Anarchism.

Post Reply New Topic

I'd like to propose a discussion on this particular political philosophy, normally it would be a full-on debate, but my political compass is still being developed, so I was wonderin if there are other Anarchists on here who can educate me on it a bit more.

Now I'll explain why I believe in Anarchism.

I have observed that the involvement of a democratic state often imposes thought onto people, and what is considered morally right by the state can be changed by a singe election, here's a hypothetical example, say a rising politician is up for election, and a country is in a VERY bad position economically and as we all know, most people like to point the finger at a particular group to save themselves from taking the blame for the position their country is in, so what if said politician were to point the finger at Aspies? So basically, being an Aspie in that country would be a rather unpleasant position to be put in, hate crimes are committed on people with Asperger's Syndrome, people with Aspies are declared enemies of the state and are rounded up and executed, now I know this sounds ridiculous, but what people like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini Pol Pot and Mao did was ridiculous too and it happened! It's highly unlikely but not impossible.

Now we have had atrocities committed throughout history, The Holocaust, The Great Purge, The Burma Crisis etc.

My closing point is, before Adolf Hitler came into power, Germany was a Socialist state, before Stalin began The Great Purge, Russia was predominantly Communist, but silencing naysayers sounds more like a Fascist thing to me, and most recently we have had the BNP (Holocaust denying anti-semites) elected into Parliament, and the UK is a DEMOCRATIC state, see what I mean here? It doesn't matter what kind of state watches over a country, a tyrant can come into power no matter what.

So my solution is:

Start over again, go back to the beginning, no laws, no social hiearchy, no means of gaining power over others, now I know that the state humanity is in, we have crime, and crime began simply as a poor thief stealing bread, and it grew from that to what we have now, massive organised groups who have their finger in protection racketeering, narcotics, illegal gambling, arms dealing etc. that Anarchism would be a difficult thing to achieve, note: Anarchism is not complete chaos and disorder, it's simply the abolition of the state for humanity to grow independently on it's own.

The question is: what do we do with these people?

Kill them? Hardly a moral thing to do, imprison them? No state would mean no police, no police would mean no courts, no courts would mean no prisons, so what other solutions are there?

These are questions I'd like other Anarchists to answer. So anyone who knows anything about Anarchism, post a reply explaining these things please.

Thanks for your time.

You cannot go home again topic

Wipe the slate clean? Start over? Not likely in a practical sense, in my opinion.

I hope you get some great replies, as there are many anarchists who post here at WP.

Actually, Anarchism was tried; in Spain in the 1930s. There were Anarchist armies, 'governments', etc. They sort of fell out with the Communists, and spent as much time killing each other as much as Franco's forces.

The problem is; in every society, group of people, etc., there is a tendency to look to or for leaders (the old 'social contract'), and there are abilities and skills valued over others, no matter where you go. They're not always the same ones, but over time, elites form, always have, always will...

I am not sure exactly what anarchism might be. It seems to be (by definition) a total lack of central government. To a large extent, in some areas of Africa this seems to be the condition and I am not tempted to even visit those areas, not to speak of living there.

How would you guarantee no means of gaining power over others? Anarchy doesn't work, since people will have the incentive to group together to either avoid being subjugated, or to rise to power by subjugating others.

Anarchism is inherently unstable. It will last just long enough for one or a few parties to have sufficient power to impose it on the rest of society.

Anarchism only works in theory. In practice is simply does not last very long.

ruveyn

today IS anarchy

1. people murder, despite laws
2. when murder is commited (you can even call the cops while being murdered.) the police will arrive, and do their whole "justice" thing, chasing some person, and trying to ruin them.

3. murder still happened. despite laws against murder.

same w drugs. same w speeding. same w simple manners and courtesy.

we live in anarchy. people do: EXACTLY what they want or can do with their realities and tools, at any point in time, anywhere on earth. control and laws is what "only works in theory"

And without this "theoretical" function we are in a hell of a mess.

What is the definition of anarchy though, many people associate it with whatever the media tell them.

I have always understood it to be rule without law, not lawlessness.

What would others define it as.

agreed

This anarchy thread was my all time favorite. Remember Chever? Lots of laughs here.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt77362.html

The defintion of "lawlessness" is "without laws". If you don't have laws, you have lawslessness.

Anarchism means no centralized government authority that can impose its rule by force. It does not mean lack of law or equivalent protocols and customs. In the Scandinavian countries back around 1200 or 1300 c.e. there was not central authority but there plenty of laws and customs.

The presence of laws does not mean that laws will be obeyed in all cases. With law comes out-law and defiance of law. The question is how will the laws be enforced (by social sanction? by threat of force?). How will that enforcement come. Will it be by customary response in the society (ad hoc posse?) or will it come from a central sovereign authority?

According to Hobbes, eventually some kind of central authority must be established to ensure enough peace and quiet that people are reasonably secure in their property and commerce is possible. Eventually every anarchic system will morph into some kind of Leviathan.

ruveyn

Look, in the end, I think you essentially HAVE TO recreate the police, the courts, and possibly other related structures. This is not an ideal thing, and potentially police and courts and such under an anarchist system can work with different intentions and motives than under the current system. The issue is that complete socialization of this function can be used for vendettas ergo, an explicit power structure seems necessary.

I think anarchism is naively flawed. Society has always divided itself into the High, Middle and Low, and always will. If there was no government, the strongest would band together, and conquer the divided majorities. They would control the wealth, and as such the people. There would, of course be no government, but there would still be leaders, albeit ones that are likely not bound by law or morality. Essentially, you've just estabalished a totalitarian society, in which the people have no say, and a few control the world by their own whim.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGiEmBy5jD8[/youtube]