User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Anarchy?

  1. #1

    Default Anarchy?

    Not the rejection but the internalisation of authority?

  2. #2
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Not the rejection but the internalisation of authority?
    At every opporunity, it gives ways to government. We have government because people don't internalize rules in a way that is suitable for complex society.

    There's this sort of concept; There are no ideal governments. Governments exist because people do not behave in ideal ways.

    That is also why anarchy does not last.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    At every opporunity, it gives ways to government. We have government because people don't internalize rules in a way that is suitable for complex society.

    There's this sort of concept; There are no ideal governments. Governments exist because people do not behave in ideal ways.

    That is also why anarchy does not last.
    MP I really liked this post, really, it could have been accidential (though I dont believe it given a lot of your posts) but the choice of words is pretty perfect. The important factor being it does not last rather than it does not work, I think temporarily it can work and has worked in the positive sense of a spontaneous order, reciprocal good will or mutual aid, although this could simply be the herd animal in humans at its best, rather than worst.

    I think that the only really interesting anarchists are pragmatists anyway, like Colin Ward, I only got interested in the idea at all after reading Orwell's Homage to Catalonia and it reads big time like district and neighbourhood government.

    It was on a purely theoretical level that I was considering it, like a sort of political psychology if you know what I mean.

  4. #4
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    At every opporunity, it gives ways to government. We have government because people don't internalize rules in a way that is suitable for complex society.

    There's this sort of concept; There are no ideal governments. Governments exist because people do not behave in ideal ways.

    That is also why anarchy does not last.
    Yeah, this. I think true anarchy will eventually lead to totalitarianism in most cases. Some dominating meglomaniac will eventually pop up and take control.

  5. #5
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    It was on a purely theoretical level that I was considering it, like a sort of political psychology if you know what I mean.
    Well, you know, that makes sense.

    When sociology was first seperated from psychology, it was argued that the change was needed because the behavior of groups could not be predicted from analysis of individual psychology, which would sort of be like the composition fallacy.

    But anarchy is a very individualistic idea. The social elements cannot be expected to decide for the individual elements. So anarchy really exists as a psychological concept rather than a sociological concept.

    What to make of this, I do not know.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Well, you know, that makes sense.

    When sociology was first seperated from psychology, it was argued that the change was needed because the behavior of groups could not be predicted from analysis of individual psychology, which would sort of be like the composition fallacy.

    But anarchy is a very individualistic idea. The social elements cannot be expected to decide for the individual elements. So anarchy really exists as a psychological concept rather than a sociological concept.

    What to make of this, I do not know.
    I think I know what you're driving at, I'm unsure if I agree. There are more individual and more socialistic anarchists, Colin Ward's views about anarchism are pretty sociological, premised upon the idea that unacknowledged social factors such as widespread co-operation, spontaneous order etc. make any society possible and if they were properly fostered a more libertarian society likely.

    Ward and Paul Goodman, both suggest that its not about final overthrows of authorities but expanding the sphere of free action as far as possible every generation.

    I dont know if I'm expressing what I'm interested in here perfectly, if I could return to the original post and be pretty literal about it rather than speculating about what is or what ought to be, is that the mindset? I think anarchy is either a mature internalisation of authority or a juvenile protest or rejection of authority, I've discerned both mindsets in the literature I've read associated with the idea.

  7. #7
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I think I know what you're driving at, I'm unsure if I agree. There are more individual and more socialistic anarchists, Colin Ward's views about anarchism are pretty sociological, premised upon the idea that unacknowledged social factors such as widespread co-operation, spontaneous order etc. make any society possible and if they were properly fostered a more libertarian society likely.

