Jump to content

Welcome to Green Day Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account

Photo

Anarchy, where do you stand?

Debate

  • Please log in to reply
103 replies to this topic

Poll: Pro or anti (78 member(s) have cast votes)

Pro anarchy?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#31
Sofouska

Sofouska
  • Dominated Love Slave

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,335 posts
  • Joined Aug 13, 2010
  • 788 rep
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:The depths of Avalon Lake
I think that nothing that's extreme brings positive results.
  • LilyMarie and Cob like this

#32
Daughter.of.Rage.and.Love

Daughter.of.Rage.and.Love
  • No, this is Patrick

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,767 posts
  • Joined Oct 23, 2008
  • 3,682 rep
  • Age:20
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Hollmanyreland

An anarchist society doesn't necessarily have to be without laws. "No government" doesn't equal "no laws".

Right, was just wondering because you said "Yeah, right, because the law is the only thing that keeps me from raping and killing people." and I couldn't see your edited post when I posted.
Now I can though.


Anarchy doesn't necessarily mean that the community lives without any rules. It's basically about a different way of decision making and organizing the community. Important is that there are no hierarchies, that everyone has equal say in the decisions important for the community. But this doesn't mean that it cannot be agreed upon for instance banning people from living in the community. Exile is actually one idea, common between anarchists, of dealing with people who don't agree with the rules in a community.

Anarchy could only work in small communities then, though. Since everyone has to vote on things (unless they choose not to, but still). It would be almost like a tribe kind of thing. I don't mean that in a degrading way or judging way, just an observation. People living in small groups/communities with their own rules and "culture".

#33
Sofouska

Sofouska
  • Dominated Love Slave

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,335 posts
  • Joined Aug 13, 2010
  • 788 rep
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:The depths of Avalon Lake

Anarchy doesn't necessarily mean that the community lives without any rules. It's basically about a different way of decision making and organizing the community. Important is that there are no hierarchies, that everyone has equal say in the decisions important for the community. But this doesn't mean that it cannot be agreed upon for instance banning people from living in the community. Exile is actually one idea, common between anarchists, of dealing with people who don't agree with the rules in a community.


I agree with most of the things you said except for the "equal say". In my country for example, we have democracy and well, everyone can express his/her opinion freely and no one can do anything to you if you have a different opinion. Idk how things are in America or other countries, because I think that freedom of speech is not appreciated in the USA. But if we had anarchy, someone that would disagree with you, wouldn't have to accept your opinion or listen to you at all, he/she could even shoot you in the head if he/she wanted.

#34
chatnoir

chatnoir
  • Dominated Love Slave

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,351 posts
  • Joined May 16, 2008
  • 625 rep
  • Age:36
  • Gender:Not Telling

Right, was just wondering because you said "Yeah, right, because the law is the only thing that keeps me from raping and killing people." and I couldn't see your edited post when I posted.
Now I can though.

Yeah, I admit that was a bit misleading. It's a different debate actually.


Anarchy could only work in small communities then, though. Since everyone has to vote on things (unless they choose not to, but still). It would be almost like a tribe kind of thing. I don't mean that in a degrading way or judging way, just an observation. People living in small groups/communities with their own rules and "culture".

Well, that would be a good start then. :happy:

There are some examples of ungoverned communities of the past and the present at the bottom of the wiki article that is linked in the opening post. I haven't heard of all of them and shall read on it.
  • Frank's Penis and Yussef like this

#35
Maria-ISH

Maria-ISH
  • Brat

  • PipPipPip
  • 126 posts
  • Joined Jun 28, 2011
  • 25 rep
  • Age:16
  • Gender:Female
In a way, Anarchism is like Communism, they work out on paper but couldn't be used perfectly because of human greed.

#36
Yussef

Yussef
  • love infinitely

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,366 posts
  • Joined Jun 22, 2006
  • 4,666 rep
  • Age:21
  • Gender:Male


Your mum is strongly recommended. http://www.greendaycommunity.org/public/...


At least you used it right this time.
  • Frank's Penis likes this

#37
chatnoir

chatnoir
  • Dominated Love Slave

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,351 posts
  • Joined May 16, 2008
  • 625 rep
  • Age:36
  • Gender:Not Telling

At least you used it right this time.

Pfft. Cool kids just say "your mum" sometimes. Apparently you're not cool, since you didn't know about this.
  • Frank's Penis and Yussef like this

#38
Dylan.

