Anarchists?

[Wicky_42]

In an ideal world anarchy would work, as would communism, but human as we are, there are people who are not satisfied with working with others on an equal level, it could succeed from a sociological standpoint, but from an evolutionary standpoint, people want to be better than other people. It could work, but only in a parralel universe where human sociology developed differently.

Yeah, a lot of these sort of political theories are built on a society without any pre-instilled notions of what a society currently is. I find it frustrating when people dismiss things without even giving them a moment of thought just because they are different to the social and economic expectations of the life that they've been exposed to in their lifetime. Sure, communism's struggled to work, but there's barely any example of it being introduced according to the principles of the theory, and capitalist nations have always sought to undermine or are outright hostile to them. Is it any surprise?

Really, the fundamental issue is that humans are inherently selfish and jealous. Possessions are something we're introduced to since we're born, the idea of 'ownership', 'that's mine' exclusive ownership and all that. It's a pretty huge shift to even begin to successfully imagine a society without that sort of instilled ownership, but that's pretty much what you'd need to start a successful communist society.

What I've always wondered, and feel free to educate me if need be, if anarchy and/or communism are what people want as their political system, why are they not already in place? Is it because capitalism got there first? Or is it simply because humans developed with an inclination towards capitalism over communism?

I've not studied economic theory evolution or anything, but if you think about the system we live in, it is self-perpetuating. We've come from a feudal system with all power at the top to a capitalist democracy where we get some choice as to who gets all the power at the top. The thing is, once you're at the top there's no incentive to come back down cos it's great living off the backs of everyone else, so naturally you want to defend your position.

Everything about our society perpetuates its continuance. Nursery rhymes shape our thoughts, children's TV sculpts our social and cultural expectations, our popular literature and media encourage us to live the commercial life working our way up the ladders of capitalism. There's no real encouragement to think differently or try to cause real change. That's not exactly bad, but it is kinda insidious. The way that America has succeeded in spreading its brand of capitalism across the world, basically shaping future generations' expectations of what a culture should be, is also insidious. I wonder if there're guys sat in shady offices in the Pentagon or White House discussing how best to shape an America-friendly world - but that's surely too conspiratorial to be taken rationally.

Bah, tired head not shaping thoughts right. Basically yeah, Capitalism is there because it got there first. Marx's Communism theory was the idea that eventually the capitalist system would destroy itself by exacerbating the difference between the wealthy and the not to the point that there is an uprising. With the machinery and industry of a capitalist society in place, a communist society would have the equipment needed to sustain itself. I think he also had the idea that it would be a pretty far-reaching revolution, meaning that there wouldn't be foreign interference or hostilities - the point is, communism as the USSR tried it wasn't theoretically sound communism, just as China's is impure.

Maybe we as a species need to have leaders, just as wolfpacks have an alpha and primates their leading mating couple. That sort of thing is around us all the time in nature, fundamentally part of our evolutionary history. Maybe we can evolve beyond it?

 

[crazypsyko666]

I'd be for anarchy if people weren't so fucking stupid. If people could live with a small semblance of respect for each other and live without getting in each others way, I'm certain that with a decent bartering system the world would be better off. We may not have as many luxuries, but people could live just fine in an anarchy if, as I've already stated, we weren't so goddamn stupid.

There's such a thing as "Minarchism." That is where the government is essentially stripped down to only providing police, courts and national defense. There's still rule of law to protect people from violence, theft and fraud, but the government does not provide anything for it's people. They are free to pursue their own goals and all those victimless crimes like prostitution are legal. This is also called a "Night Watchman State."

It's a step beyond Libertarianism (which I believe in) and a step short of Anarchism.

I'd also like to point out that those people who claim to be Anarchists and go around breaking windows aren't Anarchists. They're just thugs.

+1 in every possible way.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

In an ideal world anarchy would work, as would communism, but human as we are, there are people who are not satisfied with working with others on an equal level, it could succeed from a sociological standpoint, but from an evolutionary standpoint, people want to be better than other people. It could work, but only in a parralel universe where human sociology developed differently.

Yeah, a lot of these sort of political theories are built on a society without any pre-instilled notions of what a society currently is. I find it frustrating when people dismiss things without even giving them a moment of thought just because they are different to the social and economic expectations of the life that they've been exposed to in their lifetime. Sure, communism's struggled to work, but there's barely any example of it being introduced according to the principles of the theory, and capitalist nations have always sought to undermine or are outright hostile to them. Is it any surprise?

