NationStates Jolt Archive

Can any anarchists tell me what the hell is so good about it.

Though not an anarchist, I shall give it a go...

I should think that because anarchy has no government and hence no laws, it is the ultimate system of complete and utter freedom, with no one whatsoever to tell you what to do, tax you or give you responsibilities.

Though not an anarchist, I shall give it a go...

I should think that because anarchy has no government and hence no laws, it is the ultimate system of complete and utter freedom, with no one whatsoever to tell you what to do, tax you or give you responsibilities.

Thus leaving the strong able to more easily exploit the weak. Not that that doesn't happen in our present system, but it will be even more prelivant in a might makes right anarchistic state.

what's so good about it is that it proposes a society founded on freedom, equality, and voluntary cooperation instead of coercion and domination; a society run for the benefit of all instead of for it's ruling elite. what's not to like?

what's so good about it is that it proposes a society founded on freedom, equality, and voluntary cooperation instead of coercion and domination; a society run for the benefit of all instead of for it's ruling elite. what's not to like?

Indeed.

The problem is that many of those pesky humans are stupid, nosy gits with a penchant for arrogance and an unswerving belief in their own right to unreasonably limit the freedoms of others.

Though not an anarchist, I shall give it a go...

I should think that because anarchy has no government and hence no laws, it is the ultimate system of complete and utter freedom, with no one whatsoever to tell you what to do, tax you or give you responsibilities.

except for all the responsibilities we collectively decide to take on when we voluntarily join together with other people to do various things in a society. only in an anarchist society we each get to be part of those decisions, instead of just pretending we were like we do currently.

what's so good about it is that it proposes a society founded on freedom, equality, and voluntary cooperation instead of coercion and domination; a society run for the benefit of all instead of for it's ruling elite. what's not to like?

The fact that, just like with Communism and other left wing Utopian ideals, it only works in theory. Human beings don't work that way, you create a society like that and someone or something will come and exploit your foolishness in thinking it could ever work. Animals live in anarchy, so if you really want to live in anarchy you can just go run about in the wild. Anarchy is not a form of government and it is not a viable society - Anarchy is the lack of both. I don't mean to flame them, but Anarchists are deluded thinking that it is otherwise and that it can work as anything but pure chaos.

Society needs discipline and conduct, both to destroy crime and to remind us that we are working within a construct to the benefit of each other. The more liberal the government, the closer to chaos, the higher the crime and the less effective the society.

what's so good about it is that it proposes a society founded on freedom, equality, and voluntary cooperation instead of coercion and domination; a society run for the benefit of all instead of for it's ruling elite. what's not to like?

The fact that that won't happen if we were to have it at this point in time. Maybe if it was attempt as the final results of a succesful implementation of socialism it might work. As it is now it would just result in those that are more powerful exploiting those weaker then them, without leaving the weak any recourse but to band together in groups that have inforced rules in order to prevent explotation and then what do you know we are back at having goverments.

Indeed.

The problem is that many of those pesky humans are stupid, nosy gits with a penchant for arrogance and an unswerving belief in their own right to unreasonably limit the freedoms of others.

yeah, we have to watch out for that. which is why we fight them in the present to take them out of their positions of power. being a stupid, nosy git with a penchant for arrogance and limiting the freedoms of others is one thing; being one in a position to actually do something with those tendencies is something else.

In a truly anarchic situation, anybody with the slightest charisma could bring together a band of drunken maniacs, promise them power over others, and go and take stuff over. No one would be able to resist, espescially if they'd been conditioned to pacifism.

It wouldn't be long after the establishment of an anarchic situation before fascist jack-boots would click against the streets, and innocents would be gassed and burned.

This is the single greatest reason why anarchic situations couldn't work.

The fact that, just like with Communism and other left wing Utopian ideals, it only works in theory. Human beings don't work that way, you create a society like that and someone or something will come and exploit your foolishness in thinking it could ever work. Animals live in anarchy, so if you really want to live in anarchy you can just go run about in the wild. Anarchy is not a form of government and it is not a viable society - Anarchy is the lack of both. I don't mean to flame them, but Anarchists are deluded thinking that it is otherwise and that it can work as anything but pure chaos.

Society needs discipline and conduct, both to destroy crime and to remind us that we are working within a construct to the benefit of each other. The more liberal the government, the closer to chaos, the higher the crime and the less effective the society.

You will note that under current conditions, all societies (the ones with governments and ones without) will generate social ills. The common factor in every society is people. I am convinced that this is why they always end up sucking. People need to improve before any kind of society, government or no, is truly successful.

The fact that that won't happen if we were to have it at this point in time. Maybe if it was attempt as the final results of a succesful implementation of socialism it might work. As it is now it would just result in those that are more powerful exploiting those weaker then them, without leaving the weak any recourse but to band together in groups that have inforced rules in order to prevent explotation and then what do you know we are back at having goverments.

I seriously don't think that humanity would ever be able to reach such a point.

You will note that under current conditions, all societies (the ones with governments and ones without) will generate social ills. The common factor in every society is people. I am convinced that this is why they always end up sucking. People need to improve before any kind of society, government or no, is truly successful.

Human nature itself is flawed, so anything Human made is going to be similarly flawed. Flawed governments, while just that, work for the majority of society. Some will whinge and complain, but on the whole it will work. Governments that try to create Utopias don't work; Socialism, Communism and Anarchism all seek to create impossible Utopias in their own right, and in doing so make things worse for everybody.

I seriously don't think that humanity would ever be able to reach such a point.

I was speaking hypotheticaly, but I willing to admit that I think we may one day reach this point, but not most likely for a few centuries. I mean looking at history in parts of the world we have come pretty far from where we were a few hundred years ago. I'm europeans aren't burning quite as many people at the stack for wichcraft as they use to. ;)

No one would be able to resist, espescially if they'd been conditioned to pacifism.

why would we do a bloody stupid thing like that? i mean, we just overthrew the entrenched power of the state which has has thousands of years to get rather good at defending itself, and now were just going to let some upstart with a silly mustache and a band of soccer hooligans walk all over us? not frelling likely.

how come anarchists get slagged off as being violent terrorists and hippies that wouldn't defend themselves, depending entirely on the argument being made?

Human nature itself is flawed, so anything Human made is going to be similarly flawed. Flawed governments, while just that, work for the majority of society. Some will whinge and complain, but on the whole it will work. Governments that try to create Utopias don't work; Socialism, Communism and Anarchism all seek to create impossible Utopias in their own right, and in doing so make things worse for everybody.

Bah. Human nature is not flawed. Limited, perhaps.

Human behavior is flawed. All humans have the potential (ie. within their natural ability) to behave appropriately. It's just that most of us are not willing to exercise that which is best about human nature on a consistent basis.

I was speaking hypotheticaly, but I willing to admit that I think we may one day reach this point, but not most likely for a few centuries. I mean looking at history in parts of the world we have come pretty far from where we were a few hundred years ago. I'm europeans aren't burning quite as many people at the stack for wichcraft as they use to. ;)
I'd have to say that Europe has actually become more ordered since the bad old days. The limited governments that have risen since then have created far more orderly societies, where the threat of revolution is virtually nil. Order has been created by simultaneously strengthening the civil police, and ensuring that the rights of the innocent will be protected. I'm not sure if I'm making sense, because I was just dragged through a mob of muddy drunks, and I'm really tired, so have fun.

why would we do a bloody stupid thing like that? i mean, we just overthrew the entrenched power of the state which has has thousands of years to get rather good at defending itself, and now were just going to let some upstart with a silly mustache and a band of soccer hooligans walk all over us? not frelling likely.

how come anarchists get slagged off as being violent terrorists and hippies that wouldn't defend themselves, depending entirely on the argument being made?


Did the vast bulk of the German people like Hitler when he came to power? No, but he had a group he had trained and made an elite cadre. He promised them the world, and at first it seemed like he was delivering (thank God he couldn't). People will fall for a charismatic leader.

The fact that that won't happen if we were to have it at this point in time. Maybe if it was attempt as the final results of a succesful implementation of socialism it might work. As it is now it would just result in those that are more powerful exploiting those weaker then them, without leaving the weak any recourse but to band together in groups that have inforced rules in order to prevent explotation and then what do you know we are back at having goverments.

except that the entire program of anarchism is to have the oppressed join together and organize against the powerful. we don't propose overthrowing the state and capitalism and just leaving it at that. we propose to overthrow the institutions of hierarchical society through the creation of stronger, egalitarian institutions. our proposed institutions are designed around maintaining egalitarian power relations and preventing the rise of new elites. it's not like we haven't thought about these things in the last 150 years.

in other words, the strong are already exploiting the weak. anarchism is a political theory about how to change this situation and prevent it from recurring. to say that therefore it would lead to the strong exploiting the weak is just rather bizarre.

except that the entire program of anarchism is to have the oppressed join together and organize against the powerful. we don't propose overthrowing the state and capitalism and just leaving it at that. we propose to overthrow the institutions of hierarchical society through the creation of stronger, egalitarian institutions. our proposed institutions are designed around maintaining egalitarian power relations and preventing the rise of new elites. it's not like we haven't thought about these things in the last 150 years.

in other words, the strong are already exploiting the weak. anarchism is a political theory about how to change this situation and prevent it from recurring. to say that therefore it would lead to the strong exploiting the weak is just rather bizarre.

My strong suspicion is that Psyker is thinking [anarchism=no government] and just leaving it at that. I doubt Psyker is thinking of anarchism as in the political theory, given his(?) commemts.

Did the vast bulk of the German people like Hitler when he came to power? No, but he had a group he had trained and made an elite cadre. He promised them the world, and at first it seemed like he was delivering (thank God he couldn't). People will fall for a charismatic leader.

yes, but hitler had the benefit of a ready-made state that was his for the taking, that he gained through semi-'legitimate' means. without that he'd just have had his street gang.

people may fall for a charismatic leader. all that means is that the best defense is to provide institutional safe-guards and checks and balances against anyone gaining too much power, as well as decentralizing political power so that there is no pre-existing position of power concentration that can be taken over and used to quickly subdue the rest of society. an up and coming fascist dictator would essentially have to reinvent the state in order to take over. but on the other hand, we'd have already beaten the state before (and a much stronger and deeply entrenched one at that), so what would stop us from doing it again?

My strong suspicion is that Psyker is thinking [anarchism=no government] and just leaving it at that. I doubt Psyker is thinking of anarchism as in the political theory, given his(?) commemts.

the eternal curse of every anarchism discussion ever

the eternal curse of every anarchism discussion ever

Yes. It generally goes something like this...

1- Anarchism sucks, dude. That's where there's, like, no government and stuff. If there was no government bad stuff would happen, dude.

2- [insert rather optimistic intellectual blather here]

1- But dude, humans are always bad and stuff. That'll never work, man.

2- [further intellectual blather]

1- That would be awesome, man, but it'll never happen. Just give it up and become moderately authoritarian.

here's the funny thing: people keep thinking it's clever to say "anarchy just means that the biggest and strongest would oppress everyone else, rape and pillage, and kill people right and left"

because, you see, according to this argument (if we want to be charitable and call it an argument) the biggest and strongest AREN'T currently oppressing everyone else, people AREN'T being constantly raped and systematically pillaged, and 1300 american soldiers and tens of thousands of iraqis HAVEN'T been killed for no good reason in the past 2 years.

the system where the biggest and strongest get to lord it over everyone else isn't called anarchy, it's called Strong Foreign Policy and Homeland Security and God Bless America.

by contrast: what's an anarchist?
an anarchist is anyone who doesn't need a cop to tell hir what to do.

when, in the last week, have you been totally at a loss for what to do, because an authority figure wasn't there telling you to do it?

every time you get together with 2 other friends, do you immediately have to decide who's the leader of this 3-person group?

right now, what's preventing you from running out and killing your next door neighbor, or burning their house down?
is it honestly just because you're worried you'd get caught by the police?
or is it maybe because you realize that your neighbor is a human being just like you, and there's no reason to hurt them?

arguments that without leadership, people would be unbelievably brutal to one another because it's "human nature, are ridiculous.

if it's human nature to be brutal to each other, then unless you're of the impression that leaders are innately superior to everyone else, having a leader just ensures that one unbelievably brutal character is able to order everyone else to perform his one particular brand of unbelievable brutality.

if we actually NEEDED laws to prevent us from hurting and killing each other, then that would mean that whenever there wasn't a cop right there, watching you, you'd be out raping and killing and destroying, and the world would be an even scarier place than it already is.

My strong suspicion is that Psyker is thinking [anarchism=no government] and just leaving it at that. I doubt Psyker is thinking of anarchism as in the political theory, given his(?) commemts.
Yes I am this is reall ythe only usage of anarchism that I have come across and I would be quite gratefull if you would enlighten me on the form you are reffering to. :)

Yes I am this is reall ythe only usage of anarchism that I have come across and I would be quite gratefull if you would enlighten me on the form you are reffering to. :)

Here's some light reading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism) for you. Enjoy. ;)

Yes. It generally goes something like this...

1- Anarchism sucks, dude. That's where there's, like, no government and stuff. If there was no government bad stuff would happen, dude.

2- [insert rather optimistic intellectual blather here]

1- But dude, humans are always bad and stuff. That'll never work, man.

2- [further intellectual blather]

1- That would be awesome, man, but it'll never happen. Just give it up and become moderately authoritarian.
Actualy from what I have pieced together from what you said it does sound like a quite interesting idea. A situation were every one is working together for the betterment of all would be my ideal society. I just don't see it coming about anytime extreamly soone, because I don't think most people would be ready for it yet, but I think that some day only a few centuries from now if we continue to make progress in becoming more tolerant and less selfish in regards to some issues. Not to say its not possible to work towards the eventual achievment of those goals though I do think that would be best served by working with in the system at least for starters and by trying to gather "converts" to your ideas rather that nescarily a rebellion or revolt, because that would require some one or several someones to coridinate the revolt and teh problems coming from those that don't yet support your cause.

Not to say its not possible to work towards the eventual achievment of those goals though I do think that would be best served by working with in the system at least for starters and by trying to gather "converts" to your ideas rather that nescarily a rebellion or revolt, because that would require some one or several someones to coridinate the revolt and teh problems coming from those that don't yet support your cause.

I totally agree with your suggested method of handling the situation, though some anarchist do not. Personally, I think anarchism will be acheived by gradual evolution, if at all.

what's so good about it is that it proposes a society founded on freedom, equality, and voluntary cooperation instead of coercion and domination; a society run for the benefit of all instead of for it's ruling elite. what's not to like?



The fact that people dont work like that.

That's all really.


It would be nice if space aliens made it so that people didnt have to eat or drink.
That sure would solve world hunger!

The fact that people dont work like that.

That's all really.

You don't like utopian political theories because "people don't work like that"? Personally I'm rather fond of ideals, and work to attain them, while not expecting everything to suddenly become perfect.

You may as well say: I don't like that "love" stuff because people just can't seem to do it right.

by contrast: what's an anarchist?
an anarchist is anyone who doesn't need a cop to tell hir what to do.

:rolleyes:
If we turn to Oxford, the term reads

Anarchy: n. 1. disorder, esp. political or social. 2. lack of government in a society.

Anarchist: n. an advocate of anarchism and social disorder.

Your currently espoused views about keeping everyone on equal footing don't quite fit anarchy. Why?

Well, who will keep anyone from achieving more power? Everyone? Who will decide how much power is too much? Who will decide what is worth more, and what is worth less? Everyone? I'm not convinced raping and killing will start from the get-go, but people will disagree over issues, as people have differing personas, and thus have different value judgments.

Inequality being inherent in what we know as reality, envy can and will develop. Why? B/c we are not perfect. How do we know this? Experience. Even if we could achieve the MASSIVELY difficult taks of persuading scoieties to shift their core values from personal gain to the attainment of knowledge and deference to others' rights, we still face those few; they are the mentally unstable known as Sociopaths (or Anti-Social Personality Disorder, but that's a handful to type in conversation.) They care for none but themselves. Don't believe me? Try interviewing one for your psychology classes. They are more charming than you though possible, up to the point where you cease to be of use to them. They have a real condition.

There are those born with many conditions; blind, deaf, lame. These attributes make people unhappy. Oh, but in the future, we can genetically engineer these out of exsistence, right? Tell that to those who have religious objections against it. They'd rather giver birth to a one-legged child, than to mess with creation. And others may watch and take pity, and can be moved with fully-innocent compassion to rage at parents who would let theri children suffer as such. Morals would conflict. Who will decide what is right in this situation, if all are "equal?"

There are lovers whose affections are spurned; these incidents make people unhappy. A lover betrayed can feel all the worse. Who will decide how to reseolve this issue civily? Who's owns what, in the case of a dispute? Are there 'damages' for years of abuse, neglect, or just plain affairs?


every time you get together with 2 other friends, do you immediately have to decide who's the leader of this 3-person group?


No. Why? Because humans fall into what psychologists call a "Psychological Set." According to research, whenever a human must make a decision for a situation, they go through a process. In time, as similar situations arise, humans develop a pattern, a simplified method of answering the siuation based on previous experience. When two civilized people can't agree, and they do not wish to overpower one-another physically, how can they decide what is best? Compromise does not always work.

They will go to mediators. In time, the "good," or wise, or valued mediators will receive many more requests for assistance (as it is in the "set" of people's minds that this person can help in civil conflicts) than any "bad," or imcompetant mediators. Mediators, who have the power to sway events with their analysis, with their call. They will have POWER.

Some will support them. Some will grow jealous, or fearful, b/c there is more than one way to look at an issue, and this mediator did not make a decision based on his opponents' particular POV. These we have the beginning of politics, of government, and of intrigue all wrapped into one.


right now, what's preventing you from running out and killing your next door neighbor, or burning their house down?
is it honestly just because you're worried you'd get caught by the police?
or is it maybe because you realize that your neighbor is a human being just like you, and there's no reason to hurt them?


Another point of psyhology, and this goes back to childhood; Reinforcement.

When you are younger, being caught doing what is deemed (whether socially or legally) "bad" by your gaurdians will result in some form of punishment. Will this happen every time? No. But is there a chance you can be caught in such an act, and punished accordingly? Yes. If has been shower that, even in what we call "lower" life forms, the instict to avoid pain and persue pleasure is a mental motivator. Actions constantly connected to pain or embarassment or suffering become linked, or associated to one another.

When you are doing something, it is done SOMEwhere. And people are always SOMEwhere. What if tehy stumble upon you doing something deemed unfit? What if they later piece together the clues that incriminate you of doing SOMEthing? Why do we make such long-shot fears? B/c of Possibility.

Are you not murdering people b/c you are afraid of being caught? With many people, no. But if you get off of your bum, go outside, and start living life, you WILL meet people you don't like, you WILL feel pain and scorn, see cruelty, and observe things that make you angry towards other people, be they a group or certain individuals; and you'll say to yourself "I'd like to rip that @#$^&%''s head off," and you'll know that if you do, great, one problem is solved, but many more await you as consequences.

B/c other people have gained power, and according to their judgement, or the judgement of your peers, you have cared too much for yourself, and not enough for another's life.
:p

I support anarchism as an ideal. I'm content to admit that an anarchistic society will probably never exist in my lifetime. Nevertheless, I support what it stands for. Government in my eyes is just a system where one man or woman has power over another man or woman. In my eyes, that is wrong on the most basic and fundamental levels. I don't think government is necessary for human society. It's just something that's existed for so long, we have trouble imagining life without it.

An anarchistic society would have banks, jobs, punishments, and at least a degree of centralized organization. An anarchistic society only changes a few things. The society would have no laws. To quote Bakunin, "The will of the majority is not my will." Society should be a willful collection of human beings. Bakunin outlined the basics of anarchistic societies and came close to making Spain a country of anarchs. He even took into account human nature and human flaws. His societies could defend themselves against the selfish and greedy. I honestly think his vision of human life was as equally flawed and corruptable as any other society, and I don't think it should just be thrown out as "undo-able".

If you're really into anarchism, read The Dispossessed. I've already forgotten the author. It's about a physicist in the far future who lives on an planet full of anarchs. You might find it interesting.

:rolleyes:
If we turn to Oxford, the term reads

Anarchy: n. 1. disorder, esp. political or social. 2. lack of government in a society.

Anarchist: n. an advocate of anarchism and social disorder.

Your currently espoused views about keeping everyone on equal footing don't quite fit anarchy.

now look up 'anarchism'. better yet, look it up in an encyclopedia or a technical dictionary on political theory, as regular dictionary definitions are at best place holders when it comes to complex topics such as this. in the context of a discussion about the political theory of anarchism, anarchy is sometimes used to mean 'a state operating on the principles of anarchism. it's one of those 'technical uses vs common uses' things.

in any case, those ain't the definitions in my dead tree copy of the new shorter oed. nor are they given in the online concise oed available at http://www.askoxford.com

that one gives us

anarchism
• noun belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a cooperative basis.
— DERIVATIVES anarchist noun & adjective anarchistic adjective.

and

anarchy
• noun 1 a state of disorder due to lack of government or control. 2 a society founded on the principles of anarchism.
— ORIGIN Greek anarkhia, from an- ‘without’ + arkhos ‘chief, ruler’.

which is close enough for horse shoes and hand grenades

If you're really into anarchism, read The Dispossessed. I've already forgotten the author. It's about a physicist in the far future who lives on an planet full of anarchs. You might find it interesting.

ursala k. le guin

good book, btw

ursala k. le guin

good book, btw

yes yes. Thanks.

No. Why? Because humans fall into what psychologists call a "Psychological Set." According to research, whenever a human must make a decision for a situation, they go through a process. In time, as similar situations arise, humans develop a pattern, a simplified method of answering the siuation based on previous experience. When two civilized people can't agree, and they do not wish to overpower one-another physically, how can they decide what is best? Compromise does not always work.

They will go to mediators. In time, the "good," or wise, or valued mediators will receive many more requests for assistance (as it is in the "set" of people's minds that this person can help in civil conflicts) than any "bad," or imcompetant mediators. Mediators, who have the power to sway events with their analysis, with their call. They will have POWER.
Why would only certain people be mediators, in your scenario?

Inequality being inherent in what we know as reality, envy can and will develop. Why? B/c we are not perfect. How do we know this? Experience. Even if we could achieve the MASSIVELY difficult taks of persuading scoieties to shift their core values from personal gain to the attainment of knowledge and deference to others' rights, we still face those few;

There are those born with many conditions; blind, deaf, lame. These attributes make people unhappy.
Anarchists don't seek to end all inequality, just man-made inequality. Certainly people aren't equal, some are taller than others, some are "smarter", some are better looking. This doesn't mean than anarchists are trying to create a Harrison Bergeron society.

And, likewise, anarchists can't realistically eliminate unhappiness, because there will be some people who aren't happy unless there is inequality. So, while most unhappiness would be eliminated under anarchism, the elimination of unhappiness can't be seen as a goal of anarchism.

Anarchists don't seek to end all inequality, just man-made inequality. Certainly people aren't equal, some are taller than others, some are "smarter", some are better looking. This doesn't mean than anarchists are trying to create a Harrison Bergeron society.

And, likewise, anarchists can't realistically eliminate unhappiness, because there will be some people who aren't happy unless there is inequality. So, while most unhappiness would be eliminated under anarchism, the elimination of unhappiness can't be seen as a goal of anarchism.

Seconded.

In order to get an idea of what we're talking about here I think we have some reading to do first:

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/bakunin/bakunin.html
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/
http://www.knaw.nl/bakunin/index.htm
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchists/bakunin.html

Anarchists don't seek to end all inequality, just man-made inequality. Certainly people aren't equal, some are taller than others, some are "smarter", some are better looking. This doesn't mean than anarchists are trying to create a Harrison Bergeron society.

And, likewise, anarchists can't realistically eliminate unhappiness, because there will be some people who aren't happy unless there is inequality. So, while most unhappiness would be eliminated under anarchism, the elimination of unhappiness can't be seen as a goal of anarchism.

Exactly. Critics of anarchism seem to keep themselves happy by pointing out that anarchism won't make everyone perfect. "But people will still argue," they say, "so therefore it won't work."

There are very few people calling themselves anarchists who believe anarchy will overnight solve every single problem and make people live in perfect harmony. Of course there's going to be differences in opinion, we're human beings for crying out loud!

It's not as if democracy is the salve to the world's wounds.

So basically it's an "everyone get together and play nice" commune, and when something arises that rocks the boat, it will be taken care of through cooperation.

But how will a decision on a matter be made, such as distribution of the limited and varied resources of the planet? Will people do a vote? Appoint a pro-tempore leader to look over the issue? Will a committee sit and hear both sides of each issue?

"By cooperation" doesn't tell us jack about the actual process. Give me the mechanics. The who-what-where-when-why.

Though not an anarchist, I shall give it a go...

I should think that because anarchy has no government and hence no laws, it is the ultimate system of complete and utter freedom, with no one whatsoever to tell you what to do, tax you or give you responsibilities.


Indeed, the nature of the definition is correct, but there is no such thing as a pure anarchy. In a "pure anarchy" the person/people/group with the largest cache of weapons would rule and impose their views on all of the subordinates. This wouldn't be anarchism at all.


However, this should not undermine anarchist movements throughout history i.e. Bakunin in Russia, and their importance in purging of government.

So basically it's an "everyone get together and play nice" commune, and when something arises that rocks the boat, it will be taken care of through cooperation.

But how will a decision on a matter be made, such as distribution of the limited and varied resources of the planet? Will people do a vote? Appoint a pro-tempore leader to look over the issue? Will a committee sit and hear both sides of each issue?

"By cooperation" doesn't tell us jack about the actual process. Give me the mechanics. The who-what-where-when-why.

for a fairly brief explanation of some anarchist theory on this matter, take a look at section i (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html) of an anarchist faq (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html), especially:
i.3 what could the economic structure of anarchy look like? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI3.html)
i.4 how could an anarchist economy function? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI4.html)
i.5 what could the social structure of anarchy look like? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html)

for an answer to your specific question about resource distribution, see i.4.4 what economic decision making criteria could be used in anarchy? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI4.html#seci44). the short answer is that it depends on the exact system of anarchism in place in a given area, but anarchists typically hold that such decisions must be made by the people affected by them, usually through a system of bottom-up democratic federalism. for more discussion of anarchist decision making you could also look at a.2.9 what sort of society do anarchists want? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA2.html#seca29) and a.2.11 why are most anarchists in favour of direct democracy? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA2.html#seca211)

but wait, there's more. you might also want to check out j.3 what kinds of organisation do anarchists build? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secJ3.html) and j.5 what alternative social organisations do anarchists create? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secJ5.html).

as i said, anarchism is a rather large and well developed political theory with several diverse strands. this faq serves mostly as an overview of some of the large body of literature out there. i can recommend books too, if you like.

and for a more mutualist-leaning discussion than the anarcho-commies of the faq give, i recommend kevin carson's studies in mutualist political economy (http://www.mutualist.org/id47.html).

I think anarchism would only work if we had Borg Technology :D

Albert Jay Nock (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0873190238/qid=1100894166/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-6743354-2583064?v=glance&s=books) is my favorite anarchist.

