NationStates Jolt Archive

I’ve decided that I wouldn’t mind true communism. I would probably enjoy a world with no social classes, no government, no private property etc. just as much as I would enjoy a world where the only authority is the free market. Both have a maximum amount of freedom. Either way, I’m living my life the way I want to with minimal restrictions. The problem is simply that a communist government cannot be trusted to move society towards such a place, because governments can not be trusted, period, and all revolutions have shown us that the formerly oppressed simply become new oppressors.

Is there any way to ever achieve anarchy, or is it merely a dream?

Is there any way to ever achieve anarchy, or is it merely a dream?

Not a dream, just not attainable in one leap. You pointed out the two types of anarchy and this is how we would get there, in my opinion.

Government ---> Mixed Economy ---> Socialism ---> Communism

Government ---> Fairly Free Market ---> Libertarianism ---> Anarcho-Captialism

Of course, this would take a long time; many years to move from one stage to the next; especially from Socialism/Libertarianism to the end game.

Yet, there is also another option.

Government ---> Apocalypse ---> Anarchy

I think that an anarchist revolution would have to come firstly as a revolution of consciousness, so talking to people, demonstrating an alternative to "democracy" (or rather demonstrating what real democracy is) and capitalism. We're obviously a LONG way from that state of affairs and it's pretty easy to give up but don't. :)

Unfotunately I think we're heading for catastrophic environmental problems which will screw people's lives up enormously. Perhaps the only upside of all that is that it may make people question the way the world is run.

Sorry if this is vague and wobbly, antihistamines make me sleeeepy.

I’ve decided that I wouldn’t mind true communism. I would probably enjoy a world with no social classes, no government, no private property etc. just as much as I would enjoy a world where the only authority is the free market. Both have a maximum amount of freedom. Either way, I’m living my life the way I want to with minimal restrictions. The problem is simply that a communist government cannot be trusted to move society towards such a place, because governments can not be trusted, period, and all revolutions have shown us that the formerly oppressed simply become new oppressors.

Is there any way to ever achieve anarchy, or is it merely a dream?

Anarchy is achievable for very very short periods of time only (around 5 minutes). More than that, individuals form their own pseudo-government, clans, etc. with warlords, which is then a form of dictatorship, and the antithesis of anarchy. Thus, trying to achieve anarchy is a waste of time.
:mp5:

Not a dream, just not attainable in one leap. You pointed out the two types of anarchy and this is how we would get there, in my opinion.

Government ---> Mixed Economy ---> Socialism ---> Communism

Government ---> Fairly Free Market ---> Libertarianism ---> Anarcho-Captialism

Of course, this would take a long time; many years to move from one stage to the next; especially from Socialism/Libertarianism to the end game.
The problem is that government never willingly surrenders power to the people, and those paths require governments. To get from level to level, there would have to be some sort of revolution, violent or otherwise, where the actual revolutionaries stood no chance of gaining power afterwards.

Yet, there is also another option.

Government ---> Apocalypse ---> Anarchy
Yeah, but that isn’t likely to create anything lasting, the strong would just seize power.

Not a dream, just not attainable in one leap. You pointed out the two types of anarchy and this is how we would get there, in my opinion.

Government ---> Mixed Economy ---> Socialism ---> Communism

Government ---> Fairly Free Market ---> Libertarianism ---> Anarcho-Captialism

Of course, this would take a long time; many years to move from one stage to the next; especially from Socialism/Libertarianism to the end game.

Yet, there is also another option.

Government ---> Apocalypse ---> Anarchy
I disagree. I don't think the Leninist form of transitional state will work, simply as by reinforcing the state you're working against the creation of an anarchist society. How does the state wither away?

Also the "Apocalypse ---> anarchy" bit is fallacious. I mean, that's clearly not the kind of anarchy we're after. :p

I disagree. I don't think the Leninist form of transitional state will work, simply as by reinforcing the state you're working against the creation of an anarchist society. How does the state wither away?

Also the "Apocalypse ---> anarchy" bit is fallacious. I mean, that's clearly not the kind of anarchy we're after. :p

That's a good point... Hmm...

Also the "Apocalypse ---> anarchy" bit is fallacious. I mean, that's clearly not the kind of anarchy we're after. :p
Maybe not the kind your after, I think it would be fun.
All I'd need is a crossbow, a car, and some assless chaps, and then I'd be in business.

