anarchy is stupid

The only acceptable laws are morals. If you feel guilty about something, it is wrong. All other laws are not necessary. When I J-walk, steal from a faceless corporation (Walmart, etc), drink underage, etc, I don't feel guilty so therefore it is allowed. Police are the only people who say otherwise.

I guess a good comparison is that we are all fish living on a reef peacefully. When a shark, the police (can't you see the resemblence?), we all duck and hide but do not change the way we live our lives. The federal governments laws, or code of morals, only applies within eyesight of a police officer. (except for bills, etc, but money is nothing besides a slight headache occasionally)

SO therefore, do I not live in anarchy if I govern myself? :cheers2:



If other people want to live in a democracy or whatever you call it, thats fine and it will always be that way, but I don't see the point in following any rules but your own if you don't have to, it just seems like a waste of life

 

Just to clarify what I mean by balance is that Anarchy is a false counterpart of, in this case, "statism" that provides humans a balance of ideology.

In reference to the Anarchic gatherings you have stated:
I'm not just talking about authority and police, I'm talking about ethics, order and code. The Spanish Revolution did in fact have authority and leadership. There were leaders within CNT (the Anarchist group - I'm guessing you're referring to), who led and failed to create an effective rebellion during political instability. There were Red Cross workers present at Woodstock who kept order as did some of its organisers. There's always a leader in everything, no leader means no decisions, no decisions leads to dissension amongst a group. As conveyed by previous evidence, even Anarchists have organisers and leaders amongst a group - a type of authority.

Say that an Anarchist group has succeeded in overthrowing a state, who's to say the power vacuum would not create a dictatorship by those leaders. Anarchists will try to enforce Anarchy on others. The whole state cannot just comply to Anarchy in one blink of an eye. There will be opposition and possibly riots. That state is in chaos, so Anarchists would take the power into their own hands and become the new authority. The state is most likely to become ruled by Oligarchy. Anarchy is simply an impossible idea - it's a paradox.

 

:beatdeadhorse5:

 

With the way that people currently runs themselves, yes anarchy of that form is imposssible. People need to be told what to do and how to live their lives, but that is not a permanent characteristic of humanity.

Rules of society will always exist to inform people of what is unacceptable in that society, that too is a part of humanity. These rules, however, are NOT a form of authority, and do not need to be enforced by an outside party (government) or the ability to control people will be exploited, as you can plainly see.

Anarchy is a way of life, not a form of government. To participate in this way of life, one must have a certain sense of independence and an attention paid to personal feelings of morality. To say that anarchy is impossible is false because there are plenty of people who live without someone else telling them how to live, look at many native cultures around the world and I could show you a few people that I personally know who are proof that anarchy works.

Its like a boat being tied up to dock, and just because the boat has never left the dock people say it won't float on its own. One day, the boat unties itself and discovers that it can float just fine without a dock holding it in place.

 

I still can't see how a majority of people could conform to Anarchy. Small groups conform with one another due to their size and like mindedness for a common ideology, everyone gets a say and is independent - quite similar to the crude form of open democracy mixed with socialism. Pure Anarchy itself cannot be done, humanity's laws and order prevent it from occurring. Say if one day a person decides not to follow the laws of humanity (in an anarchist community) what will Anarchists do? Exclude him? What if he remains? Force him out? You're exercising power and authority against anothers will for wanting to stay and cause trouble. Now imagine a country sized population under Anarchy, there will be a lot more than one person causing such distress. Therefore I reaffirm my previous statement that Anarchy is truly impossible.

As for the boat analogy: a boat that floats away from a dock sounds like a lost boat to me. And a lost boat serves no purpose.

 

Anarchy can only exist when money and greed are not a society's driving factor. It can work, but not inside a capitolist world.

 

The problems is that your view of what anarachy would be is still one of having a governement (someone to control offending parties). One of the main problems with a governed society, or anyone in authority to control those who cause distress in society, is that the governing body becomes an interference in the dispute instead of a mediator. Read A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess for deeper arguements on that subject.

Supposed the father of a family is murdered, the murderer goes to jail. But if the family of that father ever got ahold of the murderer, there is always a part of them that wants to enact revenge and people need the freedom to choose or are they not free?

In a society with no formal government, if a man is murdering others and there is no one to stop them but the people of that community, the murderer will be stopped and the people whose lives have been damaged by the murderer will feel much better than if the man is sent to live in a wall compound under the decision of a faceless outside party.

I believe having an outside party for enforcing laws in fact raises crime not only due to the 'Don't press the red button' mindset in all of us, but also because people eventually get to leave jail, and most know their sentence going in. If you act up in a society where people are free to do as they will, then you will be much more afraid of what punishment will occur. This should cause an anarchist society to be more peaceful than many modern societies as people will see the consequences for their actions face to face.

