What's your opinion on anarchy?

I honestly don't know what to feel about anarchy.

 

I voted 'meh' because i like the word.
For me though anarchy will emphasis people with certain traits that I do not have (u made me angry??? pew pew pew !!!!!!) thus im not a fan.

How would a society develop in anarchy though ? is there a concept of employment ? if so people would pay w/e they want or not pay at all ? is there even a police ? and if not then mafias will rule the streets ? there will be no people of science (medical included) to develop and help society thus where this will be going in the modern world ?

 

Anarchy works on the small scale, like Kowloon or Slab City. But for a large society, there is just too much room for error so we need a bigger structure to maintain order.

 

Ha. I'm the only one who chose the "I think it's great" option as of yet. I feel it is up to me to make a little case for it then.

First. I do not subscribe to anarchism specifically. However, it is very close to my beliefs. I have faith (to some extent) in the social scientific analysis that capitalism will fail, and also in that socialism will follow. And besides, I consider it desirable. I find liberalism repulsive. A planned economy speaks more to me. In such a case it may either be planned by the state (and thus nation-wide), or planned by means of direct democracy; planned by the workers at the workplace in question.

Second. I see at least one major problem with anarchism. It can fall into the same trap as theoretical pure free markets do: it falls prey to a lack of coordination. This doesn't have to be the case, but the global class consciousness would likely have to be incredibly strong to prevent this and maintain important public assets such as communications networks and public transport. Also, if there is a lack in trade, there might be a lack in necessities. Technology, such as ecocities, could relieve this problem, however.

Third. If true communism is to be arrived at - that is, we own our workplaces together, there are no classes, no money and no state - I cannot see it happening entirely spontaneously and without a transition stage. We rely on the state very heavily for out wellbeing. We cannot simply remove it. Capitalism must also fall over some time, not in the blink of an eye.

All in all, I suppose I fall somewhere between anarchist, socialist (undefined), and independent.
One thing I can say is that I've had a lot of fun and often do have a lot of fun with anarchists. So if someone here wants to criticize anarchism, then do criticize anarchism, not anarchists. Thank you very much.

Also, this video might be of interest to some of you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X89Y1kAjoqA

 

Like any ideal it cannot be implemented well because it is flawed by design much like any system whether it's democracy or communism. There are way too many flaws with the idea of anarchy, in its purest form and who would want to live in a anarchist state. Even other anarchists tried to combine anarchy with other ideals (anarcho socialism, anarcho communism, with the same results).

 

I'm not even sure it works on a small scale. Seems more to me like places where "anarchy works" aren't really practicing anarchy (no rule); they are practicing autarchy (self rule).

Anarchy, when put into true practice, allows anyone to act with pure unadulterated self-interest...which basically reduces to rule by bullies (the Might Makes Right principle that if you're strong enough, you can get/have what you want). If people don't do this, then it's because they are exercising self-restraint...basically, ruling themselves...for the common good. Anarchy knows and cares nothing of the common good.

So if you trust every citizen sufficiently that you think they *all* will bear in mind the common good, then you should have no issue with "anarchy". Similarly, if you are one bad-ass mother and fancy yourself powerful enough to take on all comers on all fronts (brawn, brains, economic, etc.), and you don't give a shit about the common good, then it also makes sense to favor anarchy. But if you are skeptical of human nature and are not the strongest, smartest, richest, etc. person around...you should very wary of any anarchic proposals.

 

I wanna see someone try to counter this post :icon_wink

 

I voted "meh" because none of the other options were sufficient

If it actually worked? Great! Being ruled over by a corrupt, self-serving government sucks balls. On the other hand, I don't see how it could ever work, because humans can be a bunch of arses. It's the same way I think communism would be great if it worked (and wasn't hijacked by genocidal dictators), but knowing that it never will because of the way humans are.

 

I can only counter by saying maybe even those scales I quoted are too big. But go much lower and you don't have a gene pool diverse enough to be viable in the long term. I mean, if you're two people in the wilderness you can either choose to work together or do your own thing, the only consequences dictated by nature or, if interpersonal conflict arises, whomever wins. But you can't exactly have a "society" that's as small as a family let alone ~2000 people for continuing healthy reproduction.

 

First: Anarchy isn't a mere theoretical model; it has existed in practice, in Catalonia*, Spain, for example (although it wasn't purely anarchist): *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia#1936_Revolution_and_worker.27s_self_management

Second: You are thinking of individualist anarchism*. This is a fairly small branch and is sneered at. Anarchy most often refers to libertarian socialism. That is, socialism but doing it without seizing control of the state and instituting a dictatorship of the proletariat.
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism

I offer my compliments for your critique of individualist anarchism, and I agree with what you say, mostly. But also, be aware that what you here mean by anarchism is not the same as what most anarchists stand for: anarchism is usually community-minded. Plus, equal societies have a better "human nature", in that people trust each other more etc., which is not strange considering that the basis of such a society is the common good: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

 

My punk rock motivations are coming through.....

 

Well, first...I never said or implied that it was a mere theoretical model...in point of fact, it's kind of the absence of a model. On the rest...

*smile* Perhaps. But for the purposes of this thread, I don't find it terribly relevant what most anarchists think of as anarchy. What matters is what the OP and the majority of posters think of as anarchy. Convince me that the OP meant Libertarian Socialism, and I'll be happy to stand corrected.

But I would also argue that places that practice Libertarian Socialism aren't practicing anarchy either...they are practicing Libertarian Socialism. If they want to use the word "anarchy" to describe their government, they can do that...'cause they can...but it doesn't make it anarchy.

Glad to hear that the general usage and technical definition of "anarchy" is sneered at by people who call themselves anarchists, anyway...sounds like a shit deal to me.

 

No. Despite people's contempt towards it, we as humans will always need people in charge telling us what to do. Anarchy for anarchy's sake is idiotic to me. Lots of these people scream rebellion, but what're you going to do when all your rights aren't protected, when your family isn't safe, when you have no stable source of food or water?

 

That's a pretty big claim to make. Obviously there's no accounting for stupidity and some people indisputably need someone to handle things for them. But then the question of rights and choices comes in-- speaking from the position of a libertarian, should subjecting oneself to/participating in government be mandatory? In theory one might be able to dissolve connections with the government, cease paying taxes, but also not receive any benefits or protections in return.

Going back to my previous point this would cause mayhem to the point of total collapse on any sort of competitive scale in the modern world, so must be avoided. But it provides some interesting fodder for philosophy.

 

I'm lawful neutral with chaotic good tendencies. I'm a disorganised chaotic neutral person by nature, and I think some order brings out the best in me for others, more than myself, if that makes sense.

I like Anarchy more in theory than in reality. I considered myself an Anarchist during my late teen years. But I don't think I really believed in Anarchy. I just got carried away giving weird speeches ^^;

 

One person's security is another's anarchy. Even in a so-called civilized nation, there will be those who are not safe, nor do they feel they ever will be. Because, if you think about it, with security comes hope, and with hope comes ambition, and with ambition... well, that shakes things up too much.

The only difference, really, between anarchy and government is, the former provides an equal start but an eventual end, when something secures authority -- and they will, because there is a reason for the saying, "This is why we can't have nice things." -- while the latter protects those who feel they are above fair-footing by letting them get, and keep, a head start.

As for anarchy itself. Wonderful theory, but somebody would take advantage of it, somehow, and enforce their way... like me.

 

Even in my spectacularly drunken state, I'm able to offer the following.

One, anarchists don't want "the state." So I don't know what the "anarchist state" is.

Two, anarchism has a rich and in my opinion intellectually rich history and did in fact make sense at a point in time. Mikhail Bakunin was a contemporary of Karl Marx's, and in my opinion offered a much better anti-authoritarian (that is, liberty-oriented) defense of both socialism and anarchism. In particular, he offerred the insight that capitalism itself creates classes and therefore hierarchy, and therefore must require the State.

Three, I think that the form of anarchism has to look a lot different given the vast differences between the realities of 2015 versus, say, 1860. Bakunin's anarchism of the 1860s make more sense in his time and not ours. While I think it's tempting for anarchists (and the New Left generally) to hold to the nostalgia of the Old Left, we are in fact shitty and irrelevant right now.

We have to deal with the fact that the public is not in fact aligned with our goals. Specifically, modern anarchists seem to think that liberal democracy is "not representative" of the public as a whole. While I'm not a Fukayama person, I think it's important to impress upon the anarchists that if in fact liberal democracy were not at least partially representative of the public's views, we would have had a revolution already. The US political system is incredibly shitty and fuck us over as queers, or people who are poor, or whatever. But, it's at least approximately representative of the people.

This is a hard fact to swallow. As anarchists, we like to think we're saviors of the public against the machine of the State. That couldn't be further from the truth. We're trying to liberate ourselves and our friends from the violent, unjustified controlling behaviors of other people. That puts us in opposition to the public, because the public likes and wants control...

Why the fuck do you think marriage equality has been fucked up for so long?

Those are my drunken ideas. If you think I'm stupid, I have low tolerance, and I've probably had like five. Go light on me...

~ Adrienne

 

See, it's got its flaws, but it'd work better than a lying government. Admit it, anarchy, or Trump?

 

Not a good idea as long as human are still human.