Anarchy

[Huckleberryhound]

Yeah - to me, if you abolish the state, the only losers are those who depend on the state for protection. I'm sure our elected officials wouldn't mind going back to their day jobs as millionaire execs.

Like the poor, the elderly, the young and disabled.

Yeah, woot Anarchy.

That's if you embrace a sort of free market capitalism approach to anarchy, which very few lines of anarchist thought do. Also the immediate implementation of a state of anarchy after years of cultivating capitalist belief systems isn't what most anarchists aim towards. Besides that, it's entirely untenable, as people would just return to their underlying belief system and reconstruct a system similar to the one taken away.

Ok qeee1, as you seem to know what you're talking about, let's define Anarchy before we end up in a situation where i argue black isn't white, and you that blue isn't red.


Dictionary.com defines anarchy as........
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.


What is your definition of anarchy, and how would you suggest its implimentation without giving the moron class the same rights to free thinking (and action) ?

[foolish_yeti]

Dictionary.com defines anarchy as........
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

1 is partially misleading- due to the word law... since laws are a creation of the state it is technically correct, but it's not a scene of lawlessness...okay, well it is, but not in the sense of choas...anything goes. Laws are a modern invention and many sustainable cultures have functioned without them.

2 and 4 are what the majority of the population thinks about when they hear the word anarchy, but is not what people who have actually looked into anarchy are talking about.

3 is probably the closest.

ps. dictionaries aren't a very good thing to turn to for something like this

[Huckleberryhound]

3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society

So are we agreed that this is the definition of anarchy ?

Ok, so what about police, army, the education system, health system....Utilities such as plumbing, drainage, building maintainance, electricity. What about public transport, social services, banking and international finance...how would these all be maintained in your utopian world without direct or coercive government ?

[unriggable]

Three most resembles anrchy - communism hybrid.

[Suntzu]

it is not possible with homo-sapiens as a form of government.there are too many leaders.to much knoledge has leaked out. SUNTZU

[chewyman]

This is such a load of poorly thought out crap I nearly threw up. That said, this is a thread to discuss anarchy, not communism, so I won't go into the details. Suffice to say you're encouraging the complete collapse of an economy (working for the betterment of mankind my arse) and as a result all tax (which means no social welfare for you socialists).

communists =/= socialists, learn what you're talking about before you talk at all.

I never said that communism and socialism were the same things so don't be such an arrogant fool. Since there are a LOT of socialists on these forums (and, believe it or not, I myself am one of them too to a limited extent) I was simply pointing out why anarchy should not appeal to these people. Either way, you very conveniently skipped over the actual contention of the paragraph...

Anarchy itself means a lack of government (ie. a state without law). As has already been stated, this would be great if everybody got on. If there was nobody to mediate between neighbours over property borders then do you really think that both parties could just come to a peaceful solution? The more anarchy the better when it comes to a free market but there will always be room in society for a state mediator or society itself would collapse in on itself. The end result would, of course, be a reestablishment of government, probably a dictatorship.

firstly, anarchy means a lack of leaders (archons) not a lack of laws. free market capitalism is a retarded idea and if you can't work out why for yourself then that says a lot. there is a reason governments stepped in to stop it, and there is a reason they continue to do so every time it starts to happen again.

Odd that you would give that definition when we've just seen that both dictionary.com and foolish_yeti say otherwise. But hey, I'm sure they are wrong and you know exactly what you're talking about

I'm also interested in asking how laws would exist (and more importantly evolve over time) without a state. I'd also very much like to know how a state can exist without leaders, since the state's primary function is to lead. Complete free market capitalism is obviously idiotic, but if you once again deduced that that was my meaning then you're not too flash yourself. I clearly stated that there must always be a state in society, you cannot be allowed to have murder for sale at the right price.

[foolish_yeti]

Ok, so what about police, army, the education system, health system....Utilities such as plumbing, drainage, building maintainance, electricity. What about public transport, social services, banking and international finance...how would these all be maintained in your utopian world without direct or coercive government ?

Well obviously everything would not be the same as it is now- you couldn't have a shift in organization without affecting our lifestyle...pretty obvious since our lifestyle right now depends on capitalism. This is a good thing. If everyone lived like the States we'd need about 5 earths.

