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: 2
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Icerider
 





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.


Agreed. Though I would say that if people understood their deeper spiritual truth that could change. People want to believe in something wether what they believe in is !00% true or not. As people we instictively look for truth though some have been exposed to mind programming allowing their inner truth to be turned down or even off.




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


Agreed again. Those who are beneficial to the greater good of society will survive all others will not survive. Who can bake a lof of bread? Most people these days would just go to the supermarket.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by liquidsmoke206
 


LS, it amazes me how many psychos there are out there, behaving themselves just because of the two party system!




posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


Hey, I'm loving this thread!

err, I can bake bread, (have to, I hate Amercian bread) and do so, also a mechanic and electrician, I can do plumbing, play a guitar, I know how to grow my own veg, I can even butcher a pig.

I think I could do ok, ya know? But there are a lot of people who can do very little (i know cos i do stuff for em) and if TSHTF Then frankly the human population would halve in the west overnight.
However, look at India - those guys can repair anything with nothing, they all grow food, or survive without help, its as close to anarchy as I have ever seen, and most of them do it with very little education.
They learn to think for themselves.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Icerider
 


Heres where the spiritual thing comes into play. We all know that many of us have been divided among nations and what not. If you look at this in a religious context America would be compared the tribe of Joseph or the lost tribe. Well you can debate that, thats not the point. My point is that my ancestors were some of the very first settlers on ellis Island and predate the civil war but I only know about my origins but can not trace my family history back before migrating to America.

Anyways let's just say there are two possible solutions to our current problem.

They are either one World Government or Anarchy, the third solution is to restore America to it's original form but that poses more problems since America has been actively deconstructed since gaining independence from England.

Ok so let's say the One World Government comes into play. The one world Government will then use DNA mining in an attempt to reconstruct the tribes. They will divide the tribes by camps.

Anarchy, we all know who our frineds and family are, you can reconstruct your own tribes by getting in contact with your family members in such an event where world war takes place.

OK so once we have connected with the other members of our tribes we begin to flourish and help solve our problems on a community/tribal basis rather than on a large scale. Some people just wouldn't be able to handle it though, there really is no soltion to that problem other than work with the other members of your own tribe the best you can and never worry about anything else.

Finally we have connected back to our original source and we have re-enstated natures way of dealing with conflicts. Doesn't sound like a bad outcome to me, it sounds very favourable wouldn't you agree?



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
In the current world? Absolutely not. Relative to the times, Anarchy is entirely idealistic; that doesn't make it impossible or even bad, I'm an anarchist, and I think it can happen, but it requires an enlightened group of individuals.

I think one problem is that Anarchy....really has no set definition. The only ideal ALL anarchists agree on is the lack of centralized authority or any form of authority for that matter. Some Anarchists argue government can still exist in an Anarchy. Some don't.

Would I like to see an Anarchic society come up? Absolutely.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SpectreDC
 


Very interesting post!!!!

I suppose one could argue that Adam and Eve lived in an Anarchist society.

The native Americans also.

But lets examine Adam and Eve.

Reguardless of who they talked to in the garden they started with very standard rules. I would think similar to that in my opening post and add the words "Don't eat from the tree of knowledge."

There was also mention of other people existing around the garden during that same time, so who were they and howd they get there?

You could say that Adam and Eve were anarchists and lived by the laws of nature but then the temptation of the feathered serpant tempted eve into eating from the tree of knowledge and as a result we are bound to different laws.

The fallen angels were said to have been jealous of the son of man, because the son of man was given free will.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


We can all trace our genes back 100,000 years to a single female, so we are all one tribe, really!

I see major problems, that we face as a society, and ultimately there will be anarchy as a result of them.
It could be a hi tech version, where man is served by his creation, we are all equal, and free to do as we please, as long as we do not interfere with the freedom of others. Governments monitor and exercise soft control to maintain stability, and freedom of movement, globally, allows for choice of state.
This is all a bit vague, I know, because unfortunately I see no sign of this ever working, we a far to greedy, and we allow too much wrong to be done in the name of our greed.

Version two, is the one after the collapse. in this version every individual has a role, a skill or ability, and is a valued member of their community. The community has a council made up of members of that community, and they set policy.
The community farms, among other things, and holds in common as much land as it can manage.
If an individual does not like a community they are free to move on.

Very simple but does predicate the abscence of money, consumer goods, cars, luxuries, holidays in the sun etc etc.

I think we would be better off without much of it, but medicine and toilet paper would be nice!



