Possible problems in Anarchism

[RGacky3]

Most debates about Communism (Anarchism) end up comming down to Capitalists, comming up with an unlikely hypothetical problem that may make things unequal, or give someone more power or somthing and the Anarchist/Communist trying to patch over that problem with details on what the solution might be.

Heres the issue I have with that, Anarchism is not a system, its a set of principles, in order to argue against Anarchism you have to prove 2 things, 1. the State and Private property are nessesary,
2. Everyone is better of WITH the state and private property than without.

If you find a problem or a flaw that could hypothetically happen in Anarchism you hav'nt shown those 2 things, all you've shown is something can go wrong.

Whereas if we switch that around, we can point out hudreds of things that ARE going wrong, that are very serious and are directly caused by the State and Private Property.

Generally the problems boil down to really insignificant things, like one guy has 2 TVs whereas his neighbor has 1, or one guys really good at speaking and people listen to him more. Which is a horrible argument against Anarchism.

The reason I posted this is in a way to discuss how Anarchism IS discussed.

[Demogorgon]

Arguments against anarchism need not have anything to do with property. After all, I oppose property but am skeptical to say the least about anarchism.

My problem comes partly from observing the extremely authoritarian impulses of some anarchists here and wondering what mechanisms might exist in a society to prevent the kind of arbitrary abuses of people that they would be quite happy to carry out.

[RGacky3]

My problem comes partly from observing the extremely authoritarian impulses of some anarchists here and wondering what mechanisms might exist in a society to prevent the kind of arbitrary abuses of people that they would be quite happy to carry out.

How does the State stop that? See theres an example, your saying that there might be abuses in Anarchism, but your not saying how having a State would stop those abuses, or how it does? Because look around, it does'nt, in fact, it commits them

[wigsa]

I'm unease at the way you stated 'communism(anarchism)'.I am a communist,but am most certainly not an anarchist.What do you base this on?

[RGacky3]

Communism and Anarchism are ultimately the same thing.

People who call themselves communists may or may not be Anarchists, some believe in reaching Communism using Lenins approach.

I just put that there out of habit, so that people don't think of Anarchism being libertarianism or Nihilism.

[Demogorgon]

How does the State stop that? See theres an example, your saying that there might be abuses in Anarchism, but your not saying how having a State would stop those abuses, or how it does? Because look around, it does'nt, in fact, it commits them
It does, but to a lesser extent than it might. Further, it is to be hoped that a more democratic socialist state might be less inclined to do so.

At any rate what a state can provide that anarchism cannot is a system of checks and balances that prevent abuses of power by certain parties. Even in the United States, a country not noted for the best behaviour of its Government many particularly awful acts by the Government have been prevented by the courts for instance and in turn some abuses by the courts have been dealt with. It is hardly perfect, but it works better elsewhere and sets a model to be improved upon further.

To give an example of what worries me about anarchism: criminal justice. Often you see anarchists talking about how "the community will deal with offenders". When I hear that I think of kangaroo courts and brutal retribution. If I am accused of a crime I want to be tried by an impartial jury and if found guilty have the opportunity to appeal and limits imposed on any punishment i am given so that I am not treated cruelty or have my life or human dignity violated. How can a system that has the local community deciding upon the guilt and punishment of the accused (whose treatment will depend on their popularity) possibly ensure that?

Further, if "the community" is able to issue ordinances as it pleases without any check upon it, what is to prevent it from deciding that only people of a certain racial group can reside there, or that homosexuality should be banned or that secularism be violated, either by banning religion or imposing a particular one? To stop this from happening we need an authority (an elected democratic one of course) that can be appealed to to redress such acts of authoritarianism with a clearly defined set of legal rights that we agree shall not be violated.

Do not get me wrong, I do not want an authoritarian state. The level of control I want devolved down to the individual or the community surpasses that of many anarchists. I favour direct democracy and believe all laws should be passed by the people in referendum before they come into effect and that any elected bodies or officials be subjected to the constant scrutiny of the people and be recallable at any time. However the crucial aspect of this system in my eyes should be that it will have clear limits on power and guarantees that certain actions may not be carried out and that all people will be protected from abuse by any istiitution of power, no matter who it might be.

