After the Revolution... Now what?

To my knowledge, this is the best philosophy achieved by man simply because it allows room for the individual to fail and learn from experience. It is through life's failures that life's successes our made and this is why America thrived as a nation. It allows for the onset of individualism, which I believe is the core reason why any of us are even talking about this today. If not for the rise of the individual over the group mindset, technology, culture, and modernization would never have happened thanks to suppression and group think.



Is my position the correct position? One can never be certain. Philosophically I believe that a Constitutional Capitalist society is the greatest thing ever achieved by mankind and is the end all of social structures. Should we fall back from individualism, then so too shall the world fall to stagnation, refusing to advance past the views of a single world view.

I believe the only hope for the world is to keep the system alive, else I believe that we shall enter an age of chaos that the opponents of anarchy see. Only time shall tell but in my eyes, time is of the essence. To me, the fight is on our doorsteps and it will come a time soon where we choose to embrace the individual or fall in line with everybody else.

Prepare yourself to answer that question.

I beg to differ.

At no time in the course of our human history had there been ANY individual that created anything so revolutionary that can be considered ‘If not for the rise of the individual over the group mindset, technology, culture, and modernization would never have happened thanks to suppression and group think.’ without the help of members of his community or his community’s built upon knowledge.

Discoveries had been passed down from generations since the dawn of civilization from fire to nuclear physics. Without the community’s tireless efforts, there would be no modernization of today as you speak of.

Should you persist to believe that you are right, then I can only show you monsters who rose above the group mindset and gave culture, technology and regression throughout history. Stalin, Mao, Nero, the more famous ones.

No, it is NOT Constitutional Capitalism that gave mankind its greatest achievement. Today we realized it almost lead to our doom.

It was instead Constitutional Democracy, the freedom of speech, that constituted mankind’s greatest achievement. It was only through the freedom to speak out freely, from the President to the dishwasher, that concerns and ideas could be communicated within a community for actions to take place for its evolution and elevation.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

Discoveries had been passed down from generations since the dawn of civilization from fire to nuclear physics. Without the community’s tireless efforts, there would be no modernization of today as you speak of.

True, however, discoveries have never been present at such speed and advancement as in the United States under this structure. Japan as well. You would do well to notice that such technological advances only occurred at such massive rates in countries in which individualism was protected, at least to an extent. Such is the reason why during the Cold War the United States remained steadfast in advancements while the Soviet Union paled in comparison. Should the people have been given a platform in which to create and think openly of ideas, then the results would have been much different, perhaps even effecting the status of the Cold War.

Should you persist to believe that you are right, then I can only show you monsters who rose above the group mindset and gave culture, technology and regression throughout history. Stalin, Mao, Nero, the more famous ones.

But such individuals were only self defeating of the philosophy. While they certainly embraced their OWN individuality, they did not embrace the individuality of everyone. They may have changes the way things worked, but apart from being tyrants they never really revolutionized anything. They remained following the same tired thinking over and over - that the masses should be controlled by ONE individual.

No, it is NOT Constitutional Capitalism that gave mankind its greatest achievement. Today we realized it almost lead to our doom.

It was instead Constitutional Democracy, the freedom of speech, that constituted mankind’s greatest achievement.

Democracy isn't the key subject the promises freedom of speech. The Constitutional portion does that job. HOWEVER, let us not be fooled by a piece of paper. We are all guaranteed free speech naturally. It all depends whether we want to embrace the freedom or whether we allow people to dictate it for us.

"Democracy" as we call it today COMBINED with the "Capitalist" system is what corrupted us. Though many fail to realize, there are subtle differences between a Republic and a Democracy, hence why they are not the same words. Under a Republic, the people maintain the power and are able to thwart corruption at the base. However, a Democracy implies more power to the government bodies. Now able to make decisions FOR the people or AGAINST the people, without the SAY of the people, that is how corruption runs rampant. In this "Democracy" you speak highly of, freedom of speech only matters if those in power listen to that speech. When they choose to ignore the people, they choose to ignore their rights, and they choose in turn to ignore the Constitution.

