Let's talk about anarchy

So... go for it.
And I'm not talking about hoodlums who stir up shit at otherwise peaceful demonstrations. I'm talking about real anarchy: where people are in charge of themselves and their actions/choices. (as we all are anyway, whether we recognize it or not)
Are you an anarchist? Why, or why not?

it's just another ism, happens whenever people need a label for
their particular viewpoints... the moment they've agreed on what
opinions shall be acceptable they choose a flag and rally behind
it. frankly i'm not impressed.

Men cannot live in peace together. 5000 years of human history has shown us that.
Anarchy might as well be re-named Social Darwinism because that is what it would lead to.

>>3
Wrong.
There have been many extended eras of peace in the past 5,000 years. The wars are just more memorable.

Hello. Before i go into anarchy I will say what anarchy is not: Anarchy is not the absence of an organized society. Anarchy is not the absence of law (laws in anarchy are made by the community). Anarchy is not the absence of a market (this differs in some schools of thought).

Also i need to say that i'm not realy an anarchist as i couldn't say i completely agree with any specific school of thought. On top of this, even if i did agree with a specific version of anarchy, I still wouldn't say I'm an anarchist because I do not have set ideas. I see my thought as evolving and cannot limit it to a specific worldview.

 I do find anarchy realy fascinating as a political theory. I see it as the evolution of democracy or to be precice, I see it as THE REAL FORM OF DEMOCRACY. Where people don't vote for pepresentatives, they vote by expressing their opinions on an issue, listening to other peoples opinions and decide unanimusly(where possible). This is also called direct democracy. In this sence: Anarchist = Extreme Democrat.

Anarchists do not recognise states and borders. They are anti-statists. They see all people as equals despite sex, race, language, sexual preferences, or anything else you can name.

Personaly I would like people to have a say on issues that concearn them and affect them. I hate other people deciding what's best for me. I am not an oppressive person and I would like to see an end to human oppression and exploitation. I see the states, religion and the banks as the source of human misery. They do their best to keep us dumb, numb and poor or living on loans. I see the corporations and the power they hold as a perversion of democracy (monsanto, haliburton, BP, you name it...).

Finaly, I am not a revolutionary. I believe the best way to change the world is to think ahead of your time and render today's world old.

>>4
Funny how the era's of peace always end in wars, huh?

>>5
Right. Anarchy is the absence of laws. Try suspending laws and see how long society lasts.
If you think Anarchy can win the day just on the goodwill of men in relation to one another, then I think you are are talking about pure Communism, ya know, like living in a commune..

>>6
LOL: funny how the wars always end, and people go back to living peacefully, innit? (see what I did there?)
Also: funny how you obviously read NOTHING 5 said before you responded.

>>7
I agree about not agreeing completely with any system of thought (ha!). Kind of an anarchistic point of view, though. :)
Only thing is: I feel like the US is too big for this style: small communities seem to work better. But a loose confederation of small communities...
Nomination for best utopian anarchist book: The Dispossessed.

>>5's post is nonsense.
He talks about mob rule being the best system. Rubbish.

>>8
Try to actually read posts before you respond to them.
>>5 said nothing of the sort.

>>7
"I feel like the US is too big for this style: small communities seem to work better."

You are thinking from the top to the bottom. Try seeing it from the bottom to the top. I mean, there is no such thing as the US from an anarchist perspective - Anarchists do not recognise states and borders. There are thousands if not millions of communities around the world and instead of governing themselves democraticaly, decisions are dictated 'from above'. Same happens in the EU and the rest of the world prety much.
 I don't believe it is possible to reach anarchy by trying to overthrow a government. I think the 'wise' way to go would be to strenghthen the community, make collectives, syndicates, workers unions etc.

 Personally I'm experimenting on a business model where there are no employees, only co-owners who work together and decide on company strategies through open dialogue, reason and common sense. We are also in partnership with other collectives that form a loose network. We support each other in many ways. For example we buy and sell to each other at special rates, we exchange business links and information freely and generally we prety much control a small market from the farmers to the consumers (us that is). The nice thing is that the more people consuming, the more people you need producing. This provides employment in a market we (loosely) control internaly and it is gaining momentum. We stil have to obey state laws but building a strong community fabric gives birth to many movements. I don't deny I'm a dreamer but I have seen this work.

