NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just thinking of Anarchy, since I have nothing better to do than think about Anarchy, I guess. Human nature falls upon order, blah blah, yeah, it does. Inefficiency, by nature, fails and perishes. Anarchy is a system where people somehow, magically, do the "right thing" because there are no evil laws to tell them killing people is wrong. All those pesky laws. Anyways, Anarchy is inefficiency at the core, because, for one, Anarchy by nature is inefficient, two, Anarchy cannot exist because human society always orders itself oligarchically, and three, because if Anarchy did somehow exist for a short period of time, a tyrannical movement would occur to reinstate an orderly society, which would probably be totalitarian. Anarchy just isn't possible, practical, or realistic. Besides, most Anarchists are just kids with shirts with the "A" and circle mixed together. When they grow up and get jobs, things tend to look different.

Anarchy is basically law of the stronger. The weak will eventually band together, or the strong will band together to maintain their position, hence, no more anarchy.
Yeah, I think I agree with you.

Anarchy is the lowest state of human existence. It turns us in to nothing more than instinctual monsters, trying to survive and anyone in our way nothing more than another competitor for survival; the levels of atrocities commited would make those of the world's most brutal dictators pale in comparison, and in the end a strongman would arise to rule society and establish the very oppression that anarchy was supposed to avert.

Effectively, I agree with you. Anarchy is the fastest path to the rule of Big Brother.

Ever consider that perhaps the reason behind communist and anarchist theory was to institute an order of power? I mean, even then, communism was unrealistic, simply because it depended on a "Brotherhood of Man". Not suggesting conspiracy, just suggesting intent. The communist revolutions of our century have always resulted in the rise to power of an oligarchy of some sort, it seems like a natural side-effect by now. Perhaps that was the original intent.

*waits for Letila to extoll anarchy*
But in any case, anarchy is pretty much self-defeating. Since it leaves a power vaccum that just waits to to be filled.

I was just thinking of Anarchy, since I have nothing better to do than think about Anarchy, I guess. Human nature falls upon order, blah blah, yeah, it does. Inefficiency, by nature, fails and perishes. Anarchy is a system where people somehow, magically, do the "right thing" because there are no evil laws to tell them killing people is wrong.

There can be social control without laws. In an anarchic society, I think that the majority of people would continue to follow a certain moral code, regardless of the lack of laws.

Anarchy is basically law of the stronger. The weak will eventually band together, or the strong will band together to maintain their position, hence, no more anarchy.
Yeah, I think I agree with you.
Thats not the idea, just what usally happens. The idea behind anarchy is not that everyone will be perfect just that removing the government will remove alot of evils such as war, fighing over money and a number of other social issues. The problem is when real life steps in, however show me a system of government that is flawless.

There can be social control without laws. In an anarchic society, I think that the majority of people would continue to follow a certain moral code, regardless of the lack of laws.

But it's that minority of wrongdoers that is unrestrained by law that would be the main threat to the society; it would be these same people who would usher in the subsequent despotism. Social control requires rule of law, unless the population in question is very small, isolated and very dependent on each other for survival. Anarchy just doesn't work on a scale larger than that.

Anarchy is a theory at most. Anarchy in practice is Somalia or lord of the flies.
But then one could consider all the other vague definition of Anarchy but once again only theory.
But frank truth is that no theory actually works. The only kind of economic and/or political system that works is the period of moderation between the extremes. But we are not machines so that kind of society could never be maintained. So we are doomed to be driven by our desires and theories and people will then suffer or benefit. So thats all there is too it. Synical but hey, whatever, nature is pretty synical.
-Chris

There can be social control without laws. In an anarchic society, I think that the majority of people would continue to follow a certain moral code, regardless of the lack of laws.
hmmm...maybe. But the people who don't will be the ones in control because of their ability and willingness to use violence to acheive their ends.

There can be social control without laws. In an anarchic society, I think that the majority of people would continue to follow a certain moral code, regardless of the lack of laws.

No, there can't. Feel free to point out a stable, functioning society that has existed without some form of laws. You can't. Because if such an endeavor was attempted, it would fail miserably.

What makes you think the majority of people would live in harmony? It's just egalitarian nonsense. People are tribal, some will rise to power, most will be submissive. That is the way of things.

Thats not the idea, just what usally happens. The idea behind anarchy is not that everyone will be perfect just that removing the government will remove alot of evils such as war, fighing over money and a number of other social issues. The problem is when real life steps in, however show me a system of government that is flawless.

There are no flawless governments. And the idea behind Anarchy is that somehow, people would live in harmony without laws. That's complete idiocy. Without laws and order, a new dictatorship would emerge to restore order. Anarchy is just a front for totalitarian uprising.

But it's that minority of wrongdoers that is unrestrained by law that would be the main threat to the society; it would be these same people who would usher in the subsequent despotism. Social control requires rule of law, unless the population in question is very small, isolated and very dependent on each other for survival. Anarchy just doesn't work on a scale larger than that.

Communism is also certainly self-sustainable on a small-scale. But it would require laws and regulation, or else people would do whatever the hell they wanted. And with laws and regulation come bureaucracy, for there has never been an absence of that. And with bureaucracy comes centralization, and the state. You can't have lack of laws because it would entail barbarism and rise to power of authoritarian elements.

But it's that minority of wrongdoers that is unrestrained by law that would be the main threat to the society; it would be these same people who would usher in the subsequent despotism. Social control requires rule of law, unless the population in question is very small, isolated and very dependent on each other for survival. Anarchy just doesn't work on a scale larger than that.

That is, as you say, a major problem. Communities could work together to regulate this minority of offenders and bring order...but that wouldn't really be anarchy. They would be re-instituting the rule of law.

Anarchy might work, so long as all peoples involved were devoted to maintaining the anarchial system.

Too many people think that anarchy means a lack of organization. It doesn't. It just means that organizations are free-flowing. You join those that you support, while you support them, then leave them for others.

Unfortunately, like most systems, it fails when brought against the reality of human nature: Most people don't take the long view, and few are brave enough to challenge those taking on power unless it affects them directly. An anarchy requires both to survive. Otherwise it devolves, as pointed out, into oligarchies and "warlord" status.

Anarchy might work, so long as all peoples involved were devoted to maintaining the anarchial system.

Too many people think that anarchy means a lack of organization. It doesn't. It just means that organizations are free-flowing. You join those that you support, while you support them, then leave them for others.

Unfortunately, like most systems, it fails when brought against the reality of human nature: Most people don't take the long view, and few are brave enough to challenge those taking on power unless it affects them directly. An anarchy requires both to survive. Otherwise it devolves, as pointed out, into oligarchies and "warlord" status.

Anarchy by nature isn't a system, it is lack of system. It is entropy. And as a species living in a universe where efficiency survives, and things adapt, we couldn't live in an environment lacking in laws because it is against inherent human nature. There's a reason why human society has always been tribal.

