Anarchism

- The terms "anarchy" and "anarchism" are derived from the Greek "without archons (rulers)". Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is the belief that the rulership is unnecessary and should be abolished.
- The political philosophy of those who believe that a society based on shared ownership and voluntary agreements among individuals and groups is possible and that without each person's consent and involvement in the social order all established forms of government essentially rest upon the threat of force.
- The belief that the state, laws and all forms of government authority is unjustified, oppressive and illegitimate.
- A political theory favoring the abolition of governments.

Should anarchism be taken seriously as a political philosophy? Can it work in practice? Why or why not?

I can say from my experiences in what we politely term "third world" countries that there are no police in most towns. I can also say that there's nothing resembling any sort of social harmony either. A couple of things you notice: nobody picks up dead people's bodies and nobody investigates your problem when you get cracked on the skull for your wallet. "It's not my body or my wallet you do it."

It's a very utopian ideal.

If the US suddenly went into an anarchy state the first thing that would happen would be a scramble for power (Similar to what would happen in Europe when a King with no heirs would die.) The Rich and Powerful would raise armies and claim territory where they would instill their own Government and laws that the people of their territory would have to abide by.

There would be a HUGE gang uprising.... poor people with nothing to lose can generally be very powerful when not under the oppression of an overwhelming law force.

At very least it would be very interesting to see who would rise and who would fall, cause I guarantee corporate cut throats would sink to new lows of assassination, arson, and corruption in order to cut out the competition and monopolize.

While I love the idea behind Anarchy, I'm pretty sure a chaos like we've never seen would erupt, many lives would be lost, basically a new "Nation" would arise from the ashes.

People need to be ruled but strive to be free... yin, yang, and all that jazz.

I think most everyone is a little bit anarchist in one way or another.

it should be taken extremely serious as an ideal, not nessesairily as a reacheble goal. it stribes for freedom and selfdetermination, which is probebly a main ideal of every human.

according to a book i'm currently reading (i read 3 books at a time), spain in the 1930's were anarchism was a serious political ideology and it claims i think it was the only country where it was

Isn't it an oxymoron to take Anarchism Seriously?

see my sig. :|

It's a very utopian ideal.

and an impossible one to achieve....Nature abhorrs a vacuum

I'd wager a lot of money that most of you have never even heard of Proudhon, Bakunin or Kropotkin...

Sure...Klingons from Star Trek: Wrath of Kahn :|

I'd wager a lot of money that most of you have never even heard of Proudhon, Bakunin or Kropotkin...

Hitler wrote philosophy too. So what?

I'd wager a lot of money that most of you have never even heard of Proudhon, Bakunin or Kropotkin...

So because someone wrote anarchist ideas down it makes them true? Not following here.

I'd wager a lot of money that most of you have never even heard of Proudhon, Bakunin or Kropotkin...

The name of the planet and two of the cities in the Hostile Takeover Trilogy. And the world was pretty much cyber punkish with the corps "ruling", chitty urban wastelands where the fastest trigger finger ruled and wilderness communes of various ideologies (Satanic, Buddhism, American Federalists, Wiccans, Nanoists, etc). A lot of criminals from the other worlds would go to Bakunin to escape their world's justce. "Contracts" were kept binding between people by a shadowy assassination group who would kill the contract breaker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_Takeover_Trilogy

gee...I was just being a smart ass...I didn't know I was so close to the truth :|

It'd be a lot easier to take anarchism as a serious sociopolitical system if so many of its proponents weren't kind of "out there." That said, of course it should be considered, but its like communism in that I think it totally ignores some very serious, real issues. Things like human nature, for instance.

Its a lovely idea to ponder, but I wouldn't ever willingly be a founding member of such a society. I'd have to see how it turned out, and I don't think that it would turn out well.

Anyone have any information on Spain in the 30's? A good website? Its an interesting period of time, and I'm woefully uneduated about it.

I'm with Oki, it should be aspired to whilst recognising it is not achievable in full.

