Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Death and Destruction

Posted 8 years ago on Dec. 1, 2013, 10:39 p.m. EST by Builder (4202)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Can anarchy co-exist with peace?

Or is it linked inexorably with death and destruction?

Please discuss;



Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by Renneye (3874) 8 years ago

Yes! Absolutely, anarchy can exist with peace.

One could say anarchic societies...that is, highly democratic societies run "By The People, For The People", are the very reason there can be peace within a populace.

By virtue of the all-embracing 'participatory' nature, and deliberate lack of representatives as 'leaders'...anarchic societies were (would be) far more ensured of fair and humane decision making that result in overall happiness and dignity for all, making it far more unlikely that crime, societal disruptions, and angry uprisings would happen because people have what they need and are comfortable, and thus, more content.

What our oligarchs don't want us to know, and have cleverly indoctrinated our conclusions away from, through media and manipulation of historical facts, is that there were early societies that had the 'Anarchic Model' working quite well. Although, they are not termed as 'anarchic' in literature describing those societies, but rather, "acephalous" (leaderless societies), or egalitarian (fewer distinctions in wealth, and fewer, simpler leadership roles).

In other words, a "People's Society".

"The Anarchic Model of the Iroquois Native Americans" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekPcGeW8P8c

Anarchism in North America - http://ask.metafilter.com/206447/Anarchism-in-North-America

Btw...it sure is good to see you on these pages again, Builder...and may I extend my heartfelt best wishes to you & yours on this 3rd December of us all being here at OWS, working for humanity.


[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

Thanks, Renneye. I do drop in for a read occasionally.

The word anarchy has a seemingly negative connotation in the minds of many. The mere concept of lawlessness frightens many. People generally consider law and the operatives who maintain law and "order", to be a necessary evil. Ergo, the creators of our laws, politicians, while despised by many, are considered to be preferable to anarchy.

I've recently witnessed the public sobbing over an actor who met an untimely fate (Fast and Furious). Others have stated that his friend should also be part of the public sympathy call, despite being a "nobody". I've responded to these posts with details of the half a million children who died as a result of trade sanctions against Saddam Hussein. Not one person has responded to my posts on this topic. Nobody seemingly wants to know.

I would posit that people are so drilled-trained-indocrinated-reactionary, that the MSM basically tells them what to think, and how to feel. The very few people who seem to be approachable on anarchic topics, soon ignore me, and move on to simpler topics, with less effort required to think.

My long-winded point is, terms like anarchy, and participatory democracy, may be too much for the average person to take on board.

How else could we vocalise our raison d'etre, without scaring off most of our population?

[-] 5 points by Renneye (3874) 8 years ago

You bring up a most crucial point, Builder...as I believe terminology is the critical factor in whether we can compel the populace to recognize anarchy as a viable and peaceful system of 'governing by the people'.

The term 'anarchy' has deliberately been and continues to be so erroneously characterized by Machiavellian tactics and propagated by the .01% owned media, that it is no longer possible to use as the peaceful and lawful descriptor that it originally was, imo.

I just love it when the word anarchy comes up in MSM news, and the 'reporter', feigning exasperation, comes back with, "What...do you mean lawlessness???" Lol!!

The oligarchs had to eradicate the word anarchy and the possibility of such a system from ever capturing the imagination of the populace. How could they possibly want it to be properly understood? Would the elite of any time period ever have said, "Oh sure, good and honourable people...go ahead, set up a system where you take care of yourselves and each other...and, oh, by the way, strip us 'ruling elite' of our enormous power and wealth...we won't mind." Uh...yeah.

I have seen arguments by purists, that we need to re-teach the people what the term 'anarchy', as well as socialism and communism truly mean. I vehemently disagree. Quite frankly, we don't have the time it would take to teach the populace that they've been duped and anarchy is a good thing. 99% of The 99% are 'apolitical' and have no desire to learn such things. It would take years to dislodge in the minds of the masses, the enormous damage done. Especially as we would be fighting against a continuous onslaught of demonizing anarchy from the current MSM. So, I can totally agree with "terms like anarchy, and participatory democracy, may be too much for the average person to take on board." In my view, the word anarchy would simply be another divisive tool, used by the oligarchy against a busy and uninformed populace, resulting in being at each other's throats.

"How else could we vocalize our raison d'etre, without scaring off most of our population?" Well, isn't that the question of the century!

I think, that if humanity is ever to embrace 'governing by the people', it is time to break free of the anarchy and other terminology of the past, and all its obscured dogma, propaganda, infiltration, abuse and obfuscation... entirely.

If we want out of the antiquated and stagnant status quo to bring humanity to a higher level of justice and equality...let's use a fresh new term. Whatever we come up with, the term should be friendly and warm...it should be 'forward thinking'...and no abstract words that the majority of people can't or don't want to understand.

So, let's "keep it simple, stupid." No, not you Builder, lol!! I just mean there is an exponentially higher chance of success if the general public can, not only, easily interpret the goal, but, actually get excited and earnestly want to take part in it. The term should describe simplistically, exactly what it espouses, in such a way that it cannot easily be hijacked and deliberately twisted for purposes of vilifying by the .01%, tyrannical governments or media.

Hey, I know...a "People's Society!" Simple, to the point, difficult to misinterpret, forward thinking, friendly. Perfect! Well, that's my contribution anyway, lol!

Under a new term, we can then converge the wisest qualities from anarchy, socialism, libertarian-socialism, communism, democracy, etc.

