Anarchists?

[II2]

Except killing other humans is not natural for us. It's a perversion of human nature that becomes more and more popular when there is more to gain.
If we didn't rely on rare resources to survive, we would have no reason to kill each other.
Some people get joy out of murder, but most do not. Again, this idea that we are all killers is another little myth we are fed by television.

I respectfully disagree.

As a species we have a long as storied history of bashing each others brains out with bits of stone and wood LONG before there was any real consideration of "resources" to squabble over. Tribal warfare has been with us since the beginning.

Battling over resources is certainly a good incentive for conflict, but cycles of violence stemming from a fear or hatred of another person(s)'s skin color, religion, politics, sexual orientation, etc have existed both before and during any contested treasures. All of this long before newspapers, radio or television could tell us we were violent.

Look at Ireland with the Proddies and Catholics blasting each other to bits with no stake but revenge and a different view. Same with the Sunnies and Shiites. Plenty more examples are available without much research.

 

[Hallow'sEve]

In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying strips of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway.

 

[Nick Holmgren]

anarchism doesn't call for straight out chaos. Anarchists mostly just call for a lack of required government participation. In other words a group of anarchists can organize, agree on a plan, and not violate their philosophic rules. Simply a lack of REQUIRED organization is enough.

 

[Flames66]

True anarchy is chaos, complete and utter chaos.

Um, no it aint. Anarchy is the idea of there being no leadership and enforced authority. It does not mean chaos, it means people having the sense to look after themselves rather than having their big brother government hold their hands.

 

[DieMitternachtFuchs]

In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying strips of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway.

Thank you Mr. Durden.

Tyler's particular brand of anarchy is anarcho primitivism, a rejection of modern technologies and globalization and there inherent destruction of natural ecologies. To live a more natural life style that isn't so impersonal or dehumanizing and living more or less in harmony with a local ecology. Bioregionalism as it were. But Tyler becomes a proto-fascist through his domination of the space monkeys. In effect becoming that which he is fighting.

 

[AugustFall]

I love the idea of being whoever has the biggest gun's *****.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

Anarchists of the world UNITE!

OT: Well I've have my moments when I wouldn't mind less of a society, but I understand that people will naturally form little societies even without a government. I mean that's why we currently have a society. Of course at other times I hope for a much more centralized society where we work for the greater good of the society rather than our own greedy desires. Less materalistic.

 

[DieMitternachtFuchs]

Except killing other humans is not natural for us. It's a perversion of human nature that becomes more and more popular when there is more to gain.
If we didn't rely on rare resources to survive, we would have no reason to kill each other.
Some people get joy out of murder, but most do not. Again, this idea that we are all killers is another little myth we are fed by television.

I respectfully disagree.

As a species we have a long as storied history of bashing each others brains out with bits of stone and wood LONG before there was any real consideration of "resources" to squabble over. Tribal warfare has been with us since the beginning.

Battling over resources is certainly a good incentive for conflict, but cycles of violence stemming from a fear or hatred of another person(s)'s skin color, religion, politics, sexual orientation, etc have existed both before and during any contested treasures. All of this long before newspapers, radio or television could tell us we were violent.

Look at Ireland with the Proddies and Catholics blasting each other to bits with no stake but revenge and a different view. Same with the Sunnies and Shiites. Plenty more examples are available without much research.

Tribal warfare, yes. Still this doesn't compare to what we have now.
Still, as sick as it may sound, that's how we develop. Most of these tribes, at least modern ones, wouldn't just bash everyone's skull in. They would usualyl only do so if met with a hostile force and yes that may mean an entire tribe is wiped out because of the actions of the few but I still prefer that over millions of people being wiped out because of something their government did to another country.
If we were really so cold blooded and homicidal, we wouldn't have evolved into what we are today. As silly as it may sound, I believe we will evolve from this tribalism stage. The groups that believe in peace (but not pacifism) will form together gradually and become stronger while those that prefer senseless violence will rarely ally with a fellow war tribe because they probably wouldn't even give them the chance to share ideas.
In some weird way, order will prevail and maybe, just maybe we will create a system of government that truly values all human life.

You raise a good point with racial prejudice. This would be an issue, but a small one. Racism is a dying disease, believe it or not. It still exists, but it's slowly dying as we learn more about our species.

Some people will stick to the idea that their race is superior, but most of us will see race for what it is, just a different skin color.

Racism is inherently taught, it is memetic not genetic. It is a trait of a society not us as organisms. There is an inherent fear or distrust of the unknown from which racism extends but once a familiarity is established between two groups that fear *should disappear.

*but not necessarily. It is a especially strong in societies that believe in domination, or with a religious tradition that paints them as being especially unique or important.

 

[Jamous]

I laugh at anarchy. It's a contradiction in itself. You can't 'organise' an anarchic takeover without becoming a massive hypocrite. True anarchy is chaos, complete and utter chaos.

Um....what?
Your a kid, are you not? No offense, that was just a kids version of anarchy. Anarchy has nothing to do with being against organization, it's usually just against a government that is too powerful.
Communities deciding what's best for the community, that would be anarchy.
It's not about chaos and destruction and murder like people seem to think.

BTW, your comment "I laugh at anarchy" is pretty silly when you have proven that your view of anarchy is the stereotype we are fed by television and angsty kids.

