Anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism

[Dragonspyre]

1. I never said it was FO3. And yes, I was being serious. Weapons are the first step to gaining control, stability, and power. In anarchy, rank is nonexistent, so whoever has the most power in terms of resources will last the longest.

2. There are approximately 7 billion people on Earth, and 300 million in my country alone. You're kidding yourself if you think all 7 billion people on Earth are completely competent people. Well over a billion is invalids alone, and similar numbers for those without the needed skills. 2 billion is enough to spark a riot.

3. If you've seen my country, you'd know what I mean when I say most people have lost any and all instinct.

4. Notice how badly humans react to plague. 75 million were killed by the Black Death and 20 million in the 1920 Spanish Influenza.

5. 1/10th of Earth's population is 700 million people. Imagine a riot with 700 million people, and then tell me how easy it would be to get that in control with no hierarchy, on a global scale, no less.

 

1. You are correct, presuming we're talking about chaotic anarchy. Which we're not.

 

2. No one is seriously suggesting that 7 billion people could function in chaotic anarchy very much less anarchism.

 

3. Doesn't mean they couldn't be taught. Those that refuse to learn would die out regardless.

 

4. The Black Death devastated because of ignorance at the time. The Spanish Flu, because of how it worked as a virus and the fact that no one could really have done much to stop it anyway at the time. This would not be as large of an issue for a more modern and small population.

 

5. Again, no one's suggesting that's feasible, at least not all at once. A 700 million population anarchy would have to be built up to that level, and even then, it doesn't have to be.

 

Super high population is not a necessary thing for any society. Its not even something societies shoot for, but just a result of its success.

 

Don't take this as me just folding, but well played. You certainly gave a good rebuttal. Kudos.

[HeyYou]

Actually, something akin to the spanish flu epidemic would be even more devastating in this day and age, given the ease of travel. If a new strain popped up, it would spread over the world within days. As it takes months, if not years to develop a vaccine..... it would be way to late. Regardless of the form of government.

[marharth]

Who is anarchy for then? You are obviously talking about a large scale government since you mentioned foreign policy.

 

Anarchists. Is that not obvious? And foreign policy doesn't indicate large scale government.

 

You seriously think there is no such thing as a person who can not get help? You really think everyone has a family or friend to watch over them?

 

Yes, in anarchy.

 

1. How big is the ideal population for your system?

 

If we want to absolutely cement long-term stability? Between 1000 and 5000.

 

If we want long-term stability but don't necessarily need to force it? Probably it will grow to around 200,000.

 

If we aren't that concerned about long-term stability, it can be as large as it wants too presuming it grows to that point and adapts its systems to handle larger scale populations. A system similar to the States system in the US is an alright idea for that.

 

2. How are people supposed to get resources without government funding?

 

If this isn't obvious to you then I don't know what to say.

So you think a long standing stable government can run like that? You think you can actually form a entire system that has international relations on a population of anarchists? You think that a few thousand people are enough for a entire country? How are you planning on scientific advancement? How do you get your resources? I don't think a farming community counts as a country.

 

Simply said you do not have enough good willed people for this to ever work. I doubt you could find 1000 normal good people, let alone convince them to move into some kind of government like you describe.

 

You think 200k people can just work together in a utopian system? That no one will ever lose their family or friends? That everyone will be completely willing to share?

[imperistan]

So you think a long standing stable government can run like that? You think you can actually form a entire system that has international relations on a population of anarchists? You think that a few thousand people are enough for a entire country? How are you planning on scientific advancement? How do you get your resources? I don't think a farming community counts as a country.

 

Simply said you do not have enough good willed people for this to ever work. I doubt you could find 1000 normal good people, let alone convince them to move into some kind of government like you describe.

 

You think 200k people can just work together in a utopian system? That no one will ever lose their family or friends? That everyone will be completely willing to share?

 

Yes, if done right.

 

Yes.

 

Its called a micro-nation, and formed correctly it can in fact gain sovereignty according to international law (lets ignore the can of worms that opens for the moment) and maintain it despite being right next to however many other states.

