it is superior only to murderers and drug dealers and thieves, no-one else should approve of anarchy

Killer135, you need a brain to understand anarchy and you obviously lack one.

obviously, I have more points than you so if I don't have a brain then you don't have a brain Hellalt.

Association Fallacies are no more reasonable than False Dilemma fallacies, killer. Even if "murderers and drug dealers" believe in anarchy - which isn't something that I consider to be true - that has nothing to do with their belief structure.

"Not trying to oversimplify, but my understanding of the creed is that it can be summarized by the statement 'I don't want people telling me what to do"

Not exactly that. More like saying people don't want governments and officials to tell them what to do. Anarchy is not about not organizing at all. It's about people organizing freely without intermediates. Imagine 10 people having a corn field and that they choose to run it for themselves without having to ask the government what to do.

@Stratagos: Anarchy takes time to set up. No anarchist wants to dissolve governmnet overnight. People need to understand first that anarchy is better, and that if someone tries to enforce their rules on you, you should band together and fight back in self-defense.

You are confusing the political idea of anarchy with chaos.

hellalt, I'm pretty willing to bet I'd give you a run for the money whenever it comes to an IQ test, so since I have a brain, why don't you explain your views. If you can

I have already done that.
Try reading them.

Neither of you have really answered the "what's to prevent someone bigger from beating you up" argument....

definition straight from dictionary.a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

yeah that's it.

another definition was chaos due to lack of one strong central government or ruler.

So, instead of having a cock-fight, can you either explain your view or provide a source with a decent summary for us to use as a starting point?

I'm no anarchist, so I won't try to explain or defend their views, but there's a great book that is fun to read and it will show a bit of what the anarchist society should work according to anarchists themselves (or at least one of them :P).

There's even room for warnings on the attitudes and behaivours people should try to avoid in such a society.

The book's name is The Dispossessed, by Ursula K Le Guin.

Here's the wikipedia entry, although I truly recommend you just read it without preconcepts.

The premise is basically this: A world goes through a huge revolution by anarchists + communists against the capitalist state. As a result, the world is divided by two, with the communists on one side and the capitalists on the other, a la Cold War, but the anarchists are sent to the world's moon to set up their society as they want.

Some generation later, a Anarres (the moon) mathematician is invited to a simposium in the capitalist side of the planet.

Ursula Le Guin is the most famous anarchist sci-fi writer.
I haven't read any of her books yet but it sounds fun.

Forgot the wikipedia entry :P

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

@hellalt: You should read that.

It's a really good and fun book, even leaving the political stuff aside.

While I'm quite the sci fi addict, I think using them as a source for politican theory is... Questionable. Otherwise I'd go to Pournell for Monarchy and Ringo for right wing democracy and Flint for left wing democracy and Heinlien for, fuck, just about everything else...

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA1

Keeping in mind that no two anarchists believe exactly the same thing.
Also keeping in mind that a great many people everywhere who are very anarchistic in their outloook, but have never been politically interested enough to want to find a label for it.

also this is a better link (as it is the table of contents instead of the first section)
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

I dont agree with everything in this, but I am pressed for time. and while it does not necessarily reflect my views it will provide you with a better base of understanding (of anarchism)

"if governments disappeared tomorrow, what would prevent people from organizing again the next day, and compelling people to conform to whatever rules they devise in their region?"

Who would form the new government? How would they be selected? How would they enforce their will on those that resist (I'm assuming the military, police, lawyers, courts, prison guards, etc. all disappeared along with the government)? How would they raise money? Would there be one new United States, or would some states refuse to participate in a newly reconstituted union run by a bunch of complete unknowns? Would Northern California and Southern California finally get that long-needed divorce (it's a long way from San Diego to Sacramento!)? What if people took advantage of the chaos to introduce some drastic changes to long-accepted laws and customs, and what about people who object to those changes?

In short, if Mrs. Kravitz declares herself queen after the government disappears, commands me to take down my Don't Tread on Me flag and I tell her to take a hike, what then? How is she going to raise, pay, train, and equip an army/police force to make me? Creating a new government from scratch to rule a country is a very very difficult task, fraught with more problems and difficulties than any of us could possibly imagine. That's why most revolutions that topple governments tend to be very unstable (the United States being the only revolution I can think of that resulted in a very stable successor government(s), due mostly to the nature of the revolution - the top layer of government was simply exorcised, and everything else left as was)

I think a better book to read that directly deals with your question is Stephen King's The Stand, which is largely about the breakdown of modern civilization/government and its re-creation(s) in the wake of a catastrophic plague. The villain is able to create a new government and restore order quickly because, well, he's evil and has all kinds of Dark Powers. The good guys create a new form of government slowly, brick by brick and face many setbacks - and at the end of the book their society is still far closer to what you'd call anarchy than anything else.

