Is Anarchic Society Even Possible? Does it work?

Lif3r

A government doesn't have to be created for people to become leaders. It happens naturally. All you need to see this is a group of people. Some people bully their way to that position, and some arrive there fairly with good intentions. It just depends on the individuals and whether or not they will be swayed by whatever circumstance. So is "true anarchy" even possible when we consider the fact that leadership roles are naturally occurring and naturally filled by individuals? Isn't there a difference between anarchy and revolution? Some people I speak with seem to be under the impression that we should abolish government altogether and adopt anarchic principles to become self governing individuals. I don't see how we could possibly avoid leadership eventually coming to surface. So I ask, is there any feasible way to impliment anarchic principles into society in a way that won't completely backfire onto the society as a whole and in a way that will last and bring fairness? I don't think there is.

On a side note... Not really sure where to put this:

Hatred and fear are really easy emotions to stir in people, and so leaders often use fear and hatred to lead. Some use love. Some think they are using love but are actually leading with fear. It's a convoluted mess. I believe issues we see as a result boil down to the human psyche and it's occasional nature of explioting their fellow person for their own gain, sometimes out of greed, perpetuated by poverty, governed by jealousy, lead by fear. Fear of powerlessness. Fear of inadequacy. Fear of mortality.

MindForged

Oh it's surely possible. But maintaining it for more than a trivial amount of time? Doubt it, every time anarchists take over they fail (Catalonia anarchism was the longest and that was, what, three years?). And even when they last more than a few months, they still set up a government. It's why I can't take anarchists seriously whereas I feel I can actually talk to Marxists and debate them outside of hypotheticals they don't have any substantial basis for. They had something substantial to point to (half the globe) so it doesn't come across very "And this would definitely happen".

/Needless potshots.

BC

↪Lif3r

"Leadership" isn't inimical to the concept of anarchy; it's the " hierarch", the sacred ruler; the "arkhos" or king, ruler that is the problem. Eliminating the institutionalization of rule, government, that is the goal. An anarchic society would still require leadership, organizations, and institutions (but not ones that rule).

Catalonia anarchism was the longest and that was, what, three years? — MindForged

Yes, but it wasn't as if Catalonia was being left to pursue its own destiny without outside interference. Catalonia didn't shoot itself, it was murdered.

Ursula LeGuin wrote a short story (I read it in the collection "The Wind's Twelve Quarters") about Odo, a political philosopher who inspired people to build an anarchist society. The society is further explicated in her science fiction novel, The Dispossessed. There is, of course, a science fiction story along with the political philosophy. It's quite good.

There is nothing about anarchism that makes it impossible, any more than there is nothing about socialism or capitalism that prevents it from being a perfectly marvelous way of life. What gets in the way of politics, economy, and religion is the reliable nature of human beings. We just find it very difficult to suppress our individual urges, anxieties, hatreds, and selfishness so that we can get on with life in a maximally peaceful and productive way. We do OK for a while, but then individually and collectively people go haywire and everything falls apart.

_db

Not with the population we have, the goals we aspire for and the values we uphold. It might be too late.

Terrapin Station

I don't believe it's possible with people that are anything like real, contemporary people.

Some people would always organize and take some control via force, to enforce either doing or not doing some behavior that others wouldn't/would choose to do on their own. And as soon as that happens, you effectively have some government.

For example, there are going to be some people who would choose to murder, rape etc. others. Well, obviously there are going to be people who don't like that, and there will be people who organize and attempt to police murdering and raping --via organized action, they try to prevent or stop it, or at least they try to find and punish perpetrators after the fact. As soon as that's the case, you effectively have some government.

Any organized control via force is effectively government, and I might even say that any organized control merely by social pressure is effectively government.

Harry Hindu

"Anarchic society" is an oxymoron.

There is no such thing as a "leader" in an anarchy. If a leader rises, then it is no longer an anarchy, but some form of despotism.

Lif3r

↪Bitter Crank

Your second part sort of fits the second part of the op. I felt like the concepts were related, but for some reason I can't seem to quite put government and this "fear/hatred" concept that we have described together. I feel like we basically agree on the problem, and to be honest it seems pretty obvious, but I don't see a solution.

Lif3r

↪Harry Hindu

See... That's my line of thought as well.

I'm still not really convinced that Anarchy could ever last. Perhaps people could be self governed if they didn't have to speak with each other at all?

I'm under the impression that the first human conversation was likely an argument, and that an argument will probably be our last. Ha.

Lif3r

Is anyone making an anti asshole serum? It's honestly the only solution I can think of. Psychedelics made me want to be less of an asshole. Think there's anything to that? What if they are administered in professional therapy environments? Perhaps I am out of line here for suggesting it, but realistically I have personally witnessed an overwhelming desire to strive for Homosapien harmony as a result of taking them. I can only imagine how mich more useful of tools they could have been if I wasn't just taking them recreationally, and instead took them with prescription and guidance.

I'm just gonna ramble sometimes everybody. If it isn't interesting or intelligent enough for ya then oh well.

Lif3r

So here is why I bring this up...

Many people of the new generation are under the impression that we should ignore election altogether. They all just want to say "Duck the government altogether. I don't support it, so I'm just not going to participate at all."

This seems to be an Anarchic principle. Many times people who propose this will even state that they advocate Anarchy in the face of our current government because they feel that they should be completely free and devoid of leadership or laws.

Like we have said.. In principle it would be great, so long as people took to it with specific ideals that make the principle work, but it is the same with any government or lack there of, eventually these ideals are exploited.

My problem is that people don't realize this. It isn't "no government" that we should be considering. It's "new government" or "new universal perspective" or a combination of those that we need to consider. We are stuck in a loop, and we all know what is going to happen once we hit the peak of that loop. It's history. So how do we create something that will reset the course of history without completely self destructing? What is the way to have a smooth transition from one form of government to another? What is a new idea that can be implimented for a more fair society? We have already tried out a handful of different governments and they all seem to result in the same thing no matter what we do.

Terrapin Station

Many times people who propose this will even state that they advocate Anarchy in the face of our current government because they feel that they should be completely free and devoid of leadership or laws. — Lif3r

Could you give some examples of this?

Lif3r

↪Terrapin Station

I mean... Not without quoting people who have said it. Lol

Maybe i dont understand what you are referring to.

Terrapin Station

Maybe i dont understand what you are referring to. — Lif3r

Yeah, that's basically what I'm asking for. I was curious to look at some examples of people saying that.

Lif3r

↪Terrapin Station

Sorry I can't help you there. Not my place to share people's business in that way. I'm just saying I have had multiple conversations with people who say this. Pretty much most of my life to be honest. Ask people who don't vote why they don't vote.

MindForged

Yes, but it wasn't as if Catalonia was being left to pursue its own destiny without outside interference. Catalonia didn't shoot itself, it was murdered. — Bitter Crank

This just proves my point. If they can't defend themselves because the ability to do so requires setting up "unjust" hierarchies then it just shows their ideology is useless because it has no built in justification for defending the structure it needs. I'm no Marxist but they don't get the pass of "Well the U.S. was making a concerted effort to discredit and destroy socialism. It's not fair, let us do it unfettered by the reality of opposing forces". In many ways, anarchists have a rosy, ahistorical understanding of their own history a lot of time. Catalonian anarchists set up a state because they knew it was required for a time, and even then they were destroyed by the fascists.

I didn't say it was impossible to start an anarchist society (or the precursor to one). The Catalonian example was a type of socialism, no doubt about it. But the ideology they possessed (among other things) was a hindrance to maintaining it, I'd argue.

Terrapin Station

↪Lif3r

I don't vote sometimes. In my case it has nothing to do with anarchy. At any rate, so we don't know of any public examples re people making the comments about anarchy you mentioned?

Lif3r

↪Terrapin Station

apparently you don't. No offense.

Terrapin Station

↪Lif3r

Sure, but don't you? You can't share anything that's already published/not just private communication?

BC

Many people of the new generation are under the impression that we should ignore elections altogether. — Lif3r

There is some justification for ignoring elections not voting, The two political parties are not vastly different; politicians may promise X, Y, and Z. Some of them would like to deliver; some have no intention whatsoever of delivering. Those who promise and wish to deliver may be prevented from delivering. Neither party is interested in reducing defense spending; neither party is in favor of doing more to manage capitalism than to rearrange the deck chairs on the titanic. Neither party is prepared to lead people into the radical changes need to deflect catastrophic climate change. By necessity, people who run for office need wealthy friends to pay the high cost of campaigning. Elected politicians do not have vast resources to produce elaborate legislation so they rely on lobbyists who do have such capacity. So on and so forth.

So, for those reasons and more no significant change comes from government.

Still, people can not ignore government, whether it is effective or not. The government can demand your service in war. The government does demand a significant share of your income. The government provides many essential and useful services. A small part of the government is political and it comes and goes. A much larger part is "the permanent government" -- the civil servants who are on duty year in year out.

Lif3r

↪Terrapin Station

Nope.

Lif3r

↪Terrapin Station

Too touchy of a subject. This is why I have a handle and not a name. Sure the ideas have been public online, but not public in a sense of published articles for everyone. In other words, no, I'm not going to cite anarchists. Sorry. I'm sure there is a website full of them.

Is Anarchic Society Even Possible? Does it work?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions