Actually it is:
hansel:
Well, finally, the right question!
OK, let’s assume for the sake of argument at least that we all agree that anarchy works on the camping-trip level. So we can table the “anarchy can’t work” back-n-forth and the “but how would you…” questions in favor of “but how do you extend it to work for 10,000 or 10 billion people?” type questions, yes?
The following are my thoughts, not necessarily “the answers” (i.e., other anarchists may have other ideas and I hope they post them), but I have given the matter some thought.
First off, think of anarchy as an Absolute Confederacy instead of as No System Here. You remember “confederacy” from the US Civil War, yes? States’ rights? The CSA having no authority to boss the individual component states (at least in theory)? OK, extend that motif downwards – the states having no compelling authority over the counties. The counties having no compelling authority over the component townships. The townships having no compelling authority over the neighborhoods, (pretend for this discussion that neighborhoods are formally demarcated and bounded as the larger divisions are). And the neighborhoods having no compelling authority over the individual people.
Please note that I am not saying that the federal and state and county governments would be the same as they are now except without authority over their components – definitely not – but just start with this image in mind as a starting point, because it lets me work from things that are less foreign to you (to most people, that is). Notice that there is a hierarchy here (gasp!) but – and this is critically important – it is not a hierarchy of people over other people. It’s hierarchical in the sense that your computer’s filing system is hierarchical. It has levels. It has structure.
Now since the federal and state and other higher-level governments aren’t in a position to boss you around and don’t have the time to secure your voluntary cooperation along with that of zillions of other individuals, the place where you’re going to experience requests and suggestions and solicitations for your help and input is mainly going to be the local neighborhood, right? Even there you can’t get bossed around (officially) and we’re talking camping-trip quantities of people. Maybe some portion of what gets brought up in these neighborhood meetings are things that were discussed and proposed and to an extent planned out on a township-level basis and now the local details are being worked out. And you are there because you are a planner as well as a person whose cooperation and participation helps the plan be implemented.
If I were to say that initiative and implementation would tend to take place at the lowest practical level, would you nod at this point? You get a very decentralized kind of communication-flow.
Now here’s another notion to play with: suppose we have these neighborhood meetings and those of us in the neighborhood talk and compare viewpoints and we reach a consensus about something, maybe the building of a neighborhood swimming pool, let’s say. Well, suppose at the very next meeting Joe over there has decided it isn’t such a hot idea after all. Now we no longer have consensus. These things happen on camping trips, but you can see that as a governmental format it brings up some worrisome issues as far as efficiency and effective decision-making, right? Well, suppose we had another hierarchy (gasp!!), this time a hiearchy of the permanence of decisions that have been made? A consensus is reached and can be unreached with equal ease, but the decision can be promoted through a more cumbersome and drawn-out process of discussing and rediscussing, and once having been promoted one individual’s feeling that it is a bad decision is not enough to cast it out – it would only be sufficient to put it back on the discussion table for consideration, let’s say. And once having been promoted it could be promoted again to a higher level – hierarchically – so that you have decisions ranging from ad hoc consensus to some kind of cast-in-stone these are the life guidelines that we and our ancestors live by things. The process of promoting – how many meetings, how long in advance impending discussions are to be announced, how long a new consensus has to persist contrary to the old regarding whether or not to continue to consider the decision to be of Level X Permanence, etc – would be formalized. All of it, of course, would be subject to being undone, given due process of undoing, but there would be structure. But still without anyone being in power over any of the others. It’s still anarchy.
Now one more for you. The township meetings would be meetings of the township. That’s you, not ‘your elected representative’. Picture one of those Colonial-era yankee Town Meeting Hall things, everyone in the community turning out. You’ve probably discussed things at the neighborhood level that are now to be brought up here; and similarly, things that are brought up here will no doubt be discussed further at subsequent neighborhood-level meetings. Here’s my suggestion: the township meetings occur less often than the neighborhood meetings by some structured ratio, let’s say every third meeting is a meeting of all the neighborhoods simultaneously and is therefore a township meeting. (or some other number, I’m just throwing that out). Initiative being focused at the lowest level does not mean that there are not things best considered at and discussed at the township level. And in some structured formalized sense there should be a means of reconciling the permanence of decisions made at the township level and the permanence of decisions made at the neighborhood level. As long as a structure exists, we can work with it. As well as on it, changing that structure if we think of better ways of making it work for us, see? Anyway, every third meeting of the township would be a meeting of the the next highest division. I originally used terms like state and county but I think the idea here is to have each division be a reasonable multiple of the previous one, and because I happen to like the number 3, let’s say three neighborhoods equal a township and three townships equal a county. Not that we’d need to use those terms either. So there is a hierarchy of meeting sizes (# of people per division) and associated with it a hierarchy of how often they meet and structured within it a hierarchy of the permanence of decisions made.
That’s a lot of hierarchy and structure for something so vehemently associated with hierarchy-hating isn’t it? 
OK, play with it. Counter-suggest things you think would work better. The only unbending parameter here is “no putting people in power over other people”. That’s what we’re trying to implement here, a working system in which “no one rules” (“an archy”). You got better ideas about how to do it on scales larger than a camping trip? Let’s hear 'em!
msmith:
No it isn’t. Take a piece of paper and an ink pen (or use your computer’s drawing program if you prefer) and create some currency. When you are done, place the piece that you created next to a bill that is legal tender in the US or UK or Canada or etc.
The one you generated yourself is not a product of a centralized system. If you wish to describe how you would go about using it (and how we would go about using it) in the absence of any centralized authority compelling you to redeem it or exchange it for goods or services, I’d like to hear it.
The other piece of paper would not have any more meaning than the first in an anarchy.
Yes, but in your proposed governance by consensus you ARE putting people in power over other people. Say that I am a psychopath, I like to go around killing people. Surely, you are going to have to engage in some form of coercion to stop me, right? Justified coercion, in response to my unjustified coercion. You and your friends get together and use violence to restrain me. By my unjustified use of violence, I have put myself in a position of power over my victims. But by your justified use of violence against me, you have put yourself in a position of power over me. Violence is a pretty basic form of coercion, no? And if you have the right to use violence against me (which I agree you do), what are the limits to your use of violence? And if you don’t have the right to use violence against me, what does that mean if there are no consequences for me when I engage in violence against you? If you are allowed to use violence against me, in response to my unjustifed violence, then you are in a position of power over me. You are using violence against me. What gives you that right?
It all comes back to: what are the consequences if someone refuses to abide by the consensus of the group? Your system of binding decisions doesn’t solve anything. OK, past decisions are declared binding. But not everyone will abide by decisions they don’t agree with, just because everyone else considers the matter settled. What happens when I refuse to abide by settled decisions, and do things that are unacceptable to the other people? If there is no enforcement mechanism, then the settled decisions really don’t exist. If there is an enforcement mechanism, then you have put yourself in a position of power over me. If the enforcement mechanism is simply the individual actions of every individual person, then how is that different than mob justice?
Now Eris, I get your point that government is pretty much just pretend, we all agree to go along. If we stopped going along, government wouldn’t exist anymore. I agree. So if you want to argue that we are already living in anarchy, go ahead.
But…people DO go along. And a bunch of people engaged in the same shared illusion can ruin everyone else’s day. It is no comfort to the victim of tyranny that his victimizers would be free of tyranny themselves, if only they stopped perpetuating tyranny. Yes, each victimizer is an autonomous moral and political unit. How does that realization help when they act in concert, in a hierarchical way, to victimize people? OK, I can argue with them and attempt to convince them that they are wrong and should think and act differently. What should I do when they don’t? Obviously, I have to get together with some other people who agree with me, and we will agree to use force to protect ourselves. And thus the first government is born. Then we agree to only use force to protect ourselves if everyone agrees, subject to certain rules agreed upon in advance. And thus democracy and the rule of law is born.
If everyone on earth is an anarchist, if only they would realize it, and every economic, political and social system is really an anarchist system, then anarchism really means nothing.
The government makes a piece of paper that is dificult to copy and says “Behold! This piece of paper is worth One Dollar (or Euro, pound, Duetchmark, Real, Yen, Simolean, Wampum, or Fun Point)! It can be used and traded and will be accepted by any bank in the land!!” And that’s about it. Other than a couple of levers the government pulls to manage fiscal policy, from there our little dollar is on it’s own. They don’t decide how many Dollars you need to purchase anything. You don’t even need to use dollars if you can find someone willing to accept foreign currency or barter. I don’t want to get into basic economics here but it’s pretty decentralized.
