Jump to content
Accelerated Evolution

Recommended Posts

How does it work? I've been thinking about it and don't have very much information. Can an anarchist state only be taken by war or revolution? How would an anarchist state work? What are it's benefits? Do all anarchists think money is evil, or do any think that it is a necessary evil. What are the different types of anarchism? Has any country been under anarchy and done better then a form of government?

Just wanted to get some info on this and since I know there are a couple here maybe you can enlighten me.

Link to comment
  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As far as I know there have been very few anarchist "states" (I use state in quotes because the anarchists wouldn't call it that, but everyone else would). The most prominent examples are the anarcho-communists in the Spanish Civil War and the Black Army under Nestor Makhno in the Russian Civil War. Of course, you'll notice that both of these were minor factions in civil wars... The Spanish Anarchists worked with the pro-Soviet Spanish Communists (in return for their service, they wanted at the end of the war to be given their own land around Barcelona to become an "Anarchist Free Zone," I believe) and the Black Army sometimes worked with the Bolsheviks (however, the Bolsheviks betrayed the Black Army in the end, seeing them as too much of a threat).

However, it's interesting to note that the Black Army was one of the most effective single armies in the entire Civil War. With extremely limited supplies of ammunition and weapons they still fought off both White Armies (monarchist/capitalist) and Red Armies (communist) many times their size. They did insane forced marches, crossing all of Ukraine in a matter of days, avoiding huge armies and showing up where they were least expected. I'm a bit of a fanboy for these guys.

They would take over cities, destroy the prisons and kill any Russian nobility they found. They had a pretty ridiculous policy, though, pretty much any crime was punished by immediate execution (of course, during the Russian Civil War, the concept of "crime" was pretty loose at best).

I'll post more about actual anarchy later on.

Link to comment

Fun fact: Anarchy comes from Greek. -archy means ruler or rulers (so monarchy means one ruler, as mono- means one, etc... oligarchy means rule by the rich, etc). Ana- means "without," so anarchy literally means "without rulers."

The basic belief is that humans don't need rulers and artificially enforced laws to organize their society. Anarchy is not chaos or a lack of society, it is a rejection of authority.

The trick with anarchy is that most anarchists will disagree on a number of points. There being a rejection of politics, there is obviously no party, or party line to follow.

Some of the more common "groups" of anarchist are anarcho-communists (who believe in sharing resources, essentially what the final goal of communism is anyway), anarcho-syndicalists (organize society like a series of labor unions, essentially), anarcho-capitalists (better let GPS explain this one as I think it's COMPLETE bullshit and any summary I give of it will be horribly biased) and pop-punk anarchists (idiots who tag the anarchy A around and have no real idea what anarchy has to do with anything).

Most anarchists are united by a belief that humans are basically socially positive creatures.

Link to comment

Anarchy is only pleasable under the assumption that humans can exist in harmony and abandon all passion to better themselves in favor of harmony. Throughout history anytime we see forms of Anarchy arise it's replaced quickly by structure and government because human beings will always push forward and attempt to dominate, control, and conquer. That is why we have some so far up to this point.

Take the fall of the Roman Empire, very quickly after the Western Empire falls we begin to see the emergence of Western Europe even though there is a brief period where people basically live off the land of the wealthy with no uniting governing body.

This is why anything , and including anarcho-capitalism (the only realistic system because it maintains human competition and eliminates government, but suffers from the same end as all other Anarchist societies because sooner or later a single person or group of people will rise to dominate the rest), that claims to be classes and without government is doomed to fail.

Link to comment

I disagree with your historiography regarding the end of the Western Roman Empire and I think most people wouldn't agree that primitive feudalism is similar to modern anarchist theory in any way.

EDIT: Firstly, modern anarchism is not a form of primitivism or a "back to the land" movement. Ideally, a modern anarchist society would have schools, universities, libraries, factories, artists, laborers, scientists, et cetera and be a modern country in all technological ways. So obviously feudal post-Roman fiefs have nothing to do with what we're talking about. Of course a society with no sort of education system whatsoever would be incapable of perpetuating itself for the simple reason that, three generations out, the people of that society would have no idea what sort of society their ancestors were living in. Secondly, the post-Roman fiefs were a reaction to social problems, in fact, they were a reaction to near-complete societal collapse on the Federal level. Any anarchist society in these days would be significantly more organized from the start, have more resources to work with, more history to call back upon, more of -- more of essentially everything. I think it's a very poor comparison. The post-Roman world never resembled anarchy, anyway, so much as it represented a number of provincial landowners taking power as the government that held them in check and defended them ceased to exist.

Link to comment

I would say many or most humans are socially positive, as altruism is a necesarry aspect for the creation of a working society, but I don't think we are to the point where we can live without authority. My friend Diane thinks that we're evolving to be self-governing so that we won't need religion or government, but she also believes that I'm part of her spiritual tribe that reincarnates together and that her dog is a reincarnation of her former dog. Not that that's any more ridiculous than many things people believe, and I respect it, but it makes me question the possible metaphysical ideas behind some of her statements and ideas.

