Anarchy, It doesn't sound like what I'm told.

[stolide]

Basically, I know there are anarchists here, either that or people seem to know a lot about anarchy, and I've been told all my life that anarchy is essentially chaos. I have long thought that wouldn't be the case, so I'm asking what the ideal anarchist "society" (I know that's not the right word but I couldn't think of a better one) would be like.

Thanks in advance.

[HellforgedX]

Anarchy can never work. If there were no laws, there would be no punishments for anyone strong-arming anyone else. That turns in to leadership by might (do this OR ELSE!!!) which will turn into a dictatorship. Therefore, no anarchy.

[Albert Mond]

The thing about Anarchists is they seldom drive for pure Anarchy. The concept is mostly applied to possessions, from what I can tell. Essentially, what's yours is mine in an Anarchist society. As far as I know, in modern times it's only been used in small communities. And rightfully so! A society unwilling to accept Anarchy (such as in larger communities) could easily 'destroy' it or abuse it.

[Godslayer Jillian]

You know the anarchy symbol?
It's not a circle; it's an O.
Anarchy is Order; that's what it means, and it comes from Proudhon's second most famous maxim.
Even the sign itself which now is commonly seen in Hot Topic and Converse shoes actually dictates exactly the opposite than what all the fuckers think Anarchy is.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

There was quite the back-and-forth going on over the viability of anarchism in the "Gnet Templates" thread earlier. Check it out, if you're interested.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by poisonedblueeyes

anarchy dosnt exist... drumroll please... drum roll please for this comeon pick it up................. noob.

Go kill yourself.

[Jonathan]

Anarchy doesn't necessarily mean "chaos".
Anarchy - without ruler.

When I hang out with my friends, there isn't a designated leader. There isn't even majority vote. We just kind of do our thing, enjoy being around each other, when someone needs help or support it just kind of happens organically. Come and go as we please, relatively drama free. I guess you could call it chaos if you want, but we don't need to appeal to authority when there is a difference of opinion.

With a group of decent, reasonable people, I can't see any reason why there needs to be any kind of authority in charge. My friends and I are a group of people, and we organize in a rather anarchic fashion. If we can pull it off without shooting or robbing each other, I'm sure other people can manage it too.

[stolide]

Sounds like what I was imagining anarchy as is what Jonathan described. Hmmm, well thanks for the info guys.

[Jonathan]

I'm far from an expert- I'm sure someone is going to come along and shred my vision for an anarchic society, but that is just my impression. I'd be inclined to listen to what Jillian has to say on the subject. He seems to put a lot of effort into being informed on this type of topic.

I've had a lot of people tell me things like "it could never work like that" - but I wonder why.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by HellforgedX

Anarchy can never work. If there were no laws, there would be no punishments for anyone strong-arming anyone else. That turns in to leadership by might (do this OR ELSE!!!) which will turn into a dictatorship. Therefore, no anarchy.

So you assume people abstain from murder and **** simply by virtue of the arbitrary laws set forth by the unjustly wealthy?

So you're telling me that people are constantly suppressing urges to kill and **** everyone around them?

Huh, you might want to think about that.

Anarchy is a lack of rules, not order. If you put a group of people together in a situation without any pre-established order, they will instinctively do what they need to survive.

I can sum up my reasoning for anarchy in a short phrase, though it's obviously more complicated than this:

If all people are good, government is needless
If all people are evil, government is useless

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

The thing about Anarchists is they seldom drive for pure Anarchy. The concept is mostly applied to possessions, from what I can tell. Essentially, what's yours is mine in an Anarchist society. As far as I know, in modern times it's only been used in small communities. And rightfully so! A society unwilling to accept Anarchy (such as in larger communities) could easily 'destroy' it or abuse it.

Guess what? We live in strictly ordered society right now and they're both destroying it AND abusing it. If we only get one, it's a step up.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

Guess what? We live in strictly ordered society right now and they're both destroying it AND abusing it. If we only get one, it's a step up.

Destroying? You mean to say that Government has been forcefully abolished by its enemies where you live? With Anarchy, all you'd have to do is declare yourself King.

