What do you think of Anarchy?
Topic: What do you think of Anarchy?
June 16, 2019 / By Careen Question:
I think: politicians have lead & convinced most of the population to believe that society would collapse without government.. as, if there was Anarchy, the politicians would no longer have so much power & money.
Anarchy means 'without rulers.' - Anarchy does not mean without law or order - as many people seem to think. - “Anarchy is not chaos, but order without control.”- David Layson
I'm not saying that Anarchy would work on a large scale now-a-days..it's too late for that as the government has already taken over & people are so used to life like this.. but maybe if later, there could be more Anarchist societies.. things would be better?
To sum up I believe the government is holding us back to an extent. I want to live without being suppressed by the government. I guess I kind of believe that Anarchy is freedom.
Well anyway that's just my opinion, what do you think?
@DarlingSofia - I think you are wrong in saying 'People are not capable of self control, there is no such thing.' YES. Some people do lack in self control, but there is definitely a such thing.. Look at buddhist monks for example (they are extremely in control of themselves.) If people were brought up in to Anarchy they would definitely be more self-controlled than people these days. Secondly: no, people do not need 'a firm grip guiding them'. I mean, they do.... but not in the way you're suggesting. A 'firm grip that guides them' should not be another person which they don't know - but maybe someone they love or something they love.
@David - "Sorry, but only children actually believe anarchy is something legitimate."
Sorry, well I guess then only children are open minded enough to believe in the possibility of Anarchy.
Best Answers: What do you think of Anarchy?
Amie | 7 days ago
I agree with you on everything, except how anarchy can exist within this system, and sprout within our lifetime.
I think that Anarchy is simply the final state of evolution within society. When society has a firm understanding on the true meaning of freedom, liberty, human nature, authority, anarchy, and the ideologies of anarchism, then they might be ready. Most people think that the bad qualities of our system came from human nature and instinct, but they are sadly mistaken. Human nature is created by the environment that humans inhabit. If the next generations were suddenly raised with values such as mutual aid, self-management, individualism, and cooperation, compared to competition, and maximized rational & critical thought as well as intelligence, then they would be ready to create and inhabit an anarchist society. To change human nature, you need to change the environment by which we live in.
@David - If children are the only ones who actually believe anarchy is something legitimate, then why are Noam Chomsky, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Proudhon and all the other famous anarchists anarchists?
👍 122 | 👎 7
Did you like the answer? What do you think of Anarchy?
Share with your friends
Originally Answered: Do you think anarchy is possible and sustainable?
Anarchism is inevitable due to the collapse of our current systems. No one needs to fight for an anarchistic future. It will come on its own. "Peak oil" will force drastic changes to our way of being in the world and failure of systems worldwide. Revolutions in exploited countries will drastically reduce the power of the economic elite and multinational corporations. The stock market and financial institutions will collapse under their own weight. Our current systems are built on continuing growth and is not sustainable. This will start with revolutions in third world countries and soon reach all Western civilizations.
The future may be bleak due to climatic changes, increasing natural disasters, and nuclear catastrophes. It will not take much for us to lose our current order and our sense of "civilization." Imagine that we experience a long-term loss of electrical power in just one region of the US. Within a few days, we would have food shortages and our nuclear power plants would go critical, spewing radiation into the environment for hundreds of miles.
Chaos and loss of central control will follow. People would form small bands (100-1000 people) that are democratic in structure. Massive deaths due to malnutrition and disease will follow. People with practical skills will be valued while stock brokers, lawyers, and information workers will need to adapt their talents to more practical/mundane work. A huge amount of effort will be expended on basic survival needs.
This future is both positive and negative. People who expect to live with all the conveniences of modern technology will be in for a shock. The days of slave wages will be over.
Every civilization goes through a period of decline, why should we expect ours to be any different?
Anarchy is possible. Our current system is not sustainable, so anarchy is inevitable. With a much smaller population, we will have no option but to make anarchy a sustainable way of life with a lot less convenience. Human existence will be a struggle, but we will have no other options.
Government is a neccassary evil. Even small government. You really think life can go on without someone enforcing laws? That's what the government is there for. Sure, our government has no doubt expanded beyond what our Founders had intended, and I believe the system needs to be reworked completely, but anarachy is not the answer. We all know what the "Wild" West was like.
Sorry, but only children actually believe anarchy is something legitimate.
👍 40 | 👎 0
I completely disagree. I'm a firm believer in Communism as the most effective way to run a state. People wouldn't know what to do with themselves if there were no government control - they'd riot in the streets and starve. What they need is a firm grip guiding them. People are not capable of self control, there is no such thing. Anarchy would ultimately result in chaos. Communism is the opposite of that. It promotes peace, equality, and order.
