in general....

[skumfukk_PREV (deleted)]

if anarchy every really occured as a new world order...there would be chaos at every turn. every single person on this planet has a different opinion. no matter what you do you cannot change their opinion and with some way of governing the human beings who live and thrive on this planet each and every different opinion would try and enforce itself to try and make the rest believe. this is one main reason why there is such a problem with religion and the battles and wars it causes. there is no law to govern religion (if there wa there would be even more problems). regardless of the religion issue, there is no way to change and make human nature conform to absolute peace (especially not with billions of people, it is impossible). human nature will reign, even with anarchy, especially these days we thrive for power and money. even if money was nonexistant...power will never be erased. i am not saying that it wouldnt be nice if everyone would live lawless and completely free. that would be awesome. however, it does not seem possible to me, and with all the technology and advancements (or destructive machines) we have today, the most we can do is shoot for a slight revolution or complete annhilation of earth itself.

[drey]

Finally someone who has realized that although anarchy is a beautiful idea that is all it is - an idea. There will always be people willing and able to assert power over others and because of that we sadly need a governing body. Although I don't believe anarchy is possible I do think the government we have now sucks. Completly and entirely lame. We do need a change of things. To what I don't know but something that is for certain. Thanks for your post-it is nice to find someone with a realistic view

Drey

[jacknegativity]

Plain old "anarchism" is an idea. Anarcho-Communism (not to be confused with Soviet Communism--completely different thing) is more realistic, and could work. Anarcho-Syndicalism has actually had some success in France, making it quite realistic as well.

Most of the people that argue FOR government usually don't understand anarchism or have just read a small paragraph about the most basic theory online (and most likely on a pro-capitalist site). You can say that some people will always assert authority, but the truth of it is one person would be in charge and would need people to acknowledge his or her authority over them and support it. People won't support someone being their master if the don't have to. And one person can't take control of everyone if they are alone.

I won't get into the whole pro-anarchy spiel (yet), but i will say this:

If you were free to be your own master, would you just decide one day to let someone else control you for their own person gain?

[mutinyannie]

`Ha, come on people... the political definition of anarchy is NOT what so ever the same as social anarchy! Anarchist's, believe in order and organization - all but the few insurrectionary anarchist's believe in ZERO order in a post revolutionary society. It is strictly hierarchical authority that we don't believe in - that is organization imposed from the outside on us in which we have no say....

We believe in workers council's and federational organization etc., etc., as methods to organize society - anarchism has nothing to do with a free for all..... And post revolutionary society, must not be confused with revolutionary tactics either, which obviously are war tactics (not societal structure beliefs).

If people want to learn what anarchism is actually about you can try my web page and look for the first set of political links on the left. And there is a good link to a very basic anarchism flyer down lower. There is even a Anarchy 101 video on my site that can clear up some of these silly misnomers in about 4 minutes. (removed)

All good punks owe it to themselves to know the difference between social anarchy, and political anarchy!
Annie

[mutinyannie]

`p.s. Anarchist's received their name from conservatives as well.

The conservatives argument being that society would be in chaos if we did not have "kings and Queens" (today's centralized government where the people have no true say in what effects their lives) running the show. A conservatives argument is that if we tried to run our lives locally (and interdependently as in federations) that we would be in chaos.


Ha ha ha, that's like Parent's telling their 45 year old adult children that they can not run their lives successfully without THEIR parents absolute authority and skill. Not only is that mental construct rank, it's psychopathic - especially considering what our government does around this globe to secure their business profit's.

So anyway, no, we would not be in chaos without them, and neither do we want chaos.

Peace!