Explain Anarchy to me

[Friendshipandmagic]

Jebus fucking christ! Are you even Reading my replies?

YES the Assassin Order have very strict, very Noble Rules. I KNOW. I AGREE. But their aim is NOT to make everyone ELSE on Earth follow these rules. Their aim is to setup a society with no rules. Not even THEIR noble, strict rules. Do you understand the "words" that are coming out of my mouth?

Do you understand that the "words" coming out of your mouth as of right now are terribly rude and obnoxious? Seriously, no one insulted you or anything. If your gonna assert your point, calm the fuck down.

Of course your assuming that because the brotherhood are fighting the templars, that automatically means they hate all government. Thats not how it works. They are fighting to end the templars control, that doesn't mean they want to end governmental rule totally.

 

[Keava]

I undertand theres more to anarchy than just "no government"

however personally I dont understand how our society could run under such a thing, no one is going to clean up the streets for nothing, and some people arnt going to stop killing others because its not a very nice thing to do

It couldn't. Because we are greedy and selfish bastard in heart, no matter how we try to deny it.
Problem with defining Anarchism is that there is so many different schools and variations you can't really get one and only answer to the question "What is Anarchy".

In the most common definition however, anarchy is a social and political doctrine that considers all form of administration as obsolete. It assumes that society (as in people) are mature enough not have to be told what to do. Instead everyone should be responsible for their own surrounding, and if possible be active in improving the community.

In some forms like collective anarchism by Mikhail Bakunin, all production means are owned and managed by the collective of producers rather that single entities. Wages are equalized and determined in democratic ways, based on the job difficulty and time contribution of workers to be later traded on communal markets for other goods - "To each according to his labour" philosophy.

On the other hand there is also anarcho-communism that completely removes the salaries instead allowing every member of society freely draw from the goods depending on the needs - "To each according to his needs" philosophy.

There is plenty of other views on what anarchy should really be and how it could work in societies, but if you really want to know just go read on them. It's highly utopian doctrine that requires the society to be willing and active in building it rather than expecting the body of state to resolve every matter.

 

[Blunderboy]

To quote Sons of Anarchy.

"Anarchism stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion and liberation of the human body from the coercion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. It stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals" Emma Goldman

 

[Togs]

Whilst Ive had anarchy explained to me numerous times but I still dont get where its a good idea.

If you look throughout history when government dissolves there is no peaceful equality but sheer and utter chaos, theres no noble cooperation just flat out barabarism.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

WHY won't you understand?

Are you......are you seriously not getting me? Dude, I NEVER, EVER said that the Assassin's don't have rules. Not once have I said that they follow Anarchy themselves. Why exactly are you implying that I did say that?

Do you understand that the "words" coming out of your mouth as of right now are terribly rude and obnoxious? Seriously, no one insulted you or anything. If your gonna assert your point, calm the fuck down.

Of course your assuming that because the brotherhood are fighting the templars, that automatically means they hate all government. Thats not how it works.

I am trying very hard not to be Rude. I swear I am. But this fellow keeps saying (literally) the same thing over and over again no matter how many times I tell him that I'm not disagreeing with him.

As for the second bit. No they are not anti-government. They are just trying to prevent the Templars from controlling people, but the backstory (as told mostly through Subject16's visions) has already established that every form of Government used in modern history was directly controlled by the Templars, and thus directly opposed by the Assassin's.

Spoiler: For example:

The Templar's used the tactic of Theocracy to control people for over a 1500 years before that begun to lose power over the people. Following the Industrial Revolution, they used industry to advance their goals, and when the opportunity arose they tested if Communism would work on a National scale by setting up the USSR (I'm not making any of this up. You can look it up if you want). When that started to collapse they latched onto the new ideals of Capitalist America, and have been using THAT to control people (through their wallets) ever since. Now the Templars operate through one of the largest Corporation's in the game's world: Abstergo.

That's how I reach the conclusion that, unless the Assassin's find some magical, fool-proof governmental system, they are antagonistic towards all forms of Societal control as we know it purely becuase they believe Societal control as a Concept is evil. And lack of Societal control is......wait for it.......Anarchy. Do you get what I'm saying?
See I can explain calmly.

