Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

It would never work because people would start gangs and take over places, it would be hell. 99% of people and need someone to tell them what to do, if not they do stupid stuff.

At 11/11/10 04:43 PM, darkrchaos wrote: It would never work because people would start gangs and take over places, it would be hell. 99% of people and need someone to tell them what to do, if not they do stupid stuff.

Evidently you would be a prime example of one of those, except you're already doing the "stupid stuff" now. Starting gangs and taking over places is not what Anarchism is, unless of course it would be a gang of anarchists taking over an idealist and corrupt government (aren't they all?). Do some light reading, since I figure any more and you might explode. Then think about the society you live in and the freedom you think you have.

At 11/11/10 05:02 PM, Megafones wrote:

At 11/11/10 04:43 PM, darkrchaos wrote: It would never work because people would start gangs and take over places, it would be hell. 99% of people and need someone to tell them what to do, if not they do stupid stuff.

Evidently you would be a prime example of one of those, except you're already doing the "stupid stuff" now. Starting gangs and taking over places is not what Anarchism is, unless of course it would be a gang of anarchists taking over an idealist and corrupt government (aren't they all?). Do some light reading, since I figure any more and you might explode. Then think about the society you live in and the freedom you think you have.

I know I'm skipping a guns here, but just saying Anarchism could lead into conflict, gangs, which could eventually lead into a mode of power, which could eventually lead to the creation of a State. You don't need Anarchy to reform a government, and to start a revolution. Has anybody read up Marxism before (and what he says about the 'inevitable' communist revolution)? Cool stuff!

At 11/11/10 05:02 PM, Megafones wrote:

At 11/11/10 04:43 PM, darkrchaos wrote: It would never work because people would start gangs and take over places, it would be hell. 99% of people and need someone to tell them what to do, if not they do stupid stuff.

Evidently you would be a prime example of one of those, except you're already doing the "stupid stuff" now. Starting gangs and taking over places is not what Anarchism is, unless of course it would be a gang of anarchists taking over an idealist and corrupt government (aren't they all?). Do some light reading, since I figure any more and you might explode. Then think about the society you live in and the freedom you think you have.

Oh yes, the repression is palpable. The secret police is ever watchful and will steal you away from your home at night to slave in a gulag at the first sign of rebellion.

At 11/11/10 07:34 PM, Dudefortune wrote:

At 11/11/10 05:02 PM, Megafones wrote:

At 11/11/10 04:43 PM, darkrchaos wrote: It would never work because people would start gangs and take over places, it would be hell. 99% of people and need someone to tell them what to do, if not they do stupid stuff.

Evidently you would be a prime example of one of those, except you're already doing the "stupid stuff" now. Starting gangs and taking over places is not what Anarchism is, unless of course it would be a gang of anarchists taking over an idealist and corrupt government (aren't they all?). Do some light reading, since I figure any more and you might explode. Then think about the society you live in and the freedom you think you have.

Oh yes, the repression is palpable. The secret police is ever watchful and will steal you away from your home at night to slave in a gulag at the first sign of rebellion.

I think you might have already been liberated but it's time to check yourself back in. Just because it isn't apparent doesn't mean it's ever present, or maybe you seen the world through rose coloured glasses and it's a wasted effort to tap into that dense skull of yours.

Drakim made a post that unfortunately got shut down by Malachy that is none the less rather interesting. I hope he brings it up at some point on this thread. But regardless...

Anarchy is a troubling word because it does have multiple meanings, and if the meanings are used interchangeably in a discussion I'll go over each definition.

Anarchy - Chaos, violent periods or times of upheaval or times that are perceived as being such are sometimes called Anarchy. You could call the time during the collapse of the soviet union a time of Anarchy in certain places. Anarchy of this definition can exist with or without a state, since this is more a matter of what a person views as turbulent and what they view as the norm. You could call the mild wild west Anarchy, ignoring the fact that the mild wild west was comparatively less violent than the east.

Anarchy - Communism, A stateless and classless society in the absence of private property. No society has ever fit this definition.

Anarchy - Stateless Society, with no other major qualifications beyond statelessness. Somalia would, discounting the TFG and other states that are not really recognized as states by Somalis, be considered Anarchy by this definition.

I can partially agree that what constitutes a state has a 'spectrum' quality, in that, the smaller the state becomes, the more difficult it is for that state to act in ways that we commonly associate with states, particularly if mobility between states is relatively easy. However there are characteristics of states unique to states beyond mere size, where the size is simply a product of this categoristic. They claim land that they have not touched and can claim the lives of individuals living in their territory prior to the establishment of any contract with those individuals in a way that no private institution can. Even if a woman gives birth to a child in a McDonalds, no one would consider it 'legitimate' for McDonalds to wave a constitution over the baby's head that it never signed and claim that child is a citizen of McDonalds.