Anarchism is great because it is total utter freedom, with no rules, or taxes, yet nothing to bad happens, because everyone else could easily get revenge on you, so the government would be based on whatever you want it to be on.
The perfect system of government, where nobody is unhappy.

So...are we talking private police forces here?

The interpretation of anarchism that I'm most familiar with is the attempt to create a utopia of kindess, where people cooperate because they want to. Of course, this relies on the kindness of people, which is never in abundance. So, I agree that true Utopian Anarchy can never be reached within the bounds of human society.

However, I believe it is the struggle to attain that utopia that is most important, rather than the unattainable utopia itself. Journey more important than the destination and all that, especially if the destination is impossible to reach.

The problem with today's modern human society is that no-one even bothers to struggle to find that utopia anymore. There's this collective human resignation and acceptance that what we have is the best it's going to get and that we shoudn't try to make it better and just settle for what we have.

"It's not perfect, but its the best system we have." Sure, for now. But we're never going to find a better system in future if we don't try. Stagnation of the modern 'democracy' is a sad thing.

It is better to be anarchistic because there are no taxes and everything will work better because A. if someone has to much power they will be overthrown. B. People would not do anything wrong because people could instantly take revenge on you, WICH MAKES IT ACTUALLY SAFER!! C. if someone is doing something we call illegal, like say, libel, they would not be safe, or protected by the government wich happens everywhere now, and now, most cases of libel are let free. so no one would ever do that making this a economically better, more safe, and protected. if anyone has comments or disagreements and want a response email me at hallsoflegend@gmail.com and i will respond as quicly as possible

Basically anarchism comes from either major party as well when compared to almost every political issue. One wants some new law the other wants no new law. So instead of facing the truth that every political and non political issue has anarchy(disatisfaction of way things being ran, could be a simple pta meeting) in some form of formal conformity. Anarchist's like republicans ,democrats, greens, libertarians, natural law etc.. Have an ideal way of life that they believe in. Now why the anarchists get a bad name is because of the violent nature of some of the protests. But without an equal voice or having the label to appear sub-serious to other forms of ideals (we all have them=preferences) we will not look at their issues with a serious, balanced, informed viewpoint.

So instead of looking at it as an equal setting we lead people to believe that the sole responsibility lies on these individuals labeled anarchists. Of course they are advocating nothing different than the opposite of an ideal no more or less than a green is to a republican. We are all self-righteous with our own beliefs, shared or not.

What was the first form of government, it didn't last long enough because of greedy people that wanted to control their neighbor through a new form government. It was self-government that was original. People say what comes around goes around. Just look at how our society continuously brings new meaning to so many single words. We are never happy in a permanent setting so we are always looking for the next upgrade. When will they learn that the key to happiness is simple-Love. Love is not hiring a nanny to take care of your child 24-7 because you can afford it with money. Love outweighs any amount of money because love is real. Sure you can touch money but can you feel it? It gives nothing back except a temporary (fake) feeling of security.


Has anyone ever thought of the fact there is no infinity in laws, so when does a government stop making new laws? Do you think the people in control of this (being paid to make new laws-legislators, brainstorming(oxymoron)politicians etc..) are going to just come out to all of us one day and say hey we need to chill out with making any new laws because I want to find a new job. Probably not. We say we are trying to better our lives. Yes that is the problem, we are only thinking about ourselves. That is why our Father knows the evil that becomes (became) of politics.

It seems free will isn't as popular a notion as I thought. Nonetheless, why is it that government officials are somehow exempt from the effects of human nature?

what's with all this revenge and no taxes nonsense?
how about this: there'd be no PROPERTY.
why?
because lif you look at the massive, disgusting opulence of the richest people in the world, and think of the fact that bill gates could give everyone in the world a dollar and still have 5 times the Gross National Product of several 3rd world countries in the bank, and that bill gates is not the only nauseatingly rich person around, you will quickly realize that there IS, in fact, ENOUGH SHIT TO GO AROUND. and why don't the vast majority of people get what they need? because the right to own things has become an inalienable right, so nobody questions J-Lo's right to horde enough resources to eliminate poverty in the bronx. Property is the power to have the following conversation:
"can i get some of that? i need it."
"no"
"why? you're not using it."
"because it's mine."

property is theft.

and anarchism's a hell of a lot broader than people overthrowing the government. it's a basic factor of the way people interact with other people when they don't exploit and oppress eachother.

if you want to say "anarchy wouldn't work because people would gather power, and ooh, who would stop them" well ok. that's a bad argument. here's why:
"oh, democracy doesn't work because a specific group of people gathers power all to itself, and ooh, who's gonna stop them? they have all the money and guns!"
"oh, capitalism doesn't work because people gather all the money and starve everybody, and ooh, who's gonna stop them? they have all the money and guns."

and i'll tell you who's gonna stop them. look at the autonomistas in Argentina and the Zapatistas in Chiapas.
who told them that they were being starved and murdered, and had to fight back and set up an alternative, or die? who told the queers in the Stonewall riots in NYC to fight back when the cops were getting ready to beat them and rape them and jail them again? go to any large demonstration, find the street medics (the folks covered with pockets and red duct-tape crosses) and ask them who their leader is. send an email to the folks at indymedia.org and ask them who their leader is. you'll get looked at funny and laughed at. you can tell me how impossible anarchist organization is. keep at it. in the meantime, we're a little too busy organizing to listen to you. sorry.

Anarchism usually has the corollary of being non-propertarian. In other words, a truly anarchistic society would have no concept of personal, physical property or of another human being as their sexual property (ie-marriage). People may choose to become attached, but it is entirely at their own discretion. Without property, there isn't a whole lot to fight about. Look at how much of the law deals with property disputes and the allocation of resources.

But what we're talking about is technically known as anarcho-syndicalism. The idea that nothing need be organized other than the modes of production, which can be as simple or technologically complex as the people involved in it wish it to be. In other words, people band together to do what needs to be done and don't sweat the rest. Since what needs to be done is ever-changing, so are the means of doing them. The idea is not anti-organization, but organization should reflect the needs and desires of those involved in it and not become a dehumanizing burden to society. 4

As for violence, anarchism addresses the principle social causes by removing any immediate cause for dispute (ie - personal or sexual property) as well as any means of gaining leverage over others, in the sense that an anarchistic society would not invest power in any insitution. Authority, perhaps, but not power. It's a fine distinction but an important one: authority is earned through demonstrable skill. For an example, we call someone an authority in their field if they've proven themselves to excel at whatever it is they do. Power, on the other hand, is instilled by others. For example, the police can tells us what to do because we let them. In more advanced societies, powerful institutions can become self-perpetuating, in which they enforce their power with violence. By removing power from the social schema, anarchism removes any chance of oppression. The only remaining cause for violence are ideological or theological disputes, but I doubt any system or lack thereof can prevent people Hell-bent on duking it out over who's God is better from going to war. This is not something that we're safe from anywhere. All that can be done is to foster a culture of tolerance, dialogue, and mutual respect.

This relies on two things:

A- a personal and social ethos that is fully balanced between liberty and duty. The only Law recognized by the society and its constituent individuals
is that of mutual aid.

B - a high degree of free association.

Problems are (A) philosophical differences and (B) the fact that we as a culture understand liberty and freedom in propertarian terms (I offer up the ethos of the American libertarian party and Ayn Rand as my cases-in-point)

Because a capitalist systems incentives everything, it is difficult for those of us, products of capitalism, to think in such terms. As such, we cannot really say what an anarchist society would look like or how it would be organized (or not).

Anyway, I hope this helps somewhat. Someone mentioned Ursula K. LeGuin's The Dispossessed. It is an excellent study in anarchism but, more importantly, it's great literature. I highly recommend it. Please feel free to telegram me if anybody would like to discuss this in more detail. I'm always open for a good conversation.

So...are we talking private police forces here?
Perhaps in an anarcho-capitalism, but....let's not go there.

Can any anarchists tell me what the hell is so good about it.

Yes. Most free, most (politically) equal. If you like freedom and equality, then anarchism is for you.

Now, on to debunking some of the ridiculous notions about anarchism that pop up in these threads...

I should think that because anarchy has no government and hence no laws, it is the ultimate system of complete and utter freedom, with no one whatsoever to tell you what to do, tax you or give you responsibilities.

You have absolutely no idea what anarchist philosophy entails.

There is, first of all, a government, but in anarchist government everyone has a pretty much equal say. (There are fluctuations and minor inequalities, but its principle is equality.)

So, society still "tells you what to do" as far as establishing laws for civil conduct... but each person has the greatest possible role in setting law for themselves. Anarchist society is also likely to tax its members, in one form or another... but again, they decide such things together. One probably actually has more responsibility in anarchist society than one does today... but, anarchists view responsibility as a part of self-rule, and therefore an important part of freedom itself.

(Of course there are a few extremely individualist anarchists who, in addition to primitivists, actually think there should be no government. But they are well outside the mainstream of anarchist thought. The same is true of "anarcho-capitalists.")

Thus leaving the strong able to more easily exploit the weak. Not that that doesn't happen in our present system, but it will be even more prelivant in a might makes right anarchistic state.

Who said "might makes right" in an anarchist state? Quite the opposite. Today might (power) makes right. To the anarchist, you might say "agreement makes right," or something to that effect. Moreover, anarchist society removes as far as possible the footholds upon which power can raise itself. And do not think for a moment they would be unprepared to defend themselves.

The problem is that many of those pesky humans are stupid, nosy gits with a penchant for arrogance and an unswerving belief in their own right to unreasonably limit the freedoms of others.

Right.

That's why we anarchists prefer that none of them be allowed to have power over others. Since opponents of anarchism are so insistent that no one can be trusted... why the hell are you so eager to maintain a system that entrusts all power to a narrow class of self-interested individuals?

Your own arguments lean even more strongly toward anarchism than do our own!!

It is amazing the sheer amount of ignorance I must combat on a daily basis.

The fact that, just like with Communism and other left wing Utopian ideals, it only works in theory.

No. Just as capitalists have an "ideal" theory of capitalism, ideal theories of communist or anarchist society exist. Of course, these are all utopias -- including the ideal market, which could never exist in the real world. Therefore, anyone who really wants to criticize one of these forms of economy/government (separable, of course, but usually related), must look to either their real-world implementation or the more realistic constructions of the theorist. To attack the ideal theory is, by definition, to attack a straw man. If you agree not to attack utopian anarchism as if it represents all anarchist thought, I will agree not to attack capitalism on the fact that it ignores information costs.

Of course, anarchism is a bit more difficult to critique in that real-world examples are somewhat distant to us (many Native American nations were essentially anarchist in character, but no longer remain in that form), so that the critique must occur primarily within "theory." In undertaking this task, however, one should be careful to understand what the most serious anarchists propose as answers to the "problems" of the ideal theory. One cannot simply hear the ideal, and be satisfied that the discussion is at an end.

Anarchy is not a form of government and it is not a viable society - Anarchy is the lack of both.

On the contrary, anarchism seeks to remove the state, not government. We want a government that is not separable from society, that does not "lord over it," but merely represents that aspect of social interaction that sets rules for itself, that considers the general welfare, and so on. Anarchists want to make government a part of every day life. You could even say anarchists want more government, more society... not less.

Well...I was going to go off on a rant about responsibility but it appears that AnarchyeL has beat me to it.

People will fall for a charismatic leader.

Of course. That is a problem in any democratic society, and anarchists hope for an even more radically democratic government than any other group of theorists. However, being that anarchist government is without positions of significant power to begin with, it would seem that their government is farther removed from such dangers than most. While it remains true that, pushed far enough, anarchists could "legislate themselves into tyranny," so could we... and with far less pushing.

In an imperfect world, the only thing one can do is take the best precautions possible. Education helps, as does the maintenance of an economy that keeps people satisfied -- so they are less likely to fall for the empty promises of charisma. But ultimately, just as a king could choose to step down and establish democracy, an anarchist society could choose to give up power to a likeable maniac.

To conclude, since your criticism applies at least as well to every other government in the world as it does to anarchism... and anarchists would predictably take greater precautions against such eventualities than other people, your argument utterly fails to weaken the case for anarchist government.

In a nut shell, anarchy seems good, but has many faults. You cannot have an anarchic nation and expect to last long. If our nation turned to anarchy, it would last about three seconds, and then a power hungry person would organize an army and take over land, install a police force and taxes, and start war with another faction that started his at the same time. It is impossible to have anarchy, it just wouldn't work. as an example, if we turned to anarchy, i would find a building, create a stronghold, and start putting up walls around the city, instil taxes, high taxes at that, create a standing army, and start waging war with the warlord next door. man is greedy, man wants power. you should be happy that you can even talk about this on the internet, in some countries you would be shot for treason, which is the only logical solution. you should be happy that you are american or british, that you live in a democracy, and that you have the right to talk about whatever you want on the internet like this. anarchists are committing treason, and they should be shot. :sniper:

If we turn to Oxford, the term reads

Anarchy: n. 1. disorder, esp. political or social. 2. lack of government in a society.

Anarchist: n. an advocate of anarchism and social disorder.

Really? The latest edition includes "a social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons," which is closer to the theoretical definition. But anyway... do you really go to the dictionary to learn about political philosophy?

Well, who will keep anyone from achieving more power?
Who keeps anyone from achieving more power than they are due today? Do we not have institutions that define, usually in a rather rigorous way, the extent and limits of an individual's (or a group's) power? Of course, ultimately such institutions continue to function as they do because people believe in them. But more importantly, why do you think anarchist society would be any different? Just as no one would be likely to listen to a person today who jumped up and said, "Everyone do what I tell you," unless he could convince us of a good reason, no one in an anarchist society would comply either... unless he had a good reason.

Who will decide what is worth more, and what is worth less? Everyone?

Are you speaking economically? That is a complicated question. While many anarchists believe in communist economics, personally I prefer a mixed approach that resembles, for the most part, market socialism. (I think some industries, such as medicine and basic education, should be completely communal. Otherwise, communities can make pricing decisions about basic resources -- in the interest of preserving them -- but allocation of resources to the production of consumer products will be handled by the market.)

I'm not convinced raping and killing will start from the get-go, but people will disagree over issues, as people have differing personas, and thus have different value judgments.

Ummm... Yeah. As if we don't now? And, in the present world, our differing value judgments do not (usually) lead to raping and killing... so why should they in the future? Do you really think people will devolve so much? Of course, some crime will always be there... but I expect that anarchist society will deal with criminals in many of the same way present societies do. Why do people think anarchists are so crazy that they would just refuse to deal with crime?

Inequality being inherent in what we know as reality, envy can and will develop.

Sure. So?

we still face those few; they are the mentally unstable known as Sociopaths (or Anti-Social Personality Disorder, but that's a handful to type in conversation.) They care for none but themselves.

Sure. So? They are a real minority. I am sure any society can figure out what to do with them... It really is not that hard. (Moreover, one has to at least admit the possibility that better societies might produce fewer mental illnesses. Fewer, of course, never meant to imply "none at all."


There are those born with many conditions; blind, deaf, lame. These attributes make people unhappy. Oh, but in the future, we can genetically engineer these out of exsistence, right? Tell that to those who have religious objections against it. They'd rather giver birth to a one-legged child, than to mess with creation. And others may watch and take pity, and can be moved with fully-innocent compassion to rage at parents who would let theri children suffer as such. Morals would conflict. Who will decide what is right in this situation, if all are "equal?"

Ummm... How is this a critique of anarchist thought? It is a problem that all societies deal with. Democratic societies are only special in recognizing the conflict -- an authoritarian ruler would just decide the case, and that would be that. I expect that in anarchist society, the result would be much what it has been in our own roughly democratic society -- it would be an ongoing debate. Perhaps there would never be any conclusion. Perhaps, if enough support could be mustered, there would be some legislation on the issue -- but maybe not.

You seem to think that to the anarchist "freedom" means "the ability to do whatever you want." That's ridiculous. Anarchism is a political theory concerned with political freedom -- the right to take part in political life, to be "self-ruling" most importantly in the political (democratic) sense, but also in the personal sense of being one's own master. But the anarchist's understanding of "being one's own master" is closer to the classical than to the modern liberal understanding. To run about and satisfy all of one's animal urges, or to comply with every whim, is not to be free, but to be a slave to one's own passions. The anarchist desires laws and social institutions -- designed through collective self-rule -- that help promote individual self-rule.

No. Why? Because humans fall into what psychologists call a "Psychological Set." According to research, whenever a human must make a decision for a situation, they go through a process. In time, as similar situations arise, humans develop a pattern, a simplified method of answering the siuation based on previous experience.

Right. And if you change the rules of the game (i.e. institute a new social configuration), you change the method of answering the questions, too. Anarchists are aware of this.

They will go to mediators. In time, the "good," or wise, or valued mediators will receive many more requests for assistance (as it is in the "set" of people's minds that this person can help in civil conflicts) than any "bad," or imcompetant mediators. Mediators, who have the power to sway events with their analysis, with their call. They will have POWER.

No. They only have power if the parties to mediation agree to abide by the mediator's decision. The power is still theirs. And if some people develop a reputation for justice, so that their opinion holds more sway than others... so what? No anarchist would begrudge someone a talent for fair decisions -- indeed, anarchist society would love to have him (or her). Most likely, people would do exactly what you suggest, and seek out the opinions of people known to make fair decisions... Nothing wrong with that. Certainly nothing anti-anarchist about it.

In our society, on the other hand, we go to the local district judge... who was either appointed or elected, depending on where you live. If appointed, all we know is that this person knew the right people... We have no reason to belive he or she has a reputation for justice. Elections are better... but given the dependence on large sums of money, even in local elections, and the fact that districts are too large to really get to know a person... it's still not very likely we pick the wisest person.

So, anarchism better fits our natural psychology. Thanks for that.

Some will grow jealous, or fearful, b/c there is more than one way to look at an issue, and this mediator did not make a decision based on his opponents' particular POV.

Well, guess he picked the wrong mediator, then! Of course, if he agreed to abide by the decision before-hand, then I suppose there is little he can do. He should certainly have to pay up. Nothing anti-anarchist about that.

These we have the beginning of politics, of government, and of intrigue all wrapped into one.

Anarchism is the most political of all societies. Since the government is essentially identical with the society, it also has the "biggest" government of any system. And of course I think it's the most intriguing. ;)

But how will a decision on a matter be made, such as distribution of the limited and varied resources of the planet? Will people do a vote? Appoint a pro-tempore leader to look over the issue? Will a committee sit and hear both sides of each issue?

"By cooperation" doesn't tell us jack about the actual process. Give me the mechanics. The who-what-where-when-why.

It is a difficult question to answer, not because anarchists have no answer, but because we have so many. Being democratically inclined, none of us likes to speak for the others... we all have our own ideas about how the practical bits should be taken care of.

I'll give you some sense of my own notions, which describe a form of market socialism governed by anarchist politics. First, though, I should mention that any of the options you propose might be used, depending on the particular situation. Just as people today rarely have a hard-and-fast solution for "whatever" might come up, anarchists are not so foolish to think we can figure out ahead of time what the solution to a given problem will be. It depends on the context, the time-frame involved, and so on.

But as for the "big questions," the ones that regard not this-or-that temporary problem but the recurring concerns of human affairs... In general, it might look like this:

Economically, in my view certain industries should be entirely collectivized. For instance, most of the health-care and pharmaceutical industries, and basic education. These would be collectively produced and paid for. Everything else would be bought and sold on a market, with price set by supply and demand as usual. However, to answer your questions about preserving scarce resources... Prices on basic resources could be manipulated politically. For example, if we determine that the rainforests are being depleted too quickly, we would increase the price on forest land, or on permits, or whatever would decrease usage. (Anarchists, on my view, would prefer a market-based "allocation" remedy rather than an outright ban... but if the situation were critical, nothing in anarchist philosophy would prevent further political restrictions on felling precious wood, in this example.)

Of course, we would rely heavily on scientific reports dealing with the usage of resources -- but that's no different than the current situation. Now, in general anarchists like to do things by true common agreement... which means that anarchist communities try to meet very regularly in a town-hall-like setting. To some extent, then, anarchists tend to prefer small communities... and I agree with this, to a point. However, not all anarchists think it would be so great to give up on all the great things that large society has made possible... and even in a small society, people would be appointed to political posts to help run everyday affairs. Some appointments might have to do with a person's special talents... others might be by lottery -- everyone has to serve an administrative post at some poine. (Very similar to some ancient democracies, which did not hold "elections," but literally drew names from a hat.)

Appointments would always be for short periods of time, and decisions made by appointees can always be overruled by the general assembly.

I think the important thing to realize is that anarchism is, ultimately, an ideal... It expresses the desire to tend towad decentralized, free self-government. It does not pretend that this could ever perfectly occur any more than capitalists believe they will ever see the "perfect" market -- we all know such things do not exist.

It is impossible to have anarchy, it just wouldn't work. as an example, if we turned to anarchy, i would find a building, create a stronghold, and start putting up walls around the city, instil taxes, high taxes at that, create a standing army, and start waging war with the warlord next door. man is greedy, man wants power.
Possibly in anarcho-capitalism, which really comes from outside the anarchist mainstream and tries to hijack the term. "An-caps" would allow you to have a private army... they would even encourage you to "go into business" by charging people for your "protection"!

But any other anarchist society would pretty quickly put a stop to that. You don't think they are prepared to squash you like a bug? They would probably be even less forgiving than the United States might be today.

You should be happy that you are american or british, that you live in a democracy, and that you have the right to talk about whatever you want on the internet like this.

I am happy about it, thank you.

Right.

That's why we anarchists prefer that none of them be allowed to have power over others.

There will always be people with power over others. Nonetheless, I think we can agree that it need not be official government power.

Since opponents of anarchism are so insistent that no one can be trusted... why the hell are you so eager to maintain a system that entrusts all power to a narrow class of self-interested individuals?

I'm not eager to maintain any such thing. My ideals run towards anarcho-capitalism. I'm just not epecting it to happen successfully any time soon.

Your own arguments lean even more strongly toward anarchism than do our own!!

I'm glad you think that.

I really hate to get into this... but anarcho-capitalism?

If there is a system that experience has taught us will never work, it is this. Private business simply cannot be "trusted" to regulate itself. No amount of popular dissatisfaction will do anything so long as there is no mechanism of popular power... and the market has proven again and again its inability to handle even the least abuses.

I really hate to get into this... but anarcho-capitalism?

If there is a system that experience has taught us will never work, it is this. Private business simply cannot be "trusted" to regulate itself.

No shit. The market is run by human beings, who cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. Once human beings have gotten to a point where they can regulate themselves appropriately, I'm fairly sure that we can trust them to regulate their economic behaviors as well as their social behaviors. It's nonsensical to assert that we can trust human beings to regulate themselves appropriately in a social context, but not in an economic context.

No shit. The market is run by human beings, who cannot be trusted to regulate themselves.

Don't try to equivocate on the meaning of "self-regulation." When we ask business to "regulate itself," we are asking them to voluntarily forego private benefits in order to promote the public good--but without any potential sanctions should they choose not to do so.

On the other hand, when anarchists say they want "self-rule," they mean that people will collectively decide the rules under which they want to live--but by no means do they foreswear legal sanctions against those who refuse to comply.

That people can live by the latter anarchist principle should be no big surprise, for it takes into account the realities of human nature. Only your notions of anarcho-capitalism pretend that people are other than they are.


Once human beings have gotten to a point where they can regulate themselves appropriately, I'm fairly sure that we can trust them to regulate their economic behaviors as well as their social behaviors. It's nonsensical to assert that we can trust human beings to regulate themselves appropriately in a social context, but not in an economic context.[/QUOTE]

Don't try to equivocate on the meaning of "self-regulation." When we ask business to "regulate itself," we are asking them to voluntarily forego private benefits in order to promote the public good--but without any potential sanctions should they choose not to do so.

*sigh* When highly intelligent and talented people choose to participate in an anarchist society, and they have the option of making a helluva lot of money by screwing other people in an authoritarian capitalistic society (whether through oppressing workers or government corruption), what are they doing? They are certainly not acting in their own immediate self-interest. They are instead acting in the interest of the public good. If you expect people to make that choice, when there are no sanctions should they choose not to, why would you expect that suddenly they would turn into greedy pigs under an equivalent scenario in a capitalistic system? That argument just does not make sense.

If you want to continue to believe in and promote the more "mainstream" form of anarchy, that's absolutely fine. I very much respect your beliefs (though not necessarily every single one of the arguments you make for them), and would be very pleased to see humanity advance far enough to accomplish what you propose, even though I might prefer something different.

*sigh* When highly intelligent and talented people choose to participate in an anarchist society, and they have the option of making a helluva lot of money by screwing other people in an authoritarian capitalistic society (whether through oppressing workers or government corruption), what are they doing? They are certainly not acting in their own immediate self-interest.

Who said they would have the option?]

"anarchism" is possible in a society of no more than a few hundred people, isolated from larger societies.

The fundemental problem, as has manifested itself in every population yet studied (ever, in the entire world, in all of history), is that when the population of a group starts to get so large that true strangers exist, without readily available common relatives and friends, violence tends to erupt and force the society into adopting laws and a heirarchy to enforce them.

Social heirarchy and authority is a function of the size of a group of people.

Large populations with the capacy to produce food tend towards specialized labor, which is an incentive for slavery and necessitates an authoritarian heirarchy.

As of yet there is not a single recorded instance of 'anarchism' prevailing in any society but a band or tribe.

Who said they would have the option?]

It matters not if anyone said it. The question is whether they actually have the option. Would you like to actually present a case for the highly intelligent and talented persons that I mentioned not having such an option? Are you saying that they do not have the option of becoming wealthy, or are you saying that they do not have the option of choosing to participate in an anarchist society? It would seem to me that highly intelligent and talented persons would certainly have the option of becoming wealthy, though they might have to work their asses off and conform to inappropriate societal norms in order to do so. And my belief is that collectively, such persons do have the option of participating in an anarchist society. ;) But feel free to make counter-arguments.

Would you like to actually present a case for the highly intelligent and talented persons that I mentioned not having such an option?

I think the real question is, why should they?

Are you saying that they do not have the option of becoming wealthy,

Wealthy is a relative term. Will they be the most wealthy people in their society? Perhaps. Will their wealth so outstrip that of their neighbors that they exercise such economic power as to become a political force in their own right? No society must let this happen. And even if it does, in many ways it is the institutional structure of society that makes wealth a political force.

I think a more accurate claim will be that the most intelligent and talented persons will be the most successful in their society. Only relatively recently has wealth become the single most important criterion of success.

or are you saying that they do not have the option of choosing to participate in an anarchist society?

If they are born into one, they have no more choice than you or I have about living in a capitalist society. They may try to change it, or they may leave it, but while they remain they assume an obligation to cooperate with it.

I think the real question is, why should they?

There is that whole freedom thing, but whatever...

Wealthy is a relative term. Will they be the most wealthy people in their society? Perhaps. Will their wealth so outstrip that of their neighbors that they exercise such economic power as to become a political force in their own right? No society must let this happen. And even if it does, in many ways it is the institutional structure of society that makes wealth a political force.

So...do you like fish? Cause I just found this giant red herring...

I think a more accurate claim will be that the most intelligent and talented persons will be the most successful in their society. Only relatively recently has wealth become the single most important criterion of success.

