Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The idea behind anarchy is that there is no governement, everybody works and reaps their payment, and there's no racism or crimes.
First of all, unless you're a farmer or something along those lines, you can't really make any sort of profit if there's no government to make money to give to the citizen. Also, without any sort of monetary system and the limit of the variety of jobs, there isn't much out there for advancement. Really a backwards move. Also, racism is impossible to completely eliminate from society. There's always going to be somebody who see's another person as different because of the color of their skin. Also, it's impossible to prevent any sort of crime. People will always steal and murder, and without government, it's impossible to prevent.
So, while anarchy is idealistic, it's very faulty. Discuss, argue, etc.

I always wondered how in an anarchistic world you deal with large bands of bandits.

At 10/17/09 08:27 PM, Drakim wrote:

i think in the farmers case it would really be more of a base of power by paying people with food. but anarchy is really more over something you would see in the apocalyptic times. but anarchy is never really going to happen because there will all ways be some sort of goverment

At 10/17/09 08:22 PM, Hellz-Yeah wrote: The idea behind anarchy is that there is no governement, everybody works and reaps their payment, and there's no racism or crimes.
First of all, unless you're a farmer or something along those lines, you can't really make any sort of profit if there's no government to make money to give to the citizen.

Monetary systems were not created by the government, rather by private individuals. If there were no government, people would simply start trading with gold or some good of the sort, establishing as a currency.
Profit, although measured in monetary terms, is not monetary in nature, it's the excess wealth you have compared to a previous moment in time; it can perfectly happen without a currency.

I have not heard claims on whether anarchy would eliminate racism.

At 10/17/09 08:37 PM, ubermanng wrote:

At 10/17/09 08:27 PM, Drakim wrote:

i think in the farmers case it would really be more of a base of power by paying people with food.

Yeah but you can't maintain a military. Militaries work in countries with goverment because you have other people, like farmers, who maintain their "upkeep".

What I'm wondering is how in a world of anarchy, could you ever stop a large band of bandits that live by plundering others without forming something that's too akin to a government?

I think anarchism is less an attempt to reach tribalism (which is what it would lead to) and more of a fight against its opposite, authoritarianism.

Anarchism doesn't want there to be no system, anarchism does not exist then(at least not in my interpretation of the ideal). Anarchism needs to have a system it fights so it keeps the system in check.

The ABCs of Anarchism

At 10/17/09 09:01 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: I have not heard claims on whether anarchy would eliminate racism.

The anarchists I know claim that racism is a symptom rather than a disease, and an invented diversion tactic from the burgeoise to divide the proletariat and take away focus from the class issue. By turning white workers against black workers, those who own can sit safely and watch, and of course, use racism as a reason to further their power through state and corporations. The hypothosis of these anarchists is simple: Remove the real problem, and racism will more or less disappear as segregation disappears and because there's no media propagating racial differences.

While I do agree to some degree (it's quite obvious, at least over here, that the burgeoise has a lot to gain from increased racism), I'm unfortunately not naive enough to believe it will die out completely in an anarchistic society.

At 10/17/09 08:22 PM, Hellz-Yeah wrote: The idea behind anarchy is that there is no governement, everybody works and reaps their payment, and there's no racism or crimes.

Well, you're correct in that there would be no government, but the rest of these thing aren't really correct...
Anarchism is about destroying hierarchies (sp? sorry, swefag here). Traditionally, the anarchist movement has been about removing all hierarchies, though a few newer kinds of anarchism ("anarcho-capitalism" is a prime example) care less for removing social hierarchies than juridical ones. "Everybody works and reaps their payment" is an extreme over-simplification - most anarchists seem to agree that another simplification, a marxist one actually, is far more fitting: "From each according to ability, to each according to need" (unsure about exact wording in English).

First of all, unless you're a farmer or something along those lines, you can't really make any sort of profit if there's no government to make money to give to the citizen. Also, without any sort of monetary system and the limit of the variety of jobs, there isn't much out there for advancement.

What are you talking about here? I just can't grasp what you're talking about, or what it has to do with anarchism. There's a lot that needs to be done (though far less than is done today), enough so that everyone could have something to do several hours per day.
What do you mean with advancement? Personal advancement or advancement as a society, or technological advancement?

Really a backwards move. Also, racism is impossible to completely eliminate from society. There's always going to be somebody who see's another person as different because of the color of their skin.

Also, it's impossible to prevent any sort of crime. People will always steal and murder, and without government, it's impossible to prevent.

Yeah, because before there were a government, everyone was murdering each other without any sort of ramification. Also, not all anarchists believe in a law-less society, since there's opposing views on whether or not a juridical system always creates hierarchies.

So, while anarchy is idealistic, it's very faulty. Discuss, argue, etc.

Yes, there is a lot of problems with anarchism, but you seem to take up non-issues.

While anarchy could not realistically happen, Tribalism could achieve the same objective by bands of people have their own small communitys. The problem with both is our planets population problem. Crime is caused by cramming so many people so close together. If we had half to a third of our current population some great things could be achieved.

Personally, I feel that the concept of hierarchy is something you can't go without.

Look at the schoolsystem. Would it be so much better if the 'students' would explore their dcuments to the way they would feel like, instead of some teacher telling them what to do?
People with more expertise are there to lead people in situation that requires their expertise, like a doctor prescribing you medication.

Bigger even, people need hierarchy, they need men who are in charge and who take the decisions no one wants to take, so they have someone else to blame when the shit hits the fan.

At 10/31/09 03:18 PM, Rasta2009 wrote:

At 10/17/09 08:27 PM, Drakim wrote: I always wondered how in an anarchistic world you deal with large bands of bandits.

by creating another group of bandits and robbing everyone in sight as well?

thats what the USA did in a sense

That makes sense, but it defies the defiance of organization, so it's not what anarchists would do.

At 10/17/09 08:27 PM, Drakim wrote: I always wondered how in an anarchistic world you deal with large bands of bandits.

It's not something that can be handled on THESE boards, but check your PM's (I sent you a few things that may or may not answer that question) . Anarchists might be crazy, but don't think they're so stupid that they haven't thought of these things before.

And on the Topic of Anarchy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCeCjLqr1 _4

Ronald Pembrandt Bilgewhistle IV Esq. explains... quite brilliantly, why Anarchism can't work.

At 10/31/09 04:11 PM, ohbombuh wrote:

At 10/31/09 03:18 PM, Rasta2009 wrote:

That makes sense, but it defies the defiance of organization, so it's not what anarchists would do.

Anarchists are against governance, not organisation

to answer most of your questions:
first, the elimination of personal property would make it so nobody steals, because they can TAKE. let me use a shitty example, if you want bananas, but you dont have bananas, and your neighbor does, you ask him for bananas, if he needs the bananas because he wants to feed his children when they get home, then he will tell you that mike has lots of banana. if he doesnt need the bananas, he will give them to you)

SECOND (this is the thing i havent seen anyone mention, but i get this a lot) some might say that the murder and rape rates will skyrocket... well, i disagree. if you kill someone, its because of one of two things. either it is involved with a criminal act, or youre a psicopath (or both). without personal property, you wont need to comit crimes. and if youre a psicopath, the law isnt even crossing your mind when you freak out and kill someone.

SKIP TO HERE IF YOU WANT
what i just described is what anarchists believe the law would be like in a time of anarchy. it is what we call true freedom (freedom with boundries isnt freedom, the only boudry in true freedom is your concience). us anarchists believe that hierarchys should be abolished and that the only race is the human race.

i dont think this could happen in todays world, because the multi national corps. would turn it into anarchic capitalism wich means that all of the public services would be replaced by several private companies that compete. but i do take this and apply it to everything in my life.
for example:
i dont listen to my phisics teacher when he explains phisics because he is more important than me, but because i know he went to college and he has more credibility than me. in an other case: when i hear an old guy who has a phd in literature speak about something completely unrelated to literature, and i notice what he said was wrong, i call him out. if he than proves i was wrong and he was right giving me evidence, ill shut my ass up and would say i am sorry

WOW, thats a lot of writing..... it feels good sometimes to write a lot about what you think, even though most of you probably didnt even start reading because its too long...
if youre still here send me a pm saying what you think or if you have any Qs.

At 10/31/09 09:13 PM, rafattack wrote:

:if he needs the bananas because he wants to feed his children when they get home, then he will tell you that mike has lots of banana. if he doesnt need the bananas, he will give them to you)

What if he needs the bananas and you also need them and mike has no bananas?

or youre a psicopath (or both). without personal property, you wont need to comit crimes.

Yes you do, because if there is no public property enough to satisfy your needs, you must secure your 'share'.

Thats why its called anarchy, silly.

I will reply that in anarchy capitalism is key. It is impossible to be an anarchist and not be a capitalist. They are lovers and soul mates whom must not be seperated! Anyways I would let specialized folk do most of the work around each area. If certain people (I.E. body guards, watchmen) looked out over an area for a collective fee that they all agreed on then they would do their jobs. Governments are completely and totally fine in many "anarchist" opinions it's just that the state is incompetent and extremely greedy. States do not make any sense and is something of a religion. There is moderates (I.E liberals and conservatives) then there is total fascist. Likewise with any religion. So just pay people to guard where you live and most importantly arm yourself.

I hope this has been somewhat informative. If not then I apologize.

At 11/1/09 03:07 AM, Masterzakk wrote: I will reply that in anarchy capitalism is key. It is impossible to be an anarchist and not be a capitalist. They are lovers and soul mates whom must not be seperated! Anyways I would let specialized folk do most of the work around each area. If certain people (I.E. body guards, watchmen) looked out over an area for a collective fee that they all agreed on then they would do their jobs. Governments are completely and totally fine in many "anarchist" opinions it's just that the state is incompetent and extremely greedy. States do not make any sense and is something of a religion. There is moderates (I.E liberals and conservatives) then there is total fascist. Likewise with any religion. So just pay people to guard where you live and most importantly arm yourself.

I hope this has been somewhat informative. If not then I apologize.

its allright, but what youre doing there is giving the watchmen too much power... and when you give power to a human, you give him the chance to be corrupt....

and about the banana thing, if you need bananas, your nieghbor needs bananas, and mike doesnt have bananas, the one with a lesser need for bananas should give them up... because the media wouldnt bombard you with consumist bullshit

At 11/1/09 03:07 AM, Masterzakk wrote: I will reply that in anarchy capitalism is key. It is impossible to be an anarchist and not be a capitalist. They are lovers and soul mates whom must not be seperated!

Hah, wait, whut? Anarchism is about removing the hierarchies, and right now there is no worse hierarchy than the economical one. Anarchism is classically a left-wing ideology that supposes no private ownership of the means of production (and in some cases, no private ownership at all).

This is just my understanding and my knowledge is not that great on the subject so please enlighten me.

But I am under the impression that Anarchy is not sustainable. If we reverted to Anarchy in this state, though there are technically no property rights, there are people who will have things that others want. An owner of a megafarm will have food that many people want. And if he can protect it from scavanging. He has the ability to demand somekind of retribution for his food. Benevolently, work, but I wouldn't be quite so enlightened. This in itself establishes a hierarchy. With a ruler, who will most definatley have rules (i.e. a micro-government).

Then what happens when the owner of a sporting good store, who has his own following of hunters, all armed with rifles want the contents of the silo in middle of winter, when hunting is scarce (imagine that it was a small harvest year as well). This creates war between two micro-governments. One will surely consume the other and gain the others strength and probably a few of their followers.

Blow this up over and over and over again across the anarchist area and eventually you will come up with a national government. Perhaps a tribal federation, or fuedal to start. Eventually something not too different from what can be seen on the four corners of the planet today.

Perhaps we would loose certain notions along the way, currency replaced my a resource bartering (which most likely will lead back to currency). Governance will always surface. Because some people have, others want, and most people getting from the persons who have want their haver to continue to have.

At 11/2/09 04:03 AM, awkward-silence wrote: If we reverted to Anarchy in this state, though there are technically no property rights, there are people who will have things that others want. An owner of a megafarm will have food that many people want.

If someone owns a megafarm, you don't have an anarchistic society.

At 11/2/09 05:34 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 11/2/09 04:03 AM, awkward-silence wrote: If we reverted to Anarchy in this state, though there are technically no property rights, there are people who will have things that others want. An owner of a megafarm will have food that many people want.

If someone owns a megafarm, you don't have an anarchistic society.

By own I mean has possession. He operates the farm prior to anarchy. He would most like maintain it to the best of his ability because he has the means. And in protecting/maintaining he would most like assume athourity over it.

Its pretty much survival of the fittest.
~unfair advantage~

Guys, i don't have time to read all the posts, but i will somtime soon. My veiws as an anarchist are that of individulism. Ever heard of natural law? People won;t murder each other without reason, and the cases where murder does happen, I for one and im sure others wouldnt let it and would punish others, kinda like a loose form of the western sherifss possee thing. And it can be rules without ruler, although im not to sure about that way. And if you want my opinion, by eradicating the courts, crime levels would plummet, simply because there arnt as many laws to break.

And i do quite like the idea of tribalism anyway, its like anarchism meets referendum

At 10/18/09 01:36 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

The anarchists I know claim that racism is a symptom rather than a disease, and an invented diversion tactic from the burgeoise to divide the proletariat and take away focus from the class issue.

Maybe they should have gone to school at some point.

At 11/2/09 05:34 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

If someone owns a megafarm, you don't have an anarchistic society.

That makes no sense.

Hierarchy IS A GOOD THING. It makes the competent people be in charge.
If there's a farm on which 10 000 people depend for food, you don't want a random person to run it every week, you want the most experienced guy.
That goes for everything. Experience makes you climb up the ladder.

You can't use democracy to solve every problem, you'd never be done. You have to appoint people to run things and how is that different than a hierarchy in any way, shape or form? Where does the concept of leadership and experience fit into this "no hierarchy" society?

Who said Anarchy means 'no hierarchy'? And who said it means 'Communism?' That's not what I think it to mean. No government does not mean 'no hierarchy' and it doesn't mean 'nobody's in charge of services', they're strawmen and if strawmen satisfy you that anarchy has no merit, you don't know what you're talking about. Microsoft could exist in an anarchist society. Welfare could still exist in an anarchist society. Indeed, maybe if Microsoft were not forced to pay taxes, they could talk to Virgin and realise that it would maximise their profits and long-term success if they funded a programme to keep dangerous people off the street and stop people starving in the gutter.

They might even think having a society educated in important areas and kept healthy is better for their long-term goals than having a stupid and dying society.

Don't think the government are looking out for you; they're looking out for themselves and their mates, with money from your paycheque. Be nice if this didn't happen.

The only particular issue is the 'free rider' problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_
problem
But smarter people than me have come up with solutions that appear to make some sense.

Anarchy means you don't have some enforced authority stealing your money by threatening to deprive you of your liberties. And then using your money to oppress you and keep themselves in authority.

The tea-party aim too low.

You want a government to lead you in your wars and ensure your prosperity. What governments actually do is draft you to fight their wars, and enslave you to ensure their prosperity.

And anyway, Anarchists probably know they're fighting against a wall. But it's the right side of the fight to be on. If their goals are never realised, they probably think the closer we get to their goals, the better.

I mean, the only way we could get rid of government is an armed rebellion, so we're fucked.

Anarchy isn't meant to be interpreted as no government. Unless you're talking about anarcho-primitivism., It's meant to be interpreted as the dismantlement of the nation state. The most popular form of anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, calls for individuals to group themselves into small, federated, directly democratic city states ("syndicates"). There they'd voluntarily participate in democratic assemblies, directly set the policy of their society, and work at democratically run businesses, and trade with other syndicates for needed resources.

At least, that is my understanding of it.