    Ward and Paul Goodman, both suggest that its not about final overthrows of authorities but expanding the sphere of free action as far as possible every generation.
    I know many who propose anarchy on paper are doing so from a very social stance, but as is already clear, in actuality I do not think anarchy sociologically makes sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I dont know if I'm expressing what I'm interested in here perfectly, if I could return to the original post and be pretty literal about it rather than speculating about what is or what ought to be, is that the mindset? I think anarchy is either a mature internalisation of authority or a juvenile protest or rejection of authority, I've discerned both mindsets in the literature I've read associated with the idea.
    The bolded part gets to the psychology I was talking about. The only way for anarchy to not be a social disaster is if all who participated were involved in extremely self-monitoring psychology. And it's still more complicated than that. They'd have to all monitor themselves by the same guidelines. Not through any standardization via authority (since that would no longer be anarchy) but essentially coincidence of individual will. A very unlikely prospect indeed.

    All administrated societies, no matter how pleasant, involve some coercion. An unadministrated society, like anarchy, requires that all agents must never need coercion, and that would be a part of their individual psychology.

    I know how I'm saying this might be a little confusing, but I hope the idea is getting across.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  8. #8
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Are we talking about Max Stirner's theories of the sovereign individual?

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I know many who propose anarchy on paper are doing so from a very social stance, but as is already clear, in actuality I do not think anarchy sociologically makes sense.



    The bolded part gets to the psychology I was talking about. The only way for anarchy to not be a social disaster is if all who participated were involved in extremely self-monitoring psychology. And it's still more complicated than that. They'd have to all monitor themselves by the same guidelines. Not through any standardization via authority (since that would no longer be anarchy) but essentially coincidence of individual will. A very unlikely prospect indeed.

    All administrated societies, no matter how pleasant, involve some coercion. An unadministrated society, like anarchy, requires that all agents must never need coercion, and that would be a part of their individual psychology.

    I know how I'm saying this might be a little confusing, but I hope the idea is getting across.
    I'm not sure if its sociologically anathema but then sociology isnt as familiar to me as it once was, there have been a great many innovations from the long time ago that I studied it, ie micro sociology, macro sociology, social psychology etc. etc.

    "Coincidence of will" is really a good term for the concept in its perfectionist incarnation. I dont believe that many, besides Max Stirner, hold that view, sure not many anarchists in practice. Ward would be a sociologically interested anarchist, all his books are pretty practical and sociologically concerned.

    Rudolf Rocker was one of the only anarchists that really interested me, he considered anarchism to be a confluence of liberalism and socialism but I think there is a great deal of conservative organicism in his theorising.

  10. #10
    Senior Member JHBowden's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Anarchy is a Utopian joke. It isn't even worthwhile as an ideal.

    Whether we're dealing with commies or anarcho-capitalists, anarchy ultimately stems from this idea that the ideal society is a non-coercive one. But this means we need non-coercive humans, and they only come in a few flavors, such as autistic.

    Any civilization, in order to be a civilization at all, needs to protect itself against attacks, both from barbarians, along with predatory powers. In the foreign policy realm, while might doesn't necessarily make right, might will always get its way. Strike one against anarchism-- there is no way for it to get off the ground.

    Secondly, we cannot have a sophisticated market economy without laws. Laws are coercive, in that, they imply law enforcement. Without law enforcement there are no property rights. I know some idiot is going to try to argue with me and attempt to moralize away the idea of coercion, as if just coercion really isn't coercive. But it is.

    Lastly, laws cannot be upheld without manners. In daily life, passions and habits are more powerful than abstract principles. A hedonistic society with a lot of family breakdown isn't even going to care about laws, let alone defending itself.

    Why do people believe such strange ideas such as anarchism? For the last few decades, we've been hammered with primitivist nonsense, as if savages are more noble than industrialized civilization, and as if rocks, pond scum, and caribou have more rights than human beings. It is cultural to be anti-cultural, from Ewoks defeating Stormtroopers to whatever supercheese we can expect from the new Avatar movie. (That the smurfs even have a chance to win is itself annoying!) We in the West feel good about feeling bad about ourselves. I don't get it.

Similar Threads

  1. Sons Of Anarchy
    By JLM in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-14-2013, 04:31 PM
  2. Sons of Anarchy
    By Valiant in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-07-2012, 09:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO