How viable is anarchism?

[metis]

Nothing like appealing to your own authority.

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

I have spent a great deal of time not only studying Amerindian culture but also studying modern life on reservations. Matter of fact, I'm going to be on two of them (Odawa and Ojibwe) starting this Thursday through the weekend. BTW, I don't gamble, just to be clear. My areas of specialization that I used in my basic course were the traditional Cheyenne and Huron, as well as the Polar Inuit.

Also, three of my four grandparents were Quebec Me'tis, although I was not personally up in the ancient tradition.

BTW, I was not appealing to my own authority but just didn't want to duplicate my remarks.

 

[Alceste]

I have spent a great deal of time not only studying Amerindian culture but also studying modern life on reservations. Matter of fact, I'm going to be on two of them (Odawa and Ojibwe) starting this Thursday through the weekend. BTW, I don't gamble, just to be clear. My areas of specialization that I used in my basic course were the traditional Cheyenne and Huron, as well as the Polar Inuit.

Also, three of my four grandparents were Quebec Me'tis, although I was not personally up in the ancient tradition.

BTW, I was not appealing to my own authority but just didn't want to duplicate my remarks.

That's great! I'm most familiar with West Coast traditions and modern culture myself, and the rest comes from books.

I know there is a lot of diversity, so let's take one example at a time. How about the Huron? Can you describe a typical Huron hierarchy? How did a Huron ruler consolidate and enforce his leadership in the event that the general public refused to follow his commands or respect his authority? What did a Huron "police force" look like?

 

[metis]

That's great! I'm most familiar with West Coast traditions and modern culture myself, and the rest comes from books.

I know there is a lot of diversity, so let's take one example at a time. How about the Huron? Can you describe a typical Huron hierarchy? How did a Huron ruler consolidate and enforce his leadership in the event that the general public refused to follow his commands or respect his authority? What did a Huron "police force" look like?

The Huron had what we call a "weak chiefdom", which was not at all uncommon with many hunter-gathering bands, although some of the Huron bands were actually fairly large because of cultivation supplemented by hunting and fishing, which were resources quite readily available in this area of Michigan and Ontario.

The chief was more an organizer, and if something went wrong, he could call the elders together to decide what might needed to be done. Huron society wasn't that patriarchal as compared to most tribes, so women also had a say.

That's the brief synopsis.

 

[metis]

That's great! I'm most familiar with West Coast traditions and modern culture myself, and the rest comes from books.

One of my professors back in the early 1970's worked with one of the groups in California, but I cannot remember which one. He would do field work there every summer.

 

[Alceste]

The Huron had what we call a "weak chiefdom", which was not at all uncommon with many hunter-gathering bands, although some of the Huron bands were actually fairly large because of cultivation supplemented by hunting and fishing, which were resources quite readily available in this area of Michigan and Ontario.

The chief was more an organizer, and if something went wrong, he could call the elders together to decide what might needed to be done. Huron society wasn't that patriarchal as compared to most tribes, so women also had a say.

That's the brief synopsis.

What would happen to someone who disagreed with the decision of the chief organizer or the council of elders and decided to go their own way? And what happened to a chief who consistently made unpopular or dangerous decisions?

 

[metis]

What would happen to someone who disagreed with the decision of the chief organizer or the council of elders and decided to go their own way? And what happened to a chief who consistently made unpopular or dangerous decisions?

It was not at all unusual for bands to split up for a variety of reasons, including over disagreements. However, there were risks in doing so if there were nearby groups that were hostile. During the fur trade here with the whites, there was much conflict between tribes, so a smaller group going on their own really was very risky. Also, if a band split, this could create problems between them unless one of them left the area.

As I mentioned, the Huron had a "weak chiefdom", therefore the elders could overrule him and even replace him. If an element disagreed with the chief and elders, they either would submit or leave as overthrowing them was almost always out of the question. Disputes between bands were often settled with a game the French called la crosse, which were pretty brutal affairs, btw, but undoubtedly less brutal than out-and-out war.

 

[Alceste]

It was not at all unusual for bands to split up for a variety of reasons, including over disagreements. However, there were risks in doing so if there were nearby groups that were hostile. During the fur trade here with the whites, there was much conflict between tribes, so a smaller group going on their own really was very risky. Also, if a band split, this could create problems between them unless one of them left the area.

As I mentioned, the Huron had a "weak chiefdom", therefore the elders could overrule him and even replace him. If an element disagreed with the chief and elders, they either would submit or leave as overthrowing them was almost always out of the question. Disputes between bands were often settled with a game the French called la crosse, which were pretty brutal affairs, btw, but undoubtedly less brutal than out-and-out war.

So basically participation in the customs of the group was voluntary, nobody had inherent unquestionable authority over anybody else, unpopular leaders would be replaced and there were no "enforcers" to coerce the population with the threat of violence or loss of freedom to accept the judgment of the chief or council of elders?

That, my friend, is a "viable anarchist society".

 

[metis]

So basically participation in the customs of the group was voluntary, nobody had inherent unquestionable authority over anybody else, unpopular leaders would be replaced and there were no "enforcers" to coerce the population with the threat of violence or loss of freedom to accept the judgment of the chief or council of elders?

That, my friend, is a "viable anarchist society".

Oh, but there were "enforcers", and serious offenders could be banned or even executed. Leaders in all forms of government can be replaced, and in most cases people can leave in most societies with any form of government and live elsewhere.

On top of that, "participation in the customs was voluntary" is way off the mark as these were highly conformist societies. When it was time to hunt, you hunted. When it was time to celebrate, you celebrated. The concept of these bands stressing individualism is way off the mark.

