This comes from a tangent on another thread. Someone there was seemingly pro-Anarchist and questioned why someone else rejected it, and asked for details about why. Here is my response on the reasons to reject Anarchism. People have a tenancy to form groups and impose controls on behaviour. I see that as one aspect of human behaviour that can not be overturned. So if some people decide they want to prevent the group from generally imposing controls on individual and group behaviour, that group, is themselves to control and constrain behaviours. While there are possible concerns that anarchists could not in principle get organised to overthrow the current system (as they believe in personal autonomy over agreement in a committee meeting), the argument that people get so disenfranchised that people through their own autonomy overthrow the system is sound. The revolution would not need to be organised by a committee ready with their own new power structure (though it is worth paying attention to historical patterns of revolution, it's not reasonable to expect revolutions, particularly a theorised global one, to follow patterns of revolutions that have already happened and been documented). If somehow anarchy has been achieved momentarily, it's not at all obvious how anarchy would or possibly could be maintained. If people were to, through their own free will (which throughout history people have shown a tendency to do), set up courts, corporations, governments and other systems that control group behaviour, it's very unclear what measures could be in place to counter such activities, activities which left unchecked would inevitably lead to the end of anarchy. Conclusion: Since anarchy is not achievable into the longer term, it's not worth trying to achieve it.
It is possible to change behaviors they're not set in stone. In fact there is an entire profession about changing behaviors which is public relations and getting consent. If you take a business management course such as organizational behavior. There is a broad spectrum of anarchism ranging from pacifism to revolutionary. All these different schools have different ideas on how to create an anarchist society. They do take into account history and how it applies to that end goal. Most of them realize that the revolution would never occur and that the figure some means of getting there. Generally involving a practicing their convictions in the moment and educating about it. Should also mention all the help similarities to each other. Libertarian socialism or anarchism has always had ideas on how to organize. One-way people think it could be done is by organizing a committee at the local level and sending a delegate to the original level. the delicate would have no discretionary powers in anything discussed there. Would have to be voted upon at the community level. A course of this would be done in free association so anybody could leave at any time. That's one line of thinking but who knows. The value of achieving it is up to the people who are willing to do that. The two most successful anarchist experiments or whatever you want to call them. The first one was during the Spanish Civil War when anarchist controlled a good chunk of territory. Eventually anarchists were stabbed in the back by their allies that fought against fascists with them. The other one is Kibbutz which eventually fizzled out after several decade. So who knows. lokiCML Further reading in general http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQIntro http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1970----.htm www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDHBvQRyOr0 www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB9rp_SAp2U Edit: I just can't figure out why politicalcompass.org keeps saying I'm a libertarian socialist. Is it because I believe in the free software movement, corporations are authoritarian by their very nature, and all wage slaves. I just don't even. /s
My point is that such public relations and business management is a form of hierarchical system that Anarchists want to prevent. If there is much success in controlling overall group behaviour by a subgroup, then there is a hierarchy.
Which is true and they can draw conclusions from it subsequently developing ways to stop that hierarchy from occurring. It could be done through anarchist free schools which provide education in a gift economy. What are decentralized education that emphasizes, skills, knowledge, and critical thinking that student driven. - http://torontofreeskool.wordpress.com/about/ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchistic_free_school
What about other schools advocating and based on a system of hierarchy? Where does the assumption come from that the Anarchist Free School or more generally Anarchist based education would be dominant (or am I wrong in thinking that they would have to be dominant)? At the same time, people with other ideas on how to run a society would also have access to public relations and business management, so I don't see how those techniques overall would enable Anarchists to win the battle of ideas. Then if they did win, they would be dominant. Far too much of the Anarchist material I have read envisages a society where the current hierarchies are explicitly removed, but there is an implicit hierarchy with Anarchist organizers at the top, directing things. In this free society, what is to stop someone or an organization from accumulating lots of precious metal and issuing their own currency? While it's not a state backed currency it's a currency nevertheless. The state would not have control over this currency either, as I presume the state would not exist, or if it did it would be staying out of people's business and leaving them to get on with their lives - even if the goals of those individuals is to accumulate as much wealth as they can. It's been really interesting reading more about Anarchism, free schools, and the gift economy, and there are definitely positive things to take from it. I don't think the stated goal of abolishing hierarchy makes sense, as it would take hierarchy of a different kind (arguably more benign and representative) to prevent the kinds of hierarchies that Anarchists dislike from emerging.
I suggest you look into 'Spontaneous Order', 'Self-ownership' and the 'Non-aggression principle'. You'll find the answer once you familiarise yourself with these anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist terms. I'm too tired to give you a better answer and I'm only on here for a short while. EDIT: Essentially, the best way to achieve this kind of society is by education and secession from the State at the individual level. “Once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as in a state of impermissible ‘anarchy’, why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighbourhood? Each block? Each house? Each person?” ― Murray N. Rothbard Wage slavery only exists when there is a monopoly in an industry. Just to be clear, a free-market is both inherently part of an anarchist society and the best way to distribute resources. I apologise for brevity but you can continue on this thread or PM me for more info and better arguements.
