What is Anarchy? Anarchism Discussion

[OmniPotentTitan]

Anarchism is a personal and political philosophy based on the premise that no person has the right to have authority over another. We aren't opposed to organisation, but insist that it should always be fully democratic and voluntary. *

All voluntary co-operation is healthy, in the sense of fulfilling the purpose of
society. Organisation is healthy,so long as people are doing what they want, and
not being forced by the organisation to do something they do not wish to do.
Leadership is healthy,so long as it is leadership in the sense of innovation
which others freely copy, and not 'leadership" as a euphemism for being the
boss. **

Anarchy is a functioning society free of government controls. That is individual persons operating together in harmony based on freely reached agreements concluded between individual members and groups of a society. Anarchy is simply a free society. Anarchy is not the result of a statist-government failure; that would be chaos. The chaos in New Orleans is not due to anarchy, it is an example of the failure of statist-government. ***

The Cynics of Ancient Greece were originators of anarchism;[2] the philosopher Zeno of Citium, in opposition to Plato, argued that reason should replace authority in guiding human affairs. In China, the Taoist sage Lao Zi (Lao Tzu) developed a philosophy of "non-rule" in the Tao Te Ching and many Taoists in return lived an anarchist lifestyle. In 300 CE, Bao Jingyan explicitly argued that there should be neither lords nor subjects.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...s_of_anarchism

In recent history there have been numerous instances of the collapse of state authority, sometimes prompted by war but also often due to implosion of the state. In some cases, state collapse is followed by lawlessness, rioting, looting and, if disarray lasts long enough, warlordism. Although such societies are often described as anarchy, they are not organized according to anarchist principles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...st_communities

Man, like all living beings, adapts himself to the conditions in which he lives, and transmits by inheritance his acquired habits. Thus, being born and having lived in bondage, being the descendant of a long line of slaves, man, when he began to think, believed that slavery was an essential condition of life, and liberty seemed to him impossible. In like manner, the workman, forced for centuries to depend upon the goodwill of his employer for work, that is, for bread, and accustomed to see his own life at the disposal of those who possess the land and capital, has ended in believing that it is his master who gives him food, and asks ingenuously how it would be possible to live, if there were no master over him?

In the same way, a man whose limbs had been bound from birth, but who had neverless found out how to hobble about, might attribute to the very bands that bound him his ability to move, while, on the contrary, they would diminish and paralyze the muscular energy of his limbs.

If then we add to the natural effect of habit the education given to him by his master, the parson, the teacher, etc., who are all interested in teaching that the employer and the government are necessary, if we add the judge and the policeman to force those who think differently -- and might try to propagate their opinion -- to keep silence, we shall understand how the prejudice as to the utility and necessity of masters and governments has become established. Suppose a doctor brought forward a complete theory, with a thousand ably invented illustrations, to persuade the man with bound limbs that, if his limbs were freed, he could not walk, or even live. The man would defend his bands furiously and consider anyone his enemy who tried to tear them off.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist...a/anarchy.html

By acting for themselves, people gain a sense of their own power and abilities. This is essential if people are to run their own lives. As such, direct action is the means by which individuals empower themselves, to assert their individuality, to make themselves count as individuals. It is the opposite of hierarchy, within which individuals are told again and again that they are nothing, are insignificant and must dissolve themselves into a higher power (the state, the company, the party, the people, etc.) and feel proud in participating in the strength and glory of this higher power. Direct action, in contrast, is the means of asserting ones individual opinion, interests and happiness, of fighting against self-negation:

"man has as much liberty as he is willing to take. Anarchism therefore stands for direct action, the open defiance of, and resistance to, all laws and restrictions, economic, social and moral. But defiance and resistance are illegal. Therein lies the salvation of man. Everything illegal necessitates integrity, self-reliance, and courage. In short, it calls for free independent spirits, for men who are men, and who have a bone in their back which you cannot pass your hand through." [Emma Goldman, Red Emma Speaks, pp. 61-62]

http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill...J2.html#secj21



*http://www.stuff.co.nz/4245117a6442.html
**http://www.spunk.org/texts/pubs/freedom/sp000607.txt
***http://www.strike-the-root.com/52/davis/davis4.html

[all pro]

***

[MiscLyfe]

I've always believed anarchy to be the best form of society.. But sadly most humans are not capable of such a beautiful thing.

[all pro]

One of the problems with anarchy is that sooner or later someone would step up and organize a group and take control of everything. Greed and power are a part of human nature for some people. If the attack didn't come from within the group it would surely come from without because the group would be viewed as weak and disorganized. Again human nature.
"Democracy is the worst form of government except when compared to all of the others." General MacArthur

[GoateMass]

as long as one has power over another it will be excercised in one form or another.

anarchy is Utopian and will never be.

