The stupidity of anarchism

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

How does Anarchism propose society protects itself without the state? Foremost, how does Anarchism define "the state" as separate from the concept of government? My Anarcho-Syndicalist friends have tried to convince me of Anarcho-Syndicalism's validity, but they're unable to adequately explain the anarchist definition of "state" to me for me to judge.

I doubt it will lead to me abandoning my personal variant of Syndicalism, but it'd be interesting to finally get inside the Anarchist mindset.

Gustav Laundauer argued that the state is within all of us.

Lev Tolstoy argued that the Kingdom of God is within all of us.

[Czechanada]

Gustav Laundauer argued that the state is within all of us.

Lev Tolstoy argued that the Kingdom of God is within all of us.

There are such things as states, and no such things as gods.

[Cruciland]

Anarchism (the real deal) involves the abolition of law, order,

Your own sources don't say that.

"...and government."

Government is a political body that rules over a nation/state/empire/etc. Ruling something means controlling it and having authority over it, which means giving you the right to impose laws and discipline upon your subjects. That said, the complete abolition of government means no more law and order, because nobody has the political authority to impose laws or instill discipline.

Now I will admit that you are right about my sources not saying that, but they still imply it accordingly.

[Zweite Alaje]

How does Anarchism propose society protects itself without the state? Foremost, how does Anarchism define "the state" as separate from the concept of government? My Anarcho-Syndicalist friends have tried to convince me of Anarcho-Syndicalism's validity, but they're unable to adequately explain the anarchist definition of "state" to me for me to judge.

I doubt it will lead to me abandoning my personal variant of Syndicalism, but it'd be interesting to finally get inside the Anarchist mindset.

What does society need to protect itself from? The only biggest threat to society is the state itself (or specifically, the "enemy" state is a threat to the "home" state, or the authoritarian state is a threat to the civilian population.)

Ask yourself first what a state represents. To me it represents an artificial division of land and cultures, imposed by a central authority.

You must remove the borders and the the authority. Now, I'm not saying that this is an overnight process. It requires incremental steps to be successful. (You couldn't just drop a 15th Century Englishman in 21st Century London.)

Similarly, if you impose rules by force on people for their entire lives, and then overnight remove that force, you can expect people to break the rules.

That's because you're using the wrong incentive to set the rules. Fear of punishment is well known to not be a deterrent (otherwise, there'd be no murders by now, we've been using the practice for thousands of years with little success.)

So, how do you organise a crime free self sustaining society, with no need for control by force?

Giving people what they need is a good first step. (Instead of imposing capital restrictions.)

People are not inherently bad, greedy, evil, or exploitative, or selfish, or hateful. These are things that you learn, not things that you're born with.

If you are born in a society where you could trust everyone, always be warm, fed, clothed, and intellectually stimulated, you'll grow up to be trusting, friendly, selfless, and intelligent. If you're born in a society where nobody trusts anyone, and everyone is competing for heat, clothes, food, and matters of the brain are secondary to them, you'll grow up to be distrustful, selfish, greedy, and ignorant.

Interesting, perhaps I've more in common with anarchists, in principle, than I'd thought. I agree with the idea of eliminating borders, but not with the elimination of authority and hierarchy. In a socialist society hierarchy would be meritocratic anyway so there'd be no purpose in ridding of it as a stabilzing factor.

I also disagree the idea the humans aren't inherently greedy, we as a species are incredibly malicious and distrustful and authority must be present to thwart socially destructive groups or individuals. Being crime free is impossible unless you were to use some sort of mindcontrol device, but even then the controller, whomever that would be, could proceed to conduct criminal activity.

I quite dislike the idea of "giving" people anything that they don't work for, as a Socialist, I believe the quality of ones labor placed into the community is a citizens worth. If a citizen is failing to pull their weight, they could drop off the face of the Earth for all I care.

[Natapoc]

Your own sources don't say that.

"...and government."

Government is a political body that rules over a nation/state/empire/etc. Ruling something means controlling it and having authority over it, which means giving you the right to impose laws and discipline upon your subjects. That said, the complete abolition of government means no more law and order, because nobody has the political authority to impose laws or instill discipline.

