Could anarchy work? Could it be a realistic alternative? Why or why not?

Question

Already several great answers. Thanks guys

Answer 1

It would likely result in the end of mankind.  

Answer 2

There is a great deal of misunderstanding of the nature

of anarchism.

Anarchists (also known as libertarians or libertarian

socialists, in the original sense of socialism as worker-

ownership-and-control of the means of production)

oppose illegitimate authority and hierarchy, and therefore

oppose capitalism and the state; anarchists do not oppose

all organization: anarchists favor voluntary, non-

hierarchical, self-organization. Anarchists do not oppose

all rules and laws; anarchists oppose rules and laws

imposed involuntarily by illegitimate authorities, such

as the state, and favor voluntarily-agreed-upon rules and

laws.

"Anarchy 101", an excellent introduction to anarchism,

can be found here:

http://tinyurl.com/2fq4d2

"An Anarchist FAQ", giving an in-depth treatment of

anarchism, can be found here:

http://www.anarchistfaq.org/

*****

News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/

Answer 3

Well, it depends on what you call "work."

I'd argue that what we have NOW is anarchy!  Check out the Marxist concept of "anarchy of production."

Every capitalist manufacturer for himself, churning out products with no regard to what it takes to make them in terms of materials or labor, or social cost, or what their use value is - the only concern being "can we sell it, make a profit, and get it out the door?"

Anarchy helps the rich.

Just like war is too important to be left up to the generals, business is too important to be left up to business people.

Answer 4

It would depend on your definition of working. It would be like the wild west , where guns would rule. Peaceful protests would not be allowed. No company would want to do business. You also wouldn't have clean water and the trash would pile up.  

Answer 5

Most people have no idea what "Anarchy" would entail in terms of political organization. Ultimately, Anarchy does not mean a lack of organization, but a dissolution of the state apparatus of repression and control.

The only way, I believe, to acheive "anarchy" (the dissolution of the state) is for a democratization of capital such that the plutocratic oligarchy that currently passes itself off as bourgoise "democracy" is completely destroyed. In this sense, Anarchists share common goals and interests with revolutionary socialists.

Where Anarchists differ from socialists is in the means with which anarchists seek to bring about this democratization of capital: bottom up, not top down. Top down socialism (including Marxist-Leninism and Trotskyism) neccesitates a maintenence of a hierarchical system in which "virtues" like duty to country (or ideology) and obediance to authority are  still proclaimed. It is the anarchist argument that these notions of duty and obediance are part of the problem.

Clearly, anarchism remains a pseudo-spiritual position as it entails faith in humanity's essential good will and desire to cooperate for mutual benefit. In that, again, it is like socialism, however the focus on the whole of society (too often at the expense of the individual) that socialism entails remains problematic for people who are accustomed to greater degrees of personal freedom.

Can it work? Is it a realistic alternative? The answer to those questions is that (on small scales) it DOES work and the more people come to realize that they do not require an authoritarian apparatus to lord over them like serfs and peasants, the more realistic an alternative anarchism will be.  

Answer 6

No.

Every time you get a group of people together the end result is a hierarchy of leadership and a set of rules, often flexible and very subjective.

Answer 7

Not here in America,  Too much territory.  Too many people.  Too much wealth.  

Answer 8

I think that maybe we are living in anarchy, at least that as much as democracy, which we sure ain't living.

Answer 9

No.  How could it.  The only ones with rights would be war lords.  The one's with the most guns, the most might and the most cruel.  It would all come down to the survival of the meanest.  Bush is trying to head us in  that direction.

Answer 10

Anarchy work=oxymoron.

Answer 11

Maybe because people naturally create their own sense of order and rules.  Just like the natives in every country who were here before us and before formal governments.  But those controlling our government and economy stand to lose the most, so they would make sure that never happens.

Edit: About military dictatorships--foreign government intervention is usually responsible for that (like with the coup in Iran and Chile).  That was CIA involvement--not anarchy.  I think that people, in general, are basically good and wouldn't just start randomly killing each other (then usually need some outside force with an agenda to instigate it).  Those few are the evil ones and can commit their crimes because they're so organized!

Answer 12

Nope. A power vacuum would form, to be instantly filled by some kind of violent military dictatorship. If you have several competing dictators, you end up with Somalia.

Answer 13

No anarchy only exists for a limited amount of time. If there is no group in charge a vacuum of power exists and eventually someone or some group will seize it.

Answer 14

No it can't. Ever read Hume?

I'm a cynic & I don't think that people listen to that little voice in their head. Or they don't analyze the acts they are about to commit. h**l, people are into order when it COMES to creating anarchy. Quite a paradox....or not.

Answer 15

No,we need laws,and people who break them. It is part of a functioning society. Ideally,we need a less corrupted government.