Mark

How do you aspire to something that you admit is flawed, and don't want to see implemented?

I read ten books at a time. And sometimes my eyes hurt and the words all jumble up. Also it is very hard to juggle them all.

How do you aspire to something that you admit is flawed, and don't want to see implemented? easy, freedom is imposible too. doesnt stop anybody from wanting it.
and an anarchist political system is usually something combined with a form of socialism, which makes it much more realistic. you can create a system that works with anarchist ideals.

A mix of Socialism + Anarchism = ideal, but perhaps impossible considering the greed and selfishness of most people.

Freedom is, I believe, not only possible in theory but in practice - and I've still not lost hope that I may live to see it.

Freedom as I see it includes the right to liberty, the pursuit of happiness and property rights. It doesn't include additional 'rights' are commonly percieved as required in a civil society such as 'rights' to home, water, food, health service, education etc. Neither does it include the 'right' to initiate force be it physical or by taking what's not yours.

Socialism depends on a ruling body to take from those who earn to give to those who 'need'. Economic theory shows it can't work as does historical evidence.

I can't dismiss anarchism quite as easily. It may be possible in a closed society (maybe somewhere as was advocated by the people behind the LF City concept) where a combination of ebay-style feedback and ostricism would 'guide' its citizens to behave well. Here though, as I see it, the borders would have to be strictly controlled and there'd need to be a way of expelling any who cause mayhem. So really, it's only without policing because the whole city's privately owned and then who's to judge who is transgressing enough (transgressing what?) to justify being thrown out?

Anarchism in any country today would inevitably result in those with the most organized and best financed forces taking what they want and protecting their friends. It would be touch and go whether he who wants to live for himself and keep what he earns would be better off with anarchism or with a mixed government. At least with government there's stability and with democracy, some means of hindering the whims of the ruling nutters.

Both socialism and anarchism I see individually as impossible and as opposites. Combining them for an implausable ideal then saying it can't work because of human nature is, I think, missing the point and puts one in the right frame of mind to lay back and accept whatever compromise is put upon us.

Freedom depends on some kind of system to enforce the prohibition of the initiation of force. A justice system, a defence force and a police force. This necessarily has to be monopolistic, defending the rights of every citizen, not competing courts and forces which would be rife for corruption. This I believe is the least oppressive option. I am free to do as I wish other than to abuse others. If I also have a democratic role in fine tuning how things are run it becomes my government - a republic - where I'm 'ruled' only to the minimum a government which is mine as much as anyone else's. It’s a system most easily kept tabs on for corruption and the least attractive to the potentially corrupt with little integrity – those who are most attracted to a career in politics in today’s systems.

A justice system, a defence force and a police force.

It also require a lawmaking body, a method of choosing judges, a military industrial complex, a military heirarchy (to be efficient enough to compete with enemy forces), and oversight of the police.

These contain most of the important standards, of government and can easily end up as a military dictatorship.

I might also add you seem to be advocating libertarianism rather than anarchism

So really, it's only without policing because the whole city's privately owned and then who's to judge who is transgressing enough (transgressing what?) to justify being thrown out?


What exactly are the borders of an anarchist nation and why would anyone defend them?

It also require a lawmaking body, a method of choosing judges, a military industrial complex…[the private sector is better at that I believe]…a military heirarchy (to be efficient enough to compete with enemy forces), and oversight of the police.


I agree.

...you seem to be advocating libertarianism rather than anarchism

You're right. That is where I stand. Sorry, I probably didn't make it clear enough. In acknowledging the need for those public bodies, I'm saying a form of government is a necessity for freedom.

I'm not as immediately dismissive of anarchism as I am of socialism because I see essential human nature as being good. It's just that I've not yet come across an anarchistic explanation or 'system'(!) that wouldn't hand everything of value on a plate to those who don't have the integrity to live for themselves in a constructive manner.

...and can easily end up as a military dictatorship.

..which is why a constitution is required too - not only to ensure the citizens have some say in how the governance goes but also to protect us from liberty enfringing whims of potential dictators and of the majority.

