Ask An Anarchist...
 

Well, shit. As long as we're on this kick, I'll throw in something I have strong opinions about.

This one's a little different, though. I don't bother with religious stuff. It's not based on logic, it's based on belief and faith. I won't argue anybody in that area....

Anyhow, hit me, folks. I'll take this one to the bitter end.

Okay, I'll step up. I most often hear about anarchy and therefore anarchists in the news following acts of violence. The impression is that anarchy is all about not following rules, spreading violence and disregard for all things organized (governments and religions mainly). How accurate is this impression?

Can you be an Anarchist and still vote in elections and on laws?

This impression is very inaccurate.

This brings me to a point I should have brought up in the OP. Anarchy is not about destruction and chaos. That is called nihilism. There is a clear difference. I believe in a lack of structure, control, and system; not a violent destruction of said ideals.

The media portrays anarchism and nihilism to be in the same category in order to dissuade the masses from pursuing a community based on equality and lack of controlling law. An anarchistic society does not have to be one of chaos and calamity; instead one of complete freedom and respect.

Though, even if it did come to chaos, I would rather fight another for my freedoms than have them stripped from me before even having a say in the matter.

As an anarchist, I will spend my time working towards a true revolution from the ideas of elections and laws, as opposed to supporting the system I stand against by voting.

But, I also understand the society I live in is currently based upon certain procedures and will also spend a portion of my time putting forth an effort to make things better under the circumstances I have been given.

does anarchism make me more punk rawk?

can i get anarchic food stamps?

if anarchy happens, can we finally kill the DMV with fire?

who do i blame for my problems when there's no president?

Absolutely...

(Note: This answer should be taken as light hearted as the question was delivered.)

If anarchy is achieved, you will have no need for food stamps. You will be taught how to survive without the aide of a "big brother".

Refer to the "Anarchism vs. Nihilism" bit I went on minutes ago.

With anarchism comes self responsibility. I believe that is the true beauty of this belief.

Not to be contrary or anything, but nihilism is the belief that morals don't exist, they're just a human societal construct. I'm not sure if there's a philosophical doctrine about destruction and chaos.

Anyway, do you believe anarchy is solely a philosophy of transition, or do you believe it can endure permanently?

The fucking Nihilists pissed on my rug! It really tied the room together.

Would anarchist ever piss on my rug?

Nihilism: A revolutionary doctrine that advocates destruction of the social system for its own sake.
_________

I believe anarchism can endure permanently if allowed to.

Sorry for the short answer, but it's really that simple as far as I can see.
_________

I would piss on your rug. Probably by accident, though.

Don't you think the entire concept of anarchism is, well, imaginary?

That's the question I've been waiting for, Xerx, and it requires a very in-depth answer.

At one time, I believed it was naive to think anarchy could work, because there will always be followers and there will always be leaders. Then, I questioned why it had to be that way.

Ask yourself that. Are you not capable of taking complete care of yourself? If not, don't you think that, maybe, you should be? The structure that the masses cling to so tightly could collapse any day. What will you do then?

Cry?

No, you will fend for yourself and handle what you have to.

Now, if this idea can sustain for a temporary period of time, why can't it continue indefinitely?

My final answer was that there is no reason it can't.

So, no, I don't believe it is an imaginary/impossible concept.

Humans, as a species, have lived with relatively complex social structures for a very long time. Most modern evolutionary biologists attribute part of our success with the cooperative successes of our ancestors. Bearing that in mind, do you think anarchism could work without recent precedent on a species-wide level? Or do you think it's more just a few individuals living outside of a cooperative society?

Another part of our species is extraordinary acts of violence. Ever watched a high school classroom where the teacher has no control? Someone gets in a fight, every time. I've been the one to get in the fight myself. I've had entire desks thrown at me, 6 feet in the air. Hell, I saw a teacher's arm get dislocated.

Let's not even touch on wars.

