Anarchy in essence is an absurd form of individualistic existence. Why do they want to break our society into pieces? Our society exist because we are all interdependant. We were once in anarchy, but because it makes sense to cooperate, we rid ourselves of anarchy and formed society as it is. Anarchism, or localisationism as sometimes it is called is a backward step for humanity.
Anarchism leads to even greater and more wide spread abuse of power. Without a coherent system to protect individuals, the strongest wields greater power and the potential for abuse of that power is great. We can not afford anarchism, because as Plato puts it, “man is a social animal”.
Anarchy is “absence of government”. Anarchy is more for the fact that people do not need a governing body to law down laws. Anarchy does not say we cannot and should not work together. It is more for a peaceful utopia. The only reason it is absurd is because people like to put anarchy with Chaos, and then in Chaos we would have the problems you speak of.
Anarchy is a non factor, and is not a viable form of ‘government’(for lack of a better word.) The reason anarchy could never work is because it is doomed to be transitory. In the absense of government, someone will always try to take some power…and eventually whoever has the most power is in charge, be it a warlord or a king. No more anarchy.
I for one prefer to stay in a society governed in a way that provides me some comforts and rights, rather than get beaten decapitated by an angry tax collecting warlords millitia.
For many years I “did” the anarchist thing.
I stayed out of the system, I worked underground
getting cash, not having a car or anything else
that was about the govenment. After many years
I had another change, to my present form of believe
about government. I take the name of Kropotkin
because of all the anarchist, I liked his writtings
the best. Now note I am no longer an anarchist,
just a very liberal kind of guy, I can state for the
record that anarchism has the most positive
viewpoint of people of any political system.
Anarchism actually trust people to make the right
choices. Republicans are actually gutless anarchist,
because they claim to a believe that people know best
for themselves, yet when people claim that right such
as in gay marriage, sexual laws, and drug laws,
the republicans switch gears and try to ban those things
even though by all rights they should support the
governement getting off the backs of the people and
allowing freedom of choice in lifestyle choices.
Anarchism says you are free to be who you are,
a conservative says you are free in theory, but
in reality you are not, and a democrat says, you
should able to make your own choices, but
is worried about having every single person able
to have the same choices as every one else.
Yeah, if a warlord is beating you over the head, that’s not anarchy. Anarchy by definition has no one having power over anyone else.
It’s quite possible that this is impossible, but I tend to think we were very close over the neolithic era. Then people had the right to leave any group that they didn’t like. They had equal rights to all the fruits of the earth. It wasn’t quite there because there were still charamatic people that could get things going in their direction, and strikeing out on ones own wasn’t completely practical. Now, when argriculture came and the population of the earth came to a point when the bounty of the earth didn’t seem so bountiful- anarchy, in my view, became impossible. Limited resorses have to be orginised to keep all out chaos from breaking out. But perhapse with fusion technology, there will be a new bounty that will allow a new phase of near-anarchy. However, eventually population will catch up to resources and trouble will break out agian.
In short, anarchy requires really good people, and people are as good as food is cheap.
Yes, but anarchy…much like communism and egalitarianism…do not walk in step with reality.
In reality man is a social pack animal.
In reality man has ambition.
In reality people find saftey in numbers, and people want to feel safe.
An anarchy implys no structure, but that structure will always form, for the reasons stated above.
What I am saying is between the time a region becomes an ‘anarchy’ and the time when a warlords thugs are beating in your door is quite finite.
Do you really think our animal ancestors lived in such a happy go lucky state? I would envision it to be tribal/family groups(like other simmians) which served to both protect and sterngthen the individual. Back then man was not yet atop the food chain, and leaving the tribe/family group would be a pretty dangerous endevour.
Again, I think this is more a problem of anthropology and psychology than ecology. Even in a society free of energy concerns, leaders will still lead, and followers wil still follow.
By ‘good’ do you mean ‘law abiding’? how would that work, free of laws?
All notions of ‘goodness’ and’right’ come from somewhere, you know.
Where do yours come from?
Yeaa Kropotkin was the best…But stinner, zerzan, bakunin ,proudhon they were also the number ones
Well the meaning, it changes. For me anachy is simple. It is against the power. Very easy, be against the power for me.Satisfying? I don’t know, smtimes agree sometimes not. It has no rules? Nooo!Backward step for humanity? Who knows? For guys above its forward step, the final one… Additionally, think about going to the rain forest times, some say that they are much hapier from us so lets go!
Anarchy has different rules, especialy ethics.
But generally speaking human is at the center.
(All the other -isms also says, however human is at he center )
They don’t wish to break our society into independant pieces, they wish to re-construct society in a way that will limit all hiearchy and externalities. They wish to make every decision-making process affect only those who make the decision, thus creating different pieces of society when needed. Most anarchists ultimately aim for an unitied world under anarchist principals (simlar to Global Communism).
When exactly? I can think of a few historical examples of anarchism (Spanish Revolution, Makhnovist movement, Shinmin, ect) But I’m almost certain that it’s not these time periods you are refering to. What are you refering to?
Anarchy is nothing BUT cooperation. Try again.
And why exactly do you think there won’t be a system to protect individuals? Anarchist ideology was formed to avoid the economic Darwinism, not to move that Darwinism to normal life as well.
Plato also operated on a definition of Anarchism that he thought up himself. Anarchism relies on humans being social animals. Next time please read alittle something on Anarchism and examples of it in history before making nonsense threads.