For most of human history, people have lived without governments in tribal social structures that were essentially anarchistic. It is only in the last 10,000 years or so that the first governments apparently formed. I think the driving force behind the creation of governments is the division of labor - when you become dependent upon people you don't know very well to survive, a third party becomes necessary to arbitrate disputes. I think as long as civilization has a division of labor, governments in some shape or form will exist - but their formation takes years or decades. Look at Somalia for a contemporary example.

(if anyone is wondering, while I have strong anarchist sympathies, I would call myself a radical decentralist)

"For most of human history, people have lived without governments in tribal social structures that were essentially anarchistic."

To be honest, I totally have to disagree here. Tribal social structures have even more and more restrictive rules to follow than any modern democracy. Just given the fact that the rules are unwritten doesn't mean they don't exist. Humans are social creatures. We can't exist totally on our own (except from some weird loners, but in general). Every society, tribal or state or whatsoever, is always a compromise between individual interests. This compromise is formalized in the rules that society has. These rules are essential for the society and all of its members to exist. So the compliance of the rules is essential for any society. This leads, quite obvious, to a force that ensures the compliance to the rules - and here we are. If we just take basic human needs we end up in a set of rules that have to be complied which is the opposite of what the most people think is anarchy. That's why I think anarchy is against human nature.

If you would take away the state it might take months or even years to form a new state that is as powerful as the actual one. But it would take only days to get a new set of rules, a new police, new tax...

Anarchy in political theory (as I understood it) is the result of a long and hard process of changing human nature. According to Marx, a anarchy that works follows out of the transformation process:

capitalism -> socialism -> communism -> anarchy

with:
- capitalism (no common property, fixed rules, everyone fights for his own interests)
- socialism (means of production are common property, private property still exists, fixed rules, everyone works for the good of society)
- communism (no private property at all, fixed rules everyone complies to because he wants it, everyone works freely for the good of everyone else)
- anarchy (no private property, no rules, everyone works freely for the good of everyone else)

It's free to everyone to guess if this transformation process might work at all. The last attempt locked in the state of socialism and ended in a revolution. :D

Anarchy may be a lovely place to live in theory but surely the problem comes when not all people are ready to 'work freely for the good of everyone' and continue to look after their own interests. If the majority are powerful they can contain that behaviour but if the naysayers are powerful then everyone else is in trouble.

Urel makes it sound like communism is a good thing in his post

In theory it is. But it's as well against human nature.

"Tribal social structures have even more and more restrictive rules to follow than any modern democracy."

Eh? The modern 'democracy' I live under (the United States) literally has so many laws in the tax code alone that each page placed end to end would reach to the moon and back. I don't know of any tribal societies that limit, say, how many doors or windows your house is allowed to have, or what color your car/horse is allowed to be (black cars are soon to be outlawed in California unless they have special heat-reflecting paint). Do you really and truly believe that tribal societies have anything close to this many restrictive rules?

Do you know a Major populated country that did not revolutionize itself from communism?

@Tolstoy: For sure you have more written rules but that's for one reason: You are allowed to do everything that is not forbidden. In tribal societies it's more the opposite: Everything is that was not allowed explicitly by "the elders", the group at all or whoever sets the rules, is "forbidden". That is a huge difference.

@killer: Your from a western country, don't you? If you would have read my post, you would have seen that there was never such a thing like a communist country at all. Non of the former socialist countries ever reached the state of communism. Private property was always in place. They didn't even made it to the next level. They totally failed to change human nature as they would have to to even make it to communism. Because you CAN'T CHANGE HUMAN NATURE. That's why its all good in theory but unreachable.

anything can be right on paper or in theory but until you try you never truly know

That's why they tried it and they failed. :-)

killer, drug dealers would hate anarchy- without government control of drugs they couldn't get the margins they do on them.

@ tolstoy: "For most of human history, people have lived without governments in tribal social structures that were essentially anarchistic."

I have to echo Urel's response to this. A tribe, with a ruling chieftan or group of elders, is not run in an anarchistic way at all. They tend to have very hierarchical organisation - albeit on a small scale.

