What's new

Anarchy, at what level is it a failure?

Provience

Kill!
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Member Number
15
Messages
9,583
Loc
Gatesville, TX
A non-communist centered thread for discussing the failures and supposed virtues of Anarchy as a philosophy :flipoff2:

Anarchy has a very long history, it predates any sort of greater social order and exists in the primordial goo absent religion or society or anything. It only becomes an issue when conflict arises and that is when anarchy fails. 2 people can pass on the road and be fine, 2 societies cannot. At some level, anarchy falls flat on it's face.

famous examples of anarchy all leave a whole bunch to be desired and the greater the population density, the worse it is.

Stone Age people, such as Indians are a good example. In the USA and Canada and Northern Mexico, the population density was maybe 2 million, maybe a little bit more. same area now is over 400 million. With only a couple million, most of them were in the easy areas, coastal, hills, etc. get out to the edges of the plains or the desert where life is hard, raiders where common. Did the Kiowa or the Apache give a fuck about other societies when they decided to go an acquire slaves or food or whatever they wanted? nope. They may have had internal agreements, but they lived in a larger community of Anarchy and were as free as they could reach to do unto others as they saw fit.

This longstanding anarchy was also a big part of Tecumseh and his general failure of the larger pan-indian nation despite having the UK as a strong supporter. there may have been some temporary success, but nothing the sort that could be lasting with parity in arms. It was a social failure.

what about europe? The ancient greek's are a great example of anarchy. The rise of the city-state model of society lead to some massive gains, yet because of the close competition of the city states, they sharpened themselves largely on each other. what did this lead to? getting absolutely crushed, a couple times, from outside and near outside. Even with greatness, the internal strife remained. Ignore most of the editorial of this article, but the 400 BC quotes are entertaining. https://getpocket.com/explore/item/what-thucydides-knew-about-the-us-today?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Certainly nobody can do Anarchy better than the Africans of the forest and plains, right? I mean, hell, there is more internationally recognized anarchy there than anywhere today. There are purely equal tribes that still exist with no real strong king or queen or society really outside of a collection of huts, a group that passes on how to hunt or fish or grain for not much more than subsistence. certainly their greatness is the anarchy! No, because they also have a great long history of being pushed to whatever corner anybody who has either might or will that would rather be where they are. they accept high mortality and slavery as easy matters and make those neat /\ shaped population charts.

Afghanistan is a pretty interesting case. surely they've got to rank somewhere on the scale of anarchy. they are about the fringe end of Islam, easy example would be to consider the movie/book/event "lone survivor". American gets all fucked up, local afghani tribe generally keeps him from being outright killed. their reasons? they are Pashtun first, afghani's and muslims second. they don't really give that much of a shit about anybody and can be just fine with their anarchy in the hills. There is a great book "afghanistan: from alexander the great to fall of taliban" that has a quote from an afghani in ~19th century regarding the 1st/2nd british excursions. "We would rather fight each other, but we will serve no master" because they will gladly honor hundreds of years of tribal fighting over valley's and such. it's a reference to the notion that the only time pan-afghanistanism exists is when there is a real outside threat, a notion that is only sort of kind of valid. based on the sheer volume of people riding into their region and doing damn near whatever they want, the failure of Anarchy is again prevalent.


Mutual Defense. it isn't to say that some other forms of governance never get toppled or have issues, but are there any that have failed as quickly or easily as an Anarchist system?
 
well, turns out this is just another thread to add to my FBI caseworker folder :lmao:

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2010/november/anarchist_111610/anarchist_111610

To help educate the public about domestic terrorism—Americans attacking Americans because of U.S.-based extremist ideologies—we’ve previously outlined three separate threats: eco-terrorists/animal rights extremists, lone offenders, and the sovereign citizen movement.

Today, we look at a fourth threat—anarchist extremism.

What is anarchist extremism? Anarchism is a belief that society should have no government, laws, police, or any other authority. Having that belief is perfectly legal, and the majority of anarchists in the U.S. advocate change through non-violent, non-criminal means. A small minority, however, believes change can only be accomplished through violence and criminal acts…and that, of course, is against the law.

