Anarchism is not utopian!

Anarchism in Greece and Argentina

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CarUYvGGHyo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsacA7Jasaw

These facilities no longer belong to incompetent oligarchs. People don't need bosses and poor income. We shoudn't be asking for jobs and fair wages. We should be taking them. Anarchism isn't utopian, It's real and its coming.  Capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction. The state knows this, which is why it is upping the surveillance.

Ok

Anarchism is horrific. It's like comunism. While captalism is a flawed and heavily unjust system, it's the one that causes the least amount of suffering for the vast mayority of peolpe. Anarchism is hilarious, because it's another thing that sounds great on paper, but when executed is a recipe for disaster. Without order humans go back to their animal state, that's everyone will start doing what the hell they want without any rules. 

Anarchism is horrific. It's like comunism. While captalism is a flawed and heavily unjust system, it's the one that causes the least amount of suffering for the vast mayority of peolpe. Anarchism is hilarious, because it's another thing that sounds great on paper, but when executed is a recipe for disaster.

zenogandia

That is not anarchism.foxhound_fox

Anarchism

The problem with Anarchy is that it requires the same kind of compliance to the system as communism.  Everyone has to agree to be accepting of the system otherwise it won't work.  A majority of people could function just fine in a society without government, but it would be the few who would create problems requiring the formation of governments to solve.  

It would only work if everyone agreed to not try to gain power over any person or group.  Problem is that will never happen.  Government will be formed to solve problems, then government will be formed and perpetuated by the power hungry.  The first meaning of government i mentioned is good, the second is what we currently have from our dear leaders like Bush and Obama - power hungry people who simply want to control and stay in power.  

CAn't wait till Ghokles gets ittRich3232

It would only work if everyone agreed to not try to gain power over any person or group.

hoola

No, you only need a majority that can reject a power hungry minority.

[QUOTE="hoola"]

It would only work if everyone agreed to not try to gain power over any person or group.

RushKing

No, you only need a majority that can reject a power hungry minority.

Rejection of power hungry growing governments and groups would require the formation of another group to eliminate them, in other words - a government.  An individual cannot do that, especially if the growing government is aggressive and is already powerful.  All it takes is a threat or a hope to make a person do something - this is what I believe would create the governments growth.  An individual would exploit the beliefs of others to gain power.  We saw this in Nazi Germany with Hitler  

We as the human race are not evolved enough yet to properly function in a society without government.  It is obvious from looking at history that we are still in the infant stages of conscious evolution.  Government and Religion are two of the oldest institutions in human history - they were both created when we could hardly think for ourselves, when our conscious side was just waking up.  They are both archaic and pointless for many people, yet they still exist.  They continue to grow even to this day which just proves my point - humanity is not ready for anarchy yet.  Maybe in 5000 years when people are more capable of self control and have a greater respect for life, but not now.

so are you supporting anarchism?

oy 'ate th queen!

[QUOTE="Rich3232"]CAn't wait till Ghokles gets ittAljosa23

That's cool.

so are you supporting anarchism?

lostrib

Ammah go tell on him with Brock Obama, brb.  

Voluntary non-hierarchical organization

Anarchism

RushKing

CAn't wait till Ghokles gets ittRich3232

[QUOTE="RushKing"]

[QUOTE="hoola"]

It would only work if everyone agreed to not try to gain power over any person or group.

hoola

No, you only need a majority that can reject a power hungry minority.

Rejection of power hungry growing governments and groups would require the formation of another group to eliminate them, in other words - a government.  An individual cannot do that, especially if the growing government is aggressive and is already powerful.  All it takes is a threat or a hope to make a person do something - this is what I believe would create the governments growth.  An individual would exploit the beliefs of others to gain power.  We saw this in Nazi Germany with Hitler  

I'm not anti governence, i'm anti state. The power hungry only take rule becuase we are letting them.

Dude, why don't you just join libcom.org or something?

[QUOTE="Rich3232"]CAn't wait till Ghokles gets ittAljosa23

Organization of any kind is against anarchistic standards. The point of anarchism is to not organize under a banner, but for every individual to raise their own. Your examples are at best socialism.foxhound_fox

Stop learning your politics from Laihendi, breh. Anarchy is a collectivist political ideology and Ayn Rand's crazy talk has nothing to do with it.

The point of anarchism is to not organize under a banner, but for every individual to raise their own.foxhound_fox

 

 

LordQuorthon

[QUOTE="hoola"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"]

No, you only need a majority that can reject a power hungry minority.

RushKing

Rejection of power hungry growing governments and groups would require the formation of another group to eliminate them, in other words - a government.  An individual cannot do that, especially if the growing government is aggressive and is already powerful.  All it takes is a threat or a hope to make a person do something - this is what I believe would create the governments growth.  An individual would exploit the beliefs of others to gain power.  We saw this in Nazi Germany with Hitler  

I'm not anti governence, i'm anti state. The power hungry only take rule becuase we are letting them.

