Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Anarchism

Posted Sep 28, '12 at 9:42pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,842 posts

Knight

1) It's not like our current regime is lacking in the violence department. Is it better to have murder on a mass scale, i.e. wars, as opposed to the retribution type killings mentioned earlier here?

We haven't seen a world wide conflagration on the scale of WWII since 1945. I would say that the world has largely grown increasingly peaceful, we might have multiple guerilla wars and small scale insurgencies, but we definitely haven't seen major engagements. Would it therefore be better to live in Ana anarchy? No. The constant fear that your neighbor might just kill you isn't one that I would like to endure.

2) Some posts suggest that society cannot function without a government. Looking at history, we can see how people used to think society cannot function without the Church. The Church's authority was so that people could not get married, conduct business (oaths administered regarding credit sales), be educated, or be cared for while sick. Society has adapted to the increasing lack of church influence on daily life, and it most likely will adapt to decentralization or even abolishment of state.

But therein lies a problem. Or a few maybe. The Church has only had influence in Europe or areas with heavy European influence. What about countries such as China, Korea, Japan where such a phenomenon has never happened? It seems an overtly Western analysis. Secondly, yes the people have adapted. But that was because there was still the aegis of the state to provide the law and order. Thirdly, the Church and State are two profoundly different organizations;  they're function migt sometimes overlap, but they are largely separate.

 

Posted Sep 29, '12 at 1:43am

_Spaz_

_Spaz_

126 posts

"So instead of trying to provide counter arguments he quits, okay.