Dylan.
  • And Don't You Fucking Wear It Out

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,844 posts
  • Joined Sep 08, 2007
  • 574 rep
  • Age:19
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix

I think that nothing that's extreme brings positive results.

I completely disagree. I think that without extremism, the world couldn't evolve. Atheism is the extreme denial of religion, which slowed down progress for over 1000 years. Extreme innovation, and extreme revolution are two things that must be invoked to bring down the status quo. We live in a stagnant reality. People aren't concerned with tomorrow, or yesterday. They only worry about what is most pleasing to them right now. There is a level of comfort in the civilized world, and the admittance that it is not perfect. Since perfection is not reality, many people see contentment as the closest thing to perfection. But what about millions, no, billions of people in the world that are living without contentment. Justice for all, is the only true justice. That is what extremism brings about. The thought process that creates "Occupy Wall Street" were extreme and still can be. This isn't about creating a utopia. It is about achieving justice for all. The only question, is how to bring about that justice. I personally don't believe anarchy is the correct method in doing so. But to say that extremism is inherently bad....is simply wrong.

Extreme conservatism is bad. Extreme capitalism is bad. But guess what? It's not extreme that makes it bad. It's conservatism and capitalism. There is such a thing as right and wrong, whether or not that is always easy to see.
  • Marius Pontmercy and Viva_La_Revolution! like this

#39
Viva_La_Revolution!

Viva_La_Revolution!
  • Brat

  • PipPipPip
  • 132 posts
  • Joined Apr 29, 2011
  • 10 rep
  • Age:17
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:wouldnt you like to know? xD
I dont agree with the current (American) goveremnt, because i feel alot of politians are just power hungy, uncaring, assholes, but thats a diffrent story. The problem with anarchy is, as stated before, there would be no values, or order. You would get jumped everytime you stepped into the street, and people would be getting killed left and right. I think that we need a true democracy and a better way to sort out the liars, but i think we do need order.
  • Sarcasm likes this

#40
Trotsky

Trotsky
  • I sought my image in the scorching glass

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,526 posts
  • Joined Sep 23, 2006
  • 7,640 rep
  • Age:22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Drifting through the multiverse

*
POPULAR

You all need to read anarchist theories. Let me restate this, anarchism does not describe:

- the destruction of civilization
- a society without order
- competition between gangs killing each other for resources

Rather, it describes

- An egalitarian civilization
- Order kept by voluntary consensus
- The abolition of the concept of property

And the last point is important, anarchism does not mean someone can take the shirt off your back because you're living in a society that doesn't recognize property. The shirt on your back is your shirt, the food on your plate is your food. Anarchists would live in a society where no one owns the land, where the means of production is equally available to everyone.

Nor is anarchism different than communism. The systems of the Soviet Union, Maoist China, and North Korea are not communist. They can be adequately described as "state capitalists", in which an oppressive government resembles a corporation and the people are the helpless workers of it. True Marxists explain in great detail why so called "communist" systems are a distorted version of what the world Marx envisioned.

Read about:

The Paris Commune - http://en.wikipedia....i/Paris_Commune
The Free Territory - http://en.wikipedia....itory_(Ukraine)
The Popular Front of Spain - http://en.wikipedia....r_Front_(Spain)

Notice in all these cases, the only bloodshed and violence came when acts of state aggression were committed against these people.
  • Yussef, chatnoir, sara_gd and 2 others like this

#41
Margo 39 smooth

Margo 39 smooth
  • Supermodel Robot

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 692 posts
  • Joined Jun 12, 2010
  • 92 rep
  • Age:18
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Washington DC
Like everyone's saying, I know anarchy wouldn't work in our world. But its really nice to think of what it would be like if we didn't have all the crazies that would fuck it up. If everyone had morals and weren't douche bags about it, it would be freaking awesome. But that's not the world we live in. Its fun to think about though.

Atheism is the extreme denial of religion,

Its not really extreme denial. Just that we believe it doesn't exist. And you cant say denial, cause to deny something means to be faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept.
But this is off topic so i wont go on

#42
Sofouska

Sofouska
  • Dominated Love Slave

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,335 posts
  • Joined Aug 13, 2010
  • 788 rep
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:The depths of Avalon Lake


Extreme conservatism is bad. Extreme capitalism is bad. But guess what? It's not extreme that makes it bad. It's conservatism and capitalism. There is such a thing as right and wrong, whether or not that is always easy to see.


