Anarchism

[whitetrshsoldier]

Tyranny comes from a craving for power, which comes from an overactive ego. If, from a young age, we are taught to respect one another and value each other's contribution to the world, then there would be no craving for power. The truly educated know that power is a direct line to self-destruction. If we all learn this and are disciplined by these principles, then we wouldn't need all of the governing we have now. And discipline doesn't mean harsh style indoctrination. Think of it more like how a martial artist may discipline him/herself or how Siddhartha or Jesus of Nazareth disciplined themselves.

You're telling me that in order to develop a society capable of sustaining anarchism, you would REQUIRE the violation the very principle you consider elementary to your philosophy by brainwashing children. Which brings us back to the point that anarchy is self-defeating in nature, and will never exist.

[whitetrshsoldier]

Tyranny comes from a craving for power, which comes from an overactive ego. If, from a young age, we are taught to respect one another and value each other's contribution to the world, then there would be no craving for power. The truly educated know that power is a direct line to self-destruction. If we all learn this and are disciplined by these principles, then we wouldn't need all of the governing we have now. And discipline doesn't mean harsh style indoctrination. Think of it more like how a martial artist may discipline him/herself or how Siddhartha or Jesus of Nazareth disciplined themselves.

So what you're saying is all we have to do is indoctrinate children from birth to deny their primal instinct for dominance? Sounds pretty simple. In fact, it sounds like something that's been tried before. Remember slave labor in colonial America? Here's an interesting quote:

Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both. But it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will.
-Frederick Douglass

The point is we can try this. But you can't temper human nature. Somebody, somewhere, sometime will decide their contribution to the world has something to do with power, and they will act on it. Struggle is what drives innovation, creativity, and progress. A perfect society would cease to advance, as there is no point improving on utopia.

[Felix]

"Struggle is what drives innovation, creativity, and progress. A perfect society would cease to advance, as there is no point improving on utopia."

I don't buy that. There are always outlets for human creativity, adversity is not the only impetus to progress.

"So what you're saying is all we have to do is indoctrinate children from birth to deny their primal instinct for dominance?"

It's not indoctrination to nurture a child's natural capacity for tolerance and love. The will to control others comes from a feeling of lack and inferiority, which is the product of conditioning/indoctrination.

[whitetrshsoldier]

I don't buy that. There are always outlets for human creativity, adversity is not the only impetus to progress.

I'll withdraw the statement. Adversity isn't the only motivator. But I'd consider it the most compelling. Historical considerations, I think, would support that point.

It's not indoctrination to nurture a child's natural capacity for tolerance and love. The will to control others comes from a feeling of lack and inferiority, which is the product of conditioning/indoctrination.

This could be the beginning of a whole new topic. However, I'd like to mention that in the course of our discussion, we've already agreed that nature tends to favor domninance and the struggle for power. I believe the theory of evolution supports this assertion as well, so I guess I'd have to disagree with your statement that it's natural for children to be tolerant and loving.

[Felix]

"This could be the beginning of a whole new topic."

Yeah, the old nature vs. nurture argument, but the division between the two is unclear, which makes debate difficult.

"However, I'd like to mention that in the course of our discussion, we've already agreed that nature tends to favor dominance and the struggle for power. I believe the theory of evolution supports this assertion as well, so I guess I'd have to disagree with your statement that it's natural for children to be tolerant and loving."

o.k., thanks, I admit I didn't read the entire thread. Well, it does seem that "might makes right" has been the maxim of our species so far but I have faith (hope) that it won't continue to be, that we can some day live up to our latin moniker, "homo sapiens." In the nuclear age, can we afford not to?

Competition lives on, but it is friendly and playful? You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one?

[anarchyisbliss]

So what you're saying is all we have to do is indoctrinate children from birth to deny their primal instinct for dominance?

That's what parents do when they scold children for screaming or throwing things. That's what society does when its schools require vaccinations against natural pathogens. That is what the world does when it establishes laws against murder, thievery, arson, and rape. Everything, whether wholly or partially, in the history of our modern societies is contrary to our "nature." So to argue that we should not indoctrinate children may make my original argument a fallacy, but it also contradicts your ideal government, one in which personal property rights cannot be revoked. We are all indoctrinated, why do you think we all agree that 2 + 2 = 4?

Sounds pretty simple.

It is. It's called education (no sarcasm).

You're telling me that in order to develop a society capable of sustaining anarchism, you would REQUIRE the violation the very principle you consider elementary to your philosophy by brainwashing children.

Isn't it odd that in our language brainwashing has such a negative connotation. It is imply the combination of two words: brain, and washing. Both of which, by themselves, have such strong connection to the ideas of science and good hygiene. Yet, it seems, when they are combined they become a completely new word void of any goodness and ripe with malicious intentions. Odd. Anyway, brainwashing happens........any animal with a brain is brainwashed. Brainwashing is simply teaching. If an animal were to grow up in a complete isolated state, it would act according only to the faculties of its brain. Nothing else would influence it not even, for the sake of my hypothetical situation, it's isolation. It would follow the pattern that its brain has been programmed to follow. When other factors are introduced, its brain would change. It would learn that fire burns, and its brain would tell it to stay away. It would learn that the food on the left side is better than the food on the right side, or that flight works better on sunny days than on cold days. These interactions with the environment would, quite literally, change its brain. This is due to brain plasticity, the ability of the brain to change in certain situation. For example, a child born of pure Korean ancestry brought up in isolation would have certain attributes that make him/her more susceptible to aspects of Korean "survival." This being a very jagged word, I mean that his/her vocal cords would have an affinity for speaking Korean, and possibly his/her body shape would be better suited for Korean terrain. However, that child could, with all physical aspects described, be raised in Brazil. S/he would grow up as a Brazilian: his/her vocal cords would adapt to changes in language, his/her body might develop a certain way, etc. What I am saying is that the brain changes. Whether it be going from speaking Portuguese when your brain wants to speak Korean, or from sitting politely in church in a nice white suit or dress when you really want to run outside, hunt, and kill. This is brainwashing. To argue that brainwashing is something evil in nature is, although possible, too lofty of a subject to instantly cast into the realm of untouchable subject in philosophy.

Which brings us back to the point that anarchy is self-defeating in nature, and will never exist.

Anarchy is not a self-defeating philosophy. Anarchy may literally mean no rule or no government, but its true philosophy lies more in the idea that no one person rules, or even one group of people. There will always be laws from which no human can escape. If you jump, you will fall back to Earth. If you touch a hot stove-top, you will be burned. If you fly through a windshield at 65 miles per hour, your body will continue to travel, unstopped at 65 miles per hour until acted upon by another force. Law in itself is the essence of nature. Without law, nature would not be. If the sunlight didn't give the grass the energy to produce sugar from which the mouse would eat from which the eagle would eat so that when the eagle died it would fall to the ground, decay, and turn into organic ingredients that would mix with more sunlight and create more sugar, then the world would cease. Without law, the planet would not even turn on its axis. However, anarchy is a society free from the laws of man, not of God. Anarchy means being able to do as you wish to whomever you wish to do it to, the only reprisal being your timely and eventual death. If you want to raise your children on the foundation that 2 + 2 = 4, then you are free to do it. If you want to shoot up and rob a bake sale, then you are free to do it, if you want to build an atomic bomb and blow up another part of the world, then you can do it. But know, that every other organism on the planet from a cell to a blue whale has the same right as you to do the same exact thing. With death as a constant, the anarchist's world moves freely. Maybe not always in utopia, maybe not always without pain or suffering, but freely.

A perfect society would cease to advance, as there is no point improving on utopia.

Yes, precisely. Utopia is perfection. It would be impossible to improve on it.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

This is an interesting discussion with many interesting points raised. At the moment, I wish to address the fact that some have mentioned that anarchism is an ideal and that an ideal anarchist society is a utopia to anarchists at least.

Perfection may not be actually be attainable in practice, but it gives us an ideal standard for which we can continually strive to attain and practically can attain.

Perhaps no society can be perfectly anarchist, but a society that strives towards those ideals can become practically anarchist. In comparison, perhaps no society can be perfectly democratic, but a society that strives towards democratic ideals can become practically democratic. In another analogy, perhaps no object is truly perfectly circular or round, but a ball can be circular for all intents and purposes.

Ideas and ideals are simplistic representations of the practical, more detailed and more complex things they represent.

I do not think we can reject a political or social ideal on the grounds that it is an ideal and that a society that follows it perfectly would be a utopia. In fact, I would argue that, if following a set of ideals perfectly would make a society a perfect utopia, that is the very reason to follow that set of ideals.

[whitetrshsoldier]

However, anarchy is a society free from the laws of man, not of God. Anarchy means being able to do as you wish to whomever you wish to do it to, the only reprisal being your timely and eventual death. If you want to raise your children on the foundation that 2 + 2 = 4, then you are free to do it. If you want to shoot up and rob a bake sale, then you are free to do it, if you want to build an atomic bomb and blow up another part of the world, then you can do it. But know, that every other organism on the planet from a cell to a blue whale has the same right as you to do the same exact thing. With death as a constant, the anarchist's world moves freely. Maybe not always in utopia, maybe not always without pain or suffering, but freely.

First off, I'd like to say that was a great response.

But I do have two quick points.

1) You're free from the laws of man, yet you are able to implement your own will upon your child. Is your child free? Does s/he lose his right to participate in your anarchist society?

2) You're free to shoot up and rob another man. How free is a 90 year old man/woman, or a person with physical/mental defect, or somebody disadvantaged enough not to possess the means to defend themselves?

"Anarchy means being able to do as you wish to whomever you wish to do it to...the anarchist's world moves freely"

Is this freedom?

"The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act, as the destroyer of liberty. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today among human creatures."

-Abraham Lincoln

[anarchyisbliss]

First off, I'd like to say that was a great response.

Thank you.

1) You're free from the laws of man, yet you are able to implement your own will upon your child. Is your child free? Does s/he lose his right to participate in your anarchist society?

The topic of raising children is very touchy in every society. We want our children to be raised on our ideals, yet doing so takes away their freedom. In addition, it is nearly impossible to raise a child without establishing your own ideas into the child. So, for this question, I would have to say that no, that child isn't free. But if we follow the deep, philosophical sense of the word free, then none of us are "free."

2) You're free to shoot up and rob another man. How free is a 90 year old man/woman, or a person with physical/mental defect, or somebody disadvantaged enough not to possess the means to defend themselves?

They're free too. Equal opportunity does not always yield equal results.

"Anarchy means being able to do as you wish to whomever you wish to do it to...the anarchist's world moves freely"

Is this freedom?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm............

"The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act, as the destroyer of liberty. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today among human creatures."

-Abraham Lincoln

This is a wonderful quote! I really do love it. And it truly makes you think about the definition of liberty. You've really made me think over these last couple of posts. Good job.

[soitgoes]

People cannot be trusted to govern other people.

You act as if there is an alternative. Interpersonal regulation of behavior is inherent in any and all social interactions. This is as true in a complex social milieu of millions of people as it is in a simple dyadic relationship. The ammount of coercion involved in any particular social interaction increases as the complexity of that social interaction increases. In other words, simple societies requires simple regulation and complex ones require more centralized regulation.

The basic anarchist fallacy: you want to live in a complex social structure but you want only the regulation needed to manage a simple society. You cannot have it both ways. If you want the benefits of modern society you have to pay the price --centralized government.

The empirical evidence for this theory is endless. Every single society today with complex social interaction (defined by the division of labor) has a centralized government. Every known society with complex interactions but simple organization (i.e. Somalia) has descended into chaos and mob rule. I think this is strong evidence that anarchy is unworkable in complex societies.

Which leads to an even bigger problem: food production. All known "anarchist societies" (peaceful groups without government) were bands of hunter/gatherers consisting of less than 100 people. However, to abandon civilization and return to this simple lifestyle would condemn billions to death. Pre-agricultural food production could only sustain a maximum of 100 million people. In comparison, 6 billion people exist under the current system. How do you manage to solve this problem?

