anarchy and order need one another. they work well together. in addition, i would offer that moderation between competing/complimentary forces is the superior means toward radical ends. let's say you are trying to substantially reduce the prison population in the united states. those who insist on the most radical criticism, that all prisons are intrinsically illegitimate, that social authority cannot interfere with the rights of an individual, etc., will get nowhere. those who admit that there is an interplay of forces which forecloses the immediate embrace of the radical conclusion are far more likely to achieve accomplishments that, while not the complete realization of the radical dream, have practical effect in the direction toward which the radicals sympathize.

I am in favor of no government yes.

um sorry bout that here are a couple examples
the paris commune, republican spain, woodstock, mmm open source computer programming
100000 years of human history

...and then you get the sticky question of, if you are a "moderate" on the issue, whether you sympathize with the extremists.

you're implying that anarchy is the opposite of order?

extremist like who

my boyfriend rote an interesting essay on the uni-bomber if thats what you mean

The Paris Commune and Woodstock were both too short-lived to qualify for me. I don't know enough about republican Spain to comment. Open source computer programming is interesting but it is too narrow--I'm talking about all-inclusive society, where every need and action of every person is taken into account in the "system". This, by the way, is also my qualm with the "short-lived" examples. They worked fine for a little while but you can't say that society functioned in a way that could, theoretically, have continued forever.

I was hoping you wouldn't use pre-history because we simply don't know enough about that time period, I think. It wasn't necessarily anarchy. We observe social order in animals, after all.

Oh the stuff about extremists was in response to fwancophile.

Anyway, yes I think it is fair to say that an anarchy would exclude order. Or order would be incredibly flimsy.

just throwin it out there, anarchy is not synanomous with chaos and violence

I understand that anarchy does not require violence. It also doesn't require chaos. But it does require less law, less law enforcement and more freedom for people to do what they will, irrespective of any exterior boundaries. I think that a little bit of experience with people will lead one to believe that human nature would not allow anarchy to exist for very long before violence is introduced and chaos follows. One way to avoid this would be a communist system but that is a WHOLE different can of worms.

instead of asking this very slow Q&A I encourage you all to go here
http://www.crimethinc.com/tools/downloads/zines.html
and download "fighting for our lives" and that will explain alot of things to you

thats very cynical of you

besides communism doesnt work, as china and the USSR have shown us
I'm a firm believer in the gift economy

nah mutually complimentary

?

Unfortunately, I don't have time to read this document now but I will read it tomorrow and give my thoughts. But from my initial skimming, it's some nice propaganda but its audience seems to be people who already agree with them since the arguments don't seem to be particularly carefully thought-through. I'd prefer to read something that doesn't target my emotions in an attempt to convince me.

Then again, I haven't actually read this yet, so I really ought to keep my damn mouth shut until I'm ready to responsibly respond.

whats your argument for capitalism

Oh, I'm not really a proponent of capitalism but I see it as the best system of a choice of not-so-great systems. I sincerely hope you don't think I'm simply a pessimist. The fact of the matter is that when I determined that capitalism is probably the best for people (why else would they keep returning to it after so many opportunities to try something else?), I also determined that money is not all that important. I've found that anti-capitalists are generally more greedy for money than pro-capitalists. At any rate, one thing I appreciate about capitalism is that it at least has the mask of being fair. No other system that I know of even pretends to be just or fair.

well I would say communism is pretty fair lol. VERY fair! (or else)

I disagree about anti-capitalists being greedy though

@ Pandora

Don't be silly, anarchy won't work in groups greater than 10, 15, 20 people...
You mentioned Woodstock and 100000 yaers of human history...
Well, Woodstock was just a concert, but I don't think that society built by people like those woud be productive...
Also that 100000 years f human history you mentioned, that was Stone Age? You want make ALL people in the world forget anything but working agronomy and wearing animal fur and skin?