:shy: I was referring to politics, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I agree with you :D

#43
Trotsky

Trotsky
  • I sought my image in the scorching glass

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,526 posts
  • Joined Sep 23, 2006
  • 7,640 rep
  • Age:22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Drifting through the multiverse

Its not really extreme denial. Just that we believe it doesn't exist. And you cant say denial, cause to deny something means to be faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept.
But this is off topic so i wont go on


Denial literally means stating a belief that something is not true. It is no bearing on whether or not the thing being denied is true or false.

A better way to describe atheism would be 'absolute rejection', rather than extreme denial. Much like atheism is the absolute rejection of religion, anarchism is the absolute rejection of class, capitalism, and hierarchy.

#44
Velocity

Velocity
  • The Diamond Church Street Choir

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,439 posts
  • Joined Feb 28, 2007
  • 750 rep
  • Age:23
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:somewhere in the swamps of Jersey
I know that much of our day-to-day lives are technically anarchic, because we're not really subjected to the law 24/7. We have our own social control of sorts to keep us in check I guess. So anarchy works on a small level like that, but when applied to entire communities and states it would never work. Human selfishness and greed would overrun society.

Also, there's someone on my campus who's been spray-painting the anarchy "A"s all over the place lately, and I think it's extremely ironic that they're doing it at a state funded, public university. Most of us wouldn't be able to afford coming here if it weren't for the government's intervention, so maybe he should think about that the next time he sticks an "A" somewhere :p

#45
Sarcasm

Sarcasm
  • Panty Purée/Savior of Lives/Arse Doctor

  • 16,000 posts
  • Joined Mar 18, 2009
  • 10,023 rep
  • Age:23
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Norway

Also, there's someone on my campus who's been spray-painting the anarchy "A"s all over the place lately, and I think it's extremely ironic that they're doing it at a state funded, public university. Most of us wouldn't be able to afford coming here if it weren't for the government's intervention, so maybe he should think about that the next time he sticks an "A" somewhere http://www.greendaycommunity.org/public/...


This was one of my thoughts, many punks I have met that claimed that anarchy was the big solution didn't realize that they did benefit from governments support with for example schools and public transport.

I can't stop thinking about fallout 3 when I try to imagine anarchy in real life.

to those who asked if the law is all that stops me from raping and killing; nope, it stops me from stealing pretty things I can't afford. :p

Advertising

#46
Tre's Busted Drumkit

Tre's Busted Drumkit
  • "ben's actually a giant teddy bear" -Lone

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,808 posts
  • Joined Feb 25, 2010
  • 4,646 rep
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:State of Confusion
I think the most anarchistic way to respond to this would be as follows:

I stand for nothing.

#47
Sarcasm

Sarcasm
  • Panty Purée/Savior of Lives/Arse Doctor

  • 16,000 posts
  • Joined Mar 18, 2009
  • 10,023 rep
  • Age:23
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Norway

*
POPULAR

I stand for nothing.


Posted Image
  • mmmcrazypills, Tubbie Head, Catbug and 2 others like this

#48
chatnoir

chatnoir
  • Dominated Love Slave

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,351 posts
  • Joined May 16, 2008
  • 625 rep
  • Age:36
  • Gender:Not Telling

I know that much of our day-to-day lives are technically anarchic, because we're not really subjected to the law 24/7. We have our own social control of sorts to keep us in check I guess. So anarchy works on a small level like that, but when applied to entire communities and states it would never work. Human selfishness and greed would overrun society.

Also, there's someone on my campus who's been spray-painting the anarchy "A"s all over the place lately, and I think it's extremely ironic that they're doing it at a state funded, public university. Most of us wouldn't be able to afford coming here if it weren't for the government's intervention, so maybe he should think about that the next time he sticks an "A" somewhere http://www.greendaycommunity.org/public/...


This was one of my thoughts, many punks I have met that claimed that anarchy was the big solution didn't realize that they did benefit from governments support with for example schools and public transport.

I can't stop thinking about fallout 3 when I try to imagine anarchy in real life.

to those who asked if the law is all that stops me from raping and killing; nope, it stops me from stealing pretty things I can't afford. http://www.greendaycommunity.org/public/...

