Anarchy

I'm wondering if there's any anarchists on this forum. And if so, what are your views, your goals as an anarchist, what do you stand for? I want to learn what i can from an actual anarchist... (Wow i need a life) I Want to know what anarchy is from a real life anarchist. (do you get the picture?) And also, if you know any good anarchist bands, could you list some here? Anything else i need to know? list/talk about it here.

I have some friends who are anarchists. I have some stupid friends. One guy (who I try to stray from) is an anarchist "because he hates Bush" I have a friend that doesn't really give a reason. Case in point, anarchy can never work due to humans being so naturally power hungry.

Anarchy is, essentially, chaos. An anarchist is one who feels that there should be no (or at least fewer) rules, regulations, and laws. They also tend to believe that everyone is better off without a government.


Edit: Not that I'm an anarchist, I tend to like having well-defined rules and regulations.

IMO Anarchy is impossible. Even in very small groups. People need to know what other peoples needs are, and as soon as you know these needs, you're making rules for yourself not to infringe on them anyway. The rules may be unspoken, but they exist.

But perhaps I just don't understand it. I'm very Socialist myself.

I am kind of anarchist, and I believe that it is possible.

Nevertheless this topic isn't about what's possible or not, it's for people who are anarchists themselves.

The History of Anarchy in Practice in a Single Sentence:
If the rule says that there can be no rule, it will inevitably be overthrown.

I believe in philosophical Anarchism. If you feel you should do something that is against the government, with a goal in mind, and you want it enough, do it. But expect consequences.

I see, so what is this "Socialism" that you are talking about?

Anarchy is, essentially, chaos.

That's not quite a fair description -- anarchy is characterized by a lack of hierarchy, not necessarily a lack of organization.

I don't identify as an anarchist, but I am a member of a collective organization run on anarchist principles. The Garden Spot at Carleton University is a very successful pay-what-you-can accessible food service run entirely on a non-hierarchical, volunteer basis. It's wonderful.

You can try and list the benefits of anarchy all you want, but in the end it's nowhere even near Socialism, as even socialism gives some sort of hierarchy. As flawed as a government can be, society needs it to exist with some form of hierarchy in order to function properly.

anarchy is not chaos. Anarchism advocates freedom from coercion. as a state is always coercive to some degree, there can be no freedom from coercion under a state. Anarchists essentially believe in autonomy, and trying to be as uncoercive of others as possible. anarchism must come from an individual starting point. i am not an anarchist but a socialist. anarchism is kind of compatable with socialism, this is seen in anarcho-syndicalism (a community based form of anarchism), but they are nit the same. However, Marx's materialist theory of history states that once communism is achieved the state will 'wither away' and people will live communally, as the state is merely a tool of class opression - under communism there are no classes. The difference is anarchism is not about class, it is about individual autonomy and freedom from coercion.

I hope that was clear enough. I am a politics student so i assure you my sources are good.

I believe in anarchy in certain necessary situations

Originally Posted by unbearabledead

I believe in anarchy in certain necessary situations

Elaborate.

There are two types of anarchists-- of the left and right varities. In my experience, leftist anarchists deny that rightist anarchist are even anarchists at all. So, on the left, there's some type of anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism, etc... and on the right there is some sort of anarcho-capitalism.

What Trico said about anarchy is right-- it is not anti-organization but really, anti-heirarchy. That is, what we think of anarchism traditionally, leftist anarchism.

Actually, why am I talking anymore, HylianShroom's post summed it up rather nicely. I had a friend who was an anarchist and so I quickly found out what he meant by it.

Rightist anarchism, of the "anarcho-capitalist" variety, is an equally strange creature. They tend to be beyond libertarians and then, again, beyond minimalists. Minimalists want, indeed, the minimal amount of goverment necessary. Hence, they eschew all types of government programs except what they deem absolutely necessary-- usually military/defense and legal systems. Anarcho-capitalists take this even a step further. Not only can all functions of the government, such as building and maintaining roads, etc... be managed by private individuals contracting for services freely, but so can defense and legal systems and fire departments. To say the least, this is a very suprising position for most people. They see themselves as being against all forms of coercion. Since they see taxation as coercion, they are likewise against it. Instead, they envision a state of affairs where one would subscribe to such things as fire department service, etc... and any strict coercion would be absent.

