How viable is anarchism?

[metis]

Attempts at anarchism not only have always failed as far as we can tell, they all too often ended up leading to totalitarian rule in order to re-establish order. Like with the chimps and bonobos, we seemingly need a "pecking order" in order to function for any significant length of time.

 

[Alceste]

Attempts at anarchism not only have always failed as far as we can tell, they all too often ended up leading to totalitarian rule in order to re-establish order. Like with the chimps and bonobos, we seemingly need a "pecking order" in order to function for any significant length of time.

Not entirely true. Many first nations communities were basically anarchic, making decisions collectively through a council of elders who would discuss the issue until a consensus was reached.

Although it's not easy to piece together the history of oral cultures, they seemed to be fairly consistent in their collective behavior for over a thousand years, based on archeological evidence and the oral records that remain.

That said, there was a huge variety of forms of government among the original inhabitants of the Americas. The larger the community, the more susceptible it seemed to be to more authoritarian (and more patriarchal) self-organization.

 

[dust1n]

Good thing, as the entire country did not. But if you read what I said:

You'll notice that I did not say anybody in Germany did anything, but that experiments investigated how "an entire country" like Germany "could" do something. That said, you do point out that my description is misleading. Many Germans actively resisted and died for their efforts. I sought only to simplify the ways in which large groups of people could do things so horrific they would never have believed that they were capable of these things. This does not, however, describe "the entire country of Germany", as you rightly point out.

Ah, okay that makes sense. Not sure why my mind was thinking "an entire country" comprised solely of the peoples of the country, but I didn't really even question it.

I imagine the process is similar to heating a pot of water to the boiling point of a slow period of time. Sooner or later, one will ask have to ask oneself why's it so hot, here in this pot.

 

[metis]

Not entirely true. Many first nations communities were basically anarchic, making decisions collectively through a council of elders who would discuss the issue until a consensus was reached.

Although it's not easy to piece together the history of oral cultures, they seemed to be fairly consistent in their collective behavior for over a thousand years, based on archeological evidence and the oral records that remain.

That said, there was a huge variety of forms of government among the original inhabitants of the Americas. The larger the community, the more susceptible it seemed to be to more authoritarian (and more patriarchal) self-organization.

All Indian groups had a form of government, with some using what we call "direct democracy" and some using "councils", which is a form of "representative democracy" or "oligarchy", depending on how it's put together. There's a vast difference between both of these and anarchy, the latter of which is the absence of any form whatsoever, therefore pretty much each person is on their own. That's unless you are using the term "anarchy" in a different way.

 

[dust1n]

All Indian groups had a form of government, with some using what we call "direct democracy" and some using "councils", which is a form of "representative democracy" or "oligarchy", depending on how it's put together. There's a vast difference between both of these and anarchy, the latter of which is the absence of any form whatsoever, therefore pretty much each person is on their own. That's unless you are using the term "anarchy" in a different way.

Most anarchist groups operate via consensus. Direct democracy is nearly foundational to any form of collectivist anarchism.

 

[metis]

Most anarchist groups operate via consensus. Direct democracy is nearly foundational to any form of collectivist anarchism.

an·ar·chy [an-er-kee]
noun
1.a state of society without government or law.
2.political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. Synonyms: lawlessness, disruption, turmoil.
3.anarchism ( def 1 ) .
4.lack of obedience to an authority; insubordination: the anarchy of his rebellious teenage years.
5.confusion and disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith. It was impossible to find the book I was looking for in the anarchy of his bookshelves. Synonyms: chaos, disruption, turbulence; license; disorganization, disintegration.

Direct democracy is considered a form of government, so government by consensus is not anarchy by either definition.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Once again:

Anarchism doesn't mean there's no government. Just that everyone is an equal part of that government. It's non-hierarchical free association in voluntary institutions.

You cannot learn socio-political theory from a dictionary definition.

