Why and how would Anarchy work? Question.

Just a question for the Anarchists out there, but why do you belive Anarchy as a system would work?

I'm just asking for an explaination from somebody that believes in it.

well firstly it would rock...i would blow up the bridges that join the western algarve to the east and then take as much land as i could with a massive viking axe!!

after stealing some of those really powerfull guns off an aircraft carrier that automatically target enemys, i would mount them around the whole of the western perimeter and watch the fun from a multiple webcam link up in the castle i have just made my slaves build me.

just joking....anarchy can never work, there has to be some form of law and control, its just human nature to kick off and take.

well, thats what i think.

just joking....anarchy can never work, there has to be some form of law and control, its just human nature to kick off and take.

human nature is defined by the culture the individual is raised in. Change the culture, change "human nature". In our capitalist system, we have learned to exploit others for gain, so many would do this had they the chance, but it is possible to hardwire the individual differently- teaching him to cooperate with fellow man instead of see him as the means to an end. Of course there is always going to be the rare sociopathic individual who will exploit no matter what, but these people don't care if there is a system of law or not anyways, and are going to act on their desires under any circumstance.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by the_individualist]

Anarchy as a political paradigm cannot exist. Human beings rule the earth; and human beings are the meanest food chain known to life on earth. Anarchy might reign for a while, but ultimately, the dude with the biggest club comes along and chases anarchy away - for his purposes. There must always be some sort of rule. Rule by the strongest.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Anarchy as a political paradigm cannot exist. Human beings rule the earth; and human beings are the meanest food chain known to life on earth. Anarchy might reign for a while, but ultimately, the dude with the biggest club comes along and chases anarchy away - for his purposes. There must always be some sort of rule. Rule by the strongest.

The earth rules us. If our environement were radically changed, the earth would kill us. We are nothing to it. It is anthropocentrism to believe we rule "all". Although I personally believe we are carnivorous, we are not at the top of the food chain. If it weren't for our group cooperation (hint hint: anarchist practices), we would have been cat food long ago. We are inclined to cooperation within our own species, and competition against others, only our warped modern culture can change this. Anarchism wouldn't "reign". This is a hierarchial concept that anarchists reject. It wouldn't rule over us, we would carry it out.

The 'dude with the biggest club' is the one who carries the responsibility for leading the tribe with his strength. This does not mean he is exploiting his fellow man. Most leaders of hunter-gatherer tribes carry no more posessions than the rest, they simply have the authority (non-hierarchial) when it comes to survival of the tribe, because without their decision-making skills, the tribe would die. They don't infringe on all the tribe members' rights, as their authority is given by the tribe members. It is voluntary cooperation, not power imposed from above. The inclination to take others' rights away is a product of our "dog-eat-dog" capitalist system.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by the_individualist]

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Anarchy as a political paradigm cannot exist. Human beings rule the earth; and human beings are the meanest food chain known to life on earth. Anarchy might reign for a while, but ultimately, the dude with the biggest club comes along and chases anarchy away - for his purposes. There must always be some sort of rule. Rule by the strongest.

Exactly, for example, take away the laws and the governments and all people are free. Immediatly everyone fights for survival, the weak group together and rally behind their strongest man. Bam, there you go anarchy over. Now the leader of the weak fight the individual stronger guys, they in turn group and it all goes back to normal. Human nature says we as social beings will create social structures to help us cope with daily life. Where is anarchy though? The entire world is anarchy, who governs the governments? Who is the one surpream leader of the world?

There are 192 countries in the world, 192 factions, 192 completely different cultures with sub cultures with sub catagories in themselves. 192 different heads of state, monarchs, dictators, prime ministers, presidents and even one god representation on earth, the Holy See. 192 armies. 192 forms of government. 192 opinions with thousands of sub opinions within each opinion. Who governs the 192 states that represent the people they govern? No one, there for the world is anarchy on the global scale. Anarchy on a national level would be like on the world level, factions, that in turn ends anarchy and forms a new sub culture within the world, so we might have 219 countries in the world? Get my point?

