Well, sure… But in practice, they’re horrible! They are susceptible to following their own impulses and enforcing their own agendas. They tend to fail to offer impartial justice. Rather, they tend to go in for vendettas.
How does on regulate a citizens’ court or militia? How do I get protection from them when they are corrupt? How do we make sure they don’t devolve into a street mob?
Worse: the use of “people’s courts” was a tactic used by Mao in the Long March, to provide the appearance of justice, but it was actually a mechanism to accumulate and centralize power. People’s courts issued fast, certain, and emphatic “justice” – almost always in a popular (or populist) manner. Landlords and moneylenders were hanged after half an hour’s trial, and all the citizens cheered. Rapists were hanged upon accusation; the citizens were ecstatic. But there was a lack of “due process.”
How do you keep these institutions from being tyrannical in themselves?
ETA: well, a weighted democratic process; not everyone’s vote is equal. The editors of prestigious publications have a hell of a lot more say than an associate professor preparing his first publication. But this makes is more non-anarchic: there is a well-established hierarchy of influence! The poor lonely associate prof. has one vote…but the editor of The Lancet has hundreds!
Yes, well, if you are of the opinion that any order is ipso facto non-anarchism then it does immediately follow. I would have hoped by now that we have gotten past this bit, though.
Really? Name an organized group with guns larger than the US armed forces. The point I was making is that if you do not have a government or government like entity that has the ability to apply more force than any group of individuals within the society than you are at the mercy of all those around you.
This does not just apply to individuals. When tribes/nations are numerous and small, warfare is endemic. It is still pretty common today. But in most countries, no single group within the society has the physical and moral* power to overturn the government. And even when they do, they then become the government.
*By moral power, I mean that not enough of their power base would follow them their. In the U.S., for example, there is no way a majority of the armed forces would follow any general in an uprising.
Actually, I was talking about the US armed forces.
I am aware of this contention. But what you actually talked about was effective government. Effective government requires more than the gang mentality you are so sure is lying in wait around every corner. It actually requires that the gang mentality is not lying in wait around every corner. Places where gang mentality rules are characteristic examples of ineffective government.
In other words, it takes more than guns. But I knew that.
The size and number of tribes or nations has nothing to do with it; warfare is about establishing exclusive control of scare resources. This happens whether there are two large superpowers or two hundred small tribes.
That’s not something the anarquistas I know would agree with, but hey, it’s not the first time two words which seem as if they should have identical meanings in English and Spanish turn out to be false friends.
The anarquistas I know do want anarquía; they don’t think anarquía is the same as chaos, but that’s thanks to continous, ever-changing self-organization, not to having a set of rules. A set of rules is contrary to their ideals because of being set.
I think it’s a semantic difference - my anarchism doesn’t preclude changing the rules afterwards, as long as it’s consensus changing. I don’t see that as functionally different to self-organization.
But that’s another reason why I don’t think anarchism is currently workable, because that really glosses over the tyranny of the majority.
To be fair, on my first reading, I thought the same thing Blake did. I thought the sentence’s structure was similar to, “All swimming is excercise, and hence a dangerous and deadly exercise.” I missed the fact that “and” connected two clauses, not two predicate nominatives; what you really said was similar to, “All swimming is exercise, and hence a dangerous and deadly exercise in the Arctic Ocean can strengthen muscles.”
Boy, it’s amazing how people get hung up on words, isn’t it? I learned in high school that the goal of anarchism (as a political movement) is not anarchy (in the sense of no rules and no organized social structure).
“Anarchism” is a label, and like all labels, it means whatever the people who use the label want it to mean. It’s been used pejoratively to mean anyone opposed to the current social structure (with the implication that abandoning the current structure would lead to anarchy, i.e. chaos), and it’s been used as a self-identifier by a gallimaufry of political individuals and movements. I’ve read very little writing by or about anarchists (mostly I’ve skimmed Wikipedia articles), but I’ve never read of an anarchist (self-identified or otherwise) who didn’t have some view of an organized society in mind (however inchoate or vague those ideas might be). Let’s face it, when your idea for society is so radically different that establishing it involves destroying the current system and creating in its stead something barely recognizable as the same type of thing, “Smash the state!” becomes a reasonable slogan. (Reasonably descriptive of your goals, that is!) And when that’s your slogan, you might as well call yourself an anarchist.
Complaining that anarchists don’t actually want anarchy is no more sensible an argument that claiming that liberals don’t necessarily want more liberty (and there was a well-known former poster who chose his username to make just that point–much to the consternation of others!), conservatives often want change, and anti-socialists aren’t opposed to society.
That’s the real biggie with anarchism (or communism, for that matter) - it relies on people being reasonable, smart, fair, relatively hard-working and somewhat community-minded.
The problem is that judging by my experience, even in anarchist auto-managed communes & squats where everyone was an educated anarchist volunteer to begin with, people tend to be lazy simple-minded selfish cunts. We had the perfect Rule of the People, but the wrong People entirely !
But just you wait until I establish my autonomous island nation… It will be the best autocratic dictatorial egalitarian anarchist paradise ever.
I disagree; there is no one reason for why nations fight each other, just as there is no one reason for why individuals fight each other. It seems to me, though, that the more nations there are, the more potential conflicts there are.
It seems fairly obvious to me that the only sort of anarchy that could exist is one without laws, without enforcement, and without public cooperation.
There would and could be no such thing as a public project to build a road, a public justice system, or military, police, laws, rules, etc.
Dog eat dog world with no morals is the only way that an anarchist society could work. Now that said, eventually there may be small bands of people who think alike and work together… and this would lead to some form of government over time.
Nonsense. Anarchists don’t want dog-eat-dog, fuck-you-I-got-a-knife for the same reason *you *don’t want it: because it’s a piss-poor basis for society on all fronts. Quite the contrary, anarchists crave an inherently nobody-eats-dog society, where people with knives wouldn’t even dream of preying on people without because they’d realize how pointless and counter-productive it’d be.
Unrealistic ? Most probably. But to paint them as chaotic savages is just ignant. Which is one layer of ignorance deeper than simply being ignorant.
I never stated that this is what anarchists want, I am merely pointing out that a nobody-eat-dog society is not readily possible. That requires either the unwavering, mutual cooperation of ALL members, or some sort of enforcement agency that gives particular members more power than others, this sort of command structure leads to government.
It’s not that anarchists are chaotic savages, it’s that *humans *are chaotic savages, and the only thing that keeps us all from killing each other is society and its laws.
Precisely.
Anarchism (or at least, my brand of it) presupposes this implicit realization from its members: “we all get it better when we all work together instead of each of us trying to fuck the others over”. I’m sure humanity at large will stumble upon games theory at some point. Probably as they’re looking for a way to fuck each other betterer.
I’m of the opinion that this has only been true so far because we’ve all been thoroughly convinced it was true so far. When we’re not thoroughly convinced the other guy is just *waiting *for the first opportunity to fuck us, maybe we can move forward one step.
Like I said: we’re just waiting on the right kind of People for the best Rule of the People to work. Any day now
This. Thomas Hobbes states that the natural human condition is dog-eat-dog and lawless.
The only thing keeping us from killing persons is some sort of human compassion towards that we accept as our own. In large societies this usually applies to everyone.
However there is a lot less concern when the United States kills a foreigner in another country than an American on home soil.
There are always going to be those that do not fit into the mold of societies and mutual laws. There are such things as psychopaths who do not feel compassion for others.
The solution to this is to have an anarchy with no laws, no rules, no regulations, no public improvements, leaders, politicians, tradesmen, and so on. That way the psychopath fits into the model.