As for police- police enforce laws, which would theoretically be non-existent since they are a function of the state. Choas? Hardly- how effective are our precious laws? Murder is illegal- how many gun deaths were there in the States last year? The prohibition of illegal drugs most likely does more harm than good. As I stated previously laws are a modern invention and we have done just fine without them before and we can do it again.

Well obviously you can't support a military machine this way. As for defense, well that's tricky... part of the reason capitalism has spread to basically ever corner of the globe is that since it has no thought whatsoever to being sustainable, it is very powerful. However, power does not equal survival.

Education system- i fail to see how teachers would disappear- in fact I think education would become more meaningful and open under a social organization such as this. Rather than the state dictating what you learn, you have more say.

Health system- again people in the medical profession will still exist. It may not be as complex as it is right now so deaths may be more common.

Plumbing- our sewage system right now sucks anyways. We're basically polluting fresh water which we're already short of and then spending energy to purify it- creating a toxic sludge. Human waste is compostable (humanure). A sustainable waste management system that results in fertile soil.

Electricity- power needs would drop significantly and would most likely start to be community generated on a smaller scale. Better use of solar energy (not talking just PV here, but passive solar heating, etc.) would further drop demand.

I could keep going but it'll get long- the thing is you can't envision everything staying as it is now under anarchism. It would be a big shift. That being said, things aren't going to be like they are now for very much longer anyways. We are very close to a crash.

[flashleg8]

Ok qeee1, as you seem to know what you're talking about, let's define Anarchy before we end up in a situation where i argue black isn't white, and you that blue isn't red.


Dictionary.com defines anarchy as........
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.


What is your definition of anarchy, and how would you suggest its implementation without giving the moron class the same rights to free thinking (and action) ?

I think the reason you are confused by the definition of anarchy is as foolish_yeti said dictionary definitions aren’t the best for this type of thing. What you seem to misunderstand is there are many different philosophies of what an anarchist movement can be. I would suggest that the anarchists posting here have varied takes on how such a system would work. Wikipedia has a good breakdown on some forms of anarchist movements. If you want some quick research.
Some anarchist groups can indeed conform to the common meaning of anarchy – i.e. a chaotic system (such as some “punk rock” followers), but philosophies range widely from anarcho-capitalists (who advocate an economy free from all state intervention – PM Jesse, Bad Boy on this site for a more detailed explanation of their principles if you are interested) to anarchist communism (where everyone has free access to the resources of the commune).
The problem with the people critisising Anarchy in this thread is that you are often addressing different people with opposing views of how an anarchist society would be realised.
I myself feel that a communist anarchist style system could work in practice. Contrary to the critics here I see no reason why this must be consigned to small communities. There need be no limit to the size of the co-operative society. Indeed the ideal goal of this system would be to have a truly international, global community operating in harmony. And critics here seem to think that humans are inherently selfish and would corrupt such a system, again I must disagree. I would propose the opposite: that humans are ultimately group animals and it is the current system is corrupt, encouraging them to be selfish. I would suggest this is reversible, by less consumerism, individualism and profiteering. In the kind of anarchist system I would tend towards, there would not necessarily be freedom from all laws and responsibilities (as some critics here seem to assume), merely that the collective works for the good of all – if someone does not adhere to this than sanctions could be imposed, just by the people – not a government.

As I stated before though, each advocate for an anarchist system could answer the critics in their own way. Anarchism is not a united doctrine.

[Huckleberryhound]

Ok, so what about police, army, the education system, health system....Utilities such as plumbing, drainage, building maintainance, electricity. What about public transport, social services, banking and international finance...how would these all be maintained in your utopian world without direct or coercive government ?

Well obviously everything would not be the same as it is now- you couldn't have a shift in organization without affecting our lifestyle...pretty obvious since our lifestyle right now depends on capitalism. This is a good thing. If everyone lived like the States we'd need about 5 earths.

As for police- police enforce laws, which would theoretically be non-existent since they are a function of the state. Choas? Hardly- how effective are our precious laws? Murder is illegal- how many gun deaths were there in the States last year? The prohibition of illegal drugs most likely does more harm than good. As I stated previously laws are a modern invention and we have done just fine without them before and we can do it again.

Well obviously you can't support a military machine this way. As for defense, well that's tricky... part of the reason capitalism has spread to basically ever corner of the globe is that since it has no thought whatsoever to being sustainable, it is very powerful. However, power does not equal survival.

Education system- i fail to see how teachers would disappear- in fact I think education would become more meaningful and open under a social organization such as this. Rather than the state dictating what you learn, you have more say.

