Can anarchy survive on a large scale?

[bben46]

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."

 

Now, explain that to the big dumb guy that thinks he should be the one in charge even though he has no clue what you do. Again the ugly 'human nature raises it's ugly head' Some people just believe they should always be in charge.

 

And there is another group that if someone else tries to tell them to do something they go off and sulk instead of doing it. - Even if they know that it is the best thing to do, or 'for their own good'. ( we usually call these teenagers) :tongue:

 

Trying to get a group of humans to do anything together without a hierarchy that they recognize - whether they like it of not - is like herding cats. Sometimes an authoritarian system is required - such as the military, sometimes a more paternal system such as a family, and other times a more democratic system works better. No one system will work for all circumstances. Anarchy is no system at all for getting things done and if they get done at all it is more or less haphazardly.

[Beriallord]

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?

 

Its a legitimate concern, but there are no easy solutions to these problems. Being elderly doesn't make someone a complete invalid, there are still things even they can do in a community to provide something useful to carry their weight. The elderly could teach children, among other non-physical or less-physical jobs. Its likely a lot of elderly people would have knowledge about things most of the younger of the group don't. Elders have traditionally been teachers and mentors. Life expectancy in general would probably drop to 45-50 if such conditions persisted for a long period of time. One day someone could be healthy, the next day they are bed ridden and dead within the week. Anyone reliant on medications to survive, simply wouldn't.

 

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?

 

The thing about Anarchy, is everyone might not cast these people away, and some might take these people in and help them. In one area, might be complete thuggish brute rule, with barbarity going unchallenged, another area people might make more safe and stable communal groups.

 

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.

 

Knowledge is power and the ones who have it are powerful. There is no way around that. Its like that in the modern world. Suddenly, suppose a guy shows up to a community with no electrical power, and says he can provide the knowledge to make that happen. Such knowledge would be priceless to a people struggling to make ends meet. Such a person could make whatever demands they want, within reason.

 

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?

 

There are likeable characters in the real world who skirt buy on charisma alone. I've seen such people at several work places, many of them perform less, or get away with a ton of stuff that just about anyone else would be fired for. Its called a buddy system, there is no way around it. Its life, and life isn't fair. I'd rather be the person they keep around because I'm genuinely useful than being kept around because I'm the nice guy that everyone likes.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Beriallord

[Sync182]

(I read the first page, then skipped to here.)

 

This is A dictionary definiton of anarchy:

anarchy n. - the absence of government; political confusion; disorder, lawlessnes.

 

This is another dictionary definition of anarchy:

1. a lack of established government or control, usually leading to disorder.

2. a general state of disorder or uproar.

 

(These definitions are from old dictionaries, most likely out of print - thus I haven't bothered naming them.)

 

Note they don't say what level of government (local, regional, national, other); nor do they refer to any kind of state. The last two words of the first definition, in particular, denote what Anarchy means: a state of individuality, of lack of order and control.

 

Human nature will not allow this to survive for long. While we all may enjoy periods of freedom from rules and regulations, while we may protests at some of the law that are occasionally foistered onto us by governments & politicians...ultimately, humans like there to be some level of order in their lives. This denies anarchy.

 

Examples of groups were given: the Amish was one. Maybe the Amish do operate effectively outside of State control, but they are far from Anarchist - they work together to achieve things, like buildings and infrastructure. This denies anarchy.

 

True anarchy cannot exist for an extended period, due to the desire for order in living beings.

Edited February 2, 2013 by Sync182

[Vagrant0]

Examples of groups were given: the Amish was one. Maybe the Amish do operate effectively outside of State control, but they are far from Anarchist - they work together to achieve things, like buildings and infrastructure. This denies anarchy.

The Amish operate more like a Theocracy though. They are governed by a strict religious code that is overseen by a council of elders and enforced socially. They have a level of autonomy, but they are still under state and federal laws for most things. They also don't exactly oppose the state, but instead consider their communities as a separate entity.

