Murder within Anarchy

[Weazel]

Anarchy. Everyone assumes that it's directly correlated to chaos and murder (generalazation). But what reasons have they given for the assumption that in the even of anarchy that everyone would position themselves in an aggressive stance and begin committing murder and other violent chaotic acts.

What are your reasons for thinking anarchy would bring chaos and murder?

Also people have been mystified with revolution as some others here have said before. But there are no reasons for anyone to think a revolution would be the only way for anarchy to come about. Though I've never seen, heard or read about revolution ending in anarchy.

What are your reasons for thinking revolution is the only method to achieve anarchy?

Even more puzzling to me is the intentional combination of gov't and religion. Now most gov't state that the two should be seperate, the basic building blocks of these gov'ts have the initial ground works towards achieving anarchy. Yet the people in power have perverted these building blocks and have placed the preverbial lead upon a brick and mortar wetland foundation. So if the gov'ts combine these two aspects and those who praise anarchy look down upon gov'ts why combine the two aspects in your own debates of anarchy.

What are your reasons for combining religion and gov't if you aspire to be unlike the gov'ts of today?

Finally I would like to point out the today's democracies are not a true democracy. If you were to read some of the original documents of democracies and compare those concepts/rules/laws to anarchy doesn't appear obvious that those ideas are only a stone's throw from achieving anarchy. Even communism is a relative of anarchy.

So, what are your reasons for despising the entire form of gov't rather than just the gov't as it is now?

And can you see the stepping stones to anarchy in the original works of the gov'ts and the actions they step up to attempt to achieve this goal?  

[darcyshirley33]

there are a few anarchist theorists I've heard talk about the American Revolution as a successful anarchist overthrow. The colonists really didn't want a government. But then economics came into play. These people needed international trade, and with that comes the need for defense, tarrifs, bureaucrats, etc. I think America just ended up like every other country because the colonists didn't realize how deeply rooted work and trade are in systems of domestication, violence, alienation, and domination.

It's the same problem with government and religion. People think that we can just separate the two, no problem. But the issue is that our culture's religions and governments are informed largely by the same ideologies (for example, all salvationist religions and all governments rely on a subscription to an ideology of debt and owing). If you compare western society's religions and governments to hunter gatherer social structures and spirituality, you see how intensely similar western religions are to western governments, how they're informed by the same modes of thought and the same ideologies, and how dramatically different those ideologies and modes of thinking are from hunter gatherer societies. You also have to question the practical role religion has in any society. It's social control, plain and simple. Think about the religions that have been suppressed and the religions that have been promoted by our governments. It's not just an issue of morality or correct spirituality, it's an issue of threatening or maintaining a particular way of living.

I don't believe anarchy brings chaos and murder. Agriculture, domestication, and an increased reliance upon symbolic thought is what causes chaos and murder. If, in the event of governments collapsing, people tried to continue living the way of life they live now, then yes, there would be chaos and murder. What people don't seem to understand is that anarchy is not just getting along, it is a dramatically different way of living, that is so egalitarian and peaceful precisely because it DOES NOT and constantly RESISTS trying to be what our society is.

As for revolution.... I'm really not sure how people should go about creating anarchist ways of living. If you go and decide to live in the forest, you're under the threat of being caught and punished, ending that egalitarianism. If you buy the land and go do that, you're under legal obligations and validate "ownership." Say you appropriate that ownership that works well for carrying out your egalitarian existence.... you're still under the threat of imminent domain, or the government suddenly deciding your not fit to own that land, or they would decide there's something mentally wrong with you because you live like a caveman, etc... There are a million threats in any situation, no matter how peacefully you try to go about it. My hope is that maybe if someone starts living that particular way, others will see how it works for them. Not people millions of miles away, but neighbors or friends. The thing about anarchist ways of living, is that it almost absolutely (as I think Guy Debord said) has to be organic and under the radar. The instant you have people rallying for "Anarchism" and making signs, banners, whatever, is when you've destroyed anarchism, because that sort of thinking and communication is fundamental and ideologically imbued with the system you're trying to tear down. Of course things aren't so black and white as that, and you can certainly appropriate things, but I still think it's important to know when you're validating a larger system of domination.

I think people think that revolution is the only way to go about it, though, because that's what our culture tells them. Our culture glorifies dramatic and explosive acts of rejection. Think of every great historical event, and it's something where someone stood up where everyone could see them and did something openly in rejection of some power. Think of the American revolution, the civil rights movements, the threat America sees in fundamentalist Islamism now, and the threat we can all sense from fundamentalist Christianity. Every "great" social movement is marked by some explosive event. If it wasn't, we wouldn't know about it (which is the logic of the system and the role of history - which brings up an interesting thought about how hunter-gatherer peoples rarely have conceptions of linear time). I think we need a dramatically different way of looking at social change. Part of the problem is that we don't know what REAL social change is, because it's never happened in our society. Our society has only suppressed and eliminated egalitarian societies.

