PDA

View Full Version : Anarchy



XDamonXHawkinsX
10-07-2008, 07:04 AM
what do you think about anarchy personally im somewhat of a fan of anarchy i think i might even become a anarchist "sarcasm" but seriously how do you feel about it.

SgtD
10-07-2008, 07:15 AM
what do you think about anarchy personally im somewhat of a fan of anarchy i think i might even become a anarchist "sarcasm" but seriously how do you feel about it.

it would never work

straightXed
10-07-2008, 10:09 AM
what do you think about anarchy personally im somewhat of a fan of anarchy i think i might even become a anarchist "sarcasm" but seriously how do you feel about it.

I'm not a fan of anarchy or any of the different flavours people choose to come up with.

rodrigo
10-07-2008, 11:47 AM
what do you think about anarchy personally im somewhat of a fan of anarchy i think i might even become a anarchist "sarcasm" but seriously how do you feel about it.

i think it sounds great in theory, but it doesnt work and when it does, it doesnt last long, so it wont work either

swallow
10-07-2008, 01:34 PM
i think it sounds great in theory, but it doesnt work and when it does, it doesnt last long, so it wont work either

You just stole my words. Wonderful idea, but not in use. Some good things should be pick'd up, but the whole thing.. dead.

xsecx
10-07-2008, 02:40 PM
this topic makes me think about slapshot

straightXed
10-07-2008, 03:52 PM
this topic makes me think about slapshot

punks dead?

xsecx
10-07-2008, 04:02 PM
punks dead?

you're next!

chadfitzy
10-07-2008, 05:54 PM
i agree with it, the only way for it to work tough is if all government was uprooted. i dont really think the major problem is people not working, Ireland proved that it can happen, but other big countries would try to take over. so if its all uprooted (really hard) there is a lot better chance of it working.

mouseman004
10-07-2008, 08:07 PM
i agree with it, the only way for it to work tough is if all government was uprooted. i dont really think the major problem is people not working, Ireland proved that it can happen, but other big countries would try to take over. so if its all uprooted (really hard) there is a lot better chance of it working.

How did Ireland prove that anarchy can happen?

chadfitzy
10-07-2008, 09:54 PM
before england took control ireland was an ideal anarchist state. there were many tribes o guess youd call em, none of them had leaders, and they flourished ahead of there time. but the england had more of a fire power

rodrigo
10-07-2008, 10:05 PM
before england took control ireland was an ideal anarchist state. there were many tribes o guess youd call em, none of them had leaders, and they flourished ahead of there time. but the england had more of a fire power

as i know exactly nothing about ireland, what year was that?

mouseman004
10-07-2008, 10:28 PM
before england took control ireland was an ideal anarchist state. there were many tribes o guess youd call em, none of them had leaders, and they flourished ahead of there time. but the england had more of a fire power

If anarchy was the ideal form of organisation and it flourished and proved to be successful then it should not have been easily taken over by the English.

xLettuceHeadx
10-08-2008, 08:46 AM
I think a strong argument can be made for the Mennonite Amish throughout the United States being a model of a functioning and flourishing anarchist community. The Amish are anarchists because they need almost no government to survive; all they need is land, crops, wood and horses. They have no formal government imposing with force via police, military, and codified laws for them to act in a humane way and their pre-industrial revolution communities seem to be peaceful, productive, and probably more long-sighted and sustainable than the technological societies that we all probably live in.

chadfitzy
10-08-2008, 04:39 PM
as i know exactly nothing about ireland, what year was that?

i think really early somewhere around 600 a.d. to somewhere in the 1600's. i think

chadfitzy
10-08-2008, 04:41 PM
If anarchy was the ideal form of organisation and it flourished and proved to be successful then it should not have been easily taken over by the English.

that's why i said that every government would have to be abolished because something like that would happen again.

rodrigo
10-08-2008, 04:43 PM
i think really early somewhere around 600 a.d. to somewhere in the 1600's. i think

well, im pretty sure that if suddenly we take all the goverments away today, stuff wont be the same as it did then

xsecx
10-08-2008, 05:38 PM
I think a strong argument can be made for the Mennonite Amish throughout the United States being a model of a functioning and flourishing anarchist community. The Amish are anarchists because they need almost no government to survive; all they need is land, crops, wood and horses. They have no formal government imposing with force via police, military, and codified laws for them to act in a humane way and their pre-industrial revolution communities seem to be peaceful, productive, and probably more long-sighted and sustainable than the technological societies that we all probably live in.

