Can Anarchism work?

[Beet]

My definition of anarchism is like libertarianism except no military or police, no laws, no courts-- for example, if someone commits murder, people just get together and decide what to do. However, feel free to apply a different meaning.

[Goldwater]

No.

[Murica!]

Yes, though your definition of Anarchism is quite incorrect. Some necessary reading:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/godstate/index.htm
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1873/statism-anarchy.htm
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1910s/anarchism.htm
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/index.htm

[Redalgo]

Yes, though I do not believe it would "work" better than most of its alternatives.

A cluster of communities could form a union with its own system of governance provided it lacks the power to do more than ask for people to voluntarily comply with its suggestions. Direct democracy could be utilized in small villages of people whose residents can either adhere to the outcomes of votes or pick up and leave for another community. Maybe some sort of council system could be utilized so long as it all remains non-coercive and emphasizes egalitarian values. These approaches may be similar to how a lot of Native American nations were organized, presumably for millennia, with success.

Depending on how far anarchism as a label could be stretched, as one can have a government without it being a proper state, people could also experiment with a system in which government does much of what it already does in the West but people get to choose whether they opt in or out of particular forms of compliance with the law. Alternatively, under a system of panarchism citizen-consumers could shop around for governments on a contractual basis but none of those regimes would have exclusion control over any amount of territory - with jurisdictions entirely overlapping one another.

Mind you, this assumes we are talking about the absence of state rather than of all conceivable forms of government. I'm not even sure it is possible in our species to demolish all conceivable hierarchies unless each person lives in complete isolation from others for the duration of their lives.

[Antonio the Sixth]

lolno

[politicus]

My definition of anarchism is like libertarianism except no military or police, no laws, no courts-- for example, if someone commits murder, people just get together and decide what to do. However, feel free to apply a different meaning.

That is more of a parody of Anarchism than actual Anarchism.

[DemPGH]

lolno

^^ "LOL, no" was my precise thought.

[Simfan34]

It'll pay for itself!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It'll pay for itself!

Like tax cuts?

[SWE]

My definition of anarchism is like libertarianism except no military or police, no laws, no courts-- for example, if someone commits murder, people just get together and decide what to do. However, feel free to apply a different meaning.

This obviously would not work. Anarchism on the other hand might.

[tik 🪀✨]

What does "work" mean?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No, there is no one to guard against human flaws.

if someone commits murder, people just get together and decide what to do.

Sounds like a lynch mob.

[Sopranos Republican]

My definition of anarchism is like libertarianism except no military or police, no laws, no courts-- for example, if someone commits murder, people just get together and decide what to do. However, feel free to apply a different meaning.

This obviously would not work. Anarchism on the other hand might.

[Ronnie]

I don't align myself with anarchism because it's simply not possible on a large scale in the world in which we live right now, but yeah, the explanation in the OP is incredibly reductionist.    

To add to Murica!'s list, there's also the Anarchist FAQ:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html

[Lief 🗽]

"Anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchism.

[Cory]

lolno

^^ "LOL, no" was my precise thought.

[Murica!]

"Anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchism.

It's a form of anarchism

No, not really considering it does not get rid of social hierarchy and recreates a State in all but name.

[Murica!]

"Anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchism.

It's a form of anarchism

No, not really considering it does not get rid of social hierarchy and recreates a State in all but name.

1. Social hierarchy and anarchism are not inherently associated
2. It doesn't recreate the state. It's just a stateless society.
3. There are forms of anarchism that just require a stateless society

1. Yes they are, if people are above to command and people below to obey than it cannot be anarchism.
2. People with capital will want to protect that capital from those without any(and I assure you there will be many without anything to sell but themselves.),and will band together and create a monopoly on violence and capital, i.e. a State.
3. I refer you to 1.

[politicus]

Furthermore, if capital owners want to protect their capital, they can create police forces or an army that will protect their capital

That would de facto be a state.

[Murica!]

"Anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchism.

It's a form of anarchism

No, not really considering it does not get rid of social hierarchy and recreates a State in all but name.

1. Social hierarchy and anarchism are not inherently associated
2. It doesn't recreate the state. It's just a stateless society.
3. There are forms of anarchism that just require a stateless society

1. Yes they are, if people are above to command and people below to obey than it cannot be anarchism.
2. People with capital will want to protect that capital from those without any(and I assure you there will be many without anything to sell but themselves.),and will band together and create a monopoly on violence and capital, i.e. a State.
3. I refer you to 1.

1. In anarcho-capitalism, there isn't a body to command people literally. I don't get why people make this false assumption. Have you ever read the anarcho-capitalist thinkers such as Rothbard or Friedman? None of them bring up a body that is above other humans that can command them.
2. People with any form of ownership will always want to protect it from others. It isn't just capital. That doesn't mean they will create a state. States have never emerged from a small body injecting it onto the rest of the globe. Furthermore, if capital owners want to protect their capital, they can create police forces or an army that will protect their capital
3. Uhh no.

1. Then what is a boss, or manager? Are they not people who command others?
2. If people are creating private police forces they are creating a legal monopoly on the use of violence, the definition of a State.

[politicus]

Furthermore, if capital owners want to protect their capital, they can create police forces or an army that will protect their capital

That would de facto be a state.

No it wouldn't.

A monopoly on force is the core of a state. A police force and an army controlled by capital owners would constitute a state.

There is no way a police force could operate efficiently without having a de facto monopoly on force. Equality in possesion is seen as the main tool to away an organized monopoly of force (police).

"The police become necessary in human society, only at that junction in human society when it is split between those who have and those who ain't got."

-Omali Yesh**tela

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

Are we positing that governmental institutions of any kind (whether defined by modern society or otherwise) are not possible? If so, I could see this working assuming a maximum of three or four families live together in communes, that's pretty much it though.

[Lief 🗽]

Capitalism is incompatible with anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is just a name made up my libertarians who wanted to be cool and edgy.

[Goldwater]

Actually, I agree with those saying capitalism is incompatible with anarchy, becasue a state is required to enforce property rights. Of course, the society that Anarcho-Communists want is equally impossible, so it's a moot point.