ITT: we discuss anarchism the political philosophy.
Many people are disillusioned, in the US, by the 2016 presidential election, and this system of government in general.
For those of you who find yourselves wishing for something better, this thread is for you.
Also, general anarchist discussions.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.m.wikipedia.org
amazon.com
notbeinggoverned.com
anarchism.pageabode.com
theanarchistlibrary.org
twitter.com
...
Anarchism is dumb
...
...
...
While i like the idea of anarchy, i feel it would send us back into feudal times. The weak always look for a leader.
...
I would have to say that more and more people are beginning to realize that the whole system is fucked. Maybe not necessarily adopting anarchy is an Ideology yet, but the door has been opened.
Also, lets see how long until this thread is Sup Forumsed
>Also, lets see how long until this thread is Sup Forumsed
I'm sure they're coming, both the tankies on the left and fascists on the right.
Feudalism was a form of government
Your argument is effectively, we need government to protect from people starting governments.
Yep. But seeing as this is Sup Forums, the Fascist will outnumber the tankies by a considerable margin
Anarchy is a myth. It doesn't exist.
For as long as violence exists in the world, authority will exist.
Yeah that is my argument. Life isnt black and white
>government =/= bad
Some governments are better than others. Simple enough right?
I personally don't see large groups of humans living in a community of anarchy. Even Valve which has a flat managerial topography, Gabe is still first among equals.
Still, pithy quote.
...
user, we've had this bread before. True Anarchy is functionally impossible due to the base nature of humans as pack animals who require a social structure of some nature in order to function. This structure need not be heirarchal but it must be present. There MUST be some form of law and government, although I believe it should generally be as minimal as possible. In the absence of one, humans will create one. This is our nature. Presuming we bring all progress concerning government back down to zero, people will create a basic government, likely a monarchy or something else equally horrifying and barbaric. Anarchy is impossible because it invariably defeats itself. In the absence of government, people create government. Every fucking time. Please stop suggesting this pipe dream is possible.
If we were to do an analysis of government, we could deduce that--yes, "government = bad"
Government cannot survive without parasitism, i.e., without taking from the productive members of a society to sustain itself.
The balance of powers are inherently hierarchical in structure. A small portion of society is granted the authority to act immorally with impunity.
The nature of government is such that, it would naturally attract sociopaths to positions in office (sociopaths being attracted to power), leading to the cycle of small government, increased power, large government, revolution, and back to small government ad infinitum.
anarchism always seemed too close to communism for me and they were always far too willing to resort to terrorism
anarchism, of course, cannot work, as its very nature and purpose is to 'dissolve' all authority and central coordination
we call mayhem and disorder 'anarchy' for a reason, right?
anarchists were absolutely willing to point out that most men do not have much control over their lives and lay responsibility on the state. their chief method of achieving their vision of social responsibility was simply to overthrow the state. any state. all states. and replace them with...nothing.
they were more than willing to intellectually tear apart and blame communism, capitalism, socialism and other forms of government, heaping criticism upon governments and drawing attention to poverty, prisons, the growing body count and the accumulation of human misery. they were never any good at turning the mirror on themselves. every defeat they had and every messed up plot and the deaths and destruction they actually caused was somehow explained away admirably by their own rank and file. their capacity for self-delusion matches that of the Radical Left today.
anarchism was stomped to death--justifiably--for the violent, nasty nonsense it was.
protip:
i have no idea what the producers were thinking attempting to glorify british anarchism with that new toby jones series. it is as disconnected and pathetic as the movement it attempts to celebrate.
What is your individual Ideology?
>A market economy is not inherently evil, though the typical Boss-Worker relationship in a Capitalist society tends to lend itself to abuse of the Workers
>The workers will control the means of production. All will have an equal voice, but will still have their rolls to serve within the workplace.
>Basic necessities for life are provided through the commune.
>Luxury goods can be purchased in a market economy. (Still produced by worker owned factories)
>Their is no Private Property per say, but there is Personal Property.
>Squatting should be legal in Unused, Foreclosed or Abandoned buildings.
>Attempt to take action on the environment
>Decisions should be made on a local or communal level through a general consensus. There can be a higher level, but only to facilitate cooperation between communes.
>The state is inherently evil. It does not serve the interests of the common people. It never has. (The Police are just an arm of the state. Same goes for them)
>I don't give a fuck what someone does with their body, money and time. It's none of my business.
