Top 1 Percent Control 42 Percent of Financial Wealth in the U.S.

[edgray]

It's your right to desire anarchy but societies in general do not form into productive groups for anarchy, they form for the law and order. Look around the world and see how many productive groups live by the rule of anarchy. By definition there is nothing orderly about it and very little if anything is desirable because of it, other than every person for themselves.

Is this day and age, no, there aren't many examples of anarchy around, simply because we're all subjugated into hierarchical societies and told by the people at the top that we need govt, law and order etc etc.

It hasn't always been that way:

Most contemporary anthropologists, as well as anarcho-primitivists agree that, for the longest period before recorded history, human society was organized on anarchist principles. According to Harold Barclay, long before anarchism emerged as a distinct perspective, human beings lived for thousands of years in societies without government.[7] It was only after the rise of hierarchical societies that anarchist ideas were formulated as a critical response to and rejection of coercive political institutions and hierarchical social relationships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anarchism

So it seems that Anarchy is actually a much more natural state than a society with a hierarchy.

 

[edgray]

There's also an interesting mention of open source programming communities, much of the software produced in these communities is in general use by all of us:

There are also open source programming communities, who donate their time, and offer their product freely as well. Examples include Usenet, the free software movement (including the GNU/Linux community and the wikiwiki paradigm), and Indymedia. A book analyzing how this new "anarchic" mode of production is possible is Eric S. Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Traditional historical materialist analysis, used by many libertarian socialists, is one means of interpreting the above, and would describe it as a "political economy of non-commodity information production".

 

[Accountable]

Do you see your ideal society coexisting within a capitalist, socialist, or communist society (if the gov't allows it, that is).

Ideally, the entire of society would be an anarchist one and not just be a community within a larger one.

Sorry, that was a yes or no question, badly phrased.

I can see a commune or village working that way, maybe even a town of a few hundred - if all the planets aligned just right. But a modern society of hundreds of millions simply can't operate as if it were a hunter-gatherer society of dozens.

Of course I could be wrong, but the proof would still lie in creating a micro-society seed and growing. Good luck.

 

[Minor Axis]

So it seems that Anarchy is actually a much more natural state than a society with a hierarchy.

I disagree, anarchy leads to law and order because the latter is considered superior by most if not all civilizations/people. However you must have fair laws, civil liberties, and a fair amount of regulation, thrown into the mix. Let's look a manufacturing- under anarchy and no regulation, companies could throw their poisonous waste into the river to poison the group of people living downstream. Laws, regulations, and enforcement personel provide an orderly method of dealing with this situation vs having a mob of people downstream grab their torches and pitchforks and burn down the factory.

 

[Accountable]

I agree that government and laws are necessary - at absolute minimum levels necessary - but don't assume that the only way to stop the pollution is through violence. Somebody walking upstream and talking to a cooperative factory owner would never make the history books. It's too boring and probably too common.

 

[edgray]

I disagree, anarchy leads to law and order because the latter is considered superior by most if not all civilizations/people. However you must have fair laws, civil liberties, and a fair amount of regulation, thrown into the mix. Let's look a manufacturing- under anarchy and no regulation, companies could throw their poisonous waste into the river to poison the group of people living downstream. Laws, regulations, and enforcement personel provide an orderly method of dealing with this situation vs having a mob of people downstream grab their torches and pitchforks and burn down the factory.

Your interpretation of "anarchy" is a very common one: without govt, law and order. This is what we're told from a young age - anarchy = chaos. That is the direct opposite of anarchist philosophy: which puts forth the notion of highly organised societies, with their own law and order systems, but those systems being run and implemented by the people, not by any authority. It's power from the bottom, rather than the top down. An anarchist could easily argue that today's society is total chaos, which is how the powers that be want it to be.

Your manufacturing example is an interesting one. If you were to speak to the average person on the street about corporations pouring toxic waste into the environment, they would be opposed to it. It only happens because under our current system people simply don't have a say about what corporate tyrannies get up to. Sure, laws are formed, but given that govts and power structures as we know them are bought and sold by corporations, it doesn't really amount to much.

