Anarchism

[trillobyite]

I don't mean to offend anyone here. But I cannot understand the logic behind anarchism. Anarchism will revert society back to where it stands in places like Somalia-the strong control the weak, warlords hire technicals to slaughter children liviing in an enemy warlord's territory, solely to boost their own image...
Without corporations and government, food, shelter, and clothing will no longer be readily available without a fight, and if obtained, is not processed by any standards of safety and may not be what one thinks it is at all. Oh and music and movies and entertainment? Gone.

I often hear anarchists say people will be "equal". But it's not government that institutes classes such as middle or working class. It's the worthiness of people and what the strong, cunning, or determined, regardless of being benevolent or evil, are willing to do.

Democracy's criticized methods of not representing the people effectively can be solved by amendments, by policy changes, by more frequent elections, but one thing is for sure, and that is anarchism is not the answer.

[hoochan]

Re: Anarchism

Anarchism is basically an excuse for stupid people to justify their stupidity.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Anarchism

Thanks OP, for confusing about 10 different concepts in order to amalgamate them into that pitiful outburst.

Thanks more to hoochan, for giving that dazzling and concise refutation of 3 centuries worth of critical thought on the subject.

Just give me half a second, I'll address what I need to:

Anarchism will revert society back to where it stands in places like Somalia-the strong control the weak, warlords hire technicals to slaughter children liviing in an enemy warlord's territory, solely to boost their own image...

Somalia remains highly political. The problems in Somalia could even be defined as political. The complexity sits in whether you are willing to consider small groups of radicals vying for power as political agents, whether you are capable of recognizing the interplays between religion and military force, and whether you are capable of understanding military forces as political forces. Basically, the problem is not a lack of governance, but an excess of competing governance.

Without corporations and government, food, shelter, and clothing will no longer be readily available without a fight, and if obtained, is not processed by any standards of safety and may not be what one thinks it is at all. Oh and music and movies and entertainment? Gone.

That's nice. This is just one of a number of things you've said that strikes me as ignorant. There are different types of anarchist. Some are Anarcho-Capitalists. They believe in the free market and think corporations are fine. Some are Anarcho-Syndicalists. They usually believe there should be a strong central government put in place to initially serve the role of guiding people in the distribution of property and social custom. They believe in abolishing private ownership as an ultimate goal, and thus believe in abolishing corporations. They take after marxists in believing their ultimate goal to be the elimination of classes by means of eliminating private ownership and giving the means of production to the people. Then there are dumb skater kids and high school social rejects who hate everything and don't know their asses from a hole in the ground. They too often describe themselves as Anarchists.

I often hear anarchists say people will be "equal". But it's not government that institutes classes such as middle or working class. It's the worthiness of people and what the strong, cunning, or determined, regardless of being benevolent or evil, are willing to do.

Perhaps, but economists in the Anarcho-Capitalist tradition or even in the Minarchist tradition such as Murray Rothbard and Milton Friedman believe the government redistribution of wealth means that there is confusion between peoples actions and what they inheret, meaning that government prevents the strong, cunning, and determined from getting the full benefit of their labors. Conversely, thinkers in the tradition of Dialectic Materialism hold that class divisions are created by the actions of an elite who maintain their superiority only by unfair practices. (this is something Anarcho-capitalists believe as well, but they hold that it is purely government that is the cause or otherwise main device that creates this tension, through redistribution and government intervention in economic affairs)

Democracy's criticized methods of not representing the people effectively can be solved by amendments, by policy changes, by more frequent elections, but one thing is for sure, and that is anarchism is not the answer.

First of all, Democracy is just one political system, and often democratic theory isn't even in conflict with the ideals of Anarchists. Secondly, amendments are only capable of being used in a constitutional democracy. Thirdly, this ignores plenty of perfectly reasonable criticisms. For instance, Rothbard and Friedman alike hold that the fundamental difference between a market solution and a democratic solution is that in the market, a purchase is made by each individual for each individual, with their own money, whereas in democracy decisions are made by as little as half the population using all of the populations money. Given the subjective nature of values, this means by definition that the desire/satisfaction ratio remains far from ideal. Democracy also maintains a government which is capable of coercive intervention into the lives of its citizens, meaning even if the military and police forces in a democratic system prevent all crime (which is impossible) or even minimize crime (which Rothbard argues is impossible, given the argued supremacy of his proposed free market defense solution), they still cause unwanted suffering in high degrees; as high; higher even, as their cost of operation, if you consider taxes a form of coercion as Anarcho-Capitalists do.

[hoochan]

Re: Anarchism

anarchism
Main Entry: an·ar·chism
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-"ki-z&m, -"när-
Function: noun
1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

I admit that this would be the ideal lifestyle. But the fact is, our society and the people of today would not be smart enough to follow along with this. So if we even tried to have a anarchist government, people would take advantage of it and everyone would run a muck. People would begin to murder, rob, and wreak havoc simply because they can get away with it.

[devonin]

Re: Anarchism

I admit that this would be the ideal lifestyle. But the fact is, our society and the people of today would not be smart enough to follow along with this. So if we even tried to have a anarchist government, people would take advantage of it and everyone would run a muck. People would begin to murder, rob, and wreak havoc simply because they can get away with it.

This is the usual flaw in the logic of anyone advocating the more extreme socio-political reforms. The exact same logic is used as a refutation of communism and other forms of extreme socialism.

The problem with this objection is that it supposes what would happen if one day someone just said "We're an anarchistic system now, have fun" and in that sense, the objection -is- valid.

The issue though is this: Very very few anarchists or communists that are saying much worth listening to hold that it would be any kind of viable solution to just take the existing representaive democracy-style government and just slap the new one on top.

Obviously if you tell a bunch of greedy capitalists "Hey, we're removing all the overisghts on your practices and actions" all burning hell would break loose.

One of the key lines in the posted defintion of anarchy is that it is "based on voluntary cooperation." That's the key. All the people involved have to -want- to be in that system, and that just won't happen when you enforce it on an existing system before it is ready.

People who use the system as an excuse to justify behavior that works against the ideals of the system isn't "Using the system" and thus propving it wrong...such a person is just -no longer in the system- and would simply be shut out of the entire process.

To put it another way: you said "People would begin to murder, rob, and wreak havoc simply because they can get away with it." Who says they can get away with it? I expect a murderer to be treated -much- more harshly in an anarchistic society than in a democratic one.

[redwrist]

Re: Anarchism

I like the movie SLC punk thats about as close to anarchy as I shall venture

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Anarchism

I admit that this would be the ideal lifestyle. But the fact is, our society and the people of today would not be smart enough to follow along with this. So if we even tried to have a anarchist government, people would take advantage of it and everyone would run a muck. People would begin to murder, rob, and wreak havoc simply because they can get away with it.

"Anarchist government" is a contradiction in terms. It's precisely the lack of government that would prevent people from taking large-scale advantage of others; and, if they tried to take advantage of individuals, tried to murder, rob, wreak havoc, they would inevitably meet with resistance. For instance in Rothbards ideal state, all action is voluntary except the effects the occasional criminal, and the criminal is then punished unwillingly. What's the difference between this setup and the existing government then? Well, hypothetically the competitive nature of the defense industry as well as its reliance on customer satisfaction as its final goal rather than some abstract ideal will minimize non-voluntary action. So effectively, an Anarchist society would have the least of all the problems you mentioned even though it wouldn't neccessary be without them.

This is the usual flaw in the logic of anyone advocating the more extreme socio-political reforms. The exact same logic is used as a refutation of communism and other forms of extreme socialism.

:sigh: I really think you're still stuck in the mindset that Anarchism is neccessarily Anarcho-Syndicalism.

Obviously if you tell a bunch of greedy capitalists "Hey, we're removing all the overisghts on your practices and actions" all burning hell would break loose.

Case in point. But really now, where do you think profits come from? From customers. I don't think customers would be too fond of businesses conducting themselves so poorly.

One of the key lines in the posted defintion of anarchy is that it is "based on voluntary cooperation." That's the key. All the people involved have to -want- to be in that system, and that just won't happen when you enforce it on an existing system before it is ready.

Yes, good point.

People who use the system as an excuse to justify behavior that works against the ideals of the system isn't "Using the system" and thus propving it wrong...such a person is just -no longer in the system- and would simply be shut out of the entire process.

Actually I would question whether an anarchistic society would have a "system" at all, but this is on the right track.

To put it another way: you said "People would begin to murder, rob, and wreak havoc simply because they can get away with it." Who says they can get away with it? I expect a murderer to be treated -much- more harshly in an anarchistic society than in a democratic one.

A lot of thinkers have dedicated themselves to trying to show exactly what kinds of deterence would be in place in an anarchist society. The consensus among them is at least usually that no, they wouldn't be able to get away with crime. At least not any more so than they already are under existing political systems and systems of deterence. As to whether or not they would be treated more harshly in an Anarchist society than in the present society, this would be very difficult to tell and ultimately I doubt that the punishment for a criminal in an Anarchist society would exceed current punishment. Or at least, I would expect the form of punishment that was ultimately adopted most universally to be the one that was most effective. Conversely to common nonsense, policies of punishment built around maximum deterence almost always have the exact opposite effect.

I like the movie SLC punk thats about as close to anarchy as I shall venture

...

[trillobyite]

Re: Anarchism

Thanks OP, for confusing about 10 different concepts in order to amalgamate them into that pitiful outburst.

Thanks more to hoochan, for giving that dazzling and concise refutation of 3 centuries worth of critical thought on the subject.

Just give me half a second, I'll address what I need to:



Somalia remains highly political. The problems in Somalia could even be defined as political. The complexity sits in whether you are willing to consider small groups of radicals vying for power as political agents, whether you are capable of recognizing the interplays between religion and military force, and whether you are capable of understanding military forces as political forces. Basically, the problem is not a lack of governance, but an excess of competing governance.



That's nice. This is just one of a number of things you've said that strikes me as ignorant. There are different types of anarchist. Some are Anarcho-Capitalists. They believe in the free market and think corporations are fine. Some are Anarcho-Syndicalists. They usually believe there should be a strong central government put in place to initially serve the role of guiding people in the distribution of property and social custom. They believe in abolishing private ownership as an ultimate goal, and thus believe in abolishing corporations. They take after marxists in believing their ultimate goal to be the elimination of classes by means of eliminating private ownership and giving the means of production to the people. Then there are dumb skater kids and high school social rejects who hate everything and don't know their asses from a hole in the ground. They too often describe themselves as Anarchists.



Perhaps, but economists in the Anarcho-Capitalist tradition or even in the Minarchist tradition such as Murray Rothbard and Milton Friedman believe the government redistribution of wealth means that there is confusion between peoples actions and what they inheret, meaning that government prevents the strong, cunning, and determined from getting the full benefit of their labors. Conversely, thinkers in the tradition of Dialectic Materialism hold that class divisions are created by the actions of an elite who maintain their superiority only by unfair practices. (this is something Anarcho-capitalists believe as well, but they hold that it is purely government that is the cause or otherwise main device that creates this tension, through redistribution and government intervention in economic affairs)



First of all, Democracy is just one political system, and often democratic theory isn't even in conflict with the ideals of Anarchists. Secondly, amendments are only capable of being used in a constitutional democracy. Thirdly, this ignores plenty of perfectly reasonable criticisms. For instance, Rothbard and Friedman alike hold that the fundamental difference between a market solution and a democratic solution is that in the market, a purchase is made by each individual for each individual, with their own money, whereas in democracy decisions are made by as little as half the population using all of the populations money. Given the subjective nature of values, this means by definition that the desire/satisfaction ratio remains far from ideal. Democracy also maintains a government which is capable of coercive intervention into the lives of its citizens, meaning even if the military and police forces in a democratic system prevent all crime (which is impossible) or even minimize crime (which Rothbard argues is impossible, given the argued supremacy of his proposed free market defense solution), they still cause unwanted suffering in high degrees; as high; higher even, as their cost of operation, if you consider taxes a form of coercion as Anarcho-Capitalists do.

Well thanks for the info on different forms of anarchism. I guess I can see it from the viewpoint of Anarcho-capitalists the most.

But about Somalia- I really don't think "political" is an appropriate term to describe the region. Different factions competing for power can hardly be called political. Such events indicate a civil war and bloodshed solely for the purpose of gaining power- warlords are not fighting to create any establishment by which they can provide basic services to the people, but rather, bestially, gunning down anyone and anything such that it improves their image and power. People can join these factions, but they don't operate like political parties and don't debate "issues" in any form whatsoever- if anything, they are most similar to gangs, and only if gangs can be considered political, can Somalia be considered political. Ironically the only instances of sanity and order in Somalia, and non-mass bloodshed, are in regions which have formed independent states with established governments, like Puntland, but those tend to be theocratic.

The anarchists I was describing primarily, and who I end up in contact with, are those high shcool rejects you mentioned. Bust most of them subscribe to the marxist form of anarchism. Imo, I don't see any correlation between an "initial" impulse by a strong central government and the ability of "the people" to magically distribute services and production on their own. Most people want to further their own agenda, and would be too busy trying to gain more control of production than anyone else than to take lessons from some pseudo-government trying to provide "guidance". And the only result will be those powerful few creating what will end up being corporations all over again.

