Is anarchy even possible?

[Goingonit]

Ramo, I said "as soon as people got their acts together". I wouldn't say prehistoric hunter-gatherers had their acts together. But as soon as their society improved enough that they had enough leisure time to worry about it, they ended up with a government.

And as for Utopia, do you know what Uopia literally means? "Nowhere place"!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ramo


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

I must defer. My home comp won't access .edu sites, so I have little access to worthwhile sources. Hopefully soeone else will be able to get some.

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.

The main proble still comes from your definition of Authority. For exmaple, you discount the Family as an authority unit, while most people would call a family an authority unit, with the parents having control over the children. Then you couls work outward and try to simulate the Family system further into society (as Aristotle would argue)

[Graag]

Kramerman - I'm inclined to agree. Even though I am an anarchist, I cannot concieve a world where it could exist.
Perhaps in 40 years or so if most of the world goes up in a nuclear war, isolated anarchic societies could exist, or alternativly 2000 years in the future when we evolved into pure thought. I'm not going to hold my breath.

That said I do believe it could be possible for small isolated pockets of true anarchy to exist, probably in small settlements in undeveloped places or, a bunch of like-minded anarchists could buy an island or something. I'd sign up to that

Ramo - please tell me more about the 'CNT in Catalonia, the Zapatistas in Southern Mexico, and the Makhnovists of the Ukraine.' sounds innaresting.

Oh, and about the sexual mores thing, I watched the first episode from a documentary series about sexuality through the ages a while backm they reckon pretty much as soon as primitve societies have any kind of structure they had sexual taboos. The proof of this was a very very old grave featuring 3 bodies which had been ceremoniously killed and buried in postures suggesting they had violated sexual taboos (one body had his arm pointed directly at the woman next to him's genitles.

[Graag]

And as for Utopia, do you know what Uopia literally means? "Nowhere place"!

Groovy, do you know the origin of the word?

[Goingonit]

Thomas More invented it. It's from the Greek "ou" not + "topos" place.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Graag
Ramo - please tell me more about the 1)'CNT in Catalonia, 2) the Zapatistas in Southern Mexico, and 3) the Makhnovists of the Ukraine.' sounds innaresting.

1) Crushed during the Spanish Civil War
2) Currently engaged in a terrorist anti-development campaign in Southern Mexico
3) Beats me. I hadn't heard of them before.

[Kramerman]

I cannot concieve a world where it could exist.
Perhaps in 40 years or so if most of the world goes up in a nuclear war, isolated anarchic societies could exist,

hehehe, yeah, but then they would get screwed up by roving bands of maniacs who travel in bizarre vehicles and ware football gear as armor and that battle for oil... but hopefully in the end, one who is as Mad as they will stop them in some climactic car battle...

That said I do believe it could be possible for small isolated pockets of true anarchy to exist, probably in small settlements in undeveloped places or, a bunch of like-minded anarchists could buy an island or something. I'd sign up to that

How would an anarchist society work? people would have to go do their jobs selflessly, and not care for personal gain or betterment. Then they would all have to respect others, with only their own selfdisipline to stop 'em. And if there is some transgression, how could it be handeled? What if one guy had a bunch of chemicals that was produced by his job. there is no incentive (either monetary or civil) to keep him from just disposing of them right there, dumping them somewhere. this could adversely affect the environment of the whole island. how could something like this be addressed?

Kman

[Ramo]

Ramo, I said "as soon as people got their acts together". I wouldn't say prehistoric hunter-gatherers had their acts together. But as soon as their society improved enough that they had enough leisure time to worry about it, they ended up with a government.

It had nothing to do with "enough leisure time to worry about it." Government came with agriculture, as agriculture meant the development of wealth disparities.

