Anarchism

What is your opinion about anarchism?

Is it possible? In what way?

in b4 some idiots say the completely obvious "anarchism doesn't work because it lacks organisation and order" followed by even greater retards with "anarchism would work if everyone were educated and willing"

GROW THE FUCK UP

Anarchism is GREAT, just look at any war zone.

care to elaborate?

anarchism would only work when all the people in it have the same sets of morals and ethics, otherwise it fails. Unless u totally rid of racism, ignorance and bigotry there is no way it can work.

what about a continuing movement towards it rather than achieving the utopia?

>>6
this the pretty much the most retarded this i've read on /newpol/ for a loooooooooong time
GTFO dumbass

LISTEN UP NEWBIES
FUCK OFF
GO TO /n/ INSTEAD

heh, didn't feel like i was raged enough to make such typos
guess i was wrong
fucking teenage fag

>>7
>>8
What was enraging about what he said?

>>2
"anarchism doesn't work because it lacks organisation and order"
"anarchism would work if everyone were educated and willing"
Well that's pretty much the jist of the entire discussion.

Until an anarchist actually carefully explains using logic and facts how an anarchic society would work and deal with issues such as crime and defense the issue can progress no further.

if you divide society to little communities you can deal with some kinds of crime.
my solution about defense is spreading the revolution(though I don't say it's the best solution and if you have something on your mind please elaborate).

for the lack of order,anarchism doesn't necessarily mean a lack of order and organisation.as long as it is not authoritarian, having
some kind of order is not a no-no.(not for me, at least)

>>9
Not 7 or 8, but it's just a 12 yo retard thinking 'Hey, communism sounds like a good idea.'

>>10
Ahh, I love way how the retarded neocon thinks

He needs someone intelligent to waste his time and explain everything from the start - because he is too uneducated to already know the answers or ask non-generic intelligent questions.

No, I don't believe anarchism is feasible - but due to those reasons? Get the fuck out.

Phew, glad to see that we're moving again away from a discussion with substance to the usual polemics and flaming.
That anarchist kid is obviously new to the whole politics thing and would be better off at with his kind.

>>13
If it wouldn't work due to those reasons, that means those reasons are invalid, which means that anarchy can deal with them.

Ok I'm a retard. Are you a bad enough dude to explain to me how an anarchic society would deal with these issues?

>>11
So how would anarchy force people not to commit crime without being authoritarian?

>>16
Exile from the community.

A percentage of the anarchists will always take up the fight.  That's how you get the good loot.

I think armchair anarchism works just fine.  It's practical in the academic sense.

What is needed is a world government; something approximating to a benevolent dictatorship.  Prerequisites (or at least, expedients) to this include declines in organized religion and in population.

One could reply (correctly) that the world politic is populated by (more or less) corrupt governments, and that a world government is therefore untenable, at least in the political short-term of even a few hundred years, by which time the species may well be dead or greatly reduced.  One could further argue that several self-interested nations make for a better balance of power, or political ecosystem, than does a realized world-government.  The reply to this involves at least two points:  1. The earth for all practical purposes is finite, and 2. as I hinted before, I'm not thinking in terms of a few hundred years (although that would be nice).  I'm thinking of an end goal which ought eventually to be realized.

True, we're far more likely to nuke ourselves or have a massive die-off via some other means prior to the establishment of such a system, but I say it's worth keeping in mind.  This is why another of our great imperatives as a species is to get off Earth, but everybody already knew that.

So yeah, Chomsky is wrong, lol

>>17
So if someone murders 33 people that would be their punishment?
>>18
What if it likely involves dying in agony with your intestines uncoiled in front of you?
>>20
"benevolent dictatorship"
The shittiest democracy is better than a benevolent dictatorship. We may nuke ourselves within the next 5000 years but I don't think it will happen any time soon, also had the 20th century gone a little differently we could all be living under a tapestry of fascist or communist dictatorships right now, you might think that is indicative of the future but the way things have shaped up it looks as though this isn't a given.

>>21
"The shittiest democracy is better than a benevolent dictatorship."
Democracy is inhibitive for progress by default.

If there was an ultimate goal,I could have agree with you,but there isn't.Welfare and happiness of the people is a goal,I think,
more beneficial for the majority of humans.(there are some people that would be ok in either case)

Democracy = Tryranny of the minority.
If you're always out voted, you're always out of luck.
Theorietically, anyway. Almost no one single group is ALWAYS outvoted on EVERYTHING.

>>22
Where is silicon valley? North Korea?
>>23
Happiness maybe but not welfare. Also higher pleasures like debating religion and seeing where science will take us are important goals, not just obtaining pleasure and avoiding pain until you die.
>>24
Tyranny of the minority?

>>3

Do you know what the anarchy means? If not I advise you to shut the fuck up

>>25
Because North Korea is obviously an example of a benevolent dictatorship, right?

Fucking retard.

If a charismatic individual can rally enough others to their cause then that organized group could start creating rules and boundaries within their group and spread them to others. Since they're a group they can eliminate individuals who stand in the way. Since no individual can take on a group others would organize merely to defend themselves, likely producing their own opposed rules to distinguish themselves from the other group(s). The eventual result would be a bunch of nation/states.

At least that's how I'd guess anarchy would fail.

Anyone who wants to try living in a truly anarchic society is perfectly free to emigrate to Somalia.  If anarchy is what you want, they've got it there.

>>29
>DURRRRRRRRRRR HUURRRRRRRRRRRRRR HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

>>30
Anonymous - successfully refuting arguments since 2003.

>>31
Anonymous - successfully making retarded, ignorant claims with no connection to facts, and then getting butthurt when no one bothers to spend time to disprove his retarded notions.

Anyone who wants to try living in a truly anarchic society is perfectly free to time-travel to Makhnovschina. If anarchy is what you want, they've got it there.

>>32
Well disprove him then. Once and for all.

>>33
It lasted 15 seconds due to it's inability to defend itself.

>>34
>when no one bothers to spend time to disprove his retarded notions
>when no one bothers to spend time

what part of it aren't you getting?

>>35
Lern2history

>>36
Ok I was exaggerating. It lasted only a few months due to it's inability to defend itself.

>>37
That's better.

Which goes on to prove that an anarchist society cannot coexist with other systems, as they will seek to raep it - commie and capitalist alike.

Spanish anarchists were able to defend themselves for a while

of course it is possible. See spain 1936. CNT/FAI!

Anonymous - Anarchists.

>>39
>>40
The Soviet funded communist party could crush the anarchists but not the fascists. Anarchy fails because people are incapable of enforcing laws for mutual benefit, when called apon to defend their freedom they just whine like you libfags and claim they are being oppressed.