Originally Posted by Pluto

Anarchism (aka no government) is in my opinion the best solution to government oppression and domination. In anarchism there are no countries or states which rule and oppress people. But in order for anarchism to work all the world needs to live within an anarchist system.

Unlike many observers of history, anarchists see a common thread behind most of mankind's problems: the state. In the 20th-century alone, states have murdered well over 100,000,000 human beings, whether in war, concentration camps, or man-made famine. And this is merely a continuation of a seemingly endless historical pattern: almost from the beginning of recorded history, governments have existed. Once they arose, they allowed a ruling class to live off the labor of the mass of ordinary people; and these ruling classes have generally used their ill-gotten gains to build armies and wage war to extend their sphere of influence. At the same time, governments have always suppressed unpopular minorities, dissent, and the efforts of geniuses and innovators to raise humanity to new intellectual, moral, cultural, and economic heights. By transferring surplus wealth from producers to the state's ruling elite, the state has often strangled any incentive for long-run economic growth and thus stifled humanity's ascent from poverty; and at the same time the state has always used that surplus wealth to cement its power.

Originally Posted by Pluto

So anarchism could not work?

Originally Posted by Twilightsfire

It seems to me Darfur is a good example of anarchy at work.

Personally, anarchy is another version of survival of the fittest, and in a bad way.

The one who shoots first and hits usually wins.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Anarchism presumes that humans are inherently good and will get along and behave well without government. Anarchism is optimistic about human nature. I think most humans are inherently good, but their inherent goodness won't protect them from the remainder who aren't. Anarchism might leave the individual prey to anyone who is stronger, which will lead to formation of gangs for self-protection, which will in turn lead to the formation of states.

Under anarchy, it is conceivable that e.g. a brutal gang might use its superior might to coerce everyone else to do as they wish. With nothing more powerful than the gang, there would (definitionally) be nothing to stop them. But how does this differ from what we have now? Governments rule because they have the might to maintain their power; in short, because there is no superior agency to restrain them.

This argument is confused on several levels. First, it covertly defines anarchy as unrestrained rule of the strongest, which is hardly what most anarchists have in mind.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Anarchism can probably not exist in today's advanced, industrial societies because people in these societies are already socially conditioned to crave power and money.

Anarchism is the perfect way to live, but sadly, falls into the same catergory as communism in the eyes of the US and other capitalist world powers. We are told to belive that anarchism is a bad thing, but most do not know what it means. It has been assigned it's negative connotation (pure chaos) by governments worldwide, in order to preserve the system. The system of discrimination and hatred, which is leading you deeper and deeper down the dark road of oppression and subjugation.

If it were a perfect world, anarchism might work. But then again, if it were a perfect world, most other governments (like communism for example) would work just as well. As we all know, it's not a perfect world, and won't ever be a perfect world.