NationStates Jolt Archive

What the hell is up with all these people touting anrchy...most of the anarchist i have seen are scrawny, zit-ridden kids who wouldn't last a minute in a state of anarchy. Without government, people are rabid...people are evil by nature. Forget communes....there will still be a leadership, despite what you think, and this leadership will enforce its will upon the people...

Anarchy is chaos, chaos breeds destruction. The same kind of destruction that happens in a war....it is a continuous violent upheaval. It is not utopia, nor is it peaceful...the strong survive. If you claim that the government is run by corporations, this will be more so in a society of anarchy. The "evil" cormporations have money, therefore they would be able to exert the most authority. They would have their own small armies, etc. Anarchy doen't even deserve the distinction of being called a failed system.

There's probably a lot more to anarchy than most people understand, just like there is to socialism. I don't like anarchy as a political ideal anymore than you do, but you have to admit that there just might be something more to it.

Calm down. Have some dip. *offers you some chips and guacamole*

There's no money in an anarchy.

And it worked for hundreds of thousands of years and continues to work for every other species on the planet.

There's no money in an anarchy.


There's LOTS of money in anarchy. Just walk into any bank and take what you want. Problem is, it's not good for much more than wipping your ass in an anarchistic system as the monetary structure will have collapsed. Then again, in an anarchistic system he(she) with the most toilet paper wins!

YAY! Anarchy! :fluffle:

wow....i would raher not be compared to a nonsentient creature that eats it's own feces and young. There is still leadership. There will be money. Trust me....money/possesions is the thing that drives us. Land, posessions, weapons....the things were used to exert control in several anarchistic periods (black death comes to mind). Whoever has the most toys/controls the most people is ruler. Forget your happy little bubble....

wow....i would raher not be compared to a nonsentient creature that eats it's own feces and young. There is still leadership. There will be money. Trust me....money/possesions is the thing that drives us. Land, posessions, weapons....the things were used to exert control in several anarchistic periods (black death comes to mind). Whoever has the most toys/controls the most people is ruler. Forget your happy little bubble....
:(

There will be no control, no leadership, no posession... you know. Like anarchy

That's what you think. But that's not what an anarchy is. As soon as there's money, it ceases to be an anarchy. The society that you describe is what anarchists want to avoid.

:(

There will be no control, no leadership, no posession... you know. Like anarchy
wow...that made no sense....anrachy is no rule. Someone bigger/stronger will walk over to your house, beat you down, and start fucking your wife...sounds fun to me [/.sarcasm] It's not a good thing. anarchy is completely imperfect. people don't realize that chaos breeds destruction. someone doesn't like you, they shoot you, you die...no repercussioons.....last time i checked, animals didn't have serial killers to deal with....we do....depraved individuals wil walk the streets. women will get raped on every corner, and noone would take notice....

Anarchy.....fucking you over daily...

before we get into it, do you want to have an actual discussion about anarchism or would you rather just rant at strawmen?

wow...that made no sense....anrachy is no rule. Someone bigger/stronger will walk over to your house, beat you down, and start fucking your wife...sounds fun to me [/.sarcasm] It's not a good thing. anarchy is completely imperfect. people don't realize that chaos breeds destruction. someone doesn't like you, they shoot you, you die...no repercussioons.....last time i checked, animals didn't have serial killers to deal with....we do....depraved individuals wil walk the streets. women will get raped on every corner, and noone would take notice....

Anarchy.....fucking you over daily...
And nobody will care. Ignorance is bliss to an anarchist.

wow...that made no sense....anrachy is no rule. Someone bigger/stronger will walk over to your house, beat you down, and start fucking your wife...sounds fun to me [/.sarcasm] It's not a good thing. anarchy is completely imperfect. people don't realize that chaos breeds destruction. someone doesn't like you, they shoot you, you die...no repercussioons.....last time i checked, animals didn't have serial killers to deal with....we do....depraved individuals wil walk the streets. women will get raped on every corner, and noone would take notice....

Anarchy.....fucking you over daily...
And there aren't serial killers now? Anarchy simply doesn't prevent ANYONE doing something about it. Now we are prohibited to go out and shoot a killer.

actually, the most common form of government among social animals is Autocracy. the leader's authority is self-derived.

actually, the most common form of government among social animals is Autocracy. the leader's authority is self-derived.

What about herd animals?

What about herd animals?
Like with a shepherd?