>>8 I am also interested in microfinancing and no-interest lending. I don't keep much money on me, I lend it on people i've come to trust, they make a profit and then they return the original capital back. The doors this has openned up has more than paid for the few times i didn't get my money back. You would be surprised by how much stuff i get for free anyway :p

>>7
PS. I haven't read the Dispossessed but i looked it up and realized it was written by ursula le guin. She's a fucking awesome writter.

PS2 Most traditional anarchists would frown at me for many reasons but mainly for my interest in bussiness models). Don't take my views as anarchistic as the DON'T represent what you would call 'Anarchy'.

The refference to >>8 is wrong. I was refering to myself but he posted first.

>>5
said "Pure Democracy" is the way to go. That's MOB RULE.

>>8 has clearly beaten you.

Yeah, >>9.
The shame you must feel must be overwhelming.

MOB RULE is ochlocracy, not anarchy (mob rule is government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of legitimate authorities - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy ). Ochlocracy is a lawless crowd - with no organization. In ancient greek 'ochlos' and 'demos' (the root words for oclocracy and democracy) are the possitive and negative words to describe a group of people. 'Demos' is all inclussive and it suggests that all citizens patricipate equaly. 'Ochlos' is diffenent in that it suggests a large group of people and not the whole of the communty. It gets its negative hue because it suggests the lack of organized decission making, therefore as a a system it has no facilities for any kind of judicial system and therefore it is unfair and it cannot serve the interests of the community at large.

 A good example of ochlocracy was the Athens - December '08 riots. I lived it and even though we tried our best to set up councils and help organize and direct the people, we failed hard. That was because in a spontaneous revolt as it was there is no common ground. Everyone expresses their anger at each other and the state and serves their own selfish motives. Ochlocracy is bound to self destruct within a very short time frame as it completely lacks stability and justice.

 Even if you confuse this with anarchy, i never supported such a system.

>>14
But if there's organization then that means there is a government so it's not anarchy.

>>15
Are you sugesting that there is no organization without a government?

Ochlocracy sounds intriguing.  I think something like that might work quite well.  I'm not really an anarchist, though, and my ideal large scale government would be something like the Roman Republic.  A more or less parlimentary system that has no head of state and is more or less volentary -- if the parliment goes too far, you can pull out and go it alone.  I suppose that might be what we in modern times call a confederacy, though even Dixie had a head of state. 

I've never seen a large society without laws, but I think the laws should be limited.

How will you enforce the system of anarchy? What if some group becomes powerful and starts conquering other groups?

>>16
Yes.

People are going to have disagreements that can't be resolved by talking it out, even within families or between friends this is difficult. So there will be disagreements which will either escalate into violence, one party will back down during negotiation or there is a greater power that mediates between the 2 parties and has final say.

There is no way around it, this is logically airtight.

>>19
You are so black and white. What an absolutist. Your "logically airtight" argument holds no water because you cannot prove a negative.
I say it IS possible to have an organization which works without government.
So: impassse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUpcuM95t5M

>>20
It is "possible" in the same way freak occurrences at the quantum level are theoretically possible on a larger scale but only have a ridiculously low chances of happening, like 1/10^50.

After doing some risk assessment I've decided that anarchism is not a responsible course of action.

I think it is possible but not directly. I believe the problem lies within the people themselves. Most people have never even imagined what it would be like if they took control of their own lives.

I think the anarchy might prevail someday not because of the actions of the anarchist, but because of the downfall of neoliberalism. I believe the series of crises has done more to promote anarchy than anarchists could ever imagine to achieve.

I live in Greece and we have a long history of anarchist struggles. I am really surprised to see old people turn to anarchy as a means to dissaprove of the corrupt political system. I have heard really extreme views from sweet old granies who had their pentions cut in order to pay for the massive public debt.

Therefore my conclusion is that an anarchistic society - although hard to imagine - is possible because of the failure of capitalism to provide stability. I see it more as a need than a choice.