Health system- again people in the medical profession will still exist. It may not be as complex as it is right now so deaths may be more common.

Plumbing- our sewage system right now sucks anyways. We're basically polluting fresh water which we're already short of and then spending energy to purify it- creating a toxic sludge. Human waste is compostable (humanure). A sustainable waste management system that results in fertile soil.

Electricity- power needs would drop significantly and would most likely start to be community generated on a smaller scale. Better use of solar energy (not talking just PV here, but passive solar heating, etc.) would further drop demand.

I could keep going but it'll get long- the thing is you can't envision everything staying as it is now under anarchism. It would be a big shift. That being said, things aren't going to be like they are now for very much longer anyways. We are very close to a crash.

Dude, your hippy rhetoric is quite funny.

You say ther would be no police, and no Defence system, then paint a picture of some helping hand utopia.....never going to happen mate.

Human nature dictates that without a proper consolidated defence system, no society will survive.....FACT.

No education system would be sustainable without a proper system in place, education was founded by religious bodies pecisely because they were structured in hierarchy and had a common goal. In an anarchists utopia, this would crumble to pieces.

Much as i would like to see a society with no/little carbon footprint, i'll ask a very simple question. How would a system such as you propose sustain a health system of any kind ? Like i said earlier (one of my first posts in fact), the sick and the disabled would be the first to go in an anarxhistic society, because there would be no structures in place to protect them, and threat from outside attacks (from the geurilla groups your lack of police and army would allow to flurish) would quickly change the priorities of such a society away from protection of the weak and sick.



I would go on but, like you said yadda yadda yadda.

[chewyman]

As for police- police enforce laws, which would theoretically be non-existent since they are a function of the state. Choas? Hardly- how effective are our precious laws? Murder is illegal- how many gun deaths were there in the States last year? The prohibition of illegal drugs most likely does more harm than good. As I stated previously laws are a modern invention and we have done just fine without them before and we can do it again.

They may not be perfect but I'm pretty fond of a law that says a complete stranger can't just walk up and stab me. I agree that stabbings will still occur with or without laws, but to say that laws aren't at least keeping stabbings under control is naive. Are you honestly suggesting that if somebody were to stab another human being they shouldn't be punished or do you just think that it would never happen because everybody would have formed a giant circle singing kumbaya?

Everything else you've mentioned is basically free market economics. Without a state there would only be private schools, private hospitals, private 'law' enforcement, private energy etc etc. Until now I guess I never really realised just how right wing anarchy was lol.

[foolish_yeti]

They may not be perfect but I'm pretty fond of a law that says a complete stranger can't just walk up and stab me. I agree that stabbings will still occur with or without laws, but to say that laws aren't at least keeping stabbings under control is naive. Are you honestly suggesting that if somebody were to stab another human being they shouldn't be punished or do you just think that it would never happen because everybody would have formed a giant circle singing kumbaya?

Laws are retaliatory- there is nothing stopping anyone from walking up and stabbing you...it happens to people all the time. In fact it happens more often than it did it societies without law....and especially in capitalist societies- which are very competitive. I have nowhere stated that there will be no consequences for people's actions. It will still happen and communities will have to deal with it.

Everything else you've mentioned is basically free market economics. Without a state there would only be private schools, private hospitals, private 'law' enforcement, private energy etc etc. Until now I guess I never really realised just how right wing anarchy was lol.

No- you're talking about anarcho-capitalism....the abolition of state for the creation of free markets. That's an even worse idea than what we have now.

[flashleg8]

Not to put words in foolish_yetie's mouth but...

You say ther would be no police, and no Defence system, then paint a picture of some helping hand utopia.....never going to happen mate.

Not with attitudes like yours But seriously, all wars are fought over resources, if the resources of the globe were shared according to the needs of the people then there would be no need for any army, defense or offense.

Human nature dictates that without a proper consolidated defence system, no society will survive.....FACT.

Not so. But even if that was the case, an anarchist society could have a defense force. It merely needs to be a coming together of the people when threatened to fight for a common goal in the interests of all. Exactly like in Catalonia in '36.

No education system would be sustainable without a proper system in place, education was founded by religious bodies pecisely because they were structured in hierarchy and had a common goal. In an anarchists utopia, this would crumble to pieces.

