NationStates Jolt Archive

That's right...I'm here to shoot down every single one of Letila's outlandish ideas about anarchy and explain to the general public of the NS forum why Anarcy won't work. BRING IT!

Ofcourse Anarchy wont work to make the country better, it is meerly an intermidiate state...a catalyst if you will between this government and the next,

Hi Opal

Just informed some anarchists of this thread. I sure they won't be able to resist it! lol

Being serious. Even you must see that in the future the current "set-up" is going to have to adapt. I'm not saying we all go back to some lundite version of heaven. But the economic and political system will have to meet the challenges of the future

Ofcourse Anarchy wont work to make the country better, it is meerly an intermidiate state...a catalyst if you will between this government and the next,
Thanks for that Civ3 veiwpoint.

Being serious. Even you must see that in the future the current "set-up" is going to have to adapt. I'm not saying we all go back to some lundite version of heaven. But the economic and political system will have to meet the challenges of the future
I'm only hear to argue against Anarchy because when arguments get too broad, they become pointless.

I'm only hear to argue against Anarchy because when arguments get too broad, they become pointless.

So what are your exact views? Maybe the only way for the current model change is for it to go through a small hiccup such as a bit of anarchy

So what are your exact views?
A lasting, working anarchy will never exist.

Thanks for that Civ3 veiwpoint.
Civ3.....errr ok, :confused:

A lasting, working anarchy will never exist.

Of course not! In an anrachist system the political system in which ever form would have to remain static. Of course you could talk about far flung technology helping to make everyone equal. But at this moment in time. no it would not happen
Humans need to evolve. Whether physically, mentally or socially. We need to be under a sytem that allows that. Anarchy does not

Of course not! In an anrachist system the political system in which ever form would have to remain static. Of course you could talk about far flung technology helping to make everyone equal. But at this moment in time. no it would not happen
Humans need to evolve. Whether physically, mentally or socially. We need to be under a sytem that allows that. Anarchy does not
Even if we didn't need technology or whatever, anarchy still would not work. There is no way under any condition that anarchy could work.

Even if we didn't need technology or whatever, anarchy still would not work. There is no way under any condition that anarchy could work.

Did i not say that?

Did i not say that?
You implied that under different circumstances anarchy might be possible.

Can someone get some real anarchists in here so I can make a fool of them?

Can someone get some real anarchists in here so I can make a fool of them?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=6728744&posted=1#post6728744

Here why not go here and challenge them.

The anti-disestablishmentarist vs the disestablishmentarist thread

Why the title? I fail to see the connection to debating anarchism.

Letila, I'd really like it if you came and defended anarchism here.

Letila, I'd really like it if you came and defended anarchism here.

Ah yes, I guess I'll start with the human nature argument. It is interesting how the people who believe we are inherently bad claim that members of government can be trusted to do what is in the best interest of others.

Ah yes, I guess I'll start with the human nature argument. It is interesting how the people who believe we are inherently bad claim that members of government can be trusted to do what is in the best interest of others.
I never claimed that. I don't want you to argue against what you assume my pro-government arguments will be. Present your side of the case as to why anarchy can and will work and I will show you why it won't.

-bump-

I never claimed that. I don't want you to argue against what you assume my pro-government arguments will be. Present your side of the case as to why anarchy can and will work and I will show you why it won't.

That was the most common argument against anarchism, though.

People are not inherently bad or anti-social. If we were, then government could never come about. People seem to have a natural inclination towards working together, otherwise we wouldn't have cars. Capitalism and government merely take advantage and warp this instinct.

If we abolished hierarchy, then the stresses that result from authority would disappear and there would be less reason to commit crime. Things like poverty and pointless drug laws would no longer exist and that would remove the motivations to commit crime.

That was the most common argument against anarchism, though.

People are not inherently bad or anti-social. If we were, then government could never come about. People seem to have a natural inclination towards working together, otherwise we wouldn't have cars. Capitalism and government merely take advantage and warp this instinct.

If we abolished hierarchy, then the stresses that result from authority would disappear and there would be less reason to commit crime. Things like poverty and pointless drug laws would no longer exist and that would remove the motivations to commit crime.

Government and law enforcement don't go hand in hand.

Even if we didn't need technology or whatever, anarchy still would not work. There is no way under any condition that anarchy could work.
History proves you wrong.

History proves you wrong.
Are we in anarchy now? History proves me right.

Government and law enforcement don't go hand in hand.
Quite right, but how does this prove that Anarchism won't/cannot work?

AnCaps will point to Saga Age Iceland to prove this.

Quite right, but how does this prove that Anarchism won't/cannot work?

AnCaps will point to Saga Age Iceland to prove this.

I'm only offering counterpoints to pro-Anarchy points brought up. Letila suggested a method of reducing crime. This doesn't help the anarchy argument as government would exist with/without crime.

Are we in anarchy now? History proves me right.
We aren't, but there are various Anarchic communities opperating in existence now, and there have been many, fully functional Anarchism throughout history.

So, how does history prove you right?

there are various Anarchic communities opperating in existence now
Where?

I'm only offering counterpoints to pro-Anarchy points brought up. Letila suggested a method of reducing crime. This doesn't help the anarchy argument as government would exist with/without crime.
Why?

As one of the most common statist arguements is that the Government protects us.

By the way, for more exactness as to what I'm arguing: A lasting, working anarchy will never exist.

AnCaps will point to Saga Age Iceland to prove this.

They were not capitalist. Capitalism didn't even exist back then. Capitalism developed with factories and industry.

They were not capitalist. Capitalism didn't even exist back then. Capitalism developed with factories and industry.
We're not arguing about that. That's not the point. Defend anarchism here or never bring it up again on these forums.

Why?

As one of the most common statist arguements is that the Government protects us.
And organizes us.

Where?
Some of the most famous ones are in Southern Mexico, also as far as I can remember, there is one in Australia.

But, TG Discordiac since he is more knowledgable on this.

Anyway, should you, the Crusader of Statism, who infers he has debated (successfully none the less) against Anarchists. Surely you would already be aware of suchj communities, as they have undoubtably come up in debates before.

By the way, for more exactness as to what I'm arguing:Originally Posted by Opal Isle
A lasting, working anarchy will never exist.
Why do you believe this?

Some of the most famous ones are in Southern Mexico, also as far as I can remember, there is one in Australia.

But, TG Discordiac since he is more knowledgable on this.

Anyway, should you, the Crusader of Statism, who infers he has debated (successfully none the less) against Anarchists. Surely you would already be aware of suchj communities, as they have undoubtably come up in debates before.
No one has ever brought them up and as you are the one bringing them into the argument it is your responsibility to inform me about them and provide a link to a website with information about them (or at least info so that I can make a half-assed attempt at Googling them up)

Why do you believe this?
I'm wanting an anarchist to prove me wrong. You'll find out why I believe it by attempting to prove me wrong.

And organizes us.
Have you never been on a trip with friends?

Did you ask the government to help organise it.

When international air travel became common, didn't the airlines manage to organise everything, without government interference?

Why is government nessesary for organisation, in many ways the free market has proven that informal non centralised means of distribution is a far more effective form of organisation then a centralised, state run way of organisation.

I'm wanting an anarchist to prove me wrong. You'll find out why I believe it by attempting to prove me wrong.
OK then previous attempts at Anarchism gave every sign that they would last, if it were not for the violent nature of the state.

Have you never been on a trip with friends?

Did you ask the government to help organise it.

When international air travel became common, didn't the airlines manage to organise everything, without government interference?

Why is government nessesary for organisation, in many ways the free market has proven that informal non centralised means of distribution is a far more effective form of organisation then a centralised, state run way of organisation.

Anarchy is the lack of any sort of central body of any sort. It's the lack of any sort of anything.
Just because you don't call it the "government" that is organizing it doesn't make it anarchy. Children on a playground could qualify as anarchy. Players on a baseball diamond wouldn't.

OK then previous attempts at Anarchism gave every sign that they would last, if it were not for the violent nature of the state.
If that made more sense to me, I'd respond to it.

No one has ever brought them up and as you are the one bringing them into the argument it is your responsibility to inform me about them and provide a link to a website with information about them (or at least info so that I can make a half-assed attempt at Googling them up)
Spain (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI8.html)
General (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Anarchism#Examples_of_.22successful.22_anarchies)
More General (http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secA5.html).

Not really Anarchism, but interesting none the less was the Cult Of The Free Spirit (http://www.dhushara.com/book/consum/free.htm).

There is also Saga Age Iceland, parts of dark age Europe operated with little or no contact with government (especially if they had an absentee Land Lord).

Anabaptists (some of them anyway, a few decided to go back to Levitical Laws which included executing children who were rude to their parents).

Monks occasionaly kicked out their abbots and had a pure communism in the monestry. This was most common in the early days of the Russian Revolution. It is ironic that these church men, in many ways, put together some of the best functioning communisms ever.

To be honest, I'm not good with the internet. But if you feel like it you could come to my house where I have a lot of information about successful Anarchic experiments.

Where?

The FEC (http://thefec.org) is one example of an anarchist or nearly anarchist federation.

And organizes us.

There are numerous examples of organizations besides government.

I think the adjective is "anarchistic."

Also, explain to me better how it was exactly that these anarchies came to falling apart.

The FEC (http://thefec.org) is one example of an anarchist or nearly anarchist federation.



There are numerous examples of organizations besides government.
You anarchists seem to be confusing non-government with anarchy. I would say there is a step somewhere in between government and anarchy.

Anarchy is the lack of any sort of central body of any sort. It's the lack of any sort of anything.

No, it is the lack of rulers. Learn your etymology.

Just because you don't call it the "government" that is organizing it doesn't make it anarchy.

Learn about the things that you plan to argue against. Anarchy is against rulers and coercive influences.

I'll pull out this little baby again (for the second time today)http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~carlfrbe/circlea.gif. Anarchy is Order.

Children on a playground could qualify as anarchy. Players on a baseball diamond wouldn't.

I think you should read up on Anarchy before you think you can highlight the underlining flaws in it.

If that made more sense to me, I'd respond to it.
The Anarchist Communes in Catalonia gave every sign, that if left alone, would survive. However the powers of statism crushed them.

Hint. This was Civil War Spain. I hope you at least know that.

You anarchists seem to be confusing non-government with anarchy. I would say there is a step somewhere in between government and anarchy.

Then what is that step called?

I think the adjective is "anarchistic."

Also, explain to me better how it was exactly that these anarchies came to falling apart.
Read up on them, it'll do you good.

The Anarchist Communes in Catalonia gave every sign, that if left alone, would survive. However the powers of statism crushed them.
And where did these powers of statism come from?

Also, "lack of rulers" would qualify "democracy" as anarchy. Do you agree with this?

Read up on them, it'll do you good.
I hate reading and I'm trying to direct you to the defense of my argument.

You anarchists seem to be confusing non-government with anarchy. I would say there is a step somewhere in between government and anarchy.
Well done.

No idea how that slipped by some Anarchist thinkers.

And where did these powers of statism come from?

Do you really not know, or are you just trying to piss me off?

I hope it is the latter.

Also, "lack of rulers" would qualify "democracy" as anarchy. Do you agree with this?
No.

But Why would "lack of rulers" qualify democracy as Anarchy?

Then what is that step called?
somewhere-in-betweenism

I don't know what it is called nor do I know that it necessarily needs a name but does that prove that it doesn't exist?

I hate reading and I'm trying to direct you to the defense of my argument.
Tough.

I hate arguing with people who don't know what they are arguing against.

Do you really not know, or are you just trying to piss me off?

I hope it is the latter.
Neither. But I'd like for you to explain. It is much easier for me to make my point that way.


No.

But Why would "lack of rulers" qualify democracy as Anarchy?
Because in true democracy, everyone has a say. There are no class systems. No one has any special power. (Note: The United States is a federal republic.)

Tough.

I hate arguing with people who don't know what they are arguing against.
Okay. Then leave thinking you've won the argument because the only opposition you faced doesn't like reading, but I'll tell you, if you truly want to learn something and let me learn something, then you'll share your knowledge and I'll share mine. It'd get things done faster too.

Direct democracy is anarchism.

Also, "lack of rulers" would qualify "democracy" as anarchy. Do you agree with this?

Yes. If there are no forms of coersive authority, then yes.

Neither. But I'd like for you to explain. It is much easier for me to make my point that way.

For Spain, mainly Fascism.
Ukraine, the Red Army.

Do you really want me to itemise every single one because you are too lazy to do research?

Because in true democracy, everyone has a say. There are no class systems.

You mean on the Athenian model?

No one has any special power.

Working on the assumption that you are talking about the Athenian model, then you are wrong. Those skilled in oratory have power. There was a case that proves this but I forget the name, when one day the orators pursuaded the people of Athens to send ships to destroy the last of the enemy. The next day different orators persuaded then to cancel the order, which meant that ship had to sail out to cancel the previous order.

Even though not set in stone, the orators have significant power

(Note: The United States is a federal republic.)
What is a true democracy then?

Also, "lack of rulers" would qualify "democracy" as anarchy. Do you agree with this?
----

No.

But Why would "lack of rulers" qualify democracy as Anarchy?
Yes. If there are no forms of coersive authority, then yes.

And I'm criticized for not knowing what I'm arguing against...sheesh...

For Spain, mainly Fascism.
Ukraine, the Red Army.

Do you really want me to itemise every single one because you are too lazy to do research?



You mean on the Athenian model?



Working on the assumption that you are talking about the Athenian model, then you are wrong. Those skilled in oratory have power. There was a case that proves this but I forget the name, when one day the orators pursuaded the people of Athens to send ships to destroy the last of the enemy. The next day different orators persuaded then to cancel the order, which meant that ship had to sail out to cancel the previous order.

Even though not set in stone, the orators have significant power


What is a true democracy then?


So...in the most absolute, truest form of anarchy, no one would have any sort of special power over anyone else?

Okay. Then leave thinking you've won the argument because the only opposition you faced doesn't like reading, but I'll tell you, if you truly want to learn something and let me learn something, then you'll share your knowledge and I'll share mine. It'd get things done faster too.
I've tried, but you have admitted that you do not like reading. Therefore, what ever I type you will have to read. Something you will have to do. ;)

However I think I get where you are going.

Are you claiming that Anarchism will always fail due to the ambitions of those with power?

Anarchism will always fail due to the ambitions of those with power
I agree.

And I'm criticized for not knowing what I'm arguing against...sheesh...
God forbis that Anarchists have differences of opinions :o

Not all anarchists are Anarcho-Communists like Letila.

I've tried, but you have admitted that you do not like reading. Therefore, what ever I type you will have to read. Something you will have to do. ;)

When I ask you questions and you type the answers here, I know where the answers to my questions will be. I won't have to read through a huge website to find a small answer to a simple question. I can and I will read, obviously. I just don't like reading much more than I have to.

God forbis that Anarchists have differences of opinions :o

Not all anarchists are Anarcho-Communists like Letila.
It doesn't really matter what type of anarchist you. I asked if democracy would qualify as a form of anarchy and was presented with 2 responses.

So...in the most absolute, truest form of anarchy, no one would have any sort of special power over anyone else?
Yes, depending on what you mean by 'special'.

Yes, depending on what you mean by 'special'.
Everyone will be equal?

It doesn't really matter what type of anarchist you. I asked if democracy would qualify as a form of anarchy and was presented with 2 responses.
And. Differences of belief, when you become an Anarchist you aren't given a lobotomy ya know.

Everyone will be equal?
Again, depends on your definition of equal.

And. Differences of belief, when you become an Anarchist you aren't given a lobotomy ya know.
We're getting distracted from the point.

Again, depends on your definition of equal.
What is your definition of equal that applies to anarchy then?

(And did you see my post at the bottom of the previous page?)

