What do Anarchists really bring to the table? Not much, well, except destruction in my view.

Again, let's look at what Anarchy means

Anarchists are those who advocate the absence of the state, arguing that inherent human nature would allow people to come together in agreement to form a functional society allowing for the participants to freely develop their own sense of morality, ethics or principled behaviour.

It doesn't mean "Chaos in the streets" or even roaming bands of savages

Anarchists still argue that anarchy does not imply nihilism, anomie, or the total absence of rules, but rather an anti-statist society that is based on the spontaneous order of free individuals in autonomous communities.

Originally posted by The Old American
"Yeah, I'm an anarchist! No laws, no rules, down with The Man!!!" If these people are calling themselves anarchists, it's because they picked up that term, liked the idea of it, and ran with it. The problem is, they didn't bother to actually learn what anarchy really is. All they saw was the "no laws" part, completely ignoring the "consequences of their actions" part.

It's unlikely they're actual anarchists, but lawless punks that don't respect others' rights. Much less respect themselves.

/TOA

edit on 12-6-2011 by The Old American because: My blinding grammar mistake was blotting out the sun.

I tend to agree with your interpretation, especially these days. Like all good segments of society, there are bad segments as well. As for those who say I haven’t researched it, you would be right, but I have read up on the subject extensively. And I have formed my opinions based upon interaction as well. These may change over time, but I do not see it happening any time soon.

As for those who advocate Anarchy, If your movement has been hijacked, take it back. But in today’s media driven, instant access world that we live in, people will remember the word anarchist every time there is a riot.

Originally posted by Tephra
Thanks for winning the most ignorant post of the month.

You can't really be serious, anarchists believe in total freedom, self reliance, hard work, and just about every other great quality that our founders believed in.

With one small difference, our founders felt that a small government was still necessary, whereas an anarchist believes it isn't.

Get a grip, anarchists don't want to destroy shops, flip cars, and rob. They want a world without government telling them how to live, eat, and raise their children.

Read more, watch less FOX.

Vandals aren't anarchists, they are vandals. Big difference guy.

edit on 12-6-2011 by Tephra because: (no reason given)

So if I deny you and your viewpoints, I guess I am right on by denying ignorance.


Isn't that what this site is all about?

Originally posted by squirelnutz
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

I think you're confusing anarchists with common thugs..

Anarchy means freedom.. Freedom from government, freedom from rules, to be able to live how they want without being told what to do..

well, thugs or Rebels as the case may be.

i consider Anarchists to be the people who have seen the evil and destructiveness of TPTB, blood-banksters/oligarchs, corportists/globalists.... all them that rape the socio-economic landscape

the Anarchists are equivelent to the Vigilante... they take action, they use the power they have to make changes...they say that the corrupt, kangaroo court system will not remedy the predators nor the
leeches & blood sucking elites.

but then again perhaps i romanticise the Anarchists too much.

Originally posted by squirelnutz
reply to post by JiggyPotamus

 

Why do you think it's doomed to fail? Early farmers were a form of anarchy, the native Indians of America were anarchists..

I can't speak for the early farmers but I can assure you that the Iroquois not only had a democratic form of government, but it had a direct influence on the articles of confederation and consequently the US constitution as well as the bill of rights.

reply to post by TDawgRex


I consider anarchy to be the purest possible form of Democracy... the rules are not set by the government and instead are set by the people.

I consider a Republic to be the weakest possible form of Democracy. In a Republic, the people in theory have some sort of rule-setting ability by voting for their favorite slave-driver.

Originally posted by civilchallenger
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

I consider anarchy to be the purest possible form of Democracy... the rules are not set by the government and instead are set by the people.

I consider a Republic to be the weakest possible form of Democracy. In a Republic, the people in theory have some sort of rule-setting ability by voting for their favorite slave-driver.

But people always form a government of some kind, whether local or National. And the rules are set by those in power.

I believe that no law should be over seven pages in length, in a Calibri font, size 12. It must be worded in everyday, easy to understand language with no loopholes. Could that make me a Anarchist? It would definitly put most lawyers out of business.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
The practical flaws of an anarchic society are multitudinous.

It's a nice idea in principle, but it's totally unworkable in reality. People who genuinely believe in it as a plausible, efficient system to run a society, tend to be rather naive and seemingly oblivious to the world around them.

No kidding. How naive and idealistic can some people be?

Even in small tribes - - it doesn't work. There still has to be a leader (even a pseudo) leader to settle discrepancies.

It is an idealistic fantasy - - that can never be.

wait the indians were anarchists and yet who had a cheif who called all the shots.

hmmm.

Lot of ignorance on this thread, but quite surprised by a few members who have actually responded without the knee-jerk 'Anarchists are all thugs'. But then again, I see many Americans crying at the notion of socialism, so it's no surprise that many are afraid or ignorant about anarchy.

To those who haven't a clue about anarchism, may I suggest turning off the corporate controlled televisions and institutionalized media 'opinion' and do some real reading on the very subject. Yes, that's right - grab a couple of books and educate yourselves, before spewing such ignorant and vacuous bile here. For those who say it can't work, have obviously got a terrible grasp of history or are just plain defiant and would much rather support a leeching capitalist regime, than give yourself and your friends and neighbours and family equal freedom.

Anarchy represents true freedom and peace - and not some violent, masked mayhem that so many of the fools believe.

