It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Would an Anarchist Society ever work?

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Good afternoon ATS. This is my first thread.

When most people think of anarchy the conclusions they draw are usually not one of a peaceful nature or utopian society. Anarchy has always been drawn in a negative light. Yes, just as any change in government, let's say America became a socialst country, first of all that would take several generations and second millions would die before America could have a peaceful society again and even then it would not be perfect or peaceful, no form of government is perfect and that is the problem isn't it?

Now according to several scriptures in the Bible starting back at Genesis 6:2 we have learned of the various tribes and their roles in modern day society. In an nutshell catholics, christians, jews and muslims are all fighting over the same thing. Israel.

Why?

From the christian leaning prespective Israel is thought to be the promised land just like every other religion, but having control of Israel is key so then a one world government could rise out of Israel with of course the peoples religion associated with the ownerhip of land.

Ok so we have learned this and that their is according to the Bible a race of humans that is usually referred to as the global elite or the sons of god who had children with the daughters of men and according to them, or at least various scriptures in the Bible they were ordained by God to look over the interests of humanity.

If you had ever asked a member of the social elite why they were chosen to look over humanity they might tell you something like we were chosen to guide humanity so that humanity would not destroy itself with a nuke or something of that nature. Ok but if that was the case let's say that there was no government. Is it safe to assume that anybody would obtain nukes?

Right now that seems to be the problem at hand so let's look at it from a religion/government perspective. We have several religions fighting over the same land.

Now I don't disagree that in the event of anarchy there would be fire and brimstone just as there would in any world war. OK but anarchy is the absence of government. Let's just assume for a second that somebody passed this notion off to society that they were ordained by God and people believed it but it was all a cover story. That is then an essential ingredient to win the hearts and minds of people. If they can pass religion off to you then it is less work for them because you are not being disobediant.

But do you guys think that humanity could pull it off? Do you think that if religion went away and the one truth was revealed that we are put on this earth to take care of and nurture each other? Do we need no religion or government to do that, or is it possible that many of the laws taught in christianity do lead to spiritual enlightenment but perhaps only to make it possible for the government to operate for without spirituality society would be bankrupt and human life would likely.

I don't agree with every teaching in the Bible but I do believe in these concepts.

Humankind are provided with everything in nature to use. In other words we are always taken care of according to natural characteristics of the earth.

Though should not kill, less it is in self defense or to word more like the bible do unto others as you would have done unto you.

You should use one day a week for physical rest and spiritual purposes.

The Holy trinity only in my belief it is man, woman and child.

That being said I was wondering what you all have to contribute and see if we could get some well thought positive discussion about anarchist society.




posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Good afternoon to you too.

Im an Anarchist, and I wouldn't work if I could help it!

sorry....but I am an anarchist in principal, and have been for the whole of my adult life, and frankly, if any other kind of society can work, then so could anarchy - it has in the past and probably will again in the future.

Its only a matter of how society functions and what its goals are.

Easy eh? Im lacking time but will come back to this thread, Im interested in what others are going to say. S&F



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Icerider
 


Thanks.

I never said that there would not be work, unfortunately you would have to work to get basic essentials and be able to trade with others. You may find yourself working alot less however.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


not a bad first thread.
I happen to enjoy thinking about the subject of anarchy. I'm afraid that a lot of people in here will misdefine anarchy as chaos, when in fact it is a system of society with no authority, and in my opinion COULD work. I in fact believe it to be the highest form of society as all humans are anarchists at heart, whether they know it or not. I don't know where the religious angle plays in, I guess you're saying that religion is holding us back from successful anarchism, but i think it's a lot more than that. A very good book to read is "Anarchism, A Collection Of Revolutionary Writings" By Peter Kropotkin. He's been dead for about a 100 years, but he probably has the most thorough ideas on anarchy I have ever seen. The book is on my shelf right now, at your request I will post relevant quotes from it....

