an Anarchist can also be someone like William Wallace or MLK,or anyone who questions authority,challenges it or defies it.not nessecarily a bunch of thugs.depends on how they might approach the oppressors tho.
If they establish villages and councils and such then it would no longer be Anarchy. the councils would be rulers. What he explains is a democratic confederacy.
you have described the Marx ideology of communism in its simplest. Anarchy does not work for countries or even city's, it is an idealised form of communism pushed by people who have no concept of it, but just want change. communism doesn't work, plain to see when you consider that there are no truly communist governments on the world
Good Mr President Obama: The world is realizing the truth: you are a hostage of the CIA and committed treason only to save your family: you forewarned those who listened: "First and foremost I am a family man." Good People will protect you and truth shall prevail.
If you have a precise view of what anarchy is it basically means you have no idea. Anarchy is planned through community effort and may be any system which has no government and total universal suffrage.
@ManosOceano. CIA is not anarchy, the CIA tries to break down various governments opposed to their goal, and then they typically have the goal of replacing the leaders with leaders who seek to go with the globalization of the world or the pro US side.
Anarchists have different thoughts of their own way of "anarchy", this type of anarchy is a way to get a more peaceful, natural and primitive way of life (like long long ago)
I for one believe in complete chaos and the world going to hell.
@gooberzify Its not primitive, though, sharing and creating of technology etc would just be BIGGER than in our world, all resources spent on science and progress, not shitty oligarchs pockets and wars and weapons... and ofc sharing ideas and thoughts through the internet..
5th:Doesnot explain how the communities will stop C as they don't have weapons(or at least not good such C once.How they will coo-operate when they will have different thinking of how to stop community C??? Or how when there will not be Minister of National Defence?
So for as I understood anarchy CANNOT increase a country's power and has gaps to fix.
The most fitting policy for me is Democracy(we don't leave in democracy don't be treated!) and not this kind of policy
@21LeoNidasZ Who says the other communites have to be dirt poor or without any weapons? All communites would most likely have militas. Also useing logical thinking, communites F,B,A,K,Z and others dont want to be ruled so they would ban together to fight C. An example would be the chinese cilvil war bwteen Communists And imperialists, 2 Totaly diffrent types of thinking. Regardless of their of thinking the communists and imperialists stood together to fight, The japaneese Empire.
1rst:If a community doesn't have something to trade what happens then?
2nd:If the country will be seperated in some pieces that cannot help country to boost the economy as the video wants to say.Just beacause here will not be economist or someone to handle the money! (Let's be realistic which community would trust the other?)
3rd:HOW THE COMMUNITIES BECAME WHEN THERE IS NO representative
4rth:LOL if you want anarchy in theory there is no wars...so if C will make war something going wrorg
@21LeoNidasZ If a piece doesn't have any resource or any help to the country why do people populate it even in political structures that aren't anarchy?
I agree that a community waging war would be difficult to contain, but it would eventually be contained. Remember that if the majority of the population is into anarchy, they would probably fight to maintain it.
Anarchy will never increase a country's power, but it will increase the happiness of individual citizens.
@mavriksfan11 disagree,people want to have judges to be more secure because they just cannot trust anarchist.When I say judges I mean it not the corrupted once
So, what happens when there is a legitimate dispute between A and B with irreconcilable differences? Without some sort of reasonable dispute resolution system, then there will be war between A and B.
There can be leaders without rulers. There can be rules without laws. There can be private ownership without coercion.
Unfortunately, your councils will become the de facto "state". Democracy is merely a means for the majority to force its will on the minority and the individual.
Anarchy has religious interpretations as well; If we accept the definition:_ "negation of all oppression" Then a total liberation of all spiritual matters ranging from habits and addictions would be seen as an opposing force and then considered unnatural. Consider Free Will and Biodiversity.
Oh in theory this sounds great!!! But wait, what else sounds really good in theory? Oh yeah, communism.
In reality, C would bribe all those little communities (or bully) until they got allegiance, then C would continue to conquer and anarchy would be lost!
I.E.: Mongolia was an anarchistic country of nomads, then Ghengis Khan took that shit over. You think surrounding communities didn't try and fight him??
@mavriksfan11 you are right it is tribalism...and don't tribes always have a lot of little wars? Anarchy sounds good...but the people would have to be more moralistic and evolved.
@oshun1235 They did. I think a modern version of tribalism with moralistic people like we have now (for the most part) would be quite successful. I do wonder though if people would regress. We haven't experimented much with anarchy, so we don't really know.
@anarcrustie@NatureGnome The problem is not the fact that we have a government, in fact our government is, in theory, a good thing because it is held accountable by the voters. The problem is that most people have no concept of economics and what the constitution acctually means, we hang on the ramblings of Fox 'News', Michael Moore, and Jon Stewart because they entertain us.
When the jester is running the kingdom the kingdom is doomed.
Did you forget the part where he says anarchy doesn't imply violence or riots? He isn't giving it a bad name, just showing different situations so people don't have more questions than answers. Idiot.
hey man, it's people like you that give anarchy a bad name. c starts a war, Jesus man u have to think of the worst possible thing to happen. and no legal system? there can still be a legal system, but one that's private.
Anarchy seems fine when you think of it in best-case scenario with everyone wanting to help out, no one taking advantage of others, but when one community makes alliances with other communities and decides to want more power, then you're all the way back to a ruler. Seems like a fun idea until you realize the realistic human desire for power.
So correct me if I'm getting this wrong: The video proposes getting rid of a big territorial monopolist on violence and replacing it with a lot of small ones? That's not anarchy. Yes, it's miles better than what we have now, but it's still statism on a smaller scale.
Why won't you allow for competing law enforcement agencies and arbiters that need to be contracted? There is no conceivable way these entities could wage war, but there are tons of examples of states, however small, doing it.
anarchy is natural..anarchy would exist perfectly but it cannot because as we were socialized to be submissive our baser and more anti-social tendencies proliferated and flourished.... when we die we'll understand.
The Neo-Nazis and New Black Panther Party can be categorized as groups with National-Anarchist values, they are not representatives of Anarchists though. There are different types of Anarchists.
if only people would not be greedy we would be okay. and if religious people would just worry bout themselves then we would be okay. To all.... just stick with your familys because I honestly believe that we are heading for a large war and we should all be ready. i mean keep working and shit but just be ready lol
@Regginyaga if yout trying to imply that anarchy is what hitler did, your truly uneducated... go to school, learn things such as history and polotics... dont compare Anarchy to one mans pschycopathic rien of terror... you dont know what your saying, therefore making yourself look very dumb
I can observe that by you not reading the description you are very ignorant, therefore I can conclude that you are not very well educated. You should go to school and become educated so you can learn to observe descriptions. I can also conclude by a scientific process that you also smell. If you would go to school and learn about polotics like me you would be smart like me, Therefore in conclusion you would not look dumb quod erat demonstrandum.
I think the real problem is the human psychology, always, everywhere and everytime. We know anarchy, peace and armony can (co)exist, but only if every single person have the right awareness and attitude: sadly humans are humans, that's why we call it Utopia. But probably most of you already know that.
how can we stop crime or fights on the neighborhood if there is no policemen on prisons and how a criminal would be punished? What system of punishment would we have?
