What is Anarchy?

Lockstep

Valmont wrote: »

Except socialism, because of the economic calculation problem. Which really is the crux of the matter when you get down to it.

Not really, if you take the theoretical model. Socialists could claim that the economic calculation is irrelevent; internal transfers of wealth and calculations of price mechanism could be sidestepped by the persons working together and becoming more harmonious and realizing what they need and what is a fair price to pay.
When you go into theoretics (like anarcho-capitalism and socialism being happy-clappy if only persons would become nice through a better system) then it is difficult to know when to stop.
If persons can magically become more peaceful/harmonious independant of the state and via a progressively smaller (and then vanishing) government, then I don't see it as much different for them to become less greedy and more inclined to pay what is a fairer and efficient price for something via a government that leads them to be altruistic and cooperative.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, I think socialism cannot work in practice due to human nature, the calculation debate takes current human nature into account. Both anarcho-capitalism and socialism claim that humanity's nature can be altered progressively.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I believe they all are equally utopian. Even in the abscence of a central government, you can see lawlessness and endemic violence (with Somalia and Early-Medieval Ireland as examples) which appear to be even worse than those without a central authority. While a state might engage in warfare, it usually has an interest in keeping a measure of authority within it's domains.
You might claim that a state need not be so large and bellicose, but it is another thing entirely to claim that society can function without a state at all.

Denerick

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You might claim that a state need not be so large and bellicose, but it is another thing entirely to claim that society can function without a state at all.

Its precisely because Libertarians recognise the need of the State to maintain law and order that doesn't make them Utopian. Thats the major difference for me.

Hazlittle

Denerick wrote: »

There is a queasy religious determinism to your 'arguments'. Saying that something is 'destined' to happen is not an argument.

I dont know how to respond. I have observed that all attempts to drown the human spirit eventually fails. Nazi German, Soviet Union, Roman Empire and every state except Switerland and America has fallen. I dont see what it is about Ireland that makes you think we'll last longer.

Denerick wrote: »

The entire history of mankind has been one of governance. Too many lives have been lost in the pursuit of a perfect society. I hope you grow out of your anarchism soon.

I'm not going to apologise for being an evolutionist. Mankind has lasted longer than 6,000 years. Read a biology book. Dinosaurs did exist.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Question is; how fast are they increasing? Or are they actually increasing at all? One swallow does not make a summer.

I live in the countryside with an extremely poor internet connection, making videos take an extremely long time to stream. I would be happy to read any articles on the matter though, if you can link me to specifics.

I have absolutely no idea how you can do a poll of peoples thoughts. The Irish Liberty Forum and the Freeman movement didnt exist last year and they exist now. Thats over a thousand more anarchists in existence that didnt before.

There is a Tibetan document that supports the idea that man will return to his lawless state. By the looks of things I can see the status quo collapsing in 10 years.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

However, you really need to structure your arguments better. You keep on saying "read this author" or "Read that article". That's not how these debates work. The usual procedure to make your arguments and then cite them correctly to back up your reasoning.
If someone's only defence was to "Read Marx" or "Das Kapital answers your question" it seems they are trying to have the last word but are unable to structure their answers in a coherent manner.

I gave brief sumaries of my argument which wasnt good enough then I gave book examples. I'm not an experienced keyboard warrior so I dont undersdtand how these arguments are suspose to be won.

I didnt give you theoretical books. I gave you history books.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Both anarcho-capitalism and socialism claim that humanity's nature can be altered progressively.

Anarcho-capitalists I know dont talk changing human naure.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I believe they all are equally utopian. Even in the abscence of a central government, you can see lawlessness and endemic violence (with Somalia and Early-Medieval Ireland as examples) which appear to be even worse than those without a central authority. While a state might engage in warfare, it usually has an interest in keeping a measure of authority within it's domains.
You might claim that a state need not be so large and bellicose, but it is another thing entirely to claim that society can function without a state at all.

Spocieties have existed without states as you have been given the info on. Either read the books or Google it yourself. States dont last very long in comparison to lawlessness.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

Hazlittle wrote: »

I dont know how to respond. I have observed that all attempts to drown the human spirit eventually fails. Nazi German, Soviet Union, Roman Empire and every state except Switerland and America has fallen. I dont see what it is about Ireland that makes you think we'll last longer.

