Anarchism

[Kuzestan]

The decision is agreed by the members, I don't think you need a coercion to follow an agreement, especially if you have contributed a say in it.

So every decision has to be unanimous? That's a horrible system.

Not really, the commune could previously agree on how a decision could be taken with significant votes. Be it 2/3 of the votes, 4/5, 50% + 1, or unanimous, up to their taste.

[Ucropi]

Day 1 of Anarchy: You are all murdered by the former governments and soldiers
Day 2 of Anarchy: Democracy is reinstated

[Adab]

Day 1 of Anarchy: You are all murdered by the former governments and soldiers
Day 2 of Anarchy: Democracy is reinstated

Ha ha, in only 2 days? The process, if it does happen, will surely take a ... somewhat longer time.

But, yeah, with all due respect to anarchists everywhere in this world, I believe that anarchism is untenable, unfeasible. People will come to realize that they have a desire for the presence of law and order in their lives, so that everything will not eventually fall into chaos and confusion. Those things, law and order, come with the establishment of a state and a government to govern the people. They need something to keep control and prevent things from going crazy.

[The New Sea Territory]

Day 1 of Anarchy: You are all murdered by the former governments and soldiers
Day 2 of Anarchy: Democracy is reinstated

Except the Korean Anarchists, Spanish Syndicalists and the Free Territory of Ukraine, which each lasted a few years.

You have NO understanding of ANY anarchist principles, and believe we all advocate for Mad Max to become reality. Ignorance may be blissful to you, but stop spraying it on everyone else.

[The New Sea Territory]

Day 1 of Anarchy: You are all murdered by the former governments and soldiers
Day 2 of Anarchy: Democracy is reinstated

Ha ha, in only 2 days? The process, if it does happen, will surely take a ... somewhat longer time.

But, yeah, with all due respect to anarchists everywhere in this world, I believe that anarchism is untenable, unfeasible. People will come to realize that they have a desire for the presence of law and order in their lives, so that everything will not eventually fall into chaos and confusion. Those things, law and order, come with the establishment of a state and a government to govern the people.

We don't advocate for the lack of law and order, just the lack of a state.

[Adab]

We don't advocate for the lack of law and order, just the lack of a state.

I see. Can you explain to me how law and order can be maintained in the absence of a state?

[Ucropi]

Day 1 of Anarchy: You are all murdered by the former governments and soldiers
Day 2 of Anarchy: Democracy is reinstated

Except the Korean Anarchists, Spanish Syndicalists and the Free Territory of Ukraine, which each lasted a few years.

You have NO understanding of ANY anarchist principles, and believe we all advocate for Mad Max to become reality. Ignorance may be blissful to you, but stop spraying it on everyone else.

The definition of anarchy

an·ar·chy
ˈanərkē/Submit
noun
a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.

If you don't believe in this definition you are not an anarchist.

The human mind is hard wired to recognize patterns which draws it to order and government.

[The New Sea Territory]

several dozen



http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/11/the-decline-of-violence
note this includes the most violent state in known history.
do you have a source for your claim?

You do know that these 'stateless' society existed in an era where there were no advanced medical treatments, lack of ethical code in warfare, primitive method on warfare, and etc. Right? If an anarchist society did emerge from this era and beyond, it will inherit all those achievements that the modern society has, thereby preventing such high casualty.

I'll be surprised though if those figures came from anarchist communes in the Spanish Civil War, or the Free Territory of Ukraine, which is not the case here.

And the fact that all of the stateless societies before he Neolithic Revolution existed for SOOOOOOO mcuh longer of a time, more combat happened. If the statist eras were given the same amount of time, they could easily kill many more.

[The New Sea Territory]

Except the Korean Anarchists, Spanish Syndicalists and the Free Territory of Ukraine, which each lasted a few years.

You have NO understanding of ANY anarchist principles, and believe we all advocate for Mad Max to become reality. Ignorance may be blissful to you, but stop spraying it on everyone else.

The definition of anarchy

an·ar·chy
ˈanərkē/Submit
noun
a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.

If you don't believe in this definition you are not an anarchist.

