A Large contingent of Immigrants Showed up to protest the war and discriminations against undocumented workers.

Below find SIX PICTURES AND A 35 SECONDS VIDEO

How many politicians come down on the streets to support the people? Congresswoman Maxine Waters came.

THIRTY FIVE SECONDS VIDEO....While 'leaders' on the A.N.S.W.E.R.S stage were speaking to part of the crowd, others were listening to the drums and dancing.

Many African AmericanS and others came to protest the war and US involvement in Haiti.

On the coffin covered with the American flag and pink flowers there was an inscription on a strip of black paper--570 U.S. TROOPS.

A score of people showed up with Palestinian flags. The people shouted, "FREE FREE PALESTINE, FREE FREE PALESTINE..."

PEACE IS NOT OUT OF FASHION

WHAT IS ANARCHISM? by Steve

Anarchism is a political philosophy that embraces democracy and freedom, and seeks to destroy all forms of coercion and oppression. The root of human oppression is seen as authority and inequality. This is why it is the perfect ideological guide for destroying poverty, racism, and sexism. All these oppressions are systems of power based on hierarchy. Hierarchy means top-down, like a pyramid. Hierarchical constructions of power create positions of relative privilege and relative oppression. Capitalism, white supremacy, and patriarchy (male supremacy) are also top-down constructions of power. Anarchism conceptualizes power differently. Instead of power over, anarchism proposes power with, cooperation. This means that social systems and institutions should be based on cooperation. Power would rest in individuals and the collectives they freely associate into.
Anarchism revolves around five basic principles: 1) equality; 2) democracy; 3) free association; 4) mutual aid; 5) diversity. Equality can have many different meanings. In regards to our anarchist political philosophy, we speak of equality in reference to power. This doesn't mean we want a new society based on a totalitarian vision of everyone looking and acting the same, in fact we see strength in diversity. Instead we mean that everyone should have equal access to power, to determine how he or she wants to live his or her lives. The best way for equal power to be institutionalized is through different forms of democracy.
Democracy is a vague notion, but in general it seeks to empower everyone to have an equal say in decisions that affect their lives. This is only useful if it extends to all areas of social life. Capitalism is undemocratic, especially when combined with racism and sexism.
Free Association is the idea that individuals should not be forced into social arrangements against their will. In the world today if you are born into poverty, most likely you will die in poverty. For the first time in American history children cannot expect to live at a higher standard than their parents. [In an anarchist society] collectives will be created for every purpose humanly desired, of people freely associated with equal power to determine its future. This vision extends to all forms of social arrangements - from your neighborhood, to your city, to your neighborhood restaurant, etc.
Many critics of anarchism accuse us of excessive localism. We understand that with increased technology our lives around the globe are inextricably linked. We believe that power must be based in the grassroots, and that organizations should flow from the ground up, but we understand that our focus must be global. For larger forms of organization beyond the local level we advocate federations of free collectives. These could coordinate things as diverse as waste management, computer technology, natural resources, defense, or production. They would be based on the same anarchist principles; but would operate with delegates from collectives, as opposed to all the members of each collective. Delegates, in an anarchist conception, are not career politicians, but members temporarily chosen to represent a collective on a specific issue.
The last two principles go together. Mutual aid is another word for cooperation, but it has a more specific meaning. Mutual aid would be the cultural ideal, in opposition to competition. When people work together they can accomplish much more than when they work against each other. Social organizations should embrace and encourage this. It may seem like common sense, but when you look around all you see is how we are constantly pitted against each other. Once again this doesn't mean anarchists seek to stifle creativity and individual excellence, but we do hope to spread it out, and allow everyone to chase their dreams.
Diversity is the key to survival in the future. The modern drive to standardize everything and apply the assembly line to all aspects of social life has left many alienated and hopeless. It has also been key to destroying our natural environment. Diversity is a form of organization that is more organic. Instead of trying to make reality conform to state bureaucrats conceptions of order through imposition of their authority; anarchists realize that social organizations function more effectively for the people involved in them if those same people have the power to shape them in ways they desire. So anarchists support diverse forms of democracy, family organization, production, dancing, loving, eating, whatever. Diverse organization is not always efficient, but we must question the importance of efficiency. Efficiency has never been for us. We work harder and get paid less. When we grow food in an efficient way, the path to that efficiency was the removal of land from everyday people to a corporation for profit. Examples proliferate. When people live diversely they interact in a way similar to nature. They also become more difficult to rule. They become free.

an = absence of
archy = comes from greek word archios = ruler
anarchy = political system in which there is no hierarchy, all are free and equal, responsible of themselves and each other. In an anarchic society, a minority exploiting a majority like we see here ( is the cause of people’s protesting) could never happen. I think a lot of people are anarchist. They just don’t know it yet.
anarchy = political system in which there ianarchy = political system in which there is no hierarchy, all are free in eq

"Anarchism is a political philosophy that embraces democracy and freedom, and seeks to destroy all forms of coercion and oppression."

And who is going to coerce those who don't want to share their wealth with anarchists? Who's going to coerce people who don't want to be anarchists?

Who's going to enforce the "laws" enforcing the redistribution of wealth?

Who's going to organize a defense force when other anarchist tribes raid yours instead of working for themselves?

Why would the smart want to serve a system that holds their knowledge in no more regard than that of the town fool?

What incentive will there be to create anything new when no credit will be given to the creator?

What will be done to the fastest runners of the tribe so the crippled won't fee bad about the 'inequality?'

Capitalism already employs mutual aid and representative democracy affords the maximum freedom allowable to an individual in a society of laws, though it's obvious even in a republic that restrictions come and go.

No laws = no one protects your individual rights.

Competition is the natural way of things. You claim that people are 'pitted' against one another. Yet even within a system as 'simple' as two rival companies, thousands of employees within each are working together against other companies even as they compete against each other for promotions.

You protesters who hate the cops so much never think of this: without those cops, who would protect you from angry violent mobs fed up with your displays?

If Anarchy is established there will be no need to coerce the rich to give up their wealth. It is clear evidence of your capitalist mindset that you don't realize green paper and imaginary credit won't matter once the banks are abolished. Currency simply wont matter, and as far as material goods... most material goods wouldn't matter in the early stages of an Anarchistic society, and if some decide to hoard foodstocks, and keep more than they need. Then the injustice of their actions if food stores are low, justifies the group as a whole coercing them into sharing. But likely once large scale crops and foodstores have been established with people working like a Co-Op, such concerns will become moot except for in drought. And if you doubt whether or not Co-Ops can work you're a fool, and need to read up on the Populist movement.

If some don't want to be anarchists and would rather exist under the yolk of power even when it's not necessary, then it's not like there will be roving brigades of us smashing a state we don't live under. We'll just exist and resist by example. Now if such people, or "anarchist tribes" attacked others, then it would be necessary for the people themselves to protect their communities. And it may even be necessary initially for designated people to earn their subsistence specifically by protecting those who refuse to live in peace and cooperation. As in everything else such groups would be organized and formed by the group as a whole, with those having the most experience and physical capability being designated and helping to teach younger warriors and the group as a whole in self defense. But these people would have a duty, and would not have any more power than any other person.

One major misconception about Anarchism is that it is chaos, that no laws or rules can exist if there are no rulers. Anarchism simply means that all rules are agreed upon by those who live under them and any loss of freedom is submitted to by the people, rather than enforced on them by Judges, Police and Politicians. And who ever said that an Anarchistic society would not value the intelligent, simply because there would not necessarily be physical or monetary rewards for intelligence? Again you can not deabte that Anarchism doesn't work from the mentality of a Capitalist. Another point in that line of thinking is the idea that noone has ever created for their own or for societies benefits, and if some cannot exploit their ideas for profit than there is no credit or reward. The quip about the fastest runners is just fucking retarded, and needs no further response.

