Turn on thread page Beta

Anarchism - is it even feasible on paper?? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by astralcars)
    anarcho-capitalists
    Are not anarchists. Being a fully blown libertarian and a fully blown capitalist (or even 'free marketer') just doesn't work. You don't need to do too much economics to realise markets are readily abused and to be the anarchist perfection, require physically impossible assumptions to be met.

    Anarchism is not a lack of order as a political theory, nor a maximising of chaos - it fundamentally seeks to maximise the right of the individual when there are other individuals to maximise the rights of too.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    Sort of like communism was in the later soviet era.
    Most real communists and anarchists of the day of the revolution and throughout the era felt that the Soviet Union was state capitalist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    That's the point I am making, there is only one set of boundaries, within which anarchism exists, the variant that most people put forward fall outside of those boundaries, and are therefore anarchism in name only.
    Could you state those boundaries? Dictionary definitions of the term anarchism focus upon the absence of government and its coercive power. The absence of government force is quite clearly compatible with multiple forms of social order such as the two I put forward earlier.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cuth)
    Anarchy=no authority=no trade regulation=free trade=rich classes=authority
    That's a great potted summary of what people have been saying - that even in an anarchist "society", to use the term in its loosest sense, authority and power will inevitably start moving towards the hands of an emergent upper class.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    That's a great potted summary of what people have been saying - that even in an anarchist "society", to use the term in its loosest sense, authority and power will inevitably start moving towards the hands of an emergent upper class.
    You don't get an emergent upper class. Because anyone who 'betrays the revolution' is collectively considered a 'bad idea' and their system of trying to gain power over others is dismantled. That is the balance between the freedom of all individuals to be free from that power, that class system, versus the right of that one individual to 'rule'.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Dismantled by whom? You can't take power away from someone with more power than you, because of the fact that, well, they've got power and you haven't. If an upper class gains even a slight edge, it will be extremely difficult to dislodge them, and it will rapidly become easier to just live with it and come to some arrangement. Result: Feudalism Mk II.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    Dismantled by whom? You can't take power away from someone with more power than you, because of the fact that, well, they've got power and you haven't. If an upper class gains even a slight edge, it will be extremely difficult to dislodge them, and it will rapidly become easier to just live with it and come to some arrangement. Result: Feudalism Mk II.
    The reasoning is, one group doesn’t gain a monopoly on power overnight. Resources and the ability to control others are accumulated gradually. Emergent individuals or groups would thus be brought down to size before they pose a threat. They’re in the minority after all.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    True. I suppose one other possibility is the keeping secret of their increase in power, but now I'm just getting into political intrigue.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by President_Ben)
    The market is a source of power. Denying that is showing you know **** all about how markets operate. Anarchism seeks to remove the ability of people from dominating another whether humans are innately good or bad.
    It really depends on what sort of anarchist you are. Some believe in no government or free market, others believe simply that there should be no government and that anarcho-sydicalist organizations will arise naturally. It's just lke Marxism - it has so many different forms and variants - some variants are extremely elitist, which is why some Fascists were interested in them.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    Dismantled by whom? You can't take power away from someone with more power than you, because of the fact that, well, they've got power and you haven't. If an upper class gains even a slight edge, it will be extremely difficult to dislodge them, and it will rapidly become easier to just live with it and come to some arrangement. Result: Feudalism Mk II.
    Fundamentally, the working class are meant to have the power to revolt and will always have this because the upper ruling class, without the working class, can do nothing.

    These anarchists who see the free market as being something that does lead to control by abuse of the market are freaking idiots then. It's patently obvious that markets are not perfect and thus not compatible with the fundamentals of anarchism.

    Marxists fundamentally maintain the central themes - class struggle, from each according to need, from each according to ability. How you achieve the revolution to make the above possible and how the details are resolved is where marxists divide.

    Anarchists depend upon marxist foundations for political theory you know
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by President_Ben)
    The market is a source of power. Denying that is showing you know **** all about how markets operate. Anarchism seeks to remove the ability of people from dominating another whether humans are innately good or bad.
    What?

    So, anarchism FORCES people to obey certain regulations, not to use the market etc etc...

    How can this be compatible with the lack of authority that is central to anarchism?

    Anarchists seek to remove government control, and control what people are allowed to do with regards to trade!?!?

    If we left people alone on a continent and they had to start civilization afresh, a free market would develop... a free market is defined by the absence of government intervention.
    Offline

    13
    There is no central authority in anarchism. But the moment you start to impose on other people or try to impose the market, they are quite right to turn around and knock you down for trying.

    Anarchists are not just about removing government control. Ruling classes have power over people in a variety of subversive ways. When a bully imposes on you, that violates anarchism. When a boss tries to bully you, that is too. The notion of bosses flies in the face from the start. Do anything you want so long as it does affect others and if it does, they must agree to it freely under no coercion and have the right to dismiss the action at any point.


    A free market is misleading in the sense that it appears to give freedom. It does not. Markets are perverse, abused and a tool of power. Markets are not capable of being perfectly competitive in order to achieve pareto optimal results. The 'market' did not develop for thousands upon thousands of years of human existence.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by President_Ben)
    There is no central authority in anarchism. But the moment you start to impose on other people or try to impose the market, they are quite right to turn around and knock you down for trying.

