Would an Anarchist Society Have a Legal System?

[Cid]

Ah, so you're talking about a coulple of hundred years in the future, I guess.

Why? mass social change doesn't have to take a long time... Personally I'd say a direct revolution would be a pretty terrible idea in the modern world, but a gradually decentralising democracy is more realistic.

Newbie; disaffection tends to come from poverty, a lack of ability to influence what goes on around you etc. These are the first things to be addressed in an anarchist society... I'm not saying there wouldn't be any, but I doubt it would have sufficient power to make an impact.

 

[bhamgeezer]

What is to stop me centralising power in an anarchist society. First I secretly hoard something of value, then I get people working for in return for what they need which I have, then I run a protection racket (tax) of the people. As this suceeds I gain more wealth employ more people and run larger protection rackets, then start manufacture weapons. Eventually I have an army and can enforce my will upon the nation. I make myself king and start degreeing laws and taxes upon the people of the anarchist state mwahahaha, who is going to stop me?

 

[kyser_soze]

What is to stop me centralising power in an anarchist society. First I secretly hoard something of value, then I get people working for in return for what they need which I have, then I run a protection racket (tax) of the people. As this suceeds I gain more wealth employ more people and run larger protection rackets, then start manufacture weapons. Eventually I have an army and can enforce my will upon the nation. I make myself king and start degreeing laws and taxes upon the people of the anarchist state mwahahaha, who is going to stop me?

What are you going to hoard that can't be found anywhere else that would enable you to accrue such a level of power? There isn't anything, so your idea is toss.

The whole point of anarchism is that it's as decentralised as possible to stop this kind of situation.

 

[Cid]

Also good luck with producing weapons when everyone else has decided your electricity supply is going to be cut, and don't forget 'an army marches on its stomach', something that could be a problem if the farmers decide you're being an arse.

 

[bhamgeezer]

What are you going to hoard that can't be found anywhere else that would enable you to accrue such a level of power? There isn't anything, so your idea is toss.

The whole point of anarchism is that it's as decentralised as possible to stop this kind of situation.

People always want something, I am sure I could find whatever I need through a mixture of theft and coersion. I could hide whatever I "owned" so it couldn't be taken from me by force. Also how does anarchy take to the idea of lending and borrowing, enforced through violence, as this is another way to quickly accumulate wealth and power.

You might be able to stop one owning material goods but you can't stop one owning information which could be the key to gaining power and influence within the anarchist model.

 

[Cid]

People always want something, I am sure I could find whatever I need through a mixture of theft and coersion. I could hide whatever I "owned" so it couldn't be taken from me by force. Also how does anarchy take to the idea of lending and borrowing, enforced through violence, as this is another way to quickly accumulate wealth and power.

I think you're another one getting anarchy and 'total absence of any form of structure' confused. Anarchy is bottom up democracy, if you start trying to abuse people the community will simply stop you.

 

[Cid]

You might be able to stop one owning material goods but you can't stop one owning information which could be the key to gaining power and influence within the anarchist model.

That's even more ludicrous than goods... what information could you possibly have?

 

[kyser_soze]

I don't know because I have no aspirations like that, but one model might be the way gangs operate, with some sort of bond based on eg postcode or a football team or motorcycles or something and some initiation rites and a bit of blood brother rhetoric and so on.

See I'm all in favour of faith based politics but isn't your expectation that all 60 million are '"highly motivated" stretching credulity just a little? Some are bound to be disaffected and unreasonable, but also strong and unconcerned about the consequences of their actions. Gather a few like that together and there's something rather powerful that can only be subdued by an even more powerful group. And when that second group- who all started off with the best of intentions- realise their own power... oops!

Your problem - and it's a problem everyone has with anarchist political ideas - is that you're still thinking in terms of the society we currently live in. Uninformed individuals who, because they are uninformed, cluster together for comfort and security; they look to someone to lead them, instead of making decisions about leading themselves.