The main proble still comes from your definition of Authority. For exmaple, you discount the Family as an authority unit, while most people would call a family an authority unit, with the parents having control over the children. Then you couls work outward and try to simulate the Family system further into society (as Aristotle would argue

I consider *some* family systems unjustifiable forms of authority (i.e. if a husband is able to beat his wife, etc.). However, I believe that certain types of family systems lead to a net increase in liberty, thus they are justifiable.
Furthermore, there are anarchists who don't accept my standard for acceptable authority, and there are anarchists whose standards I wouldn't accept, but that doesn't make them more or less of an anarchist than I am.

please tell me more about the 'CNT in Catalonia, the Zapatistas in Southern Mexico, and the Makhnovists of the Ukraine.' sounds innaresting.

Well, the CNT was a Spanish anacho-syndicalist trade union that gained support early in the 20th century. At the beginning of their Civil War, they revolted against the gov't and secured the liberty of Catalonians. The Catalonians subsequently created a truly amazing anarcho-syndicalist society. Land and industry was collectivized, ran and owned by the workers. Major increases in education, literacy, and technological innnovation occured. George Orwell in Homage to Catalonia, among other people, have described it much better that I ever could. It truly is the shining example of what anarchism has to offer.

The Zapatistas were anarchists from Yucatan penninsula who, during the latest Mexican Civil War, rose up against the state and lead to the collectivization of land and end to state and private oppression in the land they controlled.

Ditto with the Makhnovists in Ukraine following the fall of the Russian Czar.

Currently engaged in a terrorist anti-development campaign in Southern Mexico

1. They aren't terrorist. They are certainly not anywhere near as terrorist as their gov't.
2. They aren't anti-development, rather they reject state oppression of peasants.
3. Today's Zapatista movement isn't what I'm referring to.

[DinoDoc]

2. They aren't anti-development, rather they reject state oppression of peasants.

How does an eco-tourist operation run by a former Peace Corps volunteer for instance = state oppression of peasents?

[Graag]

Originally posted by Kramerman
How would an anarchist society work? people would have to go do their jobs selflessly, and not care for personal gain or betterment. Then they would all have to respect others, with only their own selfdisipline to stop 'em. And if there is some transgression, how could it be handeled? What if one guy had a bunch of chemicals that was produced by his job. there is no incentive (either monetary or civil) to keep him from just disposing of them right there, dumping them somewhere. this could adversely affect the environment of the whole island. how could something like this be addressed?

An anarchist society would have no leadership, no authority, no-one would have any rights over anyone else. I can't imagine it in anything other than a very small scale, so for example say a few hundred anarchists found an island to move onto.
Everyone would do whatever they could do. If someone was struggling to survive for whatever reason, the people around them would help. If there was some kind of disagreement over something, whoever had the problem just has to work it out between themselves. If someone steals something of yours, you rely on either the person feeling guilty and returning it or someone stopping him. If not, bad luck.

It does sound crazy, but the reason I think it could work is karma and connections. I may start talking shite now, so be forewarned.

The idea is with a group free from outside interference, the karma system will sort itself out in the end. If you are stolen from, someone else will help you. The person who stole from, if he persists, would eventually be discovered. It would then be each individuals choice how to treat that person. The system is entierly self-regulating, there is no need for any kind of law or authority.

Or put it another way; say you and 10 other people were marooned on a island, you aren't going to go around kicking sand in other people's faces.

All though all this said, I suspect via human it wouldnt take long for some kind of leader to arise.

Hmmm. Now I've had a chance to think about it (i.e. all the stuff I just wrote), anarchy definately cannot work until people lose their desire to have more than the others around them. Ain't gonna happen.

[Graag]

Thanks for the info ramo, Homage to Catalonia goes to the top of my books to read list. Orwell is one of my favs anyway, and me an anarchist not having read it, disgraceful.

[Ramo]

Dino, I haven't heard of that. Link?

But yes, they do some silly things occasionally, but in general they're a very important organization for the liberty o the Mexican people.

[Ramo]

It's also his best book, IMO (and Orwell is my favorite author so that says a lot).