order is never complete and proponents order generally do not intend to create a complete order - merely to encourage social stability. proponents of order who intend to create a complete order are known as totalitarians, and there are meaningful distinctions. similarly, anarchists depend on notions of order to make meaningful their conceptions of freedom - the idea of freedom from interference is generally attainable - you merely have to seize your freedom. so anarchy essentially baptizes itself in the waters of order. it's interconnected - you have some limited structures so that people can live freely, and importantly, you live freely because that is the only way for societies to prosper.

as for capitalism, capitalism rewards risk takers, capitalism rewards the skilled, capitalism rewards innovation and creativity, and above all, capitalism is a system in which one may freely cultivate themselves to a far greater extent than any other. communism is capitalism without the freedom, and generally, with inferior products, less accessible products, less innovation and less role for an individual to make a real impact.

Well... I think that most differences in political ideology stem from a different view on human nature. The problem is that most people tend to apply their metaphysical principles and their own culturally relative experiences as evidence for their belief in a certain human nature, and ignoring the biological aspect. I think that evolutionary theory can be used in order to determine truly the nature of humanity.

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

I think John Maynard Smith and George Price's concept of evolutionarily stable strategies is an excellent approach to such a query. For an excellent explanation, see The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Applying a simple version of the theory quickly reveals that neither extreme of pure anarchy and total government is a viable political system for a very heterogeneous humanity. Pure communism does not work, which is not evident in the failure of USSR and China, but because it is simply too vulnerable to any invading exploiters. This is why all political systems so far, including anarchism, have been relatively ephemeral, undergoing great shifts throughout time. We have not yet reached our equilibrium, our stable strategy.

Humanity is diverse, it is impossible to apply a single theoretical idea as a result. Although I do know that either Thucy or Theo put out the point of using science, genetics, and controlled upbringing (a la Brave New World) to homogenize humanity to a controlled human nature, in which we can easily install the appropriate political system. Although, I am much more in favour of having a political system (despite the complexities involved) that fits our diverse humanity, rather than a humanity that fits a certain political system.

dawkins is crap chris ;)

@ kliford

anarchy won't work in groups greater than 10, 15, 20 people

not disagreeing

You want make ALL people in the world forget anything but working agronomy and wearing animal fur and skin?

yeah pretty much

in addition, i would say, though humanity is diverse, it does not foreclose the practical application of theoretical ideas; rather it demands greater discernment when applying those theories :)

"
as for capitalism, capitalism rewards risk takers, capitalism rewards the skilled, capitalism rewards innovation and creativity, and above all, capitalism is a system in which one may freely cultivate themselves to a far greater extent than any other. communism is capitalism without the freedom, and generally, with inferior products, less accessible products, less innovation and less role for an individual to make a real impact." - fwancophile

Ah, but you are applying your capitalist western values to communism. In a completely different culture such as Confucian China, where filial piety and community above individual, these things that you have mentioned are much less important. They wouldn't care about having bubbly ex-foliating facial creams or the product quality they might regard as simple luxury, rather, they might be horrified at the tremendous lack (relatively) of respect shown towards elders and parental figures. Freedom to cultivate oneself is much less important in a communal set of values, where the cultivation and contribution to society as a whole is regarded as much more of an accomplishment. Risk taking? Forget it? Who needs progress when you have social stability and a general feeling of satisfaction and happiness? Of course, that didn't quite happen in our historical examples of communism... but that's not to say that it wouldn't ever.

Capitalism and it's inherent emphasis on competition will obviously out-compete it's rival political systems such as communism, as a self-minded individual will see more to gain. But whether or not such a system is more beneficial as an overall political system is not evidenced by a person's personal satisfaction. Capitalism is cruel in that it punishes the exact opposite of the things you have listed, perhaps that's justice, but perhaps it's inhumane...

Dawkins is not crap. =(

He's absolutely amazing when he sticks to his subject, namely evolutionary biology. I don't read his rabid atheist stuff.

I love that everyone refutes Pandora by saying that civilization as we know it will degrade. Not knowing, of course, that this is exactly what Pandora wants. Haha.

theres a lot of cynicism here

:(