" Do you really and truly believe that tribal societies have anything close to this many restrictive rules?"

You're missing Urel's point. The point is that in a tribe, the chief is in charge, and he sets the rules. There may not be a complex tax system, but there are still rules, and they are mostly decided by the chief or a small ruling group of elders, etc. In anarchism, NO ONE is in charge - there is no chief, no president, no named leader. Therefore, tribalism is NOT an example of anarchy, as you wrongly claimed.


@ killer135: "Urel makes it sound like communism is a good thing in his post"

Communism is a good thing. It's the only system that offers a geniune improvement over the increasingly-discredited Capitalism we currently suffer under.

Urel another question, what is the "human nature" you refer to? And what attributes of this "nature" doesn´t fit into comunism an anarchy in your opinion?

I'm actually referring to two attributes of human nature here.

The first one is the fact that the man is a social creature. Humans need to interact and be with other humans. This leads, as mentioned above, to the need of rules as codification of the compromise of individual interests which is contrary to the idea of anarchy.

The second is not just a attribute of human but all nature itself. It's the fact that any life has its own individual interest in maximizing its chances to survive and reproduce its genes. This attribute is contrary to the basic idea of communism. One might argue that humans (and other forms of life) have the ability to altruistic acts, but these usually exceptions and mostly not as altruistic as they look like. Altruistic behavior is usually addressed to other individuals that are more or less related, i.e. children, siblings and other relatives. Altruistic behavior has usually, direct or indirect, a positive net effect for the acting individual or its relatives. That's why humans don't tend to act altruistic in favor of all mankind which they would have to do, if communism would work. One might even argue that if all resources are equally distributed and by that noone is in favor of anyone else, communism might work. But unfortunately resources are limited in this universe. This for example starts with simple resources like strawberries. To produce all the strawberry products we recently produce from real strawberries, we would have to increase the worldwide production of strawberries 10 times. And even then not every human beeing on this planet would be able to consume as much strawberry products as he might want to. Long story short, the attribute that obviates communism is the natural desire to maximize the chances to survive and reproduce yourself. And I would bet you can't get rid of that attribute. :)

"The first one is the fact that the man is a social creature"

"the attribute that obviates communism is the natural desire to maximize the chances to survive and reproduce yourself"

For me both fits perfectly with communism. Building up a society to manage the survival of its citizen. I think there is no contradiction as you claimed :-)

You've seen the little word "maximize"? ;)

I think your biological argument doesn´t fit here, luxury goods are not a survival thing.
The whole medieval times, most people ate the same stuff tevery day their whole life, they liked strawberies too, but the didnt revolt that often against their leaders (system) because´of a leck of variety :-)

"didn't revolt that often against their leaders (system) because of a lack of variety"

The people in the former socialist countries did exactly what you are saying.

Of course they did, but not because of a leck of variety in food, but a leck of freedom.
Freedom for self-realization, ending the supression and taking on their destiny themselves. I think this is a better explanation then the biological :-)
But only in my opinion.

They did because of a lack of freedom of choice - in many different ways. O:-)

@Tolstoy:

"Who would form the new government? How would they be selected? How would they enforce their will on those that resist?"

Your question doesn't answer my question, but to answer *your* question

Any charismatic individual who decides to organize his neighbors, and then branches out when they realize they've got five hundred people with guns and the guy down the block has stuff they want.

If you're under the delusion that 'resistance' just means that aggressors will throw up their hands and give up if someone doesn't cooperate, I suggest you look at the history of the Atlantic Slave Trade. To summarize, the slavers didn't care if *everyone* they captured was capable of being broken to the collar, they just cared if *enough* did. Those who fought hard enough ended up *dead* - which is kinda the point I'm trying to make.

What your question assumes is that people won't *want* to organize, and that's nowhere near a safe assumption

" While I'm quite the sci fi addict, I think using them as a source for politican theory is... Questionable. "

Ok, you're welcome to read Bakunin and Proudhomme.

I think I'd prefer to add the sci fi book to my reading list, I read all that marxist crap decades ago and it probably hasn't gotten better with time ;)

Good, then you know why I reccomended it :P

As both an anarchist and someone who's been dating an anthropologist for 2 years and as someone who has ties to tribal life, I can assure you that most tribal societies were VERY anarchistic.
Yes there were chiefs and stuff, but they were more like trusted counsel instead of leaders. Someone who you listened to because they had good advice not because you had to.