Anarchy- Any Anarchists Here? (1 Viewer)

[Huntn]

I’d like to pick you brain. I’ve gotten myself in a longish back and forth on Mastodon, from self described Anarchists who claim that under Capitalism all workers are coerced. Believe me I’m down/negative about Capitalism, but my impression is that anarchy equals tear it all down and let the people rise up from the ashes and decide, even if there will be power centers, hierarchies, local war lords, attempts to consolidate power, with zero assurance that anarchy will survive as a system. Besides, the human species, we‘ve grown to such large numbers, I think if we don’t get our collective act together regarding the environment, we are screwed. Thoughts?

 

[coldseat]

I've never understood the anarchist world view or what's supposed to be appealing about it. It seems to me that only warlords can come out of something like that and I don't want to be or live under a warlord.

 

[Taurus]

I'd say there's a good argument to be made that current Republicans are, in fact, anarchists. They just want to assure that the warlords who take over are straight, white and Christian.

Otherwise, they don't seem to have any plan at all regarding government at any level other than "Wreck it".

 

[samiam5211]

The only difference between an anarchist and a libertarian is how much money they currently have.

 

[superchuck500]

Seems to me that anarchy as a belief or system only exists in theoretical opposition or contrast to existing systems - it cannot exist on its own for any period of time. After all, a functioning society has to have rules and norms for any sort of stability or growth that comes with stability will be impossible. And to have rules and norms, you need a process to decide the rules and norms and to enforce the rules and norms . . . i.e. a government.

Anarchy is thus to me nothing more than a force of destruction - it cannot be a force of reconstruction.

 

[Huntn]

I've never understood the anarchist world view or what's supposed to be appealing about it. It seems to me that only war lords can come out of something like that and I don't want to be or live under a war lord.

I was kind of hoping we had some anarchists here. When I mention “warlords” I’m told this is the Hollywood version, anarchy is really good!

 

[Huntn]

Seems to me that anarchy as a belief or system only exists in theoretical opposition or contrast to existing systems - it cannot exist on its own for any period of time. After all, a functioning society has to have rules and norms for any sort of stability or growth that comes with stability will be impossible. And to have rules and norms, you need a process to decide the rules and norms and to enforce the rules and norms . . . i.e. a government.

Anarchy is thus to me nothing more than a force of destruction - it cannot be a force of reconstruction.

I believe that anarchy today can only exist after a breakdown as a temporary state in the search for the organization of power centers. Sure some communities could peacefully coexist in a communal state, but I don’t see human beings as a whole, adopting it.

 

[superchuck500]

I believe that anarchy today can only exist after a breakdown as a temporary state in the search for the organization of power centers. Sure some communities could peacefully coexist in a communal state, but I don’t see human beings as a whole, adopting it.

It's impossible to imagine any meaningful number of humans living together without a need for a system of rules or norms and a system of addressing disagreements or grievances.

 

[SystemShock]

I was kind of hoping we had some anarchists here. When I mention “warlords” I’m told this is the Hollywood version, anarchy is really good!

Forget warlords. How about traffic jams and car accidents?

I'm pretty sure there's a Venn somewhere that overlaps these new age anarchists with Y'all Qaeda types.

 

[Booker]

I completely understand the frustrations people have with the dysfunction of our government, but when someone says something along the lines of "we need to blow it all up and start over," I don't think they have any appreciation for how hard it was just to get where we are, and how bad things could get without any promise of getting better.

 

[UriUT]

In a way, pure capitalism is anarchy. It relies on a natural system of supply and demand rather than agreed laws of man. Of course, just as in anarchy, capitalism will gravitate to warlords/tycoons once the game is played and manipulated as many have pointed out here. Personally, I don't think the anarchists from the OP really understands what anarchy or capitalism means and that they just want to tear down the system because of perceived inequalities.

