The only way anarchy can work.

Doesn't anarchy lack system? Without system would people not devolve back into tribalism? Does not history show that tribes were continually in conflict with other tribes?
Are there not something like ten thousand times as many people in the world now than there were when tribalsim was the predominant form of social structure? Would so many more people and groupings competing for resources not lead to more conflict than ever before?

 

Isn't tribalism a system. Family groups are the initial social arrangement.

The word anarchy comes from a root meaning,"without a ruler". It's practical definitions are chaotic situation: a situation in which there is a total lack of organization or control and a
lack of government: the absence of any formal system of government in a society.

We have wars now. There is no reason to believe that anarchy is any more apt to produce conflict than government.

 

Well, okay then. If there's no reason to think that anarchy would result in more conflict I'll stop thinking that. Thanks.

 

Well, I'm amenable to thinking otherwise. Do you have a reason for thinking anarchy would produce more conflict?

 

Look, you really need to decide what definition of Anarchy you're arguing against. Yes, there was a time in history when Anarchists advocated violence as a response. Many have that image firmly burned into their minds to this day, the bomb throwing anarchist.
Unfortunately there is a modern reflection of that recently though I'll not promote their moniker.
The" every man for himself " thing is obviously a ridiculous notion but for some a romantic rebellion fantasy I guess...

Anarcho-socialism is the header under which most peacefull forms of anarchism fall.

Look at the history of anarchist philosophy before deciding.
No one has all the answers, there is no solid plan or precise theory, Anarcho-socialism is a work in progress.

Here's a positive definition of Anarchism from one of the good ones, Gustav Landaur
"...everyone rich or poor is a victim of the historical accidents by which modern society has developed. The intellectual limitations of the masses and the struggle of man against man, especially that of the privleged against the non privileged have hindered mankind's attempts to better his fate.
Anarchism wishes to end the struggle so that every individual can achieve for himself the place his nature entitles him to. In the place of social institutions that demand blind allegiance-state, church, sanctity of property-the anarchists will establish natural groupings of individuals, groupings to help all of their members to achieve some specific social goal without submerging anyone in organizational structure.
Collective ownership of natural goods is not the goal, but rather social organization that obviates ownership so that resources necessary for life are available to everyone." Gustav Landaur 1894


ZW

 

Well, after reading the definition that zombiewolf has posted directly preceding this post, I'm not really sure what to think. I know that my understanding of 'anarchy' was nowhere near to being 'socialism' as the terms always seemed opposite to one another in my thinking.

 

In order for anarchy to exist, we would have to have a dictator with powerful all-seeing army to enforce and maintain this state of anarchy. Otherwise, it would collapse as families, gangs, neighborhoods, cities etc. began to coalesce and form governments.

 

that's just silly

now if you'd said:

in order for anarchy to exist, people would have to learn to respect one another



and that's what we all want, isn't it?

 

It seems to me that being an anarchist can work for us on a personal level, but the more that we want to or have to include others, the more we need a system. What we know to be true is that any system, whether it is based on democratic principles or a system such as communism, is going to have a certain number of flaws and a certain amount of corruption built into it. That's the way that human beings behave, and any system is only going to be as perfect or imperfect as the people who control it.

However, on a personal level, we can be anarchists to whatever extent that we are. If I choose to smoke marijuana, I have decided that the personal pleasure I derive from the experience is more important than obeying the law. If I choose to get drunk and take my car out on the freeway, I have also decided that I am above the law, but I know that I am doing that in the context of a society that exists with laws, taboos, mores and other things that can limit our total freedom of choice.

When it comes to personal behavior, society has pretty much moved toward the idea that what consenting adults do in private is their own business. I get it that this is not a universally-held viewpoint, but, generally speaking, that is the direction that things are going in the greater society. It still comes down to the concept that we decide what we do or do not want to do, and we are both responsible for the decisions we make and the consequences of those decisions.

 

If the police were to announce that they were on strike and were refusing to show up for work, we'd get a sampling of anarchy in practice.

 

You bring to mind an interesting question,
What would happen if the police did not show up for work and no one was informed?

 

It'd take a little longer before increased lawlessness began. As the 'normal' calls, reports of crime and requests for assistance went unanswered, the knowledge that the police were not on duty would get out to the general populace.

 

^^^ Yeah for like a two days until the National Guard is called in, then looters would be shot indiscriminately lol

Shit, the police do fucked up shit, but I appreciate them. They have a hard job. Don't get me wrong: I think the higher ups in any PD are going to be corrupt politicians at heart. (I pretty much think anyone at the top of any institution is gonna be a snake.) But the average officer is, I believe, a half decent guy. Or at least no less decent than the average citizen.

 

Let's extend our unannounced strike to the national guard, to all governmental institutions. No one to enforce concepts. I don't think we come into the world with an inherent mistrust of our environment, I think that is inculcated.

Who are the authors of this presumed slide into decadence, is it you or me? Who is it we are accusing in our pessimistic regard?

 

Anarchy is childish and wistful. It wouldn't solve much of anything. The fact remains that we are simply not advanced enough to handle ourselves without a government. Government does not have to be a bad thing. It just needs to be re-organized. Anarchy is, once again, an extreme, and extremes are rarely effective.

 

Holy shit, you are absolutely right.

Strict ideology never works...unless it's a strict ideology of the Grey Area.

 

Nah, even then -- sometimes you just have to stick to a plan =)


I think the truth is, that life is already anarchy. Governments are a way to protect us from that, and allow us to be a more civilized people. The problem is, when the governments get out of control of the people. Right now, they are more in control by the corporations than anyone else. This is our fault.

 

Except for those who voted for Ralph Nader. They at least tried to make a difference instead of just throwing their vote away on pubs and dems.

 

If anyone's truly interested in Anarchism , please have a listen to probably the most important man alive speak on the subject...Noam Chomsky
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G6kf7XM9Nk"]YouTube- ‪Anarchism 101 with Noam Chomsky‬‎

 

It appears that anarchism is not the same as anarchy.

No wonder so many of the opinions expressed in this thread are so difficult to reconcile.