Can Anarchism work?

Persionally, by looking at Spain circa 1936, I do think that Anarchism is indeed possible....

whats your say so?

discuss

I guess anythings possable.

it'd be silly though.

Nightmare Doom said:

Persionally, by looking at Spain circa 1936, I do think that Anarchism is indeed possible....

What do you mean by "can it work?" or "is it possible?" Of course it's possible. It happens. It can and does occur for short periods of time before order begins to be restored through various conduits.

We should legalize weed and abolish speed limits!

Nightmare Doom said:

Persionally, by looking at Spain circa 1936, I do think that Anarchism is indeed possible....

1936 was like the midst of the Spanish Civil War, which ushered in Franco's reign of tyranny. Yeah that was pretty much a mess, I don't know how that would possibly be an argument for anarchism.


Edit: Unless you're talking about Catalonia, which has always considered itself to be autonomous, but it was still eventually overrun by Franco.

Of course anarchism can work. Anthropologically there are many examples of anarchist societies all over the globe, from the Bushmen of the deserts of southern Africa to the Piaroa of the Amazon rainforest. (Suggested reading: Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology) The problem is when people ask the question they think of a nation without a government, and ask if that could work. But that's not what anarchism is. You can't have an "anarchist nation," since that's an inherent contradiction. Instead you'd have a bunch of minor communities, communes, and tribes, which practiced familial responsibility for one another and for nature and adapted to their local environments. Although if you're asking whether anarchism is compatible with more technological societies, I don't really know the answer. I think anarchism needs to be sustainable, and higher technology tends not to be. Not to mention that technology globalizes and a working anarchy requires regionalization, or that separation from the natural world tends to lead us back to the same problems we just left.

Quast said:

What do you mean by "can it work?" or "is it possible?" Of course it's possible. It happens. It can and does occur for short periods of time before order begins to be restored through various conduits.

That's not anarchy, that's anomie. They like using the word "anarchy" in the press, but the only "anarchists" who want chaos are 14 year old boys wearing t-shirts with big red (A)s to look really punk.

Why anyone would want to live in a lawless, structureless, decaying society is beyond me. Anarchism = economic conservatism to the theoretical extreme.

Nightmare Doom said:

Persionally, by looking at Spain circa 1936, I do think that Anarchism is indeed possible....

whats your say so?

discuss

Only problem is that dishes seem to pile up really quick and as they pile up more the difficulty in cleaning them increases exponentially. A somewhat small sink and counter probably doesn't help.

AndrewB said:
Why anyone would want to live in a lawless, structureless, decaying society is beyond me.

Ah, those rotting B movie or video game zombies must all be anarchists, then.

Anarchism tends to be unspecific and tied to practice, so linking it to what someone may have coined anarchism (even in a sincere and practical context where that term was applicable), will make it relatively obsolete. Thus (in the modern world) you have anarchic or anarchist movements, but not anarchic societies; mostly because its defining principle is the criticism of power and systematization (as opposed to "natural practice").

If we define anarchy as a balance of power to the point where the politics of groups are not dictated by other groups, then you require look over two things; the management or key (world) resources and mechanisms that distribute political participation.

NO, No, no. it's impossible. there's a reason why there is society, and rules, and regulations. They are needed in order to survive. if you make all systems illegal, you are already making a social order. if you abolish it completely, it will come right back.

have you ever read stories about "Being trapped on a desert island"? ever notice that they almost immediately set up a social system and the like? Animals do this too, so don't say it's natural to be in anarchy.

Chaos will not survive for long. it never will. ever.

Seriously, read some books about this. there's more out there than the anarchist's cookbook.

Like Baldy said, I don't think true anarchism and technology are very compatible. In an anarchism, everyone becomes a sustinance farmer because no one really has a reason to make products for other people. Maybe simple stuff like clothing, tools and the like, but modern technology requires a lot of manpower to make anything. Your radio required people to make the wires, people to make whatever computer boards may be in there, people to make the lights, people to make the case, and people to put it all together. That requires large, organised companies to put anyuthing together. Sure, you can survive off the former technology for a while, maybe a couple hundred years, but after a while no one will know how to repair it and you'll run out of complex parts.

In the end, I don't think it is really worth ditching technology just to create a society where everyone is treated as an equal. Equally destitute isn't the way to go. I think technology can have a place in our next step to a better society. We just have to become more open minded about all kinds of things.

Csonicgo said:

Chaos will not survive for long. it never will. ever.

Though I agree with the rest of what you said, I disagree with this statement. Chaos is basically the fundamental force force behind the universe. It's chaos that created the need for structured society, and chaos that will eventually scuttle it. Chaos created us, and chaos will destroy us. It's a fundamental yin to order's yang. With too much chaos there would be nothing. With too much order, there would be stagnation.

Just part of my philosophy/beliefs though really.

Anarchism has nothing to do with chaos. The whole point of anarchy is order.

Danarchy said:

In the end, I don't think it is really worth ditching technology just to create a society where everyone is treated as an equal. Equally destitute isn't the way to go. I think technology can have a place in our next step to a better society. We just have to become more open minded about all kinds of things.

I guess that depends on what you consider destitute. We keep making new things that in the past no one would consider you "destitute" to be without, where today you would. We create new needs all the time, and I don't think not having the newest technology makes you destitute if you're not even aware of its existence. Emperors in Roman times weren't exactly complaining about a lack of TVs. All poverty is relative poverty, and if there is equality, no one is destitute.

AndrewB said:

Why anyone would want to live in a lawless, structureless, decaying society is beyond me. Anarchism = economic conservatism to the theoretical extreme.

You're not talking about anarchism, you're talking about anarcho-capitalism, which is, yes, psychotic.

Is it just me or are anarchists quick to say what anarchy isn't, but never give their definition of what it is.

Anarchy can never succeed because there has to be a united movement to tear down the current institutions and rearrange the social structure of their area of operations. An anarchic situation cannot support cities, but there are far too many people on this earth to survive merely by sustenance farming or a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. People like Pol Pot knew this, and look at the carnage they wrought. In fact, any aspiring anarchist should look closely at Pol Pot's example and rhetoric, and then see if they still have the stomach for the "anarchic utopia".

Throughout human history there has been government. Hunter gatherer groups had a leader to coordinate their movements and activities. Sustenance farmers need to work together to do things like dig wells, erect structures, and the like.

As others have mentioned, even nature has no real examples of anarchy. Even the solitary big cats have define territory, and have rituals that are used to ward off competitors and socialize with potential mates. A true anarchic system has never existed.

sargebaldy said:

I guess that depends on what you consider destitute. We keep making new things that in the past no one would consider you "destitute" to be without, where today you would. We create new needs all the time, and I don't think not having the newest technology makes you destitute if you're not even aware of its existence. Emperors in Roman times weren't exactly complaining about a lack of TVs. All poverty is relative poverty, and if there is equality, no one is destitute.

Yeah, true, but having to work over 12 hours a day just to survive isn't what I'd call living in the lap of luxury either, even if no one has it better than you. You're all in the shit.

Anarchy is impossible because anarchy means everyone for themselves without a defined ruler or leader. However, human nature wants some form of leader and rules, which is why anarchy would never work. Same with communism *ducks flames*

And for the record, I'm a pretty strong Socialist Libertarian according to PoliticalCompass.org, and I'm saying this. However, I'm not all out communist and not all out anarchist, my views just swing that way apparently. I just don't believe it would work all out.

insertwackynamehere said:

Anarchy is impossible because anarchy means everyone for themselves without a defined ruler or leader. However, human nature wants some form of leader and rules, which is why anarchy would never work. Same with communism *ducks flames*

People always use human nature as an argument against it, because it's impossible to defend. "Why won't anarchy work?" "Because people are naturally selfish." What can you say in response to that? Saying human nature is X or Y is an ideological argument and not one supported by anything. In reality, there are plenty of examples of societies and societal structures in which individuals work together towards a common goal rather than against one another to satisfy their own objectives. One obvious example is the family structure (hopefully, or it probably won't work out too well.)

Danarchy said:

Yeah, true, but having to work over 12 hours a day just to survive isn't what I'd call living in the lap of luxury either, even if no one has it better than you. You're all in the shit.

Not really, because people in complex societies actually work more than people in simple ones. And depending on the society and where you're located there's almost no work to be done in the winter, since you can't plant or grow and you need to live off what you already had stored up. You also waste a ridiculous amount of time on education in modernized societies just to keep up with the complexity of things. Nowadays the Wobblies are calling for a 4 day week, with 4 hours of work a day, and cutting out all the crap. It really isn't even as impossible as it sounds on the surface, when you consider most people's work is completely meaningless.

