Anarchism, Arguments For and Against

[Ifreann]

Anarchism does not preclude all hierarchies. Certain hierarchies are natural, such as the parent-child relationship. The child being unable to properly care for themselves cannot be allotted full autonomy. However, this is a dynamic hierarchy, it changes as the child grows up and often flips completely when the parents need to be cared for in old age.

Emphasis mine. Mother nature by design is hierarchal. Might be over-the-top here, but in an event of a major catastrophe, it is possible that true Anarchy will be achieved in a short timescale. However, overtime, surviving groups will eventually thrive and a hierarchal society is naturally inevitable.

An anarchist society consists too of non-vertical hierarchies. In matters of medicine, the community defers to the wisdom and experience of the doctor, but the doctor in turn would not be in charge of the building and maintenance of trains. There is authority, but authority relates to expertise, there is nobody wielding power outside of their expertise.

It is non-dynamic, vertical hierarchies that are incompatible with anarchism. What anarchism allows for is voluntary adherence to worthy authority and the ability to withdraw from that relationship at will, as opposed to the status quo in which warlords and their enforcer gangs assert ownership of you from the moment of your birth.

So what I am getting at here is that an Anarchist society (by today's definition) is another word for tribalism? Am I getting this right?

What does any of what is posted have to do with tribes?

[Comemierdas]

Some tribes have quite steep, non-dynamic hierarchies.

That is still the definition of modern anarchy for me - when society is totally separated by tribes and small groups each of which has their own agenda to settle. Anarchy is the complete abolition of a collective force/authority that keeps millions of people in unison.

Maybe I'm not getting you right there, but I don't think anarchism works on a rather collective than an individual level. In my understanding anarchism goes along with individualism. Every individual has to consent to any rule a community gives itself. Tribes can be ruled by a leader who decides about everything without asking consent of the subordinates.

But if you mean by tribalism that this kind of grassroot democratic rule can only work for tiny, isolated groups, I'd agree. And those groups might resemble certain types of tribes. However, I think anarchism is a figment. It hardly works even in theory.

[PhilTech]

That is still the definition of modern anarchy for me - when society is totally separated by tribes and small groups each of which has their own agenda to settle. Anarchy is the complete abolition of a collective force/authority that keeps millions of people in unison.

Maybe I'm not getting you right there, but I don't think anarchism works on a rather collective than an individual level. In my understanding anarchism goes along with individualism. Every individual has to consent to any rule a community gives itself. Tribes can be ruled by a leader who decides about everything without asking consent of the subordinates.

But if you mean by tribalism that this kind of grassroot democratic rule can only work for tiny, isolated groups, I'd agree. And those groups might resemble certain types of tribes. However, I think anarchism is a figment. It hardly works even in theory.

Yes you're right, anarchy in its purest form is all about the individual and I don't think that is even possible even at the slightest unless an awful apocalypse occurs then we might see a piece of it. For context I am going to use films as an example: take for example, The Road, this is one of those examples where pure anarchy is depicted - every man for himself. However, an anarchist will object to this that most people mistaken anarchy as synonymous to chaos or societal collapse - which is true and I am one of them.

To them, Anarchy is a society or a group of people without hierarchy whatsoever and I honestly don't know how the fuck that's even possible. However, what I am getting here is that their definition of Anarchy is some form of tribalism - a nomad lifestyle - and not entirely an abolition of collectivism --- which brings us back to the Anarcho-primitivism critique. For me, An-prim is the only plausible anarchy, excluding of course the abandonment of technology.

I know it's a bad example but take for example, The TV show: The Walking Dead (Warning: Spoilers ahead), in the earliest parts of the show there was a major emphasis in "in-group collectivism". Rick (the main protagonist) and his group lived a nomad lifestyle and there was no hierarchy. The role of someone depends on the needs of the group and not because of rules and such. And the Group chose Rick as their leader not because he was chosen to but because they need him to. They believe that he is the one that will bring back law and order - which the group is craving for. The irony is that, in a world full of shit and no sense of rules and order, the group is drooling for a leader that will bring back that status quo.

[Comemierdas]

Maybe I'm not getting you right there, but I don't think anarchism works on a rather collective than an individual level. In my understanding anarchism goes along with individualism. Every individual has to consent to any rule a community gives itself. Tribes can be ruled by a leader who decides about everything without asking consent of the subordinates.

But if you mean by tribalism that this kind of grassroot democratic rule can only work for tiny, isolated groups, I'd agree. And those groups might resemble certain types of tribes. However, I think anarchism is a figment. It hardly works even in theory.

