NationStates Jolt Archive

Simple question. What is the thing really wrong with anarchy? I know that it gets a bad press from time to time but in anarchism there cannot be wars as a military would be impossible and money, the route of all evil, is abolished. So what is SO bad about it.

What's the point in law when the good don't need it and the bad don't follow it?

Simple question. What is the thing really wrong with anarchy? I know that it gets a bad press from time to time but in anarchism there cannot be wars as a military would be impossible and money, the route of all evil, is abolished. So what is SO bad about it.

People could just create their own armies and currencies.

Why would a military or currency be impossible in anarchy? There's no rules, so people can do whatever they want, be it band together to force other people to do what they want, or agree that cornchips are a viable form of currency.

Seriously. Anarchy is a ridiculous concept as form of government (or lack of government depending on your point of view.)

Simple question. What is the thing really wrong with anarchy? I know that it gets a bad press from time to time but in anarchism there cannot be wars as a military would be impossible and money, the route of all evil, is abolished. So what is SO bad about it.
It requires people to take responsibilty for their own lives.

Simple question. What is the thing really wrong with anarchy?
Um, total chaos?

You can't define Anarchy. Anarchy, by definition, is chaotic.

Yeah...

Why would a military or currency be impossible in anarchy? There's no rules, so people can do whatever they want, be it band together to force other people to do what they want, or agree that cornchips are a viable form of currency.

Seriously. Anarchy is a ridiculous concept as form of government (or lack of government depending on your point of view.)
You don't know what anarchism is do you? Anarchism means "no leaders". It does not mean no rules.

So what is SO bad about it.That through years of misusing the term (like communism) it has received a negative connotation that doesn't actually apply to the word or the application thereof.

You can't define Anarchy. Anarchy, by definition, is chaotic.
not when used in the context of the political theory of anarchism

Other than the fact that it's completely unworkable because rule of law would collapse, unregulated trade would create a situation similar to medieval Europe (a few rich guys surrounded by a sea of serfs), and major natural disasters like bird flu outbreaks would be far more deadly because of lack of central authority to organize a response?

What is so Wrong with Anarchy?

Its not practical in the least bit.

money, the route of all evil

heh, i like this version

You probably have a bad view of Anarchy. (while there can't be any good view either) Anarchy in my point of view is the type of thing you see in post-apocalytic movies. It would lead to the greatest of things, where we not to be human. As humans are naturally greedy, and will only abuse things to their own profit.

Anarchy means the toughest, meanest bunch of thugs take over. Until a bunch of citizens band together, shoot all the thugs, and form a government.

It requires people to take responsibilty for their own lives.

Isn't that fair enough?

Anarchy = lack of government = lack of order = total chaos.

What is so Wrong with Anarchy?Its not practical in the least bit.

i didn't write that

but in any case, why not?

Anarchy = lack of government = lack of order = total chaos.Lack of government does not mean lack of order. It's entirely possible to have order with no government.

[...]major natural disasters like bird flu outbreaks would be far more deadly because of lack of central authority to organize a response?
Anarchism isn't opposed to organisation, just repression caused by giving power to authorities. Charities, for instance, are anarchistic (they have no legal power) but when they co-ordinate their efforts they are far more effective than governments.

The closest the human race has ever gotten to anarchy was when we lived as small hunter/gatherer bands. Back then just about every man died from violence, there was no large scale organization of labor to produce complex goods and people were at the mercy of nature. It amazes me that some people are willing to go back to that sad state of affairs.

Lack of government does not mean lack of order. It's entirely possible to have order with no government.
Oh, really? How's order enforced and by whom? What stops people from looting everything and killing each other for their stuff?

lack of government = lack of order

that is false; it is clearly possible to do at least some things with the government running them. or do you live under some totalitarian nightmare state?

Oh, really? How's order enforced and by whom? What stops people from looting everything and killing each other for their stuff?People do. Would a neighborhood watch organized by a community be the same as a government?

Anarchism isn't opposed to organisation, just repression caused by giving power to authorities. Charities, for instance, are anarchistic (they have no legal power) but when they co-ordinate their efforts they are far more effective than governments.
Bullshit. Look at the tsunami. Governments gave the most aid. NGOs were there, and they helped out, but US navy ships provided fresh drinking water, numerous governments donated money and expertise. That contribution dwarfed the contribution by charities. In fact, charities often duplicated services and wasted their money.

You don't know what anarchism is do you? Anarchism means "no leaders". It does not mean no rules.

I guess that depends on which dictionary you're looking at. Regardless, it implies a lack of organization and government. So, it's rediculous. There will always be leaders, and people who generally excel or take the lead. Who would enforce anarchy? Who determines the rules? Do you come to a decision democratically? Then it wouldn't be anarchy would it? It would be democracy. Give me a break.

not when used in the context of the political theory of anarchism

I had actually hoped somebody would catch the paradox in my state.

You can't define something. That something is, by definition, undefinable.

Now with something more abstract.


To the actual Anarchy: It could be utopia and it could be dystopia. I don't like taking such a wild chance.

Isn't that fair enough?
Yeah.. but people, y'know? It's not the inherent selfishness that is the problem with the human race it's lazyness. For anarchism to work you'd not only have to create a system that would have the right correct checks and balances to ensure fairness and the make sure that tyranny would never return you would have to have a populace that maintained that system and kept eternal vigilence in case it became corrupted.

Anarchy means the toughest, meanest bunch of thugs take over. Until a bunch of citizens band together, shoot all the thugs, and form a government.
Why do they need to form a government after disposing of all the thugs? If the majority of people think something is wrong they can act against it without needing to create a centralised system of law.

Ethically, I agree with not being under the control of a government (unless you choose to voluntarily), however it is simply not practical.

I do think people should take responsibility for things themselves - whether they're "good causes" or just making a living. I do not expect this to actually happen though.

People do. Would a neighborhood watch organized by a community be the same as a government?
Right. So it'd turn into wars between neighbourhoods which, in turn, have to be governed by someone or they'd disintegrate. But wait, that's not anarchy.

It requires people to take responsibilty for their own lives.

Indeed, that seems to be the problem: people can't be bothered to take that kind of responsibility.

lack of government = lack of order

Who says order = good? The USSR was quite orderly but that didn't make it a good place to live.

Do you come to a decision democratically? Then it wouldn't be anarchy would it? It would be democracy. Direct democracy is a form of anarchism.

Right. So it'd turn into wars between neighbourhoods which, in turn, have to be governed by someone or they'd disintegrate. But wait, that's not anarchy.Why would it turn into wars between neighborhoods?

Oh, really? How's order enforced and by whom? What stops people from looting everything and killing each other for their stuff?

various organizations setup to do such things. to quote from an anarchist programme drafted by malatesta,

"Organisation of social life by means of free association and federations of producers and consumers, created and modified according to the wishes of their members, guided by science and experience, and free from any kind of imposition which does not spring from natural needs..."

I guess that depends on which dictionary you're looking at. Regardless, it implies a lack of organization and government. So, it's rediculous. There will always be leaders, and people who generally excel or take the lead. Who would enforce anarchy? Who determines the rules? Do you come to a decision democratically? Then it wouldn't be anarchy would it? It would be democracy. Give me a break.
Because we all know dictionarys are politically savvy.. Anarchism isn't a lack of organization. "an" - from greek meaning to be without. "archos" - meaning leader or person in charge. Anarchy would only work as a democracy.

have to be governed by someone or they'd disintegrate. But wait, that's not anarchy.

if they are 'governed' by the people in them and federate together, then yes, it is.

Why do they need to form a government after disposing of all the thugs? If the majority of people think something is wrong they can act against it without needing to create a centralised system of law.

That's a democracy. Anarchy is lack of any kind of structure. If there were ANYTHING preventing ANYONE from doing ANYTHING, they would therefore be able to throw a molotov cocktail at it and scream "DOWN WITH THE SYSTEM! ANARCHY NOW!", even at the smallest things.

Not even "Escape from New York" had anarchy in it, because it had the Duke. It came pretty close, though.

Bullshit. Look at the tsunami. Governments gave the most aid. [...] In fact, charities often duplicated services and wasted their money.
The UK government pledged £50m (much of which quietly disappeared - governments in total haven't donated £315m of the money they pledged), but UK citizens gave £372m - over seven times as much - co-ordinated through the Disasters Emergency Comittee. Charities aren't used to organising things on a trans-national basis, but there's no reason why they can't quickly learn and set up something like an International Disasters Emergency Committee.

Lack of government does not mean lack of order. It's entirely possible to have order with no government.
On a small scale. You can't organize large groups of people necessary to maintain a modern standard of living.

Why would it turn into wars between neighborhoods?
You're forgetting human nature. We're naturally greedy, and in a chaotic environment there nothing's that stops groups of people from attacking others and loot what they have.

various organizations setup to do such things. to quote from an anarchist programme drafted by malatesta,

"Organisation of social life by means of free association and federations of producers and consumers, created and modified according to the wishes of their members, guided by science and experience, and free from any kind of imposition which does not spring from natural needs..."
So they form some kind of government. No anarchy there.

Who says order = good? The USSR was quite orderly but that didn't make it a good place to live.
Because decent (in the USSR there was excessive control) order prevents your house to be looted and razed, you and your family killed and everything you own stolen at night.

Because we all know dictionarys are politically savvy.. Anarchism isn't a lack of organization. "an" - from greek meaning to be without. "archos" - meaning leader or person in charge. Anarchy would only work as a democracy.

But no group of people are all equal. There -will- be someone who, officially or not, will take charge or have more respect or have more heft in his judgements and suggestions. He will be the leader. There will not be anarchy as long as there are people making decisions.

The UK government pledged £50m (much of which quietly disappeared - governments in total haven't donated £315m of the money they pledged), but UK citizens gave £372m - over seven times as much - co-ordinated through the Disasters Emergency Comittee. Charities aren't used to organising things on a trans-national basis, but there's no reason why they can't quickly learn and set up something like an International Disasters Emergency Committee.
And will charities be able to maintain fleets of ships loaded down with medical supplies and equipment as well as desalination equipment capable of providing fresh water and medical attention to areas like Atjeh, where salt water swept into the wells and destroyed many towns and villages?

Because we all know dictionarys are politically savvy.. Anarchism isn't a lack of organization. "an" - from greek meaning to be without. "archos" - meaning leader or person in charge. Anarchy would only work as a democracy.

??

So, then aren't we just talking about theoretical democracy? Every single decision is put to a vote? Except you can't vote for a leader? So why label it anarchy when the great majority of english-speakers equate anarchy with 'absence of order'?

If it's unfettered democracy, then wouldnt' the minority then be held to the whim of the majority?

Come on! The "chaos" argument is so old. I prefer the critiques of Nietzsche and Skinner as they were at least somewhat original.

On a small scale. You can't organize large groups of people necessary to maintain a modern standard of living.Sure you can. You could get at least 1,000 people organized in a directly democratic manner, if not 100,000.

You're forgetting human nature. We're naturally greedy, and in a chaotic environment there nothing's that stops groups of people from attacking others and loot what they have.Whether or not there's a such thing as human nature hasn't been proven, and even if there is, that doesn't mean it isn't malleable.

That's a democracy. Anarchy is lack of any kind of structure. If there were ANYTHING preventing ANYONE from doing ANYTHING, they would therefore be able to throw a molotov cocktail at it and scream "DOWN WITH THE SYSTEM! ANARCHY NOW!", even at the smallest things.


Nooooo...

Anarchy is a lack of leaders, not a lack of rules. Rules like don't chuck molotovs when you don't get your way. Anarchy is not individualism as some think, it is collectivism. The community, the government and the people are indistinguishable in anarchy.

But no group of people are all equal. There -will- be someone who, officially or not, will take charge or have more respect or have more heft in his judgements and suggestions. He will be the leader. There will not be anarchy as long as there are people making decisions.

Yes, there will always be people who, on their own merits can become primus inter pares. But as long as enough people remember pares as well as primus then they cannot become an official leader.

On a small scale. You can't organize large groups of people necessary to maintain a modern standard of living.
You remind me a Bill Gates saying 30 years ago that no-one can afford to write serious software for free. Then the anarchistic open source software movement came along and now over 68% of web servers run Apache (source: Netcraft Web Server Survey), and tens of thousands of people contribute to Linux to make an operating system more stable and secure than Windows. In both these projects (and the thousands of other open source projects) anybody could come along, take a copy of the code, and do what they like. And yet this 'forking' hardly ever happens - without any central 'government' (like that at traditional software companies) thousands of people get together and produce better software - and Eric Raymond's famous book The Cathedral And The Bazaar explains that it works even if everyone behaves totally selfishly.

Whether or not there's a such thing as human nature hasn't been proven, and even if there is, that doesn't mean it isn't malleable.
It HAS been proven. Let me ask you, what happened in New Orleans during Katrina? Lootings and violence. Why? Lack of order, anarchy.

If anarchy is so good, then why are there absolutely NO countries making use of it? Be my guest and move to one of those as soon as they're founded. You won't live past the first day.

Whether or not there's a such thing as human nature hasn't been proven, and even if there is, that doesn't mean it isn't malleable.

Human nature hasn't been proven?

You anarchists play with a whole different set of brainwaves I think...

Sure you can. You could get at least 1,000 people organized in a directly democratic manner, if not 100,000.

Whether or not there's a such thing as human nature hasn't been proven, and even if there is, that doesn't mean it isn't malleable.
Direct democracy? Great. You know what that will mean? In the US we will become a Christian theocracy. In many parts of the world minorities will be persecuted according to the will of the majority. Fuck that.

Steven Pinker's book The Blank Slate makes a pretty strong case for human nature. It's malleable, but only to a point. Much of it is genetically hard wired into us.

Because decent (in the USSR there was excessive control) order prevents your house to be looted and razed, you and your family killed and everything you own stolen at night.

In that case, why trust government? If government officials are human (and unless those conspiracy theories about them being aliens are true, they are), then it follows that they are effected by human nature as well. If so, then why trust them with power? It's simply silly to believe that being a politician makes you more virtuous than if you're an ordinary citizen.

Nooooo...

Anarchy is a lack of leaders, not a lack of rules. Rules like don't chuck molotovs when you don't get your way. Anarchy is not individualism as some think, it is collectivism. The community, the government and the people are indistinguishable in anarchy.



Yes, there will always be people who, on their own merits can become primus inter pares. But as long as enough people remember pares as well as primus then they cannot become an official leader.
Who enforces the rules? Will the rules be enforced selectively or will everyone be treated equally? Who will judge whether or not someone is being discriminated against under the rules?

Sorry, anarchy just seems like a stupid idea.

It HAS been proven. Let me ask you, what happened in New Orleans during Katrina? Lootings and violence. Why? Because people had no food and lootings and violence were the only way of getting it.

If anarchy is so good, then why are there absolutely NO countries making use of it? 1) Because that would require those in power to give it up.
2) Countries are a political term with national borders, and since anarchists don't believe in national borders, an anarchistic country is impossible.

Be my guest and move to one of those as soon as they're founded. You won't live past the first day.I disagree. It is possible that such a thing wouldn't work; whether or not an anarchistic society would work depends on how willing the people in it were in making it work. This does not mean it is impossible to work, it can't be as there are anarchistic societies in the present day.

And will charities be able to maintain fleets of ships loaded down with medical supplies and equipment as well as desalination equipment capable of providing fresh water and medical attention to areas like Atjeh, where salt water swept into the wells and destroyed many towns and villages?
I don't see why not. Numerous charities own their own ships now (the most famous being the Rainbow Warrior, although its purpose is of course very different) and Medecins Sans Frontieres does a good job with medical supplies.

So they form some kind of government. No anarchy there.

i quoted a completely standard anarchist idea from a prominent anarchist theorist. who are you to claim that it isn't anarchist? it is not my fault that you don't know the terms of the debate or the history of the discussion.

Who enforces the rules? Will the rules be enforced selectively or will everyone be treated equally? Who will judge whether or not someone is being discriminated against under the rules?

Sorry, anarchy just seems like a stupid idea.
I doesn't seem, it just is.

In that case, why trust government? If government officials are human (and unless those conspiracy theories about them being aliens are true, they are), then it follows that they are effected by human nature as well. If so, then why trust them with power? It's simply silly to believe that being a politician makes you more virtuous than if you're an ordinary citizen.
Because theoretically the government is subject to being stripped of it's authority and replaced by a new government when the people vote. Therefore it's in their self-interest to serve the people. That harnesses human nature to ensure responsive and responsible govenrment rather than denying human nature like anarchy does.

In practice it doesn't often work out perfectly.

I don't see why not. Numerous charities own their own ships now (the most famous being the Rainbow Warrior, although its purpose is of course very different) and Medecins Sans Frontieres does a good job with medical supplies.
The Rainbow Warrior is barely a canoe compared to the hospital ships and the destroyers with on-board desalination plants that responded to the Asian tsunami. Such ships cost quite a bit of money to build and to maintain and since disasters of that magnitude aren't common charities will not be able to raise that kind of money. Donors won't see the need until the disaster has already struck. Then they will quickly forget about it.

It is often forgotten that Anarchism is a direct source of Fascism. It sound implausible, but it is nonetheless true.
That is a major problem with Anarchism - its innate lack of logic opens it to mysticism and power-adulation.

Human nature hasn't been proven?If it had there would be no need for psychological research.

Direct democracy? Great. You know what that will mean? In the US we will become a Christian theocracy. In many parts of the world minorities will be persecuted according to the will of the majority. Fuck that. Why should the U.S. as a whole become one giant chunk of direct democracy? It would break apart into communities, and each community would be self-governing (should the U.S. as a whole become anarchistic overnight, that is.)

Steven Pinker's book The Blank Slate makes a pretty strong case for human nature. It's malleable, but only to a point. Much of it is genetically hard wired into us.Even if this is the case, this doesn't mean anarchy can't be consistent with that part of human nature that is genetically hard wired into us.

Because people had no food and lootings and violence were the only way of getting it.

1) Because that would require those in power to give it up.
2) Countries are a political term with national borders, and since anarchists don't believe in national borders, an anarchistic country is impossible.

I disagree. It is possible that such a thing wouldn't work; whether or not an anarchistic society would work depends on how willing the people in it were in making it work. This does not mean it is impossible to work, it can't be as there are anarchistic societies in the present day.
Do you really think they were just looting food?

An anarchistic country is impossible, you said it yourself. Why do you bother to keep defending this crap?

i quoted a completely standard anarchist idea from a prominent anarchist theorist. who are you to claim that it isn't anarchist? it is not my fault that you don't know the terms of the debate or the history of the discussion.
OK, so just because a "prominent anarchist theorist" said that it must be absolutely true? It's a grand load of bull.

I've had enough of this nonsense.

Thomas Hobbes had it right really. And do you really trust humanity enough for someone out there to not take advantage of a lack of central government for their own gains at the expense of others?

Have any of the contributors here read Ursula Le Guin's "The Dispossessed"? The novel describes what a possible anarchy would be like. It's also a f***ing good read.

Anarchy has come to mean, to most people, a state of disorder. The original theory was quite different.

If people think anarchy is so great, they should move to fucking Somalia. I'm sure they'd be happy to enlighten them on the subject.

Do you really think they were just looting food?No, they wanted other things too, but there's no reason that an anarchist society couldn't provide those other things.

