My doubts about anarchy

[grondilu]

I expressed my doubts about anarchy in the thread about riots in London.  I thought we might open a new thread about anarchy in general.  I'll start giving my opinion on the subject.

I seriously begin to doubt the concept of anarchy means anything anyway.  To me, anarchy is to politics what nihilism is to philosophy.  It's a paradoxical, contradictory concept.

If we consider anarchy to be the absence of central rules or coercion forces, then we have to admit that there is an inner paradox in such a concept:  how can you prevent rules or coercion, without using coercion or rules?

In a sentence:   "No rules" is still a rule.

Politics is about organisation of power.   But politics doesn't create power ex-nihilo.  Power does exist, because human action exist.  Weapons exist and humans tend to use them when they can.   Anarchist would like to see usage of force disappear from earth, but it is just as utopian as the disappearance of sickness, aging, humger and other bad things in the world.

Politics is about opinions about which usage of force can be accepted, and which usage can not.   And to clarify these, there is a set of rules which can be voted by the people or edicted by an autocrat.  Each individual can have his own set of rules, and if his set of rules is totally different from the rest of the society, this person usually becomes a criminal or any other kind of asocial.

Honnestly, sometimes I think I understand anarchy, and somtimes I'm not sure I understand it at all.  It's kind of disturbing.

So I think I can't declare myself as an anarchist.   And yet, I think there is no real rule about how power should be organised.  Power is not something that should be discussed, it's something that should be taken.  It belongs to whoever is capable of taking it.

[1713296464]

1713296464

[kiba]

till a rule.

Politics is about organisation of power.   But politics doesn't create power ex-nihilo.  Power does exist, because human action exist.  Weapons exist and humans tend to use them when they can.   Anarchist would like to see usage of force disappear from earth, but it is just as utopian as the disappearance of sickness, aging, humger and other bad things in the world.

There is nothing Utopian about ending sickness, aging, hungers, and bad things in the world. No, it is you who are confused.

It is only by our irrationality and lack of knowledge that prevent us from preventing sickness, aging, hungers, and bad things in the world.

Think about it:

1. Aging is a biological process. That mean we can apply human reasoning to find out how to reverse and stop aging.

2. Hunger is a problem in the world because either:
 
  Our population is too large or that we have biological urges to breed too much. (not a problem)

  We are too inefficient about converting energy into fun. (problems with cows, mostly)

  Distribution of food are inequal (caused by more fundamental problems)

3. Sickness is a big problem space. There are many things we don't understand, but it doesn't mean we can't fix them. Sickness include aging, heart problems, diseases, etc.

They seem to be intractable problems right now, but in reality it simply means that we lack knowledge on how to solve them. Don't confuse extremely hard problem with utopian dreams.

[grondilu]

Yeah my examples of utopias were not very good.  I lack imagination about those stuffs.

Anyway that was only part of my point.  Power does exist and therefore I have difficulty to imagine a society without it.

Truly, in the world there will always be at least one person who will be willing to take the power.  If nobody does, I will.

PS.  I hate hippies and in a hippie world I assure you I would build some guns and enslave them all.   

[theymos]

Anarchy couldn't work if all governments were to end now. Another government would certainly emerge. However, I think anarcho-capitalism is possible in any community where a large percentage of people (maybe 25%) understand the ideas behind anarcho-capitalism and the majority of other people are not totally hostile to the idea.

If all governments ended now, but 25% of people understood anarcho-capitalism, protection agencies would quickly spring up to defend the anarcho-capitalists against those trying to build a new government (as well as other criminals). Most other people will be seeking security. When they see that a government will not help them, they will also hire one of the existing protection agencies. At this point, governments will have a very hard time taking control again.

Anarcho-socialism would need a much higher percentage of supporters in a post-government situation. If they had the same 25%, I don't think they would be able to provide security for the rest. Furthermore, a large number of the moderates will refuse to give up their property. In anarcho-capitalism, the moderates don't have to give up anything; they voluntarily hire a protection agency.

[Alex Beckenham]

Power does exist and therefore I have difficulty to imagine a society without it.
Truly, in the world there will always be at least one person who will be willing to take the power.  If nobody does, I will.

I prefer to think of it as everyone having power, and personal cryptography is just one tool that helps in that area.

[grondilu]

I prefer to think of it as everyone having power, and personal cryptography is just one tool that helps in that area.

Very true.  But I suspect most anarchists (well at least the left-anarchists) don't like this idea, neither do they like cryptography or money in general.

[da2ce7]

Very true.  But I suspect most anarchists (well at least the left-anarchists) don't like this idea, neither do they like cryptography or money in general.

So what do they like?

[grondilu]

So what do they like?

Might be a big cliché, but I think they want everyone to live in harmony and non-violence.  Meaning that nobody possesses anything, everybody works for everyone and you have to share whatever you produce.

[kiba]

Very true.  But I suspect most anarchists (well at least the left-anarchists) don't like this idea, neither do they like cryptography or money in general.

So what do they like?

Remember, these anarchists are the kind of people who dislike the idea of division of labor, of profit, and other concepts.

