Anarchy: A Temporary Condition

Something I've ran into several times in political discussions is the concept of Anarchy somehow being able to be stable, and I had some thoughts I wanted to share on the subject.

Anarchy is a transitory state, it's a state of lawlessness and chaos by and large, but even within anarchy there is order on a smaller scale. If the entire economy tanked and federal governments shut down and disappeared overnight, it could be safely said that we would experience anarchy. But from the second a group of people started to work together, there would be a form of order within that group.

A large group of people working together in equality to advance the group or cause? Communism. Voting within the group on decisions made for the group or having leaders voted into confidence to make decisions? Democracy and Republic. Even if the entire world sank into anarchy, there would be groups, governments, townships, tribes, and other forms of social orders that would rise up the moment everything came crashing down. Anarchy could be used to describe the world as it was compared to the world as it is post-collapse, but it is not a form of government.

Now some people will speak of Anarchism or Anarcho Communism as an example of what could be, but by definition, it is my personal belief that these systems could work on paper, but in practice there will always be a pecking order. Even in a society without a state where everyone is held to be equal, there will be people with some sort of political currency.. Be it forms of property ownership, respect, experience, social networking, whatever. Regardless of what we want, humans are simply unable to work together without subconsciously establishing a pecking order of some kind. Humans are social creatures who will always band together, which will inevitably cause conflicts of interest and divided opinions, which necessitates rules, be them written down or unspoken, and a pecking order of people who are more or less in charge than others.

@ OP:

I agree. I have yet to find an anarchist who can convince me that some form of power structure would not eventually re-emerge with the re-establishment of order.

More realistic anarchists still aim for anarchy, but they tend to think that decentralization would be an acceptable approximation, owing to things like the predator instinct, herd mentality, hierarchical ambitions, etc. Not all anarchists operate from the rationale that Rousseau Was Right.

Unless you find a way to get each and every human self-sufficient, through advanced machinery and enough living space (Alien Space Bats moving each human to a different planet and leaving them with, at the very most, a chatroom system to contact others and prevent madness, and AI-systems giving them food and services).

But, of course, anarchy wouldn't be a form of government since each one would be alone.

Can, on another hand, 4chan be an anarchic system, when considered as a single entity, since there cannot be any pecking order, each post lacking any kind of reputation given by a name (official or assumed)? (I don't know more than the memetic knowledge on them, my common sense and lack of nearly Brain Bleach forbidding me to go there)

And I often see the idea of proposed co-ops as an ideal pushed by anarchists, and this still eventually leads to the dissolution of anarchy. One co-op does one thing, and another does another thing.. The two trade services and eventually form a dependency or a friendly relationship.. Eventually more of these communities form dependencies, and when an outside community threatens one of the networked communities, the other dependent communities will side together to defend against the outside threat..

This leads to alliances, which leads to negotiations and groups, which eventually leads to small levels of government. Eventually this balloons into states and then nations.

What I feel anarchists seem to want is more power over their own actions, they don't actually want textbook anarchy, they just want the established powers that have authority over them to disappear so that they have more localized power, where they are further up on the totem pole than their current situation.

For anarchists who actually want the scale to indefinitely stay at such a small level, they are completely stifling any possibility of scientific growth and research, because every group is so small that they have to pump most of their resources into self-sufficiency, and will have very little to spare for advancement.

I didn't know that people needed to be told this. Regardless, you've displayed the points far more concisely then I could have.

Anarchists do apparently. I'd like a period of anarchy and social upheaval, but the reason I want it isn't because I'm an anarchist, it's because I would like the chance to start over and try to get it right.

You'd just put the world through a lot of suffering and still end up with broken things.

But anarchy could survive if the conditions were right. The thing is, they aren't ever likely to be, so it'll just be compromises and half-way done jobs.

Keep up that optimism, all it takes is one lucky schmuck and the freehold is no more.

edited 21st Jun '11 9:41:22 AM by blueharp

You would pretty much need to rewire humans into something unrecognizable from who we are now.

If we were a completely peaceful and non-deceitful race, we could totally make anarcho-communism work. But if those traits were there, we would have a peaceful one-world government and have no need for anarcho-communism in the first place.

^

Not too worried about that part. I'd be living it up.

edited 21st Jun '11 9:35:53 AM by Barkey

Most anarchist follow the idea of freedom to it's logical extreme: There can be no freedom as long as there is regulation. Of course, they never think about the results of such an idea.

It's a matter of Ordervs Chaos.

Calling the United States a melting pot is a fallacy. We don't truly blend together, we just coexist enough to avoid tearing each other apart.

Congress is always in a tug of war with each other and is increasingly getting polarized.

There will always be some anarchy, but order will always remain.

edited 21st Jun '11 9:44:52 AM by TheProffesor

We can attempt to create superhumanly moral entities and slowly edge our way toward a more peaceful society. Then we can move more toward anarchism.

Or we just need to give every human true autonomy. Let's see about making it so humans can be autotrophs.

I get along quite fine with my neighbors so I think that "we aren't a melting pot, we just tolerate each other" is, to be frank, a crock a shit. Agree with all the op's points though.

Except that will never happen.

There will always be someone out there craving power, and they will do anything to achieve it.

Everyone suddenly stop wanting for themselves would be a perfect oppurtunity.

I said mostly. People do often get along with eeach other on a micro scale, but the bigger the issue the more likely you will see differences.

edited 21st Jun '11 9:51:19 AM by TheProffesor

So you're more of a tossed salad.

I'd say that whilst anarchy, like with all political ideologies, is an ideal rendered into politics, it ultimately does not scale well with regards to group size.

If it doesn't scale, there's no need to scale it. Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize.

Yes, but modern society shatters with increasing decentralization - imagine the demographic collapse if we all had to be self-sufficient for food.

Then shatter it! If having intrusive central authorities is a prerequisite for modern civilization, fuck modern civilization.

Well if society collapses I am joining the closest form of government and start rebuilding.

Centralized goverment > anything else.

Starving billions and the complete collapse of infrastructure doesn't bother you, then?

Omelettes cannot be made without breaking eggs. If achieving freedom means destroying some stuff as a result, so be it.

edited 21st Jun '11 10:19:40 AM by SavageHeathen

Anyone who plays the Civilization games would already know Anarchy is just a transitory stage between changes

Also no thanks. I'd rather not have millions die (thats not breaking a few eggs, and I hate that comparison) just for the HOPE of some positive change when things aren't as bad as we think.

If we were at Libya levels, then yes. But we dont need millions dying because someone doesn't want to pay taxes or they want to do drugs.

I'm with Dead Man. If shit like that hit the fan I'd be running to the government, who else am I going to go to? I'm not a god damn freedom fighter.

edited 21st Jun '11 10:24:00 AM by Thorn14

...

Inflicting suffering worse than every genocide in human history is not breaking "a few eggs".

That would be the worst-case scenario: That is, infrastructures break down and trade stops.

Yes, without trade the urban population would die off or go rural again. On the other hand, there's no telling whether trade would stop. There'd still be trucks and truckers, and presumably there would still be people raising crops. Selling crops might well be more profitable than subsistence farming.

Of course, landlords and plantation owners would lose everything when the workers seized it and they'd probably be slaughtered. Odds are, same would happen to corporate executives and industry owners. But it'd be a small price to pay for freedom.