Thread: Is anarchy a good idea? How could it work?

Originally Posted by FryingMan

One definition on wikipedia:

But then again, I don't associate or communicate with anarchists all that much.

That doesn't answer my question. Show me an anarchist who defines anarchy that way.

Originally Posted by cmind

That doesn't answer my question. Show me an anarchist who defines anarchy that way.

Okay. Here are the words of Peter Kropotkin, a prominent and seminal anarchist who gave this definition for the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"the name given to a principle of theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of the needs and aspirations of a civilized being..."

Which harmonises pretty well with how FryingMan and Sageous characterised anarchism.

You guys really aren't understanding my point. So I'll try it again. I'm not trying to say that anarchism is good or bad, or what its effects would be. I'm just pointing out that if you want to criticize any position, including anarchism, you need to criticize the actual position. If you define the word "anarchism" as a bunch of bad stuff, then you are not having a discussion. You're just making a circular argument. The fact that the average dumb fuck defines anarchy a certain way means jack shit. The academic definition of anarchy is totally different.

Originally Posted by cmind

You guys really aren't understanding my point. So I'll try it again. I'm not trying to say that anarchism is good or bad, or what its effects would be. I'm just pointing out that if you want to criticize any position, including anarchism, you need to criticize the actual position. If you define the word "anarchism" as a bunch of bad stuff, then you are not having a discussion. You're just making a circular argument. The fact that the average dumb fuck defines anarchy a certain way means jack shit. The academic definition of anarchy is totally different.

You're either trolling or there's something seriously off about you. You asked for a definition of "anarchism". Several people provided authoritative definitions, but according to you it didn't count because the definitions weren't given by anarchists — and for some reason you didn't care to provide a definition of your own from the numerous anarchists you've spoken with. Now you've been given a definition by an actual anarchist, but it's still completely irrelevant, because... well, I don't even know at this point, you didn't even pretend to have a coherent reason for rejecting the definition this time. Tell me: you clearly have zero intention of making any kind of positive contribution to this discussion. So... why exactly are you here?