Anarhismul

Singura referire la anarhie in articolul tau e o mazgaleala pe o statuie. Sunt si copii care scriu "p.la" pe usa liftului fara sa stie prea bine cum se foloseste chestia aia.

[ https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/DioQooFIcgE?feature=oembed - Pentru incarcare in pagina (embed) Click aici ]

 blimpyway, on Dec 28 2008, 16:31, said:

cu mine vorbesti?

Se vorbeste mult ..specific poporului roman ...ar fi bine sa cititi un Bakunin ,Kropotkin etc...si pe urma sa faceti concluzii ...

Ravachol 1892
     My Principles

  The above named, after having eaten his fill, spoke to us as follows:

“Messieurs, it is my habit, wherever I am, to do propaganda work. Do you know what anarchism is?”

We answered ‘No’ to this question.

“This doesn’t surprise me,” he responded. “The working class which, like you, is forced to work to earn its bread, doesn’t have the time to devote to the reading of pamphlets they’re given. It’s the same for you.

“Anarchy is the obliteration of property.

“There currently exist many useless things; many occupations are useless as well, for example, accounting. With anarchy there is no more need for money, no further need for bookkeeping and the other forms of employment that derive from this.

“There are currently too many citizens who suffer while others swim in opulence, in abundance. This situation cannot last; we all should profit by the surplus of the rich; but even more obtain, like them, all that is necessary. In current society, it isn’t possible to arrive at this goal. Nothing, not even a tax on income, could change the face of things. Nevertheless, the bulk of workers think that if we acted in this way, things would improve. It is an error to think this way. If we tax the landlord, he’ll increase his rents and in this way will arrange for those who suffer to pay the new charges imposed on them. In any event, no law can touch landlords for, being the masters of their goods, we can’t prevent them from doing whatever they want with them. What, then, should be done? Wipe out property and, by doing this, wipe out those who take all. If this abolition takes place, we have to also do away with money, in order to prevent any idea of accumulation, which would force a return to the current regime.

“It is in effect money that is the cause of all discord, all hatred, of all ambitions; it is, in a word, the creator of property. This metal, in truth, has nothing but an agreed upon price, born of its rarity. If we were no longer obliged to give something in exchange for those things we need to live, gold would lose its value and no one would seek it. Nor could they enrich themselves, because nothing they would amass could serve them in obtaining a better life than that of others. There would then no longer be any need of laws, no need of masters.

“As for religions, they’d be destroyed, because their moral influence would no longer have any reason for existence. There would no longer be the absurdity of believing in a God who doesn’t exist, since after death everything is finished. So we should hold fast to life, but when I say life I mean life, which does not mean slaving all day to make the bosses fat and, while dying oneself of hunger, become the authors of their well-being.

“Masters aren’t necessary, these people whose idleness is maintained by our labor; everyone must make himself useful to society, by which I mean work according to his ability and his aptitude. In this way, one would be a baker, another a teacher, etc. Following this principle, work would diminish, and each of us would have only an hour or two of work a day. Man, not being able to remain without some form of occupation, would find his distraction in work; there would be no lazy idlers, and if they did exist, there’d be so few of them that we could leave them in peace and, without complaint, let them profit from the work of others.

“There being no more laws, marriage would be destroyed. We would unite by inclination, and the family would be founded on the love of a father and mother for their children. For example, if a woman no longer loved he who she had chosen as a companion, she could separate from him and form a new association. In a word, complete freedom to live with those we love. If in the case I just cited there were children, society would raise them, that is to say, those who will love the children will take them in charge.

“With this free union, there will be no more prostitution. Secret illnesses would no longer exist, since these are only born of the abuse of the coming together of the sexes; an abuse to which women are forced to submit, since society’s current conditions oblige them to take this up as a job in order to survive. Isn’t money necessary in order to live, earned at whatever cost?

“With my principles, which I can’t in so little time lay out in full detail, the army will no longer have any reason to exist, since there will no longer be distinct nations; private property would be destroyed, and all nations would have joined into one, which would be the Universe.

“No more war, no more disputes, no more jealousy, no more theft, no more murder, no more court system, no more police, no more administration.

“The anarchists have not yet gone into the details of their constitution: the mileposts alone have been laid out. Today the anarchists are numerous enough to overthrow the current state of things, and if that hasn’t yet happened, it’s because we must complete the education of the followers, give birth in them to the energy and the firm will to assist in the realization of their projects. All that is needed for that is a shove, that someone put themselves at their head, and the revolution will take place.

“He who blows up houses has as a goal the extermination of all those who, by their social standing or their acts, are harmful to anarchy. If it was permitted to openly attack these people without fearing for the police, and so for one’s skin, we wouldn’t set out to destroy their homes though explosive devices, which could kill the suffering classes they have at their service at the same time as them.”

ok.

