Originally posted by DariusHames
reply to post by ANOK
I guess it's my understanding of what Anarchy means. I myself never knew it was an ideology but simply Anarchy = Chaos.
The term Anarchy does mean chaos, a lack of control. The term Anarchism
was a political movement. Socialists chose to use that term even
though it was in general a negative term, and demonised in the press, and so terms like Libertarian Socialism were used instead.
But thanks for the post its certainly been enlightening.
Although, considering all of the above, I still don't see it as an option. As someone mentioned, you require a mature society before you can
consider something like Anarchy. It seems way to easy for things to descend into mob rule or the the judgments placed on someone by the collective to
You don't need a mature society, just one that is informed and educated. The working class prior to WII was very informed, educated, and was very
militant and aware. Not educated by the state but by each other, people used to discuss politics on the street like we do on teh interwebs. There
was workers solidarity.
WWII destroyed that workers solidarity, and the right wing state started conditioning working class people to forget solidarity and to embrace
individualism and social climbing. This took away the power of the working class,
If you had to use Anonymous as an example you could certainly point out numerous actions which could be questionable in the sense of whether
it's right or wrong, arbitrary or justified.
It's way too easy for the society to adopt whatever opinion is trending and I wouldn't want to oppose that model of what a good citizen should
But what is a good citizen? One that is passive and does nothing to change what they know is not right?
At least, in front of structure like a court you still stand a chance, but in front of an angry mob, not so much.
Not so sure I agree with that.
I agree property, capitalism, authoritarianism and so forth are evil in their nature but you still require some authority to oppose the
Oppose the community? As I explained in my last post, anarchism is not a lack of control, it is a lack of hierarchical authority. Surely we would
all agrees some laws/rules are necessary, for example traffic laws.
Anarchism is not about a lawless, unorganized society.
Lets say, hypothetically, you live in a community which opposes homosexuality and alienates those who are homosexual or more extreme sees it
as justifiable to execute them. You'd still require some authority which can oppose the communities beliefs.
Anarchists believe that most of those types of anti-social problems are caused by the sort of society that has developed due to capitalism.
Capitalists like to divide society, the old divide and conquer. You don't need permanent autonomous authority to take care of problems that arise.
Maybe in the future when society is a little more evolved and understands it own motivations for acting in the way it does, then yes, by all
means dismantle the government and all its structures.
But unfortunately society is getting to the point where change is impossible, because of the lack of education and understanding, and the power of the
state. That is going to get worse not better. Prior to WWII the working class was revolutionary, which resulted in the Spanish revolution in 1936.
We as a society are not maturing into an aware revolutionary society, we are moving in the opposite direction. The more society is put into a state
of fear by the government the more society will desire authority. It's a con-game to keep us passive and ripe for capitalist exploitation.
So yeah, maybe America isn't descending/ascending into Anarchy but in fact the opposite. More government regulations and control.
Think it could work if you had an hybrid of the two. I dunno.
A hybrid would not work. For socialism to really work it would have to be international and complete.
Yes the goal of anarchists is socialism, the goal of all left wing movements was socialism, or in other words 'free association'...
Free association (communism and anarchism)
In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community
of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has
abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of
production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill
their needs and desires.
edit on 11/10/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)