Who would protect us if the Cops didn't... hmmm maybe we should ask the question of who's going to protect us from bloodthirsty cops... the answer is the same. Ourselves. Besides, I've never seen an angry mob that could contend with the thousands of people that come to these mass protests, and I've never seen the cops deny a pro-war demonstrator the ability to march with us and antagonize us, In fact they often encourage or organize it themselves. Smiling and high fiving them as they badger us, but arresting and restraining us if we respond in kind. In my personal vision of Anarchy once communication lines can be opened over land, then cooperation can continue between collectives, and wandering Anarchists with skills can be rewarded with food, shelter, and amenities based on utilizing those skills for the different collectives. Eventually we can ressurrect electricity locally, and then connect to other collectives, opening communication through radio and other more advanced means. Anarchism is not the death of science, nor the death of technology, it is merely the responsible application of both without the need for the powerful to Lord it over us at excessive prices well beyond the rate of inflation, and without federal agencies to monitor us. The largest difference in their nature between Anarchism and Capitalism is that Capitalism encourages the masses of people to embrace thier basal natures, and regress to the most simple and crude of emotins and concepts. The Self, the Self and only the Self. While Anarchism encourages the individual to work autonomously but cooperatively with other members, it inspires us to work for ourselves as well as eachother and to evolve to a new state of creativity and freedom. I don't need to hold to rheoric and debate however because I have seen autonomous organizing work wonders and I have seen the absolute joy and creativity it inspires in those of us who prescribe to live our lives like this.

If Anarchy is established there will be no need to coerce the rich to give up their wealth.

>>> And how do you “establish” and “enforce” no laws? Let’s say your dream happen tomorrow…but before it does, all the rich convert their cash into food, land, shelter, etc. Now you’ve still got a class of people wiho have more than you do.—in 'REAL' assets.

“It is clear evidence of your capitalist mindset that you don't realize green paper and imaginary credit won't matter once the banks are abolished.”

>>>> Money is a fiat, a representation of stored work. At present there is too much wealth to even set against the gold standard. So under your system, people lose far more than they gain.

“Currency simply wont matter, and as far as material goods... most material goods wouldn't matter in the early stages of an Anarchistic society, and if some decide to hoard foodstocks, and keep more than they need. Then the injustice of their actions if food stores are low, justifies the group as a whole coercing them into sharing.”

>>> Oh, now I get it. So YOU or some other Enlightened group with baseball bats and crowbars decides, “Hey, Ralph is hoarding,” and take it from him. It’s property rights, not the caprices of a ragtag band of Road Warrior extras, that produced civilization. I own very little, but nonetheless, no rich man can walk into my abode and seize it without due process. That’s because there are laws protecting me from him ad well as him from me. Your anarchist vision can’t guarantee such protection.

“But likely once large scale crops and foodstores have been established with people working like a Co-Op, such concerns will become moot except for in drought. And if you doubt whether or not Co-Ops can work you're a fool, and need to read up on the Populist movement.“

>>>> I’ll concede I could be wrong IF you were already writing from your desert or other climate anarchic society where computer time is distributed equally. But we both know that’s not the case. You have benefited from the rights and property of a capitalist society…perhaps today not as much as Bill Gates…but nonetheless more than if both you and Gates were methane farmers.
I observe that for a dozen centuries and more, there have been no anarchist societies lasting more than a month or two. “Burning Man” which is a capitalist venture despite the hype, is exactly what your attempt at an anarchic society would end up as….society flows toward order and standardization.

“If some don't want to be anarchists and would rather exist under the yolk of power even when it's not necessary, then it's not like there will be roving brigades of us smashing a state we don't live under. We'll just exist and resist by example. Now if such people, or "anarchist tribes" attacked others, then it would be necessary for the people themselves to protect their communities. And it may even be necessary initially for designated people to earn their subsistence specifically by protecting those who refuse to live in peace and cooperation. “

>>> Before this friendly debate goes any further: I once thought as you did and was an anarchist. I gave it up when I later decided that capitalism, while restrictive and not 100% efficient due to the fact it is a human venture, still provides the most opportunity, maximum freedom and reasonable protection for the indivudual. Yes, the best minds are not always doing the best jobs…but that’s not always someone’s fault. It could just so happen Gene Simmons from KISS has the smarts to cure AIDS, but if all he wants to do is rock-n-roll all night…what are you and I to do about it?

