reasons why people say anarchism could never work

Post Reply New Topic

i often wonder why people are so bound up in the notion that anarchism could never work. i have a couple of thoughts on it.

1

an abject lack of understanding of what anarchism actually is.

if one is completely lacking in any knowledge about anarchism as a concept and simply buys the current notion peddled by the media and powers that be, that anarchism is nothing other than a complete lack of order, organisation, respect and co-operation, and is perpetuated by marauding savages whose only interest is in terrorising their neighbours and smashing things up, they might believe anarchism could never work.


2

disempowerment.

i have often thought that living under the authoritarian boot of the state for so many centuries might in fact have disempowered the populace to the point where they have absolutely no faith in themselves and others as reasonable human beings capable of harmonious co-operation and self-governance, resulting in an abject fear of freedom. i, for one, do not require an authoritarian state armed with tools of oppression to regulate me. but if one were of the belief that they cannot be trusted, lack responsibility, are incapable of behaving in a respectful and humane manner, need to be told what to do, are generally pathetic, they might believe anarchism could never work.


as penny rimbaud said, without your walls i am alive!


there are likely myriad other plausible reasons, please add on...

No two people are alike. Everyone is different. Unfortunately, not everyone is able to self regulate. If we went to anarchy, those who can't self regulate would prey upon everyone else. This is not a workable way of living. How can you maintain a survivable lifestyle, if you are the prey of others, and if you are the predator, that doesn't work, either, because you have to worry about other predators, and also, about the prey ganging up to protect themselves against you. So, Anarchy is not a workable means to civilization.

The other extreme is also unworkable. Too many rules stifles people, and their creativity. If people are under authoritarian rules they have no incentive to do their best, whether creating food, other necessities, art, etc. They are only concerned with doing what they must to survive under the regime, and to not be punished by the regime.

Civilization needs a place somewhere in between those extremes, in order to thrive, but that place is actually between the middle and Anarchy, not exactly in the middle between Anarchy and Authoritarianism. A limited amount of rules are necessary, but for the most part things work best when the government is small, and keeps out of people's way. Unfortunately, the governments around the world have all gotten too big, and are stifling the ability of their people to create, produce, and succeed.

The original concepts in the US Constitution are good, but we have strayed too far from them, and need to return to them. It set up a very limited federal government, with the rest of the powers going to the state and local governments, and to the people themselves. One of the mistakes made later on was to stop having the federal Senators be appointed by their states, and instead have them elected by the people, just like the federal Representatives. The federal Representatives are supposed to represent the people, and the federal Senators were supposed to represent the states, but now they represent the people, instead of the states, which has caused an imbalance in the balance of power between the federal government, the state government, and the people. Now the federal government has usurped too much power. There are few things that a government beaurocracy can do well, so this needs to be fixed.

Another big mistake made later on, was instituting a federal income tax. This was not in the original Constitution. This needs to be fixed, also, perhaps by a national fair sales tax. A tax on consumption would be much more fair than taxing income. Too many people are able to game the system now, and don't pay a fair amount. At the same time too many people are paying more than they should. Others aren't paying anything at all. With a national fair tax--a sales tax on almost everything, everyone would have to pay at the point of sale for new merchandise, and for services. Personal garage sales, and personal sales of used stuff in papers, and online would not be effected because the stuff is old and used, and privately (non-commercially) being sold used, so it would already have been taxed when sold new. A commercial garage seller would probably have to pay something, because they are running it as a business, but the used stuff is so cheap, the total sales tax wouldn't amount to much.

I would be in favor of exempting necessary medicines and medical devices from the national fair tax. I also think most food should be exempt from it. However, junk food and junk drinks, and alcoholic beverages should not be exempt. For the record, I do eat junk food, and am overweight, but I still feel this way. Under this system, no one would stop you from buying whatever foods you want, and can afford. You could still buy the junk stuff, too, if you want it, but would have to pay the national fair tax on it.

There are a number of other mistakes that have been made regarding our Constitutional laws over the years, but those are among the worst, that are in need of fixing. We already fixed slavery, women's sufferage, and prohibition, but we still need to fix these other things.

One more thing people. Too many people have forgotten, or were never taught that the USA is not a democracy. We are the Republic of the United States of America. Democracies have a problem with mob rule, by people who don't always understand all the ramifications of what they are supporting or not supporting. A republic has the benefits of a democracy, but also has a check against the problems of a democracy, by having people who are hopefully better informed, administrate the government, with the informed consent of the people. Unfortunately, we tend to elect people for reasons of popularity, instead of for ability, so this causes problems. Also, some of these less than capable administrators are not very big on keeping the populace informed, the better to get away with corruption in office. We need to do a whole lot more to insist on accountability from our elected officials.

I for one, don't want to live in lawless anarchy. Neither do I want to live in an authoritarian state. I am fond of history, and the best guide to civilization based on limited government I have come across is the American Constitution. It is not absolutely perfect, but it is the best in the entire world.

i think you may have missed my point. i intended this thread to be a place where people could add reasons why people say anarchism could never work. i wonder if your post might have been better placed in the "anarchism could never work" thread.

but ah never worry, i'll reply to your points anyway.

But, but....then who would regulate the evil corporations?

they wouldn't exist. the monetary system would have been abolished and capital would be held in common ownership. perfect!

How would the ban on corporations, money and private property be enforced?

well for an anarchist community to function as an anarchist community would require mutual consent. if the members of a community mutually consented to decisions made within it, it's unlikely a group of them would want to get together and set up a monetary system or a corporation. however there is much discussion of enforcement in anarchism, you should look it up.

The need to gather slaves to harvest my own coffee is the deal breaker for me.

So, it's basically tribalism?

Aren't you talking about Communism?