I agree.
1) Please, don't take my posts out of context.
2) That is like saying prior to the American revolution that being a Republic was impossible, because every time it was tried, it failed.

When I ask you questions and you type the answers here, I know where the answers to my questions will be. I won't have to read through a huge website to find a small answer to a simple question. I can and I will read, obviously. I just don't like reading much more than I have to.

OK, I apologise. I'll answer as best as I can from now on.

2) That is like saying prior to the American revolution that being a Republic was impossible, because every time it was tried, it failed.
A federal republic form of government had been tried before? And besides that, anarchy has pretty strict rules--no rulers. People like to rule. I know I do anyway. And it's too easy for Anarchy to fall into feudalism. (It has before.)

What is your definition of equal that applies to anarchy then?

Everyone has (roughly) the same chances in life.
Also, no one is given special treatment because of their birth.

I have heard it said that humans can only be different or equal. Not both. I which case, I would go for different.

(And did you see my post at the bottom of the previous page?)
Give me time, I'm only human.

Everyone has (roughly) the same chances in life.
Also, no one is given special treatment because of their birth.
This could happen with government too...what you've posted is a pretty good argument against capitalism however.

A federal republic form of government had been tried before?

NB: I just said Republic, made no mention of federal. And it had been tried before. Check the old quote in my sig.

And besides that, anarchy has pretty strict rules--no rulers. People like to rule.

How does "no rulers" = strict rules?

I know I do anyway. And it's too easy for Anarchy to fall into feudalism. (It has before.)[/QUOTE]
Like when?

This could happen with government too...

Great, but that doesn't stop the Government operating over the threat of violence.

what you've posted is a pretty good argument against capitalism however.
Damn, really. Never meant to do that :rolleyes:

NB: I just said Republic, made no mention of federal. And it had been tried before. Check the old quote in my sig.
The Monty Python one? That's not Republic.

How does "no rulers" = strict rules?
As soon as there is a ruler, there is no more anarchy.

Like when?
Well...unless government and civilization has always been around, I'd cite Europe as an example. In fact...I'd cite any Feudal area as an example as feudalism is the result of the organization of power in an anarchistic society.

Great, but that doesn't stop the Government operating over the threat of violence.
But that isn't really a good argument for anarchism...
By arguing that anarchy eliminates special birth rights and such you don't really argue against government.

I'm only invalidating your argument.

Well...unless government and civilization has always been around, I'd cite Europe as an example. In fact...I'd cite any Feudal area as an example as feudalism is the result of the organization of power in an anarchistic society.

Feudalism was preceeded by the Roman empire, not anarchy.

Feudalism was preceeded by the Roman empire, not anarchy.
The Roman empire fell.

The Monty Python one? That's not Republic.

The old one. I thought that the archaic would give it away.

"Whan Adam dalf and Eve span; Wo was thanne a gentilman?" - John Ball (1381)

Are you a Pyhton fan too?

As soon as there is a ruler, there is no more anarchy.
You said that Anarchy has strict rules but only mentioned one 'rule'

"No rulers" is not a rule. No more then saying "breath air" is a rule. There will be no law against rulers, but there will not be any rulers.

Well...unless government and civilization has always been around, I'd cite Europe as an example. In fact...I'd cite any Feudal area as an example as feudalism is the result of the organization of power in an anarchistic society.
Pre-Fuedal Europe was in anarchy it was not an Anarchy, subtle difference.

However prove that pre-fuedal Europe was an "Anarchistic society."

Feudalism was preceeded by the Roman empire, not anarchy.
Technically it was the Holy Roman Empire.

But that isn't really a good argument for anarchism...
By arguing that anarchy eliminates special birth rights and such you don't really argue against government.

I wasn't arguing against government there. You requested my definition of equality, and I gave it.

I'm only invalidating your argument.
How? I'm not a Capitalist.

Technically it was the Holy Roman Empire.
Wasn't the Holy Roman Empire later (when Charlemagne was crowned)?

The Roman empire fell.
... into anarcy, not an Anarchy. REally it is a bit hard to fall into an Anarchy.

