[Esteban]

I have two questions on the topic of Anarchy/Anarchism.

If a nation was to turn anarchist, what would stop someone from killing/raping/beating another person. Laws today do not scare someone from committing a crime, so why would abolishment of law and government remove the need for someone to commit a crime against another?

Also, is there some kind of Anarchist manifesto? Like Marx's Communist Manifesto or Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism, I have been looking for a "manual" on the topic of anarchism that would give me a better understanding of it.

Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

[Steven_K]

Look for some books by Mikhail Bakunin, he is considered to be the father of anarcho-communist theory. As far as I can tell, they only time that a situation like that could be dealt with in an anarchistic society is if the society has reverted to a primitivist state, which is a school of anarchism, and so the communities are so small and de-centralized that the individual could be ostracized from that community.

[Truth-a-naut]

If a nation was to turn anarchist, what would stop someone from killing/raping/beating another person

Well nothing really would, does anything stop someone from doing that now?
I don't think a commune would take it that well when someone is going out and raping/killing their members, basically I don't think the perp would survive that long.
It's generally not in anyones best interests to rape or murder anyone.

[Anarchocommunist]

by infringing on someone elses rights you automattically give up your rights. so in those situations it would be justifiable to take some kind of retaliatory action. wether it is a severe beating or deportation, they have given up the right to be treated as a liberated human being. of course this would follow the standard of rule by law and innocence until proven guilty. there are courts and laws in anarchist society, they are just more volountary and not coerced by a minority.

[Deicidus]

Laws today dosnt stop killers from killing and rapists from raping. But do you think the only reason we all dont do it its because its illegal. Do you think that everybody dosn't take cocaine because its illegal ?

Today, the State and the Powers in place tend to maintain ``order`` by fear. By fear of the punishement. It's like when you spank your children because they had a bad behavior. The kids wont do it again not because they understood what they had done wrong, but because they are afraid of the punishement.

Remeber what happened to Alex in Clockwork Orange. He didnt addopt a ``moral conduct`` because he had a choice, but because he was afraid of the pain, the sickness and the suffering. He stopped being a human being capable of making a choice. Because its choice that makes us human.

Laws today dont prevent crimes from being commited, all it does is deprive the people of their freedom because some higher being said that this and this was ok and this and that was wrong.

[Esteban]

Laws today dosnt stop killers from killing and rapists from raping.

I disagree. If there were no laws, wouldn't the crime be increased?

[Deicidus]

You think the only thing stopping people from killing and raping is the fear of reprisal and punishement ?

During the Vietnam war, The goverment put arms and bombs in the hands of soldiers to slaughters millions of peasants and civilians. Killing was legal and incouraged, and yet, many refused to do it.

It is illegal to go over the speed limit, and yet, do you see absolutly everybody go against that law ?

Did you ever see somebody die ? Have you ever heard somebody expiring his last breath in your arms? I did, and I can tell you know, it aint something I want to see ever again. If you have, maybe youd understand why you dont need some kind of higher law telling you its wrong.

Somebody who has no conscience of his actions or no interests in itself, will kill, either there is a law against it or not. It cant be prevented. Just has cops today dont really stop crimes, they just catch those who commited them.

You have to look at the two main sorts of crimes here, like Bakunin said. The first one is a passion crime. Like when you kill your wife and her boyfriend wich you caught doing it. Laws or not, I doubt that this can be stopped. Society as a whole will decide what will happen to this man, instead of an arbitrary minority. The second kind is an interest crime. Killing for <A TITLE="Click for more information about insurance" STYLE="background-color: #f0f000; " HREF="http://search.targetwords.com/u.search?x=5977|1||||insurance|AA1VDw">insurance</A> money, stealing, capitalism...

I respect somebody who dosnt smoke pot because they dont feel its something for them, they dont need it, or because they tried it and didnt feel like keeping doing it. They made a choice. But when somebody dosnt smoke because he's afraid to get caught, by the law, his parents or the police, he is destroyed as an individual because he is no longer a human being capable of making a choice. He is just following the path made before him, conformity. Adopting some behavior because he has no choice. When you educate and make people act the way you want with fear, its Stalinism all over again.

Humans are not born bad or good, lazy or zealous. But as we grow up, we are told what to do, what to think and how to act. Education became Formation. We are capable of making a choice, but when our choices dont go with the powers in place, they just repress our choice. People who choosed not to fight in Vietnam were sent to prison. People are tortured and beaten because they want to express themselves freely.

Remember that everything Hitler did was legal. The people in power decide of the laws that stay and those that wont. Not the people. This kind of ``representative democracy`` is just a new name for Dictatorship. Ask yourself, even in the western ``democracies``, who controls the army, the police, taxes, laws, justice, employment ..... I'm not, are you ?

They are certain moral codes that exists in societies, they are culturally different from others of course. But society has a whole decides of what is right and what is wrong. It is the freedom of the colectivity to decide how to live, as it is an individual freedom not to live in this society if they dont wish to, or dont want to live by their moral codes.

A lot of people have some weird view of an anarchist society. People loothing stores, killing, robing and raping at will, no justice for the people, houses and buildings burned down, people all turning against each other for the last scraps of food and oil left.

[Der Freiheitsucher]

Anarchism doesn't mean no laws, it means to physical authority to be set upon the community. Why would you kill and rape if you understand that killing and raping is harmful for you?

The foundations of anarchism are in education. You have to start from the educational system to aim towards an anarchic state. Once you've got a state in which all the citizens are fully educated (I don't mean school education here) all yoru citizens will be able to comprehend what is useful and what is harmful, and thus will be able to live in harmony without the need of a police, or other.

If you want to read the "manifesto" of Anarchism you'll have to read the chief works of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin and Stirner. There is no one piece of work as such.

[tuco]

An anarchist manifesto could simply be one sentence: "Mind your own business."

Anyways, crime is a fact of life whether you live in CCTV-infested Britain or militia-run Southern Somalia. However when you imagine an anarchist society where everyone in your neighbourhood is well armed, I'm sure burglars and rapists would think twice about infringing on other people's freedoms. Granted, crime would still occur, but do keep in mind that in an anarcho-capitalist society ("ancapistan" as I like to call it =D ) private security services would inevitably arise as a response to the demand for security.

More importantly, anarchists societies would be free from the grand crimes, namely mass-scale murder and theft (war and taxation).

[Bryan]

You think the only thing stopping people from killing and raping is the fear of reprisal and punishement ?

During the Vietnam war, The goverment put arms and bombs in the hands of soldiers to slaughters millions of peasants and civilians. Killing was legal and incouraged, and yet, many refused to do it.

The question is not how many will not commit crimes, but how many will? When but a few people start takeing what they want, when they want, things will go down hill fast.

Consider just a few of the things that will happen when there is no government to enforce the law. Lets start with some simple ones like automobile traffic.

Why should I wait for a green light. I think I can make it across now so I will go now. Why shold I limit myself to 30 mph in residential areas, much less 15 in a school zone. I will drive what ever speed I please. Why should I pay for that gas I just pumped? HEY YOU, Get the xxxx out of my way. (Read that with completely unrestrained anger.)

What would keep the clerk in the local convience store from just emptying the cash register and leaving. He would not even have to leave town.

Lets go big time. With no regulatory agency, the stock market as we know it could not exist. Banks would be ripped off left and right by their own people. What would stop people from falsifying credentials and opening their medical offices. They will prescribe medicines that his brother makes in the kitchen sink for the pharmacy next door. Or even open you up with a scalpel. It happens now.

Then when the many get burned by the few, they will join the few which will become the many in the pursuit of "I want it, screw you."

These things happen now. If you think that under anarchy they will not happen in mass, you had best think again. Repeat as necessary.

Some time ago I read an article by a guy from a city in Canada. (I did some searching but am not good at it and failed to find the item.) He wrote about his nice town and what happened when the police went on strike at something like 8:00 AM. By 9:00 AM, the first bank had been robbed. He went on to list the ever worsening condition and ended with all out rioting and looting with the militia being called in before 5:00 PM.

Socialism has been shown to be an abject and complete failure everywhere it has been tried. People do not work for the common good. Anarchy would be infinitely worse.

[Anarchocommunist]

Why should I wait for a green light. I think I can make it across now so I will go now. Why shold I limit myself to 30 mph in residential areas, much less 15 in a school zone. I will drive what ever speed I please. Why should I pay for that gas I just pumped? HEY YOU, Get the xxxx out of my way. (Read that with completely unrestrained anger.)

anyone with half a mind would know the answer to any of those ethical questions. i think we've already established in other posts that anarchism is not the absence of law and civil order. it is the absence of the hierchal power of the few to dictate the live of the many. if you are living in a modernized anarchist collective you would know that for each of those aforementioned actions another member of the collective would or could be harmed. when the war of man against man has ended (meaning we are no longer competing against eachother for survival and relying on the saftey net of society) this will be an important motivator. people do things to harm other people out of the idea that, if i dont' do it to them they would do it to me. in a very generalized sense. in an anarchocommunist society this kind of justification is no longer available. so in essence, once everything got itself in order and there were a few generations of the anarchist society these things just wouldn't be a problem.

Some time ago I read an article by a guy from a city in Canada. (I did some searching but am not good at it and failed to find the item.) He wrote about his nice town and what happened when the police went on strike at something like 8:00 AM. By 9:00 AM, the first bank had been robbed. He went on to list the ever worsening condition and ended with all out rioting and looting with the militia being called in before 5:00 PM.

i'll tell you why that happened, because of the laws and governments that imposed these rules in the first place. people are so used to not being able to do what ever they want that when the opportunity arises they do it, regardless of logic or consequence. it's just like when you move out of your house if you had strict parents. you get an apartment and you go crazy. you drink alot, have wild parties, don't clean up. then you do that for a while and you realize that it kind of sucks that way. it's nice to have a party every now and then have a few drinks, maybe even leave a dish or two out. but very few people live in that kind of environment for very long. scratch that, very few sane people.

so basically anarchism is a system that requires larger social responsibility, and education. since there is no exact need to swindle and rob there should be very little of it. and the fact that these things happen anyway on such a large scale doesn't really make the case for classical government.

[Bryan]

Anarchocommunist wrote:

anyone with half a mind would know the answer to any of those ethical questions

You start showing more cards than you intend to by opening with an attempt at insult. That does not speak well of you or your intentions.

Anarchocommunist wrote:

i think we've already established in other posts that anarchism is not the absence of law and civil order.

No one has established any such thing at any time. You need to rethink the fundamentals. Anarchy is a complete lack of government. That is the definition of the word anarchy. Go look it up. I have Webster’s Third New International Dictionary in front of me. Definition 1a: absence of a government.

By definition, there can be no laws under anarchy. This can be verified by considering the question: Who would specify the laws. There are only two methods of establishing a law: 1) a dictator declares law, 2) an agreed upon (elected) body writes the laws. Both methods constitute a government, and that is not anarchy.

if you are living in a modernized anarchist collective you would know that for each of those aforementioned actions another member of the collective would or could be harmed.

There has never been, is not, nor will ever be any such modernized anarchist collective. This statement shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of any and all animals, and that of human beings. If there is no law, I can do anything I please. Anything that I perceive to be to my advantage, I am authorized to do. Who is to say what is not authorized?

If anyone attempts to do anything to stop me on the behalf of anyone else, they are attempting to perform the functions of a law enforcement agency and a government. If you were to stop me from shooting your neighbor and driving off with their car, you are behaving as a law enforcement agency. A law enforcement agency can take no action if an activity is not legal. Therefore you had to have created a law on behalf of “the people.” That means you have declared yourself a governing body. That is in opposition to the concept of anarchy.

If you believe in anarchy, try to write a detailed position paper describing the behaviors of the individuals in that society. How would trade be conducted? What you you do when someone walked into you neighbors garden, ate their fill, and left. Justify those statements within the concepts of anarcy. If you try to analyze and predict the behaviors of a society of people under anarchy, you will quickly find that an implementation of anarchy is fundamentally impossible. Give it a shot. Start a new thread and post your results. Better yet, start a web site and lay your plans out there. (You can get a web site for less than a hundred bucks a year) The whole worlds need to see this. Post the link here in your new thread.

[Kamil]

Since Deicidus, Anarchocommunist, and Der Freiheitsucher pretty much made many viable points, I will only add minor details.

If a nation was to turn anarchist, what would stop someone from killing/raping/beating another person. Laws today do not scare someone from committing a crime, so why would abolishment of law and government remove the need for someone to commit a crime against another?

In order for anarchism to be implemented, it must be advocated by the masses. Once the society is in place, it is up to those masses to annihilate any threats and protect their freedom and the freedom of others. Laws will be obliterated since enforcing fear in order to breed subordination not only brings along the inevitable-rebellion- but imposing laws is completely unnecessary. As Proudhon once said, laws are spider webs used by the rich, meaning, they are tools of the ruling class to preserve their status quo. Rather than fear, the anarchist society will be based around the following line, "all associated and all free," which Proudhon suggested.

A friend of mine once remarked, "If people are so prone to rule and order, what purpose does the government and law serve?" You can find some of his articles on http://shayn.tk

Also, is there some kind of Anarchist manifesto? Like Marx's Communist Manifesto or Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism, I have been looking for a "manual" on the topic of anarchism that would give me a better understanding of it.

What's great about anarchism and anarchists is that, unlike Communists, we don't go around blindly worshipping others. Like some other anarchists have noted, we are not all Proudhonists or Bakuninists, we know that Proudhon and Bakunin were both people that made mistakes, had some ideas which we disagree with, and we don't need to go around calling ourselves by those names. By being an anarchist, you accept the essential thoughts of anti-authoritarianism and a concoction of whatever other viable anarchist-oriented ideas you adhere to formulated by yourself or by others. Once again, I will feature a little criticism on Communism.

Another reason why the main sect of Communism- Marxist-Leninism- will not work is due to the blind worshipping done by most Communist. Prominent Commie's, throughout history, hitherto, are treated as religious figures that deserve total subordination. Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, and Engels were and still are worshipped for their Communist orientation. Despite the fact that Lenin and Trotsky perpetrated several various immoral acts such as murder towards multitudes of Communists and non-Communists, they are still worshipped. During the Russian Revolution, multitudes were continually being persecuted for their apparent non-Communist affiliation, antagonists of Lenin, Trotsky, and the Bolsheviks which argued for mandation, too, were persecuted. Not only this, the Bolsheviks severely manipulated the media censoring and regulating what the people should and shouldn't hear. The Bolsheviks' constant appropriation of worker labour and their impose state-capitalism economy proved Bakunin and Luxemborg's predictions to be true and left millions of Russians to be poverty-stricken. They preserved their rule through incessant use of rhetoric to disillusion, bewilder, and brainwash the masses, and through the education system grinded their party program into the head's of others once again. My question for Marxist-Leninists is, how do you plan on co-ordinating a successful revolution when Commie's fall in love with their leaders and back them up 100% despite their heinous crimes?

Look for some books by Mikhail Bakunin, he is considered to be the father of anarcho-communist theory.

Although Mikhail Bakunin contributed to the anarcho-communist theory by proposing Collectivism, which would gradually evolve into a gift economy, he is not the father of anarcho-communism. More on anarcho-communism: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/8970/

[Kamil]

Another thing. As Communo-Anarchist suggested, we should convey all anarchist-related over to the 'Other' board. Perhaps the administrator's could do just that?

[Bryan]

Kam wrote:

Once the society is in place, it is up to those masses to annihilate any threats and protect their freedom and the freedom of others.

You are not responding to the point I am making. Precisely who among the masses will carry out this anihilation of threats.

1. If this is a group decision, then you have a government.

2. If the individuals carry out this function, then I, an individual, can declare anyone objectionable and annihilate them for any reason. After all, who is to say it is wrong. This significance is that I can do what I want when I want.

There is a slew of attendent questions. Do you want to have money? Who will determine the currency of the land? Who will make it. Or will we each just have to barter with what we have? Not a chance.

How about transportation? Who will build and maintain the roads? Any collective effort is indeed a government.

Lets return to trade. If I make a product, and I sell indirectly to anyone, how do I get my return value? There will be no one to guarentee that. Under anarchy, there can be no commerce other than local face to face. And even that will be difficult.