A quick google search brought this anarcho-capitalist FAQ up.

My leftist anarchist friend objected to this being anarchism on the grounds that a capitalist society would have heirarchy, I believe. In this sense, it is incompatible with what leftist anarchists see as anarchy, but in any strict sense of the definition of anarchy, it is indeed a system without government.

(Note: I am not an anarchist of any variety.)

-Rob

I'm talking about the over throwing your government to establish the government that the people find best.
AKA
The American Revolution
The Mexican Revolution
The French Revolution
The Iraq War
etc etc etc

Not sure if people consider that anarchy but in my review its anarchy until they get to the reestablishing government

that's really all i mean by that but hey, my opininon

That's not anarchy. In most cases you have a new leader step in the instant the old one is out.

True anarchy is the belief that no one should have any right to say what anyone else can do.

Just because pure anarchy is a fallacy does not mean that our governments could not prosper much closer to anarchy. (When I say anarchy I think anarcho-capitalism.)
EDIT: I guess I should say a, uh... good pure anarchy is a fallacy.

Rightist anarchism, of the "anarcho-capitalist" variety, is an equally strange creature. They tend to be beyond libertarians and then, again, beyond minimalists.

Indeed, I have to say that I am one of those. At some point I will expand further on this post, aside from just saying "I exist." If I get especially bored I may just expand on the idea that most claimed anarchists are not anarchists at all, as they demand a state - well, they demand a non-state whether you like it or not. Those people aren't philosophical anarchists, they just like calling themselves that, I'd guess. It's cool or something.

Edit the First:

I believe in philosophical Anarchism. If you feel you should do something that is against the government, with a goal in mind, and you want it enough, do it. But expect consequences.

Ah ha! This is another branch of anarchist thought, though not necessarily anarchism as such. It was first expounded on in a mainstream format, to my knowledge at least, by Robert Heinlein in the book The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Essentially the book was all about this precise idea, and was summed up by one of the characters thusly: "But I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." - Prof

Anachy works, in very small groups and it works well. I spent a month camping in the woods of Northern british colombia with my freinds and for a month we lived in total absense of any government. We all go along well, none of us was really the leader of anyone else. When we felt like doing somtehing, we did it.

Now we wern't the hunting type of people but if we were I'll bet we could have lived up there our whole lives in that kind of anarchy, and it works well becuase we were all friends. I don't like when people say things like "anarchy doesn't work" when they have never experenced it. Or if they say "comunism doesn't work" when clearly they have never visited a hutterite colony.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

True anarchy is the belief that no one should have any right to say what anyone else can do.

Anarchy is simply the absense of organized government.

Originally Posted by ChrisHoulihan

Anachy works, in very small groups and it works well. I spent a month camping in the woods of Northern british colombia with my freinds and for a month we lived in total absense of any government. We all go along well, none of us was really the leader of anyone else. When we felt like doing somtehing, we did it.

Now we wern't the hunting type of people but if we were I'll bet we could have lived up there our whole lives in that kind of anarchy, and it works well becuase we were all friends. I don't like when people say things like "anarchy doesn't work" when they have never experenced it. Or if they say "comunism doesn't work" when clearly they have never visited a hutterite colony.

Anything will work in soome cases. In small groups anarchy may just be the best option, but if you get too large (probably even twenty people this would be too hard for anarchy) the group becomes too big and it becomes hard for everyone to be heard and too many vaiables come into play.

Originally Posted by DarKnite92

Anything will work in soome cases. In small groups anarchy may just be the best option, but if you get too large (probably even twenty people this would be too hard for anarchy) the group becomes too big and it becomes hard for everyone to be heard and too many vaiables come into play.

in a hunter gather society everyone just takes care of themselves, there is no reason to organize and anarchy works the best. As soon as you start to have some kind of government in a hunter gatherer society(i.e. tribes) than you start to have problems.