So to answer the thread title...I think it COULD work. Not right now, but it might not be a bad experiment to try someplace small....like a city, or very small country. Practice makes perfect and I think it's something worth working for.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Anarchism believes that society functions best when we have no State authority and people are allowed to do what they please. For most people, this sounds a lot like our society today: as long as you drag your butt to work every day at eight o'clock in the morning and pay your bills, you're free to do most things, especially if you've got money to cover for it. Anarchism could therefore in many ways be seen as an off-shot of liberalism, where the individual and his/her intentions are trusted to be able to co-operate in a social group and administer itself without someone to tell them what to do.

For anyone who's been in a class room today, or worked on a large business project with several co-workers, or taken the family out on a week's vacation, it's more or less obvious that many people have a problem performing a task or taking care of their personal problems, without someone to either guide them or tell them explicitly what to do. But, Anarchism, or ignoring the function of authority, is stupid, because it's not realistic. like with all things, power can be abused or become corrupt, and this is the kind of authority we should be attacking; the false power that doesn't serve a higher purpose beyond the interest of a few individuals.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by liquidsmoke206
 


en.wikipedia.org...

Denmark - Pretty damn close



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by concernedcitizan
 


Anarchy is about not having rulers, no state.

That does not mean a lack of authority, it means a lack of authority indifferent to your immediate well being.

In one breath you admit that power is abused, but claim resistance to this is stupid?

As for non functioning members of society, well, ever hear of evolution? The gene pool is getting weaker and weaker because of nanny states protecting their sheeple in artificial environments, with their non jobs and synthetic food

You wait until the oil runs out. There won't be any choice.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Icerider
 


We already tried letting people rule each other, as seen in Soviet Russia and Cambodia - what happened? The few "smart" people took control over the workers and manipulated them for their own selfish ends. The utopian idea of equality and peace between all people around the world has never turned into reality, and never will, because since most people by nature only seek personal pleasure and wealth unless someone tell them otherwise, they will viciously compete with each other despite that "equality," to try to become the new Stalin or Pol Pot. Anarchists have a point though: our society today is corrupt, because it forces people through dogma to think in a certain way, due to a lack of consensus on why we're here, which values to uphold, and how to move forward. Loss of direction internally means the State has to oppress people externally.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Icerider
 


wow, cool, I'd never heard of that place. Not true anarchism but about as close as I've ever seen, and being done on a small scale. I also find it interesting that a shooting occurred immediately after outlawing drugs. Kropotkin would have seen that coming.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
In every community there has to be rules to prevent people from running around raping, stealing and killing and to maintain cohesion of society. In its most simple form a society built on Anarchist priniciples would only work as long as there is basic law and order in a community with a clear leadership structure.

People won't last long if they are independent, they can't possibly have every skill under the sun to sustain themselves for very long. That's why there has to be community, and in a community there has to be law, and a community is many, many times stronger than an independent person.

The anarchist who thinks he/she can do anything will soon find out, perhaps painfully, that the community (the large majority of communities) won't be very agreeable with the 'Do what you will' philosophy of the most hardcore anarchist and/or satanist.

The 'community' will always win out in the end.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by liquidsmoke206
 


No, not true anarchy, but it worked quite well for a while, and I think it could be made to work on a bigger scale.

Probably the biggest step is devolving government into regional assemblies, the smaller the better, and taking away the power from authority. I really believe we could have a society without the need for government at a national level, although that leaves the problem of international politics.

I guess that would require a one world government (OMG what have I said!)



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by liquidsmoke206
 


I always though an Island would be a great place except that you would probably have to have imports to get it started. But it would be a great place to expiriment. I'm thinking like that movie with Leonardo DiCaprio where he joins that commune. They do exist in different parts of the world.

Also please do post your links at your own convenience I would love to check them out.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by star in a jar
 


I agree with all you say, except the need for a clear leadership structure.
The community leads, and you live by the communities rules.
After all, Brown or Obama's disapproval isn't what stops you going on a killing spree, is it?



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by star in a jar
 





In every community there has to be rules to prevent people from running around raping, stealing and killing and to maintain cohesion of society.