The Republic, is the will of the people. The Democracy, is the will of the majority. When a majority is given power to dictate over the rest of the people, it is no longer an individual mind state - it is a group culture. Democrat vs Republican, Red vs Blue, Liberal vs Conservative - thanks to this Democracy, individualism has been belittled in exchange for the same group concept.

To simplify - a Constitutional Capitalist society is the best, in my opinion, AS LONG as it is kept in check by the people exercising their rights to do so. The moment the people allow even one of their rights to be questioned, they open the door for ALL of their rights to be questioned and for the corrupt, greedy, power seekers, to rise above them all and instill the group mindset used throughout history.

While a group mindset may provide one set opinion, separate that group and you all of a sudden have millions of opinions and competing logic. It is through competing logic that minds stay fresh and inventive and lead not to stagnation.

Assume for a minute that the rules for life in outer space do not differ from those on earth. On multiple planets, spread so far across the universe as to be isolated, species make their way from a primitive origin to a state of self-consciousness. Composed of individuals, they organize themselves into civilizations and adopt technology. One in a thousand survives this challenge.

On planet earth, humanity is at the largest crossroads it has ever faced. Our size and technology has given us the power to separate our inner worlds of thought and emotion from the outward worlds of consequence in reality. This creates an illusion of power because we see no feedback from our world regarding our behavior. By inertia, we assume there are no rules.

Yet paradoxically this freedom has not given us more meaningful lives. We pursue pleasures, and then become bored, but knowing nothing else repeat the same patterns. We work to afford these pleasures, and while concrete reasons are elusive, we do not like our jobs. We have become disconnected from our world and have lapsed into an inner world with no objective. This lack of direction precludes accomplishment. The same problems persist and the same "solutions" fail.

Our survival balances on the hinge of two dysfunctions: Our behaviors do not reflect what is necessary for our future survival and success as cultures. And there is no reward or meaning that can be derived from this directionless behavior. This is natural hurdle for a growing species to face, but if we do not overcome it, we will not survive the evolutionary challenge of our growth.

reply to post by Conspiracy Pianist


A better solution can be found for our political system with a dictatorship. A leader with absolute power does not have to cater to popular opinion, and also is not bogged down by trying to gain a majority within a parliament. They can do what they believe is best, instead of what the people think they want at any given time. Many would oppose this, yet useless leaders are more often found in democracies than dictatorships.

A leader is an individual that brings a community into true consensus, and is furthermore able to guide and motivate them. A democratically elected person is rarely able to provide this, as they are chosen for their ability to appeal to individual desires. Under a democracy, people choose what they want, while under a dictatorship, the leader decides what is best. When people choose their leaders, they more often vote for that which pleasures them in the short term than what is best for them in the long term.

The best leaders would be those who were not slaves to public approval, but instead did what was best for everyone. They would be inclined to observe the entire picture rather than attack what is immediately in front of them. As such they would not create false enemies, but instead hunt for an underlying problem that may not be immediately visible to others. This dictator would be willing to take harsh but necessary action when required, such as depopulating and restricting people. Democratically elected politicians would never do such things, as it would immediately get them kicked out of office, but a dictator is not bound by these types of concerns, and understands that such measures only help to preserve in the long term.

As a result of the rise of humanism beginning in the Enlightenment, each human life has become viewed as something sacred that must ultimately be preserved at all costs. Billions of people flood the planet and consume all they can, yet contribute little to society. Abstractions that hold absolutely no basis in the world outside our minds such as 'freedom' and 'progress' provide the ultimate foundation of society, serving as a justification for nearly unrestricted breeding and rampant devastation. Thousands of species have been wiped out, the concrete desert expands across the earth, and yet people imagine that switching to 'green' products will fix all our environmental problems.

We live within a vast structure that repeatedly puts forth new concepts and ideas, slowly shaping and rewarding those that adapt and grow while discarding any that are flawed. Individual animals that are weak or defective are usually hunted down first. Yet humans in this age have attempted to remove this basic mechanism within the structure, living within the safe confines of their cities and preserving every life no matter the cost. In this propensity to preserve life, the natural struggle to grow is neglected as we uphold the failures and drag those of excellence down. Notions of equality ultimately lead to a sacrifice in human quality for quantity, as societies must operate according to the lowest common denominator.