>>> As an anarchist, could you offer Gene anything that someone else in your group doesn’t already have?

“As in everything else such groups would be organized and formed by the group as a whole, with those having the most experience and physical capability being designated and helping to teach younger warriors and the group as a whole in self defense. But these people would have a duty, and would not have any more power than any other person.”

>>> Okay. Now let’s pretend there’s been an attack on the society you describe. The first line of your warriors loses one too many of their own and decides, “This isn’t worth it. Get someone else to defend the tribe.” Do you punish the deserters? And who is going to organize this ‘dutiful’ group again? Remember, no one can tell alnyone else what to do.

“One major misconception about Anarchism is that it is chaos, that no laws or rules can exist if there are no rulers. Anarchism simply means that all rules are agreed upon by those who live under them and any loss of freedom is submitted to by the people, rather than enforced on them by Judges, Police and Politicians.”

>>>> You should go back and reread what you wrote. For the most part, you’re describing a republic with free elections. There are certainly plenty of stupid and unjust laws, but it’s not necessary to reinvent the wheel every time you disagree with a curfew or seatbelt law. Police you can’t argue against. They enforce the bullshit as it is written and no more. Judges used to only interpret the law, now they fucking write it with bullshit activism (one step closer to anarchy). Politicians follow public opinion, however corrupt. So it’s still THE PEOPLE who are ultimately responsible for their own success or demise.

“And who ever said that an Anarchistic society would not value the intelligent, simply because there would not necessarily be physical or monetary rewards for intelligence? Again you can not deabte that Anarchism doesn't work from the mentality of a Capitalist. “

>>>> That last line is a copout. What you really mean is, “If you can’t play by OUR rules, you can’t play.”
I don’t think you could convince a neutral person to embrace your cause (unless they’re greedy and feeling victimized) because you have no fruits to show them or offer them for all your rhetoric. There has never been a solid, workable anarchist society anywhere. I also laugh because in your great war to decentralize, you automatically promote yourself to the rank of Higher Being…after all, you’re an ANARCHIST while everyone else is a lowly capitalist serf. And yet here we both are typing on powerful, affordable computers. How very odd.

“Another point in that line of thinking is the idea that no one has ever created for their own or for societies benefits, and if some cannot exploit their ideas for profit than there is no credit or reward.”

>>> Society is based on the human ego…even the most altruistic of souls likes to see his/er name in the paper. The reason why the left will never gain respect from the right is they DEMAND it, and for doing nothing of unique value.

“The quip about the fastest runners is just fucking retarded, and needs no further response. “

>>>> Oh? Well if hobbling the fastest runner doesn’t help the invalid, WHY DO YOU SUPPORT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION? And though you’re an anarchist and may not call ‘equality’ affirmative action, it sounds like the same old saw. SOMEONE is going to have to create artificial burdens on the strong to favor the weak in a society where everyone is ‘equal.’

"Who would protect us if the Cops didn't... hmmm maybe we should ask the question of who's going to protect us from bloodthirsty cops... the answer is the same. Ourselves. Besides, I've never seen an angry mob that could contend with the thousands of people that come to these mass protests, and I've never seen the cops deny a pro-war demonstrator the ability to march with us and antagonize us, In fact they often encourage or organize it themselves. Smiling and high fiving them as they badger us, but arresting and restraining us if we respond in kind."

>>>> Well, you’ve chosen to portray yourselves as “ungovernable” lawless cretins. You’re not exactly the Civil Rights marchers, who respected the Principle of Law even as they fought unjust laws. Your crowd do a good job at pissing people off and entertaining the infantile, but you can’t convince anyone of the justness of your cause.

“In my personal vision of Anarchy once communication lines can be opened over land, then cooperation can continue between collectives, and wandering Anarchists with skills can be rewarded with food, shelter, and amenities based on utilizing those skills for the different collectives. Eventually we can ressurrect electricity locally, and then connect to other collectives, opening communication through radio and other more advanced means.”

