Is anarchism just an ideology for petty bourgeois people who dont really have any solutions?
Yeah its all good the end goal but it seems to me anarchism is just for people who dont want to actually work to get there. What do you think?
anarchism advocates the abolition of state, classes and capitalism to benefit the whole community. I dont think thats right wing at all. Anarcho-capitalism where we all become slaves to the free market is right wing but that isnt even anarchism thats just capitalism gone mad!
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
I cant say that, I like our Anarchist comrades, more than liberals, conservatives and even reformists. The problem with Anarchists is that they dont realize that the bourgeoisie will not just give up their powers easily. You cant achieve communism overnight, you just cant. But I agree with anarchists 100% that powers should be build from below. As long the anarchist are anti- capital and anti- government, I will be standing with them .
Capitain Awsome - pick up a book and read what marxism is about, seriously. At least google 'Marxism and Anarchism' and read it.
- cyuLv 51 decade ago
It is actually the only solution to the problem of "tyranny of the majority" that I've come across.
There's an argument against democracy that claims it can lead to mob rule. One common quote is that "it's two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner".
There's a wide range of how much of the population gets to make the big decisions.
If only 1% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 99% may suffer.
If 51% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 49% may suffer. While 49% may suffer, this is not a valid argument to support allowing 1% to make the decisions, which would be even worse.
If you require that 100% agree before a decision is made, then nobody will suffer, but decision making becomes harder and harder.
There is an anarchist concept known as decentralized democracy. That means the more someone is affected by a decision, the more say he has in that decision. If a decision barely affects 99% of the people, then none of them get to vote. The decision to kill someone affects the victim more than anyone else, so the victim should have more say in the decision than everyone else. The decision over what you eat for lunch barely affects anybody else, so obviously you don't have the entire society voting on what you have for lunch. In cases like these, it becomes a democracy of one - thus anarchy.
Supporters of decentralized democracy would use their own power to protect the right of others to make the decisions that most affect them. For example, this includes protecting other peoples' lives, whether it's from government or non-government forces.
- SozNotSozLv 51 decade ago
If money is kept in place, anarchism will definitely benefit the bourgeoisie. However, it is utopian thinking that in anarchism, that money would still be of use. With this in mind, the bourgeoisie would not at all benefit from it. In this situation, the more charismatic peoples, mostly those representing the majority wants, will benefit. This may include some bourgeoisie, but not many, let's face it.
So ultimately, some of the more bourgeoisie individuals would turn to anarchism, but I think you'd find more of the type of people who would make up a socialist organization in an anarchism advocate group: proletariat (include "lower" and "middle" class people), alternatives, and minority groups.
- Anonymous4 years ago
It is definitely a valuable ideology. I have been born an anarchist, but I know that with great freedom comes great responsibility. I think that most people are naturally good, but I would rather not trust the bad ones to just run around. So, I do believe in anarchy, but I also believe in a little bit of control. Which has lead me to my favorite political party, "libertarians." Even with anarchy society will NEVER be classless. If it were it would be too bland for my tastes, but I don't think that we will have to worry about that. I think that you may be happy as a libertarian. Check it out I know it sounds like a cult, but it is a political party created in 1971 or sometime around then.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
Excellent question. Excellent answers. Then why do I feel like I just witnessed Lord of the Flies.
I think if you take the totality of all your answers, and carefully read them, the answer becomes crystal clear.
To deny that personal experience, and emotion can not be part of our political beliefs is naive.
It is also naive to believe human ego would not rear it's head in any group or society.
There will always be natural leaders and followers, it has been that way since the dawn of man, I have no reason to believe it will ever change. History has proven this time and time again.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
"Freedom" is a word that gets thrown around here a lot. The truth is, we really deep down want security more than freedom. For this reason, it's imperative that we gain the skills necessary to be able to deal with the burden that freedom brings-or we end up accepting too much authority and lose those freedoms. This is the reason we follow arbitrary laws which if broken-give us benefits and hurt no one-and those who desire anarchy wouldn't truly know what to do when it does arrive. They would either have to be stronger than those around them-or ally with those who are stronger. Hence, Anarchy ends the second someone asserts their power over another and establishes authority, packs will be followed by clans-clans by tribes, tribes by cities, cities by city states, city states by kingdoms, kingdoms by empires and we end up right back where we start.
The problem with any system is that people try to impose it before they are ready to handle it. A Socialist cannot be hedonistic, materialistic, ect-and those who are actual Socialists are not-and anyone who want's what they want needs to strive for the same idea.
Another realization is that what works isn't always desirable. Hitler and Stalin built powerful nations from broken destitute ones-nations which grew so powerful as to threaten the world. The price was not paid by either leader-but by their people-who had taken away form them (or often, WILLINGLY gave away) their Freedoms-for security, pride and prosperity. Defeated and humiliated, freedom to them was a burden-for freedom requires us to bare ourselves to the world as we are. However, if we disappear within the anonymous masses and give up all freedom and individuality-our flaws are hidden from the world. We become a thread in the tapestry.
So at the end of the day-we get two shockingly tempting offers-
1. Anarchy-Accept Freedom but accept the burden of individual responsibility. You can only rely on yourself-and there is no one to protect you from those that would take advantage of your family but you. However, you may also live without restraints-but keep in mind that so to the wolves of our society live too.
2. Atypical Statist Society-Give up Freedom and take no responsibility for yourself. Your anonymity is a shield from the judging eyes of the world. Do as they say, and you get food, prosperity and a feeling of pride some cause or ideal. You are also remarkable expendable as well in this state-the upholding of efficiency above caring will get a bad worker cast out or even killed.
