Anarchism will lead to chaos

No laws, society falls.

Prove me wrong.


There is nothing wrong with anarchist authoritarianism.

It's almost like humans somehow survived for thousands of years without a state enforcing rules that ensure social cohesion.

Hot take

Makes me….🤔🤔🤔think🤔🤔🤔

define "no laws"

Yeah but that was just a bunch of cruel savagery. Look at how many tens of thousands of years it took humans to become civilized!

I believe the world would be dominated by addiction without laws.

Society would become a hypersexual orgie mixed with potsmokers. Nothing would ever get done.

But maybe ancom is just the first stage of anarchism.

If there are no laws who will give me the cummies 🍆🍆💦

Anarchy means no leaders, not "no laws." Would it kill you losers to read a fucking book or at least a wikipedia article before starting such a low-effort thread?

It was shit. Human quality of life increased with enforced social order and stratification.


Explain anarchism then, bud.

Sounds like liberalism where they promote addictions like sex and pot


Anarchism only works in traditionalism not progressivism.

Prove anarchism can work with todays technology. We make laws for the things we create.

Most of society is upheld by constructs, which restrict the individual. Even if the absence of law causes total upheaval, that wouldn't be a bad thing

It's without rulers, leaders are fine and good

Oh geez are you that anprim retard? Because this convo is a waste of time if you are.

etymologically it means "without leader", it comes from an- and -archos greek roots. Debate the terminology if you must, the whole point is the lack of coercive hierarchy.

It wouldn't. An anarchic society would be invaded and slaughtered by an organized one.

Except for the lack of social order and stability.

leaders always become rulers. the trial chiefs of old turned became kings.

Anarchism is organized, durr.
See above.
How cute. Your lack of understanding is adorable. Anyway, we're advocating a non-coercive mutual interest. An agreement can only be fair if there is no explitation stemming from lack of needs being fulfilled and of course no retribution should relations be detached, this of course doesn't follow in today's society so all "agreements" between capitalists and socialists aren't actually free. Also read this for an indepth study, when leaders are eliminated, people organize, they don't all kill eachother.


fuck off, nigger.

sub 170 I.Q. confirmed. Read the sourced graph I posted above. Anarchic societies are far less stable and violent. The proles will suffer more from their fellow proles than from "porky". Debunked 19th century nutsacks aren't going to help

You don't even put any effort as to why my statement is incorrect.

You just say "retard", but why is it retarded?

Far less stable, and more violent*

Those weren't anarchies you complete moron, they had hierarchies. Anarchism has an equal redistribution of power, you must've just blown in from reddit and think "le anarchy = chaos xDDDD" meme. You should go back or alternatively read the books I posted to know what we're about.
We're not liberals, faggot. You can go back to reddit with him.

You can't be serious.

Please explain, I want you to tell me 10 flaws of an anprim society.

I can't believe people are still using these fucking Steven "ass man" Pinker info-graphs still.

Very temporary and ad hoc. There was no socioeconomic system in place to keep tribal chiefs in power.

1. no advanced medicine
2. lower life expectancy
3. can't purify water and food poisoning
4. would have to kill off a massive amount of the population to even work considering all the agriculture would be destroyed which feeds the world, you would be one of the morons who think he'd be the lucky few who'd survive
5. nothing stopping technology from starting up again
6. restricts the personal freedom of people who want to use technology, is inherently reactionary and downright authoritarian in its own regard
7. since guns are eliminated we go back to when the strong kill the weak rather than give everyone a chance; there's a reason guns are called "the great equalizer"
8. humans would starve to death, we invented agriculture because food was so scarce people were willing to eat fucking dirt
9. its a shitty ideology that much like neonazism completely misses the point of exploitation in society and blames all their problems on the jews technology instead of capitalism
10. get off your fucking computer if you want muh primitivism so much, thanks for outing yourself as the faggot you are and shown you're not to be taken seriously, especially when you haven't even read the most basic anarchist tenets. Face it, you're another 15 year old edgelord but this time think you're even edgier by being anti-technology. Don't even talk to me or anyone else ever again (language is a human invention and therefore technology) Faggot.

as long as there was a chief having more power it wasn't anarchism.
Stop using words you dont know to try and seem smart.