Wrong. Anarchy comes from the Greek word Anarchia.
An: No, absence of, none of, without, ect.
Arch: Rulers, leaders, dictators, chiefs, ect.
ia: comparable to the English suffix “y” as used in Monarchy, hiearchy, anarchy.
Unless you’re operating on the same definition of “government” that Proudhon did(which is doubtful), Anarchy and governance aren’t incompatible.
However, as history has shown us, anarchy doesn’t create an absence of power, rather it divides up power equally, and when someone tries to take away the divided power, they impowered masses fight back. People like having power over their own life, and they will fight back when someone tries to deprive them of that freedom.
It doesn’t has to be. Most Anarchists (myself included) argue that government should get out of marriage completely and allow the cultural institutions make marriage whatever they want them to be.
No “top-to-bottom” structure. Just about every single anarchist agrees that some sort of structure is needed. From Anarcho-sydicalists to Anarcho-communists to anarcho-Primitivists, they all agree on structing society around a network of volunetary and directly democractic communes.
Max Striner (assuming that’s who you mean by stinner) was an egoist that barely fits into the catergory of “anarchist” and shouldn’t even be compared to other anarchist thinkers. Also, me and primitivists don’t exactly get along, but Zerzan is most likely you’re best read if you’re interested in Primitivism. Proudhon is most likely my favourite anarchist and was the first to examine capitalism at it’s rawest core, and break paths with it, redefining the “left”. Marx also deprived much of his thoughts on property straight out of Proudhon’s “What is Property”.
When, and how exactly has history shown us this?
Can you name one society in the history of man free of leaders that weild more power than everyone else?
I can’t.
I am changing my stance because Dr.Satanical is against anarchy.
Anarchy is the preferred form of existence because it is the only system that gives the greatest freedom to the individual. The concept of anarchy has been generally misunderstood to be a state of transition between other systems of government marked by wars, looting and death. While in reality, the anarchism most anarchists if not all advocates is a system under which people live in harmony with nature in individual communes, free from materialistic values of capitalist society.
Under anarchy, people live in villages and they have their own cottages with gardens, household animals like rabits, chickens to lay eggs, donkeys to grind flower. basically, anarchism is an utopian form of existence where individuals can pursue the greatest pleasure but not infringing upon the freedom and culture of other groups.
In an anarchist commune, there is even greater co-operation and understanding, imagine a place where people do not look down on you because of what you are wearing or the amount of wealth you have, where people judge you by your character, by who you are not what you have.
We are all essentially nice people, and anarchism brings out the best in people. Instead of working in factories or office towers, we can play in the fields, we can work in harmony with nature, we can be self sustainable and efficient. Just imagine that!
The system we are living under is unfair, unjust and inhumane. our present system encourages competition, not co-operation, it dehumanise people. we no longer see people as human beings with feelings but machines which perform certain tasks.
Anarchism is a humane form of existence. Localisation, not globalisation is the way to victory, to peace, and to happiness.
The listed communities that did fall, fell due to exteral forces(more often than not, Soviet Russia) and not due to a vaccum of power within their own community.
I’m still not exactly sure whether you’re being completely serious or just mocking anarchism, but if you are being serious, what exactly made you change you’re mind (outside of Dr.Satanical of course)?
Looking over those examples, I find them so support my case. All of those anarchist ‘societies’ were extremely shortlived and always overthrown.
Anarchism never has and never will work, because it can’t work (much like communism, or your average welfare bum)
communes do work. the ones which don’t are not actually anarchist communes. there are usually governed by a dictator, much like our present day capitalist elite. I could use the same argument and say, just because societies collapse, that means societies do not work.
human beings in africa and asian and south america have lived in an anarchist state for thousands of years. in harmony with nature. there is absolutely no evidence that anarchist communes do not work. if they didn’t, how come they lasted for so long. in comparison, our modern day societies are marked by frequent uphevals, revolutions and wars, unprecedently in human history. how do you explain the existence of forces today to overturn present day society and lack of them in the days of anarchy? obviously, anarchy is a more desirable form of existence.
Incidentally, It was Aristotle, in The Politics, and he observed that “Man is a political animal.” Though perhaps it could be translated as “social.” I dunno.
As far as anarchy goes, it strikes me as an extreme, a utopia that can never be successfully realized. In this respect it shares a lot with communism, in that both depend on the absence of a strong, dictatorial leader, which has been empircally shown to be nigh impossible given the nature of humanity. Neither one has the kinds of checks and balances that in theory prevent the rise of a dictator in modern democracies like the US.
And I supose you could produce an example of a long-lasting ‘anarchist commune’? That sounds like rubbish to me. And if a ‘commune’ is ‘governed by a dictator’ it, by definition, is neither a commune nor an anarchy.
First, anarchy is not a ‘society’, it is the absense of such. An anarchy cannot ‘colapse’ as it is a void, not a system. In order for a system of government to work, there must in fact be a system. In the absense of a system one will be created, because there is power in numbers, and might makes right. History has shown this to be the case in 100% of all instances.
At this point it becomes clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. Name one recorded instance of prehistoric or early historic anarchist societies that lasted more than a few years. All of the evidence of early society points to a tribal structure, which is a far site from anarchy.
Other than the complete absense of their existance, that is.
By ‘so long’ do you mean a few years max? If you don’t you are uninformed.
If you wish to do away with the security and comfort provided by an economic and social infrastructure, this is true.
)