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
Dino, I haven't heard of that. Link?

The handwritten letter delivered to an American landowner here made the position of the local residents perfectly clear: It's a good idea if you start leaving the ranch.

Glen Wersch, a former Peace Corps volunteer from Idaho who bought his ranch in 1993 and turned it into a macadamia nut and flower farm as well as a popular tourist lodge, now sadly agrees.

"I don't know when we're leaving, but we're leaving. It's deteriorated too far," Wersch said yesterday, acknowledging that his life's dream was evaporating because one of his employees had been beaten and more violence was threatened if he did not leave.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Feb5.html

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Graag

An anarchist society would have no leadership, no authority, no-one would have any rights over anyone else. I can't imagine it in anything other than a very small scale, so for example say a few hundred anarchists found an island to move onto.
Everyone would do whatever they could do. If someone was struggling to survive for whatever reason, the people around them would help. If there was some kind of disagreement over something, whoever had the problem just has to work it out between themselves. If someone steals something of yours, you rely on either the person feeling guilty and returning it or someone stopping him. If not, bad luck.

It does sound crazy, but the reason I think it could work is karma and connections. I may start talking shite now, so be forewarned.

The idea is with a group free from outside interference, the karma system will sort itself out in the end. If you are stolen from, someone else will help you. The person who stole from, if he persists, would eventually be discovered. It would then be each individuals choice how to treat that person. The system is entierly self-regulating, there is no need for any kind of law or authority.

Or put it another way; say you and 10 other people were marooned on a island, you aren't going to go around kicking sand in other people's faces.

All though all this said, I suspect via human it wouldnt take long for some kind of leader to arise.

Hmmm. Now I've had a chance to think about it (i.e. all the stuff I just wrote), anarchy definately cannot work until people lose their desire to have more than the others around them. Ain't gonna happen.

Interesting... however I reject it for two reasons. (im sure you care tho, right )

1)
I dont believe in Karma. Things happen because of cause and effect. I dont think there is something that balances out the universe. Some people, with chance, just happen to not get screwed as much as others. Thats life, there is no fairness about it.

2)
On a large scale i think we agree it would not work (especially not desirablely so). On the small scale, there would not be enough people to specialize in everything needed, so most would have to rely on self-reliance. they would have to fend for themselves, leaving them little time, i would imagine, for learning, the arts, and leisure, which i view as the gem of civilization. I am very progressive, especially in the realm of science and technology, which i couldnt see progressing much in anarchy (kinda like in Civ )

Kman

[Graag]

Originally posted by Kramerman
1)
I dont believe in Karma. Things happen because of cause and effect. I dont think there is something that balances out the universe. Some people, with chance, just happen to not get screwed as much as others. Thats life, there is no fairness about it.

I didn't say it was fair or anything, or that there is some external force balancing things out. Karma is cause and effect working more subtly than the human mind can percieve.

2)
On a large scale i think we agree it would not work (especially not desirablely so). On the small scale, there would not be enough people to specialize in everything needed, so most would have to rely on self-reliance. they would have to fend for themselves, leaving them little time, i would imagine, for learning, the arts, and leisure, which i view as the gem of civilization. I am very progressive, especially in the realm of science and technology, which i couldnt see progressing much in anarchy (kinda like in Civ )

Now there you've hit on the main point for me. What sort of tech level do you go for? Maybe you'd have to go back to the old school ways. Re-learn all the manual skills people have practised for hundreds of years. Just bring along a few guitars, and tell stories round the campfire for entertainment.

Hmm. maybe if I could bring a laptop...

[Kramerman]

I didn't say it was fair or anything, or that there is some external force balancing things out. Karma is cause and effect working more subtly than the human mind can percieve.

then how do you know its there?

[Lord Merciless]

Maybe life is really good in such an anarchist society if everyone plays by the rule. But I have no doubt that such societies are short-lived: they either fall to the inherent human vices of their members, or they fall to an organized, outside force.