1. “The working class which, like you, is forced to work to earn its bread, doesn’t have the time to devote to the reading of pamphlets they’re given. It’s the same for you.
clasa muncitoare ca si voi, este fortata sa isi castige painea, nu are timp sa citeasca pamfletele ce ii sunt date. ca si in cazul vostru.
si daca taranii nu muncesc campul, morarii nu produc faina, brutarii painea - de unde apare painea respectiva?
nu din munca?

2. Anarchy is the obliteration of property.
anarhia inseamna abolirea proprietatii. - plecand de la dictonul marelui tovaras ilici cum ca proprietatea e un moft - inseamna ca daca tu vrei - maine te muti in locuinta mea cu catel, purcel si obiceiurile tale?

3.“There currently exist many useless things; many occupations are useless as well, for example, accounting. With anarchy there is no more need for money, no further need for bookkeeping and the other forms of employment that derive from this.

in momentul de fata exista multe lucruri nefolositoare; multe meserii sunt deasemenea fara folos, spre exemplu, contabilitatea. intr-un sistem anarhic nu va fi nevoie de bani, deci nu va mai fi nevoie de a tine contabilitatea si toate formele de meserii ce deriva din aceasta.

corect, daca nu iti mai trebuie contabilitate, nu iti mai trebuie nici aritmetica, nici matematica, nici fizica - probabil doar scoala ideologico-propagandistica de spalat creierele.

4.a) “There are currently too many citizens who suffer while others swim in opulence, in abundance. This situation cannot last; we all should profit by the surplus of the rich; but even more obtain, like them, all that is necessary. In current society, it isn’t possible to arrive at this goal. Nothing, not even a tax on income, could change the face of things. Nevertheless, the bulk of workers think that if we acted in this way, things would improve. It is an error to think this way. If we tax the landlord, he’ll increase his rents and in this way will arrange for those who suffer to pay the new charges imposed on them. In any event, no law can touch landlords for, being the masters of their goods, we can’t prevent them from doing whatever they want with them. What, then, should be done? Wipe out property and, by doing this, wipe out those who take all. If this abolition takes place, we have to also do away with money, in order to prevent any idea of accumulation, which would force a return to the current regime.


in acest moment sunt prea multi cetateni ce sufera in timp ce alti se lafaie in lux, in abundenta. aceasta situatie nu poate dura la nesfirsit; cu totii ar trebui sa profitam de surplusul bogatilor. in societatea prezenta nu este posibil sa ajungem la la acest nivel. nimic, nici chiar impozitul pe venit, nu ar putea schimba lucrurile. dimpotriva, marea majoritate a muncitorilor cred ca daca am actiona in felul asta - lucrurile s-ar imbunatati.
lupta de clasa a comunistilor. bogatii sunt de vina asa ca trebuie deposedati, mutati in lagare, exterminati.
ce inseamna " bunul intregului popor"? inseamna ruina si dezinteres. mizerie umana.


b)este o mare eroare in a gandi asa. daca taxam proprietarul, el va creste chiriile insemnand ca tot chiriasii vor suporta pretul impozitelor.
corect. de aceea - sunt de parere ca statul ar trebui sa aibe un rol cat mai restrans in viata cetatenilor - exact ce s-a intamplat pana acum in statele unite. europa este sugrumata de taxe si impozite pe orice din orice. cel putin taxele ecologice sunt aberante.

c)in orice caz - nici o lege nu poate face atingere proprietarilor, ei fiind stapanii bunului dobandit, nu putem preveni ca ei sa nu faca ceea ce vor cu bunul respectiv. si atunci, ce trebuie facut? stergerea dreptului la proprietate, si, facand asta sterge-i pe toti cei care iau totul. daca aceasta abolire ia loc, va trebui sa renuntam la bani ca sa putem preveni ideea de acumulare  care va forta revenirea la regimul actual.

bun. deci sa presupunem ca tu ai vila cu piscina in baneasa si eu apartament cu doua camere in ferentari. deci maine pot sa vin sa zic ca imi place foarte mult vila ta si sa te dau afara sa ma instalez cu neamurile, cu puradeii si combina cu manele. dreptul la proprietate nu e garantat. singurul drept garantat este acela ca si eu am dreptul la ce ai tu.
si nu exista nimeni care sa iti apere dreptul tau numai ca eu am neamul mai mare si pumnul mai strans - deci ma pot muta in vila ta pana cand o aparea unul mai tare ca mine, nu?
ce se intampla daca tu ai carat timp de trei ani caramizi, ai framantat mortarul, ai dat cu bolobocul si ai carat apa cu galeata pentru piscina - si vin eu si zic ca mi se cuvine sa stau acolo?

