Why anarchy will never work

Why anarchy will never work


Before life in civilization we had constant war. Small little tribes of people would band together, and these tribes would attack, murder, and pillage each other for food. With a scarce amount of resources and to many people, we were selected for who was the most cunning and forceful.

Eventually, however, a few very cunning hunter-gathers began to understand their environment. They discovered something revolutionary, farming. Farming allowed us to settle down and divide labor. No longer did everyone have to fight, some could farm, some could defend, and some could make luxury goods. Everything came at the cost of food.

The problem is that no matter how many farmers there are, I can still go and bash his head in for food if I want it. The natural state of man is war keep in mind, there is nothing stopping me in your perfect anarchist society. This threat of violence is what both motivated and hindered society for so long.

When violence is upon a group, the only thing they can do is return with more violence. There is no time to make new clothes, or more food; you will never be able to do those things if you are dead.

However the threat of violence is an excellent motivator. If you know your town is just about to be put under siege, you will try to scrounge as much food as possible, make weapons to give you an advantage, and produce defenses to hinder your enemy. The best motivator is the idea that if you do not prepare you will die.

So how do you get the best of both worlds? The market.

The free market, by all means, is simulated war. Each producer is under threat to become irrelevant and unprofitable (die) if he or she does not evolve to the current market (the eminent invasion). Thus the producer must create better products (weapons) and a streamlined business (defenses) to survive. How well your products do in the market (how good you are at defending yourself from attack) is valued in money (food).

Anarchists, would like to destroy this system. They might use the argument that "Anarchy is a freer and purer market." This is, by all means, a lie. They forget one critical part of how the market works.

To make a free market that does not rely on violence to function, people informally agree to a sort of "social contract." In this social contract, they agree to sign away certain freedoms (the freedom to kill others, the freedom to steal other peoples property, ect) that might harm others. In exchange, they receive protection from the state, and are free to participate in the free market.

If there is no social contract, the free market can be bypassed with violence. If I want that gold, why should I pay for it, I own a gun I will just shoot the seller and take it by force. Anarchists underestimate how much the population gravitates towards violence even with the free market system in place, none the less without it.

The free market system is by no means perfect. It can be abused both by citizens and by governments. Citizens can organize trust funds, create monopolies, and mess with other companies via banks. Governments can pick favorites, use violence against others, and inflate the economy artificially.

"Every anarchist is a baffled dictator." - Benito Mussolini

What is Holla Forums's response to this Holla Forums idiocy?

Other urls found in this thread:

scientificamerican.com/article/history-and-the-decline-of-human-violence/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_the_Family,_Private_Property_and_the_State
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy
spunk.org/texts/intro/faq/sp001547/secI4.html

The initial premise is false (Before life in civilization we had constant war. Small little tribes of people would band together, and these tribes would attack, murder, and pillage each other for food. With a scarce amount of resources and to many people, we were selected for who was the most cunning and forceful.) so there is no need to even bother trying to debunk the rest to be honest.

Anarchy will never work, no civilization unable to even defend itself, is supposed to be taken seriously.

yeah you guys got this planned out well

...

This.
OP read this and then come back to us.

I've been here for awhile. Speaking of which - what scientific studies are there on the development of the state?

Thats actually true.

It's Social Darwinism. It takes a sociopathic personal opinion about how society should be run and falsely presents it as a scientific anthropological observation.

If it weren't for the stigma, these people would just be creationists and say "dews valt xDDD"

Are you describing the claims made by the Holla Forums fag, or anarchism?

yeah, you guys got this planned out well

What, that the pre-civilisation world was in a constant state of war, and that civilisation brought peace?
How illiterate do you have to be to believe in these obvious lies?

...

Anarchy can never work the same reason Socialism can never work, because human nature. Capitalism is the worst system there is, except all the others. Just support your job creators and Lord Market my fellow workers, everything will be all right.

Why exactly can't tehy? Marxists are the ones that always say, "The state is just a tool." There isn' some sort of magical trait bestowed upon statists taht allow them to operate their equipment. Any human being can operate them (though one with training will, of course, operate it far better.) Anarchists are perfectly capable of recieving training from statists and then using thier own machinery against them, and then training other anarchists. Firearm training doesn't cost that much.