Yes… worthless. Then it’s back to trading chickens and pigs. Good system.
Except that no one ever gives any explanation more complex than “it’s the natural evolution of things”.
Yeah all I extrapolate is a bunch of pretentious nonsense. What I “understand” is that Anarchists believe that somehow mankind will be more free if we remove all forms of hierarchial government and (I suppose) replace it with a loose, informal system of…something.
What if we had a government and nobody came? Is that what you are asking?
Let me rephrase it then. You had said:
“No anarchist that takes the topic seriously thinks that there wouldn’t be implicit mechanism present in any group of people dictating behavior”
What did you mean by “implicit mechanism”? Peer pressure? What?
And how would this be better than the current system?
Because the real purpose of government is to serve the people, not the other way around.
Well, that’s a shame. I don’t see myself as being holier than thou or msmith or anyone.
Sorry to have interrupted this.
erislover and jojo, I do hope you folks will respond to my long post above when you get a chance. I’d like to get some feedback from others who aren’t convinced that anarchy wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) work.
I apologize in advance that i had to go before finishing reading the thread. However I have to go and i would just like to make this point. The closest thing i think we have ever really had to an anarchist society is on the internet. Wether it be something like the sims online or a chat program. (I realise most games and chat programs have mods, but some dont) If you go into one of these places you will see that they are, by and large, dominated by jack-asses. When the fear of retribution goes away you get greifers and trolls, people in games or in chat rooms/forums are annoying and try to downgrade your expeirience, for no other reason then they enjoy it. Why should one assume that a anarchy would be different?
I do like the idea, AHunter, and I’ve been thinking along similar lines myself, but my own thought tend to be how to remove the power structure itself while keeping the organizational components alive rather than a straight description of such an organization. Admittedly, that is the ostensive goal of “government by the people”: beneficial organization without the need for brute force. I think you and I approach this topic similarly; that is, the stress is not on abolishing organization but permanent power structures.
Crap, now I have to take my boss to the airport. Be back later this weekend.
My initial question, though, would be similar to Lemur’s, that is, how does a community respond to those in the community who willfully go their own way a la murders (for example). I also wonder about whether or not there would be an abolishment of a political class and everyone took part in local affairs to the degree that it suited them, or whether there would still be those who were responsible for keeping records up, and minutes in order, and various other beauracratic activities necessary to impliment the idea.
Which has happened throughout history; its called “mob rule”, and it ain’t pretty. Look to the American West during the mid-1800s for a recent example.
IMO, anarchy and brethren all involve a saintly “Community”, a hardworking, selfless “Us” working together for a common goal. As with Communism, this largely ignores reality.
occ I think there’s different ways to look at it. One I’ve heard is to break up anarchists into left and right groups; left anarchists feel that, in an absence of a power structure, people will tend to cooperate to achieve their goals and desires, while right anarchists think people will tend to compete rather than cooperate in order to satisfy their wants and needs. Please note I’m trying to say “tend to” rather than “definitely will” since people aren’t so easily broken down into roles to fill like that. But, using that terminology, I consider myself a left anarchist, though I feel that human activity tends toward the right overall.
erislover:
Seems to me like a good portion of the motivation for murders has to do with fights over money or power struggles, and that the source of the problem (the existing system) goes hand in hand with the continued existence of the existing solution (such as it is). I don’t mean the world would be a rosy violence-free world if it were an anarchy, but I think a lot of the really adversarial stuff would not be a factor because the world would no longer be organized around coercion and adversarial relationships.
With the remaining violent behaviors, I’m inclined to think we’d have to come to grips with each person and circumstance as they came up. We might evolve our own body of jurisprudence to guide us.