[edit on 10/4/2006 by Rockpuck]

double post sorry

[edit on 10/4/2006 by Rockpuck]

You make far too many assumptions about supposed "human nature".

Of course anarchists do not want to immediately remove all forms of hierachy in one day! We are not ready, we need to teach the next generation how to cooperate instead of compete like we have been conditioned. Once again, it is our competitive capitalist system that fuels this so-called "nature". We need to teach tolerance, so people of different ideologies will peacefully coexist, not fight about it. We need to learn to say: "Ok, you live by your beliefs, I live by mine." instead of "I am going to be irrational and kill you for not following my beliefs." This is irrational, and only has foundation in our modern culture of bigotry, not our instinctual drives.

If hierachy did not exist, their would be no factions. There would be no monarchs or dictators or "representatives" rallying their populations against each other. The modern man looks towards leaders and heads of state because he has not been trained to think on his own terms in our culture, he has been trained to look above for guidance and support, not to himself. And of course people who believe in hierarchy and authority will recreate it if it is destroyed. We need to develop a self-realization among the mass population, that we do and can have the power to lead ourselves.

What's with all this the "weak group", the "strong group"? This is all thinking that we have been conditioned into. We use these stereotypes to initially protect ourselves. Say, for example, would you walk down a dark alley with a biker carrying a chainsaw, or an elderly woman? But once you know the person for who they are as an individual, groups fade out of the picture. (haha the elderly woman is a mass murderer, but the biker was just taking his chainsaw to get fixed at a shop)In other words, groups and schism are caused by alienation, which is imposed on us from the ruling class (why do you think racism and sexism exist? To keep us divided)

Your world scenario is not anarchy, it is ochlocracy- mob rule. You make a quick assumption to say that no authoritative coercion would lead directly to this scenario.

Human nature is not to kill other groups of people. This is conditioned into us by our leaders who need people willing to die for their wealth and power.

Different opinions do not necessarily lead to violent and oppressive conflict. I know plenty of people who share different opinions than me. Am I trying to oppress or kill them because of it? No. Are they trying to oppress or kill me? No. Even though we don't agree, we still coexist just fine. You make yet another unfounded assumption when you think different beliefs can't peacefully coexist and lead to violent conflict and competition.

I agree with the_individualist.

And please, optimus fett, make not the mistake to assume anarchy is the total absence of rules and laws. Anarchy can't abolish the laws of nature, for example. It is - at least the way I understand and endorse anarchy - merely the absence of a government. It's rule by the people (REAL democracy, if you will). Anarchy assumes that the individual is not as idiotic as the "clever" think him to be, but that he is able to find out for himself, to feel instinctively what is right and what is not.

Exactly absence of government and general law, because a break down of law will occure if no one is there to enforce it, which in turn leads to someone taking power. You will never defeat human nature, and you cannot change what human nature is, it is not based on your society, and even if it was every society has a foundation of law which all those in a state of anarchy would at least sub conciously refer to.

You cannot simply abolish heirarchy, to abolish it simply replaces it with a new one. Lets say every one is made poor, then one man makes him self a plow and because a better farmer, he is there for more powerful, no laws says how regulates his technology he can therefore take a stand as being superior, because all humans want to be superior in one way or another, no one likes being at the bottom. Also to abolish everything is the abolishment of material goods, essentially turning civilization back 10,000 years to stick and stones, though someone will always havea bigger stick.

Anarachy also relies on all people devotely beleiving in anarchy, if say the entire population does and the next generation come along and just one kid has any form of ego, anarchy caves in on its self.

Also, if say a natural disaster occures and kills many people, or say a prominant member of the non-society is murdered for food which causes an out cry and a sense of fear, people always look for a leader and someone to blame things on, ending anarchy for the sake of general protection.

