I thought to help this thread starting out, i'd post some definitions...

an·ar·chy

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

[New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhi, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without; see a-1 + arkhos, ruler; see -arch.]

an·ar·chism

1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: “He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity” (Bertrand Russell).

Note: These definitions come from www.dictionary.com which mainly uses Webster's dictionary among others.

---

by Havoc
After scanning through Byron's thread on fascism I decided i really wanted to hear Jayjay's and Byron's views on this subject, and to start off with i'd like to say there is no such thing as a anarchistic society - society is a group, not a rabble and a group has to have some form of leader and on this note if we went to anarchy we would develop leaders from the bottom up, starting with despots and dictatorships.

---

Broadly, I agree.

Firstly it comes down to whether you believe in the necessity for hierarchical structures. I don't think there's a hard and fast rule for this. In a student commune of say 50 people, it may work perfectly well to have group decisions, where the group hashes out a compromise. Where you have a society of 60 million people, this is never going to happen, so I believe in the necessity of some form of government.

Anarchists, from what I've read of Anarchism, believe in autonomous communities, and a complete lack of government. I have several problems with this: one is that we once had this power structure, but it became necessary to move beyond it as societies became more complex and expansive. It also seems that it is ripe for internecine warfare and fighting between groups. How does this state of affairs protect an individual from the tyranny of the majority - what if a community decided it didn't want homosexuals? How will this work in a society as vastly complex as Britain; do we regress to a pre-industrial state? If not, how will the infrastructures hold up when people can do what they like - what if, say, one train driver decides to drive 100 mph faster than all the others? If everyone can do as they like, what is to stop someone strip-mining a large proportion of our natural habitat?

This is the gist of my current opposition to Anarchism: as a principal, I love it. When that principal is transposed to reality, however, I just cannot see it working, and so support the current system as being the least worst of all the possible options.

My disagreement with Anarchism is essentially very similar to Byron's.

Society is amazingly complex, with limitless amounts of different social groups. I simply do not believe the Human Race at present has the capacity to exist in any civilised manner without the coercive and administative arms of government to keep things running.

And unless there is some great social evolution, i don't see that ever being the case.

---

by Byron
Anarchists, from what I've read of Anarchism, believe in autonomous communities, and a complete lack of government.

---

Once you start bringing any kind of community into it I'd say it's closer to Anarcho-Syndicalism. Which is a social system that may well work in small communities. However, I agree with Byron and Maff that once you go beyond the very local level there is a need for greater co-ordination than this can provide.

What I understand by Anarchism itself is even less structured than that. People might join together but only in temporary alliances as a matter of convenience. I would have thought that anything more permanent would be a subversion of the principle of anarchy. And this worries me because I just don't think people are nice enough for an anarchistic society to be the nice little Utopia that has been posited on occasion. People will by and large always want more than they have, and if there's nothing to stop them taking it from someone else, they'll take it.

Also, I'm not convinced it would work. Humans seem to me to have an inbuilt need to organise (anyone remember the B-Ark in HHGTTG?). So, not long after the anarchistic society had been founded, probably once the big guys had started taking things from the little guys, the little guys would start banding together to stop them, and eventually someone would emerge as a leader, and poof! no more anarchy.

So, my objections to anarchy in (theoretical) practice are due to its incompatibility with the type of co-ordination required by a post-industrial global society and its inability to prevent conflicts. I also feel that authority will develop organically if none is present - look at pack behaviour among animals. But I'm also going to stick my neck out and add that I don't like anarchy as a principle. Firstly, because its extreme form sounds a little too close to every-man-for-himself Thatcherism for comfort, and secondly because, as Havoc says, there is no such thing as an anarchistic society, and...well, someone else said it much better:

---

by John Donne
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

---

That sums up a lot of my deeply held beliefs, and as I understand it anarchy as a principle is in pretty much direct contradiction to it.

---

by White Hart
(quotes)
and eventually someone would emerge as a leader, and poof! no more anarchy.

---

Precisely. Anarchy is not sustainable, ironically, without it being forced...

As I see it, we'd quickly trangress to warring tribes. Eventually, we'd slowly get back to a democratic or similar society. What we have right now is a natural evolution.

