How viable is anarchism?

[dyanaprajna2011]

From time to time, I think about what I believe politically, and most of my beliefs are centered on Green and Socialist ideas. I've considered anarchism from time to time, and sometimes I even identify as some type of anarchist (generally eco(green)-anarchism or anarcho-socialism). But, there are times that I wonder just how viable anarchism can be. While I really like the idea of not having a government to worry about, I wonder is it really a practical idea?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Some people already tried living independently off the government grid. Every one of them were hunted down by authorities and dragged into a courtroom on some kind of charge like fishing without a license, resisting arrest, and "zoning" violations.

Ernie Tertelgte and Eustace Conway were the closest to the definition of American anarchists by their fierce desire of independence and personal freedom off the grid. Didn't get too far before the goverment decided to round them up back to the "hive" so to speak. Neither of them are violent and quite harmless imo. Big goverment dosent seem to like people like that.

I personally don't think it's viable at least not anywhere in the US.

 

[Quintessence]

It's a practical, viable idea only when humans were not nearly as numerous as they are today, and when humans lived much simpler than they do today, and when their social groups were small. In such situations, you do not need a large governing body to maintain social order or organize provision of services. The group is small enough that it can self-regulate, and it can successfully tackle the small-scale, simple problems that it must deal with. Whenever a group starts creating lots of infrastructure, makes use of lots of technology, has a sizable population, or wishes to forwards communal aspirations (i.e., an affluent population, human rights), the viability of anarchism drops off pretty dramatically.

 

[Revoltingest]

Today it's impossible. The desire to be governed by most will mean there's government.
Once you have government, you won't have anarchy. Those in gov will impose things on all.

 

[dust1n]

While I really like the idea of not having a government to worry about, I wonder is it really a practical idea?

Ask the Zapatistas. They are going on a decade now of complete autonomy under an essentially anarchist-communist flag.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

All good answers. What I'm basically seeing, is that anarchism can work on a small scale, but nation-wise, like the whole of the US, it wouldn't.

I basically consider myself Green, particularly liberal (most Greens tend to be liberal, I know there's right Greens, but those are few and far between), I'm just trying to figure out where on the spectrum of the Green party I fall.

 

[Father Heathen]

The power vacuum would inevitably be filled, and the lack of constraints would inevitably be abused, so not at all.

 

[dust1n]

By the way, the Zapatista area is 200,000+ acres large, about a third of the size of Rhode Island, and larger than about 20 countries across the world.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It would eventually devolve into feudalism. Everything does until you have regulating force.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It's more promising than any other political party. Why?

There is nothing to promise (unless you are more of an organized anarchist e.g. Anarcho-*insert*). If you're talking about chaotic, uncontrolled anarchy, then clearly nothing can go against what is hoped as nothing is hoped.

Feel uncomfortable with no leaders in charge? Make a tribe with you and your friends! The more people, the more power to defend yourself.

 

[dust1n]

If the question is "is anarchism viable" and one believes "no" is the answer to that question, than one does one make sense of a last 10 years of working anarchism in a landmass bigger than 20+ countries, and that's after fighting off the Mexican federal government?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It's more promising than any other political party. Why?

There is nothing to promise (unless you are more of an organized anarchist e.g. Anarcho-*insert*). If you're talking about chaotic, uncontrolled anarchy, then clearly nothing can go against what is hoped as nothing is hoped.

Feel uncomfortable with no leaders in charge? Make a tribe with you and your friends! The more people, the more power to defend yourself.

Then the tribe simply becomes a smaller pseudo government. Its no longer anarchism anymore.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If the question is "is anarchism viable" and one believes "no" is the answer to that question, than one does one make sense of a last 10 years of working anarchism in a landmass bigger than 20+ countries, and that's after fighting off the Mexican federal government?

Because its nothing but farmers and other rural people without a complex economy? Lets take the same space and then put it in NYC. Would it work there? why or why not?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Then the tribe simply becomes a smaller pseudo government. Its no longer anarchism anymore.

It would depend on what originally was at the state of anarchy. If a country becomes anarchistic, though tribes are formed, the country is still lacking an entire leader. However it can be said that it's under "optional tribalism" if you want to go into depth like that.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It would depend on what originally was at the state of anarchy. If a country becomes anarchistic, though tribes are formed, the country is still lacking an entire leader. However it can be said that it's under "optional tribalism" if you want to go into depth like that.

This also leads to warring states. Historically this has always been the case.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

This also leads to warring states. Historically this has always been the case.

Not large enough to become an entire ruler over all tribes.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Not large enough to become an entire ruler over all tribes.

Usually peace only arrives after that bloody conquest. So...in a way thats worse. I would support anarchism is it was shown to work or be efficient. However currently its just a pipe dream like its polar opposite, communism.

 

[dust1n]

Because its nothing but farmers and other rural people without a complex economy? Lets take the same space and then put it in NYC. Would it work there? why or why not?

First of all, is something not viable at all unless it's viable in NYC?

Secondly,

Nothing but farmers and other rural people?

San Cristobal de las Casas:

Guess what isn't the main industry in one of the five cities that have autonomy?

Thirdly, it is difficult to gauge where and how anarchism could work in many places in the world, seeing how those who would lose power or economic standing in new circumstances tend to immediately oppress those people. Not many people realize that 8 million or so anarchists operated Spain for three years during the Spanish Civil War, implementing a working model of anarchist-syndicalism before finally falling to Franco, who was supported by Hitler/Mussolini, and they were simultaneously dealing with the Soviet Union funding other parties. After WW2, the United States help fund Franco's dictatorship for sometime.

If the question of viability is in reference to everything other than fighting off capitalists, I don't see anything that suggest that anarchism is not viable. If viability includes fighting capitalists, then that might be the one problem anarchism has... It's generally not a huge priority for anarchist communities to continuously militarize and strengthen the power of the military in hopes of expanding territory.
In addition, if a strong centralized government existed to create a military, then it cease to be anarchism.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

First of all, is something not viable at all unless it's viable in NYC?

Secondly,

Nothing but farmers and other rural people?

San Cristobal de las Casas:

Guess what isn't the main industry in one of the five cities that have autonomy?

Thirdly, it is difficult to gauge where and how anarchism could work in many places in the world, seeing how those who would lose power or economic standing in new circumstances tend to immediately oppress those people. Not many people realize that 8 million or so anarchists operated Spain for three years during the Spanish Civil War, implementing a working model of anarchist-syndicalism before finally falling to Franco, who was supported by Hitler/Mussolini, and they were simultaneously dealing with the Soviet Union funding other parties. After WW2, the United States help fund Franco's dictatorship for sometime.

If the question of viability is in reference to everything other than fighting off capitalists, I don't see anything that suggest that anarchism is not viable. If viability includes fighting capitalists, then that might be the one problem anarchism has... It's generally not a huge priority for anarchist communities to continuously militarize and strengthen the power of the military in hopes of expanding territory.
In addition, if a strong centralized government existed to create a military, then it cease to be anarchism.

I give you the point on the city (what is the main export btw?). However it changes little. anarchism requires an unspoken or even spoken social contract to live certain ways. And it has no way to raise the military to fight off other threats and I also pose the question what stops people from taking too much power in an anarchist state? what keeps the anarchy so to speak?