It explains how anarchism is not chaos, and if we look at the international relations that is chaos. Today we already live in chaos in the international level, however it is not said in the article, from my point of view international relations are the result of the implementation of the liberal ideology, or in American English, Libertarian ideology. The Libertarian ideology would lead to a world similar to the one that we have in the International relations/world. Also capitalism sells that the best system to progress is the competition but we see many species that survive thanks to other values, collaborative values, even between interspecies. That is the reality. The anarchism is a system where it pretends a system of self-managing, mutual agreements... The length's video are 26 minutes. [video=vimeo;47385709]https://vimeo.com/47385709[/video]
Any Libertarian(that defends the Individualism) knows anything of Benjamin Tucker. They should read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker (however I disagree with his ideas, I think that he is interesting for you). And the only book published in the Anarchist Library: Bejamin Tucker - Individual Liberty
Anarchism is just one more stupid, unworkable "ism", championed by morons and exploited by the power hungry who see an opportunity to rule from the ruins of a half baked ideal. Quite how anyone could expect this moronic idea to actually work in the real world is a mystery to anyone with a non drug puddled brain.
Anarchism is certainly not chaos. However, I wonder how one concludes international relations is chaos. If one is to look at IR through the Anarchism/Anarchy-Chaos paradigm, one must understand that from a realist perspective, IR encompasses a system of state anarchy, in which there is no authority above states. This differs from chaos because there is still a world order. If the world maintained no form of political organization, there would be chaos.
I know. It is merely absence of Government, and all of it's tentacles. I would be all for totally purging our cancer ridden system, and delivering something that really was, in a v real sense, far more people inclusive. It does not need even follow this two party democracy model, indeed, that model is done for, and we need to embrace something other than cosmetic change. What we have right now is chaos, cynical, and organised chaos, for the benefit of a v few, already rich, plutocrats.
I'll watch the video when I have more time tomorrow but my main problem with anarchism is that I believe the state is useful also is the federal government, it's been pretty essential in some of our biggest progresses, just look at how the south treated black people, segregation was not only natural but pretty much enforced by the local people it wasn't until the federal government stepped in and made sure that the state government couldn't do or allow the people to do many of the discriminatory things they were doing. Government may not be perfect but it's a very useful tool to benefit the minority or the discriminated.
Anarchism in international relations simply means the lack of a central authority, either at the state level or global level, which is used in a number of theories including realism, liberalism, and feminism to a small degree.
I don't mind anarchism. It's when people take an idegoly to an extreme that's the issue. But then again, everyone has that problem.
Anarchy exists when there is a lack of any ideology present. Not that there is too much of one. That's called extremism.
Just to clarify, and then I'll answer your question. Are we talking about anrachy bang bang boom boom? Or Anarchism?
A viable anarchic society would depend upon most everyone being Buddha or Christ like. That's not going to happen... probably ever. Anarchy is another idealistic pipe dream, just as a fundamentalist Libertarian society would be. Far too much of human population is selfish and predatory. They, the selfish, will put their 'rights' above everything else, even if their rights violate yours. The predatory would capitalize on the lack of established law and order. You know what would arise from an anarchic society? Something similar to what we have now. Why is that? Well, the human species has not collectively evolved to the point of being able to handle absolute freedom while remaining in harmony with everyone else. It would become apparent in short time that ultimate freedom for some results in suffering for others. Rinse and repeat.
Depends upon which school of thought that you adhere to. Kilgram brings up Benjamin Tucker (borderline Jeffersonian) which is anarchism of an "individual" centered philosophy. Unless brainwashed I think most of us deep down are individual anarchists because man is inherently rebellious of authority. You can be an "anarchist" and still wish to submit to no communal hive mindset or be peace love and flowers. You can be what was once known as a rugged individualist...a "Grizzly Adams" of sorts.
What happens when you devolve absolute power, to a mass of nodding sheep, that are used to being told what to eat, look like, who their enemies should be, and so on?
What are you responding to with this? Yeah... you can be that... within the protection of a society with laws that allow for some individualism... sort of like what we have now. Otherwise, you're subject to the will of more aggressive/less moral humans who wish to exercise their freedom to impose themselves or ways upon you.
The anarchy of the horde paving the way to the despotism of the tyrant; the despotism of the tyrant creating a revolt resulting in a new anarchy leading to another despotism as bad as the last, until staggering between anarchy and despotism, men slowly evolved a system of popular government. Welcome to America.
Anarchy and Anarchism are two differnt things. Let's try to keep on topic. We're discussing Anarchism.
Correct. Realists tend to focus on state anarchy, the absence of authority above said polities. Liberals also acknowledge state anarchy, but their lens on international relations encompasses concepts such as Democratic Peace Thesis, democracy promotion, and international institutional framework. Feminists, adherents to a variant of Constructivism, are not focused on state anarchy, but on analyzing international relations in the context of gender hierarchies.
Anarchism is essentially anarchy, no recognized authority. If you want a recent example that has crumbled you can look to the OWS movement. Anarchism in practice fails pretty quickly. You can wallow in your intellectual masturbation of anarchism but it does not work in practice and never will.
Not really. Just because they share one fact together, doesn't make the same thing. Anarchy is more like trying to party all the time. Anarchism, is lack of government, but people still being civil about it.
In anarchism, without recognized authority, you have to share one fact or it does not work. The problem with anarchism is that it completely ignores reality about behavior. I am sure it makes people feel good to think that way, but in reality it not only fails but can't even get off the ground.
