Anarchy

[theonlysun81]

Talk about why it would be a good idea and why it wouldn't be a good idea. For me, it seems like the only option we have, as everything else is based on violence. Like if it wasn't for the police, who use force to enforce the laws, then our system would collapse immediately. Communism/socialism would mean forcing people to share. Complete anarchy isn't what I'm advocating as that is just not natural for humans and for nature in general. But an unorganized, non hierarchal society would work. Anarcho-syndicalism, resource based economy, libertarian socialism, etc. Obviously it wouldn't be able to happen immediately, we would gradually have to learn to think for ourselves. But it would be able to happen.


In before it has never worked, will never work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communities Has worked and would work if left alone from outside influences that make it not anarchy anymore.

[Iskatehard]

I think it's somewhat of a natural behavioral paradox, in a weird sense..

It's like.. I think it's natural by now in humans to have a form of dependency on something, be it religion or government. We have to come up with some force to rely on to help us when we feel we can't help ourselves. We have to have something to turn to for a feeling of comfort and protection, if you will.

It's in us by now, as humans. Even in "anarchist communities", they still rely on a governing set of ideas/force/whateveryouwannacallit in order to help reassure themselves.. They just argue they're not doing it, because the methods they often use aren't as "traditional"...

But still.. Fuck it. I guess you could speak of the forces with statements like "If it quacks like a duck.. And it walks like a duck... Then?"

And the paradox bit? Maybe not a paradox specifically, but it was the first word to come to mind.

The governing forces.. They often don't govern over their "subjects" as they were formed to, in a lot of ways. You could describe it as personal biases playing into deciding things for the whole of a community, greed, corruption, fear of what somebody might think of you, ect...

I mean.. If we are going to create a form to govern over us and protect us.. How in the hell can it be US!? If it's made of humans, they'll exhibit the same nature as modern day humans.. Thus feeling the same fucking problem society did initially..

Which is possible reason we have traditional religion.. Or such drastic different branches of governments.. Or hell, even governments that basically work in a fucking circle, or depend on the decisions of it's "subjects"... Call it "nice", call it in "best interest".. But eh.. If someone is fit to be a governing force over people... They might as well have qualities that make them worth being so!

If we are going to vote as a whole and execute as a whole in the sense that we do.. We might as fucking well just get together and vote on every subject as a whole, rather than voting select people in who get to make decisions for us, wouldn't you think?

I don't know.. We govern ourselves, and we'd be best fit doing it as a community of a whole, not by forming a separate branch of the community

Sorry if I ramble.. But fuck, talk about a newly realized bit as to why US's government doesn't completely seem logical.

Fuck =\

[theonlysun81]

That is an interesting point about the paradox. It's just that I think it's, at least for me, more creative and humane to be governed by a set of ideas. It seems more like the natural order of things. People usually have a personal philosophy how to live life, and they are usually all different. Having a society that is based on one philosophy just seems counterproductive. Also people can't rely on themselves which is the most important thing someone can learn in life.

Also you can't have a direct democracy. That would result in mob rule and a supression of the minority. AKA civil rights, states rights, any time in history were a democracy did something for the good of the nation not the good of the people.

[Iskatehard]

Yeah, no way there wouldn't be problems concerning minorities..

But then again, that's more a problem of concerning races rather than government on it'w own, I guess...

[I'M_NOOBTASTIC]

It wouldn't work out. Peace is unattainable. An Anarchy would eventual turn into some type of organized government.

[Skateselect]

i think, and history agrees with me, goverments go in a cycle. one collapses, chaos ensues, until a new ruler rises up. that ruler establishes a government that rules for X years, until the people revolt, the economy collapses, etc. Then anarchy once again reigns. its basic history. France and Russia (Soviet Union period included) are great examples of this.

[Iskatehard]

Haha, I'd say everything in modern day governments are examples of that statement.

Kind of makes sense when you think about it.. But it feels like after a while you ask why the hell people feel like they need a form of government so much..

[Skateselect]

Haha, I'd say everything in modern day governments are examples of that statement.

