Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Anarchism - is it even feasible on paper?? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Anarchism..

    i'm not talking about anarchism as a fashion statement or blah blah blah..

    but more as "a harmonious anti-authoritarian society that is based on individual self-determination and personal involvement." no government...

    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????

    i probably need to reed Kropotkin or Godwin or someone..

    in the meantime.. can someone shed some light??
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I'm an elitist. I think an elite is always bound to rise to the top of any society, becuase it is necessary.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HagerVor)
    i'm not talking about anarchism as a fashion statement or blah blah blah..
    That's the only way it does work, when it's used as a title for the latest fashion statement, or slightly modified ideology.

    If this thread sticks around you will find enough people, over the weeks, months, and years, who will turn up, tell you your defenition is wrong, then describe something that isn't quite anarchy, and tell you it can work.

    The descriptions will change on a near daily basis.

    In the strictest defenition, no it can not work, as one of the modified versions (in other words something that is not anarchy, but called anarchy), well who knows, it depends what the defenition of the day is.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    That's the only way it does work, when it's used as a title for the latest fashion statement, or slightly modified ideology.
    So William Godwin's theory of mutual aid can never work???
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HagerVor)
    So William Godwin's theory of mutual aid can never work???
    Look around you, and answer for yourself.

    Can you see people that would fail the system?

    What is to stop people doing it now?

    No government is needed, so you don't need a nation to do it.

    Many have tried.

    How have they faired?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    all i can say is that it's a shame!
    the inherently good things never prosper.

    hmm *starts looking at things in the black and white way of good and bad*

    lol
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HagerVor)
    all i can say is that it's a shame!
    the inherently good things never prosper.

    hmm *starts looking at things in the black and white way of good and bad*

    lol
    Good things never work because we are not "good".

    We are flawed, and therefore we have to accept that anything based on perfection (or somthing we class as "good") will probably never work.

    We have to build ideologies, and political systems, that incorporate the flawed, the bad, etc.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i think i'll still stick with 21st century socialism ...of a liberal form..

    lol
    Offline

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

    i'm not talking about anarchism as a fashion statement or blah blah blah..

    but more as "a harmonious anti-authoritarian society that is based on individual self-determination and personal involvement." no government...

    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????

    i probably need to reed Kropotkin or Godwin or someone..

    in the meantime.. can someone shed some light??
    I don't prescribe to anarchist ideology, but i'll try and answer as best I can.

    Roads could be taken care of by local collectives. There'd be no one to enforce this, but it would be in their own interest. Remember, the idea of anarchism is that people have freedom and individuality - and this encompasses being able to choose a path of mutually beneficial practice. Aka business partnerships wouldn't be against anarchist ideology. Locals COULD set up collectives to look after the roads; but they wouldn't be forced too (as per the old feudal system).

    Military is a pain in the arse yes, though I suppose they naively assume no one would want to invade a land mass of individuals, given it would be so hard to then liquidate into their apparently statist system. Either that, or they'd expect people to rise in arms in defense of their own land. I'm not sure about this one.

    Healthcare would come from the private sector - ala America and anywhere else without an NHS.

    They aren't opposed to capitalism. They embrace the free market as the economic yin to their social yang.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Very poetic. Anarchism is about the only political ideology that actually suffers WORSE than Communism from the sad reality that people aren't nice, cooperative or capable of thinking about anything other than the extremely short term.

    It's interesting that anarchism is based, or seems to be, on an extrapolation of the close social bonds that began to die out in the '50s. Neighbours helping each other out and all that. These days we're all far too paranoid and grasping for anything like that to survive for more than three seconds, which proves the point that anarchism is doomed to a theoretical existence.

    With one exception. It might JUST work for small isolated communities that share a common bond. Religious groups, for instance. Combine that with some kind of hippy farming self-supporting idea and you've actually got a fusion of communism and anarchism. All very well, but you'd never run a country that way. The scenarios outlined above - local roads maintained by the locals that use them, and so on - suggest that if anarchy were ever to take hold it would lead not to greater unity but to the fragmentation of society into very small sub-units. The obvious increase in xenophobia that would result would be extremely undesirable. And there are certain things that can only be done by large unified bodies - things that would be impossible for these small groups. Proper health and education services - certainly medical supplies - armed forces (although of course if we're talking global anarchy that would be no problem at all.

    And perhaps the biggest problem with anarchy is that even if, somehow, humanity's basic selfishness could be overcome and it could be made a reality, pretty soon the trends towards organisation, collectivisation and globalisation would pick up again. Even discounting the immediate hankerings of people for the previous society - wireless broadband, Trisha, Starbucks - gradually conventional civilisation would be rebuilt. Local, then Regional Governments would arise, and the whole of post-feudal history would simply play out once more.
    Offline

    13
    Anarchism is usually opposed to the 'market' as it is something which people exploit to gain power.

    Anarchists do not depend on people being perfect, rather, that their means of abusing power and interrupting the individuality of people, is removed by the development of a cultural understanding that decisions which impact someone are made with the consent of that person.

    I quite like the sound of anarchism, in the traditionally socialist libertarian form, in that it does create a rather utopic society.

    Having spent a rather large amount of time with anarchists, and I mean a lot, I would say your theoretical problems arise from the dynamics of the model. Someone isn't born yet, but may want to use your non-renewable resource years in the future, how do they have a say about consumption now.