The most central and irrational faith among people is the faith in technology and economical growth. Its priests believe until their death that material prosperity brings enjoyment and happiness - even though all the evidence in history has shown that only lack and attempt cause a life worth living, that this material prosperity brings only despair.

Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be so incompetent dictator, that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people. Best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and government would prevent any economical growth.

reply to post by gwydionblack

Under Capitalism combined with the powers of the Constitution, I feel that property is merely a vessel reserved for one to carry out his rights. People don't HAVE to own property, people choose to own property.

Firstly, I think it is by now plainly obvious that the Constitution has failed the USA. It's by no means a waterproof document that guarantees prosperity and freedom forever and for all, and the proof is all around us. It is, of course, far better than what most other nations are built upon, but in effect we can say it's been a failure.. especially if the USA will soon become a third world nation. I understand the longing to go back in time when everything was different, but I'm afraid that's impossible, and even if possible, would eventually result in the same mess we are in now.

Secondly, I agree that people have chosen to own property, but you cannot be serious that I can just walk up and say that I choose to become the owner of the diamond mines in South Africa, and DeBeers will gladly hand them over. The grabbing of property is all fine and dandy when there's a new country for the stealing, but once everything has been claimed, the new generations are either born with, or without property in the family. Also, those who own the means of production and therefore accumulate all excess produced as personal wealth have been able to use that wealth to buy more property and more means of production. A cycle is then created that results in the centralization of wealth (and therefore power) we see so clearly today.

the system of property is a mutual agreement of sorts.

With all due respect I find this a strange statement. I bet in the times of slavery there weren't that many slaves who agreed to be someones private property, and even today I do not agree that the diamond mines in South Africa belong rightfully to DeBeers, or that the redwood forests should've been private property, which resulted in the logging of about 95% of these ancient forests.

If a system is designed to benefit everybody in the equal amount of ways, and maintain that the mass is equal based upon their own will - it is a system that you have no one to blame but yourself for the failure in.

Ah, the concept of equal opportunity, which I think is a complete scam. Perhaps when America was first discovered it was possible for people to find new frontiers and build a cabin in the woods and live freely, but today there is no such thing as equal opportunity. If you are poor, you will have less chances of making it to Harvard than if you were rich. Not to mention the healthy WholeFoods food you can't eat, therefore being disadvantaged with your health... the examples are endless.

Certain people felt that they did not want to work as everybody else, and so they chose to stand in the background and benefit off of the labor of others.

Exactly. Private ownership of property and means of production has most definitely resulted in lazy rich people profiting off the hard labour of hard working people, who get paid a small margin of the profits.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cd94e0305c65.jpg[/atsimg]

I just don't see the point in trying to go back to the old system with the same rules, and expect different results. The entire concept of Capitalism is based on the idea that profit generates growth. But not the kind of growth that benefits all, merely the kind of growth that benefits the Owners... a growth that cannot be cured by starting anew with the same system of property allocation and resource distribution.

Thanks for posting!

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

It was instead Constitutional Democracy, the freedom of speech, that constituted mankind’s greatest achievement. It was only through the freedom to speak out freely, from the President to the dishwasher, that concerns and ideas could be communicated within a community for actions to take place for its evolution and elevation.

I agree, and I don't want to come sounding like an ungrateful brat who disses the Constitution; on the contrary, I salute every freedom seeker/fighter and social movement efforts throughout the past, and the USA seeking independence from the British are a shining example for us all. But we are now two centuries down the road, and a lot has changed, to the point that going back to the OG Constitution is imo insufficient. We should definitely know about it and use it as the example it is, but I think an update and some additional changes to the laws concerning private property are in order.

If the founding fathers drafted an entirely new Constitution that was far better than anything drafted before, then why can't we?

reply to post by gwydionblack

To simplify - a Constitutional Capitalist society is the best, in my opinion, AS LONG as it is kept in check by the people exercising their rights to do so. The moment the people allow even one of their rights to be questioned, they open the door for ALL of their rights to be questioned and for the corrupt, greedy, power seekers, to rise above them all and instill the group mindset used throughout history.

