Anarchist idiots

[das_atheist]

Perhaps someone can answer this for me, in an anarchist society how would the weak and vulnerable be protected? Maybe I am misunderstanding how anarchy would work but wouldn't the strongest just dominate the weaker members?

We line those who oppress and exploit the weak and vulnerable against a wall, and shoot them.

I can't speak for everyone but this is what I'd do in an anarchist society.

Have you heard the saying, "Might makes right"? It's applies to all forms of government.

[nihilistcat]

Well, I would say associating ALL anarchists with the right wing illustrates an incomplete knowledge of history.

Try researching the Spanish Civil War (I highly recommend reading Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia").

Indeed, anarchism and libertarianism has been hijacked by the right wing. It started as a left wing phenomena, with Pierre J. Proudhon as the first thinker to refer to himself as an anarchist.

Not saying it's wise or advisable with the sort of society we have today, but many left wing intellectuals even today identify as anarchists (e.g. Noam Chomsky).

[nihilistcat]

Perhaps someone can answer this for me, in an anarchist society how would the weak and vulnerable be protected? Maybe I am misunderstanding how anarchy would work but wouldn't the strongest just dominate the weaker members?

With the form of anarchism that I assume you're referring to (anarcho-capitalism), the poor would pretty much be SOL.

However, I personally don't think capitalism could survive without a government that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force (e.g. police power).

I don't think anyone here would dispute the contention that dismantling government would cause at least temporary chaos. And with no police protection, the days of the 1% would be numbered. Just to survive, they would probably be forced to do what the wealthy did during the Spanish Civil war, give up all their shit and blend in with the peasants (and hope like hell someone doesn't recognize them).

But even right wingers aren't that stupid. They like some parts of government (the police, prisons, intelligence services, the military, etc.). You don't even hear Rand Paul calling for the dissolution of the state.

Anti-state libertarians are actually pretty rare. There's only one sort of prominent thinker that I'm aware of who endorses the idea (Hoppe).

Don't get me wrong, with what's happened to America, ran by two political parties who no longer give even a little fuck about anyone besides themselves (even the shit they do to feign giving a shit turns out to be another scam to help their buddies), I'm surprised Americans haven't whipped out the guillotines ... but the truth is, this is one dumb fucking country full of white trash dip shits, who wouldn't know they're getting fucked even if they had a horse dick up their ass

[Aristocatt]

So to start off, I guess I should point out that I am a statist.

However, a lot of you seem to be under the impression that Anarchists believe that everyone will get together, and as one of you pointed out, "Sing Kumbaya". This is however not how many anarchists think.

[CapnAwesome]

I agree that anarchowhateverism isn't a very well thought out system, however I think it's silly to expect good and proper behavior from someone who labels themselves as an anarchist.

I dunno, their 'system' kind of expects people to get along just fine in order for it to really work. Yet their own behaviour perfectly highlights why their own system would never work. It's a brilliant irony really.

Haha, too true.

[Napoléon]

So to start off, I guess I should point out that I am a statist.

However, a lot of you seem to be under the impression that Anarchists believe that everyone will get together, and as one of you pointed out, "Sing Kumbaya".  This is however not how many anarchists think.

Oh no, that's not what I or anyone else seemed to be suggesting at all. However, seen as you're so in tune with what anarchists seem to think, maybe you could explain how an anarchist system would work when quite evidently, people don't get together and sing kumbaya.

Also, if you want to pretend that anarchists aren't fucking imbeciles, then maybe they, or you, could explain how anarchy would work without my 3 assumptions in this post: http://atheistforums.org/thread-34135-po...#pid972189

[Aristocatt]

I have only studied anarchy a little bit, so I am not very in tune with what anarchists think. I don't have to understand their philosophy to understand that they don't believe that anarchy is going to be a hippie utopia. But as you pointed out, I may have misunderstood what it was some people were asserting.

I imagine they would say the second one is to some extent a true assumption. It's not as though things don't get done under anarchy. The rate at which power lines were put up in Somalia after 1995 increased, and barring a small hiccup, life expectancy also increased. Hobbes' assertion also doesn't seem to hold even among the worst of a society. Pirates in the Caribbean were able to more or less get along with one another even though they had no real rule of law. I would say anarchy is probably not as terrible or impossible as most people make it out to be. I can also understand how with the belief that anarchy is doable, people might value freedom to such an extent that they would choose anarchy over governance. I am not big on making valuations of intelligence based on preferences.

A lot of Anarchists that I have met like to use Weber's definition of government when having these debates. You however may have a different understanding of what a Government, and by it's definition Anarchy, entail.

[Mister Agenda]

They should start a small community run under the principles of anarchocapitatlism and see how it works out. What we have may be messy, but it's based on hundreds of years of keeping what works. Proving it can work is an important step.