Kind of makes sense when you think about it.. But it feels like after a while you ask why the hell people feel like they need a form of government so much..
i think its for a sense of security. people feel like they can count on their government for, at bare minimum, protection. with government comes an organized military. in an anarchy it could be "we're getting invaded by another country, hope a few people other than me show up to try to fight them off."

[theonlysun81]

i think, and history agrees with me, goverments go in a cycle. one collapses, chaos ensues, until a new ruler rises up. that ruler establishes a government that rules for X years, until the people revolt, the economy collapses, etc. Then anarchy once again reigns. its basic history. France and Russia (Soviet Union period included) are great examples of this.
Except what was in France and Russia weren't in the least bit anarchy, at least in the actual sense of the term. Those were points in history were mob rule was law. People killing people does not mean anarchy.

[Skateselect]

Except what was in France and Russia weren't in the least bit anarchy, at least in the actual sense of the term. Those were points in history were mob rule was law. People killing people does not mean anarchy.
before the reign of terror, france was essentially in anarchy, and i think it was the same in russia after the romanevs were killed and before lenin took power. at least thats what i think/remember

[Iskatehard]

In the sense of the word, and by definition.. I don't think anarchy is even possible.

We are going to be governed by something of some sense regardless. It's human nature, it seems.

That might be ethics or universal laws. Even if it's not personified through officials being appointed to fill a specific slot of a form of "government", it's still there. And heh, it's probably more reliable and sincere...

Or, in some situations.. Mob rule is law. Somewhat similar to that of democracy, I'd say... Just a little bit more direct to the point.

[Skateselect]

In the sense of the word, and by definition.. I don't think anarchy is even possible.

We are going to be governed by something of some sense regardless. It's human nature, it seems.

That might be ethics or universal laws. Even if it's not personified through officials being appointed to fill a specific slot of a form of "government", it's still there. And heh, it's probably more reliable and sincere...

Or, in some situations.. Mob rule is law. Somewhat similar to that of democracy, I'd say... Just a little bit more direct to the point.
true, very true. especially about being ruled by human nature.

[Iskatehard]

Yeah.. That's how I think it is, anyway. We can claim we're not being governed all day, and we can claim to be free from authority in all ways.. But shit.. It's really still there.

It might seem lame to break it down into pure nature.. But... It's a valid governing force, so, it's worth considering I'd say.

[Skateselect]

even basic needs could be considered governing forces, we do everything in accordance to them. for example, we go to work to get payed, so we can buy food, satisfying our hunger

[Iskatehard]

Haha, I have to say I've come to learn/realize a lot in this thread so far concerning this topic.

What it's worth? I dunno.. But I know what I'll end up saying to the next person who tries to ramble on about how great "anarchy" is and why we're stupid for not trying to follow the idea >.>'

[riskitforabiscuit]

It really depends whether we're talking about the sustainability of anarchy or the feasibility and merits of anarchism.

[Skateselect]

It really depends whether we're talking about the sustainability of anarchy or the feasibility and merits of anarchism.
read the posts, this thread is basically done

[Iskatehard]

It really depends whether we're talking about the sustainability of anarchy or the feasibility and merits of anarchism.

Could you perhaps define the merits? Or explain what you mean by sustainability and feasibility?

All in all, it could be argued that it's sustainable or feasible.. But it will just get broken down into a pseudoconclusive bit of thinking, if you will.

But shit.. To take into mind the fact this is a philosophy forum.. It seems like looking at it like that disregards the philosophical value possible in the subject itself.. But I don't know if that's right or not.

[salvemaster]

What it's worth? I dunno.. But I know what I'll end up saying to the next person who tries to ramble on about how great "anarchy" is and why we're stupid for not trying to follow the idea >.>'

I don't really think anarchy is an idea, that's basically the main principle of it's anti-principality is that it revolts against something so as to attain nothing, anarchy. So, in accordance with the cyclic nature of governments as skateselect so aptly put it, it is necessary to have an established government for there to be anarchy, otherwise what would anarchists do in their spare time?

