Anarchy =~ Communism

[smellyBobby]

In my mind, there is no difference between Anarchy and Communism, both are based on lawlessness, mutual benefit and a non-existent human hierarchy.

This is despite on all scales and across all times of the universe there is hierarchy. From the structure of the atom, to the evolution of life, the way networks process traffic, the existence of solar systems, the fractal structure of weather systems and galaxy super-clusters there is a hierarchy where something is apart of the whole. Your telling me that somehow we humans, us mere little people are so special that we are above this rule.

That there is something so magnificent, so amazing about us that the system you propose will somehow just completely disregard this fundamental law of the universe. Your telling me that despite the recent human hierarchies, the hierarchies of our primate cousins and all other lifeforms that we are so so so special, that we are god-like and do not belong in this category.

We are gods and that we are above the rest of the universe and we are capable of creating a system that does not obey the universe. So when you say that this new Society is great, because we will be all “fundamentally equal, there will not be a hierarchy”, remember to wipe your mouth with toilet paper once you’ve finished speaking. Because what you just said is the abstract logical equivalent of what I hear at church. That your system is above the mechanics of the universe and that's why it will work. 

This why I don't bother reading about such fantasies.

Justice Dragons will always exist, get use to it and learn how to ride them.

(Socialist) anarchists do not oppose hierarchical structure, but rather coercive power relationships.

This sounds interesting, this flavor in my mind may actually work! So who decides what is a coercive power relationship? My initial impression is that this is something like decentralized socialism.

[qbg]

In my mind, there is no difference between Anarchy and Communism, both are based on lawlessness, mutual benefit and a non-existent human hierarchy.

This is despite on all scales and across all times of the universe there is hierarchy. From the structure of the atom, to the evolution of life, the way networks process traffic, the existence of solar systems, the fractal structure of weather systems and galaxy super-clusters there is a hierarchy where something is apart of the whole. Your telling me that somehow we humans, us mere little people are so special that we are above this rule.

That there is something so magnificent, so amazing about us that the system you propose will somehow just completely disregard this fundamental law of the universe. Your telling me that despite the recent human hierarchies, the hierarchies of our primate cousins and all other lifeforms that we are so so so special, that we are god-like and do not belong in this category.

We are gods and that we are above the rest of the universe and we are capable of creating a system that does not obey the universe. So when you say that this new Society is great, because we will be all “fundamentally equal, there will not be a hierarchy”, remember to wipe your mouth with toilet paper once you’ve finished speaking. Because what you just said is the abstract logical equivalent of what I hear at church. That your system is above the mechanics of the universe and that's why it will work. 

This why I don't bother reading about such fantasies.

Justice Dragons will always exist, get use to it and learn how to ride them.

(Socialist) anarchists do not oppose hierarchical structure, but rather coercive power relationships.

This sounds interesting, this flavor in my mind may actually work! So who decides what is a coercive power relationship? My initial impression is that this is something like decentralized socialism.

To get a flavor of a body of thinking in this area, you can check out An Anarchist FAQ. Sections B, C, and F may be useful for understanding the nature of the coercive power relationships they focus on.

One piece of advice regarding the above: Take the use of "capitalism" in the above with a grain of salt (in particular, section F). Self-described anacaps can/usually do mean something different by "capitalism" than most socialist-anarchists do. Mutualism (free-market anti-capitalism) is a form of socialist-anarchism, and describes an economic system that is largely compatible with what anacaps usually envision.

[myrkul]

Ever read lord of the flies?

I respectfully decline.

No, seriously. Not only will that help you see how your island scenario is flawed, when you get assigned the book in 8th grade, you'll have already read it!

[smellyBobby]

Ever read lord of the flies?

I respectfully decline.

No, seriously. Not only will that help you see how your island scenario is flawed, when you get assigned the book in 8th grade, you'll have already read it!

Oh but I am steadfast in my disapproval at such a request.

I find that it would be an unfair waste of my time to read a fiction book to understand the cornerstone of the society you advocate for. Especially given that I have presented a very simple island scenario with only 5 people and a stranger, yet somehow you are unable to communicate the essence of this fiction book to highlight the flaws in my scenario.

I must reiterate my request; is there anyone who can convey the essence of this fiction book and help express myrkul's point?

[myrkul]

Ever read lord of the flies?

I respectfully decline.

No, seriously. Not only will that help you see how your island scenario is flawed, when you get assigned the book in 8th grade, you'll have already read it!

Oh but I am steadfast in my disapproval at such a request.

Since you seem unable to even google the book, It illustrates what happens on an island when society breaks down. Which it would rapidly do as soon as one group of people attacked another.

[smellyBobby]

I fail to understand how this is relevant. As you say Lord of the Flies is about how a group of school boys on an island. Everything falls apart, right? How does that support your perspective? If anything it shows that these "children" needed a state to govern them.

Are you assuming everyone knows this in the island scenario therefore they will not take the path of the school boys?

[myrkul]

I fail to understand how this is relevant. As you say Lord of the Flies is about how a group of school boys on an island. Everything falls apart, right? How does that support your perspective? If anything it shows that these "children" needed a state to govern them.

