Anarchism

[Rawwwrr]

Anarchism is a social movement that seeks liberation from oppressive systems of control, whether they be the state, capitalism, racism, sexism, or religious institutions. Anarchists advocate a self-managed, stateless society without borders, bosses, or rulers where everyone takes collective responsibility for the health and prosperity of their community.

I'd like to know what you all think of the idea of Anarchism. If you're going to simply reply with the ignorant "We need laws" response without thinking about it and without understanding what Anarchism says in regards to laws and rules then please don't respond at all.


I also think this is particularly poignant given the recent Occupy movement and the anarchists that have latched on to the movement.


To start let me pose a question: Given the now quite obvious failings of Capitalism (unescapable inequality for instance), how effectively do you think Anarchism deals with these issues?

[Genghis Khan]

Given the now quite obvious failings of Capitalism (unescapable inequality for instance), how effectively do you think Anarchism deals with these issues?

In regards to the economics of a country, what does an Anarchical ideology advocate? In other words, if a society was modulated into an Anarchical one, what economics system would replace the previous one?

[Rawwwrr]

In regards to the economics of a country, what does an Anarchical ideology advocate? In other words, if a society was modulated into an Anarchical one, what economics system would replace the previous one?

Difficult question, given there are many subsets of Anarchism.


There is such a thing as Anarcho-capitalism, although it's shunned and disassociated from all other Anarchism groups.

Most likely would see a communist system, as that is the most widely agreed upon system of Anarchy.

More info: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_economics#Theoretical_anarchist_economic_systems)

[Clawhammer]

To my knowledge, it exists only as a transitional form of government (that is, lack thereof) and will never happen. I can see how it is a good thing in various areas, and also a very bad thing in others. After all, a little revolution here and there is a good thing. Beyond this, I will simply observe this discussion and learn more before forming a more specific opinion.

[Clawhammer]

Edit: Sorry about the double post, computer problems. Mod or somebody can delete it.

[Genghis Khan]

Most likely would see a communist system, as that is the most widely agreed upon system of Anarchy.

Surely if the premise of an Anarchy is to implement a stateless society why would the economy be subject to state ownership?

To my knowledge, it exists only as a transitional form of government (that is, a lack thereof) and will never last. I can see how it is a good thing in various areas, and also a very bad thing in others. After all, a little revolution here and there is a good thing. Beyond this, I will simply observe this discussion and learn more before forming a more specific opinion.

Pretty much this, the only time I'd be for an Anarchical society is if it's undergoing a transition from one type to another. In the long run I don't see Anarchy as an effective method of government.

[Korashk]

There is such a thing as Anarcho-capitalism, although it's shunned and disassociated from all other Anarchism groups.
That's just because it's the only form that actually addresses problems created by anarchistic society and provides theoretically viable solutions to them. Unlike anarcho-communism.

(If you can't tell, I'm an anarcho-capitalist)

Surely if the premise of an Anarchy is to implement a stateless society why would the economy be subject to state ownership?
Communism (Marxism) is primarily an anarchist ideal, unlike Stalinism which is what most people associate with communism.

[Rawwwrr]

That's just because it's the only form that actually addresses problems created by anarchistic society and provides theoretically viable solutions to them. Unlike anarcho-communism.

(If you can't tell, I'm an anarcho-capitalist)

While I'm sure you know more about Anarchism than me, I agree with the ideologies and practicalities, however I don't see how one can be both capitalist and anarchist; the two have very conflicting ideologies. YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdHUUVSl_us&list=UURKqimFpvGw5IHO0ubsSjTw&index=6&feature=plpp_video)

[Korashk]

While I'm sure you know more about Anarchism than me, I agree with the ideologies and practicalities, however I don't see how one can be both capitalist and anarchist; the two have very conflicting ideologies. YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdHUUVSl_us&list=UURKqimFpvGw5IHO0ubsSjTw&index=6&feature=plpp_video)
The primary problem with that video is that it claims it can say what anarchy is and isn't with any sort of authority. Is there some sort of authority on anarchy that can claim that Anarchy in all of it's proper forms opposes all authority and private property? No.

My anarchy is different than his and he doesn't seem to like that, so he's trying to convince people that what I want isn't anarchy.

[Rawwwrr]

The primary problem with that video is that it claims it can say what anarchy is and isn't with any sort of authority. Is there some sort of authority on anarchy that can claim that Anarchy in all of it's proper forms opposes all authority and private property? No.

My anarchy is different than his and he doesn't seem to like that, so he's trying to convince people that what I want isn't anarchy.
Well I honestly can't see how you can have two so utterly conflicting views at the same time. It's like thinking that you need proof to believe in something and then believe in God - utter cognitive dissonance. Capitalism inevitably results in both inequality and hierarchy, either or both of these are enough to disqualify it from being a valid combination with Anarchism in my opinion.