@anarxopanathas We, humans being, must become a single thing. All togheters psychologically (not physically). If WE will become a "good" ONE, there will not a bed ones. Think about the reasons why criminals are such...
@AutonomiaLand In a truly free society, there would be no oppression. No one would be forced to believe one thing or another. In the distant future, people will become aware of the universal truths, and religion will no longer be valid or necessary.
@SlipAllCityToy Don't take it seriously about what I wrote . I don't think that anarchy should work very well in a country.I believe that if a government is centralized , the society will be more organized . Another thing is that the state is beneficial for the people because it can provide social security , education , health and sometimes housing for FREE. On the other hand , anarchy state which is decentralized has many malfunctions such as the fragile defence from the ''enemy'' countries .
Anarchy (Αναρχία) is a greek word and the analyzation of the word is the prefix a (in greek when it is in front of a word a means without) and the word "αρχή" = rule So, there it comes αναρχία = anarchy
@anarcrustie It's a simple question. A needs something from B, ok. But what if B doesn't need or want anything to do with A? It is a huge flaw in this video. People do not give up something for nothing by choice and Anarchy is not going to change that.
@shawn3975 then you would go to one of the other surrounding communities, the chances of no other communities needing something you have is close to none, and if they don't need something at that moment chances are they will in the future.... simple enough solution.
@NatureGnome Nothing is ever that simple. There are many areas (and people) of the world that have nothing of any value to anyone. On the flip side there are areas (and people) that have too much. Some communities would get rich while others get poor until we are eventually back to square one.
Your thinking of on too large a scale. If the world was anarchistic, there would not be countries looking for supplies from other countries. Think neighborhoods looking for supplies from other neighborhoods. This does mean some civilizations would not survive... like Dubai or any other "community" that survives only on imports (i use that loosely). But there are plenty of people who live in the middle of the desert, and have so for thousands of years, their trade is in many ways anarchistic.
people totally give people things by choice, ever heard of a gift, or sharing? ever had a friend? if people don't want to associate they don't have to, but friends should share things and give each other gifts rather than always trying to make a buck off one another. not saying people can't ever trade, no reason to prevent that. but trading is a mistrustful relation, both parties always want to profit off of the other.building a society around trading is foolish, sharing is better.
@anarcrustie People do not totally gige things by choice. Community activism and volunteerism is at an all time low and falling fast, unless it is a matter that personally effects the party involved.
You say in your post "if people don't want to associate they don't have to" well people are associating less then ever, we hide in our homes and don't trust anybody.
@shawn3975 oh yes, and this relates not at all to current social conditions?
you are right, all of our communal urges have atrophied. there is no reason for us to help one another, we live by competing and consuming. we experience the presence of others in our workplaces, we pass by the lonely crowds in the shopping districts, we return to the four walls of our homes, united as separate in front of the television.
how miserable. realistic, fine. i don't give a fuck. get free or die trying.
@HeyItsAARONv - Because humans are not able or willing to govern themselves. In other words, when a person does any thing it creates an effect in the world. It appears that most beings create effects they do not recognize as their creation and therefore do not take responsibility for them and move on to do it again without regard for what they are creating. more following
@HeyItsAARONv - If one takes or was forced to take complete responsibility for all they create change would occur quickly because the effects of the choices/creation would compel them to make adjustments. Now, others have the misfortune of experiencing the effects of choices made for them whether it serves them.
Popular rule isn't democracy because it gives people what they want, not what they need. Imagine no money, no religion, no government. People get what they need through intelligent resource distribution. Free will, free spirit, no control, no bullshit. People can do what they like, rather than being wage slaves. Not a utopia, but something better than what we have now. Zeitgeist Addendum.
Greed is the death of liberty & inalienable rights. Problem is when individuals decide to join a council under the goal of acquiring power or material posession.
One solutions is a complete lottery system selecting from the citizen base. Otherwise representation of the citizen base will be abandoned for representation of the wealthiest population. Term limits should be mandatory in governmental position and by law forbid career politicians.
@MyNinjaPersona So you'd rather that the only people who do want they want with impunity is restricted to the wealthy and powerful instead? What qualifies them to act as they please more than the average person? Your definition of anarchy implies that most people don't know how to run their own lives and organise themselves peacefully without coercion from above. Anarchy only equals chaos to those who seek control over people for their own agendas, and those who have been brainwashed by them.
@MyNinjaPersona Your English is fine. You'll get chaos and crime from opportunists who'll create as much mischief as they can before "order" but that's only because they anticipate its quick reimposition, like the British riots. In the long run people who engage in anti-social behaviour in a non-hierarchial community are only rebelling against themselves and make themselves pariahs thru no fault but their own, the justifications and kicks from anti-social behaviour would be far lessened.
You're right in that cities are different than villages and small towns, cities provide more anonymity, security and power bases for the wrong people, therefore less accountability to the community. Cities are better places for education, entertainment and making money, but social trust goes by the wayside when many people don't even know their neighbours and residents are more transient. Most organised crime feeds on forms of urban entertainment (nightclubs, gambling, prostitution etc).
@jpbb1976 And organised crime thrives best in a climate of unofficial tolerance, enabling and/or backing by corrupt, unaccountable elements of the state apparatus.
@jpbb1976 ok you had the chance to read my deleted comments (i deleted it cause i though i would be misunderstood, i`m not english and i can`t express myself like i would do in french)
do you know countries or communities that live with anarchy or some kind of philosophy like that?
@MyNinjaPersona I'm aware of a few small communities, collectives and co-operatives which exist in or near the nearest major city which co-opt anarchist/communalist/D.I.Y. ethos to various degrees, of course they are still within the confines of a nation-state. The Makhnovists and Anarchist Catalonia were probably the closest to anarchy in modern times, both short-lived given that the Maknovists had the U.S.S.R and the Catalonians had Franco and the Communists as enemies.
@jpbb1976 Many smaller regional towns like mine function with a minimal amount of interference from police, and the police there tend to be more familiar and feel more "equal" than city-based ones. In a closely-knit community the social benefits of co-operation tend to outweigh any advantages that anti-social selfishness does. There's still the odd tearaway teenager and disputes between adults but nothing like the impersonal violence and crime you get in a similar-sized city area.
@02Blackbeard It doesn't, even though most anarchists are opposed or indifferent to religion. It's funny noting the huge difference between the relationship the Catholic Chuch has had with authorities since the Roman emperor Constantine, and the relationship Jesus had with the authorities in his day.
@02Blackbeard It doesn't, even though most anarchists are opposed or indifferent to religion. It's funny noting the huge difference between the relationship the Catholic Chuch has had with authorities since the Roman emperor Constantine, and the relationship Jesus had with the authorities in his day.
@ichbinderfuehrer "They need a specific civil conduit DICTATED from an upper force in order to be different from the chimps."
You've got that upside-down. The need for a specific civil conduit lies with the upper force in order to defend itself from the consequences of its own forcefulness. Police forces originally served wealthy private interests, and armies and parliaments started off as instruments of kings. They've been given a civil gloss but their primary purposes haven't changed much.
