Anarchy... don't you need a rule for that? - Page 2

I was giving my definition of anarchy based on how I understand it from talking to people and reading books written by anarchists. As far as i can tell a great deal of them do not advocate revolution in the sense of a violent overthrow of the government. This kind of a sudden political upheaval has been tried before, and it has never resulted in lasting change. The only way that it may work is through a series of changes in which wealth was redistributed. Maybe people could start electing leaders that have their interests in mind, people who would put more money into social programs and education. If the change was made gradually then it is possible to eventually reach a society such as the one initially suggested. But anyone who tells you that violent overthrow has any chance of creating lasting peace is a fool.
Also, I don't think its possible to have one standard definition of anarchy. there are far too many different groups with different ideas.

quote:

---

You dont convince the upper class to give up power you take it from them by revolutionary means. As for wealth heavy taxation of the rich and equal distribution of wealth amongst all the people narrows the class divide.

---

So we take from them and then they take back from us and the cycle continues. For centuries history has done this. Violent uprisings accomplish a temporary system but unless you change people's minds this system is doomed to fail.

quote:

---

Abolition of class and wage slavery are in their best interest.

---

How do you plan to do that?

quote:

---

I was giving my definition of anarchy based on how I understand it from talking to people and reading books written by anarchists. As far as i can tell a great deal of them do not advocate revolution in the sense of a violent overthrow of the government. This kind of a sudden political upheaval has been tried before, and it has never resulted in lasting change. The only way that it may work is through a series of changes in which wealth was redistributed. Maybe people could start electing leaders that have their interests in mind, people who would put more money into social programs and education. If the change was made gradually then it is possible to eventually reach a society such as the one initially suggested. But anyone who tells you that violent overthrow has any chance of creating lasting peace is a fool.
Also, I don't think its possible to have one standard definition of anarchy. there are far too many different groups with different ideas.

---

I was also giving a definition of anarchy based upon what I have read and various people I have talked to who follow anarchist teachings. I know at least 15 anarchists most are anarcho-syndicalists or anarcho-communists.

I think the time will be ripe for systems like anarchy and communism when the human race as a whole becomes more developed. Really, how many of us are unselfish? How many of us really love others, how many of us know that we are all brothers and sisters?

The social structure of a scoiety reflects that societies mental development. In 'modern' and 'developed' societies capitalism reflects our selfishness and lust for money and power, a concept which has seeked into most people now, whereas in so called 'primitve' societies like african tribes etc, they are hardly egoistical, money or power does not mean much for them. This is probably because for one, the tribes are smaller, and two, they are highly religious and spirtual.

The west is slowly coming towards spirituality and religion again, probably because we all are tired of money and power and have realized no amount of money can fill up the emptiness inside us.

anarchism isnt related to communism or any other form of GOV'T
it is a lack of any cohesive thought what so ever
look at chaos
that is anarchy
not a single person rules or makes a rule
nothing happens
anarchy is a void
period

quote:

---

anarchism isnt related to communism or any other form of GOV'T
it is a lack of any cohesive thought what so ever
look at chaos
that is anarchy
not a single person rules or makes a rule
nothing happens
anarchy is a void
period

---

Anarchy aims for a stateless,classless society Communism aims for a stateless,classless society. The end goals of Communism and anarchism are synonymous.

Now we get to the difference many anarchists want a revolution to overthrow the ruling class as do Communists. Communists however wish to see the dictatorship of the proletariat (socialism or the workers state) come before Communism. Anarchists want the state apparatus dissolved immediately after the revolution no socialist stage.

oh wow all you college kids are the same
plain and simple for you all to get this right
anarchy is chaos
thats all it is
there is not a single drop of government in it what so ever
but
just like communism
the pure form is impossible

it seems everyone believes that anarchy does not work because our ugly human nature will always win out. we humans are greedy and selfish and violent and if there were no laws to hold us back then we would all just start killing each other. my question is, if this is true and we humans are all as bad as you say we are, then what good are laws anyway? all the laws we have were written by humans. maybe for you it is true that if there were no laws, you would start killing and raping people tomorrow. but what makes you think that we all would?

if people were really that bad, then no laws would be good enough to prevent chaos. the idea that laws are the only thing standing between people and the end of life as we know it sounds a bit like nonsense to me.

quote:

---

Anarchy aims for a stateless,classless society Communism aims for a stateless,classless society.

---

Anarchy cannot aim or have a purpose. Anarchy is the absense of order or structure. Your statement is meaningless!

quote:

---

if this is true and we humans are all as bad as you say we are, then what good are laws anyway?

---

The laws are not much good because people tend to feel that the law does not apply to them or that they will not get caught for breaking the law. But what makes you think that without laws all activity currently considered to be criminal would stop?

quote:

---

Anarchy cannot aim or have a purpose. Anarchy is the absense of order or structure. Your statement is meaningless!

---

Anarchy's "aim or purpose" is the overthrow of the state apparatus almost any anarchist will tell you this.

if there were no laws then nothing would be elligal(sorry i cant spell)
so yes
all criminal activity would stop

anarchy aims to ackowledge the freedom of the individual withought any form of authority, but nywayz it is almost perhaps human nature to seek authority

Once again, Anarchy has no purpose by definition.


And yes it is human nature to seek authority. God made us under his authority but gave us free choice to choose to be under that authority or not. We rebelled against that authority.

quote:

---

Once again, Anarchy has no purpose by definition.

---

If you say so

quote:

---

And yes it is human nature to seek authority. God made us under his authority but gave us free choice to choose to be under that authority or not. We rebelled against that authority.

---

Rubbish pure religious dogma.