Anarchism, would it work?

[LibertarianSocialist]

I am a Libertarian Socialist (Socialist Anarchist) and I believe the best way to form a society is let it be ran completely by the people, no leaders.

 

[ScottD]

Lychmobs would be the biggest issue, with no regulation of markets being another. Plus, add the fact that someone would eventually apoint themselves as a leader, and I can't generally see a Anarchy being that successful.

 

[Agnapostate]

Great, wait till Alex stumbles in now. :doh

 

[Agent_Grey]

I am a Libertarian Socialist (Socialist Anarchist) and I believe the best way to form a society is let it be ran completely by the people, no leaders.

The fact that Anarchist states in the past have inevitably ended up having leaders tells me that this idea is simply untennable.

What do you think previous anarchistic systems could have done to sustain themselves without this happening?

 

[Agnapostate]

Since the most widespread implementation of anarchism occurred during the Spanish Civil War, we'd have to discuss the nature of CNT (the anarchist trade union) collaboration with the Republican government at the time. IMO, anarchist figures such as Federica Montseny and Juan Garcia Oliver had no place as governmental ministers, but they adopted the posts because of their belief that a strategic military alliance against fascism was necessary. As Leninists in the Popular Front sabotaged and destroyed many of the anarchist collectives in Aragon and their alleged "allies" undersupplied them and disbanded the libertarian Marxist POUM and the anarchist columns, this was a mistake, in retrospect.

 

[LibertarianSocialist]

Well, the lynch-mobs could be put down easily if the people that form the societies create law enforcement of some sort, such as police. The EZLN, which is a Libertarian Socialist/Anarcho-communist organization, has a people-ran guerilla army that would be able to put them down as well. As for market regulation, it wouldn't be necessary in a Libertarian Socialist/Socialist Anarchist society.

 

[other]

Well, the lynch-mobs could be put down easily if the people that form the societies create law enforcement of some sort, such as police. The EZLN, which is a Libertarian Socialist/Anarcho-communist organization, has a people-ran guerilla army that would be able to put them down as well. As for market regulation, it wouldn't be necessary in a Libertarian Socialist/Socialist Anarchist society.

what's to prevent the "police" from turning into a lynch mob?

 

[ScottD]

what's to prevent the "police" from turning into a lynch mob?

Better question, what is preventing the "police" from becoming the leaders?

 

[Agnapostate]

Polycentric organization and rotation of able-bodied individuals in and out of defense units, I'd imagine.

 

[cmckinney]

There must always be a leader, and there must always be followers for a society to function. Otherwise it is chaos. There is no other way.

 

[other]

Polycentric organization and rotation of able-bodied individuals in and out of defense units, I'd imagine.

but who would enforce this rotation? Or that particular style of organization?

not to keep firing questions, but how can anarchism maintain itself over any extended period of time without somebody exploiting an opportunity to snatch authoritarian control?

 

[Alex Libman]

From another thread -

Anarcho-Capitalism is the only form of anarchism that is sustainable.

If all governments were to suddenly disappear tomorrow, some places would be more capitalist than others, based on the property owners' ability to defend their property. They would then be able to use their property to produce, and, as history shows, be able to produce more than their socialist neighbors based on explicit incentives for mutually-beneficial cooperation based on property rights. More competent individuals who benefit more from a society that recognizes property rights would gravitate toward those places, while incompetent people seeking for someone else to pull their economic weight for them would gravitate toward the socialist areas. The capitalist areas would experience the natural emergence of beneficial capitalist institutions, like private roads, private schools, private protection agencies, polycentric law, a free press, and so on. The socialist areas would experience conflict and oppression, as has always been the case throughout history. The differences in economic productivity (i.e. per-capita GDP) between socialist and capitalist anarchists would continue to grow, with more and more starving socialists defecting to the capitalist side day after day.

 

[other]

From another thread -

Do you have an historical example of anarcho-captalism? I wouldn't count the early settlers of the American northeast as anarchists (strict adherence to puritan religious law, mayflower compact, etc). (although I agree with the point on the economic sphere)

I believe it may be useful to look to early medieval europe, where it may be argued such a heavily decentralized and lawless (anarchist?) systems were extant in pockets across the continent at separate places and varying times. Eventually, under such a system, powerful families (kin-groups who successfully accumulated the most property and could afford to distrubute it for political/military fealty) dominated others with unadulterated force.

 

[Dav]

I am a Libertarian Socialist (Socialist Anarchist) and I believe the best way to form a society is let it be ran completely by the people, no leaders.

Anarchism requires that you trust the goodness in peoples' hearts, and thus is silly.

 

[other]

Better question, what is preventing the "police" from becoming the leaders?

what would be the difference? The guys that are effectively able to bring to bear the most physical force would effectively be leaders...only a more powerful leader (with a more powerful lynch mob behind him) would be able to stand against the original upstarts. <cue vicious cycle of blood-feud, violence against innocents, theft, etc>

 

[FrostyRoskies]

This would not work. I believe in limited government, but not no government. There will always be some sort of leader. If there were no leaders, there would be no laws and people would take what they want and many other flaws. While our government isn't great. Anarchy is not a good form of government.

 

[other]

I'm genuinely curious as to how/why anarchists believe it would work...