@ichbinderfuehrer "They need a specific civil conduit DICTATED from an upper force in order to be different from the chimps."
You've got that upside-down. The need for a specific civil conduit lies with the upper force in order to defend itself from the consequences of its own forcefulness. Police forces originally served wealthy private interests, and armies and parliaments started off as instruments of kings. They've been given a civil gloss but their primary purposes haven't changed much.
@jpbb1976 If that is your belief then I am sorry for you, for you are brainwashed (BY THE COERCIVE GOVERNMENT FROM THE WESTERN WORLD) beyond recovery.
Please don`t leave nazi-comments, or comments which contain nazi-words, because I will delete them anyway. Same goes for any kind of insults against people, groups of people and similar. Thank you.
I just want to say that this line is provocative and anarchists respect freedom of choice and freedom in general, and i think your comment is close minded. And you're idea of 'modern' anarchy is wrong in my opinion, this is the same story propaganda gives tot anarchy to scare people.
This isn't Anarchy we call this Switzerland;) They have KANTONS(comunuties) and comunities decide for themselfs. And Switzerland is the only country which doesn't have regular army. You just changed a big parlement to a small comunity parlement system. İt doesnt mean Anarchy. Switzerland doesn't have any primeminister or king or president but you cant say that Switzerland is a
no law enforcement or presecution...complete freedom could give rise to a lot of crimes...but what happens if an individual commits crime within the community?? do they have the right to emprison or punish him??.. how do people stay moral in those situation?? it wud be like law of nature then...'la loie du plus fort'.
@bitethis47 Who says that people will do nothing about crime in the absence of state-appointed police and judges? Haven't you heard of citizen's arrests?
Of course people would stay moral, and those who don't will still have other people to contend with in the absence of a state.
Laws (idealistically) are supposed to reflect the existing morality in the community, not to provide a basis of moralty on their own (that's called social engineering).
Anarchy implies free will for anyone to do what they want, live apart from society etc, however this implication of free will can never truly happen, someone will always wish to assert their free will to restrict the free will of another, whether this is the theft of their materials/goods, rape, murder, etc - this in itself is against free will and therefore Anarchy is the death of us all.
@MadeForKitade The someone you are talking about is basically C. What happens with C? Everybody puts that person down, so that everybody can live free further.
And what stops the wealthy and the influential under the state to assert their free will upon others? The law? Court costs? Anarchy is against all forms of oppression, and the price of freedom is eternal vigilance against those who deny the liberty of others, whether there is anarchy or not.
@lilcody720023395 Haha, no it's not. There are plenty of rulers in Somalia. Just google the phrase: "Somalian warlords" and you'll see many of the rulers Somalia has. The closest depiction of anarchy in the modern era would be Barcelona and the Spanish republic in the 1930's.
Sorry, but it was not. Not at all. Wether we like it or not, these times were just an unplanned disorder, pseudo communism under the CCCP vigilllance, in a catalan national goverment along with left-nationalists and communists. "Collectivize" some fabrics and farmlands (and so leading them to collapse) is still far from Anarchy.
It's not from books that I talk, but from both my grandparents, republican freedom fighters.
@lilcody720023395 Not quite. that's just what they like to tell people. they also like to tell you that people who wear hoods and like to riot, loot, and vandalize are anarchists.
to be honest . If there would be Anarchy , i would rape , rob and do everything i like all the time . I would start a little army and would try to gain power ! Im just a normal person and i would do something like that if we would live in an anarchy now imagine what would happen if really criminal or crazy people would have anarchy .Anarchy should be in some areas of the country so people who want have anarchy live there , people who need government go into a governed area ! PROBLEM Solved
@chabi3000 You are the dumbest mother fucker I have ever see/heard of. Guess what? If you tried any of that, we would kill you, and feed you to our fucking dogs.. There's a lot more people in this world with good minds unlike your sick ass. You should be killed just for leaving that comment. and right before we kill you, we steal from you, have some gay guy rape you. So.. don't be a dumb fuck and think everyone thinks like you. You are a sick sadistic fuck.
@chabi3000 You assume that everyone else will be docile while you do such things when there isn't a state-supported police force to prevent vigilantism. There are already crooks who rape, rob and do what they like all the time and they're not afraid of jail, some see jail time as a handy qualification, so what's stopping you?
Much of the profitability from crime is enabled by the very laws which are supposed to stop it, handing the most vicious people in society niche markets on a platter.
you have no idea what anarchy is do you? first off most anarchists arent against governments they are just idiots that dont want rules that have no idea about governments and 2nd there would be no forming of little counties mabye gangs and individual comunities would band together but most people would have only themselves while it doesnt have to do with religion, anarchy in essence is an absence of rules, there might in some cases be trading but you can never predict
@xXThePanzerXx Sorry to say you're absolutly wrong. Mainstream anarchysts, that take into acount Proudhons, Bakunins, Kropotkins and Malatestas teachings and theorys propouse either colectivism or libertarian comunism. Anarchists like those of the FAI, of the FEL, of the RED LIBERTARIA, of the makhnovist Russia, etc. aren't against organization. Malatesta said: "If we thought that anarchy meant chaos, we would be in favour of an authority". Sorry for the spelling, not my first language.
@Blycho no that is incorrect annarchy in essence is against government and rules, most of the time anarchy forms new governments and communities but there can never be an everlasting anarchy
@xXThePanzerXx Anarchy is the absence of RULERS, not the absence of rules. People who don't oppose hierarchy in all its forms aren't anarchists, they are pretenders.
People are naturally social animals, and most people would see it benefitial to live as part of a community as they do now. Religiosity is decreasing over most of the world and is likely to decrease regardless of the system people live under in the future, and the state makes for a poor substitute for religion.
Anarchy is a very smart, gently idea about life which is always appears in my mind. SIMPLY: What is government for, when life is just based on humans' mind and character. Rule or not, life is still created by the people around. Within the community of bright people, there's always a natural anarchy (well organized, no need for rule). But anarchy won't be global, because the bastards' community (which is much more crowded) will gather to form a stupid, dangerous government to steal from others
@stringblue that is not anarchy that is forms of government that emerges from anarchy anarchy in essence is no government no rules, anarchy does form new gonverments and communities yes but there can in no way be an everlasting anarchy it wouldnt work, people like organization they would not want no government or no rules what you are talking about that yu like is forms of government that results from anarchy even roaming gangs are not anarchy because they have a heirarchy
@xXThePanzerXx Maybe you didn't get what i said. I am simply living in arnachy, it works for me. I know i didn't work for anyone. And i know the government will be there, but i stay away from it, i feel better. Also, i see that some government is better than others,
@stringblue how are you living in anarchy? maybe you can explain what you mean a little better, unless your living by yourself on a deserted island there is no true anarchy because even family's have a heirarchy (im sorry if i spelled that wrong)
@xXThePanzerXx I'm not working for the government, nor even a company. I live in the same kind of city like yours, I'm a musician, i earn a fair living by compose, produce and making music (The service is good, lots of customer). I don't have to pay tax, I never commit a crime. Sometimes I met bad people who steal my money, i get it back by myself. I live with good people, we build our lives together & don't have much problems like disagreement or crimes... Daily life is going well.
