NationStates Jolt Archive

Discuss what you think. Also, feel free to engage in other topics regardng politics, but keep it witty and clean.

Well, I don't think it would work... Of course, if it's just a bunch of posers who create an "Anarchist Nation", well, they'll immediately make an "Anarchist Constitution". You know how that goes.

Well, I don't think it would work... Of course, if it's just a bunch of posers who create an "Anarchist Nation", well, they'll immediately make an "Anarchist Constitution". You know how that goes.
I hear you, anarchy is far too idealistic for my taste. I just thought this would make for interesting conversation.

Anarchy is anarchy. Any other form is fake.

Yeah. It's just supposed to be everybody doing their own thing, but these internet posers have their ideals, and I would not doubt for a minute that they would set up an "Anarchist Government".

"You can't do that, you're supposed to be an Anarchist!"

"You're not supposed to do what other people do. You're supposed to always do the opposite!"

Anarcho-communist here. Flame away.

Is it possible? Probably not in my generation.

Question: What's an anarcho-syndicalist?

Question: What's an anarcho-syndicalist?
An anarchosyndicalist is basically an anarchist who believes in free enterprise and the like.

An anarchosyndicalist is basically an anarchist who believes in free enterprise and the like.

Nope: that's an anarcho-capitalist. An anarcho-syndicalist believes in power going to the people through self-management of the workplace by unions/trades.

If I were Anarchist, I'd be an Anarcho-Capitalist! That means our buisinesses could do whatever they want! Weeee!

If I were Anarchist, I'd be an Anarcho-Capitalist! That means our buisinesses could do whatever they want! Weeee!

So could your competition...



(well, technically, within traditional anarcho-capitalism there are some restraints but they are very minor)

So could your competition...



(well, technically, within traditional anarcho-capitalism there are some restraints but they are very minor)

Yeah. They say "no war", but does blowing up a persons factory count as war? Methinks not. Besides, who would enforce the rules? No one :).

Except for the other company, of course.

Yeah. They say "no war", but does blowing up a persons factory count as war? Methinks not. Besides, who would enforce the rules? No one :).

Except for the other company, of course.


and the specialised private security company that they have been paying their subscriptions to... you have been keeping up payments to a private security company yourself, haven't you?

See, with Anarchy, we could have a bunch of dudes in New York who go into an office building, pad it with explosives, and blow the shit out of it!

Then, the people who were in the building might somehow escape, get *really* pissed, and go beat the crap out of the bombers! And it won't matter one bit, because it's Anarchy, and nobody enforces anything!

CHAOS!!!

and the specialised private security company that they have been paying their subscriptions to... you have been keeping up payments to a private security company yourself, haven't you?

Ah yes, Anarcho-Capitalism.

It's like Conservative Capitalism, just minus the influence the companies have on the government.

See, with Anarchy, we could have a bunch of dudes in New York who go into an office building, pad it with explosives, and blow the shit out of it!

Then, the people who were in the building might somehow escape, get *really* pissed, and go beat the crap out of the bombers! And it won't matter one bit, because it's Anarchy, and nobody enforces anything!

CHAOS!!!

Whereas under statism we could have a bunch of dudes flying a plane into an office building in New York and blowing the shit out of it!

Then the people who ran the country could get *really* pissed, and go and bomb and shoot the crap out of two other countries in actions which are of dubious international legitimacy! And it wouldn't matter one bit, because its statism, and we have to trust our leaders!

LAW AND ORDER!!!

Anarcho-communist here. Flame away.

Is it possible? Probably not in my generation.
pretty much from today on i might be leaning that way - i came up with an arguement i hadn't considered before that convinced me during one of my Political Theory lectures today. shame i can't remember what it was, but i remember thinking "wow thats anarcho-communism and i like it"

Whereas under statism we could have a bunch of dudes flying a plane into an office building in New York and blowing the shit out of it!