[KontanKarite]

I still don't quite understand how anarchy can't work. OBVIOUSLY, it starts with an individual's willingness to NOT be a bloody dick about things.

On top of that, it's equally as silly to believe we're all closet dictators that need a parent figure to keep us in line as it is to believe we're all capable of governing our own actions.

But in the wave of an anarchistic revolution, those wishing to dictate the lives of others in one way or another could possibly fold under the pressure of a new, freer minded majority.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

I still don't quite understand how anarchy can't work. OBVIOUSLY, it starts with an individual's willingness to NOT be a bloody dick about things.

But in the wave of an anarchistic revolution, those wishing to dictate the lives of others in one way or another could possibly fold under the pressure of a new, freer minded majority.

1. Exactly. It's entirely hypothetical.

2. Keywords "could" and "possibly". Do people always do as the majority wants? If everybody had bunny ears implanted in their heads, would you do it? Plus, there are only two ways I can think of in which the majority would accept Anarchism fast enough that individuals would be pressured.
1. It changed over night miraculously.
2. Big ironic massacre.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

Destroying? You mean to say that Government has been forcefully abolished by its enemies where you live? With Anarchy, all you'd have to do is declare yourself King.

And nobody would listen. The government is destroying itself. It's a self destructive system.

[Drake Dun]

Here we go again, lol. Instead of doing my usual impassioned plea for the anarchist cause, I think I'll try an unorthodox approach.

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=GVTlvortxMY

Watch that and then reflect upon the claim that order has to be centrally coordinated and imposed by force.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

I've gone round and round with GJ, GM, and, to a lesser extent, JCC about this, and the only thing I've found is that anarchists are naive.

The difference, at base, between myself and those three is that they seem to believe humans are capable of acting in concert, in the interests of the "greater good", managing to overcome internal strife and disagreement without needing to resort to a government with the power to arbitrate.

I simply do not believe that.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

As for the idea of Emergence, what, exactly, is it? Are you saying that the result of collective thought will be more than the sum of its constituent parts? That, somehow, with people coming together, they're going to magically start thinking alike and acting in concert?

If so, I completely disagree.

Either way, I think that Emergence is a bit beyond me at the moment. I'm going to need more than a six minute video to explain it.

[Tam Li Hua]

In an ideal society where no one was greedy, selfish, or insecure, it would be a wonderful way to do things. However, since we humans tend to fall into one or more of these categories, it's simply not realistic on a large scale.

[Godslayer Jillian]

You do realize that it's this society that prizes greed and selfishness?
Lately I've been getting more and more upset with that 'anti-anarchist mantra'
"People are inherently selfish and greedy, so anarchism doesn't work"
Ok. Care to follow the first point to show me how it leads to the second?

[Tam Li Hua]

Sure, Jilly. From what I understand [and, granted, I don't have a great grasp on the finer points of anarchy], it's similar to communism in its idealism. It's a great idea in theory, and something I would be glad to support in a society of selfless, harmless, and loving people. Hell, it's the way that the Church started out in the early days.

But, as with communism and China, folks get selfish and greedy, and want to take over and tell others what to do. History from all over the world has shown us this; not just the history of the United States.

However, if you know of a way to form a peaceful society with anarchy, then you will have my full support.

[TheBloodEternity]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

Hell, it's the way that the Church started out in the early days.

Holy fucking shit.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

But, as with communism and China, folks get selfish and greedy, and want to take over and tell others what to do.

And you're telling me that if you had no bosses, no gods, no masters, no managers, someone that said "know what? I want to subjugate other people"
He could go up to you and tell you "hey, leave what you're doing; I want to be your dictator"
and you'd say "ok!"
....
?

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

Hell, it's the way that the Church started out in the early days.

Dude, there was always a pope. Remember Peter?

Ever hear of the Catholic Worker Movement?

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by TheBloodEternity

Holy fucking shit.

It's true, read ACTS in the New Testament. Members would sell their land and other property and redistribute to those who needed it.