Anarchy is achievable for very very short periods of time only (around 5 minutes). More than that, individuals form their own pseudo-government, clans, etc. with warlords, which is then a form of dictatorship, and the antithesis of anarchy. Thus, trying to achieve anarchy is a waste of time.
:mp5:
Why? "Human nature?" :rolleyes:
What you just described is what would happen with individualist anarchism. We're talking about anarcho-communism, in which people ARE interconnected and dependent on one another. So people will have a society, and won't need to form "psuedo-governments and clans." And there is a government, government is the people.

Why? "Human nature?" :rolleyes:
What you just described is what would happen with individualist anarchism. We're talking about anarcho-communism, in which people ARE interconnected and dependent on one another. So people will have a society, and won't need to form "psuedo-governments and clans." And there is a government, government is the people.

Then just take the "anarcho" part of the communism off. They are polar opposites, Communism is the strictest, largest type of government, and Anarchy is the complete void of goverment or a ruling body. The two cannot co-exist. You will just have to strive for normal communism, which will mean the very few at the top getting rich off of the people, a complete lack of incentive to work, oppression, and ultimately collapse. This is how it has worked each and every time so far...

Then just take the "anarcho" part of the communism off. They are polar opposites, Communism is the strictest, largest type of government, and Anarchy is the complete void of goverment or a ruling body. The two cannot co-exist. You will just have to strive for normal communism, which will mean the very few at the top getting rich off of the people, a complete lack of incentive to work, oppression, and ultimately collapse. This is how it has worked each and every time so far...
*yawn*
You have no idea, do you?

Anarchy is achievable for very very short periods of time only (around 5 minutes). More than that, individuals form their own pseudo-government, clans, etc. with warlords, which is then a form of dictatorship, and the antithesis of anarchy. Thus, trying to achieve anarchy is a waste of time.
:mp5:


I'ld say longer then 5 minutes, it takes a while to regain control, for example New Orleans recently if they had left it alone (a sick social experiment granted, but for the sake of argument) it would have developed gang governments and then eventually it would become a united city under one government.

*yawn*
You have no idea, do you?
But...But...McCarthy said so! :eek:

Then just take the "anarcho" part of the communism off. They are polar opposites, Communism is the strictest, largest type of government, and Anarchy is the complete void of goverment or a ruling body. The two cannot co-exist. You will just have to strive for normal communism, which will mean the very few at the top getting rich off of the people, a complete lack of incentive to work, oppression, and ultimately collapse. This is how it has worked each and every time so far...

Oh, another one assuming that communism has already happened somewhere on the planet. Not quite, I'm afraid. What has happened was that a good number of people took communist ideas and tried (more or less successfully) to force others to follow them. Not communism. Communism is all about free will, in theory it is the most direct democracy possible, with no "ruling few" but rather "the ruling masses". The incentive to work in communism would be the will to participate in the community and the team spirit to strive for a better world.
It keeps failing because humans are basically selfish and as yet uncapable of responsibly handling the democratic process in a free and uninhibited way, rather than the restricted party system and electoral process that is currently emplyed by most democratic states.

Then just take the "anarcho" part of the communism off. They are polar opposites, Communism is the strictest, largest type of government, and Anarchy is the complete void of goverment or a ruling body. The two cannot co-exist. You will just have to strive for normal communism, which will mean the very few at the top getting rich off of the people, a complete lack of incentive to work, oppression, and ultimately collapse. This is how it has worked each and every time so far...

True communism has no government; what you're thinking of is that stage that so far every "Communist" country has gotten hung up on -- government seizure of all property, business, etc. In theory they are supposed to step down, let the government wither away, but the power has been too great to resissst.

But...But...McCarthy said so! :eek:
Quick, its the reds! Duck and cover!

At present, no. There are simply too many issues remaining that prevent us from being able to truly govern ourselves as individuals without the existence of a greater organization to maintain societal order.

However, the rapid evolution of technology will undoubtedly lead to an increasing degree of personal liberty...the proliferation of ideas and their free exchange is one of the primary benefits of the Internet, and that technology is at best primitive compared to what lies in the future. It is very possible that technology will bring us a truly anarchic state of existence, or at the very least an end to economic scarcity.

The only thing we must be careful of is allowing people to derail that progress, be it through religious fananticism, fear of economic displacement, or even the use of new technology as a weapon.

Anarchy is achievable for very very short periods of time only (around 5 minutes). More than that, individuals form their own pseudo-government, clans, etc. with warlords, which is then a form of dictatorship, and the antithesis of anarchy. Thus, trying to achieve anarchy is a waste of time.
:mp5:

You know what. I probably would have given up on anarchism if the typical arguements presented weren't uninformed hysterical drivel with no basis in reality.

