Well, people offer all these “factual” representations of anarchy, and along come ARL and offers… The Illuminatus! Trilogy by Shea and Wilson (coauthors).
There are different forms of anarchy. They rely on the play between economic and physical power, much like modern government does. Anarcho-capitalists would find businesses and such like city-states. Hardcore anarchists would be like warrior tribes, but without a strict tribal aspect of sticking with the same group all the time, and they would crush progression in a unabomber fashion (because economic growth leads to rigid structures, and that’s bad! ;)).
But I looked, and manhattan’s right (of course ), it is GQ. Sorry.
I’ve read some of the works cited above. Most of the authors espouse a diluted form of anarchy, which isn’t anarchy at all.
I know it’s cheap to cite a dictionary, but the following pretty much defines anarchy to me and to those anarchists I’ve ran accross in my life.
From m-w;
As Bill Kitchen (a friend of mine) once said,
“Screw the government, screw the cops, and screw you.”
Now that’s anarchism.
Peace,
mangeorge
Where, in any human social group, since history began has there been a “society” without coercive hierarchies of power? “Systems” (of any kind) cannot exist without some power of coercion (which ultimately resolves to “people over people” on some level) to maintain their integrity. Anarchy cannot tacitly tolerate “systems” without being anarchy-lite at which point we are merely taking bets on who gets hungry first.
Again: There is a difference between “wagons are devices pulled by draft animals / this is a wagon / this device is pulled by one or more draft animals” and “wagons are devices that have always been pulled by draft animals / this is a wagon / this device must be pulled by one or more draft animals”.
We are allowed to make progress. There has not, historically, been a major functioning anarchic society. That in no way implies (in and of itself) that there cannot be. And systems do not require coercion in order to “maintain their integrity”. I have, in fact, defined “integrity” as the absence of coercion. (Not merely for purposes of considering anarchy. All social systems lose integrity to the extent that they employ coercion, which is an incredibly inefficient ‘tool of last resort’ in establishing and maintaining order.)
You really need to develop a better argument than “Can’t happen cuz it ain’t never been so. Wouldn’t work, just ain’t practical”, or at a minimum support those assertions a bit.
There’s been lots of real world anarchist societies; Lebanon, Rwanda, Bosnia, Liberia, the Congo - all prime examples of the utopia that results in the absence of government.
But to make our moderator happy, I’ll also mention that a number of SF authors have written fiction set in anarchist worlds; Larry Niven, Vernor Vinge, and L. Neal Smith are three who come to mind. You might check out their depictations.
So what do you do when someone is unruly? I see nothing wrong with a system that compels others not to steal my property by using threats, intimidation, or physical force.
**
Certainly a last resort. I’m sure anarchist societies would use coercion to prevent individuals from doing harmful things to others. Maybe they’d set up some sort of organization to prevent such things.
Okay, just in case it wasn’t explicit in my last post: i am not an anarchist, specifically because I believe that in practice it’s unworkable. That being said, a lot of the “Debate” (yep, wrong forum) that’s going on here is attacking the wrong animal. As a (probably) last-ditch attempt to actually answer the OP, let me point out a few things that anarchy is not:
Anarchy is not “chaos”. The popular usage, the dictionary definitions reporting this popular usage, and the incessant misuse of the word by news anchors are all irrelevant. What is relevant is the actual body of political beliefs held by actual people who consider themselves to be actual anarchists. Most of have no problem with the fact that their daily life is quite orderly, and would not desire, say that newspaper delivery should become more randomized. What they object to is the idea that any person or entity has a right to coerce order through force (police), theft (taxes), or social control (law).
Anarchy is not “thuggery”. This is pointed at you, Litle Nemo. In most of the cited cases, the problem wasn’t the lack of government, it wad that the governments which formerly existed were among the worst examples of what anarchists despise. When they fell away under the weight of their own abuses, they left behind a legacy of people who felt that they ought to take its place, robbing whomever the government had previously robbed, and oppressing whomever the government had previously oppressed. These examples are not equivalent to a peaceful abandonment of coercion.
Hi, Opal
As I said, I personally don’t think anarchism would work. I’m best described as a minarchist, which is to say that I desire the absolute least amount of gverm
ment necessary. However, as a former anarchist who’s definitely in the same part of the political spectrum, I hope I can (objectively!) answer any questions about anarchist theory… remember, the stuff that got asked up at the very top of the page :).