[Aries21]

[OmniPotentTitan]

Originally Posted by all pro

One of the problems with anarchy is that sooner or later someone would step up and organize a group and take control of everything. Greed and power are a part of human nature for some people. If the attack didn't come from within the group it would surely come from without because the group would be viewed as weak and disorganized. Again human nature.
"Democracy is the worst form of government except when compared to all of the others." General MacArthur

You may want to read more, especially through the links. Anarchy does not come about by letting others do the decisions for you. It is a means not an end and that is why education is key.

Originally Posted by GoateMass

as long as one has power over another it will be excercised in one form or another.

anarchy is Utopian and will never be.

Why would one have power over another?

Originally Posted by Aries21

D9eEK_GwfiI

that is a good video

[DangerDan]

Originally Posted by MiscLyfe

I've always believed anarchy to be the best form of society.. But sadly most humans are not capable of such a beautiful thing.

x2

reps to op

[SeizeTheWeight]

I may come back to read the whole thing tomorrow.
It's a great idea in theory, GoateMass described it best with the word "Utopian".
I guess it's similar to communism: attractive in theory, but practically it can never work.

[stealth_swimmer]

Originally Posted by OmniPotentTitan

'In an anarchist society, there is a lack of a single rule for all people, and therefore people cannot criticize actions simply because "they are illegal." However, actions which are unpopular because they are destructive or selfish will cause the person who committed said actions to be exiled from the society of his or her peers, without protection of law for actions that are "legal" but not ethical.

Well ethics vary from place to place and culture to culture. Basically in our culture, that little paragraph right there would mean companies wouldn't be able to get big past a certain size and CEOs wouldn't be able to make a certain amount cus someone might lose their job. If a lack of tariffs made it hard for people to get jobs in a certain industry that would also be considered "destructive" in some sense by certain people.

I couldn't really support that from an economic standpoint, though the voluntary aspect of it would make it more acceptable to me, personally.

[grapemaster]

"An all-round increase in wealth meant the destruction of a hierarchical society... for if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society - with the High, the Middle and the Low - was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance...the earthly paradise was discredited at exactly the moment when it became realized" - Orwell

[illriginalized]

I'm ready.

[72cutlass]

communism, utopian society and anarchism are all pretty much perfect forms of govt until human greed is factored in

[DanJunior]

IMO, people who support anarchy doesn't like their own country and don't give a damn about their fellow countrymen. Anarchy just makes people suffer and makes them poor.

[illriginalized]

Anarchy is simply about 100% freedom in my opinion. It has nothing to do with their fellow countrymen/women or the land they live in. It's about governments always failing and knowing it's bad for the people in general. Thus causing the wanting of no government.

[NorthMass]

Anarchy almost always leads to a totalitarian government who takes over when criminals take advantage of the anarchist society and steal everything so the people demand someone to take charge and lead them.

Interesting read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia

[grapemaster]

Originally Posted by NorthMass

Anarchy almost always leads to a totalitarian government who takes over when criminals take advantage of the anarchist society and steal everything so the people demand someone to take charge and lead them.

Interesting read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia

this is the problem all the time in anarchist communes

[Thought_Riot]

Originally Posted by all pro

One of the problems with anarchy is that sooner or later someone would step up and organize a group and take control of everything. Greed and power are a part of human nature for some people. If the attack didn't come from within the group it would surely come from without because the group would be viewed as weak and disorganized. Again human nature.
"Democracy is the worst form of government except when compared to all of the others." General MacArthur

that is exactly right. It could work in the small scale, but never in the big picture.

[NorthMass]

Anarchy would be beautiful, but there is 300,000,000 people in this country. Even if just 1% of people are bad and will rob/murder people, that is still 3 million criminals out there destroying our country. Anarchy is just a naive concept.

[mangiventofly]

one of the founding fathers said something along the lines that the constitution should be thrown out a rewritten every 20 years. but you see, that would be a disaster. if we threw it out today, we would never again have a constitution, or a single country, because you will never get that many people to agree on anything again. trying to convince people that what you're doing is right? please, this is a fairy tale.

[GoateMass]

Originally Posted by OmniPotentTitan

Why would one have power over another?

becuase inequalities lead to differences and differences lead to power disparities and thus leading to one excercising that form of power over the weaker.

and if you dont excercise that power over the weak then one with less power would excercise it and maximize their power over your leaving you weaker.. so as rational behavior implies that you will excercise the power you have so you can maintain the same power relations, thus always maintaing the upper hand.

filling power vacums follows the same idea in International relations

[JAGERBOY]

I agree with certain aspects of your argument, but not entirely convinced. How would law enforcement work?

[OmniPotentTitan]

Originally Posted by 72cutlass

communism, utopian society and anarchism are all pretty much perfect forms of govt until human greed is factored in

Please read before posting.

Originally Posted by DanJunior

IMO, people who support anarchy doesn't like their own country and don't give a damn about their fellow countrymen. Anarchy just makes people suffer and makes them poor.

Please read before you do anything.

