NationStates Jolt Archive

Some questions for everyone:

1. Will a country voluntarely go Anarchist?

2. Has any country been succesful using the Anarchist system?

3. Will people go along with the laws of Anarchism (I guess that's the correct term heh)

1. A country won't, but individuals will.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

For 2. , please answer which country/countries

Buechoria, your third point is contradictory.

How can their be laws under anarchism?

For two, I accepted the word 'countries,' because it makes this easier. But Anarchists tend to reject the political boundries that make up 'countries.' So this makes it hard, as technically no country has been anarchistic.

However the two most famous examples of working Anarchism were in Spain during the Civil War and in the Ukraine around the time of the Russian revolution (iirc). However both groups were destroyed by outside millitary powers.

There have also been many many collectives throughout the world for the past century or so.

How ever for specific examples, you would have to wait for someone else who has the info immediatley to hand, because I don't, and don't feel like trawling the internet. ;)

Buechoria, your third point is contradictory.

How can their be laws under anarchism?
Just over look it, like I did.

PS. If you are trying to use the 'no historical precedent' arguement. It won't work.

Buechoria, your third point is contradictory.

How can their be laws under anarchism?
Anarchism is in no way inimicable to laws.

Anarchy and Efficient Law, by David D. Friedman (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html)

Some questions for everyone:

1. Will a country voluntarely go Anarchist?
Individuals will.

2. Has any country been succesful using the Anarchist system?
Saga-period Iceland and the "Wild West" period of the US.

3. Will people go along with the laws of Anarchism (I guess that's the correct term heh)
Yes

Concept., nice arguement. You're the first debater NOT to give me a link with false info and try and shove propaganda down my throat.

Severeal countries have been anarchistic, but during a transitional phase in government. They have failed and the government has been restored. Anarchism has seemingly not been used as a replacement government. This obviously shows it is not supported.

I dunno... whenever I hear people promoting anarchy I just assume they're too lazy to pay taxes like every other person in the country.

Concept., nice arguement. You're the first debater NOT to give me a link with false info and try and shove propaganda down my throat.

Severeal countries have been anarchistic, but during a transitional phase in government. They have failed and the government has been restored. Anarchism has seemingly not been used as a replacement government. This obviously shows it is not supported.

Granted that it isn't the most popular political theory out there (partially due to the lies and negative connotations). However this is hardly proff that it is unworkable.

Saga-period Iceland and the "Wild West" period of the US.

I highly doubt either of those were anarchist. The Old West wasn't exactly a paradise, either.

I dunno... whenever I hear people promoting anarchy I just assume they're too lazy to pay taxes like every other person in the country.
So people prepared to spend time learning about something and then actively promote it are lazy?

I highly doubt either of those were anarchist. The Old West wasn't exactly a paradise, either.
Hmm, I used to have an article called the 'not so wild west." I'm sure someone knows about it

Toasty, since for the first time, this Anarchist supporter is presenting himself maturely, I will gladly listen to his arguements (Too many times have other Anarchist supporters just told me things then say I'm evil because I'm capitalist)

Saga-period Iceland and the "Wild West" in the US

I highly doubt either of those were anarchist.
Then you obviously haven't done the research.

Private Creation and Enforcement of Law-An Historical Case (Iceland), by David D. Friedman (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html)

The Old West wasn't exactly a paradise, either.
American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West (PDF)
Terry Anderson and P.J. Hill (Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 3 Num. 1) (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf)

Oh, it's one of those "anarcho"-capitalist claims. I might as well claim I'm an "anarcho"-feudalist.

I'd say the most successful anarchism is in the areas of Africa that are fighting rebels. There are some internal sects trying to maintain order, but all they are doing is tricking potentially invaders into thinking they won't be an easy target.

Oh, it's one of those "anarcho"-capitalist claims. I might as well claim I'm an "anarcho"-feudalist.
Oh, it's one of those ad hominem fallacies. You may as well have just slit your own throat, because that's metaphorically what you just did.

How many Anarchist threads do we have running at the moment?

Oh, it's one of those ad hominem fallacies. You may as well have just slit your own throat, because that's metaphorically what you just did.

Can't you just accept that capitalism isn't anarchist? That's all I really ask. It is based on hierarchy and order-taking. It simply isn't anarchist.

1. Will a country voluntarely go Anarchist?

It's conceivable that a government of a country might vote itself out of existence, but it's unlikely, as is a country-wide revolution. What's far more likely is Christiania (http://www.christiania.org/) or Chiapas (http://www.ezln.org/) (note: the linked sites are those of the regional activists, and thus largely not in English. Just google for Christiania, Chiapas or EZLN for pieces about them) on a wider scale - the spontaneous creation of an anarchist "state" within a state.
2. Has any country been succesful using the Anarchist system?

Not entire countries, but the Ukraine during the Russian Civil War, Makhno's army created an anarchist system while fighting the white forces, later crushed in an act of supreme betrayal by Trotsky - detailed in the first four chapters of his own The Struggle Against the State (http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/makhno/sp001781/index.html), while Catalonia in Spain, during the Spanish Civil War, had a successful anarchosyndicalist community (http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/spain.html) until Franco's forces destroyed it. In the early days of Israel, the Kibbutzim (http://www.anarchistcommunitarian.net/articles/kibbutz/kibbtrend.html) were heavily influenced by anarchist thought, though not anarchist. Chiapas, under the Zapatista communities, has survived for ten years with its own form of direct democracy in conflict with the Mexican state - http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/zapatista.html. And there's the aforementioned Christiania, a self-ruled neighbourhood in Copenhagen. There are thousands of anarchist (self-consciously based on anarchist ideas) and anarchic (non-hierarchical communes without any specific ideological basis) dotted around the world, from single Ya Basta! squats to traditional tribal groups.

