A thread to discuss anarchy. To begin, is there any workable forms of anarchy, or is it just a meme?
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): 5D893DB7F4A8234DA89086CB09EB0022-72940.png (71.2 KB, 2000x1262, Anarchist_Flag.png)
Technically we already have anarchy right now. Only difference from what leftist think about anarchy is that we have a strong group of people that want to have a society and government. Lets say you remove all form of rule, another group will form making a new government, and there you are.
File (): BAD5261D1CD81B3287EA2C998B4E3C1D-40949.gif (40.0 KB, 325x325, cat bait.gif)
>>48861
That japanese guy who posts sometimes here said he was or believes in anarchism. That said, You know where you are.
Anarchism is a leftist ideology by nature. Given how despicable believers of this ideology usually behave, expect to get this thread either slided or swamped.
That japanese guy who posts sometimes here said he was or believes in anarchism. That said, You know where you are.
Anarchism is a leftist ideology by nature. Given how despicable believers of this ideology usually behave, expect to get this thread either slided or swamped.
>>48861
By a "workable" form of anarchism I assume you mean one that uses the ideology to accomplish sone form of societal goal. However, that in itself is completely antithetical to the core of anarchism, which os essentially people doing whatever they want (since there is no governing body).
Therefore, anarchism by definition cannot, and mever will be, workable.
By a "workable" form of anarchism I assume you mean one that uses the ideology to accomplish sone form of societal goal. However, that in itself is completely antithetical to the core of anarchism, which os essentially people doing whatever they want (since there is no governing body).
Therefore, anarchism by definition cannot, and mever will be, workable.
File (): 4A0F0B6AA832EB7E2B595BB1926B9181-272447.jpg (266.1 KB, 777x1024, 1455174391920.jpg)
>>48868
i have never heard of anarcho monarchism. This sounds like a fundamental contradiction to me. Isnt a monarch supposed to be some form of state figure who imposes order on his subjects?
>>48868
>>48870
True, Anarcho capitalism is considered a ringht wing ideology. (Most)Leftists want to abolish property and private ownership, this is why they do not support it. Leftist are often lazy and want free handouts.
i have never heard of anarcho monarchism. This sounds like a fundamental contradiction to me. Isnt a monarch supposed to be some form of state figure who imposes order on his subjects?
>>48868
>>48870
True, Anarcho capitalism is considered a ringht wing ideology. (Most)Leftists want to abolish property and private ownership, this is why they do not support it. Leftist are often lazy and want free handouts.
>>48868
No matter what system you want, or what you call it, the same rule apply for it as for any other form of rule. As long as you are strong enough to keep that system in place it will be the system that is enforced. And it follows that if you are strong enough you can overturn any system you like.
No matter what system you want, or what you call it, the same rule apply for it as for any other form of rule. As long as you are strong enough to keep that system in place it will be the system that is enforced. And it follows that if you are strong enough you can overturn any system you like.
>>48872
I've always seen anarcho-monarchism as "every man a king sort of thing. It's mostly a meme though to mock anarchism. It'd be kekworthy if someone actually developed it though into a proper ideology.
>>48873
It's less about power as a generality, but about power and influence over people. If the people do not consent to a government, it would be damn hard to rule them.
I've always seen anarcho-monarchism as "every man a king sort of thing. It's mostly a meme though to mock anarchism. It'd be kekworthy if someone actually developed it though into a proper ideology.
>>48873
It's less about power as a generality, but about power and influence over people. If the people do not consent to a government, it would be damn hard to rule them.
>>48877
Yes the power must be a group effort. You can rule by intimidation, enforce your rule; i.e. be enough people with enough physical power to control the majority. Or by apathy/appeasement, the people don't care enough to revolt (provide enough bread and circus). Or you can deceive/convince and make the people believe your way is the best way. But you ultimately have to have a way to mentally or physically control the masses or get the majority to follow/believe in your system. But as any system can be overturned at any time if enough people want it we are technically are living in anarchy. We are just in a place where the form of rule has stabilized for the time being.
Yes the power must be a group effort. You can rule by intimidation, enforce your rule; i.e. be enough people with enough physical power to control the majority. Or by apathy/appeasement, the people don't care enough to revolt (provide enough bread and circus). Or you can deceive/convince and make the people believe your way is the best way. But you ultimately have to have a way to mentally or physically control the masses or get the majority to follow/believe in your system. But as any system can be overturned at any time if enough people want it we are technically are living in anarchy. We are just in a place where the form of rule has stabilized for the time being.
