grannywils Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Oh, Bless the Wiz!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imperistan Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 . In fact you can block members and never have to see what they post again Hmm, this is a good point. Not so easy a feature to find however. WizardOfAtlantis You'll never be taken seriously with a concept called something like "organized anarchy". It is an oxymoron, even if you want to think it isn't I've been over why its not. I'm not repeating myself anymore. ginnyfizz He has by his own account lived in the sort of society he idealizes. Let's see a description of how it worked. It worked precisely the way I've been describing it, with ~250 people starting it and living it over the course of a year and a half. Most people were already skilled in doing something so they took it upon themselves to pursue that as their occupation. Those that weren't skilled were taught to do whatever they were interested in. Because of the small population, government was based around direct democracy. Policing, again due to the small pop, was militia based. At the time we presumed that if the population began to exceed 500 then we'd work set up a more formal police system, and it was much the same with government, where we'd try to figure out a system to replace the one we were using (which was based around the use of the internet) in case it became too inefficient to both use and fix. Resources were freely given and taken as they were needed. The farmers (I was one) would grow crops, and as people needed food they'd simply come and take what they need. Tailors did the same (though they had it relatively easy, most of us had more than enough clothes already) and so did everyone else who had that kind of job. If you weren't producing then you were either helping maintain and protect the village, or helping to build the place up. Some people did none of those things, but usually that was because they either benefited in another way (we had artists that would make the place look nice for instance. Also had a couple tech guys who handled virtually all technological problems) or because they were one of the seldom few who just sought asylum there. (which included me a couple months before it all ended, but that was because that was the same time I generally became disillusioned with anarchism and went to autarchism. I still tried to help out though) And it worked. Things were peaceful, we were growing (we went from about 25 buildings (not including little shacks people lived in) to a little over a 100 before it ended. From 250 to ~600 people in the same time), and all were happy. Crime was literally nonexistent for the first 6 months or so, and then once we started having a bit of a population boom we had some issues, but never anything that required anything more than what was essentially community service. Mostly just drunken brawls (we had these guys work on the farms for a day or two) and civil disputes. Towards the middle we had some thievery issues (mostly electronics and clothing), but those were solved once we made sure everyone knew that you could get whatever you wanted for free. (we maintained the concept of owning things, except in the case of essential resources. This meant that farmers couldn't keep their excess produce from everyone else for instance.) I imagine if it didn't end it would have been historical. However, towards the end it turned out that a massive part of the population didn't take anarchy seriously (though we would have never suspected due to how most everyone was participating fully) and abandoned the place in droves (most of them were college kids), and by this time we had attracted government attention so those that were left (I believe it was about 25 or so people who stayed with it until the very end. Though it was still the original 250 who didn't just leave. Most of them though had to leave unfortunately) had to deal with that as well as the general collapse of the entire system. I was the only farmer left and the only reason I ended up leaving was because I had to, just like a lot of the other founders. I couldn't afford to get sent to prison for the sake of something that even the ones who stayed until the end knew wasn't going to last nor be powerful enough to assert its independence. So eventually it just ended altogether and the place either went back to nature or was bulldozed (IDK which, because I haven't been back there since I left). I imagine that if that were start up again with the same people (or most the same people) we'd be more careful about ensuring that people in essential occupations were dedicated to staying, and further more that there was someone who could take his/her place, so that we didn't end up with all the farmers and builders leaving at the same time like we did or having the entire militia disappear one day. Oh and in case you question the possibility of having successful farms within a year, most of it was already there as we had originally based ourselves around some already established farmland that was owned by one of our farmers, and we ended up growing into the adjacent forest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 government was based around direct democracy. Doesn't that imply that it was NOT, in fact, and form of anarchy then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imperistan Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 government was based around direct democracy. Doesn't that imply that it was NOT, in fact, and form of anarchy then? No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) Looks like hair-splitting to me....... Of course, the human race has always been rather free and loose with re-defining terms to suit the whim of the moment. Once again, I would point out that ON A SMALL SCALE, sure, it worked. But, only by the tolerance of the various governments surrounding it. If one of those governments took a liking to the land/resources/whathaveyou that the community sat on though, the community wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hades of surviving. Under the current human condition..... (greed, envy, power hungry, etc.) No form of Anarchism would be workable on a large scale. Their would always be someone bigger/meaner/badder that wanted what you have, and have few qualms about taking it by force, simply because they have a 'real' government, that can support an organized military. No form of anarchy is going to be able to field the kind of army that a 'real' government can. The whole "might makes right" thing will come in to play, and the anarchists would be snuffed out in short order. And folks WOULD organize into larger groups, to take advantage of such methods as well. Edited February 21, 2012 by HeyYou Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 @ImperistanAt least this time you presented some anecdotal facts for review, but that still leaves questions... "Towards the middle we had some thievery issues (mostly electronics and clothing), but those were solved once we made sure everyone knew that you could get whatever you wanted for free. (we maintained the concept of owning things, except in the case of essential resources. This meant that farmers couldn't keep their excess produce from everyone else for instance.)" So in effect you exerted coercion on farmers that would have preferred to withhold the product of their labor. "I was the only farmer left and the only reason I ended up leaving was because I had to, just like a lot of the other founders. I couldn't afford to get sent to prison for the sake of something that even the ones who stayed until the end knew wasn't going to last nor be powerful enough to assert its independence." This begs the question of what law you were transgressing to mandate a prison term? "However, towards the end it turned out that a massive part of the population didn't take anarchy seriously (though we would have never suspected due to how most everyone was participating fully) and abandoned the place in droves (most of them were college kids), and by this time we had attracted government attention so those that were left (I believe it was about 25 or so people who stayed with it until the very end. Though it was still the original 250 who didn't just leave. Most of them though had to leave unfortunately) had to deal with that as well as the general collapse of the entire system." This statement admits that the experiment failed, it is much the same as saying the operation was a success but the patient died. Your mini utopia could not withstand the test of time even with limited numbers so just why do you believe that it is an example for emulation on a broader scale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grannywils Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I agree with Aurielius that you have now given us a concrete example to which we can respond. However, I must say as I did in the earlier thread that what you have described is a perfect example of "Communal Living" within a larger democratic community. It is neither Communism nor Anarchy. When a relatively small group of people get together and decide to form their own living arrangements and "govern" themselves and provide for themselves and to live off the land, as it were, they are living communally. They are not communists (which is a political ideolgy) and they are not anarchists (because they have accepted their own form of governance). As I have mentioned earlier, I too have seen this in action, and it can be successful, but it generally does not last, mostly due to the humanity of humans. Like you, Imperistan, I too would like to see it last, but am not at all sure that it can. However, I do not believe in anarchy, and would not call what you have described anarchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginnyfizz Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Yes, I am seeing a lot of structures there, it's a community rather than anarchy. And, surprise surprise, it fell apart due to *there goes that limited altruism and strength of will dragon again..*. Like Aurelius, I am intrigued to know why you were facing prison sentences if you had carried on. I could conjecture, but won't, but it must have been something you either did or did not do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintii Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Ronald Reagan once said and I quote: "How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin". So it was pretty amusing to me when I went to the homepage of Autarchism and found another Reagan quotation: "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Yes sometimes government is the problem but you can rest assured that doing away with government is NOT what he meant.Rather, when you study and understand the ideologies and philosophies of the world then you suddenly realise one thing and it's that you are Anti whatever they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imperistan Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 HeyYou Once again, I would point out that ON A SMALL SCALE, sure, it worked. But, only by the tolerance of the various governments surrounding it. If one of those governments took a liking to the land/resources/whathaveyou that the community sat on though, the community wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hades of surviving. This is the point in establishing independence beforehand. Depending on who you ask, that can mean either revolution, civil disobedience or mutually accepted separation. This is also the point in starting out small rather than big. Its relatively easier for a state to accept a small community of people doing that, but not so much when its a massive amount of people all at once. And as I said earlier this makes it easier to actually establish a larger society. We doubled in size within a year and we were more than capable of handling that. With proper planning, it can work. The only flaw in our plan (besides statist intervention, which was something none of us (we were young for the most part) really anticipated to any serious degree, so we couldn't have avoided it) was not securing the essential functions so that almost everyone could leave and we'd still be operational. simply because they have a 'real' government. :huh: Sorry but "real"? Not confusing states with governments now are we? Aurielius So in effect you exerted coercion on farmers that would have preferred to withhold the product of their labor. No. The farmers we would have needed (3 of them, myself included) were already dedicated and perfectly willing to do what we needed them to do. Everyone else could have hoarded if they wanted to, but it would be self defeating as they'd be producing more than they could ever possibly need or even want, and as they wouldn't be able to trade their product for anything (as there'd be nothing to trade for) they'd be working harder for nothing. So they'd either be producing more for little reason, or they'd produce what they need (and actually a lot of people grew their own food. It wasn't just farmers, and indeed, this was something that was taught) and what land (natural products (IE, non man-made and/or man-influenced) were the one thing we didn't say could be "owned". This includes unused land, wells, lumber, etc etc) they don't use is re-purposed either for something for the community or for more farmland. This begs the question of what law you were transgressing to mandate a prison term? It was taxes mostly that drew attention to me (as at that point I hadn't paid in, IIRC, 2 years) personally, but there were also some drug issues that I'm not going to talk about. This statement admits that the experiment failed, it is much the same as saying the operation was a success but the patient died. Your mini utopia could not withstand the test of time even with limited numbers so just why do you believe that it is an example for emulation on a broader scale? Because our failures were based on things we either didn't anticipate (and truly couldn't control at the time either) or failed to account for. Both of which are now accounted for in the general plan. I cite this as an example because its failures are correctable and presuming we had the same dedication in the initial population we could duplicate that success and maintain it. Hell I'm sure that even despite the government starting to come down on us, it could have continued to some degree if it weren't for the fact that we were crippled by relying on people who we couldn't ensure were going to remain in their place and for that matter not ensuring someone would be there that could take their place in some capacity. The initial 250 of us were all dedicated to the cause, so to speak; We all still stayed when people started leaving. But the people who came after us were not so dedicated, and indeed most of them just saw it as a fad. Truly though this is a problem spanning the entire anarchist movement. Its not the ideas that are flawed so much as its the people that don't take them seriously that are flawed. Again, these kinds of people (and indeed, people who simply just would not function in anarchy period) are not who anarchism is really meant to appeal to without some serious convincing, and in a lot of cases education and disillusionment. On the flip side, those that do take the ideas seriously and are dedicated can make it work and will maintain it. But the moment such a society begins to rely on the exact opposite of these kinds of people, then its set up for it to come crashing down. and they are not anarchists (because they have accepted their own form of governance). Again it would appear that you all are still hung up on the word "anarchy", and can't get past the fact that it doesn't have just one meaning. Even Wikipedia agrees with me on that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts