Explain Anarchy to me

[Jacob Haggarty]

That no-one is universally considered to be in charge doesn't necessarily mean that nothing gets done, or that no-one is controlling things.

In states where the government has collapsed, many people will just get on with their daily business as usual.

Consider, how much direct influence does your government have over your average day.

But it's when the INDIRECT influence stops is when the problems start. Getting rid of the establishment will only get you so far. After a while, all the things that we the people took for granted would fade, like free health care (england). We wouldnt have anyone to pay taxes too, nor would we WANT to pay them, so the various different tax funded things would cease to be free.

On top of that, removing the establishment would ultimately create a power vaccum. Which would instantly (more or less) be filled by whatever group beats their way to it first, most likely either just another government or a military power (UNTIL another government is established).

Of course, this is assuming that EVRYONE is an anarchist. Which isnt so, because many people (usually the richest) like where things are at the moment. Any sort of uprising would result in civil war, which would just be a major fuck up for everyone.

Bottom line, anarchy is pretty damned annoying. Maybe not useless, but still annoying.

 

[Exterminas]

To quote Immanuel Kant:
"A Law And Freedom without Violence (Anarchy)
B Law And Violence without Freedom (Despotism)
C Violence without Freedom And Law (Barbarism)
D Violence with Freedom And Law (Republic)"

You actually have a slight translation error there. In the german text Kant uses the word "Gewalt", which can be translated into Violence. However in the context of political theory it also means something like Power, like legislative, executive and judicative.
It can also be specified to just the executive.

However translating it with violence is a bit problematic, since no political order can control how much violence there will be among the people : P

Otherwise your post is fine, I just wanted to point out that you can not necesarilly generate a civilization of peace-loving-flower-childs by exposing them to anarchy and that Kant certainly didn't write such.

 

[Agayek]

I undertand theres more to anarchy than just "no government"

however personally I dont understand how our society could run under such a thing, no one is going to clean up the streets for nothing, and some people arnt going to stop killing others because its not a very nice thing to do

True anarchy is the complete lack of enforced societal rules. Essentially, it's the belief that the entire concept of government is, by nature, evil and should therefore be abolished.

There's a whole range of sub-groups with varying levels of belief, but that is the core concept.

In all practical sense, it's not a feasible system of government. It relies on people taking responsibility for their actions and policing themselves. As anyone with a history book can tell you, such a thing just doesn't work on a large scale. Most anarchists will admit that, but it won't change the ideal behind it.

I, myself, am somewhat of an anarchist. I'm practical enough to know such a thing would never work though, so I tend to lean towards the libertarian side of things. That is, I believe government is necessary, but it should have no more than the absolute minimum by way of powers. The government serves one function: protect the every citizen from external malice. To that affect, the government requires 1) a standing military and 2) a police force and judicial system. Nothing more.

And said police force should enforce only two laws:
1) The Law of Equal Liberty [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_equal_liberty]
2) The Non-Aggression Principle [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle]

Anything beyond those two is a gross violation of the rights of the citizenry.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I've got a comparison for you. In recent years one could say that with so little regulation the banking system was running on anarchy - left to be "self regulated". They ran rampant for some time and it was good, until the holes in that premise became painfully obvious. To fix it, governments imposed new rules to limit that freedom. Will it work, only time will tell. ON the same notion with anarchy it provokes chaos and chaos is sort of self regulated. When the streets become too dirty, someone will clean them so he could move, which will benefit everyone else. Just like tribes times after a while, when most people have died because of the complete collapse of the system, it wouldn't matter anymore. Rules are there because we are too many. If we were separated into smaller groups we could agree on other rules.

Simply put if you have one person, he makes his own rules. If you have a tribe the leader makes the rules. If you have a small ancient Greek type of society - everyone votes and shape the rules. Today we have huge societies and so the power is more centered. Behind every few million people there is a Representative, behind every few of them there are other and so on till we reach that golden Greek number of people who are enough to make democracy (less than 300 and more than 30 people).

Every political system actually works, but for different kinds of societies. Anarchy won't work for our right now. Oh and having a coup doesn't mean Anarchy it means simply forcible changing of the system to another or simply changing the parts of said system, not having no system at all.

Yes, there are quite a few parallels between anarchy and the laissez-faire Tea Party crowd.

Not really. Most people get an idea in their heads about what Anarchism as a movement actually is and just kind of run with it. It doesn't help that the word 'Anarchist' kind of has a double meaning, the more common and proper of which is a society in chaos. It also doesn't help that fringe groups of all kinds love to construe themselves as 'Anarchists' or 'Libertarians' of one type or another. Historically, and still outside of America, a 'Libertarian' is a Socialist.