The political entities (Nazi Germany, Soviet Union) may have fallen but they have always been replaced by a State. Do you deny this?

I'm not going to apologise for being an evolutionist. Mankind has lasted longer than 6,000 years. Read a biology book. Dinosaurs did exist.

I literally laughed out loud when I read this.

HavingCrack

Could you consider the Anarcho-Syndicalist collectives during the Spanish Civil War as examples of anarchism working in an effective manner??

Denerick

HavingCrack wrote: »

Could you consider the Anarcho-Syndicalist collectives during the Spanish Civil War as examples of anarchism working in an effective manner??

No. Because lots of people died.

Are you noticing a pattern here with utopian philosophies?

Hazlittle

Denerick wrote: »

The political entities (Nazi Germany, Soviet Union) may have fallen but they have always been replaced by a State. Do you deny this?



I literally laughed out loud when I read this.

States have existed for a tiny proportion of time as man did. All states fail. they might be replaced by a state but all states still fail.

HavingCrack wrote: »

Could you consider the Anarcho-Syndicalist collectives during the Spanish Civil War as examples of anarchism working in an effective manner??

Depends on what you consider successful. It lasted for 3 years so no I wouldnt. The shortest system I have quoted in this thread lasted for a hundredth years.

HavingCrack

Denerick wrote: »

No. Because lots of people died.

Are you noticing a pattern here with utopian philosophies?

Lots of people died because they were attempting to fight a war at the same time against people who wanted to destroy anarchism, people didn't die because it was an anarchist collective, in fact the collectives themselves were extremely successful. Your argument doesn't really wash with me.

Hazlittle wrote: »

States have existed for a tiny proportion of time as man did. All states fail. they might be replaced by a state but all states still fail.



Depends on what you consider successful. It lasted for 3 years so no I wouldnt. The shortest system I have quoted in this thread lasted for a hundredth years.

Considering they were attempting to fight a war at the same time against people who wanted to destroy anarchism I'd say it has to be considered relatively successful.

Denerick

Hazlittle wrote: »

States have existed for a tiny proportion of time as man did. All states fail. they might be replaced by a state but all states still fail.

Considering every achievement attributable to man in the historic era occurred under what we might term a primitive state, your argument is utterly pathetic.

Lockstep

Hazlittle wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea how you can do a poll of peoples thoughts.

You claimed that the numbers of anarcho-capitalists are increasing and then claim that you cannot do a poll of people's thoughts?
Sorry, I'm not putting much store in that. If you wish to claim that anarchist numbers are rising, it is up to you to cite your claim.

Hazlittle wrote: »

The Irish Liberty Forum and the Freeman movement didnt exist last year and they exist now. Thats over a thousand more anarchists in existence that didnt before.

What a strange argument; "THe ILF and FM were founded. Therefore, 1000 anarchists came into existance".
Are you saying they weren't anarchists before the ILF was founded?

Hazlittle wrote: »

There is a Tibetan document that supports the idea that man will return to his lawless state. By the looks of things I can see the status quo collapsing in 10 years.

A Tibetan document? It must be true.

Hazlittle wrote: »

I gave brief sumaries of my argument which wasnt good enough then I gave book examples. I'm not an experienced keyboard warrior so I dont undersdtand how these arguments are suspose to be won.

It's nothing to do with being a keyboard warrior. It's to do with engaging in a rational argument.
Your argument summaries were basically unstubstantiated opinions with occasional links to libertarian websites (and you did not link to releveant parts. Fair enough if you insist on using these but if your claims were as self-evident as you seem to think, then surely you would have no problem finding neutral sources which reinforce your claims.

For example, in arguing against your stylised accounts of early-medieval Ireland, I did not merely say "Read Ó Cróinín". I went through the book myself, highlighting the relevant information to disprove the idea that early-Medieval Ireland was anything but a hierarchical, patriarchal society who's members did not only have to worry about foreign raiders but also the members of the neighbouring tuatha.