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
The ideal anarchist society of carries a vital flaw: the quality of the population. It is no news that the general IQ of the world is stagnating, partly due to overpopulation in countries where the general IQ is low, and partly due to the fact that people with medium to low IQs, in general, have more children than people with higher IQs, thus creating a future society where people cannot grasp nor understand how to use technology intelligently. To combat this we must return to natural selection, where we are able to provide economic and political benefits for families where the parents have high intelligence and noble moral character, while regulating the number of children in families where the parents have medium to low IQs or show evidence of degenerate or destructive behavior. This is the most humane and efficient way to create a future society populated by intelligent, brave, honest people that will be able to manage our technology and use it wisely.

While many are critical of Fascist societies with strong leadership, I am not. I believe that we indeed need less government and more culture in our lives, and that the centralization of our communities has been a disaster, but that the solution does not lie in Anarchism or the "total freedom" of the individual. InsteadI'll argue from a Platonic stance: the individual is able to fulfill him or herself even if being regulated or ruled by a leader, as long as his or her values do not clash with the general consensus in the community. It is a logical fallacy to believe that leaders "force" ideas or opinions on people: while of course not all people can agree on everything, the role of a true leader is to find consensus and maintain that within his or her community. See it this way: most people don't need laws to avoid raping and killing people. Why? Most people live in a culture where killing and raping innocent people is wrong, and thus not something one normally does. The role of the leader is to make sure that this consensus is maintained, through laws or otherwise, thus not really clashing with any freedom of the individual.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by concernedcitizan
 


Thanks for your post. I hope you could assume the role of somebody that does believe in the possibility of a utopian society but also believes that the government could play a vital role in haelping humanity to achieve that goal?

Whatever the case I enjoyed reading and hope to hear from all different spectrums about this topic.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Icerider
 


Yes we all go back to ONE original source. Thanks for pointing that out. That would be pretty close to my belief that we are all one part of a larger organism and we all come from the same source. But we don't all agree on this one thing and we have several versions of the story that no one agrees on. For the most part these different versions masquerade as different religions but the people usually behind these religions too often are discounting religion for power.

But as a people today we are divided and thats whats wrong, we need to come together as a society and I for one would hope for little interference from the government if that is what is trying to be attained. But more and more we get into globalism the more interferance from the government there is and in my opinion they are getting way to into peoples personal business and policing everybody around it is seen as a threat by most people because if the authorities act like this now then how are they going to act when they have absolute power and how stupid can society be to allow that kind of mistake?



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I want to address the rape/stealing/killing issue real quick. I think this probably happens more in todays society than it would in an anarchist society because for one it is a daily occurence these days, second they usually have either political, religious or financial motives, lack of morals or just corruption from any of the groups with motives named above.

Would this rape/stealing/killing be preventable in an anarchist society?

Yes but not 100%. The reason for having communities is to protect you. Ultimately this should not ever happen but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

Would anarchy last forever?

Ultimately probably not, I would think it could sustain for a period of 1,000 years before influence of religion and politics take effect.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Anarchy in modern times just cannot work because as much as I hate to admit it we humans are just so power hungry and will do anything to feed that hunger.

Also rape/stealing/killing just would as you say would not be preventable at all in fact it would massively escalate because they do not happen because of politics as you say, It's because we humans do it for our own personal pleasure and will do it even with the risk of prison etc.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Icerider
 


I'm sorry, do you have any proof of an anarchy socieity.

Makhno's anarchist army and state had no free elections to the general command staff, with all commanders up to company commander appointed by Makhno and the Anarchist Revolutionary War Council;

This text comes straight from your link.
It is not anarchy.

As a society formed and prolonged anarchy, as it's ideology never has existed.

Yes of course they say 'You can do anything you want' but try looking from it's origin.
1. The powers that rule. ( Obviously do not want to lose their position )The main reason for we are confronted with two opposite explanations of it's meaning. ( 1. chaos and 2. a free and peaceful ideology, based on equality and without boundaries and restrictions. Living life as it's supposed to be. )
2. Anarchy only starts being applied to, from a specific point. As survival is also of extreme importance. One should consider to first take the amount of work and trouble for survival and then without ignoring this basic concept, one must realise for you to survive on your own. You wouldn't have any time left for doing as you please. For making it more easy a community is created. As this is actual the most important but basic commodity of mankind. One should honor and respect this. Accepting morality as a basic need for any community to work together as a whole.
Without restrictions or boundaries for you to choose your part in it.

The reality is, probably 99 % of our current human population would die within months, doing what they want, creating chaos.

The assumption to state any ideology would be one of total disobedience and personal pride, greed and arrogance, above all else.
It's just plane stupid !! This means the one that came up with it, forgot to think about half of life basic needs. Or what is probably a more sensible way to look at it. It's a lie ! For control of the masses.

IMO of course.


[edit on 16/2/10 by Sinter Klaas]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 


There is no way to know for sure what would happen, it is speculative an all fronts.

Lets take a look through the message of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is pro-life.
The catholic church is opposed to abortion.
The catholic church is pro-marriage and anti-divorce.
The catholic church is against birth control.
The catholic church is opposed to masturbation and a whole lot alot of other things....