Thinking about anarchism has been, for me, similar in how far it's bent my head as when I first started reading about quantum physics, and the comparison isn't that specious either; when you spend X years of your life learning about the Newtonian/Einsteinian universe of predictable events and the idea that the heavens are a giant piece of clockwork, the first time you read about QM your reaction is 'Fuck off, you can't do that! What about causailty!'. The same thing applies to thinking about anarchism - you have to move past your life's programming, from when you were a little kid, that there will always be someone more powerful than you to take decisions and lead; that there will always be a written framework of rules and laws to govern your behaviour - no matter how arbitrarily those rules and laws (even here there's a big difference between the two) are applied. With anarchism all that framework has to be built by you, and everyone around you in you own mind. Rather than be governed by arbitrary powers-that-be, you govern yourself - you are a nation of one, and everyone else around you is the same.

The difference this could make is huge. People would be good - in the Confuscian words, virtue would be seen as a way to be in and of itself, as opposed to simply not being bad, which is how we behave when subject to law (how many people believe that the only time you're guilty of a crime is when you get caught?).

Don't worry if you don't get it - I didn't for years, and TBH it's only in the last few months that I've actually got my head around it geneally (more specifically this morning, as I mention above).

 

[kyser_soze]

You might be able to stop one owning material goods but you can't stop one owning information which could be the key to gaining power and influence within the anarchist model.

How? What information could you possibly posses that could enable this? The secret of fusion power?

 

[bhamgeezer]

Your problem - and it's a problem everyone has with anarchist political ideas - is that you're still thinking in terms of the society we currently live in. Uninformed individuals who, because they are uninformed, cluster together for comfort and security; they look to someone to lead them, instead of making decisions about leading themselves.

Thinking about anarchism has been, for me, similar in how far it's bent my head as when I first started reading about quantum physics, and the comparison isn't that specious either; when you spend X years of your life learning about the Newtonian/Einsteinian universe of predictable events and the idea that the heavens are a giant piece of clockwork, the first time you read about QM your reaction is 'Fuck off, you can't do that! What about causailty!'. The same thing applies to thinking about anarchism - you have to move past your life's programming, from when you were a little kid, that there will always be someone more powerful than you to take decisions and lead; that there will always be a written framework of rules and laws to govern your behaviour - no matter how arbitrarily those rules and laws (even here there's a big difference between the two) are applied. With anarchism all that framework has to be built by you, and everyone around you in you own mind. Rather than be governed by arbitrary powers-that-be, you govern yourself - you are a nation of one, and everyone else around you is the same.

The difference this could make is huge. People would be good - in the Confuscian words, virtue would be seen as a way to be in and of itself, as opposed to simply not being bad, which is how we behave when subject to law (how many people believe that the only time you're guilty of a crime is when you get caught?).

Don't worry if you don't get it - I didn't for years, and TBH it's only in the last few months that I've actually got my head around it geneally (more specifically this morning, as I mention above).

I think you misunderstand, I am not blinded by the society around me, I don't necessarily think in terms of laws and government and authority. What I am well aware of, is my own and others capacity to be manipulative decieving fucks leading peoples perceptions through intelligence and disinformation to their own ends.

Now your claiming that in an enlightened anarchist society people would not be ruled by these type of people, because people would not stand for it, yet I don't see how they are going to prevent what they don't know about. Unless your going to change humanities genetic structure, I don't see how your going to change people so they cannot fall prey to an ruthless selfish individual or even more likely a secret group of ruthless selfish individuals

 

[kyser_soze]

I think you miss understand, I am not blinded by the society around me, I don't necessarily think in terms of laws and government and authority. What I am well aware of, is my own and others capacity to be manipulative decieving fucks leading peoples perceptions through intelligence and disinformation to their own ends.

Now your claiming that in an enlightened anarchist society people would not be ruled by these type of people, because people would not stand for it, yet I don't see how they are going to prevent what they don't know about. Unless your going to change humanities genetic structure, I don't see how your going to change people so they cannot fall prey to an ruthless selfish individual.

