The Problem with Anarchism

[Jute]

How are those anarchies holding up? Oh yeah.

Your sarcasm is unmerited.

These societies were destroyed by Marxists. No political system will hold up in the face of a much larger army, stateless or statist.

In the case of Spain, it were more the fascists.

[Zottistan]

How are those anarchies holding up? Oh yeah.

Your sarcasm is unmerited.

These societies were destroyed by Marxists. No political system will hold up in the face of a much larger army, stateless or statist.

To be fair, Catalonia wasn't doing too well for itself anyway. That largely boiled down to resource issues because of the relatively small area, so maybe things would have played out differently for them under different circumstances, but the endeavor wasn't nearly as successful as most anarchist literature would have you believe.

[The New Sea Territory]

Your sarcasm is unmerited.

These societies were destroyed by Marxists. No political system will hold up in the face of a much larger army, stateless or statist.

In the case of Spain, it were more the fascists.

...with serious amounts of infighting among the republicans started by the Soviet-backed PSUC.

[Zottistan]

Your sarcasm is unmerited.

These societies were destroyed by Marxists. No political system will hold up in the face of a much larger army, stateless or statist.

In the case of Spain, it were more the fascists.

The collapse of anarchist Catalonia has largely been attributed to internal political maneuverings and sabotage by Marxists and the Soviets.

[The New Sea Territory]

Your sarcasm is unmerited.

These societies were destroyed by Marxists. No political system will hold up in the face of a much larger army, stateless or statist.

To be fair, Catalonia wasn't doing too well for itself anyway. That largely boiled down to resource issues because of the relatively small area, so maybe things would have played out differently for them under different circumstances, but the endeavor wasn't nearly as successful as most anarchist literature would have you believe.

Yeah, it wasn't that successful for a number of reasons.

Still, the actual political system functioned, contrary to the typical "anarchy is impossible" argument.

[Sabrek]

Anarchy has a means of delivering sentences and justice, too, it just comes more directly from the people, rather than a representative institution like state courts.

So the people are in charge.

I.e. somebody is in charge.

Anarchism does not mean that people will not be in charge of one another. There will still be a government in an anarchist society, but not a state. To clarify, I am using Max Weber's definition of the State: "a compulsory political organisation with a centralised government that maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a territory." A government is the political administration of a certain territory; it can be associated with a state, or it can be stateless. While "state" and "government" are often used as synonyms, they aren't.

[Deuxtete]

How are those anarchies holding up? Oh yeah.

Your sarcasm is unmerited.

These societies were destroyed by Marxists. No political system will hold up in the face of a much larger army, stateless or statist.

Israel disagrees.
Greece disagrees.
Imperial Japan disagrees, ask China.
Pre-WII Poland disagrees
The Dutch empire disagrees.
The Colonial United States disagrees.

States, throughout history have been able to organize themselves against, and stand up to numerically superior foes. Try again.

[Deuxtete]

In the case of Spain, it were more the fascists.

...with serious amounts of infighting among the republicans started by the Soviet-backed PSUC.

Wow, they destroyed themselves...go figure. But I thought it was the superior outside force...pick.

[Sabrek]

Your sarcasm is unmerited.

These societies were destroyed by Marxists. No political system will hold up in the face of a much larger army, stateless or statist.

Israel disagrees.
Greece disagrees.
Imperial Japan disagrees, ask China.
Pre-WII Poland disagrees
The Dutch empire disagrees.
The Colonial United States disagrees.

States, throughout history have been able to organize themselves against, and stand up to numerically superior foes. Try again.

France is the reason why the US won its war for independence. Without France distracting much of Great Britain, the war would've gone much differently.

[The New Sea Territory]

Your sarcasm is unmerited.

These societies were destroyed by Marxists. No political system will hold up in the face of a much larger army, stateless or statist.

Israel disagrees.
Greece disagrees.
Imperial Japan disagrees, ask China.
Pre-WII Poland disagrees
The Dutch empire disagrees.
The Colonial United States disagrees.

States, throughout history have been able to organize themselves against, and stand up to numerically superior foes. Try again.

.....you've missed the point.

