Anarchy

[workingatperfect]

I know I'll probably get a lot of shit for this, but what do you guys think of anarchy? Both ideally and realistically.

If I thought it could be more widely accepted and if classes were more equal so that big guys couldn't just monopolize everything again, I would be an anarchist.

In a better world, I like the idea. I find it pretty interesting, and think it could be really good. Hell of a lot better than what we have now. I read an interesting argument earlier on the video for Stars and Stripes by Anti-Flag (good snog to listen to if you're curious why so many people hate our government and flag/pledge/etc.) The sentence that stood out to me most was "All nations take liberties, they don't give them." I completely agree. The rights that we have, those are rights that they allow us to keep. They don't give them to us, they let us keep them. They do, however, take away rights. Drugs for example. Now, don't get me wrong, since we ARE under the control of a government and it IS their job to protect the rights they let us have, I do think that it's necessary for them to establish rules such as how you forfeit your right as soon as it infringe's on someone else's rights. Anyway, anarchy would give us those rights back. Obviously equality is a big one

Anyway, more to the point, yeah, if it could be true anarchy, and we weren't all so messed up, I think it would be good.

However! At this point in time, there's no way it could be true anarchy. There's too much money and power in the world, and not enough people that would be on board. It would be too hard, near impossible to get the means of production out of the hands of Wall street and corporations. And of course, with power over production, comes power over the country. They would never give that up. Second, how would be overthrow the government? With our guns? I'm always amused how people use the "to protect us from our government" cop out to defend the right to bear arms. That was written at a time when the powers that be didn't have tanks that would gun you down or crush you before you could even get "Fuck you!" out. Third, we're too damn fucked up these days to not have rules. It would be chaos. Maybe if we were more civil, we could pull it off. And finally, the world would be filled with a bunch of rich brats crying because Daddy can't buy them their convertibles and fancy clothes anymore. (That alone would be enough to cause chaos :P) And if it's only in American then the UN would be in here in a heartbeat instilling a new government.

So yeah, that's my thoughts on it. I would be an anarchist if I thought we could handle it, but we can't. We're like a bunch of little children who need supervision to cross the freaking street. Your thoughts? And as Bath reminded me, how about the idea of partial anarchy, where the government has little control, but is still there so it's not complete chaos? Personally, since complete anarchy is impossible, this is what I believe in instead.

***I'm pretty tired, so I apologize for any grammatical errors or if my thoughts just aren't connecting right. Oops. ***

[Bath]

I agree with you, anarchy at a glance sounds interesting. I definitely like the idea of it. I think if humans got along better, it'd even be a good idea. But the reality of it is not. Especially if we're talking about America... America wouldn't last 5 minutes under anarchy.

That being said, I do support the government having a small role. Enough to keep order and make laws (only necessary ones.) Legislative, judicial, executive. That's what the government should be limited to. Making laws and keeping them executed. I don't think the government should try and regulate anything else (for example, the internet) UNLESS it's a system that poses a threat if it's not regulated (like the bank.) Basically I think the government should only do what's necessary and not have near-complete control. Which is what democracy SHOULD do, but we somehow managed to fuck it up. :P I apologize too if I'm rambling or not making sense, I'm tired as well.

[workingatperfect]

I agree with you, anarchy at a glance sounds interesting. I definitely like the idea of it. I think if humans got along better, it'd even be a good idea. But the reality of it is not. Especially if we're talking about America... America wouldn't last 5 minutes under anarchy.

That being said, I do support the government having a small role. Enough to keep order and make laws (only necessary ones.) Legislative, judicial, executive. That's what the government should be limited to. Making laws and keeping them executed. I don't think the government should try and regulate anything else (for example, the internet) UNLESS it's a system that poses a threat if it's not regulated (like the bank.) Basically I think the government should only do what's necessary and not have near-complete control. Which is what democracy SHOULD do, but we somehow managed to fuck it up. :P I apologize too if I'm rambling or not making sense, I'm tired as well.

Yeah, I meant to throw that in, but I either forgot or couldn't be bothered. Thanks for saving me the trouble. :P I agree that since complete anarchy isn't possible now, the government should at least back off a lot, which is a common interpretation of anarchy anyway.

[TheBassoonist]

Anarchy is like communism: works in theory, fails in practice. An anarchistic state will work only if the people living there do not try to take control and live together, settling their differences calmly. Violent disputes would lead to more parties joining, and with no overarching authority, chaos has a tendency to take over. On top of that, other states can't interfere in the affairs of that anarchistic state, at least as a whole. But realistically, that can't happen. The world as a whole is an anarchy: there is no authority above the individual states. The UN was supposed to fix that, but the states didn't want to give up their power to the UN, so it doesn't work as an authoritative body. The world as an anarchy "works" because there's never been anything different.

