Are you an anarchist?

[alva]

They have no real form of goverment.

Yes they do, they are called warlords, not really the form of goverment one really wants, but there you go.
( Ohh, and the other one they've got is religion, probably even worse )

[St Leo]

As a Social Liberal, I am very much against the anarchist political system.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by monkspider
Anarchy is inevitable, but it is further down the road than socialism. I would say we should expect it sometime around 2020, give or take a year or two. People often think anarchy has sinister conotations, but all it is really is mankind evolving beyond the need for governments.

I don't think that is going to happen, not in 2020, not in 2200, not in 3020. The way I see it, Anarchism is just an extreme form of Libertarianism. The problem with Libertarianism is it is based on the faulty assumption of "natural rights," ignoring equality in favour of maximising liberty. I hold that there is no such thing as "natural rights," hence, there is no basis for Libertarianism and Anarchism.

[Odin]

The ideal purpose of government is to protect people from crime and to prevent the exploitation of the working class untill utopia is reached, and government becomes unnessisary.

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
How can anarchists be marxists? in an anarchist system, anyone with the biggest gun will control the means of production... if you manage to get the strong people to somehow not take over then you have a communist system... so what do anarchists believe in then?
thanks

Non-violence for example. Many intellectual anarchists throughout the history were pacifists, some are even to this day. Some years ago I studied the subject, so I don't remember all I wish I could, but I try... Some anarchists in the age of Karl Marx argued about "freedom and power to the people" basically in the same manner as Marx did, but they disagreed on certain issues. Their common ultimate goal "freedom and power to the people" was actually the same goal as the liberalists once had, but these the factions later corrupted into either capitalism or communism. (and various forms of those)

One of those anarchists who disagreed with Marx about the issue of the proletarian dictatorship, was called Bakunin, but he also supported the use of violence against the oppressor.
Proudhon, another anarchist, was a christian and belived in non-violence. So "anarchists" is not a homogenous group.

[Ramo]

Anarchism is, in general, a rejection of authority (i.e. force or constraint), regardless of its source. It is opposition to state authority as well as the various forms of private authorities - capitalism, [organized] religion, racism, sexism, etc. It is a belief in liberty.

But anarchism isn't necessarily a rejection of all authority. I don't want to generalize too much, but anarchism is basically the idea that an authority should not exist unless it can be justified. Some anarchists believe that force can never be justified, including prisons, etc. Other anarchists, myself included, believe that there are situations where force can be justified. Thus, I do believe that war can be justified. I do believe that prisons and police can be justified. Etc., etc. It's just that we believe that they can be justified only insofar is these institutions increase liberty. In that respect, authority such these are almost always unjustified.

It really is an elegant theory. On the one hand, the lack of private authority means that there are no groups that can effectively co-opt the state. In capitalist societies, you consistently see either the rich using the state to break strikes, fund corporate subsidies, etc. or the poor using the state to seek redress through welfare, etc. Wealth disparity has always lead to the growth of the state.

On the other hand, the lack of state authority means that force cannot be applied to create economic hierarchies from the lack of them. Which you see in communist societies like Soviet Russia where the state took control of businesses from their workers, and created bureaucrats, managers, and political commissars to command them. The state is the enemy of socialism; it always has been and always will be.

What does an anarchist society look like? Whoever made the comment that it sounded like a mix of communism and libertarianism was accurate. Take the LP platform, increase state authority in some respects, reduce state authority in other respects, and replace capitalism with worker ownership of the means of production, and you have an anarchist society. There have been a variety of anarchist societies in the past such as Catalonia and other areas of Spain during the Spanish Civil War. If you're really curious about anarchism, and are not only after making idiotic trolls, you might want to check it out.

BTW, a semi-feudal society like Afghanistan is just about as far from anarchism as you can go. The incentive to grow food or build computers is pretty much the same incentive that you have to grow food or build computers in our society.

And anarchism has absolutely nothing to do with "natural rights." That's a libertarian [capitalist] philosophy, not an anarchist one.

[ThePlagueRat]

And there is also the big difference between 'anarchy' and 'Anarchism' as an ideology.

In the world affairs where UN has virtually no power,
it's the strongest one who call the shots, and we can call it
an anarchic world situation. (instead of anarchistic)

[Mellian]

What humanity needs is telepathy me thinks...

-Mellian

[Frogman]

Spiffor is right, you'll never see anarchy as a workable system for our species. Even beyond security and defense issues, people want a central system to control public works. We still need a legal system to settle disputes. Government is not going away, we can only work to keep it from being overly intrusive.

[Az]

but anarchism is basically the idea that an authority should not exist unless it can be justified.

Call me an anarchist then.

"justified" is such a vague term.

And I ask again, how would it help humanity dominate the universe? It may sound corny, but this is our goal as biological beings, non?

[badman]

Mmm I kind of agree but domination does not sound right to me.
I say, as biological beings it is our purpose to develop, make progress, and to spread throughout the universe but we should not dominate it. Domination always means that a single individual / group / country / life form has monopoly on something and that always puts an end to (at least slows down) progress, wealth, and equality.

I do have some anarchic viewpoints. On the other hands there are many socialist anarchists but I think socialism/marxism is not working, would stop any progress and marxism does not go along with our nature.
I don't want to change that nature either, it has helped us to develop into what we are now and I think if there was a better way, evolution had gone it.

I also think that capitalism is the best and the most natural form of anarchy and capitalism combined with democracy is the best system (which I know). It guarantees equality as well as wealth, progress and freedom for everyone.

BTW: I voted "No I'm not".

[Az]

Mmm I kind of agree but domination does not sound right to me.
I say, as biological beings it is our purpose to develop, make progress, and to spread throughout the universe but we should not dominate it. Domination always means that a single individual / group / country / life form has monopoly on something and that always puts an end to (at least slows down) progress, wealth, and equality.

by domination, I mean a situation similar to what we have now on earth, being the species with the largest total mass.

[Hobbes]

I'm a soft core anarchist. I'm not blowing up credit card buildings or anything, but I like the idea of freedom, by cutting ties to authority. That and I hate wearing socks and want to hitchhike all over the place like a bleedin' beatnik.

[alva]

I also think that capitalism is the best and the most natural form of anarchy and capitalism combined with democracy is the best system (which I know). It guarantees equality as well as wealth, progress and freedom for everyone.

hmm, the illusion maybe....

[Ramo]

Call me an anarchist then.
"justified" is such a vague term.

Ah, but the authority of a justification needs being justified itself. The idea that authority needs to be justified is another way of saying that freedom should be maximized in a society.

And I ask again, how would it help humanity dominate the universe? It may sound corny, but this is our goal as biological beings, non?

Why? Maybe the ability to leave the Earth may be important in the event of massive natural disaster, but that's the only relevance I can see...

BTW, I found some interesting numbers from the Economist for you in the immigration thread, if you haven't checked it out yet.