Governance and control of a population has always existed where there are groups of people, and is a completely natural aspect of our humanity. Like most in the animal kingdom, for a very long time indeed the control of populations has largely revolved around a combination of physical strength and cunning of individuals. Its only very recently that the use of might has diminished in day to day competition for wealth and the control of power. Of course, as a civilisation, while we pretend to be 'above all that' now, we still play it out on a daily basis around the world using our might to dominate and control others. So really, people are still people, and nothing has changed.

You will never get rid of goverment. Nothing will achieve this. even after total wipwout by nuclear war, some of the few left will always look for leaders.

all we can do is choose the goverment we want.

Persoanlly i like the spanich goverment, but i can only afford france. france is better than the UK and i'm young, maybe one day i can move to spain.

leaving the UK is my protest

OK, guess as I'm the only posting member of this board, that I know of, who describes themself as an Anarchist, then I better say something in defence of that position. However, I am far from keen on placing myself as spokesperson for the whole of anarchism. Anarchism encompasses many different ideas and approaches based around some very simple tenets, so I will try to stick to what unites all forms of Anarchism. Further, I should also state that my own preferred brand is at odds with the vast majority of people today who also call themselves Anarchists in that I see it as a distant utopian goal, whereas most Anarchists I have come across (or read) believe Anarchism is achievable now. I do not.

Also, I need to clear something else up. Much of what is posted above comes from misinformation about Anarchism. Not deliberately by the posters above, but by generations of capitalist governments and philosophers. Please understand that what most people think anarchism is has been affected by what a large number of strident capitalists want us all to think it is. Just as what most of us think a witch is owes more to Christians than it does to Wiccans.

So let's start with the word itself. It's a contraction that simply means 'to be without hierarchy'. And this is all Anarchism is. An organised belief in how society can be ordered without power structures. If I can pinch (well, possession is theft) the words of Alan Moore: 'This is the land of take-what-you-want. Anarchy means "without leaders"; not "without order". With Anarchy comes an age of Ordnung, of true order, which is to say voluntary order. .. This is not Anarchy, Eve. This is chaos' (Stolen from V for Vendetta)

And Anarchy is not Chaos, whatever it is. It is also not anti-democracy or anti-organization. Quite the reverse. If government means leaders, power and some people telling other people how to think and how to act then Anarchy is opposed to it. If government is the means of implementing democracy, then it is all for it.

So, again, to put it simply, Anarchy is a rejection of power structures - a rejection of capitalism. It is a desire for a society of voluntary co-operation, of from each according to their ability; to each according to their need.

There are also anarchist communities around today. Co-operative ventures are anarchistic. Credit Unions are anarchistic. There are housing associations based on anarchistic ideals. However, where I differ from most other anarchists is the belief that we can create a totally anarchistic society today, if enough of us want it. Personally, I think we are too materialistic as a culture for this to be true. Most of us judge our own and each others worth and how many toys we have, how big our office is or whatever. Too many of us want to be better than the Jones'. Until there is a significant change to our culture I cannot see Anarchy working on a bigger scale than it is already. This does not make it impossible, just something to work towards. Each and everyone of us. If there is anyone interested in reading more than I will be happy to recommend texts and websites which go into far more detail, and far more eloquently, than me.

As expected, a thoroughtly insightful and (as ever) well articulated explanation of Anarchism.

It's also the best I've seen to date: my information comes not from the capitalist or popular perception of Anarchism, but from debating with the proponents of it. And I have to say, most seem to live in an amusingly delusional dream world where "capitalism" is responisble for everything wrong with the world, and the instant abolition of every government would be the perfect solution. Among the comments they've come up with are: "Even if 300,000-400,000 were murdered every year, it'd be better than we are now."

Since you very clearly have no relation to that train of thought, I'll start again with some basic questions (which the aformentioned muppets were unable to answer); this is a genuine desire to understand the concept!

How would law and order be maintained?
How would complex infrastrucures work?
How would descisions at a national level be reached without a hirarchical structure? Would everything be put to a refferendum?
What about private property? Will it all be abolished?
If some people want to continue with capitalism, what will they do?
What would stop someone, say, building a huge boat and delpleting the entire North Sea fish stocks?

I'll do my best.

