Does anarchy = chaos?

[Reverend Rick]

Your dreaming. The longer Anarchy went on, the less supplies would be available, the less services would operate and the most desperate people would become. The more successful groups would become targets as they would be the defacto Walmart now.

After the stores were looted and the contents consumed, it would get extremely ugly.

Duels? Are you kidding? You would be taken out at 300 yards dude. You would never see your aggressor and would not know what hit you.

Any sucessful group would have to occupy some sort of fortress. A company building with a fence and generator with fuel tanks would be ideal. If you think you could live in your home, you are dreaming.

Taking to the mountains and living in caves would be a good plan as well.

You have to realize that people will not be going to work and supplies would be gone real quick. The people who were ready would be the greatest targets.

 

[doppelganger]

Everything is anarchy anyway, if you change your perspective. Try breaking free from a highly organized civilization and living in a loosely organized hunter-gatherer society for while (your people would eventually get over killing one another). Sooner or later, you'll be slaughtered or enslaved. The anarchy continues, but it continues between megaorganisms, much like army ants are collectively an organism. Humans are not functionally integrated like an ant colony, but human civilizations do share some pertinent characteristics. It only seems like it's not anarchy because we feel protected and secured by the power and organization of our colony.

 

[Mr. Hair]

The idea that human beings can live together without laws governing their behavior and some form of police to enforce social order has been proven time and time and time again to be untrue.

Indeed it has. It's a just a shame that, unfortunately, what you've described is not what Anarchy is. (At least, the socio-economic political theory of Anarchy, that capital letter is important )

If I may quote a quote:

While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation.

(Important bit highlighted, forsooth)

Anarchism, in short, tends to oppose the concept and realities of hierarchical structures of authority and power. Organised codes of conduct would certainly exist and be enforced within an Anarchist system; provided that they i) emphasised the essential liberty and equality of the individual, and ii) were derived and maintained through collective, cooperative means.

The reason Anarchism tends to oppose codes of conduct generally found within modern, industrial societies is that generally neither principle is maintained by following them. (To the first, such codes often favour one aspect or element of a given society over another, and so enable an unequal system to develop. To the second, such codes are often imparted from a hierarchical 'elite', whom hold an inordinate amount of influence within the formation of such codes)

Anarchy, then, is more concerned with the removal of 'rulers' than the removal of rules per se. (Indeed, if no such rules and codes existed, then neither of the above principles could be maintained)

I should probably point out at this stage that I'm not actually an Anarchist; I just tend to dislike the vast amounts of inaccurate misinformation that repeatedly arises about that particular political philosophy. (As I believe that without accurate and complete information, an individual's ability to understand and define themselves within a wider context of existence becomes infringed and lessened)

Sadly, for those of us who would rather enjoy the idea of being able to openly wear leather underwear and cruise around as part of a biker gang, the understanding of 'Anarchism' as a reactionary 'law-of-the-jungle', Mad Max style-of-system is flawed.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You have to realize that people will not be going to work and supplies would be gone real quick. The people who were ready would be the greatest targets.

Again, this is not true, as in anarchy, supplies are shared. Much like the hunter/gatherer societies of old.
Also, you will be surprised that if someone wants something enough, they will work. While "working" would be much different than it is today, people would still go to electricity plants, water treament facilities, etc, because people would still want these comodities. Rather than a normal "9 to 5" type schedule, it would probably work more like a fast food resturant type of scheduling on who works at the plants when.
Rather than a monetary paycheck for compensation, it would be the benefit of having heat, running water, or whatever.

Any sucessful group would have to occupy some sort of fortress. A company building with a fence and generator with fuel tanks would be ideal. If you think you could live in your home, you are dreaming.

Again, this "sucessful group" thing is more fascist than anarchy.

Anarchy is based on the people banding together to for a society, very similiar to the hunter/gatherer societies. They had no government, no police, no laws, and no official rulers. The had rules, and had chiefs and elders to advise and lead the tribe, and everyone got along just fine. That is an example of anarchy.

Sadly, for those of us who would rather enjoy the idea of being able to openly wear leather underwear and cruise around as part of a biker gang, the understanding of 'Anarchism' as a reactionary 'law-of-the-jungle', Mad Max style-of-system is flawed.

True. I have often said those with anarchy tattoos, symbols, loads of guns and ammo, and would enjoy living a violent life without laws are not true anarchist, and do not understand the first thing about it.

Any sucessful group would have to occupy some sort of fortress. A company building with a fence and generator with fuel tanks would be ideal. If you think you could live in your home, you are dreaming.

Actually, I would probably move away from the country, and closer to a small town or city, to increase my chances of survival. Today, it's a drive to the store to buy what supplies are needed. Under anarchy, rather than stores to supply goods to those with money for them, all the harvested goods are divided. Remember to think hunter/gatherer type societies.

 

[Aqualung]

Your dreaming.

My dreaming what?

 

[Blindinglight]

The longer Anarchy went on, the less supplies would be available, the less services would operate and the most desperate people would become.

How is such a conclusion reached? If farmers didn't farm, grow your own crop. If the water pumps dont work, go to a stream or dig a well and purify the water by boiling it. If you need clothes, learn how to make them. Of course though, as a community, people would share these endevours, and people that specialised in one task would be doing those, while others did there part to help out.
Really, there would be more peaceful communities, as soon as the lazy thieves either died off, or found there own community to be apart of.