The human mind is hard wired to recognize patterns which draws it to order and government.

Um....no. Just no. Anarchy, as we advocate for, is a world without rulers or hierarchy.

I am an anarchist, thank you.

Considering we know so little about the human mind, I am calling BULLSHIT.

We don't advocate for the lack of law and order, just the lack of a state.

I see. Can you explain to me how law and order can be maintained in the absence of a state?

First, there would be very few "laws", basically made for the protection of people and property. Other than that, no other rules would really exist. If an invading army comes in, a voluntary militia can be risen, as history points out with the Spanish Communes and the Free Territory's Black Army.

[Genivaria]

You do know that these 'stateless' society existed in an era where there were no advanced medical treatments, lack of ethical code in warfare, primitive method on warfare, and etc. Right? If an anarchist society did emerge from this era and beyond, it will inherit all those achievements that the modern society has, thereby preventing such high casualty.

I'll be surprised though if those figures came from anarchist communes in the Spanish Civil War, or the Free Territory of Ukraine, which is not the case here.

And the fact that all of the stateless societies before he Neolithic Revolution existed for SOOOOOOO mcuh longer of a time, more combat happened. If the statist eras were given the same amount of time, they could easily kill many more.

Yes statists can actually get shit done.

[Kuzestan]

Uhh, where was the part that I said that it needs to be hierarchical?

In your talk about an elected chain of command. That's a hierarchy, no? Or is there some different understanding of the word?

And these military organization is not an army in the traditional sense, more like a voluntary militia or stuff like that. In the commune, everyone has the same duty and right to contribute in the defense of their community, and these military organization is merely just the people who happen to be specialized in it. The authority to conduct defensive measures doesn't fall into their hands, but the the commune as a whole. So no, they won't conduct monopoly on violence, and it's not a state-like entity, because they are pretty much standing on an equal position with everybody else.

They would exist to put down state-like entities rising in the communes, thus they would have to have a monopoly on violence. The police can't police if the gangs are more powerful.

Shifting authority to the communes as a whole doesn't make the monopoly go away, it just divides it out among more people. There'd have to be some central elected body, too, deciding which militias are legitimate defense tools and which represent rising states (the whole reason this mechanism exists in the first instance). So there'd have to be some group, elected or not, with a monopoly on violence. Otherwise the communes would descend into tribal war.

Well yeah, chain of command could be described as a hierarchy, and it could be kept as long as the members are content with it.

Why do you think there has to be monopoly on violence? A group of people who specialized in defense and security and still standing on an equal footing with the other members of the commune could still get the job done. Here in Indonesia, we have these thing called Sistem Keamanan Lingkungan, or Community Security Board in English. Basically, it's a group of people in the community tasked with security maintenance. And although they received training and counseling (yeah you guessed it, from the state), they are pretty independent in how they work. Each community may have different shift patterns and methods on how to maintain their community's security. What's more, these guys are not legal protection units, they're just like the average community member with the same duty and rights regarding security. And they don't conduct 'monopoly on violence' like you said, since they are on equal footing with the other community members. Seeing that the crime rates here are lower than many other 3rd world countries (and even some in the 1st world), such system might actually work in an anarchist community.

[Adab]

I see. Can you explain to me how law and order can be maintained in the absence of a state?

First, there would be very few "laws", basically made for the protection of people and property. Other than that, no other rules would really exist. If an invading army comes in, a voluntary militia can be risen, as history points out with the Spanish Communes and the Free Territory's Black Army.

Wait, if someone happens to violate those "laws", will there be punishment for him/her? Will that be up to the victim or the people around the victim to decide on a punishment? Will people actually follow the laws?

[Ucropi]

Um....no. Just no. Anarchy, as we advocate for, is a world without rulers or hierarchy.

I am an anarchist, thank you.

Considering we know so little about the human mind, I am calling BULLSHIT.

You're joking right? We know tons about how the brain works. You probably are in the "only use 10% of our brain" camp aren't you?

First, there would be very few "laws", basically made for the protection of people and property. Other than that, no other rules would really exist. If an invading army comes in, a voluntary militia can be risen, as history points out with the Spanish Communes and the Free Territory's Black Army.

