Anarchism

[Lord de Lyonesse]

Well, do you think it can work? By anarchism I mean:

"The philosophy of a social order based on liberty and unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence and therefore wrong, harmful and unnecessary. Power to the people in the most utter sense."

As defined by Emma Goldman. To voice my own opinion, I would say it can. The increasing globalisation of the earth and our unique(?) position in the universe merits us with seemingly limitless possibilities. The internet, for example - defined by Timothy Leary to be the "LSD of the 90's" seems to be a indication of increased freedom and autonomy of individuals. No more do people have to sit down and buy things or listen to what was passed down to become tradition. It seems bit by bit we as a race, an entity within the great fabric of space itself are finally hammering away at our individual chains and enabling us to see things from a perspective unknown to generations before.

I know what some may be thinking, particularly the right-wingers out there - "No of course not". I see your point to, the numerate times one could pin human nature, seemingly primitive instincts of greed, lust and selfishness are daunting. However, do you really think anarchism, perhaps even on a low-level of collective underground society amongst the bloc of market capitalism could work?

I myself, remain hopeful.

[Kjertesvein]

Ask an Egyptian faro way back in time weather democracy as we know it today can be practised. He will probably laugh his ass off.

~Wille

[Heavy Weapons Guy]

It wouldn't work.

[Brain_in_a_vat]

Lovely idea, but like most political theories, it would fall flat onto it's face in one way or another if put into practice. The cause? People, human nature.

[Theseus1234]

Lovely idea, but like most political theories, it would fall flat onto it's face in one way or another if put into practice. The cause? People, human nature.

Essentially this. I created a thread like this a month or a few weeks ago and this was the reason I cited that it would not work.

[dogukan]

I am sick of the human nature arguement. Human NATURE STARTED ANARCHIST.
States are later comers to human life. For more than 10 thousand years people lived in anarchy and you guys are saying anarchy is against human nature.

[Claudius Gothicus]

I am sick of the human nature arguement. Human NATURE STARTED ANARCHIST.

Well, i'm sick of these ''can anarchism work?'' threads

I mean WTF are we living in the 1890's all over again?

[Dr. Croccer]

I am sick of the human nature arguement. Human NATURE STARTED ANARCHIST.
States are later comers to human life. For more than 10 thousand years people lived in anarchy and you guys are saying anarchy is against human nature.

So Anarchy is strictly socially stratified tribalism?

I hate it when people go: ''Oh well but human beings lived for centuries in anarchy, look at primitive tribes.'', completely ignoring that tribal societies gradually turned into stratified urban-agricultural societies, tribal federations, or both.

[Brain_in_a_vat]

I am sick of the human nature arguement. Human NATURE STARTED ANARCHIST.
States are later comers to human life. For more than 10 thousand years people lived in anarchy and you guys are saying anarchy is against human nature.

I didn't state it is against human nature, human nature is entirely subjective. What I am arguing is that in current society, transition from government to anarchy would be nigh on impossible. Gradual, and I mean very gradual progression towards radical new political ideologies is probably needed for them to succeed. People are the bane of progression, there will always be conservatives and they'll always make up a large portion of the population.

[Dan the Man]

I am sick of the human nature arguement. Human NATURE STARTED ANARCHIST.
States are later comers to human life. For more than 10 thousand years people lived in anarchy and you guys are saying anarchy is against human nature.

And we developed civilized society because it was necessary. Just because we managed to survive for ten thousand years doesn't mean we thrived. Statism and government systems were established because they improved our chances of survival and got us to where we are today.

If it's not broken, don't fix it.

[Last Roman]

I am sick of the human nature arguement. Human NATURE STARTED ANARCHIST.

Even within early nomadic groups, there were "rules" (I'm hesitant to say man-made laws, but that's essentially what they were) to be followed, or else the group died. And they didn't start "anarchist" because the idea of a state had not (therefore no argument against it could be made) been created yet. You'll notice that as soon as humans had the means, they started to organize governments.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

Even within early nomadic groups, there were "rules" (I'm hesitant to say man-made laws, but that's essentially what they were) to be followed, or else the group died. And they didn't start "anarchist" because the idea of a state had not (therefore no argument against it could be made) been created yet. You'll notice that as soon as humans had the means, they started to organize governments.

Early nomadic groups could be considered "primitive communists". There was communism of consumption, but not of production because the nomads themselves produced very little. As these nomads settled down and started farming it became necessary for one section of society to manage the excess food and wealth. This is the group that became the ruling class and created government.

[Denny Crane!]

Human nature is a fairly ridiculous reasoning. That is like saying Statism failed and resulted in catastrophic world wars and murderous authoritarianism in faux communism because of human nature. It isn't human nature it was failures in the system at the the time that helped shape peoples actions, the actions of a few is not human nature, neither is the resultant chaos. As a system of global trade has become more and more cemented the risk of direct and major war between someone like say China and the USA has become virtually impossible. Not because of human nature, but because of the society we have in place right now and the systems within it.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

Human nature is a fairly ridiculous reasoning. That is like saying Statism failed and resulted in catastrophic world wars and murderous authoritarianism in faux communism because of human nature. It isn't human nature it was failures in the system at the the time that helped shape peoples actions, the actions of a few is not human nature, neither is the resultant chaos. As a system of global trade has become more and more cemented the risk of direct and major war between someone like say China and the USA has become virtually impossible. Not because of human nature, but because of the society we have in place right now and the systems within it.

Conditions determine your consciousness.

