Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Anarchism

Posted Sep 25, '12 at 8:11am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,077 posts

Knight

The State is more crucial to your existence than you imagine it to be. Have a ball in Northern Mali now, or the tribal regions of Afghanistan. Maybe the Golden Triangle of Burma. Or even parts of Libya. Then tell us if anarchy really is such a good idea at this juncture of our history.

 

Posted Sep 25, '12 at 9:01am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,077 posts

Knight

Sadly, Anarchy will not happen over night. It will not be voted in or anything like that. I believe that the people will start to be fed up with their governments and eventually turn to Anarchism, maybe without even knowing it! Violence will happen in this process, because the government will obviously try and stop a "revolution" from happening. Those months or years will be violent. Like I said, this will gradually happen over time.

I disagree. People value law, order and the lot more than freedom. we can have the Constitution, but if there's no state to enact that or enforce that, it would be a wholly pointless but noble venture. The State is far more crucial than people think it to be.

We have seen over the past century in the West the overwhelming preoccupation of the market and privatization, combined with a neo liberal economic approach ( which spectacularly floundered in the 1930s and 1970s). We see a growing anti state mentality that has diverted and distracted attention from the need for a state that is competent and able to deliver. Virtually all periods of spectacular economic growth in modern history after the advent of economics as a serious field of study depended heavily on state intervention and participation. America immediately post WWII till the 60s in what has been termed the Golden Years, Japan's meteoric rise to become the world's largest economy in three decades, China's incredible volte face that shifted from an anti capitalist stance to one that is arguably even more capitalist than most developed nations, the rise of the Asian Tigers, all relied heavily and ineluctable on government intervention. 

The West often sees the state as inevitably prone to ossification, atrophy and anachronism. Is this true in the Western world? To a certain extent yes, Western governments today often find themselves in a state of near paralysis, beleaguered by a polarized society with it's authority impugned and questioned constantly due to it's inability to deliver the goods. So is anarchy the solution? No. 

Anarchists believe that under their system, each individual and group would be free to contribute to production and to satisfy their needs based on their own choice. Systems of production and distribution would be managed by their participants.

This is true. Unfortunately, that is itself it's profound weakness. A system that is not regulated often lapses into what we refer to economically to as market failure. People only consider what is good or bad for them individually, they fail to recognize externalities, or third party costs that are not factored into decisions. Left to it's own, a factory will continue to pollute it's environment; its logical to so so because they're maximizing profit based on individual benefit. Yet they do not consider the cost to society. The state has to step in to regulate in the real world.

Public goods, merit, demerit goods, regulation of economic cycle (lack of regulation such as fiscal policy proves the bane and downfall of governments during the 1930s); these are all areas which state intervention is necessary and beneficial. 

The State is an institution that is often viewed with suspicion, an organization that people are obsessed over in holding account to, seeking to define, limit and constrain it's actions. If too much of that happens, the State cannot function. Is the State therefore a bygone fossil? No, far from it, and we have ample example from Asia and Latin America to dispute that nonsensical claim. 

We claim the State is bad. Yet the alternative is far worse. A society that is imagined to be based on peace and law cannot exist due to human nature, OP claims we misinterpret anarchy as just disorder, yet that is what it most likely will end up as. Communism sputtered and foundered because of human nature and weaknesses, anarchy is not likely to fare better. 

 

Posted Sep 25, '12 at 10:55am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,077 posts

Knight

World's second largest*

 

Posted Sep 25, '12 at 11:05am

danielo

danielo

1,394 posts

Im 100% with you nichodemus.

I think that anarchism is why there are so many people who fatasize on zombir apocalipse, or just a "normal" one. when the people take the power to there hands.
But guese what?

When there is a 'gang' of homeless people in a deserrted house, you can call it anarchy. they do what ever they want. but after a while, the strongest of them, if by force or by charisma, made some order.

In new-guine, theres peoples called "big mans". they are the Initiative ones, who do things, say there opinions on things. But they are equal to everyone else in there villages. but they live in wood cabins in the forrests, and work something like 85% of there time. there are no roads, no massive art or music.
want to know why? because i dont know any peoples who will agree to go away and build a water park, when they need to work as everyone else. its very nice dreaming that you do what you want, go to work and dont pay taxes. so who will build roads? im sure it will be a Spontaneous demonstration of social solidarity. people will just agree on that and buy {oh oops} give away there materials so a man 500 km away will be able to drive better.

do you like rude beer? you know what is needed to make one? Components from all over the world. i belive that no one will just give what he need to feed his family so you can drink a rude beer.

what about electricity? they will vulenteer to do it so peoples 1000km away will be able to see in the dark? no noe will just give them food. there is no way farmer will start give away food for electricity, water, medicens, fishes, metal.

I too want more equality. but a socity wher everyone just do what they want is not logic. its going back for life of hunters gatheres. these bad evil goverment are what made us able to sit for half an hour and argue about these things, and not go and grow our own food. its not natural. in the wild, every animal try to dominate. same peoples. there will be always peoples who will want to be kings. didnt you saw any "lonely island" movie? there is always the guy who orginaise things and get to leadership. and when if he had a big family who can sell its "protaction", they will be in a better "class" then the poor man who is less strong, and cant protect himself.

 

Posted Sep 25, '12 at 11:07am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,077 posts

Knight

The big examples of anarchist societies in history were never truly anarchist, they both had government of some form, whilst the Catalonians even joined the central Republican government. Both came in times of war, never a fair time to draw conclusions.

Yet we see all too clearly the failure of these anarchist movements. The Catalonians enforced collectivization, clearly a breach of whatever freedom rhetoric they had preached. Those smallholders who refused collectivization were prevented from hiring any laborers and usually were forced to sell their crops directly to the committees, on their terms. They were also often denied the services of the collectivized businesses such as the barbershops and bakeries, use of communal transport, farm equipment and food supplies from communal warehouses. Hardly an admirable and shining example for would be anarchists today.

 

Posted Sep 27, '12 at 8:14pm

_Spaz_

_Spaz_

126 posts

Now see, this man has backed up his opinion. Thank you sir for a valid argument.

But, I still keep my beliefs and I will continue to fight for my beliefs :) Thanks for the conversation.

I'm out.

 

Posted Sep 27, '12 at 10:05pm

Jacen96

Jacen96

2,226 posts

So instead of trying to provide counter arguments he quits, okay.

are there any other anarchists on here to debate it?

~~~Darth Caedus

 

Posted Sep 28, '12 at 5:14pm

Skyla

Skyla

297 posts

Two pro-anarchy points to keep this going:

1) It's not like our current regime is lacking in the violence department. Is it better to have murder on a mass scale, i.e. wars, as opposed to the retribution type killings mentioned earlier here?

2) Some posts suggest that society cannot function without a government. Looking at history, we can see how people used to think society cannot function without the Church. The Church's authority was so that people could not get married, conduct business (oaths administered regarding credit sales), be educated, or be cared for while sick. Society has adapted to the increasing lack of church influence on daily life, and it most likely will adapt to decentralization or even abolishment of state.

 

Posted Sep 28, '12 at 5:36pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,097 posts

Anarchism aka total chaos.
i loved the idea when i was young and didn't knew **** xD
you know.... in those rebel years of life we all have to get past to become a adult ;) =P

 

Posted Sep 28, '12 at 7:25pm

thepunisher93

thepunisher93

1,859 posts

Anarchism aka total chaos.
i loved the idea when i was young and didn't knew **** xD
you know.... in those rebel years of life we all have to get past to become a adult ;) =P

Just like I fell for Communism.
Sounds nice at first.

 
Reply to Anarchism

You must be logged in to post a reply!