You said that Anarchy has strict rules but only mentioned one 'rule'

"No rulers" is not a rule. No more then saying "breath air" is a rule. There will be no law against rulers, but there will not be any rulers.
Either way, if you stop breathing you die. If you have a ruler, there is no anarchy. That's why anarchy can not last.


Pre-Fuedal Europe was in anarchy it was not an Anarchy, subtle difference.

However prove that pre-fuedal Europe was an "Anarchistic society."
A society in anarchy is what I would consider an anarchistic society.

Wasn't the Holy Roman Empire later (when Charlemagne was crowned)?
Yes.

Wasn't the Holy Roman Empire later (when Charlemagne was crowned)?
Yes, and it was his grandchildren (if I remember correctly) who instituted feudalism.

Yes, and it was his grandchildren (if I remember correctly) who instituted feudalism.
Feudalism dates back before Charlemagne. Nationalism is what came after Charlemagne.

Feudalism dates back before Charlemagne. Nationalism is what came after Charlemagne.
I don't remember hearing that it was that way, but it's possible that my memory is wrong.

Either way, if you stop breathing you die. If you have a ruler, there is no anarchy. That's why anarchy can not last.

???
I know that. I am not saying that there will be any rulers. But wht would an Anarchy creat a ruler?

A society in anarchy is what I would consider an anarchistic society.
OK, we have our definitions crossed.

When I said Anarchic Society, I meant a society which follows Anarchist principles. Not one in an anarchy.

Prove to me that pre-Feudal Europe was an Anarchic Society (using my definition) and I will concede the point.

???
I know that. I am not saying that there will be any rulers. But wht would an Anarchy creat a ruler?
People are power hungry.


OK, we have our definitions crossed.

When I said Anarchic Society, I meant a society which follows Anarchist principles. Not one in an anarchy.

Prove to me that pre-Feudal Europe was an Anarchic Society (using my definition) and I will concede the point.
It wasn't by your definition.

A society in anarchy is what I would consider an anarchistic society.

I disagree with Conceptualists here. Pre-feudal Europe was not in anarchy. Women had little freedom, for one thing. There was still a great deal of social hierarchy.

No, I think I have it right. I went to dictionary.com typed in "feudalism" and "Charlemagne" and the timing correlates. It doesn't, however, say that it was initiated by the Holy Roman Empire, though, as I'd stated.

I disagree with Conceptualists here. Pre-feudal Europe was not in anarchy. Women had little freedom, for one thing. There was still a great deal of social hierarchy.
You mean you disagree with me?

People are power hungry.

All the more reason not to have any formal, or non-formal power arrangements.

You are still yet to show how an Anarchic Society will create a ruler.

It wasn't by your definition.
Then you have proved nothing.

An Anarchic Society is not a society in an anarchy.

So do you admit, pre-feudal Europe was not an Anarchic Society.

No, I think I have it right. I went to dictionary.com typed in "feudalism" and "Charlemagne" and the timing correlates. It doesn't, however, say that it was initiated by the Holy Roman Empire, though, as I'd stated.
Well I'll believe that before I believe his grandkids came up with feudalism...

I disagree with Conceptualists here. Pre-feudal Europe was not in anarchy. Women had little freedom, for one thing. There was still a great deal of social hierarchy.
Get your quotes right. I never said that.

All the more reason not to have any formal, or non-formal power arrangements.

You are still yet to show how an Anarchic Society will create a ruler.
If "People are power hungry" doesn't satisfy you then I'll be forced to pull out a long anecdote.


Then you have proved nothing.

An Anarchic Society is not a society in an anarchy.

So do you admit, pre-feudal Europe was not an Anarchic Society.
pre-feudal Europe, by your definition, was no an Anarchistic society (and yes, anarchistic is the proper spelling for the adjective of Anarchy)

If "People are power hungry" doesn't satisfy you then I'll be forced to pull out a long anecdote.