It's a basic fact, you can't live in anarchy because anarchy doesn't last. Anarchy is what fills the void between lasting governments and is what is used as a metaphorical 'solvent' of current administrations. It's just a protest against establishmentarianism, but without establishmentarianism, anarchy is just a protest, and that's just dumb.

[StarcraftLedZeppelin]

This thread is probably flagged on some site just for the title.

[riskitforabiscuit]

Could you perhaps define the merits? Or explain what you mean by sustainability and feasibility?

All in all, it could be argued that it's sustainable or feasible.. But it will just get broken down into a pseudoconclusive bit of thinking, if you will.

But shit.. To take into mind the fact this is a philosophy forum.. It seems like looking at it like that disregards the philosophical value possible in the subject itself.. But I don't know if that's right or not.
The point I was trying to make was to try and clear up any discrepancy between the definition of anarchism and the definition of anarchy. One can discuss the factors of anarchism in a theoretical sense but ignore the factors of anarchy in a practical sense. I guess I'm taking the more philosophical route here; thinking about how the concept should be thought about, yet not providing anything conclusive to the problem. I'm not sure if that was the point of the philosophy forum or not.

The sustainability I'm referring to is how long and how successful an anarchistic society can be sustained for. The feasibility I'm referring to is the step before that - the chance of success and likelihood of a working system being implemented in the first place.

[iamtheyeti]

Jacques Fresco talks about creating a resource based economy



Look it up

[Iskatehard]

Jacques Fresco talks about creating a resource based economy



Look it up

Why? Isn't that the foundation to every economy? Even in things like services, it's still going to be playing off resource(s), I think.

[iamtheyeti]

Why? Isn't that the foundation to every economy? Even in things like services, it's still going to be playing off resource(s), I think.

mm idk but it's the guy who thought up the idea of The Venus Project. They talk about it on the second zeitgeist I think, you've probably seen it. I don't feel like explaining it so check it out on youtube.

[theonlysun81]

Why? Isn't that the foundation to every economy? Even in things like services, it's still going to be playing off resource(s), I think.
Our currency is money. We value money. We only value resources because we can get money with them.

That's the beginning of it. Just watch the second Zietgiest.

[riskitforabiscuit]

I always figured we would value resources because they are an essential part of living. What's the point of money if you can't receive anything for it? Just look at hyperinflation in the German Weimar Republic. Children were building play forts out of money since it was so worthless. The cost of a loaf of bread could triple by the time you got to the front of the line at the bakery.

[theonlysun81]

When talking about sustainability the Gaelic peoples sustained their society for a thousand years until the introduction of the Christian Church, a hierarchal institution. Also anarchy isn't just a transition period. I remember a thread in off topic a while back concerning a bohemian lifestyle. That would be one way to live during anarchy. You could do whatever you wanted. Given if you tried to fuck with someone they could do whatever they wanted as well. Yea it would probably escalate but there would be no allegiances so no wars because no armies.

[theonlysun81]

I always figured we would value resources because they are an essential part of living. What's the point of money if you can't receive anything for it? Just look at hyperinflation in the German Weimar Republic. Children were building play forts out of money since it was so worthless. The cost of a loaf of bread could triple by the time you got to the front of the line at the bakery.
Yea but people put more value over money then resources. Like people would buy a cheaper product even if it meant that that product used more resources or was harmful to the enviroment. It might be partly due to ignorace, but look what that says about companies in general.

[riskitforabiscuit]

Yea but people put more value over money then resources. Like people would buy a cheaper product even if it meant that that product used more resources or was harmful to the enviroment. It might be partly due to ignorace, but look what that says about companies in general.
But if you spend less on a cheaper product you can then afford more resources and products.

[theonlysun81]

But if you spend less on a cheaper product you can then afford more resources and products.
Using more resources pollutes the planet through bi-products. Cheaper product also usually means cheaper labour and shitty factory conditions.

[Iskatehard]

Wait... What?

Where/why does currency come into discussion?