Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: What is Anarchy and why do people fear it?

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 4, 2012, 5:58 a.m. EST by Algee (182)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Last year in my law course we studied the reasons that explain why we need law. The instructor gave one reason as Anarchy. He told us Anarchy would lead to chaos, but is that true? What is Anarchy? Why do people fear it? Can it bring good to society? Must people really be led? Try to answer this in the most unbaised way possible and make sure to behave so that we all may benefit from this disscussion. I thank you in advance for your participation.

44 Comments

44 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by DouglasAdams (166) 2 years ago

Is anarchy an option? The political controversy today is over the economy, healthcare, taxes, jobs and national debt. The national debt is center stage because Republicans want to cut spending to balance the budget and spare future generation’s unsustainable taxation.

The new Republican Romney and Ryan duo have not yet mentioned anything about what they will do about fraud, deregulation, incompetence and corruption that has affected financial sector for over 40 years. They are blaming Obama for the unethical behavior at banks that led to the financial crisis under Bush and is continuing. Why aren't there audits of every agency in the federal, state, county and municipal government? Is the government too small?

The Congress approved Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, Medicare Drug Acts without raising taxes. This launched the United States on a spending spree that will be billed later. Wall St had provided credit for US expenditures, but Congress should have locked the doors to the Wall St casino when $2.3 trillion disappeared from the Pentagon in one year, 2001.

That Pentagon’s accounting failure is such a huge amount of money that it should have shut the government down immediately. How could our governments have been so easily distracted by jets flying into the WTC Twin Towers? Do you realize how much money $2.3 trillion is? If $700 billion TARP was needed to float the banking system in 2008. What would $2.3 trillion do if it is missing? Where could it have gone?

Let’s suppose the endemic government fraud, deregulation, incompetence and corruption are signals that anarchy has already taken over. That explains a lot. Except it is from the top down, not the bottom up. The 1% are among the anarchists and vice versa.

Max Keiser on Currency Wars Global Derivatives http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSadYgsJ2rQ

Max Keiser on Too Big to Fail

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiaax9GHFL0&list=PL57A38F2F2E292781&feature=view_all

Rumsfeld Announces $2.3 Trillion Missing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJOkdZTHP7Q

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

It all depends on how exactly you define anarchy. If you define it simply has a lack of a strong vertical chain of command, then it isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, having a more flexible and horizontal arrangement in which power runs both ways was the whole point of the American Revolution and can make for an incredibly strong and healthy society because it provides an inbuilt institutional mechanism for dealing with incompetence and corruption.

If, on the other hand, you define anarchy as the lack of any formalized social or political structure at all then you run into some serious problems. When there are other, stronger ties binding a group together and there is a fair amount of cohesiveness and discipline it is entirely possible for things to run just fine without any formal structure involved because informal structures and norms are capable of sufficing.

The problem is that the larger and more diverse the group of people you're trying to regulate gets, the less likely you are to be able to evolve a single set of informal structures and norms that works for everyone. That then means that the society in question opens itself up both to serious conflicts that arise out of misunderstanding and to malicious actions by people who take advantage of the lack of structure to abuse fellow citizens.

[-] 1 points by kickthemout (83) 2 years ago

Anarchy take place when people loose faith in the government and start a rebellion. In a fair, just society there is no need for Anarchy. We don't have a fair, just society here in this Country. Republicans and Democrats have failed to provide an honorable representative government where laws, criminal and civil, are passed for the exclusive service and benefits of the people. Our politicians don't give a damn about us and of our numerous demands for redress of our grievances.

This is why I fully support the actions of OWS-Global Revolution.

[-] 0 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

If you consider the indigenous example they got along quite fine in many cases with social conventions rather than laws, and certainly there were no police and prisons. Cultural attitudes were much different though.

I seriously doubt it would work today, maybe in some more enlightened future; but while I know a lot of people who would have no trouble living without laws... there is a certain segment of the population hell bent on power, control, lording over people, or abusing and swindling them. It would simply never last. Even in this day and age people still kill each other over religious differences.

The current system is a complete joke though, it might be marginally better but its clearly time to try something new.

[-] 0 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Anarchy has a, shall we say, "floating" definition. It could mean Marx's communism (which in fairness, has little relationship to the Leninism it supposedly inspired), or it could stand for something out of a Dead Kennedy's song (and a variety of other things) :)

These days, it's also associated with the concept of democratic capitalism (although, I really don't see the relationship). It's a word with negative connotations (so I'm not sure why people still cling to it)?

But still ... the Dead Kennedy's (and that whole era of punk) is under-appreciated (the greatest era of music, before our so called musicians were selected by commercialized shit like American Idol).

[-] 0 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 2 years ago

Anarchy/=Anarchism

Either way, anarchism is one of those things that only works in theory.

Hierarchies evolve naturally. Heck even OWS has "facilitators"

[-] 0 points by jart (1091) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Please explain how having meeting facilitators goes against the principles of anarchism. You're spreading misunderstanding of anarchist theory :(

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Great point, theory v practice.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I think anarchy more correctly means without hierarchy. This pretty much implies leaderless, lack of authority, lack of rules. I don't think it necessarily has to lead to chaos. Chaos and disorder is more of a secondary definition.