There is absolutely no way in hell that one can call Huron bands an example of "anarchy" unless one invents their own definition.

 

[Alceste]

Oh, but there were "enforcers", and serious offenders could be banned or even executed. Leaders in all forms of government can be replaced, and in most cases people can leave in most societies with any form of government and live elsewhere.

On top of that, "participation in the customs was voluntary" is way off the mark as these were highly conformist societies. When it was time to hunt, you hunted. When it was time to celebrate, you celebrated. The concept of these bands stressing individualism is way off the mark.

There is absolutely no way in hell that one can call Huron bands an example of "anarchy" unless one invents their own definition.

That's you equating anarchy with individualism, not me. Did you read the wikipedia article?

Anarchy is the rejection of illegitimate authority, not the rejection of any and all forms of cooperation and social order.

 

[metis]

That's you equating anarchy with individualism, not me. Did you read the wikipedia article?

Anarchy is the rejection of illegitimate authority, not the rejection of any and all forms of cooperation and social order.

No, I am not "equating anarchy with individualism", and what is "illegitimate authority" is defined by the society and not by your definition. If you look up "democracy", direct democracy is one of its forms, and it does not in any way imply "anarchy": Direct democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or look up "chiefdoms", which also in no way implies "anarchy": Chiefdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as we know, there never has been a true anarchy that lasted. See "anarchy", and let me quote this introductory part:
Anarchy has more than one definition. Some use the term "anarchy" to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government. When used in this sense, anarchy may or may not be intended to imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society. Many anarchists complain with Anselme Bellegarrigue that "[v]ulgar error has taken 'anarchy' to be synonymous with 'civil war.'"
Most individuals who self-identify as anarchists use the term to imply a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a jurisdiction level.[citation needed] There are also other forms of anarchy that attempt to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society. -- Anarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [note what I underlined]

I'll give you the last word after this.

 

[Alceste]

No, I am not "equating anarchy with individualism", and what is "illegitimate authority" is defined by the society and not by your definition. If you look up "democracy", direct democracy is one of its forms, and it does not in any way imply "anarchy": Direct democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or look up "chiefdoms", which also in no way implies "anarchy": Chiefdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as we know, there never has been a true anarchy that lasted. See "anarchy", and let me quote this introductory part:
Anarchy has more than one definition. Some use the term "anarchy" to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government. When used in this sense, anarchy may or may not be intended to imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society. Many anarchists complain with Anselme Bellegarrigue that "[v]ulgar error has taken 'anarchy' to be synonymous with 'civil war.'"
Most individuals who self-identify as anarchists use the term to imply a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a jurisdiction level.[citation needed] There are also other forms of anarchy that attempt to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society. -- Anarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [note what I underlined]

I'll give you the last word after this.

You post a sizeable blurb that completely supports my position and I'm supposed to limit my comments to two underlined words (with no citation)?

Ok, l will play along. Even if the word "theoretical" came with a citation that supported your position, it would be still be negated by the qualifier "mostly". "Mostly" suggests that in some cases, these systems have been successfully applied in the real world. And that is exactly what I'm arguing.

 

[metis]

Just to clarify, the darkened part is a quote and the citation is just past the two dashes.

 

[Alceste]

Just to clarify, the darkened part is a quote and the citation is just past the two dashes.

Yeah, but the citation is wikipedia. Factual claims in wikipedia articles are supposed to be supported by external, credible sources, hence the fact that this phrase was flagged as "citation needed".

 

[dust1n]

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.

Okay then, most anarchist movements have been in direct violation of your definition. Strange, the IWW has run on the premise of direct democracy in the workplace for 100+ years, and yet, many people don't consider the IWW a government. Peculiar.

 

[dust1n]

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.

I think most anarchists would agree to some voted notion of justice for various crimes. Anarchists aren't Jesus or anything.

 

[Alceste]

I think most anarchists would agree to some voted notion of justice for various crimes. Anarchists aren't Jesus or anything.

Exactly. If my anarchist utopia happened to contain a person who was perceived by most to be a serious threat to the life or liberty of others, I would be happy to eliminate that threat myself.

 

[metis]

I think most anarchists would agree to some voted notion of justice for various crimes. Anarchists aren't Jesus or anything.

Then that's "direct democracy", not "anarchy". Again, what we have seen is a twisting of the definition of "anarchy" that defies the basic translation used in basic English for myriads of years, which I posted earlier in this thread. For some reason, some cannot get it through their head that "direct democracy" is a form of government-- period.

 

[Alceste]

Then that's "direct democracy", not "anarchy". Again, what we have seen is a twisting of the definition of "anarchy" that defies the basic translation used in basic English for myriads of years, which I posted earlier in this thread. For some reason, some cannot get it through their head that "direct democracy" is a form of government-- period.

That reason would be that we know quite a bit more about the political philosophy of anarchy than one of its dictionary definitions. One can refuse to learn something in the first place, but it's almost impossible to unlearn it afterwards.

 

[dust1n]

Then that's "direct democracy", not "anarchy". Again, what we have seen is a twisting of the definition of "anarchy" that defies the basic translation used in basic English for myriads of years, which I posted earlier in this thread. For some reason, some cannot get it through their head that "direct democracy" is a form of government-- period.

Okay, maybe a better word would be consensus. Unless people standing around in a group and holding a vote constitutes a government, too. If that's the case, have it, you made the last century of anarchism seem self-contradictory. What an anarchist considers anarchy and what a non-anarchist considers anarchy. Have at it.