What's wrong with Anarchy?

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 9:29 pm

Anarchy is more hated and feared than Fascism. I'd like it if someone proves me wrong.

There are lots of forms of anarchy, discuss... given that Capitalism is failing and Democracy is somewhat of a farce. (All political parties hope to acquire a majority making them free from democracy for their term) oh and (all parties are generally considered to be different vices of the one choice)

Richard Bell · Post by **Richard Bell** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:09 pm

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried."

Winston Churchill

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:42 am

absolutely nothing wrong with anarchy .... I support it . People interpret it wrongly . People look at skin heads and their violence and label that as anarchy ...it's not .

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:47 am

If you mean anarchy as in a a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups or a utopian society where people enjoy complete freedom without government it's wishful thinking dreaming of a society that will never work except on a very small scale at best. Much beloved of dreamers who live on an imaginary world where everybody is nice to each other and everybody works together happily.

If you mean anarchy as in total chaos and disorder with no social restraint of any kind, that wouldn't last very long either but it would be pretty helllish while it lasted.

Capitalism isn't failing it's going thorough one of the periodic upheavals that are inevitable until the balance of power restored between the have and the have nots. You don't have a capitalist economy or a liberal democratic system of government in the states any more it's a corporatist one. Be interesting to see if the checks and balances work effectively or whether it's going to take a social revolution to shift the balance of power away from a narrow ruling elite. One way or another the balance will shift. Capitalism is a way of running an economy that forces trying to prevent it working properly, laissez faire capitalism is an aberration IMO. Democracy is not perfect but it's so much better than all the other theories that claim to be perfect. Let's put it this way who is better fitted to decide who governs than you?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:53 am

that's weird ...I must be a figment of your imagination if my ancestors lived in that imaginary world. .

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 2:17 am

fuzzywuzzy;1377559 wrote: that's weird ...I must be a figment of your imagination if my ancestors lived in that imaginary world. .

I'm talking in broad terms, in a small family group or community it works - although even in a family there is a boss who has the final say mother or father or sometimes both together - on a larger scale it doesn't. Sooner or later someone will try and take what others have, tribes live in peace and co-operate until resources become scarce then they start fighting over who gets what or more basically sometimes who gets which female or younger males challenge older males it's human nature. It's also human nature to get along with each other and help out when you can there's always been a struggle between the two sides so sooner or later you end up sitting down and working out a system of rules to settle disputes and prevent bloodshed and you create a government of some kind if you can't you have constant warfare.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 2:33 am

that's it I'm kiddknapping you and taking you to our outback!!! where there is no government or police or anything .

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:42 am

fuzzywuzzy;1377561 wrote: that's it I'm kiddknapping you and taking you to our outback!!! where there is no government or police or anything .

Not many people either. Society requires other people.

I don't think anarchy is more feared than anarchism unless you mean in the sense people fear lawlessness and will go for a strong leader when faced with lawlessness and fear the consequences of that less than the immediate threats to life and limb..

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:50 am

koan;1377553 wrote: Anarchy is more hated and feared than Fascism. I'd like it if someone proves me wrong.

There are lots of forms of anarchy, discuss... given that Capitalism is failing and Democracy is somewhat of a farce. (All political parties hope to acquire a majority making them free from democracy for their term) oh and (all parties are generally considered to be different vices of the one choice)Capitalism is failing?? What you call capitalism is not capitalism, as gmc said. It only bears the name. Capitalism is the heart of anarchy. It is the ultimate win-win. It's the cockroach of society, surviving even under totalitarian communist regimes in the form of black markets. If civilized anarchy ever evolves into a reality, its first sign will be pure capitalism.

No, wait! Cockroach is the wrong term. Capitalism is the Twinkie of society.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:53 am

Anarchy is feared by those who want to be in charge.

Capitalism and fascism have little to do with Anarchy

In a perfect world, capitalist Anarchy would be the ideal political and economic situation in the world.

However, in a world of human beings in their current state of evolution, neither can exist in their purist form, because unfettered capitalism leads to poverty for many.

and Anarchy would die a quick death, as the superrich capitalists form a repressive government to keep those in poverty from trying to take some of the resources from the rich.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 12:35 pm

I think Anarchy brings chaotic mob riots to mind and, as a result, not enough people have studied the variety of applications. Radical ideas are dismissed by turning their names into pejoratives. The Occupy movement is described as anarchy because they are a horizontal movement. There are definitely leaders and followers but the leaders are resisting the call to pick one leader. That's why it's gaining momentum.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:09 pm

I suppose though ...just the threat of any anarchy or an anarchist is a bloody good way of keeping those in charge under scrutiny. It's like saying "play the game or look what will happen " Violence happens when they don't listen . and when those in charge begin talking of anarchy as a threat you know they are afraid or at least something is in the wind . I think we're all familiar with a stautue of a woman blind folded with a set of scales in her hand .