And just so you know. Gun smilies don't help your arguement,

Yeah, but that isn’t likely to create anything lasting, the strong would just seize power.

Whence the assumption that the strong are interested in taking and holding power, rather than just living within the anarchist society?

I’ve decided that I wouldn’t mind true communism. I would probably enjoy a world with no social classes, no government, no private property etc. just as much as I would enjoy a world where the only authority is the free market. Both have a maximum amount of freedom. Either way, I’m living my life the way I want to with minimal restrictions. The problem is simply that a communist government cannot be trusted to move society towards such a place, because governments can not be trusted, period, and all revolutions have shown us that the formerly oppressed simply become new oppressors.

Is there any way to ever achieve anarchy, or is it merely a dream?

If you are looking for an indepth analysis of anarchist theory (including "how do we get there"), check out the Anarchist FAQ.

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/

It's a good place to start.

Whence the assumption that the strong are interested in taking and holding power, rather than just living within the anarchist society?
Because they can?

Besides, I enjoy living in a real civilization, thank you very much

Because they can?

You do realise that would also answer the question, "Why would would the strong be content to live withing an anarchist society?" Right?

Besides, I enjoy living in a real civilization, thank you very much


And what, by your definition, is a real civilisation?

You do realise that would also answer the question, "Why would would the strong be content to live withing an anarchist society?" Right?
And they can be content living within a working society without trying to sieze power, but we all know the truth behind that...

And what, by your definition, is a real civilisation?
One that actually works

Anarchy isn't possible for any significant period of time - it's terminally unstable, and lasts about 5 minutes before people start forming primitive social structures like warlords, clans, strongarm rule, etc.

Communism isn't possible either - it too lasts about 5 minutes because of terminal instability, but it can take two routes - authoritarianism or anarchy, which then devolves. So the progressions are:

Anarchy --> Primitive, Strongarm Government

Communism --> Anarchy --> [see above]
OR
Communism --> Authoritarian/Totalitarian Socialism

It requires complete interdependance within society. All people must be a means to someone else's ends, all must be able to use others for their own ends, and above all it must be a free and beneficial arrangement to all.

In my opinion that requires a complete devolution of property rights. This requires government to find a true definition of property, not just a convenient one, and for technological deficiencies in resource and good distribution chains to be overcome.

The short answer is: "I don't know if it is possible."

It requires complete interdependance within society. All people must be a means to someone else's ends, all must be able to use others for their own ends,

Hell just touched the forums for a moment....

Anarchy could exist in a realtively small community of a couple hundred people max. In a nation it never could.

Hell just touched the forums for a moment....

:confused:

Anarchy could exist in a realtively small community of a couple hundred people max. In a nation it never could.

That is what I am referring to when I mention limitations on resource distribution chains. As technology expands and bottlenecks in gathering and distributing properties are eliminated, the possible size of the anarchy can grow.

Anarchy could exist in a realtively small community of a couple hundred people max. In a nation it never could.

...and what if those small communities were to band together through direct democracy?

...and what if those small communities were to band together through direct democracy?
And what if pigs grew wings and started flying?

And what if pigs grew wings and started flying?

so it is an impossibility for communities to band together?

so it is an impossibility for communities to band together?

Well there goes Hobbes. Dang.

Anarchy is achievable for very very short periods of time only (around 5 minutes). More than that, individuals form their own pseudo-government, clans, etc. with warlords, which is then a form of dictatorship, and the antithesis of anarchy. Thus, trying to achieve anarchy is a waste of time.

Tell that to the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War that collectivized land and lived in true Anarchist society. Things were going pretty good too till that son of a bitch Franco took the country. Fucking fascists!:sniper:

It requires complete interdependance within society. All people must be a means to someone else's ends, all must be able to use others for their own ends, and above all it must be a free and beneficial arrangement to all.


Actually what you describe is a free market.

so it is an impossibility for communities to band together?
Not on a national or world-wide scale

Actually what you describe is a free market.
One type of anarchy holds that the free market is the key.

Actually what you describe is a free market.

Exactly, I am a anarcho-capitalist of sorts.

I believe that the problems of capitalism are based in deficiencies in the people, technology, and government, not in the system. The key is to maintain the system while the people work out the kinks.

so it is an impossibility for communities to band together?

Not impossible, but impractical. Could you imagine the amount of pork politics that would go on if politicians controlled all resource distribution?