I'm sure I sound like an idiot to many Americans, but that's only because the US is the only country in the world that has had continuous growth for such a long time. Still, those Americans that had their houses and property taken away for debts, those who were fired and those living under bridges might find my words somewhat different than those who have managed to maintain their standards of life.

................................................................

In my opinion capitalism creates an imbalance that will bring it's downfall sooner or later. The rich get richer (and less in number), while the poor get even poorer(and rise in number). This imbalance is bound to make the world tip over at some point with terrible consequences. Anarchy is too far ahead for today's world. Still, the experience of today's anarchists might be really valuable in the future and in the absence of capitalism.

PS. May I return the question? Do you guys believe that capitalism and the globalized neoliberalism can provide a peacefull environment for the world to enjoy and prosper in the long run?

Since anarchy is a really misunderstood subject, I give you a link to a really good archive.

http://flag.blackened.net/

You might find the Anarchist FAQ as a good place to start, although i urge you to read some complete books. Especialy Malatesta, kropotkin, proudhon etc.

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

Anarchy is nonsense.
It's retarded to think it would work.

>>25
Ok, but how retarded is it to think that capitalism is not destructive? Does representative democracy work?

 The funny thing is that the Anonymous work in a way that's even more unrestricted than anarchy. There is no central authority, no set rules, no meetings. Still they are very effective. This realy intrigues me and makes me think that there are other ways of organisation that have not been studied properly. I'm talking about the 'hive mind'.

Statist political structures are pyramid like (see dolar bill). Anarchist political structures are flat. I can imagine 'hive mind' type organizational structures as neuron networks where the re-organization of the 'cells' through constant feedback provides a usefull result in the long ran. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network)

>>26
The problem is that the hivemind only works for shits and giggles.

only reason it wouldn´t work is because even if "most people" have good intentions and are what you call good people, there will always be someone who takes advantage of the situation for personal gain.

people will figure out how to beat the system even if there is none.

>>28 "people will figure out how to beat the system even if there is none."

Now that a quote!

BUT what's the point of having a system when we're going to beat it anyway? Some form of mazochism i guess...

the only thing that needs to be said about anarchism is that their ideology revolves around the presumption that the magics of socialism make it so that there is no more conflict among the people and thus no more crime or need to police one another.
how fucking retarded do you have to be to believe that?

Against

Because normal people don't work towards the betterment of man kind, they work towards the benefit of themselves.There are alot of laws that I think are pointless & useless, but there are ones that matter. Laws such as laws that prevent companies from polluting my town with hazardous wastes to save money rather than being regulated by a governing body. Obviously also laws that protect people from stealing & committing acts of violence are important as well to the majority.

We can just say that we will leave it up to the community to protect ourselves from these things happening, but that security seems like wishful thinking to me.

>>30
I'm retarded enough to think that the way capitalism is leading the world is disasterous. I'm retarded enough to try to find an alernative before I become some banker's bitch. I'm retarded enough to have a desire to think and decide for myself. Yes, I'm very retarded. But i have a strange feeling that retards like me will be there with a plan when this system fails.

>>32
So your cure for a mildly corrupt society is some kind of kierkegaardian leap of faith to try and achieve absolute perfection? This is the political equivalent of throwing a hissy fit, it's irresponsible and won't accomplish anything, in fact it might make things worse since emotional people are easy to exploit and people who are trying to make the world a better place are less skilled at appealing to emotion than those who are in it for personal gain.

If you had done some logical impartial objective analysis you would realize capitalism is simply the state of economic autonomy, it does not cause corruption, it simply reveals it. Do you really expect Castro and his junta to quantify their wealth and allow it to be compared with the people they exploit? The problem with our evil corporations is that they get a fuckton of privileges, tax codes and subsidies in their favor, nothing to do with the free market, despite this evil corporations still do a lot of good by exploiting the 3rd world because in doing so they develop these countries economically and generate the social conditions for political liberalization.

