Would an Anarchist Society ever work?

Among us there are a few with the vision to act on an idea for other than immediate material benefit. The rest do not possess this capacity for leadership. While there is nothing wrong with them, and nothing wrong with this, a society who places people who cannot lead in leadership positions is doomed to gradual but inevitable failure. And in this the source of our problem is simple: humanity has never overcome specialization, or the process by which some will be better at some things and some will be materially better off than others. This hangup is the exact opposite of transcendental theory, in which one accepts inequality and suffering as means to the end of life itself, and then is able to not only "forgive" life for inequity but celebrate it. This inability to overcome our different-ness, and the consequent impulse to go into denial and "morally" demand equality, is a growing pain we will either overcome or which will destroy us.

The most successful instance of any government is one that carefully divides itself into nearly autonomous local communities. The larger a society gets, the less likely it is to successfully rule itself because of the anonymity of its people. Anonymous people must be assessed without context, as their background and contributions are not known. In a local community, each individual is known to someone known to everyone else, and therefore, if (for example) a transgression occurs, it can be counterbalanced by a knowledge of the positive that the individual has done, which encourages forgiveness. This eliminates the heavy-handedness of most large anonymous legal systems.

For these reasons, the first cornerstone of A plan is this: renew, renovate, rebuild and re-assess culture. Our goal should be a strong culture for every local community, and to unite those local communities on the most general of ideas so they can collaborate toward larger goals.

Please forgive me if this is too long. I have spent a vast amount of my life writing about anarchism, this is something that I have a lot of energy in.

I think that there tends to be too simplistic of a view when examining Anarchism. Anarchism is not merely a political ideology, it is a method of socializing, a way of approaching the world.

The definition itself is the most commonly mis-interpreted. Anarchism is not simply an absence of government. It has nothing to do with dis-order. Anarchism, simply put, is a rejection of Authoritarianism, not a rejection of authority.

Before we can fully understand this, one must first examine that which is authority.
There are essentially two different types of authority. There is the type of authority that one demonstrates over another when they push someone out of the way of an oncoming car or when they help another person solve some crazy math problem. There is that type of authority and then there is the type of authority you demonstrate over someone when you say things like "no", "you cant", "you must", essentially giving orders. This 'dictating' type of authority is considered Authoritarianism.

There are many things that fall under either category, but hopefully that can sort of give the general idea.
Many people, when arguing against anarchist philosophy, will bring up many 'points' that are actually just borne of a very ambiguous understanding of what 'authority' is. Far too often is a wide variety of social interactions included in this vague understanding of authority.

Continued....

Far too often when people mention authority, they group everybody in together. Cops, mentors, parents, judges, lawyers, sheriffs, trainers, guides, people smarter than you, people stronger than you etc., etc. I cant tell you how many debates I have been in where the other person was subconsciously including all of these types of authorities together just because they do share that literal definition.

Anyone can clearly distinguish the difference between the authority that a police officer or judge subjects you to and the authority that a mentor or teacher has. Anarchists are not opposed to acknowledging when a person is inspirational or solves great problems, this is actually what anarchism thrives on.

Anarchist do recognize though, that any of these people that hold such authorities can always take it a step further and become an authoritarian. If allowed. That is very important: if allowed. Sure, one cannot stop a persons personality, but once they begin to demonstrate authoritarian traits individuals and/or the community steps in and keeps the person in check....More on this later.

The authority that 'teachers', mentors and the community hold is that which is based on growth, constructive criticism and mutual aid. The authority that police hold is based on intimidation, coercion, exploitation and domination. These stated traits can be held as my standard traits for authority and authoritarianism throughout.

We must recognize a clear difference in these types of authority lest we become incredibly misguided. One of the biggest reasons people think that anarchism would never work is because of this one, simple misunderstanding or oversimplification of the word authority. (The distaste is also certainly attributed, at least to a degree, to disinformation, intentional distortion of words and philosophy.)


So many people say things like "how can anarchists get anything done if they dont believe in organization?" This, again is based on misconceptions and disinformation. Anarchism has NOTHING to do with disorder or 'chaos'. In fact, one of the largest elements of anarchism is about organizing, coming together. Note I said TOGETHER.

Anarchists are not against leaders, they are against commanders. They are not against control, they are against being controlled. Anarchists are not against agreeing on things and 'coming to terms', they are against laws.

Continued...


[edit on 16-2-2010 by Brahmanite]

Everybody likes to keep Anarchy simple. "You cant tell me what to do!" That really is what the vast majority of people thinks about anarchy, even a lot of people that have possibly thought about anarchism more still seem to hold that general idea of it. I wish it were that black and white.

