Anarchism

[Frisivisia]

In all fairness, anarcho-capitalism is one of the more horrible systems I can think of and anarcho-communism is a pipe dream and probably fairly unworkable to boot.

Social Democracy, awaaaaaaaaaaay!

There's a commune my friend is at right now. It works pretty well, apparently, though I haven't spoken to her much recently.
Of course, that's a small-scale eco-anarcho-commune, so make of that what you will.

I've been to one. It's no fun.

[Meryuma]

Fusionism is basically the idea combines traditional social conservatism with anarchism.

Impossible.

Hm. I'm in a dilemma as to whether I agree with you or not. On the one hand There are definitely existent hierarchies in the modern world, Inheritance accounts for that, so I would have to argue that what we have today goes against traditional anarchist definitions BUT I could definitely see how today could fit into the definitions of Anarcho capitalism. So... I think I'm going to have to conclude without some major caveats Anarcho Capitalism is not Anarchism. And thus I still don't agree with you about 1. If we are to consider the classical definition of Anarchism to hold true so : No hierarchies.

If we're going with the classical then i'm going with number 2, that all anarchies have systems, and thus there is no anarchy.

Anarchy doesn't mean "no system", though.

On small scales, anarchism can and has worked very well. On a large scale, it just doesn't work. Some government-like organization will always appear. Whether it be biker gangs or Private military corporations.

It sounds like your source is post-nuclear apocalypse movies more than anything actually having to do with anarchy.

For Anarchism to work, you need to have a genuinely healthy and content society.
I've always said to myself that Anarchism could work if people could be trusted to govern themselves. But the truth is, they can't be trusted. There are wackos out there that need containment. If you have no police force to stop murders or asylums to keep these people, everyone is in danger. People need to be regulated, because if you don't tell them they can't do something, they'll do it.
"Oh, well there isn't a law against it, so it must be legal." That's the problem. Sure, there would be some people who'd be fine- even better off- with Anarchism. But if you include the psychopaths and murderers and rapists, you get complete chaos.
So no, I don't think Anarchy is good.

What if those wackos get into power? Many psychopaths enter business or politics, since they seek power.

Hierarchies aren't voluntary in those models.

How so?
What is the functional difference?
Why is one voluntary and not the other?

Neither are.

No, that's just the assumption. You don't need hierarchy in a society any more than you need hierarchy in a romantic relationship.

No, it isn't. Hierarchies form naturally when the person who has the most influence uses his influence to compel others. People naturally submit to a higher authority, and once that happens the authority (illegitimately) seals his authority through law. The purpose of anarchy then would be to remove this authority that is enforced by law.

There is a lot of psychological tests done on this, if you want me to bring it up.

I think you might be confusing mentorship/informal leadership with power hierarchies.

Yeah, neo Nazism could be described as teenage angst too and it is anything but anarchic.

In all fairness, anarcho-capitalism is one of the more horrible systems I can think of and anarcho-communism is a pipe dream and probably fairly unworkable to boot.

Social Democracy, awaaaaaaaaaaay!

Anarcho-communism has happend and continues to happen.

People are naturally coercive, submit to authority, and organize in groups.

Anarchists organize in groups. Also, anarchism in the form of the band society predates civilization.

There's a commune my friend is at right now. It works pretty well, apparently, though I haven't spoken to her much recently.
Of course, that's a small-scale eco-anarcho-commune, so make of that what you will.

I've been to one. It's no fun.

Go to a better one, then.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

People are naturally coercive, submit to authority, and organize in groups.

Reality suggests otherwise.

That's why history played out like it did.

What a brilliantly simple, concise, common-sense, and all-encompassing interpretation of the entire scope of humanity's experience, that in no way accords with any of the available evidence, you've got there.

[Agorya]

I think you might be confusing mentorship/informal leadership with power hierarchies.

It's a natural hierarchy. An "unnatural" hierarchy would be one ingrained in law and enforced by steel.

[Sociobiology]

People are naturally coercive, submit to authority, and organize in groups.

Reality suggests otherwise.

well only for the second one the other two are solidly true.
there is no known society that does not have coercion and groups.

[Sociobiology]

Anarchists organize in groups. Also, anarchism in the form of the band society predates civilization.

