Anarchy
The latest Blog about Anarchy gave me the urge to write one about it myself. [edit: I saw it got deleted now]. I can't really name any sources for my blog, I got all my ideas from what I remember out of a University Lecture by Prof. Dr. Breier called "Politische Theorie". You find a German script here.
To explain Anarchy I'm looking at it from a historical point of view that goes back to the ancient world. For further reading you might take a script about Platon.
Anarchy in a political sense is a state with no leader, with no laws or rules, with no limits and no restruction. Anarchy can be described as a state of total chaos where everyone just lives for themselves. It's a war of all against all as Thomas Hobbes calls the nature of all human life in The Leviathan.
It is a state with absolutely no security except for the one that you have with your gun in your hands.
Now there are tons of people wanting this thing called Anarchy but have you ever actually thought of what this state would actually be like?
Unlike people might think, Anarchy is probably the worst case of "leadership" because there is none. There is no security, everyone could shoot eachother without any repression, without having to be responsible for it. You could steal and murder and rape without hesitation (unless someone takes their gun and shoots you first of course).
In a political sense, furthermore, Anarchy is a state that might happen after a leadership with too many rules, after demonstrations gone "wild", after the failure of states.
The first state of leadership is Aristocracy. To Platon this is the best leadership because it's the leadership of the best. I doubt this because when you look into history it weren't neccessarily the "best people", but the people with the best family origin and status (gentry).
In the Timogracy leaders get chosen the same way as in the Aristocracy, but here they compete with other leaders for honour. Leaders don't act according to what is good for their people, but according to what raises their own personal honour.
Soon, values change and the leader's main aim is wealth. The Oligarchy is a form of government or leadership where few have power - those who have the most money.
Next in this circle is Democracy - the leadership of the many. You cannot compare the Antique Democracy with our democracy nowadays. Well, it was the leadership of the people too, but back then it was the leadership of the poor, a leadership without a constitution. Soon the in the Oligarchy exploited bourgeoisie forjudged their rich leaders. Condemnation leads to Anarchy. It's a state of excessive freedom, total excess and no law and protection.
Soon the people nevertheless get sick of this state and insecurity and they seak a strong leader. So what comes next is a Tyrant. It is a cruel leader who sees no mercy in claiming and getting his interests. The state of total chaos that became so unbearable for the people, made them call for a new leadership, no matter what it is. The strongest of all came and took all the power to himself.
Now this is a circle of leadership / power made by Platon in the Ancient World. Nevertheless, you find alot of truth behind it in current affairs but also in history. Most dictators/tyrants got their power after a state of disorientation in a country, after a state of war and disorganisation. After the lack or failure of the government. Failed states. Just look at the current situation in the Gaza Strip, or think of Somalia. And what was the situation like in Germany before Hitler got power? Or take Iraq under Hussein as an example.
People always say our government is bad, and that they don't want to be ruled by politicians and that they want more freedom. Anarchy is the buzzword that they always use. I truely believe though that in our Democracy we have the highest level of freedom connected with security you can get. What is there that you can't do? Yes you can't murder and do any other crimes. But our world nowadays is so complex that Anarchy won't work. It hasn't worked in the past, in lets say less complex societies and it won't work now. Going around screaming for Anarchy is dumb because most of the people have no idea what it actually means and what it's effects are.
With international control, such as by the UNO or EU, Anarchy is very unlikely nowadays. Sill you cannot say that it will never happen. Imagine a big catastrophe, a star crashing on the Earth, or whatsoever (though its unlikely) and everything will be chaos. But people will soon seek for some kind of orientation and security, they will call for a leader. Because total Anarchy is unbearable in the long run.
To explain Anarchy I'm looking at it from a historical point of view that goes back to the ancient world. For further reading you might take a script about Platon.
Anarchy in a political sense is a state with no leader, with no laws or rules, with no limits and no restruction. Anarchy can be described as a state of total chaos where everyone just lives for themselves. It's a war of all against all as Thomas Hobbes calls the nature of all human life in The Leviathan.
