Can anarchy survive on a large scale?

[Vagrant0]

I had this shared on my facebook page and it got me pretty excited, with this thread being on the theme of anarchy I figured it would be appropriate to bring this up here.

Does anybody know much about this group and can they actually deliver results? From having a quick look at related videos they seem to pretty active but not sure if they can be at all effective to sway the balance of power.

Some people just want to see the world burn. Some people just want to make you think they can. Some people just suggest that they can solely just to screw with you for lols. The problem is that anyone can be Anonymous, or claim themselves as such. This includes every idiot you've had to deal with online, every noob, every script kiddy, even your Grandma. And videos like that are a dime a dozen and can be made solely just for the sake of getting attention or to look cool to your friends. Those who are actually capable of anything with Anon, have either already done what they wanted to do, or realized that any large scale attack would just end up ruining their playground. It's much more fun to compete in the online circle jerk than it is to spend the months cracking into sensitive systems and release a crap-ton of classified information online, for example. Also less risky. Even if portions of that group wanted to enact real, substantial change in the world, there is no command structure beyond those who have earned an OPs position, so the majority of what does go on is mostly minor, petty, and more often than not... Just DDossing or defacing a website they don't like. Real threat doesn't come in the form of chaos and people being told what to expect... It comes from a directed and intentional initiative done without warning. And on that note, China and North Korea are a bigger thing to be concerned about.

 

But again, this is why Anarchy also doesn't really work. In response to Ghogiel's point... The reason why they are the same is because both have the same faulty component. People. People are greedy, idealistic, self-serving, single minded, and not particularly prone to change. This is also why Communism didn't work very well, as well as almost every other form of organization designed for more than a handful of people. For an exception to exist, you would need a hive-mind-like collective... And even then, by nature of the single mind being responsible for many bodies, you would still have some form of government.

 

 

This is all, of course, excluding that whole part of scarcity leading people to naturally pool resources and the tendency for people within any population to eventually specialize as long as their base needs can be met through cooperation with others. There is a reason why assembly lines tend to produce more goods, with less quality variation, than if you had each individual worker perform every step themselves.

[Harbringe]

When it comes to statism it doesn't really matter if your talking about communism or democracy or whatever its not about what's better , for they are all just means of control . The important thing is why is there a need to control in the first place and for that answer you to have to look to the human character or as some spiritual teachers in our past have pointed out , the human soul. This is something that I have never heard anyone who puts forth the anarchist idea's ever address. Their idea's always seem to presume that things like greed , lust for power , hate , etc etc just simply wouldn't exist , well the truth is so too did the architects of all systems of government , as if their idea's were so natural they would sublime these other aspects of human nature to the greater idea and history has shown that not to be the case over and over.

 

This is an interesting video on what it is that confronts us.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

[HeyYou]

I find it interesting that a fair few seem to agree with my surmise that anarchy cannot work, so long as humans are involved. :D

[Vagrant0]

I find it interesting that a fair few seem to agree with my surmise that anarchy cannot work, so long as humans are involved. :D

Even in absence of people, it still probably wouldn't work since there is a logistic advantage to working and collaborating with others, and by nature of base needs being met by another member of that group in exchange for other activities for that group, you have the beginnings of specialization and interdependency. Take ants or bees for example. Although they probably don't have anything as developed as a sense of politics, many of the activities of the colony become centered around the queen as a requirement for further generations to be bred. As a result of all this complication, they have a much greater individual survivability than most other insects. Ants, for example, can gather much more food, take down larger prey, and maintain larger populations in a single area than most other creatures comparably.

 

Almost everywhere you have groups of animals working as a single collective, you have a survival advantage, but also the development of an order. A single male lion may have several females and children, the females do most of the hunting, the male still eats first, the children eat last.

[Beriallord]

True anarchy is not like what a lot of people would expect. It doesn't necessarily mean complete chaos, although it could be. Honestly I'd rather live under true anarchy than a Liberal Democracy. The most talented and successful people won't be things like hedge fund managers, or bankers, or lawyers, but people who know how to make, fix, or grow stuff. I think Anarchy for a few years would give society a gut check, and get rid of a lot of dead weight. People that are lazy, dumb, not talented, or slow to adapt wouldn't last long. Pardon my lack of empathy, but its a genuine opinion, and I'm not sharing it with the intention of offending anyone.