I can't prove you false since that statement is true, groups of human require laws and rules to function. An anarchist society would however have laws.

Why, because it's more scientifically accurate than work from the 19th century? Can you show me something that debunks what I posted. And no Fucktard Kropotkin doesn't. He never studied actual pre-agrarian societies int he flesh.

How did I misuse ad-hoc dumbass?
has it right. "leaders, not rulers" They were only had as much authority as the other tribe members allowed. There wasn't a sate that kept them in power with force. They could be removed at whim. Once again you highlight the mental deficiencies of ancoms.

There is a reason why people gathered around the idea of a nation, of an identity
Even before the state properly existed people still gathered together, formed communities, the native american cultures are the biggest example of that
Anarchism is a joke

The lack of a hierarchical society which facilitates scientific advancement
Guns are not a great equalizer. You will lose to someone who has faster reflexes, steadier hands, and higher intelligence. You could kill and unarmed chad with your gun, but he has a gun you're dead unless you catch him sleeping.


Lower life expectancy
No overpopulation
No toxic preservatives and additives
Nah, you'd just have to implement ancom and then it will eventually turn into anprim
Perhaps make a religion forbidding it?
No technology, no chaos and manipulation
If we give the weak a chance, they procreate and make more weak people.
Again, no overpopulation
You cant exploit a society when there's no society to begin with, or at least just villages.
Im bored



Reactionary misanthropes get out



u know turkish hunter gatherers worked like 3 days per month right?

Well good thing they are anarchists and not anomists.

As I understand it, the idea of anarchism is simply the abolition of a ruling class able to enforce their will over the populace through the force of law (which is, currently, violence in disguise). The idea of the "force of law", however, needs to remain, as you correctly pointed out. The solution to this is changing the government to be based on Auctoritas (personal prestige and confidence) rather than Potestas (institutional power and violence).

I might be totally off-base here; someone correct me if so.

stop projecting, caveman joe

Laws are rational insofar as they progressed beyond the blood feud of tribal society. Anarchism's aversion to laws, constitutionlism, and government has been one of its greatest weaknesses.

Confirmed for tard.

I hate this meme. Think about it. In a tribe with 12 males if 6 die it's huge war casualty. In a country of 10.000.000 and more of course it's enough a bunch of soldiers, civilians are useless nowadays, while back then every male who could battle did. And this also means that wars at the time meant lose=extermination and you didn't want that. So fighting was cruel but for real stuff, meaning you had either to win or die. It's incredibly cherrypicking and misleading that graphic, it takes a bunch of data out of every context to make people feel safe about status quo. Not saying they had it better but things are very complicated



waste of trips

Wars of extermination really aren't that prevalent from an historical perspective. It's a dangerous precedent to set, because if you're willing to genocide somebody, it makes others less hesitant about genociding you. It's a fight to the bitter end and that's only going to make things more costly for both sides. Better instead to beat them just enough that they submit, let them keep their stuff, and take a portion of their national product. Generally speaking, ceremonial and limited warfare is more prevalent, and profitable.


Actually, yes.

"Addiction" is the greatest scam ever. If you're not doing what you want (and all your wants are addictions) you're being enslaved by someone else.

Is this an ironic shitpost about people who romanticize hunter gatherers?

that's the definition of reactionary though

That's a very specif bullshit anecdote you pulled out of your ass. Most endemic war aren't wars of extermination. They were mostly sporadic raids.
Same thing in industrial society, fucktard. Ever hear of the draft? And you act like scientists don't adjust their equations for population size.

I appreciate this image comrade

Anarchism pretty fucking dope.
No laws. No masters.

That is the definition of reactionary. You are attempting to go back to a previous state of affairs. Primitives are the most reactionary politics possible unless someone wants to argue that we should devolve into amoebas.

They don't draft literally every male they can in industrial society. Even armies of millions are still very small percentagewise to the global population, and even then you rarely lose huge chunks of your army as casualties to violence.

It's still entirely appropriate to point out that a few people dying to violence in a raid is a huge fraction of an early tribe compared to a few thousand dying in modern war.