Now I will admit that you are right about my sources not saying that, but they still imply it accordingly.

It implies nothing about lack of order.

You are assuming the necessity of an "authority" to impose "discipline" or order.

Anarchism specifically calls for order but rejects the idea that an authority figure should impose it.

[Czechanada]

"...and government."

Government is a political body that rules over a nation/state/empire/etc. Ruling something means controlling it and having authority over it, which means giving you the right to impose laws and discipline upon your subjects. That said, the complete abolition of government means no more law and order, because nobody has the political authority to impose laws or instill discipline.

Now I will admit that you are right about my sources not saying that, but they still imply it accordingly.

It implies nothing about lack of order.

You are assuming the necessity of an "authority" to impose "discipline" or order.

Anarchism specifically calls for order but rejects the idea that an authority figure should impose it.

You could say that a ruling class has a greater chance to disrupt order.

[Cruciland]

"...and government."

Government is a political body that rules over a nation/state/empire/etc. Ruling something means controlling it and having authority over it, which means giving you the right to impose laws and discipline upon your subjects. That said, the complete abolition of government means no more law and order, because nobody has the political authority to impose laws or instill discipline.

Now I will admit that you are right about my sources not saying that, but they still imply it accordingly.

It implies nothing about lack of order.

You are assuming the necessity of an "authority" to impose "discipline" or order.

Anarchism specifically calls for order but rejects the idea that an authority figure should impose it.

Then how will that order be maintained?

[Renegade Island]

What does society need to protect itself from? The only biggest threat to society is the state itself (or specifically, the "enemy" state is a threat to the "home" state, or the authoritarian state is a threat to the civilian population.)

Ask yourself first what a state represents. To me it represents an artificial division of land and cultures, imposed by a central authority.

You must remove the borders and the the authority. Now, I'm not saying that this is an overnight process. It requires incremental steps to be successful. (You couldn't just drop a 15th Century Englishman in 21st Century London.)

Similarly, if you impose rules by force on people for their entire lives, and then overnight remove that force, you can expect people to break the rules.

That's because you're using the wrong incentive to set the rules. Fear of punishment is well known to not be a deterrent (otherwise, there'd be no murders by now, we've been using the practice for thousands of years with little success.)

So, how do you organise a crime free self sustaining society, with no need for control by force?

Giving people what they need is a good first step. (Instead of imposing capital restrictions.)

People are not inherently bad, greedy, evil, or exploitative, or selfish, or hateful. These are things that you learn, not things that you're born with.

If you are born in a society where you could trust everyone, always be warm, fed, clothed, and intellectually stimulated, you'll grow up to be trusting, friendly, selfless, and intelligent. If you're born in a society where nobody trusts anyone, and everyone is competing for heat, clothes, food, and matters of the brain are secondary to them, you'll grow up to be distrustful, selfish, greedy, and ignorant.

Interesting, perhaps I've more in common with anarchists, in principle, than I'd thought. I agree with the idea of eliminating borders, but not with the elimination of authority and hierarchy. In a socialist society hierarchy would be meritocratic anyway so there'd be no purpose in ridding of it as a stabilzing factor.[1]

I also disagree the idea the humans aren't inherently greedy, we as a species are incredibly malicious and distrustful and authority must be present to thwart socially destructive groups or individuals. Being crime free is impossible unless you were to use some sort of mindcontrol device, but even then the controller, whomever that would be, could proceed to conduct criminal activity. [2]

I quite dislike the idea of "giving" people anything that they don't work for, as a Socialist, I believe the quality of ones labor placed into the community is a citizens worth. If a citizen is failing to pull their weight, they could drop off the face of the Earth for all I care.[3]

[1] Elimination of all authority isn't what anarchists advocate. It's more the elimination of assumed authority. For example, I respect the authority of my dentist with regard to my dental advice, because I'm not a dentist. The centralised state specialises in assumed authority (for example classifying substances as illegal, imposing curfews, imposing taxes.) Intellectual authority is respected, assumed authority is not.