[RGacky3]

Often you see anarchists talking about how "the community will deal with offenders". When I hear that I think of kangaroo courts and brutal retribution. If I am accused of a crime I want to be tried by an impartial jury and if found guilty have the opportunity to appeal and limits imposed on any punishment i am given so that I am not treated cruelty or have my life or human dignity violated. How can a system that has the local community deciding upon the guilt and punishment of the accused (whose treatment will depend on their popularity) possibly ensure that?

Yes but why do you need a central State to have a justice system with a impartial jury, you don't need a State to make mutually agreed on rules and justice systems.

Infact Kangaroo trials with the State can happen easily, because the court is part of a centralized system that might have an interest in justice NOT being served.


Further, if "the community" is able to issue ordinances as it pleases without any check upon it, what is to prevent it from deciding that only people of a certain racial group can reside there, or that homosexuality should be banned or that secularism be violated, either by banning religion or imposing a particular one? To stop this from happening we need an authority (an elected democratic one of course) that can be appealed to to redress such acts of authoritarianism with a clearly defined set of legal rights that we agree shall not be violated.

Whats to stop the State from doing that as well? They have done it, and it was only over turned with extreme mass pressure. Why is the middle man nessesary?

The Checks and Balances can be in place with Anarchism, infact it is in place, the checks and Balancese include everyone.

[danyboy27]

i know i know i said i would stop posting, but it like a drug.

Anarchism is not the problem, and the concept of state is not the problem neither, the problem is how radical both the concept of state and anarchism are interpreted.

i think an all seeking, authoritarian state is definitively not the answer, same goes for a full blown radical anarchism, both are completly doomed to fail, beccause they are just too extreme.

one system put a complete reliance on a structure of bureucracy, and the other a complete reliance on the goodwill and honesty of peoples.

its foolish to completly rely on a frame of bureaucrat, and its foolish to rely on the goodwill, honesty and solidarity of people.

if you cant completly rely on human or on bureaucracy.

a good mix would be a wise mix of the two.

[Demogorgon]

Yes but why do you need a central State to have a justice system with a impartial jury, you don't need a State to make mutually agreed on rules and justice systems.

Infact Kangaroo trials with the State can happen easily, because the court is part of a centralized system that might have an interest in justice NOT being served.You need some sort of state to have a legal system. Otherwise there will be no consistency. Sometimes acts will be illegal, sometimes they wont (and there will be no warning in advance which it will be and the same goes for potential punishments. Of course you can say that the Community can draw up a legal code, but firstly, how is that different from a legal code being adopted by direct democracy and secondly what will the jurisdiction of this community be? The question of exactly where these laws will apply will be difficult.

And sure, a court can be biased and unfair, but in a properly democratic system the risk of this is minimised. But under anarchism it depends on the character of those who happen to be conducting the case.



Whats to stop the State from doing that as well? They have done it, and it was only over turned with extreme mass pressure. Why is the middle man nessesary?

The Checks and Balances can be in place with Anarchism, infact it is in place, the checks and Balancese include everyone.
Sure states do it, but a democratic state is less likely to do it than an anarchical society simply because there are checks to stop there being an abuse of power. An anarchist society lacks that, because once a decision is made it happens, end of story. If a community decides that non-whites will be rounded up and executed, non-whites are rounded up and executed. In a democratic society, no whites have the right to appeal to higher authority to prevent their execution. That is the difference. it is by no means a guarantee that bad things won't happen, but it will reduce the likelihood.

[danyboy27]

perhaps the answer is a extremely decentralized state, surrounded with many semi-autonomous regions.

[Demogorgon]

perhaps the answer is a extremely decentralized state, surrounded with many semi-autonomous regions.
Something like that is indeed probably the route that should be taken.

[danyboy27]

spetz opening his guiness beerseriously, i think that tbe best compromise for socialist, communists, anarchists or even capitalists!