I don't see how enjoying those benefits excludes wanting a society without a government. Why shouldn't there be the same benefits in an anarchist society? Access to knowledge ought to be a fundamental human right. It shouldn't require obedience in order to pursue it.

And it's similar with things like public transport: Being against the way a community is organized doesn't mean, you're against everything that has been established by it.

Of course we all enjoy in one way or the other the benefits of today's society. But does that mean we're not allowed to criticise it or even ask for a radical change in its system? If someone supports you, are you obliged to be grateful no matter what? Especially if no one has asked you before, if you wanted to be supported and you simply are not given the option of doing it yourself?
  • Frank's Penis and Yussef like this

#49
Sarcasm

Sarcasm
  • Panty Purée/Savior of Lives/Arse Doctor

  • 16,000 posts
  • Joined Mar 18, 2009
  • 10,023 rep
  • Age:23
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Norway

I don't see how enjoying those benefits excludes wanting a society without a government. Why shouldn't there be the same benefits in an anarchist society? Access to knowledge ought to be a fundamental human right. It shouldn't require obedience in order to pursue it.


How would you like, divide stuff? How would my 50 year old mother get food? Just asking. The law and leaders are there to benefit you, and the "system" is there to reward those who works with paychecks.
With anarchy, there is no one to hand out the goods, the people claiming them are gonna want them for themselves.

"Access to knowledge ought to be a fundamental human right. It shouldn't require obedience in order to pursue it.", I'm sorry, I don't get it, could you re-phrase it? All I can think about after that sentence is "did the library burn to the ground?" Sorry, I feel kinda dumb xD

#50
chatnoir

chatnoir
  • Dominated Love Slave

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,351 posts
  • Joined May 16, 2008
  • 625 rep
  • Age:36
  • Gender:Not Telling


How would you like, divide stuff? How would my 50 year old mother get food? Just asking. The law and leaders are there to benefit you, and the "system" is there to reward those who works with paychecks.
With anarchy, there is no one to hand out the goods, the people claiming them are gonna want them for themselves.

What makes you think that? To which school of anarchism are you referring to with this scenario of chaos and only the strongest getting their hands on necessary goods?

"Access to knowledge ought to be a fundamental human right. It shouldn't require obedience in order to pursue it.", I'm sorry, I don't get it, could you re-phrase it? All I can think about after that sentence is "did the library burn to the ground?" Sorry, I feel kinda dumb xD

You were implying that it's contradictory when those kids at your school support anarchism while at the same time benefit from a public educational system.

I was trying to make the point that this is not a contradiction. I think, that getting access to knowledge (as in going to school or to university for instance) should be treated as a fundamental human right. Which means it should not be required that people have to obey to the system only because it lets them study.
  • Frank's Penis and Yussef like this

#51
Sarcasm

Sarcasm
  • Panty Purée/Savior of Lives/Arse Doctor

  • 16,000 posts
  • Joined Mar 18, 2009
  • 10,023 rep
  • Age:23
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Norway

What makes you think that? To which school of anarchism are you referring to with this scenario of chaos and only the strongest getting their hands on necessary goods?


You were implying that it's contradictory when those kids at your school support anarchism while at the same time benefit from a public educational system.

I was trying to make the point that this is not a contradiction. I think, that getting access to knowledge (as in going to school or to university for instance) should be treated as a fundamental human right. Which means it should not be required that people have to obey to the system only because it lets them study.


So if it's not survival of the fittest, how would a school of anarchy be ruled, when there are no leader to make the rules?

I don't get your point...
To which school of anarchism? There is none, it wouldn't work because of the reason I stated.

#52
Marius Pontmercy

Marius Pontmercy
  • I FEEL MY SOUL ON FIRE

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,574 posts
  • Joined Aug 18, 2010
  • 3,535 rep
  • Age:18
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Sidney Crosby's pants
I personally am not an anarchist, but it would work in a small community, kind of a like a tribe, like Sanne said, if all these people "know what they're getting into" and have ethics.

I know anarchy doesn't mean total chaos, because really, you do need a certain level of organisation for it to work, but if a country's government suddenly fell or if a country suddenly became anarchist (this is all hypothetical), people would use anarchy as an excuse to rape, rob and/or kill.