Anarchy tilts at the windmills of human nature. Which may not be a bad thing in and of itself but is hardly a strategy for a stable, viable social structure. I suppose it is possible that some form of an anarchic social organization could exist if the population was comprised of enlightened, non-aggressive, non-hierarchically inclined individuals who were not pre-disposed to force their will upon others (or be led by individuals with the same goal in mind) to achieve their ends. If and when this sea change comes in human pre-dispositions you will possibly have your shot at seeing a viable anarchic society.
As to the matter of practicality the onus is really on the proto-anarchist to make the argument as to why and how an anarchic social organization would be a practical, useful and functional system by which to live in the “real world” full of people whose inborn nature is to be goal oriented, power and status seeking, aggressive and hierarchically inclined.
It seems that any nascent anarchical social structure would be easily overwhelmed by those who were inclined to organize into competing, hierarchically led groups and practice the untidy business of coercion via the tried and true “people over other people” method. While such a hot house flower of social organization may be of academic interest or useful as a philosophical example, to seriously postulate that this delicate little flower has any chance on the real spinning planet is simply an academic exercise or a foolish conceit.
No, what I describe is a choice. Were I to live in an anarchy, it would be permissible to defer to the wisdom of others. I could rely on a doctor to inform me how to remedy an ailment or a hunter to teach me how to hunt. Relying on another’s strength does not equate with a form of government.
Anarchy is not hatred.
I do not understand this sentence. Would you rephrase or elaborate?
So if I have a couple of friends over for dinner I and we attempt to decide who will have what part of the chicken I cooked, we have a goverment. If you want to take it to that extreme, any action results in goverment.
That is a narrow-minded perogative.
True, but you missed the point. I was referring to the presence of consequences in the absence of goverment, not the structure of government. Government in industrialized and non-industrialized states are centralized.
Never? There has, but I assume you must mean on a larger scale. Never will? You certainly have a pessimistic view of the future of humanity.
The last 150 what?
No, anarchy places that responsibility on individuals.
I suppose that the initial circumstances under which an anarchic system were to arise and become established would involve some strong pro-anarchy sentiments and a willingness to be non-coercive. Once established, though, the mere introduction of one or more brick-headed idiots who attempt to control others would hardly threaten it. I suppose if you annoyed enough of us often enough, or even any one of us to an extreme degree, you’d risk getting hit in the back of the head with a shovel by one of us non-aggressive cooperative types, but that wouldn’t bother us or disrupt our anarchy.
As for average people–the ones who might very well be inclined to seek to realize their will through coercive means under circumstances where that appears to be the best way of getting what you want or need–I doubt that they’d be so inclined in a system where reputation is currency and where you can obtain voluntary cooperation with comparative ease.
Coercion is always expensive. If I can’t get you to believe that you are supposed to (or need to) do what I say, I am forced to practically sit on you and immobilize you and force your limbs into the behavior that I (but not you) desire. Grossly inefficient. If I can threaten and intimidate you (let’s say I kill one person as an example to a thousand more), perhaps I can get you to tote that burden or dig that hole without physically forcing your every move, but then I have a thousand people any one of whom may take the chance and try to kneecap me when my attention is focused on another. OK, so I get a squad of supportive goons to help me intimidate and coerce you. Gee, now I have to worry about one of the goons usurping my position! Also, there’s always the possibility of organized resistance unless I devote yet more energy into preventing y’all from talking and planning. By the time I’ve got my totalitarian tyranny up and running, I’m putting nearly all my time and energy into keeping it up and running and I’m safe nowhere and your collective efficiency sucks because you’ve been reduced to mindless obedience disinterested slaves, thus depriving me of your observations, input, planning abilities, and so forth to a significant extent.
So why the bloody hell would I try, when I can explain what I want from the rest of you and if it’s reasonable and I help you folks with your projects you’re likely to help me with mine, voluntarily? I don’t have to pay you, I don’t have to control you or worry about you hurting me, and I, too, get to live free from some asshole trying to control MY actions!
Just popped in to mention there have been some experiments with anarchy that have gone fairly well until the government tanks rolled in.
For example, the Paris Commune of 1871 (about which an arthouse movie was recently made – rave reviews) and, my fav, the redux of the commune in 1969 known as the May Revolt.
From a sociological and historical perspective your example is nonsensical. In truth, truly effective social coercion in standard hierarchal societies is generally more sophisticated and much less “expensive” than the “sit on you and beat you” method you use as an example. It may need to resolve itself to this level on occasion but it is the threat not the reality of negative physical (and far more importantly, peer mediated social consequences) that keeps the vast majority of social actors behaving within the rough limits defined by the society.
