Why are there so many stories about authoritarian government being bad but almost none about anarchy being bad?These stories cause an attitude in young audiences where they think that all rules, authority, hierarchy and state are presumptively bad then they waste some portion of their life with naive , utopian, juvenile ideas.Even in stories where there's a breakdown in law and order, there's rarely a connection spelled out between the character's suffering because the government lost control. Instead the character's suffering is blamed on some freak natural event (e.g. massive earthquake, e.g. virus outbreak) or evil individuals , not the fact that the government has lost control and a state of anarchy has been reached, a state of maximal liberty that libertarians and anarchists want. On the other hand in all of these authoritarian stories it is authoritarian government itself that is thematically blamed . Simply the government being in control and restricting the freedom of the citizens is itself the source of evil in these stories.Why is the story landscape so unbalanced?
>>25038493because anarchist states just get rolled over instantly and replaced with authoritarian ones
lmao
Why are there so many stories about authoritarian government being bad but none about anarchy being bad?
>>25038493William Golding's Lord Of The Flies is probably the only work of note that goes near that concept. its because most writers are leftists and don't want to actually face reality?>inb4 reality has a left-wing biasexcept it doesn't, and using this phrase as a truism hurts your causeif you prefer nonfiction, picrel is probably a good place. its like the Main Currents Of Marxism but for anti-authoritarian ideologies (anytime Marxism has been implemented its been authoritarian, leftoids can't cope with this)
>>25038514Why even more? Because even under a very controlling government, there will usually at least be enough order to sustain a large population. When there is no order and no authority then the human carrrying capacity of that area goes way down because efficiency goes way down because people's general safety is at risk and people can only make themselves secure in small local areas which means food can't be grown and distributed as efficiently and people need to spend much more on their own security which means you can't support nearly as many lives.So actually anarchy or libertarianism is a greater source of human suffering or evil than authoritarianism, yet this is not represented thematically in the landscape of stories at all.
>>25038518this is the saddest shit I've ever read
>>25038493Society has been coopted by nihilists, descendants of peasants who over produced due to industrialization.
>>25038518You're right and that's why legacy Star Wars ended up redeeming the empire.
a lot more people have lived through authoritarian regimes than anarchist ones.
>>25038493Because that was the focus of the Classical Times, when civilization was rare and barbarianism everywhere, and the gods told the wisdom of nature. Our slavery was mostly to the senses and nature. I'm not versed into ancient literature but I assume there was a lot of anti-barbarianism shit at the time. And we are in the time of Civilization, you can see the shift with religion, Christianity is a religion for a civilization, for how to live together. So ours is the time of civilization, and with it its excesses, not the excesses of nature, of need, and emotions, but of mind, those ideals which kill millions under their rule, so our stories tells the threat of this. If we can move past this civilizational challenge through anti-authoritarian technology, whenever that happens, then we'll have markets to provide us against the desires of nature, and probably good networking and cooperation tools to dismantle governments when they form and protect us against the tyranny of mind, of collectivizing ideas, of enslaving purposes.By then we'll have refocused our art on the real eternal struggle, self-mastery, virtue, and all will be fine. We're headed there, it will take its time, I won't live to see it and it's Ok. I don't care, people will keep being dumb about civilization and having concerns about useless things, I'll just cruise my life and live it well and be happy.
I would argue Demons by Dostoyevsky leans slightly into anarchy. Sure it's revolutionaries, but in practice their desires and actions lead to anarchic violence. I personally love that book because it seemed to me that he did an outstanding job of capturing the prior attitudes and ideals that led to the fall.
>>25038514Not literature, but The Walking Dead basically warns about anarchy.
>>25038493because you only write about interesting shit. Anarchy by definition is less particular in form and thus its less liable for unique situations. In this authoritarian state we do x to keep people under control for y reason. While for anarchists states the central theme will be around non rationality, arbitrary passions and the like, thus why you find the few that are made like lord of the flies and the walking dead like where mentioned touching on similar thematic dimensions.THe lack of structure implies the lack of unique structure and thus a narrower scope of probable premise.Though I believe the actual fear of anarchy was much stronger when governments were unstable and people were closer to the realities of arbitrary action. like c. 1750 and before. The greeks, medievals and early moderns considered anarchy a much more dire conern then even draconian laws, because they were closer to a reality of state failure than we are. Compare that to today where most people living in places where there would be publishing live in an enviornment much closer to the ills of over control rather than the ills of under control.
>>25038493Because deep down people know anarchy is preferable to oppressive government, it's even proven by science.>These stories cause an attitude in young audiences where they think that all rules, authority, hierarchy and state are presumptively badBased and true>they waste some portion of their life with naive , utopian, juvenile ideas.Chud>Simply the government being in control and restricting the freedom of the citizens is itself the source of evil in these stories.Can't argue with facts
>>25038635oh, didnt read this at first, but I am glad someone else of the historical bent has noticed what i did here: >>25038680 the dramatic change in what people generally fear more, over or under control, as time has gone on.
>>25038685I would argue that authority is fundementally based, as long as that authority continues to be able to enforce its will. Being powerful enough to enforce your will is the quintessential essense of basedness. Thus Authority should always be respected in its capacity to have become authoritative, but also should always be challenged to make sure that it continues to have the power bases to maintain itselfbeing against this is being for dysgenics.
>>25038685uh actually that's been debunked you f*cking chud >>25038518
>>25038716Under an oppressive government people might be safer but they lead sucky lives.Under anarchy there might be fewer people around but they'll be happier so anarchy is better than oppressive government because the amount of happiness is much higher.Also are you going to trust some rando's opinion you read on the Internet or a well-researched book that cites economic models?
>>25038493anarchist societies never get off the ground because they are always bound for failure so not really much interesting stuff to be told with anarchy. the one place you will find it though is in most post-apocalyptic stories.
>>25038518Actually, this kind of description is represented by Cyberpunk stories, and other similar fantasies where hyper-capitalists companies rule the world, care about nothing but profits and the safety of their own property. That's the "anarchy bad" story of our Christian "Love one another" civilizational culture
>>25038493Stateless societies are pushed to marginal land (the bush) or obliterated. There are few stories from these because there are very few people living in them and they are overwhelmingly illieterate so they wouldn't have much reach anyway.
>>25038735Why do more anarchic peoples repetedly try to get into and intigrate/take over then integrate into more authoritarian regions then? (See Mogols, Germanic Barbarians, Turks)Essentially all of them want to be a part of those more rules based regimes rather than their shitty barbarian lives.
>>25038749The lesson is more about the dangers of imperfect anarchy, since in cyberpunk stories megacorpos typically tend to have their own private police forces thus creating an oligopoly on violence.>>25038756You got it completely backwards.Read this book, it says that hunter gatherers literally avoided taking up agriculture and settled life for as long as they could. The reason early states were aggressive expansionistic empires was because they were constantly bleeding population as people took flight and preferred living as nomadic barbarians than settled agriculturalists so they needed a constant influx of slaves to replenish the working population.
>>25038787>The reason early states were aggressive expansionistic empires was because they were constantly bleeding population as people took flight and preferred living as nomadic barbarians than settled agriculturalists so they needed a constant influx of slaves to replenish the working populationSo what?
Because anarchy doesn't require you to do anything, so it can't be bad. When it turns out wrong, it's because the people did too much. Hence the the people are to blame.