As we are now, the second option seems alien-a travesty to all we hold dear. But the question is-are we broken enough yet to take that option? And where does your society position itself between these two diametrically opposed points?
In conclusion, I would also agree with Justgoodfolk-it's not a good way to achieve the idea of a classless, stateless society. To me, it only advocates Dog eat Dog-and this only starts society all over again-and in my option, draws us further away from Socialism. Remember, Socialism follows Capitalism, which followed Feudalism and so forth all the way back to Anarchy. It's only resetting the clock of progress.
Socialism can work, Anarchy cannot-because it would believe we can deny human nature.Source(s): My 2 Cents on Anarchy
- Anonymous1 decade ago
YES, IN FACT IT IS. The anarchist is nearly identical to the libertarian in my book - They're both dead sure about what they oppose but they don't know how to philosophically support their grandiose utopian fantasies and ultimately rely on intuitive presumption that a modern society just sprouts out of the dirt without any effort. They visualize an orderly peaceful advanced and sophisticated modern society with some form of law and enforcement (as well as other institutions) but their explanation as to how this all occurs is not a positive theory of constructive principles but a negative theory of prohibitions (that somehow magically occur without human organization or action), and from this vacuum... viola! Utopia!
The products of an organized society such as markets, police and fire departments, education systems, even industries DO NOT OCCUR under any conditions other than government and the anarchist and libertarian intuitive presumptions that any of these institutions survive without some form of government are tragically naive childish fantasies that overwhelmingly demonstrate the quality of these ideologies.
- 1 decade ago
Anarchism is a temporary state. It creates a vacuum that is usually filled by a tyrant. The communists in Russia used Anarchism to destroy their government, then quickly seized power.
In it's pure form Anarchism is an extreme right wing scenario, but it is often adopted by the left as a means to their end.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I think you've got totally the wrong idea about anarchism. People seem to think it's all about not having any rules or taking any responsibility. This is BS!!
Anarchism is totally about personal responsibility. For it to work each individual within a community must be responsible for their own actions, their own lifestyle choices, their own income generating efforts and their own housing solutions.And they must be ever vigilant of infringing upon the rights of others within the community with the decisions they make regarding these things.
This takes a hell of a lot of work and thought...and a consideration of others and a willingness to compromise. They must provide themselves and their community with guidelines to work by. They must monitor these things constantly. They have to consult and co-operate in a manner that is unseen in any other type of society.They need conflict resolution procedures...and they need to adhere to them strictly.
it is in fact much MORE work than surrendering the power to a governing body of any description...and voting them in or out of office every few years. Democracy to my mind is a very lazy form of government for most of the citizens. There is no dead weight in an anarchist community, believe me.
And it could work...and does work. When the people within the community are willing to give up the daily luxuries and the services provided by outside entities.Source(s): I lived in a number of small anarchist communities both when I was at University and afterward..... in rural and urban settings....and we ran our homes smoothly, with little conflict and great results. And JustGoodFolk....that was pretty offensive to say it works for people who don't have access to real Marxist societies yet....maybe we don't WANT access to Marxist societies. I like making my own choices. All forms of government regulation upon my life are anathema to me.and to all anarchists.I don't want anyone, no matter how well meaning, to write the rule book for my life.I think I am quite capable of regulating myself. @EDIT: JGF How dare you call me a privileged petty bourgeois radical. My family had NOTHING!!! My father was a builders labourer. My mother worked two days a week in a furniture shop. They had six children and my grandmother lived with us in a three bedroom Public Housing Estate house with a sleepout in the back yard. .When they died over ten years ago their entire Estate totaled $22,000 and it cost $11,000 to bury them. I paid my own way through University because they simply did not have the funds to support me. I drove Hansom Cabs and waited tables. I was the hat check chick at the Taxi club. I cleaned houses and made baby clothes that I sold at markets. I was the first member of my family ever to attend University and I did it after leaving school at 15 and working in a Supermarket for three years, studying nights to gain my matriculation certificate. So don't YOU tell ME that I had the privilege of leisure and could therefore indulge myself.Anarchist communities I lived in may not have offered solutions to all societies ills...but they fecking well insured MY survival and the survival of my equally impoverished and marginalized fellow community members. We helped EACH OTHER!! It 's called a SOCIETY!!! I'm sorry there weren't enough of us to impress you. But they bloody well impressed me! We all would have starved without the others around us...we looked after each other and ourselves. And I will not stand for you denigrating what we built...with sweat and love and bloody hard work! You are arrogant in the extreme and make assumptions about my background because I achieved a good quality tertiary education. A First Class Honours in Philosophy to you apparently is only achievable by the Middle Classes.You never once stopped to think that perhaps I came from the proletariat, did you? And you call yourself a fecking radical!!! Well I worked my ar$e off for that degree....no one handed me anything. Ever! And for you to dismiss my long held social and political beliefs because they don't agree with yours is just one more example of the over weaning arrogance you display towards those who do not fall at your feet in admiration of your superior intellect and understanding. Well I have news for you. You are NOT superior to me. You are not brighter than me. and you are certainly not righter than me!!
- BryanLv 71 decade ago
Well I think their argument would be that government does not actually provide any solutions but rather creates more problems. However you are essentially correct. Most anarchists I have dealt with have no plans to deal with any of the problems which exist but still believe that if government were removed from the equation that people would come together for the good of society. So I guess you can refer to it as bourgeois if you like the term. I just refer to it as being delusional. Government is far from perfect regardless of form, but it is a necessary evil.