I wasn't aimng this reply at you, but...

For someone who is deeply embedded with the idea of genetic and environmental determinism, that someone who exists in a society that is based around manipulation, deception wouldn't turn out that way hasn't occured? Or that by existing in a society that wasn't based on those things that people might turn out differently?

How would people prevent what they don't know about? Do you think that someone who is intelligent enough to reject systemetised hierarchy as a means of government wouldn't also be perceptive enough to understand the tricks such systems have employed over millenia? No one has written any really new rules on how to manipulate people for centuries, and the knowledge has been there for millenia.

Finally, what have genetics got to do with people being gullible?

 

[bhamgeezer]

I wasn't aimng this reply at you, but...

For someone who is deeply embedded with the idea of genetic and environmental determinism, that someone who exists in a society that is based around manipulation, deception wouldn't turn out that way hasn't occured? Or that by existing in a society that wasn't based on those things that people might turn out differently?

Peoples behaviour could totally change, I believe most behaviour is learnt, however that doesn't make the individuals in society any smarter or wiser.

How would people prevent what they don't know about? Do you think that someone who is intelligent enough to reject systemetised hierarchy as a means of government wouldn't also be perceptive enough to understand the tricks such systems have employed over millenia? No one has written any really new rules on how to manipulate people for centuries, and the knowledge has been there for millenia.

I don't believe everyone in said society would be that intelligent, their would be those who just go with flow like today.

Finally, what have genetics got to do with people being gullible?

Some people born slow

 

[danny la rouge]

Funnily enough I was thinking about this on the train this morning - how to manage road maintainance and other infrastructure and I came close to a moment of enlightenment about anarchism - there would be people who find this stuff personally interesting, and they would do the work; huge amounts of 'work' would ultimately be self-selecting because there would be millions of people available to do it, once the bullshit industries of capitalism were gone - think about insurance, legal system, huge swathes of manufacturing - people would have the opportunity to do stuff they wanted.

I realise this is an obvious point for the longer term anarchists, but it was a 'shift in thinking' moment for me...

As you were...

And the point is precisely that; think of the opportunities that would be opened up by doing away with all the unnecessary bollocks.

 

[bhamgeezer]

How? What information could you possibly posses that could enable this? The secret of fusion power?

The secret of where to find whatever you desired

 

[Cid]

The secret of where to find whatever you desired

How do you plan on keeping this secret exactly?

and again, what is this thing which you are going to have that no-one else can have?

 

[kyser_soze]

Peoples behaviour could totally change, I believe most behaviour is learnt, however that doesn't make the individuals in society any smarter or wiser.

No, but everyone who was was taught that voloutary cooperation is more beneficial to them than blind competition wouldn't be smarter/wiser, they'd have a completely different set of values to today.

I don't believe everyone in said society would be that intelligent, their would be those who just go with flow like today.

They don't need to be - in the same way that you're having difficulty getting your head around anarchism, so those conditioned to living in an anarchist society would have difficulty understanding why they would want to put themselves under the arbitrary control and influence of someone else, and would thus reject it.

The 'flow' as you put it, wouldn't be the same flow, it'd be a completely different flow.

Some people born slow

Slow doesn't mean gullible. Besides, there'd be plenty of people to look out for such things to make sure those who were vulnerable in society were properly cared for and not exploited by the crazy hierarchs!

The secret of where to find whatever you desired

How would you know that, and why would it necessarily be anywhere? Why would I want you to tell me something like that when I could have more fun finding it out myself?

 

[bhamgeezer]

How do you plan on keeping this secret exactly?

and again, what is this thing which you are going to have that no-one else can have?

It can be anything, the point I am trying to make is that some people somewhere are always going to desire something, even if only afew people desire it, if its small enough to hide and hold then it can be manipulated. No matter how much you have of everything you can never have an abundance of everything.

