My little rant about anarchism

[Aleksanderus]

Well, I haven't been active for some time hereo because I was focusing on other things and didn't have any motivation to write anything but something made me so angry I just need to make this rant. And that thing is of course "anarchism"

So if you don't know what anarchism is, it's basically a system (I don't even know what to call it) where there are no rules, no government, no leader, pure chaos and stupidity.

I don't know why would ANYONE want to live in a region (it can't be even called a country) where there are no rules, murderers are running and killing people randomly, anyone can do any retarded thing they want and other shit. It seems like people really like to abandon all accomplishments of civilization, live in the fucking forest, rape anything that moves and eat their own shit like dogs it just looks to me like a total DEVOLUTION without any reasoning.

Even from the moral standpoint it's bad too, as I said before anyone can do completely ANYTHING (if they are strong enough) so there would be pedophiles, maniacs and retards who would do anything they want because there are no laws and police force.

Culture and technological progress would stop too, the people would become barbarians and stop the progress and even go back to the past and become animals again.

Economy? Don't fucking worry, there would be robberies everywhere, people would proroably not even want to work as there prorably wouldn't be money.

And I know that there is anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism but that doesn't change the fact that it won't EVER work and if it will happen then EVERYTHING would be fucked completely.

So, anarchism is the worst system to ever exist (in my opinion of course) and people who want to enforce that should be executed for the sake of the whole humanity. And no, i'm not nazi I just hate anarchism and I wouldn't want to ever get lectured by follower of that belief about how it would make the world "better". Flat earth conspiracies make more sense than this shit.

Alright, that's all and thank you for reading.

[Krice]

Where is this anarchism a problem? Think about it. If we have couple of anarchists wandering around it's nothing compared to the whole system. I guess at least some anarchists understand something is wrong, even their actions are not productive.

I think people hate the way politics has become and that hate is real. It seems to be always the same thing, our leaders will go overkill and only think about their rich friends in the 1% of people. That's not the way society should work.

[AgingMinotaur]

Well, actually... ... there is a long tradition of anarchist thinkers, who are quite unlike one another, but the ones preaching the kind of lawlessness you describe are very few and far between (most of those would be under 18 years of age, methinks, and haven't really studied the topic). Rather, anarchist theory typically shares a lot of its analysis with marxism/socialism, but putting much more emphasis on libertarian ideas. Where Marx was preoccupied with the disparity between economic classes, anarchists are typically more concerned with power relations in general. Some may be utopian to the point of naivety, others offer practical solutions and ideas for self-organized societies. If you're interested in the topic, try reading an anthology or something, and while you may quite disagree with the goals and methods, you'll at least come to realize that anarchism really has very little to do with the kind of "anti-society" you describe in your original post.

As always,
Minotauros

[Vosvek]

... anarchism is ... basically a system (I don't even know what to call it) where there are no rules, no government, no leader, pure chaos and stupidity.

You're conveniently oversimplifying anarchism to support your argument. This is called a 'straw man fallacy'.

Anarchism is an ideology that supports self-governance through voluntary unions. A voluntary union is a group of individuals who enter an agreement (or contract) with one another to achieve a purpose or some end. So while you're right in that an anarchist society does not have a designated leader, you're wrong in that an anarchist society still has rules (as defined by the voluntary union's agreement on the rules), and therefore still has some form of government. If you do not accept the rules, you will be refused entry into, or kicked out of, this society. And if you break the rules, you will be punished accordingly.

My concern with anarchism (though I must admit, I haven't much studied the field) comes from the potential it has to create communal violence. That is, if you remove the state, what happens when two societies legalise warfare between each other (red society says it's okay to murder people of blue society, and blue society says it's okay to murder people of red society)? Is anarchism not opening the doors to increased civil war?

My other concern with anarchism is whether it is strong enough of an ideology to survive. What is stopping a charismatic, perhaps delusional, person from creating an autocracy under the guise of anarchism through a voluntary union (we see this with cults -- you're free to join, and free to leave ^{"but your family will cut ties with you, and you'll burn in hell for eternity"})? Eventually, this autocracy, or perhaps another like it, will try to take power. And before you know it, you're back to a society with states and a ruling government.

[Krice]

shares a lot of its analysis with marxism/socialism

This is also one problem in politics, everything has a "label" and when you try to suggest something it ties into some label. That's why the situation in USA is so messy. They can't figure out even simple things like health care, because anything else than hugely overpriced private sector health care is "communism" for sure. I guess same thing led them to politics that work from right to far right. It's not even close to democracy.