The Success of Anarchy

Dear Anarchists,

I am writing to you not because I am an Anarchist myself, which I am not, but because the obvious answer to your dreams of total freedom has somehow eluded you as a collective.

The first thing you will have to do is organize, which sort of defeats the purpose of being an Aarchist, but you will see why. The second thing you will have to do is all file a mass bankruptcy on the same day (particularly the homeowners). The final thing you will have to do is watch as the financial sector becomes completly worthless, real estate values fall to 1960’s levels, banks stop lending almost completely and the financial stability of the entire country goes down the toilet.

They talk about an economic bailout where the government uses taxpayers dollars to prop up the finance industry, and yes, that is still in the works, how about government money bails out every single taxpayer in the United States? Could you imagine what would happen if only 25% of America’s good citizens filed bankruptcy? The federal government would have nothing left, stock values would plummet across the entire board. All control would steadily be lost until there was nothing left.

The only thing better than to file bankruptcy would be to just stop. Stop paying on your car, your credit cards, your house, stop going to work. Get all of your money out of the bank and cash advance your credit cards to the max, re-finance on your house and never pay it off and take all of that liquid cash and use it just to survive. Slowly, but surely, the entire establishment would crumble into nothingness and the entire country would start all over. Money would either be meaningless after the smoke clears, or as close to meaningless as money can possibly get.

This is the prime time for you anarchists to strike. All you have to do is recruit (just not me because I won’t join you) and either file bankruptcy or just stop en masse and you may just win.

…if you can covince enough people to do it.

Just so you know, “success” and “anarchy” usually don’t mix. Assimilate or die.

Don’t worry about me, I’m plenty assimilated.

Trust me, I wasn’t. :laughing:

(Thanks for the laugh though, I really needed it!) :wink:

No problem.

I doubt that, and even if it does, it will be replaced.

This IS anarchy. All the organizations and oppression and institution and so on, are just what a bunch of free people with no rules and the world in the palm of their hand are deciding to do with themselves.

I agree with you.

I never thought this day would come…

Hm, I was kinda hasty. Maybe I should rethink my position.

This is not at all a sound explanation of anarchy in my ignorant view. Once a free person co-ops with “organizations and oppression and institution and so on” the anarchist is no more. Anarchism is a well developed philosophical ideology; blithe comments seem to me only to show that very few people have really absorbed the philosophy of anarchism, here are some of the anarchists; none of whom, I’d guess, would agree that “This IS anarchy.”

Michael Bakunin
Alexander Berkman
Murray Bookchin
Albert Camus
Dorothy Day
Francisco Ferrer
Eric Fromm
William Godwin
Emma Goldman
Peter Kropotkin
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Max Stirner
Leo Tolstoy

“anarchy sounds good to me then someone asks who’d fix the sewers? or would the rednecks play dictator of the neighborhood?” -Biafra


"Step right up folks! Anarchy for SALE!

T-shirts only 10 dollars
Badges only 3.50
I nicked the design, 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 your 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

It’s Anarchy 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" - Biafra


it wasn’t a question… it was a quote from a song

and no, the rednecks would play dictator of the neighborhood - they always do

intellectual integrity indeed.


True anarchy is impossible for a social creature. Sorry wannabe anarchists it may happen temporarily but, eventually herd rules will occur again.

:laughing: One: Churro I don’t claim wisdom I am far too young to have much of that, 43 years only gives you some smarts.
Two: I never think you are goofy, I apreciate the way you think. Your thoughts show real intelligence.
Three: Wanna be just means that no matter how much you are for something it can’t be. You can’t ever get anarchy because it is only a temporary environment for social creatures. Eventually social rules will settle back in. You might start off enjoying the hell out of Anarchy but, eventually you will get tired of it and need social order. Unless you wish to live alone.
Social animals prove this all the time. Anarchy happens when there is a change of leadership or loss of heirarchy then heirarchy and social order comes back after a while and the herd or pack settle into their new routine.

I assure you that no insult is given, its just a fact. As a social creature anarchy is a great temporary distraction from herd routine, it has some very positive aspects in cleaning the herd, but it is and can be only a temporary form of society.

No, not gov’t, just social order. you do not need Govt’s for social order. Although heirarchy will arise from any social order or agreement, in one form or another social heirarchal leadership will develop. What its name is is irrelivent, it is a heirarchal leadership. Social creatures use social order and leaders to be social. Formal Govt’s are not needed. You can be a loose confederation but, you still will eventually uncover the need for leadership in some form.

Imagine something like that, happening in a place like this.

Uccisore, that…was…hilarious!!!

Look at what I have started, and my initial post was just more or less toying with the idea that the government could be rendered helpless.

I think it does have a lot to do with the need for social order, and while social order and government are not mutually exclusive, one can often be a means to another. Besides, when you talk about a small social group having a leader, then you are talking about a government, with the leader acting as President. If the people in the group didn’t want to do what the leader says, then they would have to determine who wants to do it and who doesn’t.

The group would either:

A: Divide into sub-groups and part ways. Although, in an anarchist country you are bound to have groups of people that just go bat-shit crazy and go around just randomly killing, raping, or stealing from people so the greater your number, the better.

B: Divide into sub-groups and go to war with each other. I guess what was left of the winning group would get their way.

C: Decide out of the group what most of the people in the group would prefer by putting it to a vote, oh, wait…

Government is unavoidable. Even if anarchy were established it would only be a matter of time before there formed at least crude governments. Basically, what I think anarchists really want is not the complete break-down of government or society, they want to play by their own set of rules, and they want to have the chance to find people that subscribe to the same set of rules that they do and live in harmony with those people. The only problem with that is, the rules have already been written without input from the people who currently define themselves as anarchists, so some of the things that they would do are illegal and some are not possible.

What an anarchist really wants, in my opinion, is for a group/state/country/world to be governed according to their standards, desires or moral code, but ultimately we feel more secure when we are part of a greater group and security will win out in the end, no matter what anarchists may temporarily succeed in doing.

Reading this thread, it is clear that most of the posters have not studied the writings of the anarchist philosophers. Therefore, do not let yourself be insulted by the critical remarks of those who haven’t any idea of what they are discussing.

I have read plenty of anarchists and I used to see it that way when I was young and less well read. No one is saying that we must have Gov’t to have social order. We are saying that some form of governing is inevitable with a social creature. Its not a must, its a instinctual need that a group forms a heirarchy. A heirarchy is a form of governing. Someone will lead others will follow. Anarchy, true anarchy, cannot exist for an extended period with social creatures, it will be short lived.
Our sentience will not overcome the need for social order.