    Anarchism still hangs on, mostly (unless you talk to those crazy green anarchists ) to Marx's old battle cry (to each according to need, from each according to ability) which has the increasingly tricky problem of defining need. Now, the greens get around this by suggesting we live in a really old school anarchist society (ie. pre-civilisation) where need really is food, water, shelter.

    Is the consensus decision making practical when things are taken on a larger scale? Doubtful. Even with "fully accountable, instantly dismissable" representatives in some kind of federalised collective of collectives, decision making is slow.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    It might JUST work for small isolated communities that share a common bond.
    Well there have been plenty of attempts, one noteably one in East Anglia (not far from William Godwin's old stomping grounds) after the war, which lasted around 20 years (if memory serves me right) although it eventually broke down, and in the latter days it had pretty much ceased to be anrachy (once again, as is always the case with anarchy, it had evolved into something else, in an attempt to make it work).

    The thing I found most interesting about that attempted anarchic community, though, was what happened next.

    Many of the original residents ended up involved with other "extreme" ideologies, or with cults, including a couple of members who went on to become quite heavily involved in the neo-Nazi movement.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HagerVor)
    Anarchism..

    i'm not talking about anarchism as a fashion statement or blah blah blah..

    but more as "a harmonious anti-authoritarian society that is based on individual self-determination and personal involvement." no government...

    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????

    i probably need to reed Kropotkin or Godwin or someone..

    in the meantime.. can someone shed some light??
    I'm not an anarchist but I'll answer your problems.

    There would still be basic infrastructure in terms of healthcare and education, it would merely be communally run. Thus organising things like healthcae and maintennance would be a matter of organising a group effort to benefit the community.

    As far as I'm aware the concept of 'buying' wouldn't really exist, at least presumably there'd be no monetrey system or commodity value. Communties would simply trade their goods for the equivalent goods (in terms of need) with others. But communities would be as self-sufficient as possible.

    I think anarchism is much more suitable to a small village lifestyle than the glocal capitalist community we see today which is why people see it as so unrealistic. But I think that once natural resources begin exhausting themselves and our current lifestyle of global capitalism becomes unsustainable, adopting a certain form of communal anarchy with renewable energy sources powering communities would be realistic. Though obviously the change would have to be extremely gradual.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Anarchism was based on the concept that all Human beings are, by nature, 'good'. The ideology was written after the philosophy of Rousseau which, with his description of the 'natural man', said that human beings are corrupted by society.
    so: Anarchism has its value only on a philosophical level. I think most would agree that it wouldnt work in reality.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I dont understand how anarchism is opposed to the market....

    Surely the market is not an organ of authority, but the system that naturally exists without government intervention....

    The scarcity of goods nessecitates trade, "man's wants are unlimited, but those things that man desires are scarce"

    If we take away all authority, then we take away any market restrictions imposed. Then, i conjecture, the market will exist, and trade empires will develop, trade barons will become powerfull, a new elite class will develop, and authority will be established again.

    Anarchy=no authority=no trade regulation=free trade=rich classes=authority

    In short, anarchy is full of contradictions and impossible in the end.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by President_Ben)
    Anarchism is usually opposed to the 'market' as it is something which people exploit to gain power.
    From my understanding, there are numerous variants of anarchism. The tread uniting anarchists is a distain for states which have a monopoly on coercion. Once the state is removed, you have your anarcho-syndicalists on one side and anarcho-capitalists on the other. The latter fully embrace markets, to the extent that they would be used to create a polycentric system of law; a range of (competing) codes of conduct between which people can choose. The means by which different systems of law could coexist is an issue of great debate though I don't know the detail. Nonetheless, it would be incorrect to equate anarchism with a deliberate disregard for social order as has been implied by others thus far.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astralcars)
    From my understanding, there are numerous variants of anarchism.
    I think it would be more accurate to state that there is only one form of anarchism, and various variants, that are not anarchism, that have been created in it's name to try to justify a system that is not possible.

    A point I really touched upon in my first post.

    Stick around long enough and someone else will come along with a new variation tomorrow, but it won't be based within the original confines of anarchism, and will be anarchism in name alone. Sort of like communism was in the later soviet era.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    I think it would be more accurate to state that there is only one form of anarchism, and various variants, that are not anarchism, that have been created in it's name to try to justify a system that is not possible.

    A point I really touched upon in my first post.

    Stick around long enough and someone else will come along with a new variation tomorrow, but it won't be based within the original confines of anarchism, and will be anarchism in name alone. Sort of like communism was in the later soviet era.
    Actually, no there's no basic 'fixed' anarchism, there's debate amongst anarchists as to the specifics of it, that doesn't discredit it in any way. I suppose we live in a pure democracy as well don't we? There's nothing unusual about debating the specifics of an ideology.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laika)
    Actually, no there's no basic 'fixed' anarchism.
    No, but there are several confines to the ideology, that when breached turn it into a different ideology, just as with any other similar system.

    Marxism is not a 'fixed' system, but when it become rampant capitalism it is no longer marxism, is it?

    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.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by cuth)
    I dont understand how anarchism is opposed to the market....

    Surely the market is not an organ of authority, but the system that naturally exists without government intervention....

    The scarcity of goods nessecitates trade, "man's wants are unlimited, but those things that man desires are scarce"

    If we take away all authority, then we take away any market restrictions imposed. Then, i conjecture, the market will exist, and trade empires will develop, trade barons will become powerfull, a new elite class will develop, and authority will be established again.

    Anarchy=no authority=no trade regulation=free trade=rich classes=authority

    In short, anarchy is full of contradictions and impossible in the end.
    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.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
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.