Any Anarchists Here?

[Puppycow]

Does any serious person advocate anarchy?
Can any serious person advocate anarchy?
Devil's advocates welcome too.

Food for thought:
What do anarchists want from us?

 

[Virus]

Overthrowing society and starting from scratch. With no unified, concrete plan on what they're going to replace it with. Maybe that seemed like a good idea 150 years ago. The track record of radical attempts to transform society turned out to be pretty dismal. They're usually followed by decades of civil war, famine, genocide and poverty. People start getting weird in large groups, they get even weirder when carried away with utopian ideology. One minute you're preaching the universal brotherhood of mankind, the next minute you're hacking people's limbs off.

 

[Puppycow]

The main problem I see with anarchy is that it's an inherently unstable state. If you ever have it, it won't last. If you don't have a government, a gang of thugs will take over and become a de facto government.

 

[Soapy Sam]

And that would differ from the present in what way?

 

[WildCat]

And that would differ from the present in what way?

It's not different, and that's the point. Anarchy, in any form, is unworkable in practice.

 

[EatatJoes]

Even if it looks good "on paper", I would think that communities that have just a few thousand people would be too big for it to "work".

 

[Thunder]

It's not different, and that's the point. Anarchy, in any form, is unworkable in practice.

anarchy as a political system, is a contradiction in terms.

 

[angrysoba]

anarchy as a political system, is a contradiction in terms.

It's not a contradiction in terms. There are people who live in anarchist communities now.

The problem, as mentioned before, is that it requires everyone to be co-operative purely out of choice. If someone were to start hoarding their own goods or demanding property of their own or didn't like the way that the community functions and wanted to be exempt from the customs of that community (there are no rules!) they would end up either tearing the community apart or would have to leave or be co-erced into behaving as the community demanded. Of course, co-ercion would surely be against the spirit of the community itself and would require some kind of enforcement of rules that presumably anarchists are against. While it would be no good to have outside groups of people who don't live according to anarchist principles as they could easily takeover an anarchist community and loot it (Nestor Makhno notwithstanding).

I've never had this fundamental problem of what anarchists do with those who don't want to be anarchists or who won't co-operate answered satisfactorily. They seem to wave the question away with some bland assurance that everyone would be happy in an anarchist community so there would be no reason not to co-operate or that a new way of thinking would "evolve".

 

[Puppycow]

And that would differ from the present in what way?

We get to vote for which thugs we want to rule us.

 

[Virus]

I've never had this fundamental problem of what anarchists do with those who don't want to be anarchists or who won't co-operate answered satisfactorily. They seem to wave the question away with some bland assurance that everyone would be happy in an anarchist community so there would be no reason not to co-operate or that a new way of thinking would "evolve".

Anarchists inform me that every ideology gets to control its own little area.

 

[angrysoba]

Anarchists inform me that every ideology gets to control its own little area.

Seriously? Providing every ideology also happens to be "anarchist", presumably.

 

[Virus]

Well one anarchist said that fascists, Islamists and communists can have their own regions. The details were sketchy.

 

[angrysoba]

Well one anarchist said that fascists, Islamists and communists can have their own regions. The details were sketchy.

Hmmm...maybe the Anarcho-fascists, Anarcho-Communists, Anarcho-Islamists and Anarcho-Islamofascists all have to promise not to invade any other communities for Lebensraum, International Socialism, jihad, takfiri jihad or any other really, really naughty things and not cross their fingers when they promise and just live in peace admiring all the unicorns and the rainbows.

I hate to sound cynical but I am so that's just the way it comes out.

 

[IchabodPlain]

It's not a contradiction in terms. There are people who live in anarchist communities now.

Anarchy is the absence of a political system - so it's more or less a contradiction. Like saying I'm a member of the Athiest religion.

The problem, as mentioned before, is that it requires everyone to be co-operative purely out of choice.

No it doesn't. Not even close. It only requires that you do not set up a political system. If I want to co-operate or trade, sure - but I can just as easily murder you to get what I want. There's no system in place to address grievances or enforce punishment.

If someone were to start hoarding their own goods or demanding property of their own or didn't like the way that the community functions and wanted to be exempt from the customs of that community (there are no rules!) they would end up either tearing the community apart or would have to leave or be co-erced into behaving as the community demanded.

Anarchy ended - you have a community, and that entails some system of government (though it may be informal, no written laws). The establishment of customs are informal laws.

I've never had this fundamental problem of what anarchists do with those who don't want to be anarchists or who won't co-operate answered satisfactorily.

This is the reason anarchy fails: People reject it. We live in groups (from as small as family members to metropolitan cities), and living with others requires some level or order and structure to survive for any length of time.

 

[angrysoba]

Anarchy is the absence of a political system - so it's more or less a contradiction. Like saying I'm a member of the Athiest religion.

It's not the absence of a political system. It is the absence of a government which rules over people and has a system of enforcement which is not the same thing as having no political system.

As I have said there does exist communities that certainly consider themselves to be anarchist. They rely on mutual voluntary agreements and which do have common goals. Those anarchist communities only exist largely because they are protected by non-anarchic states that have no desire to over-run them. I am highly dubious about their ability to exist "in the wild".

The word "community" was applied to a group of anarchists in Spain during the Spanish Civil War by George Orwell:

I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life– snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.– had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.

It didn't last long, of course. But there are communities in Spain now which call themselves anarchist.

 

[Chupacabras]

FWIW, we had an "anarchist" in this forum a while ago. When he began to feel the heat on some other issues, he cried that the forum rules be enforced.

I don't know if anarchy exists in nature, but I think humans cannot live to it as long as we have personal goals (ie, comfort or cultural advancement), because as soon as they differ from others', conflict arises and then some form of coercion (rules) are needed.

 

[WildCat]

Basically, anarchy is a 5 year old throwing a temper tantrum because he can't have candy before dinner.

 

[IchabodPlain]

It's not the absence of a political system. It is the absence of a government which rules over people and has a system of enforcement which is not the same thing as having no political system.

You're using loaded terminology. Once there is a political system, you establish order. Order is incompatible with anarchy.

As I have said there does exist communities that certainly consider themselves to be anarchist. They rely on mutual voluntary agreements and which do have common goals. Those anarchist communities only exist largely because they are protected by non-anarchic states that have no desire to over-run them. I am highly dubious about their ability to exist "in the wild".

It doesn't matter what they call themselves, their actions matter. These communities are the inevitable result of anarchy - people come together, establish a semblance of order to achieve common goals, social contracts to achieve behavioral expectations, etc... that there are no formal "laws" doesn't matter.

The word "community" was applied to a group of anarchists in Spain during the Spanish Civil War by George Orwell:

I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life– snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.– had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.

It didn't last long, of course. But there are communities in Spain now which call themselves anarchist.

As much as I like Orwell, that's bull. I've read many passages on "anarchist" communities in Russia and other Eastern European communities around the turn of the century (Lev Aleshker is a good example) but all these communities have, at least, informal codes, customs, behavioral expectations, and a communal method for deciding which goals to pursue and how to pursue them. It's government in everything but name.

 

[Thunder]

I honestly think "Anarchism" is kind of a misnomer. Mosts anarchists do not advocate for a society completely devoid of hierarchy and laws. They simply want it on a very low-level...such as tribal and community based.

 

[DC]

I honestly think "Anarchism" is kind of a misnomer. Mosts anarchists do not advocate for a society completely devoid of hierarchy and laws. They simply want it on a very low-level...such as tribal and community based.

yeah and the one drinking most beers will be president for the next day.