Anarchists are a varied bunch, so it's hard to pin down an exact philosophy. But generally speaking, Anarchists are against capitalism, against the state as it relates to capitalism, against 'property', for equality, for democracy, and for worker management of economic resources. The exact form that last one takes is where Anarchists tend to disagree with each other (eg. Communism, Syndicalism, even Individualism in America). Most Anarchists take a gradualist view that the state should be phased out as management of resources falls to the workers in the form of unions, communes, councils, or whatever, and it's authority becomes redundant and therefore invasive.

Chaos or 'self-regulation' or any other Tea Party stuff really has nothing to do with Anarchism, at least from the perspective of the Anarchist. Anarchism is a type of socialism, but with emphasis on decentralized worker management of resources. This might mean that workers make decisions about the factory they work at instead of some property owner or some president-for-life government official. Perhaps these factories organize themselves in federated fashion, with levels of delegated decision making, all free and participatory in nature. This is only 'unregulated' in the sense that it is free from involvement by a traditional state, at least so much as is appropriate at the time. Most anarchists support a system for the enforcement of laws similar to what we currently have, but usually more democratic. I have heard some idiot anarchists say crime is a consequence of capitalist oppression, and therefore an anarchist society would have no crime. Just thought it was funny.

So what is Anarchism? I guess you could say it is like decentralized Democratic Socialism. Some even say they are the same thing, though I think that is only a consequence of Anarchism becoming more mainstream at the same time it becomes less relevant.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Double Post, how embarrassing!

 

[funguy2121]

I've got a comparison for you. In recent years one could say that with so little regulation the banking system was running on anarchy - left to be "self regulated". They ran rampant for some time and it was good, until the holes in that premise became painfully obvious. To fix it, governments imposed new rules to limit that freedom. Will it work, only time will tell. ON the same notion with anarchy it provokes chaos and chaos is sort of self regulated. When the streets become too dirty, someone will clean them so he could move, which will benefit everyone else. Just like tribes times after a while, when most people have died because of the complete collapse of the system, it wouldn't matter anymore. Rules are there because we are too many. If we were separated into smaller groups we could agree on other rules.

Simply put if you have one person, he makes his own rules. If you have a tribe the leader makes the rules. If you have a small ancient Greek type of society - everyone votes and shape the rules. Today we have huge societies and so the power is more centered. Behind every few million people there is a Representative, behind every few of them there are other and so on till we reach that golden Greek number of people who are enough to make democracy (less than 300 and more than 30 people).

Every political system actually works, but for different kinds of societies. Anarchy won't work for our right now. Oh and having a coup doesn't mean Anarchy it means simply forcible changing of the system to another or simply changing the parts of said system, not having no system at all.

Yes, there are quite a few parallels between anarchy and the laissez-faire Tea Party crowd.

That's because they both have certain libertarian roots.

Anarchy is simply no government, libertarians want small government (or no government).

It's starting to annoy me how many people are posting about anarchy confusing it with chaos and then arguing from there. It's the exact same underhanded or ignorant tactic as pro-lifers calling pro-choice "pro-abortion".

With respect, I don't see how you could differentiate "no government" from chaos. If you were to explain how any large government-free body of people could conceivably operate without descending into chaos, I'd listen.

I am aware that libertarians tend to be conservative, whereas anarchists are usually more liberal. But there are common threads.

 

[CommanderKirov]

Anarchy is when everything goes down the drain and everyone does whatever one wants.

The rule of the strongest and most cunning applies.

That is what anarchy is. People claiming different are speaking about one of the many branches of similar ways of thought.

 

[zehydra]

No rules.

Pure freedom.
Project Mayhem?

Project Mayhem isn't freedom at all. Durden brainwashed a population into becoming his minions. How is that freedom?

 

[zehydra]

I've got a comparison for you. In recent years one could say that with so little regulation the banking system was running on anarchy - left to be "self regulated". They ran rampant for some time and it was good, until the holes in that premise became painfully obvious. To fix it, governments imposed new rules to limit that freedom. Will it work, only time will tell. ON the same notion with anarchy it provokes chaos and chaos is sort of self regulated. When the streets become too dirty, someone will clean them so he could move, which will benefit everyone else. Just like tribes times after a while, when most people have died because of the complete collapse of the system, it wouldn't matter anymore. Rules are there because we are too many. If we were separated into smaller groups we could agree on other rules.