[Sync182]

Examples of groups were given: the Amish was one. Maybe the Amish do operate effectively outside of State control, but they are far from Anarchist - they work together to achieve things, like buildings and infrastructure. This denies anarchy.

The Amish operate more like a Theocracy though. They are governed by a strict religious code that is overseen by a council of elders and enforced socially. They have a level of autonomy, but they are still under state and federal laws for most things. They also don't exactly oppose the state, but instead consider their communities as a separate entity.

 

True enough - but then, by the definitions I provided above, the Amish are far from Anarchist.

 

Do they have a Government? No. Do they have a system of order? Yes. Therefore, they are not Anarchist.

 

Just working with a given example. :)

[imperistan]

I'm going to reply to a couple of things as I reach them in the topic: (and note that, unless otherwise stated, when I refer to "anarchy", I refer to anarchist society, not the common definition of total chaos and murder-rape)

 

Is it? Show me ONE significantly sized group of people that without help of a government, constructed roads, bridges, a police force, fire department, or even a friggin hospital.

 

The thing is, about the argument you're implying here, is that for most of human history (or at least, the parts of human history when governments and states were things), the idea of a state has always been a default method of maintaining any semblance of a stable society. And for much of human history, most humans couldn't really say anything about it, as the power of the state was far too great to really oppose. So as time goes on, the idea that the state is the only way or only sustainable way of maintaining order becomes ingrained in us. After all, few if any are born an anarchist. Its only once we become educated and begin to see past what we were likely brought up to believe that we decide if we will oppose that system. But, I digress a bit here.

 

Point is, just because so few have tried to go completely without a state does not mean that it is impossible, only that there has simply not been ample time to fully realize it. And this is because of several things:

 

Statist Intervention is the main problem. States all too often are like spoiled children, who when presented with something that isn't clearly defined as being owned by some guy with a big stick (or some other quality that basically says, back off, this is mine) they will swiftly try to claim it for their own. Or in the cases where these anarchies were carved out of an existing state, to reclaim it with no regard for whatever legitimacy that anarchy may have had. This is the principle reason why anarchism is opposed to the state, moreso than its own principles. (Any anarchist that has any remote idea of what he's talking about can admit that a state isn't necessarily a bad thing in our current day, but that in regards to the future it isn't sustainable if we as humans are to presume to continue to hold up principles such as freedom as worthwhile)

 

Another large issue is the complete and total lack of educated anarchists. The vast majority of anarchists throughout anarchism's history have either been a part of the working class or adolescents (Or young adults) that have little to no quality education. Those of the working class at least had success in their endeavours because their struggle was often tied to the economy they were present in, and its far easier to affect a nation's economy than its politics.

 

And as for the adolescents (from here on referred to as wannabes, for lack of any serious term to call them), well, its obvious why they fail. They're more often than not just there because they think anarchy is cool or because it satisfies their thirst for rebellious counter culture. And when these people try to establish some kind of anarchy (or do anything to try and progress the movement at all), it often collapses in on itself because it wasn't planned out well (if at all) or because half the people lose interest as they move on to the next fad-rebellion and the other half find they can't sustain whatever is they were doing.

 

So when the few educated anarchists (note I'm not saying that there isn't so few that the ratio is 1:100, there are indeed a lot of educated anarchists, but only enough to where we'd all have to get together to really accomplish anything, which isn't necessarily practical) out there try to make strides towards anarchy, they often have to rely on the other kinds of anarchists, and obviously, it doesn't always work out.

 

And lastly, planning and, to a related and lesser extent, factions within anarchy. As touched on above, when anarchy is established, often times its on a whim and seldom has a well structured plan to it. As such, sustainability goes right out the window. Without a well structured plan, any wrench thrown into the cogs is likely to collapse the system. And this isn't just about maintaining anarchy internally, but also externally. No anarchy will ever survive if it cannot successfully combat the state without bringing the hell of other state's on it (in the case of when anarchies are carved out in war-time) or handicapping it. (in the case of such places such as Free Town). And in my opinion, the idea should be to strive for coexistence rather than replacement, at least for now at any rate.