 

Gee, the same way the entire world does it.

 

Again, same way the entire world does it. Find it at home, or acquire it elsewhere.

 

Its not utopian, I've said this already.

 

Why would they?

 

Yes, this is the entire point of voluntary action and a gift economy. You would become a part of this society on understanding and accepting that, or otherwise you either end up totally on your own (which you'd be able to do of your own choice anyway), end up leaving, or end up being kicked out if your selfishness is causing that big of an issue.

 

 

Its seriously not very fair on your part to hold anarchism to standards that you aren't also holding statism to. You're acting as if anarchy has to be isolationist.

[marharth]

How do you plan on keeping a community large enough to form a economy?

 

You do realize you need people to have a economy right? You can't have scientific advancement and other technologies with such a small population. You need people to run and work for these things. And what? Just find it in your house? You do realize that people have to process stuff and actually get it from raw materiel? Unless you have some sort of crazy AI system you are not telling the rest of the world about, its not going to happen.

 

As for people not losing family or friends, how exactly are you planning on perfecting medical science so no one ever dies?

 

This is supposed to be voluntary? Let me put out a situation here.

 

If person A likes sharing, person B does not, and person C needs to be able to gain from sharing, person B is not productive in the society at all. How many people would choose to be like person A? Why not choose to be like person B and only help yourself? Unless what you said previous is true, and people choose to be in the society based on their ideals. I will also address that.

 

Now to my understanding, you are saying that people are going into this country with the understanding of how stuff works and what their ideals should be. Are you planning on creating the entire population from immigration?

 

What about people born into your country? They can easily develop different ideals. Do you just kick them out as well? What if people decide to change their ideals?

Edited February 28, 2012 by marharth

[HeyYou]

The major flaw in your scheme though, is STILL human nature. Get a large enough group together, and you WILL find those that are more than capable of working within the system to further their own interests above those of everyone else. You will never be rid of it.

[imperistan]

The major flaw in your scheme though, is STILL human nature. Get a large enough group together, and you WILL find those that are more than capable of working within the system to further their own interests above those of everyone else. You will never be rid of it.

 

Capable yes. Willing? Perhaps not. People so capable as that have the potential to be just as beneficial as they could be detrimental. And if its the latter, I've already listed a response to them.

 

marharth

 

I'm not quite so sure you're understanding how a gift economy works. And again, it seems like you're holding anarchism to another inexplicable standard. Anarchy doesn't have to reinvent the wheel, nor does it have to exclude itself from advancement in the rest of the world.

 

Yes, you need people to run such operations. But at such a low population point, these operations are not necessary. A gold mine doesn't need to be opened for 1000 people when necessities (something that would already be garnered in selecting the location for such a society. Water, fertile land, and preferably lumber are all such a society would need internally for such a low population) are already had. But if that society grows to 50,000 people, not only would there now be people to run these operations, but the necessity for those operations crops up.

 

Perfecting medical science? o_O Holding anarchy to another inexplicable, unreachable standard I see.

 

If person A likes sharing, person B does not, and person C needs to be able to gain from sharing, person B is not productive in the society at all. How many people would choose to be like person A? Why not choose to be like person B and only help yourself?

 

This hypothetical fails to account for that fact that no, not everyone acts like person B, and that true anarchists (outside of egotists) behave as person A does.

 

And you wouldn't want to be like person B unless you were totally self-reliant. You would have to get your own water, grow/hunt your own food, build your own house, make your own clothes, etc etc.

 

And ultimately if too many people behave like person B (and society doesn't collapse somehow), there will still the be the problem that society will be far worse than it would be if they were all participating in the mutual aid of a gift economy.

 

Its far easier for everyone to end up better off working together (teaching and learning from each other, providing for and taking from each other) than it is for them to work alone and strife over how to exchange things.

 

Now to my understanding, you are saying that people are going into this country with the understanding of how stuff works and what their ideals should be. Are you planning on creating the entire population from immigration?

