Islam as an anarchic community and not a religion presented
-
The concepts of the anarchic must be balanced by also understanding the nature of the alternative, which presently dominates.
The only way out of the matrix of slavery is to establish alternatives to the control systems, no one does, and without doing so there is no escape, procrastinating about the slavery cesspool doesn't help. Of course some would love and want to protect the systems of extortion and slavery they have been born into, and for those people what i write has no interest.
Usury is the basis of slavery, if you want usury you cannot end your slavery, the five basic usury models are ownership, interest debt, profit, taxation and rental.
So lets us begin by discussing if you want the riba system or the anarchic alternative?
-
rental.
How can you establish community without being extorted when there are virtually no landmasses which are free to be occupied by the community, except perhaps some Amazon forests or Antarctic i.e. places not suitable for living and procreation?
An alternative model would be the same hippies of the '60's did, i.e. communes, and there are many of those still available in different countries (not necessarily hippie-related). But then again, how can you establish production without being forced to consume welfare and pay basic taxes, such as electricity bills?
These are mainly rhetorical questions. Point is, without creating huge paradigmatic shift which would overthrow the matrix inside the mind of many people which would spark the chain of changes, there is not much any of these radical theories may offer, besides being discussion clubs.
How does Islam or Qur'anic teaching outline anarhic communities?
-
Peace Makaveli,
I am not suggesting a location; I am presenting a global solution.
Communism is the direct opposite of anarchy, in the modern form, as it makes the hierarchy the ultimate power and the individual simply a cog in its machine.
The way to change from one model to another is to make the alternative to the existing model more advantageous to the user, and to allow them to use the model without the presently dominating hierarchies, being able to prevent them, being able to identifying them, or being able to take their assets within the platform, as people begin to use the platform and enjoy its many advantages, others will follow suit, in this way, without war, violence or any conflict, the hierarchical models will slowly become obsolete.
As the Qur?an is presently not translated we can only investigate the models of the past, we do however know the Qur?an advices us not to have any sovereigns or to practice riba, and from these two simple concepts the only alternative remaining is the anarchic.
-
Communism is not meant to be what you describe, theoretically. It is because it has never really been applied properly to any community.
None of the models can be applied in practice, due to the nature of man. Not unless each person in the community is equally willing to give up on the instinctive desires.
There is always going to rise a megalomaniac to power and then ruin the anarchy.
Be well
Qarael Amenuel -
I am not in any way proposing the Jewish communist model, either in pristine form or hierarchical.
You do not understand what I propose, no one gives up anything in my model, they simply apply it to an alternative model, and only if they wish, it has no compulsion.
The reason psychopaths dominate is 100% because of the hierarchal nature of the controlling systems; they dominate without any accountability for their extortions, murders, kidnappings etc.
We could do a case study of a hierarchical system; examine the nature of a system to grasp why the alternative, which can be present after, is more advantageous to the user.
-
Communism is not meant to be what you describe, theoretically. It is because it has never really been applied properly to any community.
This. Communism does not equal what soviet's eventually created. There were many radical anarchist within bolshevik ranks during revolution in Russia, most were later killed once bolsheviks acquired power. This is the fate of any social theory in practice. On the paper it is all good but later transpires into hierarchy and tyranny as usual.
It is better to develop yourself and not look what others do. The world was never meant to be anarchic, sadly, otherwise we would have known about it, as an alternative. But people do not even frown upon anarchy, they simply do not know that such alternative ever existed.
Most people who live in apartments can't even come to most solutions with their neighbors, and we are talking about global shift.
-
the five basic usury models are ownership, interest debt, profit, taxation and rental.
What are five alternative solutions to these? In case there is no ownership there is no private property, which in essence is true, as the Qur'an says we do not own anything. But if there is no ownership, how can community protect each other from these who desire ownership (territorial ownership)? There will always be someone who desires more territory, more resources, better opportunities, more comfort, more wives, more domination et cetera.
What's more is how there is even slightest possibility that five major religions will abandon their clerics and chiefs and move for the alternative, which would imply that everyone would then have to accept each other for who they are. But their books say otherwise, they are not equal in religion. And now we move to the radical paradigmatic shift, but tell it to a husband of a crazy wife and a father to 3 spoiled brats, and who is also secretly an alcoholic? He works two jobs, he has no time for utopian theories, hello welcome
-
You are still thinking in terms of hierarchy, I am not advocating revolution, I'm proposing an alternative that can be used completely independently of the hierarchical systems while being unstoppable within them, it has no hierarchical structure, it has no head to terminate, it has no centralization, it has no physical form, it cannot be bombed, murdered, bribed, corrupted or shut down, it is a software platform that allows all the functions people require free of hierarchy and riba.
No leaders, no politics, no protesting, no marches, no confrontations, no violence, no conflict.
People want what they realise is to their practical advantage, it does not take a huge number to realise this at the start, and as people realise this they will explain it to others who will likewise see the advantages and so the platform will grow in dominance.
