The stupidity of anarchism

[Meryuma]

Without government or some kind of coherent society

...who advocates that?

Anarchy is a fantasy-driven political/social thought. Its a contradiction of government, to say the least.

The system of anarchical governance is fantasy because the application of a state still persists. The authority figure (state), as anarchists so often seek to point out, is the concept of human morality. Morality can be taken at face value and be distorted in defense of ANY action committed, much to the same realization that authority figures in government can be corrupted and persuaded by others towards different views and actions. The disadvantage of morality being an authority figure in anarchy is that its flexibility allows it to be corroborated and corrupted and irrevocable, whereas in the state the people have the ability to overthrow and replace their own authority figures at their will and capacity to do so.

Morality isn't a power hierarchy.

You only do your statement harm by failing to provide a logical arguement. I used to think anarchism was a fools way of rebelling, much like how I used to view pacifism as being to weak to stand for your beliefs. But neither of those things are true either. Anarchism is an ideal, belief that hierarchies of power enslave the man, and knowing the proverb power corrupts, it understands that the larger the hierarchy the more corrupt it would be so anarchist conclusions draw to small social bands that govern themselves members choose which band they wish to be part of thus giving a man more freedom in life, as opposed to being born under a predefined rule by some authoritarian figure(s) obviously as with every system it has it's flaws, but it is an ideal based around freedom, so for you to state anarchism is shit would equally say you believe freedom is shit. If you dislike anarchism, you should give reasons, like how until the world is at peace and men don't hunger for power over another it would obviously turn into a tyrannical warlord scenario in which the people you hoped to give freedom would have to choose a lesser of two evils for safety as opposed to picking a small society that fits their own ideals. (that's what a proper arguement looks like) but again, anarchism is a valid ideal just hard to properly see to fruition.

what a load of crap!

You're literally not debating.

Lol here is what I'm seeing:

The subject of anarchy: Everyone on this thread simply insists that any definition of anarchy is a gross misunderstanding of anarchy. Perhaps we should all agree on a definition of a specific kind of anarchy. Or perhaps burst from our bubbles and talk to actual anarchists.

Ah yes "Actual Anarchists". 98 % of which are angsty 1st world teenagers who think it's cool to fight the power.

Ageist marginalization and "things could be worse, you could be in the third world": two derailing tactics for the price of one.

the only ideologies I've seen claiming to "fight the power" are Fascism, Communism, and Anarchism which all have the same effect, just different paths of getting there.

Fascism is the opposite of anarchy.

That is what anarchism advocates, no government, no law, no anything.

Disproved by this very thread.

[Sociobiology]

Morality isn't a power hierarchy.

morality is a human construct, so yes it is actually.

[Meryuma]

Morality isn't a power hierarchy.

morality is a human construct, so yes it is actually.

You're bending definitions to breaking point here.

[Blakk Metal]

I am curious on how a politically intelligent person can be an anarchist. Do they think that an anarchist society will be a paradise? No it won't. Without laws then murders, rapists, thieves, terrorists, and all other types of scum will go around free and armed gangs will be everywhere and no one will be safe. Crime and violence will be everywhere and humanity will destroy itself. Human nature just won't allow for humans to peacefully coexist unless we are under the rule of a government and have laws that are enforced. Some anarchists say that communities can create laws and enforce them but then guess what. IT ISN'T ANARCHISM ANYMORE. Once a community takes on that role then it is by definition a government. Seriously it baffles me how any person can be an anarchist. What are your thoughts on it?

Why are you copying an old thread?

[Renegade Island]

I am curious on how a politically intelligent person can be an anarchist. Do they think that an anarchist society will be a paradise? No it won't. Without laws then murders, rapists, thieves, terrorists, and all other types of scum will go around free and armed gangs will be everywhere and no one will be safe. Crime and violence will be everywhere and humanity will destroy itself. Human nature just won't allow for humans to peacefully coexist unless we are under the rule of a government and have laws that are enforced. Some anarchists say that communities can create laws and enforce them but then guess what. IT ISN'T ANARCHISM ANYMORE. Once a community takes on that role then it is by definition a government. Seriously it baffles me how any person can be an anarchist. What are your thoughts on it?

Ahhh, the "human nature" argument.

[Renegade Island]

I find anarchism to be the pinnacle of Darwinism. Survival of the fittest or the smartest. Without government or some kind of coherent society you have no medicine, no hospitals, no food (except from subsistence farming). It would set back man-kind thousands of years. I think most anarchists get kinda turned off to the ideology when they find out *gasp* there is no internet in an anarchist society. I have also argued that in such a case, militias and gangs would form. We would have warlords building their thrones on blood and drugs. They would have a tight grip over the once populous areas such as New York or Chicago. If you are speaking of just the USA going under Anarchism, I'm sure quite a few nations would find a USA who's only defense is militiamen to be quite appealing. The Nuclear Power Plants in existence would go out of service. We'd have no power. It would be the Dark Ages all over again, except with Guns.

Projection of worst fears. Don't worry, the state will protect you from the dangerous anarchists with its monopoly on weapons, force, and control. Silent compliance is all you need to be safe in your mind prison.

[Renegade Island]

Morality isn't a power hierarchy.

morality is a human construct, so yes it is actually.

Morality isn't a human construct.

[Natapoc]

I find anarchism to be the pinnacle of Darwinism. Survival of the fittest or the smartest. Without government or some kind of coherent society you have no medicine, no hospitals, no food (except from subsistence farming). It would set back man-kind thousands of years. I think most anarchists get kinda turned off to the ideology when they find out *gasp* there is no internet in an anarchist society. I have also argued that in such a case, militias and gangs would form. We would have warlords building their thrones on blood and drugs. They would have a tight grip over the once populous areas such as New York or Chicago. If you are speaking of just the USA going under Anarchism, I'm sure quite a few nations would find a USA who's only defense is militiamen to be quite appealing. The Nuclear Power Plants in existence would go out of service. We'd have no power. It would be the Dark Ages all over again, except with Guns.

You don't understand what anarchism is.

Under anarchism there ARE hospitals, medicine, farming, schools, power, ect. The only type of anarchism that may not include these are some forms of "anarcho-primitivism" but most forms of anarcho-primitivism are not even properly anarchist.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Communism has nothing to do with utopias. It has nothing to do with the assumption that all humans are pure and good.

It has to do with unrealistic expectations that humans can exist and flourish in large-scale stateless, moneyless, and classless societies and with unrealistically blaming most of the world's evils on capitalism...

Why do you assume that communists advocate large-scale societies?

Seriously, I'd like to see an answer to this sometime.

[Libertarian California]

It has to do with unrealistic expectations that humans can exist and flourish in large-scale stateless, moneyless, and classless societies and with unrealistically blaming most of the world's evils on capitalism...

Why do you assume that communists advocate large-scale societies?

Seriously, I'd like to see an answer to this sometime.

Because communists often talk about "World Revolution" or some stupid shit. I believe a world "revolution" would be large-scale...

[The Zeonic States]

Not a fan of the idealogy but i don't call it "Stupid" I don't call Communism stupid either and i REALLY dislike that one.

I other respect to other's viewpoints no matter how idiotic i may find them personally.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Why do you assume that communists advocate large-scale societies?

Seriously, I'd like to see an answer to this sometime.

Because communists often talk about "World Revolution" or some stupid shit. I believe a world "revolution" would be large-scale...

The revolution might be, but the society created in its wake wouldn't necessarily be. It'd be more like a loose worldwide confederation of fundamentally independent and self-managing communes.

[Czechanada]

As Anarcho-Syndicalism is one of my favourite ideologies, I just had a brain aneurysm reading the OP.

[Zweite Alaje]

I find anarchism to be the pinnacle of Darwinism. Survival of the fittest or the smartest. Without government or some kind of coherent society you have no medicine, no hospitals, no food (except from subsistence farming). It would set back man-kind thousands of years. I think most anarchists get kinda turned off to the ideology when they find out *gasp* there is no internet in an anarchist society. I have also argued that in such a case, militias and gangs would form. We would have warlords building their thrones on blood and drugs. They would have a tight grip over the once populous areas such as New York or Chicago. If you are speaking of just the USA going under Anarchism, I'm sure quite a few nations would find a USA who's only defense is militiamen to be quite appealing. The Nuclear Power Plants in existence would go out of service. We'd have no power. It would be the Dark Ages all over again, except with Guns.

Projection of worst fears. Don't worry, the state will protect you from the dangerous anarchists with its monopoly on weapons, force, and control. Silent compliance is all you need to be safe in your mind prison.

How does Anarchism propose society protects itself without the state? Foremost, how does Anarchism define "the state" as separate from the concept of government? My Anarcho-Syndicalist friends have tried to convince me of Anarcho-Syndicalism's validity, but they're unable to adequately explain the anarchist definition of "state" to me for me to judge.

I doubt it will lead to me abandoning my personal variant of Syndicalism, but it'd be interesting to finally get inside the Anarchist mindset.

[Cruciland]

"Belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion" -Google Dictionary

a political theory favoring the abolition of governments -Worldnetweb.princeton.edu

"Anarchism is generally defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful." -Wikipedia

There you go, folks! Anarchism (the real deal) involves the abolition of law, order, and government. You can stop saying that you are an anarchist now- you are actually a libertarian that is trying to look hardcore.

[The Stormcloak Rebels]

It's funny- I'd probably be a libertarian or anarchist myself if not for the fact that I have no idea in Oblivion how to produce food, clothing, etc. for myself and no skills I could barter to others in exchange for these goods.

I mean, why would anyone trade me food for identifying fossils or drawing pencil sketches?

[Natapoc]

"Belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion" -Google Dictionary

a political theory favoring the abolition of governments -Worldnetweb.princeton.edu

"Anarchism is generally defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful." -Wikipedia

There you go, folks! Anarchism (the real deal) involves the abolition of law, order, and government. You can stop saying that you are an anarchist now- you are actually a libertarian that is trying to look hardcore.

These words don't mean what you think they mean.

