|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:19 am
I think that the act of "establishing" an anarchy is infact impossible.
I heard it best put that "...to have an anarchy, everyone must be indapendent and no one person is greater or with any greater authority than the next..." and judging human nature:
1: I don't know about you, but i can only be alone for so long.
2: Someone is always going to want to be better than another, and finally
3: If everyony is separated by equality, than no one can impose the laws that keep us equal.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 6:23 am
Aplos I'm also pretty frustrated with the way the media depicts anarchy. Hooliganism and anarchy are not the same thing. I've been bordering a lot lately towards anarchy and libertarianism. Granted, true anarchy might result in chaos but I'm so tired of the lies and exploitation the governments and corporations are jailing us with. I have a picture of two people holding No Government signs. One being a punk, presumably an anarchist, the other, a well dressed libertarian. The cartoon reads "Libertarianism: Anarchy for rich people." I think it could very well be true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:16 pm
I'm sort of hardcore on this subject. Working towards anarchism is, the way I see it, hypocrisy. A true anarchist simply lives the way he wants to. He can follow his own moral compass, but rules set by others means nothing to him. Also, calling yourself an anarchist instantly negates that claim, since a true anarchist wouldn't describe himself as an anarchist, since that would be labeling himself.
But let's call it anarchism for now. There is no way anarchy would work. We live in a world that is built by and for corporations. Who would spit out all the unnecessary items we use on a daily basis? Who would pay our wages? Crime control? Fire control? Electricity? There has never historically been such a thing as an anarchy - at least not for extended periods of time. After the rise and fall of most empires a short period of anarchy has followed, but those are short and characterized by a 'might makes right' mentality, and soon been quelled by feudalism or syndicalism.
I'd guess -and I have no basis for this whatsoever- that around 950 per 1000 people living in a 'civilized' country would be dead within five to ten years. Could the elderly get by without their mass-produced medicine? Would giving birth be as safe without an organized health system? Of course, anarchism would mean that the entire system that governs the world would fall apart. Loans, stocks, investments, EVERYTHING would cease to work. Who would put out orders to the industries in an anarchy, make sure the bureocrasy -no idea how to spell that in english- that keeps society together is upheld? Nobody would.
The best option would be Syndicalism, really, like the days of the flood cultures before they began to bloom, or further back during the days when humanity roamed around in small clans looking for fertile lands when one area had been hunted clear, in a beautiful and natural cycle of death and rebirth.
I could, of course, be completely wrong. Maybe I just don't have any faith in humanity's inborn humanitarian side. But to trust it to brainwashed drones to keep any semblance of society together if all the Power-that-be disappeared... Bad idea, all the way. Well, the 'predators' would survive. Foresters, special ops, hunters, amish people, as well as the 'primitive' tribes around the world, they'd most likely survive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:20 pm
Besides, as previously stated, anarchism means that everyone would have to be self-reliant. In short time, Syndicalism would replace Anarchy, as driven individuals would form together to build towards a 'brighter' future yet again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:04 am
Kaz-Balan . Anarchy is but the pejorative term that got used to point some "uncontrolled" (LOL) social chaos, a term linked with senseless destruction, nihilism and crimes . Anarchism is a political theory merely stating that hierarchy is not needed for human societies to work well Of course, having both terms mixed and confused is a pretty efficient way
to have the very dangerous ( because FEASIBLE ) concept of anarchism despised, mocked
and eventually forgotten.
Trouble is you may kill a man...
...but you may not kill an idea.
REAL revolutions BUILD. We've established what it is. My opening post takes a look at its most known definitions. Your signature says it will save the future, and I asked you about this in the ED I believe. All you said, of course, was that I needed to ask myself questions about why it would work for mankind. What that ended me up with was nothing, as I quickly saw you were not going to support your signature and the explaining yourself of your own ideas. Here I'm expecting a better turnout. I'd like for you to explain your signature. How will anarchy save the future? Is it not more aimed at destruction of society than creating a better one? How would you bring anarchy about? Is it true that while creating anarchy you are not, in essence, creating your own government body by opposing other forms of government? Are people honestly responsible enough to govern themselves safely as individuals and deal with all of societies problems, including crime, in your eyes? How greatly would this change everything from punishment for crime to how people continue to create the goods and means to live? If it ceased, would fighting ensue, for survival? Just a few questions you may wish to consider when trying to explain how anarchy will save the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:02 am
Power thrown back to the masses... You see, I don't like the idea of a "real democracy" as you stated. In a real democracy, everything is voted on by everyone. Everyone has a vote. That could spell issues for some. Not that the "majority wins" happening isn't all ready all too common here in the U.S. or anywhere with democratic processes, but at least then the elected officials are in control and not everyone with an a*****e is lording over my life. Not that those they elect are much worse.
