Anarchists?

[DieMitternachtFuchs]

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.

But it may lead to the rise of warlords. without a sort of unification of the people to stop such circumstances it would lead to a failed state scenario as exists in Somalia. But that unification would in effect lead to a new government. but there is a whole can of worms involved in that. It may be a very loose sort of government. Anarchy in itself is opposed primarily to a heavily centralized government, where a very few people with private agendas may be exerting control over the majority against their will.

 

[Master Taffer]

There's such a thing as "Minarchism." That is where the government is essentially stripped down to only providing police, courts and national defense. There's still rule of law to protect people from violence, theft and fraud, but the government does not provide anything for it's people. They are free to pursue their own goals and all those victimless crimes like prostitution are legal. This is also called a "Night Watchman State."

It's a step beyond Libertarianism (which I believe in) and a step short of Anarchism.

I'd also like to point out that those people who claim to be Anarchists and go around breaking windows aren't Anarchists. They're just thugs.

 

[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.

That is true, but you will see less of that in areas of mixed races.
I'll admit I am slightly racist. Not to the point where I would act on these thoughts, but I feel nervous around black people and around Asians. Mostly because I'm afraid of letting something slip that could be offensive but some small part of me is just plain paranoid about different races. I believe this is because I had very little interaction with other races when I was younger.
Still, when children (even teens and adults) spend more time around different races, that paranoia is eventually lost.
I'm paranoid by things that are different, and every day I'm around these people I become more and more use to it (although people in general make me paranoid and twitchy) because it becomes less and less alien.

As I said, when racial mixing is as common as it is here (and in many other civilized places) these primitive thoughts start to go away.
Sure you have the die hard racists raising their kids to be racist, but usually kids will eventually reach a point where their parent clearly believes something that seems illogical or even evil to them. That's when we start to think for ourselves and I have faith that most of humanity (ok maybe not most but a good number) will rise above such pointless things.
I could be wrong, but if humans were really so amoral and horrible, we probably wouldn't be here today.

One of the problems there is that these different raced peoples may set themselves up in sort of closed exclusive cultures living in close proximity. that almost always breeds distrust that one of the micro societies is trying to subvert, dominate or destroy the others. Greatly differing cultures should avoid each other or else they almost certainly incite conflict. But one of the problems in america today is that we are almost being forced to become part of a globalist culture that worships materialism and monetary wealth, which deprives many of us of spiritual or creative ideals and morals we wish to strive for.

 

[LiftYourSkinnyFists]

I'm Anarchopretentious

 

[Hosker]

It really just sounds like people are describing communism here...I know they're both far left, but I'm struggling to see the difference.

 

[Numb1lp]

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.

Then they should just go f*ck sh*t up.

 

[DieMitternachtFuchs]

But anarchists must be aware that in a overly individualist society we may constantly end up undercutting each others' interests this of course leads to conflict of various kinds including violence and endless revenge cycles. so what defines our interests must also change, so that we no longer become obsessed with monetary and material gain, for such resources are finite in a tremendous way that leads toward neo-liberalism, a kind of capitalism that is taking hold today that leads to the privitization of all resources and utilities and institutions. When things are owned privately as such it means that they may control all access to it in an effort to simply maximize personal profit. In the example of Cochabamba Bolivia, after water was privatized, the corporation Bechtel that won the contract greatly increased the price of access to water in a way the Bolivians simply could not afford, so many resorted to attempting to catch rainwater as an alternative, the corporation controlled government was told to outlaw such a practice. This lead to uprisings across the entire city of the people to oust Bechtel and its control of water. Which was seen as an affront to basic human dignity and the rights of all to essential resources. These are greatly complex times we are living in. The corporations in control of Bolivia were U.S. by the way.

 

[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. :/

I won't say your wrong, because I'm not even close to that level of arrogance. In fact, logic dictates that your probably right but I personally believe we could go back. Not all of us, most people probably wouldn't survive because they are so addicted to this culture, but many of us could thrive with total freedom.

I suppose. What I meant was it would be too easy for one guy to get a bunch of other guys together, and then take over. Yeah, the others would probably fight back to keep their freedom, but it'd be just too easy to fuck up, if you see my point? It's really quite sad.

 

[Olo_Burrows]

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.

Anarchy is not Chaos. It's anarchy. Essentially leaderless organisation

 

[Ampersand]

I am. I'll leave it at that.

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.

Wrong.

Not really, anarchy can only really work on a small scale, it could never run a country, there's just too much stuff to deal with without some sort of structured higherarchy.

Well I won't argue on that. We humans are stupid after all.
But when you said that Anarchy is nothing but Chaos, that's where I utter wrong because it isn't.

I suppose it can be considered CHAOTIC but if anything, it lies within the neutrality field.

I would argue that a genuine anarchist should be striving for harmony and understanding, not chaos.
Because that is the only way an anarchic society could or rather should work.

Precisely.

Groovy.
Peace = D

 

[DieMitternachtFuchs]

It really just sounds like people are describing communism here...I know they're both far left, but I'm struggling to see the difference.

Communism is everybody being forced to be a part of the system with very little control over the system itself. Anarchy would be deciding how you want to live and who you want to live with.
They are very different.

Not inherently, communism is described as having steps in it which eventually lead to its idealized form being: Anarcho-communism. But there earlier stages feature a very strict state controlled system.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Agreed

Hey, in the future, you may want to use the "quote" button, on the bottom right of the post, that way they get a little "you've been quoted!" message, and can then quote you back if needed. It also let's everyone else see what post you quoted, because "Agreed" all on it's own is kind of hard to tell who you were talking too.

Did you use the reply button instead? There are people with thousands of posts that still do that...