NationStates Jolt Archive

From what I have seen it seems there are quite a few anarachists around on the forums. Alot of them seem to be very activly involved in trying to get the countries you live in to be anarchistic but do you think it will ever happen? I mean in the UK the amount of people who turned up to the MayDay protests numbered around 10,000 at most and there are probably no more than say 15,000 in the whole of Britain. Do you think you will ever actualy manage to convert a country to your system? If so then roughly when?

I think that the solution is to start small. Those 10,000 people could possibly all join together in a certain place and start from there. Then they could lead by example.

I think that the solution is to start small. Those 10,000 people could possibly all join together in a certain place and start from there. Then they could lead by example.

Well this is the problem. As of yet there is no anarchist party and all they acheieved on May 1st was to make people scared of them and/or think they were a bunch of nutcases.

Well, there's more than one type of anarchy, too, so even those 15,000 wouldn't necessarily work together...

why does it not occur to all humans that once you have a substantial number of people living together you MUST HAVE A GOVERNMENT?

Well this is the problem. As of yet there is no anarchist party and all they acheieved on May 1st was to make people scared of them and/or think they were a bunch of nutcases.

Except that's not what happened at all. The Mayday protests (2000 - 2003) initially had a hugely positive effect on public opinion (don't believe everything you read in the papers), but 2003 was a damp squib which is why this year's was called off. The era of the big clashes with the police is largely over, with lots of discussion about tactics going on everywhere.

And, as for what happens next, there's the European Social Forum (http://www.fse-esf.org/en/) in London this October. Not exclusively anarchist, but it's primarily a convergence idea pioneered by anarchists.

Vas.

why does it not occur to all humans that once you have a substantial number of people living together you MUST HAVE A GOVERNMENT?
Probably because that isn't true.

How long til anarchy? It will NEVER happen because it will not work.

Probably because that isn't true.

no. some things are very true and yet people still refuse to believe. from the start of mankind we needed leaders, and that nature isn't going to change. like communism, anarchism is an ideal, no more, never will be more.

no. some things are very true and yet people still refuse to believe. from the start of mankind we needed leaders, and that nature isn't going to change. like communism, anarchism is an ideal, no more, never will be more.
And yet there are examples throughout history and the present where there weren't any leaders.

why does it not occur to all humans that once you have a substantial number of people living together you MUST HAVE A GOVERNMENT?

Because, in the past, people said

"why does it not occur to all humans that once you have a substantial number of people living together you MUST HAVE A KING"

"why does it not occur to all humans that once you have a substantial number of people living together you MUST HAVE SLAVES"

"why does it not occur to all humans that once you have a substantial number of people living together you MUST OBEY THE CHURCH"

There is no rational logic to your statement, just because something exists now does not make it obligatory.

Vas.

If everyone's dedicated to anarchism, sure it'd work. But then everyone would have to worry about the fact that if anyone wants to kill them then you and whoever cares are the only ones who will help you.

Government is there for our security. For anarchism to work then people have to stop wanting that security.

if everyone's dedicated to anarchism, sure it'd work. But then everyone would have to worry about that fact that if anyone wants to kill them you and whoever cares is the only ones to help you.

Isn't it the same now?

Government is there for our security. For anarchism to work then people have to stop wanting that security.
Nazi Germany was real secure.

...and EuroPEONS say us Americans are all screwed up :rolleyes:

I can guarantee you America will not have anarchy, ever. If Europe wants it, they can have it.

I just hope and pray that when my nation is called upon to help you "people", when you're all being raped, pillaged, and plundered in your "Anarchy", that we give you a big fat :upyours:

And yet there are examples throughout history and the present where there weren't any leaders.

really? when and where?

I just hope and pray that when my nation is called upon to help you "people", when you're all being raped, pillaged, and plundered in your "Anarchy", that we give you a big fat :upyours:
Thing for Meatopiaa to do.

1) Look up the correct definition of Anarchy.
2) Wait for the revolution.
3) Look across the Atlantic after to the Anarchic Europe giving America a big fat :upyours: whilst American are being Raped pillaged and plundered by the elites.

Isn't it the same now?

Nazi Germany was real secure.

There's the police, but that depends on the government.

I should not have generalized "government" but the fact is that governments do provide security whether that be in that you will be stuffed in a gas chamber for no reason or that you will be protected from harm.

really?

Yes.

when

All through History.

and where?