It is a state with absolutely no security except for the one that you have with your gun in your hands.
Now there are tons of people wanting this thing called Anarchy but have you ever actually thought of what this state would actually be like?
Unlike people might think, Anarchy is probably the worst case of "leadership" because there is none. There is no security, everyone could shoot eachother without any repression, without having to be responsible for it. You could steal and murder and rape without hesitation (unless someone takes their gun and shoots you first of course).
In a political sense, furthermore, Anarchy is a state that might happen after a leadership with too many rules, after demonstrations gone "wild", after the failure of states.
The first state of leadership is Aristocracy. To Platon this is the best leadership because it's the leadership of the best. I doubt this because when you look into history it weren't neccessarily the "best people", but the people with the best family origin and status (gentry).
In the Timogracy leaders get chosen the same way as in the Aristocracy, but here they compete with other leaders for honour. Leaders don't act according to what is good for their people, but according to what raises their own personal honour.
Soon, values change and the leader's main aim is wealth. The Oligarchy is a form of government or leadership where few have power - those who have the most money.
Next in this circle is Democracy - the leadership of the many. You cannot compare the Antique Democracy with our democracy nowadays. Well, it was the leadership of the people too, but back then it was the leadership of the poor, a leadership without a constitution. Soon the in the Oligarchy exploited bourgeoisie forjudged their rich leaders. Condemnation leads to Anarchy. It's a state of excessive freedom, total excess and no law and protection.
Soon the people nevertheless get sick of this state and insecurity and they seak a strong leader. So what comes next is a Tyrant. It is a cruel leader who sees no mercy in claiming and getting his interests. The state of total chaos that became so unbearable for the people, made them call for a new leadership, no matter what it is. The strongest of all came and took all the power to himself.
Now this is a circle of leadership / power made by Platon in the Ancient World. Nevertheless, you find alot of truth behind it in current affairs but also in history. Most dictators/tyrants got their power after a state of disorientation in a country, after a state of war and disorganisation. After the lack or failure of the government. Failed states. Just look at the current situation in the Gaza Strip, or think of Somalia. And what was the situation like in Germany before Hitler got power? Or take Iraq under Hussein as an example.
People always say our government is bad, and that they don't want to be ruled by politicians and that they want more freedom. Anarchy is the buzzword that they always use. I truely believe though that in our Democracy we have the highest level of freedom connected with security you can get. What is there that you can't do? Yes you can't murder and do any other crimes. But our world nowadays is so complex that Anarchy won't work. It hasn't worked in the past, in lets say less complex societies and it won't work now. Going around screaming for Anarchy is dumb because most of the people have no idea what it actually means and what it's effects are.
With international control, such as by the UNO or EU, Anarchy is very unlikely nowadays. Sill you cannot say that it will never happen. Imagine a big catastrophe, a star crashing on the Earth, or whatsoever (though its unlikely) and everything will be chaos. But people will soon seek for some kind of orientation and security, they will call for a leader. Because total Anarchy is unbearable in the long run.
Comments
Page 1/2 | Next
and how would that punishment look like?
Love, June 26th, 2007 at 06:15:22am
murder would be legal
and idk about you but i wouldnt want to be killed by some passing stranger and know that according to the law, or lack of, they have commited no crime
Actually thats a serious crime in the Anarchy system since by murder you take away someones freedom and freedom is the most cherished thing in Anarchism. You do get punished for that but by the whole community, not just one person deciding.
worn-out astronaut., June 26th, 2007 at 04:06:02am
great blog! i agree with you completely
Cheechoo, June 25th, 2007 at 10:04:35pm
I agree
i mean look at the chaos caused in Iraq once Saddam was caputred
no im not saying that was wrong as he was an awful leader
what im saying is just the amount of mobbings and suicide bombs
if the EU had appointed a new leader instantly it would have been a lot calmer
now sadly there are so many rebelions it requires an army to control the country
there are admittedly parts of the leadership system that need to be changed yes
but rules are there for a reason
if we abolsihed all rulse
murder would be legal
and idk about you but i wouldnt want to be killed by some passing stranger and know that according to the law, or lack of, they have commited no crime
a great blog x
paper heart., June 25th, 2007 at 04:01:23pm
Its actually a great thing to have as a personal philosophy.
This might be true but I'm talking about politics actually.
Love, June 25th, 2007 at 12:44:26pm
I'm not disagreeing with you. I also say it's utopic
and because of people who mostly are immoderate and self-indulgent it won't work for society as a whole because people would turn it into chaos.
Love, June 25th, 2007 at 11:56:28am
The point is no one actually understands it, but you still write blogs like this. I said its utopic and it wont work. Its actually a great thing to have as a personal philosophy. Besides communism ended as chaos and it souns so awesome...
worn-out astronaut., June 25th, 2007 at 06:56:04am
But without authority...what do you think would happen? Like I said, if someone murdered your family, would you want them to be free?
RhymesLikeDimes, June 24th, 2007 at 07:50:35pm
to get a state like that you need the perfect people.
but you don't have them
people need some kind of authority to guide them
without it, there would be chaos.
I'm not saying anarchy means chaos. but i'm saying anarchy will most likely cause chaos.
Love, June 24th, 2007 at 04:05:09pm
Anarchy can be described as a state of total chaos.
And thats excatly what Anarchy isnt :) Anarchism is a political philosophy or group of doctrines and attitudes centered on rejection of any form of authoritarian relationship, hierarchical institution or compulsory government and supporting its elimination. Its proponents advocate individual liberty and equality of rights and power though various alternatives that include voluntary cooperation, free association, usually in a direct democracy and self-management regime. That doesnt have to make it chaos. Anarchy suprisingly has a lot of rules and laws to be folowed. Because punx and other morons these days think if it as a form of chaos where you can do everything you like its utterly wrong. Trust me, I have tried to be an anarchist and it was too hard.A narchists feel it is inappropriate to use the word “anarchy” to mean "a state of chaos or confusion". However, many non-anarchists do use it that way. Archos in Greek means "rulers", "authority" and therefor Anarchy means against authority. It does not mean chaos. It isnt a perfect form of a society, but there was never a perfect form to being with. It is just too utopic, but its a great thing to follow. It has so many things that are great about it. I follow it as my belief because it follow natural and moral rights. You should definately read Proudhon, Bakunin, Godwin and others.
worn-out astronaut., June 24th, 2007 at 04:01:59pm
thanks
and what your teacher said is a great way of explaining it!
Love, June 24th, 2007 at 03:49:34pm
*high fives* As my Civics teacher in eighth grade said: "Oh, anarchy's a lot of fun! Until you get run over by a car that doesn't have to drive on the street, that is." People throw the word around without knowing what it really entails, like you said, and I agree with most of what the other commenters have said.
Janie Jones, June 24th, 2007 at 03:42:36pm
people don't do that to annoy you.
they want to guide you, help you.
Love, June 24th, 2007 at 03:01:02pm
i agree with anarchy in the way that i hate the way other people decide what i should and shouldnt do. i know it wouldnt work, but i can believe in it...
i dont believe in the world. in some ways i wish a meteorite would kill me. every day i spend in civilisation crushes my soul. i want to say as i like, i want to go as i like, i want to do as i like. all i know for sure is what is good and bad, and the government seems to see things as what is pleasurable to them and what isnt.
i have to say, i hate the world.
Lyddy r teh Snaily, June 24th, 2007 at 02:49:42pm
I agree with Sazzeh and Allison. I've been saying things along these lines for a while now. I wanted Anrachy about four years ago and then I really read up on it and...no. Like Allison said, ignorant children, that's what I was. And boy, am I glad I don't believe in that Horse malarky now. =]
just_call_me_dookie, June 24th, 2007 at 11:13:23am