Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Because of the obvious paradox of anarchism: either the state has always existed, and then it is still unknown whether humanity can live without it at all; or the state has not always existed, and then it turns out that humanity itself from a stateless state came to the state. That is, there is no guarantee that if the state is eliminated, it will not arise again by itself, only in the worst form. The only option outside of this paradox is if the state was imposed on humanity by some extraneous force, gods or extraterrestrials. So it turns out that the anarchist must either turn a blind eye to this paradox, or believe in the reptilians who rule us.
Anarchism is unproductive, inconsistent, and contradictory, which is why.
Anarchists are considered marginals because, despite all the beauty of their idealistic ideas and humanistic justifications (the state is evil, because by nature it is violent, because it compels, and violence is evil; you need to give up evil, you need to give up the state), they say only “what“, but do not say “how“. It's like that joke: “I'm not a tactician, I'm a strategist.” But how can society change from a mouse to a hedgehog? How can society abandon the state and move to universal self-interest, voluntary consent and responsibility of everyone? No way.
Anarchism is marginalized because it is unproductive. The ideals of anarchism can be shared, the ideals of anarchism can be followed, but faithfully believe in the victory of anarchy over the state-no. Anarchism is not even a utopia, because utopia at least implies realization, and anarchism is just a dream.
In addition, the marginality of anarchism is manifested in its inconsistency. For example, when fighters for anarchism call for the violent (!) overthrow of those in power, or when anarchists explain the rejection of the state by moving to self-government (and what is the difference?), and so on, so on. Many branches of anarchism also cannot agree among themselves on the understanding of its fundamental concepts.
Anarchism presupposes people to be potentially holy, forgetting about the inherent opportunism of man, while the representatives of anarchism themselves are far from being saints, thereby contradicting themselves.
Hence the idea of anarchy as bellum omnium contra omnes is born.
as if all other ideologies are trying to justify the need for the state. telling the horrors that without it we will all immediately die – and then an anarchist comes and says: statehood has existed for 10 thousand years, and humanity has millions. Old Believer settlements without government survived the Russian Empire . the Vikings brought civilization to the Germans, but they themselves were nomads and did not have lords higher than jarl (and even then only on a campaign), the death rate in the Yukon where there was no power was lower than in Texas where it was etc .
How can you not hate it?
Marginal! After all, he says that people initially do not want to kill others every second and take everything away.
They are considered marginal, because such a cliche was first imposed by capitalist countries, because anarchists threatened the profits of large magnates with their ideas, because they planned to give all their enterprises to workers.
Further, under the USSR, anarchists were considered primarily dissenters and not ready to agree with the opinion of the majority, or the opinion of “people's deputies”, so propaganda under the USSR also tried to denigrate anarchists in the eyes of the broad masses. Under the USSR, anarchists were most likely persecuted for their unwillingness to recognize Marxism, but anarchism, like communism, was a workers ' movement that had worked closely together before the revolution.
Anarchy is a false utopia, for inadequate visionaries. Humans cannot live outside of society, otherwise they will become extinct as a species. Yes, of course, there are some monks, hermits, etc., but these are just a few. Further, in any society there are always some rules and taboos, and everything is aimed at the survival and well-being of society as a whole, but there was no equality, there is no equality and there will never be. The family is already a “state” in which there is and cannot be either equality or democracy, but there is a certain hierarchy and assigned roles and responsibilities for each family member. Since primitive times, milestones have had hierarchies, leaders, warriors, and servants. And only with a strong totalitarian government, there has always been a breakthrough in the development of society, and nothing else.
Henry Thoreau, Proudhon, Leo Tolstoy, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Diogenes, Noam Chomsky and many others are proponents and theorists of the ideas of anarchism. Can these people be called marginals?
The ideas of anarchism were at one time strongly compromised by various musical subcultures, mainly punks. That is why they are considered marginal. There was a substitution of concepts. People have developed false associations with the word “anarchism”
Anarchism isn't G. G. Allen throwing a load of shit on stage, or Sid Vicious with a toilet around his neck.
Because the current anarchists, who for some reason want to overthrow the current government – these are the marginals, controlled by someone in whose interests a banal change of power is in their interests.
The hour for anarchy has not yet struck, implementation is still very far away. In general, the state form of government is relevant only in the case of an external threat, which once prompted to unite around the leader, later the ruler. In peaceful conditions, the benefits of a state system are not obvious. The original idea, voiced by Kropotkin and Bakunin, of uniting people into communes based on interests and joint work, is still waiting in the wings in the embodiment of the anarchism of the future, when people will unite voluntarily to help each other and solve common problems, and not by force. Scientific achievements in the field of autonomous compact energy sources and improvements in the human body will lead to this.
Anarchism is undervalued, it is not loved, simply because any government denies it and pseudo-democracy and mossy tyranny. In fact, all these are controversial judgments