Monday, October 25, 2010

I Have Questions…

I know a lot of people here love anarchy, but I don’t see the appeal. So, I have some questions.

Please feel free to answer any or all of them. I don’t think they all have to be answered, and I won’t view the failure to answer one or most of them as a sign that anarchy is not viable.

1. What region, people, or “nation” (or whatever you would call it, if it was anarchistic) has experienced success without a central government of some kind?

2. Does anarchy require that every single individual in the system relinquish any ambition to attain power? If so, is this a realistic possibility?

3. How does an anarchy cope with internal factors, such as the inevitable rise of charismatic and power hungry individuals?

4. How does an anarchy cope with outside aggression?

5. What is the anarchist stance regarding the fact that well over 99% of the population does not favor anarchy?

6. Why are four out of five anarchists male?

7. Are there any problems that are caused by government that will disappear if government is gone?

8. How does one reconcile the fact that anarchists cannot even agree on what anarchy is?

9. How are disputes handled in an anarchy?

I may think of more, and if I do, I will post them separately, but I think this is enough for now. This isn’t an attempt to compile “gotcha” questions, I just cannot figure out the appeal of a system that seems to sow the seeds of its own demise.

And no, trying to turn this around on what we have now isn’t an answer to any of these. I would prefer if you simply addressed anarchy, because for a group of anarchists, all you guys talk about everything but. I’m thinking maybe some people never think about anarchy, they just accept it and never aim their high-powered criticism at it. This would explain why anarchy itself and its mechanics are rarely discussed.

So, inform me.

12 comments:

  1. "1. What region, people, or “nation” (or whatever you would call it, if it was anarchistic) has experienced success without a central government of some kind?"

    Could you rephrase the question? There are dozens of examples of anarchist societies, but I don't what "success" would mean here. Ultimately no such society has "succeeded" in defeating State attempts to destroy them, but that's a rather high barrier to cross. No matter what one's political ideology is, trying to directly defy the State and stay alive is an impossible dream.


    "2. Does anarchy require that every single individual in the system relinquish any ambition to attain power? If so, is this a realistic possibility?"

    Another ambiguous question. What sort of ambition are we talking about here? You won't deny that most people participate in hierarchies because they have been indoctrinated in the slave/slavemaster mentality (either you hold the power, or someone else uses it against you). That's how our society works: we entice people with wealth and power so they will try to climb the hierarchy and not complain about their condition.

    In an Anarchist society, where power is constantly dispersed, there would be no way for any single person to accumulate it. As for what happens to those people who supposedly crave power for its own sake, I don't know if such people exist, but they would be sorely disappointed and would have to go elsewhere. I see this as a strength of Anarchism, not a weakness.


    "3. How does an anarchy cope with internal factors, such as the inevitable rise of charismatic and power hungry individuals?"

    Seems like this question is the same as point 2, basically, and my answer would be the same. If it isn't, please be more specific.


    "4. How does an anarchy cope with outside aggression?"

    That's always been the sore point in Anarchist ideology. In a full society and in the long term, it is reasonable to assume that, as Anarchism stimulates innovation and cooperation, outside aggression can be dealt with. But below that level, there is no easy solution. The Zapatista have proven that a society can survive against low-level State aggression, and the Aymara in Bolivia have shown that an indigenous group can survive a full-on assault by a disorganized State, both by using guerrilla warfare. However, it remains to be seen whether any Anarchist society could survive beyond that.


    "5. What is the anarchist stance regarding the fact that well over 99% of the population does not favor anarchy?"

    I don't think that's really true. There are always many people who favor Anarchist positions on any given issue. The fact that Anarchism itself is not well-known does not indicate that it would be unpopular.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "6. Why are four out of five anarchists male?"

    Not in my experience. I have been to Anarchist events and I have not noticed a gender bias (and I'm pretty sure I would have noticed if 80% of the people were male!). I do not know why the survey returned such a bias.


    "7. Are there any problems that are caused by government that will disappear if government is gone?"

    I don't understand the point of the question. Wouldn't all problems caused by government, by definition, disappear if government no longer causes them? Or did you mean something else?


    "8. How does one reconcile the fact that anarchists cannot even agree on what anarchy is?"

    What do you mean? I haven't seen many disagreements on what Anarchism means. Definitions may vary but they all boil down to the same thing.