are there any other anarchists on here to debate it?

~~~Darth Caedus"

I fight everyday for my beliefs, I just happen to know when to stop arguing and bickering.
My time in this forum is done, hope some one else can put their ideas in here.

 

Posted Sep 29, '12 at 2:11am

Kasic

Kasic

5,566 posts

I'll step up and take the side of Anarchism.

May not be typical to most...

A self controlled world where no government exists and no formal institutions with power over others are. Each person would live in a way which allows them to get along with their neighbors and people they do business with. There wouldn't be general mayhem or the acceptance of actions which harm or deprive others of their belongings due to that if such actions are taken, they won't be tolerated by their peers.

Idealistic, yes, but not out of the question either. It would work best in smaller communities (much in the same way communism works better in smaller, independent groups) and would only be local due to the nature of there being no formal groupings.

Anyone want to argue any of this? I can add parts on this this hypothetical if it comes up. Basically, I disagree with the notion that without a 'governing' body society wouldn't be able to sustain itself.

 

Posted Sep 29, '12 at 7:26am

Skyla

Skyla

297 posts

But therein lies a problem. Or a few maybe. The Church has only had influence in Europe or areas with heavy European influence. What about countries such as China, Korea, Japan where such a phenomenon has never happened? It seems an overtly Western analysis. Secondly, yes the people have adapted. But that was because there was still the aegis of the state to provide the law and order. Thirdly, the Church and State are two profoundly different organizations;  they're function migt sometimes overlap, but they are largely separate.

I was using the Church as an example of how society adapts to change, hence the argument stands even if not universal. My point is that anarchism is not synonymous with disorder, a lack of state does not mean a lack of organization. You say the aegis of state provides law and order, I can argue that law and order is what permits the state to exist. Just as law and order will still exist in an anarchist society, except it won't be under an authoritarian guise. Take for example the many employers' association, most would not be run as authoritarian organizations as employers are independent. Now look at trade unions, which usually adopt an authoritarian discipline, as employees are not self-sufficient. Which brings me to my point, in an anarchist society we would all be as independent as the aforementioned employers in employers' organizations.

Would it therefore be better to live in Ana anarchy? No. The constant fear that your neighbor might just kill you isn't one that I would like to endure.

You are suggesting that in an anarchist society, social norms would be abandoned and violence widespread. Just as organizations form to help people when the state is not sufficient (e.g. **** crisis centers in the 1970s), society would be able to fill the roles that the state supposedly plays. Crime investigations would be carried out by people, just as quaestors investigated crimes in the Roman Empire.

The state is but a concept that consists of people, throw away the concept and the people will still exist. All the functions that the state provides can be provided by any group of people. The point is to eliminate the authority of the state over all these functions, this would still allow the functions to exist, but at the same time retain people's equality.

 

Posted Sep 29, '12 at 7:58am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,842 posts

Knight

Idealistic, yes, but not out of the question either. It would work best in smaller communities (much in the same way communism works better in smaller, independent groups) and would only be local due to the nature of there being no formal groupings.

Our world isn't one dotted with small communities. A significant proportion of us live in huge urban dwellings.

I was using the Church as an example of how society adapts to change, hence the argument stands even if not universal. My point is that anarchism is not synonymous with disorder, a lack of state does not mean a lack of organization. You say the aegis of state provides law and order, I can argue that law and order is what permits the state to exist. Just as law and order will still exist in an anarchist society, except it won't be under an authoritarian guise. Take for example the many employers' association, most would not be run as authoritarian organizations as employers are independent. Now look at trade unions, which usually adopt an authoritarian discipline, as employees are not self-sufficient. Which brings me to my point, in an anarchist society we would all be as independent as the aforementioned employers in employers' organizations.

It proves that we can adapt to the change that is the declining role of religion and religion that is controlled. It doesn't directly prove that we can adapt to a situation without a final overiding authority.

We have many examples even today that show state exist in a confused shamble of disarray and lawlessness. The State's main feature arguably isna central body that seeks to enact control over denied boudaries. We have seen the implementation of workers' committees and soviets along more democratic lines, yet most if not all have failed. Yugoslavia's soviets for example were one of the better run systems, yet they collapsed because the workers all unanimously voted for increased wages. Size is furthermore a considerable constrain in the modern world. How will the large cosmopolitan centers be rjn solely by workers today?

You are suggesting that in an anarchist society, social norms would be abandoned and violence widespread. Just as organizations form to help people when the state is not sufficient (e.g. **** crisis centers in the 1970s), society would be able to fill the roles that the state supposedly plays. Crime investigations would be carried out by people, just as quaestors investigated crimes in the Roman Empire.

Quaestors Were government officials, part of the state apparatus. I am not suggesting an inexorable rise in violence and abandonment of social decencies. What I am pointing out, is there will be the lack of a state to enforce rules on existing criminals. I am not inclined towards leaving justice and law in the hands of the people, which is democratic and allows more freedom and a stake in the system, yet are inexperienced in matters of law. We might also see the problem of  enforcement on the ground, what about the police force? Who will control them? If they didnt exist, who will mediate legal disputes?