[Zottistan]

To be fair, Catalonia wasn't doing too well for itself anyway. That largely boiled down to resource issues because of the relatively small area, so maybe things would have played out differently for them under different circumstances, but the endeavor wasn't nearly as successful as most anarchist literature would have you believe.

Yeah, it wasn't that successful for a number of reasons.

Still, the actual political system functioned, contrary to the typical "anarchy is impossible" argument.

Eh. Impossible and unworkable, apples and oranges. The practical and economic side of it is as important if not more so than the political and philosophical.

So the people are in charge.

I.e. somebody is in charge.

Anarchism does not mean that people will not be in charge of one another. There will still be a government in an anarchist society, but not a state. To clarify, I am using Max Weber's definition of the State: "a compulsory political organisation with a centralised government that maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a territory." A government is the political administration of a certain territory; it can be associated with a state, or it can be stateless. While "state" and "government" are often used as synonyms, they aren't.

Using Weber's definition of a state, which most anarchists tend to, the societies they describe are very much so statist. As you say, anarchism doesn't mean that people will not be in charge of one another. In order to be in charge, or to enforce authority, or even to defend a society from external attack, some party needs to have a monopoly on violence. Whether that be a ruling oligarchy or the people doesn't matter; a spade is a spade, a state, by Weber's definition, is a state.

[The New Sea Territory]

...with serious amounts of infighting among the republicans started by the Soviet-backed PSUC.

Wow, they destroyed themselves...go figure. But I thought it was the superior outside force...pick.

..."they" didn't destroy themselves.

The Soviets destroyed Republican Spain. Marxism and anarchism are incompatible, despite the popular front approach Stalin advocated.

[Zottistan]

Israel disagrees.
Greece disagrees.
Imperial Japan disagrees, ask China.
Pre-WII Poland disagrees
The Dutch empire disagrees.
The Colonial United States disagrees.

States, throughout history have been able to organize themselves against, and stand up to numerically superior foes. Try again.

.....you've missed the point.

He does that.

[Wurtemburg-Baden]

So Goverment Which Makes Sure your Protected with a Social Security net,Police,Military and Court if you are Accused of a crime only Protects the Elite?and that Gives you the Right to Freedom of speech,which otherwise you couldn't post what you said Legally?Interesting...

it does not give me any rights to freedom of speech- i am free to speak with or without government. it is just that, with a government around, they have the supposed legitimacy to silence my speech, to limit it however they see fit. it is a little like saying the Native Americans should be glad that the government set aside a small portion of its land for its own use while robbing the rest. it sets up courts to try people according to their own rules (hardly freedom), and use the military and police to coerce people into following their set of rules. some government can be more benevolent than other, just like it is entirely possible to have a slaver who treats his slave well, the institution, however, remains evil. it is primarily an institution which the elite uses to control the mass of people.

So the Goverment the people elected?
And How is Anarchism stable when Literally you can do whatever you want,Including crime,becuase there is no Goverment,and There is no Police force,if their is there's a Goverment,I don't Feel like Arguing with Someone who Won't Adress my points and Consistently says anything that the Majority of People disagree with is what should happen,becuase you seem to want to Get Rid of All Political Freedom in favor of what you want,Becuase Most people aren't Anarchist.

[The New Sea Territory]

Yeah, it wasn't that successful for a number of reasons.

Still, the actual political system functioned, contrary to the typical "anarchy is impossible" argument.

Eh. Impossible and unworkable, apples and oranges. The practical and economic side of it is as important if not more so than the political and philosophical.

Trying to build a functioning economic system while fighting Marxist authorities and fascists backed by powerful nations like Spain and Italy, without any foreign aid other than volunteers (most of whom didn't even fight with the anarchists) is difficult for any political system.

Trying to build anarchism during wartime has been a major flaw with anarchist movements in the last century. This doesn't make anarchism "unworkable".

[Yorkvale]

Government 'gives' you the right to free speech? That is an inalienable right which isn't something that a State should be able to give or dismiss at its whim. I know that isn't what you're saying and that's drawing something out of your statement you didn't intend. However, this is also an inadvertent implication.