I'm not the right person for this, but..

There are Anarchic Communes now, famous ones in History have been in Spain and the Ukraine. But small societies without leaders have existed all the way through European history.

...and EuroPEONS say us Americans are all screwed up :rolleyes:

I can guarantee you America will not have anarchy, ever. If Europe wants it, they can have it.

I just hope and pray that when my nation is called upon to help you "people", when you're all being raped, pillaged, and plundered in your "Anarchy", that we give you a big fat :upyours:

The point of anarchy is that you live with that and do your best to protect yourself. If people get too scared then they can just immigrate to a place with government-imposed order.

There's the police, but that depends on the government.

If you've been murdered, your dead. And all the Law and order in the world will not help you.

I should not have generalized "government" but the fact is that governments do provide security whether that be in that you will be stuffed in a gas chamber for no reason or that you will be protected from harm.

How is being stuffed into a gas chamber secure?

Anarchism?!

What the hell will happen if you get a usual cold or influensa? You will be in considerable pain until you either die or get beaten up by a "fellow man". No medicine science, no hospitals, NO KINGS (my goodness...) :eek: , and no one protecting you from getting beaten up. Anarchism has been tested in history. Before the caliphrat in Bagdhad there were nomades and state free in the middle-east (except for Persia). It resulted in pillage of goods and murder. Think twice before you dedicate yourself to any ideology. If anarchism suits you the second time, sure, be an anarchist. But dont you paint your anarchist "A" on buildings or my house. Keep it for yourself and dedicate yourself to speeches. Campaigning is against your issues. Speak out at the "speakers corner" in London. Hand out flyers and use a less brutal image like the Red A on Black Background. That will scare people. Humans are conservative (I should know, I am conservative and a shrink) so they will not leave their issues that easy. Good Luck, you'll need it...

Royalist

If you've been murdered, your dead. And all the Law and order in the world will not help you.



How is being stuffed into a gas chamber secure?

True. But what does that have to do with anything? Ofcourse we can't change some parts of nature...well not yet. I never mentioned dead; I was speaking of one person wanting to murder another. One is then only as secure as oneself, friends and blackmailers can protect them.

Secure in the knowledge it can happen. Governments being there is a form of security in that they are there and they are in control.

There are Anarchic Communes now, famous ones in History have been in Spain and the Ukraine. But small societies without leaders have existed all the way through European history.

ah. nothing big, thank goodness. i wouldn't want to live there...no ruling council? elders? guidance? nothing? who makes the laws? if they are still subject to national laws they are under a government.

...and EuroPEONS say us Americans are all screwed up :rolleyes:

I can guarantee you America will not have anarchy, ever. If Europe wants it, they can have it.

I just hope and pray that when my nation is called upon to help you "people", when you're all being raped, pillaged, and plundered in your "Anarchy", that we give you a big fat :upyours:

Gee, this way of american thinking like "we're the fathers of the world, if we don't do something, everyone will be raped", hey, YOU are under attack, not us or europe, I don't see people crashing planes in my buildings... I wonder why... oh, maybe it's because I don't go around giving the finger to all the other countries.

Ok, back to the topic. I think anarchy is still preety far, as for there really isn't a clear or definied way of doing it (like communism), we know that it is the abstence of government, but does that mean that there would be also no commerce or currency (for example, there is a lot of stuff that it isn't really agreed inside the anarchysts groups)

(btw, sry about the bad english)

Thing for Meatopiaa to do.

1) Look up the correct definition of Anarchy.
2) Wait for the revolution.
3) Look across the Atlantic after to the Anarchic Europe giving America a big fat :upyours: whilst American are being Raped pillaged and plundered by the elites.

1) Ok...

an·ar·chy
n. pl. an·ar·chies
1.a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose

2) Still waiting ... *whistling a tune*

3) In America, EVERYONE has the opportunity to be successful and accomplish whatever you work hard enough to accomplish, whilst in anarchy, you are all doomed to chaos and barbarism, death, theft, rape... anarchy.

So is that what the majority of Europe wants, anarchy?

True. But what does that have to do with anything? Ofcourse we can't change some parts of nature...well not yet. I never mentioned dead; I was speaking of one person wanting to murder another. One is then only as secure as oneself, friends and blackmailers can protect them.

How is this less secure that the status-quo?
Try going to the police and saying that someone wants to murder you.
Secure in the knowledge it can happen. Governments being there is a form of security in that they are there and they are in control.
You may as well be ruled by a local gang then. The mechanisms are the same as the state's, rules are enforced under the threat of violence.

