Is anarchy even possible?

Jon Miller · February 12, 2003, 16:06

I was in this conversation with my freinds. I need to do HW now, but would like the anarchists on this board to answer the question.

Jon Miller

Arrian · February 12, 2003, 16:47

Of course it's possible. The question is: is it desirable?

-Arrian

Jon Miller · February 12, 2003, 16:49

my freidns maintained that it would not continue

that any anarchy would not be stable wand owuld devole into states

I would like to here of an Anarchist utopia which would survive

I tried to argue (but not very successfully) for one I got from SciFi

Jon Miller

Oerdin · February 12, 2003, 16:50

Afghanistan had anarchy. Look what it got them.

Giovanni Wine · February 12, 2003, 16:53

I don't think it is possible, and if it was I wouldn't really like to live in a state of anarchy anyway

Saluti

Datajack Franit · February 12, 2003, 16:56

Anarchy sucks- total freedom means also freedom of taking a gun and killing 4000 persons without ever getting caught

Az · February 12, 2003, 16:58

That's not a gun. That's a Multiple Launch Rocket System.

Velociryx · February 12, 2003, 17:06

If anarchy is essentially the rejection of authority, then it cannot survive as a state, no.

The state is, by definition, a type of authority, no matter how loosely or tightly held that authority might be.

Besides, how would one go about organizing an "Anarchist's Rally?"

-=Vel=-

orange · February 12, 2003, 17:24

i don't think so. I think in any situation of Anarchy some form of 'government' whether it be simplistic in nature, a bunch of thugs controlling affairs, or large in scale, like post-revolution China, anarchy can't exist for long. Someone will always seize power. It's human nature.

orange · February 12, 2003, 17:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
Afghanistan had anarchy. Look what it got them.

No they didn't.

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 17:29

The only anarchists that I've ever met seemed to be very excentric. If you ask them this question they are likely to go on and on and on until you have lost your way trying to figure out what they are talking about.

I'm not sure if they really believe that anarchy can exist. They are just against authority.

tinyp3nis · February 12, 2003, 18:30

Where is Ramo?

VetLegion · February 12, 2003, 19:24

Anarchy cant exist if you have the Pyramids, or Statue of Liberty

hey its a civ forum

VetLegion · February 12, 2003, 19:30

and seriousely, with people as they are it is not possible.

But what if people were different by default, good natured and cooperative, and there were no countries?

It isnt possible even then. Proper, authoritarian, hierarchical military is superior to whatever anarchy can come up with.

So even in this imaginary planet, where there are no states and countries and authorities, as soon as one non-anarchistic country forms (say in isolated mountains or whatever) its army will be superior and it will eventually conquer all anarchist tribes nearby.

After what, it will fall apart to smaller countries in warfare with eachother and it will be good old Earth all over again

axi · February 12, 2003, 21:04

Quote:

Proper, authoritarian, hierarchical military is superior to whatever anarchy can come up with.

Not in guerilla/urban warfare!

Quote:

The only anarchists that I've ever met seemed to be very excentric.

All serious anarchists actually look excentric because they are so rare.

In an established libertarian communism (that's what anarchists call their utopia) everybody is organised in communities, by locality or by workplace (or even better these two coincide) and they organise themselves by consent and cooperation, exactly like in a traditional community. For this to succeed, there must exist no inequalities or exploitation. So the first thing that happens after libertarian communism is established somewhere, is that all property is expropriated and all money is burned. The very next thing is the army rolling in and shooting everybody.

Yet, if the social conditions are ripe, Anarchism could win the battle, temporarily, as in Spain in 1936 or more permanently. But I am convinced that in order to survive, it has to lapse into some kind of practical marxism (as it actually happened in 1936) and this is why I am a marxist and not an anarchist. Of course, being an anarchist revolutionary practicing marxism instead of Bakuninism is not necessarily a bad deal, since it's more difficult for you to lapse into Stalinism. On the other hand, anarchists are less probable to wage a successful revolution than marxists.

Kramerman · February 12, 2003, 21:34

anarchy is my greatest pet peeve.

It is around my hatred for it that I developed my moral code.

Long live the Glory of Civilization! (both the real thing and the game

)

Kman

Inverse Icarus · February 12, 2003, 21:35

anarchy is possible, but as others said, probably not desireable.

without any form of government / laws, one or more people would probably end up rising to some form of power.

human beings tend to move towards a community, and if total anarachy was say, to be implimented across the US, i think eventually a feudal system would develop and history would repeat itself.

Lord Merciless · February 12, 2003, 21:47

There has never been true anarchy. Humans always need some kind of authorities, it's only a matter how many people fall under these authorities.

Graag · February 12, 2003, 23:07

anarchy=utopia

anarchy will only be possible if/when we get to a stage that people can self-police, self-regulate and help their neighbor without worrying how much it costs them.

like communism it can only work if people are selfless enough to actually want it. being an active anarchist/communist and waiting for revolution/takeover is silly. it will happen (as Marx predicted) when people are ready, and theres nothing you can do to kick-start it.

to me anarchy is communism without the state, everyone shares because they want to.