 

[Huntn]

In a way, pure capitalism is anarchy. It relies on a natural system of supply and demand rather than agreed laws of man. Of course, just as in anarchy, capitalism will gravitate to warlords/tycoons once the game is played and manipulated as many have pointed out here. Personally, I don't think the anarchists from the OP really understands what anarchy or capitalism means and that they just want to tear down the system because of perceived inequalities.

One of them said it was not a specific system but a fight against hierarchy. My response is hierarchy is built into humans, isn't it?

 

[UriUT]

One of them said it was not a specific system but a fight against hierarchy. My response is hierarchy is built into humans, isn't it?

Indeed. Examples are littered throughout human history, predating capitalism.

 

[SystemShock]

In a way, pure capitalism is anarchy. It relies on a natural system of supply and demand rather than agreed laws of man.

Doesn't a system of supply and demand negate anarchy? There is inherent order in supplying a demand.

Of course, just as in anarchy, capitalism will gravitate to warlords/tycoons once the game is played and manipulated as many have pointed out here.

So, you are equating Henry Ford to Idi Amin.

 

[J-DONK]

In a way, pure capitalism is anarchy. It relies on a natural system of supply and demand rather than agreed laws of man. Of course, just as in anarchy, capitalism will gravitate to warlords/tycoons once the game is played and manipulated as many have pointed out here. Personally, I don't think the anarchists from the OP really understands what anarchy or capitalism means and that they just want to tear down the system because of perceived inequalities.

I do fear this, but it is bleak. Somewhere in the world, Europe at least, will evolve into a socialist system propped up by automation. At the end of the day, there really isn't a big window for automation to exist without people working. Who is consuming, other automated systems? My big question has always been what do you do with the bottom 50% of the population for intellect, and ability to learn new skills? The military, despite the crayon eating, won't accept total dums dums.

For everyone who argues for doom, you can always point the facts. You live in the most peaceful, prosperous period the world has every experienced.

The trend lines have moved towards complexity, integration, and prosperity for a long time.

 

[UriUT]

Doesn't a system of supply and demand negate anarchy? There is inherent order in supplying a demand.



So, you are equating Henry Ford to Idi Amin.

As I said, it isn't an agreement between man. We throw a group of people onto an island. Eventually survival depends on a system of who's the strongest, more knowledgeable or charismatic to cheat or unite for survival, etc. Some natural force dictates the condition. They may even choose to move from that anarchy and form a ruling body to survive...

And yes to that last one without the violence. Monopolies and oligopolies are concepts of economics. Competition fails as one is so efficient or sometimes through other means devour their competition.

My observation isn't meant as a moral critique of capitalism, btw as implied by your emphasis on comparing a tycoon with a murderous dictator. The point is that in an anarchy and as in a free market, consolidation of power can happen.

 

[UriUT]

I do fear this, but it is bleak. Somewhere in the world, Europe at least, will evolve into a socialist system propped up by automation. At the end of the day, there really isn't a big window for automation to exist without people working. Who is consuming, other automated systems? My big question has always been what do you do with the bottom 50% of the population for intellect, and ability to learn new skills? The military, despite the crayon eating, won't accept total dums dums.

For everyone who argues for doom, you can always point the facts. You live in the most peaceful, prosperous period the world has every experienced.

The trend lines have moved towards complexity, integration, and prosperity for a long time.

It's really difficult to foresee all that in the near future. Maybe we'll get the star trek universe where we coexists with technology as we've done throughout history. Lol. Or we may face a matrix type revolution. Or have a butlerian revolution and shun all thinking machines.

We are wedge in a good balance point.

 

[SystemShock]

As I said, it isn't an agreement between man.

A system of supply and demand is not an agreement between man? (What, no women? )

My observation isn't meant as a moral critique of capitalism, btw as implied by your emphasis on comparing a tycoon with a murderous dictator.

You are the one who made the comparison, not me. And I am not implying anything about morality here.

Warlords aren't capitalists.