They have a hierarchy, internal laws and live within and exist within the existing system albeit with less involvement. It's not like they don't have any laws. They're strict christians and will kick out people who don't abide by their laws.

straightXed
10-08-2008, 06:07 PM
i think really early somewhere around 600 a.d. to somewhere in the 1600's. i think

Throughout most of that time there were kings, popes and religion in effect in Ireland. There was a lot of war from a lot of different groups so it wasn't the most settled times but i don't think they were working toward anarchy at all.

straightXed
10-08-2008, 06:13 PM
that's why i said that every government would have to be abolished because something like that would happen again.

Ok so all government is abolished for arguments sake, would anarchy prevail? Or would you just return to lots of smaller groups looking to control territory and other elements and war between them because of differences in direction. Until groups grow larger and become more governing?

chadfitzy
10-08-2008, 11:21 PM
well we probably wont know. it depends on who is stronger at the time, the anarchist society or the places controlled by leaders. i know im puting up a bad fight for this now and its all extremely to idealistic what i said but ive argued about this to hard and long so im just guna stop now.

straightXed
10-09-2008, 09:22 AM
well we probably wont know. it depends on who is stronger at the time, the anarchist society or the places controlled by leaders. i know im puting up a bad fight for this now and its all extremely to idealistic what i said but ive argued about this to hard and long so im just guna stop now.

Yeah we won't know but surely you can start to think of things that would present problems to anarchy as a way of society. I mean can you seriously see it working at all? Personally i really can't and wonder how people who believe it can work imagine it working.

xLettuceHeadx
10-09-2008, 11:45 AM
They have a hierarchy, internal laws and live within and exist within the existing system albeit with less involvement. It's not like they don't have any laws. They're strict christians and will kick out people who don't abide by their laws.

Yes. It is a patriarchal and hierarchical society governed by their interpretation of the law of the bible. There are laws, but the enforcement of the laws are lax and not determined by one person or bureaucracy. They don't have prisons or police to enforce those laws, but they maintain their social order. The worst punishment is banishment; It isn't the death penalty. An anarchist society might have laws, but the enforcement of those laws might not be left to a government or threatening force it might be up to social disapproval or a banishment decion come to by a consensus of the community. There are a lot of theoreticals here, but this kind of society is most inline with some of the principles an anarchist society may have that I have read before.

Some actual examples of historical anarchist enclaves of significance to european societies were the paris commune of 1871 and catalonia, spain during the spanish civil war of the 30s. They were actually crushed by outside forces, but put some anarchist principles of worker self -management and agrarian redistribution and collectivization. I'm not saying that anarchism could happen now in the current circumstances, but it has happened effectively in a few historical instances.

rodrigo
10-09-2008, 02:21 PM
Some actual examples of historical anarchist enclaves of significance to european societies were the paris commune of 1871 and catalonia, spain during the spanish civil war of the 30s. They were actually crushed by outside forces, but put some anarchist principles of worker self -management and agrarian redistribution and collectivization. I'm not saying that anarchism could happen now in the current circumstances, but it has happened effectively in a few historical instances.

the spanish one didnt last much and a big part of the republican forces ended up betraying themselves

xsecx
10-09-2008, 03:05 PM
Yes. It is a patriarchal and hierarchical society governed by their interpretation of the law of the bible. There are laws, but the enforcement of the laws are lax and not determined by one person or bureaucracy. They don't have prisons or police to enforce those laws, but they maintain their social order. The worst punishment is banishment; It isn't the death penalty. An anarchist society might have laws, but the enforcement of those laws might not be left to a government or threatening force it might be up to social disapproval or a banishment decion come to by a consensus of the community. There are a lot of theoreticals here, but this kind of society is most inline with some of the principles an anarchist society may have that I have read before.

Some actual examples of historical anarchist enclaves of significance to european societies were the paris commune of 1871 and catalonia, spain during the spanish civil war of the 30s. They were actually crushed by outside forces, but put some anarchist principles of worker self -management and agrarian redistribution and collectivization. I'm not saying that anarchism could happen now in the current circumstances, but it has happened effectively in a few historical instances.

this kind of goes against the entire concept of anarchy though, that one person isn't capable of judging or placing restrictions on another. Once you being putting laws and judgment in place, you cease to have anarchy. Consensus of the community implies order and order is the antithesis of anarchy.

if it had happened effectively it would have been more widespread and/or lasted more than a few years.

chadfitzy
10-09-2008, 07:14 PM
Yeah we won't know but surely you can start to think of things that would present problems to anarchy as a way of society. I mean can you seriously see it working at all? Personally i really can't and wonder how people who believe it can work imagine it working.

i think the ones who want to eat will work, i mean there area alot of anarchist and others who understand it. yes i do see flaws, but there is no such thing as a flawless government

xXfartknockerXx
10-09-2008, 10:26 PM
.... The Amish are anarchists because they need almost no government to survive; all they need is land, crops, wood and horses....

...and devout fundemental christian faith.

What do we do with thugs, rapists, thieves, opportunists, ect.... Burn them at the stake?

SgtD
10-10-2008, 01:43 AM
...and devout fundemental christian faith.

What do we do with thugs, rapists, thieves, opportunists, ect.... Burn them at the stake?
tell them never to do anything bad again!

xLettuceHeadx
10-10-2008, 08:40 AM
Anarchism is not a lawless chaotic society; that is anarchy or anomie. Anarchism is a political philosophy with similarities to communist and socialist ideologies. An anarchist may seek to destroy the state to
enact reforms. A communist may seize control of the state to enact their reforms. The end goal of each is a monetariless and personal property-less society; the means to those goals are different. How possible those lofty goals are? very improbable. It may be probable that some of us may be heading into a coming anarchy (chaos meaning here) though if the global economy continues in its nosedive.

xsecx
10-10-2008, 09:03 AM
Anarchism is not a lawless chaotic society; that is anarchy or anomie. Anarchism is a political philosophy with similarities to communist and socialist ideologies. An anarchist may seek to destroy the state to
enact reforms. A communist may seize control of the state to enact their reforms. The end goal of each is a monetariless and personal property-less society; the means to those goals are different. How possible those lofty goals are? very improbable. It may be probable that some of us may be heading into a coming anarchy (chaos meaning here) though if the global economy continues in its nosedive.

Anarchism is the politicization of anarchy, so I'm not sure why you think it's separate and distinct. . The distinction between communism, socialism and anarchism, is that in in an anarchist society there is no law and no authority. Communism is law and governing by a collective, but there is still a definite order confining it.

straightXed
10-10-2008, 09:29 AM
i think the ones who want to eat will work, i mean there area alot of anarchist and others who understand it. yes i do see flaws, but there is no such thing as a flawless government


Sorry, people will work for food? I'm not following this. We are getting into a trade scenario here where people are selling products or labour for food. This begins to immediately lean towards the essence of capitalism. And do you think that having a system that suggests; no need to work if you can take what you want as you see it, is going to inspire in humanity the desire to work? Theres no government that says they have to work and theres now law to say who owns what or what is right or wrong. So whilst some may have no choice but to work in order to survive there will be others taking full advantage of this and stealing or corrupting people to make things easier for them selves. After all this is essentially the crux and driving force of how human civilisation advances, within a structured government this can work better because we have set laws to say whats ok and what isn't. Sure from a working class point of view it can seem like you are being shat on at times but thats simply because the protection and structure our society does provide is completely taken for granted. Live in a society where anarchy reins and you would soon wish for that comfort again, i mean you say there is no such thing as a flawless government and i have never suggested there is. I mean humans are far from flawless so that goes without saying that a flawless government is not in existence but abolishing the government system, that to a rather large extent keeps things in order, is running very fast in the opposite direction of flawless. You really need to examine every aspect of what having a government does for us and come up with some really workable ideas of how you would address those things sans government, yeah things aren't perfect but abolishing them with no direction or structure is no soloution. From the outset anarchy is flawed and really undesirable in all reality, as well as that it will never have any longevity because we will always gravitate toward control, ownership and protection among other elements that governing and law provides.

xLettuceHeadx
10-10-2008, 10:57 AM
Anarchism is the politicization of anarchy, so I'm not sure why you think it's separate and distinct. . The distinction between communism, socialism and anarchism, is that in in an anarchist society there is no law and no authority. Communism is law and governing by a collective, but there is still a definite order confining it.

Yes. The distinctions between the political philosophies are correct. The anarchist might say that without a law or an enforcement of that law there would be some type of some type of spontaneous social order determined by some "invisible hand" ( LOL the adam smith invisible hand theory can be applied to any unexplainable political or economic event), but not through polices, militaries, or churches. A law might be propagated thru social and cultural norms and not codified in a formal way like a constitution or something. The definition of anarchism is hard to pin down because there are so many different shades and degrees to the philosophy. That case of political philosphy ambiguity is the same even within american democratic or republican parties.

XDamonXHawkinsX
11-04-2008, 09:48 PM
with me i dont really like having a goverment which kinda of hints towards anarchism for me i think that the government should not hold all power and tell people how to live but on the other hand without the government there would be total chaos which makes me believe we need a government idk i quess im in between