The notion of anarchy...and the notion of libertarianism (which inevitably will lead to anarchy)...are both abominations to civilization and to true democracy. Both should be fought with the intensity we would bring to a fight against fascism.

Are civilization and true democracy really such lofty ideals? Secondly anarchism is the polar opposite to fascism so it hardly seems reasonable to be so opposed to both policies.

TheDarkElf
41
↪Frank Apisa
Are civilization and true democracy really such lofty ideals?{/quote]

Yes!


— TheDarkElf

Secondly anarchism is the polar opposite to fascism so it hardly seems reasonable to be so opposed to both policies. — TheDarkElf

Yes, again.

Ok then.

I lean towards anarchism, but I’m still unsure whether it is feasible. There are few of any anarchist societies, so unlike socialism, we can’t weigh their failures to their successes.

Are there any feasible ways to examine it more properly and be able to ascertain its chances of success?

TheDarkElf
43
↪NOS4A2
Are there any feasible ways to examine it more properly and be able to ascertain its chances of success? — TheDarkElf

Sure.

Visit Somalia...and see how things are working out.

Looks like I won’t be doing any travel what with corona and the works. I’ll watch some videos on it though :rofl:

:wink:

I agree with their ideals, to a certain extend. I don't share their take on authority, nor really on the notion of freedom.

To wit, a free society is necessarily an ordered society. And while order can arise spontaneously, authority is necessary to make that order dependable. You need to be able to depend on order to be practically free.

It is, however, always a good idea to critically assess any specific hierarchy or authority.

Echarmion
1.2k
I agree with their ideals, to a certain extend. I don't share their take on authority, nor really on the notion of freedom.

To wit, a free society is necessarily an ordered society. And while order can arise spontaneously, authority is necessary to make that order dependable. You need to be able to depend on order to be practically free.

It is, however, always a good idea to critically assess any specific hierarchy or authority. — Echarmion

I'd say, AMEN...and leave it at that, but like the scorpion, it is not in my nature.

Society...civilization DEMANDS that we have government...and probably lots of it.

Unfortunately, in a democratic (small "d") society, the citizens start wanting more and more personal freedom...often at the expense of "FREEDOM."

"I don't want to be told how fast I can drive."

"I don't want to be told I have to isolate myself to mitigate a contagion disaster."

"I don't want to pay taxes...and especially taxes aimed at...."

And all the rest.

Anarchy is what civilization is like when it is not civilized...anarchy is what society is like when it is not society.

Sadly, as we are discovering, democracy breeds anarchy.

Yes.

I’ll watch some videos on it though — TheDarkElf

Anarchism is the 'other' side of the political world where left and right meet up again. It always has the major difficulty of trying to prevent anyone from forming a government/mafia.

Have you read Ursula LeGuin's The Dispossessed? Excellent depiction of what an anarchist society needs to look like. Or you could try William Morris, News from Nowhere, for a Victorian version. Both of these are what might be called left wing visions of anarchism . Someone else will have to propose or expound a right wing version - Rand maybe???. You could also research the Diggers for a real historical movement.

It's closely related to pacifism - without authority there can be no war and violence must necessarily always and only be personal. Now one does not need to ask if pacifism is viable; it obviously is in the sense that most of the people most of the time do not fight, and it obviously isn't in the sense that organised fighting cannot be prevented. Just as capitalism fails (as we are seeing, when men fail to live up to the rational self-interest ideal, and communism fails when they are self-interested and greedy, so too anarchism fails because men turn out to be less than fully independent and responsible.

は出来

how to make anarchy work, in broad strokes

い

It says at the top of the page: me.

の

I had a Trotskyist friend once who said an anarchist is really just a liberal with a gun.
@NOS4A2 What socialist societies have there ever been that would allow us to empirically measure successes and failures of socialism? Perhaps there are some, but I really hope you did not have in mind societies like the USSR.

Thanks.

I had a Trotskyist friend once who said an anarchist is really just a liberal with a gun.
@NOS4A2 What socialist societies have there ever been that would allow us to empirically measure successes and failures of socialism? Perhaps there are some, but I really hope you did not have in mind societies like the USSR.

I think the best we can do is to find out which nations explicitly say they are/were Socialist or in the process of building socialism. So we can weigh their intention to bring about socialism with the direct result of that intention.

In that case you also need to compare methods. The USSR and PRC for instance aimed to bring about communism via socialism via state capitalism and never got past the state capitalism stage, which in turn was responsible for all the atrocities they’re known for. Someone else aiming to establish socialism while never going anywhere near state capitalism should not be expected to turn out similarly.

Methods certainly play a role. They almost always involve some form or other of authoritarianism, the suppression of dissent, and the oppression of their own citizens.

Although socialists have a rather more complex conception of what it is to be an individual human being within a society than an anarchist, the goal of socialism and anarchism is in one sense the same, the disappearance of the state. There are and were plenty of socialists who did not agree with Lenin's approach to reaching that final goal, Rosa Luxemburg being the first amongst equals. One might argue that, empirically, Lenin's approach has been disproved, but Luxemburg's was never even given the chance.