 

It also doesn't help things that within anarchism as a movement there exists dozens of different theories, philosophies, and methods for anarchy that when anarchists get together its often a right pain to really sort out any sustainable system that will work for everyone present. And this is made worse depending on the types of anarchists present.

 

Also, your argument falls flat in the face of american history. The US government started the interstate system to ENCOURAGE commerce, and make it easier to transport goods around the country. They KNEW it would be a boon to the economy, both in the jobs created by the projects themselves, and the commerce they enabled.

 

Exceptions to the rule don't really disprove the rule. An interstate system (or any kind of highway system really) is a good idea for large nations, but it doesn't take a state to realize it.

 

Further, his argument refers more to those cases where the state wastes ridiculous amounts of money with little to no benefit to the people, rather than where the state actually managed resources in a way that did provide a substantial benefit to the people.

 

So while they may not call their power hierarchy "government", or "the state" that is, in fact, what it amounts to in any event...... so, not really anarchy at all.

 

Couple of things:

 

1. Government =/= State. Anarchist government is a thing, and it is a sustainable idea within anarchy. The major differences being that, unlike a state (Which is a form of government) an anarchist government does not force its continued survival or force its policies and projects, and instead relies on the people to sustain it and provide for it as a matter of personal and societal responsibility. If anarchists cannot band together and maintain their government, then they are no true anarchists. (Or rather, just really, really poor ones :P)

 

And further, this also applies to leadership and hierarchy. For one, the difference is between being a leader and being a ruler. A leader can be ignored, but a ruler cannot, and that is the point. If the leader isn't cutting it for the people, he shouldn't be able to force his will. Two, hierarchy in anarchism (at least, anarchism in its most sustainable form) is a matter of flexible horizontality (which is something I've taken strides to develop further on my own before I gave up on anarchism altogether and instead went for autarchism). Power only ever bends vertically when the the power of the group cannot feasibly solve the issue at hand. And once the issue is resolved, power straightens back out. Examples are dealing with foreign governments, law enforcement (yes laws exist in anarchy. Anarchy isn't doing whatever you want with no consequences), etc etc.

 

Beyond that, I don't really know how you--apart from religion--restrict the ability of the law enforcers/soldiers from simply establishing themselves at the top, as they are--assuming that everyone is doing what they're "best" at as a specialization--the most physically powerful and militarily skilled of the group.

 

This is why you remove the distinction from citizen to enforcer. Militias would something that would be kept on backburner to prevent such situations from getting out of hand (supposing they even do. A well set-up anarchy can prevent this). But even then, supposing the militia then goes on to try and do the same thing (basically screwing everyone else over), then anarchy collapses. It wasn't well planned out. (namely because either the people it started with weren't truly anarchist, or because the overwhelming amount of people they let join weren't)

 

But that isn't necessarily a bad thing. The freedom to fail is a normal consequence of freedom to be and live as you please.

 

Anarchy, by definition is the absence of organized government - IMHO impossible.

 

Note quite right, namely because you're confusing terms.

 

Do remember that there is a very distinct difference from anarchy, chaos and disorder in the absence of government, and anarchism, the absence of the state.

 

On the subject of definitons and terms, I'm going to go ahead and settle something regarding anarchy and anarchy. (Confusing isn't it? ^_^) But first, let me make it clear that what I am about to say is based on the development of anarchism outside of what's really present on the internet, as much of this was hammered out between me and several other anarchists I've chummed around with over the years as we expanded our knowledge of anarchism and tried to move the movement forward (we also had no access to the internet at all for much of this time, so there's that as well). For ease in this particular part of my post, here Anarchy will denote the common definition, and anarchism will denote the other side of things.