>>>> Let’s assume that your vision will work. Even so, we ALREADY have all the things you hope to rebuild. We “reward” people for their labors with money, which is far more efficient than the barter system. With all the technology now, there’s no reason why you couldn’t start your own anarchic society…yet you cling to the capitalist civilization. What gives?
>>> You said it best, “Your PERSONAL vision.” It doesn’t mean you’re wrong, it means that like all humans, you want to feel important. Which is as it should be.

“Anarchism is not the death of science, nor the death of technology, it is merely the responsible application of both without the need for the powerful to Lord it over us at excessive prices well beyond the rate of inflation, and without federal agencies to monitor us.”

>>> I agree with you that the federal mafia is huge and oppressive. But I’m for small government, not zero government. This argument is moot, anyway…in 50 years, if America isn't a socialist police state, the role of gummint WILL be greatly diminished.

“The largest difference in their nature between Anarchism and Capitalism is that Capitalism encourages the masses of people to embrace thier basal natures, and regress to the most simple and crude of emotins and concepts.”

>>> Then why do Americans give billions to charity every year, despite crushing taxation? People will always be trying to influence others, for personal gain or personal conviction. But there’s a difference between ‘caveat emptor’ and ‘tear down society.’ To assume that by labeling yourself an Anarchist™ you are somehow ennobled and beyond reproach is just as foolish as putting on a Superman cape, granting yourself powers, and jumping off a tall building.

“The Self, the Self and only the Self. While Anarchism encourages the individual to work autonomously but cooperatively with other members, it inspires us to work for ourselves as well as eachother and to evolve to a new state of creativity and freedom. I don't need to hold to rheoric and debate however because I have seen autonomous organizing work wonders and I have seen the absolute joy and creativity it inspires in those of us who prescribe to live our lives like this.”

>>>>> I don’t doubt you’ve seen wonders worked. But they were worked by people of a like mind, who agree to the parameters of mutual beliefs.

>>> Which is what capitalists more or less do. We all obey traffic laws...and voila, traffic flows.

Similar Co-Op results have been achieved by religious societies…mutualism is a built-in part of capitalism.

>>>> If one of your anarchist buddies showed up to a rally in an Armani suit, I’m sure he’d be shunned as a traitor. Thus bringing the exclusion anarchists claim is being foisted upon them by society full circle.

There are so many different kinds of Anarchism that it's impossible to sum it up. They are all anti-hierarchy, but different strains put different things into the center of their philosophy: ecology, technology, social organization, work and production, animal rights, ethical behavior, mutual aid, collectives and co-ops.

The most interesting thing about Anarchism, and Anarchists, is that they make a conscious effort to create a lived model of their Anarchist society within the capitalist system. Rather than create a Party to become the vanguard Red Army, they create mutual aid societies, co-ops, direct action projects and groups, and many practice personal forms of anti-hierarchy (veganism and other lifestyle practices). They are extremely concerned about how to reach the goal as much as the ultimate goal itself.

I haven't read many communist vs. anarchist debates lately, but last I checked, the typical exchange had the commies saying they were all for anarchism, but only after the revolution. Anarchos reply that "later" is going to be too late, and the process of seizing state power will corrupt the revolution (and lead to a lot of dead anarchists). Then the commies will say that anarchism just can't work because it's too disorganized. Then the anarcho counters with the various mutual aid projects, which not only are organized, but direct action to address existing needs (something some commies haven't been doing too well lately). Then the commie might say those are merely reformist and liberal.

And, so the fight goes on.

There's another strain of Anarchism, rejected by almost all Anarchists, that calls itself Anarcho-Capitalism. It's exemplified by the likes of Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard, and they basically started this whole "Libertarian" trend. This is, IMHO, just a prettied up defense of Capitalism that purports to support individual rights.

The main problem, as I see it, is that Libertarianism can feel free, but only if you are at least petit-bourgeois (upper middle class), and play the Capitalist game. For everyone else, these Libertarian justifications cannot be true.