Simply put if you have one person, he makes his own rules. If you have a tribe the leader makes the rules. If you have a small ancient Greek type of society - everyone votes and shape the rules. Today we have huge societies and so the power is more centered. Behind every few million people there is a Representative, behind every few of them there are other and so on till we reach that golden Greek number of people who are enough to make democracy (less than 300 and more than 30 people).

Every political system actually works, but for different kinds of societies. Anarchy won't work for our right now. Oh and having a coup doesn't mean Anarchy it means simply forcible changing of the system to another or simply changing the parts of said system, not having no system at all.

Yes, there are quite a few parallels between anarchy and the laissez-faire Tea Party crowd.

Not really. Most people get an idea in their heads about what Anarchism as a movement actually is and just kind of run with it. It doesn't help that the word 'Anarchist' kind of has a double meaning, the more common and proper of which is a society in chaos. It also doesn't help that fringe groups of all kinds love to construe themselves as 'Anarchists' or 'Libertarians' of one type or another. Historically, and still outside of America, a 'Libertarian' is a Socialist.

Anarchists are a varied bunch, so it's hard to pin down an exact philosophy. But generally speaking, Anarchists are against capitalism, against the state as it relates to capitalism, against 'property', for equality, for democracy, and for worker management of economic resources. The exact form that last one takes is where Anarchists tend to disagree with each other (eg. Communism, Syndicalism, even Individualism in America). Most Anarchists take a gradualist view that the state should be phased out as management of resources falls to the workers in the form of unions, communes, councils, or whatever, and it's authority becomes redundant and therefore invasive.

Chaos or 'self-regulation' or any other Tea Party stuff really has nothing to do with Anarchism, at least from the perspective of the Anarchist. Anarchism is a type of socialism, but with emphasis on decentralized worker management of resources. This might mean that workers make decisions about the factory they work at instead of some property owner or some president-for-life government official. Perhaps these factories organize themselves in federated fashion, with levels of delegated decision making, all free and participatory in nature. This is only 'unregulated' in the sense that it is free from involvement by a traditional state, at least so much as is appropriate at the time. Most anarchists support a system for the enforcement of laws similar to what we currently have, but usually more democratic. I have heard some idiot anarchists say crime is a consequence of capitalist oppression, and therefore an anarchist society would have no crime. Just thought it was funny.

So what is Anarchism? I guess you could say it is like decentralized Democratic Socialism. Some even say they are the same thing, though I think that is only a consequence of Anarchism becoming more mainstream at the same time it becomes less relevant.

That's just one kind of Anarchism. There are some which are more in favor of capitalistic ideals.

 

[Zac Smith]

I think that regardless of what anarchist say, there will always need to be a government. "Bringing down the government" just means there is no one to lead, rather remove the corrupt and selfish individuals of said goverment

 

[funguy2121]

Anarchists are a varied bunch, so it's hard to pin down an exact philosophy. But generally speaking, Anarchists are against capitalism, against the state as it relates to capitalism, against 'property', for equality, for democracy, and for worker management of economic resources. The exact form that last one takes is where Anarchists tend to disagree with each other (eg. Communism, Syndicalism, even Individualism in America). Most Anarchists take a gradualist view that the state should be phased out as management of resources falls to the workers in the form of unions, communes, councils, or whatever, and it's authority becomes redundant and therefore invasive.

To me, a great many of those ideals, especially when joined to one another, fit the bill of "great on paper." How would you propose to have democracy without capitalism? Even a state that is phased out over time will eventually not exist or at least not exist in any effective capacity. Without a state, even with unions and communes, how do we stop society from descending into chaos?

Chaos or 'self-regulation' or any other Tea Party stuff really has nothing to do with Anarchism, at least from the perspective of the Anarchist. Anarchism is a type of socialism, but with emphasis on decentralized worker management of resources. This might mean that workers make decisions about the factory they work at instead of some property owner or some president-for-life government official. Perhaps these factories organize themselves in federated fashion, with levels of delegated decision making, all free and participatory in nature. This is only 'unregulated' in the sense that it is free from involvement by a traditional state, at least so much as is appropriate at the time.

This sounds good, as it would take care of some problems. But what about factories that produce dangerous products? Would we not then rely on the labor to police the company leadership on the matter?

 

[Keava]

With respect, I don't see how you could differentiate "no government" from chaos. If you were to explain how any large government-free body of people could conceivably operate without descending into chaos, I'd listen.

I am aware that libertarians tend to be conservative, whereas anarchists are usually more liberal. But there are common threads.