Post above yours makes a good point. Anarchy almost always results in chaos, people are not ruled and therefore do anything they desire, whether it be raping, killing or simply keeping to themselves, at the end of the day, nothing gets done, humanity doesn't progress and we're sent spiralling back to stone age tribalism.

Right, and why do you believe that?
Maybe we get fed that on tv but I don't buy it. The world isn't filled with serial killers and rapists, most of us are appalled by these acts being committed on helpless people.
Believe me, we would keep order.
Tribalism? Really? First of all, what's so bad about that? Oh that's right, they didn't have tv and the internet to entertain themselves all day.
I get your point but I would rather live gathering food for my people, a group that I can respect, rather than working every day for a corporation I hate just so I can eventually reach my breaking point and blow my brains out or rot my brain out with idiotic television. Call me crazy, I guess I like tribalism.

Of course things can go bad, but things could also go good. We could start from the beginning and rebuild society again, one that values human life over gold and one that doesn't see a slaughter as another statistic or news report to be ignored.

Yes the "sociopaths" of the world could organize (unlikely but it has happened before) and enslave us and force us to follow their rules, but we already have that. It's called a government.

Anarchy in general really has no real downside for me. Sure I would probably die (I have no delusions about the kind of person I am, I'm part of the feeble nerd generation) but if I do, I would die happy and free.
I would rather be killed in my prime in a moment of intense violence than work all my life only to get a break if I make it to 60 (or whatever they're changing it too) so I can slowly die in my own filth.

I think I've come across as hating anarchy, which I don't. In an ideal world anarchy would work, as would communism, but human as we are, there are people who are not satisfied with working with others on an equal level, it could succeed from a sociological standpoint, but from an evolutionary standpoint, people want to be better than other people. It could work, but only in a parralel universe where human sociology developed differently.

The reason you come across as hating Anarchy would be that you described it wrong. You said that Anarchy 'is chaos, complete and utter chaos.' But it isn't. It's just living without masters; society could and would still exist, it would just be people peacefully coexisting for their own and each others' sakes, or at least that's how I've always understood it from friends who are actually Anarchists...
I understand your viewpoint. You're right. Anarchy will and can never work for Humanity any more. Maybe at some point in the past, but not now. Mainly because of Human greed. It's quite disappointing, I consider myself a sort of Hypothetical Anarchist, if you will; going with Rawls' theory of Hypothetical Consent as a base. I would be an Anarchist, but only if it worked out. As it won't, it's kind of a moot point. Oh well...
So yeah, I like Anarchy as a theory, and if it worked out it'd be awesome. Unfortunately, it won't. :/

 

[The_ModeRazor]

No I'm not.
You can say "fuck the system", but we're the fucking system!
Besides, humans are not all good peoplez.

Edit: 'cept for those who are, obviously.

 

[AugustFall]

I love the idea of being whoever has the biggest gun's *****.

That would be what we have today. Whoever has the most guns and manpower decides what you are allowed to do.
What your describing may happen if you end up captured by some crazy isolated redneck, but history has taught us that good people can thrive without being sociopaths.

'

On a large scale? Yes, do I feel threatened right now? No. I call that a net win.

Get real, neither you nor I have any idea what people would be like if you removed any reason to behave. There are a lot of assholes in the world who are held in check by the law. People murdered, women raped, that is what lawlessness leads to.

Care to give an example where a lawless society has thrived? Citing "history" is not very specific.

 

[Space Spoons]

I've yet to meet anyone over the age of 13 who seriously called him or herself an anarchist. I understand that the actual movement is probably deeper than most people care to look into, but I just can't take it seriously.

 

[PrimoThePro]

I laugh at anarchy. It's a contradiction in itself. You can't 'organise' an anarchic takeover without becoming a massive hypocrite. True anarchy is chaos, complete and utter chaos.

Not necessarily, Anarchy is just the abolition of state and government, so you can technically organize, it's just not in any political sense.
OT:You could say I am a Communist Anarchist. Redistribution of wealth followed by no government? This leads to certain equality with no chance for dictators, or people in any position of power.

 

[DieMitternachtFuchs]

In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying strips of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway.

Thank you Mr. Durden.

Um...are you feeling ok sir? Your talking to yourself again.
Seriously, I don't know why we still see you as a messiah when your face looks like a bruised pear and you constantly talk and even fight with yourself.
Wait was that a question? Dammit just broke the first rule.

EDIT: Sorry, had to do that joke. It's stupid I know.

I like your thoughts on fight club though. I always had a problem with that movie because he acts like such a brainwashing dictator but I guess that was the point. Sometimes that guy that tells you nice things about freedom and personal responsibility is the same guy that will let the power go to his head and become the oppressor, using you as a pawn.

Don't trust the amoral messiah.

Don't trust any messiah actually. Anarchists have long discussed the philosophical problems that arise with the idea of anarchist revolution, such a revolution would almost definitely have to be highly organized to the point of strict rigidity, especially if violent or military action would be necessary. But if one looks at the way in which al queda organizes cells, they do not have that same kind of rigidity, they are very flexible and independent of one another, mostly as a way of insulating themselves from the fall or destruction of a particular cell. They have a common goal and ideas but no formal leader or hierarchy outside each cell. They may aid each other through financing and information transfer but otherwise are largely independent.

 

[martin's a madman]

Not necessarily a commune. The communo-anarchs sure do, but there are other branches.

If you're trying to talk to someone specific, quote them. Otherwise they won't know you're talking to them.