 

[Friendshipandmagic]

I am trying very
As for the second bit. No they are not anti-government. They are just trying to prevent the Templars from controlling people, but the backstory (as told mostly through Subject16's visions) has already established that every form of Government used in modern history was directly controlled by the Templars, and thus directly opposed by the Assassin's.

That's how I reach the conclusion that, unless the Assassin's find some magical, fool-proof governmental system, they are antagonistic towards all forms of Societal control as we know it purely becuase they believe Societal control as a Concept is evil. And lack of Societal control is......wait for it.......Anarchy. Do you get what I'm saying?
See I can explain calmly.

But they never say they would have a problem with a government not under the control of the templars. The government is only indirectly opposed by the brotherhood as long as it exists as a puppet for the templars. If the templars weren't around they probably wouldn't care what form of central power people used to organize laws. Meaning that if say, a democratic system came into being after the templars had been removed they don't have any reason to oppose it.

What I'm getting at is that the brotherhood can be opposed to the templars use of governmental control without being opposed to government itself, thus they aren't really anarchy.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

But they never say they would have a problem with a government not under the control of the templars. The government is only indirectly opposed by the brotherhood as long as it exists as a puppet for the templars. If the templars weren't around they probably wouldn't care what form of central power people used to organize laws. Meaning that if say, a democratic system came into being after the templars had been removed they don't have any reason to oppose it.

What I'm getting at is that the brotherhood can be opposed to the templars use of governmental control without being opposed to government itself, thus they aren't really anarchy.

I see what you're saying and.....I dunno. I mean, it's obvious that Fighting the Templars was always, is and will be the primary goal of the Assassin's. But I don't know if I believe that that's their ONLY goal. They always implied that they fight "for the people". And people can be controlled and manipulated by Governments even without the involvement of the Templars (proof: Our actual World). Why would the Assassin's not rise up "for the people" then? Just cause the Templars are not involved? That doesn't really fit with the whole idea of the Brotherhood that the games try to paint.

 

[Ninjat_126]

Tyler Durden's philosophy.

Basically, no central government and no laws. The people who advocate it are probably the hulking bodybuilders packing loads of guns.

 

[LawlessSquirrel]

Anarchism is a political belief where it's believed government rule is an oppressive evil by nature. Like other political beliefs, there are many sub-groups to anarchism, ranging from Philosophical Anarchism (which I believe in myself) to Revolutionary Anarchism.

Philosophical Anarchism is basically the belief that government rule was a necessary evil to prevent people from resorting to chaos and destruction. However, as time goes on, people have grown, while the government continues to tighten its strangle-hold (inverse to what should happen). It's not about abolishing the government, exactly, since people are by nature destructive, but it's about limiting the power the government has over it's people to just enough to maintain a balance of freedom and order. In time, it's possible that people will outgrow the need for a government, but we're not allowed the opportunity for this happen.

As is, the government is a self-perpetuating machine with infinite imagined power. This is not as it should be. It's just a concept that people are accustomed to accepting as all-powerful. The government should serve to protect people, this is it's purpose, but instead it rules with undeniable corruption, powerlust and a disconnection to humanity. To put it simply, it's like in V for Vendetta "People should not fear their government, it is the government that should fear its people."

 

[XHolySmokesX]

Anarchy is a lack of leadership, and this includes rules, gang leaders, parliament, royalty or anything else.

It's basically comunism without a government to enforce rules of equality. or put in a more simple way, all out social chaos.

 

[Riddle78]

Anarchy is "The State of Nature",or a society without rules,laws,and regulations. People who push for a world like this need to get their heads checked,because The State of Nature is a VERY bad place to live.

 

[RatRace123]

Anarchy is basically chaos as I understand it. No government, no rules, the only people who make it out alive are those who kill before they're killed.

Given that I would probably not survive through such a situation, can't say I'm a fan of it.

 

[vviki]

I've got a comparison for you. In recent years one could say that with so little regulation the banking system was running on anarchy - left to be "self regulated". They ran rampant for some time and it was good, until the holes in that premise became painfully obvious. To fix it, governments imposed new rules to limit that freedom. Will it work, only time will tell. ON the same notion with anarchy it provokes chaos and chaos is sort of self regulated. When the streets become too dirty, someone will clean them so he could move, which will benefit everyone else. Just like tribes times after a while, when most people have died because of the complete collapse of the system, it wouldn't matter anymore. Rules are there because we are too many. If we were separated into smaller groups we could agree on other rules.