[nihilistcat]

Typical left wing anarchism does have a respectable intellectual tradition. Some of our greatest activists during the labor and women's rights movements have been anarchists (e.g. Emma Goldman and many others), its thinkers include intellectuals from Proudhon to Rocker, Bakunin, Chomsky, Bookchin, and others. There's an Institute for Anarchist Studies, mutualism and social ecology grew out of the left anarchist movement, etc. In general, anarchism is an "anti-authoritarian" movement. However, on the left we recognize that capitalism is by its nature authoritarian, hence, left-anarchists are both anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist.  Like I said, while I think anarchism could work and even function well in an "intentional" society, it's probably not realistic in modern America (anarchism usually only becomes a reality in failed states or partially failed states, or during times of extreme economic hardship, mostly because states tend to focus considerable effort on convincing people that true freedom is impossible and dangerous). But anarchism is not a self-centered movement. It challenges unjustifiable authoritarianism wherever it exists. Anarchists are usually the one's who trigger labor movements (think the Haymarket martyrs and earlier revolutionaries who advocated for labor). So anarchists have been at the forefront of progressive causes that have in many cases led to social democratic reforms (like laws that grant and protect the right of workers to organize, reproductive rights, civil rights, etc.).

Indeed, the mainstream "left" in this country is often considered to be part of the reactionary right wing by left anarchists (which is why you see so much hostility between the radical left and mainstream left in this country). It's only when radicals like anarchists begin to build awareness on issues that you see the mainstream (so called) left jump on the bandwagon (and eventually co-opt the message altogether, and transform it from something that was truly liberatory to minor reforms that may provide a little relief for people, but continue to protect the economic interests that they truly represent).

So for me, anarchism represents an ethical position, a moral system, as opposed to a political theory or schematic for a utopian society (many anarchists reject the idea of utopianism). It's something that says authoritarianism is not self-justifying. Whether we're talking about our personal relationships (like the relationship between men and women) or our institutional relationships (boss worker, cop citizen, government bureaucrat and citizen, etc.), we first seek to identify unjustifiable incidents of authoritarianism, and then challenge them (usually through different forms of activism and direct action).

It's a complex history, but it should be appreciated for what it is rather than allowing our pre-programmed reactionary impulses to do our thinking for us (which of course isn't really thinking at all). Was Thomas Hobbes right, do we need the strong arms of a state to keep us from devouring ourselves? Most anarchists believe that we are capable of designing democratic systems that appeal to the best and most altruistic parts of our nature (rather than systems which merely redirect our worse impulses, but appeal to and exploit those bad impulses nonetheless), but it is admittedly hypothetical. There's a few examples out there, but I'm not sure how applicable they are to a highly developed country like the US.

So I would say that mainstream DNC types, those who believe that the parts of our political system that feign caring about left wing causes, actually give a shit, are the naive ones. Anarchism may be hopeless in the context of modern western society, but we understand what we're up against, and we're under no delusions. We understand the reality that was best expressed by George Carlin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtgfzzwoyK4

Oh and the "A" in my avatar is for anarchism, not atheism, even though I also happen to be an atheist. We simply go one step further. We know that a well informed society will never be produced by the state. If we want it ... we'll have to build it ourselves. Here's a quick excerpt taken from the book by George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia. The anarchists were the first to fight European fascism (Mussolini and Hitler), and George Orwell (along with many people from different countries throughout the world) signed up with the "International Brigades" and traveled to Spain to fight alongside the anarchists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehzC937Q9Dc

There's a beautiful and rich history out there waiting for you to learn. Don't be a slave to the propagandized information that we're spoon fed by our system. Think outside the box ... that's where the beauty is. If our entire society became awakened, anything and everything would become possible. Even though I'm a scientist and prone to thinking quantitatively, I had the great honor of marching alongside artists and hell raisers, and it was truly a life changing experience. You're already atheists, you've already dropped the ghosts and goblins of our primitive past. So why not at least explore alternatives to the ghosts and goblins of our present?

[nihilistcat]

You see stories like this one, "Meet the Kurdish Women Fighting ISIS" ... they've almost become fetishized in the west at this point.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-te...ia-n199821

But you you won't hear about the ideology this group of Kurds follows. They're an anarchist and feminist society. They reject hierarchical leadership, and make decisions via direct democracy, where everyone is involved in decision making. And this has been the most capable (ground) fighting force against ISIS. As of late the US has been providing air support and supply drops in places like Kobani (where the PKK have successfully fought off ISIS on several occasions).

Well folks, this is anarchism in action, doing what anarchists do ... fighting fascists.

Wanna hate on anarchists ... that's fine. Go suck some donkey dick, Hillary and her bankster friends will have a great laugh when thinking about how gullible you are