Anarchy is organization without force. It is the minimization of authority and the maximization of freedom. It isn't the same thing as nihilism or war of all against all. It is much more than that.

the problem with the interpretation that most people have of anarchy, and which is being espoused here, is one of comprehension of what the anarchist seeks. lack of a power hierarchy does not equal chaos. the anarchist principle relies on the same human instincts that any other socio-politcal system does. people want to look out for themselves and those they have personal concern for. because of this, they will continue to work to better society and maintain productivity at sustenance levels. it would, theoretically, be more efficient than current systems because of the lack of accountability pervasive in "profit motive" driven systems. there is no encouragement to do wrong to others, as this does not benefit you. furthermore, the useless garbage that our societies spend so much time and money on would be avoided because they would not be a practical usage of energies.
the real issue that makes anarchy impossible under current circumstances is the ingrained idea that possession matters. there is no natural human tendency toward power-grabbing. it is a learned practice. our society places a premium on proving that one is better than someone else. if we could actually live by the values that we attempt to instill in children (i.e. sharing; acknowledging fault and apologizing for doing wrong; reamining calm when we don't get our way) we would make a huge step toward a more egalitarian society, anarchist or not.

finally, the issue with "communist" revolutions is not that they revealed the error of the theory behind them. no nation claiming this mantle has actually followed the evolution that marx laid out. what we have seen is dictators using idealistic concepts with popular appeal to convince nations that to follow them would be fruitful. not every bolshevik or maoist read marx. if they had they would see that their nations were not ready for the marxist definition of communism. basically, the failure of socialism in the forms it has taken so far is that it was, in fact despotism. this is of course coupled with the fact that nations have become interdependent. both raw materials and finished products are traded across every border in the world. without the aid of other nations, and more importantly, with the explicit refusal of cooperation from other powerful nations, such a system cannot continue. those of us in capitalist nations destroyed any chance that communism might have had.

please pardon my lecture, i have been arguing politics all day at university. :rolleyes:

I was just thinking of Anarchy, since I have nothing better to do than think about Anarchy, I guess. Human nature falls upon order, blah blah, yeah, it does. Inefficiency, by nature, fails and perishes. Anarchy is a system where people somehow, magically, do the "right thing" because there are no evil laws to tell them killing people is wrong. All those pesky laws. Anyways, Anarchy is inefficiency at the core, because, for one, Anarchy by nature is inefficient, two, Anarchy cannot exist because human society always orders itself oligarchically, and three, because if Anarchy did somehow exist for a short period of time, a tyrannical movement would occur to reinstate an orderly society, which would probably be totalitarian. Anarchy just isn't possible, practical, or realistic. Besides, most Anarchists are just kids with shirts with the "A" and circle mixed together. When they grow up and get jobs, things tend to look different.
You're not talking about me are you...

Anarchy is organization without force. It is the minimization of authority and the maximization of freedom. It isn't the same thing as nihilism or war of all against all. It is much more than that.

theres no such thing as organization with out force. Civiliztion are created this way weather by a group working to gether to control the masses or by 1 man controling a group that controls the masses. The masses being so easly controled becuase they are fraction and lets face it every one has there own personal agenda for most thats to survive and live happily and for the few it's to control those around you so that you may live freely and not be controlled your self.

i require a bit of clarification.

are we talking 'anarchy' as in social collapse and civil war between rival dictators or 'anarchy' as in a society operating on the principles and institutions proposed by the political theories of anarchism?

theres no such thing as organization with out force.

this is trivially false. or do your friends threaten you with physical violence every time they want to do something as a group?

there is no encouragement to do wrong to others, as this does not benefit you. furthermore, the useless garbage that our societies spend so much time and money on would be avoided because they would not be a practical usage of energies.

I don't buy this. If somebody wants my dinner or cow or my girlfriend or to stick his penis in my lovely butthole, he will can still use violence to get it.

Anarchy is bullshit. It's not even the lack of control so much as the total collapse of services and infrastructure.

Who's gonna make power? Who's going to make incredibly expensive medicines and run the hospitals? Who'll maintain the roads and water and power infrastructure?

NO ONE. Not to mention the lack of a law code and police, or effective epidemic containment in places like Africa, or government aid during droughts and disasters.

Yes, you can whine "but people will do it out of the goodness of their hearts!" Well, I've got some news for you, buddy. THEY WON'T. You might see a doctor closing wounds or setting a bone, but without an organized government the vast majority of human services and our infrastructure would collapse within days.

Unless you're suggesting we revert to the Stone Age, I'd have to say this won't work. At all.

Anarchy is organization without force. It is the minimization of authority and the maximization of freedom. It isn't the same thing as nihilism or war of all against all. It is much more than that.

I invite you to show how Anarchy would not lead to strong-man uprising. In chaos, there is always a new form of order. Anarchy is chaos. To be organized would not be anarchist because it would entail levels of cooperation that would lead to statism. You're basically putting hopes in a "system" where people live in harmony, without explaining how it is even remotely realistic. It's just a fantasy.

And Slovakastania, even the Stone Age had order. It was just known as tribal oligarchism. I feel that communists and anarchists honestly don't understand that their systems are merely a method to let authoritarians rise to power. They just get so swept up in egalitarian nonsense and "brotherhood of man"ism that they ignore the basic fact that if there was a revolution to create anarchy, it would then admit itself as an organized force. And if human society magically, simultaneously, decided that laws were bullshit, and that everyone should live happily ever after, it would only happen in the Twilight Zone.

I'm not talking about Somalian anarchy. By the way, Somalia is ruled by warlords, it is not anarchic in any sense. I'm talking about, if anarchy the theory was implimented. And my whole point is that it is humanly impossible to maintain such a system.

I invite you to show how Anarchy would not lead to strong-man uprising. In chaos, there is always a new form of order. Anarchy is chaos. To be organized would not be anarchist because it would entail levels of cooperation that would lead to statism. You're basically putting hopes in a "system" where people live in harmony, without explaining how it is even remotely realistic. It's just a fantasy.

Not necessarily. A strong-man would have to win people over, for one. One person can't take control unless they have the force to impliment such things.

Anarchy is chaos.

well, that answers that question.

next question: does anyone seriously advocate anarchy in the sense you are using, or is it just a strawman?

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be wonderful to live in a world where people didn't need laws, because they chose the least externally harmful choices. It would be wonderful. Even communism, in a sense, would be wonderful too. But, history shows us that communism just doesn't seem to work. And that no popular consensus supports anarchy. Besides, I WANT to own my own little piece of land, I WANT to own books, I want to read whatever the fuck I want, I want to eat whatever I can afford, I want to be able to choose my own path in life, and I want differences of opinion so that this world will be an interesting place.

