How to start an Anarchist society

I would like to hear from other Anarchists (non-Anarchists also, just please join the conversation and don't just rag on those who are discussing the topic) on how they would create an Anarchist society from within an existing society of different values.

I have been entertaining notions like lots of cooperatives, where the people all own the things like hospitals, stores, etc., cooperatively. They would also have cooperatives that produced the goods needed to run the society. Courts of course would not exist, but there could be arbitration where disputes could be settled. If Anarchist (the peaceful kind) values could be applied to various enterprises where the people had control over their surroundings, and managed to make it grow, how good a chance at changing society would they have?

In order to simplify the discussion, let me add that for the purposes of this thread, an anarchist society means simply one without a central government.

 

An "anarchist" "society" is kind of an oxymoron. If you assign "peace" or arguably the notion of "society" to "anarchy", you're already undermining the concept of anarchy, because the expectation of "peace" manifests itself as a rule or law, and the instant you start assiging laws or rules in a society, it is by definition no longer representative of anarchy.

I would suggest you stay away from the term anarchy altogether. Imagine the kind of society that you wish, and call it something else, or better yet, don't call it anything, just imagine it and do it.

 

I would have to disagree. An anarchist society would be one where the people live cooperatively, without the force used by governments to make people do what they want.
I think we have two different views on what anarchy is.

 

The one thing that so often gets forgotten with these type Utopian scenarios is they work fine for a small population/geographical location, yet as populations grow and borders increase the need for a more structured framework (government) becomes greater.

Plus the way you described it out in the OP, as has already been pointed out, is itself the beginnings of government.

 

An anarchist society means that I can kill your sister and rape your brother and there isn't anything legally you can do about it, because there is nothing you can do about it unless morally you think you can kill me back

 

No, I disagree. There is still personal responsibility involved in an anarchist society. People would still need to get along, just do so without a central government.

For example, people would work through cooperatives, where each worker also owns a share of the coop. There is no upper management, although the people could agree on allowing some to act on their behalf for certain matters to streamline the activity of whatever they are doing. This is in keeping with anarchist thought.

I think an anarchist society would be based on the rights of the individuals. The people living in this society would obviously form some sort of association (also in keeping with anarchist thought) for mutual protection, some means to resolve disputes, etc. An example I once read in a book worked like this:
Using your example of murder and rape, the wounded party would go to an association of arbitrators who are in the business of resolving disputes. If they agree to get involved, they would go to the offending party and ask that he/she compensate the wounded party. The arbiter determines if raping and murder are part of that persons morality, meaning that they believe it is okay to perform those acts. If the offender refuses to compensate the victims, then the arbiter, (who, by the way, has investigated all the facts in the case and is assured the offender did what he was accused of) issues a proclamation stating that the offender has that sort of morality. Then the victim goes to another association of people who are in the business of collecting damages based on what the arbiter determines. Those people go to the offender and offer one chance to compensate the victim for what he did. IF he still refuses, then they use whatever means necessary to sell assets the offender owns, up to and including body parts, if necessary. At any time the offender can refute his morality and make arrangements to compensate the victims.
This is all in keeping with anarchism, at least as I understand it, as all the activities are performed without any central government authority.
It could work as all the parties have to be honest, or find themselves having morality judgements against them, or be out of business for doing sloppy work.
This is a very abbreviated version of what I read, but it made loads of sense the way it was explained in the book.
So, instead of a central government running things, it is done by the individuals, or associations they form. Recording deeds, titles, etc., would be done by a private business. They would have to keep good records, and offer a good service, or no one would use their service, and soon they would be out of business. Get a bad enough reputation and they would find it hard to live there at all, making everyone work harder to respect everyone else's rights, and do a good job.

 

Tell that to people who are instantly thrown into a situation of chaos and anarchy and kill each other over the opportunity to loot TV's that they can't even use because their house is either gone, damaged or has no electricity

 

None of which has anything to do with this thread. IF you want to have an intelligent discussion, then please offer some sort of reasoning that pertains to the thread, if you just want to troll, then please go somewhere else.

It is reasonable to discuss a possible scenario concerning anarchism. If you would like to offer an opposing view, then please tell me why. Your comment above has no bearing on the thread, especially as I have already just provided a possible solution to the problem you mention, in an anarchist society.