[Zweite Alaje]

"Belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion" -Google Dictionary

a political theory favoring the abolition of governments -Worldnetweb.princeton.edu

"Anarchism is generally defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful." -Wikipedia

There you go, folks! Anarchism (the real deal) involves the abolition of law, order, and government. You can stop saying that you are an anarchist now- you are actually a libertarian that is trying to look hardcore.

Mainstream definitions are misleading and corrupt.

[Natapoc]

It's funny- I'd probably be a libertarian or anarchist myself if not for the fact that I have no idea in Oblivion how to produce food, clothing, etc. for myself and no skills I could barter to others in exchange for these goods.

I mean, why would anyone trade me food for identifying fossils or drawing pencil sketches?

While some systems of anarchism are based on trade, most are not and would have social structures in place to help each other.

I also highly doubt you have no skills. You can type right? That's a skill. You can use a computer, that's another. You can speak and write in English. Yet another skill!

I bet you have plenty more. If you can survive in this society you can survive in anarchist society.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

It's funny- I'd probably be a libertarian or anarchist myself if not for the fact that I have no idea in Oblivion how to produce food, clothing, etc. for myself and no skills I could barter to others in exchange for these goods.

I mean, why would anyone trade me food for identifying fossils or drawing pencil sketches?

Does anyone pay you to do it now?

If so, why do you think they do it?

If not, well, at least you'd be no worse off than you already are.

[Renegade Island]

Projection of worst fears. Don't worry, the state will protect you from the dangerous anarchists with its monopoly on weapons, force, and control. Silent compliance is all you need to be safe in your mind prison.

How does Anarchism propose society protects itself without the state? Foremost, how does Anarchism define "the state" as separate from the concept of government? My Anarcho-Syndicalist friends have tried to convince me of Anarcho-Syndicalism's validity, but they're unable to adequately explain the anarchist definition of "state" to me for me to judge.

I doubt it will lead to me abandoning my personal variant of Syndicalism, but it'd be interesting to finally get inside the Anarchist mindset.

What does society need to protect itself from? The only biggest threat to society is the state itself (or specifically, the "enemy" state is a threat to the "home" state, or the authoritarian state is a threat to the civilian population.)

Ask yourself first what a state represents. To me it represents an artificial division of land and cultures, imposed by a central authority.

You must remove the borders and the the authority. Now, I'm not saying that this is an overnight process. It requires incremental steps to be successful. (You couldn't just drop a 15th Century Englishman in 21st Century London.)

Similarly, if you impose rules by force on people for their entire lives, and then overnight remove that force, you can expect people to break the rules.

That's because you're using the wrong incentive to set the rules. Fear of punishment is well known to not be a deterrent (otherwise, there'd be no murders by now, we've been using the practice for thousands of years with little success.)

So, how do you organise a crime free self sustaining society, with no need for control by force?

Giving people what they need is a good first step. (Instead of imposing capital restrictions.)

People are not inherently bad, greedy, evil, or exploitative, or selfish, or hateful. These are things that you learn, not things that you're born with.

If you are born in a society where you could trust everyone, always be warm, fed, clothed, and intellectually stimulated, you'll grow up to be trusting, friendly, selfless, and intelligent. If you're born in a society where nobody trusts anyone, and everyone is competing for heat, clothes, food, and matters of the brain are secondary to them, you'll grow up to be distrustful, selfish, greedy, and ignorant.

[Cruciland]

"Belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion" -Google Dictionary

a political theory favoring the abolition of governments -Worldnetweb.princeton.edu

"Anarchism is generally defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful." -Wikipedia

There you go, folks! Anarchism (the real deal) involves the abolition of law, order, and government. You can stop saying that you are an anarchist now- you are actually a libertarian that is trying to look hardcore.

Mainstream definitions are misleading and corrupt.

Of course you think that, because as a socialist you do not trust anything like that.

[Meryuma]

Anarchism (the real deal) involves the abolition of law, order,

Your own sources don't say that.

[Zyx]

Personally, I am not so sure if an anarcho-communist society would be successful, but I am sure it is worth trying. In the Enlightenment, most thinkers wanted a constitutional monarchy, which was the reformist / progressive view. Some wanted a republic though, but most thought it wouldn't work, and would end in chaos or tyranny. The Founding Fathers were really radical, so they just decided to give it a shot after the Revolution and it seems to be working pretty damn fine.
This situation leads me to believe that eventually, anarchism will come. Same will happen with communism, with a similar situation that happened with Feudalism, people were oppressed, riches concentrated on small areas, the majority got pissed off, and did a revolution.

[Czechanada]

Projection of worst fears. Don't worry, the state will protect you from the dangerous anarchists with its monopoly on weapons, force, and control. Silent compliance is all you need to be safe in your mind prison.

How does Anarchism propose society protects itself without the state? Foremost, how does Anarchism define "the state" as separate from the concept of government? My Anarcho-Syndicalist friends have tried to convince me of Anarcho-Syndicalism's validity, but they're unable to adequately explain the anarchist definition of "state" to me for me to judge.

I doubt it will lead to me abandoning my personal variant of Syndicalism, but it'd be interesting to finally get inside the Anarchist mindset.

Gustav Laundauer argued that the state is within all of us.