>>48869
>>48871
The way you defined anarchy basically means order is not disorder, and you can't be two things at the same time. With that definition of anarchy, obviously you are logically correct, but when talking about anarchy, most people mean the more nuanced definition: "without ruler". Unless you are throughly conditioned by the globalists, you may realize that you are able to not have a ruler, and also have some form of structure, because nothing exists in a vacuum. You can argue that change in human interaction is a sign that society is moving in some direction, but you can't argue that Darwin's law is the government we are governed under. Unless you actually do, because Darwin's law has nothing much to do with inter-human societal concepts like anarchy. There are laws that are not written down, and only under conditioning we are made to think most, if not all, rules are explicit.
>>48871
The way you defined anarchy basically means order is not disorder, and you can't be two things at the same time. With that definition of anarchy, obviously you are logically correct, but when talking about anarchy, most people mean the more nuanced definition: "without ruler". Unless you are throughly conditioned by the globalists, you may realize that you are able to not have a ruler, and also have some form of structure, because nothing exists in a vacuum. You can argue that change in human interaction is a sign that society is moving in some direction, but you can't argue that Darwin's law is the government we are governed under. Unless you actually do, because Darwin's law has nothing much to do with inter-human societal concepts like anarchy. There are laws that are not written down, and only under conditioning we are made to think most, if not all, rules are explicit.
>>48861
the workable part of anarchism is that we could begin culling the heards of non-whites without law or societal order getting in our way but eventually we'd need some form of organization
the workable part of anarchism is that we could begin culling the heards of non-whites without law or societal order getting in our way but eventually we'd need some form of organization
I guess I'll put my two scene into this discussion. We are somewhat living in a state of anarchy at the moment. It sounds weird but when you think of it every sovereign state has no means to impose what it wants on another without aggression or diplomacy, that is to say even if there are great powers in the international system none of the power to relinquish the sovereignty of another nation, at least not yet. This is why the international system is always seen as in a state of anarchy. So it sorta does exist even if alliances are made. Well except in the EU but thats a whole other can of worms.
As far as a state running on a form of anarchy, its very unlikely and even more unlikely to last long. Most places that are in anarchy are just failed states in constant war ex: Somalia, Lybia, S. Sudan ect. The problem with anarchy in the end is that its a paradox politically. The idea of being in a state where your perfectly free to do whatever you want and a land without hierarchies can't last.
Left leaning anarchists solution to this was to say that everything is socially constructed and so argued that if they constructed an environment where communalism was taught and enforced people wouldn't destroy the state of anarchy by creating hierarchies. But the problem with this is that means the people ultimately are not free. If a collective is forcing them to fallow a set of rules to keep the state of anarchy then that group must be enforcing its will on the individual and thus its not a true state of anarchy.
Right wing "anarchy" just throws this out the window. They go full hierarchy which pretty much destroys the state of anarchy to begin with. Its not a distopian like the left keeping people from being free but the ability to be free and have no hierarchy is exclusive to a minority. But power consolidates and so to would it under an ancap society, the nation state formed because it was so good at fighting wars and I'd give it a bit of time before people began to tax their subjects and begin drafting population.
As far as a state running on a form of anarchy, its very unlikely and even more unlikely to last long. Most places that are in anarchy are just failed states in constant war ex: Somalia, Lybia, S. Sudan ect. The problem with anarchy in the end is that its a paradox politically. The idea of being in a state where your perfectly free to do whatever you want and a land without hierarchies can't last.
Left leaning anarchists solution to this was to say that everything is socially constructed and so argued that if they constructed an environment where communalism was taught and enforced people wouldn't destroy the state of anarchy by creating hierarchies. But the problem with this is that means the people ultimately are not free. If a collective is forcing them to fallow a set of rules to keep the state of anarchy then that group must be enforcing its will on the individual and thus its not a true state of anarchy.
Right wing "anarchy" just throws this out the window. They go full hierarchy which pretty much destroys the state of anarchy to begin with. Its not a distopian like the left keeping people from being free but the ability to be free and have no hierarchy is exclusive to a minority. But power consolidates and so to would it under an ancap society, the nation state formed because it was so good at fighting wars and I'd give it a bit of time before people began to tax their subjects and begin drafting population.
>>48899
Even left leaning anarchism can allow for power consolidation. Power can take many forms besides purely material wealth. Left wing anarchism can't make everyone equally likable afterall.
Even left leaning anarchism can allow for power consolidation. Power can take many forms besides purely material wealth. Left wing anarchism can't make everyone equally likable afterall.