Anyway, by your logic Anarchy and anarchy are just as secure as the status-quo.

ah. nothing big, thank goodness. i wouldn't want to live there...no ruling council? elders? guidance? nothing? who makes the laws? if they are still subject to national laws they are under a government.
No ruling council.

Elders depends on your definition. As does guidance.

Laws are not made.

They weren't subject to national laws, otherwise they wouldn't be Anarchic

1) Ok...

an·ar·chy
n. pl. an·ar·chies
1.a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose

Now, differenciate the difference between Anarchy and anarchy.

3) In America, EVERYONE has the opportunity to be successful and accomplish whatever you work hard enough to accomplish,

Same in an Anarchy

whilst in anarchy, you are all doomed to chaos and barbarism, death, theft, rape... anarchy.

See point above about differenciating between anarchy and Anarchy.

So is that what the majority of Europe wants, anarchy?
No on wants anarchy.

1) Ok...

an·ar·chy
n. pl. an·ar·chies
1.a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose

Odd, my dictionary [Chambers] has

anarchy n complete absence of law or government; a harmonious condition of society in which government is abolished as unnecessary; utter lawlessness; chaos; complete disorder.

How is this less secure that the status-quo?
Try going to the police and saying that someone wants to murder you.

You may as well be ruled by a local gang then. The mechanisms are the same as the state's, rules are enforced under the threat of violence.

Anyway, by your logic Anarchy and anarchy are just as secure as the status-quo.

Most police forces will check out your claim. It's what they're there for. Ofcourse it needs to be proven becauce they can't read minds.

Anarchy simply means anyone can do whatever they chose to. While one could make laws against it and actively try and prevent things and that's not anarchy.

Most police forces will check out your claim. It's what they're there for. Ofcourse it needs to be proven becauce they can't read minds.

Anarchy simply means anyone can do whatever they chose to.

...but with respect to the community and environment.

While one could make laws against it and actively try and prevent things and that's not anarchy.
How is actively trying to stop murder not Anarchy.

Ok I need to think more about what anarchism means. I think that I'm close but it needs more thought.

Then there's the A/a thing which I know nothing about.

So, I'm off. Thanks for making me think.

Anarchism?!

What the hell will happen if you get a usual cold or influensa? You will be in considerable pain until you either die or get beaten up by a "fellow man". No medicine science, no hospitals, NO KINGS (my goodness...) :eek: , and no one protecting you from getting beaten up. Anarchism has been tested in history. Before the caliphrat in Bagdhad there were nomades and state free in the middle-east (except for Persia). It resulted in pillage of goods and murder. Think twice before you dedicate yourself to any ideology. If anarchism suits you the second time, sure, be an anarchist. But dont you paint your anarchist "A" on buildings or my house. Keep it for yourself and dedicate yourself to speeches. Campaigning is against your issues. Speak out at the "speakers corner" in London. Hand out flyers and use a less brutal image like the Red A on Black Background. That will scare people. Humans are conservative (I should know, I am conservative and a shrink) so they will not leave their issues that easy. Good Luck, you'll need it...

Royalist

Now now, let's not be one-sided here. As I aid be4, anarchysm is not really a definied thing by now. You are right, what happened there were anarchyst communities, but they weren't backed up by theories or by people that understoon their space on the world. They were simple a bunch of people who gathered together because of the hards condition of their enviroment, it is COMPLETELY different from a group of people who have studied the past enough to know what kind of government-free community works and what kind don't.
Also, don't think that there aren't hospitals in an anarchy, I mean, why not? What do you think that people do if there are no government? You honestly think that a entire nation would simply stop to work? Gee people, some things change, other don't. Hospitals will keep working, the difference is that people will run them. And I say specialized people with study. In an anarchy, a hospital is run according to it needs, not according to economics.
It's really a society where needs rules, preety much like communism in theory, but, turns out, that people in power, have a tendency to corrupt it. And even if that tendency doesn't exist, it is crazy to think that a small group of rich old men in a senate can choose effectivelly what is better for people. Only people can decide for themselves, because people knows what they need.
Obviously a lot of people will want a lot of things different, but hey, it's what someone said above, if it scares you, move out, one decision has to be made, the difference is that everyone votes if the cowboy invades the oil-country or not. It's not up to a group of old rich men to decide who dies or not. Why soldiers' mothers don't vote if a war is made or not? In an anarchy, they would.
Also in anarchy, I bet a lot of resources would go to your dear hospitals instead of Ford or something like that... and when hospitals are enough, then people would start investing in cars...
Sorry if I sound too confusing, and sorry again for the horrible english (I learned it all on the internet)

Ok I need to think more about what anarchism means. I think that I'm close but it needs more thought.