An anarchistic country is impossible, you said it yourself. Due to the definition of country, an anarchistic country is a contradiction in terms. That is why it is impossible, not because of any flaw in anarchistic theory.

Why do you bother to keep defending this crap?Why wouldn't I defend the best of all possible systems?

If people think anarchy is so great, they should move to fucking Somalia. I'm sure they'd be happy to enlighten them on the subject.Somalia has warlords. The existence of warlords proves that Somalia isn't anarchistic.

Errinundera']Anarchy has come to mean, to most people, a state of disorder. The original theory was quite different.
Technically, it's the other way: the theory was developped from what the Ancient Greeks took to mean as a state of disorder.

If it had there would be no need for psychological research.

Why should the U.S. as a whole become one giant chunk of direct democracy? It would break apart into communities, and each community would be self-governing (should the U.S. as a whole become anarchistic overnight, that is.)

Even if this is the case, this doesn't mean anarchy can't be consistent with that part of human nature that is genetically hard wired into us.
Each community would be self-governing? But I thought you said that Anarchy could still allow for organizing large groups of people. I'm pretty sure that my city would have alot of trouble disposing of it's waste if it had to haggle with nearby communities to arrange for a dump site. What's to stop surrounding communities from charging heavy tolls to "foreign" traffic driving through them?

No central organization would make for a very bad business climate. It would drop our standard of living very quickly. I don't know about you, but I don't really want to live like a member of a Somali clan. Somalia has anarchy. Small communities making their own rules and settling disputes between each other. Usually by shooting it out.

What's the point in law when the good don't need it and the bad don't follow it?

To keep the people who DON'T follow the law away from those people who DO. Hamurabi had a mission man... they didn't create law to oppress people after all. They could have done that without law in the first place.

In regards to the people who profess that anarchism = leaderless democracy; aren't you essentially proposing a Libertarian Direct Democracy? Every definition of anarchy I've ever come across implies anarchy as a lack of order, and anarchism as being against all forms of government. So why label it that?

It HAS been proven. Let me ask you, what happened in New Orleans during Katrina? Lootings and violence. Why? Lack of order, anarchy.

to quote v for vendetta (which actually is fairly articulate about anarchism), "this is not anarchy eve. this is chaos."

of course, the violence in new orleans was not actually as bad as it was made out to be (especially compared to new orleans when it had a functioning state ruling it anyway). and the looting was just and right and good, though would have been better if done in a slightly more orderly fashion.

if anything, katrina showed the fundamental danger of relying on the state to take care of things for you. ruling elites don't give a crap about you, and will actively hinder your efforts to take care of yourself when this become apparent. if new orleans had a mass libertarian movement, you can bet that things would have gone down differently in the aftermath of the disaster.

If anarchy is so good, then why are there absolutely NO countries making use of it?

let's pretend the year is 1550. if republicanism is so good, why don't any real countries use it?

Technically, it's the other way: the theory was developped from what the Ancient Greeks took to mean as a state of disorder.

I've just checked Wikipedia:

Anarchism is derived from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons (ruler, chief, king)"). Anarchism as a political philosophy, is the belief that rulers, governments, and hierarchal social relationships are unnecessary and should be abolished, although there are differing interpretations of what this means. Anarchism also refers to related social movements that advocate the elimination of authoritarian institutions. The word "anarchy," as most anarchists use it, does not imply chaos, nihilism, or anomie, but rather a harmonious anti-authoritarian society that is based on individual self-determination and personal involvement. In place of what are regarded as authoritarian political structures and coercive economic institutions, anarchists advocate social relations based upon voluntary association of autonomous individuals, mutual aid, and self-governance.

I accept your point.

Wikipedia is a wonderful example of anarchy at its best.

If it had there would be no need for psychological research.

I would suggest you read the works of William Shakespeare. Lot's of Human Nature there.

Nooooo...

Anarchy is a lack of leaders, not a lack of rules. Rules like don't chuck molotovs when you don't get your way. Anarchy is not individualism as some think, it is collectivism. The community, the government and the people are indistinguishable in anarchy.



Yes, there will always be people who, on their own merits can become primus inter pares. But as long as enough people remember pares as well as primus then they cannot become an official leader.

It doesn't matter if it's official or not, the person who gains the most respect and wins more of his peers over than anyone else will gain loyalty. Loyalty begets hierarchy, hierarchy begets government.

Thomas Hobbes had it right really.

of course, anarchyel is an anarchist who loves him some hobbes

Each community would be self-governing? But I thought you said that Anarchy could still allow for organizing large groups of people. It could, if the communities were organized into a confederacy, or it was a very large community.

I'm pretty sure that my city would have alot of trouble disposing of it's waste if it had to haggle with nearby communities to arrange for a dump site. I don't see why; the government arranges with individuals to provide for a dump site. This would be the same thing.

What's to stop surrounding communities from charging heavy tolls to "foreign" traffic driving through them?I suppose they could if they wanted to, but that wouldn't likely be in their best interest. There would also be the absence of money, in certain anarchistic theories.

No central organization would make for a very bad business climate. Good. As a communist, I dislike businesses.

It would drop our standard of living very quickly. It would raise the standard of living for most people.

I don't know about you, but I don't really want to live like a member of a Somali clan. Somalia has anarchy. Small communities making their own rules and settling disputes between each other. Usually by shooting it out.Somalia has warlords. Anarchy is no rulers, and a warlord is most certainly a ruler.

OK, so just because a "prominent anarchist theorist" said that it must be absolutely true? It's a grand load of bull.

I've had enough of this nonsense.

it's our term and our theory. deal.

I would suggest you read the works of William Shakespeare. Lot's of Human Nature there.Monarchy was the accepted standard of living in Shakesperian times, so it would seem that people's attitudes can change.

It doesn't matter if it's official or not, the person who gains the most respect and wins more of his peers over than anyone else will gain loyalty. Loyalty begets hierarchy, hierarchy begets government.

and there certainly aren't an examples of possible ways for societies to setup institutions and social norms that lessen that or stop it from progressing farther. nope, none whatsoever...

Errinundera']

Anarchy has come to mean, to most people, a state of disorder. The original theory was quite different.


The "original theory" behind anarchy is what leads to the disorder that people associate with the word.

An anarchist group is one that is ripe either to be enslaved by outside forces or destroyed from forces within.

There are solid, practical reasons that anarchy hasnt existed successfully on earth since prehistory.

There are solid, practical reasons that anarchy hasnt existed successfully on earth since prehistory.Then why does it currently exist successfully on earth?

to quote v for vendetta (which actually is fairly articulate about anarchism), "this is not anarchy eve. this is chaos."

of course, the violence in new orleans was not actually as bad as it was made out to be (especially compared to new orleans when it had a functioning state ruling it anyway). and the looting was just and right and good, though would have been better if done in a slightly more orderly fashion.

if anything, katrina showed the fundamental danger of relying on the state to take care of things for you. ruling elites don't give a crap about you, and will actively hinder your efforts to take care of yourself when this become apparent. if new orleans had a mass libertarian movement, you can bet that things would have gone down differently in the aftermath of the disaster.

Quite so and it's silly to judge a system under extreme duress by comparing it to another under more favorable conditions.

Then why does it currently exist successfully on earth?


In Sierra Leone? the Sudan?

Each community would be self-governing? But I thought you said that Anarchy could still allow for organizing large groups of people. I'm pretty sure that my city would have alot of trouble disposing of it's waste if it had to haggle with nearby communities to arrange for a dump site. What's to stop surrounding communities from charging heavy tolls to "foreign" traffic driving through them?

No central organization would make for a very bad business climate. It would drop our standard of living very quickly. I don't know about you, but I don't really want to live like a member of a Somali clan. Somalia has anarchy. Small communities making their own rules and settling disputes between each other. Usually by shooting it out.

Let's paint the picture.

Over the course of, let's say, a year, the USA has become the libertarian democratic anarchy these people are saying it is.

There's still religion. Many would have loyalty to the church, the church having loyalty to the Vatican. Someone like Bush pops up and says "Follow me, I'm a good Christian just like you" and suddenly there's a sect of people following this one man who's on a quest to unite everyone under one god, one leader, one church. He arms his followers, they practice, study, and conquer.

It's no longer an anarchy. It's ancient feudal China/Japan/Europe.

Quite so and it's silly to judge a system under extreme duress by comparing it to another under more favorable conditions.


Its not silly when "favorable conditions" and "duress" are both constants in the real world for the respective systems.

Perhaps in the realm of fantasy, 'anarchism' might flourish, but in the world inhabited by people, it does not.

It could, if the communities were organized into a confederacy, or it was a very large community.

I don't see why; the government arranges with individuals to provide for a dump site. This would be the same thing.

I suppose they could if they wanted to, but that wouldn't likely be in their best interest. There would also be the absence of money, in certain anarchistic theories.

Good. As a communist, I dislike businesses.

It would raise the standard of living for most people.

Somalia has warlords. Anarchy is no rulers, and a warlord is most certainly a ruler.
1) The US tried a confederacy. The articles of confederation were a massive flop.

2) The government has the power to force a community to accept a dump site, a nuclear plant, or some other NIMBY proposition because it's necessary for the good of the people in general. Anarchy strips away that power.

3) The absence of money doesn't mean the absense of capitalism. Under anarchy you'd have capitalism run amok. Farming communities would be able to extort huge ammounts of goods or money in exchange for manufactured luxury items because the city folks can't eat a TV. Pay up or starve.

4) Business is what provides us with our standard of living. Doesn't the fact that there has never been a functioning communist state tell you something? It's impossible to maintain a modern standard of living without business. It's impossible to organize people without someone taking control. Communism and Anarchy are impossible.

5) For who? Sub-Saharan Africans living under tyrants? For people like me and you it would drastically lower our standard of living. For the people of the third world, they'd see a little improvement, but not much.

6) Humans are genetically programmed to follow a heierarchy. That's why they have warlords. Don't you think some kind of leader would emerge in your anarchist model? Even hunter/gatherer bands have a "big man" who's word carries more weight than that of the average person.

The "original theory" behind anarchy is what leads to the disorder that people associate with the word.

as every discussion we've ever had on the subject shows, you don't know much, if anything, of anarchist theory. it's sad, really.

and there certainly aren't an examples of possible ways for societies to setup institutions and social norms that lessen that or stop it from progressing farther. nope, none whatsoever...

Who would do that? Who would enforce them? There'd be a bunch of people loyal to this one guy, and a bunch of others who are like "Hey you shouldn't be like that, because he shouldn't have that much power even though he may deserve it for being smarter than all of us." What happens? They fight over it. People die, political and social schisms are made.

as every discussion we've ever had on the subject shows, you don't know much, if anything, of anarchist theory. it's sad, really.


What you mean is that I dont believe much in anarchist theory.

There's isnt all that much to know, Free Soviets.

and there certainly aren't an examples of possible ways for societies to setup institutions and social norms that lessen that or stop it from progressing farther. nope, none whatsoever...
Nope. Not without giving someone else power to judge how much influence others have and strip them of it. You're just trading one central authority figure for another.

Just follow me through this:

Let's say there is a cow that represents all the resources people need to survive. Under any government, the cow would be distributed between the people. And even though the cow might be unfairly or unevenly distributed, there is still some sort of order in the distribution. In true anarchy, with no centralized government, the cow could not be distributed because there is no order. Without this order, whoever had the cow would viciously fight for it to provide for themselves or anybody else who they wished to provide for because they do not know how to distribute it and their greed for their possession would overcome any feelings of empathy for others. Meanwhile, the rest of the people who do not have any part of the cow would want some part of it to stay alive, and so would attempt to take it by any means necessary to ensure their own survival. Therefore, there would be a slow dwindling of the human race because each of us in turn would fight for the cow and then get it taken from us. Essentially, we would be reduced to living like animals. The strong would survive and the weak would perish, and by the time it was all over, we would have to start from scratch. We would be no better than the prehistoric man.

In conclusion, anarchy is chaos, and within it, there is no coherent order. In a state of true anarchy, people could do whatever they want without any repercussions or thought to the consequences.

However, true anarchy can never exist while people still have authority. Sure, there might not be a government as we see it, but at the same time, consider this definition of government from Dictionary.com:


The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.


As a child, were you ever been punished by your parents for doing something wrong? That would make your parents your own personal government (at least, at that time) because they have authority. As long as there is authority, no matter how small, there can never be true anarchy. You could kill someone to ensure your own survival, but would most people associate with you? Probably not. If a government was thrown down and nothing arose in its place, people could survive easily, but only by swallowing their pride and working together to create order for survival. Therefore, they have banded together to form a government.

This concludes my rant.

Then why does it currently exist successfully on earth?
Where?

Let's paint the picture.

Over the course of, let's say, a year, the USA has become the libertarian democratic anarchy these people are saying it is.

There's still religion. Many would have loyalty to the church, the church having loyalty to the Vatican. Someone like Bush pops up and says "Follow me, I'm a good Christian just like you" and suddenly there's a sect of people following this one man who's on a quest to unite everyone under one god, one leader, one church. He arms his followers, they practice, study, and conquer.

It's no longer an anarchy. It's ancient feudal China/Japan/Europe.
Yep. That's correct.

as every discussion we've ever had on the subject shows, you don't know much, if anything, of anarchist theory. it's sad, really.
Anarchist theory is about as usefull in the real world as intelligent design theory.

In the early 20th century and late 19th century a group of anarchists assassinated a bunch of prominent leaders.

Also you can go ahead and be anarchists so when an organized group (government) comes in conquers you, you now have to conform to their identity. Better the government you prefer then you one that prefers you.

Somalia has warlords. Anarchy is no rulers, and a warlord is most certainly a ruler.

How does anarchy prevent the rise of warlords exactly? With leaderless community policing? Or is there policing at all, since that would imply that some people have more power than others (thus an authoritarian establishment that anarchists profess to despise)?

Or, are you stating that anarchy ended the moment the warlords took power, thus proving that anarchism is a pointless exercise?

Where?

Wikipedia

Linux

You are thinking as an archist.

Where?

Nowhere. There is a no place in the world where there are no leaders. Someone will always take a leadership position, because, believe it or not, others WANT a leader.

1) The US tried a confederacy. The articles of confederation were a massive flop.

according to the counterrevolutionaries who wanted different things even during the revolution. patrick henry refused to go to the constitutional convention because he saw the whole thing as a sneaky way to move back towards monarchy.

besides, the government of the articles defeated the british during the war.

The main premise of anarchism, that people can live collectively without a "heirarchy" or central authority is absurd.

The radical leaps of faith required to believe something like this are repugnant to reasonable or evidence-based thought.

Accusing someone of "not knowing anarchist theory" is analagous to accusing him of "not knowing much about phrenology."

Its not silly when "favorable conditions" and "duress" are both constants in the real world for the respective systems.

Perhaps in the realm of fantasy, 'anarchism' might flourish, but in the world inhabited by people, it does not.

What? You think governments under duress are benevolent?:rolleyes: Governments routinely take advantage of danger for their own ends and even make up dangers for various agenda.

Errinundera']Wikipedia

Linux

You are thinking as an archist.
Wikipedia and linux are not nearly as complex as organizing the protection, health, food and water sources for large groups of people in an ever changing world. That's like saying I can build a lean-to shelter all by myself, therefore one person should be capable of building an entire city.

Nowhere. There is a no place in the world where there are no leaders. Someone will always take a leadership position, because, believe it or not, others WANT a leader.
Yep. Humans are social animals and social animals are genetically wired to have a hierarchy.

1) The US tried a confederacy. The articles of confederation were a massive flop.A confederacy organized by groups of people living within arbitrary boundaries.

2) The government has the power to force a community to accept a dump site, a nuclear plant, or some other NIMBY proposition because it's necessary for the good of the people in general. Anarchy strips away that power.Because it isn't necessary good for the people in general. The ideal situation would be for everybody to agree on a proper dumping site, and this is possible.

3) The absence of money doesn't mean the absense of capitalism. True, but it would help.
Under anarchy you'd have capitalism run amok. Farming communities would be able to extort huge ammounts of goods or money in exchange for manufactured luxury items because the city folks can't eat a TV. Pay up or starve. It would be silly for there to be a farming community that exists separately from a community that exists manufactured luxury items. I do agree that people can't eat TVs, but farmers like TVs, too. Furthermore, there's no reason why the manufacturing community couldn't start to farm if it wanted to.

4) Business is what provides us with our standard of living. Doesn't the fact that there has never been a functioning communist state tell you something? That people didn't want a functioning communist state.

It's impossible to maintain a modern standard of living without business. It's impossible to organize people without someone taking control. Communism and Anarchy are impossible.Then why do directly democratic institutions exist today?

5) For who? Sub-Saharan Africans living under tyrants? For people like me and you it would drastically lower our standard of living. For the people of the third world, they'd see a little improvement, but not much.If wealth were redistributed, 80% of people would benefit.

6) Humans are genetically programmed to follow a heierarchy. That's why they have warlords. There have been periods of human history where humans didn't follow a hierarchy.

Don't you think some kind of leader would emerge in your anarchist model? Sure, if the people wanted a leader. If they didn't want a leader, no leader would emerge.

Even hunter/gatherer bands have a "big man" who's word carries more weight than that of the average person.Certainly, if they thought he had some good ideas they would listen to him, but there wasn't any punishment if they didn't. (In some communities.) Take the modern example of a doctor. Sure, your doctor can give you medical advice, but can he force you to take it? Does he have power over you?

Errinundera']Wikipedia

Linux

You are thinking as an archist.


When was the last time I could take a gun and my friends into "Wikipeda" "Linux" and kill someone to take his daughter as my wife and appropriate his horse and his house?

Nope. Not without giving someone else power to judge how much influence others have and strip them of it. You're just trading one central authority figure for another.

diffuse sanctions and social institutions that make the gathering of influence problematic, my friend.

For the record, "archist" and "statist" are jargon for reasonable, evidence-based people.

according to the counterrevolutionaries who wanted different things even during the revolution. patrick henry refused to go to the constitutional convention because he saw the whole thing as a sneaky way to move back towards monarchy.

besides, the government of the articles defeated the british during the war.
And fell apart in peace time when they didn't have aid from France pouring in and the patchwork of different money and laws made trade between the 13
states virtually impossible.

EDIT: I thought the articles weren't adopted til after England was beaten.

The main premise of anarchism, that people can live collectively without a "heirarchy" or central authority is absurd.

and yet there are actually existing examples. and therefore your notion of absurd is flawed, at best.

How does anarchy prevent the rise of warlords exactly? With leaderless community policing? Yes.

Or is there policing at all, since that would imply that some people have more power than others (thus an authoritarian establishment that anarchists profess to despise)? Not if everybody takes turns policing and being trained in how to use weapons efficiently.

Or, are you stating that anarchy ended the moment the warlords took power, thus proving that anarchism is a pointless exercise?The warlords already had power within the government; simply because the government fell did not mean Somalia moved into a state of anarchy.

diffuse sanctions and social institutions that make the gathering of influence problematic, my friend.


Established by whom? Upheld by whom? Diffuse sanctions only work as long as you dont get shot in the head or locked up.

Diffuse sanctions only work when people are immune to fear and to the allure of influence, wealth and power.

Anarchist theory is about as usefull in the real world as intelligent design theory.

different senses of the word theory.

and i've yet to see any eveidence that you know any anarchist theory either.

Monarchy was the accepted standard of living in Shakesperian times, so it would seem that people's attitudes can change.

My point is, that Newton didn't need to know WHY gravity existed, he just pointed out that it DID exist.

Shakespeare's plays are all about human nature, which has generally been the same throughout recorded history. Psychology exists to define the causes and solutions for human nature, not to prove whether or not human nature exists.

Human nature exists regardless of the form of government it is in. The root word beign 'nature'...

Yes.

Not if everybody takes turns policing and being trained in how to use weapons efficiently.

The warlords already had power within the government; simply because the government fell did not mean Somalia moved into a state of anarchy.


If everyone is trained in using weapons, then the war will be ten times more savage and more polarizing.

No such thing as a civilian when the "archists" conspire and attack and your training at arms makes you responsible to fight back or join them.

different senses of the word theory.

and i've yet to see any eveidence that you know any anarchist theory either.


Soviets, are you trying to say that you and the other forum anarchists have done such an awful job of explaning anarchism that none of us have garnered even a half-working grasp of what you're arguing for?

You continue to confuse accepting anarchist ideas with knowing about them.

Anarchy is the Highest form of Democracy

and yet there are actually existing examples. and therefore your notion of absurd is flawed, at best.


Wikipedia and Linux. Right.

Shakespeare's plays are all about human nature, which has generally been the same throughout recorded history. Psychology exists to define the causes and solutions for human nature, not to prove whether or not human nature exists.

Human nature exists regardless of the form of government it is in. The root word beign 'nature'...Even if there is a such thing as human nature, human history shows that cooperation is necessary for humans to survive.

If everyone is trained in using weapons, then the war will be ten times more savage and more polarizing.

No such thing as a civilian when the "archists" conspire and attack and your training at arms makes you responsible to fight back or join them.You haven't shown that there will be a war with anything other than empty statements.

Anarchy is the Highest form of Democracy


Sort of like how flying into the sun is the "highest form of transportation" and overdosing on drugs is the "highest form of medication."

Shakespeare's plays are all about human nature, which has generally been the same throughout recorded history.

sure, as long as you define human nature as 'varying widely between people and groups'. of course, nobody has effectively sorted out what's nature and what's nurture and what's a complex interplay of the two. probably because of the wide variance between the 'natures' of people within the same cultural context.

Sort of like how flying into the sun is the "highest form of transportation" and overdosing on drugs is the "highest form of medication."
contrary to popular belief the surface of the sun is actually quite balmy--theres an illusion that the sun is hot cause the rays of the sun only become scorching hot when they conflict with the discord emanating from our planet

A confederacy organized by groups of people living within arbitrary boundaries.

Because it isn't necessary good for the people in general. The ideal situation would be for everybody to agree on a proper dumping site, and this is possible.

True, but it would help.
It would be silly for there to be a farming community that exists separately from a community that exists manufactured luxury items. I do agree that people can't eat TVs, but farmers like TVs, too. Furthermore, there's no reason why the manufacturing community couldn't start to farm if it wanted to.

That people didn't want a functioning communist state.

Then why do directly democratic institutions exist today?

If wealth were redistributed, 80% of people would benefit.

There have been periods of human history where humans didn't follow a hierarchy.

Sure, if the people wanted a leader. If they didn't want a leader, no leader would emerge.

Certainly, if they thought he had some good ideas they would listen to him, but there wasn't any punishment if they didn't. (In some communities.) Take the modern example of a doctor. Sure, your doctor can give you medical advice, but can he force you to take it? Does he have power over you?
1) Which is pretty close to what you're advocating.

2) No, it's not. Human civilization has progressed faster and faster as central authority has developed. Central control of the law and major undertakings is necessary for progress. No group of people has maintained the primitive organization of bands and progressed technologically or socially. It took more complex central authority to allow for division of labor and distribution of resources necessary for modern life.

3) Try farming in downtown Detroit or in the middle of Nevada.

4) That would be everybody.

5) What country is a direct democracy?

6) Maybe slightly, but the rest would see a drastic drop in standard of living and probably face higher infant mortality rates and shorter life expectancy.

7) When? Give me one example. Even hunter/gatherer bands have a "big man".

8) Genetics force us to seek out or become leaders. You might as well expect people to give up their sex drive.

9) We're not talking about a doctor. If you piss off the big man he might kill you. In primitive tribes nearly 100% of the men die from violence.

Even if there is a such thing as human nature, human history shows that cooperation is necessary for humans to survive.

You haven't shown that there will be a war with anything other than empty statements.


Empty statements and, you know, the body of recorded history. Right.

diffuse sanctions and social institutions that make the gathering of influence problematic, my friend.
Give an example

Wikipedia and Linux. Right.

actually i was thinking of anthropological examples.

come on, we've had this discussion before. now you shift the goal posts, and claim you meant 'modern' societies. and then i point out that you have in fact shifted the goal posts, and i move on to explaining how anarchist theory proposes to organize mass societies. then you repeat your belief that it can't happen, relying on an argument that doesn't at all address those points or that claims that the proposed solution is not in fact anarchist. and so on.

contrary to popular belief the surface of the sun is actually quite balmy--theres an illusion that the sun is hot cause the rays of the sun only become scorching hot when they conflict with the discord emanating from our planet


The Anarchist Non Heirarchicalisticist World Collectival NonHeierarchicalistic Body should accept that as a plank in its non-heirarchicalistical-platform.

and yet there are actually existing examples. and therefore your notion of absurd is flawed, at best.
No, you're wrong. There has never been a group of people without a heiracrchy that lasted for more than one generation in human history. Unless you want to give an example.

Soviets, are you trying to say that you and the other forum anarchists have done such an awful job of explaning anarchism that none of us have garnered even a half-working grasp of what you're arguing for?

You continue to confuse accepting anarchist ideas with knowing about them.

actually, i'm saying that some people are not apparently interested in learning, instead prefering to rely on there own incorrect assumptions to create strawman arguments. over and over and over.

actually i was thinking of anthropological examples.

come on, we've had this discussion before. now you shift the goal posts, and claim you meant 'modern' societies. and then i point out that you have in fact shifted the goal posts, and i move on to explaining how anarchist theory proposes to organize mass societies. then you repeat your belief that it can't happen, relying on an argument that doesn't at all address those points or that claims that the proposed solution is not in fact anarchist. and so on.


In isolation, groups of hippies or savages can certainly live in anarchy.

When the world was barely populated, anarchy was mosty likely the order of the day.

Things arent like that anymore, large populations, as they grow more desne, demand organization and government. Have in every case ever observed in the history of the world.

different senses of the word theory.

and i've yet to see any eveidence that you know any anarchist theory either.
I have yet to see evidence that any group of people have ever successfully pulled off an anarchist society for two generations or more.

actually, i'm saying that some people are not apparently interested in learning, instead prefering to rely on there own incorrect assumptions to create strawman arguments. over and over and over.


I dont buy it for a minute. Note that instead of "teaching correct assumptions" you simply repeat "well, you dont understand anarchism."

No, you're wrong. There has never been a group of people without a heiracrchy that lasted for more than one generation in human history. Unless you want to give an example.

the san

Off to the Statist Cult of Archist Brainwashing, AKA University. Back later.

the indiginious peoples of the world live together in harmonious anarchy

Even if there is a such thing as human nature, human history shows that cooperation is necessary for humans to survive.

You haven't shown that there will be a war with anything other than empty statements.
1) Exactly why anarchy doesn't work. Cooperation requires a leader to coordinate the effort. The reason why humans aren't extinct is because we choose someone to get everyone on the same page and working together. It's in our genes.

2) Hunter/gatherer bands are the closest we've ever come to anarchy. They're plagued by homicide and war.

Things arent like that anymore, large populations, as they grow more desne, demand organization and government. Have in every case ever observed in the history of the world.

and we propose some of our own, that deal with many of the inherent problems of authoritarian organization and hierarchical rule.

right, now we're all on the same page.

1) Which is pretty close to what you're advocating.When have I said anything about arbitrary boundaries?

2) No, it's not. Human civilization has progressed faster and faster as central authority has developed. Central control of the law and major undertakings is necessary for progress. No group of people has maintained the primitive organization of bands and progressed technologically or socially. It took more complex central authority to allow for division of labor and distribution of resources necessary for modern life.Define what you mean by "civilization".

3) Try farming in downtown Detroit or in the middle of Nevada.There is currently enough food to feed the world, so if necessary people could move.

4) That would be everybody.Some people want a communist state. I don't, as I am opposed to states.

5) What country is a direct democracy?That's a contradiction in terms, but communities in New England organized themselves that way, not to mention various groups of people such as the aforementioned Doctors Without Borders.

6) Maybe slightly, but the rest would see a drastic drop in standard of living and probably face higher infant mortality rates and shorter life expectancy. Why would this be?

7) When? Give me one example. Even hunter/gatherer bands have a "big man".Some do, yes.

8) Genetics force us to seek out or become leaders. You might as well expect people to give up their sex drive.I don't see where the sex drive comes into this, and I don't see where genetics forces people to seek out or become leaders.

9) We're not talking about a doctor. If you piss off the big man he might kill you. In primitive tribes nearly 100% of the men die from violence.Well, yes, because it's one-on-one. Now try taking over faced with the resistance of a group of people.

Empty statements and, you know, the body of recorded history. Right.As I've said to Mikesburg, the body of recorded human history shows that cooperation is vital to human survival, thus giving anarchism the benefit of the evidence.

1) Exactly why anarchy doesn't work. Cooperation requires a leader to coordinate the effort. No, it doesn't, it simply requires that everyone wishes to cooperate.

The reason why humans aren't extinct is because we choose someone to get everyone on the same page and working together. It's in our genes.And yet, people work together without having to have someone to this.

2) Hunter/gatherer bands are the closest we've ever come to anarchy. They're plagued by homicide and war.Ever hear of the Inuit?

the san
Not truly anarchist. They have leaders in their bands. Guys who's word carries more weight than others. Plus they aren't above using violence to enforce their will. Also most people don't want to live like a bushman. They want modern luxuries like cars, homes, and the internet. The san's simple level of organization isn't capable of freeing up the division of labor or aloting resources to maintain a modern standard of living.

the indiginious peoples of the world live together in harmonious anarchy
Yeah, right. Look at the archaological record. Look at the work by Napoleon Chagnon among the Yanomamo. They live in a constant state of readiness for and participation in violence. Violence enforces the will of the strong, the leaders.

I dont buy it for a minute. Note that instead of "teaching correct assumptions" you simply repeat "well, you dont understand anarchism."

i stopped really trying when talking to you way back when we had one of the incarnations of 'the anarchist thread' (i think - it may have occured after it though). all i know is that you were presented with a huge list of links to resources and engaged in this discussion back then too, but everytime it comes up you start from the exact same set of strawmen again.

but, let's give it a go again - a link to an anarchist faq (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/).

Anarchism and Organization
Errico Malatesta (1897)
http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/malatest/sp001864.html

Organization which is, after all, only the practice of cooperation and solidarity, is a natural and necessary condition of social life; it is an inescapable fact which forces itself on everybody, as much on human society in general as on any group of people who are working towards a common objective. Since humanity neither wishes to, nor can, live in isolation it is inevitable that those people who have neither the means, nor a sufficiently developed social conscience to permit them to associate freely with those of a like mind and with common interests, are subjected to the organization by others, generally constituted in a class or as a ruling group, with the aim of exploiting the labor of others for their personal advantage. And the agelong oppression of the masses by a small privileged group has always been the result of the inability of the oppressed to agree among themselves to organize with others for production, for enjoyment and for the possible needs of defense against whoever might wish to exploit and oppress them. Anarchism exists to remedy this state of affairs...

Now, it seems to us that organization, that is to say, association for a specific purpose and with the structure and means required to attain it, is a necessary aspect of social life. A human being in isolation cannot even live the life of a beast, for they would be unable to obtain nourishment for themselves, except perhaps in tropical regions or when the population is exceptionally sparse; and they would be, without exception, unable to rise much above the level of an animal. Having therefore to join with other humans, or more accurately, finding themselves united to them as a consequence of the evolutionary antecedents of the species, they must submit to the will of others (be enslaved) or subject others to his/her will (be in authority) or live with others in fraternal agreement in the interests of the greatest good of all (be an associate). Nobody can escape from this necessity.

Admitting as a possibility the existence of a community organized without authority, that is without compulsion -- and anarchists must admit the possibility, or anarchism would have no meaning -- let us pass on to discuss the organization of the anarchist movement.

In this case too, organization seems useful and necessary. If a movement means the whole -- individuals with a common objective which they exert themselves to attain -- it is natural that they should agree among themselves, join forces, share out the tasks and take all those steps which they think will lead to the achievement of those objectives. To remain isolated, each individual acting or seeking to act on their own without coordination, without preparation, without their modest efforts to a strong group, means condemning oneself to impotence, wasting oneís efforts in small ineffectual action, and to lose faith very soon in oneís aims and possibly being reduced to complete inactivity.

A mathematician, a chemist, a psychologist or a sociologist may say they have no programme or are concerned only with establishing the truth. They seek knowledge, they are not seeking to do something. But anarchism and socialism are not sciences; they are proposals, projects, that anarchists and socialists seek to realize and which, therefore need to be formulated as definite programs.

If it is true that organization creates leaders; if it is true that anarchists are unable to come together and arrive at an agreement without submitting themselves to an authority, this means that they are not yet very good anarchists, and before thinking of establishing an anarchist society within the world they must think of making themselves able to live anarchistiaclly. The remedy does not lie in the abolition of organization but in the growing consciousness of each individual member. In small as well as large societies, apart from brute force, of which it cannot be a question for us, the origin and justification for authority lies in social disorganization.

When a community has needs and its members do not know how to organize spontaneously to provide them, someone comes forward, an authority who satisfies those needs by utilizing the services of all and directing them to their liking. If the roads are unsafe and the people do not know what measures to take, a police force emerges which in return for whatever services it renders expects to be supported and paid, as well as imposing itself and throwing its weight around; if some article is needed, and the community does not know how to arrange with the distant producers to supply it in exchange for goods produced locally, the merchant will appear who will profit by dealing with the needs of one section to sell and of the other to buy, and impose his/her own prices both on the producer and the consumer. This is what has happened in our midst; the less organized we have been, the more prone are we to be imposed on by a few individuals. And this is understandable. So much so that organization, far from creating authority, is the only cure for it and the only means whereby each one of us will get used to taking an active and conscious part in the collective work, and cease being passive instruments in the hands of leaders.

But an organization, it is argued, presupposes an obligation to coordinate oneís own activities with those of others; thus it violates liberty and fetters initiative. As we see it, what really takes away liberty and makes initiative impossible is the isolation which renders it powerless. Freedom is not an abstract right but the possibility of acting; this is true among ourselves as well as society as a whole. And it is by cooperation with our fellow human beings that we find the means to express our activity and our power of initiative.

An anarchist organization must allow for complete autonomy, and independence, and therefore full responsibility, to individuals and groups; free agreement between those who think it useful to come together for cooperative action, for common aims; a moral duty to fulfill oneís pledges and to take no action which is contrary to the accepted programme. On such bases one then introduces practical forms and suitable instruments to give real life to the organization. Thus the groups, the federation of groups, the federations of federations, meetings, congresses, correspondence committees and so on. But this also must be done freely, in such a way as not to restrict the thought and the initiative of individual members, but only to give greater scope to the efforts which in isolation would be impossible or ineffective. Thus for an anarchist organization congress, in spite of all the disadvantages from which they suffer as representative bodies, are free from authoritarianism in any shape or form because they do not legislate and do not impose their deliberations on others. They serve to maintain and increase personal contacts among the most active comrades, to summarize and encourage programmatic studies on the ways and means for action; to acquaint everybody with the situation in the regions and the kind of action most urgently needed; to summarize the various currents of anarchist opinions at the time and to prepare some kind of statistics therefrom. And their decisions are not binding, but simply suggestions, advice and proposals to submit to all concerned, and they do not become binding and executive except for those who accept them and for as long as they accept them. The administrative organs they nominate -- Correspondence Commissions, etc. -- have no directive powers, do not take initiatives except for those who specifically solicit and approve of them, and have no authority to impose their own views, which they can certainly hold and propagate as groups of comrades, but which cannot be presented as the official views of the organization. They publish the resolutions of the congresses and the opinions and proposals communicated to them by groups and individuals; and they act for those who want to make use of them, to facilitate relations between groups, and cooperation between those who are in agreement on various initiatives; each is free to correspond with whoever he/she likes direct, or make use of the other committees nominated by specific groupings.

In an anarchist organization individual members can express any opinion and use every tactic which is not in contradiction with the accepted principles and does not interfere with the activities of others. In every case a particular organization last so long as the reasons for union are superior to those for dissension; otherwise it disbands and makes way for other, more homogenous groupings. Certainly the life and permanence of an organization is a condition for success in the long struggle before us, and besides, it is natural that every institution should by instinct aim at lasting indefinitely. But the duration of a libertarian organization must be the result of the spiritual affinity of its members and of the adaptability of its constitution to the continually changing circumstances. When it can no longer serve a useful purpose it is better that it should die.

We would certainly be happy if we could all get along well together and unite all the forces of anarchism in a strong movement; but we do not believe in the solidity of organizations which are built on concessions and assumptions and in which there is no real agreement and sympathy between members. Better disunited than badly united. But we would wish that each individual joined their friends and that there should be no isolated forces, or lost forces.

It remains for us to speak of the organization of the working and oppressed masses for resistance against both the government and the employers. Workers will never be able to emancipate themselves so long as they do not find in union the moral, economic and physical strength that is needed to subdue the organized might of the oppressors.

There have been anarchists, and there still are some, who while recognizing the need to organize today for propaganda and action, are hostile to all organizations which do not have anarchism as their goal or which do not follow anarchist methods of struggle. To those comrades it seemed that all organized forces for an objective less than radically revolutionary, were forces that the revolution was being deprived of. It seems to us instead, and experience has surely already confirmed our view, that their approach would condemn the anarchist movement to a state of perpetual sterility. To make propaganda we must be amongst the people, and it is in the workersí associations that workers find their comrades and especially those who are most disposed to understand and accept our ideas. But even when it is possible to do as much propaganda as we wished outside the associations, this could not have a noticeable effect on the working masses. Apart from a small number of individuals more educated and capable of abstract thought and theoretical enthusiasms, the worker cannot arrive at anarchism in one leap. To become an convinced anarchist, and not in name only, they must begin to feel the solidarity that joins them to their comrades, and to learn to cooperate with others in defense of common interests and that, by struggling against the bosses and against the government that supports them, should realize that bosses and governments are useless parasites and that the workers could manage the domestic economy by their own efforts. And when the worker has understood this, he or she is an anarchist even if they do not refer to themselves as such.

Furthermore, to encourage popular organizations of all kinds is the logical consequence of our basic ideas, and should therefore be an integral part of our programme. An authoritarian party, which aims at capturing power to impose its ideas, has an interest in the people remaining an amorphous mass, unable to act for themselves and therefore always easily dominated. And it follows, logically, that it cannot desire more than that much organization, and of the kind it needs to attain power: Electoral organizations if it hopes to achieve it by legal means; Military organization if it relies on violent action. But we anarchists do not want to emancipate the people; we want the people to emancipate themselves. We do not believe in the good that comes from above and imposed by force; we want the new way of life to emerge from the body of the people and correspond to the state of their development and advance as they advance. It matters to us therefore that all interests and opinions should find their expression in a conscious organization and should influence communal life in proportion to their importance.

We have undertaken the task of struggling against existing social organization, and of overcoming the obstacles to the advent of a new society in which freedom and well being would be assured to everybody. To achieve this objective we organize ourselves and seek to become as numerous and as strong as possible. But if it were only our anarchist groupings that were organized; if the workers were to remain isolated like so many units unconcerned about each other and only linked by the common chain; if we ourselves besides being organized as anarchists in a federation, were not as workers organized with other workers, we could achieve nothing at all, or at most, we might be able to impose ourselves... and then it would not be the triumph of anarchism, but our triumph. We could then go on calling ourselves anarchists, but in reality we should simply be rulers, and as impotent as all rulers are where the general good is concerned.

Anarchy is incapable of self-defense by definition.

of course, it was the anarchists that stopped the fascists from just pulling a one night coup in spain in july of 36. the state was the thing incapable of defending itself in that instance.

Admitting as a possibility the existence of a community organized without authority, that is without compulsion -- and anarchists must admit the possibility, or anarchism would have no meaning -- let us pass on to discuss the organization of the anarchist movement.

*wakes up from slumber*
The most serious problem with anarchy is that the whole scheme falls apart whenever 40 guys with guns feel the need to replace it with, say, a severely feudal system.

Correction: make that ONE guy, with just a whip.

Anarchy is incapable of self-defense by definition.

Therefore, it is incapable of protracted existence.
*returns to slumber*

of course, it was the anarchists that stopped the fascists from just pulling a one night coup in spain in july of 36. the state was the thing incapable of defending itself in that instance.


A: They ( the anarchists ) defended something else, the 'else' being the State.
B: It this action was succesful, in any protracted sense, how come Franco did end up on top?

A: They ( the anarchists ) defended something else, the 'else' being the State.
B: It this action was succesful, in any protracted sense, how come Franco did end up on top?
May I add:
C. The Falange itself had anarchist roots.

What Is Communist Anarchism?
(Intro to The ABCs of Communist Anarchism (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html) by Alexander Berkman)

I want to tell you about Anarchism.

I want to tell you what Anarchism is, because I think it is well you should know it. Also because so little is known about it, and what is known is generally hearsay and mostly false.

I want to tell you about it, because I believe that Anarchism is the finest and biggest thing man has ever thought of; the only thing that can give you liberty and well-being, and bring peace and joy to the world.

I want to tell you about it in such plain and simple language that there will be no misunderstanding it. Big words and high sounding phrases serve only to confuse. Straight thinking means plain speaking.

But before I tell you what Anarchism is, I want to tell you what it is not.

That is necessary because so much falsehood has been spread about Anarchism. Even intelligent persons often have entirely wrong notions about it. Some people talk about Anarchism without knowing a thing about it. And some lie about Anarchism, because they don't want you to know the truth about it.

Anarchism has many enemies; they won't tell you the truth about it. Why Anarchism has enemies and who they are, you will see later, in the course of this story. Just now I can tell you that neither your political boss nor your employer, neither the capitalist nor the policeman will speak to you honestly about Anarchism. Most of them know nothing about it, and all of them hate it. Their newspapers and publications - the capitalistic press- are also against it.

Even most Socialists and Bolsheviks misrepresent Anarchism. True, the majority of them don't know any better. But those who do know better also often lie about Anarchism and speak of it as 'disorder and chaos'. You can see for yourself how dishonest they are in this: the greatest teachers of Socialism - Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels - had taught that Anarchism would come from Socialism. They said that we must first have Socialism, but that after Socialism there will be Anarchism, and that it would be a freer and more beautiful condition of society to live in than Socialism. Yet the Socialists, who swear by Marx and Engels, insist on calling Anarchism 'chaos and disorder', which shows you how ignorant or dishonest they are.

The Bolsheviks do the same, although their greatest teacher, Lenin, had said that Anarchism would follow Bolshevism, and that then it will be better and freer to live.

Therefore I must tell you, first of all, what Anarchism is not.

It is not bombs, disorder, or chaos.
It is not robbery and murder.
It is not a war of each against all.
It is not a return to barbarism or to the wild state of man.
Anarchism is the very opposite of all that.
Anarchism means that you should be free; that no one should enslave you, boss you, rob you, or impose upon you.
It means that you should be free to do the things you want to do; and that you should not be compelled to do what you don't want to do.
It means that you should have a chance to choose the kind of a life you want to live, and live it without anybody interfering.
It means that the next fellow should have the same freedom as you, that every one should have the same rights and liberties.
It means that all men are brothers, and that they should live like brothers, in peace and harmony.
That is to say, that there should be no war, no violence used by one set of men against another, no monopoly and no poverty, no oppression, no taking advantage of your fellow-man.
In short, Anarchism means a condition or society where all men and women are free, and where all enjoy equally the benefits of an ordered and sensible life.
'Can that be?' you ask;'and how?'
'Not before we all become angels,' your friend remarks.
Well, let us talk it over. Maybe I can show you that we can be decent and live as decent folks even without growing wings.

A: They ( the anarchists ) defended something else, the 'else' being the State.
B: It this action was succesful, in any protracted sense, how come Franco did end up on top?

a) no, not so much.
b) amazing what having to fight franco, hitler, mussolini, and stalin will do to you, isn't it?

-snip-
But, of course, you'll agree that Berkaman was opposing himself to most of the anarchists out there.

When have I said anything about arbitrary boundaries?

Define what you mean by "civilization".

There is currently enough food to feed the world, so if necessary people could move.

Some people want a communist state. I don't, as I am opposed to states.

That's a contradiction in terms, but communities in New England organized themselves that way, not to mention various groups of people such as the aforementioned Doctors Without Borders.

Why would this be?

Some do, yes.

I don't see where the sex drive comes into this, and I don't see where genetics forces people to seek out or become leaders.

Well, yes, because it's one-on-one. Now try taking over faced with the resistance of a group of people.

As I've said to Mikesburg, the body of recorded human history shows that cooperation is vital to human survival, thus giving anarchism the benefit of the evidence.
1) The "arbitrary boundaries" thing is why I said "pretty close" instead of exactly.

2) In this context I mean the social structures that create the ability to bind together a group of people to achieve certain ends like producing food, producing manufactured items, and protecting from enemies.

3) Ah, but there is limited arable land. If everyone crowds into those areas you reduce the ammount of arable land further because they will need homes, streets, schools, et cetera. No, everyone can't move to the farming communities. To support the ammount of people on earth today we need both cities to house them and farming communities to feed them.

4) No they don't. They want to LEAD a communist state. Nobody fantasizes about being a peasant on a Soviet wheat farm. They fantasize about being Lenin. Human nature strikes again.

5) Once again. Small groups with limited needs for organization and coordination. Like my example. One man can build a lean-to, but one man can't build a city.

6) There would be no regulation or coordination on the distribution of resources. Businesses would have a hard time functioning, so people won't have as much money to feed themselves or buy luxuries in developed coutntries. How, for example, would a community regulate prices of food and life saving drugs produced in another community to prevent profiteering?

7) Which ones don't? Every example I've read about or seen in documentaries have them.

8) It's a survival strategy used by humans as well as our closest relatives, the chimps. All the evidence points to our need for a heirarchy as genetic, just like our sex drive.

9) Easy. Just get some of the people to back you with promises of power and wealth when you subjugate the rest.

May I add:
C. The Falange itself had anarchist roots.


May I add:

D: any movement rooting for change will start off by denouncing either
D1. the legitimacy of the current for of Authority, or
D2. the legitimacy of Authority in general.



But the whole thing is: the arguments are irrelevant.


For in the absence of established authority, one single determined man with sufficient means to inflict violence, can and will set himself up as the new established authority.

You may have all the arguments - but the other feller may have all the firepower.

a) no, not so much.
b) amazing what having to fight franco, hitler, mussolini, and stalin will do to you, isn't it?


I'm not doubting that for a second.

But my point is that any anarchist 'state' will end up fighting - and then succumbing - to the analogies of Franco, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. The demise of such a state or organisation or non-organisation is pre-determined and inevitable.

1) The "arbitrary boundaries" thing is why I said "pretty close" instead of exactly.Yes, but I don't think it's all that close. Not because of anarchism being boundaryless but why it is. Arbitrary boundaries force people who don't wish to cooperate with each other into the same group; there will naturally be dissention within the group. Dissention will be greatly reduced in a group of people who wish to cooperate with each other.

2) In this context I mean the social structures that create the ability to bind together a group of people to achieve certain ends like producing food, producing manufactured items, and protecting from enemies. Ah. Well, most of those structures are already in place. The farm and the factory already exist; all that remains is choosing the way that they're used.

3) Ah, but there is limited arable land. If everyone crowds into those areas you reduce the ammount of arable land further because they will need homes, streets, schools, et cetera. No, everyone can't move to the farming communities. To support the ammount of people on earth today we need both cities to house them and farming communities to feed them.True, but the arable land doesn't all come in chunks. Even deserts have oases.
The farmers can't have the goods from the cities unless they agree to feed the people within, and the farmers want the goods from the cities, otherwise why would they make the agreement?

4) No they don't. They want to LEAD a communist state. Nobody fantasizes about being a peasant on a Soviet wheat farm. They fantasize about being Lenin. Human nature strikes again.Many people want to lead a communist state, that's true. I don't understand this, but then again I am an anarchist.

5) Once again. Small groups with limited needs for organization and coordination. Like my example. One man can build a lean-to, but one man can't build a city.A group can build a city, though. A small group can build a village.

6) There would be no regulation or coordination on the distribution of resources. Everybody would be regulating and coordinating the distribution of resources.

Businesses would have a hard time functioning, so people won't have as much money to feed themselves or buy luxuries in developed coutntries. How, for example, would a community regulate prices of food and life saving drugs produced in another community to prevent profiteering?Well, I don't support the use of money, so I can't quite answer this. The best way for me to answer this is to point out that wealth is subjective, and so it's quite possible for people to agree that everything is worth an equal amount.

7) Which ones don't? Every example I've read about or seen in documentaries have them.Free Soviets can answer this better than I, as far as anthropology goes.

8) It's a survival strategy used by humans as well as our closest relatives, the chimps. All the evidence points to our need for a heirarchy as genetic, just like our sex drive.Both humans and chimps rebel against heirarchy, as well.

9) Easy. Just get some of the people to back you with promises of power and wealth when you subjugate the rest.In theory that could work, but I would liken it to other institutions that we have. People agree not to have murder be legal because the possibility of being murdered outweighs any benefits from murdering someone. People agree not to have stealing be legal because the possibility of being stolen from outweighs the benefits one would get from stealing. Likewise, people would agree not to fight for power, because the possibility of being subjugated by someone else outweighs the benefits of being the leader.

Well, yes, because it's one-on-one. Now try taking over faced with the resistance of a group of people.

What? Like a lynch mob you mean? Sounds like a great idea... :rolleyes:

As I've said to Mikesburg, the body of recorded human history shows that cooperation is vital to human survival, thus giving anarchism the benefit of the evidence.

All forms of government are a form of cooperation. Some are more cooperative than others, but government implies that people agree to adhere to a set of rules, enforced by government, in the collective interest. In some cases, they are agreeing because they are afraid of the repercussions of not agreeing, but order is established nonetheless.

The body of recorded humany history shows that societies co-operating in governmental forms thrive, and displace ones that don't. North America is a prime example, and even then, the natives had class stratifications and in some cases, slavery.

What? Like a lynch mob you mean? Sounds like a great idea... :rolleyes: No, I mean like a military unit without a commander.

All forms of government are a form of cooperation. Some are more cooperative than others, but government implies that people agree to adhere to a set of rules, enforced by government, in the collective interest. In some cases, they are agreeing because they are afraid of the repercussions of not agreeing, but order is established nonetheless.I'd say it's mostly the latter as opposed to the former. Not only is it simply the repercussions, but the repercussions of violence that they would face by not agreeing. If it were simply the former, and people were concerned with the collective interest, then they wouldn't need government to enforce the rules, they could do it themselves.
This does not mean that people preserving a collective interest themselves is impossible, it means that it is impossible if people aren't interested in preserving the collective interest.

The body of recorded humany history shows that societies co-operating in governmental forms thrive, and displace ones that don't. True, but recorded history didn't have the potential of international groups who could interfere if a governmental society tried to displace a non-governmental society.

North America is a prime example, and even then, the natives had class stratifications and in some cases, slavery.They sometimes had class stratifications, but not always.

Yes, but I don't think it's all that close. Not because of anarchism being boundaryless but why it is. Arbitrary boundaries force people who don't wish to cooperate with each other into the same group; there will naturally be dissention within the group. Dissention will be greatly reduced in a group of people who wish to cooperate with each other.

Ah. Well, most of those structures are already in place. The farm and the factory already exist; all that remains is choosing the way that they're used. Unfortunately you have to get the majority of the people in the community to agree how they should be used, and you have to bring in materials and export product to other communities without a central authority to regulate the trade. It's hard to get consensus. It's also hard to work out agreements and not have the other side renege on them unless you've got a set of trade laws enforced by a third party.

True, but the arable land doesn't all come in chunks. Even deserts have oases.
The farmers can't have the goods from the cities unless they agree to feed the people within, and the farmers want the goods from the cities, otherwise why would they make the agreement?

Many people want to lead a communist state, that's true. I don't understand this, but then again I am an anarchist.

A group can build a city, though. A small group can build a village. It takes a pretty large group to build a city. I contend that anarchy can't organize and coordinate a large group like that.

Everybody would be regulating and coordinating the distribution of resources. Exactly the problem. It makes things slow and inefficient as well as getting alot of local interests involved.

Well, I don't support the use of money, so I can't quite answer this. The best way for me to answer this is to point out that wealth is subjective, and so it's quite possible for people to agree that everything is worth an equal amount.

Free Soviets can answer this better than I, as far as anthropology goes.

Both humans and chimps rebel against heirarchy, as well. Only in order to establish a new one with the rebels at it's head.

In theory that could work, but I would liken it to other institutions that we have. People agree not to have murder be legal because the possibility of being murdered outweighs any benefits from murdering someone. People agree not to have stealing be legal because the possibility of being stolen from outweighs the benefits one would get from stealing. Likewise, people would agree not to fight for power, because the possibility of being subjugated by someone else outweighs the benefits of being the leader.
Sorry about the red. That's my way of indicating my responses to some of your points. I've gotten lazy and can't be bothered to put in a bunch of quote thingies.

Sorry about the red. That's my way of indicating my responses to some of your points. I've gotten lazy and can't be bothered to put in a bunch of quote thingies.

I don't blame you. I think the vast majority of what I say has gone unnoticed, and the vast majority of what you've said has been wrongfully dismissed.

No, I mean like a military unit without a commander.

I'd say it's mostly the latter as opposed to the former. Not only is it simply the repercussions, but the repercussions of violence that they would face by not agreeing. If it were simply the former, and people were concerned with the collective interest, then they wouldn't need government to enforce the rules, they could do it themselves.
This does not mean that people preserving a collective interest themselves is impossible, it means that it is impossible if people aren't interested in preserving the collective interest.

True, but recorded history didn't have the potential of international groups who could interfere if a governmental society tried to displace a non-governmental society.

They sometimes had class stratifications, but not always.
A military unit without a commander is about as effective as a fart in a hurricane.

The ones without class stratifications were the most primitive of the hunter/gatherer bands and even they had elders and "big men" who's words were law.

Simple question. What is the thing really wrong with anarchy? I know that it gets a bad press from time to time but in anarchism there cannot be wars as a military would be impossible and money, the route of all evil, is abolished. So what is SO bad about it.

What's the point in law when the good don't need it and the bad don't follow it?
What's wrong with anarchy? Maybe the fact that it doesn't work... In theory it's all very pretty, but in practice it would inevitably lead to fascism.

Simple question. What is the thing really wrong with anarchy?
Other than it doesn't work? Nothing.

An anarchial system will always fall to a governed system, as humans are not homogenous, and governed systems can more efficiently allocate resources to causes that are not supported by the entirety of the population (ie, any cause at all)

I know that it gets a bad press from time to time but in anarchism there cannot be wars as a military would be impossible and money, the route of all evil, is abolished.

Both incorrect. Militaries simply require demagogues. Anarchism does nothing to change this, or even correct for it, as many people are more comfortable being led than leading.

Money is simply a medium of exchange. Anything can serve as money if people agree on it. See "community currencies" for examples.

What's the point in law when the good don't need it and the bad don't follow it?
The law defines for us, as a society as opposed to as individuals, what we think is good and bad. As an individual I, personally, don't think driving 70mph is bad. I'm confident enough in my faculties and ability to react to changing conditions. As a society, however, we've determined that that's a bad thing in general. As a result, I do not drive 70mph. In return, my neighbour, who has no personal problem with pissing on the street in front of my house, refrains from doing so because our society as a whole has said that's bad. It's a compromise situation. I don't do some of the things I personally would like to that might injure or offend others and my neighbours don't do some of the things they'd like to do which might injure or offend me. And if we do go about these things anyway, the rule of law gives us the right to call upon our designated enforcers to have that behavior ended.

To me, this winds up being much more beneficial than me being able to drive 70mph, but having to wear rubber boots every day to avoid getting piss on my pants as I walk along my front walk to my car.

Unfortunately you have to get the majority of the people in the community to agree how they should be used, Which is a good thing. I wouldn't want to live in a community where the majority didn't agree on how materials should be used.

and you have to bring in materials and export product to other communities without a central authority to regulate the trade. Yes. There is the possibility of electing delegates to a confederate-like system; the delegates' sole job to be to carry out the will of the people.

It's hard to get consensus. It's also hard to work out agreements and not have the other side renege on them unless you've got a set of trade laws enforced by a third party.Why couldn't a third party be asked to arbitrate differences between two communities?

It takes a pretty large group to build a city. I contend that anarchy can't organize and coordinate a large group like that.Well, you did say that direct democracy could work for small groups of people. How small are we talking about?

Exactly the problem. It makes things slow and inefficient as well as getting alot of local interests involved.Efficiency isn't always a good thing, but getting local interests involved is a good thing.

Only in order to establish a new one with the rebels at it's head.Which is an argument against authority, not an argument against anarchy.

A military unit without a commander is about as effective as a fart in a hurricane.Are you familiar with the Spanish Civil War?

The ones without class stratifications were the most primitive of the hunter/gatherer bands and even they had elders and "big men" who's words were law.They did have elders who were listened to, but listened to out of respect as opposed to fear.

What's wrong with anarchy? Maybe the fact that it doesn't work... In theory it's all very pretty, but in practice it would inevitably lead to fascism.

Number of people who've said that: 5

The chances you haven't read the thread: 100%

The fact that most people who don't read the thread beforehand tend to post their shiat and ignore it henceforth: Priceless.

in practice it would inevitably lead to fascism.
Let's not forget that this is the textbook case with Integralismo Lusitano ;). (I've happened to see what country you're from.)

No, I mean like a military unit without a commander..

No such thing. Even mobs have an agitator. And a brief review of military history will show how 'leaderless militaries' fare against properly organised ones.

I'd say it's mostly the latter as opposed to the former. Not only is it simply the repercussions, but the repercussions of violence that they would face by not agreeing. If it were simply the former, and people were concerned with the collective interest, then they wouldn't need government to enforce the rules, they could do it themselves.

Because not everyone will agree on what those rules should be. Naturally, some people in the collective are only going to be interested in their own personal interests, and organize with like-minded people. Every group has a ringleader, whether or not it's official. Government is a form of arbitration, so that the weak aren't preyed upon by the strong.

This does not mean that people preserving a collective interest themselves is impossible, it means that it is impossible if people aren't interested in preserving the collective interest.

People preserve their collective interest everyday, by following the laws and procedures of the state. (Albeit, some are more interested in collective interest than others, but I fail to see how a leaderless society can enforce collective interest.)

True, but recorded history didn't have the potential of international groups who could interfere if a governmental society tried to displace a non-governmental society..

These international groups were possible due to the organisation and safety provided by nationstates. And I'm sure if it weren't for the intervention of the state, organisational groups like Greenpeace and Amnesty International wouldn't last 2 seconds without the resources that the large international corporations can bring to bear.

They sometimes had class stratifications, but not always.

Sorry. Don't buy it. Even the Inuit have a council of elders. It's not anarchism, but communalism.

a bit from an anarchist faq (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html#seci511)

I.5.13 Won't an anarchist society be vulnerable to the power hungry?

A common objection to anarchism is that an anarchist society will be vulnerable to be taken over by thugs or those who seek power. A similar argument is that a group without a leadership structure becomes open to charismatic leaders so anarchy would just lead to tyranny.

For anarchists, such arguments are strange. Society already is run by thugs and/or the off-spring of thugs. Kings were originally just successful thugs who succeeded in imposing their domination over a given territorial area. The modern state has evolved from the structure created to impose this domination. Similarly with property, with most legal titles to land being traced back to its violent seizure by thugs who then passed it on to their children who then sold it or gave it to their offspring. The origins of the current system in violence can be seen by the continued use of violence by the state and capitalists to enforce and protect their domination over society. When push comes to shove, the dominant class will happily re-discover their thug past and employ extreme violence to maintain their privileges. The descent of large parts of Europe into Fascism during the 1930s, or Pinochet's coup in Chile in 1973 indicates how far they will go. As Peter Arshinov argued (in a slightly different context):

"Statists fear free people. They claim that without authority people will lose the anchor of sociability, will dissipate themselves, and will return to savagery. This is obviously rubbish. It is taken seriously by idlers, lovers of authority and of the labour of others, or by blind thinkers of bourgeois society. The liberation of the people in reality leads to the degeneration and return to savagery, not of the people, but of those who, thanks to power and privilege, live from the labour of the people's arms and from the blood of the people's veins . . . The liberation of the people leads to the savagery of those who live from its enslavement." [The History of the Makhnovist Movement, p. 85]

Anarchists are not impressed with the argument that anarchy would be unable to stop thugs seizing power. It ignores the fact that we live in a society where the power-hungry already hold power. As an argument against anarchism it fails and is, in fact, an argument against capitalist and statist societies.

Moreover, it also ignores fact that people in an anarchist society would have gained their freedom by overthrowing every existing and would-be thug who had or desired power over others. They would have defended that freedom against those who desired to re-impose it. They would have organised themselves to manage their own affairs and, therefore, to abolish all hierarchical power. And we are to believe that these people, after struggling to become free, would quietly let a new set of thugs impose themselves? As Kropotkin argued:

"The only way in which a state of Anarchy can be obtained is for each man [or woman] who is oppressed to act as if he [or she] were at liberty, in defiance of all authority to the contrary . . . In practical fact, territorial extension is necessary to ensure permanency to any given individual revolution. In speaking of the Revolution, we signify the aggregate of so many successful individual and group revolts as will enable every person within the revolutionised territory to act in perfect freedom . . . without having to constantly dread the prevention or the vengeance of an opposing power upholding the former system . . . Under these circumstance it is obvious that any visible reprisal could and would be met by a resumption of the same revolutionary action on the part of the individuals or groups affected, and that the maintenance of a state of Anarchy in this manner would be far easier than the gaining of a state of Anarchy by the same methods and in the face of hitherto unshaken opposition . . . They have it in their power to apply a prompt check by boycotting such a person and refusing to help him with their labour or to willing supply him with any articles in their possession. They have it in their power to use force against him. They have these powers individually as well as collectively. Being either past rebels who have been inspired with the spirit of liberty, or else habituated to enjoy freedom from their infancy, they are hardly to rest passive in view of what they feel to be wrong." [Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, pp. 87-8]

Thus a free society would use direct action to resist the would-be ruler just as it had used direct action to free itself from existing rulers. An anarchist society would be organised in a way which would facilitate this direct action as it would be based on networks of solidarity and mutual aid. An injury to one is an injury to all and a would-be ruler would face a whole liberated society acting against him or her. Faced with the direct action of the population (which would express itself in non-co-operation, strikes, demonstrations, occupations, insurrections and so on) a would be power seeker would find it difficult to impose themselves. Unlike those accustomed to rulership in existing society, an anarchist people would be a society of rebels and so difficult to dominate and conquer.

Anarchists point to the example of the rise of Fascism in Italy, Spain and Germany to prove their point. In areas with strong anarchist movements the fascists were resisted most strongly. While in Germany Hitler took power with little or no opposition, in Italy and Spain the fascists had to fight long and hard to gain power. The anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist organisations fought the fascists tooth and nail, with some success before betrayal by the Republicans and Marxists. From this historical experience anarchists argue that an anarchist society would quickly and easily defeat would-be thugs as people would be used to practising direct action and self-management and would have no desire to stop practising them.

As for self-management resulting in "charismatic" leaders, well the logic is astounding. As if hierarchical structures are not based on leadership structures and do not require a charismatic leader! Such an argument is inherently self-contradictory -- as well as ignoring the nature of modern society and its leadership structures. Rather than mass assemblies being dominated by leaders, it is the case that hierarchical structures are the natural breeding ground for dictators. All the great dictators the world have seen have come to the forefront in hierarchical organisations, not libertarian structured ones. Hitler, for example, did not come to power via a libertarian organisation. Rather he used a highly centralised and hierarchically organised party to take control of a centralised, hierarchical state. The very disempowerment of the population in capitalist society results in them looking to leaders to act for them and so "charismatic" leaders are a natural result. An anarchist society, by empowering all, would make it more difficult, not less, for a would-be leader to gain power -- few people, if any, would be willing to sacrifice and negate themselves for the benefit of another.

As would be expected, given our comments above, anarchists think an anarchist society must defend itself against attempts to re-introduce the state or private property. The question of defence of an anarchist society is discussed in the next section and so we will not do so here.

Our discussion on the power hungry obviously relates to the more general the question of whether ethical behaviour be rewarded in an anarchist society. In other words, could an anarchist society be stable or would the unethical take over?

It is one of the most disturbing aspects of living in a world where the rush to acquire wealth is the single most important aspect of living is what happens to people who follow an ethical path in life.

Under capitalism, the ethical generally do not succeed as well as those stab their fellows in the back, those who cut corners, indulge in sharp business practises, drive competitors into the ground and live their lives with an eye on the bottom line but they do survive. Loyalty to a firm or a group, bending over backwards to provide a service, giving a helping hand to somebody in need, placing friendship above money, count for nothing when the bills come in. People who act ethically in a capitalist society are usually punished and penalised for their ethical, moral and principled behaviour. Indeed, the capitalist market rewards unethical behaviour as it generally reduces costs and so gives those who do it a competitive edge.

It is different in a free society. Anarchism is based on two principles of association, equal access to power and wealth. Everybody in an anarchist society irrespective of what they do, or who they are or what type of work they perform is entitled to share in society's wealth. Whether a community survives or prospers depends on the combined efforts of the people in that community. Ethical behaviour would become the norm in an anarchist community; those people who act ethically would be rewarded by the standing they achieve in the community and by others being more than happy to work with and aid them. People who cut corners, try to exercise power over others, refuse to co-operate as equals or otherwise act in an unethical manner would lose their standing in an anarchist society. Their neighbours and work mates would refuse to co-operate with them (or reduce co-operation to a minimum) and take other forms of non-violent direct action to point out that certain forms of activity was inappropriate. They would discuss the issue with the unethical person and try to convince them of the errors of their way. In a society where the necessities are guaranteed, people would tend to act ethically because ethical behaviour raises an individuals profile and standing within such a community. Capitalism and ethical behaviour are mutually exclusive concepts; anarchism encourages and rewards ethical behaviour.

Therefore, as can be seen, anarchists argue that a free society would not have to fear would-be thugs, "charismatic" leaders or the unethical. An anarchist society would be based on the co-operation of free individuals. It is unlikely that they would tolerate such behaviour and would use their own direct action as well as social and economic organisations to combat it. Moreover, the nature of free co-operation would reward ethical behaviour as those who practice it would have it reciprocated by their fellows.

One last point. Some people seem to think that anarchism is about the powerful being appealed to not to oppress and dominate others. Far from it. Anarchism is about the oppressed and exploited refusing to let others dominate them. It is not an appeal to the "better side" of the boss or would-be boss; it is about the solidarity and direct action of those subject to a boss getting rid of the boss -- whether the boss agrees to it or not! Once this is clearly understood the idea that an anarchist society is vulnerable to the power-hungry is clearly nonsense -- anarchy is based on resisting power and so is, by its very nature, more resistant to would-be rulers than a hierarchical one.

I.5.14 How could an anarchist society defend itself?

Anarchists are well aware that an anarchist society will have to defend itself from both inside and outside attempts to re-impose capitalism and the state. Indeed, every revolutionary anarchist has argued that a revolution will have to defend itself.

Unfortunately, Marxists have consistently misrepresented anarchist ideas on this subject. Lenin, for example, argued that the "proletariat needs the state only temporarily. We do not at all disagree with the anarchists on the question of the abolition of the state as an aim. We maintain that, to achieve this aim, we must temporarily make use of the instruments, resources and methods of state power against the exploiters, just as the dictatorship of the oppressed class is temporarily necessary for the abolition of classes. Marx chooses the sharpest and clearest way of stating his position against the anarchists: after overthrowing the yoke of the capitalists, should workers 'lay down their arms' or use them against the capitalists in order to crush their resistance? But what is the systematic use of arms by one class against the other, if not a 'transitory form' of state." ["The State and Revolution", Essential Works of Lenin, p. 316]

Fortunately, as Murray Bookchin points out, anarchists are "not so naive as to believe anarchism could be established overnight. In imputing this notion to Bakunin, Marx and Engels wilfully distorted the Russian anarchist's views. Nor did the anarchists . . . believe that the abolition of the state involved 'laying down arms' immediately after the revolution. . ." [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 213] Even a basic familiarity with the work of anarchist thinkers would make the reader aware that Bookchin is right. As we shall see, anarchists have consistently argued that a revolution and an anarchist society needs to be defended against those who would try and re-introduce hierarchy, domination, oppression and exploitation (even, as with Leninists, they call themselves "socialists"). As Malatesta argued in 1891:

"Many suppose that . . . anarchists, in the name of their principles, would wish to see that strange liberty respected which violates and destroys the freedom and life of others. They seem almost to believe that after having brought down government and private property we would allow both to be quietly built up again, because of a respect for the freedom of those who might feel the need to be rulers and property owners. A truly curious way of interpreting our ideas!" [Anarchy, p. 41]

Anarchists reject the idea that defending a revolution, or even the act of revolution itself, represents or requires a "state." As Malatesta argued, the state "means the delegation of power, that is the abdication of initiative and sovereignty of all into the hands of a few." [Op. Cit., p. 40] Luigi Fabbri stresses this when he argued that, for anarchists, "the essence of the state . . . [is] centralised power or to put it another way the coercive authority of which the state enjoys the monopoly, in that organisation of violence know as 'government'; in the hierarchical despotism, juridical, police and military despotism that imposes laws on everyone." ["Anarchy and 'Scientific' Communism", in The Poverty of Statism, pp. 13-49, Albert Meltzer (ed.), pp. 24-5] Therefore the state is the delegation of power, the centralisation of authority into the hands of a few at the top of society rather than a means of defending a revolution against the expropriated ruling class. To confuse the defence of a revolution and the state is, therefore, a great mistake as it introduces an inequality of power into a so-called socialist society. In the words of Voline:

"All political power inevitably creates a privileged situation for the men who exercise it. Thus is violates, from the beginning, the equalitarian principle and strikes at the heart of the Social Revolution . . . [and] becomes the source of other privileges . . . power is compelled to create a bureaucratic and coercive apparatus indispensable to all authority . . . Thus it forms a new privileged caste, at first politically and later economically. . . It sows everywhere the seed of inequality and soon infects the whole social organism . . . It predisposes the masses to passivity, and all sprite and initiative is stifled by the very existence of power, in the extent to which it is exercised." [The Unknown Revolution, p. 249]

Unsurprisingly, anarchists think a revolution should defend itself in the same way that it organises itself -- from the bottom up, in a self-managed way. The means to defend an anarchist society or revolution are based around the organs of self-management that revolution creates. In the words of Bakunin:

"[T]he federative Alliance of all working men's associations . . . constitute the Commune . . .. Commune will be organised by the standing federation of the Barricades and by the creation of a Revolutionary Communal Council composed of one or two delegates from each barricade . . . vested with plenary but accountable and removable mandates . . . all provinces, communes and associations . . . reorganising on revolutionary lines . . . [would] send . . . their representatives to an agreed meeting place . . . vested with similar mandates to constitute the federation of insurgent associations, communes and provinces . . . [which would] organise a revolutionary force capable of defeating reaction . . . it is the very fact of the expansion and organisation of the revolution for the purpose of self-defence among the insurgent areas that will bring about the triumph of the revolution. . .

"Since revolution everywhere must be created by the people, and supreme control must always belong to the people organised in a free federation of agricultural and industrial associations . . . organised from the bottom upwards by means of revolutionary delegation. . . " [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 170-2]

Thus we have a dual framework of revolution. On the one hand, the federation of workers' councils based on self-managed assemblies nominating mandated and accountable delegates. On the other, we have a federation of barricades, again based on self-management and mandated delegates, which actually defends the revolution against reaction. The success of the revolution depends on spreading it and organising joint self-defence. He stressed the importance of co-ordinating defence two years later, in 1870:

"[L]et us suppose . . . it is Paris that starts [the revolution] . . . Paris will naturally make haste to organise itself as best it can, in revolutionary style, after the workers have joined into associations and made a clean sweep of all the instruments of labour, every kind of capital and building; armed and organised by streets and quartiers, they will form the revolutionary federation of all the quartiers, the federative commune. . . All the French and foreign revolutionary communes will then send representatives to organise the necessary common services . . . and to organise common defence against the enemies of the Revolution, together with propaganda, the weapon of revolution, and practical revolutionary solidarity with friends in all countries against enemies in all countries." [Op. Cit., p. 178-9]

As can be seen, the revolution not only abolishes the state by a free federation of workers associations, it also expropriates capital and ends wage labour. Thus the "political revolution is transformed into social revolution." [Op. Cit., p. 171] Which, we must add, destroys another Marxist myth that claims that anarchists think, to quote Engels, that "the state is the chief evil, [and] it is above all the state which must be done away with and then capitalism will go to blazes," in other words, the "abolition of the state" comes before the "social revolution." [Marx and Engels, The Marx-Engels Reader p. 728] As can be clearly seen, anarchists consider the social revolution to be, at the same time, the abolition of the state along with the abolition of capitalism.

Therefore, Bakunin was well aware of the needs to defend a revolution after destroying the state and abolishing capitalism. It is clear that after a successful rising, the revolutionary population does not "lay down their arms" but rather organises itself in a federal to co-ordinate defence against reactionary areas which seek to destroy it.

Nor was Bakunin alone in this analysis. For example, we discover Errico Malatesta arguing that during a revolution we should "[a]rm all the population." The revolution would have "armed the people so that it can resist any armed attempt by reaction to re-establish itself." This revolution would involve "creation of a voluntary militia, without powers to interfere as militia in the life of the community, but only to deal with any armed attacks by the forces of reaction to re-establish themselves, or to resist outside intervention by countries as yet not in a state of revolution." Like Bakunin, Malatesta stresses the importance of co-ordinating activity via free federations of workers' associations -- "the development of the revolution would be the task of volunteers, by all kinds of committees, local, intercommunal, regional and national congresses which would attend to the co-ordination of social activity," the "[o]rganisation of social life by means of free association and federations of producers and consumers, created and modified according to the wishes of their members," and so be "under the direct control of the people." Again, like Bakunin, the revolution would abolish state and capital, and "the workers . . . [should] take possession of the factories . . . federate among themselves . . . the peasants should take over the land and the produce usurped by the landlords." Ultimately, the "most powerful means for defending the revolution remains always that of taking away from the bourgeois the economic means on which their power rests, and of arming everybody (until such time as one will have managed to persuade everybody to throw away their arms as useless and dangerous toys), and of interesting the mass of the population in the victory of the revolution." [Life and Ideas, p. 170, p. 165, p. 166, pp. 165-6, p. 184, p. 175, p. 165 and p. 173]

Malatesta stresses that a government is not required to defend a revolution:

"But, by all means, let us admit that the governments of the still unemancipated countries were to want to, and could, attempt to reduce free people to a state of slavery once again. Would this people require a government to defend itself? To wage war men are needed who have all the necessary geographical and mechanical knowledge, and above all large masses of the population willing to go and fight. A government can neither increase the abilities of the former nor the will and courage of the latter. And the experience of history teaches us that a people who really want to defend their own country are invincible: and in Italy everyone knows that before the corps of volunteers (anarchist formations) thrones topple, and regular armies composed of conscripts or mercenaries disappear." [Anarchy, pp. 40-1]

The Spanish anarchist D. A. Santillan argued that the "local Council of Economy will assume the mission of defence and raise voluntary corps for guard duty and if need be, for combat" in the "cases of emergency or danger of a counter-revolution." These Local Councils would be a federation of workplace councils and would be members of the Regional Council of the Economy which, like the Local Council, would be "constitute[d] by delegations or through assemblies." [After the Revolution, p. 80 and pp. 82-83] Yet again we see the defence of the revolution based on the federation of workers' councils and so directly controlled by the revolutionary population.

Lastly, we turn to the Spanish CNT's 1936 resolution on Libertarian Communism. In this document is a section entitled "Defence of the Revolution" which argues:

"We acknowledge the necessity to defend the advances made through the revolution . . . So . . . the necessary steps will be taken to defend the new regime, whether against the perils of a foreign capitalist invasion . . . or against counter-revolution at home. It must be remembered that a standing army constitutes the greatest danger for the revolution, since its influence could lead to dictatorship, which would necessarily kill off the revolution. . .

"The people armed will be the best assurance against any attempt to restore the system destroyed from either within or without. . .

"Let each Commune have its weapons and means of defence . . . the people will mobilise rapidly to stand up to the enemy, returning to their workplaces as soon as they may have accomplished their mission of defence. . . .