In a country like america for exemple, a federal governement would exist, But each state would have the right of decide a lot more than it used to do.
if for exemple, the state of Wisconsin wanted to become an anarchist state, he would have the right to do it, he could change its electoral structure, economical system, everything the people want. The federal governement would have a head of state that would be elected but would act more like an administrative and a representant of the entire country. He Could not use the military but would have has a task to take care of it and many other little importants things such has the management of ressources, would have to aknowledge the other state of what going on outside etc. If the state of newyork want to be capitalist, he could, but would have a way or another to give something to the governement, not necessarly money, could be construction contract, could be many things.

the concept of federal governement would be more like a maintenance
system, giving to people opportunity to be whatever they want.
states could not fight eachother, but if for some reason the state of texas want to send some troop to stop a genocide in africa, he would have to make a voting session thru the entiere nation, if his idea didnt earn more than 50%, the governement wont send its troops, but the texas would be free to send his milita if they want to.

i know, it sound sooo libertarian, but that the most in between option i found so far.

[Mindtoaster]

Only as a means to protect minority groups (Racial, sexual, etc...) from persecution. Its sad, but from living in the South I see it as unfortunately necessary. There will be strong reactionary tendencies present in certain communities, even after the revolution, and in an anarchistic society they can use the powers of total self-determination granted to their communities as a way of passing legislation, terrorizing, forcefully converting and even possibly executing the "unwanteds" amongst them. It has always been the problem with attempts at extremely small government, such as during the aftermath of the American revolution.

Its unfortunate, and I really do want to be an anarchist, but it strikes me as a potential disaster for minorities in certain areas.

My quote from another thread.

Its my one problem with anarchism and I haven't really thought of or heard a convincing solution.

[Bilan]

Anarchism is not small government.

[danyboy27]

Anarchism is not small government.

anarchism, if i understand my good friend wacky, is a classeless society that is still organized in an egalitarian manner with an orgasotinal body managing the ressources.

what i am saying is, give to the people the choice of their governements inside a country.

[RGacky3]

if for exemple, the state of Wisconsin wanted to become an anarchist state, he would have the right to do it, he could change its electoral structure, economical system, everything the people want. The federal governement would have a head of state that would be elected but would act more like an administrative and a representant of the entire country. He Could not use the military but would have has a task to take care of it and many other little importants things such has the management of ressources, would have to aknowledge the other state of what going on outside etc. If the state of newyork want to be capitalist, he could, but would have a way or another to give something to the governement, not necessarly money, could be construction contract, could be many things.


Heres the problem, to have a State means to ave a monopoly on violence, and innate authority, there is NO WAY in hell a State of any type would allow anarchism.

Also how would a state Choose to be Capitalist? would they Choose to let a few people own everything? Who would choose? That would be a like a country choosing to be monarchist when the other option is democracy :P.

If the people are free to choose their governments, and dispose of them at any time, and those governments do not have any innate authoiryt or monopoly on violence, then I'm ok with that, but thats not a State.

[danyboy27]

Heres the problem, to have a State means to ave a monopoly on violence, and innate authority, there is NO WAY in hell a State of any type would allow anarchism.

Also how would a state Choose to be Capitalist? would they Choose to let a few people own everything? Who would choose? That would be a like a country choosing to be monarchist when the other option is democracy :P.

If the people are free to choose their governments, and dispose of them at any time, and those governments do not have any innate authoiryt or monopoly on violence, then I'm ok with that, but thats not a State.

the state wont have the monopoly on violence and autoritah in that case.
the state will be more like one of your organisational body you where talking about in your recents theories of anarchism.

the only difference is that in my exemple the state got a little bit more power, but not too much, and it give to the people the right to choose their system.

if there is something more important than anarchism and communism, its to lets the people to decide of their system, and its only achivable for relatively small sector and small area.

if alabama voted to have a capitalist governement and that all the people or almost all voted to be ruled that way, all we can do is respect their choices.
and if has i mentionned the wisconsin decide to have some kind of socialist system in their land and that they voted for it, all we can do is respect their choices.

the states who dont want to join a military adventure copuld choose to not go.

that a verry broad exemple, but in my exemple, the state help to keep a certain cohesion while letting the people from differents place decide wich system they want according to their choices.

extreme advocacy for an end of the state or a reinforcement of the state to an authoritarian level would result in both of the case having a bunch of eople pissed being killed or killing another bunch of people.

now try to understand that i said rextreme advocacy, i dont want to say that state is bad or anarchism is bad, but that going extreme on both side tend to get a shitload of people killed.