Humans as a species rise out of chaos and form bands, tribes, and then villages. Finally, cities. To go back to hunter-gatherer would be great, but it would last about as long as it took for someone to plant a field of wheat.

IMO, it's completely unrealistic.

If everything did colapse, and you had to fend for yourself, wouldn't you just be at the mercy of a group of people who decided "you know the 10 of us could take over here and rule the place"?

Exactly.

Do you find it difficult to be an anarchist in Utah?

Though a loss of structure would force people initially to fend for themselves and survive, the natural progression would always be for some people to become 'leader' figures for others. No one person knows everything, is capable of everything and has every skill. I like learning from others when I can and I also value the power of cooperation. In your view, anarchism seems to be a form of extreme individualism. Every man for himself. So what about family, or friends? Do you help them, or not? And if you do, is that not just another form of social structure? No man is an island and all that. The fact that we share the world with others makes it so that structure forms, though it doesn't necessarily have to have one person telling everyone else what to do.

My biggest point of confusion comes from what values anarchy really has...because after all, absolute freedom means I could go around killing anyone I wanted.

So say anarchy happens. What's to stop me from getting anything I want through force? And if I do have enough force to keep anyone from stopping me, is that a part of anarchy? Or am I just being a dick?

Say I want to use force for good, but outside of convention. Like I want to go mass murder the high security prisoners. Say I accomplish this feat, what's supposed to happen? Consequence wise.

To sum up, does anarchy really mean true freedom? Where the only bounds to stop unfriendly actions are by force of arms? So whomever has the most force, is in the right.

?

(This is my understanding of Anarchy, but it may be different to other people.)

What good is a leader if they have no followers? If the government can't enforce the laws, or doesn't have the money to do so, why would I want to listen to Bob down the street? The big issue is that Bob and 20 other neighbors with guns will get their way, but that isn't true anarchy

The concept of modern anarchy is that people can learn anything they need to and 'experts' aren't needed. It's also the assumption that the natural resources are plentiful and nothing has value enough to steal or take. You aren't going to work on a farm, you are going to be able to find food easily in the wild when you need it. There will be more than enough for any person and there is always something to eat.

There is a large assumption that everyone involved would be 'good', and the human population would have to have been reduced through disease or other major catastrophe in order to avoid the disagreements, gangs, and other societal issues. I can only envision this working in someplace with a population density of Alaska, but with a better climate. You have to envision a person living 'off-the-grid', with lots of food sources and clean water available. The closest thing I can think of is the way native Americans lived a few hundred years ago.

If there was no state, would not life be "nasty and brutish and short"?

What, in the study of human history and pyschology, shows that if people were completely free that they would not live in a state of "the war of all against all"?

In every situation and every example in all recorded humanity: where the state breaks down - do we not see civil war, gangsterism, robber baron capitalism, violence, and grotesque conditions? Does anarchy not lead us to Mogadishu, rather than the Kibbutz?

Consider, if you will, a plane crash in a remote place. In most cases, the instincts kick in and the whole group looks out for itself and the group stands a better chance of survival. Why? Simple. Long ago, it was much easier to hunt, defend, and raise young in groups. Before we had guns, you needed a group of skilled friends to bring down a bison or mammoth. You also couldn't single-handedly fight off a sabertooth tiger or short nose bear, you needed assistance. And for children, we find that larger homes, homes with more adults, are beneficial for a healthy child. We're a social species because when we're social in dangerous conditions, that cooperation means a better chance at survival.

Regarding a bunch of entitled kids in a classroom with a submissive teacher, these kids are programmed that there should be someone in charge in order to lead the group. When the adult can't fill that roll, others attempt to take the place. It's a bit of an oversimplification, but it's the best I can do without having to go open up old textbooks.

ever read "The Lord of the Flies"?

You're not a real anarchist, PoA.

