Quote Originally Posted by Ousted
I think its a nice ideal, but there's several issues Im having difficulty with, maybe you can enlighten me...

1. "Anarchy." I hate the name. I think people who hear the terms "anarchy" "anarchists" "anarchism" automatically hates it as well given the universal definition. Even if your definition is different than everyone else's it has a negative association with it, like chaos and destruction and disorder, and "anarchy" is used commonly today to define the very negative words you say it doesnt represent. And I dont think it'll be a term that'll have your proper definition attatched to it that'll be widely accepted anytime in my lifetime given how it is percieved by the majority today.
Yeah, that's a problem that's been plaguing the anarchist movement for quite some time. But no matter what we call it, people somehow assume that not having people dominating other people will result in chaos and destruction. Some people have tried calling it something else to distance themselves from the negative connotations this word has in the public mind. Most of these people have called themselves "libertarians", a word used by anarchists for over 150 years, but this word has recently been stolen by the Libertarian Party and other capitalist minarchists, so that doesn't really accurately describe us anymore. It would be great if there were an unambiguous term for the idea, but I find it is most convenient to just call it anarchism, the word that has been used by the strongest proponents of this ideal in the past.

And I agree that it's highly unlikely that it will ever be attained in our lifetimes. But we can move ever closer to it, in the hopes that future generations might be able to experience the freedoms that we don't have. As Errico Malatesta put it, "the subject is not whether we accomplish Anarchism today, tomorrow, or within ten centuries, but that we walk towards Anarchism today, tomorrow, and always."

2. Who decides the structure? Who enforces it? What motive do people have to keep structure (especially people who simply don't care about others, and there are many, and they will exist even in an anarchist society), what motive do people have to not be more lax about right and wrong since consequences seem obsolete?
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 what this is saying is that the reason people misbehave is because of the government's control and lack of validation of their citizens?
Yeah, I dont think so. I do agree that people can become angry, cynical, and violent when they feel unheard or misunderstood, but those feelings dont just arise from government control. Those feelings can be prevalent among their peers, their family members, their community(and are mostly stemmed from those influences). Absense of government isnt going to erase how important or unimportant a citizen finds himself to be any in his world. Except now it sounds like there's no regulation if he reacts to being invalidated.
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.

Are they aware, though really? Do you really, honestly believe people, for the most part, are "aware" of others?

I dont. People are barely aware of themselves let alone other people. And I dont think the government holds much (if any) responsibility for that, either.
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.

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?

What should we be sharing in the real world that we are not? And were we taught as children to share everything of ourselves with everybody? I dont really think this sharing aspect of the anarchist argument makes much sense as Im seeing it here.
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. 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.

Again, Im not really understanding. Are anarchists for communism as well? If so, then this statement makes perfect sense.
Yes. Anarchism implies opposition to all systems of hierarchy and power, the main two being capitalism and the state.
But why do you think society encourages the behavior? Why do you feel that those in power do not deserve to be compensated for instilling drive, want, inspiration, and self respect among the people? How does encouraging people to be competative, educated, and driven help those in power? If they were really about control of the people you and I both know they wouldn't encourage us at all. These coroperations didnt just land here like an alien invasion, anal probing the people and conquering the planet. There's a lot of history behind most of the corperations, and often they started with humble beginnings. What you're proposing is a limitation of one's ability to be great and do great. When people feel limited, or like there is only so far they can go, or only so much they can achieve, and it doesnt really matter anyway cuz you'll be equals with every dipshit from your community. What do you think a person's drive will be then? "Why bother" would probably be mine if those limitations were placed on me. Maybe Im missing something, please correct me if Im not interpreting this right.
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).

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.

You really think its because of the government?
I think this is stretching a little bit now...
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.

Sure, if it actually worked out that way, which as it stands right now I dont believe it would. If everyone were as smart as you, ermitonto, and has the understanding and awareness that you have...this ideal sounds really really great. But you know thats not the case. People make bad choices all the time, even in our society with government regulation and law enforcement,
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?

and even then you'd think the people had never even heard the word "government" before, or "consequences" before, thats how dumb, uneducated, unmotivated, self-absorbed, and senseless a large group of people are, and thats WITH societies influence to be competative. And these people breed the most. I want to be protected from the likes of them, Im not willing to put myself and my loved one's on the line and "trust" them, and "trust" that they are "aware" of right and wrong, or that they actually care, and I dont want to be considered equal to them no matter how nice and sweet that may sound either, because Im not, and neither are you.

Again, if I got this all wrong, which could be a definite possibility, please please correct me and enlighten me.
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.