This is why anarchy wouldn't work

[CPS01]

The popular definition differs from the dictionary definition.

OK. Where are you going with this?

 

[zyzygy]

I have carried out a straw poll on Facebook. I invited my friends to tell me what the word anarchy means. The replies were mostly chaos or disorder.

 

[zyzygy]

OK. Where are you going with this?

If anyone out there is actually going to try and start some kind of popular anarchistic movement they will lose before they start because the word anarchy has a popular and negative definition.

 

[CPS01]

I have carried out a straw poll on Facebook. I invited my friends to tell me what the word anarchy means. The replies were mostly chaos or disorder.

Alrighty.. I'm still having a hard time seeing how this is relevant..

 

[zyzygy]

Alrighty.. I'm still having a hard time seeing how this is relevant..

Ok, let's get back to what life would be like under such a system. Is that relevant? It's not philosophy but it does interest me. Let's face it, philosophy does not have much influence over the daily grind.

 

[CPS01]

Ok, let's get back to what life would be like under such a system. Is that relevant?

It's highly relevant - that is exactly the answer im trying to get the anarchists to answer.

 

[zyzygy]

It's highly relevant - that is exactly the answer im trying to get the anarchists to answer.

I don't know if we have any anarchists here. I would like an answer too. Discussing the philosophy of the subject is fine, but I was sitting here trying to imagine life under anarchy, using the local supermarket as a microcosm. A person gets hired, turns up for the first days work and ask what their duties are. Would the answer be " I can't tell you, no rulers here"? If somebody did tell them what to do, would that person be in charge? Or would all the staff vote on who should tell the new employee what to do? Would they vote for every decision? If they voted once and elected somebody to tell others what to do, well, bang goes anarchy again. It seems to be a totally unworkable system. Or would anarchy only be applied at higher levels and we would all carry on as normal? Perhaps this is not philosophy but they do seem like moot questions to my hick mind.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Wouldn't that be democracy? Words change their meanings over time and to most people nowadays anarchy means total chaos.

No, there is a difference between anarchism as a political philosophy and anarchy as a synonym for chaos and destruction.

If you have read and understood "What Is Anarchism?" - then why don't you just go ahead and save me a lot of time, and argue against the 5 claims i have stated in my initial post?

View attachment 67171979

*sighs*gladly

Claim 1: "Without government money will become worthless."

Anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist and always has been and thus there is no need for currency. In an anarchist society, there is no market economy. The means of production are owned collectively and a direct democracy approach is used to decide how resources will be used.

Claim 2: "Public services will only be available to the rich."

The means of production and public services will be owned collectively, thus one is ensured that the will have public services.

Claim 3: "Without the government, there is nobody to protect the rights of the invidividual."

False, communities can be organized into revolutionary militias in which people can protect themselves and the community as a whole. With regards to protection of minorities, there can be committees formed to ensure that things done by the community are not targeted against minorities.

Claim 4:"We would no longer be able to stop global warming"

Governments currently have no interest in stopping global warming. Hell, the US actively fights against pretty much any agreement to stop the use of fossil fuels. Even if the entire planet adopted the most stringent of rules, warming would still occur as this is something that has happened over hundreds of years, not the past generation.

Claim 4: "The Government is good for the economy."

See Claims 1 and 2.

 

[zyzygy]

No, there is a difference between anarchism as a political philosophy and anarchy as a synonym for chaos and destruction.





.

I know. I freely admit that before I read this thread I too thought that anarchy meant chaos. Thank you for drawing my attention to the true meaning. My point is that the word has negative connotations out there in the world.

 

[zyzygy]

Anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist and always has been and thus there is no need for currency. In an anarchist society, there is no market economy. The means of production are owned collectively and a direct democracy approach is used to decide how resources will be used.

.

Who would decide? Do you mean elections? We have those now. Owned collectively? There is a large country east of here where that was tried and it didn't work.

 

[CPS01]

I don't know if we have any anarchists here. I would like an answer too. Discussing the philosophy of the subject is fine, but I was sitting here trying to imagine life under anarchy, using the local supermarket as a microcosm. A person gets hired, turns up for the first days work and ask what their duties are. Would the answer be " I can't tell you, no rulers here"? If somebody did tell them what to do, would that person be in charge? Or would all the staff vote on who should tell the new employee what to do? Would they vote for every decision? If they voted once and elected somebody to tell others what to do, well, bang goes anarchy again. It seems to be a totally unworkable system. Or would anarchy only be applied at higher levels and we would all carry on as normal? Perhaps this is not philosophy but they do seem like moot questions to my hick mind.

It seems completely dysfunctional to me as well, that is why I am hungering to see what all the passionate anarchists out there have to say to defend their ideology. I know they are out there - but their reluctance towards arguing reasonably inclines me to believe that they must be irrational - perhaps because of their inability to fit into the mainstream culture.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

I know. I freely admit that before I read this thread I too thought that anarchy meant chaos. Thank you for drawing my attention to the true meaning. My point is that the word has negative connotations out there in the world.

Like I said before, try reading What Is Anarchism? by Alexander Berkman. It's quite an easy read and even if you don't fully agree with it, you may be interested in it from an intellectual perspective.

 

[William Rea]

Who would decide? Do you mean elections? We have those now.

Direct democracy, no representatives, essentially a referendum on every decision.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Who would decide? Do you mean elections? We have those now. Owned collectively? There is a large country east of here where that was tried and it didn't work.

No, I don't mean elections. What I mean is that the community would come together and decide how resources would be allocated.

What country are you referencing? I'm confused.

 

[zyzygy]

Like I said before, try reading What Is Anarchism? by Alexander Berkman. It's quite an easy read and even if you don't fully agree with it, you may be interested in it from an intellectual perspective.

I am more interested in how it would work at a local level.

"You say you want a revolution, we'd all love to see the plan"-John Lennon.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

I am more interested in how it would work at a local level.

"You say you want a revolution, we'd all love to see the plan"-John Lennon.

Well, you can't really say you are interested in how something would work at the local level without understanding the basis of such a system, no?

 

[zyzygy]

No, I don't mean elections. What I mean is that the community would come together and decide how resources would be allocated.

.

Without voting? How would they decide? What if a lot of the community couldn't be bothered to turn up? What if some of the community formed a breakaway community and tried to manage the same resources? You have a very rose-coloured glasses view of humanity. The country is Russia, of course. Everything being owned collectively really worked there, didn't it?

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Without voting? How would they decide? What if a lot of the community couldn't be bothered to turn up? What if some of the community formed a breakaway community and tried to manage the same resources? You have a very rose-coloured glasses view of humanity. The country is Russia, of course. Everything being owned collectively really worked there, didn't it?

There is a massive difference between state socialism and anarchism. People would vote on how the resources would be used. People would show up due to the fact that it is dependent upon them for the community to operate. I am not saying that this can just happen all at once, but we have seen autonomous communities throughout history.

 

[zyzygy]

Well, you can't really say you are interested in how something would work at the local level without understanding the basis of such a system, no?

The basis seems to assume that mankind always pulls together and that everybody would be behind such a system. I think not.

 

[zyzygy]

There is a massive difference between state socialism and anarchism. People would vote on how the resources would be used. People would show up due to the fact that it is dependent upon them for the community to operate. I am not saying that this can just happen all at once, but we have seen autonomous communities throughout history.

Seen being the relevant word. How would you persuade people to vote for such a system? Tell them to read the basics?

 

[CPS01]

Anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist and always has been and thus there is no need for currency. In an anarchist society, there is no market economy. The means of production are owned collectively and a direct democracy approach is used to decide how resources will be used.

In practice - how would a company in Beijing retrieve their payment (or what you would like to call it) from a New York-based company?
How will customers pay for their products?

The means of production and public services will be owned collectively, thus one is ensured that the will have public services.

Courts, hospitals, police etc. will be collectively owned?

False, communities can be organized into revolutionary militias in which people can protect themselves and the community as a whole. With regards to protection of minorities, there can be committees formed to ensure that things done by the community are not targeted against minorities.

In other words - 70.000 private armies? You don't see how that could be problematic?
And you want committees - like, a selected group of people, that represents the majority? And ensures that law & order are being followed? That sounds like a government to me.

Governments currently have no interest in stopping global warming. Hell, the US actively fights against pretty much any agreement to stop the use of fossil fuels. Even if the entire planet adopted the most stringent of rules, warming would still occur as this is something that has happened over hundreds of years, not the past generation.

There is so many things factually wrong going on in this comment, so i am not even going to dignify that with an answer.

 

[zyzygy]

There is a massive difference between state socialism and anarchism. People would vote on how the resources would be used. People would show up due to the fact that it is dependent upon them for the community to operate. I am not saying that this can just happen all at once, but we have seen autonomous communities throughout history.

You're an idealist. That's good. We need idealists, and I applaud you. In the past some idealists have achieved their aims but only by tempering their ideas with a little reality. In this case, I would never vote for somebody who was going to abolish money, and I don't think that many would. It would have to happen worldwide too. One country could never abolish money by itself. As for everybody voting in this utopian society, I live in Belgium and the only way to get them on their feet to come and vote would be to hold the meetings in bars, and a lot would stay home and watch the soccer on tv. Not everybody is so idealistic as you.

 

[zyzygy]

In practice - how would a company in Beijing retrieve their payment (or what you would like to call it) from a New York-based company?

Apparently there will be no money, only barter,although what the two companies are going to send each other is a mystery. Plus the shipping firm would have to be bartered with too, and the railroad and trucking companies, the dockworkers will have to barter for their services,you'd have to call these people of course so the two companies would have to barter and shift stuff to the telephone company and the telephone company would barter with the railroad.......... I'm starting to think that money is a good idea. Let's stick to it.

 

[zyzygy]

I've just ordered a Fender Champion amp from a company in the UK, paid by credit card. How could I have bartered for that? Any anarchistic explanation would be most welcome.

 

[CPS01]

Apparently there will be no money, only barter,although what the two companies are going to send each other is a mystery. Plus the shipping firm would have to be bartered with too, and the railroad and trucking companies, the dockworkers will have to barter for their services,you'd have to call these people of course so the two companies would have to barter and shift stuff to the telephone company and the telephone company would barter with the railroad.......... I'm starting to think that money is a good idea. Let's stick to it.

Haha, I agree!