I'm an anarchist.
Laurelai brought up this discussion on anarchism earlier this year. You might be able to look through her other posts for a more discussions on the topic.
Sorry, but I know people who are anarchist by heart, but all of them say that it isn't possible. It's just an ideology like communism and capitalism. They don't work, because all people are different. One could argue that there could be places dedicated to people with the same ideologies, but that wouldn't work either, because someone would get a better "lot" on the planet, and people that are very religious would still come to your country and tell you what to think.
Anarchism incorporates the idea that strict ideology doesn't work, because people have different needs in different times and places. This is pretty much the entire reason for the rejection of hierarchy: it allows individuals the freedom to implement what works for them. Check out An Anarchist FAQ, Section A.3: What types of anarchism are there?, it touches upon the idea that a single unified ideology is not a good thing.It's just an ideology [...] They don't work, because all people are different.
The Somalis may live in Chaos but they are not Anarchists. I don't think egalitarianism and the rejection of force are the central pillars of Somali life.
I am confused rejection of Ideology does not contradict the goals of an egalitarian and non-coercive society .
Considering how many non egalitarian and coercive societies we have seen in the history "egalitarian and non-coercive" sounds very idealistic to me. Idealism would sound OK to me if you would admit that these things would be a huge challenge to anarchist society. Or if you would say that it would be "somewhat egalitarian and mostly non-coercive" then the whole thing starts to seem realistic. But it would not be anarchy anymore.
For most of the life of the species all societies were thought to have been "egalitarian and non-coercive", hunter-gatherer cultures tend to be that way. It was not until the agrarian revolution the societal stratification became possible (outside of a few fishing cultures).
You need to have enough extra calories to support a non-productive class.(1) Or if you would say that it would be "somewhat egalitarian and mostly non-coercive" then the whole thing starts to seem realistic. (2) But it would not be anarchy anymore.
1 - Exactly, Equality and non-coercion are goals, choices.
2 - only if you define anarchy in a way anarchists historically don't.
I've heard there are a few different schools of thought regarding anarchy. Do you mind explaining them? I generally feel that people would be best if left to their own devices, sans government, but I also realize that this would just leave a vacuum of power that SOMEBODY would swoop in and take.
An Anarchist FAQ is a great resource for most questions you might have about anarchism. A basic idea common to all forms of anarchism is that the absence of hierarchy would maximize individual liberty and social equality. The largest difference in anarchist schools of thought is between "individualist" and "social" anarchists, though their methods and ideas are not incompatible, and it is generally acknowledged that no theory is completely ideal for every time and place. As to the idea of a power vacuum, the process of an anarchist revolution is to dismantle the institutions that make it possible for an individual or organization to "swoop in and take" control. Also consider that anarchists do not disappear after a revolution: The widespread theory and practice that brought about massive change in society would necessarily stick around to maintain the new society. Anarchists who struggled through a revolution and their children who grew up in a culture of resistance would not submit to a new ruler.
Thanks for the info! I do have a thought though. Isn't there the inherent risk that the anarchists who overthrew the status quo could themselves become the status quo? Especially if they stick around to maintain the new society, as you put it. Not to say those who fought so hard for success would become tyrants, but I could see it happening later down the line. It would be the same issue that communism has had in the past. Everyone is equal, but this guy is going to be put in charge to make sure of that. And then he collects more and more power. It started out well, but then fell apart.
The issues that communists have had in the past are rooted in what's called "vanguardism". This is essentially the idea that if a communist party gains control of the state, it can use the state machinery as an implement to conduct the revolution. Once the revolution is completed, the state would theoretically become redundant and dismantle itself. Unfortunately, hierarchical institutions are self-preserving, and generally incapable of purposefully destroying themselves. So the communist state eventually becomes self-interested and oppressive. A movement with a culture of resistance against hierarchy, and a goal of dismantling oppressive institutions rather than utilizing oppressive institutions, should not be susceptible to such failures. The AFAQ has a great section called H.5 What is vanguardism and why do anarchists reject it?Isn't there the inherent risk that the anarchists who overthrew the status quo could themselves become the status quo? [...] It would be the same issue that communism has had in the past. Everyone is equal, but this guy is going to be put in charge to make sure of that. And then he collects more and more power.
I've always appreciated the idea of an "ideal anarchy" where no single power swoops in and takes over. There's some simpsons quote homer makes about why communism doesn't work but ideally it would work, it could apply to anarchy too.