Then the people who ran the country could get *really* pissed, and go and bomb and shoot the crap out of two other countries in actions which are of dubious international legitimacy! And it wouldn't matter one bit, because its statism, and we have to trust our leaders!

LAW AND ORDER!!!


CHAOS!!!

Now, our government isn't perfect, but let us look at the only Anarchy in the world, shall we?

*Looks at Somalia*

Point made.

Now, in theory Anarchism would work. But that would mean everyone would have to be nice and not abuse their free rights. And that's never gonna happen. Anarchism is impossible to achieve. Well, Impossible to achieve without chaos and destruction.

Get ready to be shocked folks...

I do view that there is a certain level of value in philosophical anarchism. But the systems proposed by anarchists are utter fantasy.

Now, our government isn't perfect, but let us look at the only Anarchy in the world, shall we?

*Looks at Somalia*

Point made.

You're confusing a state of anarchy with an anarchist 'state'. Anarchism is more than just the lack of a centralised government, nor for that matter, with respect to Somalia, is it a bunch of statist warlords fighting each other for control of the country.

Now, in theory Anarchism would work. But that would mean everyone would have to be nice and not abuse their free rights. And that's never gonna happen. Anarchism is impossible to achieve. Well, Impossible to achieve without chaos and destruction.

So what was that thing that happened during the SCW then?

pretty much from today on i might be leaning that way - i came up with an arguement i hadn't considered before that convinced me during one of my Political Theory lectures today. shame i can't remember what it was, but i remember thinking "wow thats anarcho-communism and i like it"

I'm leaning that way too. I think it's the state, and its monopoly on the use of force and how that can, and basically IS, misused is one of the reasons pointing me in that direction. *wonders if that sentence made sense*

You're confusing a state of anarchy with an anarchist 'state'. Anarchism is more than just the lack of a centralised government, nor for that matter, with respect to Somalia, is it a bunch of statist warlords fighting each other for control of the country.

Well, Somalia is Anarchism in Practice. That is what an Anarchist "state" would be like if it were put in practice.



So what was that thing that happened during the SCW then?

SCW?

I think that you could perhaps briefly get an anarchist community surviving, but it wouldn't last. Without any way to enforce anarchism people would form their own governments whether they want to or not.

It could come up sneakily, like this:
I'm going to use an event in Greek history as an example. Back early on in Greece there were a lot of city-states with no central authority. These states acted much like people in an anarchist state. Then Persia came along, and, as all good citizens of anarchies do, the city states worked together to stop the collective threat. So far so good. But Persia remained a danger, and invaded again. Again this group went up, and while they were victorious the second time too, they realized they were in danger. So they set up a loose organization called the Delian league for mutual defense. Cities could contribute either ships or money to the league. Athens, as a skilled shipbuilding culture, contributed most of the ships and soldiers, while other less skilled cities gave money. Now look at what we have happening. An army of Athenians is being formed, funded by the other cities. As Athens gains power within this league and eventually bans anyone from leaving. As the league soldiers are all Athenian the people must obey. Soon we have what we call an empire. End of story. You get how this could happen to an anarchist state?

This is why I think an anarchist state would have to have some sort of surrounding state keeping it in a state of anarchy. I have a situation like this in one of the stories I've written, it's called an anarchist preserve.

Well, Somalia is Anarchism in Practice. That is what an Anarchist "state" would be like if it were put in practice.

...

SCW?

Spanish Civil War - which kind of answers your first question as well. For that matter we can also look at the Makhnovists of the Russian Civil War: it seems a bizarre paradox that anarchist societies seem to rise up and reach their bloom in opposition to the attempt by statist societies to control them.

Ah yes, Anarcho-Capitalism.

It's like Conservative Capitalism, just minus the influence the companies have on the government.


Countries without functioning governments (third world countries) are simply economic paradises, arent they.

Institutions have been shown again and again by economists to be the central component in successful economies.

Spanish Civil War - which kind of answers your first question as well. For that matter we can also look at the Makhnovists of the Russian Civil War: it seems a bizarre paradox that anarchist societies seem to rise up and reach their bloom in opposition to the attempt by statist societies to control them.


The failed experiements during the spanish civil war and the russian civil war are strong pieces of evidence against the hypotheses of 'successful anarchism.'

Spanish Civil War - which kind of answers your first question as well. For that matter we can also look at the Makhnovists of the Russian Civil War: it seems a bizarre paradox that anarchist societies seem to rise up and reach their bloom in opposition to the attempt by statist societies to control them.

SCW wasn't between Anarchists and A government, num nut! It was between Left and the Nationalists). As was the RCW. The country was in Anarchy, there wasn't a War between Anarchists and not anarchists! You learn your history.

Althought I'm libertarian I'm closest to anarcho-capitalist

SCW wasn't between Anarchists and A government, num nut! It was between Left and the Nationalists). As was the RCW. The country was in Anarchy, there wasn't a War between Anarchists and not anarchists! You learn your history.

During the SCW the Republican forces were comprised of a wide range of different political groupings: from the Trotskyite POUM through the socialist PSOE to the anarchist FIA and CNT. The fact that the anarchists were sold down the river by the statist forces on their own side doesn't escape me. The central point here, however is that during the SCW the anarchist held areas were run according to anarchist principles. As for the Russian Civil War and the Makhnovists we see the same phenomenon - an anarchist militia/army which is able to hold territory and run the land according to anarchist principles... the fact that they too fell foul of not the enemy, but the statist leftists to which they were allied once again doesn't escape me.

The failed experiements during the spanish civil war and the russian civil war are strong pieces of evidence against the hypotheses of 'successful anarchism.'

Interestingly enough, the terminal failures in both can be seen to have been trusting the statist (Marxist) leftists, rather than internal failures.

Countries without functioning governments (third world countries) are simply economic paradises, arent they.

Institutions have been shown again and again by economists to be the central component in successful economies.

Absolutely. Without social institutions, economies and societies would fall apart in short order. The question is, do those social insitutions need to be heirarchical?

Why do critics of anarchism seem to understand it so little?

For the same libs and cons criticize each other and don't understand, bias.

Why do critics of anarchism seem to understand it so little?

Alot of us do.

It's just we understand that it is impossible to achieve...and keep it for long. Eventually, it just collapses.

But, I guess it's nice for people to have dreams.

Of course, if it's just a bunch of posers who create an "Anarchist Nation", well, they'll immediately make an "Anarchist Constitution". You know how that goes.

what exactly would make a constitution necessarily unanarchist?

Interestingly enough, the terminal failures in both can be seen to have been trusting the statist (Marxist) leftists, rather than internal failures.


You're aware that a vacuum in which anarchy might somehow defy the body of evidence regarding human behavior is imaginary.

Alot of us do.

It's just we understand that it is impossible to achieve...and keep it for long. Eventually, it just collapses.

But, I guess it's nice for people to have dreams.
Agreed. I like anarchy, but it is exactly that, a dream.

Well, Somalia is Anarchism in Practice.

which institutions advocated by anarchists are in place in somolia?

Absolutely. Without social institutions, economies and societies would fall apart in short order. The question is, do those social insitutions need to be heirarchical?


A better question is: can they be anything but heirarchical? and will they?

which institutions advocated by anarchists are in place in somolia?

It's not an anarchist "state", per se, but It is a country in Anarchy. And isn't that what you want? No laws, do whatever the hell you like? I've come up with a new phrase to attract tourists to Somalia!

Somalia: A Land of Opportunities and NO Government!

A better question is: can they be anything but heirarchical?

since we know that it is possible for some socieites to exist with very egalitarian social institutions, the answer is yes. the issue is how to make similar institutions for our new social circumstances.

Agreed. I like anarchy, but it is exactly that, a dream.

It seems that some anarchists on this board(*cough*Letila*cough8) don't realize that.