[edit on 10/5/2006 by Rockpuck]

[edit on 10/5/2006 by Rockpuck]

You are greatly misinformed.

More of this "human nature" nonsense! If you look at our society, people are generally greedy. If you look at 'primitive' societies, they live in cooperative communites. Life is not one big egotistic competition to them, because they were not conditioned that way by their society. I'm not promoting anarcho-primitivism, I just think that the fact that their societies are so radically different from our own is proof that what you describe as "human nature" is not universal, and is not inherent to us. Not everyone is a sociopathic individual gearing to exploit and rule the population. And the few that are in power now are only there because of our ignorance. If people were self-realized and autonomous, they would not follow such individuals, and those looking for power would not be granted it.

Like I said before, authoritarian individuals reproduce authoritarian practices. Until the population realizes we do not need hierarchy, it will continue to recreate it. WE are looking for superiority because WE live in a dog-eat-dog capitalist system. In our society, the "superior" always wins, so we strive to be superior. Once again, this is not a universal characteristic of humanity. The ruling class propagates these "human nature" myths so they can maintain their exploitative domination over the general population. As long as the population is ignorant of reality, they will continue to leave their power unquestioned.

And about the 'plow' scenario: anarchism does not call for equality of position, it calls for equality of opportunity. It does not want to 'make everyone poor' like the pseudo-communism of the USSR. In other words, sure, the farmer could have his plow, but everyone would have the opportunity to get one if they wanted. And in a free society, the farmer would not be so irrational to horde away his invention, he would share it with all of humanity. Why would he not? He would be conditioned to live in a cooperative free society, not a competitive system of rugged individualism, after all. Do you think the person who invented the wheel just kept it to himself to be superior? No, we all know it is ridiculous to think so. It would be of only benefit to himself if he kept his invention to himself, but it would be of benefit to him and everyone else if he would share it. By sharing it, he loses nothing, and on top of that, everyone else gains. This 'superiority complex' you think is so innate is fueled by the present system and culture, where generosity loses; it is not fueled by our instincts.

Being at the bottom? There would be no bottom. Nor would there be a top. This hierarchial thinking is so ingrained in your head, isn't it!? We would all be on a level plane, and we would have all our needs met. There would be no reason to "rise above". The only reason people in our society don't like the bottom and try to gain superiority, is because the "bottom" is deprived in our society, and only a lucky few can be at the top. It's called poverty, which is a product of capitalsm.

Abolish everything?? Where did I ever say that!!? Anarchism calls for the abolishment of the 'trinity of oppression', organized religion (not faith, there's a big difference), capitalism, and the state. We do not wish to abolish all organization, just hierarchial organization. Anarchy would never work without organization. The Italian factory occupations by the syndicalists (in the 1920's I believe) is proof that workers can autonomously run their own factories and continue to produce goods in the absence of a hierarchy. The belief that anarchism implies the ends of material goods is a myth perpetuated by the state. In fact material goods would be of better quality, as finances would not be a factor (no more cheap-ass products, since there'd be no reason to make such garbage) and technology would take-off, as many potential inventions under this system are shunned for their lack of lucridity.

Anarachy also relies on all people devotely beleiving in anarchy, if say the entire population does and the next generation come along and just one kid has any form of ego, anarchy caves in on its self.

Also, if say a natural disaster occures and kills many people, or say a prominant member of the non-society is murdered for food which causes an out cry and a sense of fear, people always look for a leader and someone to blame things on, ending anarchy for the sake of general protection.

Anarchy does not rely on everyone believing in anarchism. People would be free to choose their own ideology. And if someone believes in an authoritarian ideology, the population would be realized and autonomous enough not to follow them. They would be aware of the harm placing power in someone's hands would do. Without numbers, the authoritarian has no influence.

