Mom You're Embarrassing Me

Anarchism is actually far more intellectual a movement than a lot of people know. One of america's most famous poets was actually anarchist. However, he, like many, are strictly against using violence to promote these kinds of beliefs. Infact, the "anarchists" that do nothing but break shit, burn buildings, and all that nonsense are looked down upon highly by more than just people like you. It's perfectly understandable why people would see anyone self-labeled as anarchist as nothing more than delinquents who hate the government and cause chaos, but just know, not all of us are like that.

The basic fact is, like with communism, that anarchism is based upon belief that people can cooperate and be kind to each other. But it's too late to believe in fairy tales, world has seen too much already. And ain't shit changed.

Fair enough, but as with capitalism, democracy, monarchy, fascism, etc, no socioeconomic standpoint or system of government works as it's meant to, or atleast how it's put on paper. It's like physics, no transfer of energy is never 100%, some of it is always lost as thermal energy, this translates into government's inability to always act as it is planned to and avoid corruption or abuse. I admit to the fact that in today's society, where the very limits of the human population are reaching their peak, that anarchy is a horrible solution to this worlds troubles. Anarchy, like Communism, are meant for a more utopian setting. And like all things, any anarchaic society is subject to fail at any time, however this also includes, as i've mentioned before, capitalism and all of those things. So I chose to believe what I wish, regardless of it's potential application to a real world setting. Because I'd rather believe in something people believe is strange or far fetched, rather than a system in need of dire repair, already practically on it's death bed. In the end, no system will ever legitimately stand on it's own for long. Capitalism cannot last without regulation, Communism cannot stand without the ability for those meant to succeed, to succeed above their peers should they deserve it, and Anarchy cannot stand without some form of order to keep people from going completely chaotic

I can't disagree - but that's exactly my point. Anarchy even somehow "compromised", is still too much based on people's own capabilities of governing themselves.And let's get this straight - it's more possible that a total-capitalist country will emerge and success (I guess that in some periods of history USA was very close to complete capitalism) than a compromised-anarchistic country (that sounds like a paradox, doesn't it? Let's say community). I'm only pointing out, that believing in something unrealistic is a waste of time. Especially if it's not an aetheral thing like religion, but a very serious problem, like political and social beliefs.

I guess we can agree to disagree. Let me just leave off by saying that it's not impossible for an anarchaic, or compromised anarchaic society to witness as much success as a total-capitalist country, in the end, it's still entirely speculation, with nothing to lean back on except opinion and individual interpretation of various societies in the past. It's been a pleasure talking with you, I would've never thought I could have a talk like this on funnyjunk of all places.

a poet is really not a good example to show whether a belief is realistic or not.
i agree that the masses that connects anarchism with vandalism are wrong,
but i still consider anarchism as unrealistic and farfetched...

like with christians and biblefags, atheists and those asshole who hate christians, ther are different types of anarchists. theres the dumbass teens who go around shouting "FUK SKOOL NIGGA I IS TOO SMERT TO LERN IMMA BLOW DIS SHIT UP" and acting like retards when in reality all theyre doing is being lazy. then there the smart anarchists like Noam Chomsky, Henry David Thoreau and Lucy Parsons who use civil disobedience, literature and non violence to get their point across(and might i point out none of them were teens during the period they did this).

I do agree that some people from the so-called intelectual elite share this point of view. And I can't say that I consider myself as a smarter person then they because of my disagreement. But still I think that as far as I recall history, trying to reach an utopia (which anarchism obviously represents) always ended in violence, terror and war.

yeah but to have a utopia, you would have to get rid of every opposing force. then when that inevitably fails, you are deemed a monster by the rest of society whereas if you succeeded you would be revered as the man that brought world peace. that is what hitler, stalin, etc did and they are considered horrible people. im not sure if im an anarchist or not, i want people to have as much freedom as possible without turning everything into the dark ages, but i know that both sides have good points.

You see, I'm from a country that suffered over 40 years of socialist/communist oppression. I am too for having as much freedom as one can have without hurting others. But I know that better way of this is having a strong state, that will ensure your freedom and borders, and prevent e.g. violence in the streets. Having no government at all would perhaps be cool, but if people were like Swiss - they already have the government that does little more than setting votes about everything. Maybe the only country where people have actual power.

i agree, having no government would lead to two things. one, the anarchists become the thing they took down or violence would decide who lives and we'd be forced to fight to survive which might sound cool but lets face it, most of us would die within the first week.

