anarchy is stupid

anarchy is stupid

 

Why?

 

Well anarchy itself isn't stupid but people that say they wan't to bring it about are because it can't exist, it never has and it never will. If you look at when we were tribes living in caves thousands of years before the idea of a gouvernment even existed, there still wasn't true anarchy. Even social animals that live in groups that have no understanding of what a gouvernment is don't live in anarchy. When people live in groups, whenever in history they have lived in groups there is always a leader or leaders, they may not refer to themselves as a gouvernment but thats exactly what they are, and there has always been laws, they might not have been written down and they might not have been consistant but they have always been there. Also every single person I have ever met that has said they want to achieve a state of anarchy would be robbed, raped and murdered within the first few weeks of a state in anarchy. But don't get me wrong, I would love to see a state of anarchy in princible but in practice its a mute point.

 

Dude, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Anarchism isn't about having absolutely no leaders or no rules. It's about overthrowing illegitimate leaders and rules. True, it can be argued that hierarchy is part of human nature. But the point of anarchism is that all hierarchies must be challenged, and if they prove to be illegitimate and coercive, then they should be dismantled.
And anarchism isn't about abolishing government. After all, government is a very vague word. Anarchism is about abolishing the State (I.E. large centralised hierarchical government) which they view as completely corrupt and building a society built on federations, collectives and communities.

Anarchism never existed?
And what about Catalonia 1936? Are you going to tell me that that never existed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain
As for primitive and indeginous societies, I think the majority of native american tribes worked on anarchist principles, even if they did have symbolic leaders and such, people were still in control of their own lives and made decisions for themselves.
If it'll work or not, that's up to you to decide. But what you can't deny is that anarchism is a growing movement throughout the world. I think you underestimate humanity way too much, but hey, you are entitled to your opinions. But please don't say shit that doesn't make any sense

 

Green rev a bit of advice, if you are trying to make a serious point you shouldn't start off by saying "Dude, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.", it makes inteligent people take the rest of what you say with a pinch of salt, something to keep in mind if you ever plan on debating the subject in public.

{from the english dictionary}
Anarchy: (def)[size=-1] state of society in which there is no government and no laws.
[/size]

Seeing as you like wikipedia so much this is the first paragraph of thier page on anarchism:
Anarchism is a political philosophy or group of doctrines and attitudes centered on rejection of any form of compulsory government ( "state") and supporting its elimination. The term "anarchism" is derived from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons" or "without rulers"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership (and thus also involuntary servitude) are undesirable and should be abolished.


As for Catalonia and similar situations it is a matter of interpretation to describe what went on as anarchism and what was ahcieved as anarchy. In that case there are many terms that could be used, socialist rebellion for one, but there are many others. If you research the situation more thoroughly (and I don't mean solely on wikipedia) you will find that the socialist/anarchists had every intention of implementing thier own governemt. So what would hapen next, they would be a form of rulership, where do they go from there? Mass suicide?

Rev-
"As for primitive and indeginous societies, I think the majority of native american tribes worked on anarchist principles, even if they did have symbolic leaders and such, people were still in control of their own lives and made decisions for themselves."


It's you that isn't making much sense, I think you are a little confused on what anarchy is. I except that there are also various shades of grey but I was talking of anarchy in the black is black sense.

 

Forgive me for being so direct in my previous statement, but I still stand by what I said.

To start, I don't see why you think I love wikipedia so much even though I only provided one link. Nevertheless, I think the wikipedian article summarizes it fairly accurately: rejection of all forms of rulership. Indeed, anarchists see rulership, in the sense of the use of authority to tell people what to do, as illegitimate and should be abolished.
What is so confusing to you about that sentence? I don't see what you have proven by highlighting those words.
Anarchists seek to build a society that is managed by groups and networks of federations and collectives. Any authority exercised by anyone or any group would have the burden of rationaly proving its legitimacy and if that burden can't be met, than that authority is to be dismantled.

What happened in Catalonia was the work of various groups including worker's unions and political federations. I suppose some could argue over wether the society that existed at that time should be called 'anarchist', but to me it is clear that the way the society and the people were organised went along fairly closely with anarchist principles.
Try reading George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" and Noam Chomsky's "Objectivity to Liberal Scholarship". I hear Rudolph Rocker is pretty cool too.
In the end as you said, it is a matter of personal interpretation on wether catalonia was anarchist or not, but to me there is no doubt that the society worked esentially on anarchist principles. Anarchists did seek to establish their own government in the sense of establishing anarcho-syndicalism (which does not have anything to do with 'rulership'),not in the sense of establishing a State.

And I don't see what doesn't make sense in the last statement I made regarding indigenous tribes in North America. Could you please point that out to me?

 

"And I don't see what doesn't make sense in the last statement I made regarding indigenous tribes in North America. Could you please point that out to me?"

The fact that you say they worked on anarchist princibles and in the very same sentence admit they had leaders is what I felt didn't make sense, also you use the phrase "symbolic leaders" which surely must be an oxymoron or at least some sort of satirical joke.

You also say "and if that burden can't be met, than that authority is to be dismantled." Yes, but dismantled by whom? The people, ok. But do you think the people will all just instantaneously and with precise syncronisity decide to "dismantle" the authority together? No, of course you don't think that. What would happen is one person or maybe two or three, would gather everyone together, or to be more precise gather the people they thought were important enough to gather together, together. Then those 1 or 2 or 3 people would say "listen this authority needs dismantling, hop to it" and inevitably one person would say "no, here, this authority is doing an amazing job, they did abc and I'm sure if we give them more time they'll do xyz" but because thats only one persons opinion the aparently anti-rulership rulers would over rule them and then that one person would go to his friends and family and say "fellow anarchists these 1 or 2 or 3 people have been forcing us into servdom for too long, let anarchy rule again!!" Now this cycle would continue for about 2 seconds and then whoever was the strongest group with the most backing would simply over rule the others and they would have the support of the people because people are dying, the fighting isn't stopping trade is not happening and the shit has hit the fan.

