Problem with Anarchy

[TMA_1]

I know a few friends who agree with the idea that people can take care of themselves, and that it would best help the people to let themselves rule than to have big government. I dont know much on the issue of anarchy so anyone who wants to help and give me some good places to learn about it please do so, but I have problems with the idea.

first, how can we have pure anarchy and still keep our infrastructure? Wouldnt it be impossible to maintain our infrastructure without beurocracy? how can we keep our sophisicated way of life without having mass unification? In order to keep producing things that we need for daily living, we need order to keep things going smoothly. It just seems to me in order for anarchy to work, we would need to cut back on our advancements and decentralize, which would cut down on all of our advancements. I mean isnt this obvious to any of you? and why dont people see this? Also I have noted that people who do agree with the ideas of real anarchy are usually extremely idealistic and never ask these questions, and usually have a lot of the good stuff, or have had a lot of the good stuff in life. Dont they realize that life would be much more difficult? It seems to me that it would have to go back to a subsistance based grouping of small cultures.

[Dante]

I wouldn't call people taking care of themselves anarchy. If were were to live as seperate families (as opposed to in communities), then there wouldn't really be anarchy as there is nothing inherently chaotic in this state of affairs. We could certainly function, i.e. survive, but it would be impossible to live as we do now. Modern productions rely almost exclusively on companies working together, or cities interacting with each other. Without that there would be no international finance, no internet, no plastics... We would have craftsmen, yes, so there would still be boats and chairs. But there would be no ships or cars.

True anarchy, complete with martial law, would be much more interesting. Better functioning in some ways, worse in others.

Edit: Besides which, if there were no communities then there would be no mxing of genes. Small gene pool = very very bad.

[TMA_1]

but wouldnt law be inherently against the principle of anarchy? see what I am saying is that anarchy is a myth. If we really lived in a form of pure anarchy, we would revert to a more animalistic state. There has to be some sort of order to maintain an infrastructure, economically and politically.

[Dante]

Well yeah pure anarchy is impossible. Just as pure chaos is impossible. But some things are more anarchic than others.

[Dante]

Anarchy, disorder, chaos... close enough. Anarchy is possible, it just isn't workable. If there is order in any form, it is not truly anarchic. Pure anarchy isn't even worth debating.

[TMA_1]

Anarchy is possible, if the people involved are mature enough.

That is a pretty blind assumption. You know as well as I do that most people in this world are dupes, and most create problems that would cripple any kind of unenforced law or rule of living. If we cannot even take care of ourselves and if we cannot even stop warring with one another, if we cannot stop drug use from stopping and crime rates from falling completely, how then can we have any stable form of anarchy? How could businesses still produce the things we cherish, and how could we focus all of our powers towards anything unifying or constructive if it is all based on the individual's desire to help or or help contribute? It depends too much on the individual, which needs goading. It is funny that the same people who complain about the "idiots who voted for bush" are some of the same people who wish for a world without government, where everything is voluntary.

[Caid Ivik]

Anarchy, disorder, chaos... close enough. Anarchy is possible, it just isn't workable. If there is order in any form, it is not truly anarchic. Pure anarchy isn't even worth debating.

Anarchy does not mean essentially disorder. A social structure exists always, sometimes in more and sometimes in less institutionalized form. Anarchy means no such institution; actions depends fully on actual will of participants. However, it still would be bound by laws of nature and sociology. Hard to find some merits of it...unless you are a good cybernetist to organize it without any interference with individual will. It could be found so in world of ads, for example.

[nemafakei]

There are many definitions of anarchy, the most basic being absence of a state; some use the term to mean a self-regulated society (to varying degrees) organised by common will.

Pure anarchy will almost certainly beget structure of some kind - either a mutual agreement among communities and trade between them, or the development of factions which may either be peaceful or predatory.

In practical terms, however, since every individual or faction is looking out for its own interests first, the best decisions may not be made. Large projects, like the overseeing of a national power grid or long supply chains, are vulnerable, and virtually impossible to set up.

The possibilities of semi-anarchy very much depend on the definition, which can vary from a sort of liberal communism to libertarian capitalism. As with pure anarchy, it's pretty vulnerable to crime and antisocial behaviour, especially by those who are prepared to go from place to place and evade the law or by those who have enough force to be immune.

Essentially, anarchy will only work if everyone takes account of everyone else - which is far too big an assumption to make.

[Dude_Doc]

Anarchy is communism. What is needed for this kind of society is machines that help human beings. I think these kinds of societies are way ahead... better start thinking about socialism first :D ...

[Mihail]

Anarchy wn't work. Simple as that. The world as we know it relies on there being a leader, one who is superior and can command us, lead us. With anarchy, there is no such leader. EVERY SINGLE PERSON WOULD HAVE TO FEND FOR HIMSELF! For example, 10 people band together, but they can't have any progress if they don't have a leader. So OOPS! No leaderhsip, no progress, no nothing. If true anarchy were in force, we would probably go backwards, technology-wise.

Progress would stop, we'd become primitive Neanderthals, or worse.

[nemafakei]

"Anarchy is communism."

Not necessarily. You could argue that communism (in the abolition of the state sense) will lead to Anarchy, but not all anarchy adheres in any way to communism.

"What is needed for this kind of society is machines that help human beings. I think these kinds of societies are way ahead... better start thinking about socialism first ..."

The problem is a technologically dependant society would have the most trouble adjusting to a socety whose decision-making was entirely devolved to the individual level, for above reasons.

[TMA_1]

I was listening to a teacher talk about John Locke's idea about government. That the State of Nature leads to complete freedom in every possibly way imagined, both for the good and the bad. It seems interesting how it was phrased that Government is made to fight off the evils of our nature, while attempting to nurish and support the good. Of course this doesnt always work but that is why John Locke put in with his three liberties a kind of fourth fringe liberty, the right to revolt if it is needed. What do you guys think of John Locke, and what do you think of the statements made by him as it partains to this thread?

[Mahdi]

These three kids were out on the street one day playing near the house of an anarchist.

The anarchist, being the responsible gun owner he is, begins to clean his weapon.

Deciding it is such a nice day he steps outside to complete his duty.

AFter finishing cleaning it he decides to try a few quick draws.  Wyatt Fucking Earp.

Now the mother of the kids ssut happens to step outside at that moment and see's the anarchist playing with his gun.

"Hey!  What are you doing?!  You could kill one of my children!"

"Well ma'am," replies the anarchist, "I'm a responsible anarchist:  I promise that if I kill one of your children I'll help you replace him."

[Edric O]

Anarchists have gone to great lengths to explain how anarchy would work, precisely in order to answer all these popular objections that are so often raised against them.

Now, first of all, anarchists DO NOT want "chaos". In fact, they are so opposed to the idea of lawless chaos that the sign they use for themselves - the circle-A, which you most likely know - was created to symbolize the motto "Anarchy is Order". The kind of anarchy that is advocated by anarchists is more or less the same as communism. Both anarchism and communism seek to abolish capitalism and ultimately establish a communistic society. The main difference is that anarchists want to establish that society right away, while communists want to establish socialism first, and communism only later. This means that anarchists and communists have the same long-term goals, but their short-term goals are very different - a fact which has caused many conflicts between the two. Anarchists accuse communists of being "authoritarian" because they wish to preserve the state for the duration of socialism, while communists accuse anarchists of being naive and unrealistic because they think a communistic society can be created as soon as capitalism is abolished.

Now, when I say that anarchists and communists have the same long-term goals, I'm talking in general terms. In the beginning (that is, 150 years ago), their long-term goals were indeed absolutely identical. But, over the years, different anarchists have developed different visions of anarchy, some of which are only partially communistic. The communists, for their part, have been (are still are) mostly concerned with socialism, not communism (the idea is that we can worry about communism after we have established socialism).

But all that was just an introduction. If you want to know how anarchy (or, for that matter, communism) would work, you can read what the anarchists have to say for themselves. Here are two links:

How could an anarchist economy function?

What could the social structure of anarchy look like?