There is no such thing as anarchy or anarchism, both are not real things because from the smallest to the largest human populations, from ancient times to our more modern ones there has always been a state and a form of leadership making up some kind of central authority. Nowhere in history has there ever existed anarchy or anarchism, even the so called anarchist communes that have sprung up time from time there was always a pillar central leadership firmly in control of things. Every time I listen or hear from anarchists themselves as individuals they always speak gibberish in my mind as nothing they represent makes any logical coherent sense.
1 Like
You have a point, but anarchism, in the usual sense of the word, is essentially an ideal. Like communism, an ideal so talked about, but never really put into practice. Saying that anarchism is unreal is the same as saying christianity is unreal- both are only ideas in peopleâs minds.
Now, depending on how you define anarchism, youâll find a lot of anarchists around you, because if theyâre fighting to abolish the State, private property, and the like, the existence of such things condition their existence and their actions. In this sense Bakunin called himself an anarchist. He lived in a State, like everyone else, but not as a conforming ant, but as a virus, willing to corrode State power at its core. He could never destroy something that wasnât there.
Thereâs also the Thoreau ideal of a simple life, completely apart from the delusions and material attachments of civilization. Can we say such a guy obeyed some sort of external authority? He only obeyed his own inner feelings, his attachment to a given social order was only conventional. A man who doesnât submit to the kind of social conditioning that most heed to in a capitalist society, only to his inner desires, can be labelled an anarchist, even though not willing to overthrow the State, but just to be rid of its limitations and the ideals such a State forces him to accept.
1 Like
Every individual who follows the golden rule, regardless whether or not the stateâs rules are in alignment with the golden rule, is a living anarchist.
The word anarchy derives from the ancient Greek term anarchia, which basically means âwithout leaderâ or âwithout authorityâ. It is portrayed either
- As a state of âdisorderâ due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems, or
- As the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government.
There are many notable examples of individuals who have followed high ideals, supposedly without forming a state in the formal sense. Throughout history, numerous leaders, reformers, and thinkers have pursued idealsâsuch as justice, equality, nonviolence, and human rightsâthrough personal action, social movements, or philosophical teachings rather than by establishing or governing a formal state.
Jesus apparently advocated for compassion, forgiveness, and love without seeking political power or founding a state, although that is still under debate. The charge against him may well have been political, and the claim of the Gospels is that he descended from the legendary king David.
Martin Luther led a Reformation Movement within the church, driven by religious and ethical ideals, but his movement was deeply intertwined with the political realities of his time, particularly the interests of the German aristocracy and nobility who were often at odds with papal authority, and found significant support among some German princes and nobles.
Mahatma Gandhi championed nonviolent resistance and civil rights in India, inspiring global movements for justice, but had deep political convictions that have been recently addressed in a book by Arundhati Roy. She contrasts Gandhiâs approach with that of B.R. Ambedkar, highlighting how Gandhiâs high idealsâsuch as nonviolence and civil rightsâwere often interwoven with political pragmatism and contradictions, especially regarding the Dalit (formerly âuntouchableâ) community She also addresses Gandhiâs attitudes toward race and class during his time in South Africa, suggesting that his views were at times patriarchal, casteist, and even racist by modern standards.
Martin Luther King, Jr. fought for civil rights and racial equality in the United States through nonviolent activism, but his actions were aimed at a particular political movement, advocating for the end of segregation, the protection of voting rights, and the achievement of legal and social equality for African Americans. Kingâs vision expanded in his later years to include economic justice and opposition to militarism, exemplified by his leadership in the Poor Peopleâs Campaign and his outspoken criticism of the Vietnam War.
Susan B. Anthony and Abigail Adams advocated for womenâs rights and social reform, influencing society through activism and advocacy rather than statecraft. However, the suffragette movement was not apolitical; in fact, it was fundamentally political in both its aims and methods. The primary goal of the suffragettes was to secure the right for women to vote in political elections and referendumsâa direct challenge to existing political structures and laws. Therefore, the suffragette movement was not only political but was a pivotal force in the transformation of political rights and participation for women and thereby changed the political landscape.
While much of Nelson Mandelaâs life was dedicated to the pursuit of justice and equality under an oppressive regime, long before holding any formal state power, he eventually became president of South Africa. His leadership thus transformed South Africa from an apartheid state into a democracy in which Blacks and other previously disenfranchised groups had a significant say in the nationâs future.
Most of the figures I mentionedâMartin Luther, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., the suffragettes, and Nelson Mandelaâwere not anarchists in the strict, political-philosophical sense. However, in a broader or metaphorical sense, their actions often challenged the legitimacy of existing authorities and called for radical change. So, despite not being anarchists per se, their tactics and philosophies sometimes included anarchistic elements.
They are the only true anarchists.
Like âtrue bluesâ?
What is your function?
Let me see. One function of a human is rational activity. Although it is obviously questioned whether rationality is truly unique to humans, considering the aforementioned animal cognition.
From a biological standpoint, the function of a human being can be described in terms of the integrated functions of the bodyâs systems: Maintaining homeostasis (internal stability); growth and development; reproduction; movement and interaction with the environment; processing information and adapting behaviour (via the nervous system), or survival and propagation of the species.
Perhaps it is broader or more existential functions, such as living fully rather than merely existing, but the âfunctionâ of a human being is most classically defined as rational activity performed in accordance with virtue.
What is the function of your question?
To ask what you mean.
What does âtrue bluesâ mean to you, that you would ask if it is like what I mean by âtrue anarchistsâ?
And why did you think I would understand what it means to you?
There are brief moments in history, time, and place where societies are close to Anarchism.
When the British colonialists landed in the New World, they were pretty free to do whatever they wanted. And they did. Colonials and Injuns had brutal wars against each other. Furthermore, when the early American colonists established themselves and pushed Westward, they recruited criminals, rapists, murderers, and thieves to do most of their dirty-work for them.
The Wild West was real, until Europeans tamed/genocided the Native population. That was pretty Anarchic, was it not?
not true anarchy, which never passes away
was being operative
Define âtrue anarchyâ then.
Middle of a warzone in progress?
Middle of the Atlantic, Captain of the ship dies, mutiny on board?
ClarifyâŚ
Not really, early colonialists still payed taxes to the British Crown, and of course there were local magistrates. In the wild west you still had town sheriffs, marshals, and a court system catered by the local aristocrat that controlled the area economically. There certainly was a lot of violence, but that has nothing to do with anarchy at all.
Jesus was the ultimate religious statist with his kingdom of heaven and earth.
Exactly, there is no true anarchy or any kind of anarchy because it describes something that has never existed ever. Even in criminal mafias, groups of bandits, or pirates there is a hierarchy of authority and leadership.
I seem to recall the Thoreau commune at Walden Pond being abandoned after so many years because they couldnât cut it any more. All of them returned back to civilization and the general state within a few short years, the grand experiment a total failure. If Henry Thoreau wanted a more thorough experience of his own ideals he probably should of chosen to live with the native indigenous Americans off the land in the American wilderness, but even then, that wouldnât be anarchism either. Bakunin died an alcoholic, I donât think he eroded much of Tsarist Russia at all before dying into total irrelevancy, it was only the Bolsheviks later on that had the ability to overthrow the Russian monarchy.
Radical changes within society transforming from one state into another different one is not anarchy or anarchistic.