Ironically the best course towards a stateless classless society in which the means of production are owned collectively and run for the greater good of sentient life is to fall in line behind our glorious multi-national corporations, I've seen anarchists in black shirts and red ties, I know you secretly think global capitalism would be awesome. Time to be more conformist and obedient.

>>33
I guess we are anonymous and you don't know which of the previous posts are mine. a)I'm not an anarchist (close tho) b)I don't think we can switch to anarchy just like that.

Now, capitalism is not a state of economic autonomy for the majority of the people(let alone THE state of economic autonomy). Try telling that to somebody who was fired from his job, he couldn't pay his house loan and now lives under a bridge or in a trailer park if he's lucky. You can't say that somebody is economicaly autonomous when stock markets collapse and without having done anything wrong hee ends up living on the street. That's just plain wrong.

The problem with the 'evil' corporations is that they exceed many countries in economic surface and through corruption and dirty politicians they shape world policy (GMOs, H1N1 etc.). If you look at corporations as persons (in law), they are trully fucked up people that should be behind bars, not shaping high level policy. So what we see here is that the thing that gave birth to capitalism, the nation/state is devoured by it's own child. Especialy for you americans that fought a war for independence, it should be a shame to see the freedoms you fought for (and passed to others) taken away from this globalized monster.

Finally, how can you talk about a stateless CLASSLESS society under capitalism? Is there no "rulling class" in capitalist societies? I'm sorry but I can see the exact opposite. In either case, that's not the kind of society i would like to live in. It sounds like Gattaka, matrix and 1984 all in one. Fucking scary shiT!

Those who prefer anarchy are invited to move to Somalia to put their ideas into practice.  The people there apparently prefer even brutal, repressive, medieval Sharia law to anarchy, but what do they know?

>>35 Plus it its easier to take down an armed chieftain than the fucking pentagon.

>>34
lol commie spotted. The hardship of the average man has to do with deliberate policy carried out by government to destroy the middle class and drive up prices of everything.

Niggers/mexicans don't count as they aren't americans nor even human.

>>35
And here's the typical statist with the "go live in a shitty communist ruled niggerland if you don't' like our treachery and lunacy!"

Honestly, if you look back towards history, there has never really been a large scale anarchist society that was successful, and only a few small scale anarchist societies where successful, like the Icelandic Commonwealth for example. Nearly every other type of government had something in place similar to what we would call a "mixed economy" these days.

>>38
True. But I can see experience adding up and some degree of evolution. I'm not an expert on the issue but i think that a lot has changed from the parisian commune to the zapatistas. I find this encouraging as it keeps this ideology lively and up to date in contrast to traditional communism that stil sees 3 classes (elite, middle class, workers). No disrespect to marxists, but the economy is now globalized, they need better tools. States and borders are collapsing (culturaly and economically speaking) and i think that soon we will witness new forms of govermnent - withing our lifespan that is. I mean, already, this system we have (in europe, the US and most countries) as not really representative democracy. It has degraded into something i really can't find a name for (global elitocracy maybe). G8, G20, birlderberg and other international meetings that take place behind closed doors realy bypass national (state) democracies.

 I'm not a fanatic, i'm actually open minded and open to conversation but somehow i have become the devil's advocate in this thread. Partly because I promised I'd answer questions here: http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1295523299/1-40 (37). >>38 talked about mixed economy cases. I find nothing wrong with this as a transitional state or for social experimentation. And since we live in world that evolves really fast due to the technology available, I feel we need to keep an open mind for new forms of government that will guarantee true democratic procedures - even within a state.

But even at a level lower than the state, at municipal level, direct democracy can solve a lot of problems. Partly because it involves the people in the decesion making and nobody knows their problems better than themselves. Partly because when we are involved with something we feel it as our own.

PS. Never heard of the Icelandic Commonwealth. Sounds interesting.

The problem with a "true or direct" Democracy is that you would have to scrap your countries Constitution and Bill of Rights, if your country has them.
The will of the people can infringe on the rights of others in a true democracy.
Case in point: The people of California voted by 70% to keep gay marriage banned in their state. A Federal judge overturned it with the stroke of a pen because, even though it's what the majority wanted, it was an infringement on the rights of others.