[Dr. Croccer]

Human nature is a fairly ridiculous reasoning. That is like saying Statism failed and resulted in catastrophic world wars and murderous authoritarianism in faux communism because of human nature. It isn't human nature it was failures in the system at the the time that helped shape peoples actions, the actions of a few is not human nature, neither is the resultant chaos.

The problem with that is that ''Statism'' is for one not an ideology, and even if it was it did not fail. It has existed for millenia and there's no sign of decline. Wars are primarily waged for reasons that exist in any society.

[Denny Crane!]

The problem with that is that ''Statism'' is for one not an ideology, and even if it was it did not fail. It has existed for millenia and there's no sign of decline. Wars are primarily waged for reasons that exist in any society.

Statism didn't fail but the systems in place killed hundreds of millions. That wasn't human nature that was governments. Humans don't naturally want to kill other humans, it takes external pressures to create that a sociopath and to create mass sociopathic behaviour it takes extreme external pressures.

Take a look at the rape of nanking, then go and find people who naturally support that kind of behaviour. Humans by nature are gregarious.

[Rolling Thunder]

Okay, please define and explain which type of anarchist society will we have? How will any form of order be enforced? How will public goods be provided? How will utilities be maintained? Please outline the basis of this society.

[Lord de Lyonesse]

Okay, please define and explain which type of anarchist society will we have? How will any form of order be enforced? How will public goods be provided? How will utilities be maintained? Please outline the basis of this society.

I don't know. It is essentially individualism ona mass scale. Each of us being allowed to do whatever we want. People often then talk about the catastrosphic damage, rape, looting, pillaging which would occur if this were to happen. I then often say to people who speak of such things and tell them they have a very low opinion of humanity. No. I believe we can live together and be individuals without being destructive. It makes me sad seeing people in London and other English cities protesting about Student tuition fees by smashing a police car and throwing fire extinguishers out of windows while claiming to be representatives of anarchy. In fairness to them, they are angry and it is because of this built up anger vented out as hate they do such things. I just don't think it is very pro-creative and just s things up.

Anarchy would work on a basis on individuality and empathy. These produced the liberal arts, a free national heath service and encourages independent thought, creativity and a questioning mind. I think with empathy, there will be no need for law as people can differentiate right from wrong. The factories and office desks will be filled by people voluntarily and society as a whole would be a collective of peoples working to achieve the potential of mankind. Thereby nationality would be rendered redundant and humanity united under the spirit of co-operation.

There are many flaws to this theory. Of course, goes without saying. But wasn't Greek democracy pretty wierd when it was first concieved and debated? What i'm trying to say is that things change and are perfected over time.

I'm sympathetic but I can't escape noticing that the Mafia are about the most prevalent 'really existing' anarchism.

Not a good sign?

The Mafia. Anarchist?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I'm sorry Brick Top for stealing your idea. It's just really funny!

I don't think so, they seem to me a sort of quasi-fascist criminal organisation based around the governmental principles of men with guns. It's just a mob -similar to the mobs under the Doge in Venetian Italy. It seems real anarchism is in the individual and not the mob. Read Herbert Read (haha!) if you want to look at anarchist literature. I find this to be particular poignant:

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/...Anarchism.html

[Denny Crane!]

I'm not that guy, I'm not that smart. I couldn't reasonably do it for our current society adequately and deal with the idea of regulatory frameworks and checks and balances, as well as constitutional or inherited power and devolution of power between assemblies, legilatures, executive and judicial bodies so I certainly couldn't do it with a market society. I'm just not that smart.

I can say what I would like out of any society of course, the reduction of violence and force wherever possible and as much protection for the ordinary person as possible. Less manipulation and coercion would be fab while we're at it. I'm not so ideologically bound that I'm devoted to particularly left or right wing solutions, I read heavily on both sides of the fence but I do believe the capitalism theories hold more weight. That being said I am still highly active in the democratic system and its improvement, somewhat hypocritical given my beliefs but whaddyagonnado...

[Rolling Thunder]

I'm not that guy, I'm not that smart. I couldn't reasonably do it for our current society adequately and deal with the idea of regulatory frameworks and checks and balances, as well as constitutional or inherited power and devolution of power between assemblies, legilatures, executive and judicial bodies so I certainly couldn't do it with a market society. I'm just not that smart.

I can say what I would like out of any society of course, the reduction of violence and force wherever possible and as much protection for the ordinary person as possible. Less manipulation and coercion would be fab while we're at it. I'm not so ideologically bound that I'm devoted to particularly left or right wing solutions, I read heavily on both sides of the fence but I do believe the capitalism theories hold more weight. That being said I am still highly active in the democratic system and its improvement, somewhat hypocritical given my beliefs but whaddyagonnado...

That, herein, is the problem with discussions in regards to anarchism. Without specifics to discuss, all people can offer is either support, pleasant or critical fence-sitting, or glib-sounding platitudes regarding 'human nature'. We're all for the reduction of violence and force, and the protection of the good and the common - all good stuff - but unless the details are laid out then I cannot really discuss anything except in either a vague and optimistic (or vaguely optimistic) tone, a pessimistic tone or a rather crudely negative tone.


In regards to Orwell's experiences, it must be noted that any state would be considered more profitable, efficient and humane than that of Spain prior to it's revolutionary experiences - the country went from a state of 1600s-feudalism into a 1900s modern economy practically overnight, and so is not really an argument of the vast superiority of anarchism over capitalism. It should also be noted that in his extract you can see the violence - the inherent oppression and regulation of others - the destruction of the churches, the commandeering of private property, the laws against tipping, the conformity of the populace.