Large corporations must love volunteers since they take care of a lot of issues which the large corporations face and they don’t even have to pay a penny for it, they must be laughing at those who do it. I wonder if there was a specific moment when it became politically correct and decent to do incredibly generous things to help those in need and to not get paid. A great number of volunteer organizations choose to pay those who oversee things but not the workers who are directly helping others, however, let’s put this fact to one side for now.
The people I find most interesting are those who run volunteer organizations in an entirely non-profit manner, which is to say that no-one gets paid, I wonder if they ever stop to consider that not only is their kindness being taken for granted but, by asking others to do the same, they are playing into the hands of those they dislike the most, those who have vast amounts of resources but do not wish to help.
The large corporations don’t care about those who are sick and dying over in Africa because they don’t fill their pockets full of cash, however, they must be counting their blessings when volunteers help homeless people get off the streets and back to being a “productive member of society” which is another term for “making money, spending money”. Homeless people are not hopeless cases since there is a chance they can be reformed, however, those dying from starvation and AIDS over in Africa better try their best to get hold of a credit card soon if they have any real hope of the money men taking notice and valuing their lives.
Anarchists and Communists share a common misconception, they both believe that by gathering together they will become stronger; this couldn’t be further from the truth.
Communism is based on the idea that everyone is equal, as soon as someone comes along and starts leading a group, the balance of power in the collective is shifted, and since humans tend to require some sort of leadership, this always happens, and Communist ideals are doomed from the very beginning.
Anarchists believe that by standing around in groups, singing the same songs, or marching together with the same protest in mind, that they are stronger, this is simply not the case. True anarchism does not have a banner, or a dress code, or anything else which is organized, the two simply can’t go together. An organized anarchist group is an incredible contradiction in terms. If these ‘anarchists’ really wish to bring down ‘the man’ in the shape of the government and the large corporations, they need to start thinking outside the box, become a true individual activist with their own independent ideas, and stop running around like a flock of easily controlled sheep. The extent of just how easily controlled these demonstrators are can be found in the idea that protesters “must” inform the Police of any demonstrations they have organized. This notification was given to the authorities about demonstrations planned for the Beijing Olympics torch ceremony in London; the Police underhandedly used this information to change the route in order to avoid many of the protesters.
You seem to miss the point when speaking about anarchist groups. Anarchists as a segment of the political spectrum do not condemn collectivism on the whole, that is a common misconception. Quite the contrary, anarchists work towards a form of voluntary community in which the people work with each other without an authority trying to regulate them. Even the fiercely individualistic anarchists organize only to reach a common goal of throwing off the chains. After the revolution has happened, those groups and organizations are to be disbanded as they would no longer serve a purpose.
I am not missing the point. I am suggesting that Anarchists, much like Communists, like to believe they are outside the authority and regulation which you speak of when in fact they are not.
As soon as one person starts giving orders, or making suggestions, or whatever they wish to call it, those who follow are automatically giving authority to that individual.
What happens then? Do they realize that this, while not the authority they disagree with, is in fact an authority by another name, and then disband?
A similar thing occurs when a musician, such as Eminem, claims that they dislike “pop music” and then become incredibly popular themselves, thus becoming an integral part of the very thing they hate.
No. If there was an anarchist political party, then you’d be right. Any anarchist group is simply a collective of people in which everyone has equal say that is working towards a goal, usually toppling the state. There is no leader and there are no rules. That being said, after the goal is achieved the group disbands. No one follows, as you put it, a leader. Each member is a leader.