The powers of the state derive from the belief in having those legitimate powers, but most people have a false conception that BECAUSE the state has these powers, people consider it legitimate.

google Kibutz read all of it come back to this thread restate your oppinion

Has there ever been a place that has total anarchy? I bet no one would even know about this place, because it would probably not even have an established name or a running newspaper as it has no organization whatsoever. I still have little idea as to how this society would get anything done. Would everything just have to come together to work on projects given there was no government assistance? If not, every organized country would be lightyears ahead of them and they'd be left in the dust. You guys are all right, this can simply never work.

There's a contextual difference between 'Anarchy' and 'Anarchism'. 'Anarchy' can mean a number of things and is usually used derogatorily as a synonym for chaos etc. 'Anarchism' is the specific political ideology of believing any form of political authority is both unnecessary and evil.

So...er... yeah... there's a contextual difference. Not that it matters. I was just fucking bored.

When the lights go out, the capitalist system is brought down, and "the man" is gone this is what people turn into. Dont try and pretend about bullshit like natural law. All those things are based on philosophy, which is mostly a pile of crap once society breaks down. Those rules about what is right and wrong are all made up. There is no right or wrong when people become animals, and thats essentially what they will revert to once you get rid of the system that reinforces those rules.

this is anarchy

Anarchy can't exist. There will always be that one power hungry, manipulative person who wants everything and there will always be people who are either easily manipulated, or just go with the flow. If the manipulator gets enough of those people, some sort of government will rise from that.

Anarchism does work, but as a global concept it is not viable. In small groups it works very well, the people know and understand each other well and can make good decisions without set guidelines or regulations, but on a scale any bigger than a small town the differences in opinion become to wide and eventually some sort of law and large government is needed to keep the people on the same page.

i believe anarchy will always fail just the way i believe capitalism will always fail and communism will always fail..

the people in the world who are greedy and vicious outnumber those who are not. people always want more than they need and will if not given it, will figure a way to get it.

anarchy is, in itself, inherently flawed. there are no fail safes against the strong and the smart from taking more than their share.

The principal of Anarchy isn't to win. It's to let what happens happen. There arn't any 'failsafes' because that would be interfereing. Anarchy is like an acid trip, the greatest state of being, yet only a journey that shows you things you could never perceive before

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. 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.

This is funny given that it sounds like your friends are socialist anarchists rather than libertarian anarchists. In the early part of the 20th Century, American socialists and union-organizers used race-baiting as a recruiting tool to get white workers to join their party or union. A little bit of the pot calling the kettle black (I know...you're not an American nor, probably, are your friends...but I still find it amusing).

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

What you say here contradicts yourself. You start off by saying that you will "TAKE" what you want/need. By eliminating personal property, you don't eliminate stealing: you just decriminalize it.

Let's go with your example. There are a few things wrong here. 1) Asking is not the same as "TAKING". Asking, implicitly, means that your neighbor does have personal property (the bananas). 2) If you listen to your neighbor's objections, you are respecting his "owning" those bananas...so again property still exists. 3) If he objected and you took them anyway...in what parallel universe is that a good thing? Where is the morality or honor?

And what if he refuses to give you the bananas and he doesn't have a good reason to withold them from you? What if he just doesn't like 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.

Private property is not the root of all evil. Hate to break it to you. If you take away government-backed-property-rights and dissassemble the government you've still got the problem of human nature. Even Rousseau admited that "natural man" is "good" the same way an animal is "good". If you come to the land that I've pissed on, thus marking as "mine" (like a dog), and I don't want you there I will fight you. If you lose and come back the next time I may just kill you...or you'll come back with a gun or pretty big rock and kill me.

Then instead of having the rule of law arbitrate differences...you've got a "might makes right" situation.

Furthermore, since man is a "tribal" (or social animal) alphas and betas will arise and hierarchies will be established.

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.

It sounds good in theory, but unfortunately it's not how it would be. We see this in the animal community...social animals become territorial and thus have primative property rights. The anthropological record also supports this Hobbesian outlook on human nature. More modernly, we see hippie communes of the 1960s and 1970s developing jealousies even though all property (inclusive of sexual partners) were held in common. Conflict, often violent, occurred...or hierarchies naturally developed.

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.

I know how seductive it is to blame MNCs or governments or the church or whatever. However, human nature is the root of the modern world. American Indians settled areas and consumed the natural resources until the area could no longer support their tribe...so they moved on. If another tribe had settled a choice piece of land...then they fought wars. I can see the same thing in the deer around my house. When a new buck starts sniffing around the does who live here...they fight the old buck for dominance. Same thing with social primates...

Hierarchies exist in nature...they are not the fault of MNCs or George Bush or Adolf Hitler. Thus society's organization around them is natural and hard wired into our psyche.