The only way anarchy can work.

Every system of government needs a set of prerequisites to occur, a democracy for example won't last if it's voters don't want a democracy. It's almost the same with anarchy, the prerequisites however are more difficult to achieve. There must be enough people willing to volunteer resources to preserve liberty even though they could stop doing so without consequence.

 

"I hate democracy" "what should we do?" "i know lets have a referendum to vote it out!" hahaha

 

...

 

the only way it can work... it is working, once one begins to live there life as an anarchist, as an individual it has already come into existance. i keep hearing all this talk about it not being possible, that it needs 'figuring out' that people need to understand more about it as if we need pages and pages, books, volumes talking, explaining, going into every little detail in an attempt to define something that needs only a definition on an individual level, once that's realized the groups, communities, people, will gather together, because that's what we do as social human beings (that last part feels like it has holes, rip away). once we begin on the continuous awaking of conciousness (interpret that anyway you like) we are already on a path of construction, whether it be bad or good depends on what is decided by the person, we all are in an attempt to do what we think is right, when we are not, then we just don't care, closing off into the void that is the destruction of production, which is the continuous movement and energys of life.

this is shotty and incomplete, rip it up and let's try to build something better.

 

Spoken like a true anarchist. Have to say that I agree with the spirit, if not the letter of that post.

 

Elsewhere, I have theorized about the manner in which anarchism or another form of libertarian socialism, (anarcho-communism in particular) can effectively function.

It would be necessary for public control without a state to be implemented, as a state is a hierarchical structure that promotes tyranny and oppression.

Public control without a state would essentially function through a federation of voluntary communes and syndicates that are democratically managed through participatory committees and workers’ councils. This would mean placing emphasis on grassroots neighborhood committees, community assemblies and other direct democratic associations rather than the centralized state.

Instead of a “top-down,” centralized governance system, an anarchist society would function using a “bottom-up,” decentralized governance system.

Neighborhood assemblies would be open to the general public, and these assemblies will be the primary (and final) governors of public policy in their jurisdiction. Public policy would be determined by direct democratic means, and delegates would be assigned to deal with the task of public policy administration. These delegates would be recallable at any time by a direct democratic vote, as opposed to the current dictatorial political system.

Various sections and aspects of the Paris Commune are an illustrative example of this sort of direct democracy in action.

Workers’ councils would be specifically intended to address workers’ needs and concerns, and would determine workplace management and administration through direct democracy, again. Control of the means of production would be granted to both these democratically managed workers’ councils, as well as to the citizens of the locality, if some of the workers are not both. The community assemblies would primarily serve as complementary features of workers’ councils for citizens who do not perform conventional work (such as parents with small children, the elderly, the disabled, the sick, etc.)

If the community’s industrial aspects are properly and efficiently managed through direct democracy, this would result in increased benefits for the workers and surrounding community. The workers themselves would be able to distribute and delegate work tasks and administration evenly among themselves, and thus form a far more efficient workforce, resulting in increased production levels and benefits, as well as decreased work hours and shortages.

Soviets initially functioned this way, until the Bolsheviks began to forcefully collectivize land and resources, and delegated control of the means of production to high-level bureaucrats rather than workers.

Through community and industrial unionism, decisions regarding the means of production and public policy affecting the wider community could be made in an efficient, direct democratic manner.

Communes would function as free, voluntary associations that would not force citizens to work or govern. Participatory committees would be freely joined and democratically managed, as opposed to the current situation, when all are forced to either work or die, because of the system of wage slavery that exists. An ideal commune would grant the minimal means of life even to those who were able but not willing to work. They would not grant them nonessential public services, however, unless they chose to participate in the work and management of the commune. As for those who were unable to work, they would still be granted full public services, as well as be permitted to have some degree of participation through community assemblies.

In the workplace itself, hierarchical authority structures would be dismantled in favor of direct democratic management. Policy creation would be given to the workers’ councils, and specific delegates and workers would be assigned to manage specific policy administrations, as is the case with the community assemblies. No longer would a separation between labor and management exist. The laborers would be the managers. Separate groups of order-givers and order-takers would no longer exist, and positions that solely emphasized management would not exist, as they would be useless and unnecessary. Through these methods, the workplace would not only function more democratically, it would function more efficiently, as workers are more intimately familiar with the conditions of the workplace than distant, unassociated managers are, and would be better qualified and capable to manage it properly.

The neighborhood and community assemblies would be the other segment of participatory committees to manage society as a whole. Towns and cities would essentially be formed from smaller neighborhood assemblies, which in turn would be federated at the regional and national levels in order to provide collective benefits to all involved. (The participatory committees would remain autonomous, of course, and could secede from larger federations if its member saw fit.) The assemblies would primarily address governance at the local level, and would ensure that all community members were provided with sufficient public services such as food, housing, healthcare, transportation, communication, etc. If there were councils or delegates that managed these assemblies, they would not possess an executive or bureaucratic status, and would primarily be intended to address specific facets of policy administration that would be too cumbersome and inefficient for management by the wider assembly.

Assemblies would be summoned on a regular basis, as often as required or necessitated by communal interests and issues, upon the request of the communal council or the consensus of the inhabitants of the local community. Local inhabitants would deliberate and address local issues and problems, and implement direct democratic management techniques in order to address them, possibly appointing additional councils or delegates in order to address them.

Lower levels of assemblies would maintain control over higher levels, thus reversing the unjust infliction of hierarchical, top-down authority structures.

