NationStates Jolt Archive

"anarchy as a pure ideal however, is different. in this sense everyone has a free will and has no limits on what they can carry out. in the world of today, this form of anarchy is an unattainable goal." (snuffy shiftside)

ok so this topic cam eup on another forum and i thought that i would get ur opion on it

... and has no limits on what they can carry out...

Yes they do. There are limits on anti-social behaviour such as murder or rape (etc etc)

I think its 'Bloody stupid', or possibly just 'Sophomoric'.

There are two kinds of anarchy, the juvenile punk-pop variety, and the well-reasoned political theory anarchy. The first is moronic and the second is wonderful, yet utopian.

There are two kinds of anarchy, the juvenile punk-pop variety, and the well-reasoned political theory anarchy. The first is moronic and the second is wonderful, yet utopian.
Hooray, someone who distinguishes between the two!
Sometimes it seems to be a very fuzzy line, based on some of the things I've heard otherwise smart anarchists say...

I'd have to say that most people who want an anarchy have a little bit of both of those inside their ideals somewhere. Unfortunate though it may be...

There are two kinds of anarchy, the juvenile punk-pop variety, and the well-reasoned political theory anarchy. The first is moronic and the second is wonderful, yet utopian.
I don't think it is Utopian. The Utopian charge is usually made by statists who find it hard to concieve of people running their own lives, so bring up because Utopian is a synonym of impossible

I doubt there are many anarchist (of the latter description) who think that in an anarchy everything will be sweetness and light. We will still have to work, have problems in our private lives etc. Living in an anarchy isn't easy

I don't think it is Utopian. The Utopian charge is usually made by statists who find it hard to concieve of people running their own lives, so bring up because Utopian is a synonym of impossible

I doubt there are many anarchist (of the latter description) who think that in an anarchy everything will be sweetness and light. We will still have to work, have problems in our private lives etc. Living in an anarchy isn't easy

Well the problem is where to begin in an overpopulated, overregulated world. Case in point being the Spanish syndicalists of the 1930s and what happened to them. Make no mistake, by no meaning of the word am I a statist, I simply think that in this world, for the foreseeable future, there is no grounding for an anarchic system. Too much centralized government addicted to power.

Well the problem is where to begin in an overpopulated, overregulated world. Case in point being the Spanish syndicalists of the 1930s and what happened to them. Make no mistake, by no meaning of the word am I a statist, I simply think that in this world, for the foreseeable future, there is no grounding for an anarchic system. Too much centralized government addicted to power.
Definately. I an opposed to revolution.

I agree with you (on the whole, ignoring relitively small areas where anarchisstic communes are). But by no means do I think it is Utopian.

Definately. I an opposed to revolution.

I agree with you (on the whole, ignoring relitively small areas where anarchisstic communes are). But by no means do I think it is Utopian.

Well, I could say that I take "Utopian" to mean ideal and impractical rather than ideal and impossible, but we'd just be debating semantics, so I'll simply state that we agree. Good and good. ;)

Well, I could say that I take "Utopian" to mean ideal and impractical rather than ideal and impossible, but we'd just be debating semantics, so I'll simply state that we agree. Good and good. ;)
Yay. This doesn't usually happen here. :D

Just out of interest, wy did the thread starter feel the need to call himself 'Hostile' terrorists? is there any other kind? What are friendly terrorists like? Are they just really bad at their job? Should they not seek a career change, maybe getting into children's TV?

What are friendly terrorists like?
Friendly. They've been to sensitivity training

Just out of interest, wy did the thread starter feel the need to call himself 'Hostile' terrorists? is there any other kind? What are friendly terrorists like? Are they just really bad at their job? Should they not seek a career change, maybe getting into children's TV?

Well, a friendly terrorist is the kind that's actually a very nice person once the balaclava comes off and you invite him/her over for a cup of tea. :D

Well, a friendly terrorist is the kind that's actually a very nice person once the balaclava comes off and you invite him/her over for a cup of tea. :D
And they always leave a polite note after they blow up your skyscrapers.
:D

Semantically speaking, an anarchy is the opposite of a hierarchy. However, I am interested to know how justice or protection of those who can't protect themselves would be attained without a government.

Semantically speaking, an anarchy is the opposite of a hierarchy.

No it isn't. Hierarchy is impossible to get rid of, and anarchists tend to be aware about this. Of course heirarchy isn't always a bad thing.

However, I am interested to know how justice or protection of those who can't protect themselves would be attained without a government.

