The Feasibility of Anarchy

[Theseus1234]

I'm creating this thread so we don't clutter and derail the Plato's Republic thread

Basically, I think anarchy won't work if the shift towards it is less than 1000 years. We're just too used to government, too used to having rules defined for us. An anarchical society would essentially go back to government again through local laws and people with local power. Some people would be greedy enough to disregard the already delicate balance just so they could further their own power. The power vacuum won't remain a vacuum, it'll be filled with lots of local warlords and demagogues. These new leaders will then try to expand their power through war and politics, essentially recreating a medieval Europe.

Discuss its merits and faults here so we won't crowd the Plato's Republic thread.

[irontaino]

Somalia is a good example of why anarchy doesn't work, even without government people will want to control other people.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

Somalia is a good example of why anarchy doesn't work, even without government people will want to control other people.

Well..to be fair, Somalia is an example of why Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't work.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Somalia is a good example of why anarchy doesn't work, even without government people will want to control other people.

Somalia is a good example of a Failed State. On the other hand Anarchy is impossible to achieve on a world level right now or in the near future.

The only way to achieve it, is by systematically balancing the outcomes of power relationships that are established in civil society. In this the State has a large part to play, mainly focusing in eliminating structural poverty and progressively developing social mobility.

Best way to achieve all of this? Liberal AND Socially Aware Democracy on my opinion... others might think otherwise.

[Theseus1234]

Best way to achieve all of this? Liberal AND Socially Aware Democracy on my opinion... others might think otherwise.

A social democracy would leave the people dependent or used to the government and its various programs.
Conversely, a more right-wing democracy would eventually leave the poor in the dust as the powerful become more powerful through relaxed regulation. Although this would acclimate people to a smaller government, by the time the government is abolished the various successors are already lined up to take over after the government's "official" end.

IMHO, a peaceful transition to anarchy would be impossible in the foreseeable future. Also, the idea of anarchy is shaky at best and does nothing to allow for different people to gain localized power and establish new governments.

[Denny Crane!]

Somalia is a good example of why anarchy doesn't work, even without government people will want to control other people.

Ugh no offense but I see this argument trotted out every week it seems on total war center by people who have absolutely no knowledge of African history either recent or the last 5 centuries.

Somalia is a product of massive colonialism and warfare, the current situation is thanks to global politics and the country having been pissed on from a great height for the last few hundred years by various colonial powers.

Thats statism, not anarchism. It has been in a state of civil war between what was the state and people who want to become the state. Its a product of war not peace and is totally at odds with any anarchist theory which is about massively high levels of organisation not massive amounts of chaos caused by violence.

Well..to be fair, Somalia is an example of why Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't work.

Umm nope its not.

A social democracy would leave the people dependent or used to the government and its various programs.
Conversely, a more right-wing democracy would eventually leave the poor in the dust as the powerful become more powerful through relaxed regulation.

I strongly disagree with that.

Although this would acclimate people to a smaller government, by the time the government is abolished the various successors are already lined up to take over after the government's "official" end.

IMHO, a peaceful transition to anarchy would be impossible in the foreseeable future. Also, the idea of anarchy is shaky at best and does nothing to allow for different people to gain localized power and establish new governments.

What anarchy are you talking about here, as a term its pretty useless. To say 'it' doesn't work, well there isn't really an 'it' as there are huge amounts of theories encapsulated in that term.

[irontaino]

Ugh no offense but I see this argument trotted out every week it seems on total war center by people who have absolutely no knowledge of African history either recent or the last 5 centuries.

Oh believe me, i know my African history so, no offense, but maybe you shouldn't assume things.

Somalia is a product of massive colonialism and warfare, the current situation is thanks to global politics and the country having been pissed on from a great height for the last few hundred years by various colonial powers.

Somaliland is in the same position, yet even without international recognition, there's still stability, and a functioning government.

Thats statism, not anarchism. It has been in a state of civil war between what was the state and people who want to become the state. Its a product of war not peace and is totally at odds with any anarchist theory which is about massively high levels of organisation not massive amounts of chaos caused by violence.

It's been in civil war, with various warlords including the so-called "government". This is what happens without at least some form of government, those who want power would take control of their own little turf. People are always going to want to control others.

[Claudius Gothicus]

A social democracy would leave the people dependent or used to the government and its various programs.

That's debatable... what I'm talking about here is an instituting a ''corporatist'' system... where highly decentralized(and democratic) worker's corporations and more or less equally structured ''bosses corps'' would negotiate and reach agreements on what will be the overall result for everyone of them in the social relationship known as ''production'', this of course will take into account the subjective and the objective parts of the production process.

Without the State this is of course impracticable(as of right now), why? Well because for the most part it would lead to a social war... BUT with continued expanding of the Law on that particular area(work relationships) by clearly stating what are the ''rules of engagement'' when sitting to negotiate and on a more ''universal'' level generating a common sense of solidarism and civic duty on a systematic educational basis for all of the sectors of society we could be able to progressively end the need of a State while supplanting it with a mutual agreements syst.

Liberal-Social Democracy is not the same as giving subsidies to everyone and entering into a uncontrollable deficit and inflation... It can also mean generating a clear system of rules for workers and employers where certain benefits are provided universally by the simple action of ''working''.