Let's not forget that some of the very first people who faught against the fascists in Italy were actually anarchists, google 'Arditi del Popolo' or the Spanish civil war or any other number of incidents ranging through the last couple of centuries.

Here's some reading for you all.



www.infoshop.org...

royhalliday.home.mindspring.com...

econfaculty.gmu.edu...

Others cynically claim that we need a government to protect us. They claim anarchy is impractical and utopian: it would never work. On the contrary, anarchist practice already has a long record, and has often worked quite well. The histories show that an anarchist society can succeed at enabling all its members to meet their needs and desires.

Originally posted by neo96
wait the indians were anarchists and yet who had a cheif who called all the shots.

hmmm.

Anarchists still argue that anarchy does not imply nihilism, anomie, or the total absence of rules, but rather an anti-statist society that is based on the spontaneous order of free individuals in autonomous communities.

Originally posted by Tephra
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

You must mean the undercover cops dressed up and being violent, giving probable cause for the rest of the militants to crush the protests? Yeah, thought so.

edit on 12-6-2011 by Tephra because: (no reason given)

Maybe they're professional agitators They call me Tater

Then again lookee here....more vandalism in the name of Anarchy. If it is so peaceful, why do they inhibit the freedom of the press.

blog.thenewstribune.com...

reply to post by louieprima

Several Native American tribes had a largely anarchistic societal organization which worked quite well.

One thing I really like about this forum is now and then I read something that makes me look at something a completely different way. I never really considered applying that term (anarchistic) to pre-genocide North American natives.

It would not surprise me to learn it was more common than not. I agree that it did, at times, "work quite well". I suspect it worked far better than we will ever know.

Originally posted by Tephra
Thanks for winning the most ignorant post of the month.

You can't really be serious, anarchists believe in total freedom, self reliance, hard work, and just about every other great quality that our founders believed in.

With one small difference, our founders felt that a small government was still necessary, whereas an anarchist believes it isn't.

Get a grip, anarchists don't want to destroy shops, flip cars, and rob. They want a world without government telling them how to live, eat, and raise their children.

Read more, watch less FOX.

Vandals aren't anarchists, they are vandals. Big difference guy.

edit on 12-6-2011 by Tephra because: (no reason given)

Anarchists choose to destroy the government -- how is that not vandalism. Somalia is an anarchy just how is that working out ?

Originally posted by neo96
wait the indians were anarchists and yet who had a cheif who called all the shots.

hmmm.

Can you explain this to me. How they were Anarchists.

And can you have a truly Anarchist society without gender equality?

reply to post by Annee


i didnt say it someone else did.

i did a double take on because the cheif made all the rules and told who could marry who etc.

Lysander Spooner.

He was a prominent anarchist who advocated against slavery by demonstrating the US Constitution is not a valid contract between a government and its people.

en.wikipedia.org...

Anarchists bring freedom to the table.

Which is more than can be said about statists.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Annee

 

i didnt say it someone else did.

i did a double take on because the cheif made all the rules and told who could marry who etc.

OK - - thanks.

Then I actually read your post correctly

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Annee

 

i didnt say it someone else did.

i did a double take on because the cheif made all the rules and told who could marry who etc.

It appears that anarchy is not the only topic herein mentioned that people are vastly ignorant of. Native Americans tribes varied in thousands of ways. What one might say about the Iriquois will not apply to the Apache will not apply to the Choctaw to the Creek to the Sioux to the Shumash to the Houma to the Cherokee, etc. Again, first of all, there obviously will be leaders in any anarchistic system. I have never heard of or read about any version of anarchism that doesn't allow for leaders. It is an organization of a society that allows natural leaders to emerge when necessary. There would always be a danger of a leader or group trying to take control, but that is what freedom is. Any true freedom is inherently dangerous and requires self reliance, self control, and personal responsibility. It's why you rarely see it. Because humans are inherently weak and need an "alpha" to lead them. In many cases, that also applied to the Native Americans, but not all the time. Not many tribes operated in the manner you suggest where some "chief" made all the rules and told people who to marry. But some tribes were more centrally controlled than others. Again, please educate yourself on a subject before pretending to know something and proving to all that you are, in actuality, not very knowledgable of the subject at hand.

I don't want to derail this thread. I know there isn't a lot of information available to those who choose to study pre-genocide North American Indians. Tragic as that is, I worry many view them though a "Hollywood" lens and others through an equally false "New Age" lens.

And can you have a truly Anarchist society without gender equality?

I would answer "no" to that. You imply that there was no gender equality among hundreds and probably thousands of small hunter gatherer families (tribes?). I know some DID have it, and the only times I've seen the absence of it was ante European contact and contamination. We will never know though. Europeans were never big on gender equality...so that would not have been well received.

i did a double take on because the cheif made all the rules and told who could marry who etc.

Interesting concept as most groups of Native Americans probably had no idea what a "Chief" was. Oh, perhaps you mean the father of the Indian Princess?
Were there individuals who wanted to be respected by all and be the best...sure. In societies that placed more value of giving a gift than receiving, more honor for a warrior that struck an enemy empty handed than killed them...believed that all life was intertwined...
We will never know of course. YOU, I suspect have no idea what you are talking about. If you DO, please tell me where to find those "records". I'd love to read some old logs that I've missed.