I think we are mostly on the same page, except I believe nobody has the RIGHT to own excess land, means of production, all excess produced, or even animals or humans, like it is under Capitalism.

Either we all own in equal amounts, or none of us own anything, other than personal belongings such as underwear.
Who gave DeBeers the right to own the diamond mines?
What happened to my right to own those mines?
Who gave a slavedriver the right to own slaves?
What happened to the slaves' right to own their master?

reply to post by Conspiracy Pianist

Firstly, I think it is by now plainly obvious that the Constitution has failed the USA.

This is where you are wrong. A piece of paper doesn't fail. A piece of paper doesn't make decisions. If you actually think that THE PEOPLE followed the Constitution to the core, then you would be wrong as well. It was a failure of THE PEOPLE not the Constitution.

As I said before, it is simply a piece of paper that outlines rights that are already here. If we choose to give up those said rights, that is our prerogative, but we shouldn't blame the piece of paper, we should blame our own incompetence.

The reason the US is about to become a third world nation is directly related to NOT following the Constitution. The government is already in control 1000-fold what the Constitution ever permits and it because of them and the unconstitutional oligarchical leadership that we are in this mess.

As far as your arguments against property, to argue such a thing politically will get no where as it is not a political argument. I only know about as much as I can see of it, and it all constitutes to human nature.

Even the oldest humans laid claim to property, whether it has been a cave, a home in the mountains, or a condo in the city. All species have their "territory" and humans are no different. To question nature is to open a whole other can of worms and so go against such is to ask for the impossible.

Now I'll admit, some people might not believe others deserve a set piece of land for a variety of reasons, however this too goes along with nature. Over 99% of all wars in history were fought over land. These wars continue today. The only difference is that the little guy doesn't have the power or resources to take land from a much more powerful figure or nation, and thus we are asked to justify why that land belongs to them. There is no justification to it, they are simply the superior entity.

Ah, the concept of equal opportunity, which I think is a complete scam. Perhaps when America was first discovered it was possible for people to find new frontiers and build a cabin in the woods and live freely, but today there is no such thing as equal opportunity. If you are poor, you will have less chances of making it to Harvard than if you were rich. Not to mention the healthy WholeFoods food you can't eat, therefore being disadvantaged with your health... the examples are endless.

Today, yes - the examples are endless. However, as you said back then the equal opportunity spectrum still existed. The Constitution guaranteed it as long as it was followed. As soon as corruption from the Constitution reared its ugly head, so did the end of equal opportunity.

You need to believe that we CAN return to those times because if you give up on that hope, you basically give up on any hope.

I just don't see the point in trying to go back to the old system with the same rules, and expect different results.

Well I don't agree that the system failed, I believe the people failed the system my disregarding its guidelines and rules. I understand that by going back to the "old system" there is a chance that it could corrupt again - yes, there is no denying that. However, starting from scratch today - we are left with a plethora of information and incite that the Founding Fathers did not have. They never anticipated monopolies or corporate entities controlling the states.

It is because we have this advantage of knowledge on our side that we can, upon the reinstatement of the Constitutional Republic, go on to create new, necessary restrictions that will prevent corruption from taking hold. And before any of my haters come along and say "SEE - HE WANTS TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION!!!11!!" I say "No" I want to promote amendments to the Constitution that can be discussed and voted upon by the people and congress, and made a part of the Constitution LEGALLY and Constitutionally.

The old system still works... there is just a really big weight sitting on its chest right now that needs to be gotten rid of. That weight it corruption.

well first off rediscovering freedom and self reliance, responsibility and respect will be very hard for most people use to being professional failures. it appears, everyone I know is addicted to unemployment checks.
food stamps and something called SSI. what in hell are people thinking as far as that goes where and how do you this will end ...? and its people like me bearly keeping my head afloat... why..? its like running up hill you can only presist for so long and I'm affraid that time period is fixing to hit strip centers across america this spring.

reply to post by Anti-Evil


AE, I left my last job voluntarily. People thought I was crazy. I have actually never accepted gov handouts.

