Anarchism

A number of individuals seem to enjoy attacking anarchy,
libertarianism, and the free market in general, but few that I have seen thus far seem to have a great deal of information on any of the above. In defense of a few of these concepts, then, I feel compelled to say a few things.

What anarchy is, and is not:
Anarchy is a class of social interaction systems without a centralized
coercive control.
Anarchy does NOT mean no rules, it means no ruler.
Anarchy is not one particular system of social interaction; there are as many types of anarchy as there are types of governments. Likewise, anarchy is not of necessity a utopian ideal (one would do just as well to say that government per se is a utopian ideal). Before you attempt to attack anarchy, you would do well to know what you are attacking.



Libertarianism:

Libertarianism, as it is generally defined by Libertarians (not
necessarily those in the political party which bears the "Libertarian" name), is
a system of ethics (rules for social interaction) based on the premise that it is
wrong to initiate force or fraud. Keep in mind that, if one is attacked, one is,
under the Libertarian ethic, free to respond with force or fraud as the situation warrants.



Objectivism:

(Here I'm using it in the Randian sense.) This is an egoist philosophy
which holds that one should both attempt to maintain an understanding of
objective reality (it assumes that there is such an animal) and act so as to
maximize one's long-term benefits within it.



The Market:

In the New Libertarian Manifesto (forgive me, I forget the author's
name), the market, or agora, is defined to be all non-coerced interactions. This covers a LOT of territory. Most Libertarians use the Market as a fairly generic term, and when they talk about the benefits of the market, they usually mean the benefits of uncoerced behavior. (For those who don't see the connection between the normal definition and Libertarian definition of market, read the Manifesto. There are very good reasons for it, but they are far too long to repeat here.)

I heard someone make the rather ridiculous statement that anarchy and Libertarianism were incompatible. I say rather that the two cannot be seperated.
ALL government (government being defined as a monopolist of law who weilds a coercive force in order to maintain its monopoly power within a given region) represents an initiation of force (governments that deny this are initiating fraud as well). If this is so, then no true Libertarian can be anything other than an anarchist! As for Objectivism, there is some tension between it and Libertarianism. If one is an Objectivist Libertarian, one is so because one believes Libertarian ideals to be in one's best interests. Libertarianism in no way implies Randian Objectivism, so one cannot discount the former by attacking the latter.
This post in and of itself does not constitute a true defense of any of the above terms. It does, however, contain definitions which are important for any rational discussion of anarchy or Libertarianism.
If you think "pure communism" (whatever that is!) has ignored human
psychology you are obviously ignorant of the volumes and volumes of writing
done by Marxists, post Marxists, Existentialist Marxists, Anarchists, and
what not on this subject. The very driving 'force' behind communism has been its desire and logic for a world without man preying on another man
simply for the sake of material goods. MAN IS NOT NATURALLY GREEDY; Man is naturally self-interested. There is a difference.
It is becoming clear that the bulk of what has been referred to as
socialism up to now is in fact nothing of the sort. The vast bulk
of the theory and practise of the last 70 years needs to be thrown
in the bin. Unfortunately most of the Leninist groups are avoiding
such an exercise preparing instead to do a botched plastering job
over the appearing cracks. They have chosen to follow the same
paths as the Communist parties did and will probably suffer a
similar fate.
The vast bulk of those leaving the Leninist and labour parties are
just disappearing from any form of politics or activism. The few
who are trying to continue the anti-capitalist fight in a new way
are making old mistakes. For the most part rather then seeing their
version of socialism as flawed they have come to see capitalism as
triumphant. There is a tradition however which refused to see
socialism as something being imposed by a minority wielding state
power on behalf of a majority. The tradition of anarchism always
rejected both the crude authoritarianism of Leninism and the
reformism of the labour parties.
It is for this reason that we call ourselves anarchists. Anarchism
as a tradition is no doubt flawed, at times even badly flawed but it
has always been better than any of the alternatives on offer.
What's more, it has been capable of the sort of fierce self-
criticism needed to continually develop. Throughout the last 120
years it has always been the anarchist (or a sub-group of
anarchists) that has developed the best position on the events of
the day. Most importantly anarchism unlike reformism, Leninism and
Trotskyism has never imposed dictatorship and massacre on the
working class.



Tell me your thoughts on Anarchism, and the like.

[Angantyr]

I found that quite hard to read but anyway when I was 16 I had a few Anarchist friends I use to spend a lot of time with. At the time I was quite ignorant and to this day I am of the subject. Anyway I personally do not think Anarchy would work, though the "leader" does not always do what we wish, it is important to keep the structure stable. But in saying that I feel that we do partly need to let go of the Goverments tits.

The ruling elite does indeed have too much control over what we do with our lives even to the extent that they try and control our thoughts on the matter. Anarchism however is not the way to go through it, nor is Communism or Libertarianism.

All have their postive and negative ideals but truely too much would only lead to Disaster. I personally think that National Socialism is what we should strive for, people will differ in this due to the fact it was part of the NAZI's but remains true to how I feel. Democracy is also another option that unfortunatly never works, I would like to personally see it happen but it will ultimately end up in disaster.

[Secret Azn Man]

Personally, Anarchy only works in small societies. I'm talking small, like a group of 100 or so independent household that requires no major infrastructures. Any group bigger will require division of class, specific roles, and a smaller group to coordinate it all.

There is a reason why we evolved from a single-cell organism into an elaborate, huge colony of cells divided into specialties and class. There is a reason why ants and bee colonies exists with different classes with a queen running the colony. There's a reason why wolves hunting in packs have assigned specific rules and an alpha to lead and coordinate.

Frankly, in nature, our society, our corporations, it is clearly an advantage to have a tiered, hierarchal, structure of order to control a large group in an efficient manner.