http://www.infoshop.org/kidz/k_akids.html

Anarchists have been fighting for youth rights for years. One can see that in the numerous "anarchist youth" organizations which have popped up over the years. Anarchists are one of the few groups of people who have attempted to create alternatives to the coercive school system that all of us are unfortunately familiar with

Set up an Anarchy Club at Your School!
Are you frustrated with school clubs where you feel left out? Would you like to form a club with like-minded teenagers? How about setting up an Anarchy Club at your high school?

Some suggestions for anarchy club activities

Create an underground zine critical of the school and administrators
Start a local Food Not Bombs group in your comunity or an anarchist-run social service organization
School dance? How about a school mosh pit?
Sponsor a book discussion group
Learn how to do and practice direct action techniques
Set up a website
Organize demos against curfews, Internet filters, and repressive school policies
Disobey stupid school policies such as uniforms, t-shirt codes, and security measure via sabotage and/or civil disobedience
:)

A few words of caution to any kids reading this thread... many who frequent the infoshop boards are of the type of "anarchist" who think that mass destruction of property and attacking unarmed people with whom they disagree (and just generally being an obnoxious, ungreatful brat) is an acceptable form of protest.

Originally posted by Kyle Gridley
many who frequent the infoshop boards are of the type of "anarchist" who think that mass destruction of property and attacking unarmed people with whom they disagree (and just generally being an obnoxious, ungreatful brat) is an acceptable form of protest.

Yeah, but most are not.

Don't listen to the "right-sided" propoganda about your movement. Create it for yourself. Do what you feel is correct. There will always be nay-sayers out there who catagorize you incorrectly because they don't understand the movement. We don't need them.

Now more than ever, we need people who are brave enough to stand up to our government. Every little bit helps. Fly below the radar screen.

Criminal-

What do you plan to accomplish with anarchists' clubs?
Destroy public property?
Be a public nusiance?
Make a bad name for yourself?
Belittle your authority?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I find this just another means of pointless, trendy teen-rebellion.

Kids, disregard Criminal's idea, there.

Anarchy destroys the infratructure that buys your Nintendo, Cell phones, PCs, etc... and puts a roof over your head and clothess on your back.


You don't really want THAT, now do you?

Originally posted by Alejio
Criminal-

What do you plan to accomplish with anarchists' clubs?
Destroy public property?
Be a public nusiance?
Make a bad name for yourself?
Belittle your authority?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I find this just another means of pointless, trendy teen-rebellion.
Create a new society based on common ownership of all property. We will allow people to have property according to their needs. Put an end to war and hate.

Originally posted by QtrHrsmn
Kids, disregard Criminal's idea, there.

Anarchy destroys the infratructure that buys your Nintendo, Cell phones, PCs, etc... and puts a roof over your head and clothess on your back.


You don't really want THAT, now do you?

Oh Quarter, stop being such a party pooper. Anarchism is fun. We will let the youngens have nintendo and game boy and so on. They just have to share. Would be sort of a problem with my 11 year old though. :p

Originally posted by Criminal

Create a new society based on common ownership of all property. We will allow people to have property according to their needs. Put an end to war and hate.

Sounds like a variation of the form of government that was the "perfect" solution...



...Communism...

Originally posted by Alejio

Sounds like a variation of the form of government that was the "perfect" solution...



...Communism...
But real communism never existed, not a national level. The Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist esperiment which exists in China and Cuba today and was begun in Russia is not true communism. That is an adaptation of Marxism. In short, it is a totalitarianistic attempt to adopt state socialism which disintigrated into an oligarchy of despots. Anarchism has nothing to do with that.

True Communism is found in the Bible of all places. The first communists were the early Christians. Later it was practiced by monks.

Anarchism is about freedom and respect for the individual. It is not about state control. In Anarchism, the people are the state.

Originally posted by Criminal
Anarchism is about freedom and respect for the individual. It is not about state control. In Anarchism, the people are the state.

Who would make official decisions regarding national security, international affairs, etc...?

I mean, what would stop Winona Ryder from being more significant than Donald Rumsfeld?

Originally posted by Alejio


Who would make official decisions regarding national security, international affairs, etc...?

I mean, what would stop Winona Ryder from being more significant than Donald Rumsfeld?
Democratically elected leaders from each community would be elected. The position of the leader would be to carry out the will of the people. All decisions would be determied by democratic process in open meetings. The role of any leader would be to convene the meeting. Democraticly elected officers would be entrusted to carry out any decisions made during such a meeting.

