Anarchy...leds to mob state?

[Guest]

Dont you think that in anarchy more guns=more power....An anarchist land can not survive long before a mob takes it over....

[jacobhaller]

More guns require more wielders. More guns than an unarmed populace may not be hard, but more guns than an armed populace means an awful lot of guns, and an awful lot of gunmen, and where would you recruit them? The time to recruit an army, train that army, and attack any community is the time for others to recruit a militia, train that militia, and defend that community. Unless you can work around that, you can't succeed. Unless you can work around that cheaply enough, you can't break even.

[Guest]

Think about it....If I train that army your whole system of govt is gone....Wow that was hard...If I train a community to attack otheres Ill win...They dont have to kow about my army UNTILL THEY GET ATTACKED!

[Nick]

Everytime someone uses this argument they seem to miss one important point; anarchists in an anarchist soceity would not just hand over the freedom they had to fight for. Why would an entire population defined by it's egalitarianism just hand itself over to authoritarianism? It wouldn't.

The actions of your army could, and would, be perceived as coercion; which in the eyes of many anarchists is justification for the retaliatory use of force. You also fail to anticipate the likelyhood of militias formed specifically to combat the situation you're describing, guest.

[Post_industrial]

I dont think anarchists are against violence or force.

They certainly were not against it in Spain.

There is nothing wrong with arming yourself to defend your community, and the process of creating a milita is not contradictory to anarchism unless the army elects a dictator with absalute power over its actions.

If the milita is bassed on mutual protection only, it will not need leaders, or become authoritarian.

[tsihcrana laicos]

Unless the anarchist community in question had immense natural resources, it would be very hard for the attackers to turn a profit.

[Nick]

There is nothing wrong with arming yourself to defend your community, and the process of creating a milita is not contradictory to anarchism unless the army elects a dictator with absalute power over its actions.

If the milita is bassed on mutual protection only, it will not need leaders, or become authoritarian.

I've always considered localized autonomous militias pivital to maintaining an anarchist soceity.

[Guest]

Hence they will band together and bend to my collective will! Communism will rule not some janky arse willy nilly people running around with guns all the time shooting random people...Id be to scared to go any were or do anything! ANARCHY IS A RETURN TO THE STONE AGE!

[Post_industrial]

Hence they will band together and bend to my collective will! Communism will rule not some janky arse willy nilly people running around with guns all the time shooting random people...Id be to scared to go any were or do anything! ANARCHY IS A RETURN TO THE STONE AGE!

I disagree.

In many ways we were better off in the stoneage, becuase at least we were not on the brink of destroying the planet with nuclear Armagedon.

However, returning to the stone age is not possible. We can only look to the future, becuase there is no turning back the clock.

However, the idea that trends must nessisarily continue in the same direction they have been is totaly false. It is not nessisary for us to keep all of our modern ideas and inventions, and political systems.

We can invent something new and totaly diferent.


For most of history, citizens have carried weapons. Citizens militias is what this country is founded on.

Why would it nessisarily be any worse then that?

I believe we could actualy do alot better then the Colonists, becuase we would not be racist slave owning hate mongers waging a genocidal war against the indigenous peoples of this country.

The fall of the US government would lead to chaos, but Anarchist would help create order and society in a way that did not rely on rullers, but peoples direct control of their own communites.

[Guest]

Communism is by far better....and you speak in oxymorons "Anarchy rules" come on...Communism is better...by far WE look to the future were we ALL as a WORLD work in harmony!

[Nick]

Communism is by far better....and you speak in oxymorons "Anarchy rules" come on...Communism is better...by far WE look to the future were we ALL as a WORLD work in harmony!

Well, if that post wasn't a convoluted mess I don't know what one is.

Anarchists, in general, are communists. Do you mean Marxism? If so, what does Marxism have to do with looking to the future? In my opinion, creating a despotic totalitarian state is a step backwards, not forwards.

[Guest]

Communists are NOT anarchists anarchy is just a stage between the "Big boys" like socialism , capitalism and of course communism. And hey Lenin solved that by having a dictatorship of the proliteriat...hell you guys have no organization...

[tsihcrana laicos]

You are an idiot.

What about anarcho-communists?

Lenin didn't solve shit.

Anarchists are all for organization.

[Post_industrial]

Communism is better for totalitarian dictators then anarchy is.

[Nick]

Lenin solved nothing. He traded slavery to the bourgerois for slavery to the state. 'Dictatorship of the proliteriat' my ass, the USSR was a dictatorship of the ruling class over the workers. That is no communism, that is no equality; that is despotism.