OWS' one demand, in my very humble opinion, should be to develop a "People's Society"...governed 'By the People, For the People.' Everything else we want for humanity, like...the end of exploitation, living wages, money out of politics, an end to hegemony, etc., all fall safely under that banner. When we're in, and the so called leaders and .01% are out, we'll fairly vote on all the rest...and make sure there is dignity for all.

It's time we take our future back, take care of ourselves and each other, and embrace a truly new way of humanity.


Yeah, the MSM and celebrity superficiality is beyond me. I can't tell you how happy I am that I don't know the celebrities and pop culture of the day. Visiting my celebrity adoring relatives can be a challenge, though. Like you, when tragedy strikes and the headlines sensationalize individual cases, my mind goes to the lives of the 500,000 babes who died in Iraq and the countless millions who live and die in senseless wars and inexplicable exploitation. What can we do for them...but persevere, and expose the injustices. There are some precious people and threads on this forum that do just that...and I am so grateful.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

Wow, that was such a well-worded and thoughtfully produced response, Renneye. Bravo.

The People's Society. I like it a lot.

It seems to me to be rather easy to gather support for individual issues, re GE foods, and cruelty to animals in food production. However, with cointelpro, where the oligarchy spends big on infiltration of anarchical and activist movements (I'm even thinking that anonymous has been hacked) it's getting harder to know just whom to believe on any given topic.

The most successful tactic used in cointelpro is to conflate the conspiracy angle, to the point where even the more radical amongst us start to wonder just where the truth ends, and the BS starts. It's at that point where the more moderate and thoughtful amongst the public supporters of any movement start to roll their eyes, and look for the exit, stage left.

Planting the seeds of doubt, especially in those of us who still have the power of imagination, while undermining our trust in those who seek to lead us forward, (see my comment re anonymous) are classic tools of the cointelpro operative, and I have no doubts in my mind that both the #OWS movement in general, and this forum in particular, have been infiltrated, and even co-opted to a certain degree.

I am also aware that my attempt now to explain this activity will, no doubt, actually assist these operatives, by placing more doubts, in more minds. Such is the reality we are confronted with daily, in both the MSM, and the "free" internet news services; just who can we believe?

Reading posts like yours, Renneye, give me hope that even though this forum might be lost to the cause, people like you, and others here, are strong enough to meet the challenges, and stand up to the forces that oppose us.

And for that, I thank you.



[+] -4 points by hotdays (-3) from Miami, FL 8 years ago


[-] 1 points by Copiosis (19) 8 years ago

I believe the idea that anarchy is linked to death and destruction is a misunderstanding of anarchy. From what I have learned about it, it seems more peaceful a belief system than not.

That said the system within which anarchists would live would IMO have to mitigate human behavior that is non-anarchist or else the conflict between anarchists and those who derive (fill in the blank) through the control of others is inevitable.





[-] -2 points by garywinstonthe4th (-1) from Jersey City, NJ 8 years ago

To answer your question we must first understand what causes death and destruction. If we look in nature, it becomes clear that living things generally don't destroy others for mere pleasure. They do it for survival. Humans are complex creatures, but the rule also applies.

The primary cause of death and destruction is thus scarcity of goods used to survive.

We control the law of the jungle using hierarchy. This is far from being perfect because people are not equal in power. Some are rich, others very poor. Nonetheless, in a world of finite resources this control could be argued better than all out anarchy where power struggles could be much more common leading to more instability. Most likely, if anarchy were implemented, it would quickly lead back to hierarchy when certain people would gain control of the production of goods. Economy and politics are strictly entwined.

Like communism, anarchy can only happen when there is no longer a scarcity of goods. When that happens, people no longer fight over goods and so they do not need to be controlled and contained as much. We have reached that stage in a few areas. For example, in certain countries tap water is good to drink and free to consume. You can use as much as you want and it's free. This is an example of communism. Unless we reach this with all goods and services, I don't believe pure anarchy or/and communism can be achieved in big nations.

On the local level, when the number of inhabitants is quite small and the logistics of resource allocation are easy to understand, anarchy can function quite well if there are enough goods and services for everyone.

However, and this is the most important aspect, it does not need to be either or. That is, Occupy is not just about creating a US run with anarchy. Although this might be the theoretical goal, I don't believe it is possible in practice until we reach a stage of non-scarcity. What's more interesting is looking at the examples of anarchy on a smaller scale and how they are tending to get larger and more common.

We can see anarchy growing in areas which don't concern good and services needed to live. When those goods or services are luxuries. An example is in the field of communications. Wikipedia is a great example. For the first time, people are pooling their energies together to create an encyclopedia. Anybody can contribute, and the resulting product is free for all. This is an example of anarchy. Linux is another. Although Linus Torvalds controls the repository, if people are not satisfied with the way he overlooks Linux, they can always create a fork to start their own version. Again, a good example of anarchy. To a certain extent, Facebook is also anarchic. Although Facebook does ban people, generally the community must complain for that to happen. It is not pure anarchy, but it is more anarchic than traditional blogs or forums. If you get kicked out of a group, you can always start one of your own.

I believe anarchy is inevitable and will gradually become implemented in a very natural way. It will start (has already started) with fields that are not necessary for life and death. Communications like I noted above. Then, the DIY movement is getting strong. With 3D printers, more complex tools easily available, etc... People are beginning to be able to make their own creations like never before. We even hear of printable circuit boards soon to make an appearance. We have DIY-biokhacking which will pave the way to open GMOs. So many things are brewing. It's an interesting time.

As for Renneye's example of anarchy amongst the Iroquois, this is true, but I believed it worked for the reason I stated above. They had enough land and resources for everybody. They had a huge area and were few to use it. In such a scenario, where people don't fight for survival, I think anarchy is quite possible.