Are you a lib? Why do you think Anarchism=no laws? An Anarchist society would be a highly participatory and orderly society. Mutual aid rather than competition would guide it. You don't need the threat of punishment to create a working society. You don't need the threat of violence dished out by psychopathic pigs and dictated by megalomaniacal politicians to get people to not kill each other. smh that you have bought into the Hobbesian vision of human nature so hard. Get educated statecuck.

dude, why do you have an angreen flag? It seems like your understanding of what Anarchism is lacking. I understand why an angreen would be skeptical of substance abuse and addiction…but I would think your skepticism would be targeted towards the drugs that are a product of modern civilized society (tranquilizers, pain medications, designer drugs, etc.) as angreeens think it pollutes their bodies and artificially creates a sense of wellbeing so that people don't see how much civilization alienates and reifies them. I find it strange that you seem to a bug up your ass about pot and sex, things that have exited for all human history, long before the distortion of modern society, back when primitive communism (what should be your idea of utopia) existed. How about you get educated on your own ideology before you go out there and make it look idiotic.

The term "government" is a really nebulous term, a common response to anarchists is that "your idea of a government-less society would still have a government but in a different form." The general anarchist definition of the state is an institution that holds a monopoly on the use of violence within a certain area that it controls. To most anarchists, the definitions don't matter too much, but just that all unjustified hierarchies and hierarchy-forming-systems should be abolished. A hypothetical state that is totally pacifistic (does not use the threat of violence to enforce laws), but that has institutions that create hierarchies, would still be viewed as unjust. Likewise a state that does not form hierarchies but bears a monopoly on the use of violence would be unjust. Different Anarchists have different visions of how this would be achieved, but they do have some common ideas. One is that: mutual aid rather than competition is (or should be) the guiding morality for all human interactions. You can look at one of the foundational thinkers of ancom, Kropotkin, for a figure that argues against a strong prevailing idea in the 19th and early 20th centuries, Social Darwinism, and argued that it was instead mutual aid that guided most human interactions. He also argued that even if we were to agree that humans have a natural drive for competition, that living in a society that fosters that kind of man-vs-man existence, i.e. a capitalist society, serves only to further engender this unwanted behavior in people. Rather, it would be better to have people live within a society founded on mutual aid, and be inculcated in it's norms and mores.

How will anarchist society deal with criminals? what would happen if lets say a cray cray person started to massacre a familiy and ran away?

what do you think would happen

No, hunter-gathers worked less hours than modern man. Thanks capitalism.

Anarchie isn't Anomie
Your Greek is all over the place!
Check yourself before you wreck yourself!

It would be a very bad thing if the individual died in this upheaval.

It would be an even worse thing if the entirety of individuals died in the upheavel you are suggesting.

Anarchism doesn't mean what you think it means.

but the societies started to improve when enforning taxations and having a hierarchy

wait what? are there police in anarchy?

Oh, there'll be law, just not the kinda law made by leftists. Anarchists have gotta understand that the capitalist class ain't above using their hard earned shekels they got by making people work for them to buy influence in the media and government to undermine the message of any group of people who're a serious threat to their exploitative way of life. Porky ain't gonna go "muh free marketplace of ideas" when a society right next door to his is cucking him outta his janitors and fast food chain workers by offering them all the shit they coulda never dreamed to afford as wage slaves and actual respect for doing the jobs they were looked down upon for doing in a capitalist system. He's gonna gonna A) start a smear campaign against this anarchist utopia to scare the proletariat into staying exploitable wage slaves, B) send his socdem shills to bring it down from the inside by spitting poison into the people's ears and telling them how "gommunism not werk" or C) get together with a buncha desperate 1%ers, throw money at fascists to skyrocket them to high level government positions and "physically remove" pesky anarchists who dare to set an example of how chill a stateless/post-capitalist way of life can be. It ain't an overstatement to say fascism's just capitalism in survival mode.

Anarchists/leftcoms are so scared of stepping on some reactionary's toes they're ready to roll over for Porky and let a workers revolution be for fuck all just so long as they get to say at least they didn't end up like one of them "Stalinist bureaucracies" they try so hard to set themselves apart from.


There are workers militias, just like in every other form of legitimate socialism, you niggers!!!

The last time I checked, anarchism meant without rulers, and not without rules.

how can it work effectively without authority?

and function?