Home More advice Politics & Law
Why dont people like Anarchists? I am an anarchist..I dont understand why so many people think its stupid...
Probably because there's theoretically nothing wrong with the system we have in place now, and anyone who does have a problem with it is often looking for some excuse as to why they should be able to do something they enjoy doing that is illegal (I.e. drugs), OR they're just teenagers who, whether they admit it or not, are 'afraid' of entering the 'real' world, and anarchy is a comforting thought.
Anarchy's not all that bad, but life just wouldn't be the same as we know it, and most anarchists don't understand that most (if not all) of their modern possessions and the luxuries they take for granted simply wouldn't exist, and that no, you wouldn't have to have a job as we know of them today, but you would be working your butt off just for the means to live, and that the equivalence of such work and the rewards you obtain doing so would most likely always be less efficient than how our capitalist society works today. Life would be similar to that of the 19th century, but hey, if your the type of anarchist who accepts all that and wouldn't mind living through events and in a reality not unlike that of Mad Max, then I don't have a problem with you. It's only the 'jump on the bandwagon' type of anarchists who don't fully know their stuff that I have a problem with.
My personal thoughts on anarchy are all basically based on relativity. Take, for example, the case in V for Vendetta (and I'm referring to the graphic novel, so if my examples don't match up to your knowledge based off the movie, make a trip to the library). The government was tyrannical, and the form of government, totalitarian. Our delightfully mad hero, V, wasn't fighting to reform the government back into a reasonable form, but to obliterate the government entirely, putting the power completely in the hands of the people, to let them rebuild their nation based off the lesson they had learned after standing idly by while the government turned into what it had been throughout the course of the story. After dealing with a tyrannical totalitarian government, the people could operate freely and successfully under anarchy, but without such events as the ones that took place in V for Vendetta, and without that sense of comparison and contrast between being basically slaves of some form or another, and being in complete control, I don't think we as a nation could operate successfully without a (skeletal) form of government. NOT because I think there would be too many crazy maniacs running rampant and mucking everything up, but more so because, looking at the popularity of the issue of gun control, etc, there wouldn't be enough people willing to deal with said crazy maniacs.
Like I said, it's mostly a matter of relativity, in several ways. I don't have any real problem with capitalism at all, but if I had to choose between some degree of totalitarianism or some degree of anarchy, it'd be anarchy all the way. But a lot of people nowadays would disagree. Too many socialists out there today, too many people for things like big government and gun control, all of whom are basically lesser forms of the kind of people who are the enemy of such fictions as V for Vendetta. All that, plus, not only would the conversion from any form of government to complete anarchy be virtually impossible (without similar to said events such as in V for Vendetta) anarchy would also leave us slightly more vulnerable to the jealous, America-hating, power-hungry dictatorships all over the world. That is, provided we all wouldn't have the guts to stand up and defend a common goal of protecting our anarchist nation against such power-hungry dictators.
So anarchy is a lot like theoretical communism. Sounds great, but just doesn't work. While communism, in all it's failing glory, is more realistically conceivable than anarchy, anarchy would be infinitely preferable.
There are at least four reasons. The main reason is that the popculture equates anarchy and chaos. Anarchists really need to come up with a new description that doesn't have that negative connotation.
The other reason is that 'anarchy' has multiple meanings even among those who call themselves anarchists. The Spanish anarchist types are referring to a system of collective ownership, whereas anarcho-capitalists are referring to a system of competitive government.
The third reason is that even if you clearly state what you are referring to and explain that it is not the same thing as chaos, almost everyone starts from the assumption it can't work and just won't pay attention until their beloved government reams them unjustly.
The fourth reason, is that many people confuse love of their nation with love of their government. It seems almost criminal to people who make that mistake to even talk about doing away with the government. They think that's the same as nuking the land and everyone on it.
if there were anarchy, most self-described anarchists would be the first to die as society collapsed. Let's take a reality check here: The only reason there are 7 billion people on earth right now is because we are organized. The first consequence of anarchy would be a halving of the human population. 3.5 billion dead. In the first two years. This would be because most of the people in the "civilized" world couldn't feed themselves, not to mention the poor schmucks who live in places like LA, San Diego, Pheonix, etc who would die when there was no one to make sure there would be electricity and, therefore, water. Anarchy is defined as a system where there is no government. In such a system, it is rule by fist, the strongest rules the rest (read the Lord of the Flies). The question anarchists should ask themselves is: is this what we really want?
Well, some people hate anarchists, because some political-savvy people think they know it all, and think that anyone who is anarchist are ignorant punk kids who want to rebel. Others, just like the idea of some sort of structure. Others, have power, and want to keep it. As karmex put it, anarchy IS a lot like communism. Looks good on paper, but will never work, because someone always wants it all.
People don't like anarchists because kids like you give real anarchists a bad name. You're not an anarchist because you think being able to do what you want with no government would be really cool, and you're not an anarchist if you wear clothing with the "anarchy symbol" on it.
Ok snowmelter, if 1/2 the people in the US would die under anarchy within two years, then certainly in a hell hole like Mogadishu, you would expect an even higher mortality rate after the government collapsed.
Is that what happened when the Somali government collapsed?
...someone always wants it all.<
Though any weapon imaginable could keep those kinds of people in check. And by 'in check' I mean dead. But yeah, in anarchy there's no real way to ensure people like that couldn't/wouldn't rise up.
there are all kinds of people...some will lke you for it, some will hate you for it, some will love you for it...some dont give a s.hit...people are different ...you cant please everybody...and you shouldnt try
16 days ago you asked. "What is anarchy exactly?" Now you say your an anarchist? Yeah...ok.
when a society has a system, going against the grain is often unpopular
People are not in favor of 'Chaos/destruction/violence, etc'.
Because people fear what the don't understand.