I disagree again, people are educated to high standards without the need for state control all over the globe successfully. Education could be through home schooling, community based learning or even self education. The current education systems in the "western" world are focused solely towards achieving qualifications, rather than acquiring knowledge. The idea of a piece of paper gained through learning how to pass an exam is really not required. Far better for the individual or the community to decide what knowledge is useful to the functioning of the collective.
Education was not "founded by religious bodies" it is as old as human-kind itself. Mothers and fathers teach their children how to walk and talk. A child learns its social skills from its peers. Crafts and skills are handed down from elders to apprentices. Advanced knowledge can be learned in exactly the same way, specialists can exist in an anarchist society. People can specialise in teaching. There doesn't need to be a centralised control of this process, it occurs naturally in any human community.

Much as i would like to see a society with no/little carbon footprint, i'll ask a very simple question. How would a system such as you propose sustain a health system of any kind ? Like i said earlier (one of my first posts in fact), the sick and the disabled would be the first to go in an anarxhistic society, because there would be no structures in place to protect them, and threat from outside attacks (from the geurilla groups your lack of police and army would allow to flurish) would quickly change the priorities of such a society away from protection of the weak and sick.

As I've addressed in my previous post, obviously there are different types of anarchist movements. But a collective communist anarchist system would allow all people access to the pooled resources. The weak and infirm would be treated by the group as the well-being of the individual is in the interests of the collective as a whole. People would be protected in the same manner. It is the capitalist system that promotes the shameful treatment of the weak, where the individual places their interests above that of the group and some people are without protection, shelter or healthcare due to their inability or exclusion from the system.

[Huckleberryhound]

Flashleg, there is a difference between ideal and reality.

[foolish_yeti]

Dude, your hippy rhetoric is quite funny.

You say ther would be no police, and no Defence system, then paint a picture of some helping hand utopia.....never going to happen mate.

Nowhere did I say there would be no defense system. Conflict is a natural occurance and thus needs to be dealt with. Same goes for the issues that police deal with. They will not disappear, and I have never stated they will.

No education system would be sustainable without a proper system in place, education was founded by religious bodies pecisely because they were structured in hierarchy and had a common goal. In an anarchists utopia, this would crumble to pieces.

Alright, first thing to address is this whole utopia rhetoric you're using. Nobody is suggesting that problems will cease to exist and everyone will hold hands and get along. So you can drop that.

As for education- you can still have a system in place without a government. There will be still be teachers and there will still be students. An idea for education would be open classrooms- based on self directed learning. If you're into educational theory at all you'll soon realize that our current system isn't doing that hot a job at educating our students anyways.

Much as i would like to see a society with no/little carbon footprint, i'll ask a very simple question. How would a system such as you propose sustain a health system of any kind ? Like i said earlier (one of my first posts in fact), the sick and the disabled would be the first to go in an anarxhistic society, because there would be no structures in place to protect them, and threat from outside attacks (from the geurilla groups your lack of police and army would allow to flurish) would quickly change the priorities of such a society away from protection of the weak and sick.

Okay, I've already addressed the fact that you would need defenses from outside attack- so I'll drop that here. As for the sick and elderly being the first to go and the whole health care debate. As I stated before it is true that more westerners will die (developping countries are another story- they are often dying because of westerners actions). Capitalism has works on increasing complexity and that obviously will not be able to continue. There will still be a health care system, but it will not be as effective as the current (unsustainable) one.

What people don't mention when they use this argument is that there is going to be a lot of deaths in the near future anyways (ignoring the massive amounts of deaths going on in non or under-develloped countries already under capitalism). We are living way beyond our means and eventually this will catch up to this. If you're familiar with carrying capacity, two things either happen when a population hits capacity for an ecosystem- it wavers around that number, or it surpasses it, peaks and crashes- massive population loss. I would argue that we're heading for the second case. Plus, in trying to paint anarchism as an inhumane choice, you're ignoring the inhumanity of the current system.

[flashleg8]

Flashleg, there is a difference between ideal and reality.

I understand that every system is flawed, but why do we settle for a system that is so obviously flawed as the current one?
We are in the 21st century with the ability to travel in space, freely communicate with people on the other side of the world - but we still have people dying of hunger? Even if communist/socialist/anarchist systems are tried and failed, we are at least attempting to better the future of the human species. If we all followed your mantra we would still be working in the salt mines for our crust of bread from the overlord.

[flashleg8]

Plus, in trying to paint anarchism as an inhumane choice, you're ignoring the inhumanity of the current system.

