How would an anarchist society function? - No, I don't support Means TV

>everyone fights for themselves
>people start figuring out by teaming up they can accomplish more
>larger and larger groups form
>groups need leadership
And anarchism is no more.
 
Functioning is defined by measurement against some criteria or goal. Capitalist democracy "functions" in that it protects property rights and equal protection under the law. Communism fails to function in that it does not successfuly produce a classless egalitarian society.

There are many kinds of anarchism, with many different goals. I think most of them are dumb. I don't know if there's a name for the kind of society I want, but i would define it as this: There should be no goal for society, no objective, no system by which it is structured and no standard against it is measured. Whatever happens, let it happened. Let the organics of humanity and society just happen. Whatever results from that is irrelevant.
 
LuckyCharms said:
Play fallout or borderlands to see how anarchy works
Click to expand...
So... it's a place where some people are inexplicably dying of thirst while a five second expedition would leave them richer than their so called leaders? And also a thing where... somehow... waves and waves of bandits can suicide charge defended enclaves and yet there are always more?

They're fun games, but I wouldn't use them to draw conclusions about the real world...
 
Corbin Dallas Multipass said:
So... it's a place where some people are inexplicably dying of thirst while a five second expedition would leave them richer than their so called leaders? And also a thing where... somehow... waves and waves of bandits can suicide charge defended enclaves and yet there are always more?

They're fun games, but I wouldn't use them to draw conclusions about the real world...
Click to expand...
I prefer the part where a random mailman, in the course of completing his delivery, stumbles upon three different factions vying for control of a major city, and decides to fuck them all over and take control for himself

It's good to have life goals, is what I'm saying.
 
Corbin Dallas Multipass said:
So... it's a place where some people are inexplicably dying of thirst while a five second expedition would leave them richer than their so called leaders? And also a thing where... somehow... waves and waves of bandits can suicide charge defended enclaves and yet there are always more?

They're fun games, but I wouldn't use them to draw conclusions about the real world...
Click to expand...

I think they meant the universe minus the fact that your playable character is basically an unkillable god human.

Chris Avelone basically argues that new states would arise in a stateless world and he's basically right. I'm a big fan of the way the NCR is written because its basically a cool amalgamation of all of its cities. It kinda is like the USA, southern California is like Yankee land, a combination of utopian idealists and cutthroat businessmen. North California is like Dixieland and the midwest, a place run by aristocratic types and criminal elements.

States form naturally as state power is necessary for stability and stability is ultimate power so states naturally get stronger and inspire the creation of other states.

Do you know why Europe and Japan are dominated the 19th and 20th centuries? The answer is that they were stable. This stability allowed them to develop a mercantile class, joint stock companies and reduce taxes or build armies to conquer the world.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Chadley Dickinson and (deleted member)
If society has broken down I would have me and a bunch of friends take control of the local water supply and charge for the use of it with my own currency.
 
Erischan said:
The truth is we already live in an anarchist society. Rules only matter because we choose to let them matter.
This is the society you chose.
Click to expand...
Well sorta, we are social animals. It's not as if we could all go live on our own hermit crab style, we're not made for it. I think some form of collaborative society is inevitable. Thus I think some form of government becomes inevitable.

I mean, yeah, it's not some absolute order imposed from above, it's as real as we make it. Yeah everything is anarchy until the cops show up and put you in cuffs, but that's also known as not anarchy.
 
A truly anarchistic society would simply consolidate into something extremely familiar, but with different names. Any complex service would need an organization to run it, and a debt collection organization would prop up to cover paying the organizations who build the roads or provide the utilities.
 
Crichax said:
There would be no motive for stealing (since money would be abolished).
Click to expand...

Yes, people who believe in the concept of an "anarchist society" are this dumb, and that is why they could never build a functioning society, ever.
 
Anarchism can't create a "society", it's just a free for all, I would say it''s barbarism in its purest form. Most people who say they are anarchists often just want a reset to start building something new out of the said mess, so they are lying about being it. I have the feeling that many "anarchist" often are associated with an onther ideology, but are just hiding it, using it as a one step out of many to achieve the goal for their cause. I see them as "temporary anarchists" (compare it to accelerationism).
Some anarchist (the "real ones") are in on the "free for all moment" part exclusively, often hosting forums and channels where everybody can join not matter who you are to say your thing. I think Null mentioned some anarchist was willing to keep KF up on something due to this very belief.

I don't see true anarchism as an ideology to create or maintain a society (I would say it's about destroying it), I see it more as an belief in "I want a ideological event for other ideologies to duke it out fairly from the ground up, and I want to watch it!".

To answer your question:
How would an anarchist society function?
Click to expand...
This "society" would not even exist to begin with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Whatevermancer
Any kind of anarchist society wouldn't be able to function without a group of people periodically making sure everyone is adhering to the new rules, then they need to tax a little bit, just enough to make sure they have the resources to complete their job.

Boom full circle.
 
It wouldn't. Nothing would prevent me from taking a bunch of buddies and beat the shit out of anyone who bothers me. Nice house you're living in. It's mine now.
Anarchism completely defeats itself because eventually someone will consolidate power to themselves where there exists a vacuum, and government structures will therefore arise as a result. Just look at what happened to the CHAZ, as soon as some dude with a gun came along, he took over the entire place.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: TheArtilleryman
It would morph in to tribalism and eventually some form of crude monarchy. I believe people are incapable of being truly anarchist. Strong leaders will always rise and the rest will follow, it's human nature.

Anarchism is simply an attitude in reaction to dissatisfaction with leadership. It's not a feasible way of running a society, it's just another symbol grumpy teenagers can wear.
 
Stateless societies/polycentric legal systems can and have functioned, but suck at defending themselves.

Big-a Anarchism (as in anarcho-communism, Makhno and the Catalans) is completely retarded. You’re going to all share everything and work together for the community, but with no force.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back