Are you assuming everyone knows this in the island scenario therefore they will not take the path of the school boys?

No, Oppenheimer, You asked 'then what?'. That was my answer.

[smellyBobby]

The 5 collude according to the rules below:

What if they collude and all agree not to bid below a certain price. Lets say someone is "compassionate" and they bid below this threshold. Then the remaining four stop trading their essential resources with the "compassionate one". The four will then resort to using force over the fifth, to gain the fifth's essential resources. Then what?

Okay, so your saying that if the 5 people were anarchists(not the socialist flavor), and they collude according to above then there is nothing stopping the 5 from exploiting the stranger ?

[myrkul]

Okay, so your saying that if the 5 people were anarchists(not the socialist flavor), and they collude according to above then there is nothing stopping the 5 from exploiting the stranger ?

No, You're saying they're colluding. I'm saying they won't.

[smellyBobby]

This scenario will never occur? The people with essential resources would never use their power to create a new age of slavery in non-socialist anarchy? And this presumption is a cornerstone of non-socialist anarchy?

[myrkul]

This scenario will never occur? The people with essential resources would never use their power to create a new age of slavery in non-socialist anarchy? And this is a cornerstone of non-socialist anarchy?

We rely on basic human greed to ensure that at least one will always undercut the others, and the NAP to ensure that the others don't beat him up for it. That's a distinct oversimplification, but, there it is.

[smellyBobby]

May I confirm how you negate my scenerio.

In the island scenario there are 5 people who hold the entitlements to all essential resources. They harvest the resources themselves, they are shrewd traders therefore they give nothing for free. They trade in between themselves for essential resources each needs.

A stranger comes to the island. He has nothing to offer, in the form of labor and essential resources. Now five collude as I have previously said, agreeing not to bid below the reserve for the strangers labor. However driven by greed one does and secures the employment of the stranger, because they all obey the non-aggression principle therefore the 5th does not have to fear retribution from the other 4. Due to increased capacity the 5th and the stranger are able to collect their essential resources at a higher rate, therefore they can drop the price of their essential resource and trade with the other 4 for the essential resources they have, helping to break the trading ban outlined earlier.

So what exactly obligates the four to obey the non-aggression principle? Or do we just assume that all citizens are perfect non-socialist anarchists ?

[myrkul]

So what exactly obligates the four to obey the non-aggression principle? Or do we just assume that all citizens are perfect non-socialist anarchists ?

It's your island. But, Since we're all playing on it, there's nothing 'obligating' them to follow the NAP, but they all know that if they don't, somebody's going to get hurt, and it might be them. If they're intelligent, they might reason out that less competition is going to mean either more work for them, or higher prices.

[btcLeger]

What if they collude and all agree not to bid below a certain price. Lets say someone is "compassionate" and they bid below this threshold. Then the remaining four stop trading their essential resources with the "compassionate one". The four will then resort to using force over the fifth, to gain the fifth's essential resources. Then what?

This wouldnt be an anarchistic society. Sounds more like despotism. So your scenario is irrelevant.

[myrkul]

So your scenario is irrelevant.

You know that. I know that. It's very likely he knows that. That doesn't mean he cares.

[smellyBobby]

What if they collude and all agree not to bid below a certain price. Lets say someone is "compassionate" and they bid below this threshold. Then the remaining four stop trading their essential resources with the "compassionate one". The four will then resort to using force over the fifth, to gain the fifth's essential resources. Then what?

This wouldnt be an anarchistic society. Sounds more like despotism. So your scenario is irrelevant.

So what exactly is stopping the non-socialist anarchy from becoming despotism?

[The Script]

What if they collude and all agree not to bid below a certain price. Lets say someone is "compassionate" and they bid below this threshold. Then the remaining four stop trading their essential resources with the "compassionate one". The four will then resort to using force over the fifth, to gain the fifth's essential resources. Then what?

This wouldnt be an anarchistic society. Sounds more like despotism. So your scenario is irrelevant.

So what exactly is stopping the non-socialist anarchy from becoming despotism?

One of the most common responses I get when I talk to people about anarchy is: "In an anarchy what would stop me from punching you in the face/hitting you on the head with a shovel?"

I usually look them in the eyes and say "try it", because that question pisses me off. The better answer though, is "what is stopping you now?".  Most people assume it's the statues and "laws" passed by the government, but I believe that to be far undervaluing the affect of social mores, norms and pressures which I think have a bigger effect on people's behaviors. 

[btcLeger]

So what exactly is stopping the non-socialist anarchy from becoming despotism?

If a majority of 80% want to switch over to another form of society (like in your example), it makes no difference if they were anarchistic, communist, democratic or whatever. I doubt anything could stop that.

Anyway, why should 20% of people force the other 80% to follow their will? What does this have to do with anarchism?

[myrkul]

I never fail to find something relevant by hitting up XKCD.

http://xkcd.com/706/

[The Script]

I never fail to find something relevant by hitting up XKCD.

http://xkcd.com/706/

Ha ha, nice. Perhaps that's what I should do next time?

"But in an anarchy what--"

WHAM

"Well, what stopped me in the current society?"

Lol