Besides, anarchists and statist communists right now face the same problem: fighting the bourgeoise state. Simply because Marxists agree with the bourgeoise that the state is neccessary, at least at this point in human progress, doesn't mean they'll be welcomed with open arms. Anarchists and Marxists alike have to fight the state. The only difference is that anarchists seek to destroy while Marxists seek to control it.

they* that* sorry for my horrid spelling

...

Im unsure you're being ironic. Thats literally what happened.
scientificamerican.com/article/history-and-the-decline-of-human-violence/

the state is necessary, only anarcho-babbies believe it isn't

Are you going to explain your argument or just shit up this board even more than it already is?

This interview itself is a plethora of lies.
The amount of dead per war hasn't but increased with the arrival of Capitalism, and especially in the 20th century, just because it hasn't affected the West directly for the past 70 years (if one forgets about the Balkans war of course) doesn't mean it's not there. Just because brute strength isn't used anymore to kill doesn't mean the world is less at war or less violent.


Any Leninist knows the state is not necessary for a fully functioning society. Your LARPing is pathetic.

Please, that is hardly the only professor advocating that thesis.

That doesn't make that bullshit hyposthesis any less bullshit and debunked by mere anthropology.

Says the guy parroting le noble savage meme

Let's see what is more likely, we have two options here:
1) The myth of pre-civilisation chaos was propagated in order to justify colonisation and imperialism, when not racism, from the discovery of America to the colonisation of Africa, as well as to justify the status quo of a class society
2) There is a massive conspiracy of anthropologists and modern-day primitive tribes to make it appear as if uncivilised people are more violent

meant to say less violent, whoops

...

Fortunately, anarchists propose an alternate form of organization to a state, rather than simply destroying the state

Nice data, and nice source!
The data presented there (which I am sure you have bothered reading) proves me right: early civilisations with agriculture do indeed have an extremely high violent death rate, yet hunter gatherers rates are almost systematically low.
And let's not even talk about how much the data is cherrypicked.
This is shameful for any self-respecting scientist, and you should feel bad for believing in bad science.

Because modern military equipment was designed to function within a conventional military system. Military vehicles and installations were created with a connected, centralized structure in mind. Civilians have no idea how overwhelmingly interconnected a modern military is. Units do not operate independently, and the equipment reflects that. Bombs and shelling are targeted by infantrymen, aircraft, and satelites. Every station reports to C&C in real-time so that the entire theater looks like a video game. Enemy movement is known by the whole as soon as an individual discovers it. Every rocket and every shell is guided from a central location. You can try dumb-firing everything, but then the advantages that modern equipment offers will be wasted. You may as well get try to make T-34s.

On top of that, there is the question of production. An anarchist might be able to learn how to drive an armored vehicle, but materials needed to operate and maintain it require the concerted efforts of hundreds of different industrial processes. An interruption anywhere on the chain makes production impossible. Installations for maintainance and supplies have to be constantly maintained. A militia is definitely not going to even begin to establish an air force or a navy.

You cant have an alternative without destroying the structure's that propagated state.

Nigga do you even engineering? There's a thing called redundancy and failure-tolerant systems.

what stop's you from doing this now exactly?

Just how big is the military-industrial complex that you plan to build? It takes a monolithic monstrosity to produce something like an Abrams. And then, like I said, there is the more important issue of maintainance. You are going to need dozens of different materials for that, not the least of which is JP-8.

And again, even if you could build it, which you can't, without the command and control system that it was built to use, you may as well be using T-54/55s.

...

So I guess Marx was an anarkiddie?

No, the only difference is that Marxists realise that anarchy is impossible so long as the world is largely capitalist. Capitalism will destroy anarchy at will so long as it has control of most of the labor and resources in the world. Communism has to be achieved globally.

Why would a socialist state fare any better against capitalist giants than an anarchist territory if the global capitalist opposition that has enough power and influence to crush either one?

So how the fuck is communism going to be achieved worlwide if and
are true? Without already having control of the state, you can't. And you don't already have control of the state.

It can't for now

Do you understand the point I'm trying to make? If is true, then communism is impossible PERIOD, because


means that the bourgeoise state will never be defeated. Anarchists wouldn't be able to destroy it, and Marxists wouldn't be able to control it.

Why not?

Do you even Fully Automated Luxury Communism bro?

This is kinda crazy. Freedom means you have the right to act as you wish without infringing on others freedom. So like killing other people is sorta a given violation of freedom, you aren't giving anything up.

Muh out of date theories

Muh state of nature!

Because a socialist state can build a modern army. A socialist state allocate men and resources on a large scale. A socialist state can actively play on the divisions in capitalist societies. A socialist state can provide a united front that will not splinter as easily as a collection of anarchist communes will. A socialist state can win a war.

It will be, but the nature of that state must be socialist, not capitalist. In an economic system where workers have control over the means of production, they have the ability to fracture the interconnectivity that is talking about. Workers in a socialist society could shut down production of critical resources like jet fuel, food, and synthetic rubber. That means that a socialist state would not be able to bring the same kind of army to bear against revolutionaries that a capitalist state could.

An anarchist revolution can succeed against a socialist state in a world where capitalism does not dominate, but it is dead in the water so long as capitalism rules.

For the reason that said, because right now, Marxists do not have control of the state. They're in the same boat as anarchists are. We all have to fight. If is right, then communism is impossible, because the bourgeoisie cannot be defeated.

According to

But there is no socialist state currently alive in this world. You'd need to take control of one. And according to , you can't do that.

So what you're saying is that anarchism is doubly impossible, whereas marxism is merely impossible

I'm actually disagreeing with

I'm simply pointing out that if he was right, communism is impossible, whether you're an anarchist, Marxist, or any revolutionary

You are misreading it. A state can be formed to prosecute a war, and that state would be able to do things like create a top-down command and control structure, have uniform training programs, and organize resource production and distribution. Revolution is possible–inevitable even–but it can not be successful against capitalism without the structures provided by a state. Otherwise, it would be crushed by the first invasion, just like every other anarchist society has been.

Where exactly do you plan to get those structures?

From the same place that every revolution gets its government. Start with an assembly. Elect officials. Empower them with the authority to act as they see fit.

Anarchists are unable to do this? I was under the impression they were much better than Marxists…considering Marxist revolutions usually end in dictatorship while anarchist ones end in conquest (usually)

Yes, anarchists are unable to establish a state.

Organization can be achieved without the state, and organizers can use existing state infrastructure to their own ends (e.g. self-defense and mass production), in the same way the state currently functions. The anarchist merely does this without the oppressive hierarchy and exploitation inherent in capitalism.

Also, for , you cannot simply form a government. Where will you find the power to sustain yourself, but by revolution? If is true, any revolution against the state is doomed to failure.

Your wish is my command. Not so much a study, but a very good analysis.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_the_Family,_Private_Property_and_the_State

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm

Whoops. I just noticed that the guy you replied to already linked it. I was wondering why you were asking. Nothing to see here now.

But a modern army can't, to say nothing of counterintelligence.


I would refer you to every successful revolution in history. What are you even trying to argue here?


Correction: any revolution against a capitalist state in a world dominated by capitalism is doomed to failure unless the revolution forms its own state.

As Bookchin says, while society in the past has been dictated by the scarcity of resources, it is erroneous to believe that things will hold the same under a post-scarcity society.

btw this is some "anarchy meanz no rules XDDD" tier bullshit

According to the revolution would never progress to the point of being able to establish a state. You can't simply declare a state out of nowhere. Earth is dominated by many different states. You're going to have to fight against at least one in order to have a state.

Either your reading comprehension is poor, or you are engaging in sophistry. That is clearly not what that says.

What exactly is this conventional military system? Oh, that's right, the state fighting against other states, and rebels.


The whole argument started with

From the above, detailing how it is apparently impossible for any other than a state to operate military machinery, it is obvious that any revolution (as they do not yet control any state) is doomed to failure because of the superiority of state power.

Of course, it is perfectly possible to organize outside of a state.

Hahaha, sure, okay. This represents the fighting force at its absolute peak theoretical capability. and at best this is only even possible for the first year or so of a civil war.

In a far more realistic scenario, logistics begins breaking down in a few months because modern militaries rely on the fact that they have access to highly developed infrastructures that are generally beyond attack. It doesn't matter how amazing your shit is if the roads you use to deliver it are all broke.

In a worst case scenario for the military, the entire military is already wracked with internal strife because significant number of the military, potentially people with access to particularly dangerous equipment.

Your whole post is in and of itself a paper tiger of the military's own capabilities.

Y'all forgetting Rojava. They're a special case, since they were organized under ML principles until Ocalan made his Bookchinite turn, but whatever they're doing in Syria appears to be working. It's bare bones, no airforce etc. but I think that's going to be the natural case study for any future attempt at anarchist military organization and doctrine (if anarchists can even have doctrine). Perhaps Makhno too.

Does that mean Marxist-Leninist?

Yep. PYD is descended from the PKK, which were ML for a long time.

Don't call it leninism!

Seriously Makhno best anarchist

The best anarchists were always the most militant, like the platformists.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy

It is an organic top-down structure featuring a chain of command in which individual units perform functions that are either strategic, tactical, or operational. Every part moves in concert to maximize the effectiveness of fire.


As it is intended to be operated, that is correct. Think of it this way:

You have a squadron of modern fighter planes, F-22s for example. An F-22 has some useful features like a small heat signature, radar-dispersing surfaces, and JTIDS capability. By itself it is a competent aircraft, although it is nowhere near as fast as an F-15 or as agile as an F-16. What makes it worth the absurd cost is what it can do in concert with other units.

Potential airborne targets are spotted not by the pilots or by the on-board radar system but rather by ground and seas-based radar or AWACS. This happens while the targets are still hundreds of miles away. The information is then electronically passed to the aircrafts' computers via the encrypted full-duplex reporting system. The neat thing about full-duplex is that it allows the radar information that is gathered by the individual aircraft to be added to the Common Operating Picture in real-time, which means that the entire theater can see what every individual unit can see.

Once a target is located, the Weapons Directors direct units toward them via radio instructions. The pilots themselves rarely have to make any decisions as to what, when, or in what manner to engage a target. Thus, the entire theater can be controlled centrally.

It is not just the air war, either. TAC-Ps embedded with infantry units and armored vehicles add their own information regarding land-based targets to the COP, which allows airstrikes and artillery to be directed accurately within a minute of reporting. JSTARS map land vehicles as well and can spot large concentrations of soldiers. Then there is tge satelite information, which I can only assume has started to play a more significant battlefield role.

You can't even begin to do this sort of thing with a bunch of militias. You might get those F-22s flying, but without the system that they were designed for, they are no better than F-16s from the 80s. That is why a real state military has to be established as soon as control of a region has been achieved. You have to hold the first stage of the revolution with what is available, but you need to be ready for the inevitable counterrevolutionary invasion that will follow. For that, you need a modern military, because that will be what you will be fighting.

I read that they were Maoists originally.

I love that book

Which means any communist revolution (excluding reformism), is impossible because Marxists (and other communist statists) must first fight against the state, and it's military, before actually controlling the state, and anarchists must fight the state in order to destroy it.


I am aware of this. Does being a statist somehow grant you the magical capability of being able to operate this machinery? It is much more difficult, yes, because you must control both the planes themselves and the command center, but it is not impossible. The same applies to the rest of the argument. This technology was created by humans, to be operated by humans (even drones have human operators). It may require training and practice, but it is not impossible.


You contradict yourself. Presumably, the first stage of the revolution, for you, is the aquissiton of control over the state, and, (assuming you follow this ideaology), the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat. Fighting the state with "what is available" will be much harder than fighting the state with it's own technology (which will have been gained after the 'first stage'), so I don't understand the need for the establishment of a state military.

An anarchist killed President McKinnley I think, anarchists will never top that in America.