Anarchy has existed before, it exists now, and it will exist again.

And for the boat analogy, in an ocean boats are free to do what they are made for, to drift with the breeze. Many boats believe the point of their existence to be tied up with the most numerous and expensive ropes they can find, sure 'lost' boats wash up on the rocks occassionally, but at least they knew the ocean. :cheers2:

 

But Anarchy exercises everyone's independence. So if this man murdered the father, he has a right to do so. If the family want vengeance on him without a third party, the man can choose to resist. If he can't be detained by the family, they need a third party to step in, maybe a neighbor or a couple of friends. Aren't those people then exercising power against a man that has the right to kill making them the authority? Then again, Anarchy is against any form of authority, not just third parties.

A boat is man made, it's purpose is to ferry people from shore to shore over a body of water. A lost boat serves no purpose, therefore, it is not a boat at all. But a boat with a sailor serves and has a purpose giving it the title of a boat.

Note: I'm not totally against Anarchy, just skeptical as to how it will work. I only believe it's a imaginary counterpart of "statism," which provide humans a balance of ideology.

 

Well that is the point of anarchy, it is in the hands of the individuals to lead their own lives. The man does have a right to murder (unlike current times), but if he does murder, he has to understand that it is doing himself as much harm as the murdered and the friends/ relatives of said victim. If they want to rebuke the murderer, it is up to them to do it and they have every say about how to do it. Yes, they are excersizing power over the murderer, but that is freedom from someone else stepping in and muddying up the water, so to speak.

Do not take anarchy as literally against all authority, there is dominance in mere conversion, in merely making eye contact or shaking hands. These are natural and do not harm if you are in control of yourself.

Anarchy is against unnatural authority IMO. Most governments are unnatural and very detrimental to human happiness in the long run. The authority that the family of a murdered man chooses to excercise over the murderer is a natural and expected authority that reflects our morality.

The authority a wolf leads over a pack is just as natural, if the wolf gets out of line, it is expected that the lead wolf be overthrown. It is unnatural for a wolf to raise an army and lead millions without contest.

How is anarchy at all imaginary? Before states formed, there was anarchy. In tribes deep in the amazon, there is anarchy. Anarchy is how people lived on this Earth for so long before destroying it with machines used for the sole purpose of unnatural power.

You misinterpret my boat analogy and clearly have never enjoyed the freedom of just sailing

 

Your Anarchy does sound quite close to an egalitarian/socialist society, which in one way may work. Pure Anarchy - which I am referring to - however, will not work.

It's true, I haven't enjoyed the freedom of just sailing, but I have enjoyed the freedom of kayaking.

 

Its obvious that pure anarchy will not exist, as I said before it would be unnatural for it to exist just as is a functioning, uncorrupt communist, capitalist, or monarichal state for any length of time. I am talking about anarchy in a realistic sense, because it actually happens and works well.

Life without a government is as close as you will get in this lifetime to pure anarchy, so functionally it is pure anarchy.

 

I don't think it's so much a matter of pure anarchy not being able to exist as it is a matter of there being no such thing. I choose to see anarchy as a philosphy, or a way of living, a lot like christianity. I don't think anyone would say that there is any such thing as absolute christianity. The teachings of Christ are all up for a personal interpretation, and a christian will adopt those teachings that he agrees with. Similarly, anarchism is a philosphy that can be adapted in a number of ways to a number of different situations. It's a philosphy which at its roots contends that authority and power for the most part cause more harm than good and therefore must be questioned, challenged, and only accepted when absolutely necessary. It does necessarily mean no authority whatsoever.

A metaphor I've been using a lot lately goes like this: Anarchy is a tool for tearing down walls and widening the cracks in the system. The important thing, however, is what we plant inside those cracks. What does a free society imply? What does freedom mean for us? I don't know exactly what the kind of society I'm striving towards will look like, but in this current era, I think anarchy is the best guide there is for reaching that society.

 

Ok this is for people who are saying anarchism is stupid. Because i will say this over and over again..the people who say it will never work are not educated enough on the topic of anarchism and its history. Anarchism and anarchy are undoubtedly the most misrepresented ideas in political theory. Generally, the words are used to mean "chaos" or "without order," and so, by implication, anarchists desire social chaos and a return to the "laws of the jungle." This process of misrepresentation is not without historical parallel. For example, in countries which have considered government by one person (monarchy) necessary, the words "republic" or "democracy" have been used precisely like "anarchy," to imply disorder and confusion. Those with a vested interest in preserving the status quo will obviously wish to imply that opposition to the current system cannot work in practice, and that a new form of society will only lead to chaos.

