Ask a Question
or
Create a Poll
  1. Home /
  2. Questions /
  3. Social Sciences
  4. / Politics And Modern Events
  5. / Political Schools Of Thought
  6. / Anarchy

by keithold is a prodigal bagger on May 10th, 2009

keithold is a prodigal bagger

Question

Help answer this question below.

How well would a society based on anarchism work?

  • Like
  • Report
Share:
Other

Answers. 21 helpful answers below.

  • by machinerat on May 10th, 2009

    machinerat

    Much in the same way communism would work in theory, anarchy's weak point is the humans that populate it. People would get along only if they stayed out of eachothers' ways.

    Besides, most teenagers outgrow that pro-anarchy "I hate having to do what my parents say" phase.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by Rinky Dinky Do on May 10th, 2009

    Rinky Dinky Do

    Couldn't be much worse than one based on greed, corruption and lies. At least in an anarchy, there would be no taxes to pay, no political campaigns and no bail outs of the rich. Really, how bad can it be?

    • Like
    • Report

    3 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Esteban-- Smart ass Pumpkin on May 10th, 2009

    Esteban-- Smart ass Pumpkin

    not to well, with too many assholes stirring the pot. discussion, debate are important, destruction not so much.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by G. WASH. on May 10th, 2009

    G. WASH.

    Not very well; not very long (also, it's a bit of a inherent contradiction to call a 'society' an 'anarchy')

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by case22 on December 29th, 2010

    case22

    Firstly, I believe the question 'How well would a society based on anarchism work?' begs an analysis of one's definition of a 'working' society. Ask yourself - is yours currently 'working', by your own definition? Then, subsequently, what could be changed? Open your mind to the other possibilities.
    Many people oppose anarchy based on the idea that it implies disorder. I believe anarchy as a political ideology does NOT mean disorder. This is a connotation. It simply means absence of authority. It is those people involved who would determine the course of such an arrangement. That said, mutual respect, inclusion and agreement on microscopic and macroscopic levels would be required for the collective 'society' to be peaceful. Here is my only concern: it is not the principle of anarchy, but the application's merging with human greed that causes me to question it's likelihood to be beneficial.
    I believe that people who do not think anarchy could 'work' based on the idea of 'disorder' should investigate their current situations as influenced by their controlling State. It is clear that what is current is not functioning. Financial collapse, social stratification, opaqueness and injustice plague the elitist systems which some hold so dearly today.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by neveroddoreven on October 15th, 2009

    neveroddoreven

    I think it has the potential to be a great 'system' for want of a better word. It would however require years and years of education and reformation to undo the damage done by greed based culture. As humans have been, in my opinion, taught to be greedy, competitive and uncooperative by society and education over centuries. If this could be changed in the majority then Anarchism would work. However there lies the greatest flaw in the ideology, it would be very very gradual change, and not everyone wants to be cooperative.
    It all about destruction, although there would probably need to be a revoultion.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Suby the Coat on May 10th, 2009

    Suby the Coat

    It won't work as a society.
    It will be each man unto his own.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by Ice man on May 10th, 2009

    Ice man

    Have a look at Somalia for your answer.

    • Like
    • Report

    2 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Moongrim on May 10th, 2009

    Moongrim

    Two ways- The Theory: In which everyone maintains their current level of civilization and etiquette.

    Then there is the Reality: Somalia.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by Marky Mark on May 10th, 2009

    Marky Mark

    Anarchy meaning lawlessness and disorder? No. It would self-destruct.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by Adz3r0 on May 10th, 2009

    Adz3r0

    It wouldn't. Anarchy is only an interim phase that would last for as long as it takes for the next strongest faction to step up to the plate and take control.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by twist and shout on May 10th, 2009

    twist and shout

    No, its sort of like an anti-authoritarian interpretation of communism and we have all seen how well thats worksed out in the past!!!

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by Go know thyself is THE RED QUEEN on May 10th, 2009

    Go know thyself is THE RED QUEEN

    Anything divided against itself will falter.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by Anonymous on May 10th, 2009

    Anonymous

    Well with the absence of an government, within the conditioning of past systematic influence, we would be absent of our dependency, which would result in baring the individual within, accounting for many years of wandering aimlessly.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by overeducated on May 10th, 2009

    overeducated

    Society & anarchy are oxymorons, since social behavior by definition entails the voluntary relinquishing of certain desires by the citizens for the greater good of the community.
    Anarchy describes a group of people where each one pursues his own personal betterment even if it's at the expense of the community.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by LarryH54 on May 10th, 2009

    LarryH54

    Ask Gengis Khan. Generally, they work well for up to three generations before they collapse. It's basically nothing more or less than social Darwinism. The strong live off of the weak.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by Swami_Rick on December 29th, 2010

    Swami_Rick

    Read any book on the Dark Ages, Europe , between 400 and 1000.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Artful Bodger on December 29th, 2010

    Artful Bodger

    Anarchy = lack of government (dictionary definition).
    Look to Somalia where there is none, Afghanistan, where there are too many to make sense, or Zimbabwe, where the "government" equates to organised crime. Fun, Huh?

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Bob on October 15th, 2009

    Bob

    let's assemble a committee to organize it so that we can find out!!! :)

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by CaptainHarley adores his life penguin on October 15th, 2009

    CaptainHarley adores his life penguin

    Anarcharism is the LACK of a society, including government, military, etc. Everytime it's been tried, it has quickly devolved into government by hoodlum.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Mr. Knowitall- The Poli Sci Guy on May 10th, 2009

    Mr. Knowitall- The Poli Sci Guy

    plain and simple, it wouldn't

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

You're reading How well would a society based on anarchism work?

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Cell potential al cu

Answerbag

a Demand Media company