[2] There are many societies that exist today that are not inherently greedy. Greed is a byproduct of scarcity (as is money, class, ownership, property, etc.)

[3] If you don't give people what they need, they will take what they need to survive. This is the basis of crime (stealing food to stay alive.) The socialist ideology is flawed in this respect because it assumes that all people in the society need to work to ensure the ongoing stability of the society. While this may have been true in the past, it really isn't any more due to mass mechanisation. We now live in an increasingly automated world. Many jobs that people do have no real relevance or usefulness in sustaining or benefiting society, they merely exist to support the economic system in place. This is why over the last 150 years there has been a shift from 90% of society working in primary industries to 90% working in tertiary industries. Mechanised displacement of labour has been changing the workforce for a long time. Only 2% of the population now work in primary industries, but productivity is higher than ever before. Now with automated checkouts, automated and online banking, driverless cars, DIY manufacturing, and even robotic kitchens, (and I'm sure many other examples exist,) this labour is also slowly being displaced.

So, a functioning society doesn't need everyone to work. It just needs everyone to live (have access to the essentials of life.)

[Renegade Island]

It implies nothing about lack of order.

You are assuming the necessity of an "authority" to impose "discipline" or order.

Anarchism specifically calls for order but rejects the idea that an authority figure should impose it.

Then how will that order be maintained?

Unconditional respect.

[Zweite Alaje]

Interesting, perhaps I've more in common with anarchists, in principle, than I'd thought. I agree with the idea of eliminating borders, but not with the elimination of authority and hierarchy. In a socialist society hierarchy would be meritocratic anyway so there'd be no purpose in ridding of it as a stabilzing factor.[1]

I also disagree the idea the humans aren't inherently greedy, we as a species are incredibly malicious and distrustful and authority must be present to thwart socially destructive groups or individuals. Being crime free is impossible unless you were to use some sort of mindcontrol device, but even then the controller, whomever that would be, could proceed to conduct criminal activity. [2]

I quite dislike the idea of "giving" people anything that they don't work for, as a Socialist, I believe the quality of ones labor placed into the community is a citizens worth. If a citizen is failing to pull their weight, they could drop off the face of the Earth for all I care.[3]

[1] Elimination of all authority isn't what anarchists advocate. It's more the elimination of assumed authority. For example, I respect the authority of my dentist with regard to my dental advice, because I'm not a dentist. The centralised state specialises in assumed authority (for example classifying substances as illegal, imposing curfews, imposing taxes.) Intellectual authority is respected, assumed authority is not.

[2] There are many societies that exist today that are not inherently greedy. Greed is a byproduct of scarcity (as is money, class, ownership, property, etc.)

[3] If you don't give people what they need, they will take what they need to survive. This is the basis of crime (stealing food to stay alive.) The socialist ideology is flawed in this respect because it assumes that all people in the society need to work to ensure the ongoing stability of the society. While this may have been true in the past, it really isn't any more due to mass mechanisation. We now live in an increasingly automated world. Many jobs that people do have no real relevance or usefulness in sustaining or benefiting society, they merely exist to support the economic system in place. This is why over the last 150 years there has been a shift from 90% of society working in primary industries to 90% working in tertiary industries. Mechanised displacement of labour has been changing the workforce for a long time. Only 2% of the population now work in primary industries, but productivity is higher than ever before. Now with automated checkouts, automated and online banking, driverless cars, DIY manufacturing, and even robotic kitchens, (and I'm sure many other examples exist,) this labour is also slowly being displaced.

So, a functioning society doesn't need everyone to work. It just needs everyone to live (have access to the essentials of life.)

1.) I agree with anarchism on this point then, unmeritocratic authority is undesireable.

2.) I disagree here, abundance of resources doesn't eliminate or even discourage greed. People will still seek to horde resources. Humans are naturally creatures of excess if our needs have been sated we want more, and more, and more, this is why we've come to this point in our history where we've degenerated to rampant commercialization and comsumerism.