Anarchists want to change this "common-sense" idea of "anarchy," so people will see that government and other hierarchical social relationships are both harmful and unnecessary.



Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be that control by the state or a capitalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary. We stress that this opposition to hierarchy is, for anarchists, not limited to just the state or government. It includes all authoritarian economic and social relationships as well as political ones, particularly those associated with capitalist property and wage labour. Anarchy means more than just "no government," it means opposition to all forms of authoritarian organisation and hierarchy. In Kropotkin's words, "the origin of the anarchist inception of society . . . [lies in] the criticism . . . of the hierarchical organisations and the authoritarian conceptions of society; and . . . the analysis of the tendencies that are seen in the progressive movements of mankind." For Malatesta, anarchism "was born in a moral revolt against social injustice" and that the "specific causes of social ills" could be found in "capitalistic property and the State." When the oppressed "sought to overthrow both State and property -- then it was that anarchism was born."



Any attempt to assert that anarchy is purely anti-state is a misrepresentation of the word and the way it has been used by the anarchist movement. And, just to state the obvious, anarchy does not mean chaos nor do anarchists seek to create chaos or disorder. Instead, we wish to create a society based upon individual freedom and voluntary co-operation. In other words, order from the bottom up, not disorder imposed from the top down by authorities. Such a society would be a true anarchy, a society without rulers. Anarchism, anarchists argue, is simply the theoretical expression of our capacity to organise ourselves and run society without bosses or politicians. It allows working class and other oppressed people to become conscious of our power as a class, defend our immediate interests, and fight to revolutionise society as a whole. Only by doing this can we create a society fit for human beings to live in. It is no abstract philosophy. Anarchist ideas are put into practice everyday. Wherever oppressed people stand up for their rights, take action to defend their freedom, practice solidarity and co-operation, fight against oppression, organise themselves without leaders and bosses, the spirit of anarchism lives. Anarchists simply seek to strengthen these libertarian tendencies and bring them to their full fruition. So what would a anarchist society look like?


Of course, an anarchist society will not be created overnight nor without links to the past, and so it will initially include structures created in social struggle. For example, the anarchist collectives in Spain were organised in a bottom-up manner, similar to the way the C.N.T. (the anarcho-syndicalist labour union) was organised before the revolution. In this sense, anarchy is not some distant goal but rather an expression of working class struggle. The creation of alternatives to the current hierarchical, oppressive, exploitative and alienated society is a necessary part of the class struggle and the maintaining of your liberty and humanity in the insane world of hierarchical society. As such, an anarchist society will be the generalisation of the various types of "anarchy in action" created in the various struggles against all forms of oppression and exploitation. If anarchists did think that a anarchist society could happen over night then we would rightly be called utopian. No, an anarchist society is the outcome of activity and social struggle, struggle which helps to create a mass movement which contains individuals who can think for themselves and are willing and able to take responsibility for their own lives.


We must stress, however, that anarchists do not want a "perfect" society (as is often associated with the term "utopia"). This would be as impossible as the neo-classical vision of perfect competition. Rather we want a free society and so one based on real human beings and so one with its own problems and difficulties. Our use of the word "utopia" should not be taken to imply that anarchists assume away all problems and argue that an anarchist society would be ideal and perfect. No society has ever been perfect and no society ever will be. All we argue is that an anarchist society will have fewer problems than those before and be better to live within. Anyone looking for perfection should look elsewhere. Anyone looking for a better, but still human, world may find in anarchism a potential end for their quest. An anarchist society will be created by the autonomous actions of the mass of the population, not by anarchists writing books about it. This means a real anarchist society will make many mistakes and develop in ways we cannot predict.


The more people who have a fairly clear idea of what a free society would look like the easier it will be to create that society and ensure that no important matters are left to the "leaders" to decide for us. The example of the Spanish Revolution comes to mind. For many years before 1936, the C.N.T. and F.A.I. put out publications discussing what an anarchist society would look like. nor is it an attempt to force the future into the shapes created in past revolts. It is purely and simply an attempt to start people discussing what a free society would be like and to learn from previous experiments.

Anarchists have long had a clear vision of what an anarchist society would look like and, equally as important, where such a society would spring from. Which means, of course, that Lenin's assertion in The State and Revolution that anarchists "have absolutely no clear idea of what the proletariat will put in its [the states] place" is simply false. Anarchists supported the idea of a federation of workers' councils as the means to destroy the state over 50 years before Lenin argued that the soviets would be the basis of his "workers" state. Anarchists have long argued that that capitalist methods cannot be used for socialist ends. In our battle to democratise the workplace, in our awareness of the importance of collective initiatives by the direct producers in transforming the work situation and the economic infrastructure, we show that factories are not merely sites of production, but also of reproduction -- the reproduction of a certain structure of social relations based on the division between those who give orders and those who take them, between those who direct and those who execute. Therefore, under workers' self-management industry, work and the whole structure and organisation of production will be transformed in ways we can only guess at today. We can point the general direction (i.e. self-managed, ecologically balanced, decentralised, federal, empowering, creative and so on) while anarchists see "the future in the present" as the initial framework of a free society, we recognise that such a society will evolve and change.