>>25038735>the amount of happiness is much highereven though>there might be fewer peopleWhen you have government control allowing rule of law and so large scale food distribution you can carry 10 times the population than when everyone has to secure their own safety in their nearby area under anarchy.The idea that people are 10 times happier living under anarchy than under an authoritarian government is nonsense.So an authoritarian government produces far more human happiness and wellbeing than anarchy.>a well-researched book that cites economic models?njgger the screenshot you posted admits that it's just cherrypicking one particular model. that's pure motivated reasoning and confirmation bias
>>25038794It proves you wrong. People preferred living as nomads than as agriculturalists.Even their bones reveal that being a nomad was better as the skeletons of hunter gatherers were taller and more robust than the ones of sedentary farmers.It wasn't until the 20th century that sedentary peoples started growing taller generation after generation.Even European explorers remarked that the "savages" subsisting on hunting and fishing they encountered in the New World looked healthier than the grain-fed agriculturalists from Europe.>>25038820>When you have government control allowing rule of law and so large scale food distribution you can carry 10 times the population than when everyone has to secure their own safety in their nearby area under anarchy.>The idea that people are 10 times happier living under anarchy than under an authoritarian government is nonsense.>So an authoritarian government produces far more human happiness and wellbeing than anarchy.State societies might be able to support more people and keep them safe but at the cost of being oppressive. Living under an oppressive government sucks, the idea that people are happier living under a state is nonsense.There might be less people living in an anarchic society and they might have to work to provide for themselves and their safety but they will be happier because there isn't an overbearing government breathing down their neck and oppressing them.
>>25038840>People preferred living as nomads than as agriculturalists.So what?
>>25038840There are still rules in nomad societies. Only idiot modern day anarchist leftists think they're going to be able to do whatever they want. I also think it's funny how they hate tribalism, but immediately fantasize about being trible. They despise all the characteristics needed to survive as a tribe. They'd let random people in and get dominated immediately. They also think that natural heirarchies within the tribe won't form. People who rage about about stopping random foreigners from coming into the country and enforcing laws, aren't going to be able to run anythiing successfully.
>>25038851>There are still rules in nomad societies.Obviously. But they are based on common sense, agreed on by the entire community and crucially not enforced in an Orwellian fashion like in state societies.>They despise all the characteristics needed to survive as a tribe. They'd let random people in and get dominated immediately.They can just as easily kick out anyone who starts acting chuddy. See my first point.>They also think that natural heirarchies within the tribe won't form.Those are based on actual merit and skill and importantly ARE FLUID unlike the rigid hierarchies of civilization.
>>25038876Listen up young one, in what we lost in freedom in going forward with bigger civilization, we gained it back 10x against stupid tribal rituals, disease, the need of bread and all the meaningless stagnation that comes with being a barbarian a in very fertile world, which is evident to any intelligent mind. The state of Nature is dumb and very arbitrary, and thank god I live in a civilized, rich and peaceful time. Fuck off with that hopeless nostalgia for the state of nature, you have gained freedom so crave for more retard. We escaped barbarianism through agriculture, and agriculture wasn't created by looking back. I share your dislike of big controlling entities, but it's very simple to dismiss all the benefits of market societies, or expect them to work simply by deleting a piece of power, as If power could be abandoned or removed by will, by a shared will or an ideology, lol at that. Look forward, to power, a greater power for the individual, against the state, simply "acting together", or mere ideology has never worked, this failing is the tale of a 1000 stories; in ideas against ideas, the most appealing, the most aesthetic, the most comfortable will always win, and for now dumb anarchy is not appealing against a state, only reality can break dumb retarded appealing popular ideas, only technology can, and so it will be.
test
>>25038509This.The only thing preventing me from seize the power is the fucking army.I would be a benevolent dictator, tho.
>>25039065Good to know, you have my nonconsensual consent.
>>25038840but the total happiness and wellbeing is much greater. It's not like a world where one man is perfectly content is better than a world where millions of people live quite content lives.
>>25038493Anarchy is good that's why
>>25039231You're insane. Proof that the mental asylum system never should have been abandoned.
>>25039241>bro if we don't have the state who will bomb the children?
>>25038851Why don't you read some Bukunin and learn about actual theorized anarcho-syndicalist governance, present-day applicability be damned, and to learn what they believe instead of railing against the childish anarchist in your head>>25039050You think in black and white. No one wants to reverse the course of history to where we were all animists ignorant of the spoils of modernity, with no concept of government, but to prefiguratively shape governance so that we preserve technology & civilization under progressively more & more horizontal & just power structures, where a limit may be reached of a governance as nature-heeding that a human mind can posture
>>25039243People will just bomb each other. That's typically what happens in anarchist lands. Rape is common, child soldiers are the norm. Businesses never last more than a few years. Security of any kind is foregone. Unless you're looking to get raped, there's not much for you there.