We're dogpiling here so I'll keep my questions pretty simple:

Doesn't it require one to have an especially idealistic view of humanity and a considerable lack of knowledge about human history in order to believe that anarchy is not only possible but sustainable? Is it not in the same realm as Rand's objectivism?

Any adults in there? I'm pretty sure Will talked about children growing up with several adults around.

The only part of this post that rankles me, is the 'We' language.
It smacks of 'forced teaming.'

The rest is spot on.

Dogs will pile, birds will tear apart.

The OP was anemically written.

Read the tag on the back of your trendy t-shirt.

This actually makes a great example of my original thought. The thread was set up to ask simple questions, yet without meaning to people have banded together to attack a system that inherently doesn't work. The ironic part was how the thread was set up to be disorganized, and immediately went to organized thought against the very topic it was created to talk about.

If this was a group in a field, I believe this would be an individual being yelled at by a newly formed tribe, banded together in a common belief. This situation of course is much calmer and more civilized, but the disagreement with the concept is obvious.

On a species wide level, total anarchy will not happen. I understand that. What I work towards is the right to remove oneself from the system. I.e. Not have to abide by a governmental structure, and also receive no aide or protection from said structure.
_____________

Kill those ten people. If you can't, you deserve to be controlled.

_____________

Being that we are not only a police state, but also have a church run government...

Yes, I do.
_____________

I'm not against community values or small social structures. I'm against large governmental structures, justice systems, and monetary greed.

My view of anarchy involves small communities of people living for themselves.
_____________

Yes, it would require that you, from time to time, have to fight for what you have, but, as I said earlier, I'd rather fight for what I have than have it stripped from me before I had a chance.

As far as consequences go, anarchy would be devoid of established consequences. The consequences would be at the discretion of whomever you affected with your actions.
______________

Every one of those things would be involved if anarchy were achieved. Refer to previous answers for how I feel about that.

So you prefer the law of the jungle to what we have today?

I knew I'd stand alone and be dogpiled on this one, but that's where all the fun is.

It is an especially idealistic view, and history doesn't suggest that it can work, but the same could've been said for the airplane at one time...

If everybody gives up on the idea, though, it will never be achieved.

---------- Post added at 02:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:40 PM ----------

Absolutely.

But what do you think would happen to the progress of technology? I take it you consider anarchy more important than (academic/tech) progress? Cause there's no way we could have NASA or other such super specialized research agencies. We'd lose medicine and all sorts of nice progress eventually as it faded from memory. Which means we doom ourselves at some point in the future. Even if we continued in anarchy for millions of years eventually our planet and sun are going to die out. Without the progress of our current systems we'd have no chance of making it to the stars and becoming a semi immortal race (spreading ourselves so far that one branch or another of humanity would survive).

I'm with you in the short term, anarchy would be great. I'd love to make people responsible for their actions, but I'd loathe to raise kids in such an environment. And I see no long, long term future for humanity.

I suppose I should ask then, what would be the point? What would the world look like if by 12pm tomorrow, everyone agreed to do things your way? What would happen in a year? In ten years? In a hundred?

It isn't my intention to belittle your beliefs but I remember feeling a very similar way when I was about 16, had an affinity toward dark clothing, listened mostly to black/death metal and had a subscription to Adbusters magazine. Surely anything is possible if everyone believed in exactly the same way but do you honestly believe this will/could ever happen? Is such an unlikely event worthy of looking forward to?

Technology provides convenience in exchange for ultimate destruction. I'm sure you'll love our technological advances the day you're nuked...

Modern medicine is an acceptable loss. (It hinders natural selection, anyhow, but that's a whole nother thread!) The human race doesn't need immortality. We should die just like everything else.

Do I believe this can happen, and what would happen if it did?

The anarchy I believe in is practiced everyday. Turns out wild animals practice what I talk about, and they've been doing shit the same way for hundreds of years. It's the natural way of life.

Edit: As for your last question, once again, if everybody stops looking forward to an idea, it seizes to be possible.