Without laws though, humans just can't bond together in a harmonious relationship. Without laws, humans would be MORE inclined to use deadly force, because there would be no lawful inhibitions. Although here in the United States people often kill each other for opinions and actions, there would be more deaths if there was no law against killing another. And besides, I don't want to be required to clean toilets in a communist utopia. Fuck that. I clean up after myself perfectly, thank you very much. I don't need to be scrubbing semi-digested corn and shit from ceramics, or do garbage-duty once every third tuesday.

Understand? I'm pointing out that anarchy isn't realistic or even feasible. But I'm pointing out that I have no opposition to a real utopia should one be possible. After all, I'm a fan of ST:TNG :)

I think some of the posters definitions of 'Anarchism' are, lets say, a little off the mark and if your simply using teenagers wearing 'A' on there t-shirt as your marker, then please re-evaluate. Let me help ;)

Anarchism; the name given to a principle of theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of the needs and aspirations of a civilized being, In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state of its functions.

'Anarchism' as a political structure has never sustained for the same reason no other system has ever sustained; because of the flaw in the individual and also when these individuals sometimes form a mob.

The ultimate truth is that if in an archaic system there isn't total honesty and agreeance then it will fail. No agreed relations obviously means that the system isn't meeting the criteria of 'anarchism'. Without total honesty then there isn't really an agreed relationship and eventually any agreed relationship will end.
With other structures (democratic, republic, dictatorship...) there doesn't necessarily need be total honesty for it to succeed, but some level of agreeance is always needed.

That's why anarchists don't like coersion and also why most people who don't like coersion are anarchists.
People who aren't anarchists at heart have either yet to become enlightened to all the lies they are told, or they simply agree with the actions that are being taken because of these lies existing, in essence agreeing with the initial stance of their state.

I was just thinking of Anarchy, since I have nothing better to do than think about Anarchy, I guess. Human nature falls upon order, blah blah, yeah, it does. Inefficiency, by nature, fails and perishes. Anarchy is a system where people somehow, magically, do the "right thing" because there are no evil laws to tell them killing people is wrong. All those pesky laws. Anyways, Anarchy is inefficiency at the core, because, for one, Anarchy by nature is inefficient, two, Anarchy cannot exist because human society always orders itself oligarchically, and three, because if Anarchy did somehow exist for a short period of time, a tyrannical movement would occur to reinstate an orderly society, which would probably be totalitarian. Anarchy just isn't possible, practical, or realistic. Besides, most Anarchists are just kids with shirts with the "A" and circle mixed together. When they grow up and get jobs, things tend to look different.

It is hard to believe that this bankrupt theory still has supporters.... Then again if there is one thing you can count on in this messed up world it's that bankrupt theories, no matter how old, hatful or unrealistic are bound to have supporters some-where in the wood work.... :(

'Anarchism' as a political structure has never sustained for the same reason no other system has ever sustained; because of the flaw in the individual and also when these individuals sometimes form a mob.

Actually if you look at the two major large scale anarchist societies which existed in the twentieth century (the collectives of the Spanish civil war, and the Makhnovists of the Russian Civil War), you'll see that they fell because they were crushed by forces outside of themselves, rather than due to some flaw inherent in the people inside or because of a pro-mob shift within them.

The fact that both of these examples were crushed as a result of the action of authoritarian communists external to the communities who had previously pretended to be fellow travellers remains a thorn in the side of many of us anarchists.

Anarchy is bullshit. It's not even the lack of control so much as the total collapse of services and infrastructure.

Who's gonna make power? Who's going to make incredibly expensive medicines and run the hospitals? Who'll maintain the roads and water and power infrastructure?

NO ONE. Not to mention the lack of a law code and police, or effective epidemic containment in places like Africa, or government aid during droughts and disasters.

Yes, you can whine "but people will do it out of the goodness of their hearts!" Well, I've got some news for you, buddy. THEY WON'T. You might see a doctor closing wounds or setting a bone, but without an organized government the vast majority of human services and our infrastructure would collapse within days.

Unless you're suggesting we revert to the Stone Age, I'd have to say this won't work. At all.
Who the hell argued that all civilization has to fall apart in an anarchist society? Most corporations would most likely continue to exist, as would the power plants. Law would still function, mostly through consenting communities that would simply ask people who didn't abide by their rules to move on. The entire idea at the core of anarchism is consent, not the lack of rules. Anarchists, correct me if I'm wrong FS and Letila, believe in consent, not force, and have no objection to rules and laws provided that everyone consents to them. You'd have a variety of governments springing up all over the place, ranging from near-communist states to capitalist-anarcho states, however none of them would require people who don't wish to be in them to be in them.

Anarchists, correct me if I'm wrong FS and Letila, believe in consent, not force, and have no objection to rules and laws provided that everyone consents to them.

Speaking as an anarchist myself, my major concern is the removal of heirarchical social structures. Rules and laws* agreed upon by proper consensual democratic methods within communities are a good thing in my anarchist book.





* call them 'norms of acceptable behaviour' if it makes anyone feel better.

Speaking as an anarchist myself, my major concern is the removal of heirarchical social structures. Rules and laws* agreed upon by proper consensual democratic methods within communities are a good thing in my anarchist book.





* call them 'norms of acceptable behaviour' if it makes anyone feel better.

Norms, laws, whatever social constraints can be named, still aren't anarchistic, even if 99% of everyone agrees.

Norms, laws, whatever social constraints can be named, still aren't anarchistic, even if 99% of everyone agrees.
Which is the point, the other 1% leaves and forms their own community.

Which is the point, the other 1% leaves and forms their own community.

Which would mean that the original community betrayed the revolution.

Which would mean that the original community betrayed the revolution.
Rhetoric is not reality.

I assume you don't consider anarcho-capitalism anarchy because it only speaks of lack of a state.

I think Anarchy would work fine, if everyone was polite and respectful.

Rhetoric is not reality.

Rhetoric? If you believe a community with laws or constraints is anarchic in any way, you obviously have no clue what anarchy means.

Definition of "anarchy". (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchy)

Rhetoric? If you believe a community with laws or constraints is anarchic in any way, you obviously have no clue what anarchy means.

Definition of "anarchy". (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchy)
Cute. You should know that a dictionary is a very very bad reference, right?

Cute. You should know that a dictionary is a very very bad reference, right?

Then look it up in an encylopaedia. Anarchy is lawlessness. The social constraint issue you spoke of, is thoroughly un-anarchic.

Then look it up in an encylopaedia. Anarchy is lawlessness. The social constraint issue you spoke of, is thoroughly un-anarchic.
Oversimplification, and you know it. Anarchy is not lawless, anarchism is the idea that a society of people can exist without the need for force, that direct democracy and consent can handle the need for government and organization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_Society

Then look it up in an encylopaedia. Anarchy is lawlessness.

sure. as long as we define 'law' as a body of rules imposed on people by an elite group without their consent, anyway. that's how kropotkin used the term when he wrote the encyclopedia article on anarchism (http://recollectionbooks.com/siml/library/anarchismEncyBrit.htm) for the 1910 encyclopedia britannica and in 'law and authority (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/revpamphlets/lawandauthority.htm)'.

