What do you think would happen If we had a complete Anarchy?

Question

Do you really think there would be complete change (the way we think of it), with people raping killing pillaging robbing etc.

Or do you think you would really see what humanity is made of (or maybe both). Do you think that this would make people do exactly what they wanted to do in life because there would be restriction (as in government, police etc.)

Do you think people would still form watch groups to help each other? Would it really be worse than the police force, when you would have your community's interest at heart because anything could happen.

Do you really think people would live in fear because in theory anything can happen, but again in a democracy anything can happen as well because the "bad" things that happen in life don't usually ask for permission to occur?

I know that was a long question, but any thoughts on anarchy would be helpful

P.S. This question is purely analytical and is not meant for any other purpose

Answer 1

I think there would still be raping, killing, etc.  I think it would definitely bring out the best/worst of people.  I don't think people would still be able to do exactly what they want in life.  I think it is human nature generally to want to control others.  People wouldn't run around by themselves, they would form groups and start everything all over again until we are back where we left off.  People would live in fear.  

Answer 2

it would be like the ghetto everywhere. people would carry guns and no one would call the cops.

Answer 3

I think the world's poor and starving masses would eat the rich. I would join them but I'm a vegetarian, and I reckon most rich people would taste like S**t.

Answer 4

There would be a race war. There would be much raping, killing.... I think ppl would do exactly as they pleased. There would still be ppl helping ppl, but the numbers would be few.  

Answer 5

At present, there are many para-state organizations, such as other criminal gangs, and there are too few counterpowers to be sure to keep them in check.

So it's likely that the sudden disappearance of one state would result in warring states, looting, pillaging, etc.instead of anarchy.

The anarchist movement has historically focused on creating counterpowers, such as labor unions and mutual aid societies, and has sometimes raised militias too (cf. the Russian and Spanish Civil Wars). An anarchist movement strong enough to topple the state would probably be strong enough to defeat para-state organizations. So that's a very different question than the sudden disappearance question.

****

Anarchism, in a nutshell, supports free association, opposes the state, and opposes hierarchy. (At the very least, anarchists oppose involuntary hierarchy; anarchists often try to create egalitarian alternatives to the semi-voluntary hierarchies too).

There are several different traditions which respect these values, and usually recognize each other as forms of anarchism. These traditions borrow ideas from classical liberalism, from early socialism, from each other, and sometimes from other sources.

People depend on each other. People tend to create their own voluntary social order, including free association, reciprocity, mutual aid, and, if necessary, mutual defense. Once people create this order, a state, or any other criminal gang, is in trouble. So the state, to preserve itself, must preempt voluntary social order.

Highleyman, "An introduction to anarchism:"

http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp00155...

"An anarchist FAQ:"

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/193... or

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html (same text)

Answer 6

My wishy-washy answer:

Although anarchy and anomie are not one in the same….I believe that this type society would be on the verge of anomie.  Durkheim defined anomie as a condition where social and/or moral norms are confused, unclear, or simply not present. He felt that this lack of norms--or pre-accepted limits on behavior in a society--led to deviant behavior.  So, as social restraints are weakened individuals have less of a “reason” to conform and more freedom to fulfill their own goals.  Would society become completely narcissistic or would the previous social bonds and restraints remain intact?    

I think one point to clarify in this situation would be that the absence of “formal” laws does not necessarily mean that there is a state of “normlessness” or anomie since norms refer to how groups “self-police” their own through an imposed set of guidelines in regards to how members of the given group (society) are expected to behave.  Sanctions need not be institutionally enforced in order to be effective.  [Members in a given group/society that deviate from these implicit or explicit rules regarding “appropriate” behavior are subject to sanctions within the group.  Sanctions may range minimal forms of disapproval to the most severe punishment of expulsion from the group.]

I believe even in a state of anarchy, man would still be bound to some extent by the society in which he lives…we are after all, social beings.  And government/police are not the only “enforcers” within our society.  Because of this, much of what sets apart from “other” animals is our humanity (compassion, altruism)…and it is that sense of what is morally just and acceptable within our “group” that would still serve to guide our behavior (there will be extreme cases in both directions as in any situation).  

In a society defined by anarchy, it would seem to me that individuals would immerse themselves within their social setting (group affiliation) as it would provide a sense of security because the social ecology of abandonment and lawlessness lends little support to social systems and makes it difficult to sustain the few that remain intact.  [Of course the extreme situations would exist in the form of rampant crime in the form of rape, looting, etc.  But, believe it or not…post-disaster, states of normlessness, times lacking law and order, etc. looting and crime is not nearly as horrific as we (society) believe it to be or as prevalent as the media portrays it to be.]  

Now, I guess to my actual point at the end of this…..within every group, every society, every nation…there are weak and there are strong.  One group/society is bound to enforce their norms on another weaker/smaller group and take control.  I think after some period of time a “new” form of governance would emerge, since we tend to be followers more times than leaders.  

Answer 7

Let's be positive here.  I think a new world order would arise and take control, most probably in a better way than either chaos or a false democracy.

People would still meet in groups and work out what was best for the whole of society.

Group behaviour and dynamics would still happen because we are, after all basically social animals like any other species.

Answer 8

The only place, as far as I know , the Anarchists came to power was in Spain during the Civil War but as they could never agree amongst themselves they were replaced by communists.