Not sure if that made any sense, because I'm rather tired, but let's pretend it does. :p

#53
Daughter.of.Rage.and.Love

Daughter.of.Rage.and.Love
  • No, this is Patrick

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,767 posts
  • Joined Oct 23, 2008
  • 3,682 rep
  • Age:20
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Hollmanyreland

I personally am not an anarchist, but it would work in a small community, kind of a like a tribe, like Sanne said, if all these people "know what they're getting into" and have ethics.

I know anarchy doesn't mean total chaos, because really, you do need a certain level of organisation for it to work, but if a country's government suddenly fell or if a country suddenly became anarchist (this is all hypothetical), people would use anarchy as an excuse to rape, rob and/or kill.

Not sure if that made any sense, because I'm rather tired, but let's pretend it does. http://www.greendaycommunity.org/public/...

I agree with this, and I'd like to add that when you've got small communities, it's impossible to have school like it is now running, or have the level of luxury and technology we're at. Simply because of the resources needed for the housing (builders and building materials), and teachers, professors, scientists. In small communities you can't be that specified. You also need a way to get food, and you can't do that like it is now with massive factories because your community can't have more than a few hundred people. If you have communities making food and other communities making resources and have them trade, there needs to be some sort of rule or regulation or at the very least an agreement. Everyone has to vote on those regularions, which will be hard with even just a few thousand people (a couple of communities).
Basically you'd have to go back to a very basic agricultural/hunting self-supporting community, which is not a realistic option for the world as it is with so many grounds not useful for agriculture and so many people.
Of course that's kind of radical anarchism, but it sticks to the idea of equality and everyone having a say in everything.

You can democratically vote for a couple of people to keep order (as John stated it, order kept by voluntary consensus), but then you've already got people making decisions over others, in other words people with more power than others.

So if it's not survival of the fittest, how would a school of anarchy be ruled, when there are no leader to make the rules?

Direct democracy, have every member of the community vote for every law, rule and decision, and dividing the food.
Although then you can still have a majority voting for something unfair, so everyone would have to have values like fairness and some basic ethics (so people don't vote for "people aged 20-30 get the most food and the rest can suck it" or some sort of thing making rape legal in that community).
  • Marius Pontmercy likes this

#54
chatnoir

chatnoir
  • Dominated Love Slave

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,351 posts
  • Joined May 16, 2008
  • 625 rep
  • Age:36
  • Gender:Not Telling
For everyone who likes to read a bit more about anarchism, I just saw this link on another forum and I find it to be quite informative. It's a lot in total, but you can also just pick some subsections you're particularly interested in:

http://www.infoshop..../AnAnarchistFAQ
  • Frank's Penis, Yussef and Sarcasm like this

#55
uhleckseee

uhleckseee
  • Supermodel Robot

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 628 posts
  • Joined Aug 31, 2009
  • 222 rep
  • Age:24
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Orange County, California
I just think we need another revolution like when the United States was born (I was going to say "we", but I remembered that this is an international community). This country was founded upon amazing ideas. The problem I have though is that natural selection is dead. Instead of the weaker "dying out," we are all protecting them and catering to the weakest link. They are outnumbering smarter people and causing these ridiculous policies to be in effect. The type of people who listen to the mainstream media, quote O'Reily, claim that this is a "Christian Nation"...all of these people are examples of the gullible mass population that I have a huge problem with. They aren't questioning, they aren't living in this country as it was meant to be.

Give us our freedom, let us be in charge of the government. The government is supposed to be FOR the people. And unfortunately that's changed horrifically. I'm scared to see what happens to this country in coming years.

#56
KilljoyFromDetroit

KilljoyFromDetroit
  • Pedestrian

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,328 posts
  • Joined Jul 06, 2011
  • 319 rep
  • Age:16
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Take a guess...
Personally, i hate the government, but anarchy? Complete chaos in a world like ours. Only if everyone was in the same frame of mind would it have a chamce of working. It would be awesome if it was able to work, but there are just stupid people in this world who make it impossible to even think of what would happen without a stable government

#57
Trotsky

Trotsky
  • I sought my image in the scorching glass

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,526 posts
  • Joined Sep 23, 2006
  • 7,640 rep
  • Age:22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Drifting through the multiverse

I just think we need another revolution like when the United States was born (I was going to say "we", but I remembered that this is an international community). This country was founded upon amazing ideas. The problem I have though is that natural selection is dead. Instead of the weaker "dying out," we are all protecting them and catering to the weakest link. They are outnumbering smarter people and causing these ridiculous policies to be in effect. The type of people who listen to the mainstream media, quote O'Reily, claim that this is a "Christian Nation"...all of these people are examples of the gullible mass population that I have a huge problem with. They aren't questioning, they aren't living in this country as it was meant to be.

Give us our freedom, let us be in charge of the government. The government is supposed to be FOR the people. And unfortunately that's changed horrifically. I'm scared to see what happens to this country in coming years.


First of all, I'm not exactly sure if you're expressing misguided social darwinist ideas or if you are just phrasing your disdain for stupidity in a poorly worded way. I'm going to just assume it's the second.

Now, the reactionary culture centered around plutocratic, pseudo-populist movements like the tea party are not just 'stupid'. Yes, in many ways they are, but that's an oversimplification of the problem. They are first of all victims of fearmongering, aided by a corporate media. Second, they, like everyone else, know there is something very fucking wrong with the current situation people are experiencing. They know, correctly, we are getting screwed over. But because of the first problem I mentioned, that a massive machine of cable news, talk radio, and a sizable portion of the internet all are penetrating their minds without stopping, they misdirect their rage.

People are told that these capitalist ideas are good, then they are told that the USA has moved away from its "free market" values. Then they associate this lie with the problems of today. Hence people have a positive image in their minds of an imaginary past, because they believe the USA has now moved into some kind of proto-socialist nature. When in fact, the opposite is true. Despite, what I'd like to believe, sincere efforts from the Obama administration and progressive democrats, the ruling class is more powerful than ever. The Occupy Movement is the first manifestation of people waking up to who the true oppressors are. But we cannot have a populist revolution over night. Things still need to get worse before people really wake up.

#58
uhleckseee

uhleckseee
  • Supermodel Robot

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 628 posts
  • Joined Aug 31, 2009
  • 222 rep
  • Age:24
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Orange County, California
^Exactly this. Nothing is going to happen overnight.

I don't know why you quoted "stupid" as if I said that, I never said things as simply as that, and yet there was word of "phrasing disdain for stupidity in a poorly worded way." That was kind of odd.

These people are misguided and encouraged by the mass media. I'm so happy that these "Occupy" movements are happening all over the country. I believe this is going to be the start of something great, like you mentioned.

#59
sara_gd

sara_gd
  • Insomniac

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,575 posts
  • Joined Dec 04, 2008
  • 294 rep
  • Age:20
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Spain
I don't really know if I support anarchism or not.
I think that in small communities it could work, this was also mentioned before. Maybe I'm going a bit offtopic here, but I think that what is not working in our "democracy" is that is not direct, we "elect" people who represent us. And I say "elect" because what we're actually doing is choosing who's the "less-bad" of the representatives that have the main power. I mean, in the USA it's widely recognised that there's two partys, here in Spain we have more than two but in the comming elections, and the ones before, and the ones before, and most likely the ones after this one, the election is going to be between two people/party that the majority of people don't like. But we can't have a direct democracy in a state today, the democracy (or oligarcy really) they had in ancient Greece was possible because all the job was done by the slaves, so citizens could dedicate to other issues. So, in conclusion, I think that what I call a real democracy would only be possible if we organized ourselves in little groups (1000 people per group maybe?) and in each group we'd distribute the work, and this is where anarquism comes, because I do not think that even this "tribial organization" (as it was called in a post up there) would be fair if there was any form of authority. You need a leader, to solve problems between members of the community, to give a guideline of what to do if there's not enough food... but I think it would have to be someone from the community, who knows everybody and cares about them, but I think the power should be of the people. It could be as simple as once a month making a reunion and talking and voting, about issues that really affect the people in the community.
You have the problem of course that not everybody is going to think the same way, but that's why we have the ability to talk and reach agreements, you don't have to repress the opposition.
In the matter of laws, I think that in our society law is what motivates people to do or not do things (like, for many people the bad part about drinking and driving is that police can get you), so it wouldn't work to just take off the laws. It would be chaos, a word that is offently related to anarquism and I think it shouldn't be. Eventually I think that we could get to other way of thinking, based in respecting ourselves and others, but I do not know what the process could be, and I think that that phase is the one we need to solve.

#60
Just Kate

Just Kate
  • SNAFU

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,633 posts
  • Joined Jan 20, 2010
  • 381 rep
  • Age:28
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:here and there
if you look closely you'll see the anarchy logo on my guitar :D

Posted Image



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Debate

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users