Government resdistribution of wealth may not be perfect in ensuring that the determined and hard-working will get what they deserve, but it is just that, imperfect. All these alternatives, communism, marxist anarchism....I can't understand the theoretical or practical logic of how such ideologies can help those who deserve more by putting in more effort get what they deserve. Capitalism, by its very definition, relies on competition and human innovation & entrepreunerial ability, and some bureacratic red-tape and screw-ups inevitably caused by democracy are not enough, imo, to justify the abolition of government.

If a government instituting too much power povides great safety but loss of freedom and thus dissatisfaction, that is just the opposite extreme. I'm not a totalatarian. But anarchism suggests that no safety be provided, no controls on anyone's life, and all that wonderful freedom we want will be given alongside the freedom of others we would rather not see free (potential rapists and murderers, bloody power-seekers and anything else), and the only conceivable result is chaos.

[devonin]

Re: Anarchism

But anarchism suggests that no safety be provided, no controls on anyone's life, and all that wonderful freedom we want will be given alongside the freedom of others we would rather not see free (potential rapists and murderers, bloody power-seekers and anything else), and the only conceivable result is chaos.

The freedom to swing your arm stops where my face starts. Nobody says that "no government" means "People are allowed to do absolutely anything with no consequences whatsoever"

[trillobyite]

Re: Anarchism

The freedom to swing your arm stops where my face starts. Nobody says that "no government" means "People are allowed to do absolutely anything with no consequences whatsoever"

And what will those consequences be if there is no police force to stop them? That you yourself will beat up whoever fights with you? Maybe bring some friends along? Maybe then some people will beat up your friends? And so on...

If there are no freedoms being specifically granted or taken away by a government, then the freedom to punch you in the face will be possesed by everyone, as is your freedom to punch someone else in the face without provocation.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Anarchism

Well thanks for the info on different forms of anarchism. I guess I can see it from the viewpoint of Anarcho-capitalists the most.

Me too.

But about Somalia- I really don't think "political" is an appropriate term to describe the region. Different factions competing for power can hardly be called political.

I don't understand why not.

Such events indicate a civil war and bloodshed solely for the purpose of gaining power- warlords are not fighting to create any establishment by which they can provide basic services to the people, but rather, bestially, gunning down anyone and anything such that it improves their image and power.

I don't see how this makes it a non-political affair. Most political systems are coercive and dominating: Dictatorships, Morachies, etc.

People can join these factions, but they don't operate like political parties and don't debate "issues" in any form whatsoever- if anything, they are most similar to gangs, and only if gangs can be considered political, can Somalia be considered political. Ironically the only instances of sanity and order in Somalia, and non-mass bloodshed, are in regions which have formed independent states with established governments, like Puntland, but those tend to be theocratic.

In the absense of any other political system, gangs could easily be considered political. Hell, even in the presense of other political systems; just look at the histroy of northern ireland.

The anarchists I was describing primarily, and who I end up in contact with, are those high shcool rejects you mentioned.

No offense, but I sort of assumed that to be the case.

Bust most of them subscribe to the marxist form of anarchism. Imo, I don't see any correlation between an "initial" impulse by a strong central government and the ability of "the people" to magically distribute services and production on their own.

Me neither.

Most people want to further their own agenda, and would be too busy trying to gain more control of production than anyone else than to take lessons from some pseudo-government trying to provide "guidance". And the only result will be those powerful few creating what will end up being corporations all over again.

Well... not exactly. Corporations are hardly political systems. The problem with any system of central economic organization is that greedy people will use the system to acquire capital rather than honest, voluntary trade practices. To be fair, the outcome of something like this would quite possibly end up being a world/country with only a few monopolistic companies running the entire market due to the goverment preventing people from entering the market and other such things.

Government resdistribution of wealth may not be perfect in ensuring that the determined and hard-working will get what they deserve, but it is just that, imperfect.

Actually, I would go so far as to say it's the government redistribution of wealth which is the imperfection in the system. The mere presence of it, not the method of it. It creates flaws, it doesn't repair them.

All these alternatives, communism, marxist anarchism....I can't understand the theoretical or practical logic of how such ideologies can help those who deserve more by putting in more effort get what they deserve.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Capitalism, by its very definition, relies on competition and human innovation & entrepreunerial ability, and some bureacratic red-tape and screw-ups inevitably caused by democracy are not enough, imo, to justify the abolition of government.

The problem is that government interference in the economy (in a democratic system or otherwise) is much, much more damaging than you seem to think it is. Be sure you recognize the distinction between a form of government, which may differ from place to place, and the fundamental effects caused by government interference in the economy, which are always the same.

If a government instituting too much power povides great safety but loss of freedom and thus dissatisfaction, that is just the opposite extreme.