[Graag]

Originally posted by Kramerman
then how do you know its there?

Just a guess really
It isn't something I could explain, let alone prove, just a confused personal belief about something I have a sense of.

[Berzerker]

There seems to be some mis-perceptions about anarchism. It is not a rejection of government and authority, anarchism is a system based on voluntary associations - freedom. Any act that violates the voluntary nature of the system - like murder or robbery -
is subject to the governing authority. But since virtually every political system in our known history was either autocratic or at least, anti-freedom, the word anarchism has become synonymous with a rejection of all government. Of course, there are some left wing anarchists who don't really believe in freedom but use the anarchist label anyway to hide what they really are, socialist or collectivist. They cross the line from anarchism to socialism when they employ violence or the threat thereof to impose their supposedly anarchistic ideology on non-comformists who believe in property rights.

Ramo -

Government came with agriculture, as agriculture meant the development of wealth disparities.

Agriculture/domestication allowed for a settled way of life and an increase in leisure time leading to specialisations like a religious, warrior, and political class. Government didn't arise because of wealth disparities, it arose because agriculture led to a more complex economy. In H-G systems, the men typically hunted and the women gathered and prepared the food, not much complexity there, but once you have settled communities with a viable trade economy, specialisation enters the picture on a much larger scale.

[Corvi #6]

Less important than whether anarchism is possible is whether utopia generally a worthwhile aspiration. I've heard serious politicians who really should know better complaining that there are too many idealists in the world today, the implication being that the wrold will be a better place once everyone settles down to a nine-to-five job and stops complaining about the state of the enviroment or the plight of the homeless or the violation of human rights. Surely we should have a higher aspiration? Those of us who have trouble taking the quaint mythological stories of a middle-eastern desert tribe seriously should nonetheless be striving for a better society. Humans may have started out as social primates, but our intelligence and our imaginations give us the potential to overcome our limitations.

[Heresson]

Of course it is, and Poland is the proof -

again

[Ramo]

There seems to be some mis-perceptions about anarchism. It is not a rejection of government and authority, anarchism is a system based on voluntary associations - freedom. Any act that violates the voluntary nature of the system - like murder or robbery -
is subject to the governing authority. But since virtually every political system in our known history was either autocratic or at least, anti-freedom, the word anarchism has become synonymous with a rejection of all government. Of course, there are some left wing anarchists who don't really believe in freedom but use the anarchist label anyway to hide what they really are, socialist or collectivist. They cross the line from anarchism to socialism when they employ violence or the threat thereof to impose their supposedly anarchistic ideology on non-comformists who believe in property rights.

1. Why do you think locking people up is a justifiable method to insure societal liberty while collectivization of large property owners to be a totally unjustifiable method to insure societal liberty? After all, locking people up is an incredibly authoritarian thing to do, in fact it's the most authoritarian thing you can do short of killing them.

2. Why do you think that the property claims a government protects is automatically justifiable? Because government of their parents or grandparents generation protected those property claims?

Agriculture/domestication allowed for a settled way of life and an increase in leisure time leading to specialisations like a religious, warrior, and political class. Government didn't arise because of wealth disparities, it arose because agriculture led to a more complex economy. In H-G systems, the men typically hunted and the women gathered and prepared the food, not much complexity there, but once you have settled communities with a viable trade economy, specialisation enters the picture on a much larger scale.

There's no automatic need for government to manage a more complicated economy. Modern anarchist societies, particularly the one in Catalonia, had a very complicated, industrial economy. Yet, there was no need for a government to manage that economy.

The key difference between an authoritarian and anti-authoritarian societies is wealth disparity. Agriculture allowed for the development of wealth disparity since not everyone needed to work in food production duties, thus authority was viable for the first time.

[DinoDoc]

Why do you think that the property claims a government protects is automatically justifiable?

Where do you live Ramo? I'm coming for your computer.

[Ramo]

I didn't say it's never justifiable.