Can anarchists function together?

. . . and Is there an over-all plan to bring about anarchy? Is anarchy just a theory, is there a way to see if and how it could work for a society?

 

I think I am an anarchist, not sure though. I feel such a concept goes beyond a word. Maybe alot of people are anarchist because they are fed up with the government. But what if it were the answer to all the problems the world faces? What would happen if we started a plan together that could effectively replace the governent with a smooth transition. I think that if we are able to put our minds together it could be done.

What if we started to think of how it could be done rather than hear so many people say why it can't be done? What if we showed how it could work, that it really is the best system for everyone? What if we found the answers to where it could go wrong and make in into an actual working and functioning system.

I think today the best systems in the world are already based on anarchy, systems that create and maintain the flow of processes and order for everyday life. System that have to work and do because people are able to function within them. System that dont control people but allow us to function within them.

 

anarchist from greek word anarchy . meaning no laws no organisation . just you and physical power

 

well if all people had the same ideology then it would be possible,and human kind are way to stupid for such achievement.We all look for our self and not for others,so to say anarchism can be achieved by
1. clear socialist state 2. communist state 3. anarchism
but communism-real communism and anarchism are pretty much the same

 

here's the plan . we allow the authoritarians to embarass
themselves extremely so and exactly . once fallen , though ,
they need kindness .

you can play with anarchy as much as you like . it is
certainly not dangerous . it's mysterious like a circle of ravens
is . it's psychic , psychedelic nature and of great feeling .

there is a way to see it .

 

Come on and try to work with this. If such social systems could exist what would they look like what could the world be like in a best scenario sort of way. The world is full of systems whether by nature or by human invention that work and maintain flow and order, and help our existence by which we all benefit. Think of how systems could be developed that could actual could be designed to work. Governments really do little to maintain the flow and order of functions and needed processes by which we conduct our lives.

If we look at humanity's basic needs and goals and we would see that government totally fail because that s not their purpose or design. But these goals and needs gives us the plan of design for the systems to effectively meet those needs and come closer to reaching those goals.

 

I always like the Duke Of Wellington's quote about anarchy...


"If we have anarchy, I'll have Woburn".

(He was talking about Woburn Abbey, in England, the country seat of the Duke Of Bedford, who played around with liberal and anarchist ideas, lol.).

 

Consensus is the social system . to authoritarians , though , it
seems illogical and disorderly . ok , it's not to be manipulated . a god of light and
randomness protects it .

.
.

to maintain the flow and order of functions
and needed processes ?

that seems potentially annoying if you think
to tinker .

 

Personal integrity makes consensus function.

Why worry about the capacities of others?

Be capable and there is no shortage of capacity for anyone.

 

Yes, consensus and communication without beauracy actually could be possibly by using a "6 degrees of separation" type of format, which could actually work to free us of all breaucracies.

The processes I am refering to would include the supply of food the desposal of waste... processes that actually serve society. No processes to process people. These processes would be operation of systems used to keep order and a stable flow of material goods, food, services, and care for the infrastructure of the society.

 

My anarchist leanings say absolutely not.

Life is emergent and symbiotic of nature. Order is natural.

"Tradition" means to trade away or betray. We betray our natural inherent order
by virtue of the idea that we may know a better way. Should we side with this view and develop institutions then we have become and should be, institutionalized.

 

But then again only by consensus on certain decisions , otherwiseit would turn out to be a way the majority rules over the choice of another. There would have to be systems that allows original and experimantal thought that do not say that what is right for me must be right for you too.

 

True

 

Yes, we should have a world where everyones capacities are valued and where that are allowed to expand.

Such values are what our lives and even our concepts of humanity ought to be based upon.

 

Original and experimental thought, if there is such a thing, is allowed.

What is meant by consensus? There is not one thing about your world that you do not insist is so.

 

I think you miss my point. My point is, why evaluate the capacities of others at all. Best to develop your own, period.

I think that honor is the only appropriate response to another as we share our thoughts.

 

For the most part we are in a world that suppresses ideaiologies different than our own rather than to see and allow others to experiment with different ideas. What if the world took on a different approach that would refine and further develop possibilities. Not that we just let people develope their own capacities... but that we facilitate that development.

Consesus may be the wrong word, as I commented after that statement. But maybe on some things, a consesus would work but not when it restricts the choice of lifestyles, preference, pursuits, nd convictions of others.

Why should I insist on anything other than matters of dignity and the well being of others. What would my world be if it did not include you and everyone else. I dont want to tell you how your world should be. I just think the world could work better for eveyone if we were each able to fulfil our capacities by fixing / replacing the obsolete system that continually fail to allow people to do so.

 

If you were a scientist wouldn't you want a lab provided with the best equipment science could offer. If you are a singer would you not want let your voice be heard and felt by others.

We each can benefit from the help of others. But if a person were to just want to be left alone, why not be left alone in a world that respects you and still will take care of you on the basis of your desire for that care, and also allow you to share whatever the amount you of your capacities you desire.

Not that we evaluate the capacities of other, but that they are appreciated and respected along with the choices of how they are used.

 

Hence honor is the appropriate response.
.

Consensus is the correct word.

I am telling you something different about consensus and how it manifests for the individual.

You have a story of your life and you are sticking to it. Your experience is arranged according to your own narrative. If you say you have such and such difficulty, someone would be hard pressed to convince you that you did not. Appearances are exactly as you describe them.

So it is not that the world is full of unprincipled men, it is that men have a virtue in learning so well, unsound principles. The system is a type of learning what things are. The lesson then, is suspect. It is important to realize that there is never a lack of consensus no matter how intense disagreement may seem.

 

If you are not a scientist then you do not know what that might look like, (the best equipment science could offer).

We share what we have always, whether we realize it or not.

We in fact live for and with each other. Helpful is a matter of timing.

Yet you think we could make better choices in having a different system.