Law and order is another area I disagree with the main body of Anarchism. My understanding is the belief is that a police force is unnecessary, though I never quite got why. I'll see if I can dig up some literature on this.

My own opinion is that a police force would be required on a militia scale, with some career professions (forensic scientists, homicide investigators), but every insurance needs to be made to avoid the police force being used to enforce coups. All societies need rules and constitutions, hierarchical or anarchic. There is nothing I can see in Anarchy which would contradict a written constitution and legal system, where the law is clear, the only acts forbidden are those that remove civil liberties from others.

Complex infrastructures? Are we talking about company structures? local government? Exactly what are you thinking of?

Decisions on a national level. The form I subscribe to argues for a series of local councils to which all adults would be entitled to attend and vote in. For national and supranational decisions, the issues will be discussed locally and then a nominee will be sent to present the results. They will have no power as they can only present the views already stated at the council.

Which should also answer the referendum question.

Private property would be abolished, yes.

Capitalism is not compatible with Anarchism except where Anarchism is on a small scale (like the examples I gave last time) and Capitalism is the dominant force. And Anarchy cannot exist without consensus support. Anymore than Capitalism can.

As I said, there would still be laws and democratic bodies. It would therefore be a priority to maintain environmental conditions, so if an act would threaten the environment then it would be up to those bodies to ensure these acts were stopped.

Hope that helps.

---

by Jayjay
I'll do my best.

Law and order is another area I disagree with the main body of Anarchism. My understanding is the belief is that a police force is unnecessary, though I never quite got why. I'll see if I can dig up some literature on this.

My own opinion is that a police force would be required on a militia scale, with some career professions (forensic scientists, homicide investigators), but every insurance needs to be made to avoid the police force being used to enforce coups. All societies need rules and constitutions, hierarchical or anarchic. There is nothing I can see in Anarchy which would contradict a written constitution and legal system, where the law is clear, the only acts forbidden are those that remove civil liberties from others.[/b]

---

Well that certainly makes you diametrically opposed to every single Anarchist I’ve argued with before! (Which rather invalidates the reason I asked the question really, because they believed in no police force, written constitution or courts.) But who decides what’s illegal and what’s not? Doesn’t Anarchism mean living without any laws?

---

Complex infrastructures? Are we talking about company structures? local government? Exactly what are you thinking of?

---

The national railways, for example. Or the national grid. If there’s no government, who’s going to regulate all this?

---

Decisions on a national level. The form I subscribe to argues for a series of local councils to which all adults would be entitled to attend and vote in. For national and supranational decisions, the issues will be discussed locally and then a nominee will be sent to present the results. They will have no power as they can only present the views already stated at the council.
Which should also answer the referendum question.

---

Not quite clear how this works – will they have the power to speak for the council? Will the national assembly have the power to pass laws?

If so, that’s just a variation of representative democracy surely?

---

Private property would be abolished, yes.

---

But what if I like private property? Will all private property be abolished? Family trinkets, lovers’ gifts, a small dwelling I build. What if I refuse to surrender it? Will it then be taken from be by force? Isn’t that rather tyrannical – and opposed to doing whatever I like? If there are no laws or horizontal power structures, surely no one will be able to remove my property? Isn’t being able to do what you want the very essence of Anarchism – if my property is removed by force, isn’t that a fundamental contradiction?

---

Capitalism is not compatible with Anarchism except where Anarchism is on a small scale (like the examples I gave last time) and Capitalism is the dominant force. And Anarchy cannot exist without consensus support. Anymore than Capitalism can.

---

So what happens if somebody sets up a community built along capitalist lines, and attempts to spread it? Will this then be stopped by force? Wouldn’t true Anarchism involve being able to do whatever you want, including practice capitalism? Who’s going to stop me?

---

As I said, there would still be laws and democratic bodies. It would therefore be a priority to maintain environmental conditions, so if an act would threaten the environment then it would be up to those bodies to ensure these acts were stopped.

---

If there are laws and democratic bodies, what makes it so fundamentally different to today (aside from the forced abolition of capitalism)? No Anarchist I’ve spoken to supports any sort of law, they’ve said they’re antithetical to the entire concept. If any law has to be enforced, you need some horizontal power structures, even if it’s directly above you, to impose it! I’ve been told Anarchism is doing whatever you like without restraints – what you’re proposing sounds like an amended form of representative democracy.

I honestly can’t yet see why what you’re prosing is a radically new concept.

---

by Byron
I’ve been told Anarchism is doing whatever you like without restraints – what you’re proposing sounds like an amended form of representative democracy.

I honestly can’t yet see why what you’re prosing is a radically new concept.

---

I came to the same conclusion reading JayJay's post.

Re: Capatilism

Its not a philosophy, its a naturally occuring phenonenom of the human race. In a nation without power structures to stop it occuring would be impossible.

JayJay I get a suspicion from your posts on this thread that you're suggesting that the reason we're not ready for the version of Anarchy you subscribe to is because we don't all think like you! It might be a fair point, but we're not all as enlightened as you. I think the majority of people are greedy and power hungry, and worse I think its human nature for us to be that way. If we ever evolve to a state where our greed, jealous, anger etc doesnt exist then we will be very different animals indeed. And that sort of scenario sounds as distant and probable as some sort of commune depicted in a Star Trek episode. (and anyway, there is always someone evil abusing the system in one of those sorts of episodes!)

Personally I think the reason we have governement at all is to protect ourselves from ourselves. For example it is easy to say Capitalism is a naturally occuring phenomenon, but I dont agree that it naturally follows we should allow market forces to dictate the way we run our lives - because that is where the greed and power of others starts to ruin peoples lives. I see government and organisation as being a defender against our pure animal instincts (even if they dont do always do a great job of it)

Hierarchical structures, in my view are tried and tested 'good things'. We use hierachic structures in many, many ways, and they are very useful. Imagine if the file system on your computer had no directories, instead it has simply every file on your computer in one flat structure...eeek

Of course, go overboard and you end up with a beuracratic mess. Its all a question of moderation as with most things.

Well, I'm confused now. Jayjay, your Anarchism seems to be generally extremely similar to my brand of Socialism. And certainly like my utopian ideal of a society that *might* one day evolve. Hell, you even pinched (despite intellectual property being theft, yadda yadda yadda) my favourite ideological principle:

---

by Jayjay
from each according to their ability; to each according to their need.

---

Out of curiosity, have you ever read a novel called Woman on the Edge of Time, by Marge Piercy? Just that a lot of your ideas remind me of the future society Piercy describes. I always thought it sounded like a good place and it's certainly shaped a lot of my ideals.

---

by Jayjay
Decisions on a national level. The form I subscribe to argues for a series of local councils to which all adults would be entitled to attend and vote in. For national and supranational decisions, the issues will be discussed locally and then a nominee will be sent to present the results. They will have no power as they can only present the views already stated at the council.

---

I hate to disagree but this is actually a true democracy, not anarchy. People think we live in a democracy but we don't, we live in a republic: in a democracy there is a referendum for every decision, wheras in a republic you have elected officials.

Also I believe this is a form of regress, surely if your 'chosen' (elected) official doesn't like what you think can't he just change his mind on the way to the national debate. This presents the same problem as the electoral seats in the U.S.A where people can in fact do this. Also you have the problem of disparity between the popular and actual vote. To provide an example:

Say You have 3 'seats' (for want of a better word) :A,B,C. A has a population of 200 and voted for x over y in the referendum with a vote count of 175 to 25, B and C with populations of only 50 voted for y with a count of 30 to 20. Here are the results:
X = 1 seat
Y = 2 seats
so y wins, unless you look at the popular vote:
X = 215 votes
Y = 85 votes
See my point. Surely it would be better for one person sinply to take a sealed envelope with the tally in along to the national level?

---

by Jayjay
As I said, there would still be laws and democratic bodies. It would therefore be a priority to maintain environmental conditions, so if an act would threaten the environment then it would be up to those bodies to ensure these acts were stopped.

---

surely these are just leaders at some level?

Despite these objections you may have gained a convert, at some level: your idea of anarchy is one I can see the sense of, and i agree with you that this is a distant goal. Parhaps greater computerization can help us: instead of taking days to take a referendum it can be done in hours: you have one hour to vote via the net or some similar service, the votes are counted electronically (which should only take a minute or so) and everyone on the electerol register is sent an E-Mail or some such thing with a complete breakdown of the vote. This would be a template e-mail with a fill in the blanks slot for the computer so you can't say that this would take too long, and before you say that someone can just 'hack' the vote as "president" George Bush has proven it is possible to rig a paper ballot, in fact an electronic vote would be more secure and indeed many govermental subsidudaries are pushing for this kind of vote.

Sorry Byron, but for this person at least Jayjay has won the argument.

Sheesh! What have I let myself in for?

OK, OK, one at a time...

---

by Byron
Well that certainly makes you diametrically opposed to every single Anarchist I've argued with before!

---

This I know. I should confess that I have reached my version of anarchism via Marxist communism, and have had it heavily flavoured by that. But there are a number of other reasons why I disagree with most active anarchists. And for the record, my main deviation from Marxist was that whole 'Dictatorship of the Masses' malarkey. I would argue that the only difference between anarchists and communists is methodology.

---

by Byron
But who decides what's illegal and what's not? Doesn't Anarchism mean living without any laws?

---

A mixture of the agreed constitution and decisions by the local council. I see nothing inherant in anarchism that says laws cannot be passed, although I agree that many anarchists are opposed to laws. Personally, laws are the best method of enshrining personal freedoms and do not create power structures. However, there is the question of what you do with someone who does transgress. But that's a whole other argument.

---

by Byron
The national railways, for example. Or the national grid. If there's no government, who's going to regulate all this?

---

As I said, anarchism does not mean no government. It can quite happily live with representational democracy. That's how you regulate.

---

by Byron
Not quite clear how this works - will they have the power to speak for the council? Will the national assembly have the power to pass laws?

---

No. Representatives from local councils can only present the decisions of that council. Any attempt to do otherwise would be easily monitored and rectified. As such all decisions are actually made locally, not nationally.

---

by Byron
If so, that's just a variation of representative democracy surely?

---

Yes. As I said, anarchy is not anti-democratic. It is anti power structures.

---

by Byron
But what if I like private property? Will all private property be abolished? Family trinkets, lovers' gifts, a small dwelling I build. What if I refuse to surrender it? Will it then be taken from be by force? Isn't that rather tyrannical - and opposed to doing whatever I like? If there are no laws or horizontal power structures, surely no one will be able to remove my property? Isn't being able to do what you want the very essence of Anarchism - if my property is removed by force, isn't that a fundamental contradiction?

---

If you like private property you are not an anarchist and will not live in an anarchist society. No, anarchism should not be totalitarian. However private property can only exist with majority consent. If the majority have decided upon an anarchistic state, then ownership of, say, large pieces of land, become meaningless. However, on a small scale, no one is going to take your CD player, your Great Grandmother's engagement ring or force their way into your home. As I said, if you don't want to play no one can force you. However, if you are not a part of a society then you can take advantage of its produce. So you want be able to work as part of the society. Use its infrastructures. Affectively, you are going to find it hard to live as capitalist island in a sea of anarchism. It would make sense to either take your beloved belongings and move to somewhere that share's your materialism, or stay and give anarchism a go. But no one will force it on you. At least they shouldn't.

Anarchism is the land of do as you please, not take what you want. And it's hard to do as you please when someone claims they have sole right to some rocks or clumps of grass.

---

by Byron
So what happens if somebody sets up a community built along capitalist lines, and attempts to spread it? Will this then be stopped by force? Wouldn't true Anarchism involve being able to do whatever you want, including practice capitalism? Who's going to stop me?

---

Maybe I'm not making myself clear. No, no one will stop you. Anarchy requires consent. If the people want capitalism then they will have capitalism. But capitalism is not compatible with anarchism. Capitalism creates inequality, have and have-nots. It stops you from doing as you please and forces you into wage slavery and retricts your freedom of movement. Do as you please, but don't stop anyone else from doing the same. Just as you are free to act, you are not free to kill, as this restricts the liberty of others.

---

by Byron
If there are laws and democratic bodies, what makes it so fundamentally different to today (aside from the forced abolition of capitalism)? No Anarchist I've spoken to supports any sort of law, they've said they're antithetical to the entire concept. If any law has to be enforced, you need some horizontal power structures, even if it's directly above you, to impose it! I've been told Anarchism is doing whatever you like without restraints - what you're proposing sounds like an amended form of representative democracy.

---

Here I'm not on a limb. Many anachists and anarchistic writers advocate representative democracy. What is radical is the implementation. As for 'forced abolition of capitalism', there is nothing forced about it, as I have already said. It is just that if you accept capitalism then you cannot accept anarchism - the two contradict each other. As for laws, yes I agree that many anarchists disagree with me on this. However, if you have a consitution (and if you are going to have any form of democracy you need a constitution), you can state that laws can only be set to protect the liberty of all members. So no murder. No rape. No physical attacks. No harrament. That kind of thing. This is not antithetical to anarchism, but enshrines. The question is over enforcement. I have already suggested a militia type police force, which I do not see as having to be a threat as a power structure, as the militia format ensures a connection with the community and stops the building of power bases.

Which I hope answers your points. I'll try an answer everyone else's after my lunch break. And possibly after I do some work...

Next!

---

by Funky Monkey
Re: Capatilism

Its not a philosophy, its a naturally occuring phenonenom of the human race. In a nation without power structures to stop it occuring would be impossible.

---

Sorry, but no. Capitalism is a relatively recent human philosophy and has its roots in Calvinism. Wage Slavery doesn't exist on a mass scale until the Industrial Revolution. Further there are many societies in existance today that are not capitalist. Tribal, Feudal, but not capitalist. It is not an inevitable force. If you have no concept of property or money, then you can't have capitalism.

---

by Funky Monkey
JayJay I get a suspicion from your posts on this thread that you're suggesting that the reason we're not ready for the version of Anarchy you subscribe to is because we don't all think like you! It might be a fair point, but we're not all as enlightened as you.

---

Yes and no. We don't have Anarchy because we are not all anarchists. Quite true. We haven't won that argument. And we are a materialistic culture - which is also incompatible with anarchy. As for me, while I subscribe to anarchism I'm hardly a paragon of virtue. I doubt if I am ready for an anarchistic society. What makes me different from everyone else is that I think anarchy is a good and attainable goal. Not my level of enlightenment.

---

by Funky Monkey
I think the majority of people are greedy and power hungry, and worse I think its human nature for us to be that way. If we ever evolve to a state where our greed, jealous, anger etc doesnt exist then we will be very different animals indeed.

---

Evolution. Human Nature. These are references to biological processes. Are you claiming that greed, jealousy and anger are genetic traits? I am unaware of any study that has identified any gene or group of genes as being responsible for these human behaviourisms. Until someone does I will refuse to believe they are inevitable.

Besides, are you really claiming that we cannot be master of our emotions? This is akin to suggesting that because all humans lust they must commit rape. It is possible to feel anger without committing murder. Is it not possible to feel greed yet to turn away from this reaction because of the greater human good?

I'm not asking for us all to become angels. Just to see a better future without rulers. To take responsibility for actions and our role in our communities. Instead of getting someone else to do the dirty work and then to blame them when they getting wrong. While I admit this a utopian view (it requires an end to materialism and 'one-up-manship'), it does not require humanity to reach some higher plane or to become perfect beings with no emotions or failings. It's an achievable, if not immediate, goal.

---

by Funky Monkey
Personally I think the reason we have governement at all is to protect ourselves from ourselves.

---

Actually, no. Government is descended from feudalism. The people with the biggest weapons told everyone else what to do. Eventually large groups of the populace get enough weapons of their own that they over throw the minority rulers (usually the proletariat or the petit bourgeoisie). Then you get Parliamentary Democracy, or elected dictatorship. You decide which group of people tell you how to live your life. Which is a good healthy step. But it has all the failings of a pure dictatorship. Corruption, abuse of minorities, lack of freedom. Lack of responsibility. Direct democracy, as I have outlined previously, is the final step on this path. Which is compatible with Anarchy.

My problem with hierarchies in human relationships is that they are power structures. They give one human being power over another. And take away responsibility at the same time. We will only truly be free when we accept the responsibilities of freedom. This is not possible in a power structure.

Next!

---

by White Hart
Well, I'm confused now. Jayjay, your Anarchism seems to be generally extremely similar to my brand of Socialism. And certainly like my utopian ideal of a society that *might* one day evolve.