@stringblue ok, in a community and even in a band you have to work together and talk about stuff, that is a form of maby not nessisarly a heirarchy, idk what its actually called but its not an anarchy, can you tell your bad that they are writing this and its going to be like this? and even if you did that thats like a fascism, for it to be an anarchy you all would have to just do all what you want and then just play what you want when you play, and can you go into anyones house and what not?
an Anarchist can also be someone like William Wallace or MLK,or anyone who questions authority,challenges it or defies it.not nessecarily a bunch of thugs.depends on how they might approach the oppressors tho.
yaryar1976 11 hours ago
thank you for explaining shaun connery
SuperSpeedLemon 1 day ago
If they establish villages and councils and such then it would no longer be Anarchy. the councils would be rulers. What he explains is a democratic confederacy.
chrysar 3 days ago
you have described the Marx ideology of communism in its simplest. Anarchy does not work for countries or even city's, it is an idealised form of communism pushed by people who have no concept of it, but just want change. communism doesn't work, plain to see when you consider that there are no truly communist governments on the world
Hugs4Hughs 4 days ago
coolio.
idk why. but it was just awesome
ZXxClutchGamingxXZ 5 days ago
@!!!!!!!!!!! now!
Oetzrock 6 days ago
I think my comments are more on-target - IJ6tjN4V6wQ
freelancehuman 1 week ago
@freelancehuman what?lol
yourallbrainwashed 6 days ago
Anarchy: now you can take anarchy back from the CIA: evict the CIA from your country, your town, your family, and your self.
ManosOceano 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Good Mr President Obama: The world is realizing the truth: you are a hostage of the CIA and committed treason only to save your family: you forewarned those who listened: "First and foremost I am a family man." Good People will protect you and truth shall prevail.
ManosOceano 1 week ago
If you have a precise view of what anarchy is it basically means you have no idea. Anarchy is planned through community effort and may be any system which has no government and total universal suffrage.
Z6U6Z6U 1 week ago
@Z6U6Z6U And is just an impossible dream which relies on the assumption that all human biengs are moral at heart and have no desire for power.
africandude1 1 week ago
This person sounds like Yoda.
DizzyDior12 1 week ago
CIA = Anarchy
ManosOceano 1 week ago
@ManosOceano. CIA is not anarchy, the CIA tries to break down various governments opposed to their goal, and then they typically have the goal of replacing the leaders with leaders who seek to go with the globalization of the world or the pro US side.
KevZen2000 1 week ago
@KevZen2000 So, they're just terrorists?
mavriksfan11 1 week ago
Anarchy is the future, but its a long way away from now, as it requires many evolutionary stages to get to that point.
KevZen2000 1 week ago
I don't get how people think nazis are anarchy.
Nazis are known for controlling people that is what anarchy is against.
TheGuzzLightyear 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
everything is God, all thats worth doing is remembering God and seeing
God in every thing and being in love with it all for no reason, in all
these letters, all these feelings, all these lessons, there is truly
only God in so many ways, it makes no sense yet its the deepest truth,
in God all is forever TO BE HOPELESSLY IN LOVE WITH EVERYTHING IN
THE WHOLE UNIVERSE IS JUDAISM!
rainbowaon 3 weeks ago
Anarchists have different thoughts of their own way of "anarchy", this type of anarchy is a way to get a more peaceful, natural and primitive way of life (like long long ago)
I for one believe in complete chaos and the world going to hell.
gooberzify 4 weeks ago
@gooberzify Do ya for one? Do ya!?
SheepDog707 3 weeks ago
@gooberzify Its not primitive, though, sharing and creating of technology etc would just be BIGGER than in our world, all resources spent on science and progress, not shitty oligarchs pockets and wars and weapons... and ofc sharing ideas and thoughts through the internet..
Etrajbe 1 week ago
The US is now the land of collectivism not the land of freedom and individuals. Shame :(
VirtuosicElevator 4 weeks ago
I can get into this.
TheGreatHeroKing 1 month ago
5th:Doesnot explain how the communities will stop C as they don't have weapons(or at least not good such C once.How they will coo-operate when they will have different thinking of how to stop community C??? Or how when there will not be Minister of National Defence?
So for as I understood anarchy CANNOT increase a country's power and has gaps to fix.
The most fitting policy for me is Democracy(we don't leave in democracy don't be treated!) and not this kind of policy
21LeoNidasZ 1 month ago 5
@21LeoNidasZ - I pledge allegiance, to my flag..... And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands.....
PutschPatriot 2 days ago
@21LeoNidasZ Who says the other communites have to be dirt poor or without any weapons? All communites would most likely have militas. Also useing logical thinking, communites F,B,A,K,Z and others dont want to be ruled so they would ban together to fight C. An example would be the chinese cilvil war bwteen Communists And imperialists, 2 Totaly diffrent types of thinking. Regardless of their of thinking the communists and imperialists stood together to fight, The japaneese Empire.
TheGreatHeroKing 1 day ago
Well...
1rst:If a community doesn't have something to trade what happens then?
2nd:If the country will be seperated in some pieces that cannot help country to boost the economy as the video wants to say.Just beacause here will not be economist or someone to handle the money! (Let's be realistic which community would trust the other?)
3rd:HOW THE COMMUNITIES BECAME WHEN THERE IS NO representative
4rth:LOL if you want anarchy in theory there is no wars...so if C will make war something going wrorg
21LeoNidasZ 1 month ago 4
@21LeoNidasZ If a piece doesn't have any resource or any help to the country why do people populate it even in political structures that aren't anarchy?
I agree that a community waging war would be difficult to contain, but it would eventually be contained. Remember that if the majority of the population is into anarchy, they would probably fight to maintain it.
Anarchy will never increase a country's power, but it will increase the happiness of individual citizens.
mavriksfan11 2 weeks ago
@mavriksfan11 disagree,people want to have judges to be more secure because they just cannot trust anarchist.When I say judges I mean it not the corrupted once
21LeoNidasZ 2 weeks ago
So, what happens when there is a legitimate dispute between A and B with irreconcilable differences? Without some sort of reasonable dispute resolution system, then there will be war between A and B.
There can be leaders without rulers. There can be rules without laws. There can be private ownership without coercion.
Unfortunately, your councils will become the de facto "state". Democracy is merely a means for the majority to force its will on the minority and the individual.
mikemat3307 1 month ago
Why are you deleting comments if you're an anarchist? ...
brandonplaysguitar16 1 month ago
Anarchy has religious interpretations as well; If we accept the definition:_ "negation of all oppression" Then a total liberation of all spiritual matters ranging from habits and addictions would be seen as an opposing force and then considered unnatural. Consider Free Will and Biodiversity.
AnarchistMonk 1 month ago
communism and fascism are both the same. State control.
spike6819 1 month ago
Oh in theory this sounds great!!! But wait, what else sounds really good in theory? Oh yeah, communism.
In reality, C would bribe all those little communities (or bully) until they got allegiance, then C would continue to conquer and anarchy would be lost!