>Pro-LGBT, Pro-Choice
>Even if I don't agree with someones choice, it is not my job to fight them on it. I will just accept it and continue on
>I see Firearms as a tool of the people to defend their freedom from a tyrannical system.
>Privacy is a basic human right, and everyone is entitled to it, no questions asked.
>Everyone, regardless of Race, Religion or Creed is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
>No Borders. Free movement of people is a natural right
>Organized religion is just another artificial division of the people.
>People will always have a guarantee to Freedom of Speech, Assembly.
>Until the state is toppled, it is the duty of the people to get out and take action. Violent or Otherwise
>Crimes should only be those that cause physical harm. Examples would be stuff like Murder, DUI, Rape, Assault etc.
>Drugs would be legal
>intellectual Property is non-existent. IE Open Source everything
>Rehabilitation is the optimal way to deal with criminals
>Civil Forfeiture is just another name for State Sponsored Theft
How about you people go read "in defense of anarchism" by Wolff and understand that anarchism is more about when and how we can justify authority
I've seen the Aeon Flux series and that's about as far as I've delved into the idea. Where's a good place to start for a young, aspiring eye-opener?
itt: tired paradox, ignorance and puerility
your anarchy is govt
>user, we've had this bread before. True Anarchy is functionally impossible due to the base nature of humans as pack animals who require a social structure of some nature in order to function. This structure need not be heirarchal but it must be present.
You misunderstand anarchy, then.
Your premise implies that social organization (structure) can only occur through government and law (coercion).
A system built around a lack of hierarchy *is* anarchism
>There MUST be some form of law and government, although I believe it should generally be as minimal as possible. I
Why should we have the need to delegate our authority to someone who "represents" our best interests?
Why do a few need authority over the many?
>In the absence of one, humans will create one. This is our nature. Presuming we bring all progress concerning government back down to zero, people will create a basic government, likely a monarchy or something else equally horrifying and barbaric. Anarchy is impossible because it invariably defeats itself. In the absence of government, people create government. Every fucking time. Please stop suggesting this pipe dream is possible.
What was the population of the US when the US government was created? What percentage of the population was responsible for the creation of the US government?
If the consent of one single human wasn't given to be governed, what legitimacy could such a system derive, other than "you will obey because"?
There is no reason as to why anarchists couldn't form their own societies as they choose. Why couldn't I form an anarchist society here in Ohio with like-minded individuals? What claim do you have over how I choose to organize myself?
1. not all leaders are sociopaths, but a lot of the people in revolutionary movements are inevitably sociopaths
2. governments are inevitable and it is equally inevitable that we judge movements and ideologies by their practical results
3. large nations are not possible with small governments
Good in tgeory, impossible to create IRL(just like communism & co). So let's just eat this bucket of shit as quickly as possible and dream about out dead future.
anarcho-nihilism?
My point is that, a system should not exist which attracts sociopaths in the first place.
Honestly, I don't know. I never went out of my way to read about anarchy. I just kinda started to form my own Anarchist Ideology, Kinda a cross between Mutualism and Anarcho-Communism, with individualist tendencies.
But i would much rather live in a republic than under an emperor or king.
Government is inevitable. Sure some people wont and will live fine under anarchy, but the weak masses will demand leadership. This will cause kingdoms to come back, these kingdoms will start wars. The anarchist will be forced to join or die. Anarchy will not work because these sociopaths that take office will not be stopped by an ideology. They will only be stopped by force, and how can you justify a killing when the crime has not been committed. Meaning, you will have to let the kingdom come to power before you can kill the king, and now it is an impossibility because he has his minions. Anarchy will fail unless everybody is like minded and somewhat self sufficient.
>Where's a good place to start for a young, aspiring eye-opener?
The works of various anarchists
The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin (anarcho-communism)
Property is Theft! by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Statism and Anarchy by Michail Bakunin
Against the State by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.
Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, Scholar's Edition by Murray N. Rothbard (yes, ancoms, hue hue)
Would you describe yourself as self-sufficient? I mean, for you is it a must to avoid the powers that be or do you use the culture you're a part of in a similar way to the same people you preach to?
This is not intended to be rude in any way, in case it comes off as so. Just a curious person trying to get a little perspective.
...
Nah, just total depression.