 

[Alceste]

All Indian groups had a form of government, with some using what we call "direct democracy" and some using "councils", which is a form of "representative democracy" or "oligarchy", depending on how it's put together. There's a vast difference between both of these and anarchy, the latter of which is the absence of any form whatsoever, therefore pretty much each person is on their own. That's unless you are using the term "anarchy" in a different way.

I'm using it in the standard way it is interpreted in political philosophy.

Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies often defined as self-governed voluntary institutions,[1][2][3][4] but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations.[5][6][7][8] Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful.[9][10] While anti-statism is central, some argue[11] that anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.[6][12][13][14][15][16][17]
As a subtle and anti-dogmatic philosophy, anarchism draws on many currents of thought and strategy. Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy.[18] There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[19] Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[10] Strains of anarchism have often been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications.[20][21] Anarchism is often considered a radical left-wing ideology,[22][23] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, or participatory economics.[24]
Anarchism as a mass social movement has regularly endured fluctuations in popularity. The central tendency of anarchism as a social movement has been represented by anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, with individualist anarchism being primarily a literary phenomenon[25] which nevertheless did have an impact on the bigger currents[26] and individualists have also participated in large anarchist organizations.[27][28] Many anarchists oppose all forms of aggression, supporting self-defense or non-violence (anarcho-pacifism),[29][30] while others have supported the use of some coercive measures, including violent revolution and propaganda of the deed, on the path to an anarchist society.[31]

Whether a society has customs, leaders or spokespeople and a population that cooperates with one another says nothing about whether it is an anarchist culture.

A society that does not have a top-down authoritarian political structure, where there is no coercion of the powerless by the powerful, where decisions are made by community consensus and participation is voluntary - that is an anarchist society.

An individual rejecting all association and cooperation with other human beings and "going it alone" with a bad attitude and a bunker full of assault rifles, that is a Hollywood movie.

 

[Alceste]

Once again:



You cannot learn socio-political theory from a dictionary definition.

I swear there ought to be a new RF rule: No dictionaries.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I swear there ought to be a new RF rule: No dictionaries.

Lol! That would be a good one.

That anarchism = lawlessness is a very common misconception, though.

 

[Alceste]

Lol! That would be a good one.

That anarchism = lawlessness is a very common misconception, though.

Yeah - it seems to me that authoritarian types believe that some form of external authority, whether from their gods, their human masters or their law enforcers, are the only thing protecting the masses from chaos, debauchery and lawlessness.

So no authority and coercion = no reason to restrain yourself from the worst possible excesses.

When you really think about it, I'm kind of glad those folks are authoritarians. What if they're right that they need to be told what to do to avoid being evil and selfish?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yeah - it seems to me that authoritarian types believe that some form of external authority, whether from their gods, their human masters or their law enforcers, are the only thing protecting the masses from chaos, debauchery and lawlessness.

So no authority and coercion = no reason to restrain yourself from the worst possible excesses.

When you really think about it, I'm kind of glad those folks are authoritarians. What if they're right that they need to be told what to do to avoid being evil and selfish?

I think they've just bought into the brainwashing that we need authority in order to have an orderly society. Granted, some people do need authority to keep them in check. But I think that the people who are truly like that are rather small in number.

 

[Alceste]

I think they've just bought into the brainwashing that we need authority in order to have an orderly society. Granted, some people do need authority to keep them in check. But I think that the people who are truly like that are rather small in number.

And rather small in size, too. Most people grow out of needing to be told what to do by an authority figure by the time puberty rolls around.

Authoritarians sadly seem to believe that the authority is needed to make sure other people behave themselves.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And rather small in size, too. Most people grow out of needing to be told what to do by an authority figure by the time puberty rolls around.

Authoritarians sadly seem to believe that the authority is needed to make sure other people behave themselves.

I was thinking more of people with Antisocial Personality Disorder and psychopathy. Those people need to be kept in line. But you make a good point, regardless.

 

[metis]

Back sometime in the 1980's, there was a police strike in Montreal whereas most cops didn't show up for work one day, and the result was a nightmare, as many businesses got robbed, many people were assaulted, people were afraid to leave their homes, etc. The idea that all people are going to be so sweet and nice if there's no authority is logically nonsensical because we have seen riots and all sorts of atrocities when law enforcement wasn't available or law and order just broke down, such as we saw with so many riots in so many parts of the world, including here in the States.