    "9. How are disputes handled in an anarchy?"

    Depends on the dispute. Could you be more specific?

    Your questions really need to be worked on. If you can rewrite them better, I'll post an answer on my blog. But as they are now, they're not very interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for the response.

    I think your answer to #1 pretty much sums up why I reject anarchy outright as unworkable, even if it has attractive features. What are the odds of every single person in every single country coming together as one to be an anarchy? That is literally the only scenario I can imagine where there is any sort of future in it... but even then, new assholes are being born every second...

    You won't deny that most people participate in hierarchies because they have been indoctrinated in the slave/slavemaster mentality (either you hold the power, or someone else uses it against you).

    I'd love to deny that. You can't boil down everything to slavery and convince me it is thus demonized. A slave cannot pick up and leave, they cannot even voice dissent. This is not our situation, not by a long shot.

    In an Anarchist society, where power is constantly dispersed, there would be no way for any single person to accumulate it. As for what happens to those people who supposedly crave power for its own sake, I don't know if such people exist, but they would be sorely disappointed and would have to go elsewhere.

    I can tell you right now, there will be people who take more than their fair share. I would like to know the mechanics of how power is constantly dispersed without any charismatic individual leading the ignorant masses. I'm assuming some sort of education... or is that indoctrination? If you think people are naturally good... spend some time among young children and get back to me about our natural virtues.

    That's always been the sore point in Anarchist ideology.

    Tell me about it... although Spain had an internal figure (Franco).

    Regarding #5, I assume you mean that you would have to "explain anarchy" for hours, extolling the many glorious advantages of anarchism before more than 1% of the population supported it (see also: indoctrination). I think 1% is a more than gernous guess. I'm fairly sure it's more like .1-.5%, especially if you look outside of white, middle-class males in industrialized nations... it's hard to remove oneself from that bubble, eh?

    Regarding #6, show me a scientific study, not anecdotal evidence. I provided a study that found 82% of anarchists responding were men, and I think this is generous as well because women love taking online surveys, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually less (kidding... sort of...).

    [to be continued...]

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't understand the point of the question. Wouldn't all problems caused by government, by definition, disappear if government no longer causes them? Or did you mean something else?

    What I mean is: name any "problem caused by the state." Let's spin the government oppression wheel... *click click click click click... click... click....... click*

    It almost landed on wars, but instead we got police brutality (we already know about the wars... outside states, right?). So, we get rid of police... now who enforces the law? Oh right, no law... okay so people are just enforcing whatever they want... no potential for abuse there...

    But Ginx, you idiot,whatabout "private security" and the wonders of non-coercive, voluntarist schemes?

    Let me get this straight... we have a bunch of people playing police officer under the guise of "private security," so how does police brutality disappear? Worst of all, poor people suddenly have no protection under the law. Lovely... That's a new problem to pair up with the same old one.

    And who's to say what laws these "private security" forces enforce? If your private security doesn't allow drugs, but I specifically got one that does, can't yours just bust me even though mine is allowing me? It doesn't make any sense. And if drugs are universally legal in this society, you can substitute drugs for whatever minor nuissance you want (noise, litter, whatever). Anarchy does not equate to consensus.

    What do you mean? I haven't seen many disagreements on what Anarchism means. Definitions may vary but they all boil down to the same thing.

    Are you kidding me? Bring an anarcho-capitalist over here and have him chat with Nikk. Nikk will say he's not a true anarchist, but that's just what I'm talking about. There's only consensus on what it means within the confines of each individual anarchist's mind.

    Regarding #9, you can't even imagine a complex situation that anarchy can't handle? Honestly? How about water consumption in California? Resource management? Land management? Environmentalism? Intercontinental trade disputes... I mean honestly, I could come up with problems all day, but that's why I'm a skeptic.

    I'm sorry my questions are so awful, but thank you for patiently plodding through them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm a fool twice over because not only are the questions apparently too vague, I put too many of them to be responded to in one comment... next time, one or two (maybe three...) per post.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wow.

    Bret said "thanks."

    *Shakes head. Rubs eyes.*

    ReplyDelete
  7. Weird, because the only thing I say in life more than "thanks" is "sorry." I think SE does something to me... here, I think it would be "retard" or "assclown."

    To be fair, the person I talk to most often is my wife, and I would never call her those (she's Jewish, so I have much more colorful things to say).

    ReplyDelete
  8. "What are the odds of every single person in every single country coming together as one to be an anarchy?"

    What? That doesn't make any sense. No one has posited such nonsense. Is that how you think Anarchist societies have arisen?


    "I'd love to deny that. You can't boil down everything to slavery and convince me it is thus demonized. A slave cannot pick up and leave, they cannot even voice dissent. This is not our situation, not by a long shot."

    Have you read any Nietzsche? His concept of the slavemaster morality is what I was referring to. I am not saying we are literally slaves and slavemasters.


    "I can tell you right now, there will be people who take more than their fair share. I would like to know the mechanics of how power is constantly dispersed without any charismatic individual leading the ignorant masses."

    You are kidding, right? Or you are a blithering idiot, one or the other. What the fuck do you think a "charismatic individual leading the ignorant masses" has anything to do with the process of dispersing power? You've got it all backwards. Dispersing power can only occur within egalitarian systems where positions of power are eliminated or rotated. This has nothing to do with this nonsense you are spouting!


    "If you think people are naturally good... spend some time among young children and get back to me about our natural virtues."

    Actually, scientific studies have proven that babies as young as 18 months old cooperate willingly, and schoolchildren are more productive when they cooperate than when they compete. You are absolutely full of it. What you are saying is pure pseudo-scientific nonsense.

    You don't know anything, and yet you claim to criticize Anarchism. You are a pure zero. Your answers reveal a deep ignorance of the questions you were yourself asking in your post. Honestly I see no point in continuing, I am ashamed for you since you apparently have no shame.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I thought maybe we could cooperate in order to make your questions more interesting, but now I see your goal was to attack Anarchism. Very disappointing.

    I honestly find it hard to believe that a serious blog like Skeptical Eye would let a ridiculous poser like you write posts! My opinion of this blog has been seriously lowered.

    If you ever gain enough knowledge (no, not prejudice, knowledge) to make a more educated criticism of Anarchism, then tell me and we'll talk. What you've got here is absurd: you got your ideas about Anarchism from feverish interpretations of a Cracker Jack box. A whole society becoming Anarchist instantly? What the fuck is wrong with you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Have you read any Nietzsche? His concept of the slavemaster morality is what I was referring to. I am not saying we are literally slaves and slavemasters.

    Yeah, it's just not as emotionally charged if you use some other power dynamic, like parent/child, teacher/student, guardian/citizen... hierarchies can be so fun to demonize.

    You are kidding, right? Or you are a blithering idiot, one or the other. What the fuck do you think a "charismatic individual leading the ignorant masses" has anything to do with the process of dispersing power? You've got it all backwards. Dispersing power can only occur within egalitarian systems where positions of power are eliminated or rotated. This has nothing to do with this nonsense you are spouting!

    You deny the basic shortcomings of humanity, and I'm the blithering idiot? Oy...

    Actually, scientific studies have proven that babies as young as 18 months old cooperate willingly, and schoolchildren are more productive when they cooperate than when they compete. You are absolutely full of it. What you are saying is pure pseudo-scientific nonsense.

    I have some scientific studies you should check out: the Milgram shock experiment and the Standford prison experiment. Do so, and get back to me on how moral we are. And I still believe you have never worked with children for any length of time if you think kids are naturally cooperative.

    A whole society becoming Anarchist instantly? What the fuck is wrong with you.

    Explain to me the process by which power is dissipated while there are those who empower. Explain to me how you expect a large group of people to decide not to have any kind of leader. I'm trying to understand this, not criticize it. If you have some problem with the way I see it, explain it.

    I got my ideas on anarchism from talking with posters on this site for over a year now. I would appreciate it if you don't criticize SE, because they have been kind enough to let me air my skepticism. It is clear you are an ideologue, not a skeptic, so our views will naturally differ. While I have not settled on a preffered ideology, you clearly have, and that's fine. but you are resorting to attacks against me and those who have given me a voice rather than attempting to address anything I said.

    If something I say is so dumbfoundedly ignorant, correct me. As it stands, you're just encouraging my view that anarchists are emotionally attached to the idea of negative freedom, without any conception of the benefits of positive freedom.

    ReplyDelete

If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.

Related Posts with Thumbnails