Really, the fundamental issue is that humans are inherently selfish and jealous. Possessions are something we're introduced to since we're born, the idea of 'ownership', 'that's mine' exclusive ownership and all that. It's a pretty huge shift to even begin to successfully imagine a society without that sort of instilled ownership, but that's pretty much what you'd need to start a successful communist society.

What I've always wondered, and feel free to educate me if need be, if anarchy and/or communism are what people want as their political system, why are they not already in place? Is it because capitalism got there first? Or is it simply because humans developed with an inclination towards capitalism over communism?

I've not studied economic theory evolution or anything, but if you think about the system we live in, it is self-perpetuating. We've come from a feudal system with all power at the top to a capitalist democracy where we get some choice as to who gets all the power at the top. The thing is, once you're at the top there's no incentive to come back down cos it's great living off the backs of everyone else, so naturally you want to defend your position.

Everything about our society perpetuates its continuance. Nursery rhymes shape our thoughts, children's TV sculpts our social and cultural expectations, our popular literature and media encourage us to live the commercial life working our way up the ladders of capitalism. There's no real encouragement to think differently or try to cause real change. That's not exactly bad, but it is kinda insidious. The way that America has succeeded in spreading its brand of capitalism across the world, basically shaping future generations' expectations of what a culture should be, is also insidious. I wonder if there're guys sat in shady offices in the Pentagon or White House discussing how best to shape an America-friendly world - but that's surely too conspiratorial to be taken rationally.

Bah, tired head not shaping thoughts right. Basically yeah, Capitalism is there because it got there first. Marx's Communism theory was the idea that eventually the capitalist system would destroy itself by exacerbating the difference between the wealthy and the not to the point that there is an uprising. With the machinery and industry of a capitalist society in place, a communist society would have the equipment needed to sustain itself. I think he also had the idea that it would be a pretty far-reaching revolution, meaning that there wouldn't be foreign interference or hostilities - the point is, communism as the USSR tried it wasn't theoretically sound communism, just as China's is impure.

Maybe we as a species need to have leaders, just as wolfpacks have an alpha and primates their leading mating couple. That sort of thing is around us all the time in nature, fundamentally part of our evolutionary history. Maybe we can evolve beyond it?

Thank you. You've just reaffirmed what I intially believed. If humanity developed differently, communism would work, as would anarchy. Capitalism got there first however, and because of that and how ingrained it is in all of us, our society would be a mass of chaos if the rules suddenly changed.

 

[SinisterGehe]

I laugh at anarchy. It's a contradiction in itself. You can't 'organise' an anarchic takeover without becoming a massive hypocrite. True anarchy is chaos, complete and utter chaos.

Um....what?
Your a kid, are you not? No offense, that was just a kids version of anarchy. Anarchy has nothing to do with being against organization, it's usually just against a government that is too powerful.
Communities deciding what's best for the community, that would be anarchy.
It's not about chaos and destruction and murder like people seem to think.

BTW, your comment "I laugh at anarchy" is pretty silly when you have proven that your view of anarchy is the stereotype we are fed by television and angsty kids.

Or by parents, cultural perspective, definitions in different languages (If you believe in to the idea of "Language defines reality as it is")

Language makes a huge difference to a human's personality imo and yes I do think the parent should be able to decide what's best for their child. I know this is a flawed system because there are bad parents but not as flawed as the system we have.
Watch tv, even kids television (Disney channel) and you can see that kids are being trained to treat their parents as if they were useless bumbling idiots that you only need to tell the truth to when your caught in a lie. I'm not saying it's some kind of conspiracy (maybe it is but I doubt it) it could be them going with the tv trend but it does have an effect on how we interact.
I hate to sound like a nut, I love television but I also hate it for the power it has over people (like me) and I have seen how kids will imitate what they see. Not the actions, but the way they talk.
I had to sit through too many episodes of Hannah Montana and other Disney crap, my little cousin loves it, and everything she says is a rude or sarcastic remark. She's like 10 now (I thought she would grow out of it) but she still responds to anybody else's thought's, ideas, or opinions with personal insults. She thinks that's how people joke and I wondered why for a while until I realized that she speaks to her parents and everybody else the same way the characters from her tv shows talk to people.
When her parents get annoyed by this and so much as ask her nicely to stop talking to them like that, she usually just acts like she was just insulted and storms off.
My point is, the way things are now parents have little control over their kids. School teaches them how to act towards authority (obey or be punished) and tv teaches them that parents are not authority, but people of equal intelligence that happen to have power.

