Anarchy could never work.

Post Reply New Topic

I am against a very strong centralized government but I do believe that some government is absolutely necessary.
If anarchy would come into existance only the strong males could survive.
People that are more weak and vulnerable would be killed by the angry male mod that violently runs through the streets.
Imagine a pregnant woman in an anarchist society. She would appear weak and become a target.

In an anarchist society an aspie would not have a chance of survival. The socially strong would kill them.
Some government is necessary to control violence and human corruption.
People that consider themselves anarchist believe that all human beings are good.
I hate to tell you that you are delusional.

In an anarchist society we would see the evil of humanity within a matter of weeks.
Unless you are a physically and emotionally strong male then anarchy would be hell for you.

Which form of anarchy are you referring to?

Aren't you a proponent of Marxism? Marx was opposed to the state.

Without some kind of strong authority the strong would plunder the weak toot sweet. Hobbes was right on the mark. Having a government (however great the risk of tyranny) is the alternative to social chaos.

ruveyn

What of authority delegated to private enterprise?

And medieval Ireland and Iceland? They were stateless, and certainly not chaotic.

so you've fallen for the old line of 'you are such savages that you will need us to build an authoritarian state to protect you from one another' .

the fact is that the strong surviving at the cost of the weak is most prevalent in the current social order. i'm wondering if you're talking about anarchism without knowing particularly much about it, as would seem to be the case.

the previous poster is also correct in as much as i'm sure I have seen you espousing Marxism on the forum even given Marx' generally anarchist outlook.


oh well.

Which is why Marx kicked Bakunin of the International Working Men's Association.

Marx's position was that the state would naturally disappear in the long-run *after* being co-opted by the "working class", but in the short-term he supported a heavy-handed, worker-ran, state to smash the capitalists and expropriate their capital. He held, as a matter of faith, that the state would swivel up after all that was done.

If we all pulled together we could make it work. Oh.

The North American Indians were doing pretty good as an anarchist society.

in some sense there is always anarchy...

i think that if the use of psychedelics was widespread a anarchist society would work

The problem with that is that almost all government is a vehicle of human violence and corruption.

And how would any useful work be done? There are crops to grow, things to build, things to fix and a doped up population would not be able to do the tasks.

ruveyn

That is assuming everyone would just abandon any morals they might have simply because there is no government to say 'you'll get punished for that.' At least that is what I think it comes down to.......and maybe a lot of people really do need fear to keep them in line but I find it pathetic if that's seriously the most that can be expected of humans.

I am referring to the absence of all government,law and authority.
I am a proponent of Marx but there is a difference between Marxism and total anarchy.

I am more specifically a democratic socialist.There is a difference between that and anarchy. In order for democracy to work some sort of weak government is needed.
Some people find socialist to be dreamers but the anarchist dream would be more difficult to achieve.

I have proof of man's corruption. If there was no law or government at all than I would be dead.

I agree that most government is corrupt. I would be the first person to support a revolution to over-throw capitalism and American imperialism.
Trotsky and Marx wanted social and class equality . Not absolute chaos and lawlessness.
Some government is absolutely necessary and Marx would have agreed.

i disagree with this for a few reasons. first your assumption that human nature is inherantly evil colours your argument fo some form of government but i think that the capitalist system and the state is what determines the character of many people that come out of it. it breeds things like sexism, racism, homophobia, classism, ablism, cissexism, etc. people are not evil. we are all socialised to be a certain way. nurture not nature. overthrowing the capitalist system and freeing people from economic pressures would be the way to go if you wanted to fix societies social problems.
i dont think we need a government. not the way you mean. i think the working class should be able to govern their own lives, not through parliamentarism, but through soviets. parliamentary democracy is what you get under capitalism and soviets are the higher form of democracy you get under socialism.
also im not sure what you mean when you say anarchy. the anarchist opinion of government is that it creates heirarchy and this is what oppresses people and creates inequality. they are opposed to any body headed by a leader on this basis. even soviets. i dont think they advocate what the word anarchy implies as the perfect society. i could have explained that wrong. my knowledge of anarchism is basic. very very basic.

I disagree. To many men, hitting a woman is worse than murder, which imo is ridiculous, I actually think in some cases hitting a woman could be understandable, like if she is stronger physically than a man and attacking him, but I think that belief would prevent the misogynistic scenario you envision without police involved.