Anarchist extremism is nothing new to the FBI. One of our first big cases occurred in 1919, when the Bureau of Investigation (as we were called then) investigated a series of anarchist bombings in several U.S. cities. And during the 1970s, the FBI investigated anarchist extremists such as the Weather Underground Organization, which conducted a series of bombing campaigns.

but really, these are the people the FBI is actually and should be worried about

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/30763

In the United States there has been recently a rise of interest in “socialism,” especially among young adults (“millennials”). Different political views have reacted to this rise in various ways. Conservatives are appalled (“Have we forgotten the lessons of the Cold War?”). The leadership of the Democratic Party (the moderate center) is disturbed (“We’re for capitalism, after all!”) The liberal-left is pleased, so long as “socialism” is interpreted to mean liberal-left politics—not taking away the wealth of the capitalists and creating a democratic, nonprofit, economy.

Anarchists also have various responses. Some hope to create a libertarian (anti-authoritarian) socialist revolutionary wing of a socialist movement. Others see anarchism as different from—even opposed to—socialism of any kind.

To be sure, what most people mean by “socialism” is unclear. I assume that at a minimum they mean opposition to the capitalist status quo and a desire for a better, more just, society (discussed further below).
...
What is “socialism” or “communism” (using them as having similar meanings, as was the case originally)? In Vol. 1 of Capital, Karl Marx refers to “a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labor-power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labor-power of the community.” (1906; 90) Their work would be “consciously regulated by them in accordance with a settled plan.” (92) That is, a cooperative, socialized, economy would be “consciously regulated by them,” the “free individuals,” self-organized in their community. This seems like a good enough general definition of socialism/communism.

Unfortunately Marx saw this as being carried out in a centralized manner, through the state. (See the program at the end of Section II of the Communist Manifesto, “Proletarians and Communists.”) Anarchists point out that the state (according to both anarchist and Marxist analysis) is not a self-organized community of free individuals, but a bureaucratic-military machine standing over and above the rest of society; such an instrument can only serve the interests of a minority ruling class. It can be nothing else. (Anarchists advocate a democratic federation of free associations and workplace and neighborhood assemblies which would be a community of self-organized free individuals—and would not be a state.)

...

From the beginning, anarchists have rejected state socialism (or what they called “authoritarian socialism”). Kropotkin wrote, “…The anarchists, in common with all socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing…consider the wage-system and capitalist production [for the sake of profits] altogether as an obstacle to progress….While combating…capitalism altogether, the anarchists combat with the same energy the State as the main support of that system.” (1975; 109)

...

. In the 1880s, Adolph Fischer, one of the Chicago “Haymarket martyrs,” claimed that “every anarchist is a socialist, but every socialist is not necessarily an anarchist.” (Guerin 1970; 12) Many anarchists, and others who were close to anarchism, have called themselves “libertarian socialists” or “anti-authoritarian socialists” or “libertarian communists.”.

I write the last paragraph because many socialists simply do not know that anarchists are, and have always been, socialists. And many anarchists also do not know this.

that last notion is directly aimed at "libertarian socialists" and how silly that notion is, because anarchists are communists and such accept as much :flipoff2:
 
I'd be an anarchist if it truly meant that no enforcement was possible beyond my neighborhood, and my neighbors were capable of fending off anyone else. In a way, that's what the US was at its inception
 
I'd be an anarchist if it truly meant that no enforcement was possible beyond my neighborhood, and my neighbors were capable of fending off anyone else. In a way, that's what the US was at its inception

in a way, the religious settlements of the north met with the much more organized northern indians and sort of hogged out a different path than the economically minded british endeavors above and below them and further south the spanish exploits/religious groups

they were all a bit different with the spanish being probably the more armed versions. the problem is, what do you do as your community and neighbors grow?
 
I had a long reply typed out, but I wasn’t happy with how it read. So I have a question for you instead

Are you a cop? With all your well thought out opinions and attempts to instigate thought provoking political debates on here, I’m starting to think you are a plant sent here by the FBI or something to keep tabs on us:flipoff2:

i've been wanting to start this thread for a while, finally figured the easiest thing to do would be to go ahead with a not great start (and i was goaded in the other anarchist thread) :rasta:

maybe i'm here to be monitored by the FBI, but evernoob is more likely to be a cop and as an unsafe space spunoff to avoid crushing censorship, we are already all monitored anyways :flipoff2:
 
Since the dawn of civilization man has been devising means to stem anarchy to have a safer, more stable society to live in and raise children. Screw anarchy, it's counter productive.
 
