Why Not Anarchy?

Geoist · Mar 5, 2015

ModerateGOP said:
1. Maybe I should have clarified but of course you guys are nit picking, my statement.

Nit picking? Your claim was clear, and clearly wrong.

It's clear that the OP and you guys want a anarchy system either here in the US or on a large country by country basis.

I want the system that is best for society. I believe geo-mutualism is the best system. It just happens to be in the anarchist school of thought.

2. This is never a good defense for anyone pushing a political ideal.

I never said it was. But just because something is an alternative ideology doesn't mean its wrong either.

3. Then why praise it as a shinning example of an Anarchist society?

I said it may not be an anarchist society forever. However, it currently is (more or less). They are very progressive on civil rights (particularly towards women), environmental issues, taxation, and demonstrate libertarian principles on the national level along with socialist principles on the local level, which most left anarchists/libertarians would prefer.

So it is dishonest to portray it as the perfect example of an anarchist society.

:roll: You complain about me 'nitpicking' yet you are putting words in my mouth. I never said Rojava was a "perfect example of an anarchist society."

4. I never actually described what type of state it is. But if you must know what I think of it. I believe it to be a region (not yet established state) in the middle of a civil war. Nothing more nothing less. You will find these all throughout Africa and the Middle East. A recent successful example of this is Kosovo. Another may be Crimea in the near future. While you say they are anarchists. They just seem like that, but when you look closely each one of these civil wars have sides and leaders!

Leaders mean no anarchy? Thank you for once again demonstrating your ignorance on anarchism.

So No I stand by my original statement Anarchy: has and never will happen!

You were presented with several examples of anarchist societies and you refuse to acknowledge them or throw out silly reasons why you think they don't count. :roll:

EDIT: But I do find it funny how you begin your post with "I probably should have clarified..." and then end your post with "I STAND BY ORIGINAL STATEMENT!" :lamo

Renae · Mar 5, 2015

Geoist said:
I will take that as a "No, I have not read anything by anarchist thinkers, but I will continue to post as if I'm an expert on the topic!"

No, I posted something you cannot counter. Proponents of amazing new or different societal schemes such as anarchy always explain why humans won't actually act like humans under their system. And while it may be true for a portion of whatever people were to exist in said system, that won't be true for all, and that is the crux of the situation and the failure of silly ideas as "Anarchy"

CNT-FAI Radical · Mar 5, 2015

"It [my position] was an anti-Oppression stance. And don't you both oppose war and also resist those who would actively make it for profit, wealth, and power?"

ModerateGOP said:
This was the only part of that whole post which followed what I was saying. So the answer to your question, for me personally. Is no.

And if you don't resist war and all violent forms of warmongering, then how can you criticize Anarchism for provoking a war against the State? You can't.

NeverTrump · Mar 5, 2015

Geoist said:
1. I want the system that is best for society. I believe geo-mutualism is the best system. It just happens to be in the anarchist school of thought.

2. I said it may not be an anarchist society forever. However, it currently is (more or less). They are very progressive on civil rights (particularly towards women), environmental issues, taxation, and demonstrate libertarian principles on the national level along with socialist principles on the local level, which most left anarchists/libertarians would prefer.

3. I never said Rojava was a "perfect example of an anarchist society."

4. You were presented with several examples of anarchist societies and you refuse to acknowledge them or throw out silly reasons why you think they don't count.

1. Who are you to determine what the best system for society is?

2. None of those would exist in anarchy. I believe in anarchy people may have those thoughts, but they wouldn't be able to implement any of those ideals, since there would be no clear way to.

3. Yet you keep on using it and bragging about it. It is currently the only modern example that you can come up with which sort of represents your hypothesis. In science, you need a lot more than one modern example to showcase your evidence.

4. Well I think we can establish that we both have different definitions of anarchy. You seem to think that it is a libertarian democracy. I think it is pure chaos. Everyone, but anarchist activists agrees with me and not you. That should tell you something... It's difficult to imagine how if you got your ideal society, whatever that is, it wouldn't quickly dissolve into anarchy and chaos. Good night.

CNT-FAI Radical · Mar 5, 2015

ModerateGOP said:
Um no. Actually the definition I picked was from Google. A private Corporation.

How are you going to know anything about Anarchism unless you ask someone who's done any thought, research, or writing on the subject?

