Explain Anarchy to me
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No, we really aren't. Anarchy and anarchism as a political theory has nothing to do with anything "going down the drain" or people "doing what they want."CommanderKirov said:
You have Anarchy and anarchism confused with societal collapse. One of the key principles of anarchism is that there is no rulers. Ergo, there can be no "rule of the strong". That would be more akin to totalitarianism/autocracy. From its very etymological roots anarchy is at total odds with your statement.
You, and many others equating anarchy with chaos/lawlessness are confusing anarchy the political philosophy/theory with the common use of the word to refer to a period of lawlessness and upheaval - not the same thing. Indeed, the common usage can be attributed to the fear many of the governments anarchism wanted to overthrow during its period of formalization, and their desire to equate it with violent revolution and a generally negative context, in much the same way some governments have demonized communism and capitalism.
I'm going to have hide behind blaming the translation I readExterminas said:
And absolutely, it's a major flaw in the practical application of anarchism that humans aren't peace-loving flower children by nature. And Kant wasn't a particularly strong or vocal supporter of anarchism, per se, though it did fit into his philosophical ideas relating to natural law and the categorical imperative quite well. But that's a whole other thread.
It was explained to me as such:
There is a man with an egg in his hand. Should the man squeeze the egg too hard he will crush it. That it Fascism. Should the man's grip become too loose, the egg will fall and break. That is called Anarchy.
There is a man with an egg in his hand. Should the man squeeze the egg too hard he will crush it. That it Fascism. Should the man's grip become too loose, the egg will fall and break. That is called Anarchy.
To start at the beginning. Anarchy was a concept that mostly evolved at end of XIX and early XX century so many of today's concerns that are flaws of technological advance after WW2 were not that present back then. Of course the ideology evolved and adapted over years as well.funguy2121 said:
Problem is you seem to miss the point. You are trying to find a person that owns the production means while that's not exactly the case with the social/economical aspects of most notable anarchism concepts. En masse production of good that has a profit as primary goal is flawed according to anarchism, instead of this people produce things because they need things.
This in theory should eliminate flawed products of mass production as nothing would be produced purely for the sake of gathering profits.
Would a collective of workers really risk poisoning if they had possibility to avoid it through their own decisions? Anarchy assumes that they wouldn't because it's counter productive.
Another option is that while there is collective of workers, they may as well exist collective of scientists that test the products. Anarchism doesn't force you to be factory worker, it's just the simple fact that if you are good at making chairs, you make chairs, because there is someone who needs a chair, same could be said about any other physical good or service.
Thing with anarchism is that it expects the community to be self aware and responsible for the actions. It's a well known fact that people see forms of government/state as necessary due to the the fact it takes great deal of responsibility from them. You don't need to worry about consequences that much if you have someone telling you how exactly you have to do things and in the end, it will be their decisions that will be criticized. Societies need forms of rulership so they can blame them for various things they don't want to get involved into themselves.
Now of course, collective anarchism is just one of many schools of thought, i don't think however it's a good idea for me to outline each and every of them as you may just read on them yourself if you are curious. You have mutualism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, various forms of individualist anarchism, participatory economy and plenty of other ideas about how anarchistic society could exist. There even is anarchism without adjectives which tries to find a way for all different variations of anarchism to co-exist benefiting from each other.