I'm thinking psychotic dictatorship

Like with a shepherd?

I'm thinking psychotic dictatorship

I have to agree. Personally I see anarchy as being the most unstable political system (followed closely by communism and various styles of dictatorships, as far as I can tell). You could have anarchy, but not for long. It wouldn't take much time before people started organising into small groups in order to beat other people... then there'd always be people after power to *lead* those groups... you'd get warlord systems, and then it would only be a few hundred years before you end up right back at democracy.

Democracy seems to be the most stable system, much as I hate to admit it. The hatred of the lower classes gets dissipated and used against them, so they'll never be able to organise into any coherent revolution (and face it, with all the 'democracy = freedom' propaganda that's been pumped to the general masses, a revolution would just remove the current leader, not change the actual system).

But then, I'm no history buff. I'm drawing conclusions from a very small amount of data. So I'm probably just plain wrong.

A friend of mine (History student) is reading a book about how we are at our political peak. Nothing much will change (politically) from now on.

A friend of mine (History student) is reading a book about how we are at our political peak. Nothing much will change (politically) from now on.

Does that mean my theory was correct? Or did I just get the final result right?

Either way, I think this calls for cookies!

*hands out vanilla and raspberry cookies*

:D

Does that mean my theory was correct? Or did I just get the final result right?

Either way, I think this calls for cookies!

*hands out vanilla and raspberry cookies*

:D
huzah cookies!

hmf wfff mmmm pf
*swallows*
It is all a theory. You can't "prove" anything in history.

Democracy seems to be the most stable system, much as I hate to admit it.

name me a democracy that's lasted more than 300 years. democracy ain't got nothing on the god-king system. which ain't got nothing on the radically egalitarian systems used by band and tribal societies since the dawn of humanity.

name me a democracy that's lasted more than 300 years. democracy ain't got nothing on the god-king system. which ain't got nothing on the radically egalitarian systems used by band and tribal societies since the dawn of humanity.
They may have worked fine, but there weren't 6 billion people around. Plus they couldn't move around as fast as we can.

A friend of mine (History student) is reading a book about how we are at our political peak. Nothing much will change (politically) from now on.

ah, "the end of history". too bad for francis fukuyama that the future is unwritten and capitalism is still eating itself.

ah, "the end of history". too bad for francis fukuyama that the future is unwritten and capitalism is still eating itself.
that's the guy. Have a cookie

wow...that made no sense....anrachy is no rule. Someone bigger/stronger will walk over to your house, beat you down, and start fucking your wife...sounds fun to me [/.sarcasm] It's not a good thing. anarchy is completely imperfect. people don't realize that chaos breeds destruction. someone doesn't like you, they shoot you, you die...no repercussioons.....last time i checked, animals didn't have serial killers to deal with....we do....depraved individuals wil walk the streets. women will get raped on every corner, and noone would take notice....

Anarchy.....fucking you over daily...
Prove it.

Anarchy is a shortlived matter, a goal less and totally mindless way of living.

Also self centered, destructive and utimately unintelligent.

If say a country fell into total anarchy, from which there was little or no hope

of rescue, only two things could eventually happen, either a foreign

organised force would take advantage of this chaos and either kill everyone,

or subdue the population into slavery, or if that not happenning, people

apposed to the anarchy, slowly gaining courage and then forming groups of

resistance to the mindless violence, gradually linking up with each other and

forming in the end a new government, or even seperate new countrys.

Anarchy could in the end, be a vital and healthy cleansing process, so to

speak, for a civilisation to adapt and survive.

name me a democracy that's lasted more than 300 years. democracy ain't got nothing on the god-king system. which ain't got nothing on the radically egalitarian systems used by band and tribal societies since the dawn of humanity.

Haven't the foggiest. But if you could give me some examples of what happens to democracies after they die, I'd be interested to know. You know, so I can add it to the tiny amount of history knowledge I have, and all.

Anarchy is a shortlived matter, a goal less and totally mindless way of living.

Also self centered, destructive and utimately unintelligent.

If say a country fell into total anarchy, from which there was little or no hope

of rescue, onlty two things could evewntually happen, either a foreign

organised force would take advantage of the chaos and either kill everyone,

or subdue the population into slavery, or if that not happenning, people

slowly gaining courage and then forming groups of resistance to the mindless

violence, gradually linking up with each other and forming in the end a new

government.