The problem with revolutions is that although they are all anarchist at heart, because all revolutions are always seeking to make life better and more egalitarian for people (whoever they define "people" to mean), they fail to realize what things are REALLY dominating and domesticating them. One of the biggest problems with Marxism is that it never recognizes work as an oppressive institution. It only sees certain organizations of work as oppressive, and others as possibly liberating, completely neglecting the fact that humans haven't always worked as hard as our society does to live, and that there is absolutely no need for systems of division of labor, even minimally. A lot of this has to do with naturalizing one's condition, such as the condition of work and the value of a good productive work ethic in the case of marxism. In American democracy, we've come to the point where we take for granted that voting and writing letters to politicians is the correct and best way to initiate social change, and that if everyone did that, the world would be perfect. America fails to see that voting and writing letters to politicians may be part of a larger structure of mystification and naturalization of domination... it may be what's dominating us in the first place.  

[ObscureEnigma]

As for the answer in the poll, I believe that communism and democracy tried to PREVENT anarchies. They tried to be the perfect government so that anarchy would be deemed unnecessary.

Heh... organized anarchy, as mentioned above many times in darcyshirley33's post, seems a bit contradictory, yes? Rebelling against the system does destroy the point of it. Anarchy should be about individualism and free will. Not the bullshit that is involved for begging for permission. You should just be able to get up and go without anyone telling you that you can't do something.

The world wouldn't necessarily go insane if there were no government. People would just resort to their specific groups and regroup there. There wouldn't be this mass murder s**t unless you are talking about the rather insane people. Everyone else would go back to normal.

If there were anarchy, I would be rather thrilled. No one telling you what to do... just acting based on your own morals and life. I for one don't need some crazyass President telling me what to do in order to know what I need to do. It's silliness.  

[Nitro-kun]

I think, and I said this on a previous post, that anarchy problem its her name, its full of bias, people dont trust anarchism, if you talk to a person and tell everything about anarchism with out telling them that its anarchy they might want you to run for president, but the truth, at least mine, is that anarchy cant be achieved in a short period, cant be achieved with some 5 years revolution, its needed at least 100 years to convert a country to a working anarchy, and at least 200 for the entire globe, thats why we need basis, an excellent basis that cant be corrupt an keep evolving til reach the utopia we wish to live in, and the first step my comrades has two options, go back to the communism revolutions and take it from there or rewrite the capitalism.  

[Axle_Kink]

In answer to the poll question, I believe that both Democracy and Communism were attempts at anarchism. Failed attempts.

Democracy: In this case, the attempt was made to put power in the hands of the masses, rather than in the hands of a privleged (sp?) few. The idea was along the right lines, but implementation was pitiful. First, the idea of 'representative' government is something of a farce. While it is true that the masses are given some power, there is really little they can do by merely choosing one person to represent them and hoping this person really represents their interests. Further, we all know what happens when you give a person or group power. Thus, we are where we are today . . .

Communism: This one attempted to tackle the other side of the anarchist conundrum, economics (Yay! Something I'm semi-qualified to talk about!). The idea of universal ownership was an interesting solution to some of the problems government generally creates, but once again, implementation was fatally flawed. In this case, the 'state' became owner of. . . well, all things important to society. In theory, the state was the people. If fact, in every implementation of this system thus far (on a large scale, that is), the theory proves false as some manner of ruling individual, group, or class takes to this 'universal ownership' to the detriment of others.

Representative Democracy's flaw: Representation.

Communism's flaw: Statism. (And IMHO, a total lack of understanding of things like 'enlightened self-interest' and 'individuality')

The flaw of both: Revolution  

[GildedIceKnight]

the problem with no government is the dumb people would come around and ruin everything leading the smarter ones to kill them so they stop ruining things. and you people type alot  

[dirty_punx]

there is no government like no government  

[Rape_for_Breakfast]

People believe that Anarchy would cause chaos and murder simply because 90% of the stupid ******** in our country would see it as a free for all. Also, a lot of people seem to be forgetting the role corporations play in western society, without a gov't, they could do what they want(which is a VERY BAD thing). The only way Anarchy could EVER exist is if some cataclysm(such as nuclear war) took place and blew away all civilasation. In which case, we wouldn't want anyway. If anything, our government tries too hard to represent everybody and caters way to much to corporations. Not to mention, half the time senators and congressman may represent the people, but really only represent their party. The whole white supremacy thing in the 1900s was used by southern democrats to get votes from white people(in the south, the democratic party was the only real political force so there were lots of democratic groups, the primary election pretty much decided govenorship or something like that).