 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I was in this conversation with my freinds. I need to do HW now, but would like the anarchists on this board to answer the question.
Jon Miller
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
my freidns maintained that it would not continue
that any anarchy would not be stable wand owuld devole into states
I would like to here of an Anarchist utopia which would survive
I tried to argue (but not very successfully) for one I got from SciFi
Jon Miller
|
|
|  |
 |
|
axi
|
 |
Athens Greece
Sep 1999 time: 07:25
|
|
quote: Proper, authoritarian, hierarchical military is superior to whatever anarchy can come up with. |
Not in guerilla/urban warfare!
quote: The only anarchists that I've ever met seemed to be very excentric. |
All serious anarchists actually look excentric because they are so rare.
In an established libertarian communism (that's what anarchists call their utopia) everybody is organised in communities, by locality or by workplace (or even better these two coincide) and they organise themselves by consent and cooperation, exactly like in a traditional community. For this to succeed, there must exist no inequalities or exploitation. So the first thing that happens after libertarian communism is established somewhere, is that all property is expropriated and all money is burned. The very next thing is the army rolling in and shooting everybody. 
Yet, if the social conditions are ripe, Anarchism could win the battle, temporarily, as in Spain in 1936 or more permanently. But I am convinced that in order to survive, it has to lapse into some kind of practical marxism (as it actually happened in 1936) and this is why I am a marxist and not an anarchist. Of course, being an anarchist revolutionary practicing marxism instead of Bakuninism is not necessarily a bad deal, since it's more difficult for you to lapse into Stalinism. On the other hand, anarchists are less probable to wage a successful revolution than marxists.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
There has never been true anarchy. Humans always need some kind of authorities, it's only a matter how many people fall under these authorities.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999 time: 23:25
|
|
quote: Pre civilized societies are NOT anarchistict (whatever..). They have a strict set of codes which are harshly enforced, mainly dealing with sexual mores, and a set authority whos opinions carry greater wieght than anyone elses |
Not true. There are few wealth disparities in these societies, hence there aren't any such authorities. Hunter-gatherer societies are almost invariably extraordinarily democratic. If there some sort of authority the society is in transition to an agricultural society.
Can you give me a source on "sexual mores?" I've never heard of this before.
quote: As for your modern exmaples, what is your definition of anarchy? |
There are many definitions of anarchism. I can't give you only one. In general, an anarchist society minimizes private and public authority.
The principle modern examples are the CNT in Catalonia, the Zapatistas in Southern Mexico, and the Makhnovists of the Ukraine.
quote: Do you allow for private organizations such as the family, churches, so forth and so on? |
Yes.
[qutoe] Is anarchy to you simply the absence of a public authority figure? What about a private thug with a few backers to keep eevryone else in line? is that an authoritarian system, or not?[/quote]
That's authoritarian.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999 time: 23:25
|
|
quote: When I speak of sexual mores I speak of issues such as matrimony, whether a society is monogamous, polygamous, practices polyandry, things of that sort. |
You'll have to be more specific. Are you saying adultery in h-g societies is punished? Source?
quote: As for the hierarchical realities of pre-civilized societies, if you can, go to Jstor (ie, have access to a university system) and read up the anthro papers. The notion of anarchist utopias existing before are, well, not widespread. |
I have read anthro articles from Jstor (not lately, I don't have access to it any more after switch ISP's from the uni one), and societies such as the Inuit and the !Kung are extremely anti-authoritarian.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002 time: 23:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Graag
anarchy=utopia
anarchy will only be possible if/when we get to a stage that people can self-police, self-regulate and help their neighbor without worrying how much it costs them.
like communism it can only work if people are selfless enough to actually want it. being an active anarchist/communist and waiting for revolution/takeover is silly. it will happen (as Marx predicted) when people are ready, and theres nothing you can do to kick-start it.
to me anarchy is communism without the state, everyone shares because they want to. |
I honestly dont think humanity will ever do this, at least, from my definition of anarchy. Humans are inherently a social species, and it is very hard to have a working society without codes, rules, laws, or whatever, written or not, because their will always be those murderers and thieves who could do what they will with no repercussions. I just dont see this happening because the people want it, and it remaining for long. Why would people want this?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25. Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|