 

[kyser_soze]

It can be anything, the point I am trying to make is that some people somewhere are always going to desire something, even if only afew people desire it, if its small enough to hide and hold then it can be manipulated. No matter how much you have of everything you can never have an abundance of everything.

Yes, and? How is that going to stop the millions of other people from just getting on with their lives? So some people want this one thing, cool, let them have it providing it doesn't impinge on everyone else.

For example, a bunch of people chasing after a forgotten nuke - they could have limited power, i.e. over how much devastation they could cause, but ultimately what could they achieve? A single devastating attack killing hundreds of thousands would be horrific, but then what? There would be no power, no bargaining chip and millions of deeply pissed off people.

Your conception of power only applies when power is held centrally - in our society these people would be challenging the existing owner of the monopoly of power; in an anarchism they'd be challenging everyone.

 

[bhamgeezer]

No, but everyone who was was taught that voloutary cooperation is more beneficial to them than blind competition wouldn't be smarter/wiser, they'd have a completely different set of values to today.

Unfortunately their would be someone who would become smarter or wiser, I mean you are proposing at different value system to one you grew up in, surely this show certain individuals capacity to see past the bullshit and want a change, even if in this case it is for the worse.

They don't need to be - in the same way that you're having difficulty getting your head around anarchism, so those conditioned to living in an anarchist society would have difficulty understanding why they would want to put themselves under the arbitrary control and influence of someone else, and would thus reject it.

Obviously the majority would not want to be under control and influence of someone else, but the few would still see the advantages of controlling and influencing everyone else.

The 'flow' as you put it, wouldn't be the same flow, it'd be a completely different flow.

Yes but those who follow without understanding are most in danger of manipulation.

Slow doesn't mean gullible. Besides, there'd be plenty of people to look out for such things to make sure those who were vulnerable in society were properly cared for and not exploited by the crazy hierarchs!

Except if they were killed by those taking power

How would you know that, and why would it necessarily be anywhere? Why would I want you to tell me something like that when I could have more fun finding it out myself?

Face it, you have wants and desires, If someone offers you it now as opposed to later then only the very stronged willed can resist.

 

[danny la rouge]

Obviously the majority would want to be under control and influence of someone else

That's obvious, is it? Most people 'obviously' want to be bossed?

 

[bhamgeezer]

Yes, and? How is that going to stop the millions of other people from just getting on with their lives? So some people want this one thing, cool, let them have it providing it doesn't impinge on everyone else.

For example, a bunch of people chasing after a forgotten nuke - they could have limited power, i.e. over how much devastation they could cause, but ultimately what could they achieve? A single devastating attack killing hundreds of thousands would be horrific, but then what? There would be no power, no bargaining chip and millions of deeply pissed off people.

Your conception of power only applies when power is held centrally - in our society these people would be challenging the existing owner of the monopoly of power; in an anarchism they'd be challenging everyone.

I don't agree, power comes from the people who hold it. It is the will of the individual to obtain control, not the armies or weapons that enforce it.

 

[bhamgeezer]

That's obvious, is it? Most people 'obviously' want to be bossed?

sorry missed out the negation

 

[danny la rouge]

Ah.

 

[kyser_soze]

Unfortunately their would be someone who would become smarter or wiser, I mean you are proposing at different value system to one you grew up in, surely this show certain individuals capacity to see past the bullshit and want a change.

OK, apologies if you're dyslexic or whatever, but here:

there - as in 'over there'
their - as in 'they are carrying their case'
they're - contraction of 'they are'

Sorry, but it's really pissing me off

Anyway, I'm not denying the possibilty of change under anarchism - indeed, society would be in a process of change constantly in order to prevent hierarchies and their associated concentrations of power from forming, plus of course you can never have a 'perfect' system, and as soon as you think you've got one you're dead in the water. The point surely is would people who are smart and well educated be interested in returning to historical modes of government, beyond perhaps recreating elements of it in education, or for fun?