I am and will never be controlled by the gov!

A lot are missing the point of anarchy as it is quite diffrent from all previously established systems. Also some very valid points have been made.

More property for better skills is still more property for better skills.

We don't have to pay them for raping us.

A true universal health care must be instated.

All means of production communally owned.

All profits equally distributed amongst all people.

True democratically elected government.

No such thing as copyright or patents on anything.

People don't realize how much of the wealth of the world these banks and corporations hoard, once that was distributed properly we would evovle into much more than the technological puedo-rich utopia or luciferian experiment in exploration that they see as the pinnacle is abolished

[edit on 25-2-2010 by ISHAMAGI]

The problem is that constitutional government only existed for 30 years before the bankers took full control again. Not to even mention the glaring problem of slavery. among others I'd have to say a true constitutional government has never been lived. So that while being viable as a comparison to anarcy isn't proven to be any better at this point.

reply to post by gwydionblack

A piece of paper doesn't fail. A piece of paper doesn't make decisions. If you actually think that THE PEOPLE followed the Constitution to the core, then you would be wrong as well. It was a failure of THE PEOPLE not the Constitution.

So in other words you are saying that if we can have all people agree to the Constitution, everything would still be ok?
That's like saying "if everyone agreed to anarchism it could work".
This 'piece of paper' seems to hold people in a hypnotized state of amazement much like the Bible does, which is also just a bunch of paper compiled.
What's up with the resistance towards changing or adding to the Constitution?
It makes me wonder if the Founding Fathers had to hear all about how wrong it was to change or add to the constitution or Laws of Britain...

As I said before, it is simply a piece of paper that outlines rights that are already here. If we choose to give up those said rights, that is our prerogative, but we shouldn't blame the piece of paper, we should blame our own incompetence.

What does it say about the right to take property of land and resources? That's what I'm interested in. Does it allow me to walk into IBM and seize property of the company, or go to Nevada and seize property of the Hoover Dam?

As far as your arguments against property, to argue such a thing politically will get no where as it is not a political argument. I only know about as much as I can see of it, and it all constitutes to human nature.

Right, which is why anarchists, whom by their very nature question one's 'right' to own means of production, are outcasts, black sheep, fools...
If "it's not even a legitimate political subject", then doesn't THAT ring any conspiracy theorists' bells?

This is exactly what this topic is about; regardless of how loud people complain, many seem to gloss over the concept, regulation, and allocation of property, which makes no sense to me at all.

However, as you said back then the equal opportunity spectrum still existed. The Constitution guaranteed it as long as it was followed. As soon as corruption from the Constitution reared its ugly head, so did the end of equal opportunity.

I honestly highly doubt that. In the new world, businesses rose up, factories that needed manpower. It was capitalism from the get-go, with class war all around. Why did Chicago execute 4 anarchists who fought for the 8-hour work day if there was equal opportunity back then?

Well I don't agree that the system failed, I believe the people failed the system by disregarding its guidelines and rules.

Which people? Joe Schmoe and his working class brothers?
What I'm trying to get at is that the entire system is built upon the concept of private ownership of means of production, and that this will inevitably result in the centralization of wealth of power, which by it's very nature brings forth oppression, corruption and the likes.

This thread was created to make revolutionaries like you question the legitimacy of private property, the consequences, and hopefully, alternatives. If somebody suddenly CLAIMS OWNERSHIP of a piece of fruit bearing land, THAT to me is corruption, or criminal, right there.
How are we going to combat the current criminals while still obeying the 'laws' that make their crime legal?

The old system still works... there is just a really big weight sitting on its chest right now that needs to be gotten rid of. That weight is corruption.

I disagree, slightly. I think something like a Constitution can be very beneficial, but it's laws about private property HAVE to be re-assessed and addressed before we can even dream of a better outcome.
You wouldn't let someone steal an apple out of your child's hand, so why let them steal an entire orchard?

reply to post by Conspiracy Pianist

So in other words you are saying that if we can have all people agree to the Constitution, everything would still be ok? That's like saying "if everyone agreed to anarchism it could work". This 'piece of paper' seems to hold people in a hypnotized state of amazement much like the Bible does, which is also just a bunch of paper compiled.