👍 34 | 👎 -7
The Nature of Anarchism
by Dan Clore
(The following is a bit of "boilerplate" that I use to answer questions about anarchism. It is intended to provide a concise explanation of anarchism. Any suggestions as to how to improve it would be welcome.)
There is a great deal of misunderstanding of the nature of anarchism.
Anarchists (also known as libertarians or libertarian socialists, in the original sense of socialism as worker-ownership-and-control of the means of production) oppose illegitimate authority and hierarchy, and therefore oppose capitalism and the state; anarchists do not oppose all organization: anarchists favor voluntary, non-hierarchical, self-organization. Anarchists do not oppose all rules and laws; anarchists oppose rules and laws imposed involuntarily by illegitimate authorities, such as the state, and favor voluntarily-agreed upon rules and laws.
"Anarchy 101", an excellent introduction to anarchism, can be found here:
"An Anarchist FAQ", giving an in-depth treatment of anarchism, can be found here:
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
👍 28 | 👎 -14
I think politics had become to corrupt to still exist in my life time I have seen how votes, laws, bills and taxes can be manipulated using the constitution as a way of masking illegal activities so Anarchy seems to be the next step in the evolution of society
But hey thats just the next door anarchist talking
👍 22 | 👎 -21
Originally Answered: Who feels we're heading for anarchy, military regimes & another great war?
When addressing such subjects it is best to keep things in perspective. As a country (USA) we have been through many challenges and only once has it led to war (the American War of the 1860s) and then the circumstances were much different.
Economic challenges have been significantly worse in the past without everything going to pieces. Even the depression of the 1930s did not cause the country to come apart. Unrest has occurred from time to time such as the Shay’s Rebellion and the urban riots of the 1960s and 1970s, without the country coming apart.
Currently the economic situation has different down turns but to even say it is a serious recession is likely to strong. Even the often touted hosing market burst bubble is not the same throughout the country. Places such as on the East and West Coasts have seen significant dropping of property pricing, but that pattern is not the same nation wide. It is fair to make the case that some areas had artificially high property prices primarily due to speculation fed by poor banking practices empowered by bad government regulation. That market had to reset.
In some respects the automotive industry has a similar situation of poor management fed by unrealistic banking credit support and very bad governmental regulation and both of these pushing prices much too high and, again, that segment of the economic market had to be reset.
There are many other such examples but there are also many places where such things are not happening. That is not to say that people aren’t suffering due to economic market adjustments, they are in many areas. And, it is also true that there are things to be concerned about. To a large degree these economic down turns are the result of a government gone beyond reason in regulation, costs, and increased taxes and intrusion into the private sector. Both the housing market and the automobile industries are perfect examples.
The housing market is drive by available credit, both in amount and in location. Some years ago the government (in effect) told the banking industry to provide mortgages to people that did not meet credit requirements. People that the banks knew could not pay back the mortgages. The government told the banks it wasn’t fair that some people couldn’t get houses and the banks would either loan to them or loose their banking licenses. So the banks loaned to these poor risk individuals. Banks don’t keep mortgages in house and resell them to gain additional cash to loan. These poor loans were not able to be resold, so for survival, the banks developed new ways top package these poor mortgages in groups of good mortgages, spreading the risk as it were. This may have been okay except the government continued to apply pressure to the banks to make bad loans to more and more people. Now add to that, that the people who remarketed such mortgages found that they could make more money reselling these bad mortgages even when they knew they weren’t good and that they would receive a ‘pat on the back’ from the government for doing a ‘good job.’ Things got increasingly worse and eventually collapsed.
A similar story can described the automobile industry as the federal government increased regulation for new requirements on cars. For example, automobile air conditioning systems once used a form of Freon gas. The government declared it unsafe for the environment and banned it from cars and a different gas had to be developed. A gas far more expensive and less effective. This may have been okay except there was never a scientific study to prove that Freon gas was harmful to the environment. Many other regulations did the same thing. That the relationship between the auto companies and the Unions also priced the direct labor workers far beyond any reasonable amount joined the federal regulation to increase the cost of an automobile significantly.
The cost of government has impacted this economic situation in ways not often discussed. Many try to make the case that businesses must pay more taxes, but what is not often talked about is that businesses do not pay taxes, but rather put them into the price of the product (or service) and pass it on to the ultimate consumer. An automobile for instance has about 40% of its retail price comprised of business income taxes which have been accumulated during its manufacture. These taxes have been increasing as government has increased. In 1928 the cost of all government (as a percent of the gross domestic product) was about 3% for the federal government and about 7% for State and local governments. Today State and local taxes are about 10% to 12%, while the federal government has risen to nearly 40%.
During the riots of the 1960s and 1970s (as well as other eras) became very violent. In 1967 the Detroit riot (I was there when it occurred) took the 82nd and 101st air born regular Army to come into the city to quiet down the riot. These did not expand