Is America descending into Anarchy?

Originally posted by DariusHames
reply to post by ANOK

 

I guess it's my understanding of what Anarchy means. I myself never knew it was an ideology but simply Anarchy = Chaos.

The term Anarchy does mean chaos, a lack of control. The term Anarchism was a political movement. Socialists chose to use that term even though it was in general a negative term, and demonised in the press, and so terms like Libertarian Socialism were used instead.

But thanks for the post its certainly been enlightening.

You're welcome.

Although, considering all of the above, I still don't see it as an option. As someone mentioned, you require a mature society before you can consider something like Anarchy. It seems way to easy for things to descend into mob rule or the the judgments placed on someone by the collective to be arbitrary.

You don't need a mature society, just one that is informed and educated. The working class prior to WII was very informed, educated, and was very militant and aware. Not educated by the state but by each other, people used to discuss politics on the street like we do on teh interwebs. There was workers solidarity.

WWII destroyed that workers solidarity, and the right wing state started conditioning working class people to forget solidarity and to embrace individualism and social climbing. This took away the power of the working class,

If you had to use Anonymous as an example you could certainly point out numerous actions which could be questionable in the sense of whether it's right or wrong, arbitrary or justified.

I agree.

It's way too easy for the society to adopt whatever opinion is trending and I wouldn't want to oppose that model of what a good citizen should be.

But what is a good citizen? One that is passive and does nothing to change what they know is not right?

At least, in front of structure like a court you still stand a chance, but in front of an angry mob, not so much.

Not so sure I agree with that.

I agree property, capitalism, authoritarianism and so forth are evil in their nature but you still require some authority to oppose the community.

Oppose the community? As I explained in my last post, anarchism is not a lack of control, it is a lack of hierarchical authority. Surely we would all agrees some laws/rules are necessary, for example traffic laws.
Anarchism is not about a lawless, unorganized society.

Lets say, hypothetically, you live in a community which opposes homosexuality and alienates those who are homosexual or more extreme sees it as justifiable to execute them. You'd still require some authority which can oppose the communities beliefs.

Anarchists believe that most of those types of anti-social problems are caused by the sort of society that has developed due to capitalism. Capitalists like to divide society, the old divide and conquer. You don't need permanent autonomous authority to take care of problems that arise.

Maybe in the future when society is a little more evolved and understands it own motivations for acting in the way it does, then yes, by all means dismantle the government and all its structures.

But unfortunately society is getting to the point where change is impossible, because of the lack of education and understanding, and the power of the state. That is going to get worse not better. Prior to WWII the working class was revolutionary, which resulted in the Spanish revolution in 1936. We as a society are not maturing into an aware revolutionary society, we are moving in the opposite direction. The more society is put into a state of fear by the government the more society will desire authority. It's a con-game to keep us passive and ripe for capitalist exploitation.

So yeah, maybe America isn't descending/ascending into Anarchy but in fact the opposite. More government regulations and control.

Exactly.

Think it could work if you had an hybrid of the two. I dunno.

A hybrid would not work. For socialism to really work it would have to be international and complete.
Yes the goal of anarchists is socialism, the goal of all left wing movements was socialism, or in other words 'free association'...

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

Free association (communism and anarchism)

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
Unless this anarchy can be monetised, outsourced and resold in faceless retail chains, no. If Big Business can't make money on it, no new political or social movement will really ever take hold in America.

Oh the irony.

Big business making money from it's own destruction. I wouldn't put it past them to try.

You're right though, big business (capitalist bastar business) has such a complete hold on society they may as well declare themselves god and just have done with it.

Pray to the gods of consumerism. Manipulated, controlled, numbered, raped, lead (to the death) by the prophets of profit (lol).

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
Unless this anarchy can be monetised, outsourced and resold in faceless retail chains, no. If Big Business can't make money on it, no new political or social movement will really ever take hold in America.

Oh the irony.

Big business making money from it's own destruction. I wouldn't put it past them to try.

You're right though, big business (capitalist bastar business) has such a complete hold on society they may as well declare themselves god and just have done with it.

Pray to the gods of consumerism. Manipulated, controlled, numbered, raped, lead (to the death) by the prophets of profit (lol).

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

Gil Scott Heron was wrong, the revolution will be televised: it's the way they stop revolutions.

Want to diminish the cultural worth of counter culture? Produce knock-offs and sell them in Hot Topic.

Want to ridicule and devalue a movement like Occupy? Give it loads of coverage through already bought/owned media outlets.

reply to post by Merriman Weir


Yep exactly.

Turning rebellion into money.

If they can commercialise it they can control it. No real movement for change has ever had fair press, it's always slanted to demonise it. They just simply make stuff up, I've been a victim of that first hand.

reply to post by DariusHames


And the easiest most direct answer to your question is no...The problem is right now you have a lot of Conservatives who are in shock that Romney got destroyed by Obama and they just can't handle reality. They will be okay by the end of the month! Thanksgiving will make everyone happy again.

Anarchy, chaos, etc... it's true that America is falling into this. By the new law, the greedy are going to expose themselves to all the people. If you cannot see the greed in these people, examine yourselves. It is the time of the new beginning, evil will destroy evil. Just stay out of the way when it all starts to happen. if you Believe that...Want to buy an eighteen foot boat with motor and trailer for eight hundred bucks.

reply to post by DariusHames

Perhaps I do not know what anarchy is. So please tell me what kind of government gives immunity from any laws up to and including murder to certain citizens, allows known false prosecutions to occur basically kangeroo courts with not recourse from its citizens, and states that its members and supporters are allowed to break ANY law without repercussions? I am curious as to what to call the US of A since Obama became president. As to what I mean. Police are allowed to kill people and immune, all they have to say was they were afraid. Prosacutors are allowed to knowingly and intentionally introduce false evidence and testimony at trials and can not be held accountable even when they confess what they did, the New Black Panther party is allowed to intimidate at the poles with no repercussion from the Department of Justice which itself refuses to follow the Laws of Congress such as Suzanna's Law and even sells guns to known criminals in order to arm the Cartels as in Fast and Furious.

Originally posted by SubTruth
reply to post by DariusHames

 

NO-----Anarchy is the extreme right wing. A Oligarchy is the extreme left wing.

Socialism,Communism,Fascism,Corporate Capitalism are all Oligarchies.



The political spectrum many are taught is a LIE. The simplest way to look at it is control the lack of control is Anarchy and complete control is some form of a Oligarchy. Nazi Germany and Stalin Russia were both Oligarchies. Learn the real truth it will show you the lies.



Progressives hate this model because guess were they fit in.

Hitler loved the early progressive movement for a reason he was a progressive. You can spin it a thousand ways from Tuesday, but the facts and the propaganda of the time remain.




Current America is not about less control but about complete control. Slowly over time the progressive that run the public schools and the government are conditioning the people to give up freedom. Look at Europe and the lack of freedoms they have. The stupid laws and cameras on every street. How did they let this happen? They were conditioned with fear and political correctness by the progressives.

No...you have that wrong....

Extreme Left wing is considered Communism, Socialism, Secularism and Anarchism.

Extreme Right wing is Theocracy, Corporatism, Fascism and Nationalism

An Oligarchy can be a Plutocracy ...but not necessarily...Aristotle coined the phrase...

Throughout history, oligarchies have been tyrannical (relying on public servitude to exist) or relatively benign. Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich,[4] for which the exact term is plutocracy, but oligarchy is not always a rule by wealth, as oligarchs can simply be a privileged group, and do not have to be connected by bloodlines as in a monarchy.

One thing that is true...our education system is terrible and it is churning out students that are ill prepared to face the world...saw a clip the other day about the threat "those that do not remember history are doomed to repeat it" and then went on to say that the younger generations today are historically illiterate...as in...they are totally illiterate about history and the valuable lessons to be learned from it. He is correct.

reply to post by ANOK


First I want to say that I am very appreciative that this dialogue is taking place because I have been looking far and wide, and almost gave up on it. Second I would like to clarify that in all my years on alt.news.etc., I never encountered a post that had so many brackets I couldn't navigate them all in an impressive manner. You guys have beat me. I gave up, but decided to respond anyway.

It's the sticky bit about the implied responsibility of educators that hit me, because I am said responsible educator, trying to teach critical thinking skills to students that have been trained in the reactive arts and not much more.

My only complaint with the Nonnies is that they forget sometimes to include Basho's wisdom as prerequisite on the way to Anarchy:

"Learn the rules then forget 'em."

The smart, effective Nonny will know and appreciate what the rules are, so that the breaking of them will be in the best interest of those they cannot reach, just as Basho learned that poetry is just graffiti with a large helping of empathy or at least sympathy for those who will read it.

Now I will go lick my alt.bizarre wounds, self-inflicted because I long for the day when we could keep quoting each other on several levels and still sound somewhat sane. Somewhat.