It's not an anarchist "state", per se, but It is a country in Anarchy. And isn't that what you want? No laws, do whatever the hell you like? I've come up with a new phrase to attract tourists to Somalia!

You have to remember that Somalia may lack a government, but its culture is still hierarchial.

And isn't that what you want?

nope

now that we've cleared that up, let's move on.

It seems that some anarchists on this board(*cough*Letila*cough8) don't realize that.

I believed in anarchy at letila's age if i'm not mistaken.

He may yet grow up to be perfectly reasonable.

since we know that it is possible for some socieites to exist with very egalitarian social institutions, the answer is yes. the issue is how to make similar institutions for our new social circumstances.


Which societies are those?

It's not an anarchist "state", per se, but It is a country in Anarchy. And isn't that what you want? No laws, do whatever the hell you like? I've come up with a new phrase to attract tourists to Somalia!
Which takes us to an important point. The way the media have been manipulating words to give them a negative meaning. Anarchy is not chaos, but the mass media almost always implies that. Look at their coverage of the protests against the WTO in Seattle, that was total bullsh-t. And in an Anarchist society, you can, theoretically, do whatever the hell you want, but there are always consequences, and almost all dangerous crime is the product of capitalism and the state.

Anyway, I'm an Anarcho-Syndicalist with an Anarcho-Communist streak (I think a gift economy would be a great idea).

Agreed. I like anarchy, but it is exactly that, a dream.
An anarchist society is an inherant possibility, and there have been several instances where one has been established:
-Spain, mainly Catalonia and Aragon, during the Civil War. This is probably the best example of anarchy at work. Almost all of Catalonia was collectivized, and in some places money was even abolished.
-Ukraine, where the Makhnovist revolution fought against the Red Army as well as the White Army, and were welcomed by the citizen, unlike both the others.
-The Hungarian Revolution. For a year, the workers controlled almost all of Hungary, and fought off Stalin's forces.

-Freetown Christiania is a quarter of Copenhagen where the army barracks were just taken over by an anarchist commune. Technically, it is part of Denmark, but the cops just leave it alone, and it has prospered till today.

And in an Anarchist society, you can, theoretically, do whatever the hell you want, but there are always consequences, and almost all dangerous crime is the product of capitalism and the state.




Violence certainly precedes capitalism as a deliberate mode and predates the state as well.

Ditto theft.

Violence certainly precedes capitalism as a deliberate mode and predates the state as well.

Ditto theft.
Well, even in pre-capitalist societies, there were hierarchies similar to the state, but even more authoritarian.

In an egalitarian society, motives like greed just wouldn't exist.

Well, even in pre-capitalist societies, there were hierarchies similar to the state, but even more authoritarian.

In an egalitarian society, motives like greed just wouldn't exist.


And why would people cease to be self interested?

And why would people cease to be self interested?
Call it a crazy theory, but self interest in a heirarchal society is basically about moving up the social and economic ladder. If you eliminate the ladder, you eliminate self interest.

Which societies are those?

among the most dramatically egalitarian societies we have observed in recent times would be ones such as the hadza, mbuti, batek, ju/'hoan, etc. they weren't practicing anarchism in the sense put forward by anarchists from proudhon on, but they do completely destroy the idea that it is impossible for human society to exist in anything other than a hierarchical mold.

now, if i remember our previous discussions correctly, your next move is to shift the goalposts and claim that that may have worked well enough for them, but it is impossible for us now. and then we move on to the spanish civil war and such and how examples of areas running basically anarchisticly in modern times have not collapsed due to internal structural problems. and you then claim that because the anarchists in spain eventually lost, that proves that it can't work. and then i say that pretty much any society will collapse when faced with the circumstances facing the anarchists in spain or in ukraine. etc.

Call it a crazy theory, but self interest in a heirarchal society is basically about moving up the social and economic ladder. If you eliminate the ladder, you eliminate self interest.