Then there's the A/a thing which I know nothing about.

Small 'a' anarchy, is the type usually associated with the word. ie chaos, disorder etc.

Capital 'A' Anarchy is the type advocated by Anarchists in which society can function perfectly well without the need for coercive control.

So, I'm off. Thanks for making me think.[/QUOTE]

No ruling council.

Elders depends on your definition. As does guidance.

Laws are not made.

They weren't subject to national laws, otherwise they wouldn't be Anarchic

well, you gotta show me a link. how people live in a "lawless" society i cannot imagine. the word "lawless" is very scary.

well, you gotta show me a link. how people live in a "lawless" society i cannot imagine. the word "lawless" is very scary.
Try here (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html).

Try here (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html).

eh? where's the link that says: real-life example?

How long until anarchy? However long it takes for everyone everywhere to suddenly become extremely stupid.

eh? where's the link that says: real-life example?
Spain (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI8.html)
General (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Anarchism#Examples_of_.22successful.22_anarchies)
More General (http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secA5.html).

Not really Anarchism, but interesting none the less was the Cult Of The Free Spirit (http://www.dhushara.com/book/consum/free.htm).

There is also Saga Age Iceland, parts of dark age Europe operated with little or no contact with government (especially if they had an absentee Land Lord).

Anabaptists (some of them anyway, a few decided to go back to Levitical Laws which included executing children who were rude to their parents).

Monks occasionaly kicked out their abbots and had a pure communism in the monestry. This was most common in the early days of the Russian Revolution. It is ironic that these church men, in many ways, put together some of the best functioning communisms ever.

To be honest, I'm not good with the internet. But if you feel like it you could come to my house where I have a lot of information about successful Anarchic experiments.

How long until anarchy? However long it takes for everyone everywhere to suddenly become extremely stupid.

or perfect.

How long until anarchy? However long it takes for everyone everywhere to suddenly become extremely stupid.

Grow a brain.

or perfect.
Not even

Grow a brain.

Ok, ok. How is an anarchic society going to conquer the problems of disease, natural disaster, crime, etc.? Or are they just going to die happy that they are "free".

Spain (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI8.html)
General (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Anarchism#Examples_of_.22successful.22_anarchies)
More General (http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secA5.html).

Not really Anarchism, but interesting none the less was the Cult Of The Free Spirit (http://www.dhushara.com/book/consum/free.htm).

There is also Saga Age Iceland, parts of dark age Europe operated with little or no contact with government (especially if they had an absentee Land Lord).

Anabaptists (some of them anyway, a few decided to go back to Levitical Laws which included executing children who were rude to their parents).

Monks occasionaly kicked out their abbots and had a pure communism in the monestry. This was most common in the early days of the Russian Revolution. It is ironic that these church men, in many ways, put together some of the best functioning communisms ever.

To be honest, I'm not good with the internet. But if you feel like it you could come to my house where I have a lot of information about successful Anarchic experiments.

hm...i guess we have different standards of what anarchism is...my version is that nobody makes laws, everybody lives for himself only, there is complete, and i mean complete, social equality, for example, families would be abolished because the parents cannot control children with rules. THAT kind of anarchy. warlordism, for example, i do not consider anarchy because there is a warlord. council-led states, well, they have a council.

Ok, ok. How is an anarchic society going to conquer the problems of disease,

I'm going out on a limb here but I would say medicine. Unless you can prove that medicine only exists in capitalism of course.

natural disaster

You mean that the problem of natural disaster is conquered now? Wow, I never realised.

, crime,

The community could regulate itself. As it did for centuries before a police force was established.

Anyway, the modern state creates crime rather then defeats it.

etc.?
Could you be more specific. 'etc.' is quite a hard concept to argue against.

hm...i guess we have different standards of what anarchism is...my version is that nobody makes laws,

OK

everybody lives for himself only

How did you deduce this?

, there is complete, and i mean complete, social equality, for example, families would be abolished because the parents cannot control children with rules.