What exactly are the borders of an anarchist nation and why would anyone defend them?

I know. This is part of the problem I’ve got with it. I can see how, in a closed system of selected participants, you might be able to be totally dependent on the good will of the inhabitants of an ‘anarchistic commune’ but without borders, surely one would be committing oneself to a life of hiding any success because as soon as you show you’ve achieved something, there’d always be someone somewhere in the world who’d just fancy coming in to help himself to what you've worked for. In conceding that a ‘border patrol’ is necessary, unless the ‘country’ or 'city' is owned by someone or a corporation who is paying for the protection out of profits derived from its business within the ‘country’/'city', there's a need for a government... in which case it’s not anarchy. This is why every time I try to follow an argument for anarchism; I inevitably come back to the necessity of law and to libertarianism.

Incidentally, I voted 'Somewhat disagree' because I can't see how it could work but for some reason I can't accept it's impossible.

I know. This is part of the problem I’ve got with it. I can see how, in a closed system of selected participants, you might be able to be totally dependent on the good will of the inhabitants of this ‘anarchistic commune’ but without borders, surely one would be committing oneself to a life of hiding any success because as soon as you show you’ve achieved something, there’d always be someone somewhere in the world who’d just fancy coming in to help himself to your wealth. In conceding that a ‘border patrol’ is necessary, unless the ‘country’ or city is owned by someone or a corporation who is paying for the protection from profits derived from its business within the ‘country’/city, it is a need for a government. In which case it’s not anarchy. This is why every time I try to follow an argument for anarchism; I inevitably come back to the necessity of law and to libertarianism.

That first part is the sad truth, but I cannot agree with libertarian ideals in a lot of ways. Any and every person needs to have a guarantee of food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, education, employment, and transportation. From my understanding libertarians would not do anything to ensure that these things are provided to all. These are basic human rights IMO, that NOONE should be denied.

Originally posted by AbsolutelyProbable
..which is why a constitution is required too - not only to ensure the citizens have some say in how the governance goes but also to protect us from liberty enfringing whims of potential dictators and of the majority.

It's regretable that a documanet can't defeat a army no matter how legal it is.
How many of the junta's that have existed were legal under their constitutions

From my understanding libertarians would not do anything to ensure that these things are provided to all.
This is also my understanding of libertarianism. My understanding of the probable consequence of a laissez faire/captilaist/libertarian system is that for all but a small minority, all the essentials of living as listed would be affordable and that there would be more than sufficient charity to provide for those who wouldn’t be able to afford it.

However, this can’t be the justification for a libertarian state. This must come from recognizing the fundamental difference between what I will refer to as ‘basic’ human rights and ‘extended human rights’. There’s a distinct line.

Any and every person needs to have a guarantee of food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, education, employment, and transportation.

The UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) covers all the above (except transportation) but I’d call Articles 1-21 the ‘basics’ (excluding 14, 15 and adding a ‘providing it doesn’t contravene anyone else’s rights’ to the right to practice religion in Article 18).

The consequence of observing these is freedom to pursue one’s life as one sees fit without hindrance from abusive individuals or governments. Even though this would only require a minimalist government there is inevitably a cost. There’s a number of ideas as to how this money could be raised without taxation which I don’t want to get into now. Any governmental spend over and above the protection of the ‘basic’ human rights requires funding. Guaranteeing all of it to all citizens requires MASSIVE funding and a huge government – inevitably inefficient, and historically, invariably corrupt.
Even this is by the by. The main point is that the money required to finance this has to be taken from those who have earned it i.e. by taxation. Taxation contravenes Article 17:

Article 17:
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.


Therein lies the contradiction in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Everyone who can not afford his/her own food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, education, employment (and in your list, keller, transportation) needs someone else to pay for it. Are you saying, everyone in the world has a right to these things now? Are you saying the UN should have the power to swipe as much as it needs from whomsoever to ‘sort it all out’ in a few months? I’m afraid you’re barking up the wrong tree here.

I’m pained to see suffering on such a scale as remains in the 21st century – especially with all the scientific/technical/communicative developments. Anyone who can place the confusion between the essentials of living and rights to one side and who looks in practice at what could have the biggest effect on the alleviation of poverty should find the answer is less government intervention in economic matters. Subsidies, tariffs, protectionism etc. are on their way out but the longer the process is dragged out, the more people are dying.

Yes, I want libertarianism for these people’s sake but primarily I want it for mine. I want the right to keep what I earn, not to have any business venture I decide to embark on tied up in red tape, not to risk being hauled in front of a court for saying a joke at the expense of some religious group.

That’s where I stand.

That first part is the sad truth, but I cannot agree with libertarian ideals in a lot of ways. Any and every person needs to have a guarantee of food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, education, employment, and transportation. From my understanding libertarians would not do anything to ensure that these things are provided to all. These are basic human rights IMO, that NOONE should be denied.If your going to give everyone everything they need, why bother with employment?

It's regretable that a documanet can't defeat a army no matter how legal it is.


I can't see where you're going with this Truthseeker.

The essentials of the constitution need to be irrevocable, written with the human rights protected. Considering how long ago the US constitution was written, it’s not far off the mark but one written today (with the experience of history at our disposal) could better protect citizens from abuse from abusers – whether they be other citizens or in government.

Defending the citizens, defending the constitution – it all becomes the same thing. Obviously if a junta or invading force comes in and imposes its dictatorship something’s gone seriously wrong but the possibility that things may go wrong is no reason not to try and figure out how things could be done right.

Defending the citizens, defending the constitution – it all becomes the same thing

If the military of the country decides to take over the fact that it's illegal will not in and of itself, stop them.

If the military of the country decides to take over the fact that it's illegal will not in and of itself, stop them.

Granted. Are you therefore saying there shouldn't be a military? If there isn't a military, what's to stop anyone with a private army becoming a junta? Sorry, I'm still not getting the point of your argument.

Sorry, I'm still not getting the point of your argument.


Suppose a society without government has an army to protect itself from other ones.

To be effective a military requires a heirarchy.

How can a society without official government ensure the army doesn't take over and that heirarchy BECOME a government.

Suppose a society without government has an army to protect itself from other ones.

To be effective a military requires a heirarchy.

How can a society without official government ensure the army doesn't take over and that heirarchy BECOME a government.

Crossed lines here I think Truthseeker:) It's the point I didn't make clear enough originally. Anarchy obviously doesn't have an official government - nor can it have an army. However, a lf/capitalist/libertarian system needs an a justice system/police/army. These institutions have to be run by a government. I was talking of a constitution and a governmental authority to implement it under which the army etc. lie. That's where I was getting confused. The constitution and a government has worked for the US to a significant extent - no military takeovers etc. for a long time now though starting afresh with a new constitution for a new country now, I think it could be done much better.

The constitution and a government has worked for the US to a significant extent - no military takeovers

We do elect the commander and chief

I'd wager a lot of money that most of you have never even heard of Proudhon, Bakunin or Kropotkin...

Joey, the people who haven't heard of these guys will not take on your bet

but anyone who has, would take on the wager

personally i wouldn't

IFF...do you think anyone here has? Janus thinks they're bits of sci-fi geography!

So because someone wrote anarchist ideas down it makes them true? Not following here.

No, but before you're going to criticise someone's philosophy, you should probably know what it is and read their argument. I'm not an Anarchist, but I've read essays by the major nineteenth century Anarchist theorists, so I know why I'm not...

...whereas most here seem to be talking on the basis of vague misunderstandings as to the basic precepts of Anarchist theory.

Hitler wrote philosophy too. So what?

And, if you want to criticise Hitler's philosophy...it's a good idea to start by trying to understand it.

