# Anarchists: anyof you care to explain your philosophy to me? (Well, us.) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 17, 2011, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchists-anyof-you-care-to-explain-your-philosophy-to-me-well-us/606547 "2011-12-17T17:26:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchists-anyof-you-care-to-explain-your-philosophy-to-me-well-us/606547/41 "2011-12-19T14:32:06Z")
The fruit trees example is (deliberately?) an extreme case because you have a situation where most of the work necessary for them to exist where they didn’t before was all done up front as an investment; then once the trees are mature the reward is permanent (at least for the life of the tree) with minimal further effort. The original nineteenth century Anarchists saw the capital (factories, etc.) of industrialism the same way- never mind who originally payed to build them, they’re now a cornucopia that the owning class was selfishly hoarding. Or to go back to feudalism, all productive land was originally conquered by somebody who by one arrangement or another held onto it from rival conquerers. So the question becomes how far removed from the original effort necessary to acquire or produce something should exclusive rights be held? Some have suggested that the practice of inheriting wealth should be abolished, and that only what one has personally produced is “yours”. I’m reminded of the Honor Harrington books in which the political and social system of Manticore is based on the perpetual retention of privilege descended from the planet’s original founders and settlers. But to get back to the poor starving people begging for fruit: Randian philosophy does indeed have one very hard premise that most people reject- that human life is not inherently precious enough that simply existing allows you to impose a moral duty upon others. And it rejects the idea that since all human lives are equal, a majority vote suffices to determine whether some peoples’ well-being should be infringed upon for the greater good. As a purely practical matter most people in fact do place limits on the value of human life. As I said upthread, it’s simply not possible to treat a limitless number of strangers with the same love and regard one would the members of your immediate family. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchists-anyof-you-care-to-explain-your-philosophy-to-me-well-us/606547/42 "2011-12-19T16:24:36Z")
> [@Naxos](#): > > The mistake here is that you’re assuming some people fall within a label you chose to apply to them. > > Labels are the sign of idiotic and worthless arguments. I am not assigning a label to anyone. I asked the question of persons who call _themselves_ anarchists. That is what “self-professed anarchists” means. In other news, this is not actually the lavatory; please void your bowels elsewhere. To others: thanks for responding. Please don’t take the fact that I’m not posting much in this thread as evidence of any lack of interest in my part; I’m just trying to be open-shuttered and passive. ---
**Author:** ![horhay\_achoa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@horhay\_achoa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/horhay_achoa)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchists-anyof-you-care-to-explain-your-philosophy-to-me-well-us/606547/43 "2011-12-19T17:54:27Z")
I consider myself an anarchist. Not sure what type, but I am not too concerned with a more specific label. I think part of the problem with these types of discussions is that making a quick jump to an anarchist society from where we are today would be a disaster. It took hundreds of years of capitalist ideology to get us to the point where someone will shout out at a political debate that they think someone should be allowed to die because they decided not to purchase insurance. > **[Support at GOP debate for letting the uninsured die](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2011-sep-13-la-pn-ron-paul-gop-debate-20110913-story.html)** > > Support at GOP debate for letting the uninsured die That is so far removed from the type of society I think most anarchists are looking for that it is hard to even know where to begin. I forget who said it, but I have heard that anarchy is more about “evolution than revolution”. I completely agree with that statement. We are all a product of the society in which we live. I think human beings are equally as capable of compassion and cooperation as we are of selfishness and competition. Right now, we live in a society where selfishness and competition are promoted at the cost of compassion and cooperation. It is a systemic problem. The type of society I want to see is pretty much a complete 180 from where we are now. So for me, being an anarchist is not just about opposing hierarchy…it is about doing any little thing I can to be more involved in altruistic, cooperative activities. And, all the better if I can figure out ways to get more people in my neighborhood involved in those types of activities. Massive changes to the underlying psychology and incentives that motivate people’s behavior are needed before any sort of anarchist society is possible. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchists-anyof-you-care-to-explain-your-philosophy-to-me-well-us/606547/44 "2011-12-19T21:02:32Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > No–but only because the farmer lives in a society where “stealing” is a crime, and a society where “letting people starve to death so you can get and extra 5 cents a bushel” isn’t a crime. Can you explain to me why the others are starving to death in the first place and how it is the farmer that is letting that happen? Are these starving people grasshoppers to the farmer’s ant? Did some great calamity strike the crops of everyone else? > [@](#): > > If you go and take things from the farmer that the farmer needs to survive, that’s different: that’s immoral. But if the farmer extends legal and lethal protection over a bunch more stuff than she needs to survive, at the cost of other people’s lives, anarchists would suggest that’s equally immoral. It sounds like you’re talking about a return to subsistence farming. Which simply sounds like a terrible prospect to me. Without a surplus, there will be no skilled laborers because they’re all going to be busy trying to produce enough food to survive. What incentive does a farmer have to produce a surplus when thieving bandits can descend upon him and demand the fruits of his labor without compensation? None. What will happen is this. The farmer will form a coalition with other like minded farmers to defend the fruits of their labor from bandits. Or, alternatively, the farmer will adopt a scorched earth policy and destroy his surplus to keep it out of the hands of the thieving mob. Who benefits then? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchists-anyof-you-care-to-explain-your-philosophy-to-me-well-us/606547/45 "2011-12-19T21:26:43Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > Can you explain to me why the others are starving to death in the first place and how it is the farmer that is letting that happen? Letting it happen? Not so much. Possibly forcing it to happen? Sure. There is of course the possibility that the farmer, before planting the trees, checked around: “Hey, anyone else need this land I’m claiming? Because once I mix my labor with it, I’ll say it’s mine forever. Anyone? Anyone? Nope? Okay, it’s mine.” If he did that, then the position is perhaps defensible. But if he didn’t, then the so-called “grasshoppers” (there are [plenty of other insulting terms you might want to try out, too, for poor people](http://www.dailywritingtips.com/10-terms-for-the-common-people/)) didn’t ever get a chance to plant their own fruit tree. And that’s the problem. Anarchists rarely talk about taking the farmer’s food from him. But if that farmer has taken so much land that he has to hire other people to work the land, and those people he hires don’t have a realistic chance to get access to land of their own, and he pays them a subsistence wage instead of a wage that lets them get access to their own land, then the legal fiction of property is showing its pitfalls. And that’s where the legal fiction of taxation comes in handy if you’re a liberal, or the social fiction of consensus economics comes in handy if you’re an anarchist. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchists-anyof-you-care-to-explain-your-philosophy-to-me-well-us/606547/46 "2011-12-19T21:40:14Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > What exactly does “non-heirarchical:” mean here? To me, it means absence of any social hierarchy - equality of opportunity and a classless society. Lack of an entrenched political class of any stripe, whether that be aristos or bureaucrats. > [@](#): > > More to the ppint, how do you distinguish from capitalist free associations backed by the rewards people choose to give from the “anarchist” non-heirarchical associations. Most capitalist “free” associations establish some sort of hierarchy such as a board and CEOs etc. And it’s the people with the capital who decide the makeup of such a hierarchy. > [@](#): > > What happens, exactly, when your neighbors just start killing you? What happens when anyone starts killing anyone? You die. Hopefully you do a lot of damage on the way out, enough to make the killers think twice, but really, if you’re a complete pacifist, what else should you expect? > [@](#): > > I mean, as long as we’re talking about it, preindustrial tribes had a sky-high rate of violent death. Some did, some didn’t. How many of those were anarchist and pacifist? And why are we constantly talking about pre-industrial societies in the context of anarchism? Other than the ones I’ve mentioned and a couple others like it, there’s not a lot of evidence for more egalitarianism in the pre-industrial world. I hold out higher hopes for a post-industrial, post-scarcity anarchism than a primitivist one. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchists-anyof-you-care-to-explain-your-philosophy-to-me-well-us/606547/47 "2011-12-19T21:53:47Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > I take anarchism in its literal sense, no government: i.e. no central organized force at any level that has the ability to compel obedience to rules. Rules could be developed and followed voluntarily if everyone agrees they are useful (e.g. traffic lights). The sanctions for non-followers would have to be strictly civil; perhaps the owners of the roads would enforce them by fines and refusing to let you use them if you didn’t follow those rules. That’s just one tiny example of the way things might work in an anarchic society. Here are some things to consider with your anarchist society: How does “everyone” decide if traffic lights are useful? I live on Main Street. I don’t know if a traffic light on Elm Street is useful. Whose going to be in charge of setting up the traffic light? Who decides that Red Yellow Green is the right colors? I like Green, Teal, Cyan. Who “owns” the roads? How can they not let me use the road? I have a big-ass truck. Why even have a traffic light if I can’t be compelled to stop at it? All of these little “rules” and assignments of responsibilities and penalties is, for all intents and purposes, “government”. The goal should not be “more” or “less” government, but “effective” government that reflects the will and the needs of the people it governs. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchists-anyof-you-care-to-explain-your-philosophy-to-me-well-us/606547/48 "2011-12-19T23:23:23Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > But if he didn’t, then the so-called “grasshoppers” (there are [plenty of other insulting terms you might want to try out, too, for poor people](http://www.dailywritingtips.com/10-terms-for-the-common-people/)) didn’t ever get a chance to plant their own fruit tree. I’m not using grasshopper as an insulting word for poor people. I used the word in a specific context while questioning why some people are starving. Are they lazy? Was there a disaster? Does it matter why? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2011, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchists-anyof-you-care-to-explain-your-philosophy-to-me-well-us/606547/49 "2011-12-20T00:22:16Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I would disagree with **Blalron** and **waterj2** that Anarchism is principally a Socialist belief. As has been noted, Libertarianism grew out of it. There are dozens of different schools of belief under the heading of Anarchism and I personally wouldn’t want to claim any one of them as the real movement: > > [Anarchism - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_schools_of_thought) > > The only consistent part of them all is the belief that people are sufficiently rational to figure out what they want and need to need someone bossing them around. Once you start including economics into it, you’re talking about a sub-section of Anarchism. If you take the word “anarchy” literally as constructed, yes. But from the responses in this thread it’s clear that a large sub-section of people use it in exactly the same sense that it was first used in the 19th century- anti-property and collectivist. One might almost say that the anarchists are anti-property first, and the hatred of government is simply secondary to the fact that governments enforce property rights. “Including economics” seems unavoidable, as this seems to be the whole point of the orginal movement. Libertarianism started with taking one thing- lack of coercive government- from the original concept and then went in almost the opposite direction, focusing on the individual instead of the masses. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2011, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchists-anyof-you-care-to-explain-your-philosophy-to-me-well-us/606547/50 "2011-12-20T06:52:18Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > How does “everyone” decide if traffic lights are useful? The town committee does. > [@](#): > > Whose going to be in charge of setting up the traffic light? Whoever the committee decides should do the job, depending on how that community is organised - likely hire a specialist team of traffic engineers. > [@](#): > > Who decides that Red Yellow Green is the right colors? I like Green, Teal, Cyan. Consensus and standardisation aren’t unique to capitalism… > [@](#): > > Who “owns” the roads? Everyone/no-one, it’s pretty much the same thing. > [@](#): > > How can they not let me use the road?[…]Why even have a traffic light if I can’t be compelled to stop at it? What’s stopping you _now_? The same thing will stop you in an anarchist community. > [@](#): > > All of these little “rules” and assignments of responsibilities and penalties is, for all intents and purposes, “government”. …and? Are you under the mistaken impression that Anarchism means “no government” or even “less government”? It doesn’t, for most Anarchists. In fact, a lot of Anarchist models require MORE government, since syndicalist & communist models are based on much more actual participation in their own governance by citizens than is usual in modern democracies. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2011, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchists-anyof-you-care-to-explain-your-philosophy-to-me-well-us/606547/51 "2011-12-20T06:55:18Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > If you take the word “anarchy” literally as constructed, yes. But from the responses in this thread it’s clear that a large sub-section of people use it in exactly the same sense that it was first used in the 19th century- anti-property and collectivist. One might almost say that the anarchists are anti-property first, and the hatred of government is simply secondary to the fact that governments enforce property rights. “Including economics” seems unavoidable, as this seems to be the whole point of the orginal movement. Yes - _my_ anarchism takes “_Property is theft!_” as its starting maxim. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2011, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchists-anyof-you-care-to-explain-your-philosophy-to-me-well-us/606547/52 "2011-12-20T07:00:29Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Are you under the mistaken impression that Anarchism means “no government” or even “less government”? It doesn’t, for most Anarchists. In fact, a lot of Anarchist models require MORE government, since syndicalist & communist models are based on much more actual participation in their own governance by citizens than is usual in modern democracies. Admittedly, yes. I have always been under the impression that anarchist desired to eliminate all forms of government. I suppose there’s no government on the state level but I suppose that doesn’t preclude a more local government. I don’t really see why that’s so desirable. Nor do I find any compelling reason to get rid of private property. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2011, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchists-anyof-you-care-to-explain-your-philosophy-to-me-well-us/606547/53 "2011-12-20T17:03:09Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > What exactly does “non-heirarchical:” mean here? Because right now it seems to be used in a variety of vague ways. More to the ppint, how do you distinguish from capitalist free associations backed by the rewards people choose to give from the “anarchist” non-heirarchical associations. Non-hierarchical means that command comes from below, not from the top. I mean that the workplace will be run by worker’s councils, in a “one worker, one vote” fashion, with no traditional “bosses.” Workers will get the full fruits of their labor, with no shareholders benefiting from non-labor income (“dividends”) or CEOs rewarding themselves salaries hundreds of times greater than the average worker. > [@](#): > > Volunteer militias don’t tend to do very well against dedicated and professional military forces. I mean, it’s a nice thought, I suppose, but I don’t see how you make this part alone work, alone the more immediate practical issues and the theoretical moral ones. It depends upon a whole bunch of variables. An outside invader may decide that a prolonged guerilla war against an enemy that has no leader they can negotiate with just isn’t worth it. > [@](#): > > What happens, exactly, when your neighbors just start killing you? I mean, as long as we’re talking about it, preindustrial tribes had a sky-high rate of violent death. To build the framework for a non-hierarchical society, we need to address the root causes of crime. I believe the two largest factors behind crime are: Inequality (social as well as economic), and the way people are raised as children. Inequality is an essential feature of the Capitalist system. A few people at the top of they pyramid can live off of non-labor income (such as profit, interests, and rent) while the vast majority have no choice but to submit themselves to the authority of a boss in order to survive ([Wage Slavery](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery)). During work hours, they have little to no say in how to conduct themselves. They are told what to do, when to do it, how to do it. If they don’t like it, of course, they can quit and submit themselves to another authoritarian leader. A small minority might be able to start their own business and gain some measure of independence, but this isn’t an option that most people are able to pursue. Unemployment is **deliberately** kept high as a tool of social control. With full employment, workers can more easily band together and demand better pay and working conditions. With high unemployment it’s the opposite. Workers compete with **each other** , are at each other’s throats. It’s no wonder people despair at the rat race and escape into the world of drugs, gangs, violence, etc. Parents raising their children in an authoritarian manner (such as corporeal punishment) hobbles the child’s self esteem. They try to soothe their wounded ego by identifying with something outside themselves (such as a charismatic leader or their Nation-State) and redirect their repressed anger towards their parents onto a more social acceptable “Other.” I believe that raising children to become independent, to love themselves, to think critically, will cause violence to virtually disappear. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2011, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchists-anyof-you-care-to-explain-your-philosophy-to-me-well-us/606547/54 "2011-12-20T19:15:08Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > To build the framework for a non-hierarchical society, we need to address the root causes of crime. I believe the two largest factors behind crime are: Inequality (social as well as economic), and the way people are raised as children. I believe the two largest factors behind crime are: greed and regarding strangers as prey. Your post reflects a model of human behavior and sociology which has completely failed everywhere it’s ever been tried. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2011, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchists-anyof-you-care-to-explain-your-philosophy-to-me-well-us/606547/55 "2011-12-20T22:53:39Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > I believe the two largest factors behind crime are: greed and regarding strangers as prey. Those two things are the symptoms, not the root cause. > [@](#): > > Your post reflects a model of human behavior and sociology which has completely failed everywhere it’s ever been tried. I argue otherwise. The experiment in revolutionary Spain [shows that Libertarian Socialism can work in practice](http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI8): > [@Murray Bookchin](#): > > \*n Spain, millions of people took large segments of the economy into their own hands, collectivised them, administered them, even abolished money and lived by communistic principles of work and distribution – all of this in the midst of a terrible civil war, yet without producing the chaos or even the serious dislocations that were and still are predicted by authoritarian ‘radicals.’ Indeed, in many collectivised areas, the efficiency with which an enterprise worked by far exceeded that of a comparable one in nationalised or private sectors. This ‘green shoot’ of revolutionary reality has more meaning for us than the most persuasive theoretical arguments to the contrary. On this score it is not the anarchists who are the ‘unrealistic day-dreamers,’ but their opponents who have turned their backs to the facts or have shamelessly concealed them." [“Introductory Essay,” in The Anarchist Collectives, Sam Dolgoff (ed.), p. xxxix] ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2011, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchists-anyof-you-care-to-explain-your-philosophy-to-me-well-us/606547/56 "2011-12-20T23:03:51Z")
George Orwell, author of _1984_, spent time in Spain during the Spanish Revolution. He wrote a book about the experience, _Homage to Catalonia_. Here is an excerpt: > [@George Orwell](#): > > It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle. Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags and with the red and black flag of the Anarchists; every wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle and with the initials of the revolutionary parties; almost every church had been gutted and its images burnt. Churches here and there were being systematically demolished by gangs of workmen. Every shop and cafe had an inscription saying that it had been collectivized; even the bootblacks had been collectivized and their boxes painted red and black. Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal. Servile and even ceremonial forms of speech had temporarily disappeared. Nobody said ‘Senor’ or ‘Don’ or even ‘Ústed’; everyone called everyone else ‘Comrade’ or ‘Thou’, and said ‘Salud!’ instead of ‘Buenos días’… In outward appearance it was a town in which the wealthy classes had practically ceased to exist. Except for a small number of women and foreigners there were no ‘well-dressed’ people at all. Practically everyone wore rough working-class clothes, or blue overalls or some variant of militia uniform. All this was queer and moving. There was much in this that I did not understand, in some ways I did not even like it, but I recognized it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for…so far as one could judge the people were contented and hopeful. There was no unemployment, and the price of living was still extremely low; you saw very few conspicuously destitute people, and no beggars except the gypsies. Above all, there was a belief in the revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine." ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2011, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchists-anyof-you-care-to-explain-your-philosophy-to-me-well-us/606547/57 "2011-12-21T00:22:16Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > George Orwell, author of _1984_, spent time in Spain during the Spanish Revolution. He wrote a book about the experience, _Homage to Catalonia_. Here is an excerpt: That Orwell quote reminded me so much of how enthusiastic Westerners wrote about Soviet Union in the 20s. Look how that turned out. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2011, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchists-anyof-you-care-to-explain-your-philosophy-to-me-well-us/606547/58 "2011-12-21T05:13:24Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > That Orwell quote reminded me so much of how enthusiastic Westerners wrote about Soviet Union in the 20s. Look how that turned out. Good thing Orwell was an ardent Soviet supporter his entire life. Also, the characters in _Animal Farm_ were in no way metaphors for real figures in the USSR. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2011, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchists-anyof-you-care-to-explain-your-philosophy-to-me-well-us/606547/59 "2011-12-21T07:50:11Z")