I.E.: Mongolia was an anarchistic country of nomads, then Ghengis Khan took that shit over. You think surrounding communities didn't try and fight him??
Look to the past or we're doomed to repeat it.
LysergicAcids 1 month ago
C IS FUCKERS!
VladiSSius 1 month ago
Can't you C?
freudastaire 1 month ago
Sounds like tribalism...i don't see the difference. But I did hear that hunter gatherer societies are the best to raise children in.
blazingax05 2 months ago 2
@blazingax05 It is tribalism, with an emphasis on maintaining tribalism. Wouldn't that essentially lead to happier people?
mavriksfan11 2 weeks ago
@mavriksfan11 you are right it is tribalism...and don't tribes always have a lot of little wars? Anarchy sounds good...but the people would have to be more moralistic and evolved.
oshun1235 1 week ago
@oshun1235 They did. I think a modern version of tribalism with moralistic people like we have now (for the most part) would be quite successful. I do wonder though if people would regress. We haven't experimented much with anarchy, so we don't really know.
mavriksfan11 1 week ago
Thanks for this - brief and to the point.
brokerdavelhr 2 months ago
@anarcrustie @NatureGnome The problem is not the fact that we have a government, in fact our government is, in theory, a good thing because it is held accountable by the voters. The problem is that most people have no concept of economics and what the constitution acctually means, we hang on the ramblings of Fox 'News', Michael Moore, and Jon Stewart because they entertain us.
When the jester is running the kingdom the kingdom is doomed.
shawn3975 2 months ago
the green man dances with us, along our journey, wailing caterwauls of grace
like the waterfalls, we are singing, speaking like the tides, to the waters, where the surf revives
the truth, everything has always been anarchy, yet we've gotten on well enough
the love inside us we found was stronger, when we gave up and thrust all to the winds,
the love inside us gave us wings, we flew again,
maybealover 2 months ago
You doubt anarchy is possible. Well we have Great example of anarchycal system - nature.
Anarchy is not chaos. It has order, rules. Only they are not based on leaders beliefs, but on laws of universe, intuition of individuals.
sauroman1 2 months ago
Ah yes, the Third Street Saints method of government.
BLARGHALT 2 months ago
@BLARGHALT Skyrim:
"This is basically a Norway simulator"
Artige.no :)
MultiKnull 2 months ago
@9Iamthewalrus
Did you forget the part where he says anarchy doesn't imply violence or riots? He isn't giving it a bad name, just showing different situations so people don't have more questions than answers. Idiot.
CrimsonTears2177 2 months ago
FUCK YOU COMMUNITY C !
dududugary 2 months ago 29
hey man, it's people like you that give anarchy a bad name. c starts a war, Jesus man u have to think of the worst possible thing to happen. and no legal system? there can still be a legal system, but one that's private.
9Iamthewalrus 2 months ago
i like the fact that he took a completely unbiased stance on the "IDEAS" of anarchy and an anachronistic society i tip my hat you you sir
oOTeOzKaNiBaLOo 2 months ago
well at least you admitted that it wouldn't work. Anarchy simply impossible because, who is going to enforce it?
Your scenario of "C" wanting stuff for free and declaring war is exactly what has happened over and over in history. The result is usually an empire.
A nationalized and organized military will kick the ass of a militia several times it's size, every time.
psychetruth 2 months ago
Anarchy seems fine when you think of it in best-case scenario with everyone wanting to help out, no one taking advantage of others, but when one community makes alliances with other communities and decides to want more power, then you're all the way back to a ruler. Seems like a fun idea until you realize the realistic human desire for power.
shoestuffman 2 months ago
"Please don`t leave nazi-comments" Make me nigga!
Insabanua 2 months ago
@Insabanua this isn't a nazi comment :\
wardy317 2 months ago
C got fucked man.
Jamessssy 3 months ago
@Jamessssy : Perfect comment, thanks :D
alpenjon 2 months ago
I am still undecided on what I believe the best way for society to function but this has real helped open my mind to what Anarchy really is.
MrPunkScum 3 months ago
SHARP
Doobysnacker100 3 months ago
@Hoyreliberal what? lol makes no sense.
CloverfieldMonster95 3 months ago
1. There would be private police and judges also private armies.
2. Anarcho-Monarchism is an Anarchist ideology which includes a king or queen.
Hoyreliberal 3 months ago
@Hoyreliberal that doesnt make any sense...
sniped101 3 months ago
Random Nazi Comment. so delete me
g2j2008 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
cool! sumed up in few words... in theory!!! ahuahau.. well done!
4n4rchy666 3 months ago
Comment removed
4n4rchy666 3 months ago
Humans are too violent in nature for this to work out..
StivenCabrera3 3 months ago 2
@StivenCabrera3 No.
ILUM69 3 months ago
FUCK SOCIETY HAIL HITLER is that a Nazi comment?
tke992 3 months ago
So correct me if I'm getting this wrong: The video proposes getting rid of a big territorial monopolist on violence and replacing it with a lot of small ones? That's not anarchy. Yes, it's miles better than what we have now, but it's still statism on a smaller scale.
Why won't you allow for competing law enforcement agencies and arbiters that need to be contracted? There is no conceivable way these entities could wage war, but there are tons of examples of states, however small, doing it.
rustyrusky 3 months ago
anarchy is natural..anarchy would exist perfectly but it cannot because as we were socialized to be submissive our baser and more anti-social tendencies proliferated and flourished.... when we die we'll understand.
epiksonik 3 months ago
The Neo-Nazis and New Black Panther Party can be categorized as groups with National-Anarchist values, they are not representatives of Anarchists though. There are different types of Anarchists.
Speed7743 3 months ago
What the hell does anarchy have to do with Nazism?
Nazism is statism at it's finest, trumped only by Stalinism and Maoism. Nazi's are stupid tools, who take orders and worship personalities.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 3 months ago
What about total anarchy?
doug5217 3 months ago
if only people would not be greedy we would be okay. and if religious people would just worry bout themselves then we would be okay. To all.... just stick with your familys because I honestly believe that we are heading for a large war and we should all be ready. i mean keep working and shit but just be ready lol
timdougherty89 3 months ago
C would kick all your asses muahahah lol
redofdeathGR 3 months ago
Really this is not anarchy
Regginyaga 3 months ago
Nazi Hitler swastika
Regginyaga 3 months ago
@Regginyaga if yout trying to imply that anarchy is what hitler did, your truly uneducated... go to school, learn things such as history and polotics... dont compare Anarchy to one mans pschycopathic rien of terror... you dont know what your saying, therefore making yourself look very dumb
stumpdydumpdy 3 months ago
@stumpdydumpdy read the description
I can observe that by you not reading the description you are very ignorant, therefore I can conclude that you are not very well educated. You should go to school and become educated so you can learn to observe descriptions. I can also conclude by a scientific process that you also smell. If you would go to school and learn about polotics like me you would be smart like me, Therefore in conclusion you would not look dumb quod erat demonstrandum.
Regginyaga 3 months ago
I think the real problem is the human psychology, always, everywhere and everytime. We know anarchy, peace and armony can (co)exist, but only if every single person have the right awareness and attitude: sadly humans are humans, that's why we call it Utopia. But probably most of you already know that.