[RGacky3]

if alabama voted to have a capitalist governement and that all the people or almost all voted to be ruled that way, all we can do is respect their choices.
and if has i mentionned the wisconsin decide to have some kind of socialist system in their land and that they voted for it, all we can do is respect their choices.

Capitalism is not a form of government, its impossible, because of the very nature of Capitalism, to vote it in.


the state wont have the monopoly on violence and autoritah in that case.
the state will be more like one of your organisational body you where talking about in your recents theories of anarchism.


Then it has no way to exert its authority, wihtout a monopoly on violence, the only way would be mutual consent, in which case its not a state at all.


the only difference is that in my exemple the state got a little bit more power, but not too much, and it give to the people the right to choose their system.

The question is what gives the state its power? Its army? Its Money (only possible in a Capitalist system).

Unfortunately its kind of impossible to have a halfway between a State and Anarchism, because if you have a state, you have an entity with innate authoirty, if it does'nt have that, then everyone has the option not to listen to it, to have innate authority generally means a monopoly on violence, thats every state in history, thats what defines a state, without that, all you have is an entity giving suggestions.

[danyboy27]

Capitalism is not a form of government, its impossible, because of the very nature of Capitalism, to vote it in.


but you can elect a governement that is more toward a capitalistic economic system.






Then it has no way to exert its authority, wihtout a monopoly on violence, the only way would be mutual consent, in which case its not a state at all.

the state would be there in order to be sure the states wouldnt kick each other ass, and to make sure some basic principles of laws would be applied (dont kill dont rape etc.). Most of the laws will be decided by the autonomous region.

it woudl be sure to assure has i said earlier cohesion.



Unfortunately its kind of impossible to have a halfway between a State and Anarchism, because if you have a state, you have an entity with innate authoirty, if it does'nt have that, then everyone has the option not to listen to it, to have innate authority generally means a monopoly on violence, thats every state in history, thats what defines a state, without that, all you have is an entity giving suggestions.

make sure some basic stuff are applied and would work to make stuf work together, Organize in some circumstences disaster relief, establish some standards regarding heatlh and food.
The statd would have an armed forces, and SOME principles and rules would have to be applied by all states or regions, but basicly verry fews.
Police would be a regional issue but army a national issue.

the state would have the power to use it armed force with over 50% of the approval of the population, and has the use of the armed forces against its own population would be authorized if something really bad hit the fan: IE the wisconsin invade a neighboring province.

[Mindtoaster]

Anarchism is not small government.

Its smaller then small, its non-existent, but it runs into the same problems pre-constitutional America faced, which is religious/racial/sexual persecution in areas due to the individual states having so much self-determination in their laws. It could possibly be worse in an anarchistic society when there is no state to intervene and protect minority citizens.

[Bud Struggle]

Its smaller then small, its non-existent, but it runs into the same problems pre-constitutional America faced, which is religious/racial/sexual persecution in areas due to the individual states having so much self-determination in their laws. It could possibly be worse in an anarchistic society when there is no state to intervene and protect minority citizens.

In it's purist form I doubt anything is more "beautiful" than Anarchy. Without a doubt it's the perfect way to live. Every man, woman and child free and equal and living life to the best and fullest without constraints and without any reasons other than joy and fulfillment.

I honestly don't see it working--but mayby I'm too jaded by how this world has been lived in so far.

[RGacky3]

but you can elect a governement that is more toward a capitalistic economic system.

Governments dont' set economic systems, and definately not a Capitalistic one, and never democratically, what people in their right mind would VOTE to make something that belongs to everyone, belong to a small elite, what people would vote to make a class society?


the state would be there in order to be sure the states wouldnt kick each other ass, and to make sure some basic principles of laws would be applied (dont kill dont rape etc.). Most of the laws will be decided by the autonomous region.

it woudl be sure to assure has i said earlier cohesion.