Originally Posted by NorthMass

Anarchy almost always leads to a totalitarian government who takes over when criminals take advantage of the anarchist society and steal everything so the people demand someone to take charge and lead them.

Interesting read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia

That is not an example of anarchy, so long as there are clans to pledge allegiance to or religious institutions "leading" society, there is no Anarchy.

Originally Posted by NorthMass

Anarchy would be beautiful, but there is 300,000,000 people in this country. Even if just 1% of people are bad and will rob/murder people, that is still 3 million criminals out there destroying our country. Anarchy is just a naive concept.

You would not kill a thug that robbed your house? You would not defend yourself when a gang of thugs came to your town? No you are no anarchist and you would rather have an inefficient police force come after you were robbed, your sister raped, and you were taxed on the product of your labour. Then the thugs will go to jail, get fed by your taxes, get released in 15 years with good behaviour and bring another wave of crime over you.

Of course Anarchy can't succeed when folks like you give up their power.

If you won't even take the time to read what Anarchy is, instead of taking the word of a poorly written wiki article, then please go make a separate thread at the very least. Reasonable discourse is fine, ignorance is not.

When real education is separated from government propaganda and more people wake up, there will be no void of power to fill.

Originally Posted by JAGERBOY

I agree with certain aspects of your argument, but not entirely convinced. How would law enforcement work?

This thread is not about repeating simple concepts. Read the OP again.

[JAGERBOY]

Originally Posted by OmniPotentTitan

This thread is not about repeating simple concepts. The links explain the basics. You decide to infringe on the freedoms of others, you don't get to live in that society, you might get hurt too. There are no laws.

You might get people to consider your points better if you didn't come off as a dick.

Your post is already relatively long, and I read the entire thing. Now you are asking me to trudge through several links to find a snippet about law enforcement. For one, I thought the links were just the citations to the main points you were making. And for two, as person making the argument, you should make those points clear to begin with and not require your audience to have to search for it.

But back to the topic, and no I didn't read the links because you should have put that part in your post. You said "you don't get to live in the society"...so who kicks me out? Who decides if I've infringed on a freedom? A mob rule? What if I decide that them not allowing me to perform the act that was seen as infringing on someones freedom is actually infringing on MY freedoms? Who's the moderator? Who decides? Coin toss?

There is a fundamental problem with your argument, Im sure instead of debating it in the thread you'll just tell me to read some links and call me simple minded again.

[JAGERBOY]

Originally Posted by OmniPotentTitan

Stop lying (this shows you did not even read the OP) : that is in the OP, not in a link; I told you to read the links if you did not understand the OP[the links explain the basics].

Now this thread won't be about circular logic. If you infringe on someones freedom you will get removed from the society. You gave up your freedoms by not respecting the freedoms of others. You can go find a society that agrees with your choices and try to live there.

Stop trying to act like a victim and bring drama to this thread, I will get it moderated if you continue not using logic and bringing baseless accusations and drama into this thread, this is not the misc. At no time did I call you "simple minded". Would 'basic concepts' suit your ego better?

There was no ad hominem used by me, don't accuse me of it and don't start it in this thread.

LOL, and you still haven't answered the question, nor did the quote you cited give an answer. Again...and the most important part is obviously bolded.

You said "you don't get to live in the society"...so who kicks me out? Who decides if I've infringed on a freedom? A mob rule? What if I decide that them not allowing me to perform the act that was seen as infringing on someones freedom is actually infringing on MY freedoms? Who's the moderator? Who decides? Coin toss?

[illriginalized]

A US army brigade combat unit will be deployed at home for the first time, the Army Times reports.

The 1st BCT (Brigade Combat Team), numbering about 650 personnel, has returned from Iraq. But rather than dealing with enemy combatants, it may be called to deal with unruly Americans.

The Team "may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack."

The troops will be testing "a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities" for the first time. The BCT will be based in Georgia, the paper reports.

The Posse Comitatus Act forbids the use of the US military at home. So the task of dealing with domestic "emergencies" has been the role of the National Guard, for whom there is an exemption. But the demarcation has blurred in recent years, with the National Guard called up to bolster the military occupation of Iraq.

October is traditionally the month of surprises in the US political calendar. But this year, October has come early.

^ what's goin on?

[illriginalized]

Originally Posted by NorthMass

Anarchy almost always leads to a totalitarian government who takes over when criminals take advantage of the anarchist society and steal everything so the people demand someone to take charge and lead them.

Interesting read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia

It's Somalia man... what do you expect?

[MantisShrimp]

Originally Posted by Aries21

I understand that anarchy is a system free of coercion, however his speech is free of cohesion and coherence
The man needs to learn a bit about editing, tempo, etc.

[George Carlinian]

anarchy and communism contradict human nature.

[OmniPotentTitan]

Originally Posted by bulldog559

anarchy and communism contradict human nature.

You believe it is human nature to have overlords?