I've been to one. It's no fun.

Go to a better one, then.

the form of behavior modification/social value enforcement those small band societies use is not an option for larger groups.
And small groups means giving up all modern technology.
so you either have to do something else, or get used to smallpox.

[Esse Lucidus]

Finally found a relevant enough topic to me to start posting. Sorry about the spoilers, it's pretty long so I hope it's not a problem.
Anarcho-Capitalism:

There are several problems with different forms of Anarchism as it currently stands on the 21st century stage of events. The first of which is that Anarcho-Capitalists tend to have an unrealistic ideal about the sanctatity and innocence of corporate entities, or just assume that in it's natural state capitalism is just small-time store owners and individuals selling and buying.
If there is capitalism and there is nothing to safeguard against these groups of people, there is and will be unethical situations we can find ourselves in. What kind you may ask? It is the basic instinct of the capitalist storeowner or company owner to expand, so that they have a higher likelihood that their company can survive; this is fair enough to reasonably assume. The only logical outcome would be the largest of these oversized companies engaging in numerous conflicts with each other to gain influence over territory and, probably in the form of corporate espionage, assassination, and as a last resort or where it's more benificial, war.
If companies had complete influence and control over an area, consumers and workers would have no choice but to buy and work for that company unless it's underground or exceptions are made.
In the long term, corporate entities cannot coexist peacefully with the community at large as well as other entities of the same type. Those that do are at a disadvantage to wholely profit-oriented companies with little reason to cut prices if enough influence is forcefully pushed over enough of the population, they can squeeze out as much capital as they can as long as they have the means to make that population completely dependent on the corportation.
Whole-in-whole, Anarcho-Capitalism in practice is far more state-like than an anarchy. I would best describe it as Corporate Anocracy.

Anarcho-Communism:

With Anarcho-Communism, people tend to act like everyone wants the same thing, like there's some cryptic light at the end of the tunnel. As soon as individuality begins, people have opinions and ideas. If those expressions are not open or suppressed by society, it will only create violence. Even in capitalism a significant portion of those politically active have a political ideology outside of traditional capitalism, even though they live in capitalism on a daily basis. I've talked to multiple self-proclaimed Anarcho-Communists that were actually politically active irl, they say that in Anarcho Communism there would simply be a system of independent and autonomous communes on the principles of direct democracy, a representative council, and common ownership of the means of production. There is also a horizontal network of worker's councils through voluntary associations mentioned also sometimes.
The problem with this lies in the fact that the resources of the Earth is not perfectly balanced, so some communes always have more than others. Trade between communes would be nesessary, even if there were a post-scarcity society, there would always be a class of communes with control over the greatest amount of resources and control how the communes with less natural resources access it. There is little mention as well to how the open land between communes will be handled, my impression is that there would be wars fought over it just as there is today, abit in a slightly different form. To counter this, alliances will most likely be forged against other alliances of communes, which is not too much different from states, the only difference is that the class scheme of capitalism would shift to entire groups of people and communes instead. Another factor I worry about is the population being spread too far apart, causing deforestation and war from such small communes being created. It's an interesting idea and I'd like to see if it goes anywhere but right now it just has too many problems in practice to be used effectively.

[Lemanrussland]

People are naturally coercive, submit to authority, and organize in groups.

Reality suggests otherwise.

That's why history played out like it did.

What a brilliantly simple, concise, common-sense, and all-encompassing interpretation of the entire scope of humanity's experience, that in no way accords with any of the available evidence, you've got there.

Governments control nearly all the land on Earth, not Anarcho-communes or whatever idealistic society you have in your imagination.

[Potenco]

Idont even know why im acknowledging the existence of ancaps but whatever.

Quintessentially speaking, Anarcho Capitalists ignore the beneftis and the necessity of mutual aid. Anarcho Communists/Syndicaliss ignore mankinds natural will to power, that natural energy that makes us individuals. It tramples on the will of the Ubermensch

[Regnum Dominae]

Idont even know why im acknowledging the existence of ancaps but whatever.

Quintessentially speaking, Anarcho Capitalists ignore the beneftis and the necessity of mutual aid. Anarcho Communists/Syndicaliss ignore mankinds natural will to power, that natural energy that makes us individuals. It tramples on the will of the Ubermensch

what does this mean?