Well said

[Huckleberryhound]

First of all, my experience editing in this forum is limited, so bear with me as i try to get the quote thing right.

Nowhere did I say there would be no defense system. Conflict is a natural occurance and thus needs to be dealt with. Same goes for the issues that police deal with. They will not disappear, and I have never stated they will.

Taken from an earlier post

As for police- police enforce laws, which would theoretically be non-existent since they are a function of the state.


Well obviously you can't support a military machine this way. As for defense, well that's tricky... part of the reason capitalism has spread to basically ever corner of the globe is that since it has no thought whatsoever to being sustainable, it is very powerful. However, power does not equal survival.

Alright, first thing to address is this whole utopia rhetoric you're using. Nobody is suggesting that problems will cease to exist and everyone will hold hands and get along. So you can drop that.

I'm afraid the idea of an anarchistic society actually working is so ludicrous that "dropping it" is out of the question.

As for education- you can still have a system in place without a government. There will be still be teachers and there will still be students. An idea for education would be open classrooms- based on self directed learning. If you're into educational theory at all you'll soon realize that our current system isn't doing that hot a job at educating our students anyways.

As communities get smaller, and society as we know it crumbles, the education system would change to fit the needs of the people. Gone would be the things we take for granted today , and in their place would be what is needed for that particular society (or microcosmic society). As the communications networks ceased to be (do you really think there would still be multinational communications companies in this society you talk of ?), so would the passing of information, and the education system as we now know it would disappear.

Okay, I've already addressed the fact that you would need defenses from outside attack- so I'll drop that here.

Yes, i already pointed that one out, no need to labour the point.

As for the sick and elderly being the first to go and the whole health care debate. As I stated before it is true that more westerners will die (developping countries are another story- they are often dying because of westerners actions). Capitalism has works on increasing complexity and that obviously will not be able to continue. There will still be a health care system, but it will not be as effective as the current (unsustainable) one.

So the death of the sick and disabled, the weak and the old has no bearing on your acceptance of this fabled society?? nice to know.

What people don't mention when they use this argument is that there is going to be a lot of deaths in the near future anyways (ignoring the massive amounts of deaths going on in non or under-develloped countries already under capitalism). We are living way beyond our means and eventually this will catch up to this. If you're familiar with carrying capacity, two things either happen when a population hits capacity for an ecosystem- it wavers around that number, or it surpasses it, peaks and crashes- massive population loss. I would argue that we're heading for the second case. Plus, in trying to paint anarchism as an inhumane choice, you're ignoring the inhumanity of the current system.

I'm sure the sick and the disabled will be happy to hear that.
.................................

[foolish_yeti]

Taken from an earlier post

As for police- police enforce laws, which would theoretically be non-existent since they are a function of the state.

Police system and defense system are two different things... you're misconstruing my words. Your community would obviously need a means to defend itself if attacked- as has always been the case, even before capitalism....and communities dealt with this just fine without capitalism.

Alright, first thing to address is this whole utopia rhetoric you're using. Nobody is suggesting that problems will cease to exist and everyone will hold hands and get along. So you can drop that.

I'm afraid the idea of an anarchistic society actually working is so ludicrous that "dropping it" is out of the question.

Perhaps you misunderstood me here. You were implying that I think that everyone is going to live in a utopian society. As I stated above, I have never said anything about utopia or lack of social issues. You are attributing an argument to me that I never made and then refuting it.

As communities get smaller, and society as we know it crumbles, the education system would change to fit the needs of the people. Gone would be the things we take for granted today , and in their place would be what is needed for that particular society (or microcosmic society).

Exactly- a community will take care of its own educational needs. You can't expect an anarchist society to have all the elements of a capitalist society precisely because to have these elements you have to live unsustainably. The challenge is to find out what we can have, staying within our means.

As the communications networks ceased to be (do you really think there would still be multinational communications companies in this society you talk of ?), so would the passing of information, and the education system as we now know it would disappear.

Again, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I think all of what we have going today will be possible in an anarchist society. The level of complexity we have achieved is impressive but ultimately cannot be sustained. So yes, the education system as we know it today will not exist.

So the death of the sick and disabled, the weak and the old has no bearing on your acceptance of this fabled society?? nice to know.

