Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

And that leader would have more power than the average worker.

They may occupy a position that they can use to some self-advantage, but that is definitely not equivalent to rulership.

And in an anarchy, there is nothing preventing people from simply ignoring someone who goes too far in making themselves out to be a ruler.

We have courts to enforce the law.  If the law itself is what creates a victim, then the victim has no recourse.

What? Yes they do. The offender can be thrown in jail, sued for compensation etc as determined by the courts. If someone stole $5000 dollars form you and you sued sucessfully for $5000, is that not recourse? Wouldn't people find it preferable to have some organisation manage this instead of stealing back the $5000 themselves?

I think you're drastically missing my point, and I'm not sure how to state it any clearer without putting a bunch of effort into detailing specific examples, which will just spiral off into elaborate derails.  Let me put it this way:  go talk to a political prisoner.

My point is to show that anarchy would just collapse back into a system of government, due to the what-if's that I was bringing up. So rules do need some form of governence, or else they either become ineffective and poorly defined so as to not function effectively, or end up encouraging a form of government to come into existance. It was most certainly not laws not being manipulatable (which they are) nor was it even to show that anarchy may be worse than government/rulers etc.

Yes, the above leaves plenty of room for grey areas.  Such is life.  The very nature of an ideal is that it isn't obtainable.  Everyone has their ideologies, and all ideologies are based on ideals, hence the very root of the word.  The most common response to a post like this is "Such a utopian ideal is so naive!", but I could say that about literally every political stance ever.

Until you put forth your preferred political ideology so that I can pick apart its theoretical flaws, and it will surely have many, this will be a very one-sided debate.

Ideally, these groups would come to an agreement and/or break off association.

And if not? If it were significant enough (eg food distribution) it seems like they would from groups to represent themselves.

This flat out doesn't make sense to me.

"My group disagrees with that other group, so my group is going to start calling ourselves a government so that other group will do what we say."

[Devling]

Anarchy, even if it just means "No government", is still ridiculous and in no way practical.
There is a reason people have governments, they are extremely practical.

[Reelya]

"No rulers" not "No government". Don't straw-man as an argument. Almost all anarchists except extreme individualists and anarcho-capitalists (both groups are right-wingers generally) advocate structures to avoid power imbalances from developing.

[SalmonGod]

Anarchy, even if it just means "No government", is still ridiculous and in no way practical.
There is a reason people have governments, they are extremely practical.

Except that's not what it means, as I have explained.  Otherwise, ok whatever.  Not like I can respond to a statement that's presented as "This is what I believe because it's true.  Period."

[Devling]

Well, we don't really have an instance of "no rulers" in history, so it's kinda hard to talk about it.

[Reelya]

Spain in the 1930's is the example you want. The CNT communes. They were extremely successful economically and politically, but not militarily. E.g., when the National Army stomps you with aid from NAZI Germany, that failure can hardly be blamed on your economic/political system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederaci%C3%B3n_Nacional_del_Trabajo

[Devling]

Alright, let me dine on my words.

So the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo is a labor organization?

[Putnam]

It means  "national confederation of the work(er)", so that's what it sounds like.

[SalmonGod]

We also have plenty of information on the lifestyles of indigenous cultures, which tend not to have rulers in any capacity resembling what we have in modernity.  This is likely similar to how all of humanity lived for about 98% of its history, until the establishment of the first cities.  In the remaining 2%, we've already managed to push the entire planet to the brink of total ecological collapse.  I'm not a primitivist, but it's something to think about.  For all of the flaws you could point out about anarchy, unsustainability is demonstrably not one of them.

[Reelya]

Alright, let me dine on my words.

So the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo is a labor organization?

Effectively, they ran half the production in the country, but with a non-heirarchical direct democratic system. It's a form known as Anarcho-Syndicalism if you want to look up the theory. It's not just a labor advocacy thing like the ball-less union leaders you're used to (most of whom are in the pocket of the company management / state structures), these guys knew how to efficiently organize entire industries using participatory models, without any "bosses".

You should really learn about the Spanish Civil War, it's something everyone should really know about.

[PanH]

There's also la Commune de Paris, which didn't lasted long, but is considered as communist/anarchist (and caused the differences between those 2 ideologies).

[scriver]

Ugh. Making such a stupid distinction between leader or government and ruler is completely semantic and pointless. Not only is it completely arbitrary, but the whole concept hangs on the notion that for some reason "ruling" means "forcing others against their will", which in itself is completely disregarding the fact that forcing others to do or not do things is not inherently bad. Do I need to bring up how "rulers" have forced people to stop keeping slaves, to make their children go to school, to treat the person from the next tribe, country, culture, and region over as an equal, none of which would have happened unless somebody stood up and said "no, you're going to do it this way".

[SalmonGod]

Well, sure.  Just like monarchy isn't inherently bad, because it's possible for there to be good monarchs who care about their people, yet we can probably both agree that's no reason to go back to monarchy rule. 

The whole thing about political ideologies is they're all perfect in theory if everyone participates in good faith, when in reality they're all a collection of positives and negatives.  The reason people disagree (besides being misinformed) is we weigh those pros and cons differently.

As an anarchist, my response to you is that slavery is incompatible with anarchy, so having a ruler to enforce an end to that wouldn't be necessary.  School isn't inherently a good thing, and can be enforced for the wrong reasons.  Rulers encourage prejudice more often than not.  My personal weighing of the pros and cons is that, despite the potential for rulers to enable good things, the sociological dynamics that determine who becomes a ruler and why tends more towards the negatives, and the taller the hierarchy of authority grows, the more broad and dire the potential consequences become.

[Devling]

I think that assuming that anarchy is better then more organized government is also over looking the fact that people don't always act in good faith.
If the position of power is not filled, someone will fill it.

[alexandertnt]

Until you put forth your preferred political ideology so that I can pick apart its theoretical flaws, and it will surely have many, this will be a very one-sided debate.

My point is not that anarchy is somehow inferior per se, but that it flat out could not exist for any long period of time, and will deconstruct itself into a more traditional form of rulership. Many of the ideas (such as not being pushed around by people, no corruption) are all good ideas. I acknowledge that anarchy, like most other political ideals had good intentions.

My belief in a social-democratic style government etc etc does indeed have flaws (it would be silly to claim otherwise), but it at least has more capability of sustaining its own existance, or breaking down into another form of governence. Or at the very worse, turning into anarchy for some period of time then another form of governence rising from that.

As an anarchist, my response to you is that slavery is incompatible with anarchy

And for a group of anarchists that saw the slaves not has human (and thus have no problem exerting force over them)?

Spoiler: Thought experiment (click to show/hide)

Consider a group of anarchists who use slaves and another group of anarchists that do not approve of that and have the resources/manpower to stop it. Do they exert force over the other group (forcing the slavers to stop their practice) or allow the other group to continue to exert force over the slaves (which the slavers claim are "not human" and thus they are not actually exerting force, and are happily continuing their practice)? The slavers are cowards and will not likely put up much of a fight.

There will be someone or someones exerting force over an individual or group against their will regardless of outcome.

You could choose to attack them, obviously exerting undesired force but leading to an overall reduction in the limitation of freedom. Are you still anarchic?

You could do nothing, and allow them to continue to rob the slaves of their freedom. By permitting the slavers to take freedom away, are you still anarchic?

You could open dialogue and over time convince them to abandon the practice of slavery. In the mean time the slavers continue to exert force over the slaves. By permitting the slavers to take freedom away, are you still anarchic?