---

Anarchism is one form of socialism. I see no contradiction between calling myself an anarchist and a socialist. And yes, that quote is a favourite of mine as well. And appears in a lot of modern literature on anarchism. It perfectly describes a central desire of the anarchist.

---

by White Hart
Out of curiosity, have you ever read a novel called Woman on the Edge of Time, by Marge Piercy? Just that a lot of your ideas remind me of the future society Piercy describes. I always thought it sounded like a good place and it's certainly shaped a lot of my ideals.

---

Actually, I've neither read nor heard of either the book or the author. Which sounds like a pity. Guess I'll have to add that one to my never ending list of 'books to buy and/or read'.

And finally...

---

by Havoc
I hate to disagree but this is actually a true democracy, not anarchy.

---

Yes, it is true democracy, or direct democracy, to give it it's proper name. However, I've said it before and I'll say it again, anarchy is compatible with democracy. Most of the anarchists I've read in the modern era all see it as part of anarchism.

---

by Havoc
People think we live in a democracy but we don't, we live in a republic: in a democracy there is a referendum for every decision, wheras in a republic you have elected officials.

---

Not quite. We live in a Parliamentary Representative Democracy with Constitutional Monarchy. We are not a republic, as we still have a monarchy and an aristocracy. And democracy does not require referendums. In fact, when we say democracy, we are referring to liberal democracy (democracy means many different things in different cultures), and this merely requires universal suffrage and an electoral system (pretty much exclusively representative rather than direct). So the use of the word 'true' is slightly misleading, although I sympathise with your intent.

---

by Havoc
Also I believe this is a form of regress, surely if your 'chosen' (elected) official doesn't like what you think can't he just change his mind on the way to the national debate.

---

No. As it is not a national debate but a national vote. Effectively they will be taking a sealed envelope. But they will also be able to explain the reason for the council's decision to the other representatives. Further, all votes and speeches will be recorded. Anyone abusing their position will easily be noticed and rectified.

---

by Havoc
surely these are just leaders at some level?

---

No. Leaders make decisions for other people. All decisions are made as a group.

---

by Havoc
Despite these objections you may have gained a convert, at some level: your idea of anarchy is one I can see the sense of, and i agree with you that this is a distant goal.

---

Glad to hear all this writing has done some good.

However, if you are interested in learning more I'd recommend checking out Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's 'What Is Property?' and Michael Bakunin's 'Statism and Anarchy'.

Although, for completeness I would also recommend everyone reads:
John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty'
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel's 'The Communist Manifesto'
Karl Marx 'Capital'
Robert Tressell's 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists'
Jean-Jacques Rousseau's 'The Social Contract'

---

by Havoc
Parhaps greater computerization can help us:

---

Actually, I am opposed to voting via the net. Too insecure, too impersonal. While the ballot system of representative democracy is also corruptible that's no argument. After all, I am arguing for direct democracy, which does not have the failings of the ballot system. So replacing it with electronic voting would be a step backwards.

---

by Jayjay
Not quite. We live in a Parliamentary Representative Democracy with Constitutional Monarchy.

---

I was reffering to a Republic as a form of government not as a form of state. To be simplistic in examples, technically we live in a monarchy (state) but the monarchy does not govern us, see?

P.S I'll have to check out the reading material.

Havoc, to be a republic you have to have no monarch and no aristocracy/oligarchy. Well, you certainly need to have no monarch, but a few have had some form of oligarchy, but only on the sly.

As for us. The reason we are referred to as a Representative (Parliamentary) Democracy with Constitutional Monarchy is as follows. The first half refers to the fact we elect people to represent us at Parliament (as opposed to Direct Democracy or non-electoral Democracies). And that Parliament forms the executive. The second half is to state that our head of state is a monarch, but their role is constitutional, as opposed to executive. As such it is the role of the monarch to protect and enforce the unwritten constitution and to ask a member of parliament to form the next government. In Representative Democratic Republics this role is usually held by a President, though not always, as in the case of the US (where the President forms their own executive and the constitution is protected by the supreme court).

As such we are not a republic. In any shape or form. And it is also why I am a republican, because I want to see an end to all inherited privilege.