No matter how anarchist advocates try to sugarcoat it, anarchism is definitely not a solution for humanity’s problems.
The biggest problem with anarchism is the assumption that all humans are born saints — morally perfect without one single glitch. These perfect humans always talk things out and find the best “solutions that meet the needs of everyone,” in the words of Joseph Levidal’s article “Finding Sense in Anarchy.” Unfortunately, that’s hardly the case, even in the most ideal situations.
The majority tends to bull-doze or even stampede over the minority rather than coming up with solutions that meet the needs of both. This happens even in the most democratic societies of humanity.
For example, in November 2009, the majority of Swiss citizens made a controversial decision through a constitutional amendment referendum that no more minarets — towers in mosques — could be built in Switzerland.
On the other hand, certain people from the minority would do anything just to make themselves heard, for example, Occupy Vancouver protesters would rudely interrupt any speaker or any discussion just to make themselves heard.
The objectives of anarchism are not only to eliminate all forms of governance, but also to eliminate all forms of laws and to replace them with morals. While morals certainly play a vital role in stopping bad actions before they happen, how much can they control a person without the existence of laws?
Do anarchists think that everyone has the skills and knowledge required to turn decisions into reality?
Do anarchists honestly believe that people can always keep their desires under control, taking only their fair share from society, without the consequences provided by laws and law enforcement? I’m not saying that anarchists are inherently violent, or that law enforcement is without its own problems, but there’s only one George Washington for every billion people.
Also, there are certain anarchists who equate anarchism and direct democracy. This is very misleading. Wherever there’s entrusting of power, there’s a de-facto government. While it’s great that these anarchists are advocating that everyone should have a say in decision-making processes, do they think that everyone has the skills and knowledge required to turn decisions into reality?
To make this idea concrete, let’s say the SFSS is now building a new student union building under anarchism. Do we have the knowledge to design such a building, the physical strength to carry and install the bricks, glass, etc., and the knowledge required to operate building machinery?
Didn’t think so. That’s why we appoint architects to help us design the student union building that integrates students’ opinions about the building, and why we hire a team of workers to do the construction work. When we can’t do everything on our own, we entrust some people to do the work for us.
I’m in no way satisfied with the status quo. Like many anarchists, I’ve been involved with direct actions trying to make this world a better place. However, the imperfectness of humanity has already determined that anarchism is simply not a solution for humanity’s problems.
Poor article. People will make their own choices and will consider the consequences. The collective knowledge of people making decisions according to their own self-interest will always outweigh the knowledge of a government. Individuals know what they need and will find ways to satisfy those needs. The government makes arbitrary guesses as to how to control an economy, and these guesses inevitably result in booms and busts, and recessions like the one in 2008.
Society runs best when people are left to their own devices. Live and let live.
More like “die and let die”.
“The majority tends to bull-doze or even stampede over the minority rather than coming up with solutions that meet the needs of both. This happens even in the most democratic societies of humanity.”
Solutions that meet the needs of all come when individuals have control over their own circumstances. I think you agree with me, but you have a fundamental misunderstanding as to what anarchism stands for. Anarchism encourages voluntary action and cooperation which is not backed by force (eg. government). Also, it does not explicitly advocate a vicious free-for-all where human beings don’t help each other. Rather, it places responsibility on individuals to help each other, rather than have faith in the ever-growing bureaucracy that is the state.
Do you think humans are born to help each other? No way at all. I honestly think it’s YOUSE anarchists who have a fundamental misunderstanding as to the nature of humanity. None of us are born saints and the desire to loot is within our genes. That’s why humanity needs governments to keep such desire under control. Even if you don’t advocate “a vicious free-for-all”, the human society will eventually turn into a vicious free-for-all.
Also, you wanna know how well anarchism has worked in real life? Look up “Jonestown”.
If none of us are born saints, on what grounds can we allow certain human beings to control others?
On the ground of knowledge. Wise people rule. Or are you siding with the CCP and tell me “Th more knowledgeable a person is, the more anti-revolutionary s/he is”?
OK, I accept your argument that looting is in our genes. I am pretty sure that my gene pool is bigger and stronger than yours. So, why don’t you just give me your lunch money now and save us both the hassle? Huh?
See? It’s this kind of violence that makes anarchism but an idealistic dream.
@freedom: Said with absolutely no evidence to a historically functioning society whatsoever.,
At its best this article is ridiculous, particularly considering that it was written in a student newspaper by a person who, in theory, has the time to read a bit on the things he/she is writing about. At its worst, this article is disingenuous, and uses a lot of silly caricatures and straw-man arguments that do little more than betray the writer’s lack of life experience and support some under-developed philosophical positions that the writer himself does not even seem sure of.
As a painfully obvious example, the writer misunderstands a discussion of whether people will “naturally” help each other or “naturally” kill each other when given the opportunity to choose as meaning that they will likely chose the most oppressive and violent course of action available if it is in their self interest to do so, and by consequence we should regard all our neighbours with suspicion.
A more well thought out exploration of this topic would likely admit *the undeniable propensity* individuals possess to help each other *under all circumstances*, and which they would ideally make use of when the conditions are most ripe for that.
Anarchism as I misunderstand it, is about creating certain conditions in which that propensity to chose can find its broadest expression rather than have a set list of choices handed to us by a teacher, a student organization, an architectural firm, your local MLA, or an ostensibly free market.
Capitalism, also seeks to free individuals in rather fantastic terms albeit through the hospices of the free market where enlightened individuals act in their rational self-interest. However, capitalism also relies heavily on media advertising to teach us that Kool brand cigarettes are “alive with pleasure” and that Coca-Cola is “the real thing”.
So what are you gonna choose?
By saying “it’s either capitalism or anarchism”, you’re practically saying “you’re either on our side or on child predators’ side”, dear Minister Toews.
We have anarchy now and it is terminally violent. Really think that someone is in control? I think there are some folks who pretend to be, call them politicians maybe or CEOs or Generals. From the definitions of the roots of the word I think we can agree that pursuing anarchy is seeking a state of being in which there are no rulers. How about the ruler you probably used in school, maybe still use occasionally for something or other. Should we do without them? I’ve heard a tape measure called a “ruler” before. Is there any difference between a marked stick used to reference shared reality and a person speaking maybe from knowledge and understanding about how we might do things without attempting to infringe natural laws? Probably there have been situations where measuring sticks were made and then it was discovered they were too faulty, off or maybe text on it was indecipherable to the extent that they were not used. Rulers for figuring what we might do socially that fit in with other circumstances can and often are faulty. We need to continually reassess their validity and replace them, that’s all. Find shared references of understandings so that each of us does not have to reinvent every tool and maybe can do things in such a manner that satisfies personal needs and desires without transgressing the rights of others to do the same. Do we have government now? Would anarchy mean no government? I suspect so, no means to commensurate and efficiently coordinate things so that they don’t crowd any one too much or so that other options can be sustained or facilitated.
There is a very real possibility that such a discussion on the good or bad nature of anarchy cannot be carried out with someone who is a firm believer in anarchy. There are certain laws that have come to be recognized about how logic and reason can be used to find functional joint strategies. Would an anarchist be against logic and reason? Why should they let such things rule their thoughts? Been said human communications can’t be analyzed using Boolean logic. I dare say a person can structure their communications to facilitate complex useful thoughts by deploying attention to Boolean logic when they consider a premise. Maybe human communications can’t be all that broken down in terms of validity analysis on the basis of logic alone but that doesn’t mean a person can’t try to think and state things in such a manner. I think if you do anarchy appears to be self-destructive.