[sortedmush]

I'd like to point out that there is a huge difference between Anarcho Capitalism and Anarcho-Communism/Socialism.

Each have a very different idea of what the state is and what property is.

All of the questions and doubts raised on this forum are very basic. There's plenty of ideas out there.

If you want an idea of what Anarcho Capitalists are talking about. I suggest having a look at freedomainradio.com (there'll be a podcast talking about your doubt there for sure)

If you're interested in finding out about Anarcho-Communism/Socialism, look at anarchistfaq.org

I'd suggest having a look at both to see how different they are.

[da2ce7]

Might be a big cliché, but I think they want everyone to live in harmony and non-violence.  Meaning that nobody possesses anything, everybody works for everyone and you have to share whatever you produce.

But there are limited resources, people like cars, computers, hookers.  If you have to share everything what dose one have?  Nothing?
If you are the only one with water, do you have to share it with everyone so everyone dehydrates?

In a 'nobody owning anything' society, there is no impulse for anyone to save up for the bad times.  As everyone else will attack you for 'hoarding.'

To me any non-capitalistic society will be short-lived.  Particularly one that runs on anarchy.

Economically it is unsustainable, morally it is evil.

[The Script]

Might be a big cliché, but I think they want everyone to live in harmony and non-violence.  Meaning that nobody possesses anything, everybody works for everyone and you have to share whatever you produce.

But there are limited resources, people like cars, computers, hookers.  If you have to share everything what dose one have?  Nothing?
If you are the only one with water, do you have to share it with everyone so everyone dehydrates?

In a 'nobody owning anything' society, there is no impulse for anyone to save up for the bad times.  As everyone else will attack you for 'hoarding.'

To me any non-capitalistic society will be short-lived.  Particularly one that runs on anarchy.

Economically it is unsustainable, morally it is evil.

+1

It is interesting to note that in an anarcho-capitalist society you could construct an anarcho-socialist community, but not the other way around.

[LMGTFY]

It is interesting to note that in an anarcho-capitalist society you could construct an anarcho-socialist community, but not the other way around.

I keep reading that here, but without any explanation why it's the case.

During the Social Revolution in Spain (an Anarcho-Syndicalist revolution that was ultimately crushed by the Spanish Communist Party and the Soviet Union) small-scale capitalism existed. Small farms weren't collectivized, and although the larger land-owners had their lands seized it was by state dictat (the Spanish state being largely non-anarchist, as most anarchists refused to join the government). Even amongst the anarcho-syndicalist collectives there was an element of capitalism, with trade between collectives occurring.

I can't see anything inherent in the rejection of rulers that would lead to capitalism becoming "forbidden". It may become increasingly difficult for capitalists to compete with collectives, but construction of a capitalist society within a wider anarchist society shouldn't be impossible.

[MoonShadow]

I'd like to point out that there is a huge difference between Anarcho Capitalism and Anarcho-Communism/Socialism.

You mean besides the fact that Anarcho-Socialism is a contradiction in terms?

[左]

I'd like to point out that there is a huge difference between Anarcho Capitalism and Anarcho-Communism/Socialism.

You mean besides the fact that "Anarcho"-capitalism is a contradiction in terms?

FTFY.

[MoonShadow]

I'd like to point out that there is a huge difference between Anarcho Capitalism and Anarcho-Communism/Socialism.

You mean besides the fact that "Anarcho"-capitalism is a contradiction in terms?

FTFY.

Anarcho-capitalism isn't a contradiction in terms, because capitalism isn't (in it's original meaning) a political ideology.  What most people think of as capitalism in our modern age is actually corporatism/merchantilism in new clothes.  It's not new either.  I said that anarcho-socialism was a contradiction in terms, not because I consider any variation of anarchism viable, but because anarchism and socialism are two political ideologies that are diametricly opposed to one another.  Anarchism is the absence of government external to the individual, while socialism is a social & political structure explicitly designed to impose a form (i.e. governance) upon society at large.  No matter how one feels about either ideology, no rational person can consider the fundamentals of the both of them, and conclude that they can coexist.

[deadlizard]

I'd like to point out that there is a huge difference between Anarcho Capitalism and Anarcho-Communism/Socialism.

You mean besides the fact that Anarcho-Socialism is a contradiction in terms?

I'll say it again -  "Capitalism and Socialism are Statist paradigms"
Anarchy is simply Voluntary interaction.

Anarcho-Socialism is double-think ... creighto snuck up while I was posting and gave a better explanation

[rebuilder]

Freedom defined is freedom denied.

[FatherMcGruder]

In anarcho-capitalism, the moderates don't have to give up anything; they voluntarily hire a protection agency.

Protection? Voluntary? Something about an offer...

It is interesting to note that in an anarcho-capitalist society you could construct an anarcho-socialist community, but not the other way around.

This is absolutely untrue. Capitalists do not respect one's right to own the product of his labor and they believe that they can own land. They will destroy the anarchists to protect their profits. This protocol has precedent before and during the Spanish Civil War.

[rebuilder]

Has there ever been an anarcho-capitalist society? What happened to it?