And how does one break up families without force?

THAT kind of anarchy. warlordism, for example, i do not consider anarchy because there is a warlord. council-led states, well, they have a council.
Which example are you pointing to as warlordism?

I'm going out on a limb here but I would say medicine. Unless you can prove that medicine only exists in capitalism of course.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you believe in an ungoverned society. I don't see how one could pool together the resources and manpower to do the research & development of medicines and the running of hospitals.


You mean that the problem of natural disaster is conquered now? Wow, I never realised.


Obviously not, but I don't see a small commune having the transport infrastructure to evacuate, or the building materials to reinforce against earthquakes, or the fire fighting service to stop large fires.


The community could regulate itself. As it did for centuries before a police force was established.


It regulates itself until another group decides to raid it.

Food for thought:

The basic principle of Anarchy is based around 'No Order' correct? 'No Order' is a form of order is itself (a VERY special case, like the number 1 in mathematics). So by definition, true Anarchy cannot EVER exist!

JiangGuo

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you believe in an ungoverned society. I don't see how one could pool together the resources and manpower to do the research & development of medicines and the running of hospitals.

Have you ever organised a trip with some friends? If so did you vote on who would be leader?

It may amaze you, but some people can work together without needing to follow orders from a higher power.

Obviously not, but I don't see a small commune having the transport infrastructure to evacuate, or the building materials to reinforce against earthquakes, or the fire fighting service to stop large fires.

Why not?
Why would no others help?
It regulates itself until another group decides to raid it.
Yes because Anarchist=Pussy right :rolleyes:

Why would another 'group' raid it if it is more efficient to trade?

Food for thought:

The basic principle of Anarchy is based around 'No Order' correct? 'No Order' is a form of order is itself (a VERY special case, like the number 1 in mathematics). So by definition, true Anarchy cannot EVER exist!

JiangGuo

Yes, the absence of something is a form of something, much like the sweater I'm not wearing is a form of wool...

And OMG! Anarchy has been defeated by ridiculous semantics!

Food for thought:

The basic principle of Anarchy is based around 'No Order' correct? 'No Order' is a form of order is itself (a VERY special case, like the number 1 in mathematics). So by definition, true Anarchy cannot EVER exist!

JiangGuo
Your logic is flawed from the offset.

The basic principle of Anarchy is not "No Order," it is "No Masters." Maybe you have seen this:
http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~carlfrbe/circlea.gif
Which means Anarchy is Order, occasionally followed by "Government is Chaos"

Oh well not as bad as the OMG OMG ANARCHIST STILL OBEY THE LAWS OF GRAVITY!!!11111one11 whatever it is arguement.

I'm no fascist, and I don't believe that money should be the motivation in our lives, but I feel that living in such a decentralized world could be very limiting.

I'm no fascist, and I don't believe that money should be the motivation in our lives, but I feel that living in such a decentralized world could be very limiting.
Freedom of movement is such a bitch.

But why do you think it would be limiting?

Freedom of movement is such a bitch.

But why do you think it would be limiting?

It just seems that it could be difficult to get the organization necessary to accomplish very much.

It just seems that it could be difficult to get the organization necessary to accomplish very much.
How?

Why do you think organisation is dependent on hierarchy?

How?

Why do you think organisation is dependent on hierarchy?

Mostly because someone has to have the final say in the direction a project should take.

Here's a question. Explain how, in a hypothetical anarchic society, a new peace of technology would get developed and then produced in large quantities.

1) Ok...

an·ar·chy
n. pl. an·ar·chies
1.a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose



Unfortunately, these boards seem to be populated almost exclusively by a particular brand of utopian anarchist idealists who have allowed all anarchist theory to boil down to the common definition, "no rules" or "no government."

However, "anarchy" and "anarchism" are among those common terms used by political theorists and philosophers which have, in these fields, a more technical meaning.

"Anarchy" as it has been used as a political theory, historically means something more like "no rulers" -- which should be taken neither to mean "no rules" nor "no government." The point that most anarchists have tried to make is something like an extreme form of democratic theory -- people can rule themselves. They do not need RULERS. But any decent society -- anarchist being the most decent of all -- will naturally have rules. The difference is that these rules will serve a truly common interest, rather than the interest of an elite ruling class.

For a more thorough researching of the term, check out the Oxford English Dictionary, which provides the following as the earliest use of the term in its strict political sense:


"Anarchism, the Doctrine, Positions or Art of those that teach anarchy; also the being itself of the people without a Prince or Ruler."

Blount, Thomas
Glossographia, or a dictionary interpreting such hard words..as are now used 1656, 1661, 1670, 1674 (1681)

Mostly because someone has to have the final say in the direction a project should take.
It doesn't have to be one person, it could be the majority of people.

Here's a question. Explain how, in a hypothetical anarchic society, a new peace of technology would get developed and then produced in large quantities.
1) People form a commune.
2) People work the land, and farm it.
3) Once there is a surplus of food, people do other things. Some people are artists, some are mechanics, some are scientists.
4) The people who want to be scientists learn about science, whether it's from books, or from other people.
5) The scientist begins to learn his/her trade.
6) The scientist has an idea for a new technology, and pitch it to the commune. The commune votes on whether or not to attempt the idea.
7) If yes, the commune gets the resources that the scientist requested to do the experiment.
8) If the experiment is a success, the commune votes on what to do next. They could repeat the experiment, if it's deemed worthy to do so, or not.
9) If they do repeat the experiment, they then distribute the product to neighboring communes, who then distribute it to their neighbors., etc.

Guys if you wanna talk ABOUT anarchism then go to the Anarchist thread. This thread is for talking about how and when you see the country you live in (or some other ones if you want) becoming an Anarchy following country. Do you think you will live to see it?

Guys if you wanna talk ABOUT anarchism then go to the Anarchist thread. This thread is for talking about how and when you see the country you live in (or some other ones if you want) becoming an Anarchy following country. Do you think you will live to see it?
The anarchist thread is locked. And in answer to your question, no, I don't think I will live to see it.

The anarchist thread is locked. And in answer to your question, no, I don't think I will live to see it.
Well how long will it be then?

perhaps a movement like the libertarian (somewhat anarchistic) free state project would be a good idea its the most successful movement of its kind so far and yes there are others there is one here in the northwest and also a christian one in north carolina I believe.

perhaps a movement like the libertarian (somewhat anarchistic) free state project would be a good idea its the most successful movement of its kind so far and yes there are others there is one here in the northwest and also a christian one in north carolina I believe.

1)Do you think it could ever achieve it's goal?
2)If so when?

come one i see people back in the states preaching the same exact things...most of those people are 15 year old kids you just left their favorite punk concert.

I'm not sure if anarchism will ever occur. I think that in only 50 years, technology will be advanced enough to destroy us. If we are still consumerist authoritarians, we will embrace this sort of technology carelessly and it will destroy us. If we are anarchists by them, we will probably lack interest in it, realizing its dangers.

Food for thought:

The basic principle of Anarchy is based around 'No Order' correct?
No. That's chaos.

'No Order' is a form of order is itself
Only if you think that bald is a hair color and health is a disease.

come one i see people back in the states preaching the same exact things...most of those people are 15 year old kids you just left their favorite punk concert.
Grow up and/or shut up.

Until new information comes to light proving that Chomsky reguarly attends Blink 182 concerts, of course.

1) tack a look around you our governments are falling to $hi@ and it will eventualy crash
2)if it came to pass yes the world in witch we live in now would be gone because people will panic and kill and rob but it will eventualy settel down it may be 1 week or 100 years but it will turn into
A) true equality
B)harmonios state of selfsuficincy
and C)no there will be no familys because it takes an entier comunity to rase a child

(it may not be in order but i am replyin to every one )

and most who are scared of it will die some will panic others be killed
there are somany things that will happen at first but eventualy it will be good for people well the ones who live and some of the close minded a$$ wholes that die
i am happy to say i will be one who survives i know that to be fact inside my self i have all the tools and knowlidge thoes who dont and are close minded should be shot because there no use to the world ( ohh yeah umm these are my views im not tryin to offend any one but if i did .......who cares...get over yourself...the world is baced on survival of the fittest kill or be killed it is not blissfull roses and it may never be) as far as anarcy comunities my guess is that they will at all costs protect them selves from raiders duh i dont think they will just stand there and go hi mr killer who wants what i have kill me and tack my stuff...