Simply put if you have one person, he makes his own rules. If you have a tribe the leader makes the rules. If you have a small ancient Greek type of society - everyone votes and shape the rules. Today we have huge societies and so the power is more centered. Behind every few million people there is a Representative, behind every few of them there are other and so on till we reach that golden Greek number of people who are enough to make democracy (less than 300 and more than 30 people).

Every political system actually works, but for different kinds of societies. Anarchy won't work for our right now. Oh and having a coup doesn't mean Anarchy it means simply forcible changing of the system to another or simply changing the parts of said system, not having no system at all.

 

[loodmoney]

Yeah, it's more than "no government". I'd best describe anarchism as the belief that all government is essentially illegitimate, and that no-one has the right to force you to obey the will of others.

So while an anarchist society could function with rules, if you disagreed with those rules you would not be forced to obey them (e.g. thrown in gaol for not following them), but could move elsewhere.

If you want something to read, check out Demanding the Impossible by Peter Marshall for a good history and explanation of anarchism, or In Defense of Anarchism by Robert Paul Wolff, which gives a philosophical argument for it.

 

[JoJo]

That no-one is universally considered to be in charge doesn't necessarily mean that nothing gets done, or that no-one is controlling things.

In states where the government has collapsed, many people will just get on with their daily business as usual.

Consider, how much direct influence does your government have over your average day.

Alot, since they are loaning me about £21000 over about 3 years to get a degree, and I take medicine funded by them every day to treat medical conditions. They provide our education, healthcare and laws. Look at Somalia where the government collapsed, the parts of that which haven't settled into automonous rule have come under the control of various war-lords who give their mercenanies a free reign and implement harsh Sharia law. Doesn't look very perfect to me.

 

[trouble_gum]

Anarchy is basically chaos as I understand it. No government, no rules, the only people who make it out alive are those who kill before they're killed.

Given that I would probably not survive through such a situation, can't say I'm a fan of it.

The common misconception of "Anarchy" is that involves a situation in which "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." Anarchy derives from the Greek, "anarchos" meaning "without rulers" - Archon was a title for the chief magistrate in Ancient Athens.

To quote V for Vendetta - the book, not the film - "Anarchy means without leaders, Evie, not without organisation. This is not Anarchy, this is the Land of Do As You Please. This is Chaos."
To quote Immanuel Kant:
"A Law And Freedom without Violence (Anarchy)
B Law And Violence without Freedom (Despotism)
C Violence without Freedom And Law (Barbarism)
D Violence with Freedom And Law (Republic)"

Anarchy posits that the state is unnecessary and that human nature should give rise to a situation of "natural law" wherein all those living in a community can agree on simple rules and ethics in order to live free of the impositions of the state. This include concepts such as a lack of political structure (no ministers, chiefs, presidents, kings, whatever), equality of all, freedom from ownership - i.e all things exist as a communal resource and that no one individual or small group has greater authority or power than any individual.
What it does not mean is that there are no laws, that you are free to do anything you want up to and including freely murdering, stealing and raping other people.

In principle its an enlightened and excellent form of government wherein everyone is treated equally, resources are shared amongst all and people are free to exist regardless of their race, colour or creed. It should come as no surprise, really, that Anarchism formally develops as a political philosophy in 18th Century Europe, amidst a backdrop of revolution, ethnic groups within the crumbling Austro-Hungarian Empire seeking self-rule and self-determination, peasant unrest and a growing philosophical opinion that religious intolerance, the feudal class system and inherited rank and privilege were wrong.

It's also no surprise that Anarchism falls down from pretty much its opening base tenet - that human nature would lead to everyone agreeing about things. I think we can see where the Anarchists were going wrong there.

 

[00slash00]

I undertand theres more to anarchy than just "no government"

however personally I dont understand how our society could run under such a thing, no one is going to clean up the streets for nothing, and some people arnt going to stop killing others because its not a very nice thing to do

i have been an anarchist for a couple years so maybe i can help. it is all about everyone working together and doing their part. anarchy is a system in which everyone is equal and everything as shared, belongings and responsibilities. it doesnt usually work in large countries. for example, if america became anarchist rather than being broken up into cities and towns and shit like that, it would likely be broken up into communities. in these communities everyone works together and rather than using money, resources would be acquired from other communities by helping with a job they need or trading something you have that they need. not everyone would want to live in that type of system which is fine. as i said, anarchy is typically divided up into small communities and it ceases to be anarchy if youre forcing people to be part of that system. additionally, if its common opinion that the anarchist society isnt working, its simply a matter of holding an election and before long you will be back to the old system.