Wupdedoo. Anecdotal evidence. The best kind. No it doesn't satify me. Why should it, it is an oft thrown about statement which is rarely justified.

pre-feudal Europe, by your definition, was no an Anarchistic society (and yes, anarchistic is the proper spelling for the adjective of Anarchy)
No Anarchist would see it that way. No Anarchist who had done a little history anyway.

And Anarchic is just as valid.

Get your quotes right. I never said that.

It looked like you did, though.

It looked like you did, though.
Look again (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6730135&postcount=85) ;)

Conceptualists, insofar as your history is accurate, you make a lot of sense.

Opal Isle... If we accept your definition of what anarchism is, then you are absolutely right: it's a pretty stupid idea that could never possibly work.

Letila seems a little inconsistent and idealistic... but hey, I've been there. I won't hold it against you.


Now, I'd like to try to untangle all of this for you:

"Anarchism" in its technical sense as a political theory or theoretical social form, means, as Conceptualists has pointed out, "no rulers." It does NOT mean "absence of rules" or even, for that matter, absence of government, provided government is understood to mean a rule-based organization of political life which is not necessarily coercive.

From that definition, the answer to Opal Isle's question of whether or not a "pure democracy" is an example of anarchism is simple: Yes.

Well... not that simple. There are varieties of anarchist, as Conceptualists has pointed out, and some might not agree with this.

Let's go back to the definition again: "no rulers." We need to spell out what this means as a philosophy, where its motivation comes from. Basically, anarchists love freedom. They believe that the best society -- I should say "world," since not all of them believe in society -- is that in which people are the most free. Now, the varieties of anarchist belief come out of disagreements over just what counts as "freedom"... or, to state it differently, what kinds of relationships are coercive.

Most present-day self-described anarchists, for instance, believe that capitalism depends on inherently coercive relationships. However, there are some here or there who think that capitalism is non-coercive -- or at least that it could be. Thus, a division amongst anarchists.

Others, myself included, think that government -- as in organized political life -- is not necessarily coercive. In other words self-government is an attainable, non-coercive ideal. Of course, some anarchists distrust any form of government (although I am inclined to say they misunderstand what a "government" really is). Another division.

Some, moreover, think that society itself -- even language to a primitivist! -- is inherently coercive. Pure individualists think we should all take to the hills, maintain our own homes, and leave each other the hell alone. (I happen to think this is a pretty stupid, and probably unworkable idea. This WOULD lead to feudalism, and rather quickly.)

Finally, a note on hierarchy. Anarchists are not necessarily opposed to hierarchy, so long as it is not coercive. For instance, in a university classroom there is an identifiable hierarchy -- the professor is at that top. Now, in our present situation there may be some coercive elements... but EVEN NOW there are non-coercive elements to the relationship as well, to the extent that the students agree that the professor knows more than they do, and they trust him to lead the group into more advanced knowledge. An anarchist would simply want to eliminate the coercive elements -- to whatever extent possible. (Believe it or not, some anarchists are realistic enough to understand that SOME minimal amounts of coercion will probably always take place between human beings. The idea is to minimize it to the point that non-coercive elements dominate.)

Hopefully this helps us agree on what anarchism is, and what it is not.

I should end with an historical note:

When Thomas Jefferson romanticized the idea of "no government," he had the local Native American nations in mind. While there were some examples of hierarchy (elders), and they weren't exactly free of sexist domination (although possibly better than Europeans at the time), this is actually a pretty good example: they were, in essence, a classless society, which is what the anarchist dreams of. Moreover, their way of life had persisted for thousands of years with little change, finally falling only through outside interference -- and this is no real argument against a social form, since ANY society COULD fall if invaded, capitalism and democracy included.

The BIG question now for anarchists is this: we know it can work, indefinitely, for a relatively simplistic society. But for those of us who think technology has accomplished some decent things, can we manage an anarchist society that includes a high degree of division of labor (specialization) and complexity? I think the answer is yes... but to agree with me, an anarchist has to admit that non-coercive hierarchies based on knowledge and skill are possible. (Proudhon thought so, if you want an example from the canon.)

(sorry for not responding for so long I had a lot of stuff to do)

AnarchyeL makes a lot of sense. Good post.