Yes you're right, anarchy in its purest form is all about the individual and I don't think that is even possible even at the slightest unless an awful apocalypse occurs then we might see a piece of it. For context I am going to use films as an example: take for example, The Road, this is one of those examples where pure anarchy is depicted - every man for himself. However, an anarchist will object to this that most people mistaken anarchy as synonymous to chaos or societal collapse - which is true and I am one of them.

To them, Anarchy is a society or a group of people without hierarchy whatsoever and I honestly don't know how the fuck that's even possible. However, what I am getting here is that their definition of Anarchy is some form of tribalism - a nomad lifestyle - and not entirely an abolition of collectivism --- which brings us back to the Anarcho-primitivism critique. For me, An-prim is the only plausible anarchy, excluding of course the abandonment of technology.

I know it's a bad example but take for example, The TV show: The Walking Dead (Warning: Spoilers ahead), in the earliest parts of the show there was a major emphasis in "in-group collectivism". Rick (the main protagonist) and his group lived a nomad lifestyle and there was no hierarchy. The role of someone depends on the needs of the group and not because of rules and such. And the Group chose Rick as their leader not because he was chosen to but because they need him to. They believe that he is the one that will bring back law and order - which the group is craving for. The irony is that, in a world full of shit and no sense of rules and order, the group is drooling for a leader that will bring back that status quo.

I agree with almost everything you're saying, but, for what it's worth, let me smartass about two points:

1. I think there is no contradiction between what a group needs and rules. Rules are intended to serve a group's needs. An institutionalised hierarchies are part of that.

2. I agree with you that tribalism would be the ultimatre consequence of a downfall of civilisation, but the only anarchy there is would be between the groups, not within them.

Anarchists, especially leftist anarchists, are dreamers. They cling to some vague idealization of man freed from power, but hardly can describe how a society like that would actually work. If they try, they often come up with something I'd call "reinventing the wheel in a morally purified way". There is a nice satire of this attitude on South Park:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywVHF6Lltac

[Kubra]

Anarchism does not preclude all hierarchies. Certain hierarchies are natural, such as the parent-child relationship. The child being unable to properly care for themselves cannot be allotted full autonomy. However, this is a dynamic hierarchy, it changes as the child grows up and often flips completely when the parents need to be cared for in old age.

An anarchist society consists too of non-vertical hierarchies. In matters of medicine, the community defers to the wisdom and experience of the doctor, but the doctor in turn would not be in charge of the building and maintenance of trains. There is authority, but authority relates to expertise, there is nobody wielding power outside of their expertise.

It is non-dynamic, vertical hierarchies that are incompatible with anarchism. What anarchism allows for is voluntary adherence to worthy authority and the ability to withdraw from that relationship at will, as opposed to the status quo in which warlords and their enforcer gangs assert ownership of you from the moment of your birth.

A saddening characteristic of power is that it can't simply be taken away once established, e.g. by merely withdrawing consent to it. You'd have the same problem almost every left wing ideology has: in order for your anarchism to work you need overly virtuous people who are willing to give up power any time. They'd also have to be capable of continuously finding new ways of organising cooperation. If you don't have super-human beings like that, you need a state that institutionalises these virtues, i.e. order and hierarchies. And that, again, wouldn't be an anarchy.

it wouldn't be anarchy? Yes, perhaps, depends on how one defines an angel, then pinhead, then dancing. Whether or not it would be anarchism, well that's a separate matter, isn't it?

[Page]

Anarchism does not preclude all hierarchies. Certain hierarchies are natural, such as the parent-child relationship. The child being unable to properly care for themselves cannot be allotted full autonomy. However, this is a dynamic hierarchy, it changes as the child grows up and often flips completely when the parents need to be cared for in old age.

An anarchist society consists too of non-vertical hierarchies. In matters of medicine, the community defers to the wisdom and experience of the doctor, but the doctor in turn would not be in charge of the building and maintenance of trains. There is authority, but authority relates to expertise, there is nobody wielding power outside of their expertise.

It is non-dynamic, vertical hierarchies that are incompatible with anarchism. What anarchism allows for is voluntary adherence to worthy authority and the ability to withdraw from that relationship at will, as opposed to the status quo in which warlords and their enforcer gangs assert ownership of you from the moment of your birth.

A saddening characteristic of power is that it can't simply be taken away once established, e.g. by merely withdrawing consent to it. You'd have the same problem almost every left wing ideology has: in order for your anarchism to work you need overly virtuous people who are willing to give up power any time. They'd also have to be capable of continuously finding new ways of organising cooperation. If you don't have super-human beings like that, you need a state that institutionalises these virtues, i.e. order and hierarchies. And that, again, wouldn't be an anarchy.

I said voluntary authority, not voluntary power. Authority here meaning accepting that one is recognized as exceptionally competent to handle a particular thing. But recognizing a doctor's authority doesn't mean they can force an unwanted treatment on you.