Astharot90 3 months ago
Your voice kinda reminds me of Sean Connery! :D Good work on the video.
iDIGRESSalot 3 months ago
how can we stop crime or fights on the neighborhood if there is no policemen on prisons and how a criminal would be punished? What system of punishment would we have?
anarxopanathas 3 months ago
@anarxopanathas We, humans being, must become a single thing. All togheters psychologically (not physically). If WE will become a "good" ONE, there will not a bed ones. Think about the reasons why criminals are such...
Astharot90 3 months ago
I love this little video.
Thanks!!!
pagefrankie 4 months ago
@AutonomiaLand In a truly free society, there would be no oppression. No one would be forced to believe one thing or another. In the distant future, people will become aware of the universal truths, and religion will no longer be valid or necessary.
tgt305 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Anarchy would not work
FREECY8ERSPACE 4 months ago
National-Socialism FTW!!!!!!
FreeRoosterGR 4 months ago
@FreeRoosterGR
And why is that, my man?
SlipAllCityToy 4 months ago
@SlipAllCityToy Don't take it seriously about what I wrote . I don't think that anarchy should work very well in a country.I believe that if a government is centralized , the society will be more organized . Another thing is that the state is beneficial for the people because it can provide social security , education , health and sometimes housing for FREE. On the other hand , anarchy state which is decentralized has many malfunctions such as the fragile defence from the ''enemy'' countries .
FreeRoosterGR 4 months ago
@FreeRoosterGR
Well, I'm sure you're right to some degree about some issues, even tough I disagree.
Still that was very unexpected how mature you turned out to be.
A lot of people will simply start name calling something that they don't believe in.
Thank you for starting my day out well.
Yours,
Slip
SlipAllCityToy 4 months ago
@SlipAllCityToy No problem man :)
BTW Finland is a great country!!!!!
FreeRoosterGR 4 months ago
@FreeRoosterGR
Greece is also amazing, my great friend is from there and I often hear what a beautiful place it is to be!!
I hope the economic issues aren't making living harder.
-Slip
SlipAllCityToy 4 months ago
Anarchy (Αναρχία) is a greek word and the analyzation of the word is the prefix a (in greek when it is in front of a word a means without) and the word "αρχή" = rule So, there it comes αναρχία = anarchy
MissOpenyourmind888 4 months ago
Can anarchy work= No. Why because overtime the community's elect officials to do
Things hence making a government destroying anarchy I'm a communist I feel it's
Just more sensible to have a government but
People still have a say so I created my own version of communism that works better
Eternalgamers1 4 months ago
2:24 Curious, what if B doesn't need anything from A?
shawn3975 4 months ago
A community requires governing.
Arbiter0917 4 months ago
@Arbiter0917 why cant the community govern itself
HeyItsAARONv 4 months ago
Comment removed
shawn3975 4 months ago
@HeyItsAARONv It does, through elected officals.
shawn3975 4 months ago
@shawn3975
no. elected officials who govern full time for any length of time inevitably become a class of their own, with their own interests.
anarcrustie 3 months ago
@anarcrustie 2:24 What if B doesn't need anything from A?
shawn3975 3 months ago
@shawn3975 what? context?
anarcrustie 3 months ago
@anarcrustie It's a simple question. A needs something from B, ok. But what if B doesn't need or want anything to do with A? It is a huge flaw in this video. People do not give up something for nothing by choice and Anarchy is not going to change that.
shawn3975 3 months ago
@shawn3975 then you would go to one of the other surrounding communities, the chances of no other communities needing something you have is close to none, and if they don't need something at that moment chances are they will in the future.... simple enough solution.
NatureGnome 3 months ago
@NatureGnome Nothing is ever that simple. There are many areas (and people) of the world that have nothing of any value to anyone. On the flip side there are areas (and people) that have too much. Some communities would get rich while others get poor until we are eventually back to square one.
shawn3975 2 months ago
Your thinking of on too large a scale. If the world was anarchistic, there would not be countries looking for supplies from other countries. Think neighborhoods looking for supplies from other neighborhoods. This does mean some civilizations would not survive... like Dubai or any other "community" that survives only on imports (i use that loosely). But there are plenty of people who live in the middle of the desert, and have so for thousands of years, their trade is in many ways anarchistic.
NatureGnome 2 months ago
@shawn3975
people totally give people things by choice, ever heard of a gift, or sharing? ever had a friend? if people don't want to associate they don't have to, but friends should share things and give each other gifts rather than always trying to make a buck off one another. not saying people can't ever trade, no reason to prevent that. but trading is a mistrustful relation, both parties always want to profit off of the other.building a society around trading is foolish, sharing is better.
anarcrustie 3 months ago 8
@anarcrustie People do not totally gige things by choice. Community activism and volunteerism is at an all time low and falling fast, unless it is a matter that personally effects the party involved.
You say in your post "if people don't want to associate they don't have to" well people are associating less then ever, we hide in our homes and don't trust anybody.
Anachy is a pipe dream.
shawn3975 2 months ago
@shawn3975 oh yes, and this relates not at all to current social conditions?
you are right, all of our communal urges have atrophied. there is no reason for us to help one another, we live by competing and consuming. we experience the presence of others in our workplaces, we pass by the lonely crowds in the shopping districts, we return to the four walls of our homes, united as separate in front of the television.
how miserable. realistic, fine. i don't give a fuck. get free or die trying.
anarcrustie 2 months ago
@HeyItsAARONv - Because humans are not able or willing to govern themselves. In other words, when a person does any thing it creates an effect in the world. It appears that most beings create effects they do not recognize as their creation and therefore do not take responsibility for them and move on to do it again without regard for what they are creating. more following
OneBeingHuman 4 months ago
@HeyItsAARONv - If one takes or was forced to take complete responsibility for all they create change would occur quickly because the effects of the choices/creation would compel them to make adjustments. Now, others have the misfortune of experiencing the effects of choices made for them whether it serves them.
OneBeingHuman 4 months ago
Naive
y34r 4 months ago
Popular rule isn't democracy because it gives people what they want, not what they need. Imagine no money, no religion, no government. People get what they need through intelligent resource distribution. Free will, free spirit, no control, no bullshit. People can do what they like, rather than being wage slaves. Not a utopia, but something better than what we have now. Zeitgeist Addendum.
tgt305 4 months ago
Greed is the death of liberty & inalienable rights. Problem is when individuals decide to join a council under the goal of acquiring power or material posession.
One solutions is a complete lottery system selecting from the citizen base. Otherwise representation of the citizen base will be abandoned for representation of the wealthiest population. Term limits should be mandatory in governmental position and by law forbid career politicians.
It could, and does work even today.
PyroJoeSal 4 months ago
Like a rough-sketch Confederacy
FordIsBetter 4 months ago
Ⓐ... it would work.
Blkdrmz 4 months ago
i would strongly fight against anarchy if my country would be on the edge of becoming anarchist. in 2011, anarchy= chaos and crime.
i love the idea of anarchy, but forget about that. too many people would do whatever they want.