And no you didn't. Anarchism, according to Google, is "belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion." http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=anarchism definition

ModerateGOP said:
You are using an outdated 100 year old definition of anarchy/anarchism from an anarchist activist. Here is the first sentence from the first page of the britannica website circa 2015: Anarchism:

anarchism | Encyclopedia Britannica

Seems pretty accurate to me.

"...the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary. Anarchist thought developed in the West and spread throughout the world, principally in the early 20th century."

Wow, pretty terrifying, isn't it? Oh, and you didn't get your definition from there, either.

Just keep arguing, I'm sure you'll convince me once you post a single link that agrees with you.

NeverTrump · Mar 5, 2015

CNT-FAI Radical said:
And if you don't resist war and all violent forms of warmongering, then how can you criticize Anarchism for provoking a war against the State? You can't.

It's simple. I don't care how much you think I know or don't know about anarchy and I really don't care to read anything published by anarchy activists. I'm never going to find the idea agreeable on any terms! It's ridiculous.

Now we can talk about how you think such a society could possibly function, but you'll never convert me. And you certainly won't convince 99% of the modern world. :2wave:

CNT-FAI Radical · Mar 5, 2015

ModerateGOP said:
Replaced by whom? What system would be in place that would allow all peoples to have access to (whatever) resources they needed to survive?

Mutual, voluntary, cooperative organizations. Like in any of the societies listed on the original post.

ModerateGOP said:
Who determines what is needed to survive? How would this work better than what we have today? I have asked that last question on this very thread countless times and no one has been able to tell me the answer.

All of your arguments have focused around the premise that without a state, everyone would be exploitable by warlords, by influential demagoges, and eventually by unhealthy and uninspected foods. And now you need me to tell you how things would be different with anarchy? I did list several societies in the opening post that lived as Anarchists. And the point wasn't that society would be better for having Anarchy: the point, as stated in the original post, is that Anarchy is a more efficient means of guaranteeing human happiness by providing humanity with needs it had once satisfied by limited government and revolt.

ModerateGOP said:
Or at least, they haven't been able to describe their vision in a different way than the communists did...

And what way is that?

You're the one who believes in the government, not us Anarchists. Yours is the system of police departments, concentration camps, torture and murder by the government, US terrorism to support dictatorships in Venezuela and Iraq and Iran and Indonesia and Spain and Russia, etc., etc., etc.. Yours is the system of terror. Yours is the system that resembles Soviet-style government, ours is in the opposite direction.

NeverTrump · Mar 5, 2015

CNT-FAI Radical said:
1. Mutual, voluntary, cooperative organizations. Like in any of the societies listed on the original post.

2. And the point wasn't that society would be better for having Anarchy: the point, as stated in the original post, is that Anarchy is a more efficient means of guaranteeing human happiness by providing humanity with needs it had once satisfied by limited government and revolt.

1. How would that work worldwide? Please explain.

2. limited gov't =/= anarchy!! How would anarchy make people happy? Please explain.

D_NATURED · Mar 5, 2015

Geoist said:
Anarchy is non-state democratic organization.

Doesn't it come down to semantics at that point? If the big grey thing with a trunk is called an elephant or a fizzywog, what does it matter, the peanuts are in jeopardy. Any democratic organization is going to have leadership. They represent the de facto government.

Quag · Mar 6, 2015

Geoist said:
How so?

How is it anarchist? Your claim your burden of proof, however as it has a govt structure it fails the basic test.

So?

Got any anarchist or protoanarchist or pretend anarchist societies that don't develop in periods of civil unrest/war?

I was responding to ModerateGOP's claim that no anarchist society has ever existed. I said nothing about their shelf-life (especially when up against militaristic dictatorships).

No functioning anarchist society has ever really existed. Most of the so called anarchist ones like those that wanna be revolutionars trot out as examples like civil war era Spain are not really anarchist just messed up societies that fall apart due to internal/external forces.

Quag · Mar 6, 2015

Geoist said:
Anarchy is non-state democratic organization.

No anarchy is lack of organization, that is why it cannot succeed. Now if you want to create a new system that has less govt such as libertarians call for go ahead present your proposal but dotn thuink your all cool by calling it anarchist you are just showing a lack of intellectual maturity.

Geoist · Mar 6, 2015

MrVicchio said:
No, I posted something you cannot counter.

It is a silly post; rejecting the opposition as "utopian." Same could be said for those who support capitalism as the "end of history." Are they not utopian for that perspective? No anarchist ever claimed anarchism would ever be perfect. They simply want to strive for a better system for humankind. In the end aren't we all seeking a better place for future generations?

Geoist · Mar 6, 2015

ModerateGOP said:
1. Who are you to determine what the best system for society is?

I never said I should be the one to determine what is the best system for society, I said I want what was best for society. Don't you?

2. None of those would exist in anarchy. I believe in anarchy people may have those thoughts, but they wouldn't be able to implement any of those ideals, since there would be no clear way to.

Once again, you demonstrate your ignorance of anarchist theory by assuming anarchist societies would be unorganized.

3. Yet you keep on using it and bragging about it.

I used it as one of several examples of anarchist societies. Once again, I never said it was perfect. :roll:

It is currently the only modern example that you can come up with which sort of represents your hypothesis. In science, you need a lot more than one modern example to showcase your evidence.

There are numerous modern-day examples of anarchy in practice. They are generally small communities because anarchy works best on a local level. They are also extremely rare because what part of the Earth isn't occupied by humans and controlled by a State?

4. Well I think we can establish that we both have different definitions of anarchy.

I think that is what some of us have tried to establish. You and other critics on this thread have taken anarchism as synonymous with "chaos." Unfortunately there have been no critiques of works by Carson, Proudhon, Bakunin, etc because, well, the only anarchist in your minds are the misguided college youths.

Everyone, but anarchist activists agrees with me and not you.

Everyone who is ignorant of anarchist ideology agrees with you. Those who understand it don't (there have been posters here who aren't anarchists who DO understand the anarchist school isn't about chaos.

That should tell you something...

Yes, that you embrace ignorance over knowledge and understanding.

NeverTrump · Mar 6, 2015

Geoist said:
1. I never said I should be the one to determine what is the best system for society, I said I want what was best for society. Don't you?

2. Once again, you demonstrate your ignorance of anarchist theory by assuming anarchist societies would be unorganized.

3. They are generally small communities because anarchy works best on a local level. They are also extremely rare because what part of the Earth isn't occupied by humans and controlled by a State?

4. Yes, that you embrace ignorance over knowledge and understanding.

1. But you are nobody so for to want what is best for society doesn't matter. I do want what's best for society and it isn't anarchy

2. Everything I have read on the subject says that it is unorganized. If not chaotic.

3. Each anarchist on here has admitted that it cannot work on a large scale basis. Yet that was the point of this thread...:roll:

4. What's the point of learning about something that will never happen anyway? What you are most likely describing is the very principles of participatory democracy. Not anarchy. That is what YOU don't get. Anarchy is possible as a theory only and not a very good one at that. Besides for a few slogans you have not been able to describe how anarchy will work. You just go back to your ideal pure version of a limited democracy. Since that's all you know. Yet anarchy lacks leaders and organization. That's the established definition, despite what a few anarchists wrote about 100 years ago. Which again, would only be initiated if you were somebody, and even that's doubtful! Once people get power it's hard to let go. Furthermore, if we were to somehow get anarchy here in the states, you would find that it will be quickly
replaced by the folks who either have all the money, guns, power or all of those things! Anarchy tends to breed irrational organization. Which leads to more civil war, more bloodshed and more opportunities for tyrants to rise up and take it all!

So, anarchy? No thank you.

Geoist · Mar 6, 2015

ModerateGOP said:
I really don't care to read anything published by anarchy activists. I'm never going to find the idea agreeable on any terms! It's ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is pretending to know about a subject you admittedly know nothing about.

Geoist · Mar 6, 2015

D_NATURED said:
Doesn't it come down to semantics at that point?

Not really. There are some tangible differences between non-state organization and state organization. Sure, there are leaders in any society. Anarchists have no problem with leaders. It is institutionalized hierarchy which anarchists oppose.

NeverTrump · Mar 6, 2015

Geoist said:
What is ridiculous is pretending to know about a subject you admittedly know nothing about.

No Advocating for anarchy is!

Geoist · Mar 9, 2015

ModerateGOP said:
No Advocating for anarchy is!

You are in no position to make that claim since you admitted yourself you don't know what anarchism is.

Geoist · Mar 9, 2015

ModerateGOP said:
1. But you are nobody so for to want what is best for society doesn't matter.

My opinions will most likely never make a difference. Should that stop me from having my opinions?

2. Everything I have read on the subject says that it is unorganized. If not chaotic.

You know nothing about the topic so please stop pretending you do.

3. Each anarchist on here has admitted that it cannot work on a large scale basis. Yet that was the point of this thread...

Depends on one's meaning of "large scale." Anarchist societies are naturally based around local communities. Some can be larger than others.

4. What's the point of learning about something that will never happen anyway?

Except it has. That has been established.

What you are most likely describing is the very principles of participatory democracy. Not anarchy. That is what YOU don't get.

Most left anarchists support decentralized voluntary democracy. Democracy itself does not violate anarchist principles because it does not necessarily support hierarchy (or at least limits it).

Besides for a few slogans you have not been able to describe how anarchy will work.

I have described many times how my idea of anarchy would work. It is called geo-mutualism.

NeverTrump · Mar 9, 2015

Geoist said:
You are in no position to make that claim since you admitted yourself you don't know what anarchism is.

lol are you serious? I said I don't care to read or learn what anarchists want me to believe anarchy is! I know what anarchy is, you guys are the ones trying to twist it into something it most definitely is not. You even give a new name to it!!! :lamo

NeverTrump · Mar 9, 2015

Geoist said:
I have described many times how my idea of anarchy would work. It is called geo-mutualism.

That's very nice and all, but I just don't give a rat's a**. It's a pie in the sky dream, if that. So nice try but this argument about anarchy AKA what you think anarchy is. Is not something worthwhile to anybody but yourself. You've even admitted this. You refuse to listen to the majority of posters who have answered the thread's question and told you that it is never going to happen. Yet you keep spewing your own brand of propaganda.

Geoist · Mar 11, 2015

ModerateGOP said:
I know what anarchy is

You do not. And it takes a lot of arrogance to claim you understand anarchist thought when you have not even read about it.

You even give a new name to it!!! :lamo

Once again you demonstrate your ignorance through arrogance. Geo-mutualism is not a new name for anarchism. It is a sub-sect of anarchism.

Geoist · Mar 11, 2015

ModerateGOP said:
I just don't give a rat's a**.

If you do not care to understand then you have no reason to be on this thread.

Patrickt · Jun 25, 2016

I live in Oaxaca, Mexico, and our anarchists all wear the same uniforms. I wonder how the decide?

Tigerace117 · Jun 25, 2016

CNT-FAI Radical said:
Why Not Abolish the Government?

Everyone makes up society, which makes it logical for everyone to have a voice in society, but even Democratic governments have abuses and scandals. So it's not enough just to have Democracy, but you need limited powers. And sometimes limiting the government's powers isn't even enough, and you have to guarantee that everyone has a right to revolt whenever they are being oppressed. But revolting and revolution are blood and full of conflict and suffering and the general disruption of society. Why not go further in the belief of limiting power and the right to revolt, and declare that any government is unjust because it places the participants on unequal footing that provides the powerful with a means to exploit the weak.

Scientific societies and labor unions generally have anarchy as an internal political system, even if it's called by the title "Delegation." In those cases, the only difference between government and anarchy is that no elected delegate can take a decision without a majority vote and any delegate can be removed by a no-confidence vote. And Anarchist societies of the past have been utopias compared to anything else around at that time. List of anarchist communities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, why not end government?

You do realize how it ended for the CNT, right?

Turning into Mega-Somalia doesn't sit well with me sorry.

Why Not Anarchy?

Geoist

Renae

CNT-FAI Radical

Member

NeverTrump

Exposing GOP since 2015

CNT-FAI Radical

Member

NeverTrump

Exposing GOP since 2015

CNT-FAI Radical

Member

NeverTrump

Exposing GOP since 2015

D_NATURED

Quag

Quag

Geoist

Geoist

NeverTrump

Exposing GOP since 2015

Geoist

Geoist

NeverTrump

Exposing GOP since 2015

Geoist

Geoist

NeverTrump

Exposing GOP since 2015

NeverTrump

Exposing GOP since 2015

Geoist

Geoist

Patrickt

Tigerace117