Can someone please explain to me how anarchy is supposed to work? Edited

[Kikosemmek]

Anarchy is simply the lack of a ruling body and law enforcement. In a utopian society, it is a viable way of life, as it is not unimaginable to have communities of autonomous families, often helping each other in an unofficial, non-mandatory cooperation. Technology could be shared, and resources could be traded. Civilization could exist. The communities may even elect representatives to negotiate on their behalf with neighbouring peoples. They may found institutions and start a society resembling our own, and it will stay anarchy as long as there is no official code of law pertaining to the subjects of this community.

Plop this idea onto reality and it falls right into pieces.

 

[ClockWork]

So the difference is a capital letter?

 

[Kikosemmek]

Well, you have a few things wrong about that there. But having watched Anarchism work for... how long has it been? Nine years? I'm going to say nine years.

But having watched Anarchism work for I'm going to say nine years, I can say you're wrong about it falling to pieces in reality. There's a question of scope, but it hasn't fallen to pieces on me yet.

Then you're going to have to show me where you saw it work and why it truly is an anarchy. I'm being intellectually belligerent, but I'm going to assume that because you have internet service, you probably do not live in an anarchy.

 

[Arawak]

So if Anarchy is just the abolishment of government, is there a name for just straight chaos?

the word is chaos, not a non capitalized anarchy. Apart from all the talk about violence etc, I just dont get how you guys arent seeing the fact that its temporary. and as far as I am concerned the way you guys are saying its impossible is just a form on narcissicm. If you really want to see a way anarchy would work you have to look at the native americans and their views on the world. There will always be a leader, even in anarchy, in a small way. but there is no central government around it, you can still ignore what he says, but you do it out of respect or any other forms of such.

Sure a lions pride has dominant animals and power stuggles, but is it "governed"?

if you say yes chances are you have a different defenition of government than me.

edit; I have terrible punctuation.

 

[Altorin]

if your definition of "Working" is a stable powerbase with a content populace, which is what I generally refer to as a "Working" political system, then it doesn't.

Anarchy only really flourishes in power vacuums - it allows the strongest to take the leadership of a group.. Once they take power, often they want to keep it, so they cancel anarchy.

People who ask for anarchy don't know what they're asking for - they're generally the kind of person who's skull would become an ashtray in a real anarchy situation

 

[TikiShades]

How does one say Communism and Anarchy are similar, when they are complete contrasts? Communism is the complete government control of society, while anarchy is society's complete control of government (or lack thereof).

 

[Pimppeter2]

How does one say Communism and Anarchy are similar, when they are complete contrasts? Communism is the complete government control of society, while anarchy is society's complete control of government (or lack thereof).

No, that communism your talking about is the current type, or excuse that leaders use to make a totalitarianistic state.

The real communism is when working class rise up. Revloution happens. No more gov, no more classes. And people help eachother out.

Communism today is described as. No individualism , gov controls everything

 

[Pimppeter2]

How does one say Communism and Anarchy are similar, when they are complete contrasts? Communism is the complete government control of society, while anarchy is society's complete control of government (or lack thereof).

No, that communism your talking about is the current type, or excuse that leaders use to make a totalitarianistic state.

The real communism is when working class rise up. Revloution happens. No more gov, no more classes. And people help eachother out.

Communism today is described as. No individualism , gov controls everything

Yeah, ok. Most people like to refer to that as Marxism, but close enough.

Well real communism is just marxism in a different name. When Lenin made the comunist party he fallowed Marixist ideals. it was only later when the 2 became seperated, whith late lenin and stalim.

 

[Crosseyes]

Anarchy is probably one of the oddest concepts on the entire world, or, rather, it's an example of one of the oddest concepts on the entire world. My reason for this is summed in one word: entropy. While it is scientifically natural for most systems to increase in entropy, human nature itself seems to ignore that. Wherein, in the beginning of mankind Anarchism was the mainstream, we seemed to evolve to higher order; governments. Although I suppose some could argue that constitutional monarchies were technically the peak of order, and the democracies of today being lower on the scale.

Either way, Anarchy can never truly exist (for humans anyways) as anything more than a transitional system, and even then only for a very short time, because of mankind's complete disregard for one of science's basic principles. Wheather you admit it or not, it is in our nature to create order, be it mob-mentality, monarchy, democracy, communism, Human beings will always seek to create order.

I guess my answer to the thread would be this: No. Anarchies are not supposed to work, they're like a defibralator (Spelling?) on the heart of the human race, only meant to shock us back to order.

 

[Haiman]

As for where I have seen it work, I'd have to point to my work with affinity groups. These are leaderless bodies that make decisions based on consensus. Everyone affected by the decision must have a say and completely agree to the idea, or the idea cannot go forward. If one individual does not agree, the decision must be reworked.

Isn't that a voluntary group of people, who have the same goals/ideals in the first place? How exactly is that supposed to work on any large scale? And with people who don't share each others beliefs?

For me it boils down to three rules I've made for myself:

1. Oppose all authority held over me.
2. Oppose all authority I hold over others.
3. Oppose all authority I see being held over others.

Simple as that.

Well what if hypothetical John Doe wants an authority in his life? Will you oppose that authority as well? And won't you become the very thing you oppose if you do? =)

 

[Pumpkin_Eater]

It simply doesn't; anarchists are idiots, without exception. The only society that could handle it would be one populated only with purely altruistic citizens (AKA fantasy). Anything else (AKA reality) will immediately turn feudal or despotic as people band together to fight each other off.

 

[Altorin]

if your definition of "Working" is a stable powerbase with a content populace, which is what I generally refer to as a "Working" political system, then it doesn't.

Anarchy only really flourishes in power vacuums - it allows the strongest to take the leadership of a group.. Once they take power, often they want to keep it, so they cancel anarchy.

People who ask for anarchy don't know what they're asking for - they're generally the kind of person who's skull would become an ashtray in a real anarchy situation

Yeah huh? Really, you say?

yup.