Link to comment

I would say many or most humans are socially positive, as altruism is a necesarry aspect for the creation of a working society, but I don't think we are to the point where we can live without authority.

I agree with this statement, which is why although I'm an anarchist I'm not loading up my gun for the revolution or anything.

OFF TOPIC: Reincarnation tribes are an interesting idea. Not so much that I believe in them, but it was an excellently used literary device in Kim Stanley Robinson's The Years of Rice and Salt.

Link to comment

deally, a modern anarchist society would have schools, universities, libraries, factories, artists, laborers, scientists, et cetera and be a modern country in all technological ways.

HOW

All of those things you listed have come avalible to the public because of capitalism, with the exception of artist.

Who works in a factory if they don't have too? No one

Who goes to university if they don't have too? A small minority

Technology is a product of capitalistic competition. Faster processors, larger hard drivers, more realistic looking games all come from the spirit of competition. Without competition we'd probably not be far away from the Apple II at this point.

Any anarchist society in these days would be significantly more organized from the start, have more resources to work with, more history to call back upon, more of -- more of essentially everything. I think it's a very poor comparison. The post-Roman world never resembled anarchy, anyway, so much as it represented a number of provincial landowners taking power as the government that held them in check and defended them ceased to exist.

Organization leads to control, control leads to government. There is no way that a healthy group of people will walk into a field and start up an anarchist society with the ideals you've stated and maintain without government. The first thing that will happen is a disagreement on where the resources should be spend, then someone gets a bigger share of food.... it all degrades from there, or more accurately evolves from there. They start to vote on where the resources are spent and that leads to social order, control. Anarchy disappears replaced by democracy, democracy as the society grows has become so messy it becomes bureaucracy.

Your ideals aren't bad, but they are only ideals. All the things you want in this "anarchist" society have come into being though complex, organized systems of society and government. Better you work on improving the Republic, find out how to limit corruption instead of living in this pipe dream.

Unfortunately you probably won't pull yourself away from the pipe long enough....

Link to comment

She's a Neo-Pagan and one of the coolest people ever, but I'm skeptical about some of her supernatural beliefs. She uses "Christian" as a negative adjective too, we agree on so much. :awesome:

She was in this movie called Loving Annabelle and has gained a huge lesbian and gay fan base. They make videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyYBw5EVrSQ

interesting. You use the word Christian, I decide "Hmm, an anarchy thread? I know it'll fo nowehre fast and probably involve lots of CF and GPS bitching at each other, but I might as well take a look." Coincidence? I think not. I'm telling you, your use of the word Christian inexplicably draws me.

and of coure now I want to meet this friend of yours.

HOW

All of those things you listed have come avalible to the public because of capitalism, with the exception of artist.

Who works in a factory if they don't have too? No one

Who goes to university if they don't have too? A small minority

Technology is a product of capitalistic competition. Faster processors, larger hard drivers, more realistic looking games all come from the spirit of competition. Without competition we'd probably not be far away from the Apple II at this point.

a number of things

1) if we'd be at the Apple II, then we'd be somewhere, meaning we could progress, meaning we don't actuallly need it

2) some of those things CF listed predate capitalism

Organization leads to control, control leads to government. There is no way that a healthy group of people will walk into a field and start up an anarchist society with the ideals you've stated and maintain without government. The first thing that will happen is a disagreement on where the resources should be spend, then someone gets a bigger share of food.... it all degrades from there, or more accurately evolves from there. They start to vote on where the resources are spent and that leads to social order, control. Anarchy disappears replaced by democracy, democracy as the society grows has become so messy it becomes bureaucracy.

except he didn't say that anarchy should be ttained by healthy people walking into a field (I don't see how that would achieve much myself)

How could an Anarchist country sustain an economy?

I think that this is what GPS meant to say above.

Link to comment

Maybe because society has put them in a position where they have to loot to survive?

katrina-looting.jpg

This even surprises me

A toilet seat? Really?

except he didn't say that anarchy should be ttained by healthy people walking into a field (I don't see how that would achieve much myself)

I was just thinking up ways this Anarchist society would be formed.

Link to comment

Did you just notice those because they weren't mentioned in your post?

There are plenty of creative ways around this:

That lady may have looted the football because she wants one of her children to grow up and be a famous NFL star so her family can have enough money to make it in a capitalist society.

And the microwave? She's hungry and wants something quick.

You're the definition of an optimist.

Link to comment

HOW

All of those things you listed have come avalible to the public because of capitalism, with the exception of artist.

Who works in a factory if they don't have too? No one

Who goes to university if they don't have too? A small minority

Technology is a product of capitalistic competition. Faster processors, larger hard drivers, more realistic looking games all come from the spirit of competition. Without competition we'd probably not be far away from the Apple II at this point.

Organization leads to control, control leads to government. There is no way that a healthy group of people will walk into a field and start up an anarchist society with the ideals you've stated and maintain without government. The first thing that will happen is a disagreement on where the resources should be spend, then someone gets a bigger share of food.... it all degrades from there, or more accurately evolves from there. They start to vote on where the resources are spent and that leads to social order, control. Anarchy disappears replaced by democracy, democracy as the society grows has become so messy it becomes bureaucracy.