MyNinjaPersona 4 months ago
@MyNinjaPersona So you'd rather that the only people who do want they want with impunity is restricted to the wealthy and powerful instead? What qualifies them to act as they please more than the average person? Your definition of anarchy implies that most people don't know how to run their own lives and organise themselves peacefully without coercion from above. Anarchy only equals chaos to those who seek control over people for their own agendas, and those who have been brainwashed by them.
jpbb1976 4 months ago
Comment removed
MyNinjaPersona 4 months ago
@MyNinjaPersona Your English is fine. You'll get chaos and crime from opportunists who'll create as much mischief as they can before "order" but that's only because they anticipate its quick reimposition, like the British riots. In the long run people who engage in anti-social behaviour in a non-hierarchial community are only rebelling against themselves and make themselves pariahs thru no fault but their own, the justifications and kicks from anti-social behaviour would be far lessened.
jpbb1976 4 months ago
You're right in that cities are different than villages and small towns, cities provide more anonymity, security and power bases for the wrong people, therefore less accountability to the community. Cities are better places for education, entertainment and making money, but social trust goes by the wayside when many people don't even know their neighbours and residents are more transient. Most organised crime feeds on forms of urban entertainment (nightclubs, gambling, prostitution etc).
jpbb1976 4 months ago
@jpbb1976 And organised crime thrives best in a climate of unofficial tolerance, enabling and/or backing by corrupt, unaccountable elements of the state apparatus.
jpbb1976 4 months ago
@jpbb1976 ok you had the chance to read my deleted comments (i deleted it cause i though i would be misunderstood, i`m not english and i can`t express myself like i would do in french)
do you know countries or communities that live with anarchy or some kind of philosophy like that?
MyNinjaPersona 4 months ago
@MyNinjaPersona I'm aware of a few small communities, collectives and co-operatives which exist in or near the nearest major city which co-opt anarchist/communalist/D.I.Y. ethos to various degrees, of course they are still within the confines of a nation-state. The Makhnovists and Anarchist Catalonia were probably the closest to anarchy in modern times, both short-lived given that the Maknovists had the U.S.S.R and the Catalonians had Franco and the Communists as enemies.
jpbb1976 4 months ago
@jpbb1976 Many smaller regional towns like mine function with a minimal amount of interference from police, and the police there tend to be more familiar and feel more "equal" than city-based ones. In a closely-knit community the social benefits of co-operation tend to outweigh any advantages that anti-social selfishness does. There's still the odd tearaway teenager and disputes between adults but nothing like the impersonal violence and crime you get in a similar-sized city area.
jpbb1976 4 months ago
I don't agree that anarchy needs to be anti-religion.
02Blackbeard 4 months ago
@02Blackbeard It doesn't, even though most anarchists are opposed or indifferent to religion. It's funny noting the huge difference between the relationship the Catholic Chuch has had with authorities since the Roman emperor Constantine, and the relationship Jesus had with the authorities in his day.
jpbb1976 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@02Blackbeard It doesn't, even though most anarchists are opposed or indifferent to religion. It's funny noting the huge difference between the relationship the Catholic Chuch has had with authorities since the Roman emperor Constantine, and the relationship Jesus had with the authorities in his day.
jpbb1976 4 months ago
Stupid!
There are a lot of "In theory" circumstances, aren't there?
Humans can't govern themselves. That's the fact.
They need a specific civil conduit DICTATED from an upper force in order to be different from the chimps.
Anarchy may have good intentions. But it is a myth!
ichbinderfuehrer 5 months ago
@ichbinderfuehrer "There are a lot of "In theory" circumstances, aren't there?"
Of course there are. In theory you also won't see too many 'elites' encouraging people to govern themselves.
"Humans can't govern themselves. That's the fact."
They largely govern their own lives already without the help of politicians and their puppeteers.
jpbb1976 4 months ago
@ichbinderfuehrer "They need a specific civil conduit DICTATED from an upper force in order to be different from the chimps."
You've got that upside-down. The need for a specific civil conduit lies with the upper force in order to defend itself from the consequences of its own forcefulness. Police forces originally served wealthy private interests, and armies and parliaments started off as instruments of kings. They've been given a civil gloss but their primary purposes haven't changed much.
jpbb1976 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ichbinderfuehrer "They need a specific civil conduit DICTATED from an upper force in order to be different from the chimps."
You've got that upside-down. The need for a specific civil conduit lies with the upper force in order to defend itself from the consequences of its own forcefulness. Police forces originally served wealthy private interests, and armies and parliaments started off as instruments of kings. They've been given a civil gloss but their primary purposes haven't changed much.
jpbb1976 4 months ago
"Anarchy may have good intentions. But it is a myth!"
No myth. Many people already live their lives in the absence of or with minimal coercive government in the Western world.
jpbb1976 4 months ago
@jpbb1976 If that is your belief then I am sorry for you, for you are brainwashed (BY THE COERCIVE GOVERNMENT FROM THE WESTERN WORLD) beyond recovery.
ichbinderfuehrer 4 months ago
vivat anarchy
appcrashko 5 months ago
yagavishshlie
cnclo54 5 months ago
Please don`t leave nazi-comments, or comments which contain nazi-words, because I will delete them anyway. Same goes for any kind of insults against people, groups of people and similar. Thank you.
I just want to say that this line is provocative and anarchists respect freedom of choice and freedom in general, and i think your comment is close minded. And you're idea of 'modern' anarchy is wrong in my opinion, this is the same story propaganda gives tot anarchy to scare people.
psychomaniak666 5 months ago
This isn't Anarchy we call this Switzerland;) They have KANTONS(comunuties) and comunities decide for themselfs. And Switzerland is the only country which doesn't have regular army. You just changed a big parlement to a small comunity parlement system. İt doesnt mean Anarchy. Switzerland doesn't have any primeminister or king or president but you cant say that Switzerland is a
Anarchiest country.
Boratac 5 months ago
Arian nation
JohnIsRusty 5 months ago
White power
JohnIsRusty 5 months ago
Zeig Heil Zeig Heil Zeig Heil Zeig Heil Zeig Heil Zeig Heil Zeig Heil Zeig Heil
JohnIsRusty 5 months ago
no law enforcement or presecution...complete freedom could give rise to a lot of crimes...but what happens if an individual commits crime within the community?? do they have the right to emprison or punish him??.. how do people stay moral in those situation?? it wud be like law of nature then...'la loie du plus fort'.
bitethis47 5 months ago
@bitethis47 Yes if a person is disliked by the community they deal with that person or just kick the person out of the community.
KainSlash 5 months ago
@bitethis47 Who says that people will do nothing about crime in the absence of state-appointed police and judges? Haven't you heard of citizen's arrests?
Of course people would stay moral, and those who don't will still have other people to contend with in the absence of a state.
Laws (idealistically) are supposed to reflect the existing morality in the community, not to provide a basis of moralty on their own (that's called social engineering).
jpbb1976 4 months ago
great vid!!
bitethis47 5 months ago
Anarchy implies free will for anyone to do what they want, live apart from society etc, however this implication of free will can never truly happen, someone will always wish to assert their free will to restrict the free will of another, whether this is the theft of their materials/goods, rape, murder, etc - this in itself is against free will and therefore Anarchy is the death of us all.