I do not believe that anarchy necessarily leads to disorder. In fact, I think that anarchy can be very structured and orderly. However, I think it would take an extraordinary amount of time and effort to maintain order in an anarchistic non-hierarchical structure. And I don't think the structure would be very efficient or effective in terms of decision making. I think heirarchical structures have a much better chance of being efficient and effective and proven success. I don't think there is a good proven successful case for non-hierarchical structures on any large scale.

People may fear it because they don't understand it. And I think people naturally gravitate to those things that are more orderly.

[-] 0 points by turak (-812) 2 years ago

Is everybody here as brainwashed and thick-headed as you are? The answer is: yes.

You are a brainwashed wannabe capitalist, a mindless blob of protoplasm: an obedient servant of the haves: the enemy of the have-nots.

You're a law student.

Lawyers are some of worst scum there are, they're the lowest class of lying swindlers, robbers and cheaters on earth.

Your goal is you wanna get rich by climbing up into the money class of rich lawyers. You god is MONEY..

If you tried to attend an Occupy rally and sleep in a tent with them: once they found out who you are, they would kick you OUT. .

You have the nerve to come here. You're the enemy of the 99% You dedicate your life to screwing the 99% and enriching the top 1%

And you have the nerve to come here

You're not wanted here You're not liked here get off this forum

[-] -2 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 2 years ago

You're so funny. If you are arrested at an OWS protest will you represent yourself in court or hire an attorney?

[-] -1 points by turak (-812) 2 years ago

Was I speaking to you. fuckface? If you are a lawyer or a law student: then my post applies to you. Otherwise shut your stupid mouth.

[-] -1 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 2 years ago

Ooooooh, I'm shaking in my shoes.

You must be happy libraries provide free internet access to the homeless.

[-] -1 points by turak (-812) 2 years ago

What are you doing here: asshole? You're a troll get off this forum

[-] -1 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 2 years ago

Laughing a loser like you. Self-employed writer? Hahahaha!

Posting on this forum doesn't qualify you as a writer.

[-] 0 points by turak (-812) 2 years ago

what are you doing here?

You're a troll:

What are you laughing at?

Yourself

What do you do all day?

Troll the internet

Can you read a book?

No.

Have you ever read an entire book an understood what you've read?

No.

[-] -1 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 2 years ago

Self-employed writer? Sure you are. Remember, posting rants and curses on a forum does not quality you as a writer by profession. Well, maybe it does in your part of Canada, eh.

[-] -1 points by turak (-812) 2 years ago

What difference does it make to you whether I'm a self employed writer or not? I don't give a fuck what you think about me. You can go to your grave convinced I am not a published author... in fact I hope you do.
oh... you expect me to prove to you that I am a published author. Well.... hmmmmm let me know, after you die: I'll prove it to you then, okay? Will that make you happy? It makes me happy.

[-] -1 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 2 years ago

Junior high school newsletters do not qualify you as a published author.

[-] -1 points by turak (-812) 2 years ago

oh. You think I am still in high school

I graduated from high school in1967 from the Montreal High School That was the year of Expo 67: the world Exposition held by Montreal's Mayor Drapeau... In the middle of the St :Lawrence river on St Helen's Island

I could tell you many stories about what happened then... but I won't.

I prefer you to be convinced I'm not a published author

Have fun imagining any bullshit you wish. Just don't bother me with your crap anymore.

[-] -1 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 2 years ago

So you are an old unpublished writer.

[-] -1 points by turak (-812) 2 years ago

zzzz

.

[-] -1 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 2 years ago

accurate description of your life.

[-] -1 points by turak (-812) 2 years ago

whatever you choose to imagine
zzzzzzz

[-] 0 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

If we are to look at why people fear anarchy, we (generic we throughout) need to look at the psychological make up of human beings.

We are structure dependent beings. From our earliest memories, we accepted 'right and wrong' as told to us by our elders. We are actually uncomfortable when we are expected to define the structures ourselves until we learn how to apply our early teachings and fitting them into our personality and lives.

In every society, from hunter/gatherers, to today's political bodies, there has always been a structure created for the cohesive group, whether that structure was loosely formatted or strict rule of law.

We've always known that there are groups that would band together (groups that would have their own structure) to forcibly take from others and there would be groups with differing structures which would band together to build a society which eventually would need to be protected from outside groups.

We speak of a classless society, yet it is something we can not achieve, there will always be those we consider to be wiser than the majority of the group, those who have talents the rest of the group do not, those who's ability to absorb and learn new skills which exceed the ability of the rest of the group. The closest we can come to the utopian classless society is a mobile society, sadly in recent decades our mobility in America has been less than previous.

The majority of people view anarchy as a society where might equals right, with no regard for the needs of the weak, even when those weak are the very ones most needed to sustain the society.

[-] 0 points by Algee (182) 2 years ago

One of the recurring problems with some answers I read is that some people say how society will "not achieve" Classless society. Where is your proof of this?