Ok, so lets assume that everyone does understand the difference between authority and authoritarianism. And lets also assume that everyone understands that anarchism is opposed to Authoritarianism and not simply Authority. There is still a huge element that I see many people leaving out, at least in their 'practice' of anti-authoritarianism (anarchy).

The biggest problem with anti-authoritarianism 'working' is that people forget or reject the Mutual part.

There are two important parts to the Verb or action aspect of anarchism.

First, one must say "You do not have the 'right' to subjugate me to your will, you have no 'authority over me. You for damn sure will include me and accept my decision in any decisions that include me or anything that I am directly associated with and you shall never exploit me in any way."

That is a very important step. We must acknowledge these inalienable truths. One must certainly state that aloud and with conviction to the world. The next step is the one that so many people fail horribly on. The first step is important but the second step is just as important.

We must also live by those ideals and refuse to be an authoritarian figure ourselves, we cant just expect everyone else to. We must first destroy the oppressor within ourselves before we can expect any change.

Also, given that anarchism really is just a rejection of authoritarianism, an anarchist must inevitably examine the world in which they live. Where do you see exploitation, decisions made without your ability to block the decision or even say yes? We must look into our civilization and examine where we see oppression, repression, domination. Where do we see authoritarianism?

We wont need to look far, no further than our own selves. But, if one were to begin to expand their gaze they would find that it would begin within but continue outward and beyond, constantly pulling examples of authoritarianism. It is everywhere you look. A change takes a total shift in perspective.

I have found that when one examines the role of authoritarianism in our modern civilization they will find that nearly every aspect of our current civilization is based, in some form, on authoritarian relationships.

Living in an anarchist society would mean a total paradigm shift in how humans view themselves and their relationship with others, both sentient and non. make no mistake, everything that is our reality is based on human ego and our relationships. If we all changed the way we viewed ourselves and our relation to others, there would be no government, there would be hardly any domestic abuse, there would be hardly any murder, there would be no theft, there would be no exploitation, there would be hardly any garbage, pollution, war, you name it.

If we viewed and respected or disrespected authority in a different way than we do now, none of the things everybody fears would exist. We simply would not allow it, we would not allow OURSELVES to be the instrument of authoritarianism.

Continued...

Depends... if humanity decides they want it to work, then it will work, if no one agrees, it wont work.

It would never work on a Global scale though (I mean this in many ways).
So long as you are dependent on resources from afar, you are subject to their will and due to your disconnection from the process of this resources production you are ultimately subjected to the authoritarianism of a million different individuals. Think of absolutely any product that you can see right now. With any given product, you have maybe 50 individual 'outfits' that are required to make that product. How much authority is that?

I could deconstruct globalism all night. The point is, so long as you are dependent on things coming from afar, you are SOL. We are then faced with lowering our standards and/or getting organized, responsible and handy.

Being anti-globalization has nothing to do with nationalism or anti-multiculturalism. It is exactly the opposite in many ways. I am against globalization because it is completely unsustainable for many material reasons but also socially, we have no way to have control over our lives.

We can not do it alone, no way in hell can we truly survive and prosper all by ourselves. This is where community comes in and this would be the 'enforcing' factor in an anarchist community.

Simply put, if you treat others, sentient and non, badly, you will not fair very well. If a person who has previously been looked upon for advice many times becomes controlling, the persons role will diminish. If it is a worse offense the repercussions may be more severe. For example: if someone were to commit murder I am sure the community would AT LEAST make it very clear to the offender that they are not welcome in the community. If a local person that had been in a community for a long time became an authoritarian, the long term, community driven effects would take place. The person would probably find themselves not having very many positive social interactions, this could lead anywhere. They would then find it hard to get help with projects, so on and so forth. The social repercussion would naturally reflect the 'offence'

The person should always be given a chance to redeem themselves depending on the offence and the opinions of the 'victim/s'. If the 'offender' shows a clear advancement towards positive change I am sure that the level of positive relationships would go up.

It is the natural social order. It works everyday amongst our friends and family. We make consensus based decisions all the time with them. It is when we get distant authority figures into the game where we begin to have no choice, where personal decision making gets diminished.

Wow, I am really sorry that this was so lengthy. 3 or 4000 characters is not nearly enough to speak of such a subject. believe me, I could go on forever and I am sure more will come out later. Did anybody read all the way through this?

Just occurred to me, isn't the USA supposed to be an anarchist society?