 

Also anarchy won't ever last indefinitely, because I believe people come together and establish forms of order, and laws that will eventually develop into localized governments. It would probably start out as a primitive form of Communism on a small scale, but definitely not egalitarianism. Meaning you don't work, you don't eat.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Beriallord

[sukeban]

It's not my intention to bait anyone espousing the "No work, no eat" ethos, as I do agree that our modern societies have drifted too far to its opposite, but I would have to ask the question, "What would be done about the invalids/elderly/disabled" in these supposed anarchist societies? It might fall to someone's family to care for a sick member or someone who is disabled, but what if they have no relations? Their friends? What if nobody likes them. If they are mentally unwell and not the... "easiest" person to be around, what then? Cast them off into the wilds?

 

I am not really a bleeding heart, so I would be pretty okay with withholding food from the incorrigible and the lazy, but these other types of folks... I couldn't sanction casting them away. So some sort of allowance would have to be made. And if it didn't come voluntarily (human greed or malice), how would it be procured? Government in the welfare state is supposed to be the neutral dispenser of these types of services, taking up the slack where religious/civil society/whatever other groups are either unable or unwilling (sorry, we only serve members of our own denomination...). Who but a government can look out for these people?

 

Also regarding anarchy, occupations are not equal--either in our modern societies or in an anarchist collective. Were I starting a collective at the present date, I would select programmers, doctors, organic farmers, and teachers of various stripes rather than lawyers, poets, retail workers, or football players. What holds these individuals back from "ransoming" their services from the collective if their various "demands" (compensation, status, power, influence, etc.) are not met? This is all the more acute if, say, the collective's only doctor can also hunt his own food on the side, making him less reliant on the collective. Not to say that they "owe" it to the rest of the collective to provide them with services, I mention it merely to highlight the power that certain individuals will have power simply owing to what they do... even in a collective. The hierarchy would be infinitely more practical and likely "just" in a collective (lawyers and Wall Streeters would be digging ditches >:} ), but a hierarchy would still remain.

 

And what of people merely being people, able to be blinded and seduced by honeyed words and physical beauty? Or by their emotions: jealously, irrational hatred, love. Who is to say that an affable gent who invests his time leveling up "Speechcraft" (charisma/charm/persuasion) wouldn't be able to get his way regardless of his actual "value" to the whole? Not saying that our present societies are immune to that either (the trope of the "hot intern" or preferential legal treatment for celebrities/athletes), but at least we have formal laws and government to at least de jure prevent that from happening. Law is intended to be impartial and blind to individual characteristics, but what of a society with no codified laws and entirely subject to the caprice of human beings?

Edited January 29, 2013 by sukeban

[Ghogiel]

I find it interesting that a fair few seem to agree with my surmise that anarchy cannot work, so long as humans are involved. :D

Even in absence of people, it still probably wouldn't work since there is a logistic advantage to working and collaborating with others, and by nature of base needs being met by another member of that group in exchange for other activities for that group, you have the beginnings of specialization and interdependency.

Voluntary unions or organizations forming is how anarchy is supposed to work in practice.

[Ghogiel]

It's not my intention to bait anyone espousing the "No work, no eat" ethos, as I do agree that our modern societies have drifted too far to its opposite, but I would have to ask the question, "What would be done about the invalids/elderly/disabled" in these supposed anarchist societies? It might fall to someone's family to care for a sick member or someone who is disabled, but what if they have no relations? Their friends? What if nobody likes them. If they are mentally unwell and not the... "easiest" person to be around, what then? Cast them off into the wilds?

 

I am not really a bleeding heart, so I would be pretty okay with withholding food from the incorrigible and the lazy, but these other types of folks... I couldn't sanction casting them away. So some sort of allowance would have to be made. And if it didn't come voluntarily (human greed or malice), how would it be procured? Government in the welfare state is supposed to be the neutral dispenser of these types of services, taking up the slack where religious/civil society/whatever other groups are either unable or unwilling (sorry, we only serve members of our own denomination...). Who but a government can look out for these people?

