Anarchy

Can it be depended on? Is it worthy of respect?

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

Ugh... that's not so much a discussion as a dogpiling.

Anarchism does not necessarily promote disorder. It's about removing hierarchies and positions of authority. It can still be organised.

How so?

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

How so?

For example.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

@Tzetze

That doesn't seem like it could work with a large group of people.

Anarchism (as a left liberal/socialist ideology; anarcho-capitalism is very different) is opposed to the state and all other forms of authority, including capitalists, but not to co-operation or community.

I don't know whether it would work; it remains largely untested on a large scale. However, this is true of a number of ideologies, and this does not mean that their proponents cannot bring intelligent and useful proposals to the table in a political discussion. I am not an anarchist, but I maintain that the principles behind the movement are respectable, and that it is not the disorganised, blindly optimistic movement it is sometimes characterised as being.

: A community would become a nation, and after some time the lack of "authority" or "the will to annex" would come up. At that point we are back to Europa at "tons of kingdoms annex each other" stage.
Or that is my interprention on it.

A more "on the theoretical plane" part is what Machiavelli described in "The Prince", The monarchy gets succeeded by a tyrant, the tyrant gets succeeded by the aristocraty, the aristocraty gets succumbed by the oligarki, and the oligarky gets torn apart by the democracy.
But after some each each individual in the democracy is power enough, and because they can finally become a anarchy. But after some time someone will get tired of it, and take the power by force, and crown himself/herself king/queen.
And I agree with Machiavelli on this, it is only way we could "naturally" reach anarchy without it failing on itself within minuttes(Somali is a good example?).

Somalia isn't a very good example for a variety of reasons. For one, it has often indeed had a government, the ICU, it just wasn't recognized by most countries.

That doesn't seem like it could work with a large group of people.

Gut feeling.

Anarchy by its very nature is...unnatural. As long as there is power up for grabs, there will be hierarchy.

Anarchy is an ideal that fails to first examine the tools it has to work with, humans.

@Radd: It doesn't have to work with a large group of people. Instead, it has to work with a buncha small groups of people.

edited 8th Mar '11 5:18:39 AM by SavageHeathen

A small group that appears to be working attracts people who want to be a part of it. It will have to either deny them entry (causing bad feelings and a desire to hurt it on the part of the people who were refused entry,) or it will admit them, and become a big group.

Savage, how do anarchist's treat leadership? What about in military operations? In my mind, it aint pretty nor optimal.

Direct democracy, with elected leaders whose only powers delegate from the group, bind the group only and can be revoked by the group at any time for any reason.

Ideally, leadership positions would be made only for a specific task and eliminated when that task is completed, except for technical and similar things:

It makes no sense to have a judge when there is no trial around, and it's not a good idea to let someone keep that kind of power full time. A bunch of militiamen may choose a squad leader and the squad leaders may choose platoon leaders in turn for the purpose of fighting an enemy or performing a raid, but any authority can be stripped away at a whim of the group that gave it.

In short, treat every power like a limited, emergency power that WOULDN'T exist at all except under special circumstances.

edited 8th Mar '11 4:44:45 PM by SavageHeathen

Which is why anarchy cannot work in any setting but a small group.

See, in a group of fewer than or equal to a few hundred, such functions that require a position of leadership only comes once every so often and does not require specialist knowledge. In any large community, the need for such functions would be such that nothing less than a full-time professional for any task would suffice. Then we have professional leadership and yadda yadda.

Direct democracy....military....no thanks. The group with a clear chain-of-command will be able to outperform an anarchist military every time.

edited 8th Mar '11 6:43:07 PM by ViralLamb

Yeah, that's the thing about authoritarianism, and the reason why even the most earnest efforts to stamp it out don't really work. It gets shit done.

The dark side is quicker. Faster. More seductive

I think Anarchy wouldn't work because someone is gonna get sick of being equal, especially when they work harder than everyone else. Unless you anarchists are going to promote a "keep everyone exactly the same" policy, which is just a The Giver-level style dystopia right there.

edited 8th Mar '11 9:30:02 PM by Chagen46

That is more like communism rather than anarchy.

Anarchy is more about "No FIXED form of authority" than "Everyone is equal".

Anarchy would be the best form of government if everyone was good and if everyone was smart. Unfortunately, that is far from the truth.

@Viral Lamb: The evidence is inconclusive. Both Makhno's Black Army and Durruti's columns pretty much obliterated their military oppposition as long as they were well supplied.

The commies defeated them, yup. The commies (formally allied with both Makhno and Durruti) controlled the supplies of ammo and ordnance. They witheld supplies from the anarchist troops. That's why Durruti couldn't storm Zaragoza and why the Bolsheviks screwed Makhno in the end.

edited 9th Mar '11 4:13:17 AM by SavageHeathen