The problem with this is, where do you draw the cutoff? How many units of suffering have to be present before a government crosses the line? This is ultimately a silly way of thinking.

But anarchism suggests that no safety be provided, no controls on anyone's life, and all that wonderful freedom we want will be given alongside the freedom of others we would rather not see free (potential rapists and murderers, bloody power-seekers and anything else), and the only conceivable result is chaos.

Actually anarchism, or at least Anarcho-Capitalism, suggests that safety should be provided by the market. IE, you can buy a gun, or the services of a security force, as opposed to our present system which finances itself by taxes (and currently if people are unwilling to pay taxes uses a gun to extract the money from them). Ultimately the conception of chaos as a result of Anarchy is quite silly. Everyone has the power to harm. Right now I could go to my attic, get a rifle, walk outside and shoot someone. I don't though, firstly because I have no desire to, and secondly because the result of that would be something I wouldn't enjoy.

Now, doesn't it hold that in a society which still allowed for self-defense and still allowed for others to come to your defense, the incentive to not behave violently would still be there? Doesn't it also hold that people who can't plan ahead far enough to see disincentives and who have an overwhelming desire to hurt others do so now? Freedom is the starting point of all human beings, freedom is just taken away when doing so limits harm, such as when it limits criminals from further criminality. The idea and ideal behind at least an Anarcho-Capitalist system of defense is that no more freedom than neccessary is taken away.

[trillobyite]

Re: Anarchism

I don't see how this makes it a non-political affair. Most political systems are coercive and dominating: Dictatorships, Morachies, etc.

Dictatorships and monarchies imply that peasants, subjects, and the people are being given something in exchange for their loyalty and devotion; under feudalism, peasants worked for a lord in return for "rent" of that very land and protection by knights, in a dictatorship, loyalty to the leader is rewarded with basic needs and no persecution. But when different factions are competing for power, they don't intend to service the people in any way like a normal government; they intend solely to improve their image, to be coercive yes, but through bloodthirsty attacks against the innocent, not even ruling through fear, but by rule of the gun. A whole region engulfed in a conflict like that does not represent anything political to me.

I'd like to respond to the rest (or read it for that matter) but I have AP exams coming up and I've been spending most of the day studying and I really need to rest...in fact, don't be surprised if I don't respond for a week or so...I'm going to be very busy. I didn't really think this would become a big debate, but anyway I will return later.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Anarchism

Dictatorships and monarchies imply that peasants, subjects, and the people are being given something in exchange for their loyalty and devotion; under feudalism, peasants worked for a lord in return for "rent" of that very land and protection by knights, in a dictatorship, loyalty to the leader is rewarded with basic needs and no persecution.

This isn't neccessarily the case. Usually what's "given" to peasents, who represent 90% of the population in feudalistic systems, is their lives in exchange for having to give 90% of their crops to lords. Hardly a satisfactory or even customer oriented exchange. The very ideas about property back then represented the inequities of the political system.

But when different factions are competing for power, they don't intend to service the people in any way like a normal government;

There is no "normal" for you to compare against.

they intend solely to improve their image, to be coercive yes, but through bloodthirsty attacks against the innocent, not even ruling through fear, but by rule of the gun. A whole region engulfed in a conflict like that does not represent anything political to me.

It sounds to me like your only objection to treating somalia as a political problem is the complexity and ever-changing nature of the power dynamics. Rule of the gun is just the first step towards rule by fear, it's just that, at least in somalia, the political force never establishes itself to the point for the people to acclimatize themselves to the system.

I'd like to respond to the rest (or read it for that matter) but I have AP exams coming up and I've been spending most of the day studying and I really need to rest...in fact, don't be surprised if I don't respond for a week or so...I'm going to be very busy. I didn't really think this would become a big debate, but anyway I will return later.

Ok. Good luck on your exams.

[Wootsicle]

Re: Anarchism

I'm sorry for posting this in CT, because it's not critical thinking at all, but

Your oxymoron for the day is: Anarchist Convention.

Hehe, I had to.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Anarchism

I'm sorry for posting this in CT, because it's not critical thinking at all, but

Your oxymoron for the day is: Anarchist Convention.

Hehe, I had to.

Well, it actually brings up something important. Is organization at odds with anarchy? Well, in the sense that "Anarchy" literally means without rules, perhaps it does, but perhaps in this sense "Anarchist" is also a misnomer. The general spirit, at least of the Anarcho-Capitalist, is not one that desires no order, simply one that rejects order created outside of voluntary contract. I'm not even going to bother trying to explain the conceptions of the anarcho-syndicalist though as I think they're fundamentally incoherent.