There is going to be massive deaths either way- in fact the longer we hold out the worse it will be (exponential pop. growth vs. carrying capacity). Moving to a different form of social organisation is an attempt to minimize this. When a population exceeds carrying capacity by way too much the effects are devastating. An example often used is St. Matthew island- 29 deer were introduced in 1944- by the late 60's there were 1350 deer and by the early 60's there were 6000. When the crash occurred around 1963-4ish the population plummeted to 42. Catastrophic losses- that's a 99.3% mortality rate...what's 99% of 6 billion...of 9 billion? We're not talking just sick and elderly here- we're talking almost everyone. Similar scenarios play out on islands where species are introduced. The correlation to human activity is that the entire earth is our island. We may be able to bring outside resources and move to be able to delay a collapse (as capitalism has done nicely)- but eventually comes the day when there is nowhere left to go. So it is precisely because I do care about what happens to people that I advocate change. It is an attempt to maximize survival rate.

[Huckleberryhound]

Foolish_yeti I hope you don't mind if i don't do the constant quote thingy for this response.



I accept that your idea of anarchy is not utopian, but any idea that it could work, and the suffering between concept and actualisation is just matter of fact, and that the end would justify the destruction of what we have now....is simplistic and quite comical.

By your own words, the localising of power to these communes (which sound right out of the holy grail) would mean that the biggest would eventually enforce its will on its neighbours and the cycle of human nature would continue in the way it always has.

The idea of an anarchistic world working is bunkum and balderdash.

[chewyman]

They may not be perfect but I'm pretty fond of a law that says a complete stranger can't just walk up and stab me. I agree that stabbings will still occur with or without laws, but to say that laws aren't at least keeping stabbings under control is naive. Are you honestly suggesting that if somebody were to stab another human being they shouldn't be punished or do you just think that it would never happen because everybody would have formed a giant circle singing kumbaya?

Laws are retaliatory- there is nothing stopping anyone from walking up and stabbing you...it happens to people all the time. In fact it happens more often than it did it societies without law....and especially in capitalist societies- which are very competitive. I have nowhere stated that there will be no consequences for people's actions. It will still happen and communities will have to deal with it.

That's an interesting fact. Do you have any statistics to support it as the sole contributing factor? I'm interested to find out how exactly the community will deal with it? Will cases be considered on a case-by-case bases by the masses? Will punishment be conducted at different levels because of how angry the masses are today or by how good at public speaking the victim and guilty (or thought to be guilty by the public) party are? Or will society come together to form a system whereby punishments can be regulated? If so, then you've just created a new government

Everything else you've mentioned is basically free market economics. Without a state there would only be private schools, private hospitals, private 'law' enforcement, private energy etc etc. Until now I guess I never really realised just how right wing anarchy was lol.

No- you're talking about anarcho-capitalism....the abolition of state for the creation of free markets. That's an even worse idea than what we have now.

No, I'm just replying to your posts. You said that education, health, energy, social welfare programs etc would still continue without a state. I just naturally assumed that you must therefore mean that schools/hospitals/whatever would change from being government run to privately owned and operated. Am I wrong? I can't really imagine a hospital being run through any other means?



BTW, all this talk of a doomsday with 99.3% casualty rates is supposed to convince us that capitalism is evil and any change will be one for the better? The earth is facing problems, no doubt about that, we've got global warming, poverty, pandemics, the threat of nuclear warfare and terrorism... But doomdayers such as yourself have been promising the end of the world for thousands of years. Poverty isn't something new to capitalism so stop blaming it for everything. Just because there are flaws to capitalism does not mean that we need to change and give anarchy or communism or anything else a go. Every system will have flaws, but you're suggesting replacing a slightly flawed system with a system that doesn't even make theoretical sense, let alone practical sense.

[foolish_yeti]

I accept that your idea of anarchy is not utopian, but any idea that it could work, and the suffering between concept and actualisation is just matter of fact, and that the end would justify the destruction of what we have now....is simplistic and quite comical.

Nobody said the actualisation would be easy- the transition from capitalism to whatever comes next is not going to be easy no matter what. In fact, I think it any massive social change will not occur until there is a global disaster. The majority of people will not snap out of it until it fails. As for the destruction of what we have now- it will destroy itself. I don't really see a way of avoiding an eventual collapse- the question to me is how much can we change so we can better adapt when it does occur.

By your own words, the localising of power to these communes (which sound right out of the holy grail) would mean that the biggest would eventually enforce its will on its neighbours and the cycle of human nature would continue in the way it always has.