Rights aren't natural, they are created by the government or society. The state, currently, is the also the government. They can do as they please, because they have the capability of using mass force to exert their will onto society. They could easily revoke free speech if they wanted to.

Hence why the state should be abolished. I don't trust anyone to act in an altruistic way with such power.

That sounds like an argument a statist would make tbh. Since most states legally define rights as natural.

Also helps that most states have checks and balance put upon themselves and large governing bodies that disagree very often. It's almost as if they were intended to be- o wait, they were.

Pfft, if the US woke up tomorrow and said "that speech thing btw? Throw it out the window" The people would riot, the inner chambers of the Government would crumble, and the supreme court would call the president out of order and congress would throw him out. Unless you think 3/4ths of politicians are just going to agree with that, in which case their careers as public servants would be very short lived. Literally and figuratively.

[Wurtemburg-Baden]

Such as...?

Anarchy has a means of delivering sentences and justice, too, it just comes more directly from the people, rather than a representative institution like state courts.

Are there laws?or can People just Act against what the Consider bad?
Even if there are laws who is gonna make sure that the People who Take matters into their own hands Handle the Cases Properly?

[Jute]

it does not give me any rights to freedom of speech- i am free to speak with or without government. it is just that, with a government around, they have the supposed legitimacy to silence my speech, to limit it however they see fit. it is a little like saying the Native Americans should be glad that the government set aside a small portion of its land for its own use while robbing the rest. it sets up courts to try people according to their own rules (hardly freedom), and use the military and police to coerce people into following their set of rules. some government can be more benevolent than other, just like it is entirely possible to have a slaver who treats his slave well, the institution, however, remains evil. it is primarily an institution which the elite uses to control the mass of people.

So the Goverment the people elected?
And How is Anarchism stable when Literally you can do whatever you want,Including crime,becuase there is no Goverment,and There is no Police force,if their is there's a Goverment,I don't Feel like Arguing with Someone who Won't Adress my points and Consistently says anything that the Majority of People disagree with is what should happen,becuase you seem to want to Get Rid of All Political Freedom in favor of what you want,Becuase Most people aren't Anarchist.

No state doesn't mean there's no law. There's still law in an anarchist society, it's just enforced more directly by the people, rather than through state institutions.

[Zottistan]

Eh. Impossible and unworkable, apples and oranges. The practical and economic side of it is as important if not more so than the political and philosophical.

Trying to build a functioning economic system while fighting Marxist authorities and fascists backed by powerful nations like Spain and Italy, without any foreign aid other than volunteers (most of whom didn't even fight with the anarchists) is difficult for any political system.

Trying to build anarchism during wartime has been a major flaw with anarchist movements in the last century. This doesn't make anarchism "unworkable".

No, but I'd consider the lack of concrete, valid economic models for how an economy in an anarchist society would work while still being desirable a good indicator that no anarchist theories up to date are in practise workable.

I was referring to anarchists generally, not Catalonia.

[Yorkvale]

Eh. Impossible and unworkable, apples and oranges. The practical and economic side of it is as important if not more so than the political and philosophical.

Trying to build a functioning economic system while fighting Marxist authorities and fascists backed by powerful nations like Spain and Italy, without any foreign aid other than volunteers (most of whom didn't even fight with the anarchists) is difficult for any political system.

Trying to build anarchism during wartime has been a major flaw with anarchist movements in the last century. This doesn't make anarchism "unworkable".

Sure it does, a system's viability is for the most part measured on how it can interact with outside forces and account for their existence. If the only way for anarchism to work is if every state in the world gave up their statehood and willed that people do whatever the fuck they want I hate to say it, but anarchism aint happenin

[Jute]

Anarchy has a means of delivering sentences and justice, too, it just comes more directly from the people, rather than a representative institution like state courts.

Are there laws?or can People just Act against what the Consider bad?
Even if there are laws who is gonna make sure that the People who Take matters into their own hands Handle the Cases Properly?

Yes, there are laws, and everyone else in the society is making sure that people who break the law get their proper sentence. They do so because living in a society is more beneficial than living as lawless vagabonds, and therefore have an interest in keeping the society intact.