As far as Donald Rumsfeld and Winona Ryder, I don't really care who is more significant. I know that Rumsfeld is a Princeton educated politician and former corporate CEO but that means little to me. He has been part of the military industrial complex and I find that scarey. Winona Ryder? Well she is hot looking in my opinion. And she has done nothing that wrong as far as screwing over the American public yet so I might give her a chance.

Originally posted by Criminal

Democratically elected leaders from each community would be elected. The position of the leader would be to carry out the will of the people. All decisions would be determied by democratic process in open meetings. The role of any leader would be to convene the meeting. Democraticly elected officers would be entrusted to carry out any decisions made during such a meeting.

As far as Donald Rumsfeld and Winona Ryder, I don't really care who is more significant. I know that Rumsfeld is a Princeton educated politician and former corporate CEO but that means little to me. He has been part of the military industrial complex and I find that scarey. Winona Ryder? Well she is hot looking in my opinion. And she has done nothing that wrong as far as screwing over the American public yet so I might give her a chance.

Winona is a criminal.

But she is hot...

Bolshevism and Maoism failed because Marxism is inherently flawed. Anarchism is for escapists who think the worlds problems will disappear if theres no rules binding humanity. Yeah, sure, I'd feel great riding on a public owned bus that has no schedule or route or paid driver, or going to work when i don't have to, or trying to raise children in a society that doesnt punish child pornographers, rapists, serial murderers, etc

anarchism is direct democracy,and personal responcibility.me as a lefty,think that should be mixed with equal rights and duty's for all.it's not turning your back on the world at all.you can have a structured organised anarchist society.equality doesn't mean that noone will work together.au contraire.......

If there were ever 'anarchy', there would be a mass organization commensed by demagogues to take authoritative control over the situation. Monopolize markets, hold radicals hostage, etc.

Anarchy would lead to the most totalitarian regime in the history of mankind. Why? Humanity isn't responsible enough to operate on goodwill.

if you have companys that are owned and led by the people that work there,if similair buisnesses form unions to help eachother,chare profit etc,if you have unions meet eachother to discuss things..just about anything the gouv. does now can be organised by the people themselves.in that way you cna take more and more tasks away from a gouv.the more anarchist a society will become,the less possible is a totalitairian regieme.if you create an organisation that can control itself directly,you just need the goodwill of the majority of the people.and I believe there are mutch more people in this world that are normal then people that want to mess it up.the problem is that these normal people have no influence.

In theory Syndicalism works, just like Marxism works in theory.

Humanity isn't responsible or mature enough to rise above religion; how do you expect it to rise up against the very order that defines their progress? We started out as loose-knit tribes bartering, and the vast majority of humanity sees anarcho-syndicalism (for those who have even heard of it) as a step back into the stone age when we were nothing but bartering tribes.

well their idea of anarchism is false.and I don't care if it's called anarchism or whatever,it's about the values and ideas.call it direct democracy,whatever.any step towards the ideal of anarchism is a good one.ever red about teh spanish civil war,and teh time leading to that? about spanis anarchist culture,that was(and partly is) alive for centuries?

I'm very familiar with anarcho-syndicalist /anarchist tendancies of some Spaniards. But I guess you support their execution of Spanish priests and nationwide terrorism when they and their allies from the USSR tried to take over the government?

If Franco and Hitler didn't stop them, Spain would've been sent back a hundred years in progress. The Spanish civil war was a vile attempt by reds to overrun yet another European nation.

Originally posted by Tchort
I'm very familiar with anarcho-syndicalist /anarchist tendancies of some Spaniards. But I guess you support their execution of Spanish priests and nationwide terrorism when they and their allies from the USSR tried to take over the government?

If Franco and Hitler didn't stop them, Spain would've been sent back a hundred years in progress. The Spanish civil war was a vile attempt by reds to overrun yet another European nation.

I'm talking about the anarchists,not the communists.the commies were supported by the soviets,not the anarchists.in the end the commies backstabbed the anarchist reviolution.they found that more important then stopping facism.and yea there was a war going on,and lots of innocents were killed.by all sides.but the anarchists never took over the gouv.,they even refused the responcibility when offered,and instead took over the economy.that made the gouv. into an organisation with hardly any power left.

When were spanish syndicalists (they were syndicalists, not anarchists) take over the economy? When were they offered power?

The Communists fought alongside the syndicalists and anarchists to stop Franco and his National Socialist allies. They failed. In the process they killed hundreds maybe thousands of religious figures systematically. Wheres your proof the armies of Franco and Hitler reaked similar havoc on the Spanish population? Hitler and Franco saved Spain from a fate similar to the peoples of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belorus, et al.

you can read stuff like that anywhere but on the stormfront site....

and it's anarcho-syndicalists.after they took over barcelona they were offered the lead of teh republic,since they had the actiual power anyway.they let the gouv. stay,and started reorganising.

you're right that lots of religous people were killed.they were deeply hated for their repression of common men.they were an upperclass.franco was no better in killing commies and anarchists,or people that talked back or refused to fight for him.
the commies were a minority in the alliance.at a critical point in the war they were told by stalin to retreat,in order to frustrate the anarchist revolution.this made a big difference and the war was lost.anarchists dont believe in leaders,and stalinism is the apitamy of how not to do it,together with facists.