How do you propose to eliminate the possiblity of one person having more goods or influence than another?

among the most dramatically egalitarian societies we have observed in recent times would be ones such as the hadza, mbuti, batek, ju/'hoan, etc. they weren't practicing anarchism in the sense put forward by anarchists from proudhon on, but they do completely destroy the idea that it is impossible for human society to exist in anything other than a hierarchical mold.

now, if i remember our previous discussions correctly, your next move is to shift the goalposts and claim that that may have worked well enough for them, but it is impossible for us now. and then we move on to the spanish civil war and such and how examples of areas running basically anarchisticly in modern times have not collapsed due to internal structural problems. and you then claim that because the anarchists in spain eventually lost, that proves that it can't work. and then i say that pretty much any society will collapse when faced with the circumstances facing the anarchists in spain or in ukraine. etc.


My first question is: What are the populations of said societies, what are their geographical circumstances.

My response to your statement:
How long did the anarchist collectives in the places you mentioned last? Was the ammount of time sufficient to determine whether or not they were workable systems?

Writing off external factors degenerates something from sense into fantasy.
I do not argue that in relatively small, isolated groups collectives are possible.

I do argue that in reality, on a large scale in a world populated by real people, they are not.

How do you propose to eliminate the possiblity of one person having more goods or influence than another?
Well, I can't see a society where people have exactly the same goods, but a society with a gift economy is possible. Everyone has exactly what they need, and because they have what they need, they do not want more.

As for influence, General Assemblies. Everyone is completely equal. Experts (People with legitimate authority) are elected to perform the everyday duties of the community, but all the major decisions are made by the assembly.

Well, I can't see a society where people have exactly the same goods, but a society with a gift economy is possible. Everyone has exactly what they need, and because they have what they need, they do not want more.

As for influence, General Assemblies. Everyone is completely equal. Experts (People with legitimate authority) are elected to perform the everyday duties of the community, but all the major decisions are made by the assembly.


How do you propose preventing people from accumulating more goods or influence than others?

... and because they have what they need, they do not want more.

The world doesn't work that way. I mean, just look at the words you've used. You talk about satisfaction of needs ("they have what they need" and therefore don't need more) and then apply the same logic to wants. I'm not sure the transitive property you're assuming actually exists. In fact, I'm pretty damn sure it doesn't.

*sigh*

Ah well. Me likes Capitalism and I don't see any reason for me to change my preference anytime soon. Life is good.

*sigh*

Ah well. Me likes Capitalism and I don't see any reason for me to change my preference anytime soon. Life is good.

As tempted as I am to say "yes yes, capitalism is responsible for all my lovely things and all the things ive done and can do, yay capitalism!"
I have been to northern europe and know that socialism can provide the same material standard of living but at the same time be moral.

Nope: that's an anarcho-capitalist. An anarcho-syndicalist believes in power going to the people through self-management of the workplace by unions/trades.

For anarcho-syndicalist see "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"

:D

For anarcho-syndicalist see "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"

:D

OMFG!

You're right!

A better question is: can they be anything but heirarchical?

Yeah.

and will they?

Not until everybody gets their act together.

My first question is: What are the populations of said societies, what are their geographical circumstances.

turnbull estimated the batwa population (which includes the mbuti and related groups) at 200,000. the san (which includes the ju/'hoan) were estimated to be about 100,000 before the forced settlements. these numbers are significantly smaller than what they were before colonization.

their geographical circumstances are varied as they are found on multiple continents.

My response to your statement:
How long did the anarchist collectives in the places you mentioned last? Was the ammount of time sufficient to determine whether or not they were workable systems?

up to several years where they were not really under the authority of the state. and they did at least as well as anywhere else has done under similar circumstances - with at least some evidence that some of the anarchist collectives in spain during the civil war were more productive than they had been before the start of the war and being collectivized.

