Anarchy, does it work?

What are your thoughts on Anarchy as a viable "ism"?

You'll have to be specific about it since there are different forms.

Anarchy in general: No, I don't think it would work. In reality, human nature is to group together. As soon as you have anarchy, there are no rules. So whats stopping people from grouping up and making their own societal rules amongst themselves? You can't force anarchy on people, or else it wouldn't be anarchy, by definition (an = without, arch = ruler/rule(s)).

So, as I was saying, it's in our nature to group together, and form our own rules, for our own protection. We fear living in solitude, once again, for our own protection. We group together so that if we were to be attacked by some unknown force, we would be able to work together to protect everyone, rather than leaving everyone to fend for themselves. So, as these societies grow more and more deeply involved with each other, rules for protection eventually evolve into societal rules regarding how we should act socially, rather than merely "Don't hurt other people."

Not to mention the theory that everyone will just do their part, regardless of whether there are rules are not is beyond utopic. People don't have foresight, and won't see realistic consequences of not doing their part. Living where I do, I should know. People really do have the freedom to do what they want, and therefore, to put it simply, shit hits the fan frequently. Nothing gets maintained, and only gets fixed in the quickest, least sustaining way possible. I realize the point may be to live in simplicity, but I think that improvements in the sciences (which I think may not be necessary, but is extremely important for us as humans) requires some order and maintenance. Also, I do realize that this doesn't question whether anarchy would work, but it's more of my personal response to anarchy.

Anyways.
That's my thoughts.

I agree.
I don't think the government should have much of a say regarding what we do with our own lives, whether it's shooting up heroine (as long as we aren't endangering others), marrying the same gender, etc.

100% it will never happen

Could it happen, YES 100% but you need to get like minded people, willing to believe that there life is "non-existist" and that whatever the group needs your all willing to do. It has happened in the past. Native Americas(some tribes), Pirates(best example of anarchy ever). You can have a "leader" while still being an Anarchist or whatever. But that leader would be more of a spokesman/woman just to spread idea/laws, they wouldnt really be the leader just a person who you go to, to settle dispurts. I could go into a whole big essay, but i will spare you.

also in Anarchy there are laws, but more of the laws of man, No killing you know stuff like that, sensible shit as being a human we shouldnt do since we have minds and can think.

AnnaIsAFuckingStoolPigeon wrote:

Anarchy in general: No, I don't think it would work. In reality, human nature is to group together. As soon as you have anarchy, there are no rules. So whats stopping people from grouping up and making their own societal rules amongst themselves? You can't force anarchy on people, or else it wouldn't be anarchy, by definition (an = without, arch = ruler/rule(s)).

Took the words out of my mouth.

its definately a legitimate political "belief" (for lack of better words)
definitely an "-ism" as you said


but whether it works or not is a totally different question.
i think that with the way history has played out, it isnt possible

dandangoose wrote:

its definately a legitimate political "belief" (for lack of better words)
definitely an "-ism" as you said


but whether it works or not is a totally different question.
i think that with the way history has played out, it isnt possible

Or you can see as "what worked then doesn't work now."
It's a different time. There has to be a revolution of sorts.

tangerine wrote:

AnnaIsAFuckingStoolPigeon wrote:

Anarchy in general: No, I don't think it would work. In reality, human nature is to group together. As soon as you have anarchy, there are no rules. So whats stopping people from grouping up and making their own societal rules amongst themselves? You can't force anarchy on people, or else it wouldn't be anarchy, by definition (an = without, arch = ruler/rule(s)).

Took the words out of my mouth.

Well, I don't think that it is viable, but I think (theoretically of course) that you can have some kind of anarchy and society (the structure of the "society" is important to most Utopian anarchist ideas as I see it). Just because you have not government doesn't mean you lose society.

I'm stealing this from Thomas Paine of course in his second section of Common Sense

Benedetto wrote:

tangerine wrote:

AnnaIsAFuckingStoolPigeon wrote:

Anarchy in general: No, I don't think it would work. In reality, human nature is to group together. As soon as you have anarchy, there are no rules. So whats stopping people from grouping up and making their own societal rules amongst themselves? You can't force anarchy on people, or else it wouldn't be anarchy, by definition (an = without, arch = ruler/rule(s)).

