Poll: Anarchism

[grimsprice]

So the majority belief here is that anarchy wouldn't work because people are shit?

pretty damn much. the hippy revolution in the 70's proved that. people are shit. a purely anarcho-communist system is not possible because people will work and contribute at varying levels of effort. and the people who work harder get pissed off and eventually leave. and with no more hard workers the rest disban or die of malnutrition or starvation. humans are shit basically.

People will all work hard because they will see the benefits in doing so and will be able to reap reward directly from their labor...unlike in capitalism, where you only work for money. In communism, anarchist or not, your work has meaning, and you can feel good doing it. This applies to everyone, from a doctor to an architect to a garbage man.

well. if you think that the nature of man is like that then i can see why you've been the most quoted and talked to on this thread. you believe man is idealic by nature or would be if put into such and environment and most people on here realize that 80% of humans are driven by instinct. the instinct to consume more, work less, and propagate. if you really are someone who would work hard for others and help people selflessly then i salute you. have many kids. we need your genes. but as for the rest of us. it just isn't in the cards.

People can and do change on a frequent basis. When properly motivated limits to what people can and will do disappear rather quickly.

like i said. you have an idealic view of mankind. most people don't share your optimism. most people aren't nearly that confident in the human condition. there are just to many unsettling examples throughout recent history. the disaster in New Orleans is one such example. rioters were shooting high powered rifles at hospitals and boats that went out to rescue them. events like this tend to mare peoples perception of humanity. lol. thats lol worthy. that word. humanity. the state of being human, also meaning kind and compassionate. laughable. if you think thats an accurate description of people then i think you're unbelievably jaded. no offense.

 

[iamthehorde]

the thing is:

do we speak of anarchy in the sense of "ftw, i do what i want!" or as a philosophical theory? because there can be huge difference. there are also several types of anarchy, for example polar opposites in their sense like anarchic-syndicalism(is it called that in english?) vs anarchic-capitalism

 

[Sarge7777]

Everyone should just go primitive again ANARCHO_PRIMITIVISM here is some reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism

 

[Akai Shizuku]

Everyone should just go primitive again ANARCHO_PRIMITIVISM here is some reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism

While the idea is nice, I prefer ecologically friendly technology. This is because I have a mental condition and would lose my mind if I didn't have my mp3 player.

Plus, everyone here is a gamer, including you, and games use electricity...which can be acquired through eco-friendly means.

 

[iamthehorde]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_Soviet_Republic

here´s an example of something that was sometimes close to anarchism, but also failed.

if you want to have an interesting read on anarchism and related topics you should check out the book "temporary autonomous zone", in short taz by hakim bey.

 

[ckam]

Let me tell you something about history. There was once an Anarchist state called the Irish Tuatha. Well as you can see, the Irish Tuatha lived in Anarchy. What you wouldn't expect is that that state had no real wars; only minor brawls at most. Everybody was basically living good lives, and guess what: They existed for 1000 years. What ended it? The British Empire basically took over the world that's how. So basically, if Great Britain never invaded Ireland, we would have a perfectly level-headed Anarchist state.

P.S. Here's a fun read for you all too: http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html

Could you, not to doubt you but could you please provide a link?

There's an actual book on this subject but whatever, here you go: http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

 

[Malkavian]

90% of those people advocating anarchism wouldn't last 10 minutes in an anarchist society.

Read John Locke, Montesquieu, Machiavelli, Bodin. They can explain how having no gov't is a bad, bad idea.

A man after my own heart. Those are some great philosophers you mentioned there.

But reading philosophers with social theories doesn't prove another social theory wrong, unless you agree with them. For every philosopher presenting his ideas, another disputes them. It's hardly proof.

That may be true with most things, but if you actually read the Social Contract I think he pretty much proves that anarchism would never work. Humans have are too social a creature for anarchism to exist. The second a group of people form up to accomplish any task would negate the anarchism.

Oh, but I have read it, or at least a lot of excerpts. I study philosophy at Aarhus University. While he might argue well for his theories, they're just that. Theories. He can't prove anything anymore than any other studies on human nature and social behaviour. I do agree, to an extent, with his theories; but I think it should be made clear that he's not a definite proof.

 

[Kollega]

I don't think that any kind of anarchy will work. It is very,very unlikely. But then again,there's the Fallout series...

 

[riskroWe]

Any legal system will work if nobody tries to subvert it.

Communism would work if people weren't greedy.
Anarchism would work if nobody tried to establish a legal system.
Democracy would work if politicians were honest and therefore people could make reasoned decisions.
Even Fascism would work if the dictator wasn't using his power to stop others from seizing it.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

If you honestly think we live under rule by force, who provides the health care, roads, police work, food processing, computer repairs, booksales, psychiatric help and everything else that a modern society wants?

"Rule by force" means that you do something now or *BANG*. No criminal justice system.

In fact I do think that. If I don't pay taxes to fund all those "great" services the government will go *BANG*.

Furthermore most of the services you mentioned aren't state funded but private.

