Anarchism Discussion Thread

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Looks like we need another one. Let's start with what anarchism actually is.

From Wikipedia:

"Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies, often defined as self-governed, voluntary institutions, but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful. While anti-statism is central, anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system."

Stealing from Merizoc's OP:

The Anarchist Library
Black and Green Press
Anarchism.net
LibCom.org
Center for a Stateless Society

If anyone has anything else to add to here, just let me know.

So, as for myself: I am in a state of flux at the moment. I've always identified primarily as an anarchist without adjectives. Economically favoring mutualism, but also identifying with illegalism, individualism, and insurrectionary anarchism. However, I've begun to have doubts about mutualism, and am considering a shift to collectivism or communism.

Let the discussion begin.

[New Werpland]

Not again.....

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Not again.....

If you don't want to be involved, don't post.

It's that simple.

[New Werpland]

Not again.....

If you don't want to be involved, don't post.

It's that simple.

Twice in one year?

[Shiraan]

There will always be those who would disobey the law. In addition collectivization and socialization will require an immense state presence to enforce compliance. This is diametrically opposed to idea of a limited government that is inherent in libertarianism. Therefore I have concluded that libertarianism and socialism are incompatible, and the term libertarian socialism is an oxymoron.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

If you don't want to be involved, don't post.

It's that simple.

Twice in one year?

As opposed to every other topic, that gets at least ten or fifteen?

[Rusozak]

Anarchy, like communism, is idealist, not realistic. It sounds good on paper, but it just can't work. Humans are too independent and self-interested by nature. You would need to redesign the human brain for it to work.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Anarchy, like communism, is idealist, not realistic. It sounds good on paper, but it just can't work. Humans are too independent and self-interested by nature. You would need to redesign the human brain for it to work.

"Human nature" adapts to the environment which it is placed in.

[The Wolven League]

The problem with anarchism, other than the lack of any "organized" method to preventing/punishing crime, is that eventually, some of the individual communities or another is going to found some sort of state. More likely than not, with no government to enforce said anarchism, tiny little city-states will eventually rise up and it just becomes your average part of the world.

[MERIZoC]

Stealing from Merizoc's OP? Nah, let's call it communal borrowing.

[The Wolven League]

Anarchy, like communism, is idealist, not realistic. It sounds good on paper, but it just can't work. Humans are too independent and self-interested by nature. You would need to redesign the human brain for it to work.

"Human nature" adapts to the environment which it is placed in.

But anyone who was not grown up in that environment and is suddenly thrust into an anarchy isn't going to suddenly say "Wow, this is great! I'm totally not going to commit any crime that I want to or try to get myself king!"

And even then, if an anarchy somehow survived beyond a few generations, there is always going to be some people who think differently.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

The problem with anarchism, other than the lack of any "organized" method to preventing/punishing crime, is that eventually, some of the individual communities or another is going to found some sort of state. More likely than not, with no government to enforce said anarchism, tiny little city-states will eventually rise up and it just becomes your average part of the world.

Anarchy rejects a State, not government.

If anarchy works, there would be no significant desire for a State, and attempts at creating one could be halted rather quickly.

[New Werpland]

Anarchy, like communism, is idealist, not realistic. It sounds good on paper, but it just can't work. Humans are too independent and self-interested by nature. You would need to redesign the human brain for it to work.

"Human nature" adapts to the environment which it is placed in.

And we lack the material, societal, and psychological state to become an Anarchist society.

[Conscentia]

Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies, often defined as self-governed, voluntary institutions, but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful. While anti-statism is central, anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.

How do you govern without hierarchy? Making every decision by consensus is impossible on large scales.

[New Werpland]

Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies, often defined as self-governed, voluntary institutions, but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful. While anti-statism is central, anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.

How do you govern without hierarchy? Making every decision by consensus is impossible on large scales.

Dividing the population into millions of little communities. Though as someone earlier on pointed out, that may require mass killings.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

"Human nature" adapts to the environment which it is placed in.