Here I'd like to present a video clip I know you've seen, but is entertaining and also makes a good point. (Unfortunately, that clip doesn't have the part about the Bushmen.)

sargebaldy said:
Anarchism has nothing to do with chaos. The whole point of anarchy is order.

Order implies rank, which is what anarchism opposes; anarchy cares mainly about means, in any case (not ends). I think you meant organization (which does not essentially require order).

Dr. Zin said:
Anarchy can never succeed because there has to be a united movement to tear down the current institutions and rearrange the social structure of their area of operations.

Nothing is absolute, in any case. Current institutions only "rule" as far as their reach is concerned, and more or less anarchic communities or movements exist just as well, and form part of and can shape events like any other social phenomena.

An anarchic situation cannot support cities, but there are far too many people on this earth to survive merely by sustenance farming or a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. People like Pol Pot knew this, and look at the carnage they wrought. In fact, any aspiring anarchist should look closely at Pol Pot's example and rhetoric, and then see if they still have the stomach for the "anarchic utopia".

That was a communist, not an anarchist. In any case, considering anarchism in regard to modernity is not a matter of envisioning a world of small isolated villages and tribes. If any sort of anarchism (lack of domination or rulership) forms in an advanced society, it would be by exacerbating individual true political participation, not by reducing society in any way. Whether that eventually leads to a simpler society (perhaps it might due to enhanced efficiency or the elimimination of certain redundant prcesses or things), is another matter.

Throughout human history there has been government. Hunter gatherer groups had a leader to coordinate their movements and activities. Sustenance farmers need to work together to do things like dig wells, erect structures, and the like.

On a large scale it is necessary to partition responsibilities. That's not the same as lordship or rulership, though. I don't even think laws or administrative functions are necessarily antianarchic (at least in a postutopian sense), as long as they are moderated to be functional to society and to ensure equality (especially if they are fully accountable).

sargebaldy said:
People always use human nature as an argument against it, because it's impossible to defend. "Why won't anarchy work?" "Because people are naturally selfish." What can you say in response to that? Saying human nature is X or Y is an ideological argument and not one supported by anything. In reality, there are plenty of examples of societies and societal structures in which individuals work together towards a common goal rather than against one another to satisfy their own objectives. One obvious example is the family structure (hopefully, or it probably won't work out too well.)

Additionally, it's just dumb to deny self interest in regard to anarchism, since to a great degree that is exactly what it seeks and observes. Anarchism as a social principle is based on the desire to remove others' power off one's back, understanding that it's necessary to do this in a social manner to avoid being exploited or abused by elites. As you indicate this is a natural process in society. It's often heavily tainted by inequities and inequalities, but it's there no matter what.

Not really, because people in complex societies actually work more than people in simple ones. And depending on the society and where you're located there's almost no work to be done in the winter, since you can't plant or grow and you need to live off what you already had stored up. You also waste a ridiculous amount of time on education in modernized societies just to keep up with the complexity of things. Nowadays the Wobblies are calling for a 4 day week, with 4 hours of work a day, and cutting out all the crap. It really isn't even as impossible as it sounds on the surface, when you consider most people's work is completely meaningless.

Plus many people work more because others work less or "work" by merely administering them. Both work and administration must be shared to the furthest extent by all the participants of society to avoid a bad distribution of power (where anarchy is the even empowerment of the mass of society).

myk said:

Order implies rank, which is what anarchism opposes; anarchy cares mainly about means, in any case (not ends). I think you meant organization (which does not essentially require order).

You're using a different definition of order than I am. I'm using it in the sense of "a condition in which each thing is properly disposed with reference to other things and to its purpose; methodical or harmonious arrangement". Hierarchical order is a specific type of order; it is certainly not the only type of order. Anarchists propose an order with equitable interconnections between each and each other, and each with the environment. To put it visually, a circular order rather than a pyramid, with each point on the circle dependent on (and supportive of) the other points. Essentially an organization in which your best interests are exactly the same thing as the group's best interests.

sargebaldy said:

Anarchists propose an order with equitable interconnections between each and each other, and each with the environment. To put it visually, a circular order rather than a pyramid, with each point on the circle dependent on (and supportive of) the other points. Essentially an organization in which your best interests are exactly the same thing as the group's best interests.

So anarchists agree to behave in certain ways and follow codes of conduct? What if some of them don't want to play along, what then? How is this any different than law and order?

Quast said:
How is this any different than law and order?

