<p>if anyone has seriously considered this question, do you think it is even possible in the U.S., being a rapid growing industrial society?</p>
<p>With the advancements in technology and communication, i think the anarchist model would work in the U.S. even tho these types of advancements didn't belong in the pre-industrial era.</p>
<p>if u think that anarchy belongs to the pre-industrial era then give me some reasons.</p>
<p>this might be a better place to ask :)
Forums</a> | libcom.org</p>
<p>i'd say not within the next five years, because the US is at the top of the economic ladder and people don't revolt unless their life has become unbearable. simply put, we are winning. americans have no reason to change the status quo. but once the US has fallen from global economic domination anything is possible, and frankly by that time all bets are off on the state of the world</p>
<p>(by the way i'm not an anarchist, but i used to be)</p>
<p>after 5 years, assuming barack takes the 2008 election, he will either be the incumbent president or a republican will take the election. if a republican takes the election then i think anarchy is possible because of the whole idea the best government is the government that governs least. if barack wins the 2012 election, then i dont think it will be possible for another 9 years. </p>
<p>jeffersonian democracy prided itself with the establishment of slavery that pre-dated capitalism. it was also characterized by no monopolistic control and there are several instances where monopolies are controlling the market in todays society.</p>
<p>anarcho-syndicalism would only be possible if big oil companies and Fortune 500 companies went bankrupt. that would be the closest thing to the pre-industrial type of concepts that inspired libertarian thinkers to suggest ideas of anarchy critiquing coercive state power.</p>
<p>Nope, it would not. Anarchism is a ridiculous theory for ridiculously ideology contaminated far left intellectual. How could you expect a bunch of extremist theories to rule the country under some "supposed" utopias? In any case, Anarchism does not provide a solution to world problem, and its existence poses serious questions to our current globalization trend. It would only alienate our country from the rest of the world, it is a nice theory, but there is nothing can be done with that kind of theory. Change is incremental and never radical, for radicalism would only give you a post-french-revolution style anarchy
By destroying the government, we are giving up our citizens to the hands of the private industires. The very ideas of anarchism makes me sick, "man by natural is political animal... and that a man cannot survive on his own."---Aristotle. How can you separate men from his social beings? I mean, jeez, how do you expect a man to work along like that of a Ayn Rand fantasy hero? I despise Ayrn Rand, and I despise extreme individualism the former is a farcical joke, the latter is the manifestation of ultimate stupidity.
Take my advice and convert to something nice such as socialism and support the course of the historical dialectic towards its ultimate goal. XD</p>
<p>In practice, it is impossible to achieve because the power structure in the US is deeply antagonistic to such a concept. However, if anarcho-syndicalism were to be suddenly implemented in the US, it would be a vast improvement over our current system of government.</p>
<p>Labor unions are vastly overrated. I know of several unions in my area (I'm in Ohio--big labor union state) that actually hurt employees more than help them. When my mom quit a job with union representation and switched to one that didn't, she had much better pay, treatment, and working conditions. The only function of modern unions is to fund political candidates using the dues of employees. I'd be satisfied if labor unions (in the traditional sense, anyway) were banned.</p>
<p>The problem with any form of authority -- whether it be governmental or corporate -- is that it is detached from the concerns of the average person. Indeed, the interests of corporations are absolutely antithetical to the interests of workers and consumers. Government, too, is riddled with problems relating to corruption and abuse of power because it is a minimally democratic institution (you get your pick of two center-right politicians every four years; hurrah). Labor unions are a step in the right direction insofar as they are democratic organizations that should voice the concerns of workers. However, they can be corrupt in the same manner as government. The only solution to hierarchical structures that breed inefficiency is purely democratic systems in which workers collectively make all the decisions.</p>
<p>^However, there are many drawbacks to having no leadership. The main one is that nothing gets done. Can you imagine what a chore it would be to build a highway if everyone had to take a vote for every aspect of the project? What about building a hospital? This would severely inhibit growth of the economy.</p>
<p>True, but increasing GDP should not be some mindless goal unto itself. After all, we're far more prosperous than we were, say, 200 years ago -- but are we really that much happier? Indeed, economic progress invariably comes at an abhorrent human cost, whether it be through sweatshop labor or otherwise. Also, in general, a plan for a project that involves large-scale capital expenditure would be approved beforehand rather than holding a vote on every minor issue that pops up.</p>
<p>American Psycho is an interesting movie.</p>