Why Anarchy Doesn't Work (sorry Crass fans and other anarchos)

[smyd]

I think what a lot of people (teenagers in particular) need to know is that anarchy doesn't work. I used to be an anarchist and trust me. there was no situation I could think of where anarchy could work. It's unstable and it will always end up as some sort of system. Think about it. Let's say America was in a state of anarchy. Well if there's anarchy that probably means no electricity. So then people would have to get or make generators. Well there's going to be that one business attitude jerk in the crowd that's going to sell generators. But you also need gas or another type of fuel to run generators. so people would have to buy that too. But then the people that sell generators would then have power and would most likely end up using that power to control the people that want generators or fuel. Because if the people don't do what they say, they could just stop making generators and everyone would have to do without electricity, and most of america wouldn't want that I presume. Put down and scenario, it won't work unless the attitude of the good old US 'v' A changes. I can't speak for Europe because I don't live and haven't even been there and have no idea what it's like. But it's only basic human psychology that people want to be told what to do. It's just the human brain finding short cuts. If anyone can prove me wrong they get a cookie.

[Carsten]

you forgot that in anarchy there would be no need for money. people could just take the generator from the one guy who has it and also take the gas they need from a other guy,.

that said there has been no success full countries that I know of that had anarchy in recent times.

[kristhreat]

Anarchy as a political belief isn't its literal meaning of chaos. Its the idea that no man has domain over another. No gods. No masters. A basic form of capitalism is ok in anarchy because its people being free to engage in activities amongst each other without an authority figure telling them how to interact. So your generator analogy is a moot point. We don't need government telling us how to interact amongst ourselve or to watch over us and spy on us.

[applesnonions]

Anarchy is the natural state of all life... The anti-state of nature... Conditions of relations free of coercive power and defined by mutual aid and egalitarianism...The way humans have lived for the VAST MAJORITY OF THEIR TIME ON EARTH! It is the condition of individuals in healthy relationship with eachother, non humans and the land. Your post (op) has many flaws and is SOOOO short sighted in it's perspective and critique... How old are you? What do you do for a living? What do you love and if you had the freedom, how would you choose to live your life?

"Well if there's anarchy that probably means no electricity." Probably for the best if the means of generating electricity require industrially codependent technologies (which they do currently).

"But it's only basic human psychology that people want to be told what to do. It's just the human brain finding short cuts. If anyone can prove me wrong they get a cookie."

This is arrogant and privileged and insane and an absurd lowest common denominator...

What do humans need to live? What do healthy communities look like? Humans do not need to fuck each other and everything else over to just barely scrape by at the lowest degree of survival...

Do you think critically? Maybe you should do that more...and read more critique just so you can get a taste of what is out there and broaden your perspective...you owe it to your self.

Just took a peek at your profile and it looks like you've got a lot of growing up to do...(this is not coming from an arrogant place)

applesnonions, first of, anarchy ain't natural since even in nature there are leaders of groups that get treated the best, that are the strongest, etc. if one doesn't agree with this, it has two options: to chalenge the leader, or to leave. not to mention that there'll always be someone or something that'll want power, as Nietzsche once noted "life is the will to power".

smyd's right that all anarchy becomes a system or another, for example (screw electricity and generators!) we have a state that's become anarchic. the people, finally becoming free, start doing all the things they were forbiden, like rape, stealing, maraudering, bla bla bla. others, defending themselves from the first group will kill or get killed. after a time, people will separate into two groups: those that want peace, and those that raid them. the first group will have communism (or smth. similar to it), while the second group will become barbarious, following their leader who's simply the strongest (instinct will keep them from attacking him all at once without a good enough reason). then they'll one day make peace and they'll become a monarchy. then they'll evolve into what was in the 20th century, and then into the mess that we have now. not to mention that the world would not simply let someone become anarchic, so they'll send their armies into that state and kick everybody's arses and install "democracy". and don't tell me anything, because that's how the human world works; and not even war is purely chaotic, for the leaders of the armies might just sit down for tea while their soldiers kill eachother...as Hitler (or was that Goebbels?) said “What luck for rulers that men do not think.”, and simply because the nazis said it, it doesn't mean it's not correct.

the only way to achieve anarchy is when you're alone. for therefore you will not obey anyone, and you will not attempt to submit anyone to your will, even indirectly. I remember watching some show about nature and ecology, there a man said that protecting nature is still a way to contol it, and that nature must not be controled.

I used to believe in anarchy, but I've concluded that anarchy (at least pure anarchy) is impossible on a large scale. I think that either communism or barbarianism (not sure what political system that is) are the best way to go, for from all evils, the least evil must be chosen.

[vareg]

roughly and to make a long story short, it's in human nature that most people need to dominate, and we're al egoistic in our own ways, i don't think anarchy has more chance to work than freelove

[vareg]

Originally Posted by Carsten

you forgot that in anarchy there would be no need for money. people could just take the generator from the one guy who has it and also take the gas they need from a other guy,.

that said there has been no success full countries that I know of that had anarchy in recent times.

yeah but when you produce gas and people just go to you take it and you can't say none because you're afraid you're going to be whacked then you don't wanna produce gas anymore.
And if you do, just because of the fear, then it's not anarchy anymore, it's just mafia-ruled state.

So all in all it can't work because someone's always gonna want to use that situation and take control. Human nature....

[Epicsideburns]

Im admittidly the "Business attitude jerk" type of guy who will screw everything up. I dont know what to say except that Im a pretty highly motivated individual who is not okay with status quo and will try to form some kind of structure out of nothingness if I believe it will benefit me in the long run.

[Adam Rebelius]

Well, well, well. It's THIS old argument again! Everybody in this forum so far has made some good points while at the same time presenting some serious flaws in each individual's analogy of what anarchism and anarchy means.

The fact of the matter is this: From my perspective, at this present moment in time anarchy does not work, and cannot work at present, and I don't believe ANY of of will live long enough to EVER see anarchy work in our life time.

Oh, sure, maybe on a VERY SMALL, VERY LOCALIZED LEVEL, it IS possible to see anarchy work in practice, but that is usually in the form of a small commune or collective, and, for better or for worse, no matter who much that small group of people practice anarchy, they are STILL surrounded by the world around them which does NOT practice anarchy nor is ready to. A small group of people can take over an abandoned building, and if they know anything about electricity and plumbing, can re-route municipal water mains to connect with the building's plumbing, and jerry rig the wiring in a street lamp and re-connect said wires to the building so there is electricity, but if the building is already condemned, and/or owned by somebody, you'll eventually be evicted and/or arrested. (At least that's how it works in Chicago. Different places have different laws concerning squatter's rights, and the taking over of condemned/abandoned property)

For anarchy to even begin to work, the individual in question must first and foremost be willing to take responsibility for their actions, and we, unfortunately, live in a world where it is much easier and more convenient to place the blame on somebody else, and there's always somebody around the corner at this moment in time who is willing to find a way to make a profit on the blame placing and the counter blaming. The Rothchilds built their dynasty on this kind of profiteering.

I thin we can all agree on the fact that you're NOT going to learn everything you need to know about anarchy from listening to a CRASS album. (Well, DUH!) and paying $20.00 for a circled a t-shirt at some chic t-shirt boutique doesn't automatically make you an anarchist either.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, before you go picking up and trying to absorb, understand, analyze and/or scrutinize books by Bakunin, Krpoptkin, or Emma Goldman, a person should perhaps start off by reading "Walden" by Henry David Thoreau before deciding weather or not he or she is an anarchist.

[homegrownterror]

what about Freetown Christiania? that's an anarchist community that's been going strong for quite some time now.