Anarchic Dystopia

So, I'm trying to create a dystopian society to be the antagonists of a story I'm creating.

Since totalitarian dystopias are done very, very often, I figured it would be nice to try my hand at an anarchist dystopia. However, I'd like to subvert or avert the typical "Anarchy is chaos" shtick to some degree. Indeed, their infrastructure is sophisticated enough for them to become The Empire in some places.

Here's what I have in mind:

-Law and order are upheld by vigilante mobs.

-Obviously, there's not much in the way of consistent laws. However, there are core ideals to this society that the mobs usually follow.

-Part of their society's unity is owed to their constant warring with a nearby republic whom they (rightly) consider to be a threat to their way of life.

-Instead of a State Sec, they have several cabals of mercenary groups (which I am currently calling the Commissars, though it's very much a working title until I can think of a better title) who profit from the anarchy. They've tasked themselves with keeping the society stable.

-There is no private property. For example, theft in their society is technically somewhat legal, so long as they don't use "excessive force" (picking a lock on someone's house, and then stealing all their goodies is fine. However, stealing a wallet from someone at knife point would be considered something of a party foul).

-There really isn't a leader per say, though they do have a "spokesperson", a celebrity of sorts who creates propaganda for their society. However, she doesn't have any "official power", she just is really eloquent and very much a "true believer". The society could continue on just fine without her.

-Religious practice is banned, sans their "official" religion (which is a borderline Nay-Theist religion of Evil).

edited 31st Jan '15 4:46:47 AM by Protagonist506

Well the biggest issue is if law and order is held up by crime lords, who is the biggest dog in this dog eat dog world? And without a system to cheat what stops these Crime Lords from just being Warlords?

So a big issue is internal warring, how much are the antagonists fighting each other?

I'd like to point out that with no one to enforce the no religions rule that there would be at least one going around, particularly in a dystopia full of people without hope. Like, supporting a large widespread religion like you've very vaguely described actually takes quite a bit of infrastructure, and crushing anything else automatically makes that situation not an anarchy and in fact a totalitarian theocracy of sorts. (Even if is nay-theist, this is the best description I can come up with given what you've told me.) But seriously, in a situation that is supposedly without a leader you can't effectively ban religion. And serious anarchists would probably laugh at you for suggesting that, since free association is a big thing with them; religion should be something you can engage in freely without outside interference.

Also if this woman you've mentioned is the most popular around and she can rally people to her cause, she is de-facto a leader and also a person considered to be a leader in a substantive political sense. (The idea that politics is a popularity contest does have some merit, after all.) If she's just a figurehead, then there's someone that does have the power making her one. Folks don't become figureheads on their own.

It basically sounds like you've got the beginnings of tribalism/feudalism starting here. You could start with how anarchy has led to little or no infrastructure being supported and because of the rampant "non-violent" theft people have gotten incredibly insular and paranoid, which leads into folks becoming tribal. Sickness would abound because hospitals are poorly staffed and defended, and the education of the doctors suffers from there being few schools that can teach anything useful. And already these vigilante mobs are forming, and probably disagree with each other with what constitutes justice, as well has having their favorites that lead the different mobs.

Anarchy is basically only ever a temporary state anyway, because people tend to rally around leaders for various reasons.

edited 11th Feb '15 10:31:57 PM by AceofSpades

One word: Objectivism. Think dragging the whole world back into the Iron Ages (at best), killing untold millions, out of spite. Think serial killers as paragons of strong moral character. Think absolute shameless hypocrisy that, when you think about it, isn't hypocrisy at all when your philosophy holds believing It's All About Me as the highest virtue.

I suppose I probably should have mentioned that their beliefs are basically a Physical Religion. There are certainly divine beings in this world. They believe that God Is Evil, however, and so they've teamed up with the local Satan Expy to fight against him.

They're basically anarcho-communists, so they probably wouldn't resemble objectivism. In fact, they'd likely fall short of even Objectivist ethics. Their society values self-destructive hedonism rather than self-interest.

>> "I suppose I probably should have mentioned that their beliefs are basically a Physical Religion. There are certainly divine beings in this world. They believe that God Is Evil, however, and so they've teamed up with the local Satan Expy to fight against him.

They can believe whatever they want. If it's true anarchism then nobody gets to set the rules for that. Some people might dislike religion, others may hate it, yet others may try to hurt anyone who practises it. But outlawing it, that's out of consideration.

>> "They're basically anarcho-communists, so they probably wouldn't resemble objectivism. In fact, they'd likely fall short of even Objectivist ethics. Their society values self-destructive hedonism rather than self-interest."

The same as above, if it's true anarchism then there isn't anything "the society" values. If it's really anarchy then thinking of it as a "society" rather than a collection of individuals is a major misconception. So objectivism is a fairly good approximation of it.

And if it's not true anarchism but instead a facsimile of it created via a mockery of communism, then you can't deconstruct the anarchy part of it because it already is a result of deconstructing the alleged communism rather than something you'd be able to deconstruct at all.

edited 14th Feb '15 12:06:12 PM by Kazeto

Yeah, one of the major precepts of anarchy is that you can't prevent someone from worshipping as they please. The non aggression principle is a popular concept with them which is basically the golden rule: I won't act like a dick to you because I don't want you to act like a dick to me. But no one passes law except by consent of the group; the problems occur when different groups disagree on how to get that consent, often going to direct democracy which works well at local levels but because a huge mess when larger numbers are involved. There's also the fact that without actual law enforcers, enacting trial and punishment is... a troubled pursuit, at best. This conflict as it stands is just going to be one religious group fighting with a less religious group for control of the populace.

What you've got here isn't anarchic dystopia so far. It's more taking the shape of a theocratic and/or authoritarian dystopia. Now, if you're trying to make a point or illustrate how real anarchy eventually develops into this sort of fuedalistic nightmare that's one way to go about it; how it devolves from an actual anarchy into the tribalism that humans tend to form.

There's basically a lot in anarchic philosophy and you'd do well to read up on at least the basics if you want to actually try this. And if you're depicting anarcho-communism specifically then you really need to study. And possibly delve more into how the anarchy and communism parts of that can conflict? I mean really I know you don't want to tell a story about authoritarian dystopia but it seems that's where you're headed to with this story without realizing it.

edited 15th Feb '15 9:05:12 PM by AceofSpades

I was going for a society that's orderly, unified, but still not really formally governed. After hearing thoughts, I'm thinking I actually will roll with basically those implications. Their society claims to be anarchic in nature (and uses such rhetoric when it suits its needs), but in truth is a terrifying feudalistic society that's become every bit as oppressive as the "tyrants" they claim to hate, if not a lot more.