Seriously, I've been doing a lot of reading lately and given the current debacle which is US politics the idea has become quite appealing to me.

>System is out of control.
>Obviously an utter lack of government is the answer.

Wew

go for it <3

>System is out of control.
>Obviously an utter lack of government is the answer.

Wew

I believe you misunderstand me, friend. But I'm tired and in pain from having my wisdom teeth extracted so I don't feel like elaborating right now. The short version is that it's something I was considering long before the election and actually has less to do with the current political state and more to do with my own exploratory research on the subject as a whole.

On the bright side, I have a friend who offered to help me turn the teeth into jewelry. There's just two of them, I'm thinking a ring would be pretty neat.

go for it <3

I'm glad I always have your loving (if misguided) support <3

@Clirkus One way to quickly die is to advocate for an absolute lack of government, reducing your defenses and opening your population to the whims and mercy of whichever one country decides that, now that your country is without a defense, they kind of like your land and want it.

I like the ideals though. Utter anarchy seems fun and effective at reducing world population. Would support a mass convert to anarchism world wide.

I don't think most anarchists are just for total random chaos, I've been told that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the anarchy movement.

Consider Nationalist Libertarianism. It's like anarchy, but with gestapo.

I don't think most anarchists are just for total random chaos, I've been told that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the anarchy movement.

Correct and incorrect.

Anarchists are for total random chaos.
But there are many many different sub-groups like anarcho-capitalists (ANCAP's) and such that are for anarchism in other ways. So you are right. It just depends on what stream you look at.

There are total anarchist people that believe total random chaos is best. Those people are fools.

@Buddha hey, could you explain Buddhism to me, just curious, lol

@KnightShade

>tfw im not buddhist

I'm pagan mate, I believe in Óðinn but that name was taken

<Snipped quote by Doivid>

Correct and incorrect.

Anarchists are for total random chaos.
But there are many many different sub-groups like anarcho-capitalists (ANCAP's) and such that are for anarchism in other ways. So you are right. It just depends on what stream you look at.

There are total anarchist people that believe total random chaos is best. Those people are fools.

Not quite.

Anarchists believe that systems of authority are more or less illegitimate and unnecessary, and that if you got rid of them society would not only still function, but it would function better because the suppressive nature of force wouldn't be keeping the population from realizing it's full potential. It isn't like "If we get rid of parents we can have a wild party", it's "The guys making the rules are just bending everything for their own benefit at the expense of society, if we get rid of them and make the rules ourselves we can actually make them work."

Anarchism is more like super-democracy, still requiring rules but putting them in the hands of the masses rather than selected (or self appointed) con artists. You can say you think that would cause random chaos, but that's not the same thing as saying anarchists are for random chaos.

An-Caps believe basically the same thing, but just about government. So an an-cap believes that all governing bodies are illegitimate, but private capital is completely separate from government and should be maintained by common consent and private security. They are totally fine with the anarchist system of super-democracy, they just don't want it to touch private capital.

<Snipped quote by Buddha>
Not quite.

Anarchists believe that systems of authority are more or less illegitimate and unnecessary, and that if you got rid of them society would not only still function, but it would function better because the suppressive nature of force wouldn't be keeping the population from realizing it's full potential. It isn't like "If we get rid of parents we can have a wild party", it's "The guys making the rules are just bending everything for their own benefit at the expense of society, if we get rid of them and make the rules ourselves we can actually make them work."

Anarchism is more like super-democracy, still requiring rules but putting them in the hands of the masses rather than selected (or self appointed) con artists. You can say you think that would cause random chaos, but that's not the same thing as saying anarchists are for random chaos.

An-Caps believe basically the same thing, but just about government. So an an-cap believes that all governing bodies are illegitimate, but private capital is completely separate from government and should be maintained by common consent and private security. They are totally fine with the anarchist system of super-democracy, they just don't want it to touch private capital.

Thank you, this is what I was getting at. I'm admittedly not literate on anarchy as a movement, but I have been told something like this before, so I was trying to recall it. The whole "anything goes! run around naked and bite people like animals!" meme of anarchy being just total madness has irritated me for a while because it seemed like a gross oversimplification, like most watercolor discussion of complex concepts.

@Vilageidiotx then that definition of anarchy is, per definition of the word, not correct and they should change it. Anarchy =/= super democracy. Though I do think you are right. But again, there are many anarchists that do believe governments should fall and we should return to city-state esque governments.

Furthermore I'd like to highlight that this kind of naive thinking will follow the same chronological order of events as communism. Communism is great and all, but when you give power to the people, people that are good at tyranny and mobilizing people will end up taking power, greed takes over, and you end up with shitty shit.