Most of the great anarchist assassinations involve coming to America first. I think it has alot to do with to total shock at what America actually was as opposed to the image they had been given. Take Gaetano Bresci, awesome mother fucker who assassinated Umberto I of Italy. But i also think the tactic has fallen out of favor for a few pretty good reasons. For the most part, an attack on ruling classes meant a harsh retaliation towards anarchists but also any kind of labor movement. You can see this in Italy, Spain, The United Snakes, Russia ect ect. Militant action such as this is only effective when their is a large system of support for these types of actions. I think people are starting to lean back to the more militant, propaganda of the deed mentality just because various other tactics arnt working as well as just killing the fuckers.

bump

bump

You are assuming an intact state, which you should not do. The current system must be destabilized to the point that it fractures under its own contradictions. That is how every successful revolution works. A small band of zealots with guns is not going to win the support of the general public with its brave struggle for freedom. A revolution requires a large-scale general uprising.


It gives you a chain of command and a framework for interunit cooperation. Why can you not understand this simple concept? Is it because your ideology is dependent upon you not understanding?


Yes, it is impossible. Having the epuipment is not the same thing as utilizing it as it is designed to be. Independent units with no higher echelons can not operate in concert the way that a real modern military can for reasons that should be crystal clear. That is to say nothing of the allocation of maintainance and supplies.


No, you just suck at reading comprehension and have no concept of how a military works.


Because after you have beheaded Louis XVI, the Prussians and the English are going to send real, completely intact armies against you. The revolution is not over. You need a proper army, not a bunch of leaderless militias, to deal with the inevitable counterrevolutionary invasion, like I said before. This is what anarchists, amazingly, fail to recognize. It is also why every anarchist revolution gets obliterated after a few years.

You're assuming the same thing; that there will be an intact bourgeise state to fight. If we can simply break down the current system and watch it fall, why not do that?


Again, ORGANIZATION IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT A STATE.


Utilizing it for what? Killing the enemy? Controlling territory? Because that's exactly what it was intended to be used for, and that's how it would be used.


The establishment of a 'proper army' is also why every Marxist revolution falls into violent dictatorship. We are at a period in human history of unprecedented communication and military capabilities-but also at a stage where it is not considered acceptable to fight the enemy by any means neccessary. Using their own technology, we can defend ourselves against the state. What are soldiers, but workers? And what do we communists advocate? Worker control. That's what I'm proposing here. The soldiers control the military.

Constant misconception. Outright war is relatively recent, most violence used to be raiding for resources (rare, usually only in bad years) or blood feud related such as the dishonour of family member or reneged on debt or some such thing.

For the most part however it was much more profitable to have good relations with your neighbours to trade.

Before or after the existing state is overthrown?


That is precisely what we need to do when the system is vulnerable, and it will be vulnerable when its inherent contradictions become unmanagable.


But one single chain of command is not. All parts of the military have to act as one at all times. A modern military is a cohesive body.


See:


What is "acceptable" becomes absolutely everything when there is a real and imminent threat.


Ah, the universal soldier! That idea makes so much sense to someone who has never been one. If you are counting on serving soldiers rising up, then I have bad news for you. You have no idea how tight the leash is on those guys.

You mean like the anthropologist who wrote that book I posted? You mean like the anthropology that uses evidence to support a hypothesis that societies before civilization were incredibly violent, instead of just positing what you want to believe?

This post a goddamned godsend. Why can't Anarcho-kiddies learn the fact that anarchy will never work. Humans need guidance and leaders. Jesus!

Anarchy will work, once we have achived communism. Till then, there need to be hierarchies. Just not economical.

spunk.org/texts/intro/faq/sp001547/secI4.html

Read up buddy, anarchy isn't communism.

...

I just ctrl-Fed and NOT A SINGLE PERSON MENTIONS THOMAS HOBBES! NOT ONE!
wtf Anons!

bump

stateless and classless society

The rest is just strategies

Why bother dredging up Leviathan when the military theory argument works so much better? For a community that is so dedicated to revolution and philosophy, how is it that nobody here has read any military theory? One would think that would be a topic of singular interest here.

I´ve only read one book about the ´´Battle of Ia Drang´´ in Vietnam. Alot of chit chat about defensive tactics that worked wonderfull against wave attacks.

Everyone thinks that there wont be any counter revolution, or youknow we let the military people in the revolution do it.

Right? What is that? Considering that it is one of the most significant material conditions that determine the nature of a society, a strategy for establishing and controlling military power is absolutely essential alongside economic theory. Perhaps that is the necessary next stage of materialist theory: incorporating military theory with economic theory.

bump