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

[theSovietConnection]

One thing I've noticed neither side has failed to bring up in this debate is Somalia. Somalia is about the best example we have of complete anarchy at the moment, as it is a country without any real government whatsoever.

I can't think of anything to add at the moment that hasn't really been said, other then worldwide Anarchy would just put us back to the way the world was immediately after Rome collapsed, except this time with nukes.

 

[Haiman]

Way back when, we have ample evidence to suggest that people employed systems like these on a large scale. But, of course, the world was very different back then.

Can you provide an example please?

See, Red Anarchists believe that these systems can be done on a large scale, keeping the world as it is now, if simply a large number of people become Anarchists. Then, the Anarchists take over the factories, begin producing their product for free, and then, most likely, end up in an armed rebellion against the ruling class. The rich folk who want their money. Now can factories and mines and ISPs and power plants be run both clean and leadership free? The Reds say yes, and they do have more than a little evidence to make a case for the possibility. The Greens say no. The Greens firmly believe that these things cannot be run through means that respect the people involved, and that, in fact, the only reason leadership now exists is because of things like factories and mines and ISPs and power plants. They believe in resetting the clock. In an armed revolution that destroys all trappings of the ruling class. The rich folk who want their money. Then after that, they believe Anarchist communities will simply naturally form as they once did. Both of these solutions are lacking. I've studied both ideas and they both have something to offer, and they both have major problems. In the end, the two ideas seem to complement each other in a lot of ways.

In other words work and give away the fruit of your labor for free or live in a cave? How would anarchist get control of these factories (to either control or destroy them)? By force? How a disorganized group of people can take on "evil rich folk" with whom by the way almost every government will side along with thier millitary might, trainig and combat experience? The way I see it can only happen if
a) they get organised, by witch point they will no longer be anarchists or
b) if there is an extremely overwhelming majority of them. Not very likely since pretty much everybody would have to hate the current economical and political system and be opressed by it and be convinced that only it's destruction would lead to a brighter future.

Even if that succeedes every survivor would still have to believe the anarchy is a way to go AND never try to do something dishonest for his own gain for the rest of his life AND never to give birth to someone who would. Yeah that sounds realistic.

By the way a couple of hypothesis you have given me, while an interesting read isn't really an exmaple of how anarchy would work on a large scale. Tell me how you see it if you please.

 

[asinann]

All anarchy means is no government.

People don't do well without the threat of punishment so it doesn't work.

The instant you get some kind of leader running things and making rules to live by you have a form of government (despot most likely) and anarchy is gone.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Cause as much chaos as possible and see what happens

That's not anarchy, that's Chaotic Stupid.

This is total win right here.

That aside, there are two ways in which to examine anarchy - as a system of governance and as a system of philosophy. Obviously, by definition anarchy is the exact opposite of a system of governance in that it implies there IS no government, but like any other "extreme" society (a utopia essentialy) the theory quickly breaks down to reality, and the reality is there is ALWAYS a system of governance in any collection of people. Somalia might not have a national government, but the social structres of the tribes perform the same basic function. Even the basic family unit has some leadership structure - and it would appear that some measure of social order is naturally imposed in every gathering.

*EDIT*
It is also worth noting that every system of governance requires the belief that power comes from something greater than the individual. In the most ancient of societies (Egypt for example), the ruler was supposedly the earthly embodiment of a god. In time this transitioned into kings who where where "chosen by god" (and therefore all the kings decisions were granted legitimacy). In modern times, we have dismissed the idea of god altogether (well, most of us have) and instead grant the power of legitimacy to the opinion of the majority.
*EDIT*

As a system of philosophy (not necissarily the sort espoused by punk rock and whatnot), anarchy is essentially a recognition of the "natural order". Essentially, anarchism relies on nihillism's assumption that god is dead (or doesn't concern himself with mortal affairs) and therefore all questions of morality are rendered irrelevent. If there is no force greater than man imposing laws, then it takes only the strength of man to disobey them. One's school may forbid the wearing of a certain type of clothing, but a student is still free to wear them. A government can outlaw theft, but a man is still free to steal. One's country can outlaw speech critical of the government but one can still speak out against them. In short, anarchy is simply the realization that one is free to do whatever they wish, so long as they are willing to cope with the consequences of their actions.

Essentially, anarchy is a philosophical commitment to individuality and freedom - and one can explore this from within existing social structures without much effort. It's misunderstood interpretation (and exploitation to a degree) is one of my favorite parts of punk rock music. I tend to enjoy watching social groups do things that they think are important because it often reveals just how silly most people are, and there are few groups that miss the point by as wide a mark as the punk rock crowd (including many of the bands themselves).

 

[asinann]

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.

So, where is this?

Seattle. Why do you ask?

There isn't any anarchy in Seattle, it's got a government. The police there pulled me over, so there is someone there enforcing the rules made by the ruling class.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

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).

Communism, in theory (and since we are discussing it's contrast with anarchy, theory is a valid concept to explore) is the idea that "Those who produce ought to possess the means of production". It is, in essence, an attempt to remove the entire concept of the social class. When the theory was developed, there were three accepted classes in society - The Aristocracy, who's income was primarily derived from rent or land holdings, the middle class who's income was primarily derived from the productin of something (i.e. factory owners) and the lower class, who's income came from wages. The premise is, in short, that each person contributes to the best of their ability and is rewarded according to their needs. In the theoritical, there is no need for strict control in a communist society as the basic principle is one of natural equilibrium. The problem is, of course that different people have different abilities and different needs and as such systems are required to maintain this careful balance.

Anarchy and Communism are therefore similar as forms of government as both seek to create a system of governance that relies on a natural order rather than an artificially imposed structure. Their similarities carry further when we find that neither system seems terriby successful when applied to the real world.

 

[Hot'n'steamy]

What most anarchists describe as an anarchist state is actually a wide spectrum libertarian state of rule. Libertarianism is a society that has no government. Libertarianism is already a part of society already, with the liassez faire approach to market rule being an example.

Also, anarchism, when properly defined, (rather than the OP's view of a system of rule based on chaos)is such an all embracing claim to personal freedom that there are about 50 subdivisions of anarchist rule all that claim they can be social messiahs by certain members of the populus;

Agorism · Buddhist · Capitalist
Christian · Collectivist · Communist
Crypto-anarchism · Feminist
Free market · Green
Heathian · Individualist
Infoanarchism · Insurrectionary
Leftist · Mutualist · Pacifist
Pananarchist · Philosophical
Platformist · Post-anarchist
Post-colonial · Post-left
Primitivist · Social · Syndicalist
Vegan · Zen

I particularly enjoy the Vegan approach, aka Veganarchism.

 

[ssgt splatter]

???

 

[Kikosemmek]

You do realize that internet is not a state provided service right?

ISPs are all private, at least in the USA, and in no way affiliated with the government.

Private businesses branch out to areas where they can make some revenue- areas of infrastructure and development. I assumed that the presence of an ISP betrays the establishment of industrialized infrastructure in the place of Ragdrazi's residence. I also assume that in the United States this means that there is government where he lives. Every town is chartered, and every house is licensed. In fact, in some areas (I'm not sure if not all) it is illegal to be off of the electrical grid. I don't believe, given such details, that my assumption requires too great of a mental leap.

It is possible that he may live in a more autonomous region, an example of which is Arcata, California, but even there it is not an anarchy.

 

[reinersailer]

If you understand german, have a look at http://www.reinersailer.de/html/paar_a.html

 

[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.

How, exactly, do you presume to state that one form of order is of a higher scale than another? For instance, how do you presume to state that democracy is inferior to monarchy.

If anything, history shows us that as time has progressed more complex forms of government have shown themselves to be increasingly full of ~dis~order. Increasingly unstable. Surviving for shorter and shorter time periods at each higher level of complexity.

Some people would argue that there was more control and order in a monarchial society, and to an extent that would be true, but I'm no historical governments major and I can't effectively compare them.

Also, I don't completely agree that our current-age governments are more unstable: Sure, in the days of old a king would rule over his subjects with an iron fist, but when the discontented became strong enough, what happened? They took an axe to his neck and mounted it on a pike like a festive toothpick.

For a more current example of a similar situation, I'll use American President Nixon's infamous watergate scandal; So word leaks to the people that there are these audio tapes that confirm that their leader has been breaking people's privacy by placing wire taps on unknowing possible terrorists without congress' consent. He stepped down from his office. The End.

Olden governments chose to keep their disorder internal, and quiet, thus throwing a false veil of order, that is, until pike-head time. While the democratic governments of today may seem very disorderly, it is the fact that they let it out in the open that provides the most internal, or actual order. Bush and Caeser may be alike, in that they made some unpopular decisions (of varying degrees) but the U.S. Senate never planned to gang up on ol' George W. in the oval office and stab him to death.

Edit:

I suppose anarchy could work locally. Everyone contributes to the well-being of a town, and every matter is decided with a vote. Theft and murder would be handled fallout 3 style.

Even this isn't technicaly Annarchism. The fact that there are votes not only proves that there's a legislature, but implies that there's some kind of executive branch enforcing the opinions of the legislation. From there you notice that the legislators also become the judicial branch, and there you already have the foundations of American Democracy. Past that, you can assume that decisions made by the people are written down somewhere and there you already have laws and everything.

Anarchism is akin to Socialism (marxism, communism, stalinism, whatever) in that thing sounds fool-proof in a meeting or on a letter, but simple human flaws turn them into nothing more than Chaos or Totalitarianism (respectively)

[Edit: annarchism changed to Annarchism (an easy word to misprint)]

 

[Lonan]

Everyone would have to be at an INCREDIBLY high level of existence. People would have to pretty much not give into their primal urges at all. If everyone was like me, it could be done. I'm just that amazing.

 

[likalaruku]

In anarchy, there are no leaders, so the government is made up of all citizens & everything has to be voted on by the general public, kinda like the Greek senate before emperors took over, only women & the homeless aren't excluded. Countries accustomes to low intelligence & fat laziness could never pull off that kind of democracy without some crazy Arkham Asylum style shit going down with punk-anarchists who prefur to believe that anarchy means "no rules" running around doing whatever the hell they please.