Your ideals aren't bad, but they are only ideals. All the things you want in this "anarchist" society have come into being though complex, organized systems of society and government. Better you work on improving the Republic, find out how to limit corruption instead of living in this pipe dream.

Unfortunately you probably won't pull yourself away from the pipe long enough....

I want to get the personal attacks out of the way first; GPS, I spend way less time smoking than you do watching anime. Besides which, I've smoked a total of four times in my life ( :awesome: ). Besides which, I've developed all of my political beliefs outside of the influence of drugs.

I wrote a bunch more stuff, but this isn't really germane so I removed it.

Now, to attack your ideas;

Do you know anything about Marxist history? Because you should really read up on that before weighing into a discussion on leftist politics. I don't agree with Marx's ideas about communism, nor do I think that his theory of history applies universally, but it certainly applies to European and Western civilization. I don't really feel like going into that, though, but I recommend you look into it. Even if you don't agree with it, it's good to know about.

To answer your question; who works in a factory if they don't have to? Possibly people who enjoy eating? An anarchist utopia is not a utopia. Food does not come for free. People still have to do work. I've never sat down and specifically figured out how this would work because I don't expect to see anarchy in my lifetime, but the point is that an economy still functions. Manufactured goods are shipped from the factories to the farms, food is shipped back, etc.

Who works in a factory if they don't have to? A patriot, someone instilled with social or civic duty. You know, someone who cares about where they live and who they live with. This is the downfall of anarchy (and most leftist politics) in my book, because, quite frankly, most people are dicks.

As for people looting during disaster, it's a fucking disaster. The people looting are nearly always poor, aka disenfranchised by society anyway. Why the fuck would they feel any loyalty to a society that's treated them wrong their entire lives? That's just the ultimate expression of capitalism right there, rather than any reflection of leftist politics.

If you treat people to ruthlessly take advantage of their situation, don't bitch when they do exactly that.

Link to comment

Tell me, how is it to be such a moral absolutist? Or such a hypocrite? You say that you think people should be able to do whatever they want, but as soon as they do something you don't like they're scary, disgusting, offensive, and stupid. How does it feel to hate/be afraid of most of the population of the world? It's pretty fucking pathetic, I must say. If I felt the way you do about the world's population, I might be a libertarian too. After all, all those fucking stoners are out to steal our women and such. Maybe you should smoke some weed, it'd help you chill the fuck out. OF COURSE, GPS's hypocrisy is not the subject at hand, and if he wants to take that to another thread that's fine with me, but I won't be discussing any more personal attacks.

Most of this is coming clear out of left field, first of all I was referring to your ideals of this "perfect world" as a pipe dream and the fact you wouldn't come up from the pipe as to say you won't admit this is impossible. Any 2-dimensional offense you took lies in your interpretation

And yes, people are scary; disgusting; ignorant; and stupid. The whole of civilization balances between order and (in the pure sense of the word) anarchy. Most of the population of the world cannot pull themselves away from the shadows on the wall, ect. ect. ect.

My ideals of a libertarian paradise are impossible for those reasons. For in fact, libertarian paradise is not unlike your "modern anarchy" (communism) the difference being is you want to punish laziness, I want to reward initiative.

You view of the world is very small because in your mind you've built this perfect world and you won't let it go, you compare everything to an ideal that cannot exist, and even at the mention of an alternative you become defensive and frightened. My complete hatred of socialism is a joke, your hatred of capitalism is frightening ignorance. I see the blending of capitalism and socialism in the modern world an evil necessity, you hear the word capitalism and start frothing at the mouth. I'm so sorry.

Do you know anything about Marxist history? Because you should really read up on that before weighing into a discussion on leftist politics. I don't agree with Marx's ideas about communism, nor do I think that his theory of history applies universally, but it certainly applies to European and Western civilization. I don't really feel like going into that, though, but I recommend you look into it. Even if you don't agree with it, it's good to know about.

Of course I do, but I figured this "modern anarchy" would some how stray away from the classical socialism/communist ideas.... like you claim they do.

To answer your question; who works in a factory if they don't have to? Possibly people who enjoy eating? An anarchist utopia is not a utopia. Food does not come for free. People still have to do work. I've never sat down and specifically figured out how this would work because I don't expect to see anarchy in my lifetime, but the point is that an economy still functions. Manufactured goods are shipped from the factories to the farms, food is shipped back, etc.

Who works in a factory if they don't have to? A patriot, someone instilled with social or civic duty. You know, someone who cares about where they live and who they live with. This is the downfall of anarchy (and most leftist politics) in my book, because, quite frankly, most people are dicks.

Again, how is this different from socialism/communism. You aren't brining any new ideas to the table, just rehashing them under a new name.

Link to comment

And yes, people are scary; disgusting; ignorant; and stupid. The whole of civilization balances between order and (in the pure sense of the word) anarchy. Most of the population of the world cannot pull themselves away from the shadows on the wall, ect. ect. ect.

Clearly we live in different worlds and this discussion is going nowhere.

Anyway, rofl, check out this book.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...