Not impossible, but impractical. Could you imagine the amount of pork politics that would go on if politicians controlled all resource distribution?
Didn't that happen once?

Not on a national or world-wide scale

So those nations which currently appear to exist are in fact just fictions?

Didn't that happen once?

I don't know. Maybe it is what turns into the oxy-moron that socialists like to use, "State Capitalism".

So those nations which currently appear to exist are in fact just fictions?
Those nations use a working model of government, not anarchy

I don't know. Maybe it is what turns into the oxy-moron that socialists like to use, "State Capitalism".
bingo

...and what if those small communities were to band together through direct democracy?
And we do want to disband the nation-state after all. Not that there wouldn't be broad interconnections between collectives.

Ukraine: 1917 (1918) to 1923.
Paris: La Commune, 1871.
Cartagena: 1873 -...
Free State of Bavaria: 1919.
Various parts of China: 1920-1949.
Various cities in South America: 1900-present.
(Mexican) Chiapas: 1994 - present.
Spain (Basque Country, Catalonia and Gallacia): 1932-1939. I'd also note the implication of the International Brigades, comrades from all around the world travelling to Spain to fight against the fascist ennemy.

Venezuela and Brazil (to an extent) tends to duplicate the libertarian communist (anarcho-communist) ideas and we see them flourish in their cities and regions. Other than that a lot of cities all over the world have tried that system for the betterment of the majority's conditions. Evidently, that sure as hell didn't please the former rulers of the country/independent city/region who often end up trying to regain their lost power manu militari.


Overall, it has been proved (practically) that such a system works.

Tell that to the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War that collectivized land and lived in true Anarchist society. Things were going pretty good too till that son of a bitch Franco took the country. Fucking fascists!:sniper:

it was more the stalies' work than the fascists' that messed that up

Overall, it has been proved (practically) that such a system works.

It is was "proved practical" then there would be some present-day examples, wouldn't there?

Lt_Cody:
Ukraine: 1917 (1918) to 1923.
Paris: La Commune, 1871.
Cartagena: 1873 -...
Free State of Bavaria: 1919.
Various parts of China: 1920-1949.
Various cities in South America: 1900-present.
(Mexican) Chiapas: 1994 - present.
Spain (Basque Country, Catalonia and Gallacia): 1932-1939. I'd also note the implication of the International Brigades, comrades from all around the world travelling to Spain to fight against the fascist ennemy.

Venezuela and Brazil (to an extent) tends to duplicate the libertarian communist (anarcho-communist) ideas and we see them flourish in their cities and regions. Other than that a lot of cities all over the world have tried that system for the betterment of the majority's conditions. Evidently, that sure as hell didn't please the former rulers of the country/independent city/region who often end up trying to regain their lost power manu militari.
Can't read? "... - present" means that it still is that way, NOW. I'm not even mentionning many actual "communes" and a lot of "squattas" all over the world.

It works. I fail to see why "an average citizen" would refuse to embrace such ideals. Thing is, you don't seem to know - at all - what is anarcho-communism (libertarian communism). You should perhaps try to educate yourself?

It is was "proved practical" then there would be some present-day examples, wouldn't there?

would you have said the same about representative democracy before the liberal revolutions?

Free State of Bavaria: 1919.
It should be said thought that it was not the "Free State", as in some sort of anarchy. The German word is "Freistaat", and that comes from Bavaria not being a great fan of being integrated in a Prussian Germany in 1871, so they got various extra rights.

What you mean is the Bavarian Soviet Republic, which was the product of a revolution and was meant to work largely like the Russian Soviet Revolution. But the government in Berlin, as well as the veterans coming back from the war disagreed (many assumed anyway that it was these revolutionaries that made Germany lose the war).

What you mean is the Bavarian Soviet Republic, which was the product of a revolution and was meant to work largely like the Russian Soviet Revolution. But the government in Berlin, as well as the veterans coming back from the war disagreed (many assumed anyway that it was these revolutionaries that made Germany lose the war).
More or less, yes. It wasn't pure anarcho-communism but a tad more autoritarian. The first decisions they made (and last, unfortunately) were somewhat related to libertarian communism so I thought I could add them. (Since there were also a lot of anarchists in the rather chaotic movement.)

Freikorps and the White Guards of capitalism are responsible for the death of this great initiative, sadly. Then against, fascists...

P.S: The current name of Bavaria is the Free State of Bavaria, right?

