Anarchy thread

[Babun]

Anarchy ( Definition ) leads to the rule of the strong over the weak at first because there is no controlling instance, then to tribalism due to the stronger groups organizing themselves, then at some point a type of dictatorship is established (king or ruler, call how you like) which holds all of the power and decision making (Separation of Powers).
So how is it more desirable than a democracy? Even the ancient homo sapiens lived in tribal societies.

[El Gunner]

that's why you get lots of anarcho-socialists/communists who advocate for something close to tribalism in the old ages but with fundamental communist/Marxist principles relating to worker production, ownership and the market/trade

you also get anarchists who believe there's no escaping/ridding of the system so to hell with it, they'll do whatever they want, and you also get those which live by this (me included):

https://i.servimg.com/u/f69/18/75/76/10/anarch10.jpg

[VivaStPauli]

Anarchy ( Definition ) leads to the rule of the strong over the weak at first because there is no controlling instance, then to tribalism due to the stronger groups organizing themselves, then at some point a type of dictatorship is established (king or ruler, call how you like) which holds all of the power and decision making (Separation of Powers).
So how is it more desirable than a democracy? Even the ancient homo sapiens lived in tribal societies.

Because you've misunderstood what anarchists want; I've never actually seen or heard someone advertise actual primal anarchy, and call themselves an anarchist. Anarchists are adherents to the socio-political philosophy of Anarchism. Which is not an utter absence of order, but rather a proposed non-hierarchical order. Whether that's feasible is another discussion, but anarchists are, at least, not proposing what you (seem to) think they are proposing.

[Babun]

Anarchy ( Definition ) leads to the rule of the strong over the weak at first because there is no controlling instance, then to tribalism due to the stronger groups organizing themselves, then at some point a type of dictatorship is established (king or ruler, call how you like) which holds all of the power and decision making (Separation of Powers).
So how is it more desirable than a democracy? Even the ancient homo sapiens lived in tribal societies.

Which is not an utter absence of order, but rather a proposed non-hierarchical order. Whether that's feasible is another discussion, but anarchists are, at least, not proposing what you (seem to) think they are proposing.

With no instance to control the absense of hierachical order their wish is no different than the primal anarchy.

that's why you get lots of anarcho-socialists/communists who advocate for something close to tribalism in the old ages but with fundamental communist/Marxist principles relating to worker production, ownership and the market/trade

you also get anarchists who believe there's no escaping/ridding of the system so to hell with it, they'll do whatever they want, and you also get those which live by this (me included):

https://i.servimg.com/u/f69/18/75/76/10/anarch10.jpg

I see so the new anarchy movement is no different from a pseudo neo altruism with freedom without borders aspect. Very romantic if you ask me but not feasible

[VivaStPauli]

With no instance to control the absense of hierachical order their wish is no different than the primal anarchy.

See, this is supposed to be your opinion in this discussion, not the end of the discussion.

that's why you get lots of anarcho-socialists/communists who advocate for something close to tribalism in the old ages but with fundamental communist/Marxist principles relating to worker production, ownership and the market/trade

you also get anarchists who believe there's no escaping/ridding of the system so to hell with it, they'll do whatever they want, and you also get those which live by this (me included):

https://i.servimg.com/u/f69/18/75/76/10/anarch10.jpg

I see so the new anarchy movement is no different from a pseudo neo altruism with freedom without borders aspect. Very romantic if you ask me but not feasible [/quote]

Same as above, you're not entirely wrong, but that's where you disagree with Anarchists. At least you can now agree that they mean well.

[Babun]

With no instance to control the absense of hierachical order their wish is no different than the primal anarchy.

