Anarchy. What emotion does that word provoke?

[aakibar]

The problem is sort of like that of communism, humans are supposed to live together in harmny supporting each other by their own good will. But everyone wants more so it will fail. So the word that describes my reactions is

stupid you must dumb as a doornail to believe in this crap.

 

[Mcface]

humor.
because its not possible, and never will be possible.

 

[Jedoro]

Project Mayhem comes to mind. I would love an anarchistic society, but it would have to be relatively small, and filled with intelligent, responsible people.

 

[Anarchemitis]

Several scenes from the movie Blood Diamond starring Leonardo Dicaprio.

 

[L33tsauce_Marty]

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison

Anarchy is just naive towards human nature.

 

[Onichanbura]

I think with the "real anarchy is existing and not infringing on anyone elses rights" argument is completely inccorect. That idea, with everyone working together, is the exact definition of Karl Marx communism. I believe quite a few of you are a bit confused. I might be wrong(I have been before) but I don't think I am this time.

 

[DrDeath3191]

Confusion. "How the hell is that supposed to work?" I usually think.

 

[Numb1lp]

Almost EVERYTHING is good in thoery. But yes, there is to mutch corruption in the world. I am an opponent of anarchy, because I think perfection can never be reached.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Basically, the anarchy he describes is a system where there is no government or police, because it isn't needed: the people basically police themselves, and everything just falls into place from there.

Wasn't that one of the primary goals of Marxism?

I find it ironic that an Anarchist would organize his thoughts on the subject. I also find Anarchist I've met to be a bunch of moronic racists.

 

[stone0042]

I see it the same way as i see communism. Interesting theory, and very worth pursuing if not for the fact that it can never be achieved. Idealistic styles of government simply cannot work without society descending into complete chaos and vigilante justice.

 

[eatenbyagrue]

Basically, the anarchy he describes is a system where there is no government or police, because it isn't needed: the people basically police themselves, and everything just falls into place from there.

Wasn't that one of the primary goals of Marxism?

I find it ironic that an Anarchist would organize his thoughts on the subject. I also find Anarchist I've met to be a bunch of moronic racists.

No, it wasn't. Marxist ideology is based on society being a system of structures, with economics being the sub-structure that dictates how society evolves.

By Orthodox Marxist thinking, the earliest societies were primitive Communism, then feudalism, mercantillism, and then capitalism, with society being due for another evolution, this time into modern Communism.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Statism is utopian. Any appeal to human nature to defeat anarchism also defeats whatever state you apply it to. The idea that men can be made moral by establishing a monopoly on the use of coercion is a cheat so obvious that it ought to fool no one.

But what does 'Anarchy' invoke in me? A jumble, to be honest. There are many conflicting ideologies which claim the banner of Anarchism, and mine is only one. An Anarchic society for me could be optimal or a nightmare depending on exactly who is defining Anarchism. I want to make clear, however, that this has nothing to do with the standard misconception of anarchy being chaos and lawlessness. I fall into the Individualist/Market Anarchist camp myself, but it shouldn't be inferred that I am necessarily aggressive toward collective forms of Anarchy.

A question for our Anarchist friend; how would you transition the society we have to one of Anarchy? I've always liked the ideals of Anarchy despite the logistics, but you can't deny that the challenge of moving towards a state without government from our current system makes it a technical impossibility. I haven't researched it, however, and you might have a answer for my hungry mind. Your thoughts?

If you'll pardon the interjection, you sound like you may be searching for Agorism. While establishment Economics has floundered for a century, real economic study has grown by leaps and bounds. Agorism is a method and a philosophy which represents the cutting edge of integrated political and economic theory. It's roots can be traced all the way back to the classical liberal economists of the 18th century. The free market works (and I'm using a definition of 'free market' which does not exist in modern political discourse). Liberty works. So we utilize market forces to provide an alternative to the state and cripple its power. Consistent adherence to the principles of liberty are the means and the goal.

http://agorism.info/

This site has a few introductory works by Samuel E. Konkin III (SEKIII) for free in PDF form. I think you will find the New Libertarian Manifesto very exciting and An Agorist Primer illuminating. They're not short, but they're not quite books either.

 

[Zombie Nixon]

Makes me think of the sex pistols

 

[shotgunbob]

A bunch of idiots who think that a world without goverments would somehow function better than a world with governments even with corruption.

*cough* Somalia *cough*

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

It would indeed be a really nice way to live and if you could find enough like-minded people to form such a society it might even last a while, but human nature being what it is, someone someday will inevitably stir shit up just enough and it will never be the same...

And that's assuming that, by some miracle, you can isolate yourselves from the billions of non like-minded people and societies, because they will stir shit up for you.

That's why I maintain that it's a Utopia; It's all theories on human behavior, which can work on a person by person basis, but becomes exponentially less reliable with each added person (especially at the numbers we're talking about for a working society). Humans can be controlled/influenced/etc to a certain point, but each one is a walking mountain of variables... Put a large number of them together kept in check only by the concept of anarchist society and there's no way you can know for sure what happens next.

The state also cannot survive the scrutiny you apply to the concept of anarchy. This Hobbesian view of human actors also defeats the state. Just insert 'state' wherever you use the word 'anarchy'. No system or philosophy can survive an appeal to human nature because human nature applies equally to all of them. This all-too-common argument is a little frustrating for anarchists, precisely because the single greatest source of violence, deprivation and outright genocide has historically been the state, the very thing we're trying to argue against. Seriously, how many people did Anarchy kill between 1939-1945? If your objection is one of sustainability, I don't agree and I don't think it makes sense. I don't have to tolerate murder (for example) because I cannot be sure of forever eliminating all murders. All systems entropy.

 

[darkless]

It's a horrible idea the strong look after the themselves the world would be reduced to ruin in days the world doesn't work the way anarchist's think it does.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I find it ironic that an Anarchist would organize his thoughts on the subject. I also find Anarchist I've met to be a bunch of moronic racists.

It's a misconception that anarchists are opposed to social order. They are against archons or rulers, which usually means the state. Most anarchists, though not I, are socialists of some variety. Organization is precisely what they are for.

Anarchy is not an emotional outburst. It is a political philosophy. As for the racists you mention, I've never heard of such things, and I doubt those fellows have read any anarchist literature. Traditionally, anarchy is the extreme left, obviously opposed to racism.