>>25039301Diddyblud has not engaged with ancap theory
>>25038493Because almost no one has ever taken it seriously. Generally anarchy is used as the result of the failure of the government and/or the governed. Germinal is a good example of one which is very explicit about this and even has a character who advocates for anarchy. Vonnegut has some entry level "anarchy bad" but he is not that simplistic about things so will probably filter you, anarchy figuratively or literally (still figurative but we see a literal manifestation) comes about in most of his novels. The "story landscape" is unbalanced because you read books which pander to retards that need things spelled out for them.
>>25038493Read Joseph Conrad if you want fiction dunking on Anarchists. Dostoevsky's Demons too.>An Anarchist, Joseph Conrad (1906)https://shortstoryproject.com/stories/an-anarchist/
>>25038787>the reason early states were aggressive expansionistic empires was because they were constantly bleeding population as people took flight and preferred living as nomadic barbarians than settled agriculturalists so they needed a constant influx of slaves to replenish the working population.That doesnt really explain why those nomadic barbarians routinely invaded those agricultural empires and integrated with them. The Germanics, Mongols, and Turks didnt seem to "Avoid the settled life" They seemed to actively try to have it.
>>25039874The author explains that a symbiotic relationship formed between nomadic and settled communities. Sometimes the nomads would raid and loot the settlers sometimes they would trade with them, even ironically enough, in slaves too. But in general people preferred living as nomads because it was less grueling work than living as a farmer under an oppressive state.
>>250384931. Because anarchism doesn’t have an “evil” head that commands it. With authoritarianism you can easily point towards what the source of evil is.2. How do you fight a reckless, disorganized threat? You take control (read: authority over it) of it from an authoritarian that wants to take over it for selfish ends. So even then it’s almost the same thing.I agree with what you say, though. A lot of fiction writers paint authoritarianism as an evil in itself. Anarchy is way worse by any metric but the current thing is hate the evil bigots at the top.
>>25038787>>25038840>>25039883Scott is a hack and pretends stateless societies weren't hierarchichalThe Tlingit literally had slave trading and an entrenched nobility despite being hunter gatherers
>>25038493anarchy is extremely short lived. the reason why authoritarian regimes work so well as villains is because people like to rule, not to be ruled.
>>25038493the WEF just admitted that covid 19 was their social control mechanism test in an official documentthing is normies can not comprehend when it is happening to them, they have to be told by an authorative source "this is evil" or they don't understand we can give up on teaching this stufflord of the flies is about anarchy being bad, the gangster characters always lose in the end
>>25038493Anarchy itself cannot be bad. It's nothing, a lack of a state. What is "bad" in that case has nothing to do with (lack of) systemic structure, and everything to do with humans. You can find a gorillion works decrying human nature as le bad. It's the core thesis of life-denying chudism everywhere.
>>25038518Behold! The most successful society of all time.
>>25038685>ChudAnarchists must be mentally ill to the extent that they can communicate in nothing but derisive childish catchphrases. To the extent that this "chud" boogeyman even exists, they are at least capable of conveying their ideas.
>>25039883>But in general people preferred living as nomads because it was less grueling work than living as a farmer under an oppressive state.But they didnt do that when they won, they became settled. The ottoman turks when they took byzantine land became mostly settled like the byzantines, the Franks became settled like the romans, the Manchu Became settled like the Han.
>>25040442Scott notes tragically that ultimately the very practices of the nomads (selling their fellow nomads into slavery, becoming reliant on settled communities for certain goods, etc.) is what led to their demise yes
>>25040089You need to deal with the fact that a planet where one person is very satisfied is worse than a planet where millions of people are quite satisfied
>>25038493Anarchy is retarded cope. Even Marxist thought permits hierarchies, although in a highly flattened state. The military is the highest power on earth because it is the highest authoritarian force on earth
>>25040089
>>25039245And what happened, pray tell, to these anarchist syndicalist states that appeared in the last century?
>>25038493Because bootlicking is gay, and OP being a fag proves it.