Anarcho-communism fundamentally seeks to abolish and dismantle hierarchical, authoritarian relationships, both in the social and economic realms. Communism would be implemented from the bottom-up, not the top-down. In this manner, it would be based on free association, not on forced collectivization. True and legitimate communism can never be coercive.

 

I think people would realize that it is often to their advantage to work collectively to protect their liberty than to try to work individually.

 

i agree totally. society will see that everyone plays a vital role in supporting and building communities and preserving their way of life. those that would preserve it would fight for it and those that dont just wouldnt. and if the society was destroyed as a result of not wanting to defend it then it didnt deserve to exist in the first place. only the political ideas willing to stand up for what they believe in should exist.

 

Anarchy is a jerkoff dream of high school students who don't like being assigned to do homework.

The idea of anarchy as a "system" is oxymoronic.

And if you like having those prescription drugs you need, or those eyeglasses that help you see clearly, or those roads that get you to visit your mom, forget about anarchy. You don't want anarchy, and if you had maturity and intelligence and circumspection, you'd know that.

I wonder how many "anarchists" are really just bitter leftists, and voted for Obama despite their professed love for anarchy.

 

Acheiving short term Anarchy is actually the least complicated process, making it last is not. Inorder to reform society as it is right will be the only natural form any political process may take is: Anarchy. That deficit "financial" problem the states have caused is not an accident, and is not in any way a fault either. The monetary system creats this problem and will continue creating equal or greater problems in the future due to its current form. The Dollar carries no value, its a theoritical value, whenever property is lost due to unablement of providing funds to your bank. Ask youer self, is the currency a REAL value? No it is not, it is a piece of paper, no more no less. Canadas currency system is based on gold, therefor it has an actual value. The American dollar is based on how much "dollars" there are in circulation. Infact each dollar produced is created with an automatic debt. For each dollar is worthless until they are in circulation. This theoritical value does not reflect resources as a "asset" it only reflects the value regarding "needs" "desires". Aslong as we desire and need this currency, there will be economic crisis, and inturn we will be slaves of the banking system whom created this monetary system.

So shortterm Anarchy is easy, Remove the monetary system, though how do we acquire long term anarchy? Well first of all the word anarchy describes way to much negatives, the only way to truly acquire anarchy in a long term anarchistic value system is by renaming "anarchy". Inorder to please a status qou in this movement, we need to create a certain fredoomfigher/terrorist paradox. So if one side lets call them "aliberals" condemns Anarchists though transcend like anarchist, the system furfills the required desired needs of both good and bad parties to quarrel over indiffrances while "Anarchy" flourish. Its not possible to awaken the whole of society, though with this tool of blame, democracy will simply vanish from desire. Democracy will be condemned as being an utopia though the corrupted mankind can never acquire it, as I see it. Much like communism VS Socialism.

 

anarchy is not an utopia anarchy is not a system .
anarchy stands out for the Independence of man kind , no one is better than no one so no one can tell you what to do anarchy is all about equality .
the reason why Communism , socialism dont work is because their were deficient system who seek only for money just as the capitalism .
we dont need a leader we dont need a god ( where is god when we need him try telling poor people now their 1 out of 3 that god exist and that he is watching them .....)
we dont need democracy ( because it dosent exist , we the people??? )
democracy once was a dream just like anarchy .
we just have to think a little bit more on our brother and a little bit less in us , all the stuff we have think if we really need the how come our ancestors didn't have our technology and their were just as happy or more than we are now .
if we just turn out our tv for one day , if we dont drink coke or pepsi for a day try helping a random guy , we cant change the world we will be dead before any progress is done but little people in little places do great changes

 

Anarchy does not have to be collectivist. A society organized in such a way could only work with a very small population. The most feasible form of anarchy is one that strips away the veneer of governance. There is nothing the government does for us that private companies can't, or that we can't do for ourselves. When you have a [semi]free market and a governing body, they will just work together to screw you and I. Eliminating the former has proven disastrous when applied to societies of a certain scale. Eliminating the latter has never been done, and probably never will be. That says nothing about the idea of anarchy in and of itself and everything about the people who are willing to sacrifice freedom in order to escape responsibility.

I didn't vote for Obama.

 

This was the same way Communism was supposed to work. Immediately after the 1917 revolution in Russia there were "people's committees" about everything.

 

its a nice thought, and maybe anarchy can work on a small scale, like communes, but any mature person with common sense can see that on a large scale it would just be murder, theft and chaos. its a nice idea, I wish it could work, but too many assholes would ruin it.

 

except that murder, theft and chaos have nothing to do with true anarchy at all. boycotting hierarchal aggressiveness does.

 

That may be true of someone for whom personal comfort is their highest ideal.

 

What does an anarchist economy look like? What form does currency take?

 

i don't know about the bitter part, but i'll proudly plead guilty to being unabashedly utopian.

while at the same time agreeing completely that the infrastructure nearly everything taken for granted depends upon, i turn requires some degree of social organization, it doesn't require heirarcy outside of its own limited context. those with "matureity and intelligence" don't worship the automobile or symbolic value either. and don't put trying to impress each other ahead of the kind of world we all have to live in.

 

I would imagine that even in anarchy leadership would still take place.
The way wolves have leaders because one is a better hunter than the others, stronger, faster.

 

Humans are endowed with every societal expression we find in nature. Elements of the ant, bee, and wasp kingdom, the pack institution of the canine, the rut of a ruminant society, and on and on. Harems and herds, dens and cities.