P.S. if it happens any one wanna be a pirate raider thingie with me lol hee hee hee (evil laugh) j/p

1) tack a look around you our governments are falling to $hi@ and it will eventualy crash
2)if it came to pass yes the world in witch we live in now would be gone because people will panic and kill and rob but it will eventualy settel down it may be 1 week or 100 years but it will turn into
A) true equality
B)harmonios state of selfsuficincy
and C)no there will be no familys because it takes an entier comunity to rase a child

(it may not be in order but i am replyin to every one )


You forgot D. A small band of people will see that they can carve a sizeable portion of the world out for themselves, knowing that it is possible (it has been done, there are many nations now.) They recruit more under pain of death (Join us or die). Most of the communities will be overrun by one or another band- after all, they won't have anywhere near as much practice in fighting as the warriors. Sure, some will hold out, but as the raiders grow stronger and stronger... many will fall. You're now back in Old Europe, feudal societies with many smaller kingdoms slowly absorbing each other, splitting up, and repeating.

See, this scenario doesn't take anything more than ONE person with a 'vision' and charisma enough to convince his followers that there is more glory to be had. There are plenty of those around, and will be (unless you're advocating each anarchistic commune perform tests on its subjects, and if they're too charismatic, they get executed.. which then brings up, who is doing the testing? What keeps them honest?) It's not hard to show someone how much easier things can be when they don't have to do any work, just slay their enemies and take the fruit's of their labour.

There are a number of examples of one person getting a huge following, changing the entire format of the country, so all are following them on an epic crusade to take over everything.


and most who are scared of it will die some will panic others be killed
there are somany things that will happen at first but eventualy it will be good for people well the ones who live and some of the close minded a$$ wholes that die
i am happy to say i will be one who survives i know that to be fact inside my self i have all the tools and knowlidge thoes who dont and are close minded should be shot because there no use to the world ( ohh yeah umm these are my views im not tryin to offend any one but if i did .......who cares...get over yourself...the world is baced on survival of the fittest kill or be killed it is not blissfull roses and it may never be) as far as anarcy comunities my guess is that they will at all costs protect them selves from raiders duh i dont think they will just stand there and go hi mr killer who wants what i have kill me and tack my stuff...

And there you have it. This world IS kill or be killed, and will be even more without a government at least attempting to restrain its citizens. It's not that hard to convince someone that they might be better off if they're in control rather than always having to listen to everyone else.

Unfortunately, we are somewhat safer with a government- without one, there is NOTHING stopping someone from doing whatever they want. Now, there's at least a threat of being put away, executed, whatever. I often see anarchists saying that there will be a communal militia, I've never understood how that will work. If they're fighting, they will eventually begin to have increased loyalty to each other over anyone else- after all, THEY'RE the ones fighting / keeping order. Once again, all it takes is one intelligent individual who can talk well enough to slowly warp the militia, removing rights bit by bit from the subjects. Congratulations, your experiment has now become a dictatorship, and the people you gave the power to protect you are now your rulers.

Without a militia, any raider can take whatever they want from you, and you have two choices- give it to them, or die. They will be able to kill you, they know warfare and you don't.

Sorry to barge in, but I noticed a gem of idiocy...

In America, EVERYONE has the opportunity to be successful and accomplish whatever you work hard enough to accomplish...
Uh, no. In order for everyone to have the opportunity to be successful, you'd need a system in which everyone could be successful. Capitalism is not that kind of system. Would it be possible for everyone to be a millionaire? Would it be possible for everyone to be super-rich? Of course not. There simply aren't enough resources in the whole world to allow every American to live like a millionaire. And even if there were, 300 million super-rich guys would cause the economy to crash instantly. Just ask any first-year Economy student (or look up the word "hyperinflation" in a dictionary).

America needs a certain amount of poor and unsuccessful people, in order for the system to work. You have winners and losers. So, obviously, the idea that everyone can win is beyond absurd. Somebody has to lose.

Odd, my dictionary [Chambers] has

anarchy n complete absence of law or government; a harmonious condition of society in which government is abolished as unnecessary; utter lawlessness; chaos; complete disorder.

Dictionaries are political beasts. Some, like Chambers, actually do some research and, in the case of anarchism, look to the foremost description - Kropotkin's entry in The Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1910 (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.html).

Vas.

well, you gotta show me a link. how people live in a "lawless" society i cannot imagine. the word "lawless" is very scary.