I think you replied to the wrong person?
bump
I would contribute but i think we have proved why anarchy is merely a dream
>Would you describe yourself as self-sufficient?
OP here
No. In my current state I do not consider myself to be self-sufficient, although that term is broad.
I personally believe that sufficiency is impossible, in that we are always going to be trading with others for things that we want/need.
>I mean, for you is it a must to avoid the powers that be or do you use the culture you're a part of in a similar way to the same people you preach to?
I certainly engage in market activities, but I do not use government services. Instead, I keep with my principles (free market anarchism), and look for market solutions in lieu of government services (for instance things like the Peacekeepr app instead of relying on police).
Moving towards complete anarchy will take time. As it stands, it would be far more efficient for anarchists to move to towns/cities and take over.
I don't think so. I'm asking if you attempt to live as an anarchist, while living under a system that is anything but, or if you just believe it's an idea that could work.
Also, what steps do you believe are necessary to take in order to cause a fitting cultural shift with minimal negative repercussions?
Do you think a genuine anarchist culture could be met within your life time or that it's something worth chasing at all?
Bernie makes my dick wet
I think if the weak masses actually got a taste of true freedom, they would demand true freedom.
It is historically accurate, that the more a country moves towards absolute freedom (anarchism), the more prosperous said country becomes.
Which is ironic, because it is a contradiction in the state's propaganda. When the state stops meddling, all-of-sudden, people begin thriving.
You cant claim you dont use government services when you do, either directly or indirectly. I also like the idea of anarchy, but i even know i cant make the claim that i dont engage with government services, because we all do.
Congratulations on favoring the state?
What, you mean like getting your drivers license and paying taxes?
Those are personal decisions, user. If someone is doing them, it is because they have been bullied into doing so.
I would rather take my chances with tax evasion and driving without a license, or carrying a concealed weapon without a permit.
To each his own.
So you are trying to tell me that the natural man is drawn to anarchy? Yet, man formed societies and kingdoms, why is that when man lusts for true freedom? It is natural for humans to group up, by having humans group up they tend to give power and elect leaders. This has happened for all of history. Even in small tribes.
Also show me these countries you speak off.
The states meddling is as strong a force as it is because 9/10 times when people are give positions of power, they enjoy the perks and will work to maintain or enlarge that power.
Those that hunger for power don't want you to know you don't need them so they'll tell you whatever works to keep you eating out of their hand.
Life works in cycles, big and small.
All men formed those things?
A few* men formed those things and took it upon themselves to force everyone else into it.
Im talking about food, im talking about roads, im talking about drinking water, im talking about the air you breathe, im talking about the god damn millions of things that have either been subsidized by our government, protected by our government or made by our government. Like i said, you have to be very arrogant to think you live without government help.
How were they forced, they were free to leave. Especially in tribes. Who would stop you from going fuck you king and moving into the woods?
Also still waiting on these thriving anarchist countries to be shown.
Hi. See
So without government how would things get done? Roads and such.
obviously we would have a barter system. I would repair your road and you would suck my dick
this thread is full of retards
Not OP.
Avoiding it altogether is impossible at this point, so in a sense you're right. But you CAN avoid a lot of the unnecessary garbage if you're willing to live with in certain amount of risk.
If your point is to prove that people living in non-anarchist states are not living in anarchist states, than yeah. you're very much right. want a cookie?
It's weird how we can get things like the automobile without government, but we can't get roads?
Apparently we should thank the gods, because ig we didn't have government humans would miraculously end all production. Demand for anything would instantly disappear, and we would be left wondering aimlessly contemplating where our food, water, or roads would come from.
The list of things that humans can produce without government can't possibly be evidence that we could provide things like roads or drinking water without them, too.
No no I mean how would roads be built in the first place? Government is good for tackling problems that require a lot of coordination.
If you have one, sure
It's really weird how we figured out how to improve trade with currencies.
"omg guys, I'm no longer delegating my authority to a political ruler, I can't possibly managing trading this currency to that guy over there selling sandwiches, where is trump or hillary when I need them?!?!"
people agreeing that it's something mutually beneficial would make it. no centralized government doesn't mean nobody wants things to get done.
You are obviously mildly educated but you are severely deluded.
Let us look at something called the tragedy of the commons
en.m.wikipedia.org
It basically states that when left alone with something that is considered for all, what is stopping humans from destroying or over using it?