 

Anarchy, or more accurately, Chaotic anarchy, is, obviously that state of society when organized government has collapsed and order is thrown out the window. This kind of anarchy is the sort of thing the likes of Max Stirner and all those psychopath terrorists (note that we REALLY didn't like Stirner nor his philosophical ilk) would like to see come to fruition. This is, in truth the exact kind of anarchy that all statists and general opponents to the idea of anarchy continually use as an argument against it. Unsustainable and completely horrifying to even suggest as an alternative to the status quo.

 

Anarchism, in contrast, is instead not merely the absence of government, but the absence of the state, and further, a completely different kind of government distinct from that of the state (Note that states make up 99.99% of all governments on earth). In anarchism, government still exists, but rather than being based on full coercion and vertical hierarchy, instead it is based on voluntarism and horizontal hierarchy. As explained above, the hierarchy allows for power to bend, and thus allow society to govern itself without any unnecessary coercion. Power in this case is provided by the entirety of society, with power only being in the hands of society and never any one individual or group except in those cases where society as a whole cannot solve the issue at hand as a unit, and always once these issues are resolved does power bend back into the hands of society as a whole. An officer at rest cannot command others to act in a certain way (or do anything he would be tasked with) unless society deems this necessary, or, in the case when society can't or isn't there to say so, he can prove that he had due cause to carry out his duties. For instance, if no one is complaining about someone spray painting the sides of buildings or if there is no law in place that says you can't do that, the police can do nothing no matter their personal issues. But if an officer see's someone kill or assault someone, then he would have every right to pursue the that person and enact justice. (Vertical heirarchy in comparison is rigid and indeed, an actual heirarchy, with those at the top never really being checked by those at the bottom. And even in those cases where such a thing is possible, it still results in a very rigid system that still inhibits freedom)

 

And the structure for such a system would be laid out when anarchist society is established, laying out that everyone within that society has every right to revoke the hierarchy and not allow themselves to be coerced by the rest, but at the same time you would be restricted by the fact that certain actions would revoke this right. The basic laws of an anarchist society would be against murder and rape, and depending on that societies stance on private property, theft. If you commit any of those acts, then you automatically revoke not only your right to not be coerced by society nor its representatives, but also the overwhelming amount of freedom you are given in such a society until such time as you've paid your debt.

 

 

The idea that anarchism can work without order and government is outdated, namely because much of anarchist theory was hammered out during a time when the likes of socialism and communism (note: Communism is just a form of socialism, and indeed, true communism is just a form of anarchist economics) and such started to rear their heads, and most just accepted de facto that it would be possible to establish sustainable anarchy in this way merely because these other radical forms of government were managing to do it. Where communism was the answer to the problem of capitalism, so would anarchy (chaotic) be the answer to the problem of the state, an idea that ultimately proves to be a mistake.

 

The ideal state of anarchism in the present day shouldn't be to strive for the complete absence of government and order but to strive to completely eliminate coercion and hierarchy from government. The system I talked about above is a bridge to that state that takes humans into account, as well as the rest of the world. Anarchism will never exist in a vacuum and until states have gone extinct, any anarchist society that comes about is not only going to have to deal with people that will simply refuse to not abuse the freedom allowed, but also with statist societies that would still exist and will most surely try to undermine that which opposes it. My system provides for that, allowing anarchism to sustain itself only at the cost of having to maintain some small form of hierarchy in the mean time.

 

The thing is though about all this is is that it all relies on the personal and social responsibility of the individuals within the society. If society as a whole cannot or will not sustain the systems that give it this level of freedom, then that society is doomed to collapse. And it isn't a fault of the system of government, but of society itself, and that is the point. Society should be responsible for maintaining itself, not some external government that, though its made up of individuals from society, is still largely separate from it. (note the vast difference between your average American and your average American politician, for instance)

 

And as for the issue of terms being confused (as well as terms seemingly being contradictory) this is because in order to really make these terms distinct, new words would have to be invented. And that would just be a glorious pain in the ass.