I believe that your "anarchism" as you put it, rather than anarchy, which denotes general chaos, would still bring about as others have discussed earlier in the thread, another rise of some sort of organization and society. A new form of government would come up, in shape or another. Eventually corruption would set in and really, no matter the system, something is going to happen and go wrong somewhere.
Now I could be wrong, but I'm curious to point out you spoke of a chief to followers. I would think that anarchism would not call for any leaders of any kind, but that everyone leads themselves? If my idea is thought to be true, is that still a governing form of leadership? Especially if the leader tells them what to do and how to do so?
Unless by your signature you are suggesting that anarchism is only a temporary solution to bringing an end to what we know now, then I'm not sure I understand yet. I don't think anarchism could be a long-lasting thing in societies. I think something would form and the people would create government again to feel safe, to feel governed, to generally give some sort of structure to society.
Hmm... I think mankind in general wants to be governed, and in a sense controlled. Even those that are as yourself, and speak of anarchism, are governed by the idea of anarchism, and governed what you think is by yourself, but you're really trying to project your ideas towards others and instead of saying you're happy just ruling yourself not caring for others, you're sharing your idea that anarchism will save the future in hopes of spreading others to join you and destroy something currently in existence, but in the end would make you all still seem governed by your own ideas for each other which would in turn get confuddled and result in... yet another governing body.
Hmm... Of course, could be wrong. I always state that. I'm only speculating off of what you give me to work with here.
What sort of education are you referring to? How would you change the current education? In what ways would you educate the people on this education you refer to?
If government is not necessary, and we could in fact exist operationally well without it, what would drive people to do work to produce goods if only looking out for numero uno? Without a currency and a stable way of life, what would make anyone do anything? Lots of things to consider more than just romanticising the idea of anarchism being the answer to government's problems. No form is perfect by any means, but I think I would still have that then run the risk of having some people out there thinking no government means no responsibility and can commit heinous crimes moreso than some do now all ready. Yeah... I wouldn't honestly feel too safe. I don't trust people enough to govern themselves as individuals just yet. Teen mothers and those who overdose show me we're just not ready for such a concept, even if it could work. But I just somehow don't think it could, or is good for us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 9:03 pm
I want a form of socialism in the US goverment (not just the plain type.)
But because america has the stupid democracy it does now, it cant, so im currently an anarchist. I really dont think there is a point to goverment, people were fine before it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:36 am
cman1195 I want a form of socialism in the US goverment (not just the plain type.) But because america has the stupid democracy it does now, it cant, so im currently an anarchist. I really dont think there is a point to goverment, people were fine before it. Describe how we were fine before government. What differences do you think existed between then and now? We're not a democracy by the way. We're a Federal Republic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:33 pm
Just Tony cman1195 I want a form of socialism in the US goverment (not just the plain type.) But because america has the stupid democracy it does now, it cant, so im currently an anarchist. I really dont think there is a point to goverment, people were fine before it. Describe how we were fine before government. What differences do you think existed between then and now? We're not a democracy by the way. We're a Federal Republic. Politics just piss people off. And oh, it still seems similar, but w.e. I want to rebel personally
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:30 am
cman1195 Just Tony cman1195 I want a form of socialism in the US goverment (not just the plain type.) But because america has the stupid democracy it does now, it cant, so im currently an anarchist. I really dont think there is a point to goverment, people were fine before it. Describe how we were fine before government. What differences do you think existed between then and now? We're not a democracy by the way. We're a Federal Republic. Politics just piss people off. And oh, it still seems similar, but w.e. I want to rebel personally Democracy = Public voting on all mandates, government issues, matters of war, etc. Federal Republic: Democratic processes through public voting on its representatives and sometimes, legislation ie Prop. 8.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:02 pm
This anarchism/anarchy, it sounds like a rural neighborhood. Perhaps the old American wild west. perhaps a mountain community.
The central or state government doesn't affect your daily lives, greatly. So, you grow food and/or narcotics, if you don't you make tools, goods, or provide a service. You still go into town to buy or trade for the things you can't make yourself. The elderly don't retire they do things that enable the younger generation to work, they watch children ect. You have a police force of some sort, because you can't take care of your home security while you are asleep or at work, and your neighbors are as unlikely to chase after dangerous men in an anarchy as they are under the present government. However, it is the community who supports, what used to be, government services like the police.
There will be corruption and champions and corrupt champions. It is the Dark Ages all over again, but you have electricity and modern plumbing. I suppose you don't pay taxes so much as tithe to various organizations, separately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:18 am
eek did I kill the thread? Or, was it already dead when I got here? sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