TL;DR: An anarchistic state can't work realistically because of human nature.

[Cicero]

I don't like the idea of anarchy, I believe a certain extent of structure is good. There was a Family Guy about no government, and I could imagine all those things happening if there wasn't a government.

Especially that were in the 21st century, money is what runs people's lives and you can't just make it suddenly stop or disappear.

[Mortal Coil]

Personally, I think anarchy sounds great in theory. However, in practice we have evolved as humans to have a societal hierarchy. Wolves have their alpha males; we have our leaders. It takes a certain type of person to do well under anarchistic conditions and sadly there are not many of us in the world.

[WaffleSingSong]

True Anarchy can only work with maybe 1000- people. Even then, it would still be a bit of a struggle. Anarchy, in a perfect world, is almost the perfect system along with Communism (which really eventually evolve into one another in there truest form,) but our evolution, as Mortal Coil said, has stumped that with executives. However, a Night Watchman/Minarchist State (which is what workingatperfect and Beth explained with almost-anarchy-but-not-real-anarchy) is actually very possible with gradual democratic reform. Sadly, most nations are evolving more Authoritarian due to globalization, technology and population increase. In fact, its almost natural for nations to do this overtime as they get older. However, I suspect that maybe in 30-40 years we might have another boost in liberty worldwide after media becomes too large, advanced and powerful to close down entirely, leaving a guaranteed 25%ish open society in a nation.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Anarchy turns into dictatorship, because the people would want a firm rule and give in to an iron fist.

[CharlieFinley]

It's bad. Anarchism is just a momentary precursor to tribalism. Why? Because humans are social creatures, and social creatures do not like to live without social creatures -- and yet, since the concomitant Fall and the Agricultural Revolution, humans have existed in a different way than other social animals -- we have formed explicit and formal tribes, and as we have developed technologies for the sharing of information, we have enhanced and expanded those tribes into states.

Despite what neo-tribalists would argue, tribalism and neo-tribalism are doomed to fail because they rest on the assumption that we are like other animals. Humans are not like other animals -- the status quo is insufficient for humans. Ants confine themselves to building ever-bigger nests -- a human would build one with tougher materials, or a more efficient layout, instead. Apes may plan for the future, but not at the cost of the present. Every bit of tribalist rhetoric rests on the assumption that we are nothing more than tribal animals with delusions of civilization -- that civilization has been imposed on us by totalitarian agriculture, and that our "natural" state is that of tribalism. And yet, we have spent quite a long time without reverting to our "natural state."

To be honest, I believe that what God intended for us was, in fact, a tribal hunter-gatherer society, one whose members were just sophisticated enough to choose to glorify Him. We have passed that point. We left it in the dust, long ago, and left at the crossroads the core of an Apple. Tribalism is no longer a viable way of life for us. Anarchy (which is not a natural state for humans) will inevitably evolve into tribalism, which will inevitably evolve into the modern nation-state.

[MisterChicken]

THERE IS ANARCHY right now, but a brainwashing thug group called "government" THINKS thier in control..

[CharlieFinley]

THERE IS ANARCHY right now, but a brainwashing thug group called "government" THINKS thier in control..

You cannot possibly be this stupid.

[MisterChicken]

You cannot possibly be this stupid.

How is this stupid its the truth.. If a more stonger gang came out of the works and took over we'ed call them "Government".

[Harry Smith]

The government is not a gang, it is elected by the populace. You can look at the voting records. The defintion of a gang is a an 'organised group of criminals'. Have any members of either the US or UK goverment been found guility of crime since there last election. We're not living in anarchy your just delusional

[MisterChicken]

The defintion of a gang is a an 'organised group of criminals' sounds alot like government

[Sugaree]

How is this stupid its the truth.

Go back to /pol/.

[Harry Smith]

do you have any evidence that the goverment of either the UK or the Us commited a crime as a whole?

[CharlieFinley]

How is this stupid its the truth.. If a more stonger gang came out of the works and took over we'ed call them "Government".

For one thing, they are not, as has been pointed out, a group of criminals. There may be some criminal elements among them, but you have not demonstrated that they are, as a whole, criminals.

For another, you said that they "only think they're in control."

They most assuredly are in control. If you'd care to test that, knock over your local 7-11 and stand outside waiting for the police officers who only think they're in control.