Just one kid with an ego? We all have an ego. But does your ego mean you are a sadistic individual who's sole purpose and desire in life is to harm and exploit others for your benefit? The only reason harming others brings reward right now is because of the way our corrupt society is structured. In a free society, harming others would bring no benefit to anybody. And, people do derive personal pleasure from helping others and contributing to the people(psychological egoism). I strongly suggest you read Max Stirner's 'The Ego and Its Own'.

People always look for a scapegoat in this society, because we feel they are responsible, as power rests in their hands. In a free society, everyone would feel responsible for themselves and their own well-being, and would not just sit there and blame other people for things, because the power would be in their hands. Again, you make a broad generalization about all of humanity based on western society alone. Natural disasters happen, but they do not require a hierarchy to lead people through it. People would get together as a community and get through it, without the need for a 'boss'.

"non-society", huh? I consider our "society" to fit this description, with our rugged individualism and all. Murdered for food? You make out anarchy in your head to be some desparate fight for survival. Again I will say: People have and always will be a socially inclined species; humanity would come together in free communities and organize efficiently to produce all the food we needed. A society does NOT need hierarchy to produce goods. The boss is just there to exploit the worker's labor, not guide him through it. The only reason people are starving today is because of hierarchy (the wealth gap). In an organized free society, nobody would be starving under normal circumstances.

General protection? We don't need to place power in the hands of an elite minority for protection. We can easily protect ourselves, so long as we are aware that we can. You see, the ruling class and the state make you think you need them, when in reality you (or your community) are all you need to thrive and protect yourself. People only think they need leaders for protection, but in reality they don't do # for us.

[edit on 5-10-2006 by the_individualist]

[edit on 5-10-2006 by the_individualist]

Originally posted by Akareyon
And please, optimus fett, make not the mistake to assume anarchy is the total absence of rules and laws. Anarchy can't abolish the laws of nature, for example.

Right, everyone is deluded by the state into thinking that anarchy would lack organization. Everyone believes you need hierarchy and authority for organization. But this is a false assumption. How do you think egalitarian hunter-gatherers acquired their food? They organized and cooperated, and they generally don't have a hierarchy as we commonly think of it.

It is - at least the way I understand and endorse anarchy - merely the absence of a government. It's rule by the people (REAL democracy, if you will).

Well, the state (or government) is only part of the picture; many anarchists believe capitalism and organized religion need to be abolished also. It cannot be a mere political revolution, it needs to cover all fronts. It must be political, social, and economic, if a free society is to come about.

And democracy is really just absolute rule by the majority. In other words, the minority becomes a slave to the majority. I believe in some democratic principles (discussing everyone's ideas, and all the possible modes of action), but not pure democracy. If the minority does not agree, they can either continue to argue their case until the majority sees the error in their ways (assuming they are 'wrong'), or the minority can simply leave the organization and do things their own way. But the majority should never force the minority into carrying out their will.

Anarchy assumes that the individual is not as idiotic as the "clever" think him to be, but that he is able to find out for himself, to feel instinctively what is right and what is not.

Yeah, everyone says, "look around, people are too stupid to rule themselves and cooperate!". Little do they know that people are only stupid because the state made them that way (pop-culture, public education, etc.) and they are only competitive because capitalism made them that way. Take away the state and capitalism, and, oh look! People actually get smarter and start cooperating!

[edit on 5-10-2006 by the_individualist]

I have to firmly disagree, you make the assumption that Anarchy is so easy, it has never been achieved before?

Ancient civilization, we are dealing with incredibly small numbers of people who expressed relitively the same traits we do today, greed, thirst for power, and the assumption of dominance over other civilizations. To have a civilization everyone must be grouped under something to be considered the same group, or classified as a civilization. If the ideology a nation followed was anarchy then their would be no civilization, a dissolusion of law because none are there, just the basic moral guidelines all people would be expected to follow. So this group would constantly transform to find an identity, which is human nature, you CANNOT ARGUE HUMAN NATURE!! All people ancient fundamentally functioned in the same manor, all people choose leaders for several reasons. Protection against other people, a set of laws to prtect against them selves, a religion for a spiritual bond within the civilization and a governer of some kind be it king president what ever because the average man DOESNT want the burden to make desicions.

If the group which you could call a civilization's only ideology is anarchy they have to have some basic form of government to represent the various denominations of that anarchy, you there fore acheive a government - abcence of anarchy. Anarchy is a fine line between chaos, which is not anarchy though a problem that resides in it, and order, which can be acheived is anarchy can exist in harmony, which no govenrment can. Once harmony is broken the anarchy begins to form structure, all human relations form a structure whether you like it or not.

Your reltions with friends, women, your boss, they all form a heiarchy which is your social structure. If harmony within anarchy can be achieved within a population, be it a very small population, the equalibrium of power will be fragil at best, anything from an argument to someone stealing grain could spark tension resulting in sides splitting and new social structers being formed.

Anarchy is like all other governments, Democracy was perfected by the Greeks, though by todays standards flawed that only land owning males could vote, it was a direct democracy. We have a republic. Communism was never acheived, instead in its place formed a socialistic tyranny in it's name, much like we claim to be a democracy. Anarchy at best will be a few to a few thousand tribes split, the only sense of actual anarchy will reside in the higher powers, that is, above the governments like I said earlier. The only working anarchy is the world stage of 192 tribes with no over head leader, no surpreme law of the land, we go to war on our terms not international terms because no one backs it. So Anarchy is simply the constant struggle to be the top dog, a constant fight. Never in the world is there a day where one nation fight another, or fights its self, the only time we had secure peace was in the cold war with the threat of mutual destruction, which is gone. The US in a sense is the "leader" of the world anarchy simply by show of force, which is what human nature says shows the strength of ones self, the strong will do what they can, the weak will suffer what they must.

My point, anarchy as a structure for a actual government in direct responsibility for at least a few people is absolutely impossible, anarchy on a world wide scale has allways been inplace, some times in harmony sometimes not, most of the time in ordered chaos. As a government impossible, as a set of laws and moral guides, impossible, as an atmosphere over several tribes or groups it is always in place unless someone literally dominates.

Easy?? Humanity is in a mess, and it's going to be extremely difficult to transition to a free society, but once the pieces are in place, it will be self-sustaining.

Ancient civilization is still within the realm of capitalistic economies. Practical anarchism has functioned for millions of years, actually, as government and hierarchy as we think of it have only existed for about 10,000 years (neolithic revolution). It really started with agriculture. So the "ancient" humans were still under the influence of a competitive economy, and thus conditioned to be greedy etc.

Hey, I have a novel idea. Let's start a civilization and group it under an all-encompassing identity: humanity. If we abolish property (in the sense of owning land, NOT personal belongings), there will be no more 'America' or 'France' or 'China', these will be merely words used to denote a location, not a 'territory', or source of identity. People can identify as being human beings (which is what other species seem to do). Again, alienation causes us to group people (racism, sexism, etc.) which is imposed from the people above to prevent the populace from uniting and expropriating their unjust concentration of wealth and power. We all need to recognize each other as part of the same group: humanity. Dissolution of law? Laws are human abstractions and utopian ideals that do not exist in reality. And you said civilization only needed identity, not 'law', anyways. We only need protection in this system because it is so competitive (capitalism, hierarchy), and everyone sees each other as a means to an end. I am not arguing human nature, I am arguing our society's nature.

The only reason the 'average' man does not want to be burdened with decisions is because he is conditioned into this pathetic state of mediocrity by the present culture, where he doesn't have to make decisions, and the desire to act on his own behalf is destroyed.

all human relations form a structure whether you like it or not

Exactly, and it is only hierarchial structure which needs to be abolished, not all other forms of structure. ORGANIZATION IS STRUCTURE. ANARCHISM DOES NOT CALL FOR AN END TO ALL ORGANIZATON, ONLY HIERARCHIAL ORGANIZATION.

f the group which you could call a civilization's only ideology is anarchy they have to have some basic form of government to represent the various denominations of that anarchy, you there fore acheive a government - abcence of anarchy.

Anarchy is not really an ideology set in stone. Dogma is slavery. Anarchist theory is an idea that constantly refines itself and grows as we learn more. It is a theory based off of the observation of the oppressed class rising up against their exploiters (Spanish Civil War, Syndicalist factory occupations in Italy, etc.) It has been observed to manifest itself in human beings under the proper circumstances. Anarchism was not invented, it has always existed; anarchist theorists just put its existence into words and ideas that can be communicated to others. Government was invented, it is purely theoretical and utopian. And it obviously only works for the elite minority. The product of alienated philosophers sitting around thinking up 'ideal' systems, as opposed to observing the actual nature of things (like Peter Kropotkin).

Once harmony is broken the anarchy begins to form structure

Saying that lack of harmony automatically leads to hierachial structure is just a quick assumption.

Your reltions with friends, women, your boss, they all form a heiarchy which is your social structure. If harmony within anarchy can be achieved within a population, be it a very small population, the equalibrium of power will be fragil at best, anything from an argument to someone stealing grain could spark tension resulting in sides splitting and new social structers being formed.

These social relations are termed "natural influence". It is voluntary cooperation between individuals. If someone is dominant, people voluntarily let them make decisions, because they are best and most confident in their decision-making than other people. It is not power imposed from above. If someone is smarter in mathematics, say, then that person will be the 'authority' on it. Or if someone is best at building things, he will instruct people on how to do it properly. This does not take away your rights; it is voluntary cooperation, because you are willingly allowing the person to be the authority, since it betters everybody. If the 'leader of the group' says "Let's eat at Papa John's tonight." Then people don't have to do what he says, they can go eat wherever they want, he has just been given decision-making responsibility, because he is best at deciding where to 'have fun' or whatever than everyone else. This does not impose on peoples' rights and destroy liberty, because the choice is ultimately up to them, they simply choose to let the decision rest with the leader. But if they disagree at anytime, they can simply leave the group and pursue their own interests. Social relationships only impose on your rights if the leader is sociopathic and has a means of forcing you into it (with weapons, etc.), but I rarely see people (even in our society) taking these drastic measures into forcing people in the group to do what they want (you never see people going "you're going to Papa John's or I'm killing you!") Like Akareyon said, anarchism does not unrealistically wish to abolish the 'laws' of nature, as these are not inherently exploitative.

Arguments happen, but people rarely want to actually kill each other over it. Women usually use social means (gossip, etc. which is arguably a product of gender inequality and womens' suppression), men usually just punch each other around a few times, and that's that. No real damage done to the supposedly 'fragile' equilibrium. People get caught up in the moment, but usually make up later. And if two people absolutely can't stand each other, then they can just avoid each other or leave to another community. Stealing grain?? Again, anarchism wishes for efficient organization of the means of acquiring food , etc., and there is plenty of food for everyone. I don't see anyone stealing food in a free society. Or really anything for that matter, as there would be equality of opportunity. If someone wants that nice shiny farming tool, they can just go to the workshop and pick one up. Or make one themselves at the workshop if they have the skills.

Anarchy is not like governments (notice how I didn't say "other"). It lacks the hierarchial relationships characteristic of government that are so harmful to the individual. Like I posted before, I do not agree with pure democracy. I also do not agree with the abstraction of private property (in regards to owning land). Officially, yes, a federal republic, but in reality, a fascistic corporocracy with limited democratic elements. The Russian revolution was hijacked by the Bolsheviks and turned into a state socialism (an oxymoron, as a state cannot serve the people, only the minority in control of it.) The USSR was really just state-capitalism, as opposed to our "free"-market capitalism (well, really a mixed one, but you know what I mean), which is worse than our economic system. We don't claim to be a democracy. The Founding Fathers hated democracy. Anyone who claims this is living in delusion.

Anarchy at best will be a few to a few thousand tribes split, the only sense of actual anarchy will reside in the higher powers, that is, above the governments like I said earlier.

The former is tribalism, not anarchy (like the so-called "ancients"), and the world government thing is ochlocracy, not anarchy (for the second frickin time!!!).

The only working anarchy is the world stage of 192 tribes with no over head leader, no surpreme law of the land, we go to war on our terms not international terms because no one backs it.

For the last freakin time!!! Anarchy is the absence of hierachial authority and exploitation!!!!!! The world stage is NOT I repeat NOT an anarchy!!!

So Anarchy is simply the constant struggle to be the top dog, a constant fight. Never in the world is there a day where one nation fight another, or fights its self, the only time we had secure peace was in the cold war with the threat of mutual destruction, which is gone. The US in a sense is the "leader" of the world anarchy simply by show of force, which is what human nature says shows the strength of ones self, the strong will do what they can, the weak will suffer what they must.

Constant struggle?!?! Did you not read my whole explanation about being conditioned into a competitive state of mind and that cooperation has been observed plenty of times before in non-capitalistic economies (even in capitalistic ones on occasion)!??!

Once again, the U.S. being 'leader' is an OCHLOCRACY, NOT AN ANARCHY!!!!

The strong will either take responsibility for the group, or exploit the group, depending on his conditioning (like I have been SAYING) The "strong" can easily do what they want without harming the "weak", they just have been conditioned into a competitive mind-set, and so harm the "weak".

My point, anarchy as a structure for a actual government in direct responsibility for at least a few people is absolutely impossible, anarchy on a world wide scale has allways been inplace, some times in harmony sometimes not, most of the time in ordered chaos. As a government impossible, as a set of laws and moral guides, impossible, as an atmosphere over several tribes or groups it is always in place unless someone literally dominates.

Structure for actual government? Like I said before, government is hierarchial authority, which anarchism lacks, thus, it is NOT a form of government.
FOR THE LAST GOD FORSAKEN TIME, THE WORLD STAGE IS NOT AN ANARCHY!!!!! IT IS THE EPITOME OF HIERARCHY AND COMPETITION, NOT A FREE SOCIETY!!!

Obviously, you have taken the state's misleading definition of anarchy hook, line and sinker. You seriously need to educate yourself about what anarchism truly means, and stop relying on the dominant culture for your definition (which is tainted by the authority it lives under). What you describe is NOTHING like anarchy. Not even close. Although you probably don't care, and will just hold to your viewpoint (human beings are stubborn, I'll give you that!), here's a nice little introduction for you: An Anarchist FAQ for the ignorant and misinformed

[edit on 5-10-2006 by the_individualist]

Listen buddy, explain to me how the world stage is not the only existing form of Anarchy? I mean, I know you apparently think this system of no-government is possible, but it isnt.. it simply is NOT possible, and you will not let your self see that. You are placing people into this fairytale world where nothing bad happens, where no one hoards away things like the "plow" well I have news for you, for the last freakin time, that it IS HUMAN NATURE. Human nature is not what we are expected to do based on the society we live in, the structure which we live in came about because it is in general what the average human will partake in, such as daily social heiarchies. Your form of Anarchy that your talking about is not Anarchy in any ways, anarchy has nothing to do with making sure everyone is equal it only provides that there is no governing law to control people. You are talking about pure communism, another impossible feat, which explains why you base your claims not on the way humans act and react to society and social structures but to fairy tale utopian ideology.

The fact you don't recognize the world stage as anarchy in its self shows you have never studied political sience.

Easy?? Humanity is in a mess, and it's going to be extremely difficult to transition to a free society, but once the pieces are in place, it will be self-sustaining.

We are actually coming out of a period of political ballance, when we knew we had a threat of nuclear war if we !$% up, this is not a mess but a cycle that we go through, peace, war, peace, war. NEVER will there ever be in place any situation in which ever nation on earth put aside their differences and become anarchy. I for one know I would literally kill the anarachist to become the top guy, declare my self king and you my subject. Please explain to me, enlighten me because the true ignorance comes from the anarchist who don't seem to understand the psychology and sociology of man, HOW WOULD IT WORK, IN THIS MODERN AGE? EVER???!?! IT NEVER HAS AND NEVER WILL EEEEVVVVEEERRRR. you are predicting your little utopian society on such small groups, you need to account for ALL PEOPLE. If there was a sustaining anarchy a dominant structured government would whipe you off the map.

I can say in 50 years a tyrant will rise.

I can say, in 10 years a new democracy will be born.

I can say in 5 years a democracy will fall and a monarchy will rise.

I can say in 2 years a new form of constitutional monarch will come to power.

I CANNOT say, even in a million years, that a functioning anarchy will ever develop. neither can you.

[edit on 10/6/2006 by Rockpuck]

"Studied" political science?? Like I said before, authoritarian people reproduce authoritarian practices and beliefs. Many people are deluded into authoritarian beliefs, so would it not make sense that most of the professors and writers of 'political science' would recreate this common view and teach it to their students? If "political science" represents the world stage as an anarchy, then it sounds to me like it is nothing but a form of apologetics for the present system of inequality and exploitation.

You will not let yourself transcend your conditioning and seriously take a look at anarchy. The ruling class has everyone deluded into believing that "human nature" requires a hierarchy and 'law', all so they can maintain their power.

It looks like we simply can't agree on "human nature". I still maintain that "human nature" is subject to the society and culture the individual lives in. There is NO universal "human nature", save the drive to eat, reproduce, etc. There is NO universal drive to murder, rape, exploit, destroy, as you make out humanity to posess.

The present system exists because the population grew too large to sustain itself by hunter-gatherer ways of living. It initially came about because of necessity (or so the populace thought), not because it was optimal. The few sociopathic individuals who led the masses deceived the population into giving them power. You might say, "Oh, well then even if anarchy could work, then another disaster would cause this same thing to repeat itself.", but this is not necessarily the case, as we now have 6,000 years of history to warn us otherwise. Once people recognize the damaging effects of hiereachical power, they will never give up their freedom. I hate using cliches, but "absolute power corrupts absolutely", and once given power, the leaders who had convinced the growing population to give them power devised ways to maintain it. They created religions, philosophies, and a culture that would convince man that this was the nature of humanity (which is a lie), having a minority in control of all the wealth and power, with the deprived masses.

What man naturally partakes in? Give me a break: The masses willingly giving power into the hands of someone as mentally ill as our leaders? The 'alpha male' in animal social groups is always the one who is strongest, smartest, etc. and he looks out for the whole tribe. It is his duty. Our 'alpha' leaders are psychologically and physically bankrupt and are so alienated from society that they feel no responsibility for it. This doesn't sound like a natural hierarchy that man inherently partakes in to me. It must be imposed in deceptive ways from above.

Of course "bad" things will still happen. There can never be a 'utopia'. This is why government is utopian; it theoretically vows to exterminate all 'crime' with its 'law'. Government apologetics is the true fairytale. A truly free society would just be much better and freer of crime than the present system. I know that sounds totally upside-down to you, but your idea of anarchy is like "Mad Max" or "Water World" or something like that, which is NOT the anarchy that anarchists envision.

Again, anarchy to you is ALWAYS chaos and absence of structure. While anarchy can be this, it does not have to be. Without equality anarchy cannot maintain itself, so anarchism is all about equality. 'Control' people? The only reason man needs so much control in this day and age is because of his competitive conditioning. Pure communism is a from of anarchism (libertarian socialism), and it is not impossible: it has been observed to manifest in many communities in the past. Humans react and act according to the type of structure they live in, not by some universal law (which does not exist). It is called adaptation. If an organism does not adapt to its environment, it will die out. So in a competitive greedy society, we develop to match that.