Yes, but just because it is a piece of paper does not mean it is not for good. Perhaps it deserves the amazement because it gives us a visual of what we actually have in the form of right. As for the Bible, though it is only a piece of paper, it should be held respectable for its message of man's treatment towards man (at least the New Testament) if nothing else.

This is exactly what this topic is about; regardless of how loud people complain, many seem to gloss over the concept, regulation, and allocation of property, which makes no sense to me at all.

I question it, yes, but I also accept the notion of property. I do believe their are limitations, but as I said, the notion of one's "territory" goes way back before us, before the United States, and even before human beings. It is a security response I assume and thus it makes it even more difficult to question. In history, most attempts to question human nature has failed. Things like killing, hunting, territory, our instincts, all go beyond change. They are just there. Why? That I can't answer, only whatever the Creator was can.

Which people? Joe Schmoe and his working class brothers? What I'm trying to get at is that the entire system is built upon the concept of private ownership of means of production, and that this will inevitably result in the centralization of wealth of power, which by it's very nature brings forth oppression, corruption and the likes.

Yes, but under a successful system "Joe Schmoe" would be able to rise up, create competition and thus become one of the "owners" or "wealthy" people. Corruption did falter that. This is why monopoly laws were made in order to preserve the rights of Joe Schmoe, however, as time went on, government became more entwined with the corporation and thus leaned legislation into their favor, not the other way around as it should have been.

If the people in power would have kept up with the Constitution, placed restrictions on the corporation at the onset to prevent them from infringing on rights, and most of all - regulated the way the United States handled businesses who took advantage of imported goals, there would never be companies so powerful as Microsoft or Walmart. There would be thousands of smaller companies and the capitalist system would be in complete success, competing with each other and keeping prices down. Not only that, but the doors would be open for anyone to step into the marketplace and change it how they wanted to. It would be up to the PEOPLE as to who would be successful and who would not.

If somebody suddenly CLAIMS OWNERSHIP of a piece of fruit bearing land, THAT to me is corruption, or criminal, right there. How are we going to combat the current criminals while still obeying the 'laws' that make their crime legal?

To me, claiming it is not corrupt or illegal. However, refusing to share such resources with the public is corrupt. For instance, when you own a resource in almost complete entirety, and you choose to only sell a tiny portion of the resource to the public in order to drive up demand - the is corruption. That is something we see today. As I said, if the system would have been kept in check as it should have been, it would have never gotten this bad.

I disagree, slightly. I think something like a Constitution can be very beneficial, but it's laws about private property HAVE to be re-assessed and addressed before we can even dream of a better outcome. You wouldn't let someone steal an apple out of your child's hand, so why let them steal an entire orchard?

I agree wholeheartedly. The Constitution was a document written 230 or so years ago, obviously it did not take into account the things we have learned in that time.

However, when it comes to revolution, if the government were to be overthrown and reinstated today, I could only say to go with the Constitution now as its base. Once that is determined the critical factor, then the official steps can be taken to add (or in the case of the sixteenth amendment, removed) things that would be necessary. HOWEVER, in a Constitutional Republic it is the will of the people to decide, and thus they should be able to decide.

In the course of a number of years, crucial additions will be made without altering the original rights, and within time we can have a system where freedom and equality stand at the forefront, and such issues as property and other things can be dealt with.

However, I can only say that in my opinion, anarchy would not work simply due to the absence of order. In the absence of order, there is chaos.

reply to post by gwydionblack

I agree wholeheartedly. The Constitution was a document written 230 or so years ago, obviously it did not take into account the things we have learned in that time. [...] However, I can only say that in my opinion, anarchy would not work simply due to the absence of order. In the absence of order, there is chaos.

Again, I think we are mostly on the same page, and we're just confused with semantics.

If you are all for the the redistribution of resources and the reallocation of wealth & power, enforced by 'We the People' under a Constitution and with councils of representatives that can be removed by their representatives at any given time, then you and I want the same thing.

Maybe I shouldn't label it anarchism, maybe you shouldn't mention capitalism; the difference is merely in the verbiage...