Start by reading Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin and make sure to look into Marx and Engels early works about communism to get a better picture as well as Trotsky. You might also want to have some basic knowledge about philosophers like Kant or Hegel to better understand it, plus a good knowledge of French Revolution to provide necessary background.

Anarchism is not really something easy, it's as complicated as any other doctrine and to understand it's reasoning you do need to read a lot of different works.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

That's just one kind of Anarchism. There are some which are more in favor of capitalistic ideals.

Yes and no. What I am talking about is the group of movements that have been known as Anarchism historically. Maybe I left out Mutualism, but I suspect you're thinking about newer branches like Anarco-Capitalism. Adherents of traditional Anarchism tend to object to the union of Anarchism and Capitalism, which perhaps philosophically and certainly historically are very much in opposition. In practice, historical Anarchism and Anarco-Capitalism are so different I don't see any reason to discuss them together outside of the title assumed by the latter or to argue their respective merits.

As movements and ideologies, they are very different.

 

[Tulks]

That no-one is universally considered to be in charge doesn't necessarily mean that nothing gets done, or that no-one is controlling things.

In states where the government has collapsed, many people will just get on with their daily business as usual.

Consider, how much direct influence does your government have over your average day.

But it's when the INDIRECT influence stops is when the problems start. Getting rid of the establishment will only get you so far. After a while, all the things that we the people took for granted would fade, like free health care (england). We wouldnt have anyone to pay taxes too, nor would we WANT to pay them, so the various different tax funded things would cease to be free.

On top of that, removing the establishment would ultimately create a power vaccum. Which would instantly (more or less) be filled by whatever group beats their way to it first, most likely either just another government or a military power (UNTIL another government is established).

Of course, this is assuming that EVRYONE is an anarchist. Which isnt so, because many people (usually the richest) like where things are at the moment. Any sort of uprising would result in civil war, which would just be a major fuck up for everyone.

Bottom line, anarchy is pretty damned annoying. Maybe not useless, but still annoying.

Sounds like Hobbes may have been on to something. Who knew?

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Anarchists are a varied bunch, so it's hard to pin down an exact philosophy. But generally speaking, Anarchists are against capitalism, against the state as it relates to capitalism, against 'property', for equality, for democracy, and for worker management of economic resources. The exact form that last one takes is where Anarchists tend to disagree with each other (eg. Communism, Syndicalism, even Individualism in America). Most Anarchists take a gradualist view that the state should be phased out as management of resources falls to the workers in the form of unions, communes, councils, or whatever, and it's authority becomes redundant and therefore invasive.

To me, a great many of those ideals, especially when joined to one another, fit the bill of "great on paper." How would you propose to have democracy without capitalism? Even a state that is phased out over time will eventually not exist or at least not exist in any effective capacity. Without a state, even with unions and communes, how do we stop society from descending into chaos?

Could you be more specific? A society run by unions and communes is not in chaos. I think I know what you're getting at, but what kind of issues do you mean?

Chaos or 'self-regulation' or any other Tea Party stuff really has nothing to do with Anarchism, at least from the perspective of the Anarchist. Anarchism is a type of socialism, but with emphasis on decentralized worker management of resources. This might mean that workers make decisions about the factory they work at instead of some property owner or some president-for-life government official. Perhaps these factories organize themselves in federated fashion, with levels of delegated decision making, all free and participatory in nature. This is only 'unregulated' in the sense that it is free from involvement by a traditional state, at least so much as is appropriate at the time.

This sounds good, as it would take care of some problems. But what about factories that produce dangerous products? Would we not then rely on the labor to police the company leadership on the matter?

Do you mean, for the sake of protecting the workers in the factory? The leadership would be elected 'officials', and their 'constituency' would be the workers themselves. The workers could use this influence to ensure safe conditions. As for relationships between factories, and, say, the guy who lives next to the factory, we're getting into territory where ideas like communism and syndicalism start to step in and clash.

Headed to work now, but I will check this thread tonight.

 

[funguy2121]

Could you be more specific? A society run by unions and communes is not in chaos. I think I know what you're getting at, but what kind of issues do you mean?

A private police force, a private military (both of which would = mercenaries), and a fully privatized healthcare industry would produce a great many issues; for example, many of the people who go into lifelong debt after a major surgery would now simply be denied the surgery outright.

Do you mean, for the sake of protecting the workers in the factory? The leadership would be elected 'officials', and their 'constituency' would be the workers themselves. The workers could use this influence to ensure safe conditions. As for relationships between factories, and, say, the guy who lives next to the factory, we're getting into territory where ideas like communism and syndicalism start to step in and clash.

Headed to work now, but I will check this thread tonight.

