Is Anarchism a valuable political ideology?
Anarchy - Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
Yes
Side Score: 8
|
 |
No
Side Score: 3
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
I am not sure what you mean by a "valuable political ideology", but I believe that if you swap the word "valuable" with "viable", then I would say absolutely yes. Though I may not personally agree with the ideals of anarchy, there is no doubt that it's a viable political ideology. Side: yes
Anarchic Philosophies have helped put together valuable ideologies such as Marxism and Libertarianism. It is the underlying principle that Government does more harm than good. One does not have to be an Anarchist to see the issues of big government, but one must at least have sympathies for the Anarchist. Side: yes
1
point
Anarchic Philosophies have helped put together valuable ideologies such as Marxism and Libertarianism. Marxism is easily distinguished from Anarchism as a fundamentally economic philosophy, where government is built around a dramatically altered system of production and ownership. Libertarianism is, to the best reflection with which it can be endowed, merely a tentative, less categorical form of anarchism. Neither are suitable to the realities of a civilization that is built upon limited resources, and upon technology that demands extensive education for its operation and production. However, the purpose of this debate is not to discuss the qualities and merits of those two systems, but of Anarchism. The common defence of Anarchisms, or Barbarism in its true appellation, consists of two things. First, an accusation of confusion as to the true meaning of Anarchism. Second, an address of the obvious problems of conventional government. However, neither tactic is effective in achieving the purported aim of the defence. I cannot declare that there exists no sound argument in support of Anarchy; I can only attest to never having seen one. Therefore, I shall simply ask a battery of questions that are relevant to my concerns. 1. If there is no government, there can be no legitimate laws. If so, what prevents the strong from harming the weak? 2. In such a society, would not a facility with technology constitute power, and would this not engender a technocratic society? 3. Without a government, of what worth would a currency with no intrinsic value be? Would it not force populations to adopt either a system of barter, or a currency, such as gold, that has intrinsic value? This assumes that a stronger sect has not merely enslaved the weaker peoples of the Earth. 4. As all societies that have ever existed have created some form of government, is it not fundamental human nature to tend toward governance? If sol, how would an Anarchistic society suppress this nature, to prevent another government from naturally occurring? Side: No
1. Nothing. However, what currently does? I shall assume that you don't truly believe the "strong" to only be bad people, and currently, the strong is the government. They have a military and police force. If you reject the government, you are imprisoned or killed. So I don't see the issue of "the strong harming the weak" as a legitimate reason to be against Anarchy. 2. The creators of technology taking power? Possibly. It really all depends on the people within the society. If there is no government, for what reason is that in the first place? We can't just assume that an Anarchic society got there because... well, it just did. 3. Why MUST currency have a set standard? Why not the market make these decisions? Yes, it would create a sort of barter system, but things don't have to remain that way, especially through market demand. Eventually, something like paper money would come to be, but would hold not nearly as much strength as government regulated currency (which, in turn, makes us far more dependent and sensitive to these official currencies). As stated, it comes down to Market demand. 4. There is no way of knowing this. Philosophically I lean Anarchist, but politically I do not see how we could currently achieve such a state... or stateless. Anarchic philosophers aren't like the stereotypical douche-bags you see playing a shitload of Sex Pistols (don't get me wrong, Punk artists themselves aren't necessarily idiots). As you've stated in the beginning, there are differing views on how Anarchy could work, or how it can come to be. Marx wrote on the eventual withering away of government once a successful Communist system could be put into place. The idea was that there would be no need for government if Communism is successful. Marx believed that this was possible, and modern day Marxists sometimes like to believe that there still needs to be a major catastrophe or violent revolution in order to kick start a Marxist Revolution. Others, such as Slajov Zizec, believe that that may not be necessary. Other philosophers, such as Mises and Rothbard, tended to see a deconstruction of government from within. The idea would be to keep government completely out of the Market, and eventually privatizing all current systems of government (including the justice system). A system ran on Contracts. Now, there are things that I disagree with on both the Marxist sides and the Libertarian sides, but I don't decide to throw out Anarchy itself out the window. I believe that there are many things about humanity we need to deal with first before we could convince enough of them that government does more harm than good. I'll repeat, though, that I don't believe that our current state is ready for Anarchy. We've built and depended far too much on a large, central government to just take it down all at once. As well, my response to iamdavidh could help answer some questions you may have about other aspects. Side: yes
|
There is no viable ideology which could not have been come to with or without considering a completely impossible philosophy, much less taking this mythical philosophy seriously. Anarchy is for some insects and a handful of predators who can live their entire lives alone and do not need others for survival. As humans its impossible. Even boiled down to the smallest of family units or tribes you need rules, order, a way of sharing skills, food, ideas, etc. Call it what you will, it's all government though. Government is just an extension of this basic concept, on a larger scale, to benefit more people. Without it we would have been extinct hundreds of thousands of years ago. Side: No
Anarchy is far more complicated than merely saying "no rules and order". In order for a system to not be basic anarchy, there must be a set punishment for set rules. As in, a society is only a state once they punish their first criminal. However, many of the hippie communities were very anarchic. In fact, the Rainbow Gathering is a great example of modern anarchic communities. And, depending on how far we want to deviate philosophically, Anarchy is the ONLY system we can abide by, for laws and order are merely ideas and have no concrete basis. What we merely have are people who force others into small rooms for doing things that they don't like. Now, if you see that as government, I suppose a psychopath holding a family against their own will can be considered "non-anarchic". After all, he sets rules and if they disobey, he puts them in the basement where he will think of a better punishment. So, I suppose if you wish to go down that road, Anarchy is just as much impossible as it is the ONLY way possible. Side: yes
1
point
Technically, Anarchy is not a political ideology. It is the belief in no political ideology, and if you mean is it a good idea, no. Like the other guy said, even in small groups we have leaders, rules, some form of structure. If there was no structure whatsoever, then what would stop people from stealing. I don't believe that government is bad(i do believe that making government too big is bad), but if there was no currency, what would make people drive semi's or grow food for people they don't know if they're not going to get anything out of it, the answer is that not many people would. If there really was anarchy, then we would still just be living in the wild. Side: No
|
