Explain Anarchy to me

[Tulks]

That no-one is universally considered to be in charge doesn't necessarily mean that nothing gets done, or that no-one is controlling things.

In states where the government has collapsed, many people will just get on with their daily business as usual.

Consider, how much direct influence does your government have over your average day.

Alot, since they are loaning me about £21000 over about 3 years to get a degree, and I take medicine funded by them every day to treat medical conditions. They provide our education, healthcare and laws. Look at Somalia where the government collapsed, the parts of that which haven't settled into automonous rule have come under the control of various war-lords who give their mercenanies a free reign and implement harsh Sharia law. Doesn't look very perfect to me.

I didn't say it was perfect. Our own constitutional monarchy isn't perfect, either.
Yes, some parts of Somalia fell into infighting, along with much of post-colonial East Africa. But other parts settled into autonomous self-rule. Both are examples of anarchy.

My point was, I think, that anarchy can work. Not necessarily that disbanding our own "big government" overnight would be immediately beneficial to everyone.

 

[Keava]

V for Vendetta was already mentioned, I suggest you give it a look as it is one of the best depictions of "true" anarchy I know of. But basically, anarchy is about self-governance of the people. If you ask me, the closest we as humanity have come to a working anarchy were the early years of the Athenian Polis.

With the exception that in early Greek polis only citizens of given polis had any rights, and that excluded slaves, women and everyone not born in that polis. It was still very limited political system and was pretty centralized due to it.
In anarchy theory you do not have such bounds, everyone participates on equal rules, there is no single entity that decides what is wrong and what is right and communities are supposed to work for common goal because it's beneficial to everyone involved.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I undertand theres more to anarchy than just "no government"

however personally I dont understand how our society could run under such a thing, no one is going to clean up the streets for nothing, and some people arnt going to stop killing others because its not a very nice thing to do

'No government' is actually the true definition of Communism which alot of people mislabel with the those totalitarian Socialist trainwrecks that occured throughought these past 100 years. My understanding of anarchism is simply 'no laws'.

Not...at all.

I'll agree that there hasn't been an ACTUAL Communist country in...well...ever, but Communism isn't lack of government, it's government made up of the common man. ('Common' is the first half of the word Communism, even.)

Basically, there would be no government officials in a Communist government. The best example I could give is...Anonymous. 'We are Legion'. That's Communism in it's purest form.

But, as with Anonymous, Communism's flaw is that some humans will always aspire to be King, and the lack of any centralized government makes it incredibly easy for a rogue element to seize absolute power...hence the totalitarian socialist trainwrecks.

 

[Gerard Hughes]

Anarchy is like being an animal
its a dream and a dumb one to boot

 

[Cheesus333]

however personally I dont understand how our society could run under such a thing

It couldn't, that's the point. Some people see society, on the whole, as more trouble than it's worth, and want us to descend to our brutal, [http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101220003739/fallout/images/1/1d/Raider_Armor_set.png] primitive [http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/upload/2007/01/Riots.jpg] roots.

 

[funguy2121]

I undertand theres more to anarchy than just "no government"

however personally I dont understand how our society could run under such a thing, no one is going to clean up the streets for nothing, and some people arnt going to stop killing others because its not a very nice thing to do

Anarchy has quite a few gripes, many of them legitimate, and nothing in the way of real-world solutions. Anarchy is also contradicted by all human interaction and by the product of such interaction: a true anarchist wouldn't speak any languages, wear clothes, listen to music or even take advantage of basic scientific discoveries such as fire. Anarchy = anti-society. A society cannot exist without some form of government, and without intelligent people collaborating to defend against threats and better the lives of those living within a group, the bigger brutes would overwhelm the others. Anarchy can't really exist in the modern age, with perhaps a few exceptions involving the mentally ill.

 

[Matthew Wilson]

If no-one's put it already, Anarchy is simply;
Fucking shit up.
Then putting a cause and reason to it.

 

[funguy2121]

I've got a comparison for you. In recent years one could say that with so little regulation the banking system was running on anarchy - left to be "self regulated". They ran rampant for some time and it was good, until the holes in that premise became painfully obvious. To fix it, governments imposed new rules to limit that freedom. Will it work, only time will tell. ON the same notion with anarchy it provokes chaos and chaos is sort of self regulated. When the streets become too dirty, someone will clean them so he could move, which will benefit everyone else. Just like tribes times after a while, when most people have died because of the complete collapse of the system, it wouldn't matter anymore. Rules are there because we are too many. If we were separated into smaller groups we could agree on other rules.

Simply put if you have one person, he makes his own rules. If you have a tribe the leader makes the rules. If you have a small ancient Greek type of society - everyone votes and shape the rules. Today we have huge societies and so the power is more centered. Behind every few million people there is a Representative, behind every few of them there are other and so on till we reach that golden Greek number of people who are enough to make democracy (less than 300 and more than 30 people).

Every political system actually works, but for different kinds of societies. Anarchy won't work for our right now. Oh and having a coup doesn't mean Anarchy it means simply forcible changing of the system to another or simply changing the parts of said system, not having no system at all.

Yes, there are quite a few parallels between anarchy and the laissez-faire Tea Party crowd.

 

[bigsby]

V for Vendetta was already mentioned, I suggest you give it a look as it is one of the best depictions of "true" anarchy I know of. But basically, anarchy is about self-governance of the people. If you ask me, the closest we as humanity have come to a working anarchy were the early years of the Athenian Polis.

With the exception that in early Greek polis only citizens of given polis had any rights, and that excluded slaves, women and everyone not born in that polis. It was still very limited political system and was pretty centralized due to it.
In anarchy theory you do not have such bounds, everyone participates on equal rules, there is no single entity that decides what is wrong and what is right and communities are supposed to work for common goal because it's beneficial to everyone involved.

I said the closest. I agree with your points, but the basic idea of self-governance of the citizens (atleast of what was considered citizens) was there.

 

[YesIPlayTheBagpipes]

basically, people would do clean the streets and eveything out of the sheer kindness of their hearts. to "anarchists" i say, read Lord of the Flies.

 

[Jodah]

Anarchy is kinda like Communism in that it seems like a good idea on paper but in practice...not so much. If people were mostly good it would work well, ones moral code would become the new law and everyone had the ability to punish people for wrongs. Problem is people aren't good when left to their own devices. For that reason Government becomes necessary.

 

[Jacob Haggarty]

That no-one is universally considered to be in charge doesn't necessarily mean that nothing gets done, or that no-one is controlling things.

In states where the government has collapsed, many people will just get on with their daily business as usual.

Consider, how much direct influence does your government have over your average day.

But it's when the INDIRECT influence stops is when the problems start. Getting rid of the establishment will only get you so far. After a while, all the things that we the people took for granted would fade, like free health care (england). We wouldnt have anyone to pay taxes too, nor would we WANT to pay them, so the various different tax funded things would cease to be free.

On top of that, removing the establishment would ultimately create a power vaccum. Which would instantly (more or less) be filled by whatever group beats their way to it first, most likely either just another government or a military power (UNTIL another government is established).

Of course, this is assuming that EVRYONE is an anarchist. Which isnt so, because many people (usually the richest) like where things are at the moment. Any sort of uprising would result in civil war, which would just be a major fuck up for everyone.

Bottom line, anarchy is pretty damned annoying. Maybe not useless, but still annoying.

 

[Exterminas]

To quote Immanuel Kant:
"A Law And Freedom without Violence (Anarchy)
B Law And Violence without Freedom (Despotism)
C Violence without Freedom And Law (Barbarism)
D Violence with Freedom And Law (Republic)"

You actually have a slight translation error there. In the german text Kant uses the word "Gewalt", which can be translated into Violence. However in the context of political theory it also means something like Power, like legislative, executive and judicative.
It can also be specified to just the executive.

However translating it with violence is a bit problematic, since no political order can control how much violence there will be among the people : P

Otherwise your post is fine, I just wanted to point out that you can not necesarilly generate a civilization of peace-loving-flower-childs by exposing them to anarchy and that Kant certainly didn't write such.

 

[Agayek]

I undertand theres more to anarchy than just "no government"

however personally I dont understand how our society could run under such a thing, no one is going to clean up the streets for nothing, and some people arnt going to stop killing others because its not a very nice thing to do

True anarchy is the complete lack of enforced societal rules. Essentially, it's the belief that the entire concept of government is, by nature, evil and should therefore be abolished.

There's a whole range of sub-groups with varying levels of belief, but that is the core concept.

In all practical sense, it's not a feasible system of government. It relies on people taking responsibility for their actions and policing themselves. As anyone with a history book can tell you, such a thing just doesn't work on a large scale. Most anarchists will admit that, but it won't change the ideal behind it.

I, myself, am somewhat of an anarchist. I'm practical enough to know such a thing would never work though, so I tend to lean towards the libertarian side of things. That is, I believe government is necessary, but it should have no more than the absolute minimum by way of powers. The government serves one function: protect the every citizen from external malice. To that affect, the government requires 1) a standing military and 2) a police force and judicial system. Nothing more.

And said police force should enforce only two laws:
1) The Law of Equal Liberty [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_equal_liberty]
2) The Non-Aggression Principle [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle]

Anything beyond those two is a gross violation of the rights of the citizenry.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I've got a comparison for you. In recent years one could say that with so little regulation the banking system was running on anarchy - left to be "self regulated". They ran rampant for some time and it was good, until the holes in that premise became painfully obvious. To fix it, governments imposed new rules to limit that freedom. Will it work, only time will tell. ON the same notion with anarchy it provokes chaos and chaos is sort of self regulated. When the streets become too dirty, someone will clean them so he could move, which will benefit everyone else. Just like tribes times after a while, when most people have died because of the complete collapse of the system, it wouldn't matter anymore. Rules are there because we are too many. If we were separated into smaller groups we could agree on other rules.

Simply put if you have one person, he makes his own rules. If you have a tribe the leader makes the rules. If you have a small ancient Greek type of society - everyone votes and shape the rules. Today we have huge societies and so the power is more centered. Behind every few million people there is a Representative, behind every few of them there are other and so on till we reach that golden Greek number of people who are enough to make democracy (less than 300 and more than 30 people).

Every political system actually works, but for different kinds of societies. Anarchy won't work for our right now. Oh and having a coup doesn't mean Anarchy it means simply forcible changing of the system to another or simply changing the parts of said system, not having no system at all.

Yes, there are quite a few parallels between anarchy and the laissez-faire Tea Party crowd.

Not really. Most people get an idea in their heads about what Anarchism as a movement actually is and just kind of run with it. It doesn't help that the word 'Anarchist' kind of has a double meaning, the more common and proper of which is a society in chaos. It also doesn't help that fringe groups of all kinds love to construe themselves as 'Anarchists' or 'Libertarians' of one type or another. Historically, and still outside of America, a 'Libertarian' is a Socialist.

Anarchists are a varied bunch, so it's hard to pin down an exact philosophy. But generally speaking, Anarchists are against capitalism, against the state as it relates to capitalism, against 'property', for equality, for democracy, and for worker management of economic resources. The exact form that last one takes is where Anarchists tend to disagree with each other (eg. Communism, Syndicalism, even Individualism in America). Most Anarchists take a gradualist view that the state should be phased out as management of resources falls to the workers in the form of unions, communes, councils, or whatever, and it's authority becomes redundant and therefore invasive.

Chaos or 'self-regulation' or any other Tea Party stuff really has nothing to do with Anarchism, at least from the perspective of the Anarchist. Anarchism is a type of socialism, but with emphasis on decentralized worker management of resources. This might mean that workers make decisions about the factory they work at instead of some property owner or some president-for-life government official. Perhaps these factories organize themselves in federated fashion, with levels of delegated decision making, all free and participatory in nature. This is only 'unregulated' in the sense that it is free from involvement by a traditional state, at least so much as is appropriate at the time. Most anarchists support a system for the enforcement of laws similar to what we currently have, but usually more democratic. I have heard some idiot anarchists say crime is a consequence of capitalist oppression, and therefore an anarchist society would have no crime. Just thought it was funny.

So what is Anarchism? I guess you could say it is like decentralized Democratic Socialism. Some even say they are the same thing, though I think that is only a consequence of Anarchism becoming more mainstream at the same time it becomes less relevant.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Double Post, how embarrassing!

 

[funguy2121]

I've got a comparison for you. In recent years one could say that with so little regulation the banking system was running on anarchy - left to be "self regulated". They ran rampant for some time and it was good, until the holes in that premise became painfully obvious. To fix it, governments imposed new rules to limit that freedom. Will it work, only time will tell. ON the same notion with anarchy it provokes chaos and chaos is sort of self regulated. When the streets become too dirty, someone will clean them so he could move, which will benefit everyone else. Just like tribes times after a while, when most people have died because of the complete collapse of the system, it wouldn't matter anymore. Rules are there because we are too many. If we were separated into smaller groups we could agree on other rules.

Simply put if you have one person, he makes his own rules. If you have a tribe the leader makes the rules. If you have a small ancient Greek type of society - everyone votes and shape the rules. Today we have huge societies and so the power is more centered. Behind every few million people there is a Representative, behind every few of them there are other and so on till we reach that golden Greek number of people who are enough to make democracy (less than 300 and more than 30 people).

Every political system actually works, but for different kinds of societies. Anarchy won't work for our right now. Oh and having a coup doesn't mean Anarchy it means simply forcible changing of the system to another or simply changing the parts of said system, not having no system at all.

Yes, there are quite a few parallels between anarchy and the laissez-faire Tea Party crowd.

That's because they both have certain libertarian roots.

Anarchy is simply no government, libertarians want small government (or no government).

It's starting to annoy me how many people are posting about anarchy confusing it with chaos and then arguing from there. It's the exact same underhanded or ignorant tactic as pro-lifers calling pro-choice "pro-abortion".

With respect, I don't see how you could differentiate "no government" from chaos. If you were to explain how any large government-free body of people could conceivably operate without descending into chaos, I'd listen.

I am aware that libertarians tend to be conservative, whereas anarchists are usually more liberal. But there are common threads.

 

[CommanderKirov]

Anarchy is when everything goes down the drain and everyone does whatever one wants.

The rule of the strongest and most cunning applies.

That is what anarchy is. People claiming different are speaking about one of the many branches of similar ways of thought.

 

[zehydra]

No rules.

Pure freedom.
Project Mayhem?

Project Mayhem isn't freedom at all. Durden brainwashed a population into becoming his minions. How is that freedom?

 

[zehydra]

I've got a comparison for you. In recent years one could say that with so little regulation the banking system was running on anarchy - left to be "self regulated". They ran rampant for some time and it was good, until the holes in that premise became painfully obvious. To fix it, governments imposed new rules to limit that freedom. Will it work, only time will tell. ON the same notion with anarchy it provokes chaos and chaos is sort of self regulated. When the streets become too dirty, someone will clean them so he could move, which will benefit everyone else. Just like tribes times after a while, when most people have died because of the complete collapse of the system, it wouldn't matter anymore. Rules are there because we are too many. If we were separated into smaller groups we could agree on other rules.

Simply put if you have one person, he makes his own rules. If you have a tribe the leader makes the rules. If you have a small ancient Greek type of society - everyone votes and shape the rules. Today we have huge societies and so the power is more centered. Behind every few million people there is a Representative, behind every few of them there are other and so on till we reach that golden Greek number of people who are enough to make democracy (less than 300 and more than 30 people).

Every political system actually works, but for different kinds of societies. Anarchy won't work for our right now. Oh and having a coup doesn't mean Anarchy it means simply forcible changing of the system to another or simply changing the parts of said system, not having no system at all.

Yes, there are quite a few parallels between anarchy and the laissez-faire Tea Party crowd.

Not really. Most people get an idea in their heads about what Anarchism as a movement actually is and just kind of run with it. It doesn't help that the word 'Anarchist' kind of has a double meaning, the more common and proper of which is a society in chaos. It also doesn't help that fringe groups of all kinds love to construe themselves as 'Anarchists' or 'Libertarians' of one type or another. Historically, and still outside of America, a 'Libertarian' is a Socialist.

Anarchists are a varied bunch, so it's hard to pin down an exact philosophy. But generally speaking, Anarchists are against capitalism, against the state as it relates to capitalism, against 'property', for equality, for democracy, and for worker management of economic resources. The exact form that last one takes is where Anarchists tend to disagree with each other (eg. Communism, Syndicalism, even Individualism in America). Most Anarchists take a gradualist view that the state should be phased out as management of resources falls to the workers in the form of unions, communes, councils, or whatever, and it's authority becomes redundant and therefore invasive.

Chaos or 'self-regulation' or any other Tea Party stuff really has nothing to do with Anarchism, at least from the perspective of the Anarchist. Anarchism is a type of socialism, but with emphasis on decentralized worker management of resources. This might mean that workers make decisions about the factory they work at instead of some property owner or some president-for-life government official. Perhaps these factories organize themselves in federated fashion, with levels of delegated decision making, all free and participatory in nature. This is only 'unregulated' in the sense that it is free from involvement by a traditional state, at least so much as is appropriate at the time. Most anarchists support a system for the enforcement of laws similar to what we currently have, but usually more democratic. I have heard some idiot anarchists say crime is a consequence of capitalist oppression, and therefore an anarchist society would have no crime. Just thought it was funny.

So what is Anarchism? I guess you could say it is like decentralized Democratic Socialism. Some even say they are the same thing, though I think that is only a consequence of Anarchism becoming more mainstream at the same time it becomes less relevant.

That's just one kind of Anarchism. There are some which are more in favor of capitalistic ideals.