[Meryuma]

Reality suggests otherwise.


What a brilliantly simple, concise, common-sense, and all-encompassing interpretation of the entire scope of humanity's experience, that in no way accords with any of the available evidence, you've got there.

Governments control nearly all the land on Earth, not Anarcho-communes or whatever idealistic society you have in your imagination.

Slavery used to be pretty much ubiquitous (not saying the two are necessarily equivalent).

Idont even know why im acknowledging the existence of ancaps but whatever.

Quintessentially speaking, Anarcho Capitalists ignore the beneftis and the necessity of mutual aid. Anarcho Communists/Syndicaliss ignore mankinds natural will to power, that natural energy that makes us individuals. It tramples on the will of the Ubermensch

Actually, some anarcho-communists are egoists.

[Wintersun]

A horrible ideology that is just a step or two above fascism. That's my opinion on anarchism. At least on a large scale. On a small scale I think anarchism, like communism, can work. Nothing larger than your average-sized medieval village, though.

The Free Territory disagrees with you...

[Potenco]

Idont even know why im acknowledging the existence of ancaps but whatever.

Quintessentially speaking, Anarcho Capitalists ignore the beneftis and the necessity of mutual aid. Anarcho Communists/Syndicaliss ignore mankinds natural will to power, that natural energy that makes us individuals. It tramples on the will of the Ubermensch

what does this mean?

Ive been getting into Niezche lately and I should have translated that, it made me sound like a Nazi...
Basically its an individual whose will and power transcends societys morality and is above it. He is not immoral but lives by his own moral code. Its never been exactly perfectly defined

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch

[Regnum Dominae]

what does this mean?

Ive been getting into Niezche lately and I should have translated that, it made me sound like a Nazi...
Basically its an individual whose will and power transcends societys morality and is above it. He is not immoral but lives by his own moral code. Its never been exactly perfectly defined

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch

I know what an ubermensch is, I don't see how it relates to arachno-communism.

[Potenco]

Ive been getting into Niezche lately and I should have translated that, it made me sound like a Nazi...
Basically its an individual whose will and power transcends societys morality and is above it. He is not immoral but lives by his own moral code. Its never been exactly perfectly defined

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch

I know what an ubermensch is, I don't see how it relates to arachno-communism.

Basically in trying to collectivise all of society, it tramples on the individual will of some and becomes a kind of forced mediocrity across a society.

[Regnum Dominae]

I know what an ubermensch is, I don't see how it relates to arachno-communism.

Basically in trying to collectivise all of society, it tramples on the individual will of some and becomes a kind of forced mediocrity across a society.

In that case, I agree entirely. It probably would have been better to say it like that instead of "it tramples on the ubermensch".

[Potenco]

I do however agree with Epistimeological Anarchism

[Meryuma]

I know what an ubermensch is, I don't see how it relates to arachno-communism.

Basically in trying to collectivise all of society, it tramples on the individual will of some and becomes a kind of forced mediocrity across a society.

Sounds like exactly the thing historical anarcho-communists have opposed.

[Argentina Leone]

It is a highly unfeasible and very stupid ideology.

[Agritum]

Arachnism is stupid and inevitably leads to tyranny.

Giant spider worship is never good, indeed.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Arachnism is stupid and inevitably leads to tyranny.

Giant spider worship is never good, indeed.

Were you a fly in a previous life?

[Wind in the Willows]

Anarchism is a terrible political ideology.

Arachnism is stupid and inevitably leads to tyranny.

I think you mean Anarchism?

[Sociobiology]

Basically in trying to collectivise all of society, it tramples on the individual will of some and becomes a kind of forced mediocrity across a society.

Sounds like exactly the thing historical anarcho-communists have opposed.

except by advocating band organization instead of state organization they are unintentionally supporting.
individuality as we know it , that is plurality, are dependent on living in a state in practice.
Band societies are not pluralistic.

[Albul]

It can only work if there is no opposition to anarchy. If the anarchist community isn't invaded or infiltrated, then I would believe anarchy would work.

[Sociobiology]

It can only work if there is no opposition to anarchy. If the anarchist community isn't invaded or infiltrated, then I would believe anarchy would work.

sure it can work just not with a thousand people.