I consider that a case of projecting... Isaac Asimov was very creative, but he's what I would term a very orderly thinker. I've read a lot of his work, fiction and non-fiction, and I don't think he's very good at all at concealing things.

Anarchy is nothing but democracy, speeded up. Fast-moving democracies don't last as democracies very long. They end up as tyrannies.

If an anarchist society is made up of 99 people who are content to live and let live, side by side, and 1 person who wants to kill and conquer, the anarchy isn't going to last. Either the one person will take over, or the 99 will be forced to band together to prevent that. This will require them to organize, come up with some system of rules, and put the reins of power into the hands of a person or persons. When the crisis is past, they may be able to disband the power structure... until the next crisis. Sooner or later, they're going to hand the reins to someone who wants to keep driving.

Actually the roots of anarchy are an and archy mostly cause an means not and archy means govenment

thats not what they believe they believe no rules so the lazy gothics wont have to work and they can just sit on their arses and smoke pot...thats what they basically do now but they bish about society while being lazy and smoking pot.

it does make sense i you said they might come together to kill the person when i said they wouldnt

Vicious wrote:

Gawk all you want. Its guys like you who dont think things through, and make absence of goverment hard to face, do you have to be lead around on a leash?

Interesting. It as been my experience that those who advocate anarchy usually haven't "thought things through." As LA pointed out, anarchies, by their nature, do not tend to last terribly long, and for good reason! Since people are generally self motivated (IE selfish) and anarchy imposes no restraint on action other than any resistance a potential victim can muster, the result is not pretty and often violent. A riot is an excellent example of anarchy at work. But it has also been argued that a true anarchist state can never exist because humans always exert some sort of control or structure over one another, even if it is nothing more than rule by the strongest. Additionally, at some point people inevitably tire of having no protection of their interests and generally band together to protect themselves (see Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, etc.).

I think it is also relevant that most anarchists tend to be disaffected with their society or outcasts. They seek comfort by forming counter organizations which, by their organized nature, defy the very philosophy the purport to further. By advocating that their views on government (or the lack thereof) are superior and should therefore be followed, they are at least hypocritical. Those that take the alternate view that governments are simply doomed to failure (what I like to call Marx meets Nietzche), are simply mistaken, at least according to historical evidence.

Also interesting to note is that the anarchist movement is highly concentrated in the US, a country that has arguably provided more wealth and freedom to its citizenry than any other in the history of the world. You don't see alot of true anarchy in poorer nations (those bearing the name are usually just rebellion fronts, not true anarchist organizations) because they live in a world that has seen the effects of weak governanace- constant civil wars, unchecked crime, devastating currency devaluation, etc. It's very easy to argue for "anarchy" from your nice protected sphere of free speech in your suburban neighborhood. Travel to South Africa or Central America for a few weeks and look at how their people are forced to survive and see if you think is such a great idea then.

-James

and like you wouldnt just love to do that?

no i would rather do something with my life then to live by the saying "were all gonna die anyways"

Thanks man that proves my point i made to my mother.

I just want to comment on a couple things in that last post. I consider myself to be an anarchist, but I don't believe that true anarchy could exist. No matter what, there will always be someone that will mess things up.
What you said about the L.A. riots has absolutely nothing to do with anarchy! Riots are just large groups of people who get an opportunity to destroy something, so they do it. Although I haven't really read up on the topic, I can assume that large groups of people decide to go smash things up. Usually there is some reason for a large group to be together (a demonstration for example) and you get a few idiots who think smashing something will get their point across. After that, everyone sees their opportunity to break things! Why not? "The cops won't be able to arrest us all! May as well loot a store!"
Now, one last thing. Yes, most "anarchists" seem to be from suburban America. I currently live in the suburbs myself (although I was brought up in rougher areas before this).
I doubt anyone here would actually take any kind of large scale action for their anarchist beliefs. I mean come on, we're Americans.
I do have to say though, I think the reason you see less anarchist "action" (I don't really think there has been much anarchist action anywhere) in poorer countries, which have a tendancy to be run by violent governments, is that, people are too afraid to speak out, and voice their views. It could just be that they have seen what a weak government is like, as was said in the last post.
In closing, I would just like to state my opinion about "anarchy" these days. It has become another fad. You see people walking around all the time wearing big anarchy signs on their clothes. In schools, kids think they're being badass because they don't do their work, then they'll tell you they did it because they belive in anarchy. I can bet in 10 years these people won't be saying the same thing. They'll end up like 95% of Americans do. They'll be sitting on their butt, cigarette in one hand and a beer in the other, getting their news from ESPN because after all, sports are all that matters (I just realized that I was only speaking about the male population there). Anarchy is just another fad, and I look forward to the day that it is no longer popular to be an anarchist so that I can be seen as an outcast again.


Here are a few links that I thought of. They aren't really about anarchy per se, but they're some fun sites.


Progressive.org a magazine that doesn't follow the same pro-american ideals as most. Check out the online articles

Alternative Tentacles Records These guys are completely about punk rock. They also have some speakers, such as Jello Biafra, ex-lead singer of Dead Kennedys. I would definately suggest checking out his spoken word stuff. You can find it on KaZaA and Morpheus, just search for Jello Biafra.



-Joe