3 Anarchist Communes Have Been Established In Greek Capital

Man!! That's a very immature and dangerous path to follow and there's no possible way for it to end well.

Even if the government decides to let them go their own way (which they would never do) everyone involved is going to find themselves in deep distress. One of the first things to be lost is medical care - doctors will be leaving as fast as they can, hospitals will not be able to get supplies and will just shut down. The first one that comes down with something like appendicitis will most likely die a painful death unless they ship him out into the "real world."

And since these are urban areas, who's going to send in food for them??? They certainly can't produce their own.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Am Greek.
Every politic/social/etc structure is ideal in Theory.
But in practice you will find out many errors and reasons why a particular system just wont work as you though.
Communism as an idea is very attractive but in application is dictatorship or worse.
Anarchism suffers from the fact they dont take account the external factors,like "other countries".
They are not alone and can't survive in a dynamically changing and competitive world.
If viewed detailed ,beyond the idea ,you will find many holes, less obvious but more critical.

Every single one of them had holes but Capitalism was one those systems that worked better in practice compared to others.

Anarchism from my point of view is just part of puberty.

They were,couple of thousands of years ago.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Incorrect. Anarchism does not mean every man for himself, it means unity through voluntary community actions rather then hierarchic government control.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Incorrect! There are MANY, MANY types of anarchy - and if you would bother to check just a little, you would find this to be true.

All you're doing here is stating your own personally preferred type, nothing ore.

 

There are two different ways to look at anarchy. It can result in people living independent of government and one another in a libertarian fashion, or it can result in like-minded people choosing to live together in "communes". Both could be considered anarchist if no coercion is involved.

 

Of course there is.
But the thing they all have in common (except maybe Anarcho-Capitalism) is that they all are anti-heirarchy and pro-voluntary cooperation

 

UPDATE:
Over the last few days, more then 50% of Greece has been declared without government and independent from Greece

 

That's a pretty astounding claim - can you provide a reliable link to support it??

 

Yes and that only works in the absence of all human failings.

 

Where do you think Democracy was born? The initial inception was Greek in origin, in fact the US state system was developed to mimic what the Greek's had accomplished during their hayday.

For current time Greeks to want to resort to trying to manage themselves, it doesn't mean that "Anarchy" should be declared, in reality it's been pressed from time to time that various Greek Policies and mandates have been "corrupt" and therefore have likely caused dissatisfaction with their public.

Obviously it can go two ways, a current Greek Government can attempt to enforce draconian rule and generate an even greater divide between the people of their country and their "democracy", or they can look to working out some other alternative method of lessening the destructive nature of of an Anarchic Revolution, namely a Democratic Evolution whereby they pay more attention to their public, pay more attention to what needs to be addressed and concentrate on trying to adjust their mandates to fix that.

(The Ruckus reminds me of the whole problem of territorial control over Cyprus between Greeks and Turks, and the "Free Cyprus" [Namely make Cyprus free to be it's own sovereignty] slogans stated by the actual residents of Cyprus that didn't want the two countries constantly contesting over their homes)


To be honest it could well be a good thing for the country if University campuses are attempting this, you potentially have the Knowledge and understanding of the educated to establish overall betterment in allowed. After all Universities are usually a hive of ideals, I would suggest that if Professors over there are trying to make a compromise that they attempt to get the Greek government to support their endeavours in return for them try to ascertain not so much control over the anarchists, but to attempt to appeal to reason and get them to think with their minds rather than just burning things down randomly.

(Afterall I'm pretty sure that the "rebuilding" will be done by government contracted firms, so while everyone else might suffer high unemployment someone will be making money through the ineptness of those that destroy things.)

 

I think this may just be the best event that has happened recently. Anarchism has always been given a bad name, but is honestly the only true democracy. I think that there will for sure be at least one large commune to come from this revolution, and I pray that it will stay intact. Most of the protesters are honestly loyal to being true Anarchist, so hopefully they wont allow other forms of government to replace the defeated one.

 

What do you do when you have to make a decision that affects the whole community, and there are deep divides and many opinions on what should be done? Do you go with rock paper scissors?

 

Things are talked out, and depending on the commune certian messures are taken.

 

What makes you think talking things out will magically get everyone to agree? How often does that work in practice? A decision has to be made one way or another, they don't have the option of each person doing their own thing, few people agree on what should be done for the whole. What do you do?

And as for "certain measures"... who decides what the measures are? Who makes the groups that pass judgement? What makes the deciders different from dictators or elected governments in other countries? I suspect you folks haven't thought this out very carefully, because in modern times people have much greater needs than just fire and meat.

 

It's called "Couch Politics".

The philosophy is usually quite simple, we can sit in front of a television and debate between ourselves how to interpret politicians bravado or their inadequacies in regards to their operations of state. It usually gets to the point during these heated debates that occur in the home that the statement is made "What do we pay these politicians for? We sit here, argue the same statements come to similar if not better conclusions and we do it for free."

It's actually the basic reasoning that a revamp of politics would require politicians to be completely "Voluntary". They wouldn't be paid for being a politician removing the usual "corruption" caused through their various scams. However it does generate secondary corruption problems, after all if they work a second job (where they get paid) they might be more likely to attempt to "aid" their payroll, for instance getting a job for their company that the government tenders. (This would grant them the attempt of gaining bonuses and payrises based upon the company they work for and how much work they can get them)

What is really needed is the capacity to put forwards political reason, to evaluate their relevance based upon the myriad of other individuals out there with similar ideas and generate a majority return. However this too can cause political concern in regards to mob rule, after all it just takes the right person with the right words to rile a mob to act rather than think and this undermines a fail Majority rule system, by causing Majorities to be manipulated (corruptly) to make wrong choices.

(Various Wingist groups take advantage of such Barnum like manipulators)

 

Well, my point is if you want to have leadership and organization in a society, you can call it whatever you want but that leadership is going to end up looking like a government, one way or another. Voluntarism doesn't work unless everyone's willing to compromise and reach an agreement- if someone refuses to play along, and you don't have the option of letting everyone have it their own way, then you have no choice but to impose some authority on them, or else critical decisions will never be made.

Maybe the government of Greece is crap, all I hear is how badly it screwed up on the economic side of things. Replace the government if you have to, but don't kid yourselves that the new society won't also have a government of some form, unless you want everyone to live in total isolation and poverty. And as for the idea of having independent regions where decisions/laws are made by the local inhabitants, well... sounds a lot like Athens and Sparta to me- I hear those were good times...

 

Seems like a speedy way to restart politics... The hard part is finding a leader for anarchy... sort of defeats the purpose...

 

There is no requirement for co-operation, that's naive. Anarchy is the rejection of hierarchy yes, the pursuit of liberty, yes, but there's no expectation of sharing.

That said this little 'commune' will promote members to be leaders, and some will assume control themselves. This is inescapable human nature.

There is the old saying 'Every society is just three meals away from a revolution'. Once these 'communes' run out of food, they'll collapse. And without order, to distribute food, and enforcement of some fairness, people _will_ argue. This is inescapable human nature.

You are simply naive to think Anarchy is viable.

 

It worked for America... and France... and a couple other places....

 

and, ... ?