Hazlittle wrote: »

I didnt give you theoretical books. I gave you history books.

Name one history book you have directed me to. So far, all you've done is posted links to libertarian websites. (Unless I have missed a genuine history book you have cited, in which case I apologise)
I have already argued against your claims that Early Medieval Ireland was more peaceful than other kingdoms at the times (using neutral history books for the purpose). You chose not to respond to this. That's fine but you can hardly expect me to take your claims seriously on the matter.

Hazlittle wrote: »

Anarcho-capitalists I know dont talk changing human naure.

Grand, so are you claiming that human nature would mean that if the state was abolished tomorrow, that things would quickly turn out great?

Hazlittle wrote: »

Spocieties have existed without states as you have been given the info on. Either read the books or Google it yourself. States dont last very long in comparison to lawlessness.

Once again, you resort to the cowards way out; "Read books". You make no attempt to substantiate your arguments and merely demand others read books rather than try and come up with a coherent argument yourself.

I have already gone against your claims that either Somalia or Early Medieval Ireland were/are better places to live than other regions with central authority.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Fair enough. However, I don't think human nature has changed enough from those days to enable us to have changed from such mentalities.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would disagree here. I fundamentally disagree with libertarianism, however, I would see them as much more realistic than anarchists (be they anarco-syndicalists or anarcho-capitalists) in that they achknowledge one of the most crucial organisations for humanity. That of a state. While I would disagree with minarchists ideas on what the state should do, we would both agree that the state has a vital role to play in areas that the private sector would be hard pressed to provide for (taking care of those citizens who for whatever reason, are unable to defend themselves).

I suppose it's the same difference between me and certain brands of socialists. THey might see a long gradualist move from our current state to socialism, with social democracy progressively transforming society with full-on socialism as a logical concluding point.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, there is a difference in an idea in practice and the same idea in theory.
Anarchism in practice (to my knowledge) has been one of chaos, barbarism and the rule of the stronger man.
But if you really believe that it can still work in theory then that's sound, I can hardly argue against your personal beliefs!

titan18

Wouldn't really know too much about this stuff, so forgive any ignorance but would Mondragon,Freetown Christiania and some parts of Somalia be a success.

Ataxia

Ok, so there's several issues that keep coming up in this thread:

Right-wing libertarianism

"Anarcho-capitalism" has nothing to do with the struggle for liberation from coercion and domination. The idea that one can have a free society in which the basic institutions of production and distribution are controlled by private tyrannies is self-evidently fatuous. Rothbardism is just an attempt to steal our clothes, all the while defending the hegemony of violent and oppressive institutions.

Anarchists are all just bored middle class kids

That's both false and irrelevant. In Ireland, anarchism hasn't made a huge inroads in working-class consciousness, admittedly, but in Greece for example, there is a huge and genuinely working-class anarchist resistance. The Irish anarchists I know are basically divided fairly evenly between student-types and union activists. In any case, I think just because someone is a middle-class student doesn't make their struggles irrelevant. Modern capitalism is more subtle than the capitalism of Marx's time; in the West, they have learned that giving us a small bit of affluence will make us think we're all middle class, and thus that our objective class interest is with capitalism, rather than anarchism/communism/whatever. However, middle class people are very much still victims of capitalism; our experience of capitalism is not poverty, but rather empty consumerism, isolated social relations, the separation of an individual from his creative output, etc.

Anarchy never worked

Not true. There have been very few examples of genuinely anarchistic societies. The best examples are probably the Paris Commune and the CNT/FAI controlled areas of Spain during the Spanish Civil War. In both cases, the anarchist societies were destroyed from the outside by violence, rather than through any internal instability.

Anyway, I'll just leave this here: http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

Valmont

Denerick wrote: »

I suppose I should clear up this misconception.

Message received.

Denerick wrote: »

Anarchism on the other hand certainly is a utopian idealogy (Anarcho-Capitalism or otherwise) as it seems to think non coercion will result in greater living standards.

Is that not a central tenet of small government libertarianism?

Ataxia wrote: »

O
"Anarcho-capitalism" has nothing to do with the struggle for liberation from coercion and domination.

How so? Could you expand on this point?