Sorry for the rant, just a few things about this modern life that people love so much really annoys me. I understand parents should be more strict to not allow that behavior, but now we have limits to how strict we can be with our kids.
Sure most people can agree that you shouldn't hit your kids but I'm seeing a trend where parents are afraid to yell at their kids. Not becuase it's against the law, but because it makes you look abusive to others.
Doesn't matter that the kid will scream in your face over nothing when nobody else is around, if you raise your voice to a child with people present they somehow know how to react, speaking in a really hurt tone and sulking away.

On second thought, maybe it's kids that really piss me off.

Might be the kids. I haven't watched anything from live TV for 3 years now, I just don't see anything interesting in the programs. If there is some really good program I just watch it afterwards from Internet. (Only half-decent channle in Finland is YLE 1, YLE 2 and YLE teema (YLE is Finnish National broadcasting service))
Just a thought for you, how does a infant or a child, choose hes/hers parents?
But yeah, as an outsider to the American television and as a media and philosophy student I see some really crude brainwashing, specially in some news broadcastings, there this one specific channel I don't like at all not going to mention it tho, I see it irrelevant to the this discussion.
But what can you do about it to be honest. If you shutdown the child's TV it is going to outcast them from the other kids (Generalizing here really hard). What I have seen and heard about American parents (Stereotypical image but not meant to be offensive) that they are lazy to think themselves, they want to ban video-games/movies/TV/Whatever media, because they see them to be bad for their kids, but don't bother to spend time raising the child. This is my outside perspective to this and I am not trying to insult anyone here! Lately this type of behavior has been spreading to other countries too, parents too lazy and scared to raise their children to their own values and want government to take action to make these values universal.

But like I said, what can you do?

 

[Mr. Google]

Gang Wars!!! and thats all i have to say about that :/

 

[Rainforce]

can't work, because humans are de facto egoistic idiots.
sad, though :/

 

[Fetzenfisch]

As most political directions/ideologies or believes, its nice in theory but just doesnt work from the moment on it gets into contact with humans. Just like Communism, Democracy, Humanism,Tyranny and all the other things with potential have failed (some more than others), Anarchy has no real chance to work.
But the idea still is a nice thing.Well one can dream, cant he?

 

[hannan4mitch]

Well, anarchy cannot be a form of government. When you decide to call any system of government "anarchic" it is a fallacy. Anarchy is the LACK of government.
But, I have to admit, the anarchy symbol is badass.

 

[tehroc]

In a perfect world anarchy would be the perfect system of government.
The reason it doesn't work is the same reason communism doesn't work, because you always have some corrupt ass hat minority who take advantage of it for personal gain, forsaking the good of society.

The reason it doesn't work is cause you plug real people into the equation.

Humans like order.

 

[Ham_authority95]

I'd like to point out that a working, peaceful Anarchy can only really exist if governments and
establishments have already done away with crime and disorder that create need for governments and establishments.

I personally don't have anything against Anarchists so long as they aren't following it to just "Stick it to the man, man!", but rather because they think it will actually be good for humanity as a whole.

 

[Ampersand]

In a perfect world anarchy would be the perfect system of government.
The reason it doesn't work is the same reason communism doesn't work, because you always have some corrupt ass hat minority who take advantage of it for personal gain, forsaking the good of society.

In addition to the completely rational people who want to be rewarded appropriately for their efforts?

Most rational people are able to get over themselves enought to understand that effort put towards the betterment of society is it's own reward.

 

[Ampersand]

In a perfect world anarchy would be the perfect system of government.
The reason it doesn't work is the same reason communism doesn't work, because you always have some corrupt ass hat minority who take advantage of it for personal gain, forsaking the good of society.

The reason it doesn't work is cause you plug real people into the equation.

Humans like order.

I'm a real person.

Humans like security. I see no reason why that cant come from harmony and understanding rather then pissy, patronising rules.