"1. The disarming of capitalism implies the surrender of weaponry to the communes which be responsible for ensuring defensive means are effectively organised nationwide.

"2. In the international context, we shall have to mount an intensive propaganda drive among the proletariat of every country so that it may take an energetic protest, calling for sympathetic action against any attempted invasion by its respective government. At the same time, our Iberian Confederation of Autonomous Libertarian Communes will render material and moral assistance to all the world's exploited so that these may free themselves forever from the monstrous control of capitalism and the State." [quoted by Jose Peirats, The CNT in the Spanish Revolution, vol. 1, p. 110]

Therefore, an anarchist society defends itself in a non-statist fashion. Defence is organised in a libertarian manner, based on federations of free communes and workers' councils and incorporating self-managed workers' militias. This was exactly what the CNT-FAI did in 1936 to resist Franco's fascists. The militia bodies that were actually formed by the CNT in the revolution were internally self-governing, not hierarchical. Each militia column was administered by its own "war committee," made up of elected delegates, which in turn sent delegates to co-ordinate action on a specific front. Similarly, the Makhnovists during the Russian Revolution also organised in a democratic manner, subject to the decisions of the local workers' councils and their congresses.

Thus Anarchist theory and practice indicate that defence of a revolution need not involve a hierarchical system like the Bolshevik Red Army where the election of officers, soldiers' councils and self-governing assemblies were abolished by Trotsky in favour of officers appointed from above (see Trotsky's article The Path of the Red Army in which he freely admits to abolishing the soldiers "organs of revolutionary self-government" the Soviets of Soldiers' Deputies as well as "the system of election" of commanders by the soldiers themselves in favour of a Red Army "built from above" with appointed commanders).

As can be seen, the only armed force for the defence of the an anarchist society would be the voluntary, self-managed militia bodies organised by the free communes and federations of workers' associations. The militias would be unified and co-ordinated by federations of communes while delegates from each militia unit would co-ordinate the actual fighting. In times of peace the militia members would be living and working among the rest of the populace, and, thus, they would tend to have the same outlook and interests as their fellow workers.

Instead of organising a new state, based on top-down command and hierarchical power, anarchists argue that a revolutionary people can build and co-ordinate a militia of their own and control the defence of their revolution directly and democratically, through their own organisations (such as unions, councils of delegates elected from the shop floor and community, and so on). Where they have had the chance, anarchists have done so, with remarkable success. Therefore, an anarchist society can be defended against attempts to re-impose hierarchy and bosses (old or new).

For more discussion of this issue, see section J.7.6 ( "How could an anarchist revolution defend itself?")

Which is a good thing. I wouldn't want to live in a community where the majority didn't agree on how materials should be used.

Yes. There is the possibility of electing delegates to a confederate-like system; the delegates' sole job to be to carry out the will of the people.

Why couldn't a third party be asked to arbitrate differences between two communities?

Well, you did say that direct democracy could work for small groups of people. How small are we talking about?

Efficiency isn't always a good thing, but getting local interests involved is a good thing.

Which is an argument against authority, not an argument against anarchy.

Are you familiar with the Spanish Civil War?

They did have elders who were listened to, but listened to out of respect as opposed to fear.
You say a bunch of delegates could be elected to carry out the will of the people. That's a government.

I think direct democracy could work for groups of less than one hundred people or so.

I'm not arguing against authority. I'm arguing that human nature inevitably drives us to adopt some kind of heirarchy.

No, I don't know much about the Spanish civil war. Most of what I know I've picked up from independent study after I was done with school and I never really was curious about it so I never read up on it.

and another (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html)

What could the social structure of anarchy look like?

The social and political structure of anarchy is similar to that of the economic structure, i.e., it is based on a voluntary federation of decentralised, directly democratic policy-making bodies. These are the neighbourhood and community assemblies and their confederations. In these grassroots political units, the concept of "self-management" becomes that of "self-government", a form of municipal organisation in which people take back control of their living places from the bureaucratic state and the capitalist class whose interests it serves.

"A new economic phase demands a new political phase," argued Kropotkin, "A revolution as profound as that dreamed of by the [libertarian] socialists cannot accept the mould of an out-dated political life. A new society based on equality of condition, on the collective possession of the instruments of work, cannot tolerate for a week . . . the representative system . . . if we want the social revolution, we must seek a form of political organisation that will correspond to the new method of economic organisation. . . . The future belongs to the free groupings of interests and not to governmental centralisation; it belongs to freedom and not to authority." [Words of a Rebel, pp. 143-4]

Thus the social structure of an anarchist society will be the opposite of the current system. Instead of being centralised and top-down as in the state, it will be decentralised and organised from the bottom up. As Kropotkin argued, "socialism must become more popular, more communalistic, and less dependent upon indirect government through elected representatives. It must become more self-governing." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 185] While anarchists have various different conceptions of how this communal system would be constituted (as we will see), they is total agreement on these basic visions and principles.

This empowerment of ordinary citizens through decentralisation and direct democracy will eliminate the alienation and apathy that are now rampant in the modern city and town, and (as always happens when people are free) unleash a flood of innovation in dealing with the social breakdown now afflicting our urban wastelands. The gigantic metropolis with its hierarchical and impersonal administration, its atomised and isolated "residents," will be transformed into a network of humanly scaled participatory communities (usually called "communes"), each with its own unique character and forms of self-government, which will be co-operatively linked through federation with other communities at several levels, from the municipal through the bioregional to the global.

Of course, it can (and has) been argued that people are just not interested in "politics." Further, some claim that this disinterest is why governments exist -- people delegate their responsibilities and power to others because they have better things to do. Such an argument, however, is flawed on empirical grounds. As we indicated in section B.2.6, centralisation of power in both the French and American revolutions occurred because working people were taking too much interest in politics and social issues, not the reverse ("To attack the central power, to strip it of its prerogatives, to decentralise, to dissolve authority, would have been to abandon to the people the control of its affairs, to run the risk of a truly popular revolution. That is why the bourgeoisie sought to reinforce the central government even more. . ." [Kropotkin, Words of a Rebel, p. 143]).

Simply put, the state is centralised to facilitate minority rule by excluding the mass of people from taking part in the decision making processes within society. This is to be expected as social structures do not evolve by chance -- rather they develop to meet specific needs and requirements. The specific need of the ruling class is to rule and that means marginalising the bulk of the population. Its requirement is for minority power and this is transformed into the structure of the state (and the capitalist company).

Even if we ignore the historical evidence on this issue, anarchists do not draw this conclusion from the current apathy that surrounds us. In fact, we argue that this apathy is not the cause of government but its result. Government is an inherently hierarchical system in which ordinary people are deliberately marginalised. The powerlessness people feel due to the workings of the system ensure that they are apathetic about it, thus guaranteeing that wealthy and powerful elites govern society without hindrance from the oppressed and exploited majority.

Moreover, government usually sticks its nose into areas that most people have no real interest in. Some things, as in the regulation of industry or workers' safety and rights, a free society could leave to those affected to make their own decisions (we doubt that workers would subject themselves to unsafe working conditions, for example). In others, such as the question of personal morality and acts, a free people would have no interest in (unless it harmed others, of course). This, again, would reduce the number of issues that would be discussed in a free commune.

Also, via decentralisation, a free people would be mainly discussing local issues, so reducing the complexity of many questions and solutions. Wider issues would, of course, be discussed but these would be on specific issues and so more focused in their nature than those raised in the legislative bodies of the state. So, a combination of centralisation and an irrational desire to discuss every and all questions also helps make "politics" seem boring and irrelevant.

As noted above, this result is not an accident and the marginalisation of "ordinary" people is actually celebrated in bourgeois "democratic" theory. As Noam Chomsky notes:

"Twentieth century democratic theorists advise that 'The public mmust be put in its place,' so that the 'responsible men' may 'live free of the trampling and roar of a bewildered herd,' 'ignorant and meddlesome outsiders' whose 'function' is to be 'interested spectators of action,' not participants, lending their weight periodically to one or another of the leadership class (elections), then returning to their private concerns. (Walter Lippman). The great mass of the population, 'ignorant and mentally deficient,' must be kept in their place for the common good, fed with 'necessary illusion' and 'emotionally potent oversimplifications' (Wilson's Secretary of State Robert Lansing, Reinhold Niebuhr). Their 'conservative' counterparts are only more extreme in their adulation of the Wise Men who are the rightful rulers -- in the service of the rich and powerful, a minor footnote regularly forgotten." [Year 501, p. 18]

As discussed in Section B.2.6 ("Who benefits from centralisation?") this marginalisation of the public from political life ensures that the wealthy can be "left alone" to use their power as they see fit. In other words, such marginalisation is a necessary part of a fully functioning capitalist society. Hence, under capitalism, libertarian social structures have to be discouraged. Or as Chomsky puts it, the "rabble must be instructed in the values of subordination and a narrow quest for personal gain within the parameters set by the institutions of the masters; meaningful democracy, with popular association and action, is a threat to be overcome." [Op. Cit., p. 18] This philosophy can be seen in the statement of a US Banker in Venezuela under the murderous Jimenez dictatorship:

"You have the freedom here to do whatever you want to do with your money, and to me, that is worth all the political freedom in the world." [quoted by Chomsky, Op. Cit., p. 99]

Deterring libertarian alternatives to statism is a common feature of our current system. By marginalising and disempowering people, the ability of individuals to manage their own social activities is undermined and weakened. They develop a "fear of freedom" and embrace authoritarian institutions and "strong leaders," which in turn reinforces their marginalisation.

This consequence is hardly surprising. Anarchists maintain that the desire to participate and the ability to participate are in a symbiotic relationship: participation feeds on itself. By creating the social structures that allow participation, participation will increase. As people increasingly take control of their lives, so their ability to do so also increases. The challenge of having to take responsibility for decisions that make a difference is at the same time an opportunity for personal development. To begin to feel power, having previously felt powerless, to win access to the resources required for effective participation and learn how to use them, is a liberating experience. Once people become active subjects, making things happen in one aspect of their lives, they are less likely to remain passive objects, allowing things to happen to them, in other aspects. All in all, "politics" is far too important an subject to leave to politicians, the wealthy and bureaucrats. After all, it is what affects, your friends, community, and, ultimately, the planet you live on. Such issues cannot be left to anyone but you.

Hence a meaningful communal life based on self-empowered individuals is a distinct possibility (indeed, it has repeatedly appeared throughout history). It is the hierarchical structures in statism and capitalism, marginalising and disempowering the majority, which is at the root of the current wide scale apathy in the face of increasing social and ecological disruption. Libertarian socialists therefore call for a radically new form of political system to replace the centralised nation-state, a form that would be based around confederations of self-governing communities. In other words, in anarchism "[s]ociety is a society of societies; a league of leagues of leagues; a commonwealth of commonwealths of commonwealths; a republic of republics of republics. Only there is freedom and order, only there is spirit, a spirit which is self-sufficiency and community, unity and independence." [Gustav Landauer, For Socialism, pp. 125-126]

To create such a system would require dismantling the nation-state and reconstituting relations between communities on the basis of self-determination and free and equal confederation from below. In the following subsections we will examine in more detail why this new system is needed and what it might look like. As we stressed in the introduction, these are just suggestions of possible anarchist solutions to social organisation. Most anarchists recognise that anarchist communities will co-exist with non-anarchist ones after the destruction of the existing state. As we are anarchists we are discussing anarchist visions. We will leave it up to non-anarchists to paint their own pictures of a possible future.

The chances you haven't read the thread: 100%
You are absolutely right. I don't have the time nor the patience to read all eleven pages. I just post what I think about the issue and that's it. If you don't like it you better go cry to your mummy. :)

The fact that most people who don't read the thread beforehand tend to post their shiat and ignore it henceforth: Priceless.
Funny thing. I actually didn't ignore it.

The fact that some people will be intolerant to the point of judging others based on a single thread: Priceless. :p

one more for good measure (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI4.html). after this i'm moving on to big kropotkin, malatesta, and proudhon quotes.

How could an anarchist economy function?

This is an important question facing all opponents of a given system -- what will you replace it with? We can say, of course, that it is pointless to make blueprints of how a future anarchist society will work as the future will be created by everyone, not just the few anarchists and libertarian socialists who write books and FAQs. This is very true, we cannot predict what a free society will actually be like or develop and we have no intention to do so here. However, this reply (whatever its other merits) ignores a key point, people need to have some idea of what anarchism aims for before they decide to spend their lives trying to create it.

So, how would an anarchist system function? That depends on the economic ideas people have. A mutualist economy will function differently than a communist one, for example, but they will have similar features. As Rudolf Rocker put it:

"Common to all Anarchists is the desire to free society of all political and social coercive institutions which stand in the way of the development of a free humanity. In this sense, Mutualism, Collectivism, and Communism are not to be regarded as closed systems permitting no further development, but merely assumptions as to the means of safeguarding a free community. There will even probably be in the society of the future different forms of economic co-operation existing side-by-side, since any social progress must be associated with that free experimentation and practical testing-out for which in a society of free communities there will be afforded every opportunity." [Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 16]

So, given the common aims of anarchists, its unsurprising that the economic systems they suggest will have common features such as workers' self-management, federation, free agreement and so on. For all anarchists, the "economy" is seen as a "voluntary association that will organise labour, and be the manufacturer and distributor of necessary commodities" and this "is to make what is useful. The individual is to make what is beautiful." [Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism, p. 1183] For example, the machine "will supersede hand-work in the manufacture of plain goods. But at the same time, hand-work very probably will extend its domain in the artistic finishing of many things which are made entirely in the factory." [Peter Kropotkin, Fields, Factories and Workplaces Tomorrow, p. 152] Murray Bookchin, decades later, argued for the same idea: "the machine will remove the toil from the productive process, leaving its artistic completion to man." [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 134]

This "organisation of labour touches only such labours as others can do for us. . . the rest remain egoistic, because no one can in your stead elaborate your musical compositions, carry out your projects of painting, etc.; nobody can replace Raphael's labours. The latter are labours of a unique person, which only he is competent to achieve." [Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own, p. 268] Stirner goes on to ask "for whom is time to be gained [by association]? For what does man require more time than is necessary to refresh his wearied powers of labour? Here Communism is slient." He then answers his own question by arguing it is gained for the individual "[t]o take comfort in himself as unique, after he has done his part as man!" [Op. Cit., p. 269] Which is exactly what Kropotkin also argued:

"He [sic!] will discharge his task in the field, the factory, and so on, which he owes to society as his contribution to the general production. And he will employ the second half of his day, his week, or his year, to satisfy his artistic or scientific needs, or his hobbies." [Conquest of Bread, p. 111]

Thus, while authoritarian Communism ignores the unique individual (and that was the only kind of Communism existing when Stirner wrote his classic book) libertarian communists agree with Stirner and are not silent. Like him, they consider the whole point of organising labour as the means of providing the individual the time and resources required to express their individuality. In other words, to pursue "labours of a unique person." Thus all anarchists base their arguments for a free society on how it will benefit actual individuals, rather than abstracts or amorphous collectives (such as "society"). Hence chapter 9 of The Conquest of Bread, "The Need for Luxury" and, for that matter, chapter 10, "Agreeable Work."

Or, to bring this ideal up to day, as Chomsky put it, "[t]he task for a modern industrial society is to achieve what is now technically realisable, namely, a society which is really based on free voluntary participation of people who produce and create, live their lives freely within institutions they control, and with limited hierarchical structures, possibly none at all." [quoted by Albert and Hahnel in Looking Forward: Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century, p. 62]

In other words, anarchists desire to organise voluntary workers associations which will try to ensure a minimisation of mindless labour in order to maximise the time available for creative activity both inside and outside "work." This is to be achieved by free co-operation between equals, for while competition may be the "law of the jungle", co-operation is the law of civilisation.

This co-operation is not based on "altruism," but self-interest. As Proudhon argued, "[m]utuality, reciprocity exists when all the workers in an industry instead of working for an entrepreneur who pays them and keeps their products, work for one another and thus collaborate in the making of a common product whose profits they share amongst themselves. Extend the principle of reciprocity as uniting the work of every group, to the Workers' Societies as units, and you have created a form of civilisation which from all points of view - political, economic and aesthetic - is radically different from all earlier civilisations." [quoted by Martin Buber, Paths in Utopia, pp. 29-30] In other words, solidarity and co-operation allows us time to enjoy life and to gain the benefits of our labour ourselves - Mutual Aid results in a better life than mutual struggle and so "the association for struggle will be a much more effective support for civilisation, progress, and evolution than is the struggle for existence with its savage daily competitions." [Luigi Geallani, The End of Anarchism, p. 26]

In the place of the rat race of capitalism, economic activity in an anarchist society would be one of the means to humanise and individualise ourselves and society, to move from surviving to living. Productive activity should become a means of self-expression, of joy, of art, rather than something we have to do to survive. Ultimately, "work" should become more akin to play or a hobby than the current alienated activity. The priorities of life should be towards individual self-fulfilment and humanising society rather than "running society as an adjunct to the market," to use Polanyi's expression, and turning ourselves into commodities on the labour market. Thus anarchists agree with John Stuart Mill when he wrote:

"I confess I am not charmed with an ideal of life held out by those who think that the normal state of human beings is that of struggling to get on; that the trampling, crushing, elbowing, and treading on each other's heels, which form the existing type of social life, are the most desirable lot of human kind, or anything but the disagreeable symptoms of one of the phases of industrial progress." [Collected Works, vol. III, p. 754]

The aim of anarchism is far more than the end of poverty. Hence Proudhon's comment that socialism's "underlying dogma" is that the "objective of socialism is the emancipation of the proletariat and the eradication of poverty." This emancipation would be achieved by ending "wage slavery" via "democratically organised workers' associations." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 57 and p.62] Or, in Kropotkin's words, "well-being for all" -- physical, mental and moral! Indeed, by concentrating on just poverty and ignoring the emancipation of the proletariat, the real aims of socialism are obscured. As Kropotkin argued:

"The 'right to well-being' means the possibility of living like human beings, and of bringing up children to be members of a society better than ours, whilst the 'right to work' only means the right to be a wage-slave, a drudge, ruled over and exploited by the middle class of the future. The right to well-being is the Social Revolution, the right to work means nothing but the Treadmill of Commercialism. It is high time for the worker to assert his right to the common inheritance, and to enter into possession of it." [The Conquest of Bread, p. 44]

Combined with this desire for free co-operation is a desire to end centralised systems. The opposition to centralisation is often framed in a distinctly false manner. This can be seen when Alex Nove, a leading market socialist, argues that "there are horizontal links (market), there are vertical links (hierarchy). What other dimension is there?" [Alex Nove, The Economics of Feasible Socialism, p. 226] In other words, Nove states that to oppose central planning means to embrace the market. This, however, is not true. Horizontal links need not be market based any more than vertical links need be hierarchical. But the core point in his argument is very true, an anarchist society must be based essentially on horizontal links between individuals and associations, freely co-operating together as they (not a central body) sees fit. This co-operation will be source of any "vertical" links in an anarchist economy. When a group of individuals or associations meet together and discuss common interests and make common decisions they will be bound by their own decisions. This is radically different from a a central body giving out orders because those affected will determine the content of these decisions. In other words, instead of decisions being handed down from the top, they will be created from the bottom up.

So, while refusing to define exactly how an anarchist system will work, we will explore the implications of how the anarchist principles and ideals outlined above could be put into practice. Bear in mind that this is just a possible framework for a system which has few historical examples to draw upon as evidence. This means that we can only indicate the general outlines of what an anarchist society could be like. Those seeking "recipes" and exactness should look elsewhere. In all likelihood, the framework we present will be modified and changed (even ignored) in light of the real experiences and problems people will face when creating a new society.

Lastly we should point out that there may be a tendency for some to compare this framework with the theory of capitalism (i.e. perfectly functioning "free" markets or quasi-perfect ones) as opposed to its reality. A perfectly working capitalist system only exists in text books and in the heads of ideologues who take the theory as reality. No system is perfect, particularly capitalism, and to compare "perfect" capitalism with any system is a pointless task. In addition, there will be those who seek to apply the "scientific" principles of the neo-classical economics to our ideas. By so doing they make what Proudhon called "the radical vice of political economy", namely "affirming as a definitive state a transitory condition -- namely, the division of society intto patricians and proletares." [System of Economical Contradictions, p. 67] Thus any attempt to apply the "laws" developed from theorising about capitalism to anarchism will fail to capture the dynamics of a non-capitalist system (given that neo-classical economics fails to understand the dynamics of capitalism, what hope does it have of understanding non-capitalist systems which reject the proprietary despotism and inequalities of capitalism?).

John Crump stresses this point in his discussion of Japanese anarchism:

"When considering the feasibility of the social system advocated by the pure anarchists, we need to be clear about the criteria against which it should be measured. It would, for example, be unreasonable to demand that it be assessed against such yardsticks of a capitalist economy as annual rate of growth, balance of trade and so forth . . . evaluating anarchist communism by means of the criteria which have been devised to measure capitalism's performance does not make sense . . . capitalism would be . . . baffled if it were demanded that it assess its operations against the performance indicators to which pure anarchists attached most importance, such as personal liberty, communal solidarity and the individual's unconditional right to free consumption. Faced with such demands, capitalism would either admit that these were not yardsticks against which it could sensibly measure itself or it would have to resort to the type of grotesque ideological subterfuges which it often employs, such as identifying human liberty with the market and therefore with wag slavery. . . The pure anarchists' confidence in the alternative society they advocated derived not from an expectation that it would quantitatively outperform capitalism in terms of GNP, productivity or similar capitalist criteria. On the contrary, their enthusiasm for anarchist communism flowed from their understanding that it would be qualitatively different from capitalism. Of course, this is not to say that the pure anarchists were indifferent to questions of production and distribution . . . they certainly believed that anarchist communism would provide economic well-being for all. But neither were they prepared to give priority to narrowly conceived economic expansion, to neglect individual liberty and communal solidarity, as capitalism regularly does." [Hatta Shuzo and Pure Anarchism in Interwar Japan, pp. 191-3]

As Kropotkin argued, "academic political economy has been only an enumeration of what happens under the . . . conditions [of capitalism] -- without distinctly stating the conditions themselves. And then, having described the facts [academic neo-classical economics usually does not even do that, we must stress, but Kropotkin had in mind the likes of Adam Smith and Ricardo, not modern neo-classical economics] which arise in our societies under these conditions, they represent to use these facts as rigid, inevitable economic laws." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 179] So, by changing the conditions we change the "economic laws" of a society and so capitalist economics is not applicable to post (or pre) capitalist society (nor are its justifications for existing inequalities in wealth and power).

LMFAO... Last time you linked to it, I chuckled, but didn't look at it or where it linked to. This time, I actually looked at the words closely - I thought you were linking to something called "An anarchist fag" - the words "Well I suppose it would be interesting to hear what the homosexual standpoint of anti-governmentalism would be." actually went through my mind. Oh gawd. Ehl oh Ehl, to the fourth power.

Let's not forget that this is the textbook case with Integralismo Lusitano ;). (I've happened to see what country you're from.)
Yeah, kind of. Both concepts are (anarchy and integralismo) are totally faith-based.

No such thing. Even mobs have an agitator. And a brief review of military history will show how 'leaderless militaries' fare against properly organised ones.Anarchist militias were remarkably libertarian within themselves, particularly in the early part of the war before being partially absorbed into the regular army. They had no rank system, no hierarchy, no salutes, and those called "Commanders" were elected by the troops.

The most effective anarchist unit was the Durruti Column (which inspired the name of the band The Durutti Column), led by already legendary militant Buenaventura Durruti. It was the only anarchist unit which managed to gain respect from otherwise fiercely hostile political opponents.

Because not everyone will agree on what those rules should be. They don't have to, as long as they agree to abide by the will of the majority.
Naturally, some people in the collective are only going to be interested in their own personal interests, and organize with like-minded people. Then they can break off and form their own community.
Every group has a ringleader, whether or not it's official. Government is a form of arbitration, so that the weak aren't preyed upon by the strong.True, but there are other ways of doing those things.

People preserve their collective interest everyday, by following the laws and procedures of the state. (Albeit, some are more interested in collective interest than others, but I fail to see how a leaderless society can enforce collective interest.)Why couldn't the collective enforce its interest?

These international groups were possible due to the organisation and safety provided by nationstates. And I'm sure if it weren't for the intervention of the state, organisational groups like Greenpeace and Amnesty International wouldn't last 2 seconds without the resources that the large international corporations can bring to bear.Large international corporations are only possible due to the organization and safety provided by nationstates.

Sorry. Don't buy it. Even the Inuit have a council of elders. It's not anarchism, but communalism.Communalism = Belief in or practice of communal ownership. So it's the same thing as (a form of) anarchism.

Stop! - Hammertime.


Let's focus on the "They don't have to, as long as they agree to abide by the will of the majority." thing.


The funny thing about that - they won't. End of story, it was a good game, nice little hustle, etc. That right there just destroys all of your theory. The fact that the minority simply won't stand for being overtaken by the majority. -They- -will- -not-. Dead anarchists and a new government.

You say a bunch of delegates could be elected to carry out the will of the people. That's a government. Not when those delegates are immediately recallable.

I think direct democracy could work for groups of less than one hundred people or so.You don't think 100 people could build a city given enough time?

I'm not arguing against authority. I'm arguing that human nature inevitably drives us to adopt some kind of heirarchy.Wouldn't heirarchy require authority?

No, I don't know much about the Spanish civil war. Most of what I know I've picked up from independent study after I was done with school and I never really was curious about it so I never read up on it.They were remarkably effective at fighting the enemy, and could have possibly won if not for inter-leftist disputes.

anarchy doesnt work, yes the nice little logo and stuff but

number one, how do you organise global anarchy.

i'm a marxist saying this - they type of person some people call anarchist - but im not.

The funny thing about that - they won't. They will when it's in their interest to do so.

That right there just destroys all of your theory. The fact that the minority simply won't stand for being overtaken by the majority.Really? Then why does representative democracy work so well?

-They- -will- -not-. Dead anarchists and a new government.Err..no. If they are really that repulsed by the majority will, then they can secede and form their own community.

Not when those delegates are immediately recallable.

You don't think 100 people could build a city given enough time?

Wouldn't heirarchy require authority?

They were remarkably effective at fighting the enemy, and could have possibly won if not for inter-leftist disputes.

Shh! I already destroyed your shiat. Why are you still talking and quoting?

anarchy doesnt work, yes the nice little logo and stuff but

number one, how do you organise global anarchy.

i'm a marxist saying this - they type of person some people call anarchist - but im not.Why would global anarchy be necessary?

Yeah, kind of. Both concepts are (anarchy and integralismo) are totally faith-based.
Surely. But I meant a bit more than that: through syndicalism, Integralismo is actually ammended anarchism.
All those guys who got the idea to dress in black or blue in the 1910s-1920s (Portuguese Integralismo and National Syndicalists, Mussolini's squadrists, Mouvement Franciste, Ledesma Ramos' Falange etc.) were followers of a form of anarchism defined (or, for my anarchist audience, "corrupted") by Sorel.

Not when those delegates are immediately recallable.

You don't think 100 people could build a city given enough time?

Wouldn't heirarchy require authority?

They were remarkably effective at fighting the enemy, and could have possibly won if not for inter-leftist disputes.
1) Not true. Many states in the US can recall their elected officials (not the federal ones). They're still state governments.

2) No. Ever try to build something big? A house, for example? It takes qualified people a long time. Specialists like masons, carpenters, electricians, and plumbers are needed. Not to mention guys to run the heavy equipment to grade out the earth, dig down to lay the foundation and drive the cement trucks. One hundred people could spend their entire lifetime building and it wouldn't be even a small city.

3) Hierarchy implies authority. The guy on top can tell those below what to do either through incentives like salaries, threats like imprisonment, or the consent of the governed.

*snip*

While I respect your opinion and your ability to argue this form of 'governance' (espescially better than the OP) I'm just going to have to say that I'm a Statist, and I just don't see the point in going on and on over generally the same idea. Although entertaining, it's for the same reason I won't continue to debate a Jehova's Witness.

I agree with you that a quasi-anarchistic society could theoretically exist in peace for a short time, but I find it highly unlikely in the modern world.

<snip>
They were remarkably effective at fighting the enemy, and could have possibly won if not for inter-leftist disputes.
That tells me that an anarchist society would be vulnerable to the depredations of proper governments because they would suffer inter-anarchist disputes.

1) Not true. Many states in the US can recall their elected officials (not the federal ones). They're still state governments.Don't those officials have to do something that is specifically defined as illegal?

2) No. Ever try to build something big? A house, for example? It takes qualified people a long time. Specialists like masons, carpenters, electricians, and plumbers are needed. Not to mention guys to run the heavy equipment to grade out the earth, dig down to lay the foundation and drive the cement trucks. One hundred people could spend their entire lifetime building and it wouldn't be even a small city.Then why does it only take 10-15 people a few months to build a house?

3) Hierarchy implies authority. The guy on top can tell those below what to do either through incentives like salaries, threats like imprisonment, or the consent of the governed.Yes, exactly, and since your argument was really an argument against authority, it must also be an argument against heirarchy.

That tells me that an anarchist society would be vulnerable to the depredations of proper governments because they would suffer inter-anarchist disputes.One could be, yes...it took four proper governments to bring the anarchists in Spain down, though.

While I respect your opinion and your ability to argue this form of 'governance' (espescially better than the OP) I'm just going to have to say that I'm a Statist, and I just don't see the point in going on and on over generally the same idea. Although entertaining, it's for the same reason I won't continue to debate a Jehova's Witness.

I agree with you that a quasi-anarchistic society could theoretically exist in peace for a short time, but I find it highly unlikely in the modern world.Well, thank you anyway. I suppose we are going around in circles, yes. I will say this: that an anarchist society isn't necessarily going to work, and it will take more work than other societies do, but ultimately it will only work if the people want it to work. If you are a statist, then an anarchist society wouldn't work with you, and that's fine.

Don't those officials have to do something that is specifically defined as illegal?

Then why does it only take 10-15 people a few months to build a house?

Yes, exactly, and since your argument was really an argument against authority, it must also be an argument against heirarchy.

One could be, yes...it took four proper governments to bring the anarchists in Spain down, though.

Well, thank you anyway. I suppose we are going around in circles, yes. I will say this: that an anarchist society isn't necessarily going to work, and it will take more work than other societies do, but ultimately it will only work if the people want it to work. If you are a statist, then an anarchist society wouldn't work with you, and that's fine.
1) I don't know but it probably varies by state.

2) Let's say it takes 2 months and ten people to build a wood-frame house. 100 people would build ten in two months. Those ten houses should probably be on a street, no? So some of the people now have to divert their attention to grading and paving earth to build a street connecting the homes to the rest of the world. They should probably have access to electricity. So now we're putting up power lines. Natural gas lines should be run to the homes. Also telephone lines. The people might want to shop. Build stores. (these take longer than homes if they're big supermarkets and stuff). School for the kids might be nice. Figure on all the people working together for the better part of a year for a school that contains Kindergarten through high school. Connect the homes to the businesses and school. More roads to build. Ten families hardly makes a city, Build more houses. Build more roads. Run more gas lines. Build a hospital.

I think this could take a while.

Anyhoo, we disagree on politics. No big deal. It's been fun debating.

Anyhoo, we disagree on politics. No big deal. It's been fun debating.Yes, I can see that, and agree.

Surely. But I meant a bit more than that: through syndicalism, Integralismo is actually ammended anarchism.
All those guys who got the idea to dress in black or blue in the 1910s-1920s (Portuguese Integralismo and National Syndicalists, Mussolini's squadrists, Mouvement Franciste, Ledesma Ramos' Falange etc.) were followers of a form of anarchism defined (or, for my anarchist audience, "corrupted") by Sorel.
Yeah I'm reading about Sorel right now. About him being a an anarchist but at the same time he was very conservative and some kind of a moral socialist. His ideas may have contributed a lot to anarchosyndicalism, but he was adored by fascists and communists alike. This makes me think that anarchism may be (or may be used as) some kind of evil strategy to make kids hate democracy .They can't do it through fascism, because fascism is so passé. But anarchism is hip so it's easy to indoctrinate kids with decades-old fascist ideals transvested as 'anarchy'.

This makes me think that anarchism may be (or may be used as) some kind of evil strategy to make kids hate democracy .Why? Direct democracy is a form of anarchism.

Why? Direct democracy is a form of anarchism.
No it's not! Direct democracy is sooooo not anarchist. A direct democracy has a lot of power structures, while anarchism rejects them, therefore direct democracy =/= anarchism. Duh.

No it's not! Direct democracy is sooooo not anarchist. A direct democracy has a lot of power structures, while anarchism rejects them, therefore direct democracy =/= anarchism. Duh.Lol. Now you're just being silly.

Lol. Now you're just being silly.
Double lol. Why silly? Be specific. Do you have the arguments? I do. But your argument is just: "Oooh, you're so silly!!!"

Your reply was the most pointless reply I've seen today. You can do better (i think :rolleyes: )

EDIT: Oh and by the way do reply (a real reply please) again to the post where I dismantled all your "direct democracy is anarchism" argument. Stand up for yourself Jello.

Double lol. Why silly? Be specific. Do you have the arguments? I do. But your argument is just: "Oooh, you're so silly!!!"

Your reply was the most pointless reply I've seen today. You can do better (i think :rolleyes: )Yes, I have the arguments. Anarchy is "no rulers", not "no rules". Direct democracy has no rulers, ergo it is anarchy.

(You're still being silly, by the way.)

Anarchy is totally stupid. One, if someone takes advantage of you, nobody will help you especially if you are sick, dying, or weak. Two, without a governing body man cannot exist, your society will fail. Three, without unity by government, your nation would be demolished by invaders.

Anarchy is totally stupid. One, if someone takes advantage of you, nobody will help you especially if you are sick, dying, or weak. Two, without a governing body man cannot exist, your society will fail. Three, without unity by government, your nation would be demolished by invaders.1) There is no evidence of this.
2) Then how did people exist before governing bodies did?
3) Why can't people unite without governments helping them?

Yes, I have the arguments. Anarchy is "no rulers", not "no rules". Direct democracy has no rulers, ergo it is anarchy.

(You're still being silly, by the way.)
You are so wrong. Anarchism rejects authority. Direct Democracy doesn't. So it's not the same.

(About the your silly 'silly' argument: you still haven't said why you think I'm being silly. Let me guess: is it because I... don't agree with you? If so, you're just showing the ideological fibre you're made of. I've had it with immature replies like yours. I'm off.)

You are so wrong. Anarchism rejects authority. Direct Democracy doesn't. So it's not the same. Uh, as I said, anarchism rejects rulers, not rules. Any system without rulers but with rulers is anarchism.

(About the your silly 'silly' argument: you still haven't said why you think I'm being silly. Let me guess: is it because I... don't agree with you? If so, you're just showing the ideological fibre you're made of. I've had it with immature replies like yours. I'm off.)Er, no, your argument isn't silly, it's simply wrong. You're being silly in the way you present your argument.

No it's not! Direct democracy is sooooo not anarchist. A direct democracy has a lot of power structures, while anarchism rejects them, therefore direct democracy =/= anarchism. Duh.

A.2.11 Why are most anarchists in favour of direct democracy? (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secA2.html#seca211)

For most anarchists, direct democratic voting on policy decisions within free associations is the political counterpart of free agreement (this is also known as "self-management"). The reason is that "many forms of domination can be carried out in a 'free.' non-coercive, contractual manner. . . and it is naive. . . to think that mere opposition to political control will in itself lead to an end of oppression." [John P. Clark, Max Stirner's Egoism, p. 93] Thus the relationships we create within an organisation is as important in determining its libertarian nature as its voluntary nature (see section A.2.14 for more discussion).

It is obvious that individuals must work together in order to lead a fully human life. And so, "[h]aving to join with others humans" the individual has three options: "he [or she] must submit to the will of others (be enslaved) or subject others to his will (be in authority) or live with others in fraternal agreement in the interests of the greatest good of all (be an associate). Nobody can escape from this necessity." [Errico Malatesta, Life and Ideas, p. 85]

Anarchists obviously pick the last option, association, as the only means by which individuals can work together as free and equal human beings, respecting the uniqueness and liberty of one another. Only within direct democracy can individuals express themselves, practice critical thought and self-government, so developing their intellectual and ethical capacities to the full. In terms of increasing an individual's freedom and their intellectual, ethical and social faculties, it is far better to be sometimes in a minority than be subject to the will of a boss all the time. So what is the theory behind anarchist direct democracy?

As Bertrand Russell noted, the anarchist "does not wish to abolish government in the sense of collective decisions: what he does wish to abolish is the system by which a decision is enforced upon those who oppose it." [Roads to Freedom, p. 85] Anarchists see self-management as the means to achieve this. Once an individual joins a community or workplace, he or she becomes a "citizen" (for want of a better word) of that association. The association is organised around an assembly of all its members (in the case of large workplaces and towns, this may be a functional sub-group such as a specific office or neighbourhood). In this assembly, in concert with others, the contents of his or her political obligations are defined. In acting within the association, people must exercise critical judgement and choice, i.e. manage their own activity. Rather than promising to obey (as in hierarchical organisations like the state or capitalist firm), individuals participate in making their own collective decisions, their own commitments to their fellows. This means that political obligation is not owed to a separate entity above the group or society, such as the state or company, but to one's fellow "citizens."