Thats a good point and I'm no Bible thumper but I do believe in some of the core concepts as I said in my OP. I think that category under "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and anyone breaks that law you would enforce that law in the same fashion as the crime committed against your tribe.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by star in a jar
 





In every community there has to be rules to prevent people from running around raping, stealing and killing and to maintain cohesion of society. In its most simple form a society built on Anarchist priniciples would only work as long as there is basic law and order in a community with a clear leadership structure.

Theres an entire chapter in kropotkins book on anarchist morality. If you think that having laws are whats keeping people from raping stealing and killing then you are a very disturbing person. You're essentially saying that you yourself might be tempted to rape steal or kill except for the fact that you could get in trouble for it. Morality can exist without laws. Kropotkin would in fact, blame authority for the perversions of morality. It's not surprising that you have a tough time picturing working anarchism Your mindset is all wrong.



People won't last long if they are independent, they can't possibly have every skill under the sun to sustain themselves for very long. That's why there has to be community, and in a community there has to be law, and a community is many, many times stronger than an independent person.

Kropotkin would agree that there needs to be community, cooperation is paramount to the success of anarchism, but he'd also see no use for laws to make it work.



The anarchist who thinks he/she can do anything will soon find out, perhaps painfully, that the community (the large majority of communities) won't be very agreeable with the 'Do what you will' philosophy of the most hardcore anarchist and/or satanist.

again, your mindset is all wrong, you're embracing a negative stigma that is attached to anarchism, which is actually a beautiful system. You just have to learn to see it from another angle, try reading kropotkins book. It covers every question you could want answered.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
A friend of mine commented on what might happen if Anarchy were to happen a while ago.

Sure it might be fun to rape, pillage, murder and steal BUT eventually people would form into co-operative and peaceful groups. Those groups would have rules within themselves whether spoken or unspoken. Eventually, such groups would organize into larger and larger groups leading to a society much as we have today.

No, true anarchy isn't sustainable.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
"What is no good for the hive is no good for the bee." Marcus Aurelius.

The good of the whole is paramount--it is of utmost importance. This goes all the way down the line: there must be a healthy planet for there to be healthy ecosystems, healthy ecosystems for there to be healthy organisms, healthy organisms to create healthy living communities.

The larger system--the whole--must always be considered, and considered heavily. If the hive is destroyed then the bee--in fact, all of the bees--will be destroyed along with it. For this reason it is crucial to place every idea and action within the context of the larger system. There are many things in life that may be beneficial on some (shallow) level to the individual but bad for the whole. When an idea or action is enacted with the good of the whole in mind, however, that idea/action has the potential to do good for all.

It has been said before: Mankind is capable of great things. Nature does not throw at us anything we cannot handle; should we not, it should be recognized that it was our decision not to. If men work together in agreement with what nature has planned for them and prepared them to accomplish, humanity itself will be strengthened. Once men find their purpose and embrace it, everything comes together in the way nature intended.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by LazyGuy
 




Well, right and wrong, methinks

Anarchy is usually a transitional period affecting a given area during social upheaval, and focused on an individual - Makhno was one such anarchist 'leader' - yeah, an oxymoron!

en.wikipedia.org...

BUT Anarchy has never been given the chance to work long term, because societies always revert to a default of what they were before. People are lazy, and a fully floating anarchy requires everyone to participate in its maintenance, otherwise it just becomes the usual dictatorship.

Mainly anarchy is the enemy of the capitalist, which is why its demonised and slated as unworkable.

It can work, but not with lazy, greedy sheeple who have forgotten how to think for themselves



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by LazyGuy
 


what your saying is exactly what I predicted in my first post. You associate no government or authority with total chaos and demoralization. You assume the people are inherently bad, I disagree. But that you feel this way certainly sheds some light on you as an individual so thanks for your post.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by concernedcitizan
 


Not a great example - the words of a statesman from a brutal regime.

I don't want to be a worker bee - you know what happens to them in the winter? they get killed off!

Beneficial for the individual but bad for the whole? screw the whole - I am an individual!


Mankind has done great things - to what purpose? Nature does nothing near the damage we do to each other as nations war. I dont see this last paragraph having much to do with anarchy at all, other than to recommend it further!



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join