Ramo · February 13, 2003, 00:36

Yes, anarchism is possible. Look at areas around Spain, particularly in Catalonia after their Civil War started in mid-1936. Or look at the Yucatan penninsula and areas nearby shortly after the Mexican Civil War of 1910 started. Or the Ukraine after the Russian Civil War. Or, the vast majority of pre-civilization. Or, early rural Northern US. And so forth.

Goingonit · February 13, 2003, 00:41

You notice how anarchy is inevitably subsumed by some form of control as soon as people get their acts together?

Ramo · February 13, 2003, 00:47

Not really. Anarchist societies have existed for far, far longer than authoritarian societes (look at hunter-gatherers). They've essentially existed since the beginning of humanity. Authoritarian societies have only had a run of several thousand years or so.

Furthermore, modern anarchist societies are usually destroyed by overwhelming external force (just as any other society would), not internal collapse.

GePap · February 13, 2003, 00:54

Pre civilized societies are NOT anarchistict (whatever..). They have a strict set of codes which are harshly enforced, mainly dealing with sexual mores, and a set authority whos opinions carry greater wieght than anyone elses.

As for your modern exmaples, what is your definition of anarchy? Do you allow for private organizations such as the family, churches, so forth and so on? Is anarchy to you simply the absence of a public authority figure? What about a private thug with a few backers to keep eevryone else in line? is that an authoritarian system, or not?

Ramo · February 13, 2003, 01:03

Quote:

Pre civilized societies are NOT anarchistict (whatever..). They have a strict set of codes which are harshly enforced, mainly dealing with sexual mores, and a set authority whos opinions carry greater wieght than anyone elses

Not true. There are few wealth disparities in these societies, hence there aren't any such authorities. Hunter-gatherer societies are almost invariably extraordinarily democratic. If there some sort of authority the society is in transition to an agricultural society.

Can you give me a source on "sexual mores?" I've never heard of this before.

Quote:

As for your modern exmaples, what is your definition of anarchy?

There are many definitions of anarchism. I can't give you only one. In general, an anarchist society minimizes private and public authority.

The principle modern examples are the CNT in Catalonia, the Zapatistas in Southern Mexico, and the Makhnovists of the Ukraine.

Quote:

Do you allow for private organizations such as the family, churches, so forth and so on?

Yes.

[qutoe] Is anarchy to you simply the absence of a public authority figure? What about a private thug with a few backers to keep eevryone else in line? is that an authoritarian system, or not?[/quote]

That's authoritarian.

DinoDoc · February 13, 2003, 01:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
The question is: is it desirable?

Hobbes was enough to put me off of the concept for a domestic level.

Imran Siddiqui · February 13, 2003, 01:10

Ramo, you are incorrect. Hunter-gather societies had a semi-heirarchical set up. There was usually a leader to the pack. For example take a look at hunter-gatherer Amerindian tribes. They all had a chief. In some societies he may not have had that much power, but he was in charge.

Ramo · February 13, 2003, 01:13

Which ones are you referring to in particular? Amerindian societies tended to participate in plant/animal domestication to at least some extent.

GePap · February 13, 2003, 01:28

Ramo:

When I speak of sexual mores I speak of issues such as matrimony, whether a society is monogamous, polygamous, practices polyandry, things of that sort.

As for the hierarchical realities of pre-civilized societies, if you can, go to Jstor (ie, have access to a university system) and read up the anthro papers. The notion of anarchist utopias existing before are, well, not widespread.

Ramo · February 13, 2003, 01:33

Quote:

When I speak of sexual mores I speak of issues such as matrimony, whether a society is monogamous, polygamous, practices polyandry, things of that sort.

You'll have to be more specific. Are you saying adultery in h-g societies is punished? Source?

Quote:

As for the hierarchical realities of pre-civilized societies, if you can, go to Jstor (ie, have access to a university system) and read up the anthro papers. The notion of anarchist utopias existing before are, well, not widespread.

I have read anthro articles from Jstor (not lately, I don't have access to it any more after switch ISP's from the uni one), and societies such as the Inuit and the !Kung are extremely anti-authoritarian.

Kramerman · February 13, 2003, 01:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Graag
anarchy=utopia

anarchy will only be possible if/when we get to a stage that people can self-police, self-regulate and help their neighbor without worrying how much it costs them.

like communism it can only work if people are selfless enough to actually want it. being an active anarchist/communist and waiting for revolution/takeover is silly. it will happen (as Marx predicted) when people are ready, and theres nothing you can do to kick-start it.

to me anarchy is communism without the state, everyone shares because they want to.

I honestly dont think humanity will ever do this, at least, from my definition of anarchy. Humans are inherently a social species, and it is very hard to have a working society without codes, rules, laws, or whatever, written or not, because their will always be those murderers and thieves who could do what they will with no repercussions. I just dont see this happening because the people want it, and it remaining for long. Why would people want this?