The Issue of Maintaining an Anarchist Society

[itisawyatt]

I am new to the concept of anarchism outside of the mainstream portrayal of mindless violence and mayhem, and I would very much like to get behind the idea, except there is one flaw that I cannot look past.

In an anarchist society, where there is no state, religion, or currency, what is to keep an unsatisfied group of individuals from setting up their own sub-society inconsistent with anarchist values? If I am to understand anarchism correctly, the fundamental belief behind it is the idea that authority is evil. If this is the case, then there is no power to keep these rogue groups from forming their own economies, religions, states, etc.

Only two solutions come to my mind in this scenario:
1. Simply prohibit the forming/operation of these groups.
2. Create a society so appealing, that it is unnecessary for these people to want to break away in the first place.

However, with the first option, authority would come into play and anyone with enough power to forbid individual choices would completely dismantle the original plan for an anti-authoritative, non-hierarchical society. The second option is so idealistic and ignorant of humanity that I hesitate to even present because there will always be criminals and individuals who threaten the liberty of others.

These are my main concerns. Could anyone explain how these would be prevented?

[Pyrrhus]

there is a third option you neglected... resistance. The first step is simply to not cooperate with them and if they start using violence you can defend yourself and your community. Anarchism isn't inherently pacifism, i don't think anyone would have a problem with you and your friends defending yourselves.

Authority doesn't need to come into it as it's all about the perceptions people have. Through voluntary cooperation and a desire for liberty and self-governance those who do wish to harm others whether through simple 1v1 violence or through trying to create a state would naturally be resisted. The outcome of such resistance i can't really state as it's a hypothetical scenario but just think of it like how you act now towards people... If there's someone you know who constantly insults you or your friends, steals etc you'd stop associating with them and if it comes to blows you'd defend yourself.

As for how i personally see anarchism, these days i don't see it as anti-authority or anti-state, i see it simply as a rejection of the use of aggressive force and that the state is defined as an institution with a virtual monopoly on the use of aggressive force in a given geographical area. If someone voluntarily enters into a hierarchy or voluntarily submits to someone's authority that's their own business and while in some situations i may see it as distasteful aslong as there's no aggressive force i don't really see any problems. Hell, a doctor has medical authority, if i had a medical problem i'd probably seek said authority but i shall always keep my ability of criticism and refusal at any point.

[Saethwyr]

We dont. We let them do it because if we tried to supress them, we'd de-legitimise ourselves as an anti-authoritarian institution and we'd have a gigantic rebellion on our hands because we'd be being authoritarian douchebags. The problem is when an authoritarian group actively tries to subvert our anarchism and turn a society that was once anarchistic authoritarian. If there was a group that disagreed wit hthe way the society was going and wished to be authoritarian, to be consistent anarchists, we would allow them to leave peacefully and find their own place to be authoritarian. Anarchism is an extreme variation on libertarianism, which means let people do what they want.

You need to understand that most likely after our current monopolistic state system is done away with, there will be hundreds of thousands of tiny territories over the area of what was originally a single country, each with varying levels of authoritarianism or libertarianism, and capitalism or socialism, because like I said before, anarchists are libertarians, we let people do what they want. Though obviously if a statist territory atacked us or tried to subvert us we would defend ourselves. You also need to take into account the fact that people in an anarchist society most likely fought hard to create it, and strongly beleive in their ideals. They would not let someone subvert their society without resistance.

[FirePirate]

I would also like to add that if some subgroup does appear, and does not pose a threat to the well being of other groups, there is no reason to react. I personally don`t envision an anarchist world, simply where the anarchist idea is respected. Also, a variety of different groups should develop and be able to co-exist.

[K=x'uksami]

In an anarchist society, where there is no state, religion, or currency, what is to keep an unsatisfied group of individuals from setting up their own sub-society inconsistent with anarchist values? If I am to understand anarchism correctly, the fundamental belief behind it is the idea that authority is evil. If this is the case, then there is no power to keep these rogue groups from forming their own economies, religions, states, etc.

Nothing, really. I think people should have the option of leaving anarchy if they disagree with it. So long as they leave the wider anarchist milieu alone, I don't see the problem. Anarchy should, and I think can, stand on its own merits, without having to force people to accept it. Of course, one could argue that authoritarian bodies have a drive to expand and conquer that would imperil anarchy. That small corporation might attempt to drive the syndical union out of business, or turn a commune into a company town defended by private security. In that case, some form of resistance would be necessary, perhaps refusal to coöperate with such a firm or else armed responses against military aggressors.

I rather doubt that such groups would necessarily proliferate enough to threaten anarchy. A successful anarchist revolution implies broad public support and a majority of people participating in anarchy. Any remaining authoritarians would face overwhelming resistance if they attempted to reimpose government, not to mention stigma for defending a hated regime. Consider how ludicrous you'd find it to hear someone on the street corner advocating a return to feudal autocracy and calling himself the king. I imagine that future authoritarian movements will look pretty much the same to a well-established anarchy.

One must ask, by the way, what would motivate people to launch their own states in the first place. If anarchy works even half as well as its proponents claim, authoritarian alternatives will prove a hard sell. People flock to capitalist work places today out of economic pressure. But with the option of anarchy, they would have no compelling reason to do so. Plenty of people may declare themselves popes and generals, but they need followers to carry out their plans. They can bluster all they like, but without the muscle to enforce their will, it's nothing but idle threats.