What to you mean by government?

I'm not just being pedantic. But it is possible that anarchists do want government, but radically different to what is currently offered.

From what I've seen most anarchists want to get rid of big, traditionalist power structures like governments and corporations. Bam! No hiearchy, no elites!...

...until someone else rises to power. Then you have young, small power structures. Your local lord here, a mafia there...

I don't know why, but most people who go on at all favorably about either "anarchy" or "anarchism" just don't seem to have a grasp of history, politics or human nature.

From what I've seen most anarchists want to get rid of big, traditionalist power structures like governments and corporations. Bam! No hiearchy, no elites!...

Well, no elites certainly. But heirarchy is a bit different. If you go into a class room to be taught, there is heirarchy, with the teacher at the top, the students at the bottom. However this is volutary, and benign, I doubt many would have a problem with it.

...until someone else rises to power. Then you have young, small power structures. Your local lord here, a mafia there...

How can one rise to power if their is no power structure?

I don't know why, but most people who go on at all favorably about either "anarchy" or "anarchism" just don't seem to have a grasp of history, politics or human nature.

Why history? History neigther proves nor disproves anything.

Politics is largely irrelevent.

And what is human nature?

How can one rise to power if their is no power structure?


By rising to power.

You DO know that not every power structure in existence today always was, right? They were created. Ultimately, every power structures in civilization were spawned off an original, "anarchist" society.


Why history? History neigther proves nor disproves anything.

So it's okay to be ignorant about it?


Politics is largely irrelevent.

And what is human nature?

Politics IS human nature. So is power. So are hiearchies.

By rising to power.

You DO know that not every power structure in existence today always was, right? They were created. Ultimately, every power structures in civilization were spawned off an original, "anarchist" society.

I know, I had a point. But I forgot what it was. However, lets say you are an extremely motivated person with aspirations to rule living in Letila's anarcho-communism. How would you rise to the top?

So it's okay to be ignorant about it?

Never said that. I said history doesn't disprove that anarchism can happen.

Politics IS human nature. So is power. So are hiearchies.

Well, if politics is human nature we can treat them as the same thing.

So, what is human nature? And how is power human nature?

And you must have read what I wrote on heirarchy, so why bring it up?

I don't know why, but most people who go on at all favorably about either "insert ideology here" or "insert any -ism here" just don't seem to have a grasp of history, politics or human nature.
The same statement has been used against every political or economic ideology. NO SYSTEM works as it is meant to...it takes participation and effort to make things run as smoothly as possible.

From what I've seen most anarchists want to get rid of big, traditionalist power structures like governments and corporations. Bam! No hiearchy, no elites!...

...until someone else rises to power. Then you have young, small power structures. Your local lord here, a mafia there...

I don't know why, but most people who go on at all favorably about either "anarchy" or "anarchism" just don't seem to have a grasp of history, politics or human nature.

I find it interesting that you added in the final section. It seems it can easily be used against your, and most people's, attack on Anarchist philosophy. Granted there are not a lot of well known figures in Anarchist philosophy but there are a few important ones. I wonder if you have read any of them (I tried to make that not sound offending. I am sorry if it came off that way). Granted this is the internet, and not a lot is asked of people; however, if want to disprove a theory you must do some scholarly investigation into it. Finally, I would suggest people read Bakunin, Emma Goldman, and / or Chomsky before they begin to attack anarchism / social libertarian ideals (this was only a short list I know there are others).

For the record, I am not an anarchist. But, I guess you could call me a sympathizer :fluffle:

It is unlikely to work on a large scale, such as an entire nation, but small communities and societies could and have successfully operated in anarchy.

As for the "friendly terrorist", consider that the US Government used to consider Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress to be terrorist, not to mention organizations that are specifically against harming any lives such as the ELF and ALF. I suppose those would count as "friendly terrorists" since the definition of a terrorist is basically anyone the administration doesn't like (or feels threatened by).

i can see loop holes in extreme communism even though i am one, but anarchy truelly doesnt work, communism would if we tried hard enough anarchy is impossible0.

It is unlikely to work on a large scale, such as an entire nation, but small communities and societies could and have successfully operated in anarchy.

Well an "Anarchistic Nation" is an oxymoron. Small communities and societies are what anarchist call for.
i can see loop holes in extreme communism even though i am one, but anarchy truelly doesnt work, communism would if we tried hard enough anarchy is impossible

For any particular reason? And communism can be considered a form of anarchism fyi