"Now the conqueror was in a hurry to secure the results of his actions in a permanent form, he tried to place them beyond question, to make them holy and venerable by every means in his power. Law made its appearance under the sanction of the priest, and the warrior's club was placed at its service. Its office was to render immutable such customs as were to the advantage of the dominant minority. Military authority undertook to ensure obedience. This new function was a fresh guarantee to the power of the warrior; now he had not only mere brute force at his service; he was the defender of law."


however, anarchists have always been in favor of voluntary agreed on rules and systems of organization. hell, we're even explicitly in favor of large-scale federations of political bodies. as the saying goes, "no rulers, not 'no rules'".

sure. as long as we define 'law' as a body of rules imposed on people by an elite group without their consent, anyway. that's how kropotkin used the term when he wrote the encyclopedia article on anarchism (http://recollectionbooks.com/siml/library/anarchismEncyBrit.htm) for the 1910 encyclopedia britannica and in 'law and authority (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/revpamphlets/lawandauthority.htm)'.

"Now the conqueror was in a hurry to secure the results of his actions in a permanent form, he tried to place them beyond question, to make them holy and venerable by every means in his power. Law made its appearance under the sanction of the priest, and the warrior's club was placed at its service. Its office was to render immutable such customs as were to the advantage of the dominant minority. Military authority undertook to ensure obedience. This new function was a fresh guarantee to the power of the warrior; now he had not only mere brute force at his service; he was the defender of law."


however, anarchists have always been in favor of voluntary agreed on rules and systems of organization. hell, we're even explicitly in favor of large-scale federations of political bodies. as the saying goes, "no rulers, not 'no rules'".
A question:


Would an anarchist be in favor of a dictatorship, provided that everyone was willing, sort of like a dom/sub BDSM game writ large?

A question:

Would an anarchist be in favor of a dictatorship, provided that everyone was willing, sort of like a dom/sub BDSM game writ large?

the position held by most anarchists i know on this sort of thing is that we wouldn't exactly favor such a situation, but it would be allowable. provided it actually was voluntary and people would be free to withdraw consent at any time, either individually or as a group. oh, and as long as they didn't go off for any imperialistic conquests.

we would, of course, continue to argue the benefits of more libertarian options.

the position held by most anarchists i know on this sort of thing is that we wouldn't exactly favor such a situation, but it would be allowable. provided it actually was voluntary and people would be free to withdraw consent at any time, either individually or as a group. oh, and as long as they didn't go off for any imperialistic conquests.

we would, of course, continue to argue the benefits of more libertarian options.
Of course, I just wanted to see if my assumption was correct in reality, I can't speak for any number of anarchists at all.

1) Anarchism is somewhat like liberalism. You have "Capital A" Anarchy and "small a" anarchy, much like Liberalism and liberalism.

2) For this post the definition I will use for Anarchy is: a society that peacefully organizes itself without a government or other form of centralized power, along philosophical anarchist lines, and maintains a stable civil society without hierarchies.

3) As far as I know, historically there have been only 2 general types of societies that have made a go of Anarchism: pre-neolithic hunter-gatherer societies such as the Khosan and a number of small short-lived social experimemts such as the Spanish Communes. Both are marked by being very small communities (the largest I can think of was under 1 million - there may have been larger ones, but not significantly so for the sake of this definition). The former do have some imbeded hierarchy, but had very little technology and were very isolated. The latter mostly fell apart relatively quickly or were destroyed by outside forces.

4) Conclusion: Going by history it is highly unlikely that a "modern high tech" society can function as a sustained Anarchy.

"Anarchy" literally means "without hierarchy." Anarchists don't believe in a lack of order, they believe in an order not based on judging one person as "better" or "higher up" than another. Anarchists favor consensus among equals over decrees of an individual or select group.

Definition of "anarchy". (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchy)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchism

Two can play at that futile game...

3) As far as I know, historically there have been only 2 general types of societies that have made a go of Anarchism: ... Both are marked by being very small communities (the largest I can think of was under 1 million - there may have been larger ones, but not significantly so for the sake of this definition).

4) Conclusion: Going by history it is highly unlikely that a "modern high tech" society can function as a sustained Anarchy.

In my opinion the parts of a society which produce and maintain a technological lifestyle are not inherently tied to a need for heirarchical control. It is certainly true that more organisation is required if one is wanting to produce a communications satelitte, rather than to just knap a couple of handtools out of flint, but if you concede that relatively small scale societies are able to function to a certain extent as working anarchist societies, then there seems no reason why one cannot imagine a social model where these cantons (for want of a better word) can work together and thus produce the necessary basic economic substructure for high tech society. Experience of anarcho-syndicalist or pseudo-anarcho-syndicalist ways of organising industries also shows that there doesn't seem to be anything inherently contradictory about technological manufacture and non-heirarchical organisation, whether it be on the basis of fairly conventional anarcho-syndicalist thought or on 'softer' non-heirarchical models such as those employed by the company that makes Goretex.*

A fairly shallow answer, but it still seems to me that there is nothing which necessarilly ties a high tech society to a heirarchical one.






*http://www.gore.com/en_xx/aboutus/culture/index.html

Anarchists don't believe in a lack of order...

Frex, Proudhon - 'Anarchy is order'.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchism

Two can play at that futile game...

You both wrong:

anarchy n.

One large, commodious boat.

You both wrong:

anarchy n.

One large, commodious boat.

A ship of fools, a drunken boat or a comradeship?

In my opinion the parts of a society which produce and maintain a technological lifestyle are not inherently tied to a need for heirarchical control. It is certainly true that more organisation is required if one is wanting to produce a communications satelitte, rather than to just knap a couple of handtools out of flint, but if you concede that relatively small scale societies are able to function to a certain extent as working anarchist societies, then there seems no reason why one cannot imagine a social model where these cantons (for want of a better word) can work together and thus produce the necessary basic economic substructure for high tech society. Experience of anarcho-syndicalist or pseudo-anarcho-syndicalist ways of organising industries also shows that there doesn't seem to be anything inherently contradictory about technological manufacture and non-heirarchical organisation, whether it be on the basis of fairly conventional anarcho-syndicalist thought or on 'softer' non-heirarchical models such as those employed by the company that makes Goretex.*

A fairly shallow answer, but it still seems to me that there is nothing which necessarilly ties a high tech society to a heirarchical one.






*http://www.gore.com/en_xx/aboutus/culture/index.html


There may not be any inherent contradiction that prevents a sustained technologically advanced Anarchy, but there is also no example of such a society. Remember, my conclusion was not that it is impossible, just that it is unlikely based on the only examples we have. If you can show me a historical example of an Anarchy able to sustain a technologically advanced society over the long run, please do.

