anarchist vision

i havent posted here in a long time, so ill post something which i think is important.

like neo-nazis and fascists, we need to make our own propaganda, and create a coherent vision of anarchism (preferably a positive one, unlike nazis, lol). when people hear the word anarchism, they need to think society, freedom, creativity, progress.
people have certain psychological needs, and anarchists should create a vision which satisfies people's spiritual needs.

right now is a good time for Amerika, because people are sick of the way things are, and desire change. both parties are calling for change, and they are lying!
so we need to step in, and create a coherent image of anarchism in people. they needs to have a vision of it which satisfies their needs.

the capitalists have used this technique, the communists have too, and so have the fascists and nazis. now its time for us to use it, and use it rightfully.
dont coerce people with false ideas of change, coerce them with the idea that they have to change things themselves; that they have to be the change. this is when coercion ceases to be coercion.

god0fmusic wrote:

i havent posted here in a long time, so ill post something which i think is important.

like neo-nazis and fascists, we need to make our own propaganda, and create a coherent vision of anarchism (preferably a positive one, unlike nazis, lol). when people hear the word anarchism, they need to think society, freedom, creativity, progress.
people have certain psychological needs, and anarchists should create a vision which satisfies people's spiritual needs.

right now is a good time for Amerika, because people are sick of the way things are, and desire change. both parties are calling for change, and they are lying!
so we need to step in, and create a coherent image of anarchism in people. they needs to have a vision of it which satisfies their needs.

the capitalists have used this technique, the communists have too, and so have the fascists and nazis. now its time for us to use it, and use it rightfully.
dont coerce people with false ideas of change, coerce them with the idea that they have to change things themselves; that they have to be the change. this is when coercion ceases to be coercion.

I entirely agree and have been thinking about this for quite some time now. I've noticed how successful the Ron Paul supporters were as propagandists and I hope to be even more successful.
As of now, I'm setting up a small group of people to completely cover my town with positive anarchist propaganda. Cujo and I are planning to start up a sister site to this one where it links to organizations, guerrilla theater, it's own information and we can definitely add in an entire network of propaganda.

Organize!

* What works, what doesn't, and most importantly, why?

* What are the costs and consequences of using or not using coercive rhetorical strategies?

* What can be learned from the fields of advertising? Branding? Mass marketing?

* What might anti-authoritarians learn from state propaganda in politically diverse countries like the United States, the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and Germany?

* What strategies can anti-authoritarians appropriate from television, the film industry, the gaming industries, and marketing agents?

* What are the ethical limits of rhetoric? When does advertisement become a form of authoritarianism? What can anti-authoritarians do to prevent that?

* What are the most historically relevant cases of successful anarchist and anti-authoritarian propaganda?

* What are the most effective forms of propaganda and what can anarchists learn from them?

* Should anarchists use social networking websites, blogging, and vlogging to spread their ideas? If so, how?

* Should anti-authoritarians interact with, use, or subvert corporate media, the non-profit establishment, or other so-called mainstream systems of idea dissemination? What are the most effective ways this has been and could be done?

* What institutions have existed, exist, or should exist to create effective propaganda? How have they been or should they be organized?

* What alternatives exist to propaganda, advertising, and branding? How should they be deployed?

* Is it really worth attracting the attention of a "mass audience" through "mass media?" Why?

* Can anarchism rescue itself from the vaults of history with successful branding? How?

* In what ways can anarchists target campaigns to specific demographics? What are effective strategies for market research?

* Should anarchists aspire to compete rhetorically with multinational corporations, the state, the military, etc…? If so, how?

* Is the term propaganda useful? If so, why? If not, what terms are better suited for anarchist messaging?

* What are the benefits and perils of local and/or global campaigns? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each strategy?

* By communication with dominant rhetorical strategies, are anarchists reinforcing dominant culture?

* What are the benefits and perils of illegal forms of distribution such as pirate radio and television?

* What are the benefits and perils of work within dominant culture?

* In what ways can propagandists best relate their work to specific campaigns?

* What ways has anarchist propaganda been funded? How can it continue to be funded? What are specific funding strategies?

* In what ways do propaganda and art differ? Should they be theorized and practiced separately?

omg, we are starting to learn about rhetoric in ap english - apparently its a major focus of the curriculum.so, maybe after this year, i'll be better able to give more answers lol, but in the meantime...i guess i'll reaffirm what godofmusic saying that by using rhetoric to question rhetoric, its not authoritarian or corrupt like most rhetoric.

to avoid being as hypocritical as possible is a good idea, too....so, when explaining what anarchism is, we should simply give basic definitions, and encourage basic skills of analysis, spread the idea that propaganda is all around you, and that its up to you to decipher what the person/group is trying to make you do....and leave what to do with it up to them...

as for vehicles of such....the internet is as good a spot as any, even blogs ^_^

solpacvoicis wrote:

omg, we are starting to learn about rhetoric in ap english - apparently its a major focus of the curriculum.so, maybe after this year, i'll be better able to give more answers lol, but in the meantime...i guess i'll reaffirm what godofmusic saying that by using rhetoric to question rhetoric, its not authoritarian or corrupt like most rhetoric.

to avoid being as hypocritical as possible is a good idea, too....so, when explaining what anarchism is, we should simply give basic definitions, and encourage basic skills of analysis, spread the idea that propaganda is all around you, and that its up to you to decipher what the person/group is trying to make you do....and leave what to do with it up to them...

as for vehicles of such....the internet is as good a spot as any, even blogs ^_^

Internet is good, though I'm going to start focusing on poster design as well.

i cant answer all of kencat's questions right now, but ill just make a few quick statements:

when spreading "propaganda", we should not target a limited ammount of problems, we should instead target the source of problems. for example, we should go to poor people and say "we're gonna get you health care", like what a political party would do. we would instead go up to them and say "join our quest for anarchism, and you'll be able to provide your society with everything without the limits the state and corporations impose on us" (or something like that). we should clearly state the root of the problem, instead of offering a simple solution to the symptoms of the problem..
this is the first step to making people think and act for themselves.

propaganda should be spread in any way possible of course, but while keeping it "anarchist", by that i mean using corporations and the state the least possible. now, dont go arround questioning every anarchist wether they are "anarchist enough" (this is a metaphor for the current US elections where people questioned each other's patriotism), because we dont want to start a war between ourselves. spread through action. if you act like an anarchist; if you spread propaganda without the use of corporations or the state, you are spreading the anarchist message best. we should make it clear that we want to act and think for ourselves, and that we want things to work from the bottom up. we have to truly organize form the bottom up, (and i think we are doing that for the most part, although we could go further still).
i say the internet is a great way, for example, go to forums and spread the message, start discussions, use the socratic method in order to make people think and not create useless arguments that go like this: "fucking shit, you anarchists suck", "fucking shit, no, you suck", etc.
i know most of you have youtube channels, at least those of you who came to the forum as it was being made, so put something "catchy" on your youtube channel. you dont want to confuse ignorant people with complex arguments. we have to say things that normal people will understand and will be inspired by, but we should'nt make it so simple that they will follow like sheep. we want people to start thinking for themselves.

spread "propaganda" arround your school, wear clothes that represent anarchism, but not necessarily that represent a subculture, for example, wear a shirt that represents the revolution itself, and the rule from the bottom up. well, i guess you can represent a subculture (like punks), but try to make it appealing.

form anarchist groups that have the intention of doing certain things people are already somewhat interested in doing (well, not shopping of course). who knows, in the school i went to in the US, people started groups that involved themselves in things like studying certain things, art groups, and music groups.
music... thats a great way to spread a message.


keep in mind that these "coercive" methods are meant to free us from the need to further use coercive methods. the more vague an idea is, the more coercive it is. for exmaple, people to go arround saying "1488" or "white pride" are spreading ideas which are actually devoid of much meaning, yet they have enough meaning to appeal to a person. the slightest touch of reason can dissolve these ideas. ask one of these people why they say "white pride", and they wil probably not be able to answer. the idea is to force people to go into details. use the socratic method! that method of questioning can really make people think.
dont just go arround spreading a vague meaning of anarchism. try to start a cycle that will eventually make people think.

god0fmusic wrote:

i cant answer all of kencat's questions right now, but ill just make a few quick statements:

when spreading "propaganda", we should not target a limited ammount of problems, we should instead target the source of problems. for example, we should go to poor people and say "we're gonna get you health care", like what a political party would do. we would instead go up to them and say "join our quest for anarchism, and you'll be able to provide your society with everything without the limits the state and corporations impose on us" (or something like that). we should clearly state the root of the problem, instead of offering a simple solution to the symptoms of the problem..
this is the first step to making people think and act for themselves.

