Anarchism, Arguments For and Against

[Sordhau]

I actually respect anarchists to an extent, I feel like they're probably the revoltuionary group least likely to push me against a wall and shoot me but I also sympathise with the wanting to do away with unjust hierarchies and truly free mankind. However I just find it impractical. Anarchist movements have been crushed by any organized state they ever fought. Tey put up a good fight, but organized armies tend to npt be very anarchist, so you either get a not very anarchist militiant organization which tdefacto ends up becoming a state of some kind, or you get an ineffectual bunch of guerrillas.

E: Also I doubt an anarachist society would be able to sustaine the high tech lifestyles of our current civilizations.

Yeah. Just enetered this thread and he took the words right outta my mouth. While I have a skeptical view of human nature, I think some people would be fine in an anarchist society. My neighbors for example. They’re peaceful. They own guns, not relying on govt for protection. They live of retirement from the private companies they worked for. They get along well. If the state disappeared tomorrow, they would say, “Hmm. Crazy times we live in.” And carry on with their lives.

Others though, will see the absence of the state as the purge. And I don’t need to explain why that’s bad.

I respect anarchists more than socialists however b/c their ideas haven’t been totally discredited yet and they usually don’t like killing that many people

Socialism has never been discredited lmfao.

[Jewish Underground State]

Yeah. Just enetered this thread and he took the words right outta my mouth. While I have a skeptical view of human nature, I think some people would be fine in an anarchist society. My neighbors for example. They’re peaceful. They own guns, not relying on govt for protection. They live of retirement from the private companies they worked for. They get along well. If the state disappeared tomorrow, they would say, “Hmm. Crazy times we live in.” And carry on with their lives.

Others though, will see the absence of the state as the purge. And I don’t need to explain why that’s bad.

I respect anarchists more than socialists however b/c their ideas haven’t been totally discredited yet and they usually don’t like killing that many people

Socialism has never been discredited lmfao.

All the leftest ideologies have been discredited in many ways, but are still around

[Hukhalia]

Socialism has never been discredited lmfao.

All the leftest ideologies have been discredited in many ways, but are still around

it is absolutely impossible to discredit marxism-leninism

[Sordhau]

Socialism has never been discredited lmfao.

All the leftest ideologies have been discredited in many ways, but are still around

Literally how lol

[Jewish Underground State]

All the leftest ideologies have been discredited in many ways, but are still around

it is absolutely impossible to discredit marxism-leninism

Except they were both utopian. Lenin was a man who wouldn't allow any compromise. You see that in his follower's mind set

This is why he and trotsky were so unforgiving to the Makhnovists.

[Hamidiye]

Anarchism is inherently unworkable. How will you stop crime? It'll lead to warlordism and utter brutality ruling the country.

[Jewish Underground State]

Anarchism is inherently unworkable. How will you stop crime? It'll lead to warlordism and utter brutality ruling the country.

Worse how did you get anarchism to work without an authority enforcing it.

[Uan aa Boa]

All the leftest ideologies have been discredited in many ways, but are still around

it is absolutely impossible to discredit marxism-leninism

Not sure I can keep up with the depth and insight of analysis in this thread.

[HISPIDA]

anarchism fuckin sucks

Except they were both utopian

we're rollin' in dough while engels rolls in his graaaaaaaaave
in his graaaaaaaaaave

[Concejos Unidos]

Anarchism is inherently unworkable. How will you stop crime? It'll lead to warlordism and utter brutality ruling the country.

Why don't you go kill your neighbor right now and rob them? Is it really only because of the threat of imprisonment and law enforcement? If you had a guaranteed opportunity to get away with it, would you?

Unless you're an actual socio/psychopath, then the answer is probably no. What actually keeps society running is inculcation in social norms and social forces and pressures (which in this case have inculcated the notion that murder is morally wrong), which is also why you tend to see criminal behavior from individuals raised or acclimated in socially dysfunctional environments.

[Concejos Unidos]

I respect anarchists more than socialists however b/c their ideas haven’t been totally discredited yet and they usually don’t like killing that many people

Most anarchists are socialists.

[Chan Island]

Pros: Freedom, great unlocking of individual potential, equality,

Cons: Inability to organise- most glaringly in defending itself from others. Open question about both sustainable and scaleable it is.

Generally I like anarchists, and I *get* the appeal of it. However I think it fatally flawed to never survive for long without either outside takeover or warlords.

[Jewish Underground State]

Pros: Freedom, great unlocking of individual potential, equality,

Cons: Inability to organise- most glaringly in defending itself from others. Open question about both sustainable and scaleable it is.

Generally I like anarchists, and I *get* the appeal of it. However I think it fatally flawed to never survive for long without either outside takeover or warlords.

I agree with this. Anarchists are fun to talk to.

[Northern Seleucia]

Ah, this is the new thread?

[Jewish Underground State]

Ah, this is the new thread?

I re made it this time with a better intro.

[Northern Seleucia]

Ah, this is the new thread?

I re made it this time with a better intro.

Ah, okie dokie.

Well, I feel like an AnCap society will just become a Corporate State eventually. And AnCom may have some person organize in the commune.

[Jewish Underground State]

I re made it this time with a better intro.

Ah, okie dokie.

Well, I feel like an AnCap society will just become a Corporate State eventually. And AnCom may have some person organize in the commune.

What if an insurance company becomes a monopoly. You have a state.

That's why many anarchists don't view AnCaps as real anarchists

[Northern Seleucia]

Ah, okie dokie.

Well, I feel like an AnCap society will just become a Corporate State eventually. And AnCom may have some person organize in the commune.

What if an insurance company becomes a monopoly. You have a state.

That's why many anarchists don't view AnCaps as real anarchists

So, then, at what point do we consider it "real anarchists" as a state will eventually form?

[Jewish Underground State]

What if an insurance company becomes a monopoly. You have a state.

That's why many anarchists don't view AnCaps as real anarchists

So, then, at what point do we consider it "real anarchists" as a state will eventually form?

No clue. Maybe there are none

[Kubra]

Anarchism is inherently unworkable. How will you stop crime? It'll lead to warlordism and utter brutality ruling the country.

Worse how did you get anarchism to work without an authority enforcing it.

This is always the grand misconception of anarchism. In reality, where anarchism has been able to create its own or participate in national administration it had repressive institutions and what we consider "authority", albeit in forms radically modified. And this was not a "betrayal" of principles, the way in which anarchism is spoke of presently really did not exist in the 19th and early 20th century.

[Northern Seleucia]

So, then, at what point do we consider it "real anarchists" as a state will eventually form?

No clue. Maybe there are none

John Locke wrote something interesting in his writings.

He referred to a stateless society as "a state of nature." By this, he said everyone was as if they were animals in the wild - that is, independent and living by their own will. In this state your rights are at 100%, but your safety and protection from others is at 0%

To increase your safety and protection, you must surrender certain rights to a state, or a government. The more rights surrendered, the more of a "parent" the state becomes and therefore will protect you at all costs - but at the price of your rights.

Take, for example, the book 1984. The government of Oceania granted 100% protection and guidance and the people had 0% rights. Therefore, at any crime that may go against the state, Big Brother went after them.

In America, the scale is tipped in favor of rights over safety. This is why us Americans tend to have certain rights like religion and gun ownership - but at the cost of being more likely to be murdered with a firearm.

True anarchism would, in my opinion, be 100% Rights and 0% State Protection.

[Kubra]

No clue. Maybe there are none

John Locke wrote something interesting in his writings.

He referred to a stateless society as "a state of nature." By this, he said everyone was as if they were animals in the wild - that is, independent and living by their own will. In this state your rights are at 100%, but your safety and protection from others is at 0%

To increase your safety and protection, you must surrender certain rights to a state, or a government. The more rights surrendered, the more of a "parent" the state becomes and therefore will protect you at all costs - but at the price of your rights.

Take, for example, the book 1984. The government of Oceania granted 100% protection and guidance and the people had 0% rights. Therefore, at any crime that may go against the state, Big Brother went after them.

In America, the scale is tipped in favor of rights over safety. This is why us Americans tend to have certain rights like religion and gun ownership - but at the cost of being more likely to be murdered with a firearm.

True anarchism would, in my opinion, be 100% Rights and 0% State Protection.

"True" anarchism? According to who? Which anarchists?

[Northern Seleucia]

John Locke wrote something interesting in his writings.

He referred to a stateless society as "a state of nature." By this, he said everyone was as if they were animals in the wild - that is, independent and living by their own will. In this state your rights are at 100%, but your safety and protection from others is at 0%

To increase your safety and protection, you must surrender certain rights to a state, or a government. The more rights surrendered, the more of a "parent" the state becomes and therefore will protect you at all costs - but at the price of your rights.

Take, for example, the book 1984. The government of Oceania granted 100% protection and guidance and the people had 0% rights. Therefore, at any crime that may go against the state, Big Brother went after them.

In America, the scale is tipped in favor of rights over safety. This is why us Americans tend to have certain rights like religion and gun ownership - but at the cost of being more likely to be murdered with a firearm.

True anarchism would, in my opinion, be 100% Rights and 0% State Protection.

"True" anarchism? According to who? Which anarchists?

In my opinion

That usually means my interpretation of anarchism.

[Afrikan Staat]

Argument against anarchism: global shipping system, global food system, death of billions due to starvation.

[Northern Seleucia]

Argument against anarchism: global shipping system, global food system, death of billions due to starvation.

Argument for Anarchism: Global Shipping System, Global Food System, Death of Billions due to Starvation



/s