A ship of fools, a drunken boat or a comradeship?

woops! that was the definition for "an arky" sorry.

I was just thinking of Anarchy, since I have nothing better to do than think about Anarchy, I guess. Human nature falls upon order, blah blah, yeah, it does. Inefficiency, by nature, fails and perishes. Anarchy is a system where people somehow, magically, do the "right thing" because there are no evil laws to tell them killing people is wrong. All those pesky laws. Anyways, Anarchy is inefficiency at the core, because, for one, Anarchy by nature is inefficient, two, Anarchy cannot exist because human society always orders itself oligarchically, and three, because if Anarchy did somehow exist for a short period of time, a tyrannical movement would occur to reinstate an orderly society, which would probably be totalitarian. Anarchy just isn't possible, practical, or realistic. Besides, most Anarchists are just kids with shirts with the "A" and circle mixed together. When they grow up and get jobs, things tend to look different.
Get informed.

<whew> Thank goodness by this time people pointed out the difference bewteen anarchy and anarchism.

A question:


Would an anarchist be in favor of a dictatorship, provided that everyone was willing, sort of like a dom/sub BDSM game writ large?Yes, in certain situations. For instance a doctor has specialized knowledge that someone might wish to have. Taking the doctor's advice is probably a good thing, but one is always free to reject it. The same goes for a dictator. Society might feel that this particular individual has better ideas of how to run a country than anyone else. Society might also feel that using traditional direct democratic conventions might be a hindrance to this individual's ability to run the country, and give him free reign. Of course, this free reign might be rescinded at any time, such as the doctor's advice might be rejected at any time.

Free Soviets also answered this question well.

Anarchy works until someone says, "Someone should do something about..."

I see anarchy and government as equally moronic. Both of them don't work right.

<whew> Thank goodness by this time people pointed out the difference bewteen anarchy and anarchism.

Yes, in certain situations. For instance a doctor has specialized knowledge that someone might wish to have. Taking the doctor's advice is probably a good thing, but one is always free to reject it.

“On the matter of shoes i defer to the authority of the cobbler.”
I forget who said it, but quite a nice little quotation.

Frex, Proudhon - 'Anarchy is order'.

With "government is chaos" occasionally added onto the end :)

You anarchists.

Can you tell me one place in the world anarchy is implemented and has been for at least 100 years?

Can you tell me one place in the world anarchy lasted for more than 300 years?

If both of those questions can be answered, then anarchy just may be a legitmate idea for civilization. The problem is they can't be answered because anarchy is a stupid idealist point of view where everyone supposedly operates out of the goodness of their heart. Not happening. A for effort, F for logic. Next form of government please.

Anarchy works until someone says, "Someone should do something about..."

The idea here is that either that person uses their own initiative and does something about X, or consent is reached withn the community and they then form a group to do something about X or not, as the case may be.

I fail to see the problem here.

There may not be any inherent contradiction that prevents a sustained technologically advanced Anarchy, but there is also no example of such a society.

Agreed, but this obviously is no reason to state that such a thing would be impossible, as others have stated elsewhere.

Forgive my fluffy thinking here, but its a bit early in the day for me.

You anarchists.

Can you tell me one place in the world anarchy is implemented and has been for at least 100 years?

Can you tell me one place in the world anarchy lasted for more than 300 years?

If both of those questions can be answered, then anarchy just may be a legitmate idea for civilization.

How long have we had democracies operating on the basis of universal sufferage? The earliest one was 1894. Does this mean that such an idea was not a legitimate one for civilisation until 1994? Or does it not become a valid one until 2294?

Do we actually have an example of a state in which democracy without vestiges of an older more authoritarian government system has been implemented and lasted for 300 years? France hasn't qualified yet, nor does the United States, nor any part of the former British Empire.

Your argument is spurious: it could similarly have been used against all other forms of societal change in history.


The problem is they can't be answered because anarchy is a stupid idealist point of view where everyone supposedly operates out of the goodness of their heart.

Man is a rational animal, and he is also a social animal. There is no need for universal altruism to exist for anarchism to work, instead the production of social institutions such that the rational choice within society is to work with others through consent rather than to exploit them.

You anarchists.

Can you tell me one place in the world anarchy is implemented and has been for at least 100 years?

Can you tell me one place in the world anarchy lasted for more than 300 years?

Both are irrelevant. Anarchism, as a modern political concept, isn't even 300 years old.

If both of those questions can be answered, then anarchy just may be a legitmate idea for civilization.

"I don't like new ideas until they become old ideas."

The problem is they can't be answered because anarchy is a stupid idealist point of view where everyone supposedly operates out of the goodness of their heart. Not happening. A for effort, F for logic. Next form of government please.

No, they cannot be answered because Anarchism is still quite a young philosophy.

Do you claim Fascism doesn't work because it has failed your absurd criteria?

Pah, it's morons who are anarchic not the other way around. When was the last time you saw a group of morons organise and achieve any material benefits in the workplace? When was the last time the Morons Union authorised an official strike?

Face it, morons are giving us anarchists a bad name.

Anarchy is a system where people somehow, magically, do the "right thing" because there are no evil laws to tell them killing people is wrong.
So you believe people are incapable of comporting themselves in socially-redeeming ways without some written law telling them to comport themselves in socially-redeeming ways?

That's a pretty sad outlook, Drzhen. It doesn't say much for your estimation of your fellows.

You anarchists.

What is it with anarchism threads that attract all the drive-by negative postings?

Seems to me that these are generally made by people who consider themselves to be independent thinkers, but believe that everybody else needs the threat of authoritarian state violence to keep them in line.

What is it with anarchism threads that attract all the drive-by negative postings?

Seems to me that these are generally made by people who consider themselves to be independent thinkers, but believe that everybody else needs the threat of authoritarian state violence to keep them in line.

"For every push forward, you get the same fuckin' push back."

You anarchists.

Can you tell me one place in the world anarchy is implemented and has been for at least 100 years?

Can you tell me one place in the world anarchy lasted for more than 300 years?

If both of those questions can be answered, then anarchy just may be a legitmate idea for civilization. The problem is they can't be answered because anarchy is a stupid idealist point of view where everyone supposedly operates out of the goodness of their heart. Not happening. A for effort, F for logic. Next form of government please.

I have already mentioned good examples of Anarchistic societies that were sustained for long periods of time - the Khosan and some other pre-neolithic societies. (Note that's some and by no means all. Also note that, AFAIK, there is debate about how long these societies were sustained as non-hierarchical Anarchies.)

I have no problem accepting that an Anachy can work. I even accept that it can be sustained. But, as I said earlier, history provides no evidence that a technologically advanced Anarchy is sustainable. History, anthropology, and archeology also suggests that sustainable Anarchies require small isolated populations, and possibly other special circumstances.

Whether these societies are desirable or not is an entierly different discussion.

Not necessarily. A strong-man would have to win people over, for one. One person can't take control unless they have the force to impliment such things.
When it comes down to it there will always be people who realize that if they break these agreements and use violence and force to take what they want, they can avoid work and/or have as much of whatever they want. In places where the law is not in control, these people have always existed. I don't see any reason to think this would stop.

Actually if you look at the two major large scale anarchist societies which existed in the twentieth century (the collectives of the Spanish civil war, and the Makhnovists of the Russian Civil War), you'll see that they fell because they were crushed by forces outside of themselves, rather than due to some flaw inherent in the people inside or because of a pro-mob shift within them.

The fact that both of these examples were crushed as a result of the action of authoritarian communists external to the communities who had previously pretended to be fellow travellers remains a thorn in the side of many of us anarchists.

I never stipulated whether these flawed individuals were external or internal to a group of people abiding to an archaic system. Besides, 'external' doesn't really apply when refering to people living by anarchism as all forms of government and resonsibility fall with the indivual so all other individuals are in fact 'external' to your own authority and you are to theirs. So should the flaw actually be with a person who previously agreed to the archaic system, they are still external as they do not fall under your governence and your are not under theirs. If these people never agreed then that was their stance all along and no misconception about their position in relation to yourself was ever made, however they too are never under your governence and you never under theirs; so they remain external also. The only time their is an internal flaw is when you faulter yourself.

Basically if anyone acts like an 'opressive-arse-bully' or like a 'ignorant-blind-slave', without forming some level of agreed relationship or behaviour to any extent, then that ain't good for the maintianance of your government........... be it a Republic, a Dictatorship or an Anarchy.

archaic

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
lol. That reminds me of The Princess Bride.

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.


lol Damned Dyslexia. I'm a sucker for 'synonym', 'antonyms', 'homonyms' and............. 'phononyms' (is that one aswell). I sometimes make no sense and misuse similar sounding words all the time,...... hang around and see.

lol Damned Dyslexia. I'm a sucker for 'synonym', 'antonyms', 'homonyms' and............. 'phononyms' (is that one aswell). I sometimes make no sense and misuse similar sounding words all the time,...... hang around and see.

Not trying to be too hard on you about it, but it was kind of difficult to understand what you meant there. I assume you intended 'anarchic'?

No problem, I'm not insecure about it because I understand it's just faulty wiring. And yea - 'anarchic' - thats right,........ I said anarchic in my head as I was typing. My fingers don't listen. It's worse when I write with a pen, then I just miss out whole words from a sentence because I think I've wirtten it already lol. It's when I miss out a whole sentence that things get confusing though.
Suppose it's better than spelling everything wrong like some other dyslexics, only people don't always realise you didn't in fact mean what you've written. :headbang:

So you believe people are incapable of comporting themselves in socially-redeeming ways without some written law telling them to comport themselves in socially-redeeming ways?

That's a pretty sad outlook, Drzhen. It doesn't say much for your estimation of your fellows.

Humans are animals. Nothing more. We crave power, some of us enjoy cruelty and brutality, some of us try to overthrow the existing Leviathan to gain power, some of us run in elections to make more special interest cash. I believe that without laws, humanity would be a brutish way of life.

I was just thinking of Anarchy, since I have nothing better to do than think about Anarchy, I guess. Human nature falls upon order, blah blah, yeah, it does. Inefficiency, by nature, fails and perishes. Anarchy is a system where people somehow, magically, do the "right thing" because there are no evil laws to tell them killing people is wrong. All those pesky laws. Anyways, Anarchy is inefficiency at the core, because, for one, Anarchy by nature is inefficient, two, Anarchy cannot exist because human society always orders itself oligarchically, and three, because if Anarchy did somehow exist for a short period of time, a tyrannical movement would occur to reinstate an orderly society, which would probably be totalitarian. Anarchy just isn't possible, practical, or realistic. Besides, most Anarchists are just kids with shirts with the "A" and circle mixed together. When they grow up and get jobs, things tend to look different.

Mankind isn't ready for Anarchy, there has to be a government to keep the greedy people from taking from others, etc.

If humans were ever ready to give up their greed for it, Anarchy would be a perfect society, but that will probably never happen.

Mankind isn't ready for Anarchy, there has to be a government to keep the greedy people from taking from others, etc.

If humans were ever ready to give up their greed for it, Anarchy would be a perfect society, but that will probably never happen.

That's pretty obvious and rhetorical, Rambozo. It's like saying "direct collective democracy isn't something we're ready for", or like saying "if we gave up greed, communism would work". No shit.

Humans are animals. Nothing more. We crave power, some of us enjoy cruelty and brutality, some of us try to overthrow the existing Leviathan to gain power, some of us run in elections to make more special interest cash. I believe that without laws, humanity would be a brutish way of life.Yes, humans are pack animals. We crave the ability to not have to subsistence farm/hunt/fish/gather and do something we enjoy. This is only possible if people join together to form a society. Societies have rules for belonging to them, and either you agree to those rules or you aren't accepted into that society. Simple as that.

Yes, humans are pack animals. We crave the ability to not have to subsistence farm/hunt/fish/gather and do something we enjoy. This is only possible if people join together to form a society. Societies have rules for belonging to them, and either you agree to those rules or you aren't accepted into that society. Simple as that.

How does it feel to know that your political organization has impoverished the people of eastern Europe, Russia, eastern Asia, and been used as an excuse to establish totalitarian rule?

How does it feel to know that your political organization has impoverished the people of eastern Europe, Russia, eastern Asia, and been used as an excuse to establish totalitarian rule?The United Democratic Communist Party is a NS thing. I dunno if you remember the parties thread from a while back, but there were a whole mess of them created.

The idea here is that either that person uses their own initiative and does something about X, or consent is reached withn the community and they then form a group to do something about X or not, as the case may be.

I fail to see the problem here.

Grampus,

I was making a rather tounge in cheek point that in society, there will always be people who insist that it is someone else's job to fix the problem, even if the problem is them.

Societies have developed all the forms of government, both good and bad basicaly because leadership of some sort or another is needed anytime you get a group of more than a few people in one place.

The minute you have a government, some will immediately expect that government to be a nanny. Thus a need for laws, hierarchy and an organized way of selecting leaders. Thus, no governmental anarchy.

Now, he posits again with tounge somewhat in cheek, What if you had a government whose laws were based on anarchy theory and, by law, could only conform to that theory. Is that anarchy?

The United Democratic Communist Party is a NS thing. I dunno if you remember the parties thread from a while back, but there were a whole mess of them created.

I'm just saying, apart from roleplay, the very name of how you play this game, you have no problem with it? Just wondering.

I'm just saying, apart from roleplay, the very name of how you play this game, you have no problem with it? Just wondering.Lol. Well an anarchist party is kind of oxymoronic, don't you think? :D And, of course, while I believe that concentrations of power are bad, in the right hands they can be fine, and I believe my fellow UDCPers could be the right hands I speak of.