Oh, look! A smaller one, too.

If they are born into one, they have no more choice than you or I have about living in a capitalist society. They may try to change it, or they may leave it, but while they remain they assume an obligation to cooperate with it.

Despite your attempts to distract me, I have persisted, and found what appears to be an actual argument! *barks in triumph and wags tail ferociously*

It seems you are saying that individuals have no option, but of course my point did not address the option of individuals except as a collective force, so whatever.

There is that whole freedom thing, but whatever...

We already established that freedom does not entail "doing whatever you want." So try again.

So...do you like fish? Cause I just found this giant red herring...

Oh, look! A smaller one, too.

Nothing red herring about it... The point, to reiterate, is to minimize the force of your argument by supplying reasons to suspect that it will be a far smaller problem than you insinuate.


It seems you are saying that individuals have no option, but of course my point did not address the option of individuals except as a collective force, so whatever.

Well, if they have the collective force to sway the society in favor of capitalism, then who am I to stop them? But as I have said before, any society can decide to unmake itself.

The argument stands. There is no reason to believe that the natural aristoi can reestablish the state against the will of the majority, except perhaps in an already degenerate anarchist society (and societies do degenerate from time to time). As for a "collective force," it would have to be sufficient to changing the basic constitution of society. And they are welcome to try.

(It is appropriate to reiterate the point above, viz. that there are good reasons to believe there would be far fewer money-hungry bastards when people have other meaningful ways in which to feel successful.)

It is nothing if not silly to overestimate the ability of "individuals."


Groups of people work as GROUPS, a group of people does not behave in the same fashion as an individual.

Refusing to acknowledge the facts of group psychology risks forcing an argument from the realm of reality to that of pure fiction.

It is nothing if not silly to overestimate the ability of "individuals."


Groups of people work as GROUPS, a group of people does not behave in the same fashion as an individual.

Refusing to acknowledge the facts of group psychology risks forcing an argument from the realm of reality to that of pure fiction.

Yes, I agree... but what was your point? (Sorry, I am sure you are responding to something... and I am hopeful that you will indulge my laziness, for I would rather not search back through the thread to find it.)

We already established that freedom does not entail "doing whatever you want." So try again.

We did? Since I missed it, could you kindly point out where we established that?

Nothing red herring about it... The point, to reiterate, is to minimize the force of your argument by supplying reasons to suspect that it will be a far smaller problem than you insinuate.

Eh? I was saying it would be a small problem. So in order for you to be making an argument opposing that position, you should be making the argument that it's a much bigger problem than I insinuate.

Well, if they have the collective force to sway the society in favor of capitalism, then who am I to stop them? But as I have said before, any society can decide to unmake itself.

What the hell? I thought we were discussing the option of individuals as a collective force to participate in an anarchist society?

The argument stands. There is no reason to believe that the natural aristoi can reestablish the state against the will of the majority, except perhaps in an already degenerate anarchist society (and societies do degenerate from time to time). As for a "collective force," it would have to be sufficient to changing the basic constitution of society. And they are welcome to try.

WTF? I thought we were discussing options as they stand currently, not as they stand under an already established anarchistic society. You totally lost me on that one.

(It is appropriate to reiterate the point above, viz. that there are good reasons to believe there would be far fewer money-hungry bastards when people have other meaningful ways in which to feel successful.)

I totally agree. I very much advocate changing the structure of society in in that way.

We did? Since I missed it, could you kindly point out where we established that?

Earlier in the thread I pointed out that "doing whatever you want" is a pretty ridiculous definition of freedom, since it is completely impossible. I defined the most important freedoms as "political" freedoms, i.e. relating to one's involvement in politics. Since no one disputed the point, I felt it was established. If you would like to argue now over the concept of freedom, including positive versus negative liberties, I would be happy to do so.

Eh? I was saying it would be a small problem.

Then I apologize for misunderstanding. If it is such a small problem, then what distinguishes it from all the other small problems with which any society must contend?

What the hell? I thought we were discussing the option of individuals as a collective force to participate in an anarchist society?

We are. Where did you fall off the trail?

WTF? I thought we were discussing options as they stand currently, not as they stand under an already established anarchistic society. You totally lost me on that one.

Sorry. I thought we were discussing the problems that face an existing anarchist society. What difference does it make what options people have available today? Changing society is all about ruling out some options while opening others... So by definition, a hypothetical anarchist society does not have to deal with options that it plans on eliminating.

But perhaps you are asking how I might convince people today to form an anarchist society? That is a much deeper and more complicated question... to which I have no good answer. Since we are specifically talking about intelligent and talented elites, one possible answer is that we will never convince them--the oppressed will have to do by force what they cannot accomplish by appeal.

Of course, I do not really like that answer. I like to believe that it may be possible to convince even--and to some extent especially--the elite, that this society is less fulfilling than it seems. In this sense we agree that anarchist society is not likely in our lifetime. Our reason for this belief is different, however. You believe it is a problem in human nature. I think human nature is fine; there are just powerful forces opposed to the anarchist idea, and it will take time--if not force--to overcome them.

As of yet there is not a single recorded instance of 'anarchism' prevailing in any society but a band or tribe.

a big part of spain in the 30's before they got screwed by the soviet and lost to franco.

As of yet there is not a single recorded instance of 'anarchism' prevailing in any society but a band or tribe.

Well, for the most part that's true. But I think you underestimate the size of the "tribe." Native American tribes (and Native American nations, which were distinct but interlocking institutions) contained as many as tens of thousands of individuals and spanned territories hundreds of miles across.

They were not tiny, "local" societies in which everyone knew everyone else. When you actually understand these societies, rather than writing them off as "tribal" and therefore "backwards," they make quite impressive examples of the freedom, complexity, and longevity of anarchist society.

Earlier in the thread I pointed out that "doing whatever you want" is a pretty ridiculous definition of freedom, since it is completely impossible. I defined the most important freedoms as "political" freedoms, i.e. relating to one's involvement in politics. Since no one disputed the point, I felt it was established. If you would like to argue now over the concept of freedom, including positive versus negative liberties, I would be happy to do so.

Thanks. I had thought I had read the thread completely, but I apparently missed something. As to arguing over the concept of freedom...perhaps. I suspect we have different definitions of freedom, and since it might help clarify the discussion, I'll proceed to explain it.

a.) I see freedom as being composed of what you would call both positive and negative liberty, with the two concepts often operating concurrently in practice. (eg. I could express my freedom to vote either of two ways. [positive] "I can vote." [negative] "Noone is using coercive force to keep me from voting." In this case, both positive liberty and negative are in play, as they often are.)

b.) I would actually define positive liberty as "power" or "ability." Basically, I see a positive liberty as being physically capable of performing an action (ie. the ability to fly, the ability to walk down the street).

c.) I would define negative liberty as an absence of constraints, both external (coercive force applied by others) and internal (psychological blocks).

d.) The more complex gray area would be in being able to acheive a desired result through social mechanisms (eg. telling your bodyguard to kill someone with the result that he does because he feels obligated to do so because you pay him). In that case, you had the positive liberty to express your desire and freedom from any psychological constraints that would have prevented you from doing so (negative liberty), your bodyguard had the positive liberty to carry out your desire and freedom from any psychological constraints that would have prevented him from doing so (negative liberty), and there were no external constraints on you expressing your desire or the bodyguard carrying out your desire. Also, the bodyguard had a psychological need (because of his perception of a social obligation to carry out your desires contingent on your economic support) to perform the action, which we could read as a psychological constraint preventing him from exercising his liberty to not carry out your desire.

To summarize, my definition of freedom would indeed include things like oppressing others, though I would certainly see that as an harmful use or an abuse of freedom, rather than a legitimate use of it.

Sorry. I thought we were discussing the problems that face an existing anarchist society.

Well, it's clear now that we had a serious misunderstanding. I realize that you may be used to arguing with ancaps who constantly attack ansocs and/or ancoms on the basis that "such a society would inevitably collapse" or "that would automatically lead to the establishment of a government", but I'm not that sort. I think it's rather silly to insist that anarcho-capitalism could exist where anarcho-communism or anarcho-socialism could not, because for any of them to work properly they would have to have peoples of very similar (and rather idealistic) characteristics.

What difference does it make what options people have available today?

Something about self-regulation and it's relation to anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, as I recall.

Changing society is all about ruling out some options while opening others...

Well, that's certainly its practical effect, regardless of the intent.

So by definition, a hypothetical anarchist society does not have to deal with options that it plans on eliminating.

This would seem to relate to the point that I didn't realize we were discussing because I thought we were talking about the options under current circumstances, not under a hypothetical anarchist society. You certainly made a good point there, but unfortunately it didn't pertain to what I actually thought was arguable.

But perhaps you are asking how I might convince people today to form an anarchist society?

Nope.

I like to believe that it may be possible to convince even--and to some extent especially--the elite, that this society is less fulfilling than it seems.

So do I. The elite are generally well-educated, aware of the complexities of the world, and have a greater sense of ennui.

In this sense we agree that anarchist society is not likely in our lifetime. Our reason for this belief is different, however. You believe it is a problem in human nature.

I absolutely do not believe it is a problem in human nature, and have said so earlier in this thread. It seems that we both did not read as thoroughly as we should have.

I think human nature is fine; there are just powerful forces opposed to the anarchist idea, and it will take time--if not force--to overcome them.

That is certainly something I agree with you on.

The fact that, just like with Communism and other left wing Utopian ideals, it only works in theory.

Ditto right-wing Utopian ideals. The literal translation of Utopia ("no place") is pretty apt, really.

Human nature itself is flawed...

Only if you believe it should be something it isn't.

Anarchism is awesome. Think about it. No goverment. No taxes. You can do whatever you want. Being and anarchiest is GREAT!! There are two or three downsides, like you can be shot walking down the street,and theirs nothing anybody would do, but other than that, utter Freedom. Its like the perfect paradise. Anybody who doesn't belive in anarchism can go to hell.

*sigh* When highly intelligent and talented people choose to participate in an anarchist society, and they have the option of making a helluva lot of money by screwing other people in an authoritarian capitalistic society (whether through oppressing workers or government corruption), what are they doing? They are certainly not acting in their own immediate self-interest. They are instead acting in the interest of the public good. If you expect people to make that choice, when there are no sanctions should they choose not to, why would you expect that suddenly they would turn into greedy pigs under an equivalent scenario in a capitalistic system?
You weren't making this argument to me, but if you were, I would respond by saying that the likelihood of a random individual of wanting to be greedy is the same under any system, but that the oppurtunities for being greedy simply would not exist under (my idea of) an anarchistic system, whereas they would under a capitalistic system.
The only way I can see a greedy person joining an anarcho-socialistic system is because it put all of the anarcho-capitalists out of business, and thereby the greedy person is forced to by necessity.

The only way I can see a greedy person joining an anarcho-socialistic system is because it put all of the anarcho-capitalists out of business, and thereby the greedy person is forced to by necessity.

Yep, probably.

I would love to see an anarcho-socialist society and an anarcho-capitalist society compete. That would be fan-tastic!

I don't get it :(

Are there laws or not with an anarchist society?

a.) I see freedom as being composed of what you would call both positive and negative liberty, with the two concepts often operating concurrently in practice. (eg. I could express my freedom to vote either of two ways. [positive] "I can vote." [negative] "Noone is using coercive force to keep me from voting." In this case, both positive liberty and negative are in play, as they often are.)

I also distinguish between positive and negative liberty, but I think it makes more sense to say that negative liberty amounts to freedom "from" some form of persecution (we apparently agree on this), while positive liberty should be described as freedom "to" do something. While at first it might appear that our definitions agree (one is free "to" vote just as much as one is free "from" opposition to one's voting), there are important differences.

Positive liberty, as understood by the political theorist, adds to the options available in a person's life. Thus, a person who lives alone in the woods and supplies her/his own food has a maximum of negative liberty (no one can stop her/him from doing whatever he/she wants), but a minimum of positive liberty--constrained by her/his situation, he/she is not free, for instance, to choose to be a teacher, or to choose anything liberty that requires society.

When dealing with societies that involve the division of labor, positive freedom has a lot to do with how free people are to choose a life for themselves. Thus the United States may allow a high degree of negative liberty -- for the most part, no one stops you from doing pretty much anything -- but for many people it offers a very low degree of positive liberty, since one is free to do only what one can afford.

A society that offers free higher education, however, and a more fairly distributed set of incomes, extends positive liberty to include anything possible given one's natural abilities and inclinations. (One's natural abilities and inclinations are usually the final barrier to positive liberty.)

Thus, certain negative liberties are, for me, the "bare minimum" that I ask of a good society. The best society is the one that actively supports and facilitates the free development of the individual.


I think it's rather silly to insist that anarcho-capitalism could exist where anarcho-communism or anarcho-socialism could not, because for any of them to work properly they would have to have peoples of very similar (and rather idealistic) characteristics.

And that is where we differ. I think that anarcho-market-socialism (to invent an awkward but descriptive term) would work where anarcho-capitalism would fail -- not in the sense that it would "turn into something else," but in the sense that it just wouldn't be a very nice place to live. Anarcho-capitalism not only has to contend with the darker aspects of "human nature" -- it structurally encourages them! Under capitalist organization, there is not only the possibility that people will act in their own self-interest to the detriment of society--it is actively encouraged! How can you expect people to combat selfish urges when everything around them tells them to do otherwise?

Anarcho-capitalism, if it supposes itself to propose a good thing, is a fantasy.

Something about self-regulation and it's relation to anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, as I recall.

