Is America descending into Anarchy?

Well maybe the title is a tad too much but I have seen an increase amongst youngster actually considering anarchy as an option to other political ideologies.

Not quite sure how it'll work but I'm assuming it's basically just the removal of all laws and government institutions.

People basically govern themselves.

Nice idea and all but I don't think it'll actually work. haha

This could also be a sign of a failing government and a country descending into further economic and social turmoil.

Mean, I find it ridiculous but maybe someone else doesn't. I'd like to hear your opinions on it

I would have to say The Anarchy is taking place at the Government levels and the example being set by the criminals in office is one that young people know is crap so why try?

From what I can trace it actually finds its origins, well maybe not its origins, but the recent interest in it from the hacktivist group Anonymous.

It’s hard to think of another time when there has been such a gulf between intellectuals and activists; between theorists of revolution and its practitioners. Writers who for years have been publishing essays that sound like position papers for vast social movements that do not in fact exist seem seized with confusion or worse, dismissive contempt, now that real ones are everywhere emerging. It’s particularly scandalous in the case of what’s still, for no particularly good reason, referred to as the ‘anti-globalization’ movement, one that has in a mere two or three years managed to transform completely the sense of historical possibilities for millions across the planet. This may be the result of sheer ignorance, or of relying on what might be gleaned from such overtly hostile sources as the New York Times; then again, most of what’s written even in progressive outlets seems largely to miss the point—or at least, rarely focuses on what participants in the movement really think is most important about it.

THE NEW ANARCHISTS

Anonymous can be difficult to ideologically pin down but there is one commitment that seems to bubble up to the surface quite a bit and exists across the different nodes of Anonymous: some version of free speech (as one Anon had put it, “free speech is non-negotiable”); Anonymous often seems to arise when censorship shows its face, as the recent OpBart action demonstrates so well. This commitment is not absent in Anarchism, it just has had a stronger life in liberal and libertarian traditions (and more generally among hackers of different stripes).

Is Anonymous Anarchy?

Okay, so maybe not anarchy in the general sense but some similarities or similar ideologies.

If the government ever fell, people would just create their own local governments almost instantaneously.
People have an inborn tendency for order. Heck, even most Anarchists would say that they still want order, just without the government involved.
Anarchists have deluded themselves to think that anarchy would work in the real world. The fact is humans aren't anarchists by nature.

Individually anarchism is a great idea if you can implement it rationally.

Collectively anarchism is a terrible idea since everyone is attempting to implement their ideology independently.

I'm sure most of these youngsters are into anarchy as a fad. It will die out eventually I'm sure. Just like Hollister, Abercrombie, Lady Gaga, etc. You know, as soon as the next Iphone or whatever comes out, their minds will change.

Is America descending into Anarchy?

I would put it this way:
Is America Ascending into Anarchy?

No.

The Leviathan Warligarchy would be unable to profit to its satisfaction.

The US is too immature to support Anarchy well. I also find it to be an ascent, not a descent -- in a conscious world that is. You can still have laws and morals, but you keep it self-authoritative (take responsibility for your actions) rather than handing all your rights to a government, one that's slowing encroaching on your right to exist as you want to exist -- but you handed your existence to them, so don't anyone cry about it now.

Anarchy is not total-chaos unless people make it that way, but Authoritarianism is the proverbial ball and chain no matter what. A self-critical, responsible, and compassionate people can probably pull it off, but right now, most of the US are a bunch of egotistical drones that suffer delusions of entitlement.

Also, consider why Anarchy is so very demonized and often synonymous to chaos and destruction... which is utter nonsense.

reply to post by resoe26


It's been a fad among the rebellious youth for quite some time.

I can remember 20 years ago seeing anarchy symbols carved into school desks. Most of these kiddos barley understand the concept, but know that it's "rebel" and "taboo".

I would have to say hardly. After a nation endures Vietnam, Nixon and Clinton its hard to see what would tip that nation over the edge. Anarchy is by its very nature a description of a complete failure of legislature and governance.

Tuesdays results do nothing internationally to give that impression save for those who would look for it. You had a democratic election - strike 1 for anarchy, no riots on the streets following the democratic election, strike 2, no mass uprisings or acts of violence against the new regime / old regime - strike 3

Anarchy is the adoption of un-rule against the rules by the ruled - sorry its as easy for me to get a visa to the US today as it was Monday, the FO isn't ruling against me travelling there so its hardly a hotbed of revolution and rebellion (which is contrary to the case for a visa to Somalia)

As you are fond of saying 3 strikes - nothing conclusive - no drama.

Anarchy in The USA

This has been on replay on my ipod since Tuesday night. Funny you should post a similar comment.

I have also had "the end of the world as we know it" playing.

I believe both wholeheartedly.

reply to post by DariusHames


Anarchy is not anarchism. Anarchy is a lack of hierarchical systems of authority. Anarchism is a political system that offers an alternative to hierarchical authority by replacing it with voluntary associations of workers.

Anarchism is not simply no government. Anarchism offers an alternative. Anarchy is just a lack of, it offers no alternative.

To fully understand what anarchism is you have to understand it's history...

The original anarchists, e.g. Mikhail Bakunin, were socialists. They believed the economy, the means of production, should be collectively owned by the workers themselves, rather than a government (e.g. USSR, China etc), or private entities as in capitalism. Bakunin and Marx were both members of the International Workers Association and were heated rivals. Marx thought Bakunin was economically ignorant, while Bakunin accused Marx of being an authoritarian. Marx eventually had Bakunin expelled, as Marxism became more popular than anarchism as a way to change from capitalism to socialism.

Socialism in the 1800's was split between those who wanted a political path to socialism, Marxism, and those who wanted direct action and instant change. The later started using the term anarchism to differentiate their socialism from Marxist socialism. Much like Marx called his socialism 'communism' to differentiate from the old utopian socialists such as Robert Owen, and because middle class liberals had started appropriating the term to mean something it didn't (liberalism is not socialism). Anarchists also were the first to use the term Libertarian, calling themselves Libertarian Socialists as the term anarchism became demonised by the press. Libertarian, liberty from authority (to replace the authoritarian state), socialism workers ownership of the means of production (to replace authoritarian capitalism)

"We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." Mikhail Bakunin "Federalism, Socialism, Anti-Theologism", presented by Bakunin as a Reasoned Proposal to the Central Committee of the League for Peace and Freedom, at the League's first congress held in Geneva (September 1867).

Mikhail Bakunin

Anarchism is not about having no order, control, or even laws. It just puts that power into the hands of us all, instead of the privileged wealthy few at the top of the capitalist pyramid.

A good example of anarchism in action is the Spanish revolution 1936.

FOR WORKERS around the world, the Spanish Civil War was a beacon of hope against the tide of reaction then sweeping Europe. As the promise of workers’ revolution was being dashed by the rise of fascism in Germany and the rise of Stalinism in the Soviet Union, the workers of Spain led a heroic fight against the 1936 uprising of General Francisco Franco. In the process, they led not only a struggle against fascism, but also a workers’ rebellion that gave the world an inspiring glimpse of what workers’ power could look like....

Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War

The role of anarchism in the Spanish Revolution or Spanish Civil War of 1936 is too often absent from histories of this struggle against fascism. Alongside the war millions of workers collectivised the land and took over industry to pursue their vision of a new society. This page tells their story and the story of those who fought alongside them....

The Spanish Revolution (1936)

There was both a civil war, and a revolution going on at the same time. The anarchist took advantage of the civil war, and lack of government, to re-organise their society. Spain's 'communist party' ended up betraying the anarchists. Never trust a political party that calls itself "communist" or "socialist". Neither terms should be associated with political authority because it simply attracts those who want power, not liberty for all. Socialism/communism are economic systems and require no government, or state authority...

"We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." Bakunin.

BTW anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism because capitalism is hierarchical in its nature, it creates economic authority over others. Those who own property and hire wage labour are a form of hierarchical authority.

So in conclusion Anarchism is a system whereby the workers own the means of production, and society is organised by voluntary local associations who make decision based on community needs through direct democracy (and no, direct democracy is not mob rule).

reply to post by DariusHames


certianly seems so to me.

BTW the roots of anarchism lie in the book "What is Property" by Proudhon published in 1840. He was the first socialist to use the term anarchism in print. The book is about the ridiculousness of an economy based on property ownership, a critique of capitalism and the government that gives capitalist the right to exploit.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (pronounced [ˈpruːd ɒn] in BrE, [pʁu dɔ̃] in French) (15 January, 1809 – 19 January, 1865) was a French economist and socialist philosopher who was the first individual to call himself an "anarchist" and is considered among the first anarchist thinkers. He was a workingman, a printer, who taught himself to read Latin so as to print books in that language well. Proudhon is most famous for his assertion of "Property is theft!", in his missive What is Property? Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right of Government with the original title: Qu'est-ce que la propriété? Recherche sur le principe du droit et du gouvernement, which was his first major work, published in 1840.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

"Property, acting by exclusion and encroachment, while population was increasing, has been the life-principle and definitive cause of all revolutions. Religious wars, and wars of conquest, when they have stopped short of the extermination of races, have been only accidental disturbances, soon repaired by the mathematical progression of the life of nations. The downfall and death of societies are due to the power of accumulation possessed by property." Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Capitalism, the root of all wars.

"Why, how can you ask such a question? You are a republican."
"A republican! Yes; but that word specifies nothing. Res publica; that is, the public thing. Now, whoever is interested in public affairs -- no matter under what form of government -- may call himself a republican. Even kings are republicans."
"Well! You are a democrat?"
"No."
"What! "you would have a monarchy?"
"No."
" A Constitutionalist?"
"God forbid."
"Then you are an aristocrat?"
"Not at all!"
"You want a mixed form of government?"
"Even less."
"Then what are you?"
"I am an anarchist."
"Oh! I understand you; you speak satirically. This is a hit at the government."
"By no means. I have just given you my serious and well-considered profession of faith. Although a firm friend of order, I am (in the full force of the term) an anarchist. Listen to me." "Dialogue with a Philistine" from "What is Property".

edit on 11/10/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)