Quote Originally Posted by ermitonto
The structure is decided by the people themselves, in a truly democratic manner. The experiences of the thousands of anarchist collectives during the Spanish Civil War show that these principles can be used to organize a modern society on a mass scale, without people telling others how to go about things. Consequences for "right" and "wrong" actions would not be obsolete. People wouldn't be allowed to just go out killing and raping, as many people assume. We know that thousands of cultures have successfully lived without government or hierarchy and have still been able to bring murderers and rapists to justice.
So the idea is to create a whole new government, then? But call it something else, maybe? Like "Managers".

Or is it like if someone is accused of raping someone or something, then the people will have to go to the polls and decide his fate? How would he be determined guilty or innocent of the crime? Would he be entitled to a fair trial? Who would pay for it?

And what does "justice" in this kind of society without a gov't mean?

It's not just government that anarchists are opposed to. Power and hierarchy structures run a lot deeper than the state. Social psychologists have known for years that the best determining factor for whether someone becomes a violent criminal is whether they were subjected to authoritarian parenting techniques. The next factor is probably poverty, which is a result of the class structure of our society, a direct result of capitalism, another system of hierarchy and domination.
Well, in response I ask this:

Which is less fair -

Being poor and without power while other people are rich and with power? In a society where you too can attain power and riches...

Or

Working harder and/or being more educated than your peers and recieving no greater benefit for it?

And as far as violent criminals being exposed to an authoritarian parental structure, if thats the case it was probably viewed more as abuse, not a result just from imposing some authority on somebody.

Its not the poverty itself that makes people violent criminals. Its basically comes down to how they were raised or if they were raised at all. People from poverty who stay in poverty in this country, in this day and age, there's a reason for it...like drug addiction, alcoholism, depression, being uneducated (big one!) and not having any guidance from strong, positive adult influences to teach these people they can be more, that they are more, and (probably the most significant factor) plain old fashioned lazyness. To get more it just takes: WORK.


If people don't really care for others, it is because current societal conditions try to atomize society. Capitalism, for instance, instills the idea that everybody is in competition with each other, that society is nothing but a conglomeration of individuals glued together for the hell of it. But there is undeniably a human tendency for mutual aid. Humans are social creatures. We need each other to survive and be happy, and we have been successfully helping each other to do this for millions of years. That's why society exists in the first place. In the absence of atomizing social conditions, people band together to ensure mutual happiness.
I honestly dont see how thats not prevalent in society today.

We care for people in that "if you meet me halfway, I'll meet you halfway" fashion but we aren't going to cater to the needs of opportunists, the lazy, the dependant, and the unmotivated, while working our asses off only to be considered the same. It doesn't serve them and it surly doesn't serve us as a society. I think as a society we cooperate quite well, and the violent criminals who choose the path they have show that they chose not to cooperate with the people and standards of our society. And I pay my government to take care of people like him who choose not to participate in the making of a greater life for all of us, and instead chooses to behave irresponsibly at the expense of society's well-being. He doesnt deserve riches if he wont cooperate, and I dont feel sorry for him. Just like I dont feel sorry for those who are perfectly able to advance in this world, but chooses not to, but then bellyache over how unfair life is because he's afraid of change and growth. Why should I take care of him? Why should I pick up the slack for him and be considered the same value as he is? Why should anyone be expected to? Why would anyone want to? How could anyone possibly expect the people to do that and not be resentful?

And if human nature really is to not care about your fellow man, then what sense does it make to put such non-caring people into positions of power?
Oh, but I didnt say that people are uncaring, I said there are people who dont care. The people in power are there to keep those who dont care and those who wish not to cooperate out of the peaceful society we work hard to keep that way every day. Which is why the uneducated and the unmotivated dont get the cushy jobs. Which is why the criminals get to go to prison instead of bothering me and my fellow citizens and risk putting the system of striving for happiness out of balance.



Under anarchism, which is a form of socialism, all the means of production and the means of living would be shared by all members of society, instead of concentrated into the hands of a rich elite.
That sounds fair to the people who put their blood, sweat and tears into getting it to work as a functioning system in the first place.

The rich are rich for a reason. I do not believe the rich should be classified as undeserving assholes who's families never worked hard for what they have.


For instance, there is enough food in the world to feed everybody, but since that food is concentrated into the hands of self-serving capitalist corporations, enough grain to solve the African famine crisis is destroyed every year just to inflate food prices and ensure further concentration of wealth into the hands of corporations. Without capitalism, this would not happen.
Of course I disagree with something like that, but I dont believe that is the heart of capitalism by any means.

Competition serves the interests of those in power by making the dominated classes easier to dominate. The more divisions can be created among the dominated, the harder it is for them to band together to oppose the interests of the elite. The more non-essential issues you can get them to quabble over, the more distracted they will become from the real issues, like the fact that all corporate profits come from exploitation (workers never get the full wealth of their labor in return; a certain amount is always expropriated by the capitalists who own the means of production and do little productive work themselves).
Well, I definitely have my opinion of how poorly corporations compensate the working man, but again, its also incentive to go for more in this life. Those without the drive for more are those who dont recieve more.

Again, our society punishes those with a lack of ambition, not those that are poor.

Competition is essential for power systems to exist in the first place. If society were based on cooperation rather than competition, there would be no motive to dominate over others, since all problems could be solved according to the principles of egalitarianism and mutual aid.
It would be really great if we all could cooperate. But I dont believe all problems can be solved through cooperation. Some people (especially if they think they're right) are unwilling to cooperate, unwilling to budge, unwilling to listen. If there's nothing that serves us monetarily to cooperate, and there's little threat for not cooperating...then how can we possibly expect that there would be cooperation?


Not just government, but hierarchy and power systems in general. Children grow up being told to cooperate, to share, to be kind to their fellow man. But when they get into the real world of the state, of capitalism, of militaries, of sexual inequality, of domination and competition, and are constantly told that eliminating these things is just something that can't be done, they become alienated and bitter.
Im finding it very difficult to see/believe the correlation. Im finding it difficult to see how cooperating in this society with rules, with classes, with government, and with corporations, is somehow tied into that we do a disservice to the people. Im still not really seeing it.

Not everybody has to be smart and make good decisions all the time for a society based on cooperation and mutual aid to work. People make bad choices, that's part of life, but what sense does it make to put them into positions where they have the authority to force those decisions on others?
Anarchism isn't some intangible ideal that exists only in the minds of idealists. Anarchist societies have existed successfully before. It was the only form of social organization for most of human history. And even in modern times, there have been large-scale anarchist societies which have endured for years, such as those in the Spanish Civil War and in the Ukraine during the Russian Revolution. And they didn't degenerate into immoral cespools of chaos and apathy. Quite the contrary; people actually organized themselves along the lines of egalitarianism and mutual aid, and were able to run industries and communities with surprising efficiency. That's all the proof that's needed to show it isn't impossible.
Im not saying its not impossible, Im saying it doesnt sound like the system that would best serve the people. How is what you all decide as a society enforced for those unwilling to cooperate? Who pays for the enforcement? How is it not creating government and ultimately giving power to the government... and how is it not asking for anarchy if what you as people decide has no enforcement? Is this an eye for an eye, take matters into your own hands and create your own justice kind of society?

I guess Im just not getting it.