No Such Thing as Anarchy

[Elochai Sammael]

I freaking love Dinotopia. I remember getting some of the Dinotopia books when I was like 8. They were pretty good.  

[Elochai Sammael]

Merrin Spicer

Heh. Tazering emos sounds good. Meh... but about your whole communism thing; it sounds great, but never going to work. People are too damn greedy to go along with it. And Dinotopia? What is that again?

Isn't that the ******** truth. Look at the last line of Efstathios' first post. That's the whole reason Communism can't work, megalomaniacle bastards.  

[ObscureEnigma]

::nods:: It would be great if people could get along. Hell, it could work wonderfully in small towns. Think of how much easier this s**t would be if we just segregrated ourselves in small towns and lived based on communism. That is pretty much my family right now, and I have never been happier. We all do our parts... we all provide for each other, and we just do whatever we wish and still do good for each other. That is how the government should be, but some people really ******** it up.  

[IchiKatsu]

anarchy would suck because everybody would kill each other.  

[darcyshirley33]

I think you don't know what anarchy means then. Can you explain what it means to you? Why would revolution invalidate anarchy? And how does organization invalidate anarchy?

Anarchy, as I and many others believe, is the rejection of domination. Being in a group doesn't imply there being a leader, as there have been foraging societies without leaders and hierarchies. And being in a group does not imply coercion for its cohesion, dissolution, etc. Again, there have been peoples who have lived anarchist lifestyles and still lived in groups. People lived like that for at least 2 million years before the development of agriculture about 10,000 years ago.  

[darcyshirley33]

ObscureEnigma

Actually, as much as I hate to admit it, you are completely right. Anarchy cannot completely exist because we as humans need to be governed by something. Chaos cannot exist without order, and order cannot exist without chaos. Thus, unfortunately, "democracy" (or an entirely distorted version of it) is the best kind of government that we can have. And yes... organized anarchy? The hell is that? It sounds like another coup to me.

no, humans do not need to be governed by something. Any intro to anthropology class and/or book will tell you that.

The idea that people need something or someone leading them is a cultural myth and a complete lie. You have to remember that ideas such as the need for government are culturally, politically, and historically informed. They are NOT objective truths.  

[darcyshirley33]

ObscureEnigma

Yes. That would be indeed wondrous for the population of humans who are able to be responsible and whatnot, but for the rest of us, that form of government (or lack thereof) would fall to hell. A human does not naturally think about his actions before he does them. A human does not think through the consequences; if he did, then we would not be in the mell of a hess that we are in now. Seriously, if mankind were able to exercise that much self-control as you had mentioned, then there would theoretically be no need for government. Your idea was a good one, but it would not work because humans are not morally responsible creatures.

you're implying that our way of living was an inevitable development. That might not necessarily be true.  

[darcyshirley33]

greywillow

'Tis too true. In fact, I've written speeches on the matter of anarchy as a governmental (or non-governmental) form and how it will probably never work because of the lack of moral responsibility of humans. I don't believe in "heaven," but in heaven, anarcy would probably be its form of government/non-government because everyone would be morally responsible enough to take charge of their own actions.

The most egalitarian societies that existed (yes, there were anarchist societies, but agricultural societies have pretty much wiped them out in the last few years) stayed egalitarian by always being able to reject what they disagreed with.

We tend to think that peace can only exist if people cooperate because in our society, we don't have the option of leaving. No matter what country you're in, you're part of the same society, thanks to the universalizating tendencies of western society. It's hard to think of societies where if you disagreed with anything about it, you had the means and power to leave, and the society you disagreed with had no power to (not to mention any inclination toward) making you stay a member of their society. They didn't depend on the unity of the members. Our society DOES depend on the unity of its members.

Anarchist societies were just that fundamentally different.  

[darcyshirley33]

HarlequinGoddess

Has anyone seen any examples of anarchy in trial? I've been looking to see if anyone has actually tried to live like that, but I can't find any examples. If you come across one, please let me know.

foraging societies existed for at least 2 million years, and lived in complete egalitarianism simply because the way those societies were set up prevented any member from gaining coercive power over other people and nature. You can find tons of sources, particularly in the field of anthropology, that talk about these sorts of people.

Unfortunately our society has just about wiped these peoples off the face of the earth.  

[darcyshirley33]

ObscureEnigma

True. The best example of anarchy is people constantly being rebellious, and that is not even a good example.

I forget the author's name, but the book is called "Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology," and in it he deals with the western concept of "revolution." He says that fundamentally changing society doesn't necessarily have to happen in one pinnacle moment, but our culture mystifies the idea of social change and "revolution" so much so that we can't accept anything that isn't a dramatic rupture. He also discusses how global knowledge of a "revolutionary" event also reinforces our cultural values, and may not be necessary for real social change to occur.

This other guy, I can't remember his name right now but he's a French philosopher, talks about the "fugitive interior" and how it's necessary for subversive practices to exist. The fugitivie interior is basically the space between subject and object where the object and how the subject interacts with it can be appropriated, done incorrectly, etc. The author basically says that subversive practices necessarily exist in this space, and cannot be shared or exploited because the interaction is unique to its space which is unique to the subject and object. Oh yeah, I remember the name of the article is "Reading as Poaching." And it's by Michel De Certeau. But basically, what this has to do with what I was saying before, is that anarchism, according to De Certeau, necessarily takes place in spaces where no one can identify it occuring, because if it could be identified, the subversive practices cease to be subversive (because they're unmediated experiences).  

[darcyshirley33]

Efstathios

The Vilcacambans used to have an anarchistic community.

Until some asshat built a road to Vilcacamba cry Now they have crime and sickness...Things they never really had before.

Anyway, they had no government, no police force. They all just lived together in harmony, children were never disciplined, the worst thing that happened was to withold praise. as a result everyone grew up trusting their community, there were no locks, no trappings of society whatsoever. They ate food from their own gardens, respected and revered their elders.
This continued until very recently when a road made their land accessible, now their "ideal" lifestyle has been destroyed.

If people were raised correctly - with some sense of accountability - Anarchy would not only be possible, but the only logical government. (government in the way that 'atheism' is referred to as religion)

Government is a construct of greed and sloth. Heck, throw in the other 5 sins and you've got modern society.

lol, agree completely.  

[darcyshirley33]

Efstathios

Dinotopia was an imaginary world where there was plenty of everything for everyone, so there was no need for greed, people grew food for the community, made jewelry and clothing. They all lived and worked together, there was no stealing, no murder, because there wasn't a few people hoarding everything and leaving everyone else wanting.
It was sort of a combination of real communism (f***marxism) and anarchy. There wasn't a government that controlled everybody, people just did what they were good at, like an orchestra things worked out, mostly violins because most people prefer the smaller more convenient intruments, a few oddballs going for the Viola even though it is the only instrument to use the alto clef, then you have the Bassists and Cellists, who have to do a lot more work, but they love it, do it willingly, even though they could play violin if they wanted.

Just another daydream.

there were people that actually lived like that though, minus the growing their own food thing. They just hunted and gathered what they needed. But everything else is the same. smile  

[Jungle Boots]

ObscureEnigma

Heh. There... is that point of view. I meant that anarchy could not exist with humans, darling.

actually, if you really look at how nature works, there is no anarchy among animals either, there are still controls, darwinism, the food chain, social structures and mating rituals of all animals are all without a doubt forms of control.

the entire nature of the universe is not chaos, the concept of physics, chemistry, and, dare i say, theology are all evidential controls on all forms of nature in the universe.

the only form of true anarchy in terms of a human experience, is only evident in a Riot.  

[darcyshirley33]

The-Vampire-Mikhail

ObscureEnigma

Heh. There... is that point of view. I meant that anarchy could not exist with humans, darling.

actually, if you really look at how nature works, there is no anarchy among animals either, there are still controls, darwinism, the food chain, social structures and mating rituals of all animals are all without a doubt forms of control.

the entire nature of the universe is not chaos, the concept of physics, chemistry, and, dare i say, theology are all evidential controls on all forms of nature in the universe.

the only form of true anarchy in terms of a human experience, is only evident in a Riot.

There are two definitions of anarchy as social order. The one you're referring to isn't the one that political anarchists refer to. They refer to the definition that means "lack of domination/coercive power" not "chaos."  

[ants-and-communists]

darcyshirley33

The-Vampire-Mikhail

ObscureEnigma

Heh. There... is that point of view. I meant that anarchy could not exist with humans, darling.

actually, if you really look at how nature works, there is no anarchy among animals either, there are still controls, darwinism, the food chain, social structures and mating rituals of all animals are all without a doubt forms of control.

the entire nature of the universe is not chaos, the concept of physics, chemistry, and, dare i say, theology are all evidential controls on all forms of nature in the universe.

the only form of true anarchy in terms of a human experience, is only evident in a Riot.

There are two definitions of anarchy as social order. The one you're referring to isn't the one that political anarchists refer to. They refer to the definition that means "lack of domination/coercive power" not "chaos."

i would say pretty easily that democracy is anarchy then, the government is ultimately at its peoples control, there is no domination held by a higher power unless that position of presidency or organization. in terms of coercive power... the people tell the politicians what their policies.