Sex relieves stress and promotes healing. Statisically if you looked at members of the Roman Catholic Church you would see patterns of families having more children, instances of rape, instances of murder etc.

Do you get my drift?



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 



Why are you asking me for proof of an anarchist society?

Define anarchy!

Do you think the neolithic man had a government and state? At what point do you want to begin?

There are plenty of self contained societies in the Amazon basin, and Borneo, even Siberia, that function autonomously.

I linked to Makhno to make the point that anarchy tends to exist for very short periods when the status quo breaks down, I think you have misunderstood my statement

However, I didnt intend to get into a debate as to whether Maknos anarchist army and the anarchist revolutionary war council were anarchists or not.
I wasnt there, I only have histories word for it.

Regarding the rest of your post, well, as I didnt assert that anyone can do anything they want, I don't think your addressing me. However, seems to me that what your trying to say is whats already been stated, i.e. that anarchy can only come about if the state secedes power, or loses it involuntarily.

Is that about right?



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 


the crap your spewing is complete nonsense. YOU take pleasure in raping, killing, and stealing. I don't and I don't know anyone who does. Laws and prisons obviously don't deter people from committing crime, so their absence would not necessarily increase all this negative behavior. It's actually fairly disgusting what your saying, and you've labeled yourself as a rapist/murderer/thief in my eyes, and the worst kind at that since you need no other motive that your own pleasure.

No one in this thread so far has any concept of how anarchy could work or what it means. Icerider is at least on the right track, but the stuff your spewing is complete ignorance.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 





The main reason for we are confronted with two opposite explanations of it's meaning. ( 1. chaos and 2. a free and peaceful ideology, based on equality and without boundaries and restrictions. Living life as it's supposed to be. )

neither of these are adequate or accurate definitions.




The reality is, probably 99 % of our current human population would die within months, doing what they want, creating chaos.

open your mind and stop equating anarchy with the complete breakdown and destruction of society. This statement is pretty close minded.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Okay guys let's just pretend for a minute that the worlds population has already been reduced there are less than 100 million people & the stage is set for something.

Let's agree that some of our technology is still around, unfortunately though we are unable to use most of it.

Yes, part of anarchy includes chaos and destruction, so does every other political/religious cause in known history. It is inevitable for a society to fall be that a democratic, capitalist or socialist society will endure a period of destruction and chaos reguardless of the outcome.

At this point there is a call for global government, but the majority of people feel that more government is not the solution. Would this be an opportunity for anarchy to become a utopian society and are we capable enough to maintain it for a period of 1,000 years or more?

What would be different technology wise?

How would we function differently as a society?

Would we be headed down the same destructive path we are on right now?



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Well it worked in Spain, for as long as it was allowed to continue...


The role of anarchism in the Spanish Revolution or Spanish Civil War of 1936 is too often absent from histories of this struggle against fascism. Alongside the war millions of workers collectivised the land and took over industry to pursue their vision of a new society. This page tells their story and the story of those who fought alongside them.


flag.blackened.net...

Traditionally Anarchists, envision a society where the control comes either from the bottom up or sideways, as apposed to from the top, a hierarchy.

Anarchists know and understand that the working class is the backbone of any society and they should be allowed to make decisions effecting there only form of living, their labour, themselves. We also know that society cannot survive without some rules and controls. I mean just a simple stupid example, we can't have people driving cars with no rules or control.

It's the socialist principle of 'workers ownership of the means of production', no state or government system needed. Any civic decisions should be made by the community for the community, not by a politician on behalf of a private owner of our resources. (Traditionally anarchism is socialism, just differentiated after Marx and 'state socialism' destroyed socialism's true meaning).

Anarchy is no government, no leaders.
Anarchism is a society based on mutual cooperation, for the good of the whole community, with no private ownership of it's resources (capitalism). Neither means CHAOS, that is just an assumption that no government would cause, that has become a much misused term.

If a community decides it needs a 'law' then it would be a decision everyone is a part of, and temporary committees could be set up to specifically deal with specific issues. This would stop people becoming career politicians who's decisions are made to better their career not the community. It also includes everyone in the running of their community. Nothing wrong with agreed-on and voluntary rules, it's coercion that Anarchists despise.

Any of you remember communities?

[edit on 2/16/2010 by ANOK]

[edit on 2/16/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Icerider
 


I wrote a lot. and figured it doesn't matter.
The previous post and in this were all examples of my try to explain my thoughts.
It would only make me more un understandable So I deleted it.


It all leads to this.
People call it evil or sin . I see it as human nature. Emotions.
They are causing all our problems.

Because of this there is not a single ideology around what will 100 % work. Unless we evolve to stop our emotions control our life's.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join