3.) This is another point of disagreement then. I agree with you point about the shift of our economy towards mechanization, but there will never be a point in human history in which we mustn't work to maintain or progress our standard of living. The machines won't be able to take care of everything for us, and remember we'll have to watch after the machines, program them, repair them, etc. To be human is to work, that is our function in civilization.

[Choronzon]

Because politically intelligent people can draw a distinction between a state and rules in a society. You should take a lesson from them, OP.

[The United Communist Solar Republic]

I am curious on how a politically intelligent person can be an anarchist. Do they think that an anarchist society will be a paradise? No it won't. Without laws then murders, rapists, thieves, terrorists, and all other types of scum will go around free and armed gangs will be everywhere and no one will be safe. Crime and violence will be everywhere and humanity will destroy itself. Human nature just won't allow for humans to peacefully coexist unless we are under the rule of a government and have laws that are enforced. Some anarchists say that communities can create laws and enforce them but then guess what. IT ISN'T ANARCHISM ANYMORE. Once a community takes on that role then it is by definition a government. Seriously it baffles me how any person can be an anarchist. What are your thoughts on it?

They dream of a utopia, like "Pure" Communists do. Either way, Man always finds a way to screw everything up even when you think they can't. Neither can exist and neither will exist

What is 'Pure' supposed to mean?

[Natapoc]

It implies nothing about lack of order.

You are assuming the necessity of an "authority" to impose "discipline" or order.

Anarchism specifically calls for order but rejects the idea that an authority figure should impose it.

Then how will that order be maintained?

Free, voluntary association, Individuals working together cooperatively to accomplish common goals, Mutual aid, friendship, non hierarchical decision making, Voluntary federations.

I found a wiki article for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_law

[Choronzon]

Then how will that order be maintained?

Free, voluntary association, Individuals working together cooperatively to accomplish common goals, Mutual aid, friendship, non hierarchical decision making, Voluntary federations.

I found a wiki article for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_law

ie if you don't want to play by our rules get the fuck out. Voluntary association works both ways. The rapists and murders can't do what they want with impunity because they'll become total pariahs. Which if you want to live as a pirate king thats cool, but thats not the life most people envision for themselves.

[Renegade Island]

[1] Elimination of all authority isn't what anarchists advocate. It's more the elimination of assumed authority. For example, I respect the authority of my dentist with regard to my dental advice, because I'm not a dentist. The centralised state specialises in assumed authority (for example classifying substances as illegal, imposing curfews, imposing taxes.) Intellectual authority is respected, assumed authority is not.

[2] There are many societies that exist today that are not inherently greedy. Greed is a byproduct of scarcity (as is money, class, ownership, property, etc.)

[3] If you don't give people what they need, they will take what they need to survive. This is the basis of crime (stealing food to stay alive.) The socialist ideology is flawed in this respect because it assumes that all people in the society need to work to ensure the ongoing stability of the society. While this may have been true in the past, it really isn't any more due to mass mechanisation. We now live in an increasingly automated world. Many jobs that people do have no real relevance or usefulness in sustaining or benefiting society, they merely exist to support the economic system in place. This is why over the last 150 years there has been a shift from 90% of society working in primary industries to 90% working in tertiary industries. Mechanised displacement of labour has been changing the workforce for a long time. Only 2% of the population now work in primary industries, but productivity is higher than ever before. Now with automated checkouts, automated and online banking, driverless cars, DIY manufacturing, and even robotic kitchens, (and I'm sure many other examples exist,) this labour is also slowly being displaced.

So, a functioning society doesn't need everyone to work. It just needs everyone to live (have access to the essentials of life.)

1.) I agree with anarchism on this point then, unmeritocratic authority is undesireable.

2.) I disagree here, abundance of resources doesn't eliminate or even discourage greed. People will still seek to horde resources. Humans are naturally creatures of excess if our needs have been sated we want more, and more, and more, this is why we've come to this point in our history where we've degenerated to rampant commercialization and comsumerism.

3.) This is another point of disagreement then. I agree with you point about the shift of our economy towards mechanization, but there will never be a point in human history in which we mustn't work to maintain or progress our standard of living. The machines won't be able to take care of everything for us, and remember we'll have to watch after the machines, program them, repair them, etc. To be human is to work, that is our function in civilization.