The argument could be made, that the people have a better chance at justice in an anarchist society, where everyone is personally responsible for their actions, instead of the one we live in, where the law, judges, and smart lawyers offer many avenues of escaping justice, and even if an offender is caught, and punished, the victim still is rarely compensated.

 

Simply, to create social organization is not anarchist thought.

an·ar·chy [ánnərkee]
n
1. chaotic situation: a situation in which there is a total lack of organization or control
2. lack of government: the absence of any formal system of government in a society

 

If you want to have an intelligent discussion, then you need to open your mind to all aspects of the topic of your thread. The scenario that I just described is an anarchy scenario.

Damn wanna be anarchists don't even know the full meaning of the word

 

I'll quote that just because I see that you have them on ignore

 

Would that book happen to be The Old Testament?

What you have outlined is essentially the way disputes and things were handled then. The only thing you have left out, which would of a necessity arise rather rapidly in such a society, is a codified set of laws or rules.

Isn't that the free enterprise system and capitalism?

If I don't like a business's service, I don't give them my patronage.

Doesn't require anarchy.

 

I am, do you have anything you would like to add that is actually pertinent to what I posted beyond abstract examples of what you think anarchy is?

Yes, it could be considered that. The problem is that it does not relate to the thread. Just saying that people are out of control does not have anything to do with the point of this thread.

I understand it completely. The problem here is that you want to post abstract happenings and not discuss the point of the thread.

 

I get what you're saying, but cooperative living requires rules and rules are a type of force. It's the same force used by government. You can make the claim that the rules in an anarchistic cooperative living situation might be better, might be aimed, above all to preserve individual rights, but rules (laws - and make no mistake they are the same) beget more rules and before you know it, you've established a government. It's a very, VERY, slippery slope.

 

Yes.. people who are out of control has everything to do with this thread.. chaos and lack of control ate like more than 50% of what anarchy is, not an abstract concept of it.. if you didn't put all of the intelligent thinkers of this thread on ignore, you might see that.

Sorry your thread didn't go how you wanted it to, so says the laws of the internet. It's total anarchy here!

 

In order to simplify the discussion, let me add that for the purposes of this thread, an anarchist society means simply one without a central government.

If you had even bothered to read what I posted, you might have a little insight as to what I am trying to discuss here.
So long, troll.

 

Again:

an·ar·chy [ánnərkee]
n
1. chaotic situation: a situation in which there is a total lack of organization or control
2. lack of government: the absence of any formal system of government in a society

Maybe instead of using the word anarchy, since you only want to talk about half of the meaning if anarchy, you should use a different form of nomenclature instead.

 

I'm afraid I don't share any Utopian images of such a society. Co-operation will work in only two contexts: punishment or reward. People are assholes, in general. If they can goof off while their fellows slave away in the fields, then goof off they will.

I also don't understand the distinction between courts on the one hand, and a system of arbitration (by which I suspect you mean a method of hearing and determining disputes) on the other. Why are courts a bad thing? Of course, if you have no central government, then by what code are the arbitrators to settle disputes? How would they require compliance with anything? How would they determine the rights and wrongs of any dispute?

It seems to me you are really postulating an alternative and ideal Marxist society:from each according to his means, to each according to his needs (apologies for the non-gender neutral language). Again, that doesn't work because people are selfish greedy pricks. But here's the thing: evolution requires us to be selfish greedy pricks. We want our children to survive ahead of any others. We want to survive ahead of others. Sure, you can probably cite examples of philanthropy and selflessness that negate that propositon, but the rule greatly outweighs the exception.

I'm not saying a utopian Marxist self-governing (in the general sense of the word) state would not be wonderful: I think it would. But it won't happen because people are.....well, people. The power will always devolve to those with weapons and with the capacity and intent to use them.

 

I don't think aceouses is trolling or off topic. Until humans have the ability, or capability if you will, of maintaining civil obedience without some for of "control" making them do so, an anarchist society will turn into total chaos. We as a species are not evolved enough to pull this off yet.


Hell, we aren't even evolved enough to pull off a libertarian society without chaos... IMHO

 

Uhmmm, then do you mean a society with a de-centralized government,
like the United States?

fixed it for ya.