[MisterChicken]

do you have any evidence that the goverment of either the UK or the Us commited a crime as a whole?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/illegal-occupation-of-iraq-us-uk-crimes-against-humanity/5317723 here is one/

[CharlieFinley]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/illegal-occupation-of-iraq-us-uk-crimes-against-humanity/5317723 here is one/

If you would care to debate in good faith by replying to my post, I would be most appreciative.

[Harry Smith]

You do not want to bring up Iraq after I've just read Tony blair's memoirs, Iraq was not allowing the UN weapon inspectors in. There was a UN resolution behind it, and under article 51 of the Untied Nations charter we have a right to protect ourself.

And why do you just post random links?

[MisterChicken]

You do not want to bring up Iraq after I've just read Tony blair's memoirs, Iraq was not allowing the UN weapon inspectors in. There was a UN resolution behind it, and under article 51 of the Untied Nations charter we have a right to protect ourself.

And why do you just post random links?

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/010903kellymurder.html The Iraq couldve benn avoided by David Kelly when he had evidence that there was no WMDs in there but he was murdered.

[Harry Smith]

David Kellly wasn't murdered. The BBC had made a mistake by naming him as there source from within the MOD, he never talked to the BBC directly, it was a cock up by the BBC. Also the dossier prepared by the GCHQ showed that Saddam Hussein had stockpiled weapon grade uranuim in the bunkers and he had purchased over 400,00 metal tubes that were used to enriche the uranuim. Not to mention the Chemical gas which he used on his own people.

[Gwen]

Even in Anarchy we all cannot be free people would rise up to lead there seperate people realistically it could never happen because people have trouble deciding what to do for themselves. People would still be ruled and have complaints it'd just be by other people. Only those who go solo would be able to experience true freedom.

The government has it's ups and downs same with anarchy but one system keeps us safe and one gives us "freedom".

[Zaposchk]

I don't like the idea of anarchy, I believe a certain extent of structure is good. There was a Family Guy about no government, and I could imagine all those things happening if there wasn't a government.

if you read into anarchist philosophy, you'll find that it isn't just a bastardised term for 'chaos'. it's a bit of a shame that it has been so evacuated of content over the past few centuries. anyway..

there are two strands of anarchism: anarcho-right & anarcho-left

the anarcho-right, or otherwise known as 'Libertarianism' in the U.S calls for the complete abolition of any governing body and the introduction of laissez-faire capitalism, where the market mechanism will replace all the nationalised areas. so that particular family guy episode 'tea peter' was referring to anarcho-capitalism/anarcho-right.


overtly, the anarcho-left are basically a different type of socialist. where most state socialists believe that a centralised government is obliged to allocate resources in such a way that economic egalitarianism is achieved, the anarcho-left desire for the centralised state to dissolve into more regional governments.

http://www.anarchy.no/map.bmp

(let's assume that this anarchism only refers to the anarcho-left)

On the diagram you have Capitalism and Socialism, two opposite poles. Homogeneously, you have Autonomy and Statism. Now, where the Socialists and Anarchists disagree, is the role of the state over people's lives. Within anarchist philosophy there has been huge emphasis on individual liberty and individual freedom, while maintaining the view that humans must work collectively and responsibly distribute the earth's resources with respect to need rather than want. However, anarchists are not of the view that a state-dictatorship should implement this.


within the anarcho-left, there are many among many different strands of anarchism that aim to reach the same conclusion through different means. anarcho-syndicalism for example is a type of anarcho-left philosophy which focuses on the rights of workers, emphasises self-management in the workplace, and aims to bring workplace reforms (which is all part of the eventual evolution into anarchist society).

i don't want to write an essay. probably because Rocker, Bakunin, Kropotkin and Chomsky have done the job far better, but to get a better grip of what anarchism really is about, i'd urge you and everyone else to read some essays by the aforementioned anarchists.

ah! what the heck. i'll post some:

Anarcho-Capitalism by Terry L. Anderson (http://118.97.161.124/perpus-fkip/Perpustakaan/Libertarian%20Study/Jurnal%20Libertarian/Anarcho%20Capitalism.pdf)

Essay on Anarcho-syndicalism by Rudolf Rocker (http://libcom.org/library/anarcho-syndicalism-rudolf-rocker)

Noam Chomsky on Anarchism:

YAGtExCOudo

Interesting outlook on the creation of an anarchist society:

bs7-xz5R2hI

read on.

[CharlieFinley]

The problem is, as I've pointed out, both of those are just precursors to tribalism, which doesn't work.

[irishguy123]

Deleted!