There will always be the possibility of the bigger and the badder taking over- what do you think is happening under capitalism? The ultimate capitalist culture is annexing the rest. You're either with us or you're against us. Tribal societies lived for a long time in a constant state of low level conflict. A would attack B, B would retaliate and sometimes initiate to keep A on their toes. This helped maintain diversity (needed for survival of the species). The problem arises when a tribe decides they are going to annex another. They opposing tribe can either join them, or die. Eventually this snowballs, with the new, larger tribe going onto the next, and the next, and the next. Is this an eventuality? Nobody can say for certain. It would all depend on how fresh the cultural memory was of the previous crash. Are we idiots doomed to repeat ourselves- well I for one would hope not. One thing is for certain- I'd rather be working towards a sustainable lifestyle then barreling full steam ahead to my certain doom.

[foolish_yeti]

That's an interesting fact. Do you have any statistics to support it as the sole contributing factor?

I'm not clear on to what you're asking for here...

I'm interested to find out how exactly the community will deal with it? Will cases be considered on a case-by-case bases by the masses? Will punishment be conducted at different levels because of how angry the masses are today or by how good at public speaking the victim and guilty (or thought to be guilty by the public) party are? Or will society come together to form a system whereby punishments can be regulated? If so, then you've just created a new government

Throughout time there have been many different ways to deal with social aberrations- it all comes down to what will work for the community. Of the top of my head is how some societies dealt with adultery. They would put the woman under loose guard- the man could then either save himself some pride in that she was guarded and choose to redeem himself within the community, or he could "steal" her away and leave the tribe forever- a huge decision since survival depends on the community. Either outcome was acceptable to the community.

No, I'm just replying to your posts. You said that education, health, energy, social welfare programs etc would still continue without a state. I just naturally assumed that you must therefore mean that schools/hospitals/whatever would change from being government run to privately owned and operated. Am I wrong? I can't really imagine a hospital being run through any other means?

Well there would be different schools of thought on this one. Some anarchist would still have private property, but prices of products would directly relate to it's cost in time and elements...so for example a Nike shoe which is relatively cheap to make would not cost $120.

Other anarchists would want the abolition of private property- in which case such systems would be communal based. Everyone needs health care so some members of the community would provide it.

Another form of ownership would be things like trade unions and the whatnot- so that ownership is spread evenly among all who are involved, and not be progressively concentrated as you move up the hierarchy.

BTW, all this talk of a doomsday with 99.3% casualty rates is supposed to convince us that capitalism is evil and any change will be one for the better?

It's a ecological example of population dynamics which occurs in nature. These are natural laws which we have no control over. It's only pointed at capitalism because that the is the main form of social organization right now- and one which is causing people to live way beyond their means. I'm sure you would agree that the US is capitalist- the average footprint is above 9h- way above the estimated global sustainable footprint of 1.8h. Could libertarian societies be unsustainable? Hells yes, but I would argue it's inherent in the capitalist system- one based on perpetual growth and increasing complexity.

But that's just the ecological argument against capitalism. There are others- such as the inequality issue- with the majority of the wealth being concentrated with the few.

And all this jazz about not making practical or theoretical sense or not being feasible- capitalism is a very new form of social organisation. The majority of the world is espoused to it because it's all we've ever known. The fact of the matter is that it does work- it's based on how humans survived up until they became capitalist. If these theories of social organization didn't work then capitalism wouldn't be here....and it won't be for much longer

[chewyman]

That's an interesting fact. Do you have any statistics to support it as the sole contributing factor?

I'm not clear on to what you're asking for here...

In fact it happens more often than it did it societies without law....and especially in capitalist societies- which are very competitive.

This is the bit I can't accept without statistics.

I'm interested to find out how exactly the community will deal with it? Will cases be considered on a case-by-case bases by the masses? Will punishment be conducted at different levels because of how angry the masses are today or by how good at public speaking the victim and guilty (or thought to be guilty by the public) party are? Or will society come together to form a system whereby punishments can be regulated? If so, then you've just created a new government

Throughout time there have been many different ways to deal with social aberrations- it all comes down to what will work for the community. Of the top of my head is how some societies dealt with adultery. They would put the woman under loose guard- the man could then either save himself some pride in that she was guarded and choose to redeem himself within the community, or he could "steal" her away and leave the tribe forever- a huge decision since survival depends on the community. Either outcome was acceptable to the community.