Oceania in 1984 had no laws. It had unspoken laws, social mores, unspoken laws of behavior, etc. Letila happened to make a post basically saying that a society would still be anarchic without written laws, and with unspoken laws. Oceania, possibly one of the most brutal systems of order ever theorized on paper, fits the definition of your anarchic society perfectly.

Lol. Well an anarchist party is kind of oxymoronic, don't you think? :D And, of course, while I believe that concentrations of power are bad, in the right hands they can be fine, and I believe my fellow UDCPers could be the right hands I speak of.

I originally thought you were a member of a small-time political party. Anarchist party? When did I mention an Anarchist party?

Oceania in 1984 had no laws. It had unspoken laws, social mores, unspoken laws of behavior, etc. Letila happened to make a post basically saying that a society would still be anarchic without written laws, and with unspoken laws. Oceania, possibly one of the most brutal systems of order ever theorized on paper, fits the definition of your anarchic society perfectly.True. However, Orwell was an anarchist.

I originally thought you were a member of a small-time political party. Anarchist party? When did I mention an Anarchist party?Well, I am a member of a real-life labor union, the IWW. You never mentioned an anarchist party, however you wondered why I would join the UDCParty on NS. I wanted to play the party game, however an anarchist party doesn't work. So I decided to join one that was close enough for my liking.

True. However, Orwell was an anarchist.

Don't spread shit like that.

Orwell was a self-professed democratic socialist. Why do I say this? Because I've read his Homage to Catalonia (http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79h/index.html).

Anarchy is a system where people somehow, magically, do the "right thing" because there are no evil laws to tell them killing people is wrong. All those pesky laws. Anyways, Anarchy is inefficiency at the core

That's a rather general statement. In certain circumstances at least anarchy *does* work. Take open-source software (my favourite example). Its development process is entirely anarchistic - the GNU General Public Licence guarantees that anyone can take your code and use it whatever way they wish - you can't exclude certain people, you can't say 'don't change this bit', and so on. And yet open-source software runs the internet, literally. 'bind', the program whihc does name resolution (it turns a server name like jolt.co.uk into an IP address) is open-source, as is Apache, which runs most of the world's website. Look at the address for this thread, and you'll see it contains '.php' - PHP is also open-source.

For why this anarchistic development model is not only stable, but also more efficient that traditional closed-source models, I recommend reading Eric Raymond's excellent essays on the economics of open source, 'The Cathedral And The Bazaar' and 'Homesteading the Noosphere'.

Don't spread shit like that.

Orwell was a self-professed democratic socialist. Why do I say this? Because I've read his Homage to Catalonia (http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79h/index.html).He fought with the Spanish anarchists during the Spanish Civil War. At the very least he supported anarchism.

That's a rather general statement. In certain circumstances at least anarchy *does* work. Take open-source software (my favourite example). Its development process is entirely anarchistic - the GNU General Public Licence guarantees that anyone can take your code and use it whatever way they wish - you can't exclude certain people, you can't say 'don't change this bit', and so on. And yet open-source software runs the internet, literally. 'bind', the program whihc does name resolution (it turns a server name like jolt.co.uk into an IP address) is open-source, as is Apache, which runs most of the world's website. Look at the address for this thread, and you'll see it contains '.php' - PHP is also open-source.

For why this anarchistic development model is not only stable, but also more efficient that traditional closed-source models, I recommend reading Eric Raymond's excellent essays on the economics of open source, 'The Cathedral And The Bazaar' and 'Homesteading the Noosphere'.

I have neither the patience nor the interest to care about software coding. Also, you ignore the point: software isn't conscious. And yes, people use it, but it's not a social system. If you'd like, point out a real-life functioning anarchic society, or continue talking about irrelevent software coding.

I like anarchy, because I have an immense stockpile of weapons, and am eager to impose my will on naive flower children. In an anarchy, there will be no law-enforcement organizations to stop me, and any individual attempts will be discouraged after the first dozen or so messy executions.

Anarchy isn't a stable state - it will evolve into something else. What that is (dictatorship, oligarchy, etc.) cannot be predicted. Based on that, you can't judge anarchy by what it leads to, because it can lead to anything - society orders itself, and anarchy is the least ordered state.

You can, of course, judge it by the suffering that it causes - and that means a few strong individuals living in peace and prosperity while the weak majority lives in fear and subjugation. In other words, just like with everything else, only less stable.

He fought with the Spanish anarchists during the Spanish Civil War. At the very least he supported anarchism.

as he put it in HtC (speaking about anarchist controlled catalonia),

"I recognized it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for"

In an anarchy, there will be no law-enforcement organizations to stop me

incorrect

I have neither the patience nor the interest to care about software coding. Also, you ignore the point: software isn't conscious. And yes, people use it, but it's not a social system. If you'd like, point out a real-life functioning anarchic society, or continue talking about irrelevent software coding.
Think of open source software as a society. If anarchistic principles caused everything that it touches to turn to ashes, why is open source so superior to 'closed source', or dictatorship, technology?

Well, I am a member of a real-life labor union, the IWW. You never mentioned an anarchist party, however you wondered why I would join the UDCParty on NS. I wanted to play the party game, however an anarchist party doesn't work. So I decided to join one that was close enough for my liking.

Traitor!!!

People here who are self-styled anarchists can keep theorizing about how people will not try and use the lack of official order to create a new dictatorship, but you still can't point out any functioning society that embraced anarchist values to the core. I mentioned Homage to Catalonia because George Orwell did fight alongside the anarchists. But it's like this following situation:

I support the right of right-wingers to spew their ignorant, bible-bashing shit all over the internet and in real life. Does that mean I am one of them? No.

Orwell was a democratic socialist, in his own words.

But off the topic of George Orwell, anarchy just doesn't function in the real world. I'm still waiting for anarchist enthusiasts to point out a functioning anarchic society at any point in history.

People here who are self-styled anarchists can keep theorizing about how people will not try and use the lack of official order to create a new dictatorship, but you still can't point out any functioning society that embraced anarchist values to the core.Just as you cannot point out any anarchist society that collapsed due to problems within the society itself.

Just as you cannot point out any anarchist society that collapsed due to problems within the society itself.

There really haven't been any anarchist societies to speak of, that are truly anarchic. And I'm not the one trying to prove the validity of anarchy. You cannot mention a single self-functioning anarchic society, because none has ever existed. Theorizing about a possible social system working is simply called daydream hypothesizing: it's not realistic.

I still offer the challenge to give an example of a truly anarchic society... which was self-sustaining.

Anarchy is a quaint notion that is unsustainable, simply because the inherent nature of humans is to organize themselves, as do all herd animals.

Anarchy is a quaint notion that is unsustainable, simply because the inherent nature of humans is to organize themselves, as do all herd animals.