The name of the planet and two of the cities in the Hostile Takeover Trilogy. And the world was pretty much cyber punkish with the corps "ruling", chitty urban wastelands where the fastest trigger finger ruled and wilderness communes of various ideologies (Satanic, Buddhism, American Federalists, Wiccans, Nanoists, etc). A lot of criminals from the other worlds would go to Bakunin to escape their world's justce. "Contracts" were kept binding between people by a shadowy assassination group who would kill the contract breaker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_Takeover_Trilogy

Try:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin

What exactly are the borders of an anarchist nation and why would anyone defend them?

Going from the Spanish experience, presumably the borders would be where the trenches are, and you'd fight because you quite like Anarchism...

Ask the POUM.

Suppose a society without government has an army to protect itself from other ones.

To be effective a military requires a heirarchy.

How can a society without official government ensure the army doesn't take over and that heirarchy BECOME a government.if enough people want to prevent that, it will be. if people know the value of their freedom, they can cooperate to stop something that removes that freedom.they can organise an army. they can plan out emergency measures. the anarchists fought the facists in the spanish civil war.

and btw a gouv. as a seperate body wouldnt exist, but a direct democracy structure would. if its nessesairy, people can still assign one person for a job, to organise an army, for example. this person would have to awnser directly to everyone that he represents in that job, that is, to everyone. he can be replaced instantly, if he messes up or doesnt listen.

Humans have the capacity to govern and I feel like that capacity is God-given. Therefore, to advocate a state or system of anarchy (which is defined as lawlessness and absence of goverment according to Merriam Webster) I feel is an insult to the Creator who himself is a god of order.



p.s. In order to get positive change in this society, people have to organize. Bottom line.

Try:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin


I know who they are Joey. It was an anarchist world and name the planet and some major cities after Earth's historical anarchists as homage.

...whereas most here seem to be talking on the basis of vague misunderstandings as to the basic precepts of Anarchist theory.

As you may have guessed, you can count me amongst those with 'vague misunderstandings'. I'm playing with ideas in the hope that those who are more widely read/better informed/more intelligent than me can either reinforce my ideas or raise my intrigue enough to do some further research myself. The posts following yours, Joey, are giving me ways of thinking about anarchism that I'd not considered. Thanks all. Glad I discovered this site today.

No worries. I just often find it irritating here to see very shallow dismissals of political theories which greatly interest me.

For example, Kropotkin's theory of mutual aid is an entirely forgotten element of Anarchism, yet it provides an arguable basis to refute most of the "anarchy won't work" arguments. You see, Kropotkin was a scientist - a geologist and biologist, as I recall - first, and a political theorist second. In his observation of wildlife in the Russian wilderness, he noticed that while competition was the norm between species, cooperation was the norm with each species, with competition occuring in isolated - even pseudo-ritualised - settings, such as for a mate. With no clear leader and no government at all, wild animals instinctively aid those of their own species. Kropotkin argued that the same would be true of humans, but for certain socio-economic distortions.

Now, I disagree with that argument. It refutes the "human nature is inherantly competitive" line very well, but it does not in itself prove that Anarchism is practically possible. Human societies are far larger, more complex and more polarised than animal packs and so on.

It is, however, good food for thought.

You see, Kropotkin was a scientist - a geologist and biologist, as I recall - first, and a political theorist second. In his observation of wildlife in the Russian wilderness, he noticed that while competition was the norm between species, cooperation was the norm with each species, with competition occuring in isolated - even pseudo-ritualised - settings, such as for a mate. With no clear leader and no government at all, wild animals instinctively aid those of their own species. Kropotkin argued that the same would be true of humans, but for certain socio-economic distortions.

In other words Kropotkin noticed such as thing as racism exists. I could have told him that to save him the trouble. You just realized that anarchism leaves no protection for minorities, since there's no government to do the protecting. If the majority want to discriminate against gays, the handicapped or differently colored people there's nothing stopping them is there?

Anarchism is not workable at the present time; it might be at some future date but I cannot forsee it happening in the near future.

In other words Kropotkin noticed such as thing as racism exists. I could have told him that to save him the trouble. You just realized that anarchism leaves no protection for minorities, since there's no government to do the protecting. If the majority want to discriminate against gays, the handicapped or differently colored people there's nothing stopping them is there?