 

You and other people like yourself. It's the very base of anarchy. If no one in the society gives two shits, then they obviously starve. The society doesn't want to be compassionate towards other people, then that is the way of it. The whole frame work is based on non-coercion. You would volunteer your time or money by yourself, not by a top down governing body forcing you pay for it, and there being no option to opt out.

 

 

Also regarding anarchy, occupations are not equal--either in our modern societies or in an anarchist collective. Were I starting a collective at the present date, I would select programmers, doctors, organic farmers, and teachers of various stripes rather than lawyers, poets, retail workers, or football players. What holds these individuals back from "ransoming" their services from the collective if their various "demands" (compensation, status, power, influence, etc.) are not met?

The scarcity of the service will increase it's value in the economy for sure. One thing that would stop this ransoming is competition in the market. Another person could under cut and steal their business if their prices are extortionate. Or people just wouldn't be able to afford their service or product.

 

This is all the more acute if, say, the collective's only doctor can also hunt his own food on the side, making him less reliant on the collective. Not to say that they "owe" it to the rest of the collective to provide them with services, I mention it merely to highlight the power that certain individuals will have power simply owing to what they do... even in a collective. The hierarchy would be infinitely more practical and likely "just" in a collective (lawyers and Wall Streeters would be digging ditches >:} ), but a hierarchy would still remain.

 

And what of people merely being people, able to be blinded and seduced by honeyed words and physical beauty? Or by their emotions: jealously, irrational hatred, love. Who is to say that an affable gent who invests his time leveling up "Speechcraft" (charisma/charm/persuasion) wouldn't be able to get his way regardless of his actual "value" to the whole? Not saying that our present societies are immune to that either (the trope of the "hot intern" or preferential legal treatment for celebrities/athletes), but at least we have formal laws and government to at least de jure prevent that from happening. Law is intended to be impartial and blind to individual characteristics, but what of a society with no codified laws and entirely subject to the caprice of human beings?

If by hierarchy you mean the society will place higher value on people with sought after skills, and those people will be in a much more secure position in that society, and reap the benefits of that position. Yes, that is how the free market is supposed to work.

 

The business of laws is blurry. But in my personal opinion, you are under no restriction to form or join a free association where you could create contracts, which would function as a form of laws. Nothing is stopping people do such a thing in an anarchy. Just what exactly happens when things go to s*** is the mystery to me.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Ghogiel

[Vagrant0]

I find it interesting that a fair few seem to agree with my surmise that anarchy cannot work, so long as humans are involved. :D

Even in absence of people, it still probably wouldn't work since there is a logistic advantage to working and collaborating with others, and by nature of base needs being met by another member of that group in exchange for other activities for that group, you have the beginnings of specialization and interdependency.

Voluntary unions or organizations forming is how anarchy is supposed to work in practice.

Except that nearly every instance of such unions have had their share of issues directly resulting from some sort of hierarchy forming, and thus cease being anarchism in practice. These also have a tendency for individuals to fall into a sort of free-rider situation since their portion of the work becomes less demanding (physically or time wise) than others or requires different skills which are harder to learn... Usually in the case of instances where there isn't always a demand on those skills, like repairing things. Definitely an important job, and definitely requires a high level of familiarity, but as long as what you are there to repair isn't breaking down, you may not have very much to do. And then comes notions of how essential your position is, and how much compensation you should get for your ability. And preventing the undercutting prices or value of work is kinda also what Unions do by means of that organization establishing values with an iron fist by threatening or intimidating, or just ruining anyone who tries. So it is a self-feeding problem, and why most places that have a union are non-voluntary.

[Ghogiel]

I find it interesting that a fair few seem to agree with my surmise that anarchy cannot work, so long as humans are involved. :D

Even in absence of people, it still probably wouldn't work since there is a logistic advantage to working and collaborating with others, and by nature of base needs being met by another member of that group in exchange for other activities for that group, you have the beginnings of specialization and interdependency.

Voluntary unions or organizations forming is how anarchy is supposed to work in practice.

Except that nearly every instance of such unions have had their share of issues directly resulting from some sort of hierarchy forming, and thus cease being anarchism in practice.

Heterarchy is arguably more flexible than a rigid top down hierarchy. "Domination and subordination links can be reversed and privileges can be redistributed in each situation, following the needs of the system."