Anarchists' inability to answer the hard questions like this leave me dissillusioned. I have little sympathy for anarchist philosophy because IMO it doesn’t contribute anything useful to our struggle against the global capitalist system. If we wish to combat social injustice, we need to be skeptical and full of doubt. In order to present a working alternative to capitalism, we need to know what works and what doesn't. We can’t rely on vain utopian fantasies that would literally require human perfection to work.

[soitgoes]

Perfection may not be actually be attainable in practice, but it gives us an ideal standard for which we can continually strive to attain and practically can attain.

I think it is more of a question of struggling for the impossible. I think we should ask whether or not anarchy is worth the effort when we have far better alternative to capitalism that we know work ( democracy for example).

A good analogy is me spending my entire life struggling to be able to run faster than the speed of light. Its unattainable and not worth the effort. Instead, I should just struggle to run as fast as I can, within the limits of my physical biology instead of doing something that violates the laws of the universe.

That is an excellent analogy to the difference between democracy and anarchy.

[Invictus_88]

However, anarchy is a society free from the laws of man, not of God. Anarchy means being able to do as you wish to whomever you wish to do it to, the only reprisal being your timely and eventual death. If you want to raise your children on the foundation that 2 + 2 = 4, then you are free to do it. If you want to shoot up and rob a bake sale, then you are free to do it, if you want to build an atomic bomb and blow up another part of the world, then you can do it. But know, that every other organism on the planet from a cell to a blue whale has the same right as you to do the same exact thing. With death as a constant, the anarchist's world moves freely. Maybe not always in utopia, maybe not always without pain or suffering, but freely.

First off, I'd like to say that was a great response.

But I do have two quick points.

1) You're free from the laws of man, yet you are able to implement your own will upon your child. Is your child free? Does s/he lose his right to participate in your anarchist society?

2) You're free to shoot up and rob another man. How free is a 90 year old man/woman, or a person with physical/mental defect, or somebody disadvantaged enough not to possess the means to defend themselves?

These examples are rooted in the society and the humanity that we have now.

All it proves is the impossibility of anarchism with the society and humanity that we have now.

[whitetrshsoldier]

I think it is more of a question of struggling for the impossible. I think we should ask whether or not anarchy is worth the effort when we have far better alternative to capitalism that we know work ( democracy for example).

Capitalism = Economic System

Democracy = Political System

Democracy requires capitalism to work; the two are not comparable. Bad example.

What ECONOMIC system do you propose a functional democracy to use if not capitalism?

[Toronto]

Democracy requires capitalism to work

Does it? So if the people on the whole decided to give the state control of the means of production that would be undemocratic, despite the fact that it is being done to further the people's wishes.

Whether it is a good idea or bad really is a whole other debate, but I think defining democracy as requiring capitalism seems to undermine the underlying concept of democracy, popular sovereignty, government by the people for the people, not merely a government that protects the idea of the market economy (if that's how we define democracy, is the presence of a market economy sufficient for a government being considered democratic? If so I predict Chinese "democracy" in the next 20 years)

[whitetrshsoldier]

Democracy requires capitalism to work

Does it? So if the people on the whole decided to give the state control of the means of production that would be undemocratic, despite the fact that it is being done to further the people's wishes.

Whether it is a good idea or bad really is a whole other debate, but I think defining democracy as requiring capitalism seems to undermine the underlying concept of democracy, popular sovereignty, government by the people for the people, not merely a government that protects the idea of the market economy (if that's how we define democracy, is the presence of a market economy sufficient for a government being considered democratic? If so I predict Chinese "democracy" in the next 20 years)

If the people "on the whole" decide to give the state control of the means of production, it would be democratic, as the people chose that reality, right?

But if the state had control over production, there would still be competition between the products the state produced. This would lead to capitalism, correct?

This, if I'm not mistaken, is how China has created their system.

I don't define democracy as a 'market economy', however I believe that a 'marketplace of ideas' greatly increases the chances of success for democracy.

But maybe democracy isn't what we need?