Who's going to enforce these laws as few of them as there are? Who's going to form and train the militia? Who's going to make sure they are fed? That they don't desert?

[Genivaria]

I don't see your point here. What does it have to do with the lack of hierarchy or a coercive trait?

If there's no coercion then how do you get everyone to follow the decision?

Ya know I still haven't gotten a good answer to this.

[Ucropi]

If there's no coercion then how do you get everyone to follow the decision?

Ya know I still haven't gotten a good answer to this.

You probably wont. Doesn't seem very thought through if you ask me.

[Kuzestan]

If there's no coercion then how do you get everyone to follow the decision?

Ya know I still haven't gotten a good answer to this.

Hey, I did answer this you know , look up my earlier post regarding that horrible unanimous system you mentioned to me earlier.

[Zottistan]

In your talk about an elected chain of command. That's a hierarchy, no? Or is there some different understanding of the word?


They would exist to put down state-like entities rising in the communes, thus they would have to have a monopoly on violence. The police can't police if the gangs are more powerful.

Shifting authority to the communes as a whole doesn't make the monopoly go away, it just divides it out among more people. There'd have to be some central elected body, too, deciding which militias are legitimate defense tools and which represent rising states (the whole reason this mechanism exists in the first instance). So there'd have to be some group, elected or not, with a monopoly on violence. Otherwise the communes would descend into tribal war.

Well yeah, chain of command could be described as a hierarchy, and it could be kept as long as the members are content with it.

It doesn't matter how content the people are with it. Most people, after all, are content with the modern state. A hierarchy is a hierarchy whether it's accepted or not.

Why do you think there has to be monopoly on violence? A group of people who specialized in defense and security and still standing on an equal footing with the other members of the commune could still get the job done.

It doesn't matter whether they're standing on equal footing with other members of the commune or not, if they have a monopoly on violence (i.e., they are the only group legitimately allowed to use physical force on others, and are the most effective at using physical force), they are, by definition, a state.

Here in Indonesia, we have these thing called Sistem Keamanan Lingkungan, or Community Security Board in English. Basically, it's a group of people in the community tasked with security maintenance. And although they received training and counseling (yeah you guessed it, from the state), they are pretty independent in how they work. Each community may have different shift patterns and methods on how to maintain their community's security. What's more, these guys are not legal protection units, they're just like the average community member with the same duty and rights regarding security. And they don't conduct 'monopoly on violence' like you said, since they are on equal footing with the other community members.

I don't see how that changes the fact that it's a monopoly on violence, since a monopoly on violence can be held by bodies as well as individuals. It doesn't matter whether or not they're on equal footing, they have a monopoly on violence if they are the only group a) legally permitted and b) most physically able to use violence on people. Their social standing makes no difference.

[Genivaria]

Ya know I still haven't gotten a good answer to this.

Hey, I did answer this you know , look up my earlier post regarding that horrible unanimous system you mentioned to me earlier.

Yes you said it would be voted upon, but how would you enforce the vote without coercion?

[Zottistan]

Ha ha, in only 2 days? The process, if it does happen, will surely take a ... somewhat longer time.

But, yeah, with all due respect to anarchists everywhere in this world, I believe that anarchism is untenable, unfeasible. People will come to realize that they have a desire for the presence of law and order in their lives, so that everything will not eventually fall into chaos and confusion. Those things, law and order, come with the establishment of a state and a government to govern the people.

We don't advocate for the lack of law and order, just the lack of a state.

You cannot have law and order without a monopoly on violence.

[MERIZoC]

Day 1 of Anarchy: You are all murdered by the former governments and soldiers
Day 2 of Anarchy: Democracy is reinstated

Ha ha, in only 2 days? The process, if it does happen, will surely take a ... somewhat longer time.

But, yeah, with all due respect to anarchists everywhere in this world, I believe that anarchism is untenable, unfeasible. People will come to realize that they have a desire for the presence of law and order in their lives, so that everything will not eventually fall into chaos and confusion. Those things, law and order, come with the establishment of a state and a government to govern the people. They need something to keep control and prevent things from going crazy.