Are you a cop? With all your well thought out opinions and attempts to instigate thought provoking political debates on here, I’m starting to think you are a plant sent here by the FBI or something to keep tabs on us:flipoff2:

This is what I was thinking while reading the first post.
 
Too deep for me. The few self professed anarchists I've met were pretty much jokes that would get smacked down hard if anarchy actually came to pass.
 
In the Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Professor Bernardo de la Paz, " Describes himself as a "Rational Anarchist", believing that governments and institutions exist only as the actions of aware individuals. " 'You tell me the laws and I'll decide if I wish to follow them, and accept the punishment if I get caught" :stirthepot:
 
That’s exactly what a cop would say:flipoff2:

I know we are all already on some double secret government watch list just for signing up here. We’ll see if I can string together a less rambling, more coherent summary of my thoughts on the subject later. Might as well add some more shit to the overflowing dumpster that is my FBI file:usa:

We must all be one with the thoughts of Lenin
 
Anarchy, at what level is it a failure?

If you want to have any kind of functioning society, anarchy fails at it's inception. If you have 100% anarchy, you have nothing else. Even in the animal world it's not 100%.
 
Anarchy is a very fleeting situation for humankind. In it's purest form it is a total absence of anyone in a position of power. By pure human nature, that power vacuum is always quickly filled by a dictator. True anarchy only lasts for a couple of days at best before a leader takes the reins and establishes dominance. Look at the CHAZ earlier this year - That was anarchy to start but that one dude quickly took it upon himself to enforce his will on the rest of the residents and then it was a dictatorship until it fell.
 
Anarchy is a very fleeting situation for humankind. In it's purest form it is a total absence of anyone in a position of power. By pure human nature, that power vacuum is always quickly filled by a dictator. True anarchy only lasts for a couple of days at best before a leader takes the reins and establishes dominance. Look at the CHAZ earlier this year - That was anarchy to start but that one dude quickly took it upon himself to enforce his will on the rest of the residents and then it was a dictatorship until it fell.

CHAZ is an interesting example and highlights how, even as a failure, it was heavily reliant on outside funding and forces.
 
The first go at the United States was pretty close to anarchy. It didn’t work. So they created what we know today. :flipoff2:
 
Anarchy is a very fleeting situation for humankind. In it's purest form it is a total absence of anyone in a position of power. By pure human nature, that power vacuum is always quickly filled by a dictator. True anarchy only lasts for a couple of days at best before a leader takes the reins and establishes dominance.

Pretty much. Wish it weren't so. Life could be so simple under a completely free society, or it could be horrible. The problem with humans, is some can't grasp the "live, and let live" idea, someone always wants power.
 
The only thing I have to add is several months ago I noticed the girl serving us at Starbucks had the Anarchy symbol tattooed on the side of her neck. I found it extremely amusing. :laughing:
 
Part of why I like the Walking Dead series is the thought experiments of what people form after a total breakdown of society. Dictators, cults, co-ops, democracies, monarchies, etc. The police are terrified of doing their jobs now by the likes of BLM and I don't see it getting better. That filters down into the little things in life, more burglaries, more people speeding on the highways, more people pushing the limits of what they can get away with because there is noone to stop them. That is a slow creeping anarchy. Do we still have rules or not? It's not going to get better if half the voting population thinks that the rules were not followed and think they are not represented by a duly elected leader.
 
Wait a minute. Why do so many people tell me that Libertarians are a bunch of anarchists?
 
Anarchy falls flat on its face when it's anarchy.

All of those primitive tribes have extremely strict codes of conduct and the penalty for violating that ranges from severe to gruesome.

On a good day, I may be able to defeat half of all other men on Earth in a single conflict, whether it's single-combat, or a feud, etc. Those are terrible odds. I have a 50/50 chance of being killed over a scrap of hide on any given day. 50% chance of preventing my daughter from being gang-raped.

No thanks, those are terrible odds.
 