 

[Kenko]

I laugh at anarchy. It's a contradiction in itself. You can't 'organise' an anarchic takeover without becoming a massive hypocrite. True anarchy is chaos, complete and utter chaos.

You don't understand, humans are naturally brotherly to one another and so society is unnecessary and thus any control it exerts is unwarranted.

That's why we have so much crime. There was no crime before society.

/sarcasm

Actually early on in mankinds development when there were few of us scattered around. There were little violence between humans. It was just pointless to kill or hurt eachother as there was enough resource and space to go around. It was better to band together rathern then anything. Ofcourse it happened, people do stupid things. But it wasnt as common then as it is today.

 

[SinisterGehe]

People want organization, rules, guidelines and hierarchy. These provide peace and control in even modestly working society.
When there are hierarchy, people don't need to take responsibility about things they can't/shouldn't take care of, it relaxes them.
Guidelines help those who are lost and can't tell what would be the right things to do (Right here is defined by the societies moral standpoint which varied person to person, but I am referring to the "baseline" moral).

What about those that are not lost?
And our current system does not promote peace at all. It also allows people that are responsible for horrible acts to pin the blame on somebody else and that person does the same. People in power are rarely punished for things that normal people like us would get the death sentence for.
We have the right to decide what's best for ourselves. No human has the right to decide what's best for other humans, we are all on the same level. Our current system ignores that and treats people in power as if they are above everyone else.

As I mentioned above "Even in modestly working society". I think society that is run by corruption and/or abusing dictators is not functioning society.
I am strong believer in the idea that human behavior can be reflected straight from nature. When theres is a pack of animals there is the leader and the underdog (And there are revelations going there), but by this force the pack stays together and survives.
I am myself pro-choice, but in order to live together in a functioning society we must have some rules and perimeters of which we live. I can not say that "I see that it is the best for me to kill the next person I meet". Society wouldn't exists if something like this is possible. I understand that this is possible in our current form of society, I can just go rampage if I want to, but I will be punished by the community according to my actions. Trough out the existence of communities (pack/herds/societies) There been revenge against those people who break the rules of that specific community, even if they wouldn't be part of that community, this fact has caused tremors trough out the history of life.
By my understanding and by my definition of functioning society I mainly refer to Platon's idea of Polis.
Which virtue is justness.
And the people who are not lost are either aware and in harmony with the set guidelines or part of another community (Or possibly a subdivision of it and its values are set by the meta community's values in certain range of allowance. If the values of this subdivision's are way too different that the meta community it can be considered to be a community of it own. )
Ofc.. Achieving something like this is just a idea and dream in the heads of people like me, who spend their time thinking about idea and theories of different situations and the perimeters they set to a specific being.
We can state a fact that, no matter how functioning a real (Real by definitions of "something that exist in this world that we the people by our own personal experience have deemed to be real) society is, there will be something that can be considered to be wrong and/or people abusing their powers/status, that is the human nature combined with our own unique personal traits.
I live in a country that was stated to be least corrupt on earth by the aspect, perimeters and views of people who are outside my community (Country). But I see the fundamental flaws in things that were supposed to bring well being in to my society. People abusing their own well-fare system. Immigrants using a loop-hole in the bureau system to bring their families to this country by illegal manners, condemning them to be illegal immigrants by the aspect of law (Law is not moral, but a solid guideline to define the agreed perimeter of right and wrong). Politicians lying and taking benefits that are legal but can be considered immoral (Blanket crisis of Finland). But everyone that been caught of breaking the law has been punished.
Law is not moral because morals are defined by individuals, by the means of their own ideas and experiences. Is situation like; I steal something from you, I get caught and the agreements inside the community lets you punish me as you see fit." In this situation you can do ANYTHING to me, because you are not bound by guidelines. This type of system also removes my fundamental rights of "humanity". In situation where there are set guidelines you can not; for example kill me for stealing an item from you, if the guidelines state that the punishment for stealing must be below some perimeter of severity.

Sorry got bit carried away there, tends to happen to me. But hey what you going to do? Punish me for making you read too much?

I know that discussing wont lead to anything real and I am sure that we can not reach as understanding about this subject between us, since my experiences, morals, culture, personality and aspect about this subject and it sub-subjects (Human behavior, Moral/Ethics and humanity), etc...)

Not sure what your saying to be honest. I'm sure it was well thought out but I honestly can't understand what your saying.
You said something like "society couldn't exist if that was possible" when you talked about the thought of murder.
Society exists and it runs on murder. Murder is the only way a society that makes demands can survive.

I don't think society as whole is bad but I think that is true of our society.


If you stole something, you knew the risk. I wouldn't kill you for it, but others would. That's their choice, the same can happen and has happened all the time in society. The law just makes it legal to violate a persons rights after they violate the rights of another.

Life isn't fair, that's a fact. We are not meant to live forever. If I steal from you and you decide to blow my brains out, so what? The universe won't collapse. There won't be a mass suicide or even that much sadness. Just one less person in the world.

Why does it matter if mine or anybody elses rights get violated because I pissed off the wrong person? I still believe the loss of rights and life is much larger when you have entire nations going to war with WMDs.


I hate to sound like an ass, but I just don't understand your point of view. No offense really, I'm probably just missing something.

This is not meant to be offensive in any way and it sounds cruel but my intentions are not.
I am just going to hop to conclusion that you haven't studied philosophy at advanced level?
What I was doing in that long piece of my boredom:
- I was analyzing the idea that I have of society (That you questioned earlier), and trying to break it down to small bits and examine and explain their ideas to you.
- I wasn't analyzing the "life" or its "fairness" or other universal meanings. I was merely trying to explain my idea(s) to you.
- "I knew the risks" You got hang of one of my points there (I believe that I mentioned it somewhere above, sorry if I didn't). That if I willfully and totally aware do an act that can be considered to be immoral/illegal, I am in situation to be punished. Example. In my country; If you can be proven to be mentally handicapped and you do a crime, the punishment can be withhold or severely eased. Because if it can be proven that you were incapable of understanding the consequences of your actions. (This does not imply on cases like being under the influence of drugs/alcohol, since you were aware of consequences of the actions you might do under the influence of substances.)

But I was happy to discuss this with you, even if it did not lead anywhere.

 

[Yokai]

Well, I wouldn't call myself an anarchist, but I'm no fan of capitalism and the almost feudal hierarchies and culture of excess and wastefulness it brings with it. However, I don't think the answer is to depose the government and throw a party. I don't really have a working solution.

 

[WOPR]

I laugh at anarchy. It's a contradiction in itself. You can't 'organise' an anarchic takeover without becoming a massive hypocrite. True anarchy is chaos, complete and utter chaos.

Anarchy: The opposition of all forms of government

doesn't say anything about chaos (even though yes that's what it almost always ends in)

 

[Wicky_42]

Thank you. You've just reaffirmed what I intially believed. If humanity developed differently, communism would work, as would anarchy. Capitalism got there first however, and because of that and how ingrained it is in all of us, our society would be a mass of chaos if the rules suddenly changed.

Pretty much every time there's significant political change, there's a time of social upheaval. People get killed, lively-hoods destroyed, but things balance out and change. It's kinda par for the course, and it's happened before. Let's just say that there're precedents for that sort of thing in the past, and that they've played some VERY important parts in shaping our current world, so maybe they're not all that bad, big picture-wise.

 

[mechanixis]

I think it's something only ignorant little punk kids would feel is a good thing, because they feel like rebelling against "the world" and haven't thought it through. Which is why they typically grow out of it as soon as their hormones start settling down.

Pretty much precisely. Anarchy is just rebelling for the sake of rebelling. Government and civilization were invented because they're a marginal improvement over not having those things.

Thomas Hobbes pretty much summed it up when he said that living without government would lead to the world entering a state of every-man-for-himself war in which human lives would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

 

[Jamous]

I think it's something only ignorant little punk kids would feel is a good thing, because they feel like rebelling against "the world" and haven't thought it through. Which is why they typically grow out of it as soon as their hormones start settling down.

Pretty much precisely. Anarchy is just rebelling for the sake of rebelling.

No. No it is not. Read back over the thread and you'll find most people telling you, correctly, otherwise.

 

[MaVeN1337]

I believe in abolition of the American government in it's current form, The white house needs to be purged of mindless individuals on a crusade for money and total control of the population. Corruption is everywhere in every single aspect of the American government, and the people shouldn't have to tolerate it anymore.

I'm not saying make home made bombs and go fucking crazy, But do something to take care of the government other than whining about how your taxes are too high. Take charge, and do something about it.