No Anarchist police force or healthcare provider would be "privatized" in the for-profit way that you mean. What people don't realize is Anarchism is really an anti-capitalist, pro-democracy philosophy that happens to oppose the traditional state. In many ways, an Anarchist society would resemble the modern state in that resources would be directed in a democratic manner, but in a way that is participatory and decentralized. Don't forget, Anarchism opposes property, either in the sense of legal title to the means of production, or depending what flavor of Anarchist, any claim of ownership including personal possessions. Instead of private owners making decisions about industry and the like, these types of decisions would be made at the level of the commune in Anarco-Communism or at the federated level in the case of Anarco-Syndicalism (these are the most common branches). The whole point of Anarchism is to give people a say in decisions like that.funguy2121 said:
Well, maybe you're just not an Anarchist. But I should caution that any talk about self-regulation or privatization smacks of private for-profit industry, which is what Anarchists oppose. Giving you a say in those types of decisions through democratic institutions and social decision making is what Anarchism is all about. It's only 'self-regulated' in the sense that it is not the traditional state which is handing down decisions through legislation. In fact it is regulated by society. The exact nature of how such participatory, democratic, and decentralized institutions might operate is kind of a deep rabbit hole, and cause for much debate between Anarchists. An Anarco-Communist will give you a different answer than an Anarco-Syndicalist. You can kind of guess what form the Communist social decision making might take. Syndicalism is a little harder to grasp but perhaps more relevant to post-industrial society.funguy2121 said:
I'm afraid that there are a few fundamental miscommunications between "capital A" Anarchists and the rest of us in the thread, let me see if I can clear them up.
First, the word itself - "lower case a" anarchy means simply the absence of rulers. It makes no more promise than that, it's highly unpredictable and can lead to a wide range of social or anti-social behaviours, hence why a number of posters are synonimising it with chaos. It is generally assumed that the way that anarchy resolves is by pockets of "rule of law" forming (despotic, democratic, it varies) then taking over, and society resuming in a new configuration. "Capital A" Anarchy is the belief that there is a working way of staying in that state without rulers indefinitely without needing to resort to "top down" forms of government in order ot make life liveable. I can see where they're coming from, but I just don't buy it as a means of sustaining mass society.
It's really a question of what you believe about the state of nature. As I reckon about half of you are aware, this is the philosophical question of how mankind behaved before civilisation, and it implies how mankind will/should behave if societal structure was abandoned. John Locke and others thought that reason and fairness would assert itself as a law of nature given the time and space to do so, and that's the worldview that informs Anarchism. Hobbes and others saw it differently - they thought that without something holding us all back, enough of us would want to exert dominance over each other that the whole thing would descend into 'a war of man against man' forever. To Hobbes, society protects us from our own worst tendencies, and I tend to subscribe to that belief. This is the fundamental philosophical argument a number of you are really having right now.
As I say, I can see the appeal of Anarchism, and I'd explain it thus - the most successful Anarchist movement on the planet is the "night out with the mates". Think about it; no one 'leads' your friends when you all go out on the town together and yet everyone is working together for the common goal of having a good time, there is an unspoken pact of mutual protection without any formalism, decisions are made organically with input from all, and there is a sense of exhiliration in the fact that you can do whatever you want, you are master of your own destiny. However, like a great party, Anarchism just doesn't scale well. If more and more people join the group, factions and sub-groups start to form as more and more voices compete for the same conversation time, and voices aren't heard. As people you've never met before join the group, it can be really hard to keep the same feel of cameraderie (especially if they have a slightly different idea of a good time), and that's when the group stops working smoothly and some kind of organisation is needed - in my experience someone with a plan usually steps up and starts forming a little steerage committee for your pub crawl. And now we're building governance.
First, the word itself - "lower case a" anarchy means simply the absence of rulers. It makes no more promise than that, it's highly unpredictable and can lead to a wide range of social or anti-social behaviours, hence why a number of posters are synonimising it with chaos. It is generally assumed that the way that anarchy resolves is by pockets of "rule of law" forming (despotic, democratic, it varies) then taking over, and society resuming in a new configuration. "Capital A" Anarchy is the belief that there is a working way of staying in that state without rulers indefinitely without needing to resort to "top down" forms of government in order ot make life liveable. I can see where they're coming from, but I just don't buy it as a means of sustaining mass society.
