Anarchists

[sauergeek]

This is an honest question, about something I don't understand.

How is anarchy* a good thing? I've seen any number of people claiming to be anarchists, and they seem to think that anarchy would be an improvement. Real-world near-anarchies include Lebanon during its civil war (1975-1990), Afghanistan between the departure of the USSR and the US invasion (1989-2001), and Somalia (1977-present). All have been characterized by armed gangs trying to control as much of the nation as possible, with no security or safety guaranteed to anyone. How does this equate to the nominal utopia that anarchy is supposed to bring about? If there was no government, I would expect nothing other than local gangs controlling as much territory as they could, making treaties with neighboring gangs, and alliances assembling into progressively larger gangs to better beat up on opposing gangs. EDIT: Given the power of modern corporations, I would expect any nominal anarchy in a developed country to end up with some form of corporatism, if not outright fascism. /EDIT

Given all this, any time I see anyone espousing anarchism, I have a strong desire to see them get the snot beaten out of them by random passerby. This would likely provide the person with a representative taste of the early stages of anarchy. The police, as government employees, would turn a blind eye and do nothing; far be it for them to interfere with the anarchist's beliefs.

I'd like to be shown wrong here, but I can't offhand see how. If you do reply, please try to avoid diatribes about the evils of government; what I want to see is how having no government would work in any way other than what I described above.

* All definitions from Merriam-Webster Online

Main Entry: an·ar·chist
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kist, -"när-
Function: noun
1 : one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2 : one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order
- anarchist or an·ar·chis·tic /"a-n&r-'kis-tik, -(")när-/ adjective

Main Entry: an·ar·chism
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-"ki-z&m, -"när-
Function: noun
1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER
3 : ANARCHISM

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/_nicolai_/]

Someone who is far more into this sort of thing, though is not an anarchist (as far as I know, he's more a devoted Liberal voter...) recently told me that the Anarchist FAQ actually gives a good overview of anarchism.
I haven't read beyond the intro yet, which looks turgid. Still, you've had years of training in dealing with turgid prose, see how it goes :)
I'm afraid my personal views on anarchy are close to yours, so I can't defend it off the top of my head.

[dariusk.livejournal.com]

Typically, when I see someone intelligent speak about anarchy, and speak about it in a reasonable way, they have redefined anarchy into something more "pure" (read: "more manageable").

my 2 cents

[audiogeek.livejournal.com]

First, agree with you. However, below is my explanation of why some my disagree with you.

I was recently talking to a German friend about Germany and communism. In Germany, apparently many folks are wanting the wall to go back up. This is because all they remember was the good side of communism. They always had a job, they always had food, they always had a place to live, they always had medical care, etc. What they forget was they didn't have a choice in any of those.

This went into a talk about phsycology, and how people tend to forget the bad parts of an event after that event is long in the past. Add a few generational gaps, where folks don't have first hand expierence with the bad bits, and only the good is rememberred.

Since true anarchy* hasn't existed in any recent time I'm aware of, I bet people don't remember the bad bits of it. The good bits? Wouldn't you like it if W wasn't in power (of course, arnarchy would mean NO ONE was in power... but thats one of those bad bits people forget about)

* You mention "armed gangs trying to control as much of the nation as possible". I might be taking this out of context, but from the definition I usually go by for anarchy, there would be no trying to control anything. To me the simpliest deffinition of anarchy is "everyone for themselves, no concern for anyone else".

[mazianni.livejournal.com]

In my experience, when people are proselytizing for anarchy, they're talking about some utopian commune that's a pure pipe dream.

The problem with the idea of "you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone and we'll all be happy" is that there's too many people that want what's mine and yours. IMHO.

Anarchy in the real world seems to be much more nihilistic.

[bouncingleaf.livejournal.com]

[insert disclaimer here]

a few quotes:

Tougher'n nails, heart of gold, fella by the name of Ammon Hennessy. Anybody know that name? Ammon Hennessy? One of Dorothea Day's people, the Catholic workers, during the Thirties they started houses of hospitality all over the country; there're about eighty of 'em now.

Ammon Hennessy was one of those; he'd come west to start this house I'd found called The Joe Hill House of Hospitality. Ammon Hennessy was a Catholic anarchist, pacifist, draft-dodger of two World Wars, tax refuser, vegetarian, one-man revolution in America - I think that about covers it.

...

I'd always wanted to write a song for that old man. He never wanted one about him - he's that way - but something mulched up out of his thought, his anarchist thought. Anarchist in the best sense of the word. Oh so many times he stood up in front of Federal District Judge Ritter, that old fart, and he'd be picked up for picketing illegally, and he never plead innocent or guilty - he plead anarchy.

And Ritter'd say, "What's an anarchist, Hennessy?" and Ammon would say, "Why an anarchist is anybody who doesn't need a cop to tell him what to do." Kind of a fundamentalist anarchist, huh?

And Ritter'd say, "But Ammon, you broke the law, what about that?" and Ammon'd say, "Oh, Judge, your damn laws, the good people don't need 'em and the bad people don't obey 'em so what use are they?"

Well I lived there for eight years, and I watched him, really watched him, and I discovered watching him that anarchy is not a noun, but an adjective. It describes the tension between moral autonomy and political authority, especially in the area of combinations, whether they're going to be voluntary or coercive. The most destructive, coercive combinations are arrived at through force.

Like Ammon said, "Force is the weapon of the weak."

and

I have seen that our best presidents were the do-nothing presidents: Millard Fillmore, Warren G. Harding. When you have a president who does things we are all in serious trouble. If he does anything
at all: if he gets up at night to go to the bathroom, somehow, mystically, trouble will ensue.

I guarantee that if I am elected, I will take over the White House, hang out, shoot pool, scratch my ass, and not do a damn thing.

Which is to say: if you want something done, don't come to me do it for you, you gotta get together and figure out how to do it yourselves. Is that a deal?

Far as my own opinions go, I'd rather have that conversation with you over a pint.

[dcltdw]

I don't actually know.

Given that, the following is largely irrelevant. But: this is lj, and presumably, you're bored, because why else are you reading it? :)

I think the problem is that modes of government don't scale. Anarchy works great with neighbors. It works terrible with nations. Federalism works great with states. It works terrible with 3 people.

To me, it's yet another way people view the world in a binary manner, when in fact, the world is not binary.

Heh.

"There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who divide people into two groups."

Oh, and did I mention that I don't actually know? Good. :)

cheers.