*Bang* means, "I'm sorry sir, but as you've broken the law and we have no way of keeping jails standing, I will shoot you here to save on the paperwork."

Still happens in some countries.

Also, those private corporations? Ain't gonna be around in an Anarchy, dear boy. Not unless there's a thriving black market, and then we'll see how much you'll pay for a simple flu injection.

 

[Mr Jack]

I believe that Anarchic Communism could work in a post-scarcity society, such as The Culture in the books by Iain M. Banks.

I disagree with those that say as soon as you remove all centralised authority people will see no benefit in respecting other people and will not instantly decide that the best way to advance themselves is to murder or enslave everyone they know. As others have stated, in small communities in the past, with only the people in that community encouraging certain "laws" of society. Humans are social creatures, and if it to our benefit (and in a post-scarcity society it would be) to cooperate with others then we shall.

As one citizen of The Culture replies when asked; "What if you kill somebody?"
"Social Suicide. You Don't get invited to many parties."

Small Communities have ways of dealing with people who do not accept the rules of that community.

 

[Lord George]

Market Anarchism would solve all of those problems, its based around people being selfish in the first place, and no-ones better at being selfish then human beings.

You mean Free Market? Like what we almost had on the 20's?

Oh what a great Idea, we control the market through what we buy, without government intervention to ruin it all!!!

Swell! So now I can support my favorite food companies, and when they are wealthy enought to buyout and undercut the competitors, they can become the sole giant food company that squashes upstarts and can then increase prices and reduce quality to the point of them selling canned botulism, killing off hundreds of thousands.

But the buyer has freedom! So now they can choose to avoid purchasing that super companies rubbish by starving to death. Ah, Anarchism, the perfect answer to a Market

Yep sounds good to me, people will have no-one to blame but themselves if they bugger it up, the entire success depends on the choices that the people themselves make rather then what some rich ass snob makes. It also embraces the true meaning of Anarchism, personal freedom for everyone and its a cause I can get behind. Its not perfect but it sure beats shit like Communism or Fascism.

And the government can't do anything when a food company breaks into another company and destroys their electricity so all the food goes rotten and they go out of business? What do you do with the physically handicapped or mentally unstable without the government in place?

No the government can't do anything about it (if some mock form of government still existed), if the company wants to stop other companies then they can pay people to stop them, if they don't pay well it's there own fault no-one else's. The psychically handicapped or mentally unstable will die out unless someone is willing to take care of them, which I'm guessing someone will, there are lot of selfless people out there, if someone pays for them they would also receive top quality medical care, better then anything government sponsored branches like the NHS ever could offer.

 

[Joool]

Also, those private corporations? Ain't gonna be around in an Anarchy, dear boy. Not unless there's a thriving black market, and then we'll see how much you'll pay for a simple flu injection.

Why would there be no private corporations? What excaclty is the government doing what couldn't be done in a stateless society?

I am talking about free market anarchism of course.

 

[ohellynot]

who would enforce the anarchy, also i was on wiki, they have a list o anarchic(?) organisations

 

[the1ultimate]

It's hard to see what you mean by this.

It would of course be survival of the fittest, but once you have got only the fittest, everything would be dandy. And given that any significant shift in systems of government (and in this case complete removal of systems) would take at least a generation to catch on, so it's actually only after one generation that you can see if a new system works or not.

Anyway, by dandy I mean that all the strong and smart people would survive by being strong and smart. A merchant who cannot enforce their prices would probably be a very poor and also a very dead merchant.

As a species Anarchy could even be better than, shall we say, Idiocracy.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Also, those private corporations? Ain't gonna be around in an Anarchy, dear boy. Not unless there's a thriving black market, and then we'll see how much you'll pay for a simple flu injection.

Why would there be no private corporations? What excaclty is the government doing what couldn't be done in a stateless society?

I am talking about free market anarchism of course.

Oh, then read Jennifer Government by Max Barry, or watch Max Headroom, or read Neuromancer.

 

[stefanbertramlee]

Ive seen that a lot of people on the escapist are anarchists and not to offend but it wouldnt work, at all. In a state where there isnt a police force i see there being mass looting, riots and mass wrong headed Vigilante movements.In a state where there is no social programs i see the poor dieing or going round engaging in the looting and roiting.Also if in a anarchist state was formed i dont see it lasting long before the nation desended into a 1000 differnt wars as petty warlords fought for petty amounts of land.

bugger bad poll fixing it

Um...the wild west had the lowest crime rate in United States history...and the U.S. currently has a crime rate lower than Britain....and the reason why the wild west had such a low crime rate is because everyone carried guns...and everyone carried guns because there was no law.

I may be wrong, but based on my knowledge of history, it can work and it HAS worked. Most crooks aren't suicidal maniacs, they won't attack someone who is armed...so let everyone carry guns, and you don't need police. Sure all the crooks will have guns, but all their victims will too. And most crooks won't attack someone who can fight back.

as far as i know the usa has a much higher crime rate then the uk

 

[Lord Krunk]

Anarchism will never work. Why? Because it involves people.

Get rid of that factor and it would be fine. Oh, right.