Are Anarchists Missing The Point?

Are anarchists missing the point, that point being that human beings need structure? If we did away with the government, something, somewhere would simply come in to take its place, possibly corporations (which would be much worse, I think).

Where am I missing the point?

oliceman:

 

No, I don't think anarchists are oblivious of the need for structure. They just think people together can do all the 'governing' (or in other words provide the structure) without having an actual government (correct me if I said it wrong). But this only works if people all want the same thing. When this is not the case it appears some regulations will come up which will either work best for the person or group with the most power/influence, or is suited to work for a majority so that at least most people are content (democracy).

 

Yes, they are missing the point.
The majority of mammals are communal creatures and in those communities there always is some form of hierarchy and control, whether it be the alpha male lion or a megalomania driven dictatorial regime.
True anarchy goes counter to our most primal survival instincts to not have some form of "governing structure" present in our societal groups.

Then as populations/groups grow, logistics become a bitch, hence the need for monetary systems and political systems.

 

I don't need a hierarchy and I don't see why anyone does.

I understand that with such a big Country that anarchy is not possible. I will ask you what will we miss if there was no mayors, Governors, senators, or congressman.
The only reason that one person needs anyone else is because on the farm down the road a group of people will have a gathering of people. That gathering will take all the single person worked for. Or kill him. Enter a government to prevent that from happening.
So like mentioned before. It would work if everyone agreed. But dosnt the current government work because everyone agrees?

 

that structure doesn't require hierarchy.
it can be achieved better and more beneficially by mutual consideration.

now this i will grant you: if you tear everything up to object to hierarchy, what you're left with is everything being torn up.
i'm not in favor of that. i don't support that.

but lets not shy away from being honest about what hierarchy is too.
bullies to stop the bullies to stop the bullies to stop the bullies to stop the, well i hope you get the general idea.
there simply is no end point at which the very reason for hierarchy is ever met.

 

Isn't anarchists just a fancy pants word for calling yourself a rebel? lol.

 

nope. but it is one for boycotting aggressiveness.

familiarity does not equal necessity. nor morality.
hierarchies exist because because humans have yet to find a way to cooperate sufficiently to prevent them.
this is because the species is gullible enough to trust things that wish to be feared.
rather then logically and morally boycotting anything and everything that does.

destroying anything will not eliminate them, like failure to discipline one's self to universal consideration,
doing so only creates and reinforces a market and niche for them.

the nature argument for hierarchy is also vacuous because while informal hierarchies can be observed in many non-human life forms on earth,
there is no such continuation of this into the unthinking mechanism of a universe propelled apparently by its own momentum.

 

With anarchy no one would be forced to pay taxes to fund bombs being dropped on other human beings. It actually would be similar to what is seen in nature. There would be structure, but it wouldn't be planned by a lawmaker.

 

Anarchists advocate flat structures of organization. Flat structures are still structures.

 

the point you are missing is that the only need for structure,
other then to coordinate the construction and maintainence of infrastructure,
is generated by lack of consideration, itself mostly a result of occluding deep logic, often as a result of narcesstic ego, which is not a normal nor healthy condition.

nor need structure be inhierently hierarchal.

the intrinsicness of hierarchy is entirely mythological.
it is a conveniently simple myth, when a broad consensus of persons of diverse levels of intellect is required.

while it is often cited, that hierarchies occur in nature,
and it is true within the communities of many speices,
this is by no means universal.

the sea star hunts successfully,
in the complete absence of anything resembling a central nervous system.

 

while hierarchy is neither a default condition nor a desirable one, it is the direct result of the lack of consideration.
attacking it only makes it stronger. the only real alternative ought to be kind of obvious,

most people, when they use the word, are making assumptions that are completely unrelated to its real meaning.

nothing can stop you from believing whatever you want. buuuuut:

without honesty there is only ignorance
without consideration there is only tyranny
without logic, even mere survival is a role of the dice.

if we can't organize society in such a way that no one has to worry about their survival, what is the point of organizing society at all?
i have absolute confidence however that we can.
not just survival but oportunities for the gratifictaions of creating and exploring for everyone.

we accept hierarchies because they are the most obvious ways to organize society.
that doesn't make them the best ones, nor the best we can come up with,
nor even the best we ever have.

(the big lie is that we can't be honest, considerate and logical without a boot up our ass,
the big truth is that only by being those things, can we avoid having one.)

 

Whether by design or not, there has always been this seamless transition from one authority figure to the next as we aged. From parent to teacher to god to employer to police to president. Father has spoken. The die is cast. The way is made. Get in line.

 

This anarchist simply believes in honesty, democracy, and that people should make up their own minds. Everyone screaming and voting for whichever clown yells the loudest is neither honest nor democratic. For me, it is patently absurd to suggest that anything I might say or do has any meaning whatsoever when it is overwhelmingly obvious nobody is actually listening. Insisting money and governments are evil, unnecessary, or whatever is meaningless if nobody is actually listening and, for me, it is everyone else who is obviously missing the point.

 

It's true. No one is listening. Nevertheless, speaking out gives at least the appearance of breath within the vacuum.

 

The only people it is convincing are all under five years old. When Americans stop acting like two year olds and stop pulling those silly voting booth handles as if their lives depended on it, or always ducking as low as they can go, then I'll start to take them seriously about wanting change. Throwing tantrums and demanding change, when all you ever do is throw tantrums and demand change, is no way to get anything accomplished.

 

What I don't understand about anarchists is how they give structure a thought at all. Anarchy is a system, right? What system is there in anarchy? I mean...if I call myself an anarchist...I would think I just give two shits what happens tomorrow. And...in some ways I don't. Just no fascism. But if it all breaks down...eh...

 

I have a free standing offer to teach anyone how to use a dictionary and a search engine, so they no longer have to guess at what words mean to most people.

 

They've been effectively immersed in the soap opera of politics. Children are always looking to authority for direction. For the con artists, it's always been a simple trick of gaining authority by assuming authority. As long as people accept the notion that they are children who need to be ruled, then they will be walked over and slapped down like children by those whom they elect to be their rulers. And the children understand that to step in their way is to step out of line, and then out come the water cannons.

The scourge of the self-inflicted blindness of the masses is just another thing to bear in this world.

 

Everyone screaming and nobody listening is not politics. You can call it whatever you like, but everyone voting for whoever advertises the most is simply not politics. There is absolutely nothing political about money and the gun doing all the talking worth listening to, because that is every man for himself.

 

this is the fantasy people have been conned into ever since the roman empire colonized the middle east. it is what christ was exicuted as an enimy combatant for opposing. it took another 300 years, but rome did fall. sorry. it has not always been. nothing has always been. and humans invented bullshit long before they invented writing. actually bulls invented bullshit. but humans invented telling stories about it.