Can anarchy survive on a large scale?

[colourwheel]

Here my 2 cents...

 

Anarchy is basically equivalent to chaos. The only thing that can come out of chaos is order. Anarchy on a large scale wouldn't last very long in my opinion.

[imperistan]

Maybe I've got this wrong, but it's how I perceive the issue here.Thank you

 

A leader does not have to be a ruler. If your ability as a leader is so little that you need the iron fist of authority and coercion to lead your people then you are no leader. And more than that, if you as a leader are so fearful that you will try and force your position regardless of what the people think of you and want of you, then you are, again, no leader.

 

I'm responding to the question given in the thread title. I asusme that's allowed.

 

Not really, because a topic title is just lead in to the actual, detailed question. (Or rather, its supposed to be. In this case it most certainly is.)

 

And if you're going to continually put a form of anarchy that isn't even being talked about here as the crux of your argument then I'm not going to respond to you anymore.

[Sync182]

So rules can in fact be part of an Anarchy, it is not a strict requirement that rules can only be created and upheld by a 'leader' or other high level governing body that all members of the society are subordinate to.

 

So if no-one makes rules, and (more importantly) no-one enforces rules...why make rules in the first place? If you're making rules, you're laying out a set of guidelines for everyone to follow. That implies that there is a direction to be taken by all. If there is a direction to be followed, then there should be some penalty for deliberately failing to follow those guidelines...that implies there needs to be enforcement, otherwise the presence of the rules is superfluous. This, therefore, implies the presence of an authority, which implies a degree of order and structure.

 

In theory Anarchy is a structured society. Order doesn't need to be created and maintained by an 'authority', it is just an idea that something is structured. A farm, or any part of society can be structured, and rows of corn ordered. But does it need a government to make it so?

 

I think we've agreed that there does not have to be any kind of government...there only needs to be a form of leadership. It could be a single person who provides that leadership, rather than a governing body. Anarchy is the presence of chaos and lawlessness, not the absence of government.

 

And if you're going to continually put a form of anarchy that isn't even being talked about here as the crux of your argument then I'm not going to respond to you anymore.

 

I just saw my 6-year-old child putting his fingers in his ears while saying "blah, blah, blah..." :facepalm:

 

 

[Lisnpuppy]

I would like to point out the last debate we had on this topic also could not agree on a "definition" of anarchy.

 

I personally think it never works for long because many people can not handle a way of life that revolves around personal responsibility. People like to have someone to blame when things go wrong. They like to have someone tell them what to do, so when things don't go as planned they can point to that someone and say, "Its their fault!"

 

This is really an opinion obviously, not a fact based debate point.

 

And some comments are veering dangerously close to personal insults. Lets keep it nice please.

[imperistan]

So if no-one makes rules and (more importantly) no-one enforces rules

 

No one said that this is what happens within anarchism. Feel free to go back and look over the system I laid out.

 

I just saw my 6-year-old child putting his fingers in his ears while saying "blah, blah, blah..."

 

And yet you say this as you continually refuse to acknowledge that anarchy has more than one definition. Right, I am the one that is most assuredly putting his fingers in his ears. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

I personally think it never works for long because many people can not handle a way of life that revolves around personal responsibility.

 

This is actually very true and goes back to what I was talking about earlier, the differences between true anarchists, fadarchists and general psychos. There are indeed social aspects to anarchism rather than just political. Its just a shame that no one ever goes too far into them (nor even entertains the idea that they exist)

[kvnchrist]

Maybe I've got this wrong, but it's how I perceive the issue here.Thank you

 

A leader does not have to be a ruler. If your ability as a leader is so little that you need the iron fist of authority and coercion to lead your people then you are no leader. And more than that, if you as a leader are so fearful that you will try and force your position regardless of what the people think of you and want of you, then you are, again, no leader.

 

 

I didn't think I was talking about a tyrant or a control freak of some type. I was talking about the basic structure of social groups and the propensity for those more affluent to evolve into a leadership position. That really doesn't strike me as tyrannical, but in some cases does occur. I was wondering if the formation of such an individual constitutes the basic form of a government. They would not need to have physical, just be persuasive,

 

Is it not human nature to collect into groups and if so, would not the formation of said group work against the concept of anarchy?

[imperistan]

Maybe I've got this wrong, but it's how I perceive the issue here.Thank you

 

A leader does not have to be a ruler. If your ability as a leader is so little that you need the iron fist of authority and coercion to lead your people then you are no leader. And more than that, if you as a leader are so fearful that you will try and force your position regardless of what the people think of you and want of you, then you are, again, no leader.

 

 

I didn't think I was talking about a tyrant or a control freak of some type. I was talking about the basic structure of social groups and the propensity for those more affluent to evolve into a leadership position. That really doesn't strike me as tyrannical, but in some cases does occur. I was wondering if the formation of such an individual constitutes the basic form of a government. They would not need to have physical, just be persuasive,

 

Is it not human nature to collect into groups and if so, would not the formation of said group work against the concept of anarchy?

 

It would only work against it if we are talking about individualist anarchy. IE, where there truly are no binds between individuals and whose relations only amount to that of impersonal neighbors (Which doesn't necessarily have to be chaotic) rather than that of a full on society or community of people.

