Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.


0 votes
Will they be resolved autonomously and without any reference to anything resembling a government or laws?

Assuming the answer to this is yes, will there be anything resembling a government or set of laws to keep said government/set of laws from taking place?

And finally, what if individuals are NOT able to solve conflicts autonomously?
by (310 points)

2 Answers

0 votes
I think there probably will be something vaguely akin to government in most places, but each community should be able to self-determinate and figure out what that is on their own. I would prefer the state be replaced by decentralized federations of labor unions, which would likely create some democratic system of law, but others would say even that violates individual rights, or that it is too similar to soviet councils and so would become heirarchal, etc.

I don't really agree but I see their point.

My fear is that without some structure social Darwinism and so called anCap bullshit will take over, and then disputes will resolve by whoever has the most guns much like they always have.

In other words?

No one will agree on the answer to that question, and even if we could no one really knows since anarchy has never existed on a large scale in the modern world. We can extrapolate based on anarchist communities, maybe, but a lot of them don't identify as anarchists and it's kind of a colonialist mind-set to assign that label to them ourselves.
by (370 points)
edited by
+2 votes
edit: to answer your first and second questions: yes

an anarchist situation by definition means that conflicts are resolved without a government or laws. whether something "resembles" something or not would need to be fleshed out, because it is a source of contention among anarchists--whether, for example, a murray bookchin-esque scenario, or a michael albert/parecon one (etc)  is government-like enough to not count as anarchist. underlying that is the conflict about what are the foundations of how we got here (for example different definitions of power, among other things).

you're posing individuals (in your last question) against what, communities? i'm not sure i understand the question--but i would say that people/communities are always able to resolve conflicts autonomously, although the resolution might be terrible. but those of us who don't think that anarchy is about utopia aren't expecting things to be nice all the time...
by (53.1k points)
edited by
i like this answer, particularly the point that anarchy does NOT equal utopia or lack of violence or everybody just getting along or what have you. people are way to disparate in their ideas, desires, priorities, etc.

trying to coerce everyone into one common set of ideas/principles/whatever is a major cause of the nightmare that surrounds us. as soon as anyone - particularly any self-proclaimed anarchist - claims to know (or be looking for) the one right way for everyone to live, they have clearly identified themselves as... if not necessarily an enemy, for sure not my ally.
To add, anyone who suggests every anarchist community should be structured according to the same set of ideals doesn't understand how culture works. What functions in one place won't in another. Insisting the same principles can apply to all peoples is highly ethnocentric.
@Denver: I think you're missing the point...anarchy, at least in my mind, is a state of relations that is relatively devoid of ideas. When one starts talking about imposing a counsel, democracy, ect, they are talking about putting a permanent structure above the needs of the individuals involved. People who teach history often phrase things with the word "we" when talking about governments, but states are never agreed upon collectively, they develop out of previous hierarchical forms of organization.

nicely put, nihilist.

although i think there are anarchists who see anarchy as a positive, ie the presence of things (egalitarianism, sexual liberation, etc etc), you have nicely articulated a bias of this site for sure, which is to see anarchy as an absence (of coercion, ideology, capitalism, church, bureaucracy, etc).

Anarchy won't be this absence of ideology if it is ever realized, though. It will express itself radically differently in each culture. As it should. Even if another culture doesn't keep to anarchist precepts it's not my business, really.

we could be saying roughly the same thing, D332. what i'm calling a lack of ideology, you're saying as It will express itself radically differently in each culture. As it should. Even if another culture doesn't keep to anarchist precepts...

at least i think that's true?

but maybe we totally disagree and i'm just tired. ;)

You might be right, it might be we are reaching similar conclusions but our mental approach and vocabulary is different?

there is a philip k. dick short story called the last of the masters that is an interesting read along these lines.