the anarchy utopia

[Black&Red]

Now don't get me wrong, I'm in nothing against anarchy. I perfectly understand the idea, and I kinda like it.
But if an anarchist revolution would ever succed, wouldn't their be groups of peoples trying to bring a simbling of authority back? Like they would be for sure some extreme right militia appearing a little bit everywhere. And we surely cannot force peoples into something they don't want, especially since they are going to defend their materialistic interests. So the only solution for such a environement to work would be some kind of TAZ(Temporary Autonomous Zone) in wich the anarchist philosphy could be applicated.
My question is now, how could such a system be maintened in place without having peoples trying to break it?


P.S: excuse my orthographe, I shall do my best to improve it.

[Anarch_Mesa]

Now don't get me wrong, I'm in nothing against anarchy. I perfectly understand the idea, and I kinda like it.
But if an anarchist revolution would ever succed, wouldn't their be groups of peoples trying to bring a simbling of authority back? Like they would be for sure some extreme right militia appearing a little bit everywhere. And we surely cannot force peoples into something they don't want, especially since they are going to defend their materialistic interests. So the only solution for such a environement to work would be some kind of TAZ(Temporary Autonomous Zone) in wich the anarchist philosphy could be applicated.
My question is now, how could such a system be maintened in place without having peoples trying to break it?



We could surely not stop people from there thoughts and beliefs. And if capitalists tried to take back what they claim to be theirs they may surely try. There would be more anarchists then them after the first hundred or so years due to the education process. I wouldn't expect an anarchist utopia to be a clean and neat utopia nor would I figure to it be war free. Civil war is a necessity to clean out the scum that has gathered up over the years.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Now don't get me wrong, I'm in nothing against anarchy. I perfectly understand the idea, and I kinda like it.
But if an anarchist revolution would ever succed, wouldn't their be groups of peoples trying to bring a simbling of authority back? Like they would be for sure some extreme right militia appearing a little bit everywhere. And we surely cannot force peoples into something they don't want, especially since they are going to defend their materialistic interests. So the only solution for such a environement to work would be some kind of TAZ(Temporary Autonomous Zone) in wich the anarchist philosphy could be applicated.
My question is now, how could such a system be maintened in place without having peoples trying to break it?


P.S: excuse my orthographe, I shall do my best to improve it.

Communal miltas would gang up on and shoot the right wing ones.

[NewEast]

By removing the causes of people's dis-satisfaction- alienation, poverty etc. Why would people want to overthrow that? The people who would want to would be seen as lunatics. Neonazis won't go away overnight after the revolution, nor will procapitalists.

[trivas7]

Now don't get me wrong, I'm in nothing against anarchy. I perfectly understand the idea, and I kinda like it.
But if an anarchist revolution would ever succed, wouldn't their be groups of peoples trying to bring a simbling of authority back?
OT, but I'm still trying to understand anarchy theoretically: how does any society -- let alone a complex technological one -- function without authority? What does this mean in practice?

[Jazzratt]

Communal miltas would gang up on and shoot the right wing ones.

Don't be fucking stupid. That's just a recipe for continuing a "who has the biggest guns/best fighters" bloodbath which is what anarchism aims to avoid.

Anarchism will not be without a certain amount of authority (techical authority and so on), the interest of anarchism is to abolish states and hierarchies not to create complete chaos.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Don't be fucking stupid. That's just a recipe for continuing a "who has the biggest guns/best fighters" bloodbath which is what anarchism aims to avoid.

Anarchism will not be without a certain amount of authority (techical authority and so on), the interest of anarchism is to abolish states and hierarchies not to create complete chaos.

If a group of people were going around trying to asert is authority on other communes would you not say other communes would intervene?

[Lamanov]

TAZ is a completely idiotic concept. Just like it's creator.

Libertarian revolution would bring about the armed authority of the working class, based on workers' councils. If someone would want to bring back the state of exploitation, they should be stopped (peacefully, but if they use weapons: with weapons).

[Black&Red]

By removing the causes of people's dis-satisfaction- alienation, poverty etc. Why would people want to overthrow that?

Well when one has been living in an environement since a long time it will be hard for him to accept an evolution. Only their child would accept a new life style and find the old one ridiculous.

[Sentinel]

Anarchist society would likely function in a federative, as opposed to separatist/chaotic manner. A nation-wide federation of worker-governed industries and local councils would replace the centralised state, and local communities would have to participate and agree on some basic principles in order to not be isolated and excluded from vital resources.

This would be absolutely necessary to avoid a technological regression and the lowering of living standards.

[Lamanov]

Exactly, Sentinel. And it's very probable that most of the planet would, through federalist, direct-democratic principles, take part in making more unified economic plans for certain sectors of economy, which would ensure the full productivity of our time spent at work and its radical shortening.

[Wake Up]

OT, but I'm still trying to understand anarchy theoretically: how does any society -- let alone a complex technological one -- function without authority? What does this mean in practice?

We don't get rid of ALL authority.

Authority is allowed if it is

a) legitimate. This means that those subjected to it agree to it being set up
and
b) can be dismantled at any time by those subjected to it.
This is the key as it makes sure those under authority regulate it so they know whether it is in their interest or not.

Examples being...

A parent stopping their kid from running into traffic.
The worker co-ordinating the factory for that particular task
A teacher getting her pupil do their work

Some semblance of authority is needed to make the world go round as clearly people often need direction.

[GPDP]

I'd just like to state that the word "utopia" should not be used as a synonym for anarchism. We are not out to create utopia, a perfect society free of all pain, difficulty, and death. We are about bringing about a thoroughly human society, free of exploitation and oppression, which does not mean there will not be any more problems and complications. What our goal should be is to give everyone a say in how to resolve these problems and complications proportional to the degree that they are affected by them.

[Dros]

:lol: TAZ!!!

It's an incredibly good essay and a terribly bad idea.

[Dust Bunnies]

Anarchist society would likely function in a federative, as opposed to separatist/chaotic manner. A nation-wide federation of worker-governed industries and local councils would replace the centralised state, and local communities would have to participate and agree on some basic principles in order to not be isolated and excluded from vital resources.

This would be absolutely necessary to avoid a technological regression and the lowering of living standards.

I do not know what ideology I align with, but I do know that I support this. Also, I'd think with a bunch of councils instead of one big central government, it would be easier to stop reformists from ruining our great living. If a council got reformist we just cut them off from the Federation and support the workers there if they want to fight.

[Norseman]

Now don't get me wrong, I'm in nothing against anarchy. I perfectly understand the idea, and I kinda like it.
But if an anarchist revolution would ever succed, wouldn't their be groups of peoples trying to bring a simbling of authority back? Like they would be for sure some extreme right militia appearing a little bit everywhere. And we surely cannot force peoples into something they don't want, especially since they are going to defend their materialistic interests. So the only solution for such a environement to work would be some kind of TAZ(Temporary Autonomous Zone) in wich the anarchist philosphy could be applicated.
My question is now, how could such a system be maintened in place without having peoples trying to break it?


P.S: excuse my orthographe, I shall do my best to improve it.

You assume that anarchists want to force people to live without authorities. This is not the case. Anarchists merely want people to be able to live without authorities. If people want to create authorities among themselves, that's pretty much unstoppable. If people decide that they want to be peasants in a feudal system, or slaves, anarchists can't do much to stop them. The point of anarchism is offer an alternative which is better than feudalism, or slavery, or capitalism, where no one legitimately exploits or oppresses anyone else. I doubt that people would want to submit to authorities when they don't have to, but if they want to, who am I to tell them they aren't allowed to do that?

[gla22]

I too would like to see a federation of communes or collectives or syndicates. I still haven't decided which of those 3 are the best way to organize society. Possibly a mixture, but i think that is something that will be decided in practice.

[Black&Red]

You assume that anarchists want to force people to live without authorities.

I don't, I just think that if anarchy was realised, there will be many peoples to fight against it, and that will be the problem, since they've all been brainwashed since they were born. Not everybody has our point of view, alot of peoples on this very perticular planet think capitalism is good, and that we need to be governed.


TAZ is a completely idiotic concept.

It depends of you're view on the concept, I've been several times in squattes in Paris and its suburb, and the peoples who lived there had managed to create a small community within abandonned buildings. The only rules there were: 1. You are free to do what you want as long as it doesn't harm others 2.Help peoples in there when you can. And it was made by a bunch a anarchists, homeless and illegal immigrants. Too bad the cops destroyed practicly all the Parisian ones...

[welshboy]

But if an anarchist revolution would ever succed, wouldn't their be groups of peoples trying to bring a simbling of authority back?
Nope not really. In order for any revolution to succeed it needs to have the vast majority of the population behind it.


Like they would be for sure some extreme right militia appearing a little bit everywhere. And we surely cannot force peoples into something they don't want, especially since they are going to defend their materialistic interests.
See above. A revolution is not some wee minority of people imposing their political ideology but the working class self organising for its own ends. People are not generally going to form themselves into little rabid bands of right wing nutters when their material interests are best served by being part of the larger anarchist/communist society.



My question is now, how could such a system be maintened in place without having peoples trying to break it?

Completely ignoring TAZ as it's a load of old toss, see above.

[Norseman]

I don't, I just think that if anarchy was realised, there will be many peoples to fight against it, and that will be the problem, since they've all been brainwashed since they were born. Not everybody has our point of view, alot of peoples on this very perticular planet think capitalism is good, and that we need to be governed.


Right, but why do they think that? They equate anarchy with chaos. They think that everyone would go around killing, raping and looting if there wasn't a heavily enforced legal system. They think that the alternative to capitalism is Stalinism, and being sent to a gulag. A modern anarchist society would make such notions impossible to hold. Freetown Christiana, for example, shows that lack of a legal system, if anything, reduces crime. The problem is that no one who equates anarchy with chaos has heard of it. If there was a town like that in the United States, or several, people would be hard-pressed to maintain their ignorance and brainwashing.