Human nature is tribal. Some of us are leaders and dominators, and the rest are lesser leaders and followers. Which is why society will always be stratified, because only the few ever make it to the status of oligarch.

Anarchy is a quaint notion that is unsustainable, simply because the inherent nature of humans is to organize themselves, as do all herd animals.

"Organise!" is the name of the Anarchist Federation's (UK) official monthly magazine.

"Organise!" is the name of the Anarchist Federation's (UK) official monthly magazine.

You realize the irony of a bunch of people getting together to put together to make a magazine, don't you?

Anarchists Unite!

You realize the irony of a bunch of people getting together to put together to make a magazine, don't you?

Anarchists Unite!

You, sir, are an idiot.

You, sir, are an idiot.

I'm not a sir... I work for a living.

The moment that anyone who labels themselves an Anarchist goes off and groups with other so-called 'Anarchists', then by definition it ceases to be an anarchy. There was a man in the 19th century who used to bomb anarchist meetings; something I can respect. :D

I'm not a sir... I work for a living.

The moment that anyone who labels themselves an Anarchist goes off and groups with other so-called 'Anarchists', then by definition it ceases to be an anarchy. There was a man in the 19th century who used to bomb anarchist meetings; something I can respect. :D
Yes, you're an idiot.


Learn the difference between an organization and a state.

Yes, you're an idiot.


Learn the difference between an organization and a state.

The moment you organize, you cease to be anarchic. Look it up, the dictionary is your friend.

The moment you organize, you cease to be anarchic. Look it up, the dictionary is your friend.
an·ar·chism Audio pronunciation of "anarchism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-kzm)
n.

1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: “He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity” (Bertrand Russell).


Sorry, don't see anything in there forbidding organization. Would help if you learned something about anarchism before opening your mouth. No rulers, not no rules.

an·ar·chism Audio pronunciation of "anarchism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-kzm)
n.

1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: “He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity” (Bertrand Russell).



Sorry, don't see anything in there forbidding organization. Would help if you learned something about anarchism before opening your mouth. No rulers, not no rules.

Nice of you to skip out all the other dictionary references. From here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchy).

an·ar·chy Audio pronunciation of "anarchy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

anarchy

n : a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government) [syn: lawlessness]

And here (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=anarchy).

Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker>
3 : ANARCHISM

See? The dictionary is your friend. You could learn something from it.

Nice of you to skip out all the other dictionary references. From here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchy).

an·ar·chy Audio pronunciation of "anarchy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

anarchy

n : a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government) [syn: lawlessness]

And here (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=anarchy).

Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker>
3 : ANARCHISM

See? The dictionary is your friend. You could learn something from it.
Because they aren't applicable to anarchism. You should learn something about political theory before you act so smug. You're wrong. Utterly wrong.

To quote: "Anarchism is a political view derived from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons (rulers)"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is opposing to rulers. All forms of anarchism oppose the existence of a State and favor what they percieve to be voluntary relationships between individuals."

Anarchism favors the removal of the state, and the replacement of the state, which is backed by force, by voluntary agreements and relationships between people. No force, but there are laws. Laws that exist through mutual agreement and understanding.

Dictionaries don't tell half of it.

Because they aren't applicable to anarchism. You should learn something about political theory before you act so smug. You're wrong. Utterly wrong.

To quote: "Anarchism is a political view derived from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons (rulers)"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is opposing to rulers. All forms of anarchism oppose the existence of a State and favor what they percieve to be voluntary relationships between individuals."

Anarchism favors the removal of the state, and the replacement of the state, which is backed by force, by voluntary agreements and relationships between people. No force, but there are laws. Laws that exist through mutual agreement and understanding.

Dictionaries don't tell half of it.

And how long do you think it'll last? The moment a half-dozen strong-arm types come along with sheople in tow, anarchy goes by-by. Anarchy won't work because it's contrary to human instinct- a few desire to control and lead, and most go with the flow. Anarchy simply won't work, unless you re-engineer the human race.

And how long do you think it'll last? The moment a half-dozen strong-arm types come along with sheople in tow, anarchy goes by-by. Anarchy won't work because it's contrary to human instinct- a few desire to control and lead, and most go with the flow. Anarchy simply won't work, unless you re-engineer the human race.
Nice change of the subject. So you admit that you were wrong?

Nice change of the subject. So you admit that you were wrong?

No. Anarchy can't work, because humans will simply organize themselves into governments again.

Let's say for arguement's sake they dissolved government (which means police, and all stucture of government!) but kept laws on paper. How would it be run? You say there would still be laws, but who would enforce them? Police by the people? How would you get laws written? Popular vote?

By making certain people the police, you subsume everyone else under their authority, and you've just built a low-level form of heirarchy- in other words, government.

In order to write laws, you must have people in place to enforce rules and interpret laws, or it'll boil down to mob rule.

Anarchy will fail because people are herd animals, and that's all there is to it.

No. Anarchy can't work, because humans will simply organize themselves into governments again.

Let's say for arguement's sake they dissolved government (which means police, and all stucture of government!) but kept laws on paper. How would it be run? You say there would still be laws, but who would enforce them? Police by the people? How would you get laws written? Popular vote?

By making certain people the police, you subsume everyone else under their authority, and you've just built a low-level form of heirarchy- in other words, government.

In order to write laws, you must have people in place to enforce rules and interpret laws, or it'll boil down to mob rule.

Anarchy will fail because people are herd animals, and that's all there is to it.
Except that all laws will be consentual, not backed by force. And do you concede the fact that you were wrong when you said that organizing yourself into groups isn't anarchy?

Maybe I should make a thread called "Capitalism and Government are Moronic".

Maybe I should make a thread called "Capitalism and Government are Moronic".

Go ahead. But seeing as government seems to work for over a period of over 7,000 years or so, and seeing as capitalism works just fine, created the middle class, and has existed predominantly for some 300+ years, I would hardly think it's moronic. But go ahead.

too long/ didnt read.

you are moronic

too long/ didnt read.

you are moronic

If you aren't going to read a thread, and then call someone a moron, it simply makes you an ignorant little shit.

wake up and smell the sarcasm

Maybe I should make a thread called "Capitalism and Government are Moronic".


This thread would better have been called "anarchy is juvenile, naive and fantastic."

You could make a similar thread about capitalism and government, but it wouldnt make much sense.

You cannot mention a single self-functioning anarchic society, because none has ever existed.

just anarchic? that's too easy. large parts of spain during the revolution. a sizable bit of ukraine during that revolution. the zapatista communities. a case can even be made for the icelandic commonwealth, though it's typically the free-marketeers that make it. and then there are the san, who've been anarchic since before the dawn of civilization - along with many other band societies all over the world who have been likewise.

government seems to work for over a period of over 7,000 years

i'd hate to see what you'd call not working