'Government of the people, by the people, for the people'

'Freedom and the pursuit of happiness'

etc.

LoL, Anarchy for the USA anyone?

reply to post by Icerider


I would think that their ultimate vision or goal might be a similar form of society however at the given time that America had to establish itself and gain independence from England any attempt at a trluy anarchist society would have resulted in failure.

There was way to much influence from the English and other countries for that to ever happen at the given time. An attempt at an anarchist society would have likely ended disastrously.

But again I would say that the native americans had a closer system and it seems to have worked pretty well before the settlers came.

reply to post by Brahmanite


Excellent post Brahmanite.

I have tried to convey a similer opinion on anarchy in other threads (without the same amount of eloquence or thought however).

I dont think this will ever happen for the simple fact people (the majority) will never be able to change their perspective to the point necessary and will always have a "i know better/im more important then you" mentality.
Also alot of people are so used to authoritarianism that they require it to go about their lives, for example look at the amount of people who think we'd be robbing, raping and murdering eachother without it.

I think this would be impossible to do while maintaining the same level of comfort (consumerism). We would need to, in a sense, go back to basics, which would mean, as youve said, we would need teachers. (few people know how to grow food, butcher animals, cure leather).

As someone who seems quite well versed on the subject of anarchism what is your opinion on the need for a cash/money system in an anarchistic community?

reply to post by Brahmanite


yeah I read through all of it, you've got a better handle on this than anyone in here so far. I assume then that you have heard of kropotkin. Yer thoughts on his ideas?

Originally posted by star in a jar
In every community there has to be rules to prevent people from running around raping, stealing and killing and to maintain cohesion of society. In its most simple form a society built on Anarchist priniciples would only work as long as there is basic law and order in a community with a clear leadership structure.

Why do you believe anarchy would have no fundamental rules by which all may live freely, without state control or intervention in any part of their lives? Many people, personality types need leadership only because they lack the confidence in themselves to rule their own lives and are afraid of any consensus that may alienate them from their social circles.

My view is that anarchy and Christ's teaching, Love one another, are completly compatible.

The 'rule of law', is the ancient dogma that the 'elites', whatever their politcal persuasion, have used to control humanity since the beginning of civilisation. Just check the professional background of all the worlds political leaders and you will find the majority of them are fully qualified 'lawyers'.

..'Do what you will' philosophy of the most hardcore anarchist and/or satanist.

The assumption that anarchists are satanists, or in league with satanists, is very dangerous. 'Do what you will' is not the philosophy of either, but rather a reflection of one of God's greatest gifts to humanity, Free Will.

reply to post by liquidsmoke206


You seem to be under the impression that I was talking about every single human being on earth today but you couldn't be further from the truth to be honest. But some, Ok SOME, humans take please in raping and killing other human being's, sad but true, I mean they certainly don't do it because they are bored and are looking for something to do, they don't do it because they don't like politics as another member seems to think.

But hey if you have a better reason why these horrible things happen then please do enlighten me but for now I am sticking to my opinion and you haven't even come close to changing it.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


I agree there is no way to know for sure what would happen through a decision until that decision is made and we have to face the consequences of that decision

But let’s look at one rule for now in anarchy law that just brings it down for me and will always do so…..

Everyone would be 100% equal and free in an anarchistic world, now I would love nothing more than for this to happen, and I think we need so much more equality in our world.

But being the humans we are we crave power and just will not stop until we are even slightly ahead of others (remember liquidsmoke I am not taking about EVERYONE here just SOME)

And I don’t think anyone can dispute that fact above, because history has shown we will always have a leader in a pack, we will always have someone who rises above everyone else.

Also please state why you are bringing up those catholic laws that make no sense and that surely everyone in the world surely would agree with.


[edit on 17-2-2010 by Rising Against]

Yes, I am familiar with Kropotkin. I am pretty fond of his works however would never consider myself a Kropotkinite.

The need for money or currency. As mentioned in an earlier post of mine; we must examine all of civilization and and discover where we find exploitation, etc., etc. Well, when I look at a capital based system or any system dealing with money, Authoritarianism is inescapable.

Personally, I do not feel that full social equality can ever be gained so long as we have a form of economy that is based on the relationship of "look at this stack of things I have here. Dont you want this stack of things? what things will you give me for my things?"

There will always be a degree of exploitation There will then, always be people that horde and then try to hold all of what they horded over everyones heads.."Hah, I know you all need this. I have been saving and collecting it and now that I am the one with the most or the only one with any, you will do anything to get it." This is how power starts, this is how mafioso style intimidation begins.