See, this is supposed to be your opinion in this discussion, not the end of the discussion.

that's why you get lots of anarcho-socialists/communists who advocate for something close to tribalism in the old ages but with fundamental communist/Marxist principles relating to worker production, ownership and the market/trade

you also get anarchists who believe there's no escaping/ridding of the system so to hell with it, they'll do whatever they want, and you also get those which live by this (me included):

https://i.servimg.com/u/f69/18/75/76/10/anarch10.jpg

I see so the new anarchy movement is no different from a pseudo neo altruism with freedom without borders aspect. Very romantic if you ask me but not feasible

Same as above, you're not entirely wrong, but that's where you disagree with Anarchists. At least you can now agree that they mean well.[/quote]
I was just trying to understand the pull behind the idea because from what I know from loooong ago anarchy was just horrible. Now, I get the romantic idea behind the movement. I also see where it comes from, probably.
Open discussion:
Perhaps, people are fed up with the way the world became super competitive after the globalization and the drive behind the unlimited growth (current problem) so they look back at the time living was simpler and romantize the time as something positive like back to the routs.

[El Gunner]

super-competitiveness is least of the problem of today's world

it's the inhumanity, the corruption, the robotic grind, and the insane wealth gap and poverty

[Babun]

super-competitiveness is least of the problem of today's world

it's the inhumanity, the corruption, the robotic grind, and the insane wealth gap and poverty

I get where you guys come from. The question is how is anarchism going to better the situation long term?
I'm quite familiar with history, the worst point was achieved during the middle ages, one could have been killed for looking wrongly at someone or for no reason at all. Average Joe today lives much better than in the past. I would argue with the world population we have right now if you distribute wealth broader goods consumption would go through the roof = destruction of mother earth. Asian countries with huge population strive for the same living standards as Americans and Europeans who have been wasting resources left and right.
I'd say overpopulation is the real problem, the elephant in the room no one likes to talk about, especially the politicians. The best way to combat overpopulation as of now has been...........











education

[Myesyats]

The best way to combat overpopulation as of now has been...........











education

or randomly sinking crew ships

[El Gunner]

overpopulation is just another political ruse/ploy

[Babun]

The best way to combat overpopulation as of now has been...........











education

or randomly sinking crew ships

You'd need quite a lot of them

overpopulation is just another political ruse/ploy

A political ploy no politician talks about? You do know most of the capitalist nations like overpopulation because they get more consuments to consume goods they don't really need. They regard to them as markets

[El Gunner]

they don't like "overpopulation" they like their markets and keeping those markets in its constant economical state

[Nishankly]

overpopulation is just another political ruse/ploy

India rn

[Babun]

they don't like "overpopulation" they like their markets and keeping those markets in its constant economical state

Where do you reside?


Am I seeing things or are all the people in the video real?

[El Gunner]

yea just because India and China have been struggling with mass population for years the entire world is overpopulated

there's hectares and hectares of free land all over the world, but the elite stays eliting and the masses stay dumbing

[Nishankly]

Well even with India having that population, I think the argument should be more as Population density. That gives you the clearer picture, India ranks less than Netherlands and around equal to Belgium in that stance.

Don't know where this thread is going, just came in to address overpopulation. Carry on.

[rincon]

Now overpopulation too

Everything is a conspiracy to ElG

[Babun]

yea just because India and China have been struggling with mass population for years the entire world is overpopulated

there's hectares and hectares of free land all over the world, but the elite stays eliting and the masses stay dumbing

Don't tell me you're a flat earther..
What kind of living standard would you like for yourself in your perfect world? Give real examples please.

Well even with India having that population, I think the argument should be more as Population density. That gives you the clearer picture, India ranks less than Netherlands and around equal to Belgium in that stance.

Don't know where this thread is going, just came in to address overpopulation. Carry on.

The density is higher where no deserts/wastelands or mountains are present and water is plentiful. If you'd subtract those areas from India the population density would be pretty damn high.

[Myesyats]

there's hectares and hectares of free land all over the world

Yes especially in the Sahara or the Siberia

[El Gunner]

i won't bother continue responding when assumptions about me has clearly already been decided on in this argument

[Myesyats]

Sir David Attenborough: If we do not control population, the natural world will


https://www.bbc.com/news/av/entertainment-arts-24144593
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10316271/Sir-David-Attenborough-If-we-do-not-control-population-the-natural-world-will.html

If you dont listen to Sir Attenborough, theres no help.

[Babun]

i won't bother continue responding when assumptions about me has clearly already been decided on in this argument

No assumptions, I'm just asking. What living standard do you strive for, seriously? Fresh water, a room, an apartment, a house? Hot water? A toilette?

[Sponsored content]