Welcome to Gaia! ::

Gaia Forums » MISC Forums » Forum & Sticky Archive » Politics
<3 </3
Reply
1 2 3 >

Offline
Eh, just a couple things I'd wondered for a while.

Why wouldn't a militant power-seeking group create their own government by force, thus ending anarchy?

In everyday life, why wouldn't the stronger and more violent people abuse the weaker?

If I have the wrong idea about what anarchy is, tell me. (I basically have the idea that there's anarchy in a group the group isn't being governed by some group. i.e. no government)

Offline
Because it would be supressed by the rest of society.

Offline
Mechanism
Why wouldn't a militant power-seeking group create their own government by force, thus ending anarchy?

In 1918, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk gave Ukraine from Russia to Germany in exchange for peace -- this ended Russia's part in WWI. Ukraine wasn't happy with that arrangment, however, and revolted to form their own anarchist state. Between 1918 and 1921, Ukraine was a functional anarchist community. Despite the lack of governmental authority, however, the people of Ukraine formed an army to defend itself against foreign aggression. This is the answer to your question: an anarchist community unites in defense of the community against militant groups who would seek the destruction of the community. However, Soviet militants overthrew this regime and in 1922, Ukraine became part of the USSR.

Anarchy depends upon people living their lives and ignoring the will to social power and the ability to subjugate their neighbors. The proletariat seems the only class capable of this, which is only to be expected, as they are the only class that actually struggles to survive and has no time to ******** around in the affairs of others. Anarchy is weak for the same reason communism is weak: people suck.
Mechanism

In everyday life, why wouldn't the stronger and more violent people abuse the weaker?

Is that how it works now? To a degree, yes. This would not change in an anarchist community, because the same folkways and social mores still apply; however, the key to the system is having everyone voluntarily respect these mores. We call the violation of these mores laws; in an anarchist community, it is still a crime, but no Government enforces it.

Offline
SmurfsonAcid
Because it would be supressed by the rest of society.
Sounds like it might probably require a different sort of social mindset for most of the people than there is now.

soelmese
Mechanism
Why wouldn't a militant power-seeking group create their own government by force, thus ending anarchy?

In 1918, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk gave Ukraine from Russia to Germany in exchange for peace -- this ended Russia's part in WWI. Ukraine wasn't happy with that arrangment, however, and revolted to form their own anarchist state. Between 1918 and 1921, Ukraine was a functional anarchist community. Despite the lack of governmental authority, however, the people of Ukraine formed an army to defend itself against foreign aggression. This is the answer to your question: an anarchist community unites in defense of the community against militant groups who would seek the destruction of the community. However, Soviet militants overthrew this regime and in 1922, Ukraine became part of the USSR.

Anarchy depends upon people living their lives and ignoring the will to social power and the ability to subjugate their neighbors. The proletariat seems the only class capable of this, which is only to be expected, as they are the only class that actually struggles to survive and has no time to ******** around in the affairs of others. Anarchy is weak for the same reason communism is weak: people suck.

Y'know, I hadn't really thought about the similarities between communism and anarchism before. Maybe no government basically implies a collective ownership of things by the people, and rule of the proletariat and all that.

soelmese
Mechanism

In everyday life, why wouldn't the stronger and more violent people abuse the weaker?

Is that how it works now? To a degree, yes. This would not change in an anarchist community, because the same folkways and social mores still apply; however, the key to the system is having everyone voluntarily respect these mores. We call the violation of these mores laws; in an anarchist community, it is still a crime, but no Government enforces it.
I suppose so, but to me it seems like there would be a hell of a lot less motivation to follow these "laws"; in our society, much of what stops people is fear of the government.

Offline
Mechanism

Y'know, I hadn't really thought about the similarities between communism and anarchism before. Maybe no government basically implies a collective ownership of things by the people, and rule of the proletariat and all that.


Bingo. Communism (not to be mistaking with Socialism) is essentially the same as Anarcho-Syndicalism.

Offline
SmurfsonAcid
Mechanism

Y'know, I hadn't really thought about the similarities between communism and anarchism before. Maybe no government basically implies a collective ownership of things by the people, and rule of the proletariat and all that.


Bingo. Communism (not to be mistaking with Socialism) is essentially the same as Anarcho-Syndicalism.
Although communism would probably leave some administrative roles around, but just the bare minimum necessary to keep things running.

Offline
Lady Merewyn
SmurfsonAcid
Mechanism

Y'know, I hadn't really thought about the similarities between communism and anarchism before. Maybe no government basically implies a collective ownership of things by the people, and rule of the proletariat and all that.


