Q&A

[Tristantene]

Hello from a budding anarchist. Quick backstory: I was a staunch liberal for years, but after watching society's ongoing struggle to disappear completely up its own asshole, I decided that endless bureaucratic infighting probably wasn't the best way to instigate social change. As soon as I was capable of understanding the political system, I was shocked by the number of blatant violations which people didn't seem to care about (Japanese internment camps in WWII, patriot act.... I don't have to list them all, I'm sure you have them memorized by now). I was dumbfounded by the "If you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain" drivel spewing from the mouths of the teachers at my school. Perhaps they forgot that in the voting booth, the only choice given to you is between chocolate and vanilla.... and that if a large enough group decide that they don't like what you're doing in the privacy of your own home, they can go ahead and LEGALLY remove your rights (like, say, mormon-backed anti-homosexuality legislation, or the war on drugs). Long story short: to say that the system is broken would be wrong; To say that it never worked in the first place might ring truer.

Here are my questions:

In an "unflavored" (not anarcho-socialist/capitalist) form of anarchism, what safeguards are in place to prevent collectives/corporations/etc from gaining too much power and taking control? Corporations can argue their freedom to exist so as not to be dissolved, so who keeps them in check?

Without "government" as we know it, how are the essential services (hospitals, fire department, etc.) organized, placed, or even funded? I'm assuming individuals wouldn't pay taxes, so where do the funds come from? The current medical system is exploitative, to be sure, but I don't like the sound of privatized hospitals. Or, for that matter prisons... but we already have those.

Will schools subsist on the donations and efforts of those around them? Most schools are state-run institutions; private schools often cost obscene amounts of money. Will small towns have the resources to build and sustain adequate education institutes?

And lastly, what is likely an unanswerable question: Can anarchy work on a large scale? I'd love to see examples from history on this one. I think even an optimist would agree that humans are just too selfish for collectivized living, and primitivist "lone wolf" societies are technologically and socially inhibited; can anarchy really work better than the "middle path" (if broken) society that we have now?

[Guest]

I've said it many times before so once more won't hurt imho, the ideal of anarchism is not merely a world without government or the state, but instead a world where people have grown up to the point where such institutions are neither needed nor justified. This is the reason we are assured a process of 'dumbing down' via educational dilapidation, fluoridation of the water, ubiquitous drugging (whether 'voluntary' or not) - to ensure that the opposite process (undumbing up?) does not occur, leaving the rulers to rule.

In an "unflavored" (not anarcho-socialist/capitalist) form of anarchism, what safeguards are in place to prevent collectives/corporations/etc from gaining too much power and taking control? Corporations can argue their freedom to exist so as not to be dissolved, so who keeps them in check?

in world where people have outgrown authoritarian hierarchies, i suspect anyone proclaiming "yo, i got a corporation over here!" would be laughed at. a corporation is an entity created by a state - no state, no corp. there is indeed a danger of collectives going out of control - the only possible remedy would be individuals coming together to oppose them. i know that might sound simplistic, but it's the bottom line.

Without "government" as we know it, how are the essential services (hospitals, fire department, etc.) organized, placed, or even funded? I'm assuming individuals wouldn't pay taxes, so where do the funds come from? The current medical system is exploitative, to be sure, but I don't like the sound of privatized hospitals. Or, for that matter prisons... but we already have those.

there would be a collective or collectives of emergency workers comprised of people who are interested in aiding others during times of emergency. money is problematic, with different anarchists offering different perspectives. but if we assume it exists in this hypothetical society we are talking about - a grown up society which has reasonable values and priorities, then emergency workers would be paid if people thought it was important to have emergency workers.

Will schools subsist on the donations and efforts of those around them? Most schools are state-run institutions; private schools often cost obscene amounts of money. Will small towns have the resources to build and sustain adequate education institutes?

the same goes for teachers as it does for emergency workers. When I lived in a rural area, I went to a school that was built - collectively and voluntarily - by the people of the area. Apparently they thought it was an important thing to have and that the effort was worthy of their labor and resources.

And lastly, what is likely an unanswerable question: Can anarchy work on a large scale? I'd love to see examples from history on this one. I think even an optimist would agree that humans are just too selfish for collectivized living, and primitivist "lone wolf" societies are technologically and socially inhibited; can anarchy really work better than the "middle path" (if broken) society that we have now?

it not only would work on a large scale, imho it offers the only hope for the advancement and survival of humanity, since the current authoritarian model is driving us to extinction. Anarchist history has only the occasional TAZ to offer. Some would propose that many of the isolated 'primitive' groups practice a form of anarchism; others say that it was the mainstream for thousands of years. The current crisis and the many to follow will either result in humans embracing anti-authoritarianism or going extinct (imho). "Collectivism" is a dangerous word. fascism, communism, socialism, capitalism and other authoritarian systems are collectivist. There's a difference between that and a situation where people are free to join and leave voluntary collectives meant to carry out either necessary or desired work.

As for the pitiful humans who continually fail us with their selfishness or just plain obliviousness - well, they also happen to be the only hope. fucked up situation eh?