Any group that forms to force another group to obey them is a state in every practicaly sense, even if it is to stop the uprising of another group.  They are created and run by people, they have certain beliefs that they follow and enforce, and they enforce those beliefs with physical force.  My point was that real anarchy cannot exist until there are no power hungry people to take control.  The reality is that an anarchist society can only exist when complete peace exists.  Do you think that will ever happen in our lifetime?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism We're both wrong... "Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism."foxhound_fox

The problem is that the one form of anarchism that actually has a body of literature and decades of activism and struggles is the collectivist one. The other one is basically Laihendi talking about Atlas Shrugged all over them Interwebs.  

>The problem is that the one form of anarchism that actually has a body of literature and decades of activism and struggles is the collectivist one. The other one is basically Laihendi talking about Atlas Shrugged all over them Interwebs.  

 

 

LordQuorthon

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism We're both wrong... "Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism."LordQuorthon

The problem is that the one form of anarchism that actually has a body of literature and decades of activism and struggles is the collectivist one. The other one is basically Laihendi talking about Atlas Shrugged all over them Interwebs.  

[QUOTE="LordQuorthon"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism We're both wrong... "Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism."ghoklebutter

The problem is that the one form of anarchism that actually has a body of literature and decades of activism and struggles is the collectivist one. The other one is basically Laihendi talking about Atlas Shrugged all over them Interwebs.  

[QUOTE="RushKing"]

[QUOTE="hoola"]

Rejection of power hungry growing governments and groups would require the formation of another group to eliminate them, in other words - a government.  An individual cannot do that, especially if the growing government is aggressive and is already powerful.  All it takes is a threat or a hope to make a person do something - this is what I believe would create the governments growth.  An individual would exploit the beliefs of others to gain power.  We saw this in Nazi Germany with Hitler  

hoola

I'm not anti governence, i'm anti state. The power hungry only take rule becuase we are letting them.

Any group that forms to force another group to obey them is a state in every practicaly sense, even if it is to stop the uprising of another group.

No, states are hierarchical entities with a monopoly of violence over a geographical location.

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

[QUOTE="LordQuorthon"]

The problem is that the one form of anarchism that actually has a body of literature and decades of activism and struggles is the collectivist one. The other one is basically Laihendi talking about Atlas Shrugged all over them Interwebs.  

 

 

nomsayin

Not really. Individualist anarchism proper is nothing like Objectivism. Individualist anarchists like Max Stirner and Objectivists like Ayn Rand have vastly differing views. The only thing they have in common is their love for individualism as an ideology.

ghoklebutter

I was being a facetious bastard. :)

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

Not really. Individualist anarchism proper is nothing like Objectivism. Individualist anarchists like Max Stirner and Objectivists like Ayn Rand have vastly differing views. The only thing they have in common is their love for individualism as an ideology.

LordQuorthon

I was being a facetious bastard. :)

OP is a very poor spokesperson and will always leave people with the impression that anarchism is absolutely Utopian. I wonder if he will ever realize this.

OP is a very poor spokesperson and will always leave people with the impression that anarchism is absolutely Utopian. I wonder if he will ever realize this.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

OP is a very poor spokesperson and will always leave people with the impression that anarchism is absolutely Utopian. I wonder if he will ever realize this.

ghoklebutter

mhmm

[QUOTE="Rich3232"]CAn't wait till Ghokles gets ittPannicAtack

Ok

Aljosa23

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

OP is a very poor spokesperson and will always leave people with the impression that anarchism is absolutely Utopian. I wonder if he will ever realize this.

ghoklebutter

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

OP is a very poor spokesperson and will always leave people with the impression that anarchism is absolutely Utopian. I wonder if he will ever realize this.

RushKing

There are good arguments to be made for anarchism. RushKing does not make them however.

There are good arguments to be made for anarchism.worlock77

There are good arguments to be made for anarchism. RushKing does not make them however.

worlock77

[QUOTE="worlock77"]There are good arguments to be made for anarchism.chessmaster1989

Indeed, anarchism is the very opposite of utopian.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="worlock77"]There are good arguments to be made for anarchism.radicalcentrist

Of course it's hard to imagine large economies of scale taking place under an anarchist system. It's antithetical to what anarchism is.

[QUOTE="radicalcentrist"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] Not reallyworlock77

Of course it's hard to imagine large economies of scale taking place under an anarchist system. It's antithetical to what anarchism is.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="radicalcentrist"] Short and to the point, I like it. 

It's hard to imagine the large economies of scale which have benefitted humanity enormously taking place under any anarchist system. Although, under anarcho-capitalism it is at least possible in principle for there to be economies of scale (factories, large financial institutions, etc.), under anarcho-communism, when private property and, thus, capital income is abolished, it is not possible even in principle for there to be factories and other productive activities which require large economies of scale. 

radicalcentrist

Of course it's hard to imagine large economies of scale taking place under an anarchist system. It's antithetical to what anarchism is.

Economies of scales require a massive state, which is quite contrary to the very idea of anarchism.

Rothbard famicommander