Help me understand a vision of anarchist society

[Dennis Leahy]

First, for those who have been influenced by the attempt to equate "anarchy" with "chaos" and even "mayhem", a political definition of anarchy means "no rulers." Modern supporters of anarchism express various flavors of anarchism - one frequently mentioned is "anarcho-capitalism" (which may refer more to the economic dealings of society rather than an overall anarchist society.) The term "stateless" is also often used.

What I need help with is understanding whether 300 million people, or 8 billion people, could actually live in stateless/anarchist society...and what that would be like. I can visualize this in a commune. I can visualize this in an area maybe as big as a "county" in the US, as long as everyone within that county had a fully self-sustaining ranch. I have difficulty visualizing anarchy beyond that point, and cannot visualize it as an entire society. Some of you have been thinking about this and talking about this and dreaming about this and visualizing this for decades - and I know that you can help me to understand your vision.

[ Let me stop and make a disclaimer: my personal current vision includes pieces of socialism (where many things - air, water... roads, bridges, rivers, lakes, public lands, sewage treatment, power plants, for example, are in "the commons", "owned" by everyone/no one - and personal property is owned by individuals), restrained capitalism (goods and services can be bought and sold, but not allowing human exploitation or ecocidal practices), and quasi-anarchism (as few laws as possible - mostly aimed at preventing exploitation and ecocidal practices, shared, horizontal responsibility for the minimalist bureaucracy for a functioning society, ad hoc committees/councils for temporary community service rather than term positions and certainly nothing resembling "careers" or lifetime appointments.)

I want to note that The Reset Button does NOT aim at my personal vision, or at socialism, or capitalism, or libertarianism, or anarchism, or any specific political ideology, but rather is a movement to throw-off the control of oligarchs and give complete power over governance to the ordinary citizens. If something like The Reset Button movement does not happen, then we are just kitchen table philosophers who will never ever have a chance to see any of our visions become reality; if something like The Reset movement does happen, then citizens are in a position to actually chart a course toward a specific political ideology...or maybe even split into regions or states, or even split into countries with non-integrable political ideologies. The fascist-corporatist-militarist USA has become so malevolent globally as well as domestically, that I would say that any direction that a citizen-based government would go would be a vast improvement over where the USA is now and is metastasizing into.

I just wanted it to be clear that this thread is NOT about The Reset Button or my own personal vision. If you define yourself as an anarchist, I want to understand your vision. ]
I can visualize a bunch of very high-functioning, evolved, loving, compassionate people forming a horizontal, anarchist, tribal society. Where I have trouble is the reality of the selfish, greed-driven, exploitative pricks being part of this society. I also have trouble visualizing how we would ever get to that horizontal society when we're starting from our current reality - where so many people are dirt poor - even people working full-time jobs are often a few paychecks away from being homeless. There are also a large number of people that are physically or emotionally unable to put in enough work to sustain themselves, and I wonder if your vision is to allow them to die-off so they won't burden the envisioned society any more. I hear about "voluntaryism", but my real-world experience is that very few people actually do volunteer.

I can also visualize an existing infrastructure (built by socialism) could be taken over by anarchists, but have to wonder about it being maintained (especially considering it would be volunteer maintained.) When a water main freezes and bursts in February in Duluth Minnesota, I don't know anyone who would volunteer to dig through the street and ice and freezing water and do the repair. You may be thinking that in an anarchist society, everyone would be responsible for digging their own well, and providing their own sewage treatment, on their own self-sustaining property. But, is that realistic considering how few people can afford that? Further perplexing to me is the idea of taking a completely undeveloped area and forming an anarchist society on it - especially considering that probably most of the people who could afford to build a self-sustaining ranch from scratch would not be interested in using their time or money on infrastructure that others would share.

That's probably plenty to show my confusion. I'm asking those who envision an anarchist society to explain/expound upon your vision...and to include starting from our current reality, where 90% of the population could not possibly afford to purchase property, a small tractor, dig a well, put in septic tanks/leech fields, build a home, build a road, put in solar/wind/geothermal to provide all energy needs, build a huge garden/micro farm, etc. that would be required to be self-sustaining.

Is a large-scale anarchist society possible?

Thanks for any insights you offer.

Dennis

[Lifebringer]

A good example would be a "crash" during the week of the election. Then you'll see chaos as people run to the banks, before running to vote.

I agree that the maladjusted greedy people/humans of the planet are the problem with no moral compass or compassion for anyone other than themselves, but if you want to be forgiven, you must show you have forgiveness in yourselves. It's a lesson that is so very important, because some repent, some have remorse, and some like the CDC whistleblower, have asked for forgiveness after realizing the big picture they played a part in for monetary advance.

What the Creator does to them, is HIS job, I don't want to carry that w/my soul, for HE is judgement and judge.

So let's just focus on us and those like minded in heart like us and anyone who wishes to know, give freely of the knowledge, and help them to learn to control the emotions, they are more than likely to emit or "send out" to return in karma. Just saying, this is deep and we aren't to judge, just correct for our future.
The world's conscience, with God's guidance will hand down the verdict on whether or not they are to be in our future.

[ulli]

I have lived in a black (97%) country, and also among high society Brits.
Attended Hopi ceremonies and a court case in a downtown Chicago court building.
I have walked through the slums which surround Manaus in the Amazon region of Brazil,
and been a guest in the home of of a major movie producer in Beverly Hills (Back to the Future)
Everyone of those groups has their share of idealists, but hardly anyone believes a society can function without laws and regulations.
To receive justice people need to know there are laws they can refer to when someone doesn't respect their rights,
be that garbage collection, or the right to visit their children.
Tell me how anarchy will ensure that everyone will act selflessly, and I'm on.