[aperson444]

I consider myself a Libertarian Marxist.

There are a few big names in Anarchism -- two are Russian scholars (Kropotkin and Bakunin). In the 1917 Revolution, the Anarchists and the Bolsheviks fought side by side, but during the civil war there was a split between more authoritarian Socialists (Bolsheviks) and the more socially liberal guys (Mensheviks). In the end, Stalin took power after Lenin died and shunned anarchist elements. To this date, I still blame Stalin for the fall of the whole Internationale movement (World Socialist movement).

Anarchism is a great idea, but there should be a loose system that controls individual "communities" and ensures true egalitarianism. The three main forms of anarchism are Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Syndicalism (which really falls under Anarcho-Communism, but is more focused on the worker and working units). I think that social and moral laws have led to extreme inequality and injustice. Only Marxism (economic) and Libertarianism or Anarchism on the extreme can bring true justice to the people.

[Rawwwrr]

Anarchism is a great idea, but there should be a loose system that controls individual "communities" and ensures true egalitarianism. The three main forms of anarchism are Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Syndicalism (which really falls under Anarcho-Communism, but is more focused on the worker and working units). I think that social and moral laws have led to extreme inequality and injustice. Only Marxism (economic) and Libertarianism or Anarchism on the extreme can bring true justice to the people.

Anarchism is against rulers, not rules.

[Genghis Khan]

Well I honestly can't see how you can have two so utterly conflicting views at the same time. It's like thinking that you need proof to believe in something and then believe in God - utter cognitive dissonance. Capitalism inevitably results in both inequality and hierarchy, either or both of these are enough to disqualify it from being a valid combination with Anarchism in my opinion.

I'm fairly sure Anarchism and Capitalism are more compatible than say Anarcho-Communism. Capitalism does not advocate state ownership of any firms, if anything its premise is that firms should be left in the absence of any kind of government intervention so they can function freely in a market-oriented environment. Most anarchies (for instance individualist anarchism) are on the extreme spectrum of libertarianism and intent on giving people individual freedom.

Wouldn't it make more sense if there was no state ownership of firms and they could function freely in an Anarchical atmosphere?

[Rawwwrr]

I'm fairly sure Anarchism and Capitalism are more compatible than say Anarcho-Communism. Capitalism does not advocate state ownership of any firms, if anything its premise is that firms should be left in the absence of any kind of government intervention so they can function freely in a market-oriented environment. Most anarchies (for instance individualist anarchism) are on the extreme spectrum of libertarianism and intent on giving people individual freedom.

As I explained earlier, capitalism = inequality and hierarchy. Therefore it is incompatible on that basis alone. Not to mention the fact that it advocates the idea of a person owning property (different from having possessions like TVs).
The main difference is that while under Communism they would work with you, under Capitalism they would employ you. The two are fundamentally incompatible.


Not to mention the fact that you seem to think that Anarchism is fundamentally communist - not true, Anarcho-Communism is but one of many popular subsets. Anarchism advocates community ownership.


Take a blacksmith. Under Anarchism, the people who own the blacksmith are those who work at it - however this is Property and not a Possession. A Property is something not owned by an individual, however an individual can still own possessions like tvs etc. This is similar to communism but not quite the same.


Wouldn't it make more sense if there was no state ownership of firms and they could function freely in an Anarchical atmosphere?


See above.

[Genghis Khan]

Not to mention the fact that you seem to think that Anarchism is fundamentally communist

Not really, I had acknowledged that Anarchism is a stretchy ideology and even mentioned a variant of it earlier, I wasn't implying its fundamental premise lies in communism, if anything I had thought it'd be more compatible with capitalist theory because of the presence of state ownership of firms, which is.. sort of in-congruent to Anarchy in its pure form.

I missed the point you made earlier about the presence of Hierarchy and inequity in Capitalist-run countries.

I'm not that well informed about many political ideologies as such but if there's any one I consider genuine, it would be an amalgam of Capitalist and Socialist ideals, where the markets are given considerable opportunity to function but with a level of government intervention to correct *market failures and ensure a fair distribution of income and wealth, advocating progressive taxation, benefits for the less able, and so forth.

*Market Failures such as

Missing Markets
Monopolies
Externalities
Inequality

[Korashk]

Capitalism inevitably results in both inequality and hierarchy, either or both of these are enough to disqualify it from being a valid combination with Anarchism in my opinion.
A) There's nothing wrong with inequality of outcome. Everybody can't have everything and thinking they can is just ridiculous. The primary difference between anarcho-capitalism (ancap) and anarcho-communism (ancom) is where the equality lies. Ancaps place it before, as in you have the same rights and opportunities as everybody else. Ancoms place it after, as in property is collective and everybody works for the good of everybody (in theory). Both feature equality as tenants, but tackle it in different manners.

