|
|
| | |
| |
 |
| Summary: Is Anarchism a valuable political ideology? |
|
|
| |
Author:Richard Mott ( United Kingdom )
|
Created: Sunday, June 24, 2001
Last Modified: Friday, August 28, 2009
|
| |
On 1st May 2000, the London May Day Carnival against Capitalism, a peaceful demonstration against capitalism, turned into a riot that led to the defacing of the Cenotaph and millions of pounds worth of damage to City buildings. Similar violence has been seen at other large-scale anti-capitalism protests, such as at the World Trade Organisation’s talks in Seattle. In these circumstances, people have come to question the rhetoric and claims of the anarchists. So is anarchism a defensible policy ? Can it be supported both in theory and in practice? |
 |
|
|
| Anarchism is essentially a fight for human freedom. Modern states, even those which claim to be democracies, stifle their citizens with oppressive and artificial machinery such as laws and taxes. These are imposed by the people who run the state - the élites, the governing classes. Anarchists believe it is better to live without such controls imposed by such people. This does not mean they stand for complete chaos though; they support co-operation and barter between individuals as profitable. Only without controls can humans truly live naturally and freely. |
|
Anarchism is marked by exactly this sort of utopian, unrealistic argument - a diatribe based on the principle that the grass is always greener on the other side. Far from freeing humans, anarchy allow them to be dominated by primitive forces that a controlling state has eliminated, such as the use of physical force by the strong to oppress the weak. Laws and a police force are necessary to prevent this. What is more, a state allows industries to be organised and crops to be grown so as to support its citizens, and without these high-intensity techniques there is no way that all the population could be fed. All advances in art and science have been made possible by a state that brings people and resources together. Anarchism is merely a backward and dreamy approach to serious political matters. |
 |
|
|
| Anarchists believe in a classless society. Modern democracies are divided into classes that continually fight each other; states have created barriers between men that cause hatred and misery. Anarchy removes these barriers, by removing the apparatus that makes economic subjection of others possible. |
|
This is impossible. Some men and women achieve dominance over others due to natural intelligence, skill, cunning, attractiveness or any other advantage. This is nothing to do with a state, and anarchism would not make everyone equal. |
|
|
|
| States also repress their citizens by removing their ability to govern themselves. Most ‘democracies’ are in fact nothing of the sort; is a general election every 5 years really fully representative of individual’s opinions ? The existence of ‘spin-doctors’ and other such practices shows how governments are misleading the people, not being controlled by them. |
|
Granted, there are many problems with democracy. But these can all be solved within the state structure, by devolving power downwards into regional government, and by holding more frequent referenda. There is no need to do away with the state altogether. |
|
|
|
| Anarchism has nothing to do with violent organisations that hijack anarchist events for their own reasons. The vast majority are peaceable protesters who would never use violence, and it is lowering the tone of the debate to try and condemn anarchism by association in this way. Anarchism is a viable and fair way of life, that allows humans to live and interact naturally, without a Big Brother controlling us. |
|
As can clearly be seen from recent violent act, such as the May Day riots, anarchy is largely a front for organised terrorists gangs and violence-seeking thugs. Their activities are also cover for other civil trouble-makers, such as violent animal rights activists. Their calls for ‘pacifism’ belie their true nature, and their arguments smack of dangerous utopianism. Anarchists seek to subvert all the advances made my mankind over the last millennium. |
|
|
|
| | This House believes that anarchy rules
This House would bring down the state
|
| View the full discussion |
Author | Post |
|---|
rajesh005.703
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 09:57 am |
|
| Anarchism is the violence which is fighted for the equavalnce more over it is subjected the people who is figthing for some thing that is done agaist the law ful acts more over it is consider to be one of the most important cultural acticites to the peolpe which makes some expensive things over the cultural
|
blackcat2018
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2, 2009 03:00 am |
|
| conflicts and limitations are unavoidable in global trade. when we drink a cup of coffee in starbucks, only 1% of our payment goes into the coffee farmers' pockets, while othets goes to the coffee shops and businessmen's. so it's vary natural for a spetacular group of people to feel angry about the unfair profit distrubution of global economy ，which will lead to a demonstration or stricks event . under this condition， demonstration is neccessary, cause people need others to hear thear vorces to fight. but in order to keep society stable, fights could only be peaceful and organized, just like nonresistance. Marginalized Groups need to enlarge thear influence through correct right competiton, not Anarchism.
|
cansuece
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 4, 2009 05:35 pm |
|
| I think that being whether completely anarchist or capitalist is not logical way for a peaceful life.Of cource,Both have extreme sides.But, if anarchism can be understood exactly, everyone can see that anarchism support priority of society like socialsm.And in capitalism,there is always class distinction.Moreover, class distinction among people are not approval with moral,ethic and religious values.
|
|
| Login to leave a quick reply or View the full discussion |
|
|
|
