Is anarchy even possible?

[Kramerman]

anarchy is my greatest pet peeve. It is around my hatred for it that I developed my moral code.

Long live the Glory of Civilization! (both the real thing and the game )

Kman

[Inverse Icarus]

anarchy is possible, but as others said, probably not desireable.

without any form of government / laws, one or more people would probably end up rising to some form of power.

human beings tend to move towards a community, and if total anarachy was say, to be implimented across the US, i think eventually a feudal system would develop and history would repeat itself.

[Lord Merciless]

There has never been true anarchy. Humans always need some kind of authorities, it's only a matter how many people fall under these authorities.

[Graag]

anarchy=utopia

anarchy will only be possible if/when we get to a stage that people can self-police, self-regulate and help their neighbor without worrying how much it costs them.

like communism it can only work if people are selfless enough to actually want it. being an active anarchist/communist and waiting for revolution/takeover is silly. it will happen (as Marx predicted) when people are ready, and theres nothing you can do to kick-start it.

to me anarchy is communism without the state, everyone shares because they want to.

[Ramo]

Yes, anarchism is possible. Look at areas around Spain, particularly in Catalonia after their Civil War started in mid-1936. Or look at the Yucatan penninsula and areas nearby shortly after the Mexican Civil War of 1910 started. Or the Ukraine after the Russian Civil War. Or, the vast majority of pre-civilization. Or, early rural Northern US. And so forth.

[Goingonit]

You notice how anarchy is inevitably subsumed by some form of control as soon as people get their acts together?

[Ramo]

Not really. Anarchist societies have existed for far, far longer than authoritarian societes (look at hunter-gatherers). They've essentially existed since the beginning of humanity. Authoritarian societies have only had a run of several thousand years or so.

Furthermore, modern anarchist societies are usually destroyed by overwhelming external force (just as any other society would), not internal collapse.

[GePap]

Pre civilized societies are NOT anarchistict (whatever..). They have a strict set of codes which are harshly enforced, mainly dealing with sexual mores, and a set authority whos opinions carry greater wieght than anyone elses.

As for your modern exmaples, what is your definition of anarchy? Do you allow for private organizations such as the family, churches, so forth and so on? Is anarchy to you simply the absence of a public authority figure? What about a private thug with a few backers to keep eevryone else in line? is that an authoritarian system, or not?

[Ramo]

Pre civilized societies are NOT anarchistict (whatever..). They have a strict set of codes which are harshly enforced, mainly dealing with sexual mores, and a set authority whos opinions carry greater wieght than anyone elses

Not true. There are few wealth disparities in these societies, hence there aren't any such authorities. Hunter-gatherer societies are almost invariably extraordinarily democratic. If there some sort of authority the society is in transition to an agricultural society.

Can you give me a source on "sexual mores?" I've never heard of this before.

As for your modern exmaples, what is your definition of anarchy?

There are many definitions of anarchism. I can't give you only one. In general, an anarchist society minimizes private and public authority.

The principle modern examples are the CNT in Catalonia, the Zapatistas in Southern Mexico, and the Makhnovists of the Ukraine.

Do you allow for private organizations such as the family, churches, so forth and so on?

Yes.

[qutoe] Is anarchy to you simply the absence of a public authority figure? What about a private thug with a few backers to keep eevryone else in line? is that an authoritarian system, or not?[/quote]

That's authoritarian.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Arrian
The question is: is it desirable?

Hobbes was enough to put me off of the concept for a domestic level.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ramo, you are incorrect. Hunter-gather societies had a semi-heirarchical set up. There was usually a leader to the pack. For example take a look at hunter-gatherer Amerindian tribes. They all had a chief. In some societies he may not have had that much power, but he was in charge.

[Ramo]

Which ones are you referring to in particular? Amerindian societies tended to participate in plant/animal domestication to at least some extent.

[GePap]

Ramo:

When I speak of sexual mores I speak of issues such as matrimony, whether a society is monogamous, polygamous, practices polyandry, things of that sort.

As for the hierarchical realities of pre-civilized societies, if you can, go to Jstor (ie, have access to a university system) and read up the anthro papers. The notion of anarchist utopias existing before are, well, not widespread.

[Ramo]

When I speak of sexual mores I speak of issues such as matrimony, whether a society is monogamous, polygamous, practices polyandry, things of that sort.

You'll have to be more specific. Are you saying adultery in h-g societies is punished? Source?

As for the hierarchical realities of pre-civilized societies, if you can, go to Jstor (ie, have access to a university system) and read up the anthro papers. The notion of anarchist utopias existing before are, well, not widespread.

I have read anthro articles from Jstor (not lately, I don't have access to it any more after switch ISP's from the uni one), and societies such as the Inuit and the !Kung are extremely anti-authoritarian.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Graag
anarchy=utopia

anarchy will only be possible if/when we get to a stage that people can self-police, self-regulate and help their neighbor without worrying how much it costs them.

like communism it can only work if people are selfless enough to actually want it. being an active anarchist/communist and waiting for revolution/takeover is silly. it will happen (as Marx predicted) when people are ready, and theres nothing you can do to kick-start it.

to me anarchy is communism without the state, everyone shares because they want to.

I honestly dont think humanity will ever do this, at least, from my definition of anarchy. Humans are inherently a social species, and it is very hard to have a working society without codes, rules, laws, or whatever, written or not, because their will always be those murderers and thieves who could do what they will with no repercussions. I just dont see this happening because the people want it, and it remaining for long. Why would people want this?