[HeyYou]

Point is, just because so few have tried to go completely without a state does not mean that it is impossible, only that there has simply not been ample time to fully realize it. And this is because of several things:

 

Just human nature taking its standard course. The strong will always try and rule over the weak. Even in a society where that isn't 'supposed' to happen. It still does. I am not saying that it is flat out impossible, I am just sayin' that if humans are involved, it is highly unlikely to work.

[bben46]

Your concept that we can have anarchy with structure is meaningless - Anarchy is the lack of structure. Once your society has some working structure - it is no longer anarchy. It may not be any currently recognized form of herding cats, but it is not anarchy either.

 

As I already said, anytime you have 2 or more people they either form a hierarchy, or go their separate ways. Once you have a working hierarchy, you no longer have anarchy as they have agreed to work together under some terms. Pure Anarchy implies that each individual does whatever he pleases whether it is in the best interest of the group, or even if it is in his own best interest - Most people will do what is in their own best interest most of the time, and many will do what is in the best interest of the group they associate themselves with. If you have no way to get the people who refuse to do things that are in the best interest of the group, then you have a problem of them taking without giving in return.

 

What you seem to be describing is more like communism (no not the political bad guys) but the communes where everyone owns everything in common and they all (supposedly ) work for the good of the group instead of just for themselves. (That's the real meaning of the word communism) This works to a certain extent, but there is almost always one individual who seems to be able to convince the majority that his ideas are the best way to help the group. we call this guy a leader - but the commune may have a different name for him. (Elder, spiritual leader, first among equals, or just the guy that gets things done )He may be an altruist, and really believe in what he is doing, or he may be a conniver who uses the rest of the group for his own purpose. And there are also those members who shirk their share of the work and just expect the rest to do their share because they "Don't want to, and don't think they should have to" (these may be real anarchists). :tongue: These kind of groups can work, but often break up after a falling out over distribution of resources. And the ones that do work tend to kick out the shirkers - thus imposing a form of control (government) typically by the entire group voting on whether to kick them out (democracy)

 

Some of these communes have ways of taking care of elders or those members who are incapacitated but have previously contributed. But some try to foist them off on the government they are trying so hard to get away from. :rolleyes:

[Ghogiel]

Your concept that we can have anarchy with structure is meaningless - Anarchy is the lack of structure.

[imperistan]

Just human nature taking its standard course. The strong will always try and rule over the weak. Even in a society where that isn't 'supposed' to happen. It still does. I am not saying that it is flat out impossible, I am just sayin' that if humans are involved, it is highly unlikely to work.

 

Its a point that anarchists make to challenge and eventually change human nature, not work around it or ignore it indefinitely, at least in regards to its internal issues. To fight human nature and hopefully change it in time. Most serious anarchists are pacifists and altruistic, which facilitates these kinds of systems working. The strong and the weak don't exist because strong and weak are irrelevant to discourse between anarchists.

 

And before you say it, no, anarchism isn't for everyone, nor was it ever intended to be. No serious anarchist would suggest that the status quo should collapse and anarchism take its place regardless of what everyone else wants. Anarchists want anarchism. They don't want to force it on anyone who either A, doesn't want it, or B, doesn't want to be a part of it (and as such, fight their nature).

 

Your concept that we can have anarchy with structure is meaningless - Anarchy is the lack of structure.

 

This is wrong, and even wikipedia disagrees with you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

 

Excepting more pure forms of individualist anarchism, every form of anarchism has some kind of structure to it. The system I proposed has a lot more structure to it than is ever presented in any of the past systems, but that is because it is a system that was devised in the wake of countless failures. It is based on practicality and addressing where anarchism has failed before. It treads towards what anarchism is opposed to yes, and perhaps even dangerously so depending on your views, but there are safeguards in place to keep the system in check and power in the hands of society. The number one safeguard is the people themselves, and if that fails, then naturally the system fails. But that is the point. This system challenges the people to be true to what they say they believe.

 

What you seem to be describing is more like communism

 

Of course it does. Communism is just anarchist economics. Always has been, even though few want to admit it.