[Pangurstan]

A saddening characteristic of power is that it can't simply be taken away once established, e.g. by merely withdrawing consent to it. You'd have the same problem almost every left wing ideology has: in order for your anarchism to work you need overly virtuous people who are willing to give up power any time. They'd also have to be capable of continuously finding new ways of organising cooperation. If you don't have super-human beings like that, you need a state that institutionalises these virtues, i.e. order and hierarchies. And that, again, wouldn't be an anarchy.

I said voluntary authority, not voluntary power. Authority here meaning accepting that one is recognized as exceptionally competent to handle a particular thing. But recognizing a doctor's authority doesn't mean they can force an unwanted treatment on you.

What if I recognize the state's authority?

[Page]

I said voluntary authority, not voluntary power. Authority here meaning accepting that one is recognized as exceptionally competent to handle a particular thing. But recognizing a doctor's authority doesn't mean they can force an unwanted treatment on you.

What if I recognize the state's authority?

Then you aren't an anarchist.

[Pangurstan]

What if I recognize the state's authority?

Then you aren't an anarchist.

But I support Joe Biden

[Jewish Underground State]

What if I recognize the state's authority?

Then you aren't an anarchist.

Not completely true

If you think the state shouldn't have authority or even be a state then your an anarchist

You don't have to do anything violent to be one

It is just what you believe.

[Concejos Unidos]

A saddening characteristic of power is that it can't simply be taken away once established, e.g. by merely withdrawing consent to it. You'd have the same problem almost every left wing ideology has: in order for your anarchism to work you need overly virtuous people who are willing to give up power any time. They'd also have to be capable of continuously finding new ways of organising cooperation. If you don't have super-human beings like that, you need a state that institutionalises these virtues, i.e. order and hierarchies. And that, again, wouldn't be an anarchy.

Hold up, your solution to the inherent corrupting influence of power is to...establish a state that concentrates massive amounts of power into a select group of individuals?

[Amerysia]

My utopia would have a bunch of self-governing communities, administered as the locals wish it, with trade eliminating scarcity in time. Ideally, they would all be socialist, but even so, some capitalist hell-holes might co-exist with the more civilized areas. Until they collapse under their own insanity.

[Des-Bal]

Anarchism is great, it's the richest environment for conquest. Just imagine, all you need to do is round up some weapons and some buddies to hold them and you too can be a warlord!

[Page]

Then you aren't an anarchist.

Not completely true

If you think the state shouldn't have authority or even be a state then your an anarchist

You don't have to do anything violent to be one

It is just what you believe.

How does not recognizing the state's authority imply violence? I ignore the state's authority in all kinds of ways but none of it involves violence.

[Kubra]

Anarchism is great, it's the richest environment for conquest. Just imagine, all you need to do is round up some weapons and some buddies to hold them and you too can be a warlord!

Perhaps the nationalists of Spain believed this, yet it was the anarchists who largely prevented their immediate victory in 1936.

[Salus Maior]

Anarchism is great, it's the richest environment for conquest. Just imagine, all you need to do is round up some weapons and some buddies to hold them and you too can be a warlord!

Perhaps the nationalists of Spain believed this, yet it was the anarchists who largely prevented their immediate victory in 1936.

Press x to doubt.

The Anarchists divided the Republican cause.

[Salus Maior]

My utopia would have a bunch of self-governing communities, administered as the locals wish it, with trade eliminating scarcity in time. Ideally, they would all be socialist, but even so, some capitalist hell-holes might co-exist with the more civilized areas. Until they collapse under their own insanity.

How would trade eliminate scarcity.

[Countesia]

I few years back I had a great conversation with an anarchist over facebook. Obviously the first idea that comes to mind when you think of anarchy is roving bands of raiders looting and killing in the streets as a result of a civil breakdown, so i was interested in knowing what an "actual" anarchist believes.

Its actually quite more pleasant than the media hivemind would have you believe. Most of them still believe in an order of things, they simply wish to do away with the government part of it. Roads would be paid for via toll booths, utilities would stay pretty much the same for those who live in countries with privatised utilities. Same with healthcare, for you Americans. There would local law enforcement and emergency services, just all of it is planned at a local level by volunteers. No tax, or anything. You pay for what you use and not a cent more.

I think it has its flaws, but it opened my eyes to the idea of of civilised anarchism

[Sordhau]

I few years back I had a great conversation with an anarchist over facebook. Obviously the first idea that comes to mind when you think of anarchy is roving bands of raiders looting and killing in the streets as a result of a civil breakdown, so i was interested in knowing what an "actual" anarchist believes.

Its actually quite more pleasant than the media hivemind would have you believe. Most of them still believe in an order of things, they simply wish to do away with the government part of it. Roads would be paid for via toll booths, utilities would stay pretty much the same for those who live in countries with privatised utilities. Same with healthcare, for you Americans. There would local law enforcement and emergency services, just all of it is planned at a local level by volunteers. No tax, or anything. You pay for what you use and not a cent more.

I think it has its flaws, but it opened my eyes to the idea of of civilised anarchism

There is nothing "civilized" about the backwards society you just described. By privatizing everything important you've simply exchanged the government for corporations; which is a downgrade, not an upgrade.

[Kubra]

Perhaps the nationalists of Spain believed this, yet it was the anarchists who largely prevented their immediate victory in 1936.

Press x to doubt.

The Anarchists divided the Republican cause.

well I didn't say they saved the republic in 1939, now did I? After 1936 is a complicated issue, but in the opening months the anarchists and the socialist who borrowed their militia structure were the only fighting forces to be had, with half the regular army with the nationalists and the remainder in total disarray. A lot of fronts were stabilised by militiamen alone.

[Salus Maior]

Press x to doubt.

The Anarchists divided the Republican cause.

well I didn't say they saved the republic in 1939, now did I? After 1936 is a complicated issue, but in the opening months the anarchists and the socialist who borrowed their militia structure were the only fighting forces to be had, with half the regular army with the nationalists and the remainder in total disarray. A lot of fronts were stabilised by militiamen alone.

And then they lost the Republicans the war.

[Kubra]

well I didn't say they saved the republic in 1939, now did I? After 1936 is a complicated issue, but in the opening months the anarchists and the socialist who borrowed their militia structure were the only fighting forces to be had, with half the regular army with the nationalists and the remainder in total disarray. A lot of fronts were stabilised by militiamen alone.

And then they lost the Republicans the war.

Depends on how one means it. It is certainly very plausible that the presence and actions of the anarchists prevented greater involvement by the british and the french. But apart from that, it's hard to say the anarchists contributed to the broken politics of the second republic any more than any else did, diverted any substantial amount of resources from the reformed regular army any more than anyone else did, or in the end performed much worse on the battlefield than the regular army.

[Des-Bal]

well I didn't say they saved the republic in 1939, now did I? After 1936 is a complicated issue, but in the opening months the anarchists and the socialist who borrowed their militia structure were the only fighting forces to be had, with half the regular army with the nationalists and the remainder in total disarray. A lot of fronts were stabilised by militiamen alone.

First of all the existence of anarchist belligerents is not the same as a state of anarchy, second the forces in disarray could be described as being in anarchy the anarchist forces on the other hand had leadership they functioned pretty much identically to the warlords I described, third they lost.

[Kubra]

well I didn't say they saved the republic in 1939, now did I? After 1936 is a complicated issue, but in the opening months the anarchists and the socialist who borrowed their militia structure were the only fighting forces to be had, with half the regular army with the nationalists and the remainder in total disarray. A lot of fronts were stabilised by militiamen alone.

First of all the existence of anarchist belligerents is not the same as a state of anarchy, second the forces in disarray could be described as being in anarchy the anarchist forces on the other hand had leadership they functioned pretty much identically to the warlords I described, third they lost.

Well, what *is" a state of anarchy, in any case? And really, what even is the point of trying to describe an eschatological state of affairs, rather than the actual, functional aspects of the people and groups that come to hope for a peculiar eschatological state of affairs? Communism is communism, anarchism is anarchism, and they're also the same thing for most folks into this shit. Nonetheless, we distinguish these groups and then divide them into subgroups with different means of criticising them individually, not from imagined futures but from their present (or at least a historical present) functional ways of going about their political business.
They functioned "identically"? You've got a very peculiar definition of warlords, don'tcha?
As for losing, everyone on the republican side lost, the anarchists merely lost the hardest in the end.

[Des-Bal]

Well, what *is" a state of anarchy, in any case? And really, what even is the point of trying to describe an eschatological state of affairs, rather than the actual, functional aspects of the people and groups that come to hope for a peculiar eschatological state of affairs? Communism is communism, anarchism is anarchism, and they're also the same thing for most folks into this shit. Nonetheless, we distinguish these groups and then divide them into subgroups with different means of criticising them individually, not from imagined futures but from their present (or at least a historical present) functional ways of going about their political business.
They functioned "identically"? You've got a very peculiar definition of warlords, don'tcha?
As for losing, everyone on the republican side lost, the anarchists merely lost the hardest in the end.

If we're willing to play fast and loose with definitions what is anarchy other than a group of people working in a salt mine because I have commanded it and my Knights Eternal enforce my will from the backs of their laser steeds? Support anarchy, make me your king.