Having said that I just want to make clear again, no one would be happier to see anarchy reign than I, I hate the idea of a government that imposes it's will on the people (in other words every government thats ever existed) and I hate the idea of laws that aren't put in place by the majority (aka 99% of laws ever passed anywhere) but I do understand and exept the need for these things and the fact remains it is a cannabilistic idea thats dead in the ground before it takes its first steps.

P.S. btw I've read everything Orwells ever written and Chomskys a whingebag.

 

when the state and capital have run their course, when the marketplace and state become indistinguishable as seems to be their goal, when all class struggle becomes one struggle, then we will strike a blow against capital and state and may that blow be the killing one!

organize!

 

i don't see how an abscence of hierarchy is any of those things.
and if you don't want to call an abscence of hierarchy an-archy, fine, call it, or don't call it whatever you like, but that is what i'm interested in. not overthrowing anything. not "striking a blow at anything". just not supporting and perpetuating anything which is defacto hierarchic.

whether or not hierarchies will somehow magicly and instentainiously go away if i don't isn't even pertinent either, i simply don't want on my conscounse the enequities of perpetuating them.

am i saying that the concept of soverignty is itself gratuitous? yes. that is precisely my point. the only bennifit of social organization is infrastructure and mutual assisstence, and for that, no soverignty in any form is intrinsicly required.

=^^=
.../\...

 

I would love to be pointed to the ideal Anarchistic State in history.


OR is Anarchistic State an oxymoron?

Would someone indicate to me an ideal state of Anarchy in the past or present.

If I was to guess, would say Gaul prior to the Roman invasion.

Anybody?

 

san francisco the first four days after loma prieta. madrid before the consolidation of franco. all of humanity before the founding of the first city state.

yes the term, anarchistic state, in the sense of soverign state IS a self contradiction. state in the sense of state of being without hierarchy, is not.

am i saying that the concept of soverignty is itself gratuitous? yes. that is precisely my point. the only bennifit of social organization is infrastructure and mutual assisstence, and for that, no soverignty in any form is intrinsicly required.

=^^=
.../\...

 

Oh that's interesting! You could become really famous in the academic world when you show everyone your lifes work that would point to this conclusion ! I mean there were governments in Egypt going back about 8000 years but how you come to have this knowledge of pre-historic times (so called because there are actually no historicaly accurate written accounts of those times) .
Hmm excellent work do you have a website where we can all learn about these marvelous discoveries you have made and your examples and proofs?
Quite a lot of archaologists will marvel at your knowledge especially when you show them the thousands of documents from ancient history you managed to unearth and take back to your university labs

Again - how do you know this? sounds like something you read in the "Penguin Book of History (age 11 to 13)" next to "Mr Happy Has a Birthday Party".

In actual fact wherever people have formed anarchist societies there is a consensual leadership that is formed of committees that propose policy - then the proposal is either upheld or defeated - but adopted or dropped on that principle. Anarchist communes have existed everywhere - I know some in London and regularly visit them and lived amongst them for the last 15 years. We had strong links with communes (anarchist not socialist) in Holland, Germany, and Sweden. Many thousands of people live in such a way and each has a slightly different variation on the way they are run - but no-one has ever advocated a society where people do not share the responsibility of the society. No-one ever said that anarchy would be without organisation - just without a permanent institution of government or a state apparatus - I dont see how you can disagree with the idea of anarchism if you havent a clue what it is !
Anarchy IS law and order - Anarchy IS social justice - Anarchy IS against this chaos and disorder brought about by the criminality of centralised government and irresponsible capitalism

 

The guy posts 'anarchy sucks' and y'all bite. Hilarious.

 

Not a very good post, give some good reasons. Im not taking a stand either way on this one but you have to have good reasons to back your claim.

 

anyone who says that anarchy is stupid should or explain themselves or study a bit more on the subject

 

If anarchism is stupid, then statism is FUCKING stupid. At least (most) people claiming to be anarchists have consistent moral principles, unlike statists who except immorality if it is sanction by the state (murder, theft, and slavery).

 

I think it's rather silly to say that Anarchists have consistent moral principals, hell, y'all can't even get together on a cohesive definition of anarchy.

neways...
this thread reminds me of something a hippy once told me:
"Wouldn't it be great if they got rid of money, and instead people would earn 'notes of trade' or something at a job, and could use that to buy and sell things. They could keep all their notes of trade at a central location for safety..."

of course he was describing money.

the same way y'all advocate getting rid of states, and instead replacing them with "groups and federations whose heads are chosen by the people, and are held accountable for their actions, if they become immoral, their system is abolished".

 

The problem with anarchy isn't in the philosophy of it, it's that humans are pieces of shit that will never agree and let hate get in the way of things. Some people WANT to be a coercive little sheep that runs until it dies. Its sickening but its true. I agree with both sides of thise argument. When a state falls and the people that wanted anarchy are running things you have the same shit, just a different leader.

With that said I love anarchy, and I think it could work if the right people were utilizing it. You can't force people to be free, they will or they won't. You think the business man making 10 mill a day is gonna wanna give that up so he can sit around all day doing nothing and being peaceful? Puhlease. I hate this system, I hate propaganda, I hate that I can't know some things because someone else decides for me, I hate that I'm not allowed to do whatever the fuck I want peacefully, so you know what I do? I ignore the fucking state and go about my business.

Peace!

 

I think monty python best explained why anarchy is stupid .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrO0TttczJc

 

But then again, they did seem to provide arguments for in the Holy Grail:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI