Anarchism?

[streetwaves]

Interested in seeing whether anyone else here has some sympathy for the idea. Particularly I'm interested in what my fellow atheists think, since I see a number of pretty strong parallels between the two ideas (I'd say 99% of anarchists are atheists, too).

Now, I can't call myself an anarchist because my experience on the subject is very limited. However, I think we can all see problems with hierarchical systems of power. A very simple observation could even simply be that "representative democracy" makes corruption much more easily spread, and I think obviously totally unavoidable. To make matters worse, accountability also tends to decrease towards the top of the pyramid despite efforts to control that.

But that's just some shit to get this started, as I don't really know where you start on such a large subject. Thoughts?

[rasputin]

i dont see the U.S ever being a anarchist's society, the gov't wouldn't allow it, we have one of the largest millitaries around, before anything could happen a highly skilled team of spec-ops soldiers would shut it down.

[joshh]

As an atheist I'm glad to see we have Christianity vs Anarchy. Christians have community and help one another in tough times. However they are just as susceptible to injustices as the rest of us.
There has to be Government. Just a limited amount of it. Full on Anarchy would be just that. A free for all of injustice and misery.

[streetwaves]

As an atheist I'm glad to see we have Christianity vs Anarchy. Christians have community and help one another in tough times. However they are just as susceptible to injustices as the rest of us.
There has to be Government. Just a limited amount of it. Full on Anarchy would be just that. A free for all of injustice and misery.

It seems you've confused anarchy with chaos. Why would lack of hierarchical structure somehow mean everyone is free to commit injustices?

Atheists often hear that without god there's nothing to keep them from killing, raping, etc. So, in response to your statement that 'there just has to be a limited amount of government', does there have to be at least a little bit of god floating around up there?

[cale]

Hierarchy to a certain degree is a necessity IMO, governments are a necessity.

Me being a non-theist has no bearing on this either and I don't see why our POV is of any more value to you than a theists.

[streetwaves]

Hierarchy to a certain degree is a necessity IMO, governments are a necessity.

Me being a non-theist has no bearing on this either and I don't see why our POV is of any more value to you than a theists.

God is cited often as the only basis for morality, and the only reason individuals don't go out killing and raping. As atheists you know we hear this a lot. If we don't have god to answer to, what's to keep us from ______?

In a similar way, government (particularly the justice system) is used to argue that without them we'd all go out killing and raping as well. If there are no police, what's to keep us from ______?

The main objection of theists to atheism - and most people to anarchism - is that "we need some sort of authority" over us. Neither one seems to be a given to me. It seems that atheists who say "we need some government" are drawing a rather arbitrary line considering their opinion on the god/authority topic. Why is authority better than cooperation?

[joshh]

It seems you've confused anarchy with chaos. Why would lack of hierarchical structure somehow mean everyone is free to commit injustices?

Atheists often hear that without god there's nothing to keep them from killing, raping, etc. So, in response to your statement that 'there just has to be a limited amount of government', does there have to be at least a little bit of god floating around up there?

It has nothing to do with god. It has to do with ground rules. Just like how in the the classified section some assholes have the view of "buyer beware". Instead of holding themselves to a higher standard on their own. Sometimes people have to hold others to a higher standard to make things fair for all. I'm referring to law. As long as it's applied equally. And that's where it becomes difficult. Because humans are easily swayed.

[streetwaves]

It has nothing to do with god. It has to do with ground rules. Just like how in the the classified section some assholes have the view of "buyer beware". Instead of holding themselves to a higher standard on their own. Sometimes people have to hold others to a higher standard to make things fair for all. I'm referring to law. As long as it's applied equally. And that's where it becomes difficult.

But anarchism as far as I can tell does not mean we would live in a lawless and crazy society. It doesn't mean we don't hold anyone accountable. As always, it's in our best interest to hold people accountable for wrongdoing. The difference is that society cooperates and acts together in solving problems rather than handing that responsibility over to authority figures.

We can easily see how such a thing backfires. Let's say we live in a country where the majority of the population agrees the government is abusing the people (and for this example we'll assume they're right), so they want to go out and protest. Well, "in the interest of public safety", the government can claim the need for counter-protesting measures to be taken. See how this doesn't help? The 'authority' is not going to always act in accordance with what's truly best for the people, so can't it be said that this system isn't working? I don't really see how the above scenario is preferable to anarchism in any meaningful way.

[frankenbeemer]

But who will protect us from over-sized soft drinks and trans-fats?

More seriously, what would replace our current system in this future anarchy? Will vigilantes replace our police? You've got me pondering. I am disturbed by the inequities in society and the ineptitude and dishonesty in government.

I found this, but haven't read it all:

http://www.panarchy.org/ward/organization.1966.html

If we take it for granted that a small group can function anarchically, we are still faced with the problem of all those social functions for which organisation is necessary, but which require it on a much bigger scale. "Well," we might reply, as some anarchists have, "if big organisations are necessary, count us out. We will get by as well as we can without them." We can say this all right, but if we are propagating anarchism as a social philosophy we must take into account, and not evade, social facts. Better to say "Let us find ways in which the large-scale functions can be broken down into functions capable of being organised by small functional groups and then link these groups in a federal manner."

Interesting.

[cale]

God is cited often as the only basis for morality, and the only reason individuals don't go out killing and raping. As atheists you know we hear this a lot. If we don't have god to answer to, what's to keep us from ______?

In a similar way, government (particularly the justice system) is used to argue that without them we'd all go out killing and raping as well. If there are no police, what's to keep us from ______?

The main objection of theists to atheism - and most people to anarchism - is that "we need some sort of authority" over us. Neither one seems to be a given to me. It seems that atheists who say "we need some government" are drawing a rather arbitrary line considering their opinion on the god/authority topic. Why is authority better than cooperation?

Because cooperation is just as easily as corruptible as the authority is, the difference being the authority while they are able to do what they want in many circumstances...are eventually decided by us and answer to us. Do you think that if Obama is re-elected he could decide that the official religion of the US is Islam? Of course not, firstly policy put in place by government protects us from this. Secondly, the people who put him in power would drag his corpse through the streets. He can only go so far before the masses put him back in line. If everyone has equal power as in a perfectly state of anarchy how do you decide what is truly for the best of the people and how do you initiate that? You can't.

As for morality, yea they often try to stick that one to us but fail they do. Are we moral because it's engrained in us, or are we moral because god dictates us to be? Well, history tells us that it is not engrained in us, so that's out the door. And if we're moral because god has dictated what is moral, then that's not morality...that's living under law.

ps* drunk, cause this waiver may be needed.

[Cabriolet]

I'm a Christian and about 75% anarchist.

Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[streetwaves]

Because cooperation is just as easily as corruptible as the authority is, the difference being the authority while they are able to do what they want in many circumstances...are eventually decided by us and answer to us.

Well this I'll have to totally disagree with.

Imagine some of the most divisive problems we face today. Now, imagine no government. Imagine no media arm of party X or party Y, no lobbyists able to pay off one person rather than hundreds of thousands, etc. I don't see how this is not a far less corruptible state of affairs.

Let's say representative John J. Smith represents 100,000 people. An interest group comes along that wants things to be contrary to what 99% of what would be truly beneficial to these 100,000 people. If the interest group wanted to buy them all off, that'd be quite the task and would require a shitload more money (maybe you can buy Smith off with $100,000, but you can't buy off each of the 100,000 people for $1 a piece). Luckily, they know just the one guy to talk to. Seems fairly obvious to me that this is a breeding ground for corruption, and of course we know it is.

Do you think that if Obama is re-elected he could decide that the official religion of the US is Islam? Of course not, firstly policy put in place by government protects us from this. Secondly, the people who put him in power would drag his corpse through the streets. He can only go so far before the masses put him back in line. If everyone has equal power as in a perfectly state of anarchy how do you decide what is truly for the best of the people and how do you initiate that? You can't.

That's a rather extreme example. I'll try to give you a similar one that isn't quite that strong.

If Romney were elected, could he make the official religion Mormonism? You're right that he couldn't, but through the appointment of certain judges, and through the enactment of certain policies, he can do the next best thing (ban abortion, gay marriage, promote the teaching of 'alternative science', etc). Mormonism may not be called the 'official' religion of the US at this point, but he's getting quite a bit of what he'd want anyway.

Of course we could try to undo this shit, but isn't this a situation we wouldn't even have to deal with if there were no hierarchical power structure? How is direct democracy not preferable to representative democracy, assuming it can be done?

As for morality, yea they often try to stick that one to us but fail they do. Are we moral because it's engrained in us, or are we moral because god dictates us to be? Well, history tells us that it is not engrained in us, so that's out the door. And if we're moral because god has dictated what is moral, then that's not morality...that's living under law.

