Can somebody explain Anarchy to me?

I honestly do not see the appeal - I mean, look at Somalia, would you want that for your country? Hierarchies exist in human societies, at least with something like a republic or a democracy you can expect some participation between yourself and the government. Take away the laws and what are you left with? Killers would be able to kill without consequences, thieves steal, life would be short and full of excitement (in a bad way). Yet still the concept seems popular - I mean, it has been around since before World War One, and going by the random anarchists popping out of the woodwork globally its still a powerful movement.

I'd just like to understand it a bit better, maybe someone here can explain?

Its generally the same mode of thought as Libertarianism. if you get rid of everything "bad" about humankind (like excessive government and restructions on personal freedom) then the world becomes a better place. it has the same problem as libertarianism, too. It fails hilariously in real world application.

So it doesn't work because it doesn't take into account that government flaws are built using human flaws?

It also doesn't take into account that humans naturally and instinctively create order from chaos, government being a natural evolution of that.

It doesnt work because it assumes the same basic false assumption as any other idealistic society setup, It assumes human nature can be defeated by idealistic rhetoric.

edited 15th Nov '11 10:23:08 AM by Midgetsnowman

It would be good to hear a supporter say what they think is good about it if we have one, but I doubt we do.

Thank goodness we have the internet, then. The anarchist FAQ is old and long.

Note that it's pretty bent towards communal anarchism, not libertarian anarchism.

edited 15th Nov '11 10:32:32 AM by Tzetze

Savage Heathen will no doubt see this thread soon, he can certainly give a supporter's perspective. Hopefully before the thread gets locked...

How the hell is Libertarianism more idealistic than American liberalism?

Isn't the very nature of anarchy unsustainable since, eventually, people will band together for mutual protection?

because liberalism assumes that the world is a shithole but we can make it better. Libertarianism assumes that once all the evil gubmint is out of the way of us living our lives, the invisible hand of teh market will create utopia.

Most people's idea of anarchism is something like anarcho-primitivism, where the government sort of explodes and everybody lives on their own. If you look through a bit of anarchist theory you'll see that it's a bit more sophisticated. It grew out of a similar tradition to regular socialism, after all.

You know, regarding "idealism" and "utopianism", one can be an anarchist out of skepticism, misanthropy, or pessimism: if Humans Are Bastards, why would you want said bastards to have so much power over you?

Also, even if perfect anarchism is unattainable, I think it better to aim for the ideal, even if you have to compromise with reality, as you'd more likely get results closer to the ideal than you would thinking of "halfway" as an end goal. It's a psychological thing.

I reckon voluntary confederacy would be the closest real life fit with the ideal of anarchism.

Yeah, a lot of anarchists stress the importance of free association. I think Proudhoun's idea was something like a voluntary confederation.

Well I can describe what anarchists (some versions of it anyway) believe is the ideal situation even though I don't think that situation is sustainable or feasible.

But, My God... I thought you were a libertarian. Anarchism should have some appeal to you considering libertarianism and anarchism have a lot of similarities (the only real difference is on the monopoly use of force, policing and military action). Unless I'm totally mistaken about you being a libertarian.

As a self - described "moderate liberatarian", I've noticed that's a common thing that people think "anarchists and libertarians are similar, why don't they get along?" I think the difference is this:

Libertarians want to minimize the authority of organizations to control individuals and other organizations that aren't part of themselves or aren't necessary to accomplish their primary purpose, but libertarians want to retain large organizations. They just want them to stay out of each other's way.

Anarchists oppose large organizations in general on principle.

Take away the laws, and you're free. The Moral Guardians become powerless to impose their values and moral hysterias on the public. Since government money becomes fucking worthless ('cause the whole thing is shut down), nothing stops the people from expropriating businessowners and the fat cats: They can't even buy mercenaries to defend themselves.

Anarchy is the abolition of all the institutions that oppress the Average Joe. The pigs, the military, the judicial system, the government itself... All of that goes up in flames, leaving the burgeoisie defenseless against the ruthless, vindictive, merciless onslaught of the working classes.

When it comes to safety and protection, there's self-defense and mutual defense, which immensely beats the otright inadequate protection provided by the government's jack-booted thugs.

edited 15th Nov '11 2:08:55 PM by SavageHeathen

I'm a strange case. I agree with the ends, but not the means, of libertarianism. For me, the way to achieve a world where people are free to pursue "culture and science" is to use technology to render traditional economics obsolete, not to abolish all government and hope that people acting in their own self-interest betters society.

Also, if we are to live in such a world, the government would probably end up a direct democracy of some sort, with voting tallied through the internet - but such a government would not work in our day and age, since the average citizen isn't nearly as well-educated and aware of the world as, say, a senator. A form of direct democracy depends on education standards being much higher, like Star Trek levels where fifth graders are taking advanced calculus and could shame a philosophy professor.

Why tear down when you could instead build up, Savage? I agree that the growing wealth gap is alarming, but instead of destroying the upper class with violence why not destroy it by making the concept of class worthless? If all people had access to free and high levels of education, if we used technology to make the pursuit of material wealth meaningless, then we'd have ended the upper class by making us all rich.

edited 15th Nov '11 12:07:34 PM by MyGodItsFullofStars

Any compromise with authority is polluting: The only appropriate course of action towards Authority is its eradication and subsequent extermination: Acceptance of authority degrades and vilifies.

The means of production rightfully belong to the working classes: Those that usurp them away from the proletariat deserve destruction.

We're not supposed to accept prohibitions, restrictions and wealth inequality when we could smash the bastards causing them: Submitting to injustice to avoid violence is the coward's way. Pacifism and reformism are worthless.

Alright, in that case, you are not a libertarian. I have no easy label.

I guess generally the presumption that Anarchism, Libertarianism, Objectivism and so on relies upon are two fold

• People follow the rules of the system based on the preconception that everybody is like the author of said system
• People who gain power will not attempt to entrench themselves in a position of power (thus also breaking the rules of the system)

For anarchism, the idea is that you eliminate government, you eliminate any coercive organisation and the expectation is that communities will be built of people who do things that they like and these goods/services are picked up by the community to keep it running. I suppose it is much like marxist communism in that it relies on freedom of mobility to address supply/demand issues for labour. If the things you produce are of no value to the current community, just move to one where it is valued. In this sense, there are only two types of businesses... self employed and cooperatives. Corporations or even small businesses takes away the power of a person to enjoy the full value of the fruits of their labour.

As for policing/military issues, I'm not entirely sure how that is handled in anarchism. I'm guessing that it is based on the idea of community cultural policing. That is, if you do something wrong, as perceived by the local community, you are locally punished for it. It'd be similar to most tribal justice systems which rely heavily on shaming and face-punching.

It also depends on the various communities of the anarchist... "state"... to not use violence against one to gain an advantage. I suppose the presumption here is that people will understand it is more advantageous to work together than not, thus they will tend toward not using violence. This presumption relies on the communities not segregating themselves from one another or developing social cliques and whatnot. It'd probably require a lot of population migration. Thinking about this, it'd probably be useful for communities to post up "needed/wanted" profession postings so people can shift about easily and know where to go. We have the Internet, such a society can use it.

For state-wide issues (such as air travel service) I suppose that using technology, with current telecommunication means, that the people as a whole would devise a system that works for them. And so in this case, the vast majority of communities would have to agree to set it up (build airports, run the planes, maintain air traffic control and so on), so that'd be more like direct democracy.

edited 15th Nov '11 12:27:05 PM by breadloaf

Not quite: The assumption is that most people eventually will follow the few, unwritten rules of the anarcho-syndicalist system... Not out of any sense of loyalty, mind ya, but out of their sheer self-interest.

People formerly worked for somebody, in exchange of a salary. The brunt of the profits went to the businessowner and the shareholders. Under anarchy, the workers are neccessarily the owners of the means of production, and occupancy and use is the only criteria for property. As it is more advantageous for workers to grab the profits than to leave'em to the suit, and it is more advantageous to workers to have a more lax discipline and a more egalitarian worker environment, it is in the self-interest of the working classes to preserve anarchy once it gets built.

The key to preservating anarchy is that no position of responsibility carries any privilege at all, and that any and all positions of command (more like coordination) are always answerable to a very small constituency, and revokable at the whim of such constituents.

As for policing, anarchist trade unions would probably organize the population in a part-time militia: Essentially, people have a right and a duty to keep and bear arms and to help keep order in their communities. As people join cooperatives and quickly get good wages (since there's no suits leeching the profits), property crime is bound to plummet sooner or later. As unarmed victims become rare to non-existent (every anarchist a militiaman, and all that jazz), violent crime becomes a too risky proposition when compared to readily available, steady union jobs at a local co-op.

Kill crime through prosperity, in short.

To settle non-violent disputes, there is a common-sense way: juries drawn out of the community (or mutually agreed arbiters, typically respected but informal community leaders) would determine whether someone was screwed over and, in that case, how much compensation is owed.

edited 15th Nov '11 12:38:00 PM by SavageHeathen

"Take away the laws, and you're free."

Until someone with more guns than you says otherwise.

Isn't that exactly what corporations are doing when they grant you shares as part of your salary?

As for the "every man a militia man" thing, that is basically what we had during the Wild West period. And it was a violent and downright mean society.

I can somewhat agree with the idea of having local government have more power, but in large cities that is somewhat impractical. Now, if we followed Aristotle here and limited the size of cities to ten thousand people...

edited 15th Nov '11 12:45:12 PM by MyGodItsFullofStars

That's my biggest problem with anarchy. There's a lot of laws that don't make sense, or are largely outdated, but for the most part laws exist to protect our rights and prevent harm. Like our right not to be shot by some greedy fuck that decided to rob our house, or is high as a fucking kite. Or prohibits dumbfuck harmful behaviors like driving while drunk.

Under anarchy no one is safe. And you'll notice that under Savage's proposed system people end up developing a hierarchy anyway, and puts people in charge of various function, thus losing any claim to anarchy. The rules may be unwritten (and that's stupid as fuck, by the way) but they still exist and there are people who preside over certain functions of society. Anarchy is only a temporary condition. Humans are bound to create order out of chaos because people are safer in an ordered society.

edited 15th Nov '11 12:43:27 PM by AceofSpades