If anarchism is unattainable then how has it happened before? Pressing questions here….

[Kuzestan]

Well yeah, chain of command could be described as a hierarchy, and it could be kept as long as the members are content with it.

It doesn't matter how content the people are with it. Most people, after all, are content with the modern state. A hierarchy is a hierarchy whether it's accepted or not.

Why do you think there has to be monopoly on violence? A group of people who specialized in defense and security and still standing on an equal footing with the other members of the commune could still get the job done.

It doesn't matter whether they're standing on equal footing with other members of the commune or not, if they have a monopoly on violence (i.e., they are the only group legitimately allowed to use physical force on others, and are the most effective at using physical force), they are, by definition, a state.

Here in Indonesia, we have these thing called Sistem Keamanan Lingkungan, or Community Security Board in English. Basically, it's a group of people in the community tasked with security maintenance. And although they received training and counseling (yeah you guessed it, from the state), they are pretty independent in how they work. Each community may have different shift patterns and methods on how to maintain their community's security. What's more, these guys are not legal protection units, they're just like the average community member with the same duty and rights regarding security. And they don't conduct 'monopoly on violence' like you said, since they are on equal footing with the other community members.

I don't see how that changes the fact that it's a monopoly on violence, since a monopoly on violence can be held by bodies as well as individuals. It doesn't matter whether or not they're on equal footing, they have a monopoly on violence if they are the only group a) legally permitted and b) most physically able to use violence on people. Their social standing makes no difference.

Or, members could just accept a level of hierarchy in the military organization. A military organization doesn't equal a state, that's for sure.

If every individual can hold a monopoly on violence, than by your definition, everyone's a state. Which is cool, but a very absurd definition.

Come on, you think that these group of people that's specialized in defense and security is the only people who are allowed to pick up a gun and maintain security? Of course not. Like I said, in such a society, everyone has the same duty and right to contribute in the defense and security of the community. It's not a monopoly if everyone could and able to commit such activity

[Kuzestan]

Hey, I did answer this you know , look up my earlier post regarding that horrible unanimous system you mentioned to me earlier.

Yes you said it would be voted upon, but how would you enforce the vote without coercion?

Self-conscience and individual responsibility.

Do you seriously think that people really need to be coerced in order to act upon an agreement? Especially if they have contributed a say in it? People are not that lazy or hard-headed you know.

[Edlichbury]

Yes you said it would be voted upon, but how would you enforce the vote without coercion?

Self-conscience and individual responsibility.

Do you seriously think that people really need to be coerced in order to act upon an agreement? Especially if they have contributed a say in it? People are not that lazy or hard-headed you know.

So you really think rational individuals are going to opt for a plan in which they carry a high risk of death even if it is the most tactically sound plan?

[Liberaxia]

You do know that these 'stateless' society existed in an era where there were no advanced medical treatments, lack of ethical code in warfare, primitive method on warfare, and etc. Right? If an anarchist society did emerge from this era and beyond, it will inherit all those achievements that the modern society has, thereby preventing such high casualty.

I'll be surprised though if those figures came from anarchist communes in the Spanish Civil War, or the Free Territory of Ukraine, which is not the case here.

And the fact that all of the stateless societies before he Neolithic Revolution existed for SOOOOOOO mcuh longer of a time, more combat happened. If the statist eras were given the same amount of time, they could easily kill many more.

Again, the chart is in deaths per one hundred thousand. If the wars of the 20th century were as violent as pre-state warfare, then two billion people instead of one hundred million would be dead. Monopolistic power centers reduce violence.

[Kuzestan]

Self-conscience and individual responsibility.

Do you seriously think that people really need to be coerced in order to act upon an agreement? Especially if they have contributed a say in it? People are not that lazy or hard-headed you know.

So you really think rational individuals are going to opt for a plan in which they carry a high risk of death even if it is the most tactically sound plan?

Yeah, although that depends on their own level of giving sacrifice to others. Throughout history, such act have been committed under various reasons, be it 'for the greater good', or any other things.