That's always been a big question. I doubt the existence of objective morality most of the time, but sometimes when thinking more optimistically I can entertain other ideas.

The question I think needs to be asked is this: does the current system even work? We seem to automatically respond to the proposition of anarchism with "that couldn't work", but the reality seems to be that at every moment of every day the current system is failing in many ways. I'm not asking for anyone to immediately concede that anarchism preferable, but it would seem to me that given the gigantic problems we face under government, we at least should give the idea some consideration.

[frankenbeemer]

Because cooperation is just as easily as corruptible as the authority is, the difference being the authority while they are able to do what they want in many circumstances...are eventually decided by us..... If everyone has equal power as in a perfectly state of anarchy how do you decide what is truly for the best of the people and how do you initiate that? You can't.


ps* drunk, cause this waiver may be needed.

Waiver approved.

This is new subject matter for me, but a quick read of the 1966 article has some interesting ideas about leadership, the functions of federations, and the ideal of freedom.

"Accustomed as is this age to artificial leadership. . . it is difficult for it to realise the truth that leaders require no training or appointing, but emerge spontaneously when conditions require them. Studying their members in the free-for-all of the Peckham Centre, the observing scientists saw over and over again how one member instinctively became, and was instinctively but not officially recognised as, leader to meet the needs of one particular moment. Such leaders appeared and disappeared as the flux of the Centre required. Because they were not consciously appointed, neither (when they had fulfilled their purpose) were they consciously overthrown.


There is nothing outlandish about the idea that large numbers of autonomous industrial units can federate and co-ordinate their activities. If you travel across Europe you go over the lines of a dozen railway systems - capitalist and communist - co-ordinated by freely arrived at agreement between the various undertakings, with no central authority. You can post a letter to anywhere in the world, but there is no world postal authority, - representatives of different postal authorities simply have a congress every five years or so.


"We find it no less reasonable to postulate a functioning society without authority than to postulate an orderly universe without a god. Therefore the word anarchy is not for us freighted with connotations of disorder, chaos, or confusion. For humane men, living in non-competitive conditions of freedom from toil and of universal affluence, anarchy is simply the appropriate state of society."

[streetwaves]

Waiver approved.

This is new subject matter for me, but a quick read of the 1966 article has some interesting ideas about leadership, the functions of federations, and the ideal of freedom.

"Accustomed as is this age to artificial leadership. . . it is difficult for it to realise the truth that leaders require no training or appointing, but emerge spontaneously when conditions require them. Studying their members in the free-for-all of the Peckham Centre, the observing scientists saw over and over again how one member instinctively became, and was instinctively but not officially recognised as, leader to meet the needs of one particular moment. Such leaders appeared and disappeared as the flux of the Centre required. Because they were not consciously appointed, neither (when they had fulfilled their purpose) were they consciously overthrown.


There is nothing outlandish about the idea that large numbers of autonomous industrial units can federate and co-ordinate their activities. If you travel across Europe you go over the lines of a dozen railway systems - capitalist and communist - co-ordinated by freely arrived at agreement between the various undertakings, with no central authority. You can post a letter to anywhere in the world, but there is no world postal authority, - representatives of different postal authorities simply have a congress every five years or so.


"We find it no less reasonable to postulate a functioning society without authority than to postulate an orderly universe without a god. Therefore the word anarchy is not for us freighted with connotations of disorder, chaos, or confusion. For humane men, living in non-competitive conditions of freedom from toil and of universal affluence, anarchy is simply the appropriate state of society."

This is the kind of stuff I need to read more of. I think it's important to at least entertain alternative philosophies, if not just for educational purposes. Good post.

[streetwaves]

But who will protect us from over-sized soft drinks and trans-fats?

More seriously, what would replace our current system in this future anarchy? Will vigilantes replace our police? You've got me pondering. I am disturbed by the inequities in society and the ineptitude and dishonesty in government.

These sorts of questions are where it gets really complicated, at least for a guy like me who hasn't done exhaustive thinking on the subject, and has grown up under a 'system'.

Makes a system-less society hard to imagine, but as I think the quote you posted mentions, small groups of people can obviously work together with no one in the group being recognized as authority. Imagining it on a large scale is obviously more complicated.

The other idea I've had occasionally is that when faced with the question of "how could this work", it's not necessary to prove a totally blissful existence would exist in anarchism. The idea that there would be no problems seems to be of less importance than simply eliminating subordination.