it can be kinda confusing and there are a lot of arguments people make for why they dont think it would work (and in america, it probably wouldnt. certainly not until the rest of the world begins to hate us less), but that is anarchy, as i understand it, on the most basic level

 

[RatRace123]

The common misconception of "Anarchy" is that involves a situation in which "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." Anarchy derives from the Greek, "anarchos" meaning "without rulers" - Archon was a title for the chief magistrate in Ancient Athens.

To quote V for Vendetta - the book, not the film - "Anarchy means without leaders, Evie, not without organisation. This is not Anarchy, this is the Land of Do As You Please. This is Chaos."
To quote Immanuel Kant:
"A Law And Freedom without Violence (Anarchy)
B Law And Violence without Freedom (Despotism)
C Violence without Freedom And Law (Barbarism)
D Violence with Freedom And Law (Republic)"

Anarchy posits that the state is unnecessary and that human nature should give rise to a situation of "natural law" wherein all those living in a community can agree on simple rules and ethics in order to live free of the impositions of the state. This include concepts such as a lack of political structure (no ministers, chiefs, presidents, kings, whatever), equality of all, freedom from ownership - i.e all things exist as a communal resource and that no one individual or small group has greater authority or power than any individual.
What it does not mean is that there are no laws, that you are free to do anything you want up to and including freely murdering, stealing and raping other people.

In principle its an enlightened and excellent form of government wherein everyone is treated equally, resources are shared amongst all and people are free to exist regardless of their race, colour or creed. It should come as no surprise, really, that Anarchism formally develops as a political philosophy in 18th Century Europe, amidst a backdrop of revolution, ethnic groups within the crumbling Austro-Hungarian Empire seeking self-rule and self-determination, peasant unrest and a growing philosophical opinion that religious intolerance, the feudal class system and inherited rank and privilege were wrong.

It's also no surprise that Anarchism falls down from pretty much its opening base tenet - that human nature would lead to everyone agreeing about things. I think we can see where the Anarchists were going wrong there.

That makes sense, thanks for explaining it, it sounds like a decent philosophy, in theory. In practice I think everyone knows it would not work out that way. There's always going to be someone who believes he's better than others and should be in a position to reflect that.
Beyond ambition and greed, you'd get the murderous, rapist psychos who think that a lack of governmental oversight would justify their sick acts. True to our nature, we could never maintain the level of stability necessary for a system like that to exist. One small action and the entire thing becomes chaos.

 

[bigsby]

V for Vendetta was already mentioned, I suggest you give it a look as it is one of the best depictions of "true" anarchy I know of. But basically, anarchy is about self-governance of the people. If you ask me, the closest we as humanity have come to a working anarchy were the early years of the Athenian Polis.

 

[trouble_gum]

That makes sense, thanks for explaining it, it sounds like a decent philosophy, in theory. In practice I think everyone knows it would not work out that way. There's always going to be someone who believes he's better than others and should be in a position to reflect that.
Beyond ambition and greed, you'd get the murderous, rapist psychos who think that a lack of governmental oversight would justify their sick acts. True to our nature, we could never maintain the level of stability necessary for a system like that to exist. One small action and the entire thing becomes chaos.

Pretty much. It's a political theory that emerged as a reaction to the hereditary, autocratic monarchies of the time and the desires of those who were amongst the emergent middle and intellectual classes for greater freedom for themselves and by extension, the lower / artisan classes. In that sense, its very similar to Communism in that both systems evolve and order themselves around freeing those who aren't in power from the tyranny of those in power.

It's a philosophy based on the Romantic Ideal of human nature - that humans are by nature selfless and peaceful and able to put aside their differences by dint of their great intellectual capability. Shame that's really, really nothing like reality. I'll confess to being fairly facetious here, but basically, Anarchism wants us to be nice to everyone when millions of years of social conditioning has taught us to fear the stranger, reject those different from us, covet possessions and smash those we perceive to be a threat.

To my knowledge, anarchism has never been even tried as a system of government and, unless it was a global, total change, it would simply never function for very long whilst surrounded by other non-anarchist societies.