Is anarchy even possible?

[Jon Miller]

I was in this conversation with my freinds. I need to do HW now, but would like the anarchists on this board to answer the question.

Jon Miller

[Arrian]

Of course it's possible. The question is: is it desirable?

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

my freidns maintained that it would not continue

that any anarchy would not be stable wand owuld devole into states

I would like to here of an Anarchist utopia which would survive

I tried to argue (but not very successfully) for one I got from SciFi

Jon Miller

[Dinner]

Afghanistan had anarchy. Look what it got them.

[Giovanni Wine]

I don't think it is possible, and if it was I wouldn't really like to live in a state of anarchy anyway

Saluti

[Datajack Franit]

Anarchy sucks- total freedom means also freedom of taking a gun and killing 4000 persons without ever getting caught

[Az]

That's not a gun. That's a Multiple Launch Rocket System.

[Velociryx]

If anarchy is essentially the rejection of authority, then it cannot survive as a state, no.

The state is, by definition, a type of authority, no matter how loosely or tightly held that authority might be.

Besides, how would one go about organizing an "Anarchist's Rally?"

-=Vel=-

[orange]

i don't think so. I think in any situation of Anarchy some form of 'government' whether it be simplistic in nature, a bunch of thugs controlling affairs, or large in scale, like post-revolution China, anarchy can't exist for long. Someone will always seize power. It's human nature.

[orange]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Afghanistan had anarchy. Look what it got them.

No they didn't.

[DuncanK]

The only anarchists that I've ever met seemed to be very excentric. If you ask them this question they are likely to go on and on and on until you have lost your way trying to figure out what they are talking about.

I'm not sure if they really believe that anarchy can exist. They are just against authority.

[tinyp3nis]

Where is Ramo?

[VetLegion]

Anarchy cant exist if you have the Pyramids, or Statue of Liberty



hey its a civ forum

[VetLegion]

and seriousely, with people as they are it is not possible.


But what if people were different by default, good natured and cooperative, and there were no countries?

It isnt possible even then. Proper, authoritarian, hierarchical military is superior to whatever anarchy can come up with.

So even in this imaginary planet, where there are no states and countries and authorities, as soon as one non-anarchistic country forms (say in isolated mountains or whatever) its army will be superior and it will eventually conquer all anarchist tribes nearby.

After what, it will fall apart to smaller countries in warfare with eachother and it will be good old Earth all over again

[axi]

Proper, authoritarian, hierarchical military is superior to whatever anarchy can come up with.

Not in guerilla/urban warfare!

The only anarchists that I've ever met seemed to be very excentric.

All serious anarchists actually look excentric because they are so rare.

In an established libertarian communism (that's what anarchists call their utopia) everybody is organised in communities, by locality or by workplace (or even better these two coincide) and they organise themselves by consent and cooperation, exactly like in a traditional community. For this to succeed, there must exist no inequalities or exploitation. So the first thing that happens after libertarian communism is established somewhere, is that all property is expropriated and all money is burned. The very next thing is the army rolling in and shooting everybody.

Yet, if the social conditions are ripe, Anarchism could win the battle, temporarily, as in Spain in 1936 or more permanently. But I am convinced that in order to survive, it has to lapse into some kind of practical marxism (as it actually happened in 1936) and this is why I am a marxist and not an anarchist. Of course, being an anarchist revolutionary practicing marxism instead of Bakuninism is not necessarily a bad deal, since it's more difficult for you to lapse into Stalinism. On the other hand, anarchists are less probable to wage a successful revolution than marxists.