Is An Anarchist State Even Possible?
Ranked #11,031 in Culture & Society, #219,661 overall
HERE'S WHAT I THINK
It seems however that this statement is inherently paradoxical as human society cannot function without some sort of structure on the base level.
YOUR TURN!
Is An Anarchist State Even Possible?
Fetching blurbs now... please stand byYes, you're right!
ultra-f@ggot says:
At the most, anarchy could last for a small amount of time, but eventually people would take charge, whether that be warlords or government. Somalia isn't anarchist because people still rule, hence it can't be considered fully anarchist. Also note, not related to question but the standard of living in somalia is considered the worst in the world
Posted April 26, 2011
SAMCRO says:
I say the only reason any of you dont think it can happen is the same reason I fear it in a small bit you arent willing to make your own money tax free not call cops when somethin happens take care of it yourselves if we want liberation from the shackels of government we must give all this up start your own small buisness make things earn outside the box if you can give up these things that make you so comfy then yes its possible but to most people who say they want anarchy they dont they just want the freedom to be comfortable wich I understand I have kids I dont want them in a insane society I look at the word anarchy in a different way then some of you all I look at it in the liberation freedom from goverment shackkels but I am conflicted cause what if somethin happens to my kids I need the ER or the Police but as far as Me I dont call those places so I hope you kinda see waht I mean I have not ment to offend anyone so if I did Im sorry thanks for your time.
Posted October 05, 2010
SAMCRO says:
Yes if everyone was willing to do there part takeing care of the criminals and such then yes no chaos just liberation.
Posted October 05, 2010
Steven W Lytle says:
I think it is possible, and very desirable. We should try it and see.
Posted September 20, 2010
mankind says:
At this point in time anarchy is not possible, it would take a worldwide effort to completely disarm and let go of power and money. Mankind would have to reach the intellectual level that peace is possible and anarchy is the only way to absolute peace and freedom. I believe that one day we will get there until then I will pay the government to live on there land; abide by my rules and morals. My country not my government, but I can wait for it.
Posted July 28, 2008
Matt says:
Hmmm. Ive thought about this myself quite a bit. I think a complete anarchist state is impossible, as there would be no defense against the inevitable takeover of greed and fanaticism. However, If their were a loose set of laws such as "every person has complete freedom in his/her endevours as long as this freedom does not infringe on the rights of others to have this same ability" then a moderate anarchy I think would be very possible.
Posted April 21, 2008
No way, Monkeybrain!
faux anarchy says:
I would love for the answer to this question be "yes," as it would mean that mankind had found a way to make decisions void of any power structures in place. However, when one contemplates history it becomes apparent that an ideal anarchist state is nearly impossible. A lot of this simply has to do with the fact that power structures are an inherent part of social relationships between individuals. Even if every single nation on earth were abolished, there would still be power structures present that might even be more authoritarian than those in place before. While a nice idea in theory, anarchy falls apart when you consider the fact that in historical situations in which a government has been destroyed, chaos has ensued, primarily as a result of the inherent desires to seize power.
Posted March 21, 2011
Some guy with a brain says:
Posters like Joel, j, Tdlu, and All Destroyer know what they are talking about.
Oh yeah, and it's not ALL bad, but by and large, Utilitarianism sucks. Hard. I am not even going to go over all of the way in which you have failed tremendously here.
Posted December 28, 2010
Utilitarian Norat Dnal says:
No way, never going to happen, it ain't going to happen in our lifetime are children's lifetime or their children's. Maybe 1000 or 2000 years down the line. But even then, I'm sceptical. Why is this? I'll tell you why.
Thanks to j . we got the idea of how actual anarchism works and all it's proven to me is that it's only one step up from Somalia. Sorry j, but it's true. Let me explain. So anarchism is small groups of people working together collectively right, but at the same time they are all individuals. Already you got problems: how does the structure work and how can it be run? These are the questions that spin me out. I get a headache just thinking about it man. Even if you find a way around most of the problems of individuals in groups (such problems as: how come they get to be in charge? Why don't I get to be in charge? I'm sick and tired of being outvoted every time) there's always that one individual who doesn't care. These individuals will find a way to get things their way. Intelligent ones will simply plan and scheme their way to the top, but in an anarchist society there is no top. Oh, they'll find one, they always do, that's how capitalism failed, how socialism and communism failed, and how anarchism will fail. Because all these schemers have to do is organise themselves to compete with the anarchists. So basically, they'll be the anarchists of the anarchist society. The best way to combat this ideology is to ban all individualism and all free thought so you'll need a fascist society to make sure anarchism survives. And isn't this what anarchists are fighting against? This is an ideology made up of people who didn't like society. There are dissenting elements in our own society, and an anarchist society will have the same thing: people unsatisfied with the anarchist regime. And what about anarchists who disagree with what anarchism is? Currently you've got people who disagree with each other and people in the Third World not getting their supplies. Lack of resources, over population. So many things, which bring down the anarchists ideology. This is why I think it's full of bull and anyone who believes in it is extremely and dangerously naive.