We're just replacing one set of shitty people (modern politicians) with other shitty people (I mean, lets face it, do we really want an anarchist running the country?) The context for shittiness changes (so instead of shitty economical progress, we'd have shitty cultural progress, FOR EXAMPLE, I'm not sure what the anarchists would suck at but it'd probably be something).

When I was at the 1% protest shits here in The Hague, I ran into some anarchists and they said we should get rid of governments, and every local community should govern themselves. These are the people I understood are the hardcore 'real' anarchism anarchists, where as every other stream of anarchy is more for a removal of governance in a certain area, i.e. economics or private capital and shit.

@Vilageidiotx then that definition of anarchy is, per definition of the word, not correct and they should change it. Anarchy =/= super democracy. Though I do think you are right. But again, there are many anarchists that do believe governments should fall and we should return to city-state esque governments.

Furthermore I'd like to highlight that this kind of naive thinking will follow the same chronological order of events as communism. Communism is great and all, but when you give power to the people, people that are good at tyranny and mobilizing people will end up taking power, greed takes over, and you end up with shitty shit.

We're just replacing one set of shitty people (modern politicians) with other shitty people (I mean, lets face it, do we really want an anarchist running the country?) The context for shittiness changes (so instead of shitty economical progress, we'd have shitty cultural progress, FOR EXAMPLE, I'm not sure what the anarchists would suck at but it'd probably be something).

When I was at the 1% protest shits here in The Hague, I ran into some anarchists and they said we should get rid of governments, and every local community should govern themselves. These are the people I understood are the hardcore 'real' anarchism anarchists, where as every other stream of anarchy is more for a removal of governance in a certain area, i.e. economics or private capital and shit.

Dictionary definitions usually aren't a good place to go for government philosophy; they are usually waaay simple, worded from the perspective of the writer and his society, and besides that they get mixed with other definitions. Anarchism in the dictionary doesn't mean that because the dictionary gives a very basic definition of political anarchism, but if you talk to anarchists themselves you'll get a version of what I described above.

I will say that, yeh, Anarchism is a helluva uphill battle. I completely agree there. I think most anarchists would probably agree. They are also difficult to talk about historically because, though we've had anarchist societies to judge, they usually don't last more than a generation. Not because they crumble, so far they've usually done pretty well economically, but rather because they tend to happen in civil wars and they almost always get crushed by the end of the war. It's difficult to judge a system of government entirely by the generation that formed it, because the first generation is usually the dedicated one. But from what we have seen, Anarchists are pretty good organizers when it comes to economics and culture. What anarchists suck at is military organization. They'll usually keep their area the paradise of their particular war, where it is the place you absolutely want to be if you have to be anywhere, but their localized militias squabble and refuse to cooperate efficiently, and they get swept off the board. As far as I know the only exception is the modern one, Rojava, that's been pretty good at not only holding their ground but also gaining ground.

@Vilageidiotx Absolutely agreed.

Also, an interesting footnote perhaps -> anarchist terrorism is generally considered the first wave of terrorism, and they contributed the creation of a organized doctrine of terrorism and protest to the terrorist theory.

Just thought that might be interesting to some. This took place in Russia IIRC in response to the tsarist regime.

@Vilageidiotx then that definition of anarchy is, per definition of the word, not correct and they should change it. Anarchy =/= super democracy. Though I do think you are right. But again, there are many anarchists that do believe governments should fall and we should return to city-state esque governments.

Furthermore I'd like to highlight that this kind of naive thinking will follow the same chronological order of events as communism. Communism is great and all, but when you give power to the people, people that are good at tyranny and mobilizing people will end up taking power, greed takes over, and you end up with shitty shit.

We're just replacing one set of shitty people (modern politicians) with other shitty people (I mean, lets face it, do we really want an anarchist running the country?) The context for shittiness changes (so instead of shitty economical progress, we'd have shitty cultural progress, FOR EXAMPLE, I'm not sure what the anarchists would suck at but it'd probably be something).

When I was at the 1% protest shits here in The Hague, I ran into some anarchists and they said we should get rid of governments, and every local community should govern themselves. These are the people I understood are the hardcore 'real' anarchism anarchists, where as every other stream of anarchy is more for a removal of governance in a certain area, i.e. economics or private capital and shit.

I think you can hardly call the revolution in Russia a fully realized communist undertaking. And I think it's a structure vs. superstructure issue. When you change the structure of a polity but not the superstructure, you'll find it's not very sustainable.