5.“It is in effect money that is the cause of all discord, all hatred, of all ambitions; it is, in a word, the creator of property. This metal, in truth, has nothing but an agreed upon price, born of its rarity. If we were no longer obliged to give something in exchange for those things we need to live, gold would lose its value and no one would seek it. Nor could they enrich themselves, because nothing they would amass could serve them in obtaining a better life than that of others. There would then no longer be any need of laws, no need of masters.


este defapt efectul banilor ceea ce provoaca toata aceasta desordine, toata ura, toate ambitiile, este intr-un cuvant creatorul proprietatii. acest metal, defapt, nu are decat proprietatea de a face pretul - nascut din raritatea acestuia. daca nu vom mai fi obligati sa dam ceva in schimbul lucrurilor pentru care avem nevoie ca sa putem trai , aurul isi va pierde valoarea si nimeni nu il va cauta. nimeni nu se va mai putea imbogati peste masura pentru ca nimic din ce vor asimila nu le va servi pentru a duce o viata mai buna decat ceilalti. nu va mai fi nevoia de legi si nici de stapani.

o imbecilitate mai mare ca asta mi-e greu sa o si traduc.
utopie cretina. nonsens retard.
sa presupunem ca amandoi traim din cultivarea porumbului. anul asta eu am facut 3000 kg ca am stat si asudat pe camp si tu vreo 20 kg ca ai fost ocupat sa te duci sa iti spele creierii aia la scoala de partid.
acum, poate ca am nevoie de lapte, carne oua - asa ca ma duc si fac troc -din moment ce nu mai exista bani. si dau unui fermier care creste vaci si gaini 1000 kg porumb sa isi poata creste animalele.
in schimb tu cu cele 20 kg ale tale de porumb nu prea ai ce sa dai fermierului - in schimb vei vrea sa treci de iarna.
numai ca animalele fermierului nu pot trai numai din 20 kg de porumb.
deci io daca am stat toata vara la prasit si alti termeni gen semanat samd - la care nu ma pricep - si tu ai stat toata vara la strand si pe terase si totusi ai dreptul la aceiasi cantitate de produse - pai io la anu' imi bag ceva in ea de recolta.
cu alte cuvinte - cine-i harnic si munceste, are tot ce vrea - cine-i lepra si trandaveste - are tot asa?


6. “Masters aren’t necessary, these people whose idleness is maintained by our labor; everyone must make himself useful to society, by which I mean work according to his ability and his aptitude. In this way, one would be a baker, another a teacher, etc. Following this principle, work would diminish, and each of us would have only an hour or two of work a day. Man, not being able to remain without some form of occupation, would find his distraction in work; there would be no lazy idlers, and if they did exist, there’d be so few of them that we could leave them in peace and, without complaint, let them profit from the work of others.

stapanii nu sunt necesari, acei oameni lenesi care traiesc din produsul muncii voastre...


gata, ca deja mi-a crescut presiunea in instalatii - o adunatura mai mare ca acesti acesti anarhisti - un fel de ciuma precum comunistii ce vor sa profite pe munca altora aruncand vina pe cei care produc.
sunteti hidosi!

[quote name='nettoyeur' date='Apr 11 2009, 08:05' post='6326723']

Nu te agita.Uita-te la alesii nostrii .In ce categorie i-ai incadra.
Dar pe sutele de directori de regii  ,gaz,electrica,care manevreaza la bunul plac bunul tarii.
Daca pe tarlaua mea.,adica sub ea dau de gaz statul mi-l ia ca doar bogatia dealde asta e a tarii a ta a mea a tuturor.
In schimb la vanzarea rezervelor naturale gata ,e a lor.Luxul imponent in care traiesc ei in timp ce prostimea e impozitata la singe ,cu noi si noi impozite gasite pesye noapte.
Eu pe astia nici macar comunisti nu i-as numi dar nici capitalisti.Oare in ce categorie s-ar putea incadra.

 zippo68, on Apr 11 2009, 07:01, said:

alesii vostri ii incadrez la comunisti securisti din esalonul doi, descrisi foarte bine de catre radio guerilla.
aia nu pot fi denumiti oameni de afaceri.
esalonul doi care si-a tras bunul intregului popor.
au furat cu nonsalanta tot. inclusiv economiile populatiei.
statul pune biruri cat mai mare pe populatie ca sa isi poata imparti banii in voie.
dar de ce sa nu luam cazul somaliei de exemplu - un gen de anarhie, saraci cu totii ca nu muncesc pentru a acumula si se hacuiesc unii pe altii pana la extinctie.
de foame - nu din cauza banului.