The state is but a concept that consists of people, throw away the concept and the people will still exist. All the functions that the state provides can be provided by any group of people. The point is to eliminate the authority of the state over all these functions, this would still allow the functions to exist, but at the same time retain people's equality.

The state isn't merely a concept. It is an organized body that manages the affairs of a country, it's laws, it's economy( which requires a heavy government hand as history has shown), it's relation to the outside world ( all the more important in a globalized world, where we depend on goods and services from virtually the whole globe). A group of people is what it is, but what is invested in it is the authority and standing it has on the domestic, regional and international front. A group of people cannot manage the affairs of a whole country if we decentralize power to that extent. Most anarchist theories point towards smaller communes, yet this is impossible in the real world. Who will negotiate the agreement with mines, oil companies, and the lot for one? The state has the authority to make sure such deals go through. Who has the authority to regulate patterns of trade to make sure fair practices are in place ( And those Chinese companies aren't practicing dumping?)? who would have the authority and financial power to maintain our exchange rates and currency value? Not a mere group of people.

 

Posted Sep 29, '12 at 10:11am

danielo

danielo

1,365 posts

ill make it short. its nice to want a world of sheeps. but remmeber, there are wolves out there. when you say "equality", there will be alwasy a man that will use it to gain power. people dont like to think for themselve ,they like to have  sheperd. i never saw peoples build a bridge without a higher power who tell them so, orginize things and etc.
Its just not natural. we are a herd animal. From the start we followed one man. We are not Tigers. we are lions. we go in groups, some fight to be in the top, but most just follow teh leader. its easier and more effective.

 

Posted Sep 29, '12 at 11:43am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,667 posts

Knight

Crime investigations would be carried out by people, just as quaestors investigated crimes in the Roman Empire.

A crime is a violation of a rule or law. Since in an anarchist society by definition has no rules there could be no crime on the level of a society.

 

Posted Sep 29, '12 at 12:35pm

Salvidian

Salvidian

3,950 posts

A crime is a violation of a rule or law. Since in an anarchist society by definition has no rules there could be no crime on the level of a society.

Well, there would obviously be some sort of crime by our current definition, but no, there wouldn't essentially be any crime if there isn't way to determine what crime is.

Crime investigations would be carried out by people, just as quaestors investigated crimes in the Roman Empire.

Which would undoubtedly lead to more crime (by modern definition). You'd get people similar to vigilantes running things, and by human nature, these vigilantes would gather together to kill their enemies, right? Yeah. That pretty much begins societies, and leads to, well, everything we have today.

 

Posted Sep 29, '12 at 2:30pm

danielo

danielo

1,365 posts

So you say like the beduians? blood revenge? your family member go do avenge a stolen car and stuff? who will decide which is right and which is wrong? as anrachism, you cant let a judge rule you. so e are going back to beduians tribes. the stronger is the right. so you group up. and someone is the one who you all respect and Recognize his leadership abilities. and we go back to monarchy, or even only Constitutional monarchy. see?

you can live in anarchy only as a family group. as a tribe. and even in a tribe there are the elders or just the one with leadership skills which you all trust.

anarchy may only happen in the weeks after a zombie apocalyps {look at dead zone for exmple}. but what is that? a leader?!
yes. there is always one. always.

anarchy is a innocente dream. for religios peopels, its like life without god. so who decied what is right and wrong? you? you are god, king or whatever of yourself? let me remind you, countries go to war because of that. so just now, Instead of having a nation behind you, you are on your own. deal with things alone.

all by yourself, with no reason to more than 30 people to help you. as i said, no one in asia will agree to give you some kind of food, just because you promiss them that one day you will give them something back. and i can guese you wont move there with a cow just to get some Ingredients for a coke-cola.

this only will get us 3000 years back. adn it wasent fun then.

 

Posted Sep 29, '12 at 4:43pm

Skyla

Skyla

297 posts

How will the large cosmopolitan centers be rjn solely by workers today?

The same way it's run today. Our current system involves appointing a handful of people to represent the majority of the people. Anarchism allows the whole of the people to represent themselves. Also, it's not just the workers, but the collective whole. Anarchism is not opposed to organization, just the bureaucratic or vertical structure of organization. With an adhocratic or organic structure, questions like "We need to accomplish task X, how do you think we should do it?" are asked, as opposed to "I'm the appointed representative and you will do X by...".

I am not suggesting an inexorable rise in violence and abandonment of social decencies. What I am pointing out, is there will be the lack of a state to enforce rules on existing criminals.

I see your point but think about peoples' motives for committing crime. If, for example, the mutualist approach to anarchism was implemented, there would be no motive to commit crimes. You help out and you're taken care of. There would be no point to leading a life of crime if you get educated and fed for free.

Obviously, if anarchism was implemented overnight, there would be rampant chaos and disorder. This is not due to the faults of the philosophy itself, but due to the way of life we have grown accustomed to in recent history. We are so used to having the state act as a babysitter that we lost our individual self-sufficiency. Anarchism, however, could work if it follows a period of limited government influence such as Laissez-faire capitalism. If we relearn our ability to care for ourselves (as small groups not individuals), then we can serve a valuable function in an anarchist society.

 
Reply to Anarchism

You must be logged in to post a reply!