A Question About Anarchism..

[John "Eh" MacDonald]

Excuse my ignorance, and I'm sorry if I offend any anarchists but anarchism, the way I understand it, doesn't sound like it would be the best choice to base a revolution on.

Without any temporary authority, after the revolution and the state has been abolished, would organized criminals not step in as the new authority? What would stop people from killing who they want when they want? It sounds like there would be compete chaos.

Is this a legitimate question or has the propaganda that has been drilled into my skull since grade 6 gotten to me?

[The Douche]

The easiest way to answer this, is by pointing out the fact that there will be no anarchist revolution until after there is a change in consciousness and the way we percieve ourselves/those around us/our role in society. That change in perception will effect the relationships we have.

Also, anarchism is not based on lawlessness, but on mutual aid. There is a good reading list in this forum for anarchism that I strongly suggest you look into.:thumbup1:

[SeaSpeck]

Organized Crime wouldn't have any reason to continue after an anarchist revolution. If money is abolished and all goods are held in common then there is no incentive. If they tied to take over the supplies of goods, the population would just revolt against them.

At the point of an anarchist revolution, most of the population would be armed. So, anyone who just wants to cause destruction and mayhem would be subdued. Self protection of the population.

[John "Eh" MacDonald]

Oh, thank you, I began reading that one day. I completely forgot it was there.

[syndicat]

social anarchism isn't against authority but top-down or hierarchical authority, separate from the decision-making by the people. so there would still be a form of popular governance, but a grassroots form of governance, with assemblies, elected comittees and congresses of delegates for larger regions. so there would be both laws and a means to enforce them.

but the means to do this would be thru direct popular democracy, not thru a distant, uncontrollable hierarchy called a state.

[NGNM85]

Excuse my ignorance, and I'm sorry if I offend any anarchists but anarchism, the way I understand it, doesn't sound like it would be the best choice to base a revolution on.

Without any temporary authority, after the revolution and the state has been abolished, would organized criminals not step in as the new authority? What would stop people from killing who they want when they want? It sounds like there would be compete chaos.

Is this a legitimate question or has the propaganda that has been drilled into my skull since grade 6 gotten to me?

Well, what you describe would qualify as 'asymmetrical warfare.' It's been consustently proven that formal militaries tend to have trouble dealing with asymmetrical warfare, which tends to be very costly, both in terms of soldiers, and financially. However, this is only the most crude and literal interpretation of 'revolution." I'm actually fairly skeptical about the viability of such a project in the modern West.

Moreover, as has been said before, Anarchy is no about a lack of order and organization, it's about getting rid of hierarchy and oppression. In fact, the famous (Usually) red symbol which adorns everything from baseball caps to underwear, is a visual expression created by Italian Anarchists of Proudhon's maxim; "Anarchy is Order." Thus the A in the O circle. Of course, at least 75% of the people wearing it do not know that.