It's really a question of what you believe about the state of nature. As I reckon about half of you are aware, this is the philosophical question of how mankind behaved before civilisation, and it implies how mankind will/should behave if societal structure was abandoned. John Locke and others thought that reason and fairness would assert itself as a law of nature given the time and space to do so, and that's the worldview that informs Anarchism. Hobbes and others saw it differently - they thought that without something holding us all back, enough of us would want to exert dominance over each other that the whole thing would descend into 'a war of man against man' forever. To Hobbes, society protects us from our own worst tendencies, and I tend to subscribe to that belief. This is the fundamental philosophical argument a number of you are really having right now.
As I say, I can see the appeal of Anarchism, and I'd explain it thus - the most successful Anarchist movement on the planet is the "night out with the mates". Think about it; no one 'leads' your friends when you all go out on the town together and yet everyone is working together for the common goal of having a good time, there is an unspoken pact of mutual protection without any formalism, decisions are made organically with input from all, and there is a sense of exhiliration in the fact that you can do whatever you want, you are master of your own destiny. However, like a great party, Anarchism just doesn't scale well. If more and more people join the group, factions and sub-groups start to form as more and more voices compete for the same conversation time, and voices aren't heard. As people you've never met before join the group, it can be really hard to keep the same feel of cameraderie (especially if they have a slightly different idea of a good time), and that's when the group stops working smoothly and some kind of organisation is needed - in my experience someone with a plan usually steps up and starts forming a little steerage committee for your pub crawl. And now we're building governance.
Anarchist here, commenting.
Anarchy, at its root, simply means a lack of government. This does not, however, mean a lack of governance.
Most anarchists are libertarian socialists, meaning they are also opposed to the authority held by company leaders. An anarchist society for these people would entail worker ownership of production, and communities ruled by some sort of collective decision making, often something similar to direct democracy.
The idea of anarchism is to free people, but also to empower them.
EDIT: BTW, chaos has nothing to do with anarchism.
Anarchy, at its root, simply means a lack of government. This does not, however, mean a lack of governance.
Most anarchists are libertarian socialists, meaning they are also opposed to the authority held by company leaders. An anarchist society for these people would entail worker ownership of production, and communities ruled by some sort of collective decision making, often something similar to direct democracy.
The idea of anarchism is to free people, but also to empower them.
EDIT: BTW, chaos has nothing to do with anarchism.
Well, for an anarchy that is actually suppose to function, I would say to read V For Vendetta. Alan Moore's big on anarchy as a movement towards an enlightened age where people don't hold power over others or abuse any sort of system.
people who support anarchy don,t fully understand it (if you where to 100% practice anarchy you would get a society like the raiders in Fallout)
Anarchy is Your 4 year old Daughters Birthday party with 35 young kids hyped up on sugar bouncing off the walls, playing pony with the Daschund, while several kids scream in terror and run around your swimming pool because clowns are terrifying and evil. Your wife who gave up trying to herd cats two hours ago is passed out drunk under the kitchen table while you soberly try to cling to the last of your sanity as children scream in your ear and tug your pants continually for attention..
when Political Anarchists can contain the undiluted raw anarchy of childrens birthday parties we are in for some serious trouble.. till then Anarchism is about as scary to me as French toast with Rhubarb preserve..
when Political Anarchists can contain the undiluted raw anarchy of childrens birthday parties we are in for some serious trouble.. till then Anarchism is about as scary to me as French toast with Rhubarb preserve..
The theory seems to be that people are free and that there's no laws, essentially making it an everyone for themselves world. But somehow it would make things simpler.
But the VAST (seriously. I cant over explain how vast this is) number of people who follow it are just retarded 13-29 year old who want to break things and bee edgy and shocking.
Also. IMO I view anarchy as technically impossible due to our human nature. SOMEBODY will always try to take over and lead. We need it to accomplish anything. Try doing a major task with a group of people with nobody even trying to lead
But the VAST (seriously. I cant over explain how vast this is) number of people who follow it are just retarded 13-29 year old who want to break things and bee edgy and shocking.
Also. IMO I view anarchy as technically impossible due to our human nature. SOMEBODY will always try to take over and lead. We need it to accomplish anything. Try doing a major task with a group of people with nobody even trying to lead