Anarchy could in the end, be a vital and healthy cleansing process, so to

speak, for a civilisation to adapt and survive.
Why do people think anarchy is violent?

They may have worked fine, but there weren't 6 billion people around. Plus they couldn't move around as fast as we can.

just making the point that democracy is ridiculously unstable compared to lots of systems. and it apears to have this nasty tendency to end in dictatorship.

Why do people think anarchy is violent?

What in hell would make you think it was anything but??

just making the point that democracy is ridiculously unstable compared to lots of systems. and it apears to have this nasty tendency to end in dictatorship.

Really? Wow, I wouldn't have guessed that. Are they the type were the dictators pretend it's still a democracy, or the type where the dictator takes over and tells the nation it's for their own good?

What in hell would make you think it was anything but??
So if you didn't have to abide ANY rules, you would go beserk and destroy everything around you? Kill people?

So if you didn't have to abide ANY rules, you would go beserk and destroy everything around you? Kill people?

I have to admit I'd probably kill some people. Mainly because I's want to test my surgical laser torture theory. I wouldn't go berzerk though. I'm more predatory than suicidal. Picking off the young, old, and weak, and so forth.

But then, I'm not exactly normal.

I have to admit I'd probably kill some people. Mainly because I's want to test my surgical laser torture theory. I wouldn't go berzerk though. I'm more predatory than suicidal. Picking off the young, old, and weak, and so forth.

But then, I'm not exactly normal.
We know.
:fluffle:
Cookie?

We know.
:fluffle:
Cookie?

Oi! I take exception to th---

Cookies!

*dances happily and :fluffle:s LP*

Really? Wow, I wouldn't have guessed that. Are they the type were the dictators pretend it's still a democracy, or the type where the dictator takes over and tells the nation it's for their own good?

depends on the circumstances. when most people talk about democratic countries, they really limit their thinking to north america and western europe. but there have been a huge number of failed democracies littering the ground in africa and asia and eastern europe and the carribean, etc. there are also a number of notable instances of it in western europe only 60 and change years ago.

*paints http://www.raisethefist.com/anarchy.jpg on his belly and dances*

What in hell would make you think it was anything but??

maybe the fact that anarchists are against rulers largely because of the coercive nature of the relationship?

*paints http://www.raisethefist.com/anarchy.jpg on his belly and dances*

haven't looked at rtf in ages. now i have to go see when sherman's parole is over.

So if you didn't have to abide ANY rules, you would go beserk and destroy everything around you? Kill people?

No.

But a lot of other people would.

They would be fair game for killing of course if they threatened me, but as to

whether I would be like them, killing simply for the pleasure of it, no way.

No.

But a lot of other people would.

They would be fair game for killing of course if they threatened me, but as to

whether I would be like them, killing simply for the pleasure of it, no way.
Anarchy is all about respect. Respect for your fellow man first of all.

maybe the fact that anarchists are against rulers largely because of the coercive nature of the relationship?

In other words, anarchists dont want to be part of this 'coercive

relationship', as you call it, because it might require them to actually work,

which is the real reason, their a lazy pack of self centered bastards.

Anarchy is all about respect. Respect for your fellow man first of all.

Tell them that when their breaking your door down to steal your food.

Tell them that when their breaking your door down to steal your food.
They're not stealing. There is no property.

Where are these anarchist posters? I haven't read one post yet advocating complete anarchy.
Guess I've been missing this epidemic of mass proportions completely.

I don't see how anarchists could stick to their priciniples, and at the same time stop other people in an anarchist society from setting up their own non-anarchist sub-group.

Where are these anarchist posters? I haven't read one post yet advocating complete anarchy.
YAY! Anarchy! :fluffle:
And what about this one?

I don't see how anarchists could stick to their priciniples, and at the same time stop other people in an anarchist society from setting up their own non-anarchist sub-group.
Why would we need or want to?

Edit: Stop other people from setting up a non-anarchist group, I mean.

Why would we need or want to?

Edit: Stop other people from setting up a non-anarchist group, I mean.

Well it that's the case, you can be an anarchist right now. Just go and live off the grid.

Where are these anarchist posters? I haven't read one post yet advocating complete anarchy.

well, i advocate complete anarchy in the sense of "a society that has implemented the ideas and political/social structures proposed by anarchism". so that's one.