Denerick

Valmont wrote: »

Is that not a central tenet of small government libertarianism?

Libertarianism (Should it recognise the need for a judicial system) does recognise that coercion is a fact of life and that without it people will infringe on others liberty. It is impossible to guarantee any modicum of liberty without some degree of coercion - and hence, paradoxically, infringement of ones personal liberty.

Ataxia

Valmont wrote: »

How so? Could you expand on this point?

Because capitalism is inherently coercive and repressive. True anarchism is necessarily anti-capitalist.

Denerick

Ataxia wrote: »

Because capitalism is inherently coercive and repressive. True anarchism is necessarily anti-capitalist.

How do you hope to achieve a state of non coercion by enforcing non coercion?

Ataxia

Denerick wrote: »

How do you hope to achieve a state of non coercion by enforcing non coercion?

I think workers should seize control of their workplaces and communities and run them democratically and non-hierarchically. If you consider that kind of expropriation coercive, I don't particularly mind, because I think a degree of coercion/violence is legitimate in overthrowing a considerably more violent system.

Denerick

Ataxia wrote: »

I think workers should seize control of their workplaces and communities and run them democratically and non-hierarchically. If you consider that kind of expropriation coercive, I don't particularly mind, because I think a degree of coercion/violence is legitimate in overthrowing a considerably more violent system.

Then you are not an anarchist, and shouldn't claim to be one.

Ataxia

Denerick wrote: »

Then you are not an anarchist, and shouldn't claim to be one.

Whatever, I don't particularly care what some capitalist apologist thinks is a legitimate revolutionary strategy.

sensibleken

man theres a lot of rules to being an anarchist!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

Ataxia wrote: »

Whatever, I don't particularly care what some capitalist apologist thinks is a legitimate revolutionary strategy.

I've never been called a capitalist apologist before. The left do come up with the most entertaining polemics!

But bottom line - if you think coercion is a solution, then you are not an anarchist and should stop calling yourself one.

Lockstep

Denerick wrote: »

I've never been called a capitalist apologist before. The left do come up with the most entertaining polemics!

But bottom line - if you think coercion is a solution, then you are not an anarchist and should stop calling yourself one.

I wouldn't worry about it. At various points I've been accused of more extreme leftists of having betrayed my working class roots, being a trendy liberal, being pro-fascism, being a misogynist/being anti-women and anti-feminist, being a right-wing gun freak and being a general bigot.
I get accused of being the opposite by rightists. Mudslinging is part and parcel of politics.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, I never criticized you Apologies if you got that impression.
I was merely pointing out that it is nigh on impossible to claim that a theory can be proven impractical in theory. Both socialism and anarchism fall afoul of human nature, in theory, both can sidestep accusations of being unrealistic by claiming that all is needed is a leap of faith.
Anarchists can claim that humanity can progressively learn to live without the state, socialists can claim that they can progressively learn to live without the market.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I still have yet to see how the calculation problem is unworkable in theory.
Outlined above.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hmm yeah, the question is will we ever be able to transcend this. I remain skeptical that this will ever be the case, given that human nature is so deeply ingrained.

Denerick

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I wouldn't worry about it. At various points I've been accused of more extreme leftists of having betrayed my working class roots, being a trendy liberal, being pro-fascism, being a misogynist/being anti-women and anti-feminist, being a right-wing gun freak and being a general bigot.

Oh, I'm not worried. I just always find it amusing how the left are so dogmatic over mild definitions. As the old saying about the commies go, before the meeting comes the split (Or something like that)

Ataxia

Denerick wrote: »

I've never been called a capitalist apologist before. The left do come up with the most entertaining polemics!

But bottom line - if you think coercion is a solution, then you are not an anarchist and should stop calling yourself one.

The State and capitalism sustain themselves through violence and coercion. I think its legitimate to fight back. What's your alternative.

Denerick

Ataxia wrote: »

The State and capitalism sustain themselves through violence and coercion. I think its legitimate to fight back. What's your alternative.

Did I say I had an alternative? I suppose you might say I have a roughly wishy washy Liberal centrism attitude? I'm just curious why you call yourself an anarchist when you clearly aren't an anarchist.