3. Will people go along with the laws of Anarchism (I guess that's the correct term heh)

Why wouldn't they? If an anarchy is established, life would be a lot freer and easier (co-operative labour reducing working hours, labour turned to meeting the needs and wants of the people rather than the wastage of consumerism and bureaucracy, etc). Crime resulting from social inequality would be slashed, etc.

Vas.

I dunno... whenever I hear people promoting anarchy I just assume they're too lazy to pay taxes like every other person in the country.

Anarchists don't oppose "taxes" (in fact, most real anarchists I know prefer a more socialistic tax system of high taxes for the rich and a strong welfare system if there has to be a state). We oppose the state and favour a political system where everyone has a say and plays an equal part. Far from being lazy, anarchism would mean a far greater social role for everyone. Preferring a system of making a cross on a piece of paper every couple of years strikes me as far lazier.

Vas.

Can't you just accept that capitalism isn't anarchist?
No. it is anarchist. NO GOVERNMENT.

Can't you accept that communism isn't anarchist? It's based on heirarchy and order-taking. It simply isn't anarchist.

Communism and Anarchy are opposing, but they both are socialist ideas. From the moment on anarchy was brought up again bei Proudhon and Kropotkin it has a socialist nature, I don't understand what all this libertarian "anarcho-capitalism" is about.
If you look in a simple dictionary, you will find out that "Anarchy" comes from "an|archos", which means "no leadership". Capitalism is about a relationship of dependance between capitalists and those who work for them, a system of clear hierarchic structures. So it can't be anarchist.

Communism and Anarchy are opposing, but they both are socialist ideas. From the moment on anarchy was brought up again bei Proudhon and Kropotkin it has a socialist nature, I don't understand what all this libertarian "anarcho-capitalism" is about.

State communism/socialism and anarchism are opposing, not the economic theories of communism. Kropotkin's anarchism was very clearly communism without government. He called it anarchist communism! You're right about the "anarcho-capitalism" oxymoron, though.

Vas.

How many Anarchist threads do we have running at the moment?

Dunno, what counts - the Economics thread?

Vas.

Originally Posted by Letila
The Old West wasn't exactly a paradise, either.
Oh well excuse us! We didn't realise that under Anarchism everything had to be a perfect paradise. Of course, under "real" anarchism it will never rain, nobody will get ill and the rivers will run uphill, right?

The order has to be much greater under anarcho-communism than under anarcho-capitalism, although under anarcho-capitalism you will have a leader...sort of (since the leader doesn't really hold any power over those he's leading, it's hard to call him a leader)
In an anarcho-communist society, every member MUST follow the rules as to allowing what they produce to be distributed as the commune has voted or it won't work. If the person (or people) who farmed half the wheat suddenly decides "hey, I don't want to give all my wheat away, I'm gonna keep it- I can live off just wheat" then the community only has half the wheat to split amongst (almost) the same number of people. I assume many of you would then force him to give away his wheat- although some I'm sure aren't violent and wouldn't believe in initiating such violence. If one person in a capitalist anarchy doesn't want to cooperate, no one cares. I mean, the community still won't have enough wheat, but they can purchase more wheat from another community, so no one would force the one man to participate(...I'm not speaking as well as I was yesterday...)
Umm...basically, under anarcho-communism, taxes still exist, at 100% which is then distributed back to everyone- where most will get less than 100% back. Under anarcho-capitalism, no one will be forced to do anything- if all the workers hate their boss then they can easily go start their own business. And a group owned business can be capitalist just as easily as a single CEO business.
I think I said everything I wanted to say....I hope...
and I hope this time I'm not ignored.
edit: and I hope I'm not too off topic...since I didn't reply specifically to any of his points...

Oh well excuse us! We didn't realise that under Anarchism everything had to be a perfect paradise. Of course, under "real" anarchism it will never rain, nobody will get ill and the rivers will run uphill, right?

Ok, for the benefit of us all, please explain how one of the biggest and most brutal periods of ethnic cleansing and land theft fits into your ideas of the right to property. Unless you're going to go into either a) a communistic argument that the land wasn't being used, so the settlers had a right to claim they owned it, or b) a racist argument that the indians didn't count, I don't see how it's possible.

Vas.

Ok, for the benefit of us all, please explain how one of the biggest and most brutal periods of ethnic cleansing and land theft fits into your ideas of the right to property. Unless you're going to go into either a) a communistic argument that the land wasn't being used, so the settlers had a right to claim they owned it, or b) a racist argument that the indians didn't count, I don't see how it's possible.

The "wild" west period was peaceful between the settlers compared to a modern city. I'm not defending the murder of Indians and theft of their land but I think that'd have happened under any system in America at the time.

The "wild" west period was peaceful between the settlers compared to a modern city. I'm not defending the murder of Indians and theft of their land but I think that'd have happened under any system in America at the time.

Compare the number of natives killed and agreements breached before and after the War of Independence. One of the reasons for the war was growing impatience among the people on the ground with the Empire's insistence on sticking to agreements, which was preventing their moves West. Quite clearly, the transition from monarchy to lawlessness vastly increased the slaughter of the natives. In stark contrast, the southern countries, which remained under the control of European monarchies (Spain and Portugal), saw far less of a tendency towards outright destruction of the native populations.

You can claim the Old West as a shining example of what anarcho-capitalism will look like, feel free, because its lawless, murderous profiteering is exactly how I see any form of unrestrained capitalism looking.

Vas.