So long as there is a form of currency that will always happen. If we are employing a trade economy the same ill always be a potential. As soon as there is an established 'mode' or method of payment, there will be hoarders and people trying to take advantage of others.

What we need is a mutual aid based gift economy. If I need I will walk down to the 'market strip' in my community or over to the closest farm and because I have recently helped out on the farm or in the community or because it is known that I will contribute to the community in the near future, the farmer acknowledges my contribution, accepts that we all need each other and contributes to the destruction of my hunger.

Say I am passing through, on my way to somewhere else but I am very hungry. Stop somewhere and offer a bit of your services and I promise you will be taken care of......The currency in a mutual aid based gift economy is your social relationships. The currency in the gift based economy is a persons personal contribution. Instead of our motivation for action being to gather money, our motivation is to maintain the continuity of your contribution.

When you go and ask for food, the farmer knows that if you dont get food you wont ever be able to contribute. This farmer knows that they need your contribution in some way. By feeding you the farmer knows that down the line, you will be able to contribute to their survival.

We are not in this alone. If you dont eat, I dont eat. So long as one person is oppressed, we are all oppressed.

I do feel that gift economy would work, it would take much work though.

I also must make it clear that I no longer believe in revolution. I see the need for it but do not see it as being possible. I have learned that there will always be people that prefer to be told what to do. There will always be people that choose convenience and comfort over being directly involved in their own lives.

Most people, as we speak dont care if thousands people of color are dieing or millions of trees being cut. So long as Lost still comes on at the usual time and they dont have to wait too long at the Mcdonalds drive through.

We would be crazy to assume that we could convince everybody. Also, who says anarchists are right? Maybe for them it does make sense but for other people, they are totally comfortable in a capitalist system. My ways might make total logical sense to me but I can not expect them to make sense to anyone else.

This is why I advocate small, decentralized communities. Here is an anarchist community and maybe 50 miles away is still a community that resembles our current lives. We can live together. If we cant live together and are going to way for a revolution be for we do anything, we will end up dead first.

reply to post by Rising Against


Yes, some people will always crave power. We must all be socially comfortable enough to confront this power though. In the beginning when it manifests itself in community meetings the individual can be approached. Otherwise if someone is trying to quickly and violently rise to power it is also in the communities hands and BEST INTEREST to prevent the person from rising....The reason it never happens throughout our history is because of the Social roles we have been programmed in to....

Our cultural system is that hich is based on authoritarianism. The problem is that we feel that domination is natural and inherent in the first place. It is that very mentality that leads to people not rising up against would be domineers.

reply to post by concernedcitizan


"The Pawnee: They were a well-disciplined people, maintaining public order under many trying circumstances. And yet they had none of the power mechanisms that we consider essential to a well-ordered life. No orders were ever issued...Time after time I tried to find a case of orders given and there were none. Gradually I began to realize that democracy is a very personal thing which like charity, begins at home. Basically it means not being coerced and having no need to coerce anyone else. The Pawnee learned this way of living in the earliest beginning of his life. In the detailed events of every day as a child, he began his development as a disciplined and free man or as a women who felt her dignity and her independence to be inviolate"

---

"The Creeks are just honest, liberal and hospitable to strangers; considerate, loving and affectionate to their wives and relations; fond of their children; industrious, frugal, temperate and persevering; charitable and forbearing. I have been weeks and months among them and in their towns, and never observed the least sign of contention or wrangling: never saw an instance of and Indian beating his wife, or even reproving her in anger. In this case they stand as examples of reproof to the most civilized nations . . . for indeed their wives merit their esteem and the most gentle treatment, they being industrious, frugal, loving and affectionate . . .Their internal police and family economy. . .incontrovertibly place those people in an illustrious point of view: their liberality, intimacy and friendly intercourse with one another, without any restraint of ceremonious formality; as if they were even insensible of the use of necessity of associating the passions of affections of avarice, ambition or covetousness. . . How are we to account for their excellent policy in civil government; it cannot derive its influence from coercive laws, for they have no such artificial system."

paimei01.blogspot.com...

reply to post by Brahmanite
I'm politically independent and don't label myself as left, right or centrist. From my perspective there are so many things wrong with our ingrained (interpellated) political systems that alternatives should be considered. Unfortunately, as long as the dominant western powers are insistent on abstract concepts like 'liberty,' other forms have no chance to be tested. Liberty sounds great. Looks great on posters. Sounds rousing when a President celebrates it! It's abstract...it means whatever the user wants it to mean. It's slippery and can change definitions with a wave of the magic wand!

