• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why wouldn't anarchy work?

It's like a ****ing kindergarten in here.

Nobody is forcing you to post.

"But many discussions of the Spanish Civil War overlook, minimize, or apologize for the atrocious behavior and tyrannical aspirations of perhaps the most powerful faction of the Spanish Republicans: the Anarchist movement. "

The Anarcho-Statists of Spain
 
Another futile thread. I will bow out by saying that I would hate to live in an anarchistic society.
 
Nobody is forcing you to post.

"But many discussions of the Spanish Civil War overlook, minimize, or apologize for the atrocious behavior and tyrannical aspirations of perhaps the most powerful faction of the Spanish Republicans: the Anarchist movement. "

The Anarcho-Statists of Spain

OK, you have a problem with it, so having found that, what is your analysis? I will argue that Caplan has very little interest in presenting the leftist Anarchists in a positive light (he is an Anarcho-Capitalist and has been accused of historical revisionism to support that) but, it would be quite dull for me to copy and paste a rebuttal, I have already stated my position that the collective democracy and bartering were things we could learn from, what is your problem with that?
 
OK, you have a problem with it, so having found that, what is your analysis? I will argue that Caplan has very little interest in presenting the leftist Anarchists in a positive light (he is an Anarcho-Capitalist and has been accused of historical revisionism to support that) but, it would be quite dull for me to copy and paste a rebuttal, I have already stated my position that the collective democracy and bartering were things we could learn from, what is your problem with that?
I don't have an analysis, the subject is not very interesting, I have no problem with it because I don't see any Western democracies converting to Anarcho-Capitalism any time soon.I wouldn't want to live in a bartering system, I don't have much to offer. Cheers.
 
I don't think there is anything within the definition of anarchy that precludes the use of electricity or water. I also don't think that anarchy has anything to do with the supermarket or pounding corn on the ruins of an abandoned super-highway.

Maybe some hyperbole?

My electricity company does a good job of delivering electricity to me. I wouldn't want that replaced by a bunch of anarcho-hippies voting on every decision.
 
My electricity company does a good job of delivering electricity to me. I wouldn't want that replaced by a bunch of anarcho-hippies voting on every decision.

If they are voting it's not anarchy, I'm pretty sure that falls well within the definition of another form of government.
 
If they are voting it's not anarchy, I'm pretty sure that falls well within the definition of another form of government.

That's my point. Once somebody or a committee takes a decision and tells others what to do then it would not be anarchy in the strict meaning of the word. I can't see how a truly anarchic system would work in practice and the proponents of anarchy here seem reluctant to tell me how it would function.
 
If they are voting it's not anarchy, I'm pretty sure that falls well within the definition of another form of government.

No, you are attacking a strawman, Anarchy does not mean decisions are not taken collectively.
 
No, you are attacking a strawman, Anarchy does not mean decisions are not taken collectively.

Please define exactly what you think an anarchistic society would be like and how it would function.
Debate is rather difficult when the terms are unclear by those involved
 
Please define exactly what you think an anarchistic society would be like and how it would function.

Already asked and not answered. Good luck.
 
Sorry that is just a vague post it doesn't define what you think an anarchistic society would be like and how it would function.

... I stated that I don't think that Anarchy would work but some elements of it might be possible through Socialism so you are pretty much asking the wrong person. I did however raise the example of the Catalan Anarchists and how they briefly functioned as an example. ...if you look up CNT FAI or any other reference to Catalonia during the build up to the Spanish Civil War you can learn about it.

Snark removed, apologies Quag but this equivocation with the word Anarchy is really starting to piss me off.
 
Last edited:
Snark removed, apologies Quag but this equivocation with the word Anarchy is really starting to piss me off.

an·ar·chy
noun \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\

: a situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws
Full Definition of ANARCHY
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


That seems fairly clear to me. My copy of the Shorter Oxford Dictionary says more or less the same thing.
 
... I stated that I don't think that Anarchy would work but some elements of it might be possible through Socialism so you are pretty much asking the wrong person. I did however raise the example of the Catalan Anarchists and how they briefly functioned as an example. ...if you look up CNT FAI or any other reference to Catalonia during the build up to the Spanish Civil War you can learn about it.

Snark removed, apologies Quag but this equivocation with the word Anarchy is really starting to piss me off.

Thread is about anarchy so it has to be defined for there to be any rational discussion of it.
As to Catalonia any system will work on a small scale. And any system can work for a while on a larger scale (how long depends on many factors).
I am not sure how you are considering anarchism to be functional under socialism, again vague concepts that mean little without stricter definitions.
As to Anarchism the political system without govt., it is doomed to fail as someone or some group will fill the power vacuum.

Not trying to piss you off but you seem to have a different idea of what anarchism is than others here and unless you define what you mean exactly the discussion cannot move forward.
 
That's my point. Once somebody or a committee takes a decision and tells others what to do then it would not be anarchy in the strict meaning of the word. I can't see how a truly anarchic system would work in practice and the proponents of anarchy here seem reluctant to tell me how it would function.

Seems pretty obvious doesn't it?

No, you are attacking a strawman, Anarchy does not mean decisions are not taken collectively.

Anarchy, by its very nature, is an individualistic pursuit. The whole point is to cast off the collective and any other hierarchy, such as collective decision making body.
 
Anarchy or more specifically Anarchism...

'The name given to a principle of theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of the needs and aspirations of a civilized being. In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state of its functions.' - Kropotkin
 
Anarchy or more specifically Anarchism...

'The name given to a principle of theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of the needs and aspirations of a civilized being. In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state of its functions.' - Kropotkin
He was a real dreamer, this Kropotkin. Send that definition to all publishers of dictionaries. I'm sure they will be grateful.
 
Anarchy or more specifically Anarchism...

'The name given to a principle of theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of the needs and aspirations of a civilized being. In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state of its functions.' - Kropotkin

Not really anarchy more of a socialistic commune type system and doomed to failure as it requires all members of the society to get along and settle all disputes amicably. Even without malicious intent humans get into vicious and bitter disagreements that can only be settled by an outside source. This system while not precluding 3rd party intervention in negotiation provides no means of enforcing a settlement. Now add to that people who will not negotiate in good faith and are willing to lie, cheat and steal and this is just pie in the sky dreaming.
 
I feel like I'm a little late to the conversation, but anyway. . .

I think it's a misnomer to call anarchy a system and disingenuous to say that it either would or wouldn't work. By it's very nature, it is the lack of a system. How can something that is nothing work, it's kind of like asking someone if atheism is a valid belief system. Its not that atheism isn't a valid belief system, its that it isn't any system at all. Same goes for anarchy, by its very nature it is the lack of a system.

Literally- without leader

exactly right. some posters here take anarchy as overturning the current government, at least some of their points makes me feel that way. So to make it more accurate, the basic question here is whether people need to be regulated and if yes, is the existence of government really necessary.
As a poster said before, this sort of thinking /discussion is a decent way to review and rate our government, which provides us a chance to think of some way to improve it. It's a well-known fact that more and more people are being sceptical about the government, which gives rise to a slew of conspiracies. It seems like that people are enamored with TV dramas like House of Cards, which, IMO, is an indication that people think politics is dirty and the government is not trustworthy.
 
Back
Top Bottom