That's why I said above that certain sorts of laws could perhaps be plausible in some form of (modern) anarchism; only those would have to have nonauthoritative methods of validation and implementation. One's not bound to follow regulations merely due to a respect for authority and a fear of being punished, but also (and in the best cases, mostly) because they are socially convenient and helpful.

I think that an anarchist society of considerable complexity would have to be quite conscious of its anarchist values (and any reasons why they are convenient), or it wouldn't work.

Anarchism is not about thinking and doing whatever, but about not being ruled by others any more than you rule them.

I have to defend the Pol Pot point. Yes, the Khymer Rouge was communist, but people confuse the movement with the Soviet backed revolutions. The Russians had no contact with the Cambodian movement (in fact, they hated them). The ideologies were vastly different. Pol Pot's vision was much closer to the Marxist communism, which is itself a form of an anarchic utopia.

Essentially he wanted to reduce the Cambodian population to 2-3 million people, dismantle all the cities, and revert to an agrarian form of life. To acheive this they killed anyone connected to the previous government, any "intellectuals", anyone who had contact with a foreign nation, and those without cultivation skills.

All in all you people seem to be discussing a decentralized (or rather, distributed) government and using the term anarchy. They are two different things.

Anarchy is a vacuum, and something will fill that vacuum. Whether that is a peaceful meritocracy or some fascist thugs, a functional form of authority will still emerge as long as there is some form of human interaction.

The concept of a decentralized government is an interesting one, but it has MANY flaws. Things like the communications difficulties, societal drift, and a roadblock to technological advancement are just a few.

Let's give everyone here admin priledges and see if it can work!

Dr. Zin said:
Pol Pot's vision was much closer to the Marxist communism, which is itself a form of an anarchic utopia.

Marxism postulated some sort of communism as an evolution of industrialist capitalism imploding like feudalism did before it, not a return to an agrarian communal existence by military force. Pol Pot was more isolationist, more nationalist, rural oriented, and himself a belligerent figurehead (thus an authoritarian figure), distancing himself from both anarchism (the even distribution of power) and proper industrialist Marxism (the even distribution of wealth).

All in all you people seem to be discussing a decentralized (or rather, distributed) government and using the term anarchy. They are two different things.

We are discussing anarchism; the political theory and practice of antiauthoritarian self government. I don't think it can be very decentralized, because without a common ground (at least humanist principles, and perhaps shared languages), there can be little or no concensus and not enough interaction. That's the main reason why it works much more easily in a small scale or local environment, which is centralized in its immediacy and by cultural unity.

Anarchy is a vacuum, and something will fill that vacuum. Whether that is a peaceful meritocracy or some fascist thugs, a functional form of authority will still emerge as long as there is some form of human interaction.

This is a condition that Quast mentioned above and sargebaldy gave a specific name to. We're not talking about that social condition gauged from an "archist" perspective (where the lack of leadership is seen as a void) but anarchist doctrines that aim to implement anarchy as a social form, where the lack of leadership is a requirement.

I probably wouldn't link to Wikipedia's article on anarchism as a resource, seeing as it's a messy battlefield that dilutes everything down in order to fit anarcho-capitalism in as a legitimate form of anarchism. (An idea which makes no sense, because as you say anarchism is about the equal distribution of power, whereas anarcho-capitalists embrace power differences, as well as other ideas widely rejected by anarchists, such as private police forces, corporate laws, private governments, private property, the exploitation of nature, wage slavery and so on.)

sargebaldy said:
I probably wouldn't link to Wikipedia's article on anarchism as a resource, seeing as it's a messy battlefield that dilutes everything down in order to fit anarcho-capitalism in as a legitimate form of anarchism.

Yeah, that's like saying Nazis are properly socialists. Regardless, Dr. Zin appeared to be totally unaware of the whole branch of thought (or else chose to ignore it), so while it may be flawed it can help deviate the discussion from anarchy as an accidental power void in an traditional society.

In short term situations, anarchism can work, but it will never stand the test of time because the majority of humans will always band together into groups, and those groups will always have some form of governing individual/body/consensus.

You can have some form of administration in anarchist society. It just needs to be based on consensus and direct democracy. If everyone agrees on something, no one is truly being governed. And a consensus isn't so difficult to manage in such a society because each member shares the same basic objectives (the group objectives).

Sorry but there will NEVER be consensus on how to run ANY society.

AndrewB said:
Sorry but there will NEVER be consensus on how to run ANY society.

What, absolute and specific consensus on all grounds? Of course not. On the other hand there is always consensus of some degree on how to run a society, or it ceases to be a society.