No matter how our politics differ, I'm up for it

---

---.

Anarcho-primitivism/rewilding, that's the ticket.

It might be informative to ask citizens of any country(Swedish women in particular) on the muzzle end of the George Soros, dispossession bullet train, re the benefits of anarcho-globalism.

Color me a traditionalist, but, there's only so far you can walk the cattle into the abattoir before they start noticing bloodstains.

Politics may be corrupt, however, sovereignty(physical/metaphysical) is tough to hold onto without the tribe at your back.

Peace