 

[Wessexman]

I was an anarchist but I realised what is the point? You could probably achieve the vast majority of your objectives by the radical decentralisation of gov't, economics and society anyway without having to deal with the problems of complete anarchy nor the disdain most people have for it and anarchists. Plus I was rapidly moving right but in some things I'm not too far from anarchism today. I still have influenced by the likes of Kropotkin, Proudhon and Landauer as Robert Nisbet was. It is a shame what has happened to anarchism with the rise of New Left, imho. But, imho again, anarchism is still a far richer doctrine than say Marxism, it is far more willing to embrace the complexities and diversity of human civilisation.

 

[Wessexman]

I'm genuinely curious as to how/why anarchists believe it would work...

It really depends on the type of anarchism but most do envisage a role for the local community to make some decisions and enforce some order.

 

[The silenced majority]

Well, the lynch-mobs could be put down easily if the people that form the societies create law enforcement of some sort, such as police. The EZLN, which is a Libertarian Socialist/Anarcho-communist organization, has a people-ran guerilla army that would be able to put them down as well. As for market regulation, it wouldn't be necessary in a Libertarian Socialist/Socialist Anarchist society.

... in other words, mobs would find a way to rule.

 

[other]

It really depends on the type of anarchism but most do envisage a role for the local community to make some decisions and enforce some order.

so people would be subject to the whims of their local community...sounds pretty capricious to me...

And when the Jones's down the street decide to build a road through your property. You appeal to the community, but find that the Jones's promised favors/property/marriage/whatever to the Johnsons's and the Smith's to stand against your wishes and support their road. everybody benefits but you. what then?

(i know you're not an anarchist, but you used to be, so I figured I'd ask--maybe you'll remember how you would have answered back when you were anarchist)

 

[Wessexman]

so people would be subject to the whims of their local community...sounds pretty capricious to me...

Well yes and no. Personally I think some balance is needed, hence I'm not an anarchist any more but the problems aren't that great. Decentralised power is generally a lot better than centralied power and traditional anarchism at least has a lot of respect for intermediate associations such as family, voluntary associations, occupational associations and such which would be some sort of barrier and support against to the already supposedly limited role of the community.

And when the Jones's down the street decide to build a road through your property. You appeal to the community, but find that the Jones's promised favors/property/marriage/whatever to the Johnsons's and the Smith's to stand against your wishes and support their road. everybody benefits but you. what then?

(i know you're not an anarchist, but you used to be, so I figured I'd ask--maybe you'll remember how you would have answered back when you were anarchist)

Well like most anarchists, some would say all real anarchists, I was a socialist even if I was more of the Proudhonian mutualist variety than a collectivist or communist sort. So I believed only in direct occupancy and use title to real property. Again I haven't completely abandoned this position, I'm still a distributist but I realised again it wasn't necessary when you could simply use a Georgist land tax to get the job done without the same problems or opposition.

The only anarchists who have time for non-occupancy and use property are the few Geo-anarchist(Georgist anarchists.) and anarhco-capitalists. The latter have little time in general for the community to have a collective say in such things. Geoanarchists too would generally say once you've paid you ground rent collection to the community the property is yours and no one can do much about it.

 

[Alex Libman]

Do you have an historical example of anarcho-captalism? [...]

I usually don't bother trying to dust off the Quaker PA, American West, medieval Iceland, religious polycentric law (with natural law substituting for religious commandments), nor any other potential examples of Anarcho-Capitalism.

It's enough for me to prove that minarchist capitalism has a solid record of success. Whether Anarcho-Capitalism works or not is still theoretical, but any AnCap society would either be self-selected (ex. seasteading), with everyone involved consenting to the risks involved, or it would have to go through a lengthy transitional phase of ever-stricter minarchism first. Whether it's ideal to leave some centralized government in place or decentralize it completely is a decision that can be postponed until more data are available.

Anarchism requires that you trust the goodness in peoples' hearts, and thus is silly.

Anarcho-Capitalism only requires that the majority of people are not total idiots and thus don't want to get their head blown off for looting and otherwise breaking NAP.

 

[ScottD]

Anarcho-Capitalism only requires that the majority of people are not total idiots and thus don't want to get their head blown off for looting.

I found a flaw in your plan...

You are assuming people aren't idiots.

 

[Wessexman]

I usually don't bother trying to dust off the Quaker PA, American West, medieval Iceland, religious polycentric law (with the Non-Aggression Principle and other natural law substituting for religious commandments), nor any other potential examples of Anarcho-Capitalism. It's enough for me to prove that minarchist capitalism has a solid record of success. Whether Anarcho-Capitalism works or not is still theoretical, but any society would either be self-selected (ex. seasteading) or have to go through a transitional phase of minarchism first. Whether it is beneficial to leave some centralized government in place or decentralize it complete is a decision that can be postponed until more data are available.

I don't think minarchist capitalism per se has a particularly good record. Generally decentralised states of political and economic society have a plentiful track record but few of them were expressly capitalist, in a meaningful way, they were actually more often closer to things like distributism or mutualism or such. The idea that places like medieval Iceland are anarcho-capitalist seems strange to me, it seems a butchering of the word capitalist so it looses any real meaning. Again most of those places can be at least just as readily sighted by other decentralised ideologies.