What you are describing as desirable is much closer to anarchism than it is to capitalism imo, because anarchists don't desire a lack of order at all. We just want an order that works for all of us, and we believe it's not at all a far fetched concept. Do we need a bureaucracy as we know today to keep things in order? I don't think so, and I suspect the extra fine print and rules are only necessary because the system is so unnatural and illogical.

Watch the 'Vivir Utopia' clip in the OP to see a highly organized anarchist revolution at work... hardly the chaos people often liken to anarchism.

"Wisdom of an old Revolutionary" - ATS Thread Link

I want to post more later when I read through responses to this thread.

However a very simple, to-the-point, undeniable, and potent reality of our world and Anarchism is this:

For 90% of human history, and in 90% of your day-to-day interactions, we live(d) and ed) in ANARCHY.

In some of its basest definitions, Anarchy is simply the absence of centralized nation-states, economies, state-enforceable property/ownership, and HIERARCHY.

Human beings in their Anatomically Modern form have lived on this planet for 100-200 thousand years. Civilization has only existed for 10 thousand years, which is a mere one TENTH of that timespan. For 90% of the history of Homo Sapien Sapiens, we lived in great relative peace, sustainability, and freedom. Civilization and nation-states did not gradually grow from "primitive" human societies but instead was a fundamentally DIFFERENT experiment and EXPLOSION in human society via the agricultural revolution. From that we started to practice what is called 'totalitarian agriculture' which produced vast surpluses of food, which biologically produces a greater population, which then requires more food, which then increases population further, it's a vicious cycle that has grown exponentially with world population DOUBLING within just the past 35 or so years. When population increases and people start settling in one place that much, the need arises for hierarchy, property, stratification, and specialization. Human health actually DECLINED quite a bit when we settled down and practiced agriculture, which essentially requires crop monocultures favoring starchy (and nutritionally devoid but energy packed) crops that effectively eliminated the VAST diversity in species of food consumed in hunter-gatherer/tribal societies. Now tribal and band societies were largely devoid of any real hierarchy, power, ownership, or currency. The most basic rule of such a society was community and a system of "Give support=Get support". Therefore, the tribe functioned as a unit, when anybody needed something, the tribal family provided it as best they could and vise versa. Everybody did their part within the tribe to survive and thrive where individually they'd get a lot less done. Some refer to this as communism, and in some philosophical ways it is similar, however communism exists in industrialized state-society, tribalism was a fundamentally DIFFERENT species of human culture from nation-states and thus labels of communism apply very weakly. But even for those who respect the ideals of communism, they can find a living and working embodiment in tribalism that DOESN'T oppress or control people.

Essentially, I agree with the author of this thread in that- if we can adapt our society over time into a more peaceful, free, sustainable anarchistic society, this is the closest to utopia we can ever hope to get. Anarchism is actually quite realistic and demonstrably successful in the ultimate big picture of our world. If you want to see foolish short-term recklessness and disorder, look no further than the violence, oppression, consumption, and exploitation employed by our own civilization to further its own hive needs at the EXPENSE of its individual parts and the environment around it rather than at the BENEFIT of its members and natural resources.

No gods, no masters, no slaves.

Originally posted by gwydionblack

However, I can only say that in my opinion, anarchy would not work simply due to the absence of order. In the absence of order, there is chaos.

I'd like to also respond to this- Anarchy, as a socio-political/cultural theory is NOT the absence of order, but instead the absence of hierarchy. Which means nobody has arbitrary power or wealth over me, nor do I over them. It is inherently equal and respecting of each person's free will while simultaneously promoting egalitarian cooperation amongst people to survive, thrive, and enjoy the comfort/love/fun of a family/community.

The notion that some people are made to rule and others made to follow is possibly even less true/scientific than something like eugenics. Serious, mature anarchists absolutely call for orderly, peaceful, and respectful societies, especially as a long-term goal. However, order does not require hierarchy or centralization, just as chaos does not require anarchy or decentralization.

Anarchism cuts out the oppressive and destructive middle-men of both capitalism and communism and every other failed manifestation of our civilization.