I've never heard of that before but I'm sure you're right. How will our new anarchic society choose the punishment for adultery since you've dissolved the legislative branch of government? Is there something stopping that punishment from changing on a case by case basis? Who would decide what the punishment was? Surely there are different levels of adultery, possible excuses etc that would need to be considered in sentences. You can't say the community at large because we are no longer living in tribal societies. I live in a city of three and a half million (Melbourne, Australia), that's not even close to the bigger cities in the world but it's still very large. You can't reasonably expect everybody to come together and decide what to do about one adultery which means that issues will need to be delegated. Who will they be delegated to now that you've dissolved the judiciary?

No, I'm just replying to your posts. You said that education, health, energy, social welfare programs etc would still continue without a state. I just naturally assumed that you must therefore mean that schools/hospitals/whatever would change from being government run to privately owned and operated. Am I wrong? I can't really imagine a hospital being run through any other means?

Well there would be different schools of thought on this one. Some anarchist would still have private property, but prices of products would directly relate to it's cost in time and elements...so for example a Nike shoe which is relatively cheap to make would not cost $120.

Other anarchists would want the abolition of private property- in which case such systems would be communal based. Everyone needs health care so some members of the community would provide it.

Another form of ownership would be things like trade unions and the whatnot- so that ownership is spread evenly among all who are involved, and not be progressively concentrated as you move up the hierarchy.

Can't really argue here since you haven't taken a position lol. I'll just say that the removal of money based economies has shown time after time that it causes complete devastation to economies and society in general. As you've said, the earth simply doesn't have enough resources to meet demand as it stands (and on top of that demand is rising) but anarchy to me sounds like your trying to give everybody access to these 'unlimited' resources.

BTW, all this talk of a doomsday with 99.3% casualty rates is supposed to convince us that capitalism is evil and any change will be one for the better?

It's a ecological example of population dynamics which occurs in nature. These are natural laws which we have no control over. It's only pointed at capitalism because that the is the main form of social organization right now- and one which is causing people to live way beyond their means. I'm sure you would agree that the US is capitalist- the average footprint is above 9h- way above the estimated global sustainable footprint of 1.8h. Could libertarian societies be unsustainable? Hells yes, but I would argue it's inherent in the capitalist system- one based on perpetual growth and increasing complexity.

But that's just the ecological argument against capitalism. There are others- such as the inequality issue- with the majority of the wealth being concentrated with the few.

And all this jazz about not making practical or theoretical sense or not being feasible- capitalism is a very new form of social organisation. The majority of the world is espoused to it because it's all we've ever known. The fact of the matter is that it does work- it's based on how humans survived up until they became capitalist. If these theories of social organization didn't work then capitalism wouldn't be here....and it won't be for much longer

Capitalism only appears to be based on "perpetual growth and increasing complexity" because it works so well that we keep doing it. In reality capitalism is also there during depressions. When oil begins to run out it is the market that will make renewable energy a reality, not government funding. When people start starving from lack of food it is the market that will provide incentive for farmers to harvest and ordinary people to become farmers themselves. Yup, supply and demand is going so save us from most of these natural problems. All we really have to fear is the system not working fast enough. That's why I don't support a completely free market economy, it's the role of governments to speed processes up, encourage growth in certain areas etc.
I probably agree with the rest of the quote, at least I can't find anything to rant and rave about right now

[Wisse]

communism isn't a bad thing, but how the russians did it was not a good thing, they sayd "everyone is the same" but they did control everything... so they were not the same as the others...

i am a socialst that looks better to me

russia was never communist. despite all the smaller details, it wasn't global, it wasn't post-capitalist, and it had a state. leninism/stalinism isn't really communism, and it certainly isn't marxism

never heard of the cold war? it was communism but on a different way as the man who did creat it thought it would be,

[chewyman]

communism isn't a bad thing, but how the russians did it was not a good thing, they sayd "everyone is the same" but they did control everything... so they were not the same as the others...

i am a socialst that looks better to me

russia was never communist. despite all the smaller details, it wasn't global, it wasn't post-capitalist, and it had a state. leninism/stalinism isn't really communism, and it certainly isn't marxism

never heard of the cold war? it was communism but on a different way as the man who did creat it thought it would be,

Actually Lenin wasn't much of a communist or a hero either, he set up the path that Stalin took with his gulags. That said, this is a thread on anarchy, put this in the marxist thread