 

[Mathematician]

As a progressive utopian, I believe if you take a long enough timeline and shake out infinite generation relapses anarchy as described by the posters here can become practical. However, as of right now we don't even trust ourselves to be part of a government, let alone not have a government.

I can only hope we're weaned off the bottle.

 

[PureX]

Hierarchies are written into our genetic code. Put ten people in a room and the first thing they'll do is begin establishing a social hierarchy. I don't like it either, but it's the way we are. The real problem is that we don't establish them based on moral or ethical or even intellectual superiority. In truth, I really don't know what our social hierarchies are based on. I assume it must be some subtle system of pheromones or something.

What I do know is that it makes leaders of both idiots and fools, as well as the occasional great man or woman. And it makes people rich that neither deserve nor earned it, while it denies access to opportunities to even the most intelligent and creative among us.

I hope we do rise above whatever it is that makes us behave this way, and maybe we are. Very, very, very slowly.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Again, this is not true, as in anarchy, supplies are shared. Much like the hunter/gatherer societies of old.

and when the supplies run out?

Also, you will be surprised that if someone wants something enough, they will work. While "working" would be much different than it is today, people would still go to electricity plants, water treatment facilities, etc, because people would still want these commodities. Rather than a normal "9 to 5" type schedule, it would probably work more like a fast food restaurant type of scheduling on who works at the plants when.

I just bet people would go to work and maintain a high quality of water or reliable electricity. I just bet people are going to pay for these services. What if they don't? If I cut your power, your going to turn it back on. If I can't pay my employees, (assuming there not home protecting their families instead of working), they will quit and no one will have electricity and water, (except for people with wells and generators).

Rather than a monetary paycheck for compensation, it would be the benefit of having heat, running water, or whatever.

Again, this "sucessful group" thing is more fascist than anarchy.

Anarchy is based on the people banding together to for a society, very similar to the hunter/gatherer societies. They had no government, no police, no laws, and no official rulers. The had rules, and had chiefs and elders to advise and lead the tribe, and everyone got along just fine. That is an example of anarchy.

Some people would gather and cut and split firewood. Others would take and use the firewood and everyone would run out of a heating and cooking wood before winter is over because everyone would not pull their weight, but everyone would continue to use things.

True. I have often said those with anarchy tattoos, symbols, loads of guns and ammo, and would enjoy living a violent life without laws are not true anarchist, and do not understand the first thing about it.

Agreed, but they would rape and pillage just the same.

Actually, I would probably move away from the country, and closer to a small town or city, to increase my chances of survival. Today, it's a drive to the store to buy what supplies are needed. Under anarchy, rather than stores to supply goods to those with money for them, all the harvested goods are divided. Remember to think hunter/gatherer type societies.

This would work if you could get away from the chaos and have a group of productive people who worked together. The problem would be, most would be unhappy without air conditioning, cable and internet services. Not going out to eat, seeing a movie and shopping in the mall would be a fate worse than death for many.

 

[Aqualung]

Hierarchies are written into our genetic code. Put ten people in a room and the first thing they'll do is begin establishing a social hierarchy.

There's a difference between a social hierarchy and a government.

 

[Blindinglight]

Agreed, but they would rape and pillage just the same.

Perhaps. Or the fear of knowing they will be dealt with more promptly than the legal system ever can might just keep them held back.
Also, it is easy to say what you would do under a situation, especially if you have never been in such a situation.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

and when the supplies run out?

What happened then? The tribes either moved on, or found a new way to adapt. The introduction of farming also made frequent moving unecessary. So if supplies do run out, it means that someone is not doing there job.

I just bet people would go to work and maintain a high quality of water or reliable electricity. I just bet people are going to pay for these services. What if they don't? If I cut your power, your going to turn it back on. If I can't pay my employees, (assuming there not home protecting their families instead of working), they will quit and no one will have electricity and water, (except for people with wells and generators).

First of all, who or what is the employees stuck at home protecting there families from. Anarchy is not the violent, chaos filled situation as many believe.
Ever watch the movie Saw? In this movie, we see a man that saws his own foot off to protect his family. If people want something badly enough, they will achieve there goals, even if it means manning a power plant for a few hours with the only benefit being you and your family has electricity.

Some people would gather and cut and split firewood. Others would take and use the firewood and everyone would run out of a heating and cooking wood before winter is over because everyone would not pull their weight, but everyone would continue to use things.

Again, look to the old Hunter/gatherer societies. These were not villages, but rather small tribes. One thing that impacts the tribe effects them all. People also will pull together for the common good. Blood banks had to decline blood donations shortly after 9/11 because people wanted to help, and blood banks ran out of places to store the blood.

Agreed, but they would rape and pillage just the same.

They might not, since they know they could be violenty punished for doing so. Or just kicked out of the tribe, and forced to fend soley for themeselves.

This would work if you could get away from the chaos and have a group of productive people who worked together. The problem would be, most would be unhappy without air conditioning, cable and internet services. Not going out to eat, seeing a movie and shopping in the mall would be a fate worse than death for many.

That is how anarchy works. You have to move away from the notion of states and nations, and focus on small units and tribes. You can have villages, but anything larger is prone to failure. Survival under anarchy is based on groups of people banding together to help on another.
And if people can't liveout the modern luxuries of movie theatres, resturants, and such, they had better learn to liveout quickly.