Moreover, any quick review of the history of factories, imperialism, slavery, or the employee manual of any large corporation will quickly demonstrate that Capitalism and freedom are two entirely different things. Any social freedom that Capitalism affords the people is paid for: you're only free away from work, as long as you live in the North (or West), have unions to protect you from work hazards, and are not an undocumented immigrant.

Freedom gained at the expense of other's freedom... isn't really freedom.

There have been time in history where people have acted and had an active anarchist way of running things... 1936 spain, 1968 paris, many african tribes, ect. You will most likely argue, "well they are not here anymore are they? they didnt work". If you think about it that way, well neither does a high ranking government. Every government who had a high leader has never lasted and neither will the united states. Every government that has existed has either crumbled, been overthrown, or destroyed its ownself. With that said, it looks like your proposition opposed to anarchism has not done so hot either. Governments are just circles. They cannot last just as you propose anarchism cant. Except there is one problem. Anarchism is the most pure way of living. Anarchism is being human. Not having to ask to go take a piss or sharing a great talent you have with someone else or having all you and your friends decide on what they want to do is pure anarchism. You use anarchism all the time. Anarchists just want it in a broader way of living, where humans can truly be humans without getting hurt by police or having a leader dictate what you can and cannot do or think.

This isn't really for the naysayer, or for astrid, but both simultaneoulsy.

What if historical materialism isn't true?

HM definitely hasn't happened globally. It's a mainly Western phenomenon that hasn't yet happened everywhere. Imagine if the historical changes in the West might even lead to suppression of progress elsewhere.

What if HM is true, but we're only in the beginning stages of the final stage?

Suppose that the non-Western parts of the world are going to become capitalist prior to a global proletarian revolution. Does this mean that they will extract resources at the same rates as Western nations? Does this portend potential ecological collapse as a limit factor?

Suppose that revolution in the capitalist core is possible. (I have doubts that it is in my lifetime.) How can we know that the next stage will be the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and that freedom will develop after the revolution?

These questions lead me to think: freedom must be demanded now, and must be demanded always. Changes in culture must happen now, and not wait for a potential future when the police and politicians are friendlier.

To the articles above...
Anarchism has in fact worked. This has been historically proven in what it aims to obtain, its more immidiate goal, to subvert power. I cite examples :The CNT dissention of the Spanish Revelution of 1936, Albania 2002- present, greece and its subsequent rise of insurgence, the Anarchists response to the governmental collapse in Argentina 2002-?...(its still going on), The examples are almost too many to cite and these are not the strongest examples. Those who say it never worked have obviously not studied the histories of many Native American Tribes, and thier structures, BEFORE and AFTER the arrival of the European hordes. I would be happy to post more on this subject or engage you all in a dialogue on this subject. Ignorance is not an excuse for the assertion of ones opinion, respecting someone for being human is one thing, calling them on the carpet about stupid comments is quite another. Sorry walker but your just flat out wrong and i can prove it. What proof do you have i wonder...beside your opinion?

Steve wrote: "Anarchism revolves around five basic principles: 1) equality; 2) democracy; 3) free association; 4) mutual aid; 5) diversity."

That's an interesting definition of principles, because I thought it was based around ideas like "no hierarchies," cooperation (mutual aid), pacifism, and socialism (organizing society for social needs, and collectivization).

There's also the anarcho-syndicalist vision of anarchy, which is concerned more with how decisions are made, and how society produces things, and collectivization, than with pacifism or diversity.

I've read one socialist account of the Spanish Civil war that made an issue of the split in the anarchist ranks, between the hard-line revolutionaries, and the more petit-bourgeois liberals. I inferred that the anarchist front was composed of a diverse bunch of people -- but primarily those who could not fit in with the main body of proletariats. Is this correct?

I'm imagining that then, as now, there were a lot of "lumpen" in there, as well as petit-bourgeois farmers (today, they would be the knowledge workers). Eventually, when things got rough, some anarchists compromised, and others pushed to keep fighting (splitting off as the Friends of Durutti).

There were also Stalinists who fought with the socialists, so it's not like there wasn't a conflict in the Marxist left as well.