Anarchism: Idealistic or Realistic?

[Death Aflame]

Oh god. To say anarchism is "idealistic" is an understatement. It's just nonsense.

Anarchism is far from nonsense, and I would hope you have at least done some reading on the subject before passing such a judgment. Why do you think it is nonsense?

 

[The Ozzman]

1

If we were to avoid the term anarchism which seems to give the wrong impression to many, many people, you might better describe it as strong democracy that attempts to minimize oppression, authority and increase individual autonomy and self-governance abilities of everyone within a communal context.

So, if we assume that anarchism is the abolishing of the state, how is a 'society' such as this one to enforce laws, since laws imply some body of government?

 

[Dak]

Anarchism is socialism. There are two main streams to socialist thought and practice--authoritarian (big government as you say, the USSR in its mature years is this no doubt) and libertarian (anti-state and anti-capitalism fundamentally, though also includes all other forms of illegitimate oppression).

Of course you may be thinking of anarcho-capitalism, which is not anarchism in the historical sense. Murray Rothbard founding thinker of the movement even argues that 'they' (as in his followers) are not anarchists.

The tags do not make sense at all. You can't take a big government ideal and group it with a no government ideal and label them as different extremes of the same idealogy.

So, if we assume that anarchism is the abolishing of the state, how is a 'society' such as this one to enforce laws, since laws imply some body of government?

This also.

 

[Death Aflame]

The problem with anarchy is it creates a power vacuum, which is soon filled by a total control government. Democracy is really no better, since it is in essence "mob rule".

Power lies in the community as a whole, there is not a lack of power under anarchism, its distribution, rather, is based on principles of equality.

The only two forms of government I would want to live under would be a true republic, or total lack of government, and if it was a total lack of government you better believe I would stay as far away from other people as possible.

Under anarchism extreme individualists such as you would have the freedom to secede from the community.

 

[Death Aflame]

So, if we assume that anarchism is the abolishing of the state, how is a 'society' such as this one to enforce laws, since laws imply some body of government?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_law

Most likely laws would enforced in similar ways as are done today, though with the goal of maximizing the humane treatment of suspected criminals (not really a concern in most countries today) and protecting the community at large (the primary concern of the justice system today). I imagine the approach might also favor rehabilitation as opposed to hardline punishment as well. Though, for certain cases obviously some sort of containment would most likely be necessary.

Edit: to clarify no private structure like the police (as they are state controlled) would exist, but as with everything under anarchism, a more democratic organization of people to enforce laws would prevail.

 

[Dak]

Power lies in the community as a whole, there is not a lack of power under anarchism, its distribution, rather, is based on principles of equality.

The problem is there are always "follower" and "leader" personalities, and in the absence of defined roles in government, the leader types would start to slowly control pockets of population. It is inevitable.

Under anarchism extreme individualists such as you would have the freedom to secede from the community.

And there would be nothing I could do to stop the community from deciding I didn't deserve the things I own, to track me down and take them from me by overwhelming force.

This is the problem that anarchy faces in practice. If everyone was self-restrained by codes of decency, mutual respect, honor, etc., it can work. But everyone isn't, so there has to be a very limited form of government to maintain order.

 

[Dak]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_law

Most likely laws would enforced in similar ways as are done today, though with the goal of maximizing the humane treatment of suspected criminals (not really a concern in most countries today) and protecting the community at large (the primary concern of the justice system today). I imagine the approach might also favor rehabilitation as opposed to hardline punishment as well. Though, for certain cases obviously some sort of containment would most likely be necessary.

Edit: to clarify no private structure like the police (as they are state controlled) would exist, but as with everything under anarchism, a more democratic organization of people to enforce laws would prevail.

Whoa, laws? How do those laws get set? By consensus? You obviously haven't looked into how easily a crowd can be led into a general consensus that isn't really what they want, by certain crowd manipulation techniques.

 

[The Ozzman]

There are some issues with that 'Anarchist Law' wiki

with the additional provision that if others try to do things to you that violate your rights you have the right to stop them

Does this include violent reprisal? Like, if I break into someone's house and steal something, would it be okay for them to beat me to death?

It's somewhat of an exaggeration, but you get the picture

Both, by contrast, would reject a standing army or police department.