Writing off external factors degenerates something from sense into fantasy.

it is not 'writing off' to say that pretty much no society will survive being attacked by better armed and funded enemies and being betrayed by your supposed allies. rather, it is taking those factors fully into account.

For anarcho-syndicalist see "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"

:D

which isn't actually a bad start. those pythons' knew their leftist politics.

which isn't actually a bad start. those pythons' knew their leftist politics.


That they did. Man, I need to watch that again... I've got it on DvD, and I'm on this laptop that has a DvD player, and I haven't watched it in about sixteen months. Damnit.

The world doesn't work that way. I mean, just look at the words you've used. You talk about satisfaction of needs ("they have what they need" and therefore don't need more) and then apply the same logic to wants. I'm not sure the transitive property you're assuming actually exists. In fact, I'm pretty damn sure it doesn't.
That's my whole point. Greed is the product of an society where social and economic inequality is present. It may be horribly idealist, but I believe that humans are inherantly good, and once their needs are satisfied, there will be no more wants.

My first question is: What are the populations of said societies, what are their geographical circumstances.
An area with a population of 7 million was collectivised and run on Anarchist principles during the Spanish revolution for around two years (Depending on who you ask, and when they believe the Communists took over).

That's the population of all of Canada west of Ontario. It proves that Anarchism on a large scale is possible.

Just a question. What is Anarcho-Socialism?

I know the others. But never heard of this one.

Just a question. What is Anarcho-Socialism?

I know the others. But never heard of this one.

Telegram AnarchyeL. I'm sure he would be happy to explain it. :D

Telegram AnarchyeL. I'm sure he would be happy to explain it. :D
Are you sure it exists?

I dunno, seems kinda ... wrong. Since 'socialism' either describes a broad school of thought (that encompasses Anarchism and Communism, amoung others) or the vague watered down Communism found in Social Democracy.

And, dammit, it seems I accidently recruited myself into the ranks of the Anarcho-Capitalists, I'm sure Anarcho-Communism what the top choice when I click [vote now]. :headbang:

That's my whole point. Greed is the product of an society where social and economic inequality is present. It may be horribly idealist, but I believe that humans are inherantly good, and once their needs are satisfied, there will be no more wants.


An area with a population of 7 million was collectivised and run on Anarchist principles during the Spanish revolution for around two years (Depending on who you ask, and when they believe the Communists took over).

That's the population of all of Canada west of Ontario. It proves that Anarchism on a large scale is possible.


The central issue with regards to the 2-year anarchist experiment during the spanish civil war is this:

The main internal problem for an 'anarchist' society is maintaining egalitarianism in the long-term. When revolutionary zeal and fortress mentality starts to wane, the real challanges to 'anarchism' arise in the form of sectarianism and people who are desire to have more goods or influence than others.

I do not think that a two-year period during a civil war even remotely qualifies to serve as evidence that such a society could exist in the long term.

The main internal problem for an 'anarchist' society is maintaining egalitarianism in the long-term. When revolutionary zeal and fortress mentality starts to wane, the real challanges to 'anarchism' arise in the form of sectarianism and people who are desire to have more goods or influence than others.I agree with you there, those problems did arise during the Spanish Revolution. But unfortunately, that wasn't a complety anarchist community. There was still a parliament, and representatives. The land wasn't completely controlled by the proletariat, it was a Popular Front, and a large part of the front thought of the state as an integral part in establishing an egalitarian society. However, it was the closest we've ever got to a completely egalitarian society on a large scale, and we can learn a lot from it.

I do not think that a two-year period during a civil war even remotely qualifies to serve as evidence that such a society could exist in the long term.[/QUOTE]
Only circumstance has prevented a large scale Anarchist community from existing in the long term. Freetown Christiania (With a population of over 1000) has been going strong for 34 years.

In my opinion, an Anarchist community on a large scale, established in peacetime, could last in the long term. Without the threat of war, alliances, and depending on powers that will hold influences on you, different sects can come to a consensus.