>>48861
Anarchy always loses to a hierarchy in the short run. Humanity elevated itself from the frothy and tempestuous waves of anarchy when we learned to trust. An individual could not hope to win against a tribe, a tribe could be easily routed by a kingdom, and a kingdom could not stand against a collation of kingdoms. Thus the formation of a nation is the natural progression to ensure survival. It is from this consolidation that larger nations, huge empires, and sprawling international governments formed, but now we have reached a problem. The human brain is designed with an intrinsic desire to climb hierarchies with the hope of reaching the top, but when a hierarchy grows too tall and the individual feels that he has no hope of climbing to a top that he can no longer see, he despairs and rejects hierarchy. Anarchists are born from this despair, from an extreme reaction, "If I can't be king then no one can!" and so they work to topple our modern tower of Babel. Their anger is an inate response; however, from the anarchy they create, the cycle will begin anew. Consolidation is incredibly powerful and dangerous. The taller you stack your tower, the easier it is to defend it from smaller ones, but the easier it is to be toppled from within. The 20th and 21st century sees a dilemma. No nation is too big to fail as shown by the Soviet Union, but the international communities have grown so large that attempting to separate into smaller independent hierarchies will only give an advantage to the multinational forces that still exist should another war occur. Its a modern and pressing catch-22 that has yet to be succesfully answered, but assuredly anarchy is not the way.
Anarchy always loses to a hierarchy in the short run. Humanity elevated itself from the frothy and tempestuous waves of anarchy when we learned to trust. An individual could not hope to win against a tribe, a tribe could be easily routed by a kingdom, and a kingdom could not stand against a collation of kingdoms. Thus the formation of a nation is the natural progression to ensure survival. It is from this consolidation that larger nations, huge empires, and sprawling international governments formed, but now we have reached a problem. The human brain is designed with an intrinsic desire to climb hierarchies with the hope of reaching the top, but when a hierarchy grows too tall and the individual feels that he has no hope of climbing to a top that he can no longer see, he despairs and rejects hierarchy. Anarchists are born from this despair, from an extreme reaction, "If I can't be king then no one can!" and so they work to topple our modern tower of Babel. Their anger is an inate response; however, from the anarchy they create, the cycle will begin anew. Consolidation is incredibly powerful and dangerous. The taller you stack your tower, the easier it is to defend it from smaller ones, but the easier it is to be toppled from within. The 20th and 21st century sees a dilemma. No nation is too big to fail as shown by the Soviet Union, but the international communities have grown so large that attempting to separate into smaller independent hierarchies will only give an advantage to the multinational forces that still exist should another war occur. Its a modern and pressing catch-22 that has yet to be succesfully answered, but assuredly anarchy is not the way.
>>48861
The thing is anarchy is not anomy.
There were functioning anarchic societies and the prices for services were around 30% lower because you hadn't to drag the state and economical advert and all the shit with it.
There are different ways for everything.
If you want you can watch these two vids.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWlycoyNtHs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUcicyMCgC4
The thing is anarchy is not anomy.
There were functioning anarchic societies and the prices for services were around 30% lower because you hadn't to drag the state and economical advert and all the shit with it.
There are different ways for everything.
If you want you can watch these two vids.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWlycoyNtHs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUcicyMCgC4
File (): 3EDAD57E48F7FE91CB0A2D7002BE6D4D-222705.jpg (217.5 KB, 1129x1024, Leslie Fair reading.jpg)
I view anarcho-captitalism as being the ideal in theory, but I doubt it will ever manifest in reality. Anyone who's curious about it should read Rothbard and Hoppe, they're two of the most well known authors on the subject and you can find some of their books for free download at mises.org
A society with complete anarchy can never be done since were there is anarchy, someone will always attempt to seize power since there is lack of it so in that sense, the idea of a society without any form of government is pointless. So really what it boils down to is how much power does said government has and how much can the power can be lowered.
Besides, even if anarchy could be tried, the only one that would that could work the best I'd imagine is anarcho-capitalism and even then it will have some problems. All other forms of anarchy would just be so stupid it couldn't work since they would require a government to make it work and that defeats the purpose of anarchy like anarcho-communism and the rest.
Besides, even if anarchy could be tried, the only one that would that could work the best I'd imagine is anarcho-capitalism and even then it will have some problems. All other forms of anarchy would just be so stupid it couldn't work since they would require a government to make it work and that defeats the purpose of anarchy like anarcho-communism and the rest.
20 replies | 4 files | 15 UUIDs | Archived