What is Anarchy?

11 posts / 0 new
Last post
Joined: 9-01-05
Jan 11 2005 03:28
What is Anarchy?

"What is anarchy to you? To me anarchy is and I cannot stress this enough, THE THEORY that the government does not get along with individuals and the liberties of society and as such should be destroyed.

Sound’s good enough right? Wrong stupid. the government creates and upholds laws for what? The control of our minds and eternal souls? Wrong again. The correct answer is for our safety and sure this controls our actions but to me that is a good thing. If the government were to be destroyed what is there to stop some freak from walking into your house and nailing a puppy to your jugular? Absolutely right! Nothing.

My prediction for the future of anarchy. Assuming that someone does accomplish the abolishment of government, first thing they are going to do.... Establish rules and administration. That's right, bam, hello government! So in conclusion unless you plan to only go half way with your anarchy you better find a way to destroy all authoritative direction, to that I say good freaking luck.

If I have gotten anything wrong here and I very well may have, please feel free to enlighten me! As I am not an anarchist I know nothing of the real views and agendas of anarchists and any intelligent input would be greatly appreciated."

That is the condensed version of a one page essay I wrote about anarchy awhile back. Sadly no preservatives we're added and it seems to have turned bitter, but thankfully I did remember to express my ignorance after the actual conclusion. I would greatly appreciate any explanation as to the actual views and beliefs of true anarchists, because sometimes it's not the definition in the dictionary that makes the word but the way it's used by the people who did not write the definition in said dictionary. Thank you to all those who contribute intelligently and keep fighting whatever fight it is you need to fight!

You can also find this posted at Anti-Something Headquarters

I apologize for my ignorance and the dissaproval for Anarchy that this essay conveys. But it's only fair to show it as it was written.

Keep it real the Infamous John "Liberator of the Young, blah blah blah"[/url]

Joined: 22-09-04
Jan 11 2005 04:02

"I apologize for my ignorance and the dissaproval for Anarchy that this essay conveys. But it's only fair to show it as it was written."

That is OK, do you want to be my friend?

black bloc

Joined: 9-01-05
Jan 11 2005 04:25

embarrassed Awwwww. Sure i'll be your friend but you have to promise not to bash me for my excessive use of large words and my obvious pseudo-intelligence (is that supposed to be hyphenated?), also cough up some useful information about the views and such.

To do this would be to help me better myself and grow as a person! haha

That and I could write a more informed paper to help the rest of the youth in my area who is too stupid to do things themselves!

Infamous John "Liberator of people in his age group, youth, whatever"

Mike Harman
Joined: 7-02-06
Jan 11 2005 10:22
If the government were to be destroyed what is there to stop some freak from walking into your house and nailing a puppy to your jugular? Absolutely right! Nothing.

If there was no government, would you walk into someone's house and nail a puppy to their jugular? If not, what would stop you?

What stops someone doing that now, only your front door, unless you have guards posted which I very much doubt. People do that kind of thing all over the place, and the only thing the state can do is try to catch them then lock them up, which has been shown to be very ineffective. The reason people are so difficult to catch in contemporary society is because many people don't know the people they live next to, they may not even recognise their next door neighbour. Knowing the people around you, as would happen in any society based on face to face direct democracy (which is how most people agree an anarchist society would organise itself), would be a much greater deterrent to antisocial behaviour than the police and criminal justice system. Anarchism doesn't mean a Mad Max style free for all.

Joined: 9-01-05
Jan 11 2005 11:58

You might appreciate reading Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World'. Sure the government is there (theoretically) to establish order, but at what cost? Our freedom. Happiness (via security and stability) at the cost of removing the various other qualities that a human being should have, most notably, freedom.

In theory, (in my opinion), an anarchy would consist in a society with organisation, which could prevent crimes and provide the stability that you want. However, this organisation would be much more direct, small-scale, and open than our current goverment is. This would allow for much greater freedom, and what I think is of special need, a variety of possible lifestyles. At the minute the west is fairly homogenous (all the same), we all live by the same maxims, most notably, and the one which probably got most people to this site - "consume and produce; that is your life".

An anarcy could provide a series of indepedent (although they could still practise mutual aid between themselves) communities, allowing for people to join the one that they felt most fitted how they wanted to live. Neo-liberal Americans could continue their capitalist gain if they likein their small communities, but I imagine it would pale in popularity in comparison to the relaxed, community groups you find in books such as 'Ecotopia' (another one well worth a read).

I'm sure you've all been in groups that you've enjoyed, and you help each other out where you can. That would be a maxim of any group I joined, and I believe would be the dominant community structure.

/end of relevant bit/

I'll continue this sometime. I've been meaning to write my own website (does enrager host people?) with what I believe is a coherant and sensible anarchist ideal. Any suggestions for how best to divide the various aspects I need to cover would be appreciated. My current idea is a fundamental two way split between The current situation (capitalist large scale representative democracy) and the dream (mutually aiding small scale direct democracy), with the current situation having a critique of both the theory (Adam Smith, Nozick etc.) and in practise (much more applied problems).

The dream would only contain theory, although perhaps I could have a practise section of some places where its been done?

These three fundamental categories (theory of now, practise of now, and theory of our dream) would then be split again into the various components of society, off the top of my head:

Crime / Law


Politics / social decision making



Ideal citizen

Inter - national / community relations

Politics, economics and ideal citizen I believe would make the main sections.

I'll stop this post before it becomes huge. I'll post an addy if I ever get a site going though.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Joined: 6-11-03
Jan 11 2005 13:56

If I may ask a question of you infamous, what is your background? It's very difficult to judge what arguments to use when someone is a complete stranger.

NB// I very much doubt you are vastly more intelligent that the other kids on your area. It's a fallacy to think that not caring equals not understanding.

cantdocartwheels's picture
Joined: 15-03-04
Jan 11 2005 21:05

Libertarian socialists don't want to abolish ''government'' or something equally wishy washy, they want to get rid of the state. The state being a specific institution designed to protect capitalism and the interests of the ruling class. Anarchists would seek to replace it with institutions for the democratic and scientific administration of a propertyless and classless society.

Jason Cortez
Joined: 14-11-04
Jan 12 2005 00:47

Could we move this to new to anarchism forum. Hey since the offer of maybe being mod for new to... i have developed a petty bureaucratic mind, excellent. I'm the person for the job, surely. embarrassed Oh shit just notice they have changed the title again. I'm just not up to it. cry

Jason Cortez
Joined: 14-11-04
Jan 13 2005 20:46

The Law cannot stop people commiting crimes, it can only act as a deterrent, even them only if the person thinks they are likely to get caught. It function in this situation is to punish people, who are caught. The police catch 'criminals' after the fact, usually through being informed by a member of the general public. Most people don't go round nailing a puppy to jugulars because; they have no interest in doing so, they might get their heads kick in, it probaly won't be a great way to make friends and influence people unless you form a gang, they think they might caught or they have something better to do. The absence or not of the state has nothing to do with it.

Joined: 15-01-05
Jan 19 2005 16:05

.... .... ah the puppies i would have nailed to jugulars if it wasn't for that damned government.... ....

Joined: 16-06-04
Jan 19 2005 22:44

I'll only steal from big companies, so its almost a victimless crime. The way I see it, in an anarchist society, if everyone looks out for each other, and sees the person, then they won't steal. Also, generally, theft comes from neccesity. If we have enough, then they'll be less crime. Well, no crime because laws make criminals of us. I guess this is a bit of a stoned hippyish outlook, but..... well I guess I am.