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
Well then, what is anarchism in detail, for you? How do you imagine it to work and result in peace and order?
Here's what wiki has to offer: "Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, or, alternatively, as opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations. Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations."
Yes, that is correct. I wouldn't consider it a "olitical" philosophy but more of a lifestyle. To me? To start, I believe in the school of thought of Anarchism called "Anarcho-Communism" If you would like to know what it is in further detail here is a link.
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.
To me this is main points that should happen if Anarchism (communism) should happen:
-No wage labor: You work according to your needs -No currency ^ -No power, no class, everyone is equal
If I missed something or didn't explain something right. That link will clear everything up for it explains it better than me :P If you are not interested in reading about it, it is still cool to know what it is. Worth the read.
Alpha: No, Society does not need currency, Have you thought other alternatives before you posted your first principle? No People create class. If you can create something you can take away. If you take away something that divides people then there is no class. If you say wage labor is OK then you support slavery because that is what Capitalism is. It exploits the human being.
Pangton: Government creates class and structure which is ran by people who want power. If you live in a society where majority people love their freedom how will government take place? (My thought).
Salvidian: I hope you are not referring to today's "Communist's" which in no is marxist communism. True communism is government, correct, but is ran by the people. There are no higher ups. Everyone is equal. That is where Anarcho-communism gets its roots from. Its not saying there will be governemnt, its saying that there are no presidents or congress etc. And I have to add, Anarcho-communism deals with the work place and economy more than anything.
*From my assumption, none of you read the article in the link, because they answer all these questions
To me this is main points that should happen if Anarchism (communism) should happen:
-No wage labor: You work according to your needs -No currency ^ -No power, no class, everyone is equal
What if you want to work for someone else because you find both you and your employer profit more? Would you be allowed to do so in an anarchist community?
As for currency, you NEED currency. You can NOT depend on trade alone.
I believe anarcho-capitalism is more realistic than anarcho-communism. Without government, people will resort to whatever means is most beneficial to themselves. This means people will resort to using a currency because currency is a medium of exchange. People will also work for one another because it's more beneficial.
You can work for yourself, alone, which will result in only the most basic of necessities. If you want more, you have to work with other people. You will have to negotiate. People who have the means of production will let you use their machines for a price, they won't allow you to use them for free. This is how you end up with people working for others. That's not a bad thing, people have to work one way or another, and by working for others, everyone is the richer.
This(like pure anarchism) is impossible to sustain. Whether you like it or not, people will start trading(meaning Anarchy turns into Anarcho-Capitalism) resources which will inevitably lead to some sort of currency.
Salvidian: I hope you are not referring to today's "Communist's" which in no is marxist communism. True communism is government, correct, but is ran by the people. There are no higher ups. Everyone is equal. That is where Anarcho-communism gets its roots from. Its not saying there will be governemnt, its saying that there are no presidents or congress etc. And I have to add, Anarcho-communism deals with the work place and economy more than anything.
Yeah, I probably should have said "old" Communism. My mistake.
The Venus Project is a form of anarcho-communism. Stephan Molyneux is an anarcho-capitalist who debated the Venus Project on a radio show (I don't know if it was his show or someone else's show).
If communism worked, you can achieve it through the free market.
If sharing everything you own and granting joint ownership to everyone who joins a company truly is more productive and desirable than the capitalist system, then it will naturally work in a free market. However, when you want and another person wants, ownership IS necessary.
Everyone is literally different from one another, which means there will be conflicts. There will be two people who won't want to share, and they won't come up with compromises. This happens enough as it is, but property rights allows us to get past these issues.
"Anarcho-capitalism" is not Anarchy in any fashion.
Murray Rothbard the man who invented the idea of Anarcho-capitalism said himself that they are not anarchists, saying "we are not anarchists, and those who call us anarchists are not firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical" Because, all anarchists had socialistic elements in their doctrines and possessed socialistic economic doctrines in common" This is from his article called "Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'?"
In conclusion, it is not anarchism, you are just a capitalist. And what you will have on your hands is what we have today. Corruption and tons of power to the rich.
"Anarcho capitalism is sort of like state socialism: nice in theory; individuals who own buisness and buy labor, others who sell labor and all that, in a world where there's no large, centralized power base but it has tons or real-world inapplicability. Invidiual and olipolic tyrannies being little substitute for state tyranny is one of them."