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 7:16 pm

koan;1377640 wrote: I think Anarchy brings chaotic mob riots to mind and, as a result, not enough people have studied the variety of applications. Radical ideas are dismissed by turning their names into pejoratives. The Occupy movement is described as anarchy because they are a horizontal movement. There are definitely leaders and followers but the leaders are resisting the call to pick one leader. That's why it's gaining momentum.

That's always the problem. Most humans want someone to lead them 'cause they haven't a f**in clue what they ought to be about. Once a leader steps up, half of them follow blindly and the other half want another leader, cos this guy is nuts. The minute another guy steps up everyone gets wrapped up in who's the right one to follow and a good brawl busts out, and then the bi-standers all say, "yup, look at that. Anarchy doesn't work."

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:30 pm

I've always said that anyone who wants power over the people is the one you don't want to elect. That includes the whole bunch of 'em.

I'm interested in seeing how this horizontal movement proceeds. Must admit I'm relieved the politicians are playing their parts in rejecting Kyoto etc. Makes it a lot easier to see them for what they are. In part, that's why I've always supported the Conservative Party. I don't agree with our current political system so I vote for the ones most likely to show why it doesn't work. lol It's been far more rewarding than my previous decision to not vote because I don't support the system. Go Harper! Push us to the point of no more bullshit.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 2:47 am

koan;1377640 wrote: I think Anarchy brings chaotic mob riots to mind and, as a result, not enough people have studied the variety of applications. Radical ideas are dismissed by turning their names into pejoratives. The Occupy movement is described as anarchy because they are a horizontal movement. There are definitely leaders and followers but the leaders are resisting the call to pick one leader. That's why it's gaining momentum.

They call it anarchy IMO because of the image it puts in peoples minds stops them thinking much beyond that like what are they actually on about. Most people in the states, I would suspect, share the same sense of injustice and frustration they manifest. Labels are a great way to prevent people thinking.

Richard Bell · Post by **Richard Bell** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:55 pm

The Dead Milkmen had anarchy sussed in 1988 with their song, "Punk Rock Girl" :

We went to the Philly Pizza Company

And ordered some hot tea

The waitress said well no, we only have it iced

So we jumped up on the table and shouted "anarchy"

And someone played a Beach Boys song on the jukebox

It it was "California Dreamin"

So we started screamin

On such a winter's day

Endowing the concept with any greater credence is naive and juvenile.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:36 am

Richard Bell;1377890 wrote: The Dead Milkmen had anarchy sussed in 1988 with their song, "Punk Rock Girl" :

Endowing the concept with any greater credence is naive and juvenile.

At one point it was a serious political movement especially in spain where both communists and fascists slaughtered them wholesale with the communists turning on their supposed allies.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 7:13 am

Apparently there is still a town or two in Spain that operate pretty well under the concept.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:29 am

Accountable;1377909 wrote: Apparently there is still a town or two in Spain that operate pretty well under the concept.

Well yes it was quite an influential movement as was communism the mistake is, I think, is to think of it as a coherent political force any more. Anarchism as a political force doesn't really come in to it, it died in the graveyards of the spanish civil war. Socialism is not a dirty word in europe and is not the same as communist, fascist is a bad word, right wing is - typically with the accompanying term of bastard. the economic policies that got us in to this mess are recognisably right wing some of ron paul's views put him on the far right of the political spectrum others on the left. Your libertarian party and attitudes to government are a peculiarly american way of looking at things.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:35 pm

gmc;1377912 wrote: Your libertarian party and attitudes to government are a peculiarly american way of looking at things.
Thank you very much!

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:37 am

If one was to believe Ernest Becker, it would would be easy to see how the human fear of the unknown, overwhelming universe could be used against them by politicians and then realise that whether politicians existed or not the fear would still be present but more manageable (without them).

With the introduction of the internet one might almost believe that we could feel that the fight against injustice was winnable. Call that a Canadian way of looking at things.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:58 am

Accountable;1377954 wrote: Thank you very much!

I was making an observation I didn't mean that in any derogatory sense.

posted by koan

With the introduction of the internet one might almost believe that we could feel that the fight against injustice was winnable. Call that a Canadian way of looking at things.

People are less isolated than they used to be the people can get their side of a story our or tell others what is happening to them. Why do you think governments are now on about controlling the internet to save us all from disturbing things we shoul;d not be finding out, like what they are acxtually up to.