If in an anarchist society, what stops me from claiming a section of river is mine? What if by using this section of river, i gain some form of capital and use this capital to hire people to protect my section of river? I dam my section of river amd control the water, what happens now?
Humans are assholes, humans want leaders. An ideology will not stop a human from doing what they want in a governmentless society.
>Government is good for tackling problems that require a lot of coordination.
Actually, government is pretty bad at coordination.
Do you realize how much actually gets coordinated without government??
Look up the history of the railroad in the US. The entire system was set up by private interests (by that I mean, people who were not public officials, i.e., government)
Businesses do it all the time. Government is pretty bad at allocating resources.
Is there an anarchist FAQ? I feel like a lot of the questions I have are basic shit thats been answered.
Ah.
I believe it is possible for us to achieve an Anarchistic society within out life. It is kinda beginning to take root again in America. Maybe not This year, or by the end of the decade, but it is achievable.
We have the BLM movement, which is moving further left, and libertarian. We have evidence of the system working to maintain the status quo. The effects of the Red Scare even seem to be wearing off.
Living as an anarchist is not really possible within a Capitalist, Statist society. You can attempt to cut out as much as you can, but to live, we will almost always have to work for the Corporations or the State. (Unless somehow, you managed to secure a large, tax free piece of land out in the middle of bumfuck nowhere, where you can grow food to support yourself and family. (And community, unassuming one exist in your area))
>actually implying the railroad industry was better than the government
My god, you are fucking out of your head huh?
...
Questions such as that have already been answered by people like rothbard:
It is possible for systems of private arbitration to exist without a hierarchical government.
Anarchy is just tribalism. That's only good for niggers.
This is a pretty good website:
May I recommend a book?
>possible
Yes, possible but not neccesarilywhat would happen. Haha what would stop a man with the most resources from doing whatever he felt like?
Also
>libertarian manifesto
Kek, thought we were talking about anarchy son?
One more question: How does anarchism differ from Libertarianism?
Not the original user but libertarians still recognize that a central government is needed for certain tasks. Anarchy wants no central government
Thank you.
Which is why i find it funny that user has now posted that link twice in a thread specifically about anarchism.
>Yes, possible but not neccesarilywhat would happen. Haha what would stop a man with the most resources from doing whatever he felt like?
The people he steps on. Without government, what would stop someone from just slitting his throat?
>>libertarian manifesto
>Kek, thought we were talking about anarchy son?
We are, it's a long story. Murray Rothbard originally called his political movement just "libertarianism," but felt that the term was insufficient in describing the philosophy itself.
A philosopher named Karl Hess coined the term "Anarcho-Capitalism" which was later applied to Rothbard's work.
Anarcho-Capitalism is one branch of anarchism, there are many (anarcho-communism, mutualism, anarcho-primitivism, anarcho-transhumanism, black flag anarchism, agorism, etc).
I know there are many branches of anarchy. The only one semi plausible is anarcho communism, but that would just make us an agrarian spciety again.
>what would stop people from slitting his throat
Why the private army he has for his kingdom. We have went full circle user back to the point that in anarchy nothing stops the corrupt or sociopathic among us (what some anons call our leaders today) from starting their own governments which will devolve us into a city-state country with each faction fighting the next because why not?
Well for "Anarcho" Capitalism.
Just like an ancom to suggest that ownership of property is a "kingdom"
I should have seen the signs when you started asking about someone hoarding resources
Prove to me that it isnt or that it wouldnt be used in this way
"Coordination problems are cases in which everyone agrees that a certain action would be best, but the free market cannot coordinate them into taking that action.
As a thought experiment, let's consider aquaculture (fish farming) in a lake. Imagine a lake with a thousand identical fish farms owned by a thousand competing companies. Each fish farm earns a profit of $1000/month. For a while, all is well.
But each fish farm produces waste, which fouls the water in the lake. Let's say each fish farm produces enough pollution to lower productivity in the lake by $1/month.
A thousand fish farms produce enough waste to lower productivity by $1000/month, meaning none of the fish farms are making any money. Capitalism to the rescue: someone invents a complex filtering system that removes waste products. It costs $300/month to operate. All fish farms voluntarily install it, the pollution ends, and the fish farms are now making a profit of $700/month - still a respectable sum.