Bingo. Communism (not to be mistaking with Socialism) is essentially the same as Anarcho-Syndicalism.
Although communism would probably leave some administrative roles around, but just the bare minimum necessary to keep things running.


But I thought the idea was that, after socialism, people would be so well-organized that they wouldn't need administrators?

Offline
Well from my understanding you can never have a functioning military or defence force for that matter becuase it would establish a hierarchy. Those who lead and those of Follow orders. Which is probebly why most "anarchic states" don't remain that way for long. With out some sort of authority its never long before some sort of cival war break out.

It very possible to have a very weak government if the region is at peace but i think human being need some sort of authority to keep us in line whether it be democratic, or totalitarian..i personally would prefer a democratic one...

Romantic Smoker

9,300 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
  • Gender Swap 100
Offline
SmurfsonAcid
But I thought the idea was that, after socialism, people would be so well-organized that they wouldn't need administrators?

*nod*
And this is becoming much easier and more viable because of computers.

ThomasFyreClaw
i think human being need some sort of authority to keep us in line

Depends what you mean by "keep us in line". And it's possible that humans will behave fundamentally more cooperatively if they lived in a different sort of society. Anyway.

Offline
SmurfsonAcid
Lady Merewyn
SmurfsonAcid
Mechanism

Y'know, I hadn't really thought about the similarities between communism and anarchism before. Maybe no government basically implies a collective ownership of things by the people, and rule of the proletariat and all that.


Bingo. Communism (not to be mistaking with Socialism) is essentially the same as Anarcho-Syndicalism.
Although communism would probably leave some administrative roles around, but just the bare minimum necessary to keep things running.


But I thought the idea was that, after socialism, people would be so well-organized that they wouldn't need administrators?
Pretty much. There wouldn't be a government over people as there is now, and government as we know it would disintegrate into nothingness. The amount that would need to be left as far as administration is concerned is a point of disagreement between various communists, but even if any at all was left it would be very minimal.

Offline
CarpeNoctem420
SmurfsonAcid
But I thought the idea was that, after socialism, people would be so well-organized that they wouldn't need administrators?

*nod*
And this is becoming much easier and more viable because of computers.

ThomasFyreClaw
i think human being need some sort of authority to keep us in line

Depends what you mean by "keep us in line". And it's possible that humans will behave fundamentally more cooperatively if they lived in a different sort of society. Anyway.


What I mean by keep us in line. Keep people from killing each other, robbing each other, enslaving each other, keep both the rights of minorities and the majority safe and secure.

If its 100% democracy which what anarchy supposadly is according to anarchist then it wouldn't be long before it becomes Tyrany of the majority and those who are diffrent would be at the mercy of those who fit the "norm"

Offline
I do believe that a good example of someone who did try to get on top of their country through brute force and power, Hitler

Yes Hitler had tried battering his way to the top in the Munich Putch, also known as the beer hall putch but that failled as the country was progressing again with the introduction of the reitenmark that stopped the hyperinflation of Germany in 1924 and also introduced stresman...

Hitler was stopped by timing in a way as the country was becoming prosperous again and by 1926, the league of nations accepted it and germany was allowed into the league as trust had built up again, finally.

Then of course, Hitler got out of prison, wrote mein kampf and got into power by 1934 by democratic means and lead the Nazi party to a bunch of revolting stuff

Damn i have to stop listening in History lessons lol

Offline
Scoonboy


Damn i have to stop listening in History lessons lol


You might as well teach them rolleyes

Offline
SmurfsonAcid
Because it would be supressed by the rest of society.


Why? It doesn't normally work that way...

Offline
There have been anarchist armies in the past. The army which defended loyal parts of Ukraine during the period 1918-1921 was organized on steady democratic principles: Enrollment was entirely voluntary, officers were elected, and disciple was suggested by footsoldiers then validated through vote. This does not cause problems with heirarchy, because an abusive or power-hungry leader could be easily voted out of command by his minions.
Gaia Forums » MISC Forums » Forum & Sticky Archive » Politics

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
More
Get GCash
Offers
More
Get Items
More Items
More
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
  • Guilds
    fan clubs for the stuff you love
  • Chat
    chat in real time with other Gaians
  • Art Arenas
    browse & rate gaian art galleries
  • Clans
    play zOMG with others
More
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
More
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
More
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum
More
//
//

Join Now

// //

Have an account? Login Now!

//
//