How? You ignored my question. Who enforces them and how?


the state would have the power to use it armed force with over 50% of the approval of the population, and has the use of the armed forces against its own population would be authorized if something really bad hit the fan: IE the wisconsin invade a neighboring province.

So in essense your talking about a UN, but WITH an army, heres the problem, do you know why the UN has no power? Because its exactly what your talking about. THe United States does'nt have to lsiten to the UN, and smaller countries only have to listen to the UN if the United States or some other power is behind it.


Its smaller then small, its non-existent, but it runs into the same problems pre-constitutional America faced, which is religious/racial/sexual persecution in areas due to the individual states having so much self-determination in their laws. It could possibly be worse in an anarchistic society when there is no state to intervene and protect minority citizens.

Look at historicaly Anarchist Societies, that, has NEVER been a problem, to assume that, those things would be a problem is to assume they are innate human nature, and not caused human thinking.


I honestly don't see it working--but mayby I'm too jaded by how this world has been lived in so far.

It has worked, and very well mind you.

[danyboy27]

small anarchists society never had a problem.. give me an anarchist community that was composed of more than 5 million peoples and lasted at least 10 year.

[Ele'ill]

small anarchists society never had a problem.. give me an anarchist community that was composed of more than 5 million peoples and lasted at least 10 year.

I agree. Anarchism would work within a smaller community.

[apathy maybe]

Just a general post regarding "laws" in an anarchist society.

The basic "law" that you would have to follow would be "don't hurt other folks". If you follow this "law" then you won't be getting into shit.

That means, that you can smoke pot all you like, get pissed, use coke whatever. You can drive without a seat belt as well for all I care.

But, if you drive while drunk and you hurt someone else, then expect people to be at least a little annoyed.

If you speed and don't hit anyone, then it'll probably be fine for you, but if you hit someone, it might be that no one will invite you to parties any more. (If you speed at all, it might be that people take away the car that you use. I guess it would depend on the community.)

If you poison a river, then people will not be happy.

Basically, the easiest way to not get into trouble is to not hurt anyone. Also, if you aren't sure about an action, ask people first, and see what they think. If they think it might hurt someone else, and you do it anyway, then you might get into trouble.

*shrug*

But there won't be something like "driving while naked" is legal this week, but next week it will get you thrown in the slammer for a bit. That's just fucking stupid.

[RGacky3]

small anarchists society never had a problem.. give me an anarchist community that was composed of more than 5 million peoples and lasted at least 10 year.


Barcalona is quite a big city is'nt it? I'm not sure if its 5 million but its big.

[Demogorgon]

But there won't be something like "driving while naked" is legal this week, but next week it will get you thrown in the slammer for a bit. That's just fucking stupid.
How can you know for sure? In an anarchist society the law will have to be developed on a case by case basis, of course if people agree to be bound by precedent you can create a new common law, but there is no guarantee it will be kept. Laws will be varied, that is inevitable and sometimes popular people will be let off or unpopular people persecuted.

Moreover even if the laws are consistent it concerns me that punishments could often be way out of proportion. You hear people all the time call for cruel punishments, such people won't vanish. How can cruelty be prevented in criminal justice and indeed how can arbitrary punishment be prevented?

And of course, courts get things wrong, in an anarchist society, there can hardly be appeal courts because that would be creating hierarchy, submitting the will of the people to a higher authority, so how can miscarriages of justice be rectified?

Don't get me wrong, I would live to think that anarchy could work, but these things make me skeptical. Hell this board can't even operate the CC fairly without constant witch hunts and such. How can a wider society be expected to maintain a decent justice system without set rules and checks on court power?

[apathy maybe]

There are some fairly basic principles, without which a society is not "anarchistic".

Anyway, the basic "rule" (as I said above), would be "don't hurt other people". Well, except when they want you to, and in self defence.

Another thing is punishment, there wouldn't be any. Punishment doesn't work. Instead, the main two principles would be "self defence" (which I've talked about in other places on the board) and "free association" (which I've also talked about before).

If you do something that hurts other people, they have the right to fight back, then and their. However, later, no. However, if you persistently hurt others, then "self defence" kicks in. The community has the right to defend it self. If you are a proven repeat rapist, then the community has the right to deal with you so that you won't do it again.

Free association basically means that the community can refuse to have anything to do with you, up to and including exiling you.

Oh, and as you mentioned, no hierarchy. I can't arbitrarily enforce my self upon you. And saying that driving while naked is "illegal" is enforcing yourself upon me, when you have no justification for that act (I'm not hurting you).


Of course, there exists the possibility that there could be a society that resembles an anarchist society, but that makes driving while naked illegal. But that society wouldn't be anarchistic to that extent.

[freakazoid]

How can you know for sure? In an anarchist society the law will have to be developed on a case by case basis, of course if people agree to be bound by precedent you can create a new common law, but there is no guarantee it will be kept. Laws will be varied, that is inevitable and sometimes popular people will be let off or unpopular people persecuted.

Something that needs to be kept in mind is that it takes anarchists for anarchy to work. So if there are anarchist societies then that means you won't have this problem.

[Demogorgon]

Something that needs to be kept in mind is that it takes anarchists for anarchy to work. So if there are anarchist societies then that means you won't have this problem.
And therein lies the problem. When for something to work, everyone has to agree, you can guarantee that it won't work.

[freakazoid]

And therein lies the problem. When for something to work, everyone has to agree, you can guarantee that it won't work.

Well then it looks like we didn't have a very successful revolution, and not everyone has to agree in order for something to be done.

[Ele'ill]

Well then it looks like we didn't have a very successful revolution, and not everyone has to agree in order for something to be done.

I swear i'm not picking on you, freakazoid. :cool:

You're right. Not everything requires consent from everyone. The most important things that need to get done are local issues, Sewage, water, trash, medical and would not need a national movement behind them for people to work on them.

However, even these local issues would have to include a huge amount of people because of how congested we are (North America as an example because that's where I live). Its hard enough getting the sheep to vote for their sheep leader let alone getting them to vote on issues that will actually affect them.

Do you think it will be easier to get them to participate because the issues affect them greatly or harder?

[RGacky3]

And therein lies the problem. When for something to work, everyone has to agree, you can guarantee that it won't work.

No, not everyone has to agree on everything, which si the beauty in Anarchism, everyone has as mch personal choice as possible, people have to agree when there is an issue that effects both of them, and people comming to an agreement, or a compromise on issues, although it mimght take work, its (I hope to you) preferable thant one or a couple people making hte desicion and then forcing it on other people whether they like it or not.

you can Attack Anarchism in that way, saying that, but look at the alternative. Having a free Society might be hard, it might take work, there may be problems, but the alternative, is tyranny, so go ahead, make a choice.

[Demogorgon]

No, not everyone has to agree on everything, which si the beauty in Anarchism, everyone has as mch personal choice as possible, people have to agree when there is an issue that effects both of them, and people comming to an agreement, or a compromise on issues, although it mimght take work, its (I hope to you) preferable thant one or a couple people making hte desicion and then forcing it on other people whether they like it or not.

you can Attack Anarchism in that way, saying that, but look at the alternative. Having a free Society might be hard, it might take work, there may be problems, but the alternative, is tyranny, so go ahead, make a choice.Oh come on, that is a false dichotomy if ever there was one. I believe in the people as a whole making decisions but I believe it should be done within a clear permanent framework with safeguards in place to prevent arbitrary decisions.

I didn't say that anarchy requires everybody to agree on everything but rather was countering Freakazoid's statement that it requires people to be anarchists. Now his statement might not be true, but it could very well be the case. If you have people who don't accept that they shouldn't impose their will on others, what is to stop them doing it if they are the majority in any given area? What if for instance a Community decides that homosexual acts are to be forbidden in its territory, what can be done to stop that happening?

[RGacky3]

If you have people who don't accept that they shouldn't impose their will on others, what is to stop them doing it if they are the majority in any given area? What if for instance a Community decides that homosexual acts are to be forbidden in its territory, what can be done to stop that happening?