But one farmer (let's call him Steve) gets tired of spending the money to operate his filter. Now one fish farm worth of waste is polluting the lake, lowering productivity by $1. Steve earns $999 profit, and everyone else earns $699 profit.
Everyone else sees Steve is much more profitable than they are, because he's not spending the maintenance costs on his filter. They disconnect their filters too."
There is also the anarchist library:
theanarchistlibrary.org
I understand that Capitalism is contested heavily by anarchist philosphers, particularly since anarchism was originally a leftist movement.
Arguing over what capitalism means always devolves into a semantic argument. The term is a complete misnomer being used in the context of "anarcho-capitalism," as the majority of people associate capitalism with "what we have now."
The philosophy itself is completely different from "what we have now," which is why I just call it free market anarchism and drop the capitalism label altogether (which is why many prefer voluntarism).
"Once four hundred people disconnect their filters, Steve is earning $600/month - less than he would be if he and everyone else had kept their filters on! And the poor virtuous filter users are only making $300. Steve goes around to everyone, saying "Wait! We all need to make a voluntary pact to use filters! Otherwise, everyone's productivity goes down."
Everyone agrees with him, and they all sign the Filter Pact, except one person who is sort of a jerk. Let's call him Mike. Now everyone is back using filters again, except Mike. Mike earns $999/month, and everyone else earns $699/month. Slowly, people start thinking they too should be getting big bucks like Mike, and disconnect their filter for $300 extra profit...
A self-interested person never has any incentive to use a filter. A self-interested person has some incentive to sign a pact to make everyone use a filter, but in many cases has a stronger incentive to wait for everyone else to sign such a pact but opt out himself. This can lead to an undesirable equilibrium in which no one will sign such a pact."
>This structure need not be heirarchal but it must be present.
If it is not hierarchical, then it is by definition anarchy.
Dont try
They dont listen
For me, my main issue is the typical structure that comes with Capitalist organization.
The market itself is not an issue, if the workplace is Democratically, Cooperatively organized.
profit vs loss
If Steve pollutes the lake, he endangers any long term gains he will make because he favors short term boosts in profits.
Someone who isn't retarded is not going to effectively take a hammer to what is their inventory. You're literally describing someone who would be throwing away the very thing that is making him money, which is a poor business move.
It's my opinion that worker co-ops would become the norm in free market anarchism, because they are a better business model
So you seem to be more of a Mutualist or a Left Wing Market Anarchist?
I am somewhere in-between mutualist and Voluntarist, yes
I don't think that the ownership of resources is a negative thing.
Ownership is the right to make the rules regarding the use of a resource, and I like the ancap ideal of ownership being derived from labor, it places emphasis on how important labor is.
But, I see a free market anarchist society moving from ancapism, to mutualism, and finally to anarcho-communism as a natural progression.
If Steve individually pollutes the lake he makes 999/month and everyone else makes 699/month. How is he endangering his long term gains?
Steve still has long term gains as long as the others obey the rules.
Also steve used his short term gains to build another plant on another lake, and selling his old property to be used by a waste site. Win win
Perhaps any label is useless to describe what we are and what we are facing. Merely evolution and the new way of conductive business based on a more nuanced and matured set of ideals and principals founded in the context of a global society.
Open software will give way to open society, like Wikipedia for government, resource based economy where only public servents are government workers, no politicians, for profit companies dissolved of boundaries and intellectual property an artifact of earlier times...
The book accelerando captures some of this subject matter.
The path to the future is one constructed out of deliberate will and a better way to do things. And a return to a value system based on evidence and nature.
Infighting and disillusioned false competition is the result of having the mental block of seeing yourself as isolated from the world, rather than a participant.
The society of ubermen
You didnt answer his question at all
So what is the anarch solution to the issue of fanatical militias developing, as is the case in Somalia. Or are anarchists just racists playing a setup for Nat soc to roll on in?
Good luck bringing this ideology to other especially the so called sociopaths who want power. They will merely see this as tool
>racists
And here is where the thread unravels
Wouldn't his small amount of pollution build-up overtime, causing issues for the other farmers?
That extra bit of pollution would put strain on the other farmers and their filtration systems, resulting in damages to said farmers.
Such a thing could easily be resolved by a private arbiter. Steve risks losses through damaging the property of the other fish farmers.
>open source
>not FOSS
You might as well just call it gratis
FOSS?