B) Hierarchies exist and there's nothing that anybody can do about it. Families are hierarchies, religion has hierarchies (I know that the ideal ancom is without religion), communities have hierarchies. Hell, packs of wild animals have hierarchies. The natural state of things is hierarchal. Rather than pretend that hierarchies can be eliminated or are even always bad, ancaps seek to remove the coercive nature from hierarchies via free market ideals and the abolition of the state.

If it's not anarchism without hierarchy, then anarchy can NEVER exist.

As I explained earlier, capitalism = inequality and hierarchy. Therefore it is incompatible on that basis alone.
You don't have the authority to declare what anarchy is and isn't, and this is something that you should realize.

Not to mention the fact that it advocates the idea of a person owning property (different from having possessions like TVs).
How exactly are "property" and "possessions" different to your kind of anarchy? They aren't to ancaps, but I could be persuaded if you present a compelling argument that differentiates the two.

Take your blacksmith example, under ancap, the person who owns the smithy is the person who built the smithy or bought the smithy from the one who built it, or paid other individuals for their services to build the smithy. He's also the one that pays for all the supplies used by the blacksmith, the one that handles any repairs the smithy might need, as well as providing for any other miscellaneous things that the smithy might need.

These things may be handled by that person, or that person might pay other people for their services in handling. It's also worth noting that the person doing this might be the blacksmith himself.

[RoseyCadaver]

I'm a little late to answer this about someone's question on what an anarchic society would do for economics, but I think more or less trading and stealing :P.

There is a stigma with calling yourself an anarchist, people will all of a sudden think that you want total and utter chaos and no control. Which the no control part would be great, if we could deal with the chaos as well.

[aperson444]

I think anarcho-capitalism is a fallacy primarily on the basis of how wage labor would work in said society as well as the gregarious nature of free market economies (aka the free market forms structures and congregations similar to government or the state). However I am a firm supporter of Bakunin's type of argument for anarcho-communism and later the basis of anarcho-syndicalism.

In Socialist Yugoslavia, Marshall Tito modeled a system where the workers actually owned the plan as a collective. This is exactly what is necessary. However Tito succumbed to both Stalinist and Western (Capitalist) influences. Under Tito's Yugoslavia however, there was certainly a good deal of improvement in infrastructure (all of which was destroyed in the Yugoslav conflict).

[Levy]

I'd like to know what you all think of the idea of Anarchism. If you're going to simply reply with the ignorant "We need laws" response without thinking about it and without understanding what Anarchism says in regards to laws and rules then please don't respond at all.


I also think this is particularly poignant given the recent Occupy movement and the anarchists that have latched on to the movement.


To start let me pose a question: Given the now quite obvious failings of Capitalism (unescapable inequality for instance), how effectively do you think Anarchism deals with these issues?
Well, I'm not the most supportive person concerning government, but I don't think anarchism is a great system, I use that world lightly. Just because nothing is ever really equal, that's why Communism isn't very functional, concerning the original idea that it would create a total equal society.

[jacknife]

This is a recommended read for anyone wishing to learn a great deal about anarchy and its various branching political philosophies:
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm

I have a feeling it may even clear up some of the debate here regarding the definition of anarchy, as well as its compatibility with both socialist and capitalist theories.

[AllThatYouDreamed]

Anarchy is an interesting concept, but it depends on people having decent intentions and being capable of the collective interest.
Human nature is selfish (typically) and this is irrational for any large-scale.

I'd be more in favor of a relatively weak state - not full anarchy - that enforces basic things like "no murder, no rape, no assult" ect

[tHe_Jester1080]

If we took away all government, along with it laws, everybody would have the freedom to do whatever they want. You may think awesome, but everything means ANYTHING:rape, murder, abuse, etc. Just because laws aren't there doesn't mean the "bad", selfish, and unlogical people will disappear too.
So basically what I'm saying is that anarchy is a shitty concept and should be flushed down the toilet with all the other shit and forgot about.

[Korashk]

If we took away all government, along with it laws, everybody would have the freedom to do whatever they want.
Not quite.

So basically what I'm saying is that anarchy is a shitty concept and should be flushed down the toilet with all the other shit and forgot about.
Way to just dismiss a concept you know NOTHING about.

[MisterSix]

Well you may have Anarchism for a little while, when the different gangs form and make their own laws/rules.

Thats just what I think...