[Theseus1234]

-Snip-

I was not arguing against social democracy as a system of government, only a social democracy as a means to reach anarchy. These protected workers and mediated agreements only increase reliance on the government for some semblance of protection and regulation. I'm not really sure how you would get to anarchy from there.

What anarchy are you talking about here, as a term its pretty useless. To say 'it' doesn't work, well there isn't really an 'it' as there are huge amounts of theories encapsulated in that term.

I'm not sure exactly which theory of anarchy I'm invoking here, but my image is like a government-less society where order is maintained by the goodwill of the members. Is this correct?

I strongly disagree with that.

What part of my analysis do you disagree with? I admit it's subjective and poorly-informed, but I don't see what you disagree with.

I consider the fundamental principle of anarchy is no 'enforced authority', hence, joining the state is optional. Thoreau touches on this in his "On Civil Disobedience" saying a great state would allow for people to opt out of it, and become like neighbours, with all the amiability of neighbours. It doesn't even need to be that these people who have opted out are not allowed to travel around the country owned by the state, as they are still countrymen, but don't belong to the state. This is perhaps a difficult way of considering it, as country usually = state, but it doesn't need to.

What of those who wish to destroy the state? Is the state allowed to defend itself? Doesn't that re-exert the power that the state holds?

[RomanSoldier9001]

Somalia is a good example of why anarchy doesn't work, even without government people will want to control other people.

How about Catalonia then? Anarchism can work if people are up to it anarchism is the real communism no class no state all for the people I dont see anny problem with it the only thing is anarchism has only be proven in small areas not in entire contry like Spain or Ukraine but is possible to have Anarchism! Is best "socialist" ideology in my opnion far better than Communism that only distorced into burocractical dictartship of single party with totalarian power and demagogues and socioparts for leaders.

[Enemy of the State]

Somalia is a good example of why anarchy doesn't work, even without government people will want to control other people.

Decades of colonial exploitation followed by brutal socialist dictatorship which finally collapsed. Somalia is an example of the failure of statism. But even despite of that, believe it or not, Somalia has improved in it's semi-stateless situation.

You know it really amazes me. We have so many examples of the evils of the state. How many billions have died because of the psychopaths in power? But people talk of how horrible anarchy is...

anarchy is firstly truly impossible as it goes against our inherent biological instincts, which is to organize, and form some sort of basic deciding structure or government.

And this is an argument against anarchy how? There will still be association amongst people in anarchy, it will simply be voluntary. Think of it this way, currently there is only one government in the territory known as the United States of America. In a state of anarchy, there could be thousands and you can pick between them.

[Theseus1234]

And this is an argument against anarchy how? There will still be association amongst people in anarchy, it will simply be voluntary. Think of it this way, currently there is only one government in the territory known as the United States of America. In a state of anarchy, there could be thousands and you can pick between them.

...That's anarchy? That sounds a lot like city-states to me.

[Claudius Gothicus]

...That's anarchy? That sounds a lot like city-states to me.

Practical Anarchy would sooner or later devolve into city-states. Have you red about Phalanstèries?

[Enemy of the State]

...That's anarchy? That sounds a lot like city-states to me.

No, since they don't have a territorial monopoly. It's like picking an internet service provider.

[Baron Thunder-ten-tronckh]

I don't think it would take 1000 years. I think you could do it in less than 100 years.

I consider the fundamental principle of anarchy is no 'enforced authority', hence, joining the state is optional. Thoreau touches on this in his "On Civil Disobedience" saying a great state would allow for people to opt out of it, and become like neighbours, with all the amiability of neighbours. It doesn't even need to be that these people who have opted out are not allowed to travel around the country owned by the state, as they are still countrymen, but don't belong to the state. This is perhaps a difficult way of considering it, as country usually = state, but it doesn't need to.

The people who opt out have advantages, whilst running some risks and losing some benefits.

The 'government' will then be the best government, or, 'the government which governs least', as slowly it realises it is not needed to do everything.

There are problems, but the transition is not about time, but making sure your plan has thought through every scenario conceivable.

I don't think it'll happen though, as I'm far too cynical.

[Denny Crane!]

I think it ultimately comes down to energy security. A large reason we are dependant on the state is there is natural monopolies which are necessary to life and at present it almost seems that there is an unbreakable symbiotic relationship between the ability to live, to get the energy we need from these monopolies and the state. If, as is happening, natural energy breaks certain price barriers along with the massive clean energy advances happening (and coming to market in a matter of years) then we no longer rely on that, a massive barrier becomes almost irrelevant to state and state power meaning there'll be a bit more to talk about on this debate.

Although there are certain extremely knowledgable pundits (nicks energy faq if your interested) who says a large reason there are barriers to energy development is entrenched interests in the energy sector - and to a certain extent its actually quite different from your usual 'the oil companies suppress free energy111!!11'

Bit of an odd tangent to go on from the topic, but there you go, its an area of interest to me so I've linked the two.

[Treize]

Nonexistent, and I am not a huge fan of idealism.

[Armenum]

not another "will Anarchy work" thread.

anarchy is firstly truly impossible as it goes against our inherent biological instincts, which is to organize, and form some sort of basic deciding structure or government.

[irontaino]

not another "will Anarchy work" thread.

anarchy is firstly truly impossible as it goes against our inherent biological instincts, which is to organize, and form some sort of basic deciding structure or government.

.....Second

[mrtonberry]

The day people stopped being selfish prick, is the day anarchism, communism etc will work.