NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm pretty ignorant about Anarchism, so please try to be forgiving.

From what I understand about Anarchism it is an ideology that advocates a society without rulers or a hierarchy. My question is how this society would have the authority to stop crime or make any decision or to make a change without giving way to a ruler or a hierarchy.


Can Anarchist societies wield the authority to hold themselves together? Or are the words authority and anarchism mutually exclusive.

As I understand it, in anarchy people act calmly and helpfully so that others may respect them in the same way. Those that don't can expect "backlash" from the community.

For example, If you have tons of grain, and refuse to share it (or sell it at appropriate prices) than many anarchists think that its justifiable if the rest of the local community just goes and takes it.

In some ways, anarchy can be more oppressive than any large government.

Urm... my understanding is that everyone is made responsible, since anarchy is literally "without archons" (a sort of magistrate in ancient Athenian democracy); power would be taken from appointed people back to the community directly.

The very point is that society itself is responsible, rather than any kind of leader, elected or not.
Whether it works... it's incredibly difficult to implement in our incredibly, and increasingly, integrated world. It works in small groups, certainly.

Suprisingly I am actually sympathetic to anarchism (especially if you consider the fact that I am a moderate), however I realise that for it to sustain itself is impossible. In the end, anarchy is freedom for the strong to opress the weak.

For example, If you have tons of grain, and refuse to share it (or sell it at appropriate prices) than many anarchists think that its justifiable if the rest of the local community just goes and takes it.

So, mob justice basically?

I can imagine a hypothetical anarchy would have lots of non-profit organizations all of whose decisions are made by a kind of direct democracy.

However, I'm not trying to speak for anarchism; this is just an idea I came up with.

So, mob justice basically?

No, collective justice. Gah! You statist bastard muffin-licker.

So, mob justice basically?

Thats the inevitable result, but not the anarchist ideal.

If authority is needed to band society together, it is better that society simply disband.

So, mob justice basically?

Collective justice. I am no expert on the matter, but that is the way it has always been explained to me. I actually see Anarchism forming into hundreds of tiny independent cities and community collectives until one gets power-hungry and for the sake of protection they join to become nations and we all start over again.

For anarchism to continue, the people have to be invested in the idea. 10 people in a community of 100 who aren't interested in it, can ruin the entire system. Which is why Im not sure how it sustains itself.

No, collective justice. Gah! You statist bastard muffin-licker.

What's the difference?

Urm... my understanding is that everyone is made responsible, since anarchy is literally "without archons" (a sort of magistrate in ancient Athenian democracy); power would be taken from appointed people back to the community directly.

The very point is that society itself is responsible, rather than any kind of leader, elected or not.
Whether it works... it's incredibly difficult to implement in our incredibly, and increasingly, integrated world. It works in small groups, certainly.

As I understand it is derivative of "arkhos" which means ruler, and therefore means "without ruler".

In the end, community governance is rule as well and should not be considered anarchy.

What's the difference?

language is politics. "Mob justice" implies sympathy for the victim "Collective justice" implies sympathy for the community.

As I understand it is derivative of "arkhos" which means ruler, and therefore means "without ruler".

In the end, community governance is rule as well and should not be considered anarchy.

It is also used as a more vague term for a ruler or leader, yes. I was just being all "I did classics. Haha." :p

It really depends on the brand of anarchism. In market anarchism (or anarcho-capitalism), there is a very real hierachy, but it is no longer manifested in the form of a monopolising state. Rather you have markets of competing private firms. Authority is capable of being issued, but only consensually. If you want to subscribe to the services of a company, you are obliged to follow their specific terms of acceptance.

I'm pretty ignorant about Anarchism, so please try to be forgiving.
It's often misunderstood. The point is you're trying to learn.

From what I understand about Anarchism it is an ideology that advocates a society without rulers or a hierarchy. My question is how this society would have the authority to stop crime or make any decision or to make a change without giving way to a ruler or a hierarchy.
It doesn't. It's not even suposed to. Everyone is responsible for their own safety and if they're smart they'll either be heavily armed, walk around in body armor, or both. Anarchism is a dangerous choice but what makes it so attractive is the lack of rules more than the lack of order that can result. Without regulation of any kind you can advance a lot faster. Or...you can fall into total chaos overnight.

Can Anarchist societies wield the authority to hold themselves together? Or are the words authority and anarchism mutually exclusive.
Not likely. Usually you'll see at least one (but usually more) warlord-ish leader of sorts rise up and take control of the tiny speck of land directly around their home.

My favorite flavor of anarchism is Individualist Anarchism, to me that and its derivations are the only true forms of anarchism. An Individualist anarchist believes that individual conscience and the pursuit of self-interest should not be constrained by any collective body or public authority. Every person is the absolute owner of their own life and should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they allow others the same liberty.

To me, Collectivist and Communist Anarchism seems like a contradiction in terms because they both more or less require that individuals relinquish whatever they produce to the community as they both abolish private ownership. A government is just a body of people, usually notably ungoverned. A community is just a body of people, usually notable ungoverned.

Democratic Anarchism is another I have some problems with. That it has been called democracy without elections is, to me and hopefully you, a little unsettling. Who decides who gets to be a part of the jury? How do you know it'll be a true representation of the community? And is it right for a vocal minority to force its will upon the majority with its consent? Course the latter most on that short list of concerns is a problem with regular democracy too but this thread is about anarchism.

Ever see the movie "The Road Warrior"

Exactly like that.

Ever see the movie "The Road Warrior"

Exactly like that.
I prefer L. Neil Smith's Proabability Broach. Less violence for the sake of violence and more exploration of alternate history and political philosphy.