You are in effect arguing that racism is not merely analagous to speciesism - as Peter Singer argues - but is identical to it. This is utterly false; the genetic differences between different species and allegedly different 'races' are utterly incomparible. Intra-racial variation far exceeds inter-racial variation, but inter-special variation exceeds intra-special variation by several degrees of magnitude.

For a more in depth discussion of the differences between speciesism and racism, please feel free to consult Mary Midgley's writings. She is far more learned, eloquent, respected and proficient than I will probably ever be...

You cannot boil down Kropotkin's theory of mutual aid to a defence of racism anymore than you can equate racism and speciesism. I will admit that, ethically, I see the two as analagous, although not identical; I favour Singer and Regan over Midgley. However, this in no way makes them identical, either in their social or natural justifications or their impact. I seem to recall that you dislike racism and the racist threads common here, Jay. If this is the case, then if your argument is correct...surely you oppose speciesism also? So...either you should be a cannibal or a vegan. Any other position is logically inconsistent.

On your last point: Yes, right. Obviously. You will notice that I skirted this issue when I pointed out the limitations of Kropotkin's theory. Human societies are far more large (and thus far more varied) than animal packs. Racism exists in human societies - although I imagine it would be quickly beaten into submission in most Anarchist situations - and "racism" does not exist within animal social groups (as far as I know).

people often say that anarchism is not possible, because then somebody will come and repres the hell out of everybody, and theres noone to stop them.
this is true, but dont forget that the whole concept of politics we have now, omes from this kind of repression. in the past, rulers could basically do what they wanted. we have freed ourselves, sort of, buy starting democracies, but in my opinion, this is still far from the end goal. we are still beeing ruled, and let idiots decide everything important for us. Im sure we cna reorganise society in a way that we have more control over these people, or even dont need them anymore. it will take time.

…somebody will come and repres the hell out of everybody, and theres noone to stop them.

Firstly I need to admit I’ve still done no more than a brief Wikipedia scan of anarchist thinkers. Is there someone here who disputes that the creation of an anarchistic state today (by dismantling government, army, police and all related bodies) would most likely result in the repression of some if not most citizens?

[We] let idiots decide everything important for us.

Indeed we do, though as you say, we have some say in who the idiots are and in the extent to which they can take the p**s out of us.

Not the end goal, I agree. I’m in no doubt a better system than any in existence could be devised (and I happen to believe I’ve got one) but having no government at all or even structured direct democracy is in my eyes dangerous because it provides no protection to individuals other than the goodwill of the majority.

…or even dont need them anymore.
I think this could only occur if the vast majority of people want to live with respect to all others AND are prepared to take part in the role of 'policing' and getting a group together to prevent/punish those who disrespect others. I won’t hold my breath.

it will take time.

Maybe it will, maybe we’ll never get there. Personally though, providing there’s a structure in place that does not itself take the p**s, and which prohibits and enforces citizens taking the p**s out of each other (in terms of infringing rights – see Feenix556’s entries on the 'rights' thread (http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85912)) I see no problem in living ‘under’ a government. I see no attraction in having the increased vulnerability of anarchy or the need to personally participate in every decision on an issue which is important to me in direct democracy as a goal.

Racism exists in human societies - although I imagine it would be quickly beaten into submission in most Anarchist situations -

Who would enforce rules in a place with no government? It keeps coming around and around to this point that no one will answer.

People will enforce them. Those who break social norms will be ostracised at best, and brutalised at worst.

Those who break social norms will be ostracised at best, and brutalised at worst.

You've got to be kidding.

1st, not everyoneis willing to risk they're lives to subdue a stranger for something they did to another stranger.

2nd, an angry mob is a less then ideal mode of justice, there is no way to gather and verify evidence and the family and friends of an individual might stand up to the mob if there is doubt.

3rd, if enough people are ostracized they will form a seperate group with a different sysem. This both reduces the usefullnes of ostracization and risks the destruction of the society by creating a group of often violent misfits with a grudge against the existing order.