propaganda should be spread in any way possible of course, but while keeping it "anarchist", by that i mean using corporations and the state the least possible. now, dont go arround questioning every anarchist wether they are "anarchist enough" (this is a metaphor for the current US elections where people questioned each other's patriotism), because we dont want to start a war between ourselves. spread through action. if you act like an anarchist; if you spread propaganda without the use of corporations or the state, you are spreading the anarchist message best. we should make it clear that we want to act and think for ourselves, and that we want things to work from the bottom up. we have to truly organize form the bottom up, (and i think we are doing that for the most part, although we could go further still).
i say the internet is a great way, for example, go to forums and spread the message, start discussions, use the socratic method in order to make people think and not create useless arguments that go like this: "fucking shit, you anarchists suck", "fucking shit, no, you suck", etc.
i know most of you have youtube channels, at least those of you who came to the forum as it was being made, so put something "catchy" on your youtube channel. you dont want to confuse ignorant people with complex arguments. we have to say things that normal people will understand and will be inspired by, but we should'nt make it so simple that they will follow like sheep. we want people to start thinking for themselves.

spread "propaganda" arround your school, wear clothes that represent anarchism, but not necessarily that represent a subculture, for example, wear a shirt that represents the revolution itself, and the rule from the bottom up. well, i guess you can represent a subculture (like punks), but try to make it appealing.

form anarchist groups that have the intention of doing certain things people are already somewhat interested in doing (well, not shopping of course). who knows, in the school i went to in the US, people started groups that involved themselves in things like studying certain things, art groups, and music groups.
music... thats a great way to spread a message.


keep in mind that these "coercive" methods are meant to free us from the need to further use coercive methods. the more vague an idea is, the more coercive it is. for exmaple, people to go arround saying "1488" or "white pride" are spreading ideas which are actually devoid of much meaning, yet they have enough meaning to appeal to a person. the slightest touch of reason can dissolve these ideas. ask one of these people why they say "white pride", and they wil probably not be able to answer. the idea is to force people to go into details. use the socratic method! that method of questioning can really make people think.
dont just go arround spreading a vague meaning of anarchism. try to start a cycle that will eventually make people think.

All very good points. The questions I put there were not for everyone to answer on the forum, but were to get everyone to think and further their "propaganda" skills.

This question may be useful for all of us to answer here, though:
"Is the term propaganda useful? If so, why? If not, what terms are better suited for anarchist messaging?"

I'm making a poster as I type this. It's has a mainly white and red, grunge background with black text and a black social anarchy sign at the top.

I'm going to post the following text on it:




Anarchism --- /an·ark·ism/ --- [noun]
[Origin: 1635–45; anarch(y) + -ism]


a) The belief that all should be free.
b) The doctrine opposing the hierarchical structures of the exploitative, capitalistic and oppressive system.
c) A system in which all have a say in society; horizontal structure of organization; no masters.

—synonyms:
freedom, liberty, equality, peace.

—antonyms:
chaos, violence, destruction.




The text shows up very well, because it looks "professional" and is the opposite of grunge. I need help with the definition, because I obviously haven't covered all of it and I used the word "system" -- what should replace that word?

"Is the term propaganda useful? If so, why? If not, what terms are better suited for anarchist messaging?"

the word propaganda has a negative connotation in itself, so we should not even use a word to describe what we are doing. amongst ourselves, we could just say things like "spreading our ideas".

anarchism:
a) the idea that all should have individual creative freedom within a society.
b) The doctrine opposing the hierarchical structures of the exploitative, capitalistic and oppressive system.
c) a society where every community's work will benefit the community in the most direct way possible. a gift economy. the individual's necessity and the need for wellbeing would create union between the communities.


i dont know if there is a way to simplify this further, but i think that for the most part, a) and b) can be understood by most people.
here's the reasons why i have changed a) and c):
"The belief that all should be free."
free from what? each other? the state? capitalism? freedom is too vague of a word, and it can be distorted quite easily. someone can break into your house and claim they are protecting your freedom (hint: iraq). on the other hand, "individualistic creative freedom" is way more specific. it grants individuals freedom of speech, and the right to act within a society to some extenct even if the society doesnt like it, for example: you have the right to criticize christianity within a christian society even if the majority doesnt like your ideas. they would grant you this right. "individualistic" is an important word, because it clearly states that each individual has the right to their happiness.
"A system in which all have a say in society; horizontal structure of organization; no masters"
thats basically the same as b). that gives the whole thing a feeling of repetitiveness and uncertainity as to what the word really means.
so i made a new one for c), which i think is ok, although longer than the rest. its kind of hard to make it shorter, because if you take out certain phrases it will leave a lot of questions ananswered.
it has to, more than define anarchism, give people a general utopic idea of what anarchism would be. it has to affect people emotionally. if it creates a sense of euphoria as you read the definition, then you have it right.
keep in mind that words have no meaning in themselves, they are just used to represent general ideas. so the best way to define a word is to introduce an idea, and then call that idea anarchism.