Posted June 29, 2010
fgfg5 says:
fdgdgfdgdf
Posted June 29, 2010
State endorsed anarchist. says:
yes anarchy is possible. try living in somalia.
Posted June 21, 2010
punk5000 says:
I wish anarchy was possible but sadly it will never happen since the government evolved from a monarchy which evolved from religion. thus to have anarchy you would have to first destroy all belief in said area which will never happen. so sorry anarchists but not going to happen.
Posted April 19, 2010
sheesh says:
is a stateless state even possible?
Posted October 30, 2009
Tdlu says:
Your question is incorrectly phrased because you do not distinguish between "state" in the sense of "governmental organization" and "state" in the sense of "condition of being."
Obviously, anarchist associations of humans have existed in the past, whenever humans have associated freely without coercion. However, these social groupings were not governments, statist forces, armies, or tribes.
The presence of structure does not require coercion. For example, consider groups who meet to do tai-chi in public parks. There is no specific teacher; there is no money involved. Everyone agrees that they all like tai-chi and that they all want to practice. The unifying factor, tai-chi, provides social structure without coercion.
Posted September 22, 2009
All Destroyer says:
Your question is wether or not there's a paradox, however, you've formulated your question in a way where I see no potential paradox.
Your stipulated definition of anarchy does not say that there is no structure at a "base" level. Under this definition of anarchy, which itself is questionnable, anarchy is simply an absence of official government and a maximum of liberty. Therefore there is neither an implied nor inherent paradox with the statement, "society cannot function without some sort of structure on the base level."
More problematic is that your statement about society in general is not true prima facie. Especially considering that for this statement to true human society could not function without structure. Therefore, if there is not some sort of structure then there is not human society. However the idea of society in and of itself implies at least "some sort of structure". Couldn't this structure be the sort where people congregate without a governance? Couldn't this structure very well be anything at all? Sorry, too many rhetorical questions- but I don't want to write a multipage essay.
Posted September 20, 2009
gnat says:
there are a number of different schools of anarchist thought, some interpretations contradicting others. Although anarchism is generally taken to mean society functioning without hierarchical institutions of coercion such as 'the state', it can also be thought of as any model for society embodying the fundamental principles of self-ownership and the total absence of authority/power/violence unless justified as a last resort by general interests including the interests of those it is used against.
To reiterate j's statements, anarchy is NOT the failure of a state or a chaotic absence of social order. Anarchy IS an social order free from authority (such as government), oppression, any form of slavery (such as debt induced wage labour) such as to maximize individual liberties.
In conclusion, although it can be said that liberty is s vulnerability, there a many ideas as to exactly how such a ideal could be realized, and there's no irrefutable argument against the possibility.
Posted August 11, 2009
j says:
No, a Anarchist state is not possible, because having a state would not be Anarchism.
The wikipedia definition of Anarchism is completely wrong. The actual definition of Anarchism is "belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion"
Anarchism is basically decentralized socialism. Socialism being that workers control the means of production. So Anarchism HAS organization. It is organized by workers councils and community assemblies which are then linked through a federation. Therefore no need of a state.
3 common misconceptions about Anarchism, which you have displayed are that:
1. It has no organization...WRONG, it is organization, but not in the form of anything like our current government.
2. It is chaos...WRONG, Anarchism isn't Somalia, Anarchism is peace and stability.
3. Everyone can do whatever they want with absolute liberty...WRONG, Anarchism maximizes individual liberty compared to all other economic and governmental forms, but people can't just go crazy and do whatever they want.
Don't listen to any of the other posters except Joel, they are all making up a bunch of bull because they don't know what they are talking about.
Posted May 03, 2009
Dicknose says:
naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggggg.
Posted May 05, 2008
Joel says:
Most anarchism does have some sort of governance either in the form of a communal organizations or agro-industrial federation. The definition, while not incorrect per se, is still misleading. I suggest you read bakunin or proudhon.
Posted April 14, 2008
Interesting Material to read
- Anarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Anarchism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- History of anarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- History of anarchism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- ANARCHY.NET - Intelligent anarchism for a post-globalist future
- Anarchy Now! No nukes, no wars, no laws, no morals and no conformity. Individuals can recognize collective needs and act on them without being forced.
Would You like to live in a Anarchist society?
HELP ME PROVE MY POINT
If you agree, add links (proof!) that help me make my case
Add a link that makes my case.
Please add at least one item before saving.DISPROVE MY POINT (fine, be that way)
Disagree? Put your money where your mouth is and show us why.
Post links that point out why you think I'm wrong.
Please add at least one item before saving.Materials concerning Anarchy
by sunshineday
Hey readers.I'm just another lensmaker really.But enough about me..you know you really want to read the lens not my life story :)
- 3 featured lenses
- Winner of 3 trophies!
- Top lens » Moleskine Alternatives