Who would enforce rules in a place with no government? It keeps coming around and around to this point that no one will answer.you dont need a gouv. to organise society.

It depends on how you define "government" and "successful" - but there are several societies today that manage well without a government. A classic example being the !kung who live in the Kalahari desert. They share all their food and though they do have private property (and theft is not a problem at all!), if you're visitin someone and see something you like, and inform them of it, chances is you'll get it as a present some time in the near future.

Sounds kind of like a socialist paradise, doesn't it? :p I don't know if it'd be possible if it weren't for the facts that 1: they talk all the time, sharing everyting and 2: they live in an area with very little food and other resources, so sharing is necessary to ensure survival, and 3: they live in very small societies

t depends on how you define "government" and "successful" - but there are several societies today that manage well without a government. A classic example being the !kung who live in the Kalahari desert. They share all their food and though they do have private property (and theft is not a problem at all!), if you're visitin someone and see something you like, and inform them of it, chances is you'll get it as a present some time in the near future.

What is the lifespan of the iKung? Can they read and write?

In the desert punishment by ostracization is tantamount to the death penalty. No wonder the Ikung don't have much crime

When we think of anarchy, we think of chaos and disorder.

It would not work because some people are so selfish or bad natured that they would rape, murder, lie, or steal.

When this point comes to mind, we think "anarchy bad". In reality, the idea of anarchy is a good one. It just won't work because of the attitudes of some.
The problem with anarchy isn't anarchy itself. It's the fact that people are greedy by nature. So instead of using anarchy as a scapegoat for human ignorance, why doesn't anyone ever try to tackle the bigger problem?

Because the majority of those in a position to are part of the problem.

The focus of most governments lately has been their economy or a war on drugs. Meanwhile we have HUGE enviromental problems on a global scale that are being ignored by those in power. I long for the day when people stop being so ignorant and realize that change is necessary. But until then people will always pick a temporary hiding of the symptoms over treating the actual problem.

I think that the idea of a society that could be run without government interference is ideal. If everyone could agree to the golden rule principle instead of sticking to different religions that all advocate it anyways, then maybe it could happen. Instead of dismissing it as impossible we should strive to achieve it. Even if it never comes to the point of actually occuring, it can't hurt to improve upon human nature.

In the desert punishment by ostracization is tantamount to the death penalty. No wonder the Ikung don't have much crime- That's a point, but I don't know if they were particularly aware of that possibility. And I only mentioned stealing, but the author of the article I read (unfortunately, I've sold the book) also wrote that violence was extremely rare - citing only one example of one man who'd once gotten angry and hit someone (and he got scared and never did it again).

What is the lifespan of the iKung? Can they read and write?- Short and most probably can't. Don't see what need they'd have for reading an writing, though.

The only way I could see Anarchism as a successfull way for a society would be if everyone did what was needed of them without being forced to. Since we have not evolved to that level of civility yet maybe we should wait a few thousand years before we try it out.

What is the lifespan of the iKung? Can they read and write?
- Short and most probably can't. Don't see what need they'd have for reading an writing, though.


So the model anarchist society is one that affords people short lifespans and accepts universal illiteracy?

I don't really know much about the model anarchist society.

So the model anarchist society is one that affords people short lifespans and accepts universal illiteracy?

Sounds like Rousseau's "natural state".

A well known anthropological fiction.

No of course not but how about we have some intelligent laws? instead of alot of the crap they enforce? Just a thought

I don't really know much about the model anarchist society.

So the society you said is anarchist is not representative of anarchist societies? Why did you introduce it?

It is not the model anarchist society. It just might be an anarchist society, and it doesn't seem so bad, and it doesn't seem to have any of the problems that are usually suggested when talking about about anarchisms.

The only way I could see Anarchism as a successfull way for a society would be if everyone did what was needed of them without being forced to. Since we have not evolved to that level of civility yet maybe we should wait a few thousand years before we try it out. maybe people who ARE capable of this, should start allready.