However, the fundamental principles of a free society will not change and so it is useful to present a summary of how such a society could work, based on these principles. Anarchism is based on a voluntary federation of decentralised, directly democratic policy-making bodies. These are the neighbourhood and community assemblies and their confederations. In these grassroots political units, the concept of "self-management" becomes that of "self-government", a form of municipal organisation in which people take back control of their living places from the bureaucratic state and the capitalist class whose interests it serves. Thus the social structure of an anarchist society will be the opposite of the current system. Instead of being centralised and top-down as in the state, it will be decentralised and organised from the bottom up. The most important issues would be to agree on the guidelines for industrial activity, communal investment (e.g. houses, hospitals, etc.) and overall co-ordination of large scale communal activities. In this way everyone would be part of the commonwealth, deciding on how resources would be used to maximise human well-being and ecological survival. The problems associated with "the tyranny of small decisions" would be overcome without undermining individual freedom. (In fact, a healthy community would enrich and develop individuality by encouraging independent and critical thought, social interaction, and empowering social institutions based on self-management).


Is such a system fantasy? Given that such a system has existed and worked at various times, we can safely argue that it is not. Obviously we cannot cover every example, so we point to just two -- revolutionary Paris and Spain. And the people that said that a anarchist society never worked. Please look more into the history because it has and will again. Do you know anything about spain? Anarchism was introduced in Spain in 1868 by Giuseppi Fanelli, an associate of Michael Bakunin, and found fertile soil among both the workers and the peasants of Spain. The peasants supported anarchism because of the rural tradition of Iberian collectivism. The urban workers supported it because its ideas of direct action, solidarity and free federation of unions corresponded to their needs in their struggle against capitalism and the state. I will stop there though. People should look up more about anarchism instead of only saying bad things about it. Look up more about the spanish anarchists and see how it worked. I will end this by having a Emma Goldman quote.

"The emotions of the ignorant man are continuously kept at a pitch by the most blood-curdling stories about Anarchism. Not a thing too outrageous to be employed against this philosophy and its exponents. Therefore Anarchism represents to the unthinking what the proverbial bad man does to the child,--a black monster bent on swallowing everything; in short, destruction and violence. "
Emma Goldman, "What is Anarchy?"

most of this stuff you can read on www.infoshop.org there is more info on that website

 

good lord man. Please, go edit, and put in some paragraphs. Blocks of text on a screen are not easy to read.

 

ok sorry about that people. i fixed it.

 

"I choose to see anarchy as a philosphy, or a way of living, a lot like christianity. I don't think anyone would say that there is any such thing as absolute christianity. The teachings of Christ are all up for a personal interpretation, and a christian will adopt those teachings that he agrees with."

Whoever said that has really no idea what anarchy means, to bring religion into what I belive is anarchy is a no no.

i would like to see these young 'anarchists' give up there mobiles, internet and luxury of western life and go life somewhere else where they forage for food and live day to day.

Not that im against the principles of anarchism, I belive a lot in that way of life, but am also smart enough to know it can not and will not ever work...

unless like i say, you give up all you have and go live in a cave with a few friends.

but shit, its cold out there

 

I think the problem here is that you're saying "your definition of anarchy is not the same as my definition.
And my definition is unpleasant and nobody would want it, therefor anarchy is a bad idea"

Your argument is hinged largely on semantic issues surrounding what you call anarchy.
But if other people have outlined a philosophy, that they name anarchy (and appears to be consistent with most historically interpretations of that philosophy, which don't entail cave-dwelling) then to criticise them on the grounds that your interpretation doesn't work is well... silly.

He also wasn't brining "religion into anarchy", he was suggesting that he followed anarchy as a personal philosophy governing how he managed himself within society and related to other humans.

Such a stance cannot really be said "not to work", since the poster appears to alive and well.

Myself, and a great deal of other modern anarchists, do not believe that an anarchist society has to be an agrarian or hunter-gatherer one. Actually, a lot of us think that a technological society is better equipped to handle anarchy than a primitive one.

Anarchy is not the absence of human society or cooperation or even leaders in a certain context and definition.

 

Name a country that has been able to use Anarchy.

 

Um, you're stupid.

 

anarchy would be impossible to maintain. there'd be some group trying to take over real quickly have anarchy took place.