Lemur866,
Relax, be assured that anarchy has answers for all your questions. But first there are some things that you need to understand:
you (and others) have some fundamental misconceptions. This shows me that you have been brain-washed by whatever systems are in place around you. Please do not be offended by what I say - all non-anarchists are brain-washed to some extent and need to be “cleansed”.
anarchy is not something that can be “taught”, it’s something that needs to be learnt. It’s a kind of zen thing.
anarchy is more radical than any other idea. When I listen to extremist political people speak (like Nazis, say) or when I listen to fundamentalist religious people speak, I sometimes have to smile. These people think that they are radical but they don’t know the meaning of the word. Anarchy out-radicals everything else.
The world is a battleground of ideas and it can be hard to know what to believe sometimes. Anarchy solves this problem - the question of what to believe becomes irrelevant. Anarchy is all that matters. Every day should be used to further the aims of anarchy.
When you become an anarchist, it can be quite traumatic because you have to cast off everything you thought you knew. Everything changes when looked at through the prism of anarchy. It’s like somebody just suddenly switched the light on. I have been an anarchist for years and so I’m used to it now.
To give you one example, I could go and live with a whacko religious cult for a year and be exposed to their ideas 24/7 and then leave at the end of that year completely unaffected by them. This is because anarchy immunises you from everything else.
I could go and live with a load of extremist political nutjobs for a year and it wouldn’t matter. Even if I became convinced that their ideas were right and that Jews really are the root of all evil, it wouldn’t matter because I’m an anarchist. Anarchy preceeds everything else, it is more important than anything else. Anarchy is everything, nothing else matters.
Anarchy is untaintable and therefore, as an anarchist, I am immune to other ideas. I may find them interesting, I may even be convinced by them, but anarchy comes first. Anarchy always comes first.
Nothing is more radical than anarchy, nothing is more logical than anarchy. It’s like a painting by Leonardo, it’s perfect, beautiful, awesome.
Every post I have ever made on this message board has come from an anarchist perspective. Every word, every syllable.
To deal with your post above (and please be aware that I am coming from an anarchist perspective so some ideas may seem strange to you):
First the money issue - this is not as straightforward as you think it is. I once started a thread about whether we could just abolish money and instead get everything for free. The thread ran for about 15 pages mainly thanks to some sterling work by Olentzero, I recall. Unfortunately I can’t seem to find the thread in question, maybe it was lost. But the point is things aren’t necessarily what they seem - this is common in anarchy, things not being what they seem.
I’m trying to explain anarchy to you as best I can. But it’s really something you need to learn for yourself.
misconceptions.
Remember anarchy is simple, hierarchy is complex. Such things cannot happen when anarchy is the prevailing thought system. Anarchy will defend itself, make no mistake about that.
How to explain this???
ok, consider - in order for us to have established an anarchist society we will have had to have overthrown every bullying, power-mad thug there is. And you think that we are going to let another bullying, power-mad thug seize power? I think not.
In our current system we have bullying, power-mad thugs in power. Anarchy is the solution to this problem. Anarchy is the exact opposite of dictatorship, rule by the few.
A society of anarchists is not going to let anyone take control, believe me. No way.
These things are all details. They cause no problems for anarchy. There would be no static “police force” as such, more a revolving group of citizens. Crime is largely a product of the society we live in. 90% of crime involves property offences, anarchy would abolish private property and so do away with 90% of crime.
From an anarchist perspective, many crimes would disappear once an anarchist society has been established and once everybody is an anarchist.
There will, of course, still be psychopaths and an anarchist society would deal with them in a similar fashion to how we deal with them now - lock them up and treat their illness or maybe put them on an island and treat them.
How is it different?
Governments are tyranny, anarchy is freedom. Remember one human=one unit and all units are equal.
I agree. They are good things, but there are better things. Like anarchy for instance. But we’re not ready for anarchy yet. I don’t know why people bang on about how evil people have been in the past - anarchy is a thing of the future.
Many things will change when anarchy comes. The “bastardy” that has existed is largely a product of the societies we have always lived in. Do some reading, work it out.
Well, I hope I’m not any of those things you mention but that’s not for me to say. It’s not up to me to convince you that anarchy is right. Anarchy is right, it’s just a question of whether you will ever realise it or not. And that’s your problem, not mine.
AHunter3,
I think like most anarchists, you and I get impatient with all these questions of how it all works administratively. These are just details. People need to get hold of the bigger picture before they get involved in the details.
