Im all for anarchy, but there will always be a leader. Because if there were no laws or goverment, somone can declare there self president and start a re-creation of a new goverment. So anarchy could lead up to communism, socialism, fascism, ect. All it takes is someone with power and good charisma to convince someone to join them. Someone will always make a rule and at least 1 will follow. Comments anyone?
The days of followers is falling away. Too many folks like being leaders more and more. I sure hope after anarcy that communism comes into the picture.
the thing is, in a true anarchistic society no one would even think about following someone else like he or she is a leader of any kind...
there will never be a truly anarchist society, because of the fact that true anarchists stand alone and people of societies need to have a leader of some sort ,,, they are sheeple now,, what makes anyone think they wouldnt continue to be sheeple
Anarchist think for themselves. That doesn't mean they won't work together. If your hope is that after the government falls communism comes up, YOU'RE A COMMUNIST. Not an anarchist. And yes, people will try to put themselves in power. But anarchists pretty much know that now, that potential government will become their enemy.
An anarchist society may turn into a feudal one. The reason being that there will always be people who crave power over others, over land, and the desire of ownership. Still, I prefer feudalism to capitalism any day. Somalia is a modern-day example of a stateless society. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia
Somalia is an example of what happens when capitalism/globalization is allowed to run rampant without check. The people of Somalia have also returned to a tribal based lifestyle... a great thing in my opinion.
I believe that humans are inherently social creatures and for this reason will always strive for attention and appreciation from others (I beleive hehe). This is why punks for example who "don't care" about there apperance and the acceptance of others ultimatley end up socialising with with people they've deemed to be "cool" to hang out with and dressing in similar fashion. Back to the topic, anarchy may have trouble because groups of individuals who have similar ideas "may" form and conflict with groups with differing ideas, unless the conflicting partys can compromise a third party is usually needed?? (i'll stop now)
If you cannot conceive of a form of social interaction without hierarchy, I'm afraid you may not have a place in the society of the future. When I collaborate with some people on a project, I never feel the need to dominate. And the great thing about those who do is that they are, by definition, isolated. So in the ideal 'anarchist society', where people are actually taking responsibility and taking care of one another, we'd hardly need to worry about their ilk.
There will never be an 'anarchist society' because there is no such thing. Anarchy is not a state of being. It's a means to an end. Don't waste time wondering or arguing wether anarchy can work or not. That's not the point. The point is to find a society that works where all its members are satisfied materially and non materially. Do you want a society free of oppression? Do you want a society where everyone is clothed and fed? Do you want a society where the earth is healthy and can provide enough for all its inhabitants? What do you want? Ask yourself this, and then ask yourself what's the best way of achieving this. In my mind, Anarchism is merely the best of many ways of doing so, by having people organise themselves collectively rather than hierarchly and by encouraging them to challenge authority and do things for themself, rather than electing others do things for them.
