I watched V for Vendetta again today. Once again, I must say, it is a wonderful movie. They did a wonderful job on it. It is very... recent. I highly recommend it. For those of you who have already seen it, some questions:
>What is the feasibility of a sort of pseudo-anarchy in society today?
>Does/Would anarchy work?
>What is anarchy? Is it simply the complete nonexistence of government, or something more (or less, rather)?
>Can anarchy work within a particular economic framework, such as socialism or capitalism or communism?
>Does anarchy tend toward egalitarianism? Why or why not?
I am particularly interested in Allan's answers, since he is a sort of pseudo-anarchist. Comment away!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Psuedo-anarchy? I'm not exactly sure what that means. I mean, could society exist if people just suddenly started ignoring the government? Probably not.
Should anarchy work? yes. would it? Depends on how anarchy is adopted and for what reasons. .Anarchy depends on the individual to be personally responsible for their own actions.
Anarchy is living without a government. It is being responsible for every aspect of life;
I personally think anarchy could only exist with the bartering system. Bringing everyone to the most basic of levels of trade. A direct exchange of goods (whether that be labor for food, or livestock for agriculture. . .that's right, kiss technology and materialism goodbye)
I think anarchy isn't quite egalitarian. . .because not everyone can be self-dependent. There are those who are in need. And with anarchy, there is no way to ensure people take care of one another (a reason there is such a diverse understanding of anarchy). Anarchy could be complete chaos, as individuals band together in violent clans (which then really isn't anarchy but the beginning of new oppressive governments).
So, there isn't equality with anarchy. . .however, there is the prevention of oppression by a system. Instead, the only thing that holds you back would be you. Sure, an individual could steal from you, be violent towards you; but how could a person steal from you when ownership is impossible under anarchy?
I guess anarchy can't be widespread. If there was global anarchy, large groups would rise up and form new governments and we'd be worse off than we are now. however, if people who had no need (and no desire for) a government could isolate themselves and truly self-govern. . .then anarchy would be the best option for them.
Post a Comment