Under anarchy, no society can progress beyond substinance living.

If you disagree with that, just try to describe how commerce will be conducted. Maybe start with steel. Describe the path that the raw materials will take from the point they are dug from the ground to the point that you buy your brand new gun from someone. State who will play what role, and why. Describe what will each person get from the transaction. (The example was deliberate. You had best have a lot of firepower in a world under anarchy.)

BTW, you want anarchy, move to Iraq, Afganistan, or a number of African nations. What are you waiting for, you can live in your anarchy right now. Catch the next plane out there.

Oh, I'm sorry. You can't fly or sail there without using GOVERNMENT SERVICES!!

[Kamil]

Typical straw man's. Eh, I won't bother answering all of this bullshit at the moment, I don't have enough time. With the time that I do have, I'd like to respond to some more worthwhile posts.

[Bryan]

Typical straw man's. Eh, I won't bother answering all of this bullshit at the moment, I don't have enough time. With the time that I do have, I'd like to respond to some more worthwhile posts.

Of course you won't answer. Since you can't, just ignore it and pretend its not there.

[Kamil]

You are not responding to the point I am making. Precisely who among the masses will carry out this anihilation of threats.

As I made claim of, in order for anarchism to be implemented, multitudes of people, generally a majority must advocate the implementation of such a system. Now, it'd be the duty of those precise masses to annihilate any threats. Get it?

1. If this is a group decision, then you have a government.

Far from it. Your assumption is completely unsubstantiated. An entire society in accord with the fact that if one deliberately and maliciously goes around killing other people, it's your duty to get rid of such threats. Are you implying that group decisions constitute a governmental structure? How derogatory. I don't even know if you understand the concept of government. The process of organization and decision-making does not create government, of course not. If that's what constitutes a state, many anarchists would not be anarchists by your simplistic and incorrect definition.

2. If the individuals carry out this function, then I, an individual, can declare anyone objectionable and annihilate them for any reason. After all, who is to say it is wrong. This significance is that I can do what I want when I want.

People don't go around murdering other people for the fun of it. Most murderous activity is percipitated by impoverished social conditions and/or a monetary incentive. Crime is bred by hierarchy in which that hierarchy is perpetuated with such social conditions. There is insufficient and limited opportunity in which one can ameliorate their social conditions and status. In a class society, the welfare of the masses is subjected to authoritarian and oppressive measures conveyed by the government. The ruling class, always the economically dominant class perpetrates plethoric appropriation of labour in order to fulfill their exceeding prerogative needs. It is only in a society which has done away with the class system that hostile relations among the masses dissipate. With such a milieu, social conditions for all ameliorate and the incentive to murder, rape, and steal gradually withers away in manifold gradations as the society perpetuates its existence. In every statist and capitalist society, things are structured in a specific manner that the well-being for all cannot be achieved. Only an elite, currently the bourgeoisie, are free and happy. In support of my motion, Bakunin notes that "Liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice, and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." The bourgeoisie preserve their status quo via coercive institutions(i.e,jails) which are enforced by a body of armed men(i.e, the police, military). With their legitimate monopoly of violence, the state exercise their right to go to such measures. To disillusion and brainwash the masses into perceiving such a lifestyle as free and necessary, the ruling class exerts major influence and control over the media and the education system by manipulating such institutions in accordance with their line of thought. This is how the system works, this is how the ruling class guarantees its status quo.

Do you want to have money? Who will determine the currency of the land? Who will make it. Or will we each just have to barter with what we have? Not a chance.

Who will determine the currency of land? Are you kidding me? Anarchists want to do away with all property relations. Wage-labour and capitalist-type markets will be abolished making way for different economic structures that grant equal opportunity and chance and don't impose any requisitions for survival. Everyone will labour, no one will be left isolated and dispossessed ticking the days until they die. No! Take whatever you need from the land, no one's there to enforce private property violations.

How about transportation? Who will build and maintain the roads? Any collective effort is indeed a government.

Obviously, you don't understand the functions of a government.

Lets return to trade. If I make a product, and I sell indirectly to anyone, how do I get my return value? There will be no one to guarentee that. Under anarchy, there can be no commerce other than local face to face. And even that will be difficult.

As anarcho-communism is the dominant economic system in contemporary anarchist thought, exchange value will consist of what you're trading since money would be done away with. Also, there can be national and international trade, who said it's impossible?

Under anarchy, no society can progress beyond substinance living.

Care to explain? Without having to labour for constant hours, individuals will have time to fill up. Perhaps a lot more people will become oriented in their studies so that they can progress their futures and education without having to waste their life working for hours to pay someone who does not even work.

If you disagree with that, just try to describe how commerce will be conducted. Maybe start with steel. Describe the path that the raw materials will take from the point they are dug from the ground to the point that you buy your brand new gun from someone. State who will play what role, and why. Describe what will each person get from the transaction. (The example was deliberate. You had best have a lot of firepower in a world under anarchy.)

Commerce will depend upon what the people want. Whether it is through communism or mutualist means, anything is better than capitalism. Since every individual in society is a worker, the worker will play the only role in that society. Each worker has the choice of when s/he wants to labour and can live their own life as long as it doesn't violate the freedom of others. Back to the economics, if one needs something, one can make it themselves. If what they need is too distant, they can surely trade with distant lands.

[Bryan]

You are not responding to the point I am making. Precisely who among the masses will carry out this anihilation of threats.

As I made claim of, in order for anarchism to be implemented, multitudes of people, generally a majority must advocate the implementation of such a system. Now, it'd be the duty of those precise masses to annihilate any threats. Get it?

What is governing? It is the making and enforcement of rules.
What is government? It is any body that makes and enforces rules.

If the masses agree to annihilate any threat, this the act of making and enforcing rules. Those that do that are the government.

If any body (that is to say any group of people) collectively decide what is right and what is wrong, then carry out actions based on that decision, then those people are the government. When the masses agree to do anything as a cohesive group, they are a government. Once done, you no longer have the state of anarchy.

Get it?

No, you most certainly do not.

1. If this is a group decision, then you have a government.

Far from it. Your assumption is completely unsubstantiated.

It is not an assumption. It is the defintion of the words governing and government.

People don't go around murdering other people for the fun of it. Most murderous activity is percipitated by impoverished social conditions and/or a monetary incentive.

Actually, yes they do. Not most as you correctly state, but certainly enough to make the remainder of society uncomfortable. Look at how many we have now who will plot and scheme to steal or otherwise commit fraud upon others. Many if not most of these people are perfectly capable of earning a living honestly. They prefer to cheat and steal.

Don't think so? Check out Charles Manson. Check out Ted Bundy. Check out Jeffry Dahlmer. (that name may not be exactly right) Check out all the Catholic priests that molested and raped young boys. These preists were supposed to be the best of the best. The most moral of all. How many well to do people shoplift just for the fun of it. The lists and examples go on almost without end.

Those that think people tend to be good honest people have not a clue as to human nature. You think you do, but you clearly do not.

Who will determine the currency of land? Are you kidding me? Anarchists want to do away with all property relations.

I reiterate the point, you have not a clue as to what makes people tick. Humans will always want to control material things and other people. Always have, always will. Why? Because those that control the most, breed the most, and their tendancies get passed on to the next generation.

Don't bother arguing this point. I have done some studying in psychology and pholosophy. I can confidently say you have not.

How about transportation? Who will build and maintain the roads? Any collective effort is indeed a government.

Obviously, you don't understand the functions of a government.

One of the functions of government is to do what the individuals cannot do. Such as building roads. Notice that you did not answer the question. Rather than just saying I am wrong, say who will build the roads and why they will do it. Describe the rewards that these road builders will achieve. Tell me how a road will be designed and constructed without a heiarchy. (remember, heiarchy is totally disdained by anarchy)


Lets skip to a critical question that you ignored. There are a number of countries today in which anarchy is the effective rule of the land. Instead of continuing your babbling about why capitalism should be abolished, tell us why you choose to not go to those countries and live in anarchism.

You want it, go Live it!!! Right now! Today!

[Devlar]

There are a number of countries today in which anarchy is the effective rule of the land.

Which ones?