reasons why people say anarchism could never work

Post Reply New Topic

I labelled the formulations of anarchism that I've seen, not Noam Chomsky. I always like to be sufficiently specific.

'Communism rejects authority'... but you said 'no individual has the right to coerce another' and 'anarchism generally holds that a set of rules...' and 'capital would be held in common ownership'. Those all imply an authority to stop unwanted things happening.

Also, ACTUAL HISTORY, where Communism didn't work because the regulators weren't autistic so considered themselves a privileged class. How do you argue against actual history that shows the failings of a system designed to control human nature?

Oh right it hasn't been tried yet. Or maybe it was tried plenty of times and left a power vacuum for the state to fill.

Regulators aren't corrupt because society conditioned them. They're corrupt because they're nonautistic humans. They'll always be selfish, shortsighted, petty and spiteful.

Only way it would work is with a single powerful (autistic) ruler. A Hitler figure, if you will.

The State is nothing else but this domination and exploitation regularised and systemised. We shall attempt to demonstrate it by examining the consequence of the government of the masses of the people by a minority, at first as intelligent and as devoted as you like, in an ideal State, founded on a free contract.

Suppose the government to be confined only to the best citizens. At first these citizens are privileged not by right, but by fact. They have been elected by the people because they are the most intelligent, clever, wise, and courageous and devoted. Taken from the mass of the citizens, who are regarded as all equal, they do not yet form a class apart, but a group of men privileged only by nature and for that reason singled ouit for election by the people. Their number is necessarily very limited, for in all times and countries the number of men endowed with qualities so remarkable that they automatically command the unanimous respect of a nation is, as experience teaches us, very small. Therefore, under pain of making a bad choice, the people will always be forced to choose its rulers from amongst them.

Here, then, is society divided into two categories, if not yet to say two classes, of which one, composed of the immense majority of the citizens, submits freely to the government of its elected leaders, the other, formed of a small number of privileged natures, recognised and accepted as such by the people, and charged by them to govern them. Dependent on popular election, they are at first distinguished from the mass of the citizens only by the very qualities which recommended them to their choice and are naturally, the most devoted and useful of all. They do not yet assume to themselves any privilege, any particular right, except that of exercising, insofar as the people wish it, the special functions with which they have been charged. For the rest, by their manner of life, by the conditions and means of their existence, they do not separate themselves in any way from all the others, so that a perfect equality continues to reign among all. Can this equality be long maintained? We claim that it cannot and nothing is easier to prive it.

Nothing is more dangerous for man's private morality than the habit of command. The best man, the most intelligent, disinterested, generous, pure, will infallibly and always be spoiled at this trade. Two sentiments inherent in power never fail to produce this demoralisation; they are: contempt for the masses and the overestimation of one's own merits.

You are correct, but the issue is that Communism will always fall to human nature. It is hard-coded in to the majority to be better than others, the competitive drive.

It's a crying shame, because aside from that Communism is an amazing system that could achieve so much, if it wasn't for human beings.

It can't work because of human nature and mental illnesses such as sociopathy and schizophrenia.
I once thought that a similar philosophy may work but then I grew up. Anarchy is noting more than a Utopian dream that can never work because of human nature.

If it ever would work then many people would die in the process of achieving anarchy. That would mean a bloody world revolution.
It would be impossible to have an anarchist nation without the participation of the entire world.

the existence of states predicates the existence of antagonism between states and subsequently perpetual war.

Yes, and if you have a few large states you can insulate most people from the fighting. With small communities you can't do that. With larger communities you're soon talking about the current system.

but the absence of states doesn't imply insular small communities. networks between small communities can forge links on a larger scale.

Why do you think that wouldn't lead to the current system?

but the absence of states doesn't imply insular small communities. networks between small communities can forge links on a larger scale.

and the sociopathy/psychopathy issue was cleared up in the other thread. less than 0.6% of the population wouldn't ever be able to hold the rest to tyranny in mutual, co-operative self-governing society.

But a much bigger issue in this context is narcissism, which is rampant in both politics and the upper corporate hierarchy. Two interesting links on this subject:

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/narcissism.htm - Narcissistic people most likely to emerge as leaders
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evo ... n-politics

Lol, would? That is the current sytem.

Lol, links like counties, states, and then...gasp....federal government.

San Francisco needs something they can only get from Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh needs something they can only get from Houston or Dallas, Houston or Dallas need something directly from Montana. Without a secure highway system, a paid for (somehow) set of interstate infrastructure, they simply do without. Highway bandits would be a problem as well with no consistency in patrol.