Ask an Anarchist

[warpus]

But none of that will ever lead to any sort of anarchy. Right? Sounds like an ordered society to me

 

[Patine]

But none of that will ever lead to any sort of anarchy. Right? Sounds like an ordered society to me

Bakunin made his views very clear. "The Propaganda of the Deed," - blowing up commercial centres and assassinating heads of state, so the masses see the "Establishment," is not invincible and the gain the courage to rise up, is the modus operandi. This is already well-known. The 'Anarchists' Cookbook," has already been written. All changes and revisions are just because the Anarchists' international reign of terror in the late 19th, early 20th Century, while profound (a lot of successful bombings pulled off, and five sitting heads of state and two spouses of sitting heads of state assassinated), it didn't accomplish the planned results. And all revised Anarchists' "new published," or in parlance, seem to have no consensus or realistic chance in Hell in succeeding. They're all the pipedreams in the modern world. And, Anarchist thought ignores the natural hierarchical nature and tendency to order of some sort of the human species - even just "thug rule," - as is ALWAYS evident at some point (and usually sooner, rather than later), after every recorded social collapse - just maybe not always full-out NATION rebuilding.

 

[Takhisis]

Isn't anarchy a "state of disorder due to the absence of authority" ?

I think this is closer to an anocracy, actually.

 

[Narz]

I think this thread is dead, thread starter seems to have given up on answering questions.

 

[warpus]

I think this is closer to an anocracy, actually.

I got that from google. I'm going to assume that there exist multiple definitions and academic meanings, pop culture ones, and other ones still... As such when I say "anarchy" i might mean a nude man hiding behind some bushes eating peas out of a can, while another poster might mean something completely different, like clothed people walking around through a park eating sandwiches.

 

[Traitorfish]

Isn't anarchy a "state of disorder due to the absence of authority" ?

So obviously since you have no legal frameworks, technically there is no lawnessness, since there is no rule of law. So yeah, in that sense anarchy doesn't equal to "lawlessness"

But in practice all hell would break lose and we'd end up with a Mad Max type situation, with worse costumes and more boring storylines. And a lot of people dying and suffering, no central authority to provide needed services like education, hospitals, fire fighters, police officers.. no military for national defense.. warlords consolidating territory.. people doing what they want, looting, pillaging, looting, raping..

I don't care how you define "lawlessness", but how can that be a goal anybody wants?

I don't think we can identify "law" and "authority" in that way. Laws are, at the most fundamental level, agreed codes of conduct. All societies have laws, and all societies apply repercussions for people who violate those codes. Even in our hierarchical societies, the majority of law is civil rather than criminal, concerned with the complicated balancing of rights, obligations and interests rather than prohibitions enforced with violence, and the outcome of legal encounters does not very generally involve putting people into prisons.

You refer to people "doing what they want"- but what most people want is to leave orderly, peaceful lives. Do we imagine that, absent some external authority. Is it so implausible that, absent some external authority, they would strive to find some way to do that?

 

[Takhisis]

I think this thread is dead, thread starter seems to have given up on answering questions.

Ha.

 

[warpus]

I don't think we can identify "law" and "authority" in that way. Laws are, at the most fundamental level, agreed codes of conduct. All societies have laws, and all societies apply repercussions for people who violate those codes.

The repercussions exist in the form of a judicial and legal system, which can't exist in an anarchy.

It seems to me that in an anarchy you could easily have "codes of conduct".. but without a central authority it could very well simply be a case of "whoever has the guns gets the food". That's not a law, that's just a strategic reality.

You refer to people "doing what they want"- but what most people want is to leave orderly, peaceful lives.

We exist in a massive consumerist economy, as consumers. Most people strive to own stuff and be better than their neighbours. Sure, they also strive to lead peaceful lives, they strive for many things.. but if you removed all central authority and had a free for all, you would end up with a lot of bloodshed. It would not be peaceful at all

Is it so implausible that, absent some external authority, they would strive to find some way to do that?

Sure, some of them might want to live on a cozy farm somewhere in the middle of nowhere feeding goats and making cheese.. but this scenario would require everybody to be like that. If you just have a handful of people who are jerks and want more stuff and bigger guns, more food, more resources.. more power.. then it all breaks down. Scarcity related conflicts would also eventually erupt, such as arguments about food sources or other supplies.

It could work if we only had a couple million people on this planet and we were all spread out. And even so, it wouldn't work. One guy somewhere would start conquering stuff and spreading his central authority heresy

 

[AdamCrock]

IMHO people are still immature enough for the anarchy . Is that right ?

 

[Narz]

Are anarchists against stay-@-home orders?

 

[bernie14]

Are anarchists against stay-@-home orders?

No, they instinctually know the right thing to do