What do you think of anarchism?

Answer 1

Anarchism, in a nutshell, supports free association, opposes the state, and opposes hierarchy.

What do I think of statism and hierarchy? They depend on violence; they create disorder, destruction, ignorance, and wasted talent. What do I think of anarchism? That it offers an alternative to this, if we take it.

(At the very least, anarchists oppose involuntary hierarchy; anarchists often try to create egalitarian alternatives to the semi-voluntary hierarchies too).

There are several different traditions which respect these values, and usually recognize each other as forms of anarchism. These traditions borrow ideas from classical liberalism, from early socialism, from each other, and sometimes from other sources.

People depend on each other. People tend to create their own voluntary social order, including free association, reciprocity, mutual aid, and, if necessary, mutual defense. Once people create this order, a state, or any other criminal gang, is in trouble. So the state, to preserve itself, must preempt voluntary social order.

Highleyman, "An introduction to anarchism:"

http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp001550.html

"An anarchist FAQ:"

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

Answer 2

Anarchism sounds really good, advocates liberty and justice and equality but in what sense. Does justice, equality and liberty ever truly exist. If we're looking for a better system than statism, then we must weigh the cons and pros of both, which one will promote more stability. That's a balance of capitalism and communism is ideal rather than two different extremes. Ever saw the movie "The Giver". There was a part where the leader of the organisation in an attempt to get rid animosity and contempt, deprived society of liberty for security. What stood out the most is that she was intelligent to realise that when people are given the freedom to choose whatever they want, they choose wrong. When you think about it, true liberty is an idea more than a reality. As long as good/bad are subjective terms and human behaviour is erratic, there will always be someone who will want be better or higher than others, leading to power, corruption, and alot of what we find in our already given society. I, for one, believe in a resource based economy which though may be fundamentally flawed, it is still better than our given one. As they say, it is not in fighting the old but in building the new. Anarchism has a stigma attached to it, with very bad connotations, so it's implementation must be appropriately communicated. Anarcho-syndicalism is a good route to go, imo.

Answer 3

I feel that in a team environment their will always be an attempt to be leader. Their is a huge difference between a
boss and a leader the boss tells people what to do the leader
envisions inspires and motivates others to accomplish the goal. The leader also actively participates in the labor effort lets say in this fictional society the community was building a town hall the leader Would build plan design and organize the event. Society is unable to function without leaders and willing people to make peace and prosperity happen. Anarchism sounds good at times due to the fact its based on trade but to many smaller unorganized and probably violent gangs would form. These gangs would run in packs vandalizing towns etc.. Bad idea man!

Answer 4

I oppose it. I believe in 99% self-government. By that I mean that someone should be able to do what ever they want, as long as they are not hurting anyone else.

Anarchism is a really bad idea because there HAS to be SOME sort of order.

Answer 5

Anarchy just means there are no leaders, not chaos which is what most people confuse it with. In my opinion it is not possible because there will always be stronger personalities and jealousy, not to mention greed. It's why true communism is never going to work either. People just aren't going to accept everyone being equal...there's always going to be someone who needs to be more equal than everyone else.

Good question btw!

Answer 6

If it's anarcho-syndicalism, that is, democracy in the workplace, then I believe it's the ideal solution to get both freedom and economic security for everyone.

Answer 7

Worst form of government ever, but it's the only way to have true freedom. Yin/yang thing, I guess.

Answer 8

"In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. "

Levianthan by Thomas Hobbes.

Read it.


If you don't believe it, go look at Somalia. Anarchy hasn't worked out very well there, or any other place it has been tried.

Answer 9

all laws exist within a world of lawlessness...but not complete lawlessness because physics and Darwinism still apply...god would not allow anything that he wouldn't allow...we already live in anarchy, the illusion is that laws are strict and binding protocols that oughtn't be questioned...laws are really psychology, as consequences dictate course of action, therefore: we are still free to do what we will.

Answer 10

Its possible if your the only person in your territory. As long as theres more then one person though you'll get someone that wants to enforce their will.