Forums → WEPR → Anarchism
| 133 | 35289 |
I really do not think people understand what Anarchism is. I am an Anarchist myself and it is saddening to hear that people think that Anarchy is "Chaos" and "Disorder" when in reality it is the opposite. I think people have grown so attached to their governments that they depend on them to run their lives and without it there will be chaos. That's just chaos, not Anarchy. Anarchy is peace and order. Government is violence. Anyone care to add to this?
*If you are going to argue this please do not state the fact that it can not work. That is a lame argument and needs to be backed up with evidence and proof.
Thanks
- 133 Replies
"Ultimate test of time"? LOL. Every society fails, That's reality. If you are asking for a utopia, well...good luck Charlie.
Anarchy is a matter of preference. You shouldn't stop a society from being a society because you think it's "destined to fail". EVERY country/society is destined to fail. THAT is fact sir.
Yes every society will fail, but not within 20 or 30 years of beginning. Anarchy has absolutely no longevity whatsoever.
The reason anarchy is destined to never be a viable system for society goes back to the way our eyes are set in our heads. Before humans were here at all, there were monkeys. These monkeys had adapted to trees and needed depth perception to lead from branch to branch. This meant they needed both eyes to be on the front of their heads. But this had a huge drawback. It was much easier for these monkeys to be picked off by a predator because they had such a limited field of view. Thus, monkeys began to live in groups for safety. Over time, their frontal corteges in their brains grew so that they could handle the mentally strenuous task of upholding social relationships with one another. This leads to the increase in brain mass that causes many different behaviors, ultimately leading to human evolution. In a sense, humans are BUILT to live in groups and through groups comes violence when these groups clash over resources or differences. Thus, a government is born to help control these outbursts and make a mutually progressive environment in which everyone can feel fairly safe. Anarchy is the antithesis of millions of years of evolution that went into the creation of mankind as a whole.
a friend told me once:
"there are two kinds of anarchy, a good one and a bad one. in the bad anarchy everyone can do what they want, even killing someone. in the bad anarchy everyone can do what they want without hurting anyone."
a teacher once said:
"real anarchy is not possible because as soon as two people meet there are rules. for example, as long as you are alone in a room you can do what you want in the room. but when someone else enters the room then there are rules like do not party too loud at midnight, i want to sleep."
sorry for the double post...
a friend told me once:
"there are two kinds of anarchy, a good one and a bad one. in the bad anarchy everyone can do what they want, even killing someone. in the good anarchy everyone can do what they want without hurting anyone."
a teacher once said:
"real anarchy is not possible because as soon as two people meet there are rules. for example, as long as you are alone in a room you can do what you want in the room. but when someone else enters the room then there are rules like do not party too loud at midnight, i want to sleep."
No I was gone for one day, calm down. :P I don't think you can use the theory of evolution...Because people can throw that idea down quickly. I don't believe I came from a monkey but that's just me.
I don't think you can use the theory of evolution...Because people can throw that idea down quickly.
Why can't I? What do you mean by this statement?
I don't believe I came from a monkey but that's just me.
What do you believe then?
In order for a society to function, it needs rules, and it needs someone to enforce those rules, and it needs a group of people to determine those rules.
Also, currency is required for society to function, because that way people have an easier time getting the goods they need to survive, and if they rely on trade alone, the villager must find someone who wants his goods as well having the necessary goods that he needs.
~~~Darth Caedus
Because people can throw that idea down quickly. I don't believe I came from a monkey but that's just me
Well then...you should have a little chat with mr. MageGrayWolf =p
I don't think you can use the theory of evolution...Because people can throw that idea down quickly.
Please feel free to try.
http://armorgames.com/community/thread/8857704/evolution
As for the topic. Let's say you have some wack job come in and slaughter your family. Under anarchism, since we are operating without rules, you would be completely free to go find and murder this nut job yourself. Though what if the person you think did it was innocent? We use rules here to govern the process of determining guilt instead of just allowing the victim to go on their own rampage. This is just one example of how having rules beyond ones own determinations are useful for a society.
I do agree as social animals we are inevitably going to develop rules. From that we will then eventually need those to uphold those rules. Furthermore the way we tend to socialize tends to gear towards forming hierarchies of one form or another. And yes it is as Alpha said behavior derived through evolutionary development.
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.
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.Â
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.Â
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.Â
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.Â
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.Â
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 "rotaction", they will be in a better "class" then the poor man who is less strong, and cant protect himself.
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.
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.
You must be logged in to post a reply!