Can somebody explain Anarchy to me?

thumped, pointless

edited 15th Nov '11 3:20:37 PM by Tzetze

Eh, I subscribe myself to a particular concept of left-libertarianism (even considered anarchy by some), and I consider my beliefs to be closer to social liberalism than both right libertarianism and radical anarchism. Not to start explaining my whole belief system now, there SHOULD and MUST be a government, but a lot smaller and more decentralized than the regular idea of a government. Ditto, a state cannot exist without police and a system of law and justice.

Is Anarchy compatible with religion?

That depends greatly on what religion you're talking about, how you're interpreting the teachings of that religion, and the particular brand of anarchism you have in mind.

Which is to say, it depends on who you ask.

Tolstoy wrote an entire book about Christian anarchism. There's also some notable Buddhist thought, I think.

Since Anarchism relies on the non aggression principle, it's compatible so far as you having no right to say another individual can't follow a specific religion and they can't say you have to follow theirs. I'm not sure how it covers proselytizing and missionary work, given that a lot of religions say you should do that, and anarchists supposedly cover free speech which would cover talking about your religion. And should cover a non-forced conversion, though an individual's idea of 'non-forced' can vary. Yeah, don't expect religion to lose its controversial status in an anarchic society.

Ah, but if an individual follows a religion then they are ruled in part by that religion's hierarchy are they not? Religious teachers gain power through their acceptance and that is no longer anarchic.

Like I said before, a purely anarchic society is impossible, given the human impulse towards hierarchy building. (We, at the very least, like having someone to bitch at or about when things go wrong.)

But, given that an anarchic society is supposedly all about the freedom, and many anarchists support the idea of free association, on the surface religion and anarchy don't clash if you choose freely to associate yourself with that religion and its hierarchy.

You could always reject churches' authority. You know, pray in closets, only listen to God, etc.

Like Jesus and the apostles did.

oh wait-

And what's wrong with praying in public? A supposedly anarchic and equal society wouldn't mind a person freely choosing to pray in public if they're not forcing anyone else to do it.

Paraphrasing Matthew 6:6, which seems to get brought up on the subject sometimes.

Anarchy is only a short-term brand of freedom from fascism.

The only way to keep that "freedom" - KILL, BE READY TO KILL, STAY CAPABLE OF KILLING, OR BE KILLED.

I know it's not that simple, but it's almost simple as that. Mo law, No order, No one to stop anyone from killing as a means of self-expression or freedom.

Anarchy is awesome - until someone tries to kill you/dominate you with more weapnory than you. Or until real order is needed again to stop all the killing and actually get some positive/progressive shit done!

That's my take - simple, but I'm sticking with it, thank you very much!

edited 15th Nov '11 2:28:18 PM by LostAnarchist

Most versions of Anarchism allows the development of associations, for instance, in Savage Heathen's version, he has trade unions. Anarchist Syndicalists, which was typical back before feudalism, was more village based leadership. The underlying principle is the lack of "permanent entrenched" leadership. That is, if someone starts abusing their power, they cannot entrench themselves and thus are ousted (peacefully or violently depending on the type of anarchism).

Savage Heathen's form of anarchism for instance relies on the idea that the spreading of the use of force/authority will cause less violence, while other anarchists believe that the removal of the ability to organise people into force will eliminate violence.

So religion is not incompatible with anarchism so long as people are free to switch religions at any time and dump the religious leader.

Can there be scales of anarchism? So you can adopt a more mainstream political view but "a bit more anarchic than the mainstream version"?

Why wouldn't you be able to do that?

Yes, of course. A democratic socialist that supported expanding personal freedom, limiting police powers (eg ending bans on vice/obscene speech, greater privacy protection, etc), and cooperativism and workers' self management as an economic system is somewhat close in thought to an anarcho-syndicalist.

The democratic socialist might prefer a more formal, organized system (still probably with some form of direct democracy), while an anarcho-syndicalist will prefer a more informal, loose system without formal authority and without anyone holding a monopoly on force.

There's room for cooperation between anarchists and democratic socialists when it comes to promoting union activity. workers' cooperatives, and socialistic reforms. If the democratic socialists are also civil libertarians, there's room for cooperation when it comes to personal freedom. Unity between anarchists and democratic socialists during labor struggles and in the struggle against the police State is highly desirable.

edited 15th Nov '11 3:44:13 PM by SavageHeathen

Certainly it would make sense for anarchists to want to work with more moderate parties by way of getting the ball rolling, making the small changes that ultimately lead to greater reductions in the power of authorities. Not all revolutions happen in one glorious coup, and if those who are sceptical can be persuaded through gradual changes that they can easily accept, that would be, if not perfect, reasonable, yes SH?

Honest questions here - obviously, you're a more radical anarchist, so would you work with moderates to achive the goal with a slightly longer than hoped for timescale?

Anarchy is possible as communal anarchy; that is, a community solidified in the absence of a leader. Many rural communities are essencially this, aside from the priest everyone follows. Remove the shepherd, and you still have a community united by moral standards.

It's really simple to do this, provided your community is nigh-obsessed with conformity, the moral codes that unite them, and that they have a great dose of xenophobia.

Actually you don't need much of that for anarcho-syndicalism. What you can't have are much more powerful neighbours than you. The reason anarcho-syndicalism died a horrible death was because entrenched landowners in most places (such as France and Britain) became nobility and used the religious excuse to justify their power. Whether they used religion or not, isn't the issue (they could have used patriotism excuse instead, it works just as well) but they got rich, through mostly luck of geography, then entrenched that power and then were able to form up armies. Once that happened, they went around conquering all the anarcho-syndicalist villages and thus those became feudal instead.

So the real question about anarchism is mostly about how to prevent power entrenchment and in fact almost every system is all about preventing that. Anarchism, in the more modern form, wants to do so through a variety of methods from cooperative trade unions to ad hoc committees for all government. Anarchist communism thinks that people will just do stuff and move around and it'll work out. Democratic capitalists think that if the market is strong there'll be a lot of market players and prevent anybody from becoming successful without "deserving" it (thus power is given to those who run society well, so it's okay).

If I don't have to live by a "Kill or Be Killed" credo of life, I support this. Anything to make more of a proper living than I am now.

In my eyes, Anarchy is more or less "life becomes Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior."

edited 15th Nov '11 5:44:14 PM by MarkVonLewis

Anarchy in a hypothetical method of organizing society so that there is no central, organized entity directing and limiting personal and collective action at any real point, thus, in essence, turning the current order of things on its head, with a bottom-up structure rather than a top-down structure.

...in theory.

In reality? Anarchy Is Chaos. Simplest way to put it.

Your link to a page about how that's a misconception doesn't really support your bare assertion.

And it's obvious that anything TV Tropes has on anarchy is biased, while communism and facism is pretty objective.