Yes, but you keep circling around the fact that we are talking about two separate things. When I say that anarchism involves "self-regulation," I mean self-government. When you say that anarcho-capitalism requires self-regulation, you seem to mean that it requires significant self-restraint. While I describe a process through which people rule themselves, you assert that people in positions of considerable economic and social power will magically all behave themselves... for no other reason than that we ask them to, and with great personal motives to do otherwise. Moreover, it is the nature of market competition that if one company takes a less-than-restrained shortcut, everyone will have to if they want to stay in business. That is why environmental self-regulation never works.

I describe a process that attempts to liberate human nature even as it deals with human ugliness. You suggest that someday, human ugliness could simply disappear. These are truly two different worlds.

I don't get it :(

Are there laws or not with an anarchist society?

There are laws.

There are laws.

Well where do they come from, and who enforces them?

Well where do they come from, and who enforces them?

They are the result of a democratic decision. Enforcement options will be decided democratically, and could potentially encompass the full spectrum of today's enforcement mechanisms.

Since most anarchists tend to be liberal, we usually imagine that enforcement will emphasize correction rather than punishment. Many anarchists also insist that the punishment should be "negotiated", i.e. that the convict may suggest a penalty, and accept the one finally used (not entirely unlike the practice of ancient Greek courts)--but this is by no means necessary to anarchism broadly understood.

So basically, enforcement and punishment could be anything... as long as such things are decided through truly democratic mechanisms, they can be as liberal or conservative as the population happens to be, and still be considered anarchist.

I don't get it :(

Are there laws or not with an anarchist society?
There are social contracts, but they might be seen as laws.

Can any anarchists tell me what the hell is so good about it.


Anarchism is very useful judging the actions of states. International relations are based in Anarchy. There is no over arching international law or practice than cannot be mitigated by an action.



Anarchism as a way of running a human society is something to be feared.

I put this in a different thread, but it seems to fit here...

What you fail to see is that people are too stupid and selfish to not do things that do not help the whole. I for one know that I am not stupid, but would I do things that are not good for the whole? If they helped me.

An experiment that my old physics teacher does every year is play a game where if everyone chooses the same letter then they all win. If one group chooses the other letter, everyone loses but that group wins a little less than if they were to go with everyone else. The key part to this is, the higher the class was (he taught physics and chemistry, physics generally had smarter people in it because it was not required), the more competitive they were. So does education really make people more ideal for an anarchist society? I for one beg to differ. I know that if it were to help me I would fuck people over, if I did not care about them.

And you might say "Why would someone do something if it hurts others and does not help them as much as if they were to go with everyone else?" Basically, why would they get 9 people and make everyone else lose instead of getting 10 points and everyone else getting 10 too. What is the point in getting 10 points if everyone else has 10 too? There is nothing special in that. Humans want to be special, better than the next.

And do not even get me into the lack of security provided by an anarchist society and the need of security by humans...

Soviet Democracy:
If people are too stupid and too selfish to not do things that don't help the whole, then all the more reason to have no ways of doing things that don't help the whole.

Soviet Democracy:
If people are too stupid and too selfish to not do things that don't help the whole, then all the more reason to have no ways of doing things that don't help the whole.

I am saying people are too stupid to see that Action A will help the whole and Action B will only help them and no one else. I am not saying everyone, but enough to cause a problem in an Anarchist society.

If I did not answer your question, please rephrase it. I had trouble understanding your point or concern.

I am saying people are too stupid to see that Action A will help the whole and Action B will only help them and no one else. I am not saying everyone, but enough to cause a problem in an Anarchist society.

If I did not answer your question, please rephrase it. I had trouble understanding your point or concern.
I'm saying that the only options available to a person in an anarchistic society (at least the way that I see it) are either to join a commune where they the labor/profits, etc. will be shared amongst all of the members of the commune or to subsistence farm.

I'm saying that the only options available to a person in an anarchistic society (at least the way that I see it) are either to join a commune where they the labor/profits, etc. will be shared amongst all of the members of the commune or to subsistence farm.

But what is going to keep that commune together? Would people be forced to do stuff? I for one know that if I had no pressure to do anything, then I would not. I want the easiest way out of things and still get them done. What would be the reason to work hard if I am getting the same no matter what?

But what is going to keep that commune together? Would people be forced to do stuff? I for one know that if I had no pressure to do anything, then I would not. I want the easiest way out of things and still get them done. What would be the reason to work hard if I am getting the same no matter what?
People won't be forced to do stuff because of violence, but it will be clear that if they don't help out in the commune then they will be kicked out of it.

People won't be forced to do stuff because of violence, but it will be clear that if they don't help out in the commune then they will be kicked out of it.

Then that is not anarchism. Who kicks me out? That is forcing me out against my will (which is implied by "forcing," but whatever). Wouldn't that be a form of government, even if minimal?

And where is the protection from the few? Where is the protection from other communes? Where is the protection from greed? Where is the security? Is the security simply based off the faith that others will not do something against others?

Then that is not anarchism. Who kicks me out? That is forcing me out against my will (which is implied by "forcing," but whatever). Wouldn't that be a form of government, even if minimal?

And where is the protection from the few? Where is the protection from other communes? Where is the protection from greed? Where is the security? Is the security simply based off the faith that others will not do something against others?
I meant to say violence won't be used to force someone (i.e. a whip), but, yes, potentially violence could be used against someone if they refuse to leave.
The protection from the few would be handled because direct democracy would be the method of decision making. I also wouldn't assume that anarchists aren't willing to protect their property. This could take different forms, but perhaps each commune would have its own police force. I would imagine, though, that they couldn't convince people to police all the time, so most likely each person in the commune would take a turn being of the police force. You could also potentially have a third commune arbitrate in a dispute between two other communes.
Also, whenever I said that people will be forced to work in a commune, this is true, but it wouldn't mean that people will be assigned jobs, either. Also it wouldn't apply to people who are physically/mentally incapable of working.

I meant to say violence won't be used to force someone (i.e. a whip), but, yes, potentially violence could be used against someone if they refuse to leave.
The protection from the few would be handled because direct democracy would be the method of decision making. I also wouldn't assume that anarchists aren't willing to protect their property. This could take different forms, but perhaps each commune would have its own police force. I would imagine, though, that they couldn't convince people to police all the time, so most likely each person in the commune would take a turn being of the police force. You could also potentially have a third commune arbitrate in a dispute between two other communes.
Also, whenever I said that people will be forced to work in a commune, this is true, but it wouldn't mean that people will be assigned jobs, either. Also it wouldn't apply to people who are physically/mentally incapable of working.

To be honest, that sounds a bit too authoritarian to be called anarchism. It seems like society is forcing things on people, not a formal government. So one could say that society is acting as the government by providing a police force, giving sentences for criminals, and making sure people stay in line with the commune.

To be honest, that sounds a bit too authoritarian to be called anarchism. It seems like society is forcing things on people, not a formal government. So one could say that society is acting as the government by providing a police force, giving sentences for criminals, and making sure people stay in line with the commune.
Exactly. They're not exactly laws, more like social contracts. And it's not like society is forcing things on people, people are welcome to subsistence farm if they don't like the idea of cooperation, or move to a different commune if they don't like the rules that one has set up.

Exactly. They're not exactly laws, more like social contracts. And it's not like society is forcing things on people, people are welcome to subsistence farm if they don't like the idea of cooperation, or move to a different commune if they don't like the rules that one has set up.

So a bunch of city states which all have their own fascist social system? Sounds like fun...

if we turned to anarchy, i would find a building, create a stronghold, and start putting up walls around the city, instil taxes, high taxes at that, create a standing army, and start waging war with the warlord next door. man is greedy, man wants power.

A: well i guess you're just a big violent asshole then. why don't you go ahead and start that whole warlord thing right now? there's just as much standing in your way as there would be in an anarchist system. less, really, because people are still in the authoritarian mindset that following a leader is good.

you should be happy that you can even talk about this on the internet, in some countries you would be shot for treason, which is the only logical solution. you should be happy that you are american or british, that you live in a democracy, and that you have the right to talk about whatever you want on the internet like this. anarchists are committing treason, and they should be shot. :sniper:

B: Hate to break it t you, but you're not the first one to come up with the idea of framing anarchists for treason, terrorism, or whatever, and killing them.
look up the Haymarket Affair, Sacco and Vanzetti, etc.

and while you're at it, consider the fact that i apparently shouldn't be too happy to be an american, since other americans (i doubt a brit could be THAT arrogant) want me and my friends dead for saying that maybe we should have a more free and democratic system than the current farcical police state.

YOU should be glad you live in the US, as in many countries, declaring that an entire group of people should be shot is NOT a form of protected speech.
meaning you would be considered to be comitting an illegal act of violence, for which you would be punished by the State apparatus.

also, your shift from "anarchy is a good idea but has many flaws" to "anarchists should be shot" is nothing short of fucking ridiculous.
if you can't speak without threatening the lives of me and my friends and/or spewing massive logical inconsistencies, please refrain from doing so in the future.

note that the above is a polite request.
i do NOT say you should be shot for speaking.
that's what differentiates the anarchists from the violent authoritarian fuckheads.

There are social contracts, but they might be seen as laws.


Well who decides what the laws or social contracts are? How is that done?

Humans need some form of control. Period. Take away the controls, and in theory we would act the same, but there will always be the few who will realize "hey, we could rob those people and take their stuff, and nobody would arrest us or do anything about it! SWEET!" and would go out and rob the people. And then someone who saw that happening would think "well, if they can get that stuff without actually working for it, then why am I slaving away all day? If I want something, I should just steal it! THOSE people aren't getting caught, so why shouldn't I do the same thing?" And then the process would continue as we degenerate into chaos. Thus... we need controls... to stop the first people.

Well who decides what the laws or social contracts are? How is that done?

How many times do I have to answer this?

DEMOCRATICALLY!!!

Humans need some form of control. Period.

Great. Brilliant.

So what's wrong with anarchism?

Maybe I should explain again.

A lot of people seem to think that anarchism means "no rules" or "do whatever you want." This is absolutely ridiculous.

In many ways, as far as the sort of basic laws (e.g. don't go around killing or stealing), you can expect anarchist society to be pretty similar to what you see right now. Society establishes standards of conduct, as well as institutions (broadly understood) through which to enforce them. Period. End of story.

Well, not quite. First of all, anarchists universally insist that decision-making be as democratic as possible. For most of us, this includes some version of democracy in economic decision-making -- at a minimum, in the organization of production. That is, we are opposed to capitalist organization of the means of production. Some, but by no means all, think that this should extend to allocation generally, i.e. anarchism should take up communist economics. (I happen to think differently, preferring market socialism to collectivist allocation.)

Okay. So, that's it. Society still has its deviants, and it will deal with them as the democracy sees fit. (A conservative anarchy might be pretty intolerant, a liberal one more so. Anarchism is not about being liberal or conservative socially; it is first and foremost a view about politics. Of course, most of us tend to be social liberals, but that is no requirement to join the club.)

Of course, many of us think that once you weed out massive inequalities and establish truly democratic government (probably in federated localities), there will be less crime, greed and general nastiness. But, to make the point one last time, we do not rely on it!!!.

Again, anarchism is not about "doing whatever you want." It is about political freedom, not "absolute" freedom.

And that is where we differ. I think that anarcho-market-socialism (to invent an awkward but descriptive term) would work where anarcho-capitalism would fail -- not in the sense that it would "turn into something else," but in the sense that it just wouldn't be a very nice place to live. Anarcho-capitalism not only has to contend with the darker aspects of "human nature" -- it structurally encourages them! Under capitalist organization, there is not only the possibility that people will act in their own self-interest to the detriment of society--it is actively encouraged! How can you expect people to combat selfish urges when everything around them tells them to do otherwise?

It always comes back to the word "capitalism", doesn't it? It's like the word "marriage" with conservative religious folks. I'll have to do some digging and find an earlier discussion about capitalism I had with Discordiac (sp?) shortly after the move to Jolt. I probably won't get around to that until tomorrow.


I got to it sooner than expected. Here is the post:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6575376&postcount=72

The Thread:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=339909


Yes, but you keep circling around the fact that we are talking about two separate things. When I say that anarchism involves "self-regulation," I mean self-government.

Meh. Anarcho-socialism will still require that it's members have the same capacity for self-restraint as anarcho-capitalism, or you'll just end up as a tyranny by majority. Without self-restraint on the part of its members, any free society will become an unfree society.

When you say that anarcho-capitalism requires self-regulation, you seem to mean that it requires significant self-restraint. While I describe a process through which people rule themselves, you assert that people in positions of considerable economic and social power will magically all behave themselves... for no other reason than that we ask them to, and with great personal motives to do otherwise. Moreover, it is the nature of market competition that if one company takes a less-than-restrained shortcut, everyone will have to if they want to stay in business. That is why environmental self-regulation never works.

*sigh* See above.

I describe a process that attempts to liberate human nature even as it deals with human ugliness. You suggest that someday, human ugliness could simply disappear. These are truly two different worlds.

Indeed. I describe an ideal world occuring under ideal circumstances. You describe an ideal world occuring under considerably less-than-ideal circumstances. I think its rather more likely that an ideal world will occur under ideal circumstances, but apparently that's nonsense...

There are two or three downsides, like you can be shot walking down the street,and theirs nothing anybody would do,

Well considering you can at this time anywhere on this earth walk down the street and shoot and kill anyone with whatever laws they have in place and you still end up dead. So after you are dead is not going to change what happened. Paper laws will never change a person and their intent. Either your a good hearted person or not.

but that is no requirement to join the club

however, the club does have a "no homers" rule.

Well considering you can at this time anywhere on this earth walk down the street and shoot and kill anyone with whatever laws they have in place and you still end up dead. So after you are dead is not going to change what happened. Paper laws will never change a person and their intent. Either your a good hearted person or not.