As a second point, you are correct that it is unlikely that “brick headed idiots” would topple a developing anarchic society. It is likely that smart, aggressive people who want the anarchic lands and chattels for themselves would assemble an army from the power and status seeking, dis-affected members of the society and proceed to conquer and take what they want.
In the end this comes down to fundamental differences in the way we view human nature. You think man’s nature is inherently “good” enough to behave and function in an anarchic system and I, do not.
If arable and productive: a highly favored place to grow crops for the non-anarchic crew.
If strategically located or otherwise easily defended by virtue of it’s topography: a place to build a fort or secure encampment.
They seize the best land and have use of the benefits this superior real estate yields relative to less desirable locations. In this context the non-anarchic group will have an ever increasing resource and defense advantage over the anarchic groups, which they will continue to conquer and plunder at will, insofar as they are perceived as “low hanging fruit”, with favorable risk-reward ratios in undertaking the C&P operations against them.
Ah, I see. You are positing the existence of a non-anarchic crew. And you were positing land-ownership as a concept that would still be in use among the anarchic folk, and therefore the possibility would exist that the non-anarchic folk would steal it from them.
a) You could have anarchic groups meeting many of the needs of its participants a long time before the anarchy became the sole government. You probably could not, however, have an anarchic group governed solely by the anarchic system until such time as there is no other system to govern. In the former case, whatever government existed parallel to the anarchic system would (or would not, as the case may be) protect property rights and/or intervene in cases of violence. In the latter case, the term “non-anarchic crew” would require further explication. A lot of further explication.
In a world where no one but you and your handful of throwback-era buddies attaches any meaning to the nonsense phrase “This is my land”, there is nothing to prevent you from doing with the land what you please. Or to prevent anyone else from doing with the land what they please. The anarchic folks have meetings to arrive at a consensus. When you start doing as you please without bothering to communicate with others, the others will go out of their way to communicate with you, to understand your intentions and work towards a mutually satisfactory understanding. If you communicate with them and the outcome is satisfactory, you’re an anarchist (welcome aboard). If you don’t, and there grows a consensus that you don’t play nice with the other kids, it comes to pass that the rest of us cooperate with each other and share what we have, but due to your reputation we don’t share with you and we don’t cooperate with you.
So, out of curiosity: what was it that you personally were going to do with some chunk of land that you have labeled “yours”, without any assistance from the rest of us?
Yes I am, just as differing philosophies of social organization like ummmm… anarchism for example are manifested as possibilities by various individuals and groups regardless of the fact that virtually every viable society that has ever existed has been based on hierarchal social organizations. I expect the obverse side of the coin could (and probably would) pop up spontaneously under an anarchic form of social organization for those who don’t find anarchism totally groovy.
Land “ownership” as a concept is quite beside the point as I doubt that either the anarchists or non-anarchists are really going to have much use for deeds or treaties at the point of conflict I am describing. The ability to acquire, defend, hold and exploit the most productive land is one of the keys that will allow non-anarchic groups to hold an ever increasing advantage over the relatively defenseless anarchic groups.
So a “true” anarchic system cannot truly stand as a viable entity until all other forms of goverment have shuffled off into history? That’s the most unique argument for the viability a form of social organization I’ve heard to date.
Mine personally? Commercial business condos I guess but since I don’t consider the non-anarchists my blood kin but merely the logical reaction to a theoretically improbable, social construct, I suppose that they would most likely enslave the anarchists and, initially, using your “sit on you and beat you” method, force them to do the donkey work on the land as long as they could get away with it or it made practical sense to do so.
Thanks. I see now that the web has multiple references to anarchist debates among libertarians. Still, I’ve also read self-styled anarchist zines that definitely have a lefty slant and occasionally refer to libertarians as, “our right-wing cousins”.
Also, libertarians are big on property rights, which are difficult to imagine in the absence of a state. But, heck, it’s difficult to imagine civil order in the absence of government.
I can think of several examples where there would be better prefixes. For example, I would rather be non-castrated or even pseudo-castrated than anarcho-castrated. And I’d prefer you to adress me as a demi-god or a proto-god than an anarcho-god. Lastly, I think it’s bad enough to figure out the thermodynamics of endothermic orexothermic reactions, but an anarcho-thermic reaction would pose a whole new set of problems.
On the other hand, I have definite anarcho-capitalist leanings.
), it is GQ. Sorry.