Then how do you train people in what to do during a crisis? How do you know that, if faced with eminent danger from an enemy, that half of the citizen army won't flee in terror without fear of reprisal?

How come it doesn't talk about a standing fire department or EMS facilities?

 

[Death Aflame]

The tags do not make sense at all. You can't take a big government ideal and group it with a no government ideal and label them as different extremes of the same ideology.

Socialism in and of itself is not necessarily a big government ideal, neither is communism. Though I am guessing you are getting your knowledge of these terms from their colloquial use opposed to their philosophic origin.

"Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how and to what extent this could be achieved.

Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other." (wikipedia)

What you are talking about is authoritarian socialism (the dictatorship of the proletariat) which, in my view, is not socialism despite the name, evident in its implementation. Far from creating a free society the USSR was an extremely oppressive bureaucratic structure that hampered the development of a more egalitarian society (Even under Marx's theories, this dictatorship was only meant to be temporary).

 

[Dak]

Then how do you train people in what to do during a crisis? How do you know that, if faced with eminent danger from an enemy, that half of the citizen army won't flee in terror without fear of reprisal?

How come it doesn't talk about a standing fire department or EMS facilities?

This is where anarchism shows it's utopian side.

"We'll all just get along and make it work, ldo."

 

[The Ozzman]

This is where anarchism shows it's utopian side.

"We'll all just get along and make it work, ldo."

At least with no laws, there won't be a need for lawyers AMIRITEGUISE?

 

[Death Aflame]

The problem is there are always "follower" and "leader" personalities, and in the absence of defined roles in government, the leader types would start to slowly control pockets of population. It is inevitable.

I don't think it is inevitable at all. Besides anarchism is not opposed to legitimate authority, nor is it entirely opposed to some form of representation, it just attempts to minimize the later and severely restrict the power associated with elected positions.

And there would be nothing I could do to stop the community from deciding I didn't deserve the things I own, to track me down and take them from me by overwhelming force.

This is the problem that anarchy faces in practice. If everyone was self-restrained by codes of decency, mutual respect, honor, etc., it can work. But everyone isn't, so there has to be a very limited form of government to maintain order.

It honestly depends on the type of anarchism implemented. Most forms would leave you be unless you owned capital (as distinct from property).

 

[Dak]

Socialism in and of itself is not necessarily a big government ideal, neither is communism. Though I am guessing you are getting your knowledge of these terms from their colloquial use opposed to their philosophic origin.

"Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how and to what extent this could be achieved.

Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other." (wikipedia)

What you are talking about is authoritarian socialism (the dictatorship of the proletariat) which, in my view, is not socialism despite the name, evident in its implementation. Far from creating a free society the USSR was an extremely oppressive bureaucratic structure that hampered the development of a more egalitarian society (Even under Marx's theories, this dictatorship was only meant to be temporary).

Communism has ALWAYS been a dictatorship in practice. Socialism is a practically broken and utopian ideal because of the human factor. It sounds to say "lets split everything equal", but whoever is in charge of the redistribution automatically has power, and power corrupts.

Also reference my earlier statement and leader and follower types. Follower types will always gravitate to a charismatic leader. This is why dictatorships even form to begin with.

 

[Death Aflame]

Whoa, laws? How do those laws get set? By consensus? You obviously haven't looked into how easily a crowd can be led into a general consensus that isn't really what they want, by certain crowd manipulation techniques.

Not consensus, usually majority voting, though in some cases super majorities would be required.

 

[The Ozzman]

I don't think it is inevitable at all. Besides anarchism is not opposed to legitimate authority, nor is it entirely opposed to some form of representation, it just attempts to minimize the later and severely restrict the power associated with elected positions.

If it's not opposed to legislative or elected bodies, then how can it be termed anarchism?

 

[Dak]

I don't think it is inevitable at all. Besides anarchism is not opposed to legitimate authority, nor is it entirely opposed to some form of representation, it just attempts to minimize the later and severely restrict the power associated with elected positions.

How is it limited though? Who decides what legitimate authority is? If you have representation now it is becoming a republic, not anarchy.

It honestly depends on the type of anarchism implemented. Most forms would leave you be unless you owned capital (as distinct from property).