MadeForKitade 5 months ago
@MadeForKitade The someone you are talking about is basically C. What happens with C? Everybody puts that person down, so that everybody can live free further.
KainSlash 5 months ago
@MadeForKitade You confuse anarchy with hedonism.
And what stops the wealthy and the influential under the state to assert their free will upon others? The law? Court costs? Anarchy is against all forms of oppression, and the price of freedom is eternal vigilance against those who deny the liberty of others, whether there is anarchy or not.
jpbb1976 4 months ago
i think it isnt utopic
BBProduction001 5 months ago
the sound effects were nice, but TOO loud, it just made me irritated after a while
xshadowxberretsx 5 months ago
Somalia that's anarchy
lilcody720023395 5 months ago
@lilcody720023395 Haha, no it's not. There are plenty of rulers in Somalia. Just google the phrase: "Somalian warlords" and you'll see many of the rulers Somalia has. The closest depiction of anarchy in the modern era would be Barcelona and the Spanish republic in the 1930's.
manmythlegend12 5 months ago
Sorry, but it was not. Not at all. Wether we like it or not, these times were just an unplanned disorder, pseudo communism under the CCCP vigilllance, in a catalan national goverment along with left-nationalists and communists. "Collectivize" some fabrics and farmlands (and so leading them to collapse) is still far from Anarchy.
It's not from books that I talk, but from both my grandparents, republican freedom fighters.
Salut!
peppolinx 5 months ago
@lilcody720023395 Not quite. that's just what they like to tell people. they also like to tell you that people who wear hoods and like to riot, loot, and vandalize are anarchists.
Noise509 5 months ago
to be honest . If there would be Anarchy , i would rape , rob and do everything i like all the time . I would start a little army and would try to gain power ! Im just a normal person and i would do something like that if we would live in an anarchy now imagine what would happen if really criminal or crazy people would have anarchy .Anarchy should be in some areas of the country so people who want have anarchy live there , people who need government go into a governed area ! PROBLEM Solved
chabi3000 5 months ago
@chabi3000 You are the dumbest mother fucker I have ever see/heard of. Guess what? If you tried any of that, we would kill you, and feed you to our fucking dogs.. There's a lot more people in this world with good minds unlike your sick ass. You should be killed just for leaving that comment. and right before we kill you, we steal from you, have some gay guy rape you. So.. don't be a dumb fuck and think everyone thinks like you. You are a sick sadistic fuck.
Stephen777Dobson 5 months ago
@Stephen777Dobson There are some people that don't deserve to be alive. This guy (chabi3000) should be bury alive!
coldybloody 5 months ago
@chabi3000 You assume that everyone else will be docile while you do such things when there isn't a state-supported police force to prevent vigilantism. There are already crooks who rape, rob and do what they like all the time and they're not afraid of jail, some see jail time as a handy qualification, so what's stopping you?
Much of the profitability from crime is enabled by the very laws which are supposed to stop it, handing the most vicious people in society niche markets on a platter.
jpbb1976 4 months ago
@jpbb1976 i dont do crimes because the risk of getting caught is too high in my country. thats the simple reason.
chabi3000 4 months ago
So in theory Anarchy basically follows the guidelines of collective communism?
ProAmericanCommies 5 months ago
@ProAmericanCommies Yes men, you arent false at all. The real communism and anarchy are really close to each other.
Petris11 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
nail on head
PiggiBankProductions 5 months ago
to hell with anarchy
mike1829y2 6 months ago
you have no idea what anarchy is do you? first off most anarchists arent against governments they are just idiots that dont want rules that have no idea about governments and 2nd there would be no forming of little counties mabye gangs and individual comunities would band together but most people would have only themselves while it doesnt have to do with religion, anarchy in essence is an absence of rules, there might in some cases be trading but you can never predict
xXThePanzerXx 6 months ago
@xXThePanzerXx Sorry to say you're absolutly wrong. Mainstream anarchysts, that take into acount Proudhons, Bakunins, Kropotkins and Malatestas teachings and theorys propouse either colectivism or libertarian comunism. Anarchists like those of the FAI, of the FEL, of the RED LIBERTARIA, of the makhnovist Russia, etc. aren't against organization. Malatesta said: "If we thought that anarchy meant chaos, we would be in favour of an authority". Sorry for the spelling, not my first language.
Blycho 6 months ago
@Blycho no that is incorrect annarchy in essence is against government and rules, most of the time anarchy forms new governments and communities but there can never be an everlasting anarchy
xXThePanzerXx 6 months ago
@xXThePanzerXx I didn't make it clear, I'm not an anarchist
Blycho 6 months ago
@xXThePanzerXx Anarchy is the absence of RULERS, not the absence of rules. People who don't oppose hierarchy in all its forms aren't anarchists, they are pretenders.
People are naturally social animals, and most people would see it benefitial to live as part of a community as they do now. Religiosity is decreasing over most of the world and is likely to decrease regardless of the system people live under in the future, and the state makes for a poor substitute for religion.
jpbb1976 4 months ago
Anarchy is a very smart, gently idea about life which is always appears in my mind. SIMPLY: What is government for, when life is just based on humans' mind and character. Rule or not, life is still created by the people around. Within the community of bright people, there's always a natural anarchy (well organized, no need for rule). But anarchy won't be global, because the bastards' community (which is much more crowded) will gather to form a stupid, dangerous government to steal from others
stringblue 6 months ago
@stringblue that is not anarchy that is forms of government that emerges from anarchy anarchy in essence is no government no rules, anarchy does form new gonverments and communities yes but there can in no way be an everlasting anarchy it wouldnt work, people like organization they would not want no government or no rules what you are talking about that yu like is forms of government that results from anarchy even roaming gangs are not anarchy because they have a heirarchy
xXThePanzerXx 6 months ago
@xXThePanzerXx Maybe you didn't get what i said. I am simply living in arnachy, it works for me. I know i didn't work for anyone. And i know the government will be there, but i stay away from it, i feel better. Also, i see that some government is better than others,
stringblue 6 months ago
@stringblue how are you living in anarchy? maybe you can explain what you mean a little better, unless your living by yourself on a deserted island there is no true anarchy because even family's have a heirarchy (im sorry if i spelled that wrong)
xXThePanzerXx 6 months ago
@xXThePanzerXx I'm not working for the government, nor even a company. I live in the same kind of city like yours, I'm a musician, i earn a fair living by compose, produce and making music (The service is good, lots of customer). I don't have to pay tax, I never commit a crime. Sometimes I met bad people who steal my money, i get it back by myself. I live with good people, we build our lives together & don't have much problems like disagreement or crimes... Daily life is going well.
stringblue 6 months ago
@stringblue ok, in a community and even in a band you have to work together and talk about stuff, that is a form of maby not nessisarly a heirarchy, idk what its actually called but its not an anarchy, can you tell your bad that they are writing this and its going to be like this? and even if you did that thats like a fascism, for it to be an anarchy you all would have to just do all what you want and then just play what you want when you play, and can you go into anyones house and what not?
xXThePanzerXx 6 months ago