I mean products that are unsafe for the consumer. Though I would expect an overall higher sense of "duty" in producing a safer product amongst actual factory workers than amongst shareholders and CEOs, I still would not approve of entrusting the toys my children use, the meat that I consume or the surgical implants put into my grandmother to any form of self-regulation.

 

[Keava]

Could you be more specific? A society run by unions and communes is not in chaos. I think I know what you're getting at, but what kind of issues do you mean?

A private police force, a private military (both of which would = mercenaries), and a fully privatized healthcare industry would produce a great many issues; for example, many of the people who go into lifelong debt after a major surgery would now simply be denied the surgery outright.

Do you mean, for the sake of protecting the workers in the factory? The leadership would be elected 'officials', and their 'constituency' would be the workers themselves. The workers could use this influence to ensure safe conditions. As for relationships between factories, and, say, the guy who lives next to the factory, we're getting into territory where ideas like communism and syndicalism start to step in and clash.

Headed to work now, but I will check this thread tonight.

I mean products that are unsafe for the consumer. Though I would expect an overall higher sense of "duty" in producing a safer product amongst actual factory workers than amongst shareholders and CEOs, I still would not approve of entrusting the toys my children use, the meat that I consume or the surgical implants put into my grandmother to any form of self-regulation.

Ideal of anarchy assumes you don't need army because there is countries or borders to start with and thus no reason to wage wars. The police force is also non existence and more in line of neighbourhood patrols... just more competent. There is also no debt because the concept of currency is changed and there is no privatization as you understand in in capitalism terms. It's more of collective/communal ownership idea where workers as a fully democratic group control the given service, not a single person on a high seat in some fancy suit.

As far as quality control and such goes, who says there can't be collective of people who do that prior to putting given product on the communal market? They can rate the products and just leave the decision to consumers.
It sounds like you got way too used to the 'advanced world' standards. Did you forgot the existence of folk, hand crafted wooden toys? Did you never bought fruits or vegetables directly from a farmer in your life? Not everything has to have 10 attests and certificates to be edible, not to mention that as our lives get more sterile we also lower our natural immunities.

 

[funguy2121]

Could you be more specific? A society run by unions and communes is not in chaos. I think I know what you're getting at, but what kind of issues do you mean?

A private police force, a private military (both of which would = mercenaries), and a fully privatized healthcare industry would produce a great many issues; for example, many of the people who go into lifelong debt after a major surgery would now simply be denied the surgery outright.

Do you mean, for the sake of protecting the workers in the factory? The leadership would be elected 'officials', and their 'constituency' would be the workers themselves. The workers could use this influence to ensure safe conditions. As for relationships between factories, and, say, the guy who lives next to the factory, we're getting into territory where ideas like communism and syndicalism start to step in and clash.

Headed to work now, but I will check this thread tonight.

I mean products that are unsafe for the consumer. Though I would expect an overall higher sense of "duty" in producing a safer product amongst actual factory workers than amongst shareholders and CEOs, I still would not approve of entrusting the toys my children use, the meat that I consume or the surgical implants put into my grandmother to any form of self-regulation.

Ideal of anarchy assumes you don't need army because there is countries or borders to start with and thus no reason to wage wars. The police force is also non existence and more in line of neighbourhood patrols... just more competent. There is also no debt because the concept of currency is changed and there is no privatization as you understand in in capitalism terms. It's more of collective/communal ownership idea where workers as a fully democratic group control the given service, not a single person on a high seat in some fancy suit.

As far as quality control and such goes, who says there can't be collective of people who do that prior to putting given product on the communal market? They can rate the products and just leave the decision to consumers.
It sounds like you got way too used to the 'advanced world' standards. Did you forgot the existence of folk, hand crafted wooden toys? Did you never bought fruits or vegetables directly from a farmer in your life? Not everything has to have 10 attests and certificates to be edible, not to mention that as our lives get more sterile we also lower our natural immunities.

Though you certainly make some valid points, I would ask who is going to do this. 'Advanced world' standards must be imposed when it comes to safety regulations for both workers and consumers, because the people who are running the factories now have imposed 'advanced world' standards in hiding their flaws and offenses, and we can't un-learn that they exist; another words, whoever is in control of factory X in the society you describe has those tools at his/her disposal, whether we acknowledge it or not, so something like OSHA is needed at the very least, and equal standards of protection for the consumer are required because we've shown that at long as we're able to generate food/products en masse, we've been happy to do it while killing/maiming/poisoning workers and consumers whenever we are not policed.

I hope none of this sounded snarky. I'm writing hurriedly in between dealing with some personal things.