If there was Anarchy...

[Guest]

Lets just say, tommorow there was an anarchist revolution in the U.S, and there was no government anymore. What would stop society from becoming a somalian-like state with warlords running everything? Would'nt the people who decide to start pillaging become more sucessfull and powerfull than the people who decide to set up anarchist communes?
I guess in summary my guestion is what about human nature do you belive would allow a peacfull, communist anarchist system to happen, and then flurish with no destructive interferance from any warlord raids, pillages, etc...

[Maggot]

It would all have to depend on the person. Some people live a rather well-adjusted life with more than enough cash to get by. Others are poor and will do anything to survive. These two groups would have to somehow figure out a way to work together or else all hell would break loose. And it won't be easy because there's always going to be some greedy bastard who would do anything for power.

[vaguelyhumanoid]

That's why it's important to build the new society within the shell of the old. Otherwise, you just end up with a power vacuum.

[Maggot]

Yeah.

[Anthony]

It is difficult to define exactly what "human nature" is. Human nature could be as general as saying that it encompasses everything that humans do. It can also be as complex as trying to define the natural tendencies of humans. In either case, humans are capable of very evil things, but also the exact opposite.

"When we hear men [and women] saying that Anarchists imagine men [and women] much better than they really are, we merely wonder how intelligent people can repeat that nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only means of rendering men [and women] less rapacious and egotistic, less ambitious and less slavish at the same time, is to eliminate those conditions which favour the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and ambition?" [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 83]

I would assume that if EVERYTHING fell apart in an instant, there would be a huge struggle for resources. People would (initially) think for themselves and their families because that is what our friend Capitalism has lead us to believe is the key to survival. People staying in the capitalism mindset would continue on this same road of self-preservation while those who have embraced the anarchist idea that people are social will freely group together to survive. That is why, as Vaguelyhumanoid mentioned, society must be built in the shell of the old one. A sudden change would lead to widespread chaos and a rebirth of capitalism and oppression within many societies.

As for the pillagers being more powerful than anarchist societies, this is difficult to say. In my opinion, a society that helps each other produce and share is much stronger than a nomadic society that feeds on weaker ones.

[AmericanAnarchist]

It always depends on the conditions, the community and the people. Under the right conditions if there was an anarchist revolution, new collectives would thrive, and those new communitys would show that there is no need for violence, chaos and government. Its very possible it may take a while after the initial revolution for people to join together in communities. And in some places it may never happen. But hell anarchy is all about freedom from rules, tyrants and goverments. One can choose to do what makes one happy.

[Noa o `Anakia]

We'll probably need someone like a Durruti to pave that pathway to a successful anarchist society

[AmericanAnarchist]

We'll probably need someone like a Durruti to pave that pathway to a successful anarchist society

I truly hope I dont sound like an ignorant ass but what is a Durruti?

[Noa o `Anakia]

We'll probably need someone like a Durruti to pave that pathway to a successful anarchist society

I truly hope I dont sound like an ignorant ass but what is a Durruti?

The man who served as the "leader" for the anarcho-syndicalist movement in Spain.

[AmericanAnarchist]

Ahh alright but wouldnt itt be a hard thing to have a true leader of anarchism.

[Anthony]

There can be leaders (mentors and those more experienced are examples), there just cannot be authority figures or an hierarchy. It is a very fine line, however and one must be careful.