[-] 0 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

I did not say a classless society is not achievable, I merely point out the psychological and historical trends that show that for the most part it is considered undesirable by a majority in any society.

[-] 0 points by freedomthistime (0) 2 years ago

"What is anarchy and Why do people fear it?" Those in charge fear it because it aims at a classless society. Almost everybody else fears it because those in charge largely succeeded in associating the word "anarchy" with violence and chaos. So, what is it really? I gave my take here if anyone wants to read it:

http://freedomthistime.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/anarchy-%E2%80%93-what-it-means-for-me-what-it-means-for-the-future/

[-] 0 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 2 years ago

My views anarchy seems to change everyday since the start of this revolution. What I used to think was: Anarchy = Chaos and Violence. This is not anarchy. It is the collective fear of what anarchy would produce (thoughts I inherited). Now I look at it differently. Instead of defining it in terms of how it couldn't work, I define it in terms of how it could be possible. Self government, strong communities, ?. There is no doubt in my mind that a collective intelligence exists. I think for anarchy to work large scale, we will need to learn how to work with this collective but at the same time we must learn to restrain from manipulating it. I am not sure what I am trying to say. Something like, we must work together to remove collective fear, not add to it.

[-] 0 points by 4TheHumanSocietyProject (504) 2 years ago

this is controlled chaos. What we need is uncontrolled chaos to bring peace.

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

Well I've often thought what I would do in the event that law and order fail, and the answer came simply, I would live by the laws of God, much as I am already, so I dont believe I need law and order for myself and my family. Hell if anything , law and order has screwed me over the years, and never served me.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

If you get rid of formal laws and leaders, they will just be replaced with naturally occurring informal laws and naturally occurring informal leaders.

There are no formal laws in my household, but there are plenty of informal ones (and they have evolved over time) between me and my wife. Same goes for leadership, sometimes I lead and sometimes she leads. Just depends on the activities we do together.

After thinking about anarchy in that light, I don't necessarily believe it would lead to complete chaos simply because I imagine people would follow the values they were raised on and behave in that manner. Would there be transgressions, problems, and violations? Certainly, but we have those anyway.

Still, I guess I don't see what gains, if any, would be made from simply changing the larger format of society from - formal to informal. It seems to be a denial that laws and leadership would emerge anyway.

[-] 0 points by Algee (182) 2 years ago

It all depends how you look at Anarchy, I personally look at it in a more organized fashion. I forget the notion that people need to be led to succeed. In a Direct democracy leaders would not be needed. However the point you make about informal and formal leaders is good.

[-] 0 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

From my own work experience of supervising employees (teams up to 15 members or so), I found that less leadership, more values oriented approach, and larger employee participation in the organization of assignments produced the best results. Is that somewhat in line with what you mean.

[-] 0 points by Algee (182) 2 years ago

Yes that is exactly what I mean, more participation always better to get work done and to bring people together. Our next system should be more inclusive of people, hence more democracy. My opinion on this, is not to abolish leadership but to make all people leaders of their society.

[-] 0 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Doesn't really sound all that Anarchist to me, just democratic. LOL.

[-] 0 points by Algee (182) 2 years ago

It just doesn't have any little elite leadership, the thought was quite recent and still needs some work before I publish it. Maybe it isn't anarchy after all but the post was still to be a place for people to reconcile with Anarchy. I do my best on this forum to bring light and knowledge to people and to make them understand prior ideas they criticized without knowing anything about.

[-] 0 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

I am in favor of more democratic approach to everything. I did fail to mention that I often butted heads with my republican leaning owner and eventually ended up quitting working for him because he kept shooting himself in the foot on progress by employing heavy handed tactics (fear, guilt, etc.) to motivate his workforce. He once told me that because he was the owner, he was entitled to treat people in any manner he wanted. Sucks. I really loved that job itself, but I hated working for him.

[-] -1 points by turak (-812) 2 years ago

YES:

What the OWS movement is missing is a training program to turn all of the followers into leaders.

That is what is missing in ALL human society; not just the OWS movement.

Every single group that meets under the Occupy banner should make this training compulsory for everyone who joins the movement.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Read Karl Marx "The communist Manifesto" then tell me what you think.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

What is your definition of anarchy? Does the term mean a complete lack of any controlling authority? If so, I would be allowed to force entry into your home to murder your family and use your home without consequence. I would guess that the prospect of absolutely no authority would be the reason most people are a little hesitant to support anarchy as a system of government.

The Founders organized the government as close to anarchy as could be allowed without the complete breakdown of a protective controlling authority. The framework constructed is only capable of organizing a moral, God worshiping people. Without a moral framework for the people to base their personal lives, a limited governmental control is inadequate to govern a lawless, immoral constituency.

[-] 0 points by Algee (182) 2 years ago

I do not give my definition, I ask people to post theirs and their ideas on Anarchy and why people might fear it.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

So much for a conversation.

Have fun.

[-] 0 points by Algee (182) 2 years ago

I will.