[Deuxtete]

Israel disagrees.
Greece disagrees.
Imperial Japan disagrees, ask China.
Pre-WII Poland disagrees
The Dutch empire disagrees.
The Colonial United States disagrees.

States, throughout history have been able to organize themselves against, and stand up to numerically superior foes. Try again.

France is the reason why the US won its war for independence. Without France distracting much of Great Britain, the war would've gone much differently.

Colonials were, per the required logic, out numbered.
They presented enough of an issue for the larger for to declare the fight not worth the trouble.

[Wurtemburg-Baden]

Social Mobility isn't a myth, it happens. Living proof right here.

I suppose that you are a billionaire a la Horatio Algers?

Social equality is pretty much a thing under the law. People left to their own devices with 0 social fabric become savage animals. Scheming and looking out for themselves alone.

Humans are naturally eusocial creatures, we have to depend on each other (not as individuals) to survive. One of the reason we evolved so that we can more effectively communicate (as we are doing now) is out of this necessity to work together. So, your claim that we are all brutes is simply unfounded.

Government lays down social fabric. Even if we got rid of the state, people would just form their own Governments and they would eventually morph into the state, because over the years we have chosen this system to be the most effective.

And, yet, there are many people who live in organisations to this day that does not involve a state in any way that we can recognise it. I guess they must have done something wrong if they are not following this natural progression.

We don't have a draft, so those children sort of opted for the job to ensure the political survival of their state. No tyranny here m8

You don't need a draft to coerce people into doing things they probably don't want to do, or trying to convince them of wanting what it not in their best interest.

You Blindly assumed that any Police like thing is Tyrannical,Are the Most Free Populace in the world(New Zealanders) Not have Police or Goverment?
You said that the Person your Quoting said all humans were Brutes,what he/She Actually said was without Social Fabric people become Savages,which does happen.for example,Four Sailors washed Up on a Unknown and Uninhabited Island,They Cannibalised one of their own despite Food Readily Available.Or when the Somalian Goverment Collapsed,You Know what happened.
Or When a Whaling Ship from Nantucket Was sunk by a Sperm whale,some of the Survivors on the Smaller ships on the vessel(which were actually what they used to hunt whales)Ate some of their own.And you Called him/her a Billionaire to Meet your Opressor-Opressed Nonsense.They're are many People that Live in Organizations with No Goverment involvement?Name on.

[Sabrek]

Yeah, it wasn't that successful for a number of reasons.

Still, the actual political system functioned, contrary to the typical "anarchy is impossible" argument.

Eh. Impossible and unworkable, apples and oranges. The practical and economic side of it is as important if not more so than the political and philosophical.

Anarchism does not mean that people will not be in charge of one another. There will still be a government in an anarchist society, but not a state. To clarify, I am using Max Weber's definition of the State: "a compulsory political organisation with a centralised government that maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a territory." A government is the political administration of a certain territory; it can be associated with a state, or it can be stateless. While "state" and "government" are often used as synonyms, they aren't.

Using Weber's definition of a state, which most anarchists tend to, the societies they describe are very much so statist. As you say, anarchism doesn't mean that people will not be in charge of one another. In order to be in charge, or to enforce authority, or even to defend a society from external attack, some party needs to have a monopoly on violence. Whether that be a ruling oligarchy or the people doesn't matter; a spade is a spade, a state, by Weber's definition, is a state.

Anarchist governments, though they may act like states in some ways, are not compulsory. A person is not required to remain a citizen to a government that they disagree with, and would therefore be able to move or start a new government. The former is an incredibly complicated and often expensive process in modern society and the latter often leads to conflict.

[Jute]

Trying to build a functioning economic system while fighting Marxist authorities and fascists backed by powerful nations like Spain and Italy, without any foreign aid other than volunteers (most of whom didn't even fight with the anarchists) is difficult for any political system.

Trying to build anarchism during wartime has been a major flaw with anarchist movements in the last century. This doesn't make anarchism "unworkable".

No, but I'd consider the lack of concrete, valid economic models for how an economy in an anarchist society would work while still being desirable a good indicator that no anarchist theories up to date are in practise workable.

I was referring to anarchists generally, not Catalonia.

What about mutualism, for example? There are plenty of anarchist economy theories.