Manufacturing would be managed by those that work in that sector, with the effects of that manufacturing being controlled by society as a whole. There are many ways this could be handled without the need for authority or power structures, and no need for pitchforks.

 

[edgray]

Sorry, that was a yes or no question, badly phrased.

I can see a commune or village working that way, maybe even a town of a few hundred - if all the planets aligned just right. But a modern society of hundreds of millions simply can't operate as if it were a hunter-gatherer society of dozens.

Of course I could be wrong, but the proof would still lie in creating a micro-society seed and growing. Good luck.

There are examples of that of course, the Israeli Kibbutz being one that springs into mind.

A micro society would probably be the best way to start - but it would be difficult to expand if it were surrounded by a world under a capitalist structure.

It surprises me that govts, if they were to truly represent the people, would be conducting experiments in this kind of area to see the viability of the restructuring of societies. I think this is the biggest problem I have with our current set-ups: we're not moving toward a goal of any kind, nor are we trying new things other than a few small tweaks within a very narrow framework.

 

[Accountable]

Your interpretation of "anarchy" is a very common one: without govt, law and order. This is what we're told from a young age - anarchy = chaos. That is the direct opposite of anarchist philosophy: which puts forth the notion of highly organised societies, with their own law and order systems, ....

anarchy

1530s, from M.L. anarchia, from Gk. anarkhia "lack of a leader," noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" + arkhos "leader" (see archon). Anarch (n.) "leader of leaderlessness," a deliciously paradoxical word, was used by Milton, Pope, Byron. Anarcho-syndicalism is first recorded 1913. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=anarchy&searchmode=none

A micro society would probably be the best way to start - but it would be difficult to expand if it were surrounded by a world under a capitalist structure.

How am I supposed to infer anything at all from this other than as a call to overthrow government, which necessarily means a call for violent war?

 

[KpAtch3s]

Your interpretation of "anarchy" is a very common one: without govt, law and order. This is what we're told from a young age - anarchy = chaos. That is the direct opposite of anarchist philosophy: which puts forth the notion of highly organised societies, with their own law and order systems, but those systems being run and implemented by the people, not by any authority. It's power from the bottom, rather than the top down. An anarchist could easily argue that today's society is total chaos, which is how the powers that be want it to be.

Your manufacturing example is an interesting one. If you were to speak to the average person on the street about corporations pouring toxic waste into the environment, they would be opposed to it. It only happens because under our current system people simply don't have a say about what corporate tyrannies get up to. Sure, laws are formed, but given that govts and power structures as we know them are bought and sold by corporations, it doesn't really amount to much.

Manufacturing would be managed by those that work in that sector, with the effects of that manufacturing being controlled by society as a whole. There are many ways this could be handled without the need for authority or power structures, and no need for pitchforks.

So basically you like the idea of anarchy (by your definition) because the power resides at the bottom of the scale..with the people. You mean like the way thte United States was originally set up as a republic? Where the power resided with the people and the states had more control than the federal govt.

Through the course of time the federal govt has managed to grab more power for various reasons. Now, you think an anarchy type of society wouldn't develop a top heavy power structure over the same course of time?

It is in the nature of people to have leadership, and some people follow while others lead. The leader or group of people that can unite the people for some common cause will be the ones with the power and it will grow and it become top heavy. It's the natural course of all government systems.

 

[edgray]

anarchy

1530s, from M.L. anarchia, from Gk. anarkhia "lack of a leader," noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" + arkhos "leader" (see archon). Anarch (n.) "leader of leaderlessness," a deliciously paradoxical word, was used by Milton, Pope, Byron. Anarcho-syndicalism is first recorded 1913. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=anarchy&searchmode=none

yes?

How am I supposed to infer anything at all from this other than as a call to overthrow government, which necessarily means a call for violent war?

There are anarchists who propose overthrowing the govt in violent means, though they are in the minority and I certainly wouldn't agree with them and I don't see how you came to that conclusion from what I said.

 

[edgray]

So basically you like the idea of anarchy (by your definition) because the power resides at the bottom of the scale..with the people. You mean like the way thte United States was originally set up as a republic? Where the power resided with the people and the states had more control than the federal govt.

Through the course of time the federal govt has managed to grab more power for various reasons. Now, you think an anarchy type of society wouldn't develop a top heavy power structure over the same course of time?

It is in the nature of people to have leadership, and some people follow while others lead. The leader or group of people that can unite the people for some common cause will be the ones with the power and it will grow and it become top heavy. It's the natural course of all government systems.

The US was founded on views very similar to those of anarchists. This is a nice quote:

"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them. I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under the European governments. Among the former, public opinion is in the place of law and restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did anywhere. Among the latter, under pretense of governing, they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep. I do not exaggerate. This is a true picture of Europe."

It's all about power from the bottom up. There would always be a problem with having a power structure developing, and the only way to stop that happening would be to have an equal, educated, healthy and politically active population. The idea that by structuring the economy in a socialistic manner would reduce the concentrations of wealth that create the power structures, which is exactly what's happened in the US since it's inception.

I would disagree about it being natural for people to be lead. Historically this has proved not to be the case, as mentioned in the quote I posted a few posts back, humans lived for thousands of years without hierarchies. We're told from birth that we need leaders, in the same way we're brainwashed into thinking that capitalism is the only system that works, and that our political "democratic" systems are fair and people only do things for money.

 

[Minor Axis]

Your interpretation of "anarchy" is a very common one: without govt, law and order. This is what we're told from a young age - anarchy = chaos. That is the direct opposite of anarchist philosophy: which puts forth the notion of highly organised societies, with their own law and order systems, but those systems being run and implemented by the people, not by any authority. It's power from the bottom, rather than the top down. An anarchist could easily argue that today's society is total chaos, which is how the powers that be want it to be..

You are definitely in the minority promoting such a system.

Who do you think authority is? It's people that have been hired or elected into jobs because everyday people don't want to have to micro-manage society based issues like order, conflict resolution, infrastructure, and social well being. Those people in authority can be fired or not reelected if they don't do their jobs. A dedicated and focused effort is what is needed to deal with these issues, not a system that would expect to gather a few hundred thousand people in a field and come up with a plan to build a sewer system. Conceivably "anarchy" as you describe it might work in a very small social situations, but it would never be efficient for large groups.

 

[edgray]

You are definitely in the minority promoting such a system.

Who do you think authority is? It's people that have been hired or elected into jobs because everyday people don't want to have to micro-manage society based issues like order, conflict resolution, infrastructure, and social well being. Those people in authority can be fired or not reelected if they don't do their jobs. A dedicated and focused effort is what is needed to deal with these issues, not a system that would expect to gather a few hundred thousand people in a field and come up with a plan to build a sewer system. Conceivably "anarchy" as you describe it might work in a very small social situations, but it would never be efficient for large groups.

You'd be surprised at how many anarchists there are - I meet them all the time and of all ages and backgrounds too. Thanks to the anti-globalisation movement, anarchy has finally started to receive some exposure.

I think the first thing is we give our representatives far too much credit - I really don't think they actually do that much. Just look at the civil service - cushiest job in the world because it takes a lot less to run a society than most people think.

As for firing or no reelecting someone who isn't doing a good job, that's all well and good but in a position of power, a lot of damage can be done inbetween elections...

I don't think anyone would entertain the idea of hundreds of thousands of people in a field debating an issue to come up with a solution - there really would never be any need for that. Direct democracy could be implemented in any number of ways, and people would choose their involvement based on things that matter or effect them. There could conceivably be a civil service still, that maintains infrastructure so there wouldn't be any need for people to get involved in sewer planning.