    The 'market' did not develop for thousands upon thousands of years of human existence.
    I am going to have to disagree with you there, humans will allways try to maximize thier own profit, and basic trading, (eg: i need 5 fur pelts for this meat, you can't have it because you only have 3) IS the market system, and this IS human nature.

    You cant impose the market, it is the natural state, you can only impose forced equality.

    Thia forced equality would be in the intrest of certain classed but not in the intrest of others, what makes one clas right and the other wrong. Sureley if all men are equal ( a basic premise of anarchism) , then we should not opress the rich for the benefit of the poor.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There are two types of anarchists:

    Collectivist anarchists advocate an economy based on cooperation and collective ownership, i.e. based in socialism.

    Individualist anarchists support the market and private property, i.e. based in liberalism.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by cuth)
    I am going to have to disagree with you there, humans will allways try to maximize thier own profit, and basic trading, (eg: i need 5 fur pelts for this meat, you can't have it because you only have 3) IS the market system, and this IS human nature.

    You cant impose the market, it is the natural state, you can only impose forced equality.

    Thia forced equality would be in the intrest of certain classed but not in the intrest of others, what makes one clas right and the other wrong. Sureley if all men are equal ( a basic premise of anarchism) , then we should not opress the rich for the benefit of the poor.
    There is no property. So you can't own fur pelts or own meat to even do the exchange. It is collectively owned. To each according to need.

    Greed is one of the traits in people that leads to power, corruption and all the ill that comes from it. You eliminate the means by which such ills can develop.

    NB. Humans are notoriously stupid. You stick them in front of the prisoners' dilemma for example and they will not choose the optimal solution. An anarchist system proposes that they can reach this by eliminating the individualistic streak that makes people do what is collectively, dumb.

    There is no rich, no poor. No oppression. You do your own thing, whatever it is like. But when it impacts upon others, they must agree all the way through the process. If you can't agree, then nothing happens anyway. The moment you start to antagonise the system of maximium freedom for all with your own greed, you get slapped back down for trying it.



    NB. falling for 'the fallacy of nature' is pretty amateur on D&D
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by John82)
    Individualist anarchists support the market and private property, i.e. based in liberalism.
    Are not anarchists. Because the market and private property lead to the circumstances where freedoms for one intrude on others.

    Goods are not always 'public goods', ie. non-rival, non-exclusive. Overcoming this is the challenge of "real" anarchists who see that total cooperation as the way forward.

    Individualistic '**** you' anarchists are clearly far from anarchists. Acting far more like most of your modern nihilists
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HagerVor)
    Anarchism..

    So in this situation...

    who pays for things like road maintenance?
    obviously there can't be a military..
    where does healthcare come from?
    and if anarchists are opposed to capitalism.. arn't they also opposed to the free market?? So where/what can we buy????
    Road maintenance would be provided by private companies. There could be gated communities created. "If you want to live here to have to pay towards road maintenance. If you want to pass through this road you will have to pay a toll"

    There could be a military but it would be a private army. Optimistically speaking there would be a peace-keeping force. Pessimistically speaking there would be gangs roaming the streets and civil war.

    Healthcare would come from the private sector.

    Anarchism would lead to a survival of the fitest that could create a new nation eventually. If there were gated communities that were successful they could expand as others wanted to join them. The communities could compete or combine. If they combined a nation could effectively be the final outcome. If they competed a nation could be greated by conquering all other communities.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by President_Ben)
    Are not anarchists. Because the market and private property lead to the circumstances where freedoms for one intrude on others.

    Goods are not always 'public goods', ie. non-rival, non-exclusive. Overcoming this is the challenge of "real" anarchists who see that total cooperation as the way forward.

    Individualistic '**** you' anarchists are clearly far from anarchists. Acting far more like most of your modern nihilists
    There are individualist anarchists, although I prefer the term libertarianism.

    You could argue that collectivist anarchists are not real anarchists. If anarchism is about removing authority then why should a group of elite individuals be able decide the best way to address a problem/cooperate. Sounds very similar to government if you ask me.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by John82)
    If anarchism is about removing authority
    It isn't just 'removing authority'. It is maximising freedom for the individual given the constraint of there being other individuals.

    Everything that effects you, you get a say in. You get right of veto over. No one can do something that you do not approve but equally, you do not do things other effected individuals do not approve.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by President_Ben)
    There is no property. So you can't own fur pelts or own meat to even do the exchange. It is collectively owned. To each according to need.
    You keep equating anarchy with a collectivist system. Irrespective of your preconceptions, a glance at the dictionary will illustrate that it’s a monopoly on coercion anarchists seek to avoid. No mention is made of aversion to all forms of power or inequity. It’d be wholly irrational to deem all forms of authority as equal to that exercised by a government with the ability to tax and wage war. If not the dictionary, on what basis then are you stating that collective ownership of resources is central to anarchy?

    With no central government, there is no reason why social groups within a country would be homogenous. People within one locale may choose to pool resources, making decisions by democratic vote wherever possible. A group elsewhere may choose to engage in barter, with social norms acting as substitutes for formal property deeds and contracts. Such social norms and trading guilds based on reputation were the basis of trade before government ever enforced contracts. The point is you’re not forced to join any particular group by some central body. Whether groups would be able to coexist is an empirical matter we’ve no way of resolving.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.