Like any self-respecting anarchist, I am going to reply first to the question, and not to any other anarchist’s propositions or descriptions. **An** archy, like **a** theism, is a “NOT-x” formulation and it is fair to first, therefore, pay some attention to what anarchy is NOT, since it is defined in terms OF what it is not. “Archy” is a system, _any_ system, in which the modality for establishing and maintaining social order is dependent on a hierarchy of authority. People over other people. Bosses and those who must obey them or be punished. Archy is inherently involuntary (we’re not talking about playing a board game here, you do NOT get to opt out); it is enforced, hence coercion is structurallly and deliberately organized to impose obedience. Where obedience cannot be obtained through some civic sense of propriety and loyalty to the system and its hierarchy of command, it is obtained through fear, and when that doesn’t work through literally imposing force to produce the desired behaviors. The presence of social order, understood and expected-to-be-understood codes of conduct, traditions, and so forth are not necessarily archic. Law _enforcement_ makes it archic. Anarchy is essentially a belief that social order based on a different premise is possible. That peace, productivity, good relations between people, and other facets of a functioning society could exist without the presence of a social structure dependent on people with official authority over others. I could write six or seven dozen declarative statements below this that would outline MY SPECIFIC notion of anarchy but not all anarchists would necessarily agree with them. Down to this point I’d expect anarchists in general to agree with what I’ve written, but there may be disagreements with the following assertions which are my own: • anarchy means no money system, no currency, no economic system in the sense of a market economy whatsoever: not communism, not capitalism, not barter, NOTHING. goods would be distributed (or picked up) and services provided but not in conjunction with any kind of exchange procedure in which the goods or services are paid for. It is possible that things like reputation would be meaningful in obtaining (or finding it difficult to obtain) cooperation of other people in joint endeavors. • a hierarchical structure would probably exist, would probably NEED to exist: just not one of people over other people. Rules can exist in a hierarchy: more permanent ones above less permanent ones above yet more transient or temporary ones. Collectivities of people can also form a hierarchy: the individual, the neighborhood, the community, the village, the town, the county, the state, the nation, the planet. Or some equivalent of that. Initiative as well as freedom would presumably be concentrated at the lowest possible level that things people desire to get done can BE done effectively. • all observations about “human nature” proferred as reasons anarchy “cannot work” are observations about human nature as observed in a context. Archist contexts reward certain behaviors. If you play Parkers Brothers’ Monopoly, you only win if you attempt to acquire all the properties possible, charge extortionist rents, and render the other players broke & bankrupt. You can play with other behaviors but if you do you end up broke and bankrupt yourself. It’s how the GAME works, it has nothing to do with human nature. • Reciprocally, no claims are made for any “human nature” that is intrinsically “unselfish” or “good” or that people can and will “change their natures”, but rather that anarchy is a different game that creates a context that rewards certain behaviors. “Big Chief” economies (primitive redistributivist economies) are environments in which one gains power and prestige by acting like Santa Claus, giving away wealth to others. It’s not a personality trait, it’s the desire for power and prestige that motivates them, although, so motivated, they may wish indeed to see those to whom they give things do well as a consequence of their largesse. Anarchy is in part a belief that voluntary cooperation is just another game, with rewards and prestige and reputation being serious considerations in the absence of coercion and economic currency. Or, rather, such things become economic currency. • Anarchic systems need not depend on first overthrowing or dismantling archic structures; unless there is a law against such networks, anarchic networks can coexist with such structures as representative federal republican democracies, and could “take over” simply by gradually demonstrating themselves to be more efficient and effective at organizing human activities. Violence is intrinsically archic and ——at the risk of making a “no true Scotsman” assertion ——I say that no one who seeks to change a system (at least a system as dependent on pervasive voluntary cooperation as representative federal republican democracies are) with violence is an anarchist. Organized violence is coercive, military groups are the most hierarchical and archic of human organizations, and voluntary cooperation is one thing that cannot be forced upon people; if there ever was something you absolutely can’t get to by forcible means, this is it. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2011, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchists-anyof-you-care-to-explain-your-philosophy-to-me-well-us/606547/60 "2011-12-21T13:46:15Z")
It strikes me that if anarchism is possible, then the anarchists should go out and do it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchists-anyof-you-care-to-explain-your-philosophy-to-me-well-us/606547.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchists-anyof-you-care-to-explain-your-philosophy-to-me-well-us/606547.md?page=4)