I have a question. if a person were to be considered a "leading individual" in an anarchist society, as long as they had no control and mainly lead by influence, would that still be considered anarchy?
I consider myself an anarchist-socialist, but I'm unsure whether a large sum of people (lets go with about 100.) would be able to remain a single group without a leader. I figure if one character would be influential to the majority, but they would not be able to order others, this faction could be considered anarchist, since they don't really have any form of authority over others. I guess this could be possible if the faction was Communist-Anarchist. (as in;everything belongs to everyone,the community works to better the lives of those around them.)
really great definition. and it looks great! how did you do it? it it fabric? and can i use it n my blog? i want to try to explain the real anarchy an not the chaos-thing!!! and this would help an dmake a nice picture
Hi. I run this here little anarchist/anti-authoritarian artists group called The Red and Black Artists Coalition. We basically collect any and all subversive type artwork and display it together in one gallery so that all the artists involved may get better exposure and have the support of like-minded people.
I was wondering if I could add this particular piece of writing of yours to our gallery. Also, if you have anything else you'd like us to add, please let us know!
This is awesome... I've been looking for a way to describe to some of the people closest to me the true meaning of my beliefs and to try and convince them it isn't merely a "phase" ... hopefully this will help...