The reality is that there's almost always going to be an element that will try to take advantage of the weakness of others. Hunting and gathering tribes had their own procedure of law enforcement that often included shunning, banishment, and sometimes even capital punishment, and I would suggest that there's no society that I'm aware of either modern day or through history that did or does not have some law enforcement procedures to deal with those who simply will try and take advantage of others.

 

[Willamena]

Back sometime in the 1980's, there was a police strike in Montreal whereas most cops didn't show up for work one day, and the result was a nightmare, as many businesses got robbed, many people were assaulted, people were afraid to leave their homes, etc. The idea that all people are going to be so sweet and nice if there's no authority is logically nonsensical because we have seen riots and all sorts of atrocities when law enforcement wasn't available or law and order just broke down, such as we saw with so many riots in so many parts of the world, including here in the States.

There's a difference, though, between no authority and no respect for authority. The crime in Montreal was an example of the latter.

The reality is that there's almost always going to be an element that will try to take advantage of the weakness of others. Hunting and gathering tribes had their own procedure of law enforcement that often included shunning, banishment, and sometimes even capital punishment, and I would suggest that there's no society that I'm aware of either modern day or through history that did or does not have some law enforcement procedures to deal with those who simply will try and take advantage of others.

A structured anarchy would be different, in that everyone would have to be untaught what they know about how society functions and retaught to think for themselves.

 

[Alceste]

Back sometime in the 1980's, there was a police strike in Montreal whereas most cops didn't show up for work one day, and the result was a nightmare, as many businesses got robbed, many people were assaulted, people were afraid to leave their homes, etc. The idea that all people are going to be so sweet and nice if there's no authority is logically nonsensical because we have seen riots and all sorts of atrocities when law enforcement wasn't available or law and order just broke down, such as we saw with so many riots in so many parts of the world, including here in the States.

The reality is that there's almost always going to be an element that will try to take advantage of the weakness of others. Hunting and gathering tribes had their own procedure of law enforcement that often included shunning, banishment, and sometimes even capital punishment, and I would suggest that there's no society that I'm aware of either modern day or through history that did or does not have some law enforcement procedures to deal with those who simply will try and take advantage of others.

What you describe is not an example of an anarchist society though. Montreal was still an authoritarian hierarchy. It was simply an authoritarian hierarchy where the enforcers who protect the wealthy from the poor via coercion took a day off.

In a functional anarchist society, for example the indigenous cultures I mentioned, everybody is basically rich or poor together. You don't have some people who have everything while others have nothing, so you don't need enforcers to protect the property of the wealthy.

North America got by just fine without any police for fifteen thousand years.

 

[metis]

There's a difference, though, between no authority and no respect for authority. The crime in Montreal was an example of the latter.

There are always going to be some who do not have respect for authority.

A structured anarchy would be different, in that everyone would have to be untaught what they know about how society functions and retaught to think for themselves.

And exactly how could we supposedly do that? Brainwash everyone?

Sorry, I've studied societies all over the world because of my being an anthropologist, and I cannot cite a single one that doesn't have the potential use of punishment of one type or another to deter crime. Studies done on other primates also have yielded much the same as we see with humans, btw.

 

[metis]

What you describe is not an example of an anarchist society though. Montreal was still an authoritarian hierarchy. It was simply an authoritarian hierarchy where the enforcers who protect the wealthy from the poor via coercion took a day off.

In a functional anarchist society, for example the indigenous cultures I mentioned, everybody is basically rich or poor together. You don't have some people who have everything while others have nothing, so you don't need enforcers to protect the property of the wealthy.

North America got by just fine without any police for fifteen thousand years.

Please see my response to Willamena.

 

[Alceste]

Please see my response to Willamena.

Nothing like appealing to your own authority.

What anthropological research have you done specifically relating to the indigenous cultures I am talking about?