What do you think about anarchists?

[Sibirsky]

Yes, they are rulers. But only in the workplace and only with the employee's consent. As such, capitalism is fully compatible with anarchism.

But you said it yourself: Anarchy = no rulers.

Anarchy = no rulers, not no laws.

Most of anarchist writing deals with issues of crime, and how to address it.

In political science, you fail.

Anarchy = no rulers.

It says nothing about laws.

Do you have trouble grasping the difference between a small store and an entire nation?

[The Cobalt Sky]

People are rulers of themselves. That's still anarchy as no one else rules over them.

To make that clearer, anarchy is the dominance of the 'self' over the 'other'.

I think I was using too vague a definition of ruler.

[Servica]

But you said it yourself: Anarchy = no rulers.

Do you have trouble grasping the difference between a small store and an entire nation?

(Skinia just got burned there)
But how do laws work without law enforcers and lawmakers, who are technically rulers?
Last time I checked, anarchy meant the absence of a medium through which laws can be ratified by representatives for the wider populace with disregard to their opinion. How is your standpoint not contradictory, and even if you knew that it were, why stand with it?

[Skinia]

But you said it yourself: Anarchy = no rulers.

Do you have trouble grasping the difference between a small store and an entire nation?

No, but you seem to have trouble grasping the difference between anarchy and statelessness. Also, you contradicted yourself.

[Servica]

To make that clearer, anarchy is the dominance of the 'self' over the 'other'.

I think I was using too vague a definition of ruler.

You were definitely right to do that. Clearer distinctions and definitions had to be made, and you contributed to instigate the attempts of making that so. An example of why reason is the only way through which people could ever learn. Learning is essential.

[Saviola]

I was speaking hypothetically. If anarchism was truly in the best interest of the majority of the population, we likely would have seen an anarchist revolution of some form, but have we? No. Because anarchism could not work. Also, in socialist countries the majority of people long for democracy but their government crushes all resistance to its rule. If the people of those countries could change the government, the majority would change it to democracy. To quote John F. Kennedy:

"Democracy is not perfect."

No political system is perfect, but some are much worse than others. If you believe anarchism is truly the way forward, then you are entitled to that belief, but I am just trying to make my point here.

How can you be so sure that the people know what's in their best interests? Conforming to the beliefs of the majority just because you think "they must be right" isn't a great way to form your political identity.

The majority is the majority for a reason, and that is because people share common morals and ethics. There is a reason that non-democratic governments are disappearing is because people living in democratic countries are happy under the system. If the system didn't satisfy people or made them feel secure, then it never would have been adopted. People base their ideologies off what is morally right and it just so happens that the majority of people have the same idea of what is right and wrong.

[Estva]

It's a ridiculous, idealistic ideology that holds almost no water when serious debate occurs. Human society, as it develops, is inevitability prone to develop states. All anarchist communities that have not been protected by a state have failed. And yes, getting invaded counts as failure.

[Skinia]

It's a ridiculous, idealistic ideology that holds almost no water when serious debate occurs. Human society, as it develops, is inevitability prone to develop states. All anarchist communities that have not been protected by a state have failed. And yes, getting invaded counts as failure.

Source.

[Servica]

It's a ridiculous, idealistic ideology that holds almost no water when serious debate occurs. Human society, as it develops, is inevitability prone to develop states. All anarchist communities that have not been protected by a state have failed. And yes, getting invaded counts as failure.

All states who fail to suppress reason and dissidence fail to continue.
New states will only form when the 'reason' again disappears and the lessons are forgotten, but it'd more challenging each time.

[Brillnuck]

It's a ridiculous, idealistic ideology that holds almost no water when serious debate occurs. Human society, as it develops, is inevitability prone to develop states. All anarchist communities that have not been protected by a state have failed. And yes, getting invaded counts as failure.

It isn't ridiculous. Anarchism can work, but only in small communities or when people are ready to co-operate.