Right, it's better to wait until they say that an inevitable end is within three months. Then there will be party.

and cake.

I just watched batman and the joker makes it sound like a lot of fun

just because a man has a beard doesn't mean he is any less naive.

Anarchism was thought up because some guy thought that humanity would eventually evolve to be perfectly moral. He believed that ownership is what held us back and that if no one owed anything to anyone no one would have a reason to be evil.

He was wrong -_-"

...WOW. You have -NO- idea of anarchist theories, do you?

You're not giving me much information to supplement what little I seem to know -_-"

I know that its founder hated the idea of property. He believed that people were thieves because they had to be thieves to survive in a world filled with classes. He believed in a world without any ownership there would be harmony. Something about humanity evolving to a perfect state wherein people will act morally because they will no longer be forced into positions that force them to be immoral. Unfortunately for him, these theories never panned out beyond his closed tests. His ideas failed. Unfortunately I forget the man's name... ought to get it for my next history test... meh...

Tell me, what anarchistic theories do YOU know about?

Finally someone noticed!

The funniest part about their philosophy is this: Many oppose religious organizations and well as governments. Lets say by some bizarre twist of fate they succeeded in destroying the world governments. The only organizations with power would be the megachurches in America, the Catholic Church in Europe and Africa, and the influential Imams in the middle east. Result? Medieval theocratic regimes again!

Society in of itself is anti-anarchist. Within a family unit you have an hierarchy, the father and mother are the tribal leader/absolute monarch/dictator/etc and the children are subservient; even within a group of friends, there's always the dominant or alpha friend, then you typically have the alpha's best friend, then everyone else. So yeah, anarchy is impossible because we're human, but with that said, a perfect world (which, obviously, we don't live in) would be an anarchist society, with at least some level of communist agrarianism. That's coming from someone fairly right-wing too.

Anarchists don't just blame government for everything, honestly the traits and problems most anarchists see in society has been around since the beginning of civilization. Once people became sedentary and widespread agriculture came about that's when organized hierarchical structures came about, along with surplus and shortages based on food supply, creating classes. Whereas before people lived as hunter gathers living completely off the land, no idea such as property or supply of food existed. Our true human nature is in a collective manner, just as the anarchist philosophy, the only problem is getting back to such a state. The way this world is going though I suppose there will be a few chances in man's future to return to such a lifestyle...

Anarchy can't exist in a world inhabited by man. Unfortunate, but true.

Banksy

sincerely hope you don't agree with this o.o

Why's that?

because you're insinuating that anyone who dreams of that future is somehow not really following a dream. What right do you have to define a dream as everything that is not what is listed? Also what kind of world would we live in IF that list didn't get fulfilled. Could you imagine a world where no one worked a day job, where no one raised a family, where no one saved for old age? It would collapse and then no one would be able to follow ANY dreams because we'd be too busy struggling to live.

The idea should be to fulfill the bottom, and if the bottom isn't what you'd dreamt to do, then in your free time accomplish whatever dreams you have. It should never be all or nothing, but basic survival necessities should always come first.

I agree totally. My dream is to have a family, have a day job, and maybe even a part time job. But I don't want people telling me what I can and can't get a job as. Or If I can or can't get married if I wanted to be with a guy.

I plan on leading a boring life, giving my devotion to other people. But i want to help people on MY terms. Not on the terms that have been decided are 'best' for me. I want people to live the way they want, but some of us don't want to live the way you do. I don't know if I support anarchism or not, but I totally support physical and mental freedom.

but you can't just pick and choose freedom. If you choose to embrace a society without rules you'll be making yourself open to people who feel that because they own a gun they deserve all of your property...

In the grand scheme of things... democracy is a slow and clunky system... but it gets the job done. It keeps us safe while giving us some of the control over policy.

It's not like I haven't thought about that. But that's in the murders heads that he can do that. It's also in most peoples heads that you have to live safely and sheltered to enjoy life. If if they don't believe it, they live by it.

I'm not looking for a revolution. I'd just like to leave the country and live how I decide. It's a lot more complicated of a thought in my head. You should probably talk to someone who's had more experience.

We'd all like to own an island where we are king. Save up enough and who knows, there are a few for sale ;)

says the man too afraid of what others will think of him to make a profile.

Maybe he was referring to the description

It is Banksy's work, no question