In other words, anarchists dont want to be part of this 'coercive

relationship', as you call it, because it might require them to actually work,

which is the real reason, their a lazy pack of self centered bastards.

as i asked before - are we going to have a real discussion or is it just a thread to flame our made up fantasies of what anarchists are about?

Well it that's the case, you can be an anarchist right now. Just go and live off the grid.No, established countries don't take too kindly to people trying to secede from them.

I stand corrected... there is a huge anarchic conspiracy to infiltrate NS!

I stand corrected... there is a huge anarchic conspiracy to infiltrate NS!

not so much a conspiracy though. i wish we were organized enough to run a conspiracy involving anarchists from at least 4 different countries on two continents, but alas, we are not.

not so much a conspiracy though. i wish we were organized enough to run a conspiracy involving anarchists from at least 4 different countries on two continents, but alas, we are not.
:D
We once had a meeting with a group called Anarchist Front. At the meeting we decided we can't have meetings and be anarchists.

:D
We once had a meeting with a group called Anarchist Front. At the meeting we decided we can't have meetings and be anarchists.

nah, the real problem with anarchists is that we have too many meetings and are too insular and semi-secretive about them. but we're getting better.

They're not stealing. There is no property.

Wrong, your food is your property.

as i asked before - are we going to have a real discussion or is it just a thread to flame our made up fantasies of what anarchists are about?

You mean what you think anarchy is about?

The non violence university fantasy?

Wrong, your food is your property.
Anarchy = no property

"my" food = the food I happen to have in my house

No, established countries don't take too kindly to people trying to secede from them.

You don't have to. There are tons of people who just drop out and don't pay taxes etc. and live in little communities. Look at Idaho, or northern Maine.

Anarchy = no property

"my" food = the food I happen to have in my house

which would be your property... which you would protect by any means at

hand, if you wanted to keep on living.


Just because the society around you in the scenario here, has fallen to bits

advocating anarchy, this doesnt necessarily mean, you would see it that way

as well.

This is more than comfortable university theorising here, this would be

survival, whether you call your food 'property' or not.

You mean what you think anarchy is about?

The non violence university fantasy?

no. i mean anarchy - no rulers, not 'no rules'. the type that has been advocated by every anarchist who ever lived. you seem to want to talk about anomie - the state of chaos and disorder and lawlessness. that's totally different and utterly irrelevant.

You don't have to. There are tons of people who just drop out and don't pay taxes etc. and live in little communities. Look at Idaho, or northern Maine.
Yes, but they run the risk of having the Feds storm the place at any time.

which would be your property... which you would protect by any means at

hand, if you wanted to keep on living.


Just because the society around you in the scenario here, has fallen to bits

advocating anarchy, this doesnt necessarily mean, you would see it that way

as well.

This is more than comfortable university theorising here, this would be

survival, whether you call your food 'property' or not.
Why would people stop farming in an anarchy? Why would people stop being bakers or butchers?

no. i mean anarchy - no rulers, not 'no rules'. the type that has been advocated by every anarchist who ever lived. you seem to want to talk about anomie - the state of chaos and disorder and lawlessness. that's totally different and utterly irrelevant.

Your theorising of Anarchy is exactly that, a uni pipe dream, the reality is, it

would never work.

Why would people stop farming in an anarchy? Why would people stop being bakers or butchers?

Well lets see, say in this society with no rulers, no police, no judges, no one

in any position of Authority, your humble baker gets clubbed to death

by a gang of louts, because they dont want to pay for his bread ( thats

assuming you have any money in this society) they then cross the road and

kill the butcher for the same reasons, seeing the rest of the townfolk running

in terror at their approach they decide to rule.

Thats the end result of Anarchy, sooner or later someone will be ruthless and

organised enough to take over society, and most probably start a monarchy.

Well lets see, say in this society with no rulers, no police, no judges, no one

in any position of Authority, your humble baker gets clubbed to death

by a gang of louts, because they dont want to pay for his bread ( thats

assuming you have any money in this society) they then cross the road and

kill the butcher for the same reasons, seeing the rest of the townfolk running

in terror at their approach they decide to rule.

Thats the end result of Anarchy, sooner or later someone will be ruthless and

organised enough to take over society, and most probably start a monarchy.

Making it too bad that I registered under the name of my country for the forums, and am now stuck with a stupid nick.

Hooray for me!

Making it too bad that I registered under the name of my country for the forums, and am now stuck with a stupid nick.
Hooray for me!

Terminalia's taken, sorry.