[Estva]

It's a ridiculous, idealistic ideology that holds almost no water when serious debate occurs. Human society, as it develops, is inevitability prone to develop states. All anarchist communities that have not been protected by a state have failed. And yes, getting invaded counts as failure.

Source.

Human history. States are, quit simply, far more powerful and influential than anarchist societies. Having a world anarchist system would only lead to the re-emergence of states, as it did when humans first developed.

[Estva]

It's a ridiculous, idealistic ideology that holds almost no water when serious debate occurs. Human society, as it develops, is inevitability prone to develop states. All anarchist communities that have not been protected by a state have failed. And yes, getting invaded counts as failure.

It isn't ridiculous. Anarchism can work, but only in small communities or when people are ready to co-operate.

I specifically said that in small communities protected by states, it can certainly work.

[Estva]

It's a ridiculous, idealistic ideology that holds almost no water when serious debate occurs. Human society, as it develops, is inevitability prone to develop states. All anarchist communities that have not been protected by a state have failed. And yes, getting invaded counts as failure.

All states who fail to suppress reason and dissidence fail to continue.
New states will only form when the 'reason' again disappears and the lessons are forgotten, but it'd more challenging each time.

This is rather patently false, considering how many states have existed at this point and show no signs of going away despite whatever cryptic "reason" you talk bout.

[Skinia]

Source.

Human history. States are, quit simply, far more powerful and influential than anarchist societies. Having a world anarchist system would only lead to the re-emergence of states, as it did when humans first developed.

Not a source to all anarchist communities that have not been protected by states having failed. You have to source which anarchist communities are protected by states and which aren't, and that all of those which aren't have failed.

[Jute]

Not all anarchists support crime, some put up opinions on how to deal with crime.

Wouldn't those be laws then?

Also, this topic may cover this discussion:
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p22694403

You can fight crime without laws.

[Servica]

Source.

Human history. States are, quit simply, far more powerful and influential than anarchist societies. Having a world anarchist system would only lead to the re-emergence of states, as it did when humans first developed.

Heh, funny! The first humans were mostly ignorant, and tended to conform in the face of the threat of anything eternal and unpleasant. The state in which we are today is a form of stagnation. Infrastructure collapses and we just keep rebuilding it the same way, with the same materials, within the same location, in the face of the same threats. The cycle has been repeated so much that the common individual thinks that it's a constant and inevitable occurrence. There needs to be more consciousness in the world, and many people know that by now. Anarchism is not a call for sunshine and rainbows, it's a call to learn from history and learn from it forever.

[Saviola]

You've made no relevant points. You have only expressed your wrong opinion.

There have been periods of anarchy throughout history.

Using your logic, there would never have been slavery and women would have always been able to vote. But both are recent developments.

Listen, I'm not trying to convert you to statism, the topic is "What do you think about Anarchists?" and I have been answering that. I am basing my opinion on fact, and on whether anarchism would work in the modern world. Anarchy may have worked in certain points in history, but that doesn't mean it would necessarily work in today's world. Like I said, you are entitled to your opinion and I am to mine, neither is wrong and neither is right.

About anti-slavery and feminism, they never happened because at the time there wasn't enough support for start such movements until only recently, that's why they were accepted for so long.

[Estva]

Human history. States are, quit simply, far more powerful and influential than anarchist societies. Having a world anarchist system would only lead to the re-emergence of states, as it did when humans first developed.

Not a source to all anarchist communities that have not been protected by states having failed. You have to source which anarchist communities are protected by states and which aren't, and that all of those which aren't have failed.

- Paris Commune, failed due to invasion.
- Free Ukraine, failed due to invasion.
- Free Catalonia, failed due to invasion(and was really part of a state)
- Shinmin autonomous territory, again, failed.

All others listed are communities within states who protect such communities from other states.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... ommunities

[Servica]

It's a ridiculous, idealistic ideology that holds almost no water when serious debate occurs. Human society, as it develops, is inevitability prone to develop states. All anarchist communities that have not been protected by a state have failed. And yes, getting invaded counts as failure.