Perhaps the concepts should increasingly focus on individual welfare and social responsibility? Making society less dysfunctional? Making the difference between one man and the next less than that between the sewer and the penthouse. I've no answers, just questions and doubts...

Anyway, I actually only replied to remark that your summaries of anarchy were well written and clear. I flirted with the concept years ago. IMO the one thing that holds back and deforms every political and social system is human nature. We can't seem to overcome its negative aspects. Inherent inequality (bigger, faster, smarter, attractive, healthier) and human nature are like a yin/yang symbol. Good and bad in equal measure and responsible for all our successes and shortcomings...sigh...

reply to post by Brahmanite
I'm politically independent and don't label myself as left, right or centrist. From my perspective there are so many things wrong with our ingrained (interpellated) political systems that alternatives should be considered. Unfortunately, as long as the dominant western powers are insistent on abstract concepts like 'liberty,' other forms have no chance to be tested. Liberty sounds great. Looks great on posters. Sounds rousing when a President celebrates it! It's abstract...it means whatever the user wants it to mean. It's slippery and can change definitions with a wave of the magic wand!

Perhaps the concepts should increasingly focus on individual welfare and social responsibility? Making society less dysfunctional? Making the difference between one man and the next less than that between the sewer and the penthouse. I've no answers, just questions and doubts...

Anyway, I actually only replied to remark that your summaries of anarchy were well written and clear. I flirted with the concept years ago. IMO the one thing that holds back and deforms every political and social system is human nature. We can't seem to overcome its negative aspects. Inherent inequality (bigger, faster, smarter, attractive, healthier) and human nature are like a yin/yang symbol. Good and bad in equal measure and responsible for all our successes and shortcomings...sigh...

reply to post by thehoneycomb

Now according to several scriptures in the Bible starting back at Genesis 6:2 we have learned of the various tribes and their roles in modern day society. In an nutshell catholics, christians, jews and muslims are all fighting over the same thing. Israel.

Why?

From the christian leaning prespective Israel is thought to be the promised land just like every other religion, but having control of Israel is key so then a one world government could rise out of Israel with of course the peoples religion associated with the ownerhip of land.

Why do they fight over Israel? Israel, or rather Jerusalem was the Annunaki Control Center when they were here last, that is how that giant rock was hewn out and placed there, does anyone think man could do that? When and if Nibiru comes back, I would suppose the Annunaki would want their control center back, wouldn't they? That is the real reason they fight over that God forsaken piece of land so hard, and it makes a lot more sense that it being the land of "God's Chosen People." For one thing, if the God of the Jewish people chose them, what makes anyone think for a second he would want anything to do with the rest of us?

Originally posted by concernedcitizan
The ideal anarchist society of carries a vital flaw: the quality of the population.

Please define 'quality', if you refer only to cerebral intelligence, this is an elitist view!

It is no news that the general IQ of the world is stagnating, partly due to overpopulation in countries where the general IQ is low, and partly due to the fact that people with medium to low IQs, in general, have more children than people with higher IQs, thus creating a future society where people cannot grasp nor understand how to use technology intelligently.

Elitist (political fascism) education policies to dumb down along with false health care (corporate fascism) and MSM, aka TV (the devil in the corner of every home, media fascism) contribute heavily toward the lowering IQ's in the general population(s).

IQ is also a FALSE measure of an individual's true worth.

To combat this we must return to natural selection, where we are able to provide economic and political benefits for families where the parents have high intelligence and noble moral character, while regulating the number of children in families where the parents have medium to low IQs or show evidence of degenerate or destructive behavior. This is the most humane and efficient way to create a future society populated by intelligent, brave, honest people that will be able to manage our technology and use it wisely.

So, you advocate total state control of every decision an individual may make? How is this compatible to an anarchist viewpoint? Why do you believe interfering with personal decisions and the right to self determination is in some way 'humane'? Do you think that people that you have judged to be lesser human beings than yourself should have fewer individual rights than you do? How do your views equate with nobility of character?

While many are critical of Fascist societies with strong leadership, I am not.

Indeed!!

Most people live in a culture where killing and raping innocent people is wrong, and thus not something one normally does.

Most people do not rape or murder because regardless of the society they live in, they have their individual morality that precludes them from the desire to cause such harm to others. Laws etc governing such actions are common to all societies because such acts are anathema to people, even stupid ones, ie, the morality predates the law.

The role of the leader is to make sure that this consensus is maintained, through laws or otherwise, thus not really clashing with any freedom of the individual.

The role of any leader should be to SERVE.