Well of course anarchy would leave me alone, it's just a concept. Individuals can decide they want what I have, and if it's just me vs a group, unless I have some serious superior firepower, they get what they want. Telling me "well we will just all get along" doesn't cut it.

Not consensus, usually majority voting, though in some cases super majorities would be required.

So everyone votes on everything? Sounds extremely tedious. Also, how would it be decided what needed a super majority vote? A pre-vote to decide what kind of voting?

 

[Death Aflame]

There are some issues with that 'Anarchist Law' wiki



Does this include violent reprisal? Like, if I break into someone's house and steal something, would it be okay for them to beat me to death?

It's somewhat of an exaggeration, but you get the picture

Maybe, that proviso is a generalization that ought to be adhered too as a guiding principle only. In your specific case it depends on the laws enacted by the community. In my own view, I would say it is not okay for me to beat you to death for breaking into my house, but I do have a right to defend myself against your 'stealing' of my private property--the extent to which I can defend myself reasonably would have to be debated and considered.

Then how do you train people in what to do during a crisis? How do you know that, if faced with eminent danger from an enemy, that half of the citizen army won't flee in terror without fear of reprisal?

How come it doesn't talk about a standing fire department or EMS facilities?

In terms of a military, I would suggest looking at Anarchist Spain to see how its milita functioned, which, was the best and most effective force against the fascists until they were taken down from the inside by Stalin supported 'communists'. Orwell's Homage to Catalonia gives a great account of how the anarchist militia operated.

Fire department and EMS would operate in an anarchist society, either through rotating voluntary schedules or with more permanent personnel.

 

[Death Aflame]

How is it limited though? Who decides what legitimate authority is? If you have representation now it is becoming a republic, not anarchy.

Not necessarily, anarchy can be federated. Understanding how their power is limited is best understood by conceptualizing the inverse of a puppet master. The representative is the puppet of the people he represents as opposed to the other way around. Power comes from the bottom up, not from the top-down. If the representative did not do as instructed by the community he would be immediately be removed from that position and perhaps even put on trial. All representative positions are also not full-time jobs, but part time affairs that exist on top of the individual's ulterior duties/job/career etc.

Well of course anarchy would leave me alone, it's just a concept. Individuals can decide they want what I have, and if it's just me vs a group, unless I have some serious superior firepower, they get what they want. Telling me "well we will just all get along" doesn't cut it.

If said group was a collective of roaming bandits or something, they would be sought after by the communities for the liberties they are infringing upon in your case.

So everyone votes on everything? Sounds extremely tedious. Also, how would it be decided what needed a super majority vote? A pre-vote to decide what kind of voting?

Not everyone would be required to vote on everything (they have the freedom to not vote in subjects they are not concerned with, for instance), but a more direct democratic form would certainly be required.

 

[Dak]

Not necessarily, anarchy can be federated. Understanding how their power is limited is best understood by conceptualizing the inverse of a puppet master. The representative is the puppet of the people he represents as opposed to the other way around. Power comes from the bottom up, not from the top-down. If the representative did not do as instructed by the community he would be immediately be removed from that position and perhaps even put on trial. All representative positions are also not full-time jobs, but part time affairs that exist on top of the individual's ulterior duties/job/career etc.

That is basically a Republic.

If said group was a collective of roaming bandits or something, they would be sought after by the communities for the liberties they are infringing upon in your case.

But why would random people put their lives at risk for infringement on my liberty?

 

[Death Aflame]

Communism has ALWAYS been a dictatorship in practice. Socialism is a practically broken and utopian ideal because of the human factor. It sounds to say "lets split everything equal", but whoever is in charge of the redistribution automatically has power, and power corrupts.

Anarcho-communist communities have existed to relative success in history. These were not dictatorships in any way.

Also reference my earlier statement and leader and follower types. Follower types will always gravitate to a charismatic leader. This is why dictatorships even form to begin with.

In general, of course you are right to point out different personality types exist out there. Some are less concerned with how there world is run than others, etc. However, to assume that most people are followers or by implication, non-thinking subjects seems to me to be erroneous. People generally want a say in how their social world operates, both followers and leader types, however in anarchism these leaders would have very little opportunity to seize power if the system is properly implemented since power becomes fragmented across the entire community with strict measures in place to avoid the development of hierarchical structures and centralized political power.