Franco was in the middle of a civil war defending law and order over communist anarchy. I don't understand how anyone but a utopian cultist can believe a movement without a leader is going to go anywhere. Fascism picked up the nations, shook them free of outside influence and alien elements, and made their economies prosperous and their people content.

Originally posted by Tchort
Franco was in the middle of a civil war defending law and order over communist anarchy. I don't understand how anyone but a utopian cultist can believe a movement without a leader is going to go anywhere. Fascism picked up the nations, shook them free of outside influence and alien elements, and made their economies prosperous and their people content.

oufff,how flawed your history is....
franco invaded a REPUBLIC,not an anarchist or communist state.he did this together with the king of spain to get back a totalitairian system in spain.the anarchist revolution only started after franco invaded and the republic showed to be deciciveless and incapeble to respond.ANARCHY IS DIRECT DEMOCRACY,THAT MEANS THAT YOU CAN VOTE FOR ISSUES PROPOSELS ETC.you don't need any leaders to make decisions,you can think for yourself! noone was content with franco,the dictator.not even the king,after franco died he started the republic again.since then Spain is a prosperous country.provinces have a great deal of autonomy and say in what happens,which leans towards direct democracy.

If Franco had failed, Spain would've been an anarcho-Communist-Syndicalist-quasi Soviet nation. I'm genuinly unsure of who fired first, but I'd love to see a link on the subject of whether the Communists/Anarchists fired the first shot. There were how many civilians killed by Franco's Falangist regime? Let's compare that with the USSR, Cambodia/Khmer Rouge, Red China, Cuba.

Spain, at this moment, is Bush's lapdog. The Basque's have conitnued their terrorism unchecked. If Spain is running forms of direct democracy, I'd like to know where. Theres no way in hell the Spanish people support Bush's Zionist war. Theres also no way the people are silent about Basque violence and the civil unrest that instigated it.

well I should just tell you to go search yourself,but since I believe you're not a hopeless case:
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/pam_ch2.html

and because you won't just believe an anarchist wesite,here's a neutral one.

http://members.aol.com/althist1/June02/spain.htm
"The war started after the parties that became the core of the Republicans won a hotly contested election. The parties of the right never really accepted their defeat, and they became more and more radical in their opposition to the government as political violence spiraled out of control after the election.

The Nationalists tried a coup on July 17-18 of 1936. That coup succeeded in Spanish Morocco and several parts of Spain. It failed in Madrid and several other major cities. "

so you see,the facists started it.

and you are still mistaking anarchism for communism.read this (http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/index.html) you might even like it!

Originally posted by Tchort
Spain, at this moment, is Bush's lapdog. The Basque's have conitnued their terrorism unchecked. If Spain is running forms of direct democracy, I'd like to know where. Theres no way in hell the Spanish people support Bush's Zionist war. Theres also no way the people are silent about Basque violence and the civil unrest that instigated it.

basque country has a great deal of autonomity.so do most other provinces in spain.tehy don't have control over foreign policies or stuff like that,but in their own p[arts of teh countrys they have a huge say.it's more evident even in daily life.the collective farms are still around,and as example the famous footballclub fc Barcelona works through membership with elected presidents.that's a company..

I'll concede then. But I stand by my assertion that had the Anarchists and their Soviet allies won Spain would've seen unequaled national butchery. And I still firmly believe that Fascism is far superior to any collective or Marxist doctrine.

I know the difference between Anarchism and Communism in theory, but I find them to be interlinked in rhetoric. Classlessness, equal distribution, etc. Most if not all of their ideas can be applied to one another.

there is some truth in that.marxism used the ideal of total anarchy(=freedom,no leaders)as an ending stage in their theory,teh socalled utopia.theoreticly communism goes through several stages after a revolution,from dictatorship to anarchy.all communist regiemes got stuck (probebly on purpuse) in the dictatorship stage.and that s the weakness of communism,you give people all the power and then they never give that up anymore.
on the other hand,anarchism has often adepted socialist ideals,and become more leftist then rightist.but this is no rule.in essence anarchism is non-political,promotes the abolishment of politics,and therefore not left or right.its an ideal.ofcourse thats not very practical,and anarchism has failed often because of this.

communism is a way to reach anarchism,but people that call themselves anarchists cant accept communism,because the dictatorship stage goes against that same ideal.they believe in instant direct democracy(a slow but fair system for all)and deconstruction of gouv. bodies as soon as possible.economicly a country can run on anarchsit ideals,which was proven in spain,during that short revolution.

you allso might be right that it would eventually have turned into a hellhole,since part of teh alliance was communist,supported by the powerful soviet union.hyrarchic systems like stalinism and allso facism are mutch more practical and easier in organisation.

so to conclude,Im not really a political anarchist,but an idealistic one.in the end we shouldnt have to live under any domination of whatever people.I am more then capeble of deciding what I want for myself.and leadership and politics allways,ALLWAY corrupts.and thats what anarchist clubs should promote.think for yourself,do what you feel is right.

oyea,one more comment dont know If I was clear about that,anarchists and communists dont go together.and never will.they might in fighting facism but thats only temporairy,communists have allways prosecuted anarchists as a big threath to their revolutions.

Anarchy is for cavemen. Civilized men would not even contemplate such an idea

Originally posted by contra
Anarchy is for cavemen. Civilized men would not even contemplate such an idea

If you're suddenly the spokesman for the cilivized world, we've all got problems...

Originally posted by Allegra


If you're suddenly the spokesman for the cilivized world, we've all got problems...

**** off

cavemen? noo thats more facist dictatorship,with the strongest caveman beating the rest up and taking all the women.

anarchy is really one or two steps further then what we have now.you probebly mean chaos,which is totally not the same.

Isn't an "anarchy club" sort of an oxymoron?

Originally posted by Tchort
I'm very familiar with anarcho-syndicalist /anarchist tendancies of some Spaniards. But I guess you support their execution of Spanish priests and nationwide terrorism when they and their allies from the USSR tried to take over the government?

If Franco and Hitler didn't stop them, Spain would've been sent back a hundred years in progress. The Spanish civil war was a vile attempt by reds to overrun yet another European nation.
About time I revisit this old topic, eh?

Now about executing Priest... It happened in the Spanish Civil War. The CNT was anti religious but it can also be mentioned that the Catholic Church was a very powerful entity openly opposed to the Republic.

I would also mention in the 1950s when Anarchist Minors went on strike in Asturias region, many priests supported the strikers. It was a new generation of priests this time who saw how Franco had not only betrayed the working people of Spain but even the Catholic Church.

The US anarchist movement, primarily the IWW is not, nor has it ever been anti-religious. In fact, the Catholic Workers movement of Dorothy Day was anarcho-syndicalist in orientation.

Originally posted by QtrHrsmn
Kids, disregard Criminal's idea, there.

Anarchy destroys the infratructure that buys your Nintendo, Cell phones, PCs, etc... and puts a roof over your head and clothess on your back.

You don't really want THAT, now do you?

In light of the present situation, Mister Polke having issues with 'violent' Anarchists seems a little...ah...

Originally posted by Alejio

Sounds like a variation of the form of government that was the "perfect" solution...

...Communism...

Quite accurate, really. Marxists and Anarchists, afterall, both took part in the early Internationals, but split as the Communists accepted statist intermediate stages, an abhorrent idea, to the utopian Anarchist dreamers.

Originally posted by Tchort
I'll concede then. But I stand by my assertion that had the Anarchists and their Soviet allies won Spain would've seen unequaled national butchery. And I still firmly believe that Fascism is far superior to any collective or Marxist doctrine.

I know the difference between Anarchism and Communism in theory, but I find them to be interlinked in rhetoric. Classlessness, equal distribution, etc. Most if not all of their ideas can be applied to one another.

ROFL. The "Anarchists with their Soviet allies"? Are you that ignorant? Je-sus, the two were fighting on the streets of Barcelona. Franco;s victory can largely put down to the fact they were not allies...

^^^furthermore anarchists were among those repressed in the early soviet era. esp. during the stalinist dictatorship

and murdered by him in large numbers.

and anarchy club is not an oximoron,since anarchists arent nessesairly against organisation.they are against hyrarchy and leadership that can tel you what to do.an organisation can be perfectly democratic without someone who is boss.

most people dont understand that simple fact

yea because politics and democracy are brought to us as two and the same,but it isnt.a democracy can exist without politicians.

and allso we are beeing tought that anarchsism is the same thing as chaos and destrtion.anarchists got that name when they were carrying out violent bomb attacks at the beginning of the century.but that was just a small faction of the intire anarchist movement.

I do find it amusing that people who advocate chaos use the AO symbol, which originally meant "Anarchy is order"....

yea that is kind of funny...