But anyone who was not grown up in that environment and is suddenly thrust into an anarchy isn't going to suddenly say "Wow, this is great! I'm totally not going to commit any crime that I want to or try to get myself king!"

And even then, if an anarchy somehow survived beyond a few generations, there is always going to be some people who think differently.

The only "crimes" someone would commit in anarchy would be ones that happen in statism anyway.

Murder, for instance. Slavery. Etc. Thing is, in anarchy, the only laws would be ones halting you from taking the freedom of others.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies, often defined as self-governed, voluntary institutions, but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful. While anti-statism is central, anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.

How do you govern without hierarchy? Making every decision by consensus is impossible on large scales.

There wouldn't exactly be any need for some large forum of voters, considering the lack of "decisions" that would really need to be made.

[Toe-Cheeseland]

There will always be those who would disobey the law. In addition collectivization and socialization will require an immense state presence to enforce compliance. This is diametrically opposed to idea of a limited government that is inherent in libertarianism. Therefore I have concluded that libertarianism and socialism are incompatible, and the term libertarian socialism is an oxymoron.

All it requires is that current bourgeois landowners and the like reduce the absolute authority they currently have over property to a level equal to everyone else.

How much authority does it take to break a slave's chains, despite their master's protests about 'property rights', when the slave yearns for freedom?

[Shiraan]

But anyone who was not grown up in that environment and is suddenly thrust into an anarchy isn't going to suddenly say "Wow, this is great! I'm totally not going to commit any crime that I want to or try to get myself king!"

And even then, if an anarchy somehow survived beyond a few generations, there is always going to be some people who think differently.

The only "crimes" someone would commit in anarchy would be ones that happen in statism anyway.

Murder, for instance. Slavery. Etc. Thing is, in anarchy, the only laws would be ones halting you from taking the freedom of others.

who's gonna enforce the law?

[The Wolven League]

The problem with anarchism, other than the lack of any "organized" method to preventing/punishing crime, is that eventually, some of the individual communities or another is going to found some sort of state. More likely than not, with no government to enforce said anarchism, tiny little city-states will eventually rise up and it just becomes your average part of the world.

Anarchy rejects a State, not government.

If anarchy works, there would be no significant desire for a State, and attempts at creating one could be halted rather quickly.

But would small local governments not eventually desire independence and a more centralized state?

[The Wolven League]

The only "crimes" someone would commit in anarchy would be ones that happen in statism anyway.

Murder, for instance. Slavery. Etc. Thing is, in anarchy, the only laws would be ones halting you from taking the freedom of others.

who's gonna enforce the law?

Local sheriffs or bounty hunters or whatever, I'd assume.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Edited the poll- might want to check your votes.

[The Wolven League]

But anyone who was not grown up in that environment and is suddenly thrust into an anarchy isn't going to suddenly say "Wow, this is great! I'm totally not going to commit any crime that I want to or try to get myself king!"

And even then, if an anarchy somehow survived beyond a few generations, there is always going to be some people who think differently.

The only "crimes" someone would commit in anarchy would be ones that happen in statism anyway.

Murder, for instance. Slavery. Etc. Thing is, in anarchy, the only laws would be ones halting you from taking the freedom of others.

In other words, rape, slavery, and murder all sound like good freedoms to you. Is that what you are saying?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Anarchy rejects a State, not government.

If anarchy works, there would be no significant desire for a State, and attempts at creating one could be halted rather quickly.

But would small local governments not eventually desire independence and a more centralized state?

...independence? From what? Themselves?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

The only "crimes" someone would commit in anarchy would be ones that happen in statism anyway.

Murder, for instance. Slavery. Etc. Thing is, in anarchy, the only laws would be ones halting you from taking the freedom of others.

In other words, rape, slavery, and murder all sound like good freedoms to you. Is that what you are saying?

...wat. How the fuck did you get that.