Anarchism: Idealistic or Realistic?

[The Ozzman]

I have been confronted with the whole political philosophy of anarchism.

In my opinion, I feel anarchism is nothing but an idealistic way of thinking since it's assuming that, without a set of laws to govern people, that everyone will act to their own devices without harming anyone and also assumes that every human being on the planet is a rational being with no mental/emotional/physical issues to speak of currently. I really don't think you can say that, without a set of laws, people won't kill other people for property or what have you.

Again, I am a bit tipsy so I will respond to this rationally tomorrow morning sometime.

There is the whole argument that 'People will kill without law regardless', but where does punishment come into play?

etc

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Anarchism is idealistic, but I don't even think it's something positive. I wouldn't even live in a perfectly functioning anarchic society. It would seem creepy, probably.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Oh god. To say anarchism is "idealistic" is an understatement. It's just nonsense.

 

[The Ozzman]

I didn't have a better term for it. I was trying to be civil with it

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Maybe if we're lucky we'll have one of the crackpots from over on the philosophy forum show up and post a nice generalisation-filled essay about why anarchism is the "truly enlightened" form of government.

 

[AchrisK]

Man is basically...bad.

 

[Dak]

I think maybe before the industrial/technological revolution anarchy might have worked, but as fucked up as everyone is thanks to the efforts from the Tavistock Institute (among others), the majority of people from "civilized" parts of the world are so mentally fucked it most definitely wouldn't work now.

 

[The Ozzman]

Anarchism would never work unless it was post-armageddon MAYBE

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I think maybe before the industrial/technological revolution anarchy might have worked, but as fucked up as everyone is thanks to the efforts from the Tavistock Institute (among others), the majority of people from "civilized" parts of the world are so mentally fucked it most definitely wouldn't work now.

lolwut

 

[Dak]

Anarchism would never work unless it was post-armageddon MAYBE

Well if we get into personal beliefs, God will come back during Armageddon and the earth will be run as a kingdom as per the Bible. So anarchy won't work then.

 

[cookiecutter]

As with most far left ideologies from the 19th Century, I don't think Anarchism is a realistic philosophy in the 21st Century.

 

[Zephyrus]

If it were realistic, it would not be able to thrive given the extent of global circumstances dictating otherwise.

 

[False Joe]

Well if we get into personal beliefs, God will come back during Armageddon and the earth will be run as a kingdom as per the Bible. So anarchy won't work then.

 

[The Heartbreak Kid]

Anarchy is a complete load of bollocks. And a reason why punks are fucking stupid.

 

[Dak]

As with most far left ideologies from the 19th Century, I don't think Anarchism is a realistic philosophy in the 21st Century.

Wouldn't that be a far right idealogy? Government control, regardless of the package it comes in (kingdom,facism,communism,etc) is leftwing.

 

[The Ozzman]

itt Dakryn doesn't know what true liberalist ideology is:

There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[4][5][6] Anarchism is usually considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,[7] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics; however, anarchism has always included an economic and legal individualist strain,[8] with that strain supporting an anarchist free-market economy and private property (like classical mutualism or today's anarcho-capitalism and agorism).

 

[Dak]

itt Dakryn doesn't know what true liberalist ideology is:

Whatever you just quoted is mostly bullshit, since Communism is still big government,as is socialism. Anarchy would be the overall absence of government, which is a totally different concept.

Edit: I would imbed the version of this video on youtube, but it isn't functional atm so heres a link elsewhere:

Basic Forms of Government and what they mean

 

[Death Aflame]

19th Century anarchism, as with all Enlightenment derived political philosophies, certainly does assume a benign subjectivity is inherent in us all. And you are right for pointing it out, Ozzman.

This is why poststructural/postmodern anarchism is such an important topic as it addresses this assumption head on by looking how power and dominance becomes internalized, naturalized through discipline. As Lewis Call has argued, "Thanks to the internalization of power, we carry out the project of oppression largely within the framework of our own consciousness."

As for the charge that anarchism is idealistic, yes it most certainly is, Utopian even. However, I fail to see how that is a fault, the ideals that it espouses ought to be the ones we strive to achieve, even if we fall short since it is based on two ideas that most of us value, as outlined by Richard Sclove:

"A. Freedom is the highest order human value. Respecting other people's freedom id s moral duty necessary for realizing one's own freedom. B. Given the inalterable fact of real-world social interdependence, the opportunity to fully develop and express individual freedom can best be secured within a context of democratic structuration"

If we were to avoid the term anarchism which seems to give the wrong impression to many, many people, you might better describe it as strong democracy that attempts to minimize oppression, authority and increase individual autonomy and self-governance abilities of everyone within a communal context.

 

[Death Aflame]

Whatever you just quoted is mostly bullshit, since Communism is still big government,as is socialism. Anarchy would be the overall absence of government, which is a totally different concept.

Anarchism is socialism. There are two main streams to socialist thought and practice--authoritarian (big government as you say, the USSR in its mature years is this no doubt) and libertarian (anti-state and anti-capitalism fundamentally, though also includes all other forms of illegitimate oppression).

Of course you may be thinking of anarcho-capitalism, which is not anarchism in the historical sense. Murray Rothbard founding thinker of the movement even argues that 'they' (as in his followers) are not anarchists.

 

[Dak]

The problem with anarchy is it creates a power vacuum, which is soon filled by a total control government. Democracy is really no better, since it is in essence "mob rule".

The only two forms of government I would want to live under would be a true republic, or total lack of government, and if it was a total lack of government you better believe I would stay as far away from other people as possible.