Point number 1 isn't really true, mister. The peoples you mentioned fought against enemies that were bigger than they were, but that doesn't make them anarchists. The native American tribes had their own rules with chiefs and such. That hasn't got anything to do with anarchism. The same goes for Somalia, the taliban, celtic tribes, Nestor Makhno's gang and so on.

for point 2 wouldn't that mean the only difference between an anarchist and your average libertarian is that one likes to call themselves an anarchist? Isn't the utopia you described every minarchists fantasy who just can't see it working in reality?

unless a guy's densely prejudiced or power hungry i don't know how anyone can not be an anarchist if that was the case.

By the way i aint gonna bullshit you I'm pretty ignorant to anarchism so chances are i could be missing / misunderstanding something here.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...


I was an anarchist...

When I was twelve.

I'm sort of addressing anarchism in a vague sense in point number 1. Where in I'm saying that while they had tribal laws there was no central government dictating their actions. And generally they could simply leave the tribe, you can't exactly perform the same action today (giving up your citizenship doesn't go over well). The celtic tribes were pretty much straight anarchists though and makhno was definately an anarchist no question.

2. All I'm saying in point number two is that even anarchists address the impracticality of anarchism. But we basically ignore that fact because the core of anarchism is an obsession with (perhaps an unhealthy one) freedom. And yes I have a lot of libertarian friends and generally we agree that with government power you fight a losing battle. With anarchism you leave a vacancy in power, but in a minarchism you still have potential for the beast to grow. I have a buddy of mine who calls himself a libertarian but he basically does it so his dad won't freak out over it. The expression that's used a lot is that anarchists and libertarians are just 2 passengers on the same train. The Libertarian gets off at the last stop and well.. the anarchist crashes the train. But yeah my basic thing is that a lot of people are philosophical anarchists but not everyone is a practical one.

I don't think somalia is a good example to show of how anarchy works. Unless you were trying to show that it works alright when there are a small number of people, but once the population grows it gets fucked. Somalia has had a long history of brutality, and even before the colonizers moved in it wasn't great. It was just big enough that the tribes didn't have to slaughter each other TOO much over land and resources.

Well on Somalia, this article is interesting.
http://reason.com/blog/2006/12/27/the-anarchy-advantage-in-somal

There are too many divisions in modern anarchism for things to ever serisouly get going.

Anarchist groups/organisations are known for being very short lived , becuase being an anarchist attracts much more passionate people than other ideologies, so naturaly these people are more volatile and fall out a lot.

I believe that if a significant organisation of anarchists could hold together long enough to gain more strength it could have a big impact on modern day politics. Just look at the Anarcho-syndicalist movements from victorian times ( I think aorund that era , im not a historian ) , combined there were approximately 1+ million anarchists through out Europe, which was a relatively large chunk of the population back then.

Another problem anarchism faces is that there are so many sub ideologies eg: Anarcho - Communism, Anarcho - Capitalism and Egoist Anarchism to name a few. These many divisions put anarchist everwhere from far left to far right, so there is simply too much arguement.

If these problems could be overcome then I fully believe that anarchy can be achieved , and I hope it is , because everyone is born equal , and everyone dies equal , so why shouldn't we live equally ?

One day , people might even help each other , just for the sake of helping each other...

I think anyone who is older than 15 and calls themselves an anarchist is probably a joke.
I also think anyone who is younger than 15 and calls themselves an anarchist is probably a joke.

I think anarchy is a joke. It could not work.

I generally tend to roll my eyes at your posts, Kyle.

But you pretty much summed up everything and anything I could say about anarchy in the simplest way possible.

I like you.

*pats on back*

Defiance, Ohio - "I don't want solidarity if it means holding hands with you."

That song sums up a lot of what Viewinblack was saying.

Personally... pfsch. It all depends on what my views on freedom and liberty are and how I define them. Is idealism, beyond what is feasible, necessary for change? Perhaps.

I can't help think anarchist theory would be better off as a morally idealistic theory rather than a political agenda.

I love you too.

Anarchy could work , but people need to change their mindset first, at the moment most people base their lives around the individual , not the collective. You can't make an army of individuals.