Anarchy...

What do YOU think of Anarchy?

Right ! now ! ha ha ha ha ha

I am an antichrist
I am an anarchist
Dont know what I want but
I know how to get it
I wanna destroy the passer by cos i

I wanna be anarchy !
No dogs body

Anarchy for the u.k its coming sometime and maybe
I give a wrong time stop a trafic line
Your future dream is a shopping scheme cos i

I wanna be anarchy !
In the city

How many ways to get what you want
I use the best I use the rest
I use the enemy I use anarchy cos i

I wanna be anarchy !
The only way to be !

Is this the m.p.l.a
Or is this the u.d.a
Or is this the i.r.a
I thought it was the u.k or just
Another country
Another council tenancy

I wanna be an anarchist
Oh what a name
Get pissed destroy !

step right up folks!

Anarchy for sale!
T-shirts only 10 dollars
Badges only $3.50
I nicked the disign, never asked the band
I never listen to them either

Buy! Buy! Buy! from Circle A
Like hula hoops, it’s a disposable craze
Another fast-food fad to throw away

Get you Anarchy For Sale
Anarchy For Sale
Anarchy For Sale

Sheep unite!
Get your cuddly boots and studs
Be sure to rebel in proper style
Rebel along the paths we pick
Out of fear of peer pressure we create

Hey you! -
Get those flyers off my wall!
No commie peace shit in my boutique
No one here cares what that all means
Our Anarchy is For Sale
Anarchy For Sale
Anarchy For Sale

Our town sucks
Our scene rules
To belong you must buy into it
So we sold you metal spike bracelets

C’mon let’s see a good fight

That’s Anarchy For Sale
Anarchy For Sale
Anarchy For Sale.

sid and jello…

-Imp

Your take on the synthesis?

People would exploit Anarchy too much. Though Anarchy would seem to be an ideal escape from capitalism, the transition would be too insane. Not everyone would play ball with the idea of a Utopia, so the feeling of uneasiness would always remain.

Because there are looneys out there who rape and murder, people would probably crave protection, and warlords and forts would inevitably be set up. I’m sure these warlords would soon go to war with eachother, and soon people would be reminiscing of the good ol’ days with a corrupt Democracy and free trade markets.

Mudman,
How do you explain the Spanish experiment then? That seems to argue against your point.

Note: ← Definately NOT an anarchist.

Hate to be ignorant, but I couldn’t find anything on Google about it. Can you explain what it was?

As usual, Wikipedia provides a pretty good primer on the subject:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Spain

Specifically the anarcho-syndicalism of Barcelona.

There have been several fictional extrapolations of this idea -
Though it seems that in most of these (fictional) cases, man reverts to barbarism when left without the guiding force of some type of government.

While I do not feel that our present system is perfect,
I think the complete absence of any such system would result in savagery.

The reason?

Human nature. Too many people chafe against the bonds of society as is, look at crime, selfishness, greed. Were their bonds to be removed, I do not think this self serving behavior would change, and instead we’d live in a lawless world, each of us scrambling for our slice of the pie. I do not think we would have our ‘utopia’ without rules - I do not think we are evolved enough or mature enough as a species.

Anarchy is a contradiction unto itself. If any society exists (by which I mean, if any connection exists between some number of people) then there are societal rules, written or unwritten, to be followed. This is not anarchy. Even fighting someone because you don’t like them or what they stand for is to enforce your beliefs on someone else, which is not anarchy.

As I’ve tried to explain before, even in the wild there is no anarchy. Ants do the work of a queen and have specific jobs. Wolves follow an alpha male. Birds fly in a line, as a team, following the leader in the middle. Fish swim in schools to protect each other through large numbers. Anarchy, cannot, and therefore will not, ever exist.

sid and jello? wiggly suicide…

-Imp

At least they wouldn’t have a state apparatus with which to fuck other people over.

What free trade markets? We have capitalist monopolies, and corporate nation-states.

As I say, if there are loons out there who’ll try to rape, pillage and plunder, regardless of the political framework, then an anarcho-syndacalist system is actually safer. The danger in a democracy is that one or more of these loons will get elected and will therefore have the whole state apparatus behind their quest for murder, destruction and greed.

In an anarcho-syndicalist system they’d likely just be shot within a matter of days.

No, they wouldn’t. I agree completely. Instead of making decisions indirectly through a higher authority, the decision making would be concentrated and made through the people.

This can be good and bad. Gathering the people for every tiny issue could get a little time consuming. The only way to get around it that I can think of now is to elect someone to decide whats important (gather people) and whats not. (decide himself). But this would lead to somewhat of a hierarchy, and contradict the class equality of anarcho-syndicalism.

Possible. But being the complete leader of a nation is not necessary to cause death. The power to deploy an army at the snap of your fingers helps, but sometimes the only real power you need to get what you want is a 9mm and the skills to understand the complete lack of restrictions of an anarchy society. And sometimes a bullet to the head hurts a bit more than high taxes.

And there would not be just one person doing this (i.e. a corrupt president). Instead, you would have millions of people with their own corrupt ideals for exploiting the lack of organization. Sometimes millions of people walking the street with this mindset adds up and is just about as bad as a corrupt capitalist government.

In my mind both suck. We need a new doctrine for some kickass government at Geneva or something.

ok folks, anarchy cannot succeed as a permanent society. It is more or less the definition of revolution. As anarchy sinks in, fear spreads and groups form. A tribal society forms. These tribes progress in complexity. Anarchy would eventually turn into a semi-utopian society where people live in stateless communes. There would still be competition between communes for natural resources. It is my theory that anarchy is a stepping stone to the communist society that marxism has never accomplished.

Marxist communism is (would be) an AMAZING society if it could ever work, but because of the element of human greed (whether for goods, money, or power) it won’t exist. People, as a whole, simply seem unable to share.

Anarchy is for people who are afraid to trust people.

They prefer to trust money instead.

That is VERY untrue…me and a few of my friends are for anarchy. I turst people. Also, how the hell do you trust money? You use it…to but your NEEDS and wants. You can’t always trust it. It can be easily wasted.

Depends what you mean by ‘anarchy’. Anarchy without any qualifiers isn’t a viable alternative to government, and infact can only ever be a transitory period between organized societies.
If you are talking about anarcho-communism, then you are a retard…that’s a contradiction in terminology.

Anarcho-capitalism, or ‘Market Anarchy’, on the other hand, is a damn fine idea that I am for 110%. The premise is to replace all coersive monopolistic state institutions with free market alternatives.

freedomainradio.com/freedomain-r … n-In-1.htm
mises.org/media.aspx

The best four-line explanation of how anarcho-syndicalism is meant to work.

I firmly believe that of the total murders that happen in the world, the majority are directly or indirectly caused by state and international governments. You’ll never get rid of murder. My point is that if there’s evil in the world, which there seems to be, then concentrating power comes with massive risks.

If the noble grab the reigns, however, then you get Enlightened Monarchy and suchlike. I’d prefer that to elective democracy, in truth.

The lack of organisation is precisely what stops these millions of corrupt people from ever having enough power to damage that many other people. Only gigantic political and economic structures ever grant individuals or small groups the power to slaughter and oppress en masse.

See my post on flying a plane into the UN building. 'S somewhere to start.

Anarchy is not the mistrust of others, just the lack of trust and faith that people who are complete strangers and ethicly different will not enforce their dogmatic ideas on their subjects.