We can examine the usury models. we can begin with ownership. You have to understand what ownership is, people think it is self evident, but actually they do not understand ownership at all.
Transforming from an ownership system to the innate and anarchic allodial model is not difficult.
As I say the system gives self advantage, this means the guy who is miserable with his drudgery and suffering, turns to alcohol and endures poverty, will see if exposed to the platform the incredible advantages, and will ultimate enjoy the slow return to true community the platform allows.
-
You are still thinking in terms of hierarchy, I am not advocating revolution, I'm proposing an alternative that can be used completely independently of the hierarchical systems while being unstoppable within them, it has no hierarchical structure, it has no head to terminate, it has no centralization, it has no physical form, it cannot be bombed, murdered, bribed, corrupted or shut down, it is a software platform that allows all the functions people require free of hierarchy and riba.
And in case your system works, who's going to control the Internet and info-communication technology, since you say it is a software? In case there is a control over these institutions there is a hierarchy. And what stops others from corrupting the software platform using hacking and viruses?
-
Presently the internet is hierarchically structure, it cost the governments 100's of millions to make it hierarchical, with providers and users, it wasn't created originally to function in that way, and it still does not need to, it is a restriction and hindrance not a benefit to users, it slows the net down and its only real purpose is to generate billions for the elite.
This same situation exists for mobile phones, both the internet and mobile phones could be structured anarchically, in fact the software and concepts are already in existence, it needs further development, but the fundamentals are in place.
Paying a psychopath to use something that should be free is foolish, you see the selfish advantage of the anarchic.
Hacking is not possible with the structure of the platform, and viruses would only effect the users windows, mac ubuntu platforms not the anarchic platform as its a closed model.
-
Hacking is not possible with the structure of the platform, and viruses would only effect the users windows, mac ubuntu platforms not the anarchic platform as its a closed model.
And who is going to manufacture and distribute hardware for the software to work? You do realize that a mobile phone and computer did not come out of blue light from heavens and that these were only possible due to controlled efforts of various industires? In case the world is split by anarchic communitites, they won't be able to cooperatively create something and economy would deteriorate, we would basically go down to the middle ages. But it is actually good, but not many people would agree with that. Anyways, since your model clearly lacks development and organized manufacture, which sadly requires hierarchy and coordination or control, then how will people use this secret software platform in case there won't be anyone running mobile and computer networks?
Another question is, if what you say that these anarchic models existed in the past (which they did not) before they were "destroyed by Vatican", what software did people use back then, and why is your model based on a software platform and not social communication?
-
You do not need monopolies, corporations, or governments to manufacture goods makaveli, people can do that, and the platform empowers them to do so, the system is based around hubs and satellites, so for example you could have a technological development hub, and the satellites could be fed from that hub, universally all satellites could be fed from that hub, it is an open model.
The controlling of industries you talk about restricts innovation, maintain monopolies and suppress advances that threaten their existing monopolies.
The anarchic software platform simply gives a structure to the anarchic models, allowing users to interact in many varied ways to form bonds, trades, and interactions.
I do not know why you say they did not exist in the past, what evidence makes you say this, as I know for a certainty they did exist as I have read in detail about them.
What makes you deny the anarchic models repeatedly without any investigation or support?
How would you know my model lacks anything when you have not the faintest clue what my model has?
-
I do not know why you say they did not exist in the past, what evidence makes you say this, as I know for a certainty they did exist as I have read in detail about them.
What makes you deny the anarchic models repeatedly without any investigation or support?
How would you know my model lacks anything when you have not the faintest clue what my model has?
Because there is not a single evidence that these ever existed let alone worked as a standalone socio-economic models. If you have read about them, present your findings, I will gladly read them in case they were written earlier than the 20th century.
-
This is what we are doing?
We are talking, but I have yet to read about whatever you have to present. I suggest you present your theory in a clear manner rather than post ambiguous threads which invite people to dialogue but do not reveal any concepts.
Obviously any sane and developed individual is against hierarchy. Is someone does support it he is not developed enough. But few sane developed individuals won't change the world.
-
Look, I am running out of patience, you want something that you have no capacity to absorb, you have to read the material which is extensive, I am trying to explain it but you are not being constructive you are in fact being argumentative?
This is not conducive to learning it is hostile.
-
Look, I am running out of patience, you want something that you have no capacity to absorb, you have to read the material which is extensive, I am trying to explain it but you are not being constructive you are in fact being argumentative?
This is not conducive to learning it is hostile.
I am not being constructive? At what point? I only see you talk utopian ideas, I am merely trying to get detailed response, which you are not providing for days, yet you keep mentioning your miraculous models. Logically I conclude they do not exist and the point of this is merely a discussion.
Saying I cannot absorb something is dull, how can you measure one's capacity to absorb information? It is true that I won't read utopian ideas or conspiracy theories too extensively, because they are pointless, but surely I can check whatever you propose.
As for now I only had to use leading questions so far, none of which you did answer, except for saying that I don't understand anarchy or we do not need monopolies etc.