As a whole, I personally don't feel that societies can function in a state of anarchy. There are of course exceptions (there always seem to be in the social world) of societies that do fine without a formal authority, but these are mainly hunter gatherer or nomadic tribes that deviate from the traditional modern societies that exist today...

Countries cannot function in a state of anarchy because who would have the say in who owns what or what the boundaries were... There would be benevolent people that would try to work together but it would only take a few bad and greedy individuals to promote a lifestyle of a everyone for themself... you could no longer worry about national unity or ethnic ties as they would become irrelevant..

I do however feel that socialism doesn't only work in theory but can be achieved if enough people abide by it..

It is the most organic form of government. Anarchism is the form of government which exists in hunter-gatherer societies. It was instituted successfully among early Christians and the people of Massada. It continues to exist in Israeli Kibbutzes and in Hutterite Bruderhoffs.

It continues to exist in Israeli Kibbutzes

Their communist but have a leadership and treasurer, usually elected.

They need someone to direct their economic activities and assign tasks.

double post.

Their communist but have a leadership and treasurer, usually elected.

They need someone to direct their economic activities and assign tasks.I think its more like that they assign someone to carry out the desisions they all make.
anyway, every squad in europe funcions as an anarchist community, some of these squads have hundreds of people living there.

anyway, anarchism is about giving people more, as much as possible, to say about their own lives, make their own desisions and organise their common interets without waiting for some politician to do it for them.

It was instituted successfully among early Christians and the people of Massada. It continues to exist in Israeli Kibbutzes and in Hutterite Bruderhoffs.

Do they live with open borders and mix with the wider world...... or stay isolated on private land? All the societies you just mentioned do not mix with anyone else. That's certainly practical. :|

it doesnt matter. youre gonna need people who are willing to live like that.

Do they live with open borders and mix with the wider world...... or stay isolated on private land? All the societies you just mentioned do not mix with anyone else. That's certainly practical. :|- From what I've heard, most Kibbutzes are at least open for backpackers. So they're not that isolated. I don't know whether they accept non-jews as permanent residents, though. But I bet Coral would know.

That said, the jews are a very diverse group, and even some of the earliest kibbutzes had eastern european, western european, middle eastern and russian jews.

- From what I've heard, most Kibbutzes are at least open for backpackers. So they're not that isolated. I don't know whether they accept non-jews as permanent residents, though. But I bet Coral would know.

That said, the jews are a very diverse group, and even some of the earliest kibbutzes had eastern european, western european, middle eastern and russian jews.

Kibbutzes are part of different kibbutzes movements, connected with political parties, very involved in politicks, influential in israeli society, even if not as much as they used to be.
They serve in the army, learning outside, work outside.
Lot of programms for new camers to Israel include half a year or more in Kubutz, and every member of such programm is "adobted" by kibbitz family.
They taking in and giving education to young people in need. Again - with "adoption".
They have businesis with people outside working in them, sometimes living there, sometimes not - and so on.
So, I don't think - isolated - will be the right word.
They never meant not to be a part of the society, kind of on the contrary.

# 1 Historical examples of societies successfully organized according to anarchist principles (wikipedia)

* 1.1 Libertatia (1670's to 1690's)
* 1.2 Utopia (1847 to 1860's)
* 1.3 Modern times (1851 to late 1860's)
* 1.4 Whiteway Colony (1898 to present)
* 1.5 Spanish revolution (1936 to 1939)
* 1.6 Ukraine and the Makhnovist movement (1918 to 1921)
* 1.7 Tolstoyan Agricultural Communes (1921-1937)
* 1.8 The autonomous Shinmin region (1929-1931)

The average anarchist community lasts approximately 10 years. Only one lasted more than 20 years, Whiteway Colony in Britain, which occupies 40 acres. Only two began in the 20th century.

It's correct to say that yes, there have been anarchist communities and some have occupied fairly large regions. It is also correct to say that they did not survive long enough to make (pretty arrogant) statements about anarchy being "realistic".