Read Anatomy of The State by Murray Rothbard. It's like 30pages and you can download it for free here: https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state

It's a good primer into Anarcho Capitalism, once you start reading his works and listening to people like Tom woods, you will realize the anarchy people are talking actually does have a lot of rules and inherant rights granted. It's more of a counter argument to corrupt central state power. I'm an Ancap and realize it will never be able to be pulled off and I have what normies would call extremist political views, but like when bending metal, you need to go way past the point you want it to land. Someday MAYBE we MAY get back to a somewhat free society.

To me the path to this was listening to Ron Paul, watching America Freedom to Facism back in 2009ish (good watch highly recommend). After that I started looking around and talking with people and just about everyone you can get to agree that the government is not good and creates more problems than they actually fix, then people's solutions are government based.:homer: Logic says try something else, that's where I got to where I am political leaning wise. I like the mental exercise of it, obviously not going to actually do anything about it because who had the drones and spy satellites....

You know you are an Ancap libertarian when someone calls you a leftist liberal POS and a right wing psyco the same day.:laughing:
 
Last edited:
Read Anatomy of The State by Murray Rothbard. It's like 30pages and you can download it for free here: https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state

It's a good primer into Anarcho Capitalism, once you start reading his works and listening to people like Tom woods, you will realize the anarchy people are talking actually does have a lot of rules and inherant rights granted. It's more of a counter argument to corrupt central state power. I'm an Ancap and realize it will never be able to be pulled off and I have what normies would call extremist political views, but like when bending metal, you need to go way past the point you want it to land. Someday MAYBE we MAY get back to a somewhat free society.

Right but being in a fringe political movement won't do it. Civil Disobedience and being willing to go to jail for disorderly conduct and assault of a police officer will.

I'm not saying go out and hate cops and throw pee at them. I'm saying go out and protest, or strike, and refuse to be arrest WITH YOUR PHYSICAL BODY, not guns or a weapon. Be willing to be pepper sprayed and dragged off like a purple-haired dyke at a BLM riot.

We're way, way, way beyond the point of some 'thinker' writing tracts and publishing broadsheets. The Left gets shit done, the Right doesn't.

I can write a treatise or a book and I would imagine it would rank in the top 5% of such things. Total waste of time, but maybe not I could get some money and power and then invest it in the system I purport to tear down, like all those clowns do. :laughing:
 
Right but being in a fringe political movement won't do it. Civil Disobedience and being willing to go to jail for disorderly conduct and assault of a police officer will.

I'm not saying go out and hate cops and throw pee at them. I'm saying go out and protest, or strike, and refuse to be arrest WITH YOUR PHYSICAL BODY, not guns or a weapon. Be willing to be pepper sprayed and dragged off like a purple-haired dyke at a BLM riot.

We're way, way, way beyond the point of some 'thinker' writing tracts and publishing broadsheets. The Left gets shit done, the Right doesn't.

I can write a treatise or a book and I would imagine it would rank in the top 5% of such things. Total waste of time, but maybe not I could get some money and power and then invest it in the system I purport to tear down, like all those clowns do. :laughing:

The issues is there is like less than six figures of people who actually agree with that system, and both establishment systems would crush that protest in like 2seconds. You are forgetting the entire establishment government system and corporate America supports BLM. Who is going to support a system that calls for abolishing of the state and 100% free trade? Neither political side LOL and majority of the public

i don't view politics as some left right battle to the death. that's how they get power and it's fucking stupid. This is the equivelant of reading philosophy and letting it shape how you view things and challenge how you think. Not some primal team level my side good your side bad black and white thinking like currently goes on and what is typically advocated for.

​​​​​
 
Last edited:
I’ve typed up and deleted a few thoughts, so just going to put a few concepts out there.

there are people who assume that, anything that isn’t explicitly illegal, is therefore by default LEGAL.

there are people who assume that, anything this isn’t explicitly legal, is therefore by default ILLEGAL.

The second of the two usually seek to be led by the first. Anarchy fails because soft headed people need direction. We have a world population of over 7 billion soft headed people who can’t live a fulfilled life without a tribe. It’s pathetic but that’s just how it is. Self sufficiency isn’t an evolutionary advantage
 
Top Back Refresh