Although the assembled people collectively legislate the rules governing their association, and are bound by them as individuals, they are also superior to them in the sense that these rules can always be modified or repealed. Collectively, the associated "citizens" constitute a political "authority", but as this "authority" is based on horizontal relationships between themselves rather than vertical ones between themselves and an elite, the "authority" is non-hierarchical ("rational" or "natural," see section B.1 - "Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?" - for more on this). Thus Proudhon:

"In place of laws, we will put contracts [i.e. free agreement]. - No more laws voted by a majority, nor even unanimously; each citizen, each town, each industrial union, makes its own laws." [The General Idea of the Revolution, pp. 245-6]

Such a system does not mean, of course, that everyone participates in every decision needed, no matter how trivial. While any decision can be put to the assembly (if the assembly so decides, perhaps prompted by some of its members), in practice certain activities (and so purely functional decisions) will be handled by the association's elected administration. This is because, to quote a Spanish anarchist activist, "a collectivity as such cannot write a letter or add up a list of figures or do hundreds of chores which only an individual can perform." Thus the need "to organise the administration." Supposing an association is "organised without any directive council or any hierarchical offices" which "meets in general assembly once a week or more often, when it settles all matters needful for its progress" it still "nominates a commission with strictly administrative functions." However, the assembly "prescribes a definite line of conduct for this commission or gives it an imperative mandate" and so "would be perfectly anarchist." As it "follows that delegating these tasks to qualified individuals, who are instructed in advance how to proceed, . . . does not mean an abdication of that collectivity's own liberty." [Jose Llunas Pujols, quoted by Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, p. 187] This, it should be noted, follows Proudhon's ideas that within the workers' associations "all positions are elective, and the by-laws subject to the approval of the members." [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 222]

Instead of capitalist or statist hierarchy, self-management (i.e. direct democracy) would be the guiding principle of the freely joined associations that make up a free society. This would apply to the federations of associations an anarchist society would need to function. "All the commissions or delegations nominated in an anarchist society," correctly argued Jose Llunas Pujols, "must be subject to replacement and recall at any time by the permanent suffrage of the section or sections that elected them." Combined with the "imperative mandate" and "purely administrative functions," this "make[s] it thereby impossible for anyone to arrogate to himself [or herself] a scintilla of authority." [quoted by Max Nettlau, Op. Cit., pp. 188-9] Again, Pujols follows Proudhon who demanded twenty years previously the "implementation of the binding mandate" to ensure the people do not "adjure their sovereignty." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 63]

By means of a federalism based on mandates and elections, anarchists ensure that decisions flow from the bottom-up. By making our own decisions, by looking after our joint interests ourselves, we exclude others ruling over us. Self-management, for anarchists, is essential to ensure freedom within the organisations so needed for any decent human existence.

Of course it could be argued that if you are in a minority, you are governed by others ("Democratic rule is still rule" [L. Susan Brown, The Politics of Individualism, p. 53]). Now, the concept of direct democracy as we have described it is not necessarily tied to the concept of majority rule. If someone finds themselves in a minority on a particular vote, he or she is confronted with the choice of either consenting or refusing to recognise it as binding. To deny the minority the opportunity to exercise its judgement and choice is to infringe its autonomy and to impose obligation upon it which it has not freely accepted. The coercive imposition of the majority will is contrary to the ideal of self-assumed obligation, and so is contrary to direct democracy and free association. Therefore, far from being a denial of freedom, direct democracy within the context of free association and self-assumed obligation is the only means by which liberty can be nurtured ("Individual autonomy limited by the obligation to hold given promises." [Malatesta, quoted by quoted by Max Nettlau, Errico Malatesta: The Biography of an Anarchist]). Needless to say, a minority, if it remains in the association, can argue its case and try to convince the majority of the error of its ways.

And we must point out here that anarchist support for direct democracy does not suggest we think that the majority is always right. Far from it! The case for democratic participation is not that the majority is always right, but that no minority can be trusted not to prefer its own advantage to the good of the whole. History proves what common-sense predicts, namely that anyone with dictatorial powers (by they a head of state, a boss, a husband, whatever) will use their power to enrich and empower themselves at the expense of those subject to their decisions.

Anarchists recognise that majorities can and do make mistakes and that is why our theories on association place great importance on minority rights. This can be seen from our theory of self-assumed obligation, which bases itself on the right of minorities to protest against majority decisions and makes dissent a key factor in decision making. Thus Carole Pateman:

"If the majority have acted in bad faith. . . [then the] minority will have to take political action, including politically disobedient action if appropriate, to defend their citizenship and independence, and the political association itself. . . Political disobedience is merely one possible expression of the active citizenship on which a self-managing democracy is based . . . The social practice of promising involves the right to refuse or change commitments; similarly, the practice of self-assumed political obligation is meaningless without the practical recognition of the right of minorities to refuse or withdraw consent, or where necessary, to disobey." [The Problem of Political Obligation, p. 162]

Moving beyond relationships within associations, we must highlight how different associations work together. As would be imagined, the links between associations follow the same outlines as for the associations themselves. Instead of individuals joining an association, we have associations joining confederations. The links between associations in the confederation are of the same horizontal and voluntary nature as within associations, with the same rights of "voice and exit" for members and the same rights for minorities. In this way society becomes an association of associations, a community of communities, a commune of communes, based upon maximising individual freedom by maximising participation and self-management.

The workings of such a confederation are outlined in section A.2.9 ( What sort of society do anarchists want?) and discussed in greater detail in section I (What would an anarchist society look like?).

This system of direct democracy fits nicely into anarchist theory. Malatesta speaks for all anarchists when he argued that "anarchists deny the right of the majority to govern human society in general." As can be seen, the majority has no right to enforce itself on a minority -- the minority can leave the association at any time and so, to use Malatesta's words, do not have to "submit to the decisions of the majority before they have even heard what these might be." [The Anarchist Revolution, p. 100 and p. 101] Hence, direct democracy within voluntary association does not create "majority rule" nor assume that the minority must submit to the majority no matter what. In effect, anarchist supporters of direct democracy argue that it fits Malatesta's argument that:

"Certainly anarchists recognise that where life is lived in common it is often necessary for the minority to come to accept the opinion of the majority. When there is an obvious need or usefulness in doing something and, to do it requires the agreement of all, the few should feel the need to adapt to the wishes of the many . . . But such adaptation on the one hand by one group must be on the other be reciprocal, voluntary and must stem from an awareness of need and of goodwill to prevent the running of social affairs from being paralysed by obstinacy. It cannot be imposed as a principle and statutory norm. . ." [Op. Cit., p. 100]

As the minority has the right to secede from the association as well as having extensive rights of action, protest and appeal, majority rule is not imposed as a principle. Rather, it is purely a decision making tool which allows minority dissent and opinion to be expressed (and acted upon) while ensuring that no minority forces its will on the majority. In other words, majority decisions are not binding on the minority. After all, as Malatesta argued:

"one cannot expect, or even wish, that someone who is firmly convinced that the course taken by the majority leads to disaster, should sacrifice his [or her] own convictions and passively look on, or even worse, should support a policy he [or she] considers wrong." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 132]

Even the Individual Anarchist Lysander Spooner acknowledged that direct democracy has its uses when he noted that "[a]ll, or nearly all, voluntary associations give a majority, or some other portion of the members less than the whole, the right to use some limited discretion as to the means to be used to accomplish the ends in view." However, only the unanimous decision of a jury (which would "judge the law, and the justice of the law") could determine individual rights as this "tribunal fairly represent[s] the whole people" as "no law can rightfully be enforced by the association in its corporate capacity, against the goods, rights, or person of any individual, except it be such as all members of the association agree that it may enforce" (his support of juries results from Spooner acknowledging that it "would be impossible in practice" for all members of an association to agree) [Trial by Jury, p. 130-1f, p. 134, p. 214, p. 152 and p. 132]

Thus direct democracy and individual/minority rights need not clash. In practice, we can imagine direct democracy would be used to make most decisions within most associations (perhaps with super-majorities required for fundamental decisions) plus some combination of a jury system and minority protest/direct action and evaluate/protect minority claims/rights in an anarchist society. The actual forms of freedom can only be created through practical experience by the people directly involved.

Lastly, we must stress that anarchist support for direct democracy does not mean that this solution is to be favoured in all circumstances. For example, many small associations may favour consensus decision making (see the next section on consensus and why most anarchists do not think that it is a viable alternative to direct democracy). However, most anarchists think that direct democracy within free association is the best (and most realistic) form of organisation which is consistent with anarchist principles of individual freedom, dignity and equality.

That tells me that an anarchist society would be vulnerable to the depredations of proper governments because they would suffer inter-anarchist disputes.

it wasn't the anarchists that were in 'dispute'.

let us be clear here, we are talking about a group of people that were essentially caught by surprise and found themselves holding more power than the state when they and they alone stopped a fascist coup that the state was just going to let happen. they later joined with the popular front to fight the fascists - franco, backed up by hitler and mussolini. the statist part of the popular front quickly became dominated by stalin, due to the complete abandonment of spain by the rest of europe

let us remember at this point that just a few years later, the fascists would completely roll over fully functioning european states. in fact, the fash only wound up getting beat due to the aid of a state that missed the brunt of the fascist attack by being on the other side of an ocean and the aid of stalin.

however, in spain stalin decided that it was better to kill the revolution (to keep on the good side of france and england for an assumed fight with hitler later) than to win the war. and the u.s. had an embargo on the republican side generally, let alone the anarchists. so the odds were just about as far against them as humanly possible, and any system would fail under the circumstances; states regularly fail under much better circumstances - see the start of ww2. given that, the fact that there was any success at all is amazing.

A.2.8 Is it possible to be an anarchist without opposing hierarchy?
No. We have seen that anarchists abhor authoritarianism. But if one is an anti-authoritarian, one must oppose all hierarchical institutions, since they embody the principle of authority.

The central problem with anarchy is that it opposes authority, and consequentially "heirarchy."

History furnishes us with no example of large, dense populations surviving without authority.

It is an essential ingredient to society, and the principle means of maintain peace and protecting property.

Jello Biafra posted earlier that because cooperation is required for people to survive, history "furnished evidence for anarchism."

Aside from being a non sequitor, it ignores the fact that the most efficient cooperation is that which is organized as a heirachy.

An anarchy could exist, I believe, and there's a chance it may work well.

However, the people being able to choose their leaders works well enough. It's easier and more efficient to have a leader.

An anarchy could exist, I believe, and there's a chance it may work well.

However, the people being able to choose their leaders works well enough. It's easier and more efficient to have a leader.

I think it would work well for everybody in small tribes or communities. One thing about anarchy is that it is never utter chaos and confusion. In reality, the idea has a whole set of unwritten rules kept by the moral understanding and conscience of others.

It can’t be any worse that what we already have.

Simple question. What is the thing really wrong with anarchy? I know that it gets a bad press from time to time but in anarchism there cannot be wars as a military would be impossible and money, the route of all evil, is abolished. So what is SO bad about it.

What's the point in law when the good don't need it and the bad don't follow it?


It's not that something is moralistically wrong with anarchy, it is that is does not work. Cannot, will not, just plain does not work... Small groups will form, making an informal government. From there. larger groups form, and before too long, a form of government exists.. Thus anarchy is just a theory, not practical at all.

History furnishes us with no example of large, dense populations surviving without authority.

It is an essential ingredient to society, and the principle means of maintain peace and protecting property.

that's a sample size issue - you've got, what, 4 independent origination points for mass societies. at various points during all of them it would have been possible to argue (and actually was argued) that there were absolutely no examples of societies without god-kings. does it follow, therefore, that having a god-king is an essential ingredient to society? later it was argued that there was no historical precedent for running a society through representative democracy, and that such mob rule was completely at odds with civilization itself.

the anarchists propose a set of institutions that at least on the face of them would allow mass society to operate without authoritarian power relations. merely saying "it's impossible to have society without a god-king or by using representative democracy" didn't demonstrate anything before. therefore just updating your terms of what is 'essential' to society won't get you anywhere now. you'll have to take the proposed institutions head on.

Jello Biafra posted earlier that because cooperation is required for people to survive, history "furnished evidence for anarchism."

Aside from being a non sequitor, it ignores the fact that the most efficient cooperation is that which is organized as a heirachy.

"most efficient" does not equal "most just" or "most desireable" or "best". if it were we'd run into some interesting issues. for example, dictatorships are more efficient than representative democracies.

on the other hand, in some instances non-hierarchical organization has in fact shown itself to be at least as efficient hierarchical ones, if not more so. much hierarchy arise not from efficiency, but because it disproportionately benefits some enough to make them seek to create, expand, and enforce such hierarchy as much as they can.

It can’t be any worse that what we already have.

Do you live in the sudan?

it was argued that there was no historical precedent for running a society through representative democracy, and that such mob rule was completely at odds with civilization itself.

the anarchists propose a set of institutions that at least on the face of them would allow mass society to operate without authoritarian power relations. merely saying "it's impossible to have society without a god-king or by using representative democracy" didn't demonstrate anything before. therefore just updating your terms of what is 'essential' to society won't get you anywhere now. you'll have to take the proposed institutions head on.



"most efficient" does not equal "most just" or "most desireable" or "best". if it were we'd run into some interesting issues. for example, dictatorships are more efficient than representative democracies.

on the other hand, in some instances non-hierarchical organization has in fact shown itself to be at least as efficient hierarchical ones, if not more so. much hierarchy arise not from efficiency, but because it disproportionately benefits some enough to make them seek to create, expand, and enforce such hierarchy as much as they can.

"Best" and "most desirable," at least in terms of justice, refer to whatever system maximizes the good for the least-well off, weighed against inequality.

It works even better in practice than in theory.

Just the opposite in fact of anarchism, which might "on its face" (the light of reason being kept off that face, I may add) sound dandy, but not in practice.

Representative democracy was practiced in Greece quite a long time ago, successfully.

The most important question that relates to anarchism is this: What will be the mechanics of whatever system exists to prevent and punish crime and to maintain law and order, including the enforcement of contracts?

Another important question, the one that plagued Nozick: what is to be done with freeloaders?

Answers, s'il vous plait.

"Best" and "most desirable," at least in terms of justice, refer to whatever system maximizes the good for the least-well off, weighed against inequality.

It works even better in practice than in theory.

Just the opposite in fact of anarchism, which might "on its face" (the light of reason being kept off that face, I may add) sound dandy, but not in practice.

?
that doesn't even make sense

Representative democracy was practiced in Greece quite a long time ago, successfully.

true or false, there was a first attempt at representative democracy.
true or false, up until that point people who argue like you could equally have said that it was impossible for exactly the reasons you have laid out.
true or false, they would have been wrong.

The most important question that relates to anarchism is this: What will be the mechanics of whatever system exists to prevent and punish crime and to maintain law and order, including the enforcement of contracts?

Another important question, the one that plagued Nozick: what is to be done with freeloaders?

Answers, s'il vous plait.

since anarchists have never argued to abandon collective action, i don't really see how it's any more a problem than it is for anyone.

anarchist proposals for protection and enforcement agencies usually wind up rebuilding a new form of enforcement that is more under control of the community and imbued with less independent power than state police forces, but otherwise fills essentially the same position. for punishment, well, we typically think that some serious lessons need to be learned from the punishments of societies lacking prisons, but we recognize the need to remove some individuals from the community, and would make arrangements for that. etc.

as for freeloaders, most anarchists i know would actually argue to enshrine the right of people to freeload to a very limited extent. beyond that we would begin using various methods to encourage people to pay up. failing that, we'd either force them to contribute or leave/withdraw support/whatever.

really, these aren't much in the way of issues for any serious anarchist theory. the cappies have more problems here because their premises lead them to reject collective action, and anarchists without a firm grasp of the theory (or that fell in love with the strawmen/stereotypes rather than with anarchism) get a bit muddled by them, but this was all handled way back at the beginning for the rest of us.

check out section I.5 of an anarchist faq (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html) for some more on this.

It can’t be any worse that what we already have.

You live in San Antonio? Can't be all that bad... move along....

?
that doesn't even make sense


anarchist proposals for protection and enforcement agencies usually wind up rebuilding a new form of enforcement that is more under control of the community and imbued with less independent power than state police forces, but otherwise fills essentially the same position. for punishment, well, we typically think that some serious lessons need to be learned from the punishments of societies lacking prisons, but we recognize the need to remove some individuals from the community, and would make arrangements for that. etc.

as for freeloaders, most anarchists i know would actually argue to enshrine the right of people to freeload to a very limited extent. beyond that we would begin using various methods to encourage people to pay up. failing that, we'd either force them to contribute or leave/withdraw support/whatever.

really, these aren't much in the way of issues for any serious anarchist theory. the cappies have more problems here because their premises lead them to reject collective action, and anarchists without a firm grasp of the theory (or that fell in love with the strawmen/stereotypes rather than with anarchism) get a bit muddled by them, but this was all handled way back at the beginning for the rest of us.

check out section I.5 of an anarchist faq (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html) for some more on this.


It makes perfect sense, you dont understand it.

Its an extension of Kantian ethics which was developed by a fellow named John Rawls. See "justice as fairness" in his book "a theory of justice."

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

To call it something like "statist propaganda" would be idiotic, at best.

An observer 2000 years ago could not make the same argument I'm making, because my argument is based on an enormous body of evidence which did not exist at the time. It isnt an argument that can be falsely equated with other situations and attacked on other merits.

Forcing freeloaders to pay up is called "a state."

If "serious anarchist theory" does not solve that problem, it isnt "serious."

Forcing freeloaders to pay up is called "a state."I disagree. People within society can refuse to associate with a freeloader or with anybody that they don't like. A state is not needed to regulate this type of decision. Society is capable of enforcing the social contract.

I'd love to see Anarchy only for some Gang of Hoodlums to come along and oppress everyone with there force of arms.
That'll teach em.

I'd love to see Anarchy only for some Gang of Hoodlums to come along and oppress everyone with there force of arms.
That'll teach em.Then it would no longer be anarchy.

Then it would no longer be anarchy.
Damn Straight!

Minor note to Free Soviets.

Your arguments are too lengthy and wordy, only a captive audience would actually listen. And captive audiences have a tendency to fall asleep.

It's not that I wish to criticise your content - it's just that the whole thing has a ' it won't do ' quality to it. You may overestimate the 'paygrade' of the average voter.

( personal note: experience shows that any argument longer than 30 seconds of airtime just doesn't get across and is therefore wasted. )

It makes perfect sense, you dont understand it.

Its an extension of Kantian ethics which was developed by a fellow named John Rawls. See "justice as fairness" in his book "a theory of justice."

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

To call it something like "statist propaganda" would be idiotic, at best.

oh, i know all about rawls. what doesn't make sense is you saying that rawls-style justice works better in practice than in theory. especially since no society has ever been arranged according to his system. besides, i know some anarchists that largely agree with rawls' idea of justice, though dispute that it actually takes him where he winds up with it.

An observer 2000 years ago could not make the same argument I'm making, because my argument is based on an enormous body of evidence which did not exist at the time. It isnt an argument that can be falsely equated with other situations and attacked on other merits.

what enormous body of evidence? 200 years of bloody bloody attempts at representative democracy, remnant absolutist monarchs, and mad totalitarians? or the body of evidence that says the state was neither necessary for the bulk of human existence nor beneficial for the vast majority of humans during it's reign?

Forcing freeloaders to pay up is called "a state."

only if you define any and every example of collective action as 'the state'. but that's a stupid definition, and not one that anarchists have ever used - which you ought to know by now, since we've had this conversation before.

an example: a team playing a series of tug of war matches figuring out that somebody literally isn't pulling their weight. they will likely first try mocking them into compliance, then pestering, and will finally just kick them out if they don't do their part.

it's not uncommon in collective projects. pay up or get out. and so it would go in collective projects under anarchism, though with a lot more leeway to dissent or leave or create alternate arrangements for yourself.

see B.2 Why are anarchists against the state? (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secB2.html) and I.5.5 Aren't participatory communities and confederations just new states? (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI5.html#seci55)

I think we can all pretty much agree at this point that hieractchy and authority suck