Anarchy

What is your opinion on it ?

Anarchy is for the delusional who think life doesn't need order, and for the petty who resent those in power.

Now, revolutionaries who establish their own order are welcome. But that has nothing to do with anarchy. Anarchy is for kids.

A general principle around which to live one's life.

Anarchy is a form of order.

Cooperation with other people towards a common goal, even a goal of staying out of each other's way, implies some system to define goals and identify ways to cooperate. Whoops, I accidentally just invented politics and government.

Anarchy is one of the most useless memes ever.

>Anarchy is a form of order.
A terrible form of it that we've practically never even experienced, because it's never responsible for the creation of anything, just the minor destruction of things occasionally.

Anarchy is the delusion that order can be wrought without authority

>we need a state to cooperate

Why can't anarchy lead to creation?

Communalism seems viable and it's anarchist. Now that I think about it Bookchin influenced Kurdistan politics and they seem pretty interesting.

Well anarchy in a nutshell is: everyone is equal ,no one is more than you. Imo this isnt necessary chaos and destruction. If used properly anarchy can make the perfect country , but it will be very hard

>Why can't anarchy lead to creation?
Lawlessness, in a world of endless laws, means endless war. At some point, the anarchist has to become his own lawmaker if he wants to get anywhere.

As an historical phenomenom, it's completely different from what people who call themselves "anarchists" actually desire.

How so?

> Anarchy
> being delusion
The world literally exist in the state of an anarchy today because there is no world leaders or planet hierarchy. Instead of repeating buzzwords upon a buzzwords ad nauseam, you can just look how it works at the level of an international relationships and such. Some countries do crazy things but all around endless war isn't here even without leader who could force everyone to follow the status quo.

Anarchy doesn't mean lawlessness.

>Igoring the reality of Western liberal capitalist unipolarity

Yeah it does. The word you might be looking for is Anarchism.

You don't need one to do it, it's just the natural outcome of it. If you start with anarchy and then cooperate with other people you end up with some form of government before the week is out.

>Ignoring that most countries are socialist or become infected with cultural marxism.

Anarchy can be used to mean lawlessness, but anarchists use the word as a synonym for anarchism.

It can be an outcome, but I don't believe it's a necessary outcome.

Wow that's some shit art.

A state is necessary to guide society to properly function without hierarchy.

>USSR
>without hierarchy

kek

How can you have a state without hierarchy?

The truest and best way to live.

do you honestly expect me to take you seriously with that trip

The USSR was pretty shit tbqh.

You can't, the point of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to be tool to oppress the bourgeoisie just as the opposite is true now. The point is to guide society towards independence from hierarchy.

your belief isn't much weight against the whole of human history, sad to say

I don't care

There haven't been that many large-scale attempts at any anarchic society, so I don't think you can make an empirical analysis of the successes of anarchism.

Plot twist: we already live in an anarchy.
There is no higher truth or objective moral that reigns over the Universe and, more specifically, the humans.
So there is no law other than those of physics.
Everything we call law is a construct, it doesn't really exist from nature's point of view.
The law of "might makes right", or "survival of the fittest", however you want to name it, makes it so that the strongest can impose his manners on the lessers, and that's how a State, a Constitution, a country, a police force, a tax system, and so on, are created.

Modern nation states are nothing but the result of the evolution of small anarchist societies that had their origins in the crescent fertile, when people stopped being nomads and turned into sedentary communities, which, trough time, formed alliances, confederations, law systems, etc.

I do not believe that private entities can create a fair and unbias Military, Judicial System, Protection of Private Property Rights system, protection of national boarders (look at Byzantium with its large mercenary force as an example) or have a Police force that can go completely just (It would probably reflect the same as current iterations of police)

Anarchy is both a nice and scary thought. Nice because it embodies the idea of complete free will, scary because it embodies the idea of complete free will. To survive you will most likely have to form coalitions of trusted neighbors and family. Fear of a "Warlord" or "Despot" would always be looming, probably under the guise of "With me, you will always be protected."

>Mom's gonna FREAK!

absolutely and unequivocally based, the best philosophical movement of all times and the ideal that I believe in the strongest

>people who hate police
>start rioting and causing disruption and chaos
>need more police to contain the problem

If it was total anarchy, people would throw over the police and with the realization that there's no governing authority to uphold the law, they would start breaking newly breakable laws one by one and it would most likely never stop. Eventually a system would establish itself but we'd be living in an Escape From LA world.

It pretty much ended up being rule by patriarchs, and most anarchists I know are hugely into feminism.

At least Proudhon understood these implications of anarchism.

It was called the dark ages.

That was anocracy, not anarchy. Warlord rule like in Somalia now.

Shitty meme ideology that shouldn't be taken seriously. Basically every single person I've met who associates as being an Anarchist is a 20-something Punk Rocker high school drop-out whose "political movement" involves being violent and destructive for discernible reason.

I like it but the 90s fetish keeps it from going anywhere at the moment. What with the FALC meme I give it a year or two before some decent futurist anarchism shows up.

Anarcho-syndicalism could work in a culturally homogenous society.

Anarchy is for the people who live their lives by "common sense" and nothing else.

But that's just cuz adults are brainwashed, maaaan. And education is a tool of the elites, dude.

i bet dollar to donuts you are 20 something and never bothered to venture for social interactions outside your family or age demographic.

Well, there is a reason all anarchic territories were no more in a couple of decades.

>start rioting and causing disruption and chaos
>need more police to contain the problem
There is quite the difference between anarchy and chaos

>live in an all white village ~700 people
>good community
>lower-middle class, not particularly wealthy
>traditional conservative people
>many houses fly the Union Jack outside their house
>no police
>no crime
>village fetes
>local church still going strong
>ordered and law abiding community
"Bigoted nazis"

>travel to London
>open sewer
>literally no white people anywhere in sight in most areas
>CCTV cameras everywhere
>litter and shit everywhere
>pollution everywhere
>crime everywhere
>armed police on the streets
>people surrounded by millions of people hang themselves because they're lonely
>drug addicts, alcoholics, etc
>selfish and immoral population
"beacon of hope and progress"

Anarchists are just fascists in a country population: 1. Most people want to live in a peaceful and happy community. Those that don't need to be removed. Most remove themselves and move to the cities, hence cities are ''disordered'' despite having more authoritarian structures. It's not "le state", it's that forcing people to live in close proximity to so many people is effectively torture and makes city "dwellers" (HAHAHAH you cannot "dwell" in a city) mentally ill.

Population of England in 1516: ~2,000,000

Population of England in 1716: ~5,000,000

Population of '''''London''''' in 2016: ~9,000,000

Population of England in 2016: ~55,000,000