1.) Good stuff.
2.) You're applying the morality of a consumer society to all possible societies. Consumerism didn't occur naturally, it took people to guide us down this path. There's always another path.
3.) I'm not saying that we mustn't work. More that, much of the work we currently indulge in is unnecessary and irrelevant. I'm just saying that the work required to maintain a high standard of living could be much less than it is now. People could be free to pursue their interests. AKA, the 2nd Renessaince (sp?)

[Sociobiology]

Then how will that order be maintained?

Free, voluntary association, Individuals working together cooperatively to accomplish common goals, Mutual aid, friendship, non hierarchical decision making, Voluntary federations.

which only works by itself, if you do not greatly exceed dunbar's number.

[Sociobiology]

ie if you don't want to play by our rules get the fuck out.

to which their response is you GTFO and thus war.

[Kleomentia]

The anarchists I have met will disagree with you.

The anarchists I have met will disagree with both of you.

Your move.

The Anarchists i have met where throwing a child around the street yelling "WHAT DO WE WANT? ANARCHY!"

[Kleomentia]

The anarchists I have met will disagree with you.

The anarchists I have met will disagree with both of you.

Your move.

The Anarchists i have met where throwing a child around the street yelling "WHAT DO WE WANT? ANARCHY!"

[Sociobiology]

"...and government."

Government is a political body that rules over a nation/state/empire/etc. Ruling something means controlling it and having authority over it, which means giving you the right to impose laws and discipline upon your subjects. That said, the complete abolition of government means no more law and order, because nobody has the political authority to impose laws or instill discipline.

Now I will admit that you are right about my sources not saying that, but they still imply it accordingly.

It implies nothing about lack of order.

You are assuming the necessity of an "authority" to impose "discipline" or order.

Anarchism specifically calls for order but rejects the idea that an authority figure should impose it.

I'll do more than imply it I'll say it, law and authority IS necessary if you want large populations. Unless you can come up with a separate mechanism that current stateless countries do NOT have (and thus can be shown not to work).
But all we ever get is people will be nice to each other because... Anarchist fairy.

[Kleomentia]

Damn it double post, now i cant delete them

[Sociobiology]

Your own sources don't say that.

"...and government."

Government is a political body that rules over a nation/state/empire/etc. Ruling something means controlling it and having authority over it, which means giving you the right to impose laws and discipline upon your subjects. That said, the complete abolition of government means no more law and order, because nobody has the political authority to impose laws or instill discipline.

Now I will admit that you are right about my sources not saying that, but they still imply it accordingly.

no that is one of the meanings of rule, there are several, and the most of the governments today do NOT fit the definition of RULE you just used.

[Renegade Island]

It implies nothing about lack of order.

You are assuming the necessity of an "authority" to impose "discipline" or order.

Anarchism specifically calls for order but rejects the idea that an authority figure should impose it.

I'll do more than imply it I'll say it, law and authority IS necessary if you want large populations. Unless you can come up with a separate mechanism that current stateless countries do NOT have (and thus can be shown not to work).
But all we ever get is people will be nice to each other because... Anarchist fairy.

Or, everyone is the law. Like in Israel, where everyone is trained in Krav Maga.

Authoritarianism thrives on defencelessness.

[Sociobiology]

Damn it double post, now i cant delete them

edit it, delete everything and just type "double post"
that seems to be the acceptable response.

[Kleomentia]

"...and government."

Government is a political body that rules over a nation/state/empire/etc. Ruling something means controlling it and having authority over it, which means giving you the right to impose laws and discipline upon your subjects. That said, the complete abolition of government means no more law and order, because nobody has the political authority to impose laws or instill discipline.

Now I will admit that you are right about my sources not saying that, but they still imply it accordingly.

It implies nothing about lack of order.

You are assuming the necessity of an "authority" to impose "discipline" or order.

Anarchism specifically calls for order but rejects the idea that an authority figure should impose it.

Yeaaah, good luck with that.