Its yet to be shown to me why that might even be an issue. Generally bigotry is a reaction against adverse circumstances a scape goat (such as in the United States south, or anti immigrant feeling in europe), or imposed from above (such as nazi germany or islamic fundementalist bigotry against women).

Now the slight chance that that might be a possibility, (I don't really think is would be personally, especially if that community has actually gone through an anarchist uprising and dismantled power,) is not a justification of state power, thats like saying democracy might have a problem so we should have kings.

[Mindtoaster]

Do anarchists believe that there has to be a world revolution?

If a community, country, city, whatever decides it wants anarchism and everyone in the city is an anarchist, I don't see any real problems arising.

I think the problems will arise when you overthrow a state that still has reactionary and loyalist communities within its borders. Those are where you have to worry about persecution and chaos.

[RGacky3]

Do anarchists believe that there has to be a world revolution?

For what? There should be one, I'd like to see one, but an anarchist society does'nt need the rest of the world to be anarchist to survive (although anarchist societies have a tendancy to get a lot of heat from everyone else), but I can't speak for other anarchists.


I think the problems will arise when you overthrow a state that still has reactionary and loyalist communities within its borders. Those are where you have to worry about persecution and chaos.

So your saying that people after given freedom, and equality, would actually FIGHT to put their bosses back in charge of them, they would actually WANT to be told what to do, and have freedom and the fruit of their labor taken from them?

You see how there are really no more Monarchists around? The same principle.

[Mindtoaster]

So your saying that people after given freedom, and equality, would actually FIGHT to put their bosses back in charge of them, they would actually WANT to be told what to do, and have freedom and the fruit of their labor taken from them?

You see how there are really no more Monarchists around? The same principle.

No, but there could still be religious fanatics, racists, sexists, homophobes, etc.

A range of reactionary communities may still exist in a liberated territory after the overthrow of the central government.

[Demogorgon]

Its yet to be shown to me why that might even be an issue. Generally bigotry is a reaction against adverse circumstances a scape goat (such as in the United States south, or anti immigrant feeling in europe), or imposed from above (such as nazi germany or islamic fundementalist bigotry against women).

Now the slight chance that that might be a possibility, (I don't really think is would be personally, especially if that community has actually gone through an anarchist uprising and dismantled power,) is not a justification of state power, thats like saying democracy might have a problem so we should have kings.
It seems pretty likely that there will be arbitrary and unfair rules imposed. Many Zapatista villages for instance ban alcohol use. That might be fairly minor, but it is still an infringement of personal choice.

And of course, it isn't exactly a perfect analogy, but this very biard, made up of supposed leftists can't maintain a fair system of dealing with people or indeed can its members avoid insane authoritarian ideas.

The argument for organised democracy over anarchy is, once again, that democracy contains safeguards and right of appeal against unfair decisions or judgements in criminal proceedings for instance.

The other argument of course is that anarchy only really works on a small scale basis. It seems to work okay in zapatista villages, a few problems notwithstanding, but how can it work so reliably in big cities. The Tokyo metropolitan area for instance contains well over thirty million people in a very densely populated area with heavily integrated infrastructure. How can an anarchical system possibly manage that?

[Potemkin]

Hey, everyone. This is one of my first posts here, so please bear with me. This thread started off pretty well, but seems to have degenerated pretty badly. We seem to have gotten into some pretty fine minutia, undoubtedly from a misunderstanding of anarchism.

Anarchism is about people coming together to make decisions collectively, without authority (or according to Chomsky, unjustified authoritarian relationships), and without hierarchy. Who makes the decisions? The people affected by the problem at hand. Anarchism is about decentralization. Anarchism is not trying to be a substitute for nations and states -- it is the elimination of nations and states. Neighborhoods would strive to become as self-sufficient as possible and reach out (federate, in Kropotkin's terminology) with other neighborhoods for mutual benefit to gain things the individual neighborhoods are not able to produce (trading, for example, or to work on larger projects -- a hospital, for instance). The more people involved, then, the bigger the decision, and the less frequently this would need to happen (after all, there wouldn't be multinational corporations, or institutions with the power to affect large numbers of people). When this happens, anarchism doesn't mean everyone in New York City would have to get together to collectively decide. The individual neighborhoods would discuss the issue at hand and send a delegate to represent them among the rest of the neighborhoods affected. The delegate has no power to make decisions other than that which the neighborhood already decided on, and the delegate is always subject to immediate recall.

The crime issue seems to have been addressed fairly well. Hopefully there won't be any laws or prisons. If we have an anarchist society organized around need-based production and distribution, where people contribute according to their abilities and in turn receiving what is needed to survive, with everyone working collectively to severely reduce the amount of "work" needed to be done, the impetus for "crime" is severely reduced. If people still are trouble-makers (and therefore not productively contributing to society), the community could decide to not support them or ask them to leave.

And crime is still rampant with government, people largely don't get fair trials, etc., etc. Huge numbers of people knew that the police in the Rodney King case were guilty. Had it been the responsibility of his neighborhood, justice would have been served. Also, government is one of the largest criminals in history. Certainly the biggest murderer.

[Potemkin]

Additionally, the crime issue really fails to take into account many things. I find when arguing about anarchism with people they often will just take current society and put one aspect of anarchism over it and call it an anarchist society. It's a big misunderstanding on their part. The crime thing is one example, they take the idea of no laws and apply it to current society, without factoring in other issues: the permeation of values like mutual aid and solidarity into the population, the cooperative nature that an anarchist society would have to have, the sense of pride and "ownership" in people who have direct say in the direction of their neighborhoods, the contentment of people who now have time to be the friends, loved ones, and community members we could only dream of under anarchism (as well as the time to really pursue our interests and develop our talents), etc., etc.

Further, anarchism CAN work for human beings. We don't have to be perfect, and anarchism doesn't just rely on the goodwill of people -- it is to the benefit of the individual to participate in an anarchist society: in exchange for a few hours of "work" (which will probably not resemble current work, as it will have been retooled to be more pleasant), the needs of the individual are met and they are free to pursue their interests. This is much less time than it would take a true individualist to provide for their needs alone (i.e. making all their clothes from scratch, growing everything they need to survive, making all their own tools, etc.). Of course, this is voluntary, and you could be an individualist if you wanted to, you just wouldn't be guaranteed the fulfillment of your needs.

We don't need a legal system. I would think a person's actions would simply be judged by the benefit or harm done to the community. Do you know what is right or wrong only because the law is there to tell you? I should hope not. And laws are often inconsistent. Again, the people involved in decisions of any kind are those that are affected by the outcome of the decision -- direct democracy at its purest.

And speaking of anarchist "laws," I like this saying: "My freedom to swing a frying pan ends where your nose begins."

[RGacky3]

Potemkin, you just put it better in a couple paragraphs than I could in pages.


I find when arguing about anarchism with people they often will just take current society and put one aspect of anarchism over it and call it an anarchist society. It's a big misunderstanding on their part.

Thats the key right there, you have to take the whole picture into account.


And speaking of anarchist "laws," I like this saying: "My freedom to swing a frying pan ends where your nose begins."

Could'nt have said it better myself.

[freakazoid]

Dude Potemkin, don't stop posting, :thumbup1:


And speaking of anarchist "laws," I like this saying: "My freedom to swing a frying pan ends where your nose begins."

lol, I haven't heard it phrased in quite that way before, :lol:

[Dejavu]

Interesting topic. I tend to agree with some of what RGacky said. The arguments against anarchism are improbable scenarios and they often offer a false dilemma. The question is more meaningful when asked ' Is it necessary to organize society by coercive means or voluntary ones?'

[Mindtoaster]

Interesting topic. I tend to agree with some of what RGacky said. The arguments against anarchism are improbable scenarios and they often offer a false dilemma. The question is more meaningful when asked ' Is it necessary to organize society by coercive means or voluntary ones?'

Anyone who lives in the deep south of the USA can understand that the idea of communities oppressing gays or blacks after the removal of a central authority is not at all improbable.

[Dejavu]

Central authority institutionalized slavery. Central authority institutionalized forced segregation. Central authority institutionalized forced integration. Even within a system of central authority these problems persist and were even perpetuated by centralized authority.

Perhaps its not the solution?