P.S: The current name of Bavaria is the Free State of Bavaria, right?
Yeah. But the same goes for Thüringen and Sachsen, as well as for various cities (like my home, the "Freie Hansestadt Hamburg", or "Free Hanseatic City of Hamburg").

Yeah. But the same goes for Thüringen and Sachsen, as well as for various cities (like my home, the "Freie Hansestadt Hamburg", or "Free Hanseatic City of Hamburg")
I didn't imply anything. I just wanted to know the exact name of that particular state. I know a name doesn't always reflect the reality and that current Bavaria is far from being anarcho-communist. ;)

I didn't imply anything. I just wanted to know the exact name of that particular state. I know a name doesn't always reflect the reality and that current Bavaria is far from being anarcho-communist. ;)
:D

But the word "Free State" in German history has, for a long time, simply meant that the place was a republic and not a hereditary monarchy. Cities like Hamburg where ruled by an "elected" council of citizens (in a Hanseatic City, that would be rich heads of trading companies).
Bavaria did of course have a monarchy (albeit a constitutional one), and that's why I assume they added that name to signify Bavaria's relative autonomy from Prussia.

Can't read? "... - present" means that it still is that way, NOW. I'm not even mentionning many actual "communes" and a lot of "squattas" all over the world.
Perfectly well thank you, which is why my original statement still stands. All of your "present day" anarcho-communes are small isolated events that are still part of actual nations, with all the benefits that apply. None of the ones that tried to remain independant lasted very long. It might work on an individual level, but you could never get it working with the billions of people living in today's world (Besides, Chiapas doesn't sound like a nice place to live, what with being in the middle of an insurgency and suffering from the highest levels of malnutrition in the country, and you were rather vague with "various SA cities")

It works.
If it did we'd see a lot more then a few isolated incidents
I fail to see why "an average citizen" would refuse to embrace such ideals.
Which is why you will never be able to impliment it
Thing is, you don't seem to know - at all - what is anarcho-communism (libertarian communism). You should perhaps try to educate yourself?
I assure you, I'm educated enough to know when something isn't going to work.

would you have said the same about representative democracy before the liberal revolutions?
No, because a rep. democracy still keeps a central government in place to make sure to the best of its abilities that we all play nice with each other and follow the rules

Also, many people don't realize that Pennslyvania was largely anarchist for a 13-year span from between 1681-1694: the full article is here at http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard107.html (scroll down past the other parts if you're not interested).

To those who say governments will inevitably pop up: anarchist societies left on their own do not necessarily have any proclivity towards centralization of control; you'll probably find it very difficult to coerce people into doing anything when everyone and their dog owns a small armory's worth of weapons. It's true that some form of control and hierarchy will remain, as I see those as being inevitable aspects of human interaction; but better that such organizations be small than inescapably expansive as government is now. As long as people are capable of associating with whatever group they wish (and here technological advances in transportation and communication will facilitate things immensely), they'll probably search out and find groups more suited to their taste.

(Besides, Chiapas doesn't sound like a nice place to live, what with being in the middle of an insurgency and suffering from the highest levels of malnutrition in the country, and you were rather vague with "various SA cities")
I was refering to the Zapatistas (EZLN) sections of the Chiapas. Glad to see you checked Wikipedia to get some info on the Chiapas.

The conditions of the Z'Chiapas have drastically improved since 1994, a majority of the population now being easily self-sufficient. Health care and free education are being implented and decisions are made in a direct democracy (much like Athens) style.

As for various South America cities, I am refering to a couple of small to medium size cities who decided, after the first World Social Forum in Porto Alegre in 2001 to experiment a "new" model of government, namely an hybrid of anarcho-communism and rep. democracy, with open assemblies everywhere.

If it did we'd see a lot more then a few isolated incidents
I'd not call them "incidents" and they're not so few, if you pay attention.

I assure you, I'm educated enough to know when something isn't going to work.
Thank you Mr. Conservative. That doesn't mean you know shit about anarcho-communism or libertarian communism but that you're simply close-minded. Congrats.
"Your idea sucks."
"You don't even know what my idea is all about?"
"I know when an idea sucks. Yours sucks."
"How can you say it sucks if you don't even know what is it?"
"I'm smart enough to know when something sucks."
"..."


You fail to attack anarchism, anarcho-communism and libertarian communism on what it stands. You simply show us a misunderstanding (or complete ignorance, keep checking wikipedia) of these movements.

A while ago I had a thought on how a truely successful society like this could work. It is based upon eveyone making what they wish for, and giving it away. For free. They take what they need from the person who makes food, in return he wanders down and picks up a television from your factory. Now first of all it seems stupid, you gain no benifit from making more. But you must realise that the more you give, and the more those around you give, the more people who will come to your area with things to offer too. You can have anything, own anything, but if someone doesn't like the polution of your factories, then they will oviously move away, costing you in what you effectively own (as in this society what you own is basically everything that is within easy reach). The strong have nothing to benifit from dominating, as everything they can get from it is theirs for the taking anyway. Also if those under them don't like it their behaviour, they go away to somewhere where they don't have to put up with it. Since travel is free, you can move around easily, and those areas that you leave will lose resorces, as those who go will take what they need, and give something to the people securing the travel, as they want it to continue to run. Because there is no concept of owning anything, no one can have any power over anyone else except how productive they are, and that just simply means that they attract more people to come. There is more, just wondering what your thoughts are on that as it stands.

I'm not too keen on the anarchy idea because I have little faith in my fellow human beings. I think that even if there were no real government, some nut with a gun would threaten to kill people if they didn't do what he wanted - so there we have oppression again. Maybe a society without any governmental controls would be possible if people didn't suck so much.

I'm not too keen on the anarchy idea because I have little faith in my fellow human beings. I think that even if there were no real government, some nut with a gun would threaten to kill people if they didn't do what he wanted - so there we have oppression again. Maybe a society without any governmental controls would be possible if people didn't suck so much.
Which is why you keep the population armed. Anarchy doesn't mean no organisation and it is possible but only if enough people want it. You can't force it.

The reason that anarcy will not work well right now is not due to so called human nature, or anything of the sort. It will not work now because we are constantly taught that more is better. More power, more money, more guns, more oil, more cars, more anything really. Right now anarchy would swiftly become a semi-totalitarian state, where those able to would force their rule on others. But unlike what many people think this isn't human nature. It's a product of our society. If you change how people think you can change how they live. If we foster teachings of self-sufficiency, peaceful coexistence, and freedom anarchy would work exceptionally well. To attempt it now takes either extraordinary individuals, or some way to ensure that no one can bully their way into power. This is difficult to imagine, but possible using tactics that are relatively simple. Boycotting people who cheat on their business partners. Hiring private protection agencies to keep yourself, or your community, free from someone trying to force you to follow them. It's about cooperation, not being completely on your own. Though you could concievably be on your own if you chose. To put it simply, given the current state of society it is extremely difficult but possible. And in the future, possibly the near future, it will probably become quite feasible.

On another note, anarchy does not mean a total lack of heirarchy. It just means a lack of government.

I apologise if I don't make a lot of sense, I'm rather tired right now. I'll be happy to clear up any misunderstandings or missed points when I am a little more lucid.

The problem is that government never willingly surrenders power to the people, and those paths require governments. I don't know, in the U.S., secession hasn't been tried democratically. If The Quebecois succeed in seceding (say those last 3 words ten times fast!) in Canada, then it may have positive repercussions here.

On another note, anarchy does not mean a total lack of heirarchy. It just means a lack of government.

I apologise if I don't make a lot of sense, I'm rather tired right now. I'll be happy to clear up any misunderstandings or missed points when I am a little more lucid.


How is there hierarchy in an egalitarian, libertarian social organisation?

Is there any way to ever achieve anarchy, or is it merely a dream?

Technology may help us attain sort of anarchy. Completely machine-built/harvested cars, food, drugs etc., as well as automated services may nullify the previous economic repurcussions of "get everything free without doing anything". Machines aren't subject to the same laziness as people, they won't slack off or sleep under their work benches like people would in not-industrial-enough true-communism/anarchism.

I still think there will always fundamentally need to be some measures in place to prevent murder, assault, rape etc. What is wrong with a crude government/judicial system existing for this sole purpose? Everyone could still take drugs, build whatever they wanted, etc without government interference.

It is inconcievable that a large-scale society will ever exist in which some sort of organisation is not present which prevents assault and violence, but I think we could achieve a work-free, libertarian paradise without such problems.

The reason that anarcy will not work well right now is not due to so called human nature, or anything of the sort. It will not work now because we are constantly taught that more is better. More power, more money, more guns, more oil, more cars, more anything really.

More is better. We're not being taught it, we've thought it since the dawn of time. Cavemen sought to kill and eat as many animals as possible. The agricultural revolution (the advent of farming and agriculture) occured thanks to a quest for more food, so we would have more time to become more wealthy in more ways.


Hiring private protection agencies to keep yourself, or your community, free from someone trying to force you to follow them.

So like a mafia society? Whoever has the most goats or gold or whatever(remember no government=less likelyhood of standard money) gets to hire the strongest private army and lord it over everyone else?


On another note, anarchy does not mean a total lack of heirarchy. It just means a lack of government.

To me, anarchy is breaking down power structures. Hierarchical society is completely adverse to anarchy.

How is there hierarchy in an egalitarian, libertarian social organisation?

Volutary, non-permanent hierarchies. Such as between a student and a teacher.

I was refering to the Zapatistas (EZLN) sections of the Chiapas. Glad to see you checked Wikipedia to get some info on the Chiapas.
My information comes from more reliable sources then Wiki (like I said, I am educated)

The conditions of the Z'Chiapas have drastically improved since 1994, a majority of the population now being easily self-sufficient. Health care and free education are being implented and decisions are made in a direct democracy (much like Athens) style.
Can you give any evidence of the actual quality of this health and education system? And there's still that little fact of an armed insurgency still going on, must really lower the real estate values in the area.

As for various South America cities, I am refering to a couple of small to medium size cities who decided, after the first World Social Forum in Porto Alegre in 2001 to experiment a "new" model of government, namely an hybrid of anarcho-communism and rep. democracy, with open assemblies everywhere.
Then why have you failed to list any of them if they're so successful?

I'd not call them "incidents" and they're not so few, if you pay attention.
I can count the number of present-day anarcho-communes on both hands, and none of them would be able to actually survive if the national governments they were still apart of weren't protecting them. Any system of government that cannot survive successfully on its own has no place being substituted for something that works.

-snip Ad Hominem attack
Typical reaction, make unfounded assumptions and call your opponent names. I see you gaining many converts for your side with those types of retorts :rolleyes:

You fail to attack anarchism, anarcho-communism and libertarian communism on what it stands. You simply show us a misunderstanding (or complete ignorance, keep checking wikipedia) of these movements.
The burden of proof is on you to show us that anarcho-communism is not only superior to present-day governments but actually viable. Come back when you can make a better argument then pointing out a couple of isolated incidents (and hopefully when you have a better source then one where any nutcase can present his opinions as facts)

[QUOTE=Fe
Government ---> Apocalypse ---> Anarchy[/QUOTE]

Which can be brought about by

Government ---> Notvotingforme ---> Revolution ---> Nukes.

I think it is possible. If a politician can be trusted to run the lives of those in an entire nation, then why can't people be trusted to run their own lives?

I think it is possible. If a politician can be trusted to run the lives of those in an entire nation, then why can't people be trusted to run their own lives?
A person may be smart, but people are stupid.

Technology may help us attain sort of anarchy. Completely machine-built/harvested cars, food, drugs etc., as well as automated services may nullify the previous economic repurcussions of "get everything free without doing anything". Machines aren't subject to the same laziness as people, they won't slack off or sleep under their work benches like people would in not-industrial-enough true-communism/anarchism.

I think you would agree with my statement that technology will eventually bring about the existence of a "utopia" of sorts; the result will be an end to economic scarcity, the removal of unemployment as a social concern (people won't need to work), and the existence of employment solely motivated by the desire for further technological improvement.

A person may be smart, but people are stupid.

Which is why we will need a considerable degree of further technological advancement before we can truly consider the possibility of a worldwide anarchic existence.

I think you would agree with my statement that technology will eventually bring about the existence of a "utopia" of sorts; the result will be an end to economic scarcity, the removal of unemployment as a social concern (people won't need to work), and the existence of employment solely motivated by the desire for further technological improvement.

There will always be economic scarcity, unless we develop a machine that makes something out of nothing and discover infinite inhabitable planets. I am not holding my breath.

A person may be smart, but people are stupid.

People have much more information than a single person.

I think the benefits of capitalism are obvious proof that society as a whole are much better planners than one person.

There will always be economic scarcity, unless we develop a machine that makes something out of nothing and discover infinite inhabitable planets. I am not holding my breath.

We don't really know the outcome of technology in regard to economic scarcity. As a result, the concept of anarchy is not going to be possible until we have a way to circumvent that problem.

Nevertheless, given the massive improvements in regard to the satisfaction of economic wants in such a short amount of time, it is plausible (not necessarily possible, but plausible) that a far more advanced society would be able to eliminate economic scarcity.

