Sunday, October 24, 2010

Anarchy Week

Welcome to Anarchy Week here at OPOD. This is a topic I am interested in, but don't really understand too well. In the early 20th century there was a big anarchist movement. Anarchist come in many different flavors, but pretty much, they believe that there should be no government at all. They believe society should function without a "State" or "Government". I wish I knew someone who believed this, so I could better understand how this would work. I would think that if there were no government, there would be some people who would choose to be strong. The weak would seek protection from the strong, and then the strong could easily control them. I would think that if a state of anarchy existed, it would quickly turn into a state of feudalism. I think the early 20th century anarchist believed that people would organize themselves into peaceful commune type communities. This would be fine, but what happens when one commune decides to arm themselves, and expand their territory.

Anyway, the picture above is of Alexander Berkman and Helen Harris, tow of the leading anarchist of the early 1900's. 


  1. Anarchy week... sounds unregulated.

  2. Anarchy can only serve as a frontman for the next form of government. It cannot remain as an end product unless society itself ends. Berkman seems to have been trying to pave the way for communism (the opposite of non-government). Intentional or not it's sadly amusing.

  3. The problem with peaceful communes is that there is always some one or some peoples that will come along and try to take what these peaceful communes have.

    The next commune will say it is none of their business or problem, just as long as they get left alone

    Take the Vikings, that is how they were able to raid England and France at will. How can a peaceful commune stand up to a raiding horde of Vikings?
    So with out a governing body to have an army in place to be able to fend of the raiders, to the strong goes the spoils of war.

  4. Actually PJM - your description of anarchy sounds a lot like what exists today in areas of Mexico controlled by the cartels. The weak have to seek protection from the strong. I don't believe Humans can exist without some form of government. Someone will always rule.

  5. Fascinating. In a lot of my reading lately, I've run across stories about the anarchist movement in the early 20th century.I'm curious about it, too, although I agree with others, anarchy could have served only as a forerunner of a more aggressive form of government. Unfortunately, human nature makes the chances of peaceful communal living pretty much non-existent.

  6. From Oxford Dictionaries Online:
    anarchy (an|archy)
    [mass noun]
    * 1 a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems:
    he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy
    * 2 absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal

    Origin: mid 16th century: via medieval Latin from Greek anarkhia, from anarkhos, from an- 'without' + arkhos 'chief, ruler'

    Anarchy is not in itself for socialism or communism or libertarianism, and there are many positions on anarchy. It seems the only common root is that anarchists do not want is an authority dictating societal conduct, which reminds me a little bit of the Confederate position with regards to the Northern Republicans.

  7. Don't confuse Anarchy with Chaos. Literally, Anarchy (no leader) is the opposite of Monarchy (one leader). Chaos is what most people are thinking of when they use the word Anarchy.

  8. HEY, It's Sunday, so were is the domistic update?

  9. Interesting to note that these two anarchists appear relatively well off and have appointed themselves as developers of the next form of (non) government for the entire country.
    This wealthy status verses new ideas is also found in the wealthy save-the-earth folks who do the best job of spoiling the world for everyone else while proposing draconian measures that will effect everyone else adversly. These people simply have enough money to buy whatever exceptions they require ot avoid inconveniencing themselves.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.