POA, I should have stated firstly that I thank you for starting this thread. It takes courage to offer your beliefs up to the shooting gallery.

It's cool if you don't want to but I feel as if you haven't answered my questions.

Well, there's a trend of threads based on clearing up the misconceptions of others' beliefs and I figured, since I believe in something most give up on before they're even mature enough to understand the concept, I could offer out some insight in what one who didn't give up at 17 is actually like.

I tried to, but, you're right, I didn't elaborate as much as I could have.

I don't want the control. I'm expected to follow rules I don't believe in, or see the point in. I'm expected to respect a man in a uniform even though he has committed the same crime he's harassing me over countless times.

Government demands absolute power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The point is freedom.

For the first long while, I assume there would be chaos, but as people grew into it and only knew that way their whole life, I like to think we'd end up back into a very primitive state, such as wild animals live.

I think this is the way we, and the world, would benefit most from.

I have yet to feel belittled by anybody in this thread. As I said, I knew I'd stand alone on this.

Also, as I said in my last post, I see this work everyday when I see wild animals. They live in the state of anarchy I believe in, and that makes me believe this could happen and work.

It seems to me that humanity all over the world and in various groups and situations rose out of a so called anarchistic society to evolve various forms of govt and laws and so forth. Why would what you have to propose or support be any different than what has been rejected thousands of times before?

Also, I have seen pictures of you in threads before. In an anarchistic society I could give you a tire iron and still make you my bitch barehanded, how would that serve you? Why would you want to be in a society where you would be in a perpetual disadvantage to people who are smarter, stronger, and better organized then you? You scrounge food, I take it from you. With true equality, I think you would find that things are very unequal. In the animal world you so admire, do you think you would be the rabbit or mouse eaten by the cat, the cat chased by the dog, the deer that gets eaten by carnivores, or the fish that gets caught by a simple lure?

You mentioned that you are forced to follow rules you don't believe in, or see the point in. Can you please supply some examples of these rules? Maybe a lack of understanding on your part leads to the place you are now. Considering that the majority of people who espouse anarchy come from a white privileged background in a culture and society that tolerates their youthful enthusiasm, compared to someplace like China, or the middle east, or Africa, or pretty much any place outside of America and Europe, and that those who espoused anarchy twenty years ago no longer can be found, would those former anarchists have been coopted by the system, disappeared into black vans, or made a decision that they find life more comfortable when they live in a functioning society?

Punk man,
I am sorry.
My first post, after I read it sounded a tad surly and condescending.

There are least thirty one flavors of anarchy as a concept/practice/outcome.

My first introduction to the word itself, happened during 1978.

I wasn't enlightened or taught what its historic meanings meant at that time.
I was easily swayed by my rowdier disaffected associates.

By your definition:
Absolute power is corruptive,
yet you want humans to live by a 'law' of jungle animals that have been
way to busy just being animals to ever actually sit down and write out said 'law'

Anarchy is a human concept.

Your comment about 'standing alone' in your belief,
is both naive and narcissistic. I've been there.

more later, I have to pee.

+1 to new man about what is said pertaining to being natural. What we are and the state we're in now is natural. People act like modern life is artificial but humans are just as much part of nature, like you said, as any other animal and it was natural for us to evolve into these types of societies. Therefor, anarchy at this point, would be decidedly *unnatural*.

You mentioned animals living in anarchy, but that's not entirely true. Wolves have pack leaders. Ants are kind of like a single organism in every anthill, with each ant acting like a cell. Societies with rules, and roles for every member exist in Nature too. Some species are loners, but social tendencies exist in the animal world, and often resemble those in humanity.

The misconceptions about anarchy continue.
In 1980 I stumbled upon a small jewel in a London bookstall that had a tremendous impact on my political outlook. It is a little treatise by Professor Robert Paul Wolff called In Defense of Anarchism. If you are interested you can get it at . It outlines the ideas behind anarchism, but most importantly, it tells what anarchism is and is not.