There will always be economic scarcity, unless we develop a machine that makes something out of nothing and discover infinite inhabitable planets.

or if we just give up on the whole silly notion altogether. economic scarcity doesn't really exist, it's just a cultural attitude.

or as a ju/'hoansi man famously put it, "why should we plant when there are so many mongomongo nuts in the world?"

More is better. We're not being taught it, we've thought it since the dawn of time. Cavemen sought to kill and eat as many animals as possible. The agricultural revolution (the advent of farming and agriculture) occured thanks to a quest for more food, so we would have more time to become more wealthy in more ways.
More is only better for the "economy" and for short term business interests. Are you aware of what our current unsustainable levels of development are doing to the planet? The Green Revolution (the advent of mass, monoculture, chemical based agriculture) has actually caused a decline in long term food productivity, biodiversity as well as itroducing dangerous pesticides and chemicals into the environment. Not to mention Roundup Ready crops and sterile seed.

Sure, more is better in the short term, but in the long term it's destroying us.

Can you give any evidence of the actual quality of this health and education system? And there's still that little fact of an armed insurgency still going on, must really lower the real estate values in the area.
The insurgency IS the anarchist society we're talking about. Last time I checked revolutionaries don't just sit back and make peace with the government.
Also, who gives a flying fuck about real estate prices? These people are poor!
I would look for stats but I have to run. Will try to do that later.

I think the benefits of capitalism are obvious proof that society as a whole are much better planners than one person.
True, but many of the decisions governments must make cannot wait on the deliberation of millions of people

or if we just give up on the whole silly notion altogether. economic scarcity doesn't really exist, it's just a cultural attitude
There's nothing "cultural" about scarcity. There are finite supplies of any resource we have on this planet.

The insurgency IS the anarchist society we're talking about.
And that makes all the difference...

Also, who gives a flying fuck about real estate prices? These people are poor!
hu·mor ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hymr)
n.
The quality that makes something laughable or amusing; funniness
That which is intended to induce laughter or amusement
The ability to perceive, enjoy, or express what is amusing, comical, incongruous, or absurd.

I’ve decided that I wouldn’t mind true communism. I would probably enjoy a world with no social classes, no government, no private property etc. just as much as I would enjoy a world where the only authority is the free market. Both have a maximum amount of freedom. Either way, I’m living my life the way I want to with minimal restrictions. The problem is simply that a communist government cannot be trusted to move society towards such a place, because governments can not be trusted, period, and all revolutions have shown us that the formerly oppressed simply become new oppressors.

Is there any way to ever achieve anarchy, or is it merely a dream?

Something's wrong with you. Since when did you get all soft on us?

Keeping the population armed won't help - it'll just make getting shot more likely. Besides, if there's no government, who's going to keep "the population" armed? If there is a hierarchy, that means that some will have power over others.

Human nature does exist, and it's natural to put your own needs before those of others. If that weren't the case, Communism might actually have a chance at working, which it won't.

Human nature does exist, and it's natural to put your own needs before those of others.

which neatly explains why there aren't any firefighters or soldiers in existence. and also why no one ever has children.

A person may be smart, but people are stupid.If people are stupid then they're going to elect stupid people to elect them, which brings us back to Letila's question. And if they're smart enough to elect smart people, then they're smart enough to run the country themselves.

Since when is having kids an act of selflessness? People have kids for selfish, stupid reasons like to carry on the family name or for the less stupid but equally selfish desire to have someone to care for them in their old age. Frankly I don't think my parents did anyone a favor by having me.

And as for firefighters and soldiers - I'm not saying that nobody has heroic instincts, but frankly if most people had to choose between the welfare of a stranger and their own, they wouldn't choose the stranger.

Since when is having kids an act of selflessness?

its not exactly selflessness, but it certainly isn't selfish either. having children imposes significant costs and a great deal of risk onto a person.

but frankly if most people had to choose between the welfare of a stranger and their own, they wouldn't choose the stranger.

but the would choose to sacrifice rather a lot for friends and family. and most people who are in a secure position themselves are not at all adverse to a bit of sacrifice to help people they will never meet. shit, people give up the very blood in their bodies to others for the payment of a couple cookies.

your original statement was:

"Human nature does exist, and it's natural to put your own needs before those of others."

to fit with the actual situation i think we need to amend it.

some sort of human nature exists (though it is highly variable across cultures), and it's natural to both put your own needs before those of others and to put the needs of others before your own.

unless you meant something different by 'natural' than 'happens in nature'