Your suggestions sound like the kind of thing we would need to implement. In my view an anarchist population would divide itself up into groups of 60 000 or so (for purely administrative reasons).
If people understood what anarchy is on a philosophical level, they wouldn’t worry so much about the details. I’m not saying the detail is unimportant - God is in the details - just that there are lots of viable ways of making this work and there’s no need to get to hung up on it. It’s more important that people appreciate the bigger picture, the principles involved, first.
Oh… my… God.
Please tell me this is a joke.
If you don’t believe the same thing I believe you are by definition wrong and need to be ‘cleansed.’
This is horribly frightening.
Isn’t this what every crackpot cult / philosophy / political view says?
autz,
Your post shows that you don’t understand anarchy.
You don’t have to believe the same thing as me - that’s the whole point. Anarchy is not about imposing one belief over any other, it’s the exact opposite of that.
All other belief systems try to impose themselves, anarchy doesn’t. This is why non-anarchists are brain-washed and need to be cleansed.
ps I admit to using “colourful” and possibly “exaggerated” phrasing in my posts in order to make a point. I have no real defence for this other than the fact it makes them more interesting for me to write and for other people to read (I hope).
Um… yea… my system is the only one that will set you free!
This would sound familiar to prpteges of any cult.
Of course I have to believe the same thing as you… according to you I have to believe that anarchy is a Good Thing.
And if I don’t, by definition I must be thinking Wrong. If you don’t agree, you just don’t understand!
Forgive my scepticism.
Not wrong, just different.
Remember, anarchy preceeds everything. So it doesn’t matter whether you “believe” anarchy or not. Anarchy is objective truth. It’s just a question of whether you recognise it as truth or not.
But anarchy can cope with whether you recognise it or not. Anarchy is cool with your choice either way. It’s still objective truth.
You are making the mistake of putting anarchism on an equal footing with other belief systems. Anarchy isn’t really a belief system - you don’t have to believe it if you don’t want to. Anarchy doesn’t care.
Anarchy just is.
This is one of the creepiest things I have ever read.
If your objective is to make people see your side of the issue, then you may be disappointed to hear you are having the exact opposite effect.
Why should I remember that? You’ve only stated that it is true, but offered no evidence. What if I keep saying, “Just remember, aliens control evolution! It doesn’t matter if you believe it, it’s objective truth!” Would repeating it make it true?
I would just like to say that at this point, Jojo scares me. I honestly hope that he is joking for most of his big post, but I tend to believe he is serious. I’m sorry Jojo, but it seems to me that you possibly have the worst grasp of human nature in the history of the world. Look at history and the only viable conclusion you can draw is that people suck. They are vicious, selfish, violent, hatefull, spitefull beings. This is not my opinion, this is the only logical conclusion you can draw from human history. Its nice to think that anarchy as you describe it could exist, but bottom line is it can’t, because people suck.
Wow, AHunter3! That long post of yours was certainly well-written.
I disagree, though. The whole system seems to break down when someone steps out of line, and the group needs to keep “deviants” from screwing everything up.
Yes, many of the current problems may have things to do with capitalism, the greed for money, the lust of power, and so on. But there are also disputes over girls that could end up with one guy hurting another guy. Psychopaths will still go on murderous rampages. Pedophiles will still molest children. Many of the ills of society cannot be solved through changes of government. Floods will need to be cleaned up. Problems will still be around, and it is in the indecisiveness of a society with no authority that anarchy will die.
Also, I was basing my definition of “anarchy” on the absence of any government. I really wouldn’t call your infinitely regressively confederal society “anarchy,” but that’s semantics, and just a difference of opinion.
Oh, and Jojo. The correct saying is “The Devil is in the details,” which is quite apt here. Details are important. How a society deals with crime is important. How a society achieves a division of labor is important. How a society makes decisions as a whole is important. How a society defends its structure from would-be usurpers is important.
Please. Provide evidence for your assertions, like others have in this discussion. “Anarchy doesn’t care whether you believe it or not” is not relevant. Anarchy is inanimate, as are all political systems. Gainsaying opponents’ arguments with unfounded trivialties is not debate. AHunter3 is a much more convincing advocate of anarchism.