What are laws but the formalisation of 1. the agreed rules of behaviour among people and 2. the imposed rules of the ruling classes. The very act of formalisation begins to invalidate 1. as the agreed rules of behavious among people tend to change (I'm 29 and I've seen massive changes in societal reaction to long hair and piercings in that time, particularly in Ireland). The latter - property, defence for the elites, etc, deserve to be done away with. Anarchy, without formal laws, would not be "lawless" as is normally understood, in the same way that not having a "government" does not mean not having assemblies in which decisions are made for the group. Laws would be replaced by common agreement on issues and (forgive me for attempting to predict the future, this is only my view) an accepted structure to test those issues. I see nothing wrong, in theory, with a jury. I suppose there's a comparison to be made in monarchical societies where the king judged between competing claims, in Anarchy, agreed systems would be in place for the society to hear and rule upon competing claims (including crimes against the person).

Vas.

Food for thought:

The basic principle of Anarchy is based around 'No Order' correct? 'No Order' is a form of order is itself (a VERY special case, like the number 1 in mathematics). So by definition, true Anarchy cannot EVER exist!

Wrong, it means "No Rulers", thus order without heirarchy is anarchism.

Vas.

Mostly because someone has to have the final say in the direction a project should take.

Here's a question. Explain how, in a hypothetical anarchic society, a new peace of technology would get developed and then produced in large quantities.

Two words - open source (http://www.opensource.org/).

Vas.

Anarchism works great. just as long as everyone are equal. Once one group begins to gain any kind of power (especially through new ideas -- science, religion, political, values), the entire society is subsumed into polarized sides (either for or against the new initiative -- or with their own new ideas). By this time obvious organization begins to develop and proto-governments are formed. What anarchy really needs as a prerequisite is a static society, impervious to new ideas, or else a completely conformist, uniform population and ideology [perhaps like Brave New World?].

I'm not sure if anarchism will ever occur. I think that in only 50 years, technology will be advanced enough to destroy us. If we are still consumerist authoritarians, we will embrace this sort of technology carelessly and it will destroy us. If we are anarchists by them, we will probably lack interest in it, realizing its dangers.

Have you ever read Ken MacLeod's "Stone Canal"? If not, I'd highly recommend it. My view on this is, science and technology are neutral, they can't destroy us, though people misusing them can.

Vas.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you believe in an ungoverned society. I don't see how one could pool together the resources and manpower to do the research & development of medicines and the running of hospitals.

I'd direct you to look into a little thing called TRIPS (trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights), a little agreement underwhich the access of the poorest and sickest people to medicine (and potentially to food) is blocked because it's unprofitable. And then I'd request that you go and talk to the people working in r&d and ask them if they think they could do their job as well (if not better) in a horizontal workplace organisation. Most places I've worked, the bosses and supervisors got in the way of us doing our work and were only worthwhile when they stopped trying to think and went and pushed forward ideas from the people actually doing the work.

SNAFU principle (http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/s/SNAFU_principle.html) /sna'foo prin'si-pl/ n. [from a WWII Army acronym for `Situation Normal, All Fucked Up'] "True communication is possible only between equals, because inferiors are more consistently rewarded for telling their superiors pleasant lies than for telling the truth." -- a central tenet of Discordianism, often invoked by hackers to explain why authoritarian hierarchies screw up so reliably and systematically. The effect of the SNAFU principle is a progressive disconnection of decision-makers from reality. This lightly adapted version of a fable dating back to the early 1960s illustrates the phenomenon perfectly:

In the beginning was the plan,
and then the specification;
And the plan was without form,
and the specification was void.

And darkness
was on the faces of the implementors thereof;
And they spake unto their leader,
saying:
"It is a crock of shit,
and smells as of a sewer."

And the leader took pity on them,
and spoke to the project leader:
"It is a crock of excrement,
and none may abide the odor thereof."

And the project leader
spake unto his section head, saying:
"It is a container of excrement,
and it is very strong, such that none may abide it."

The section head then hurried to his department manager,
and informed him thus:
"It is a vessel of fertilizer,
and none may abide its strength."

The department manager carried these words
to his general manager,
and spoke unto him
saying:
"It containeth that which aideth the growth of plants,
and it is very strong."

And so it was that the general manager rejoiced
and delivered the good news unto the Vice President.
"It promoteth growth,
and it is very powerful."

The Vice President rushed to the President's side,
and joyously exclaimed:
"This powerful new software product
will promote the growth of the company!"

And the President looked upon the product,
and saw that it was very good.

After the subsequent and inevitable disaster, the suits protect themselves by saying "I was misinformed!", and the implementors are demoted or fired.

Vas.