True, but anarchy makes no allowance for the existance of bad hearted people. It does not allow for the formation of a body designed to punish and/or remove the threat posed by the bad to the good of society. Such a body would by neccessity have to possess more force and control than any other body or grouping in society, in order to cope with these bad people.

Maybe I should explain again.


Okay. So, that's it. Society still has its deviants, and it will deal with them as the democracy sees fit. (A conservative anarchy might be pretty intolerant, a liberal one more so. Anarchism is not about being liberal or conservative socially; it is first and foremost a view about politics. Of course, most of us tend to be social liberals, but that is no requirement to join the club.)

Of course, many of us think that once you weed out massive inequalities and establish truly democratic government (probably in federated localities), there will be less crime, greed and general nastiness. But, to make the point one last time, we do not rely on it!!!.

Again, anarchism is not about "doing whatever you want." It is about political freedom, not "absolute" freedom.


To deal with it the society requires enough force to be able to be brought to bear. This requires either a standing police force or army or voluntary vigilante force. Then you are left with the marvellous choice of what is a deviant and how to deal with them. How does this vary in nature from a representative democracy?

It always comes back to the word "capitalism", doesn't it?
It sure seems to. Capitalism, after all, is the theory that works "on paper," but not in practice.

Anarcho-socialism will still require that it's members have the same capacity for self-restraint as anarcho-capitalism, or you'll just end up as a tyranny by majority.

First of all, there is nothing anti-anarchist about tyranny of the majority. But more importantly, why would it take self-restraint to avoid it? An anarchist society might decide to make some (or all) decisions by consensus... or, for that matter, any vote between 50%+1 and unanimity. Who said democracy has to be majoritarian?

I describe an ideal world occuring under ideal circumstances. You describe an ideal world occuring under considerably less-than-ideal circumstances.

NO. I describe a non-ideal world under considerably less-than-ideal circumstances. Why does everyone think that to support anarchism is to think it "ideal"? I just think it's better than anything else. Politics will always be problematic. (Except, I suppose, in your ideal an-cap state, in which you simply do away with politics, yes?)


I think its rather more likely that an ideal world will occur under ideal circumstances, but apparently that's nonsense...

No, that's true. I just don't think we'll ever see ideal circumstances. So why worry ourselves over ideal worlds?

To deal with it the society requires enough force to be able to be brought to bear.

Sure. Of course, the type of force will depend on the society. Many anarchists argue that once politics has been scaled down to an essentially local phenomenon, social pressure alone will be enough to control most criminality. While I would love to see things go in that direction, however, I do not think any anarchist society must rely on it.

This requires either a standing police force or army or voluntary vigilante force.

Or something in between. Certainly I would hate to see any society with a huge, omnipresent police force (as we see at present). Of course, I suspect that once we really deal with disparities in wealth, education, and employment, crime will be significantly reduced. At any rate, an anarchist society could easily deal with the problem without a professional police force, but also without relying on unpredictable ad hoc voluntarism. For instance, the society might require some form of mandatory service, likely focused on young adults--and one way to fulfill the obligation could be to serve in the police, or the military for that matter. (Defense, after all, may never disappear as an important concern.)

Then you are left with the marvellous choice of what is a deviant and how to deal with them.

No worse a choice than we have now. And at least everyone will have a say.

How does this vary in nature from a representative democracy?

Simple. It won't be representative--at least in its most important functions. Delegates, of course, may be necessary to achieve anarchist federalism, but not in the locality. (And such delegates will be bound by the will of their neighbors.)

How many times do I have to answer this?

DEMOCRATICALLY!!!


How? Or do you guess what the majority of people want.

Are there elections or what? Is every issue put to a plebicite?If so who chooses the wording.

It sure seems to. Capitalism, after all, is the theory that works "on paper," but not in practice.

So how do you define "works"? I think that would be a helpful term for you to define in the context of this discussion.

First of all, there is nothing anti-anarchist about tyranny of the majority. But more importantly, why would it take self-restraint to avoid it? An anarchist society might decide to make some (or all) decisions by consensus... or, for that matter, any vote between 50%+1 and unanimity. Who said democracy has to be majoritarian?

Essentially, tyranny of the majority is coercive unless everybody agrees to abide by the decision of the majority and then does so, which requires a great deal of self-restraint. And we're back to the necessity of an ideal (or damn close to it) populace. Without the ideal populace, anarchism becomes coercive, which I certainly can't support, given my philosophy.

NO. I describe a non-ideal world under considerably less-than-ideal circumstances. Why does everyone think that to support anarchism is to think it "ideal"? I just think it's better than anything else. Politics will always be problematic.

I totally agree. Which is why I essentially support the abolition of politics.

(Except, I suppose, in your ideal an-cap state, in which you simply do away with politics, yes?)

Well, yes. If politics does not exist, it's hard for politics to be problematic, isn't it? :)

No, that's true. I just don't think we'll ever see ideal circumstances. So why worry ourselves over ideal worlds?

Because if we don't, they'll never happen. What if I never worry myself over my ideal self? I'll never get there, will I?

If I try, I might never make it. If I don't try, I sure as hell won't make it.

How? Or do you guess what the majority of people want.

Are there elections or what? Is every issue put to a plebicite?If so who chooses the wording.

Honestly, I would accept any number of particular arrangements as sufficiently anarchist. As you should be able to tell by now, I am not an "idealist" when it comes to anarchism; I am not fool enough to believe it will ever be "perfect." I will settle for "as close as possible." (That specifics of that standard, of course, vary over time.)

In my personal opinion, only very very small societies would put every issue to a general vote. I think a wide range of administrative posts will be either elective, or determined by lottery (i.e. anyone's name could be "plucked" to serve). To keep it as democratic (anarchist) as possible, terms would be relatively short--perhaps about a year for most positions. The general assembly would also convene on a fairly regular basis (monthly? bimonthly?) and all positions of responsibility would be directly answerable to the assembly--that is, you could be pulled easily, and at any time.

Honestly, I would accept any number of particular arrangements as sufficiently anarchist. As you should be able to tell by now, I am not an "idealist" when it comes to anarchism; I am not fool enough to believe it will ever be "perfect." I will settle for "as close as possible." (That specifics of that standard, of course, vary over time.)

In my personal opinion, only very very small societies would put every issue to a general vote. I think a wide range of administrative posts will be either elective, or determined by lottery (i.e. anyone's name could be "plucked" to serve). To keep it as democratic (anarchist) as possible, terms would be relatively short--perhaps about a year for most positions. The general assembly would also convene on a fairly regular basis (monthly? bimonthly?) and all positions of responsibility would be directly answerable to the assembly--that is, you could be pulled easily, and at any time.

So there would be some form of heirarchy then. And I assume that the assembly would function with rules of order, some type of parliamentary procedure etc.

Now would all these small societies be linked in a confederation or are they all independent.

Simple. It won't be representative--at least in its most important functions. Delegates, of course, may be necessary to achieve anarchist federalism, but not in the locality. (And such delegates will be bound by the will of their neighbors.)

So a particapatory democracy on the Swiss model would be the preferred form of Anarchy. Probably without the large sums of money though ;)

So how do you define "works"? I think that would be a helpful term for you to define in the context of this discussion.

I already did, several posts ago. Here I will be more specific. To "work," a system must satisfy two criteria:

1. Internal stability. In other words, excepting conquest by some outside force, it could continue indefinitely. (This allows for modifications to suit the times... I consider the system stable if it's basic principles do not necessarily lead to collapse.) This is actually a pretty easy criterion to meet--human societies tend to run on their own inertia for a good long while.

2. Fulfillment of promises. Capitalism "fails" on this criterion, in that it promises freedom and wealth that it can never deliver--at least not to most people. In the abstract, it looks good: no one tells you what to do, resources are allocated entirely according to "demand"... But when you put it into practice, it inevitably benefits the few to the detriment of the many.

Essentially, tyranny of the majority is coercive unless everybody agrees to abide by the decision of the majority and then does so, which requires a great deal of self-restraint.

Look, every society enforces rules against people who might prefer not to follow them. The advantage of majoritarian rule is that at least every person has a voice, an opportunity to change enough minds to get what he or she wants.

The real "danger" in a "tyranny of the majority" is when there is a consistent majority--a class of people whose interests always or almost always coincide, so that they always get what they want, and the minority never does. But since anarchism is by definition a classless society, majorities are likely to ebb and flow... I may not be in the majority on this decision, but I will be on another.

And just as in present societies, most people agree to abide by the law, whether they like it or not. If they fail to cooperate, they may face undesirable consequences enforced by the society in which they live--but that is part of living in any political society.

Which is better? That on any given issue most people get what they want, and the rest may continue to protest for change... or that the few who happen to be in the ruling class get what they want, and everyone else remains essentially powerless to effect change?

Without the ideal populace, anarchism becomes coercive, which I certainly can't support, given my philosophy.

Well, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree, then. Because I recognize the fact that any political association must be prepared to enforce its will on dissenters. A free political association allows those dissenters the chance to change the collective will--but ultimately, they must abide by the collective decision.

That is what politics is all about.

I essentially support the abolition of politics.

Greeeat. So things will be entirely decided by who has the most money. Fantastic.

If I try, I might never make it. If I don't try, I sure as hell won't make it.

Yes, but you have been trying to hold anarchism to a higher standard. Your argument is essentially that if we cannot have it in ideal form, we cannot have it at all. I am the one who has been arguing that the best we can do is to get as close as possible... and that at every point we will still have to deal with reality. You merely assert a dream--and one, moreover, that you provide no clue how to achieve.

How many times have I said "as close as possible" in this thread?

So there would be some form of heirarchy then.

Absolutely. It is a mistake (usually of rebellious teenage 'anarchists') to equate all hierarchy with a class society or the state. Hierarchy is natural to human relations. Moreover, some elements of "power" will appear in most hierarchies. Practical anarchists merely attempt to limit these through ground-up political structures and extremely high levels of accountability.


And I assume that the assembly would function with rules of order, some type of parliamentary procedure etc.

OF COURSE!! How else?! Rules of order are the life-blood of democratic politics!!! How would we do anything without them?

Now would all these small societies be linked in a confederation or are they all independent.

Could go either way and still be anarchist. Personally, I think we can manage an anarchist society that still preserves most of the great technology capitalism has managed to produce. (I'm not too keen on going "back to nature.) And a federation/confederacy would almost certainly be necessary in such a world... especially one in which we must protect scarce natural resources from exploitation.

Actually... Pretty damn close. The Swiss are in many ways an inspiration to anarchists everywhere. They prove in practice many of the points we have long discussed in theory.

(Far from "the preferred" form... but getting there.) ;)

Seriously though it is a participatory democracy - the most law abiding, richest, heavily militarised state in central Europe.

If this is what the "anarchist" movement is aiming for why not just drop the term anarchy, adopt "participarory federal democracy" and gain a whole lot more acceptance.

Seriously though it is a participatory democracy - the most law abiding, richest, heavily militarised state in central Europe.

If this is what the "anarchist" movement is aiming for why not just drop the term anarchy, adopt "participarory federal democracy" and gain a whole lot more acceptance.

Because we want more than participation. Participation is not enough.

Only when the people rule, "from the ground up," will it be anarchist. A republic in which the people "have a say" is certainly better than one in which they essentially turn rule over to the elite. But it is only a step in the right direction, not the final destination.

And, of course, you cannot have anarchism and any semblance of capitalism. ;)

And, of course, you cannot have anarchism and any semblance of capitalism. ;)

Ah Hah, the problem. Barter economy difficult to organise in a complex world, would require a great deal of oversight to ensure a trustworthy system. A practical solution is that gold or the like could be used as the universal adjudicator of barter worth, but this does seem capitalistic.

Participatory Federal Democracy implies you want to be doing it. Therefore, people should have no problem sharing the surplus or living in an anarchist society, since they want to participate in it.

Ah Hah, the problem. Barter economy difficult to organise in a complex world, would require a great deal of oversight to ensure a trustworthy system. A practical solution is that gold or the like could be used as the universal adjudicator of barter worth, but this does seem capitalistic.

Who said anything about barter?

I was thinking market socialism. Money and everything.

Participatory Federal Democracy implies you want to be doing it. Therefore, people should have no problem sharing the surplus or living in an anarchist society, since they want to participate in it.

What?

The best way, in my opinion, for an anarchist society to exist is for people to be self-sufficient, then redistribute whatever surpluses the community has.

The best way, in my opinion, for an anarchist society to exist is for people to be self-sufficient, then redistribute whatever surpluses the community has.

If each persone is self-sufficient, then what is the community? Moreover, does this not entail precisely the problems these critics have been suggesting, viz. that everyone would have to be the law unto himself, defending the homestead and revenging himself on his enemies?

And, of course, you cannot have anarchism and any semblance of capitalism. ;)

Why not?

Do you mean there would be no money?

Who said anything about barter?

I was thinking market socialism. Money and everything.

Everything meaning interest bearing debt, usury and rate of return? The debt economy? How about collateral required to secure debt?

If so this begins to hint at capitalisim.

Why not?

Do you mean there would be no money?

Nope. Money as a medium of exchange is indispensable to a complex economy.

Everything meaning interest bearing debt, usury and rate of return? The debt economy? How about collateral required to secure debt?

Maybe. Who knows? It depends on the particular kind of anarchism established. The more it tends toward communism, the less use will there be for money--and certainly the less use for credit!

In the market socialism that I imagine, I think lending institutions would probably be largely collectivized. Certainly we would want to manage the economy so as to avoid widespread debt, and business loans (small businesses would likely still be capitalist) would probably require some collateral.


If so this begins to hint at capitalisim.

Not really. As I suggest above, small-scale capitalism would still be allowed to operate, but larger means of production would be under social control (though still operating in a market).

Money was around long before capitalism. It will be around long after capitalism is gone.

To me, anarchism means first and foremost anti-authoritarianism.

So, regarding the life expectancy of an anarchist society...

Supposing an anarchist society were allowed to come to term, such that it actually became part of the culture of the society, then under anarchist principles one would reject authoritarian power exerted on them from an outside force. Meaning, even if a citizen were to amass weapons, create their own police force and attempt to create a standing army, they'd really only be able to exert control over the people they are pointing their guns at, because since anarchism is not a form of centralized government, and can't be "removed" or "abolished", the second the police turn their back the people will be practicing anarchism again. Thus to get a police state to rule over an anarchist state, the police force would probably have to be like a quarter of the population. And it's simply not economically possible for one person to sustain a quarter of their population for any lengthy amount of time, especially if they came out of a culture of wealth-stigma.

Here's my take on anarchism: It would probably most likely evolve out of a communist society that has become "classless", and reflects upon itself to see that the government is itself a class, removed and exerting authority over the people. Taxes get lowered as the classless society no longer requires a welfare state to secure the wellbeing of its people, and the welfare state eventually phases out in favor of virtually zero taxation and voluntary mutual aid to help the small numbers of elderly, needy, etc.

Mr./Ms. Free Soviets,

I officially concede. I'm doing some research now, and so far, Anarchism seems to be a rather sound political theory. Close to my own semi-Libertarian views, and Very Persuasive. Granted, it's not perfect, but what is?

(Y'know, crow doesn't taste as bad as I thought it would... add a little mustard, and some pepper, and some onions... well, no goodnight-kisses for me now.)

Mr./Ms. Free Soviets,

I officially concede. I'm doing some research now, and so far, Anarchism seems to be a rather sound political theory. Close to my own semi-Libertarian views, and Very Persuasive. Granted, it's not perfect, but what is?

(Y'know, crow doesn't taste as bad as I thought it would... add a little mustard, and some pepper, and some onions... well, no goodnight-kisses for me now.)

heh. it's ok, anarchism has been almost universally misrepresented in the most publicly accessible sources since its inception. when it isn't just being ignored outright, that is. we come to expect it. but i'm really glad that you've taken the time to at least look at our ideas. its not everyone who will examine an opposing viewpoint on its own terms, especially when they have at least some reason to suspect it isn't even coherent. if you have any specific questions you think i might be able to answer about it, feel free to ask.

and btw, i am of the male persuasion

You have absolutely no idea what anarchist philosophy entails.


Hm, you got that pretty much right. ;)
In any case, I gave it a go (and I also wanted to be the first poster on this thread!!)

But I've only read up to your comment (Page 4), and I know maybe ten times more detail about anarchy than I did before. Useful stuff. :)
Now I know exactly what I was talking about when I wrote about Lenin vs. the anarcho-syndicalists for my history exams. :p

Ah Hah, the problem. Barter economy difficult to organise in a complex world, would require a great deal of oversight to ensure a trustworthy system. A practical solution is that gold or the like could be used as the universal adjudicator of barter worth, but this does seem capitalistic.
Not a barter economy, but a system of free distribution.

Why not?

Do you mean there would be no money?
The reason that you can't have anarchism and capitalism is because the purpose of anarchism is to be democratic, meaning that each person has the same amount of power. Under capitalism, the person with more money has more power, which makes it contrary to democracy, at least the way I see it.

I already did, several posts ago. Here I will be more specific. To "work," a system must satisfy two criteria:

1. Internal stability. In other words, excepting conquest by some outside force, it could continue indefinitely. (This allows for modifications to suit the times... I consider the system stable if it's basic principles do not necessarily lead to collapse.) This is actually a pretty easy criterion to meet--human societies tend to run on their own inertia for a good long while.

Agreed.

2. Fulfillment of promises. Capitalism "fails" on this criterion, in that it promises freedom and wealth that it can never deliver--at least not to most people. In the abstract, it looks good: no one tells you what to do, resources are allocated entirely according to "demand"... But when you put it into practice, it inevitably benefits the few to the detriment of the many.

An economic system cannot promise anything. The closest you can get is a bunch of people telling you that the system will do certain things. And being the intelligent person that you are, if they tell you the system will work perfectly when driven by greed, you have to know they're mistaken.

Look, every society enforces rules against people who might prefer not to follow them. The advantage of majoritarian rule is that at least every person has a voice, an opportunity to change enough minds to get what he or she wants.

The real "danger" in a "tyranny of the majority" is when there is a consistent majority--a class of people whose interests always or almost always coincide, so that they always get what they want, and the minority never does. But since anarchism is by definition a classless society, majorities are likely to ebb and flow... I may not be in the majority on this decision, but I will be on another.

And just as in present societies, most people agree to abide by the law, whether they like it or not. If they fail to cooperate, they may face undesirable consequences enforced by the society in which they live--but that is part of living in any political society.

You're relatively realistic, and have your ducks in a row. Congratulations. That's a rare quality among the anarchists I've met.

Of course, like all anarchists, you will still have to deal with eliminating class, which I'm betting will be almost as difficult as what I have proposed. Class is very pernicious, and incredibly insidious because of the psychological need to express dominance. Unless people start controlling those urges to express dominance (which can be done), you will never reach even your more realistic form of anarchy. Good luck with that.

Which is better? That on any given issue most people get what they want, and the rest may continue to protest for change... or that the few who happen to be in the ruling class get what they want, and everyone else remains essentially powerless to effect change?

Yes, your system is in theory rather better than what we have currently. I'm well aware of that. I don't remember if I've said this on the forums before, but it's quite possible that I would agree to participate in an anarchist society if one arose. It's just that such a society is not my first choice, and I wouldn't really consider it an anarchy because it still has a government.

Well, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree, then. Because I recognize the fact that any political association must be prepared to enforce its will on dissenters. A free political association allows those dissenters the chance to change the collective will--but ultimately, they must abide by the collective decision.

That is what politics is all about.

Yep, and I think I've already mentioned that I agree and that would be why I support the abolition of politics.

Greeeat. So things will be entirely decided by who has the most money. Fantastic.

I don't recall that being something I said. And don't give me that nonsense about "That's what would realistically happen" because I've already admitted that it's an idealistic proposal, not a realistic one.

Yes, but you have been trying to hold anarchism to a higher standard. Your argument is essentially that if we cannot have it in ideal form, we cannot have it at all.

You can have it. I just don't think it would last long-term. It would most likely descend into anarcho-communism, IMO. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

I am the one who has been arguing that the best we can do is to get as close as possible... and that at every point we will still have to deal with reality. You merely assert a dream--and one, moreover, that you provide no clue how to achieve.

Sure I do. Everybody behaves themselves. It's that simple. Idealistic, but simple.

Do you find it hard to behave yourself and respect others? That's what it comes down to. Each person has to answer that question. Many people answer in the positive, deciding that they just have to impose their will on others, take their resources, abuse their support system, etc.

How many times have I said "as close as possible" in this thread?

Do you really want me to count? :p

I just don't see "as close as possible" as being an anarchy. That's really what it comes down to. My definition of anarchy differs from yours by a wide margin. Which is why the argument will go nowhere. We are back to the usual disagreement between an-caps and an-socs over who actually has an anarchy, but for somewhat different reasons, this time.

The reason that you can't have anarchism and capitalism is because the purpose of anarchism is to be democratic, meaning that each person has the same amount of power.

Political power, yes?

Under capitalism, the person with more money has more power, which makes it contrary to democracy, at least the way I see it.

buying power=political power?

Of course, like all anarchists, you will still have to deal with eliminating class, which I'm betting will be almost as difficult as what I have proposed.

Very difficult, yes. But not impossible... and that is what you have proposed.

Class is very pernicious, and incredibly insidious because of the psychological need to express dominance. Unless people start controlling those urges to express dominance (which can be done), you will never reach even your more realistic form of anarchy.

The psychological need "to express dominance" (psychologically speaking, a pretty lousy way to put it) can be and is sublimated in plenty of healthy social settings, such as sports, or the desire to be "the best" in one's chosen field.

In any event, I admit that the elimination of class is a difficult undertaking. But class can be eliminated without any fundamental change in human nature. Envy, disappointment, and rebelliousness cannot.

I wouldn't really consider it an anarchy because it still has a government.

Then you are still confused about what anarchy means. Anarchists want to destroy government as an entity separate from society. But when you come right down to it, "to govern" is simply to order and rule social life... and every society has to do that somehow. So what we want is government that is synonymous (or virtually synonymous) with the social.

I support the abolition of politics.

People want different things, and always will. There are limited resources with which to provide them, and always will be. "Politics" refers to that aspect of social life that attempts to negotiate diverse wants within the context of limited resources. To eliminate it is to eliminate all claims to justice, fairness, or right. The only circumstance in which you can eliminate politics is the one in which everyone unanimously proclaims, "everything is perfect as it is." That is utopia--no place. And if it were ever to happen, it could never last for long.

I've already admitted that it's an idealistic proposal, not a realistic one.

Well, as long as we're clear on that.

I just don't think it would last long-term.
Why not?
It would most likely descend into anarcho-communism, IMO.
Why?
Which is not necessarily a bad thing.
Agreed.

I just don't see "as close as possible" as being an anarchy.

Then we have no political system, nor have we ever had one, since everything is "as close as possible." Try even to describe an existing political system, and something about it will always evade your description. Just as at some point you say your description is "close enough," I say that I want a society that gets "as close as possible" to an a priori conception of anarchist life.



Perhaps, finally, I should turn the argument on its head. Why don't you tell me how we will achieve your version of anarcho-capitalism?

Maybe. Who knows? It depends on the particular kind of anarchism established. The more it tends toward communism, the less use will there be for money--and certainly the less use for credit!

In the market socialism that I imagine, I think lending institutions would probably be largely collectivized. Certainly we would want to manage the economy so as to avoid widespread debt, and business loans (small businesses would likely still be capitalist) would probably require some collateral.




Not really. As I suggest above, small-scale capitalism would still be allowed to operate, but larger means of production would be under social control (though still operating in a market).

Money was around long before capitalism. It will be around long after capitalism is gone.


But how would you keep small business small. What if there was a particularly sucessful small businessman who got bigger? or would there be some form of earnings ceiling?

Very difficult, yes. But not impossible... and that is what you have proposed.

Why is it impossible?

The psychological need "to express dominance" (psychologically speaking, a pretty lousy way to put it) can be and is sublimated in plenty of healthy social settings, such as sports, or the desire to be "the best" in one's chosen field.

Correct.

In any event, I admit that the elimination of class is a difficult undertaking. But class can be eliminated without any fundamental change in human nature. Envy, disappointment, and rebelliousness cannot.

I'm not suggesting that we eliminate emotions. I'm suggesting that we improve our behavior.

Then you are still confused about what anarchy means. Anarchists want to destroy government as an entity separate from society. But when you come right down to it, "to govern" is simply to order and rule social life... and every society has to do that somehow. So what we want is government that is synonymous (or virtually synonymous) with the social.

1. You seem to be confused about what I said, which is that I define anarchy differently than you do, and thus our argument ends up in "no place". ;)

2.) Government was never an entity separate from society. Government springs forth from the society and is a reflection of it.

The only circumstance in which you can eliminate politics is the one in which everyone unanimously proclaims, "everything is perfect as it is." That is utopia--no place. And if it were ever to happen, it could never last for long.

Why?

Why not?

My bet is that in a democracy like what you described there will be people who disagree so strongly with a collective decision that they will leave. And eventually another decision is made that some don't agree with and those persons will leave. And so on, until you have everyone living in tiny communities where everyone has the same views. That's the optimistic scenario.

Why?

See above.

Then we have no political system, nor have we ever had one, since everything is "as close as possible." Try even to describe an existing political system, and something about it will always evade your description. Just as at some point you say your description is "close enough," I say that I want a society that gets "as close as possible" to an a priori conception of anarchist life.

See point 1.

Perhaps, finally, I should turn the argument on its head. Why don't you tell me how we will achieve your version of anarcho-capitalism?

I already have. You forgot or ignored it when responding to the post.

what he meant to say: That is utopia--no place(yet). And when it does happen, it will last forever.

.

But how would you keep small business small. What if there was a particularly sucessful small businessman who got bigger? or would there be some form of earnings ceiling?

Earnings ceiling? A possibility.

First of all, you have to realize that all the industries likely to be very large are going to be under direct social ownership.

So you're left with the true little guy (or girl) -- hand-made crafts, arts, possibly some tourism (guides, etc.)... restaurants, small bakers perhaps.

Whatever. The point is, market socialism realizes that some goods are probably provided and distributed best through private ownership. The potentially very profitable businesses are already run, however, socially.

But an earnings ceiling (accomplished through extremely progressive taxation?) would be one way to ensure too much wealth does not accrue to certain individuals. I would also consider a limit on the number of employees allowed.

Now, the first thing any good economist will point out is that earnings ceilings and a too-progressive tax structure will limit economic growth. That is true. To this I provide two answers:

1) Economists must (and some do already) begin to consider the logic of a zero-growth economy. The Earth is only so big, and resources are ultimately limited. Sooner or later, growth becomes a bad thing. (It is pretty much necessary, however, with a growing population.) And flying into space really doesn't solve the problem.

2) Anarchists don't really care. Like President Jackson vetoing the bank charter, we value liberty over wealth.

buying power=political power?
It can, yes. There's always vote buying. And there are (slightly) less insidious methods of money being political power, such as buying advertisements.

So a bunch of city states which all have their own fascist social system? Sounds like fun...
Not at all. Fascism is a system that organizes from the top down. Anarchism organizes from the bottom up. Complete opposites. Furthermore, if you can convince the fellow members of your commune that you should be allowed to slack off and not work, and have them support you, then more power to you. But I don't see any realistic example of anyone being able to do so.