It isn't ridiculous. Anarchism can work, but only in small communities or when people are ready to co-operate.

That's true, actually. That's also why there needs to be more consciousness regarding the matter.
There are a lot of homeless people due to the side-effect of the alienation produced by the size of our cities and the lifestyle that's been enforced on us, and the rapid growth of human population is mostly due to collective pride and the illusions of permanent longevity and eherm- 'glory'. It's about time somebody learned from those things and gather up the balls to do something about them.

[Estva]

Heh, funny! The first humans were mostly ignorant, and tended to conform in the face of the threat of anything eternal and unpleasant.

You mean like we still do now?

The state in which we are today is a form of stagnation. Infrastructure collapses and we just keep rebuilding it the same way, with the same materials, within the same location, in the face of the same threats.

In some capacities, sure, but how on earth do you think an anarchist collective can solve this? There simply wouldn't be infrastructure, because the resources wouldn't be available.

The cycle has been repeated so much that the common individual thinks that it's a constant and inevitable occurrence.

What "cycle"? Every time a state failed, for the most part, another state filled its place.

There needs to be more consciousness in the world, and many people know that by now. Anarchism is not a call for sunshine and rainbows, it's a call to learn from history and learn from it forever.

The history of anarchism and what has happened to anarchists before certainly doesn't paint a pretty picture.

[Skinia]

Not a source to all anarchist communities that have not been protected by states having failed. You have to source which anarchist communities are protected by states and which aren't, and that all of those which aren't have failed.

- Paris Commune, failed due to invasion.
- Free Ukraine, failed due to invasion.
- Free Catalonia, failed due to invasion(and was really part of a state)
- Shinmin autonomous territory, again, failed.

All others listed are communities within states who protect such communities from other states.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... ommunities

And yet, an invasion isn't exclusively a problem for anarchist communities but states too, so seeing an invasion as a failure for anarchism in general is irrelevant and bias towards statism when discussing the functionality and practicality of anarchist societies and communities.

[Cymrea]

Seems like the folks that are most supportive of anarchy are lower income earners.

[Kincoboh]

Already 4 pages in, there is a lot of misunderstanding as to what anarchism is. Which is the main reason why I don't refer to myself as an anarchist, but a libertarian socialist. That seems to give people a better idea of what exactly anarchism is. I think this has a lot to do with society, as there is a perpetuation of misunderstanding. In NationStates, when you have high of all three freedom categories, you are an anarchy, ruled by biker gangs. But that's silly. For me, I reject state bureaucracy as well as the capitalist system. Any form of authoritarianism, be it private or public, leads to exploitation and the emphasis should be on decentralization, common ownership of land and resources, and autonomy (among other things).

[Estva]

- Paris Commune, failed due to invasion.
- Free Ukraine, failed due to invasion.
- Free Catalonia, failed due to invasion(and was really part of a state)
- Shinmin autonomous territory, again, failed.

All others listed are communities within states who protect such communities from other states.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... ommunities

And yet, an invasion isn't exclusively a problem for anarchist communities but states too, so seeing an invasion as a failure for anarchism in general is irrelevant and bias towards statism when discussing the functionality and practicality of anarchist societies and communities.

How many states, exactly, have been invaded by anarchist societies? The invaders are always another state, regardless of of whether or not those being invaded are anarchists or statists.

[Skinia]

And yet, an invasion isn't exclusively a problem for anarchist communities but states too, so seeing an invasion as a failure for anarchism in general is irrelevant and bias towards statism when discussing the functionality and practicality of anarchist societies and communities.

How many states, exactly, have been invaded by anarchist societies? The invaders are always another state, regardless of of whether or not those being invaded are anarchists or statists.

Irrelevant. When a group of soldiers invades a territory, it doesn't matter if they work for a geographical area with a monopoly on violence or a community with neither.