I can see that you might get a group/s of people who wanted their responsibilities abrogated and live in a structured hierarchies; the rest of society would have to work out how best to accomodate that need, but there's no reason for it to spread. If it did, then the anarchism clearly wouldn't be working!

Obviously the majority would want to be under control and influence of someone else/, but the few would still see the advantages of controlling and influencing everyone else.

You don't really get what anarchism means, do you?

Yes but those who follow without understanding are most in danger of manipulation.

By whom? Our theoretical band of usurping hierarchs? The 'flow' of anarchism would be one of individuals thinking for themselves, not a herd being shuffled along under it's own momentum.

Except if they were killed by those taking power

Except if who were killed? Most of society? You're just being silly now.

Face it, you have wants and desires, If someone offers you it now as opposed to later then only the very stronged willed can resist.

But how are my wants and desires created? How much influence do I have over them to choose? If someone offers me what now as opposed to later?

 

[kyser_soze]

I don't agree, power comes from the people who hold it. It is the will of the individual to obtain control, not the armies or weapons that enforce it.

How can an individual obtain control over anything other than themselves?
Shit, you're a determinist who says that it is the will of the individual to obtain control.

You're a bit confused!

However, my point about your conception of power still holds - you think of it only in terms of something people can 'obtain', to 'hold' - your language is one that says you conception of power is about ownership; power in an anarchism is widely dispersed, to the extent that power in the way we understand wouldn't be possible to exist in society - well it could, temporarily, but it wouldn't last.

 

[bhamgeezer]

How can an individual obtain control over anything other than themselves?
Shit, you're a determinist who says that it is the will of the individual to obtain control.

You're a bit confused!

However, my point about your conception of power still holds - you think of it only in terms of something people can 'obtain', to 'hold' - your language is one that says you conception of power is about ownership; power in an anarchism is widely dispersed, to the extent that power in the way we understand wouldn't be possible to exist in society - well it could, temporarily, but it wouldn't last.

I didn't say the will was free I just said they have a will, you really need to understand the difference. Free will has come in the compatibilist sense to refer to moral responibility, however I believe that this doesn't need the implication that the will is any sense "free". Maybe Hitler had the will to kill the jews because he grew up in a society that had a certain dislike of the jewry, he is morally responible for their deaths, but his will had a cause, it is not in any sense "free". It doesn't make him at better person it just acknowledges that peoples action and beliefs are related to events that relate that individual.

Also please check I added a negation I didn't mean that people want to be ruled, I mean their will be some advantage seen by those who would centralise power. Oligarchies generally consist of very clever ruthless devious fuckers who know how to play the game to build themselves into positions where they are calling the shots.

If you kill afew the others will fear and not fight back, if they do fight back in an organised fashion they will be in danger of centralising themselves.

 

[kyser_soze]

I mean there will be some advantage seen by those who would centralise power.

Corrected for you.

And you still haven't responded as to why everyone else would go along with this. Your whole conception of power is, as I said, rooted in our social model of how it works.

 

[Cid]

Anyway, I'm not denying the possibilty of change under anarchism - indeed, society would be in a process of change constantly in order to prevent hierarchies and their associated concentrations of power from forming, plus of course you can never have a 'perfect' system, and as soon as you think you've got one you're dead in the water. The point surely is would people who are smart and well educated be interested in returning to historical modes of government, beyond perhaps recreating elements of it in education, or for fun?

I find a neat way of looking at is to think about our attitudes to pre-capitalist government; we know a lot about them, study them extensively, but to us they're just a historical artifact which no-one intelligent is ever going to contemplate returning to.

 

[kyser_soze]

Well quite - who'd go back to the feudal system, for example?

 

[bhamgeezer]

Corrected for you.

And you still haven't responded as to why everyone else would go along with this. Your whole conception of power is, as I said, rooted in our social model of how it works.

Do you not fear death? Fear of death is a good motivator.

I believe it is your concept of "established" power that has detached you from the how power primarily arises and how all it take is a corrupt man with the desire to own the world to slowly and carefully raise themselves above everyone.