 

And again, anarchy(anarchism) does not mean the absence of government, just that of the state, a different form of government.

[sukeban]

I would just like to lay one point to rest, once and for all for the duration of this thread:

 

People arguing that "No rules, man!" anarchy is good and/or sustainable: absolutely nobody.

 

All arguments arguing this in an attempt to refute imperistan/ghogiel = straw-man arguments because this is not at all what they arguing.

 

-------------------

 

That hasn't really been the intention of anybody here, but it has been rather derailing when folks keep looping back to it--which then prompts imperistan and ghogiel to reiterate points that they have made several times before. My contention is that, to answer the OP, imperistan's anarchism is not feasible on a large scale, both for the normal reasons (human clustering around authority figures) and due to matters of scale and logistics. I think that imperistan recognizes this when he states that most people aren't cut out for anarchism and, more importantly, states that it's not the project of anarchists to attempt to force anarchism on anybody not desiring it. Rather, it demands intellectual and social training designed to remove vestigial biases toward coercion and hierarchy, structures that have held sway for most human beings during most eras of history and are now thoroughly ingrained.

 

I also mention scale because I doubt that anarchism would be tenable given the ever-increasing complexity of today's world. That might not be a fair assumption for many reasons, but I imagine anarchism working best in simple, small societies (agrarian) where truly esoteric knowledge is not demanded and most people are engaged in mostly the same occupations (at least part-time). If you attempted to transplant anarchism into a high-tech society such as we have today... I am just not sure how well that would go, given the demands of keeping all of that technology on its feet and functional yet without recourse to any sort of coercion. I would imagine that you would either need an exceptionally high level of technological education for the median worker, such as most people were "generalists" and could complete many tasks without relying on true specialists and/or you would need a very high level of intellectual/moral dedication to it from all members of that society.

 

Even assuming that anarchist indoctrination of younger generations could attempt to "bend" human nature to fit its project, given the variance of human temperaments and the law of large numbers--to say nothing of lizard-brain human nature that can never truly be eliminated (sans genetic tampering)--I just don't know that it would be tenable over the long-term and over large (nation-size [and real nations, not like Monaco or Bahrain]) groupings of people. However, I can't say that with certainty (of course), given that none of us have any idea what would truly happen should the paradigm of human organization within the state fall away, but I don't think that the lizard-brain would go down without a monumental fight.

Edited February 8, 2013 by sukeban

[imperistan]

Hooray, someone gets it! :dance:

 

But anyway,

 

 

I also mention scale because I doubt that anarchism would be tenable given the ever-increasing complexity of today's world

 

A fair point. Personally, I think the largest a single anarchy could ever get was at a national level over an area approximately the size of France. And that's if everything is absolutely perfect and/or the cogs all fall into place just right as time goes on. Realistically, large scale anarchy would consist of mostly separate anarchic nations spread out over a large area, rather than one, large, combined anarchic nation.

 

And practically, it'd have to be created using the state's consent (Perhaps the greatest challenge presented to anarchists) and alliance, if only until such time as that anarchy can become a fully separate nation that is able to stand its ground against most any internal or external threat. Without securing those two crucial things, that nation is most assuredly doomed to be consumed either by the state it carved itself out of, or some other one invading it. (if it doesn't collapse on its own that is, but thats a mostly separate issue)

 

It may very well be, however, that anarchism in general won't come about until the idea and implementation of the state is already collapsing on a global scale. But this is partly why I'm an not an anarchist. I don't want to wait, and autarchy is far easier to establish.

 

I am just not sure how well that would go, given the demands of keeping all of that technology on its feet and functional yet without recourse to any sort of coercion. I would imagine that you would either need an exceptionally high level of technological education for the median worker, such as most people were "generalists" and could complete many tasks without relying on true specialists and/or you would need a very high level of intellectual/moral dedication to it from all members of that society.

 

This goes back to the ideas of mutualism and voluntaryism, as well the general advocacy of personal responsibility. In being an anarchist, it is the responsibility of that person to help maintain the kind of society he is in favor of, without any coercion to do so. To be a part of an anarchic nation and not help maintain it is only a luxury that will only ever be enjoyed by those that are inconsequential to the operation of that nation, and, for the most part, do not call upon the services society can provide.

 

This is why I argue in favor of anarchism despite the fact that I don't agree with it, because only within anarchism could someone such as myself be left completely alone and yet not be forced to live in secret nor under any of the rules that I cannot accept to follow directly. Any compensation asked by that society in return is something I can directly agree to give or not to give. This is not the case in the status quo. (though in my case the only reason I pay taxes at all is more because I absolutely adore where I live and would hate to have to leave it for any reason)

 

Even assuming that anarchist indoctrination of younger generations could attempt to "bend" human nature to fit its project, given the variance of human temperaments and the law of large numbers

 

Even despite human nature, for the most part humans are good, and much of what is commonly showed to be something that will break anarchy, so to speak, are more cultural issues than they are ones of genetics or natural behavior. And where these things overlap anyway, often times one exacerbates the other. People raised to be complete :devil: are obviously going to have the more horrible parts of human nature show through them, while people raised to be one step below a living saint aren't likely to have the less than desirable parts of their nature come out.

 

 

(Its absolutely nice to actually move forward for once, though for how long IDK)