Took the words out of my mouth.

Well, I don't think that it is viable, but I think (theoretically of course) that you can have some kind of anarchy and society (the structure of the "society" is important to most Utopian anarchist ideas as I see it). Just because you have not government doesn't mean you lose society.

I'm stealing this from Thomas Paine of course in his second section of Common Sense

Okay, I agree with that, but everyone has this idea (and I mean EVERYONE, from capitalists, to communists, republicans to democrats, conservatives to liberals, etc) that their political and social ideologies are more appropriate, and "better for the people", and tend to attempt to enforce these ideologies via rules (or lack thereof). I really think that all anarchy would do is start the process of creating goverments for people over again. I mean, don't take me wrong here, I do think that anarchy could be a good tool to transition from one form of government to another - a perfect example of this would be the French Revolution, where they took out the totalitarian monarch and replaced it with democracy (not minding the period in between where Napoleon basically crowned himself king, again).

AnnaIsAFuckingStoolPigeon wrote:

Okay, I agree with that, but everyone has this idea (and I mean EVERYONE, from capitalists, to communists, republicans to democrats, conservatives to liberals, etc) that their political and social ideologies are more appropriate, and "better for the people", and tend to attempt to enforce these ideologies via rules (or lack thereof). I really think that all anarchy would do is start the process of creating governments for people over again. I mean, don't take me wrong here, I do think that anarchy could be a good tool to transition from one form of government to another - a perfect example of this would be the French Revolution, where they took out the totalitarian monarch and replaced it with democracy (not minding the period in between where Napoleon basically crowned himself king, again).

Yeah, I can see what you mean.

Side Note: As a fledgling historian I wouldn't classify the French Revolution as ever being Anarchist at any stage (although France is an important place for Anarchy (as for pretty much anything else), and there were Anarchist philosophers during and afterwards inspired by the French Revolution and the Enlightenment).

Yep, Napoleon was a dictator, but he really did a lot to lead western civilization to the modern era.

sure doesn't!
people haven't even been able to get communism to work yet
how silly

The French Revolution wasn't anarchist in any way, but there was definitely anarchy between rulers.

hyperballad wrote:

I like the idea of "personal anarchy", if that makes sense. I think that laws concerning what we do to ourselves should be much less strict.
however, I believe that pure anarchy would never ever work. to me, pure capitalism and pure anarchy are so far left and right that then chain together into a circle. if there's 100% anarchy, greedy capitalists would still fuck people over, but it would be worse because there would be no laws governing against their corruption.

although I admire the efforts that anarchists put in, a true anarchist society would never be able to exist without chaos. it might work in little communes or whatever, but having the U.S. as a whole become an anarchist state wouldn't work. we need some form of protection from our government, and it is up to us to make sure that we speak out when corruption occurs.

of course, my opinion probably doesn't mean anything because I've never studied anarchy in great detail, neither am I a political scientist. I'm just giving my opinion on things I've observed in my life.

Actually, both ideologies are right on the political spectrum, with anarchy being the furthest, because it wants the least amount of state intervention:none.
What you mean by "personal anarchy," is classical liberalism ,based on the harm principal that humans are free to do whatever they like in the private sphere as long are they aren't hurting anyone else, or interfering with their conception of a good life.
This gets confusing when we say "Liberal," because today the word is associated with socialism while the word "Libertarian" throws all the way back
to the far right.

As for anarchy, it's a nice idea but not much more than that. But that's easy for me to say because I'm not an anarchist

Well, to be honestly I don't find the ideology itself to be "inherent flawed". I've read a few books on it so I feel that there are at least a few viable ideologies I feel could actually be sustainably viable.

My big problem is I believe the only way a successful transition to anarchy (on a large scale that is) would have to be peaceful. And I think it'd be an extremely rare circumstance where a society was ready to transform itself like that. But hey who knows.

hyperballad wrote:

godisdead wrote:

hyperballad wrote:

I like the idea of "personal anarchy", if that makes sense. I think that laws concerning what we do to ourselves should be much less strict.
however, I believe that pure anarchy would never ever work. to me, pure capitalism and pure anarchy are so far left and right that then chain together into a circle. if there's 100% anarchy, greedy capitalists would still fuck people over, but it would be worse because there would be no laws governing against their corruption.

although I admire the efforts that anarchists put in, a true anarchist society would never be able to exist without chaos. it might work in little communes or whatever, but having the U.S. as a whole become an anarchist state wouldn't work. we need some form of protection from our government, and it is up to us to make sure that we speak out when corruption occurs.

of course, my opinion probably doesn't mean anything because I've never studied anarchy in great detail, neither am I a political scientist. I'm just giving my opinion on things I've observed in my life.

Actually, both ideologies are right on the political spectrum, with anarchy being the furthest, because it wants the least amount of state intervention:none.
What you mean by "personal anarchy," is classical liberalism ,based on the harm principal that humans are free to do whatever they like in the private sphere as long are they aren't hurting anyone else, or interfering with their conception of a good life.
This gets confusing when we say "Liberal," because today the word is associated with socialism while the word "Libertarian" throws all the way back
to the far right.

As for anarchy, it's a nice idea but not much more than that. But that's easy for me to say because I'm not an anarchist

but anarchists are against the free market system and laissez faire economics, which are both right-wing in terms of economic policy and Libertarians support.

Well that's really specific to the beliefs of whatever anarchists or ideology you are talking about. There are anarcho-capitalists as well as almost communist type anarchy. Your value through work is an important issue, or the disregard for value of work for that matter.

ack I edited my post wrong now you can see what I said.

so anarchist are against the free market? Sorry for just plain not-knowing enough about this, but could you explain that to me? I know nothing about the different branches of anarchy, but I do relize the differnece between a libertarian and an anarchist...i guess I was just carrying on about with the word Liberal and how it's meaning changed.

godisdead wrote:

so anarchist are against the free market? Sorry for just plain not-knowing enough about this, but could you explain that to me? I know nothing about the different branches of anarchy, but I do relize the differnece between a libertarian and an anarchist...i guess I was just carrying on about with the word Liberal and how it's meaning changed.

Its completely specific to the individual ideology. There are all kinds of anarchist theories.

but the principle of it being against the state and the free market?

Let's put this in terms of Marxism:

According to Marx, with communism, the government was supposed to slowly dissipate, while the community would still function as it did. So, money would continue not to exist, and therefore people wouldn't be able to use any kind of laissez-faire economics, because there is no money to do so with.

Personally, I don't see total anarchy as plausible. Not because I don't believe in the ideals myself, but because, to make it work, one would have to convert all others to anarchism. Anarchy is good in doctrine and, in a perfect world, would be a very good environment. In turn though, it would require every single member of the community to own up for everything they do and be very un-selfish. Joseph-Pierre Proudhon wrote, in response to the question "What is property?," that property simply is theft. Take away all personal property, and you have the great equalizer, which is kind of the goal of the so-called "anarchist revolution," right? How many people do you know of that would subscribe to such a belief? Not many....much less everyone. I don't see a mass movement to this side of the belief system without using just straight up force, which I wholly don't support. By using force to convert others to anarchist beliefs though, you become no better that the "murdering, racist cops" that bands like Against Me! and others have sung about for years. I hate to sound pessimistic, but, in my opinion, true anarchy is impossible.

name? wrote:

Personally, I don't see total anarchy as plausible. Not because I don't believe in the ideals myself, but because, to make it work, one would have to convert all others to anarchism. Anarchy is good in doctrine and, in a perfect world, would be a very good environment. In turn though, it would require every single member of the community to own up for everything they do and be very un-selfish. Joseph-Pierre Proudhon wrote, in response to the question "What is property?," that property simply is theft. Take away all personal property, and you have the great equalizer, which is kind of the goal of the so-called "anarchist revolution," right? How many people do you know of that would subscribe to such a belief? Not many....much less everyone. I don't see a mass movement to this side of the belief system without using just straight up force, which I wholly don't support. By using force to convert others to anarchist beliefs though, you become no better that the "murdering, racist cops" that bands like Against Me! and others have sung about for years. I hate to sound pessimistic, but, in my opinion, true anarchy is impossible.

I like you, name?. You're gonna have some enjoyable-to-read posts.

uh-oh. there goes daggar, doing it again.