 

I remember this one country that was started purely on immigrants. I can't remember the name but its doing okay. Hmmm.....

 

But yes. Anarchists are not so readily plentiful in easily reachable and compact groups. They exist all over the world. If this society were to be achieved, it would be imperative to put it on them to immigrate rather than trying to group them all together. As for non-anarchists who might come to want to come and live within this society, they would have to acknowledge that they understand how society works (and agree to participate in it, or otherwise choose option B (be on your own) or leave) as a requirement for gaining a piece of land.

 

What about people born into your country? They can easily develop different ideals. Do you just kick them out as well? What if people decide to change their ideals?

 

If you don't agree you're free to leave. Thats the great part. You actually have a choice in this society. In the status quo, you don't. You either like whats going on, or you shove it. Because going somewhere else now either means going somewhere inhospitable, or somewhere thats just the same coin painted over with new colors.

 

And if somehow you believe in something that falls under neither of the two and isn't satisfied by being on your own, then you're out of luck because you've just invented something entirely new or you're trying to be something detrimental to everybody.

[marharth]

The major flaw in your scheme though, is STILL human nature. Get a large enough group together, and you WILL find those that are more than capable of working within the system to further their own interests above those of everyone else. You will never be rid of it.

 

Capable yes. Willing? Perhaps not. People so capable as that have the potential to be just as beneficial as they could be detrimental. And if its the latter, I've already listed a response to them.

 

marharth

 

I'm not quite so sure you're understanding how a gift economy works. And again, it seems like you're holding anarchism to another inexplicable standard. Anarchy doesn't have to reinvent the wheel, nor does it have to exclude itself from advancement in the rest of the world.

 

Yes, you need people to run such operations. But at such a low population point, these operations are not necessary. A gold mine doesn't need to be opened for 1000 people when necessities (something that would already be garnered in selecting the location for such a society. Water, fertile land, and preferably lumber are all such a society would need internally for such a low population) are already had. But if that society grows to 50,000 people, not only would there now be people to run these operations, but the necessity for those operations crops up.

 

Perfecting medical science? o_O Holding anarchy to another inexplicable, unreachable standard I see.

 

If person A likes sharing, person B does not, and person C needs to be able to gain from sharing, person B is not productive in the society at all. How many people would choose to be like person A? Why not choose to be like person B and only help yourself?

 

This hypothetical fails to account for that fact that no, not everyone acts like person B, and that true anarchists (outside of egotists) behave as person A does.

 

And you wouldn't want to be like person B unless you were totally self-reliant. You would have to get your own water, grow/hunt your own food, build your own house, make your own clothes, etc etc.

 

And ultimately if too many people behave like person B (and society doesn't collapse somehow), there will still the be the problem that society will be far worse than it would be if they were all participating in the mutual aid of a gift economy.

 

Its far easier for everyone to end up better off working together (teaching and learning from each other, providing for and taking from each other) than it is for them to work alone and strife over how to exchange things.

 

Now to my understanding, you are saying that people are going into this country with the understanding of how stuff works and what their ideals should be. Are you planning on creating the entire population from immigration?

 

I remember this one country that was started purely on immigrants. I can't remember the name but its doing okay. Hmmm.....

 

But yes. Anarchists are not so readily plentiful in easily reachable and compact groups. They exist all over the world. If this society were to be achieved, it would be imperative to put it on them to immigrate rather than trying to group them all together. As for non-anarchists who might come to want to come and live within this society, they would have to acknowledge that they understand how society works (and agree to participate in it, or otherwise choose option B (be on your own) or leave) as a requirement for gaining a piece of land.

 

What about people born into your country? They can easily develop different ideals. Do you just kick them out as well? What if people decide to change their ideals?

 

If you don't agree you're free to leave. Thats the great part. You actually have a choice in this society. In the status quo, you don't. You either like whats going on, or you shove it. Because going somewhere else now either means going somewhere inhospitable, or somewhere thats just the same coin painted over with new colors.

 

And if somehow you believe in something that falls under neither of the two and isn't satisfied by being on your own, then you're out of luck because you've just invented something entirely new or you're trying to be something detrimental to everybody.

5000 people won't be able to build a long lasting economy. Unless you want to live in a completely isolated village you need to develop new technology or trade with other countries. If you are just producing basic food and energy to help your own country that isn't going to work. You obviously do not have the proper resources to generate a economy and have any kind of international currency. Where exactly are you planning on getting your energy again? Or do you just not want power of any kind?

 

America also allowed for freedom of speech and freedom to express their own ideas. Doesn't work the same way here considering the way your society runs. If you disagree you either have to move or get kicked out. America wasn't founded on only immigration. Pretty sure that most people in the USA today were born inside of it. The point is that not everyone born into your system is going to agree with you. You will have immigrates as the majority of your population for generations, and your country will never grow significantly big.

 

You asked why people wouldn't have family or friends. The obvious answer is death. If you claim your society can stop people from losing family or friends you are claiming you can defeat death or perfect medicine.

 

Your entire government system runs on trusting each other. How trustworthy do you think humans are exactly? Hate to tell you this, but yes, most people do act like person B. Your government still runs on the idea of working together, why do you think any large group of humans can do that properly in a organized government?

[imperistan]

5000 people won't be able to build a long lasting economy. Unless you want to live in a completely isolated village you need to develop new technology or trade with other countries. If you are just producing basic food and energy to help your own country that isn't going to work

 

Are you not reading my posts fully or what? I already addressed this.

 

Energy? Solar, Wind, Geothermal, and hydroelectric all work wonders.

 

Doesn't work the same way here considering the way your society runs. If you disagree you either have to move or get kicked out.

 

No, you don't have to do anything if you don't agree. You would only get kicked out if you take that disagreement to the point of being detrimental to society.

 

America wasn't founded on only immigration. Pretty sure that most people in the USA today were born inside of it.

 

Um, yes, it was in fact founded only on immigration. The first generations of what we would call Americans were either immigrants or born to immigrants. Americans didn't just all of a sudden appear in the Americas and poof, there was a country.

 

The point is that not everyone born into your system is going to agree with you. You will have immigrates as the majority of your population for generations, and your country will never grow significantly big.

 

Sorry, but I must facepalm at this. Not only have you disregarded something I've already said but you're also making a ridiculous assertion that has no basis in anything.

 

You asked why people wouldn't have family or friends. The obvious answer is death. If you claim your society can stop people from losing family or friends you are claiming you can defeat death or perfect medicine.

 

Don't insert random nonsense into my argument please. Thank you.

 

Your entire government system runs on trusting each other.

 

Says who?

 

Something tells me you haven't bothered to read the topic. Either that or you're drastically not understanding what I'm talking about.

[marharth]

Your posts on the economy consisted of "its a gift economy" which says absolutely nothing. People sharing resources and people getting the resources that they only need won't work. Some resources can not be collected and created by the average man. This includes things like TVs and cars. If you don't have a high enough population without the proper skills to produce these things you need to rely on another country for them. Renewable energy is nowhere close to being perfected and can not run a entire country. How do you plan on funding a huge building project to create these things anyways? Are you going to put your entire population to work to build what will be required to run your country?

 

What do you count as "being detrimental to society?" How do you implant that into laws?

 

Read my post again, I said America was not just created through immigration. You said your system relies on people having the same ideals right? How are people born into this system supposed to have the exact same anarchist views as you all the time?

 

When you said "Why would they?" what were you replying to in my post? I could of misunderstood that due to poor formatting, but to my understanding of it you were replying to the family part.

 

Pretty sure you won't have much of a answer for this but I will ask it anyways. Have you even considered a military? 5000 people won't stand up against anything.

 

And before you say again "its a gift economy" or "lol like everyone else." Explain in detail your own system for me.

Edited February 29, 2012 by marharth