[gripreaper]

Of course I have thought about this. The only word that comes close to fitting what you are describing is a pure form of Republic, but let me explain. First, we need to develop a context. The current memes, and the current context which most of us reside and function within, is one of scarcity of resources, imperialistic exploitation of people for these resources, competition for the materialistic coveting of these resources in order to avoid personal scarcity, and the proliferation of the psychopathic nature to accumulate all resources through inhumane practices and means.

This is a very sick culture, society, mindset, and intention, and it is impossible for mankind to live in harmony or create the type of abundant society which is possible with this mindset. Mankind becomes dependent on this model, reaches outside of himself for resources to help him cope with this model, and therefore needs governments and religions to justify the raping, pillaging, and exploiting of the earth and other human beings. He then resorts to war.

And why is this model proliferate all around the world, when in fact, the earth is abundant, is renewable when not overused and exploited? How do we fix it?

The first thing, and I might add, the only thing which HAS to be done in order to shift the tide towards abundance and away from scarcity, is to get rid of fiat debt based currencies, fractional reserve banking, and the globalist banksters. Ninety percent of all scarcity, all societal problems, all beliefs, memes, and justifications stem from this one problem. All wealth and resources flow upstream to this 1% in the fiat system, and this creates the scarcity and the beliefs which support this system. We, the 99% who are maintaining this system, support the exploitation of the earth and others because we believe we must in order to survive. It’s called tyranny.

Our ancestors braved the oceans to get away from tyranny, to live the type of self sustaining life you describe, where the individual is self responsible, self actualizing, and self determined, and follows the one basic law, do no harm to yourself or others. Treat others as you yourself want to be treated. When there is abundance and all the wealth is retained by individuals, projects which require a collective, such as roads and bridges, could be funded by co-operatives.

But, once you are two or three generations removed from the skills which would be required to be self sufficient, it would take several generations to reverse this trend as well. Now we have 90% of the world population who cannot even boil a pot of water much less grow a garden. The global population is dependent on the centralized system of governance and control, and would fight tooth and nail if you tried to tell them about their slavery of tried to encourage them to give up their indentured status for freedom and self determination.

Many of the US presidents tried to warn us about the banksters, tried to take us off the banksters money system, and were summarily removed. These globalists knew, the only way for them to control the 99% was through this debt system, this scarcity paradigm, and they have all but succeeded. It took several thousand years, but they never gave up pushing it and forcing it through. They have retrained the human mind through social engineering, to love slavery, and to embrace it without cages and without having to burn us at the stake or to kill us. WE maintain it ourselves.

Once we take back our monetary system, and more of the resources are held with people, they will begin to feel the encroachment of the scarcity system on their lives, and will want smaller government and smaller military, and more control of their own lives. Once they begin to make decisions for themselves, you would see compassion and benevolence return. It would be a long and arduous process, but the mindset would shift.

This is how we go from a scarcity paradigm to an abundance paradigm. Till we do that, and change the context, no rearranging the deck chairs of the Titanic will help it from sinking.

[Jake]

Dennis, I will attempt a bit of a coherent answer,, as you are much smarter and wiser than I... :):)

My Cherokee Grandmother used to tell stories about how things were done in the old days. It was usually a grumpy reference to whatever she was watching on the news. lol...

I don't believe that there were political parties within tribes, though a loosely defined hierarchy.. There were the councils of Elders, who generally had the most respect of a tribe. Then there was the younger men, the 'braves', with its own leaders etc... Then There was the women of the tribe, who basically kept everything together.. It was the women who would be coordinating the daily tasks and it was the women who were the backbone of tribal life. Ha,, no other person in the tribe could grab an elder by the ear and tell him to go bathe,,, nor could any other member of the tribe do the same thing with the 'braves'... There was a basic, natural respect of the role that each of them had to fulfill. It was it's own 'checks and balances' system,, before the U.S. system was even born... Perhaps not a perfect system, but it worked for tens of thousands of years... Of course, the population was much smaller and easier to deal with... And there were other tribes...

I remember hearing stories about how tribes would engage in conflict from time to time, but NEVER over the Great Buffalo Population that roamed a greater part of this continent... The nurturing of the Great American Bison was a shared goal of ALL of the tribes that engaged in hunting them for food, clothing,, etc... This is all anarchy, in the definition that you gave... And it worked!! :)


When the white man discovered this

country Indians were running it.

No taxes no debt, women did all the work

White man thought he could improve on a system like this.

Old Cherokee Saying :)

Some tribes were nomadic, which also required the sense to 'not make war' with other tribes. Most tribes were agricultural in nature,, working from season to season in large gardens, providing a food source for the people.. Most tribes had written language. Most tribes loved the earth and nature, and would never violate the sacred laws that were learned from nature. ie,,, nobody owns the land!!! Which would be a brilliant place to start, with regards governmental controls on the ownership of land. Much of Cherokee wisdom and the language the Cherokee used was incorporated into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.


Nigada aniyvwi nigeguda'lvna ale unihloyi unadehna duyukdv gesv'i. Gejinela unadanvtehdi ale unohlisdi ale sagwu gesv junilvwisdanedi anahldinvdlv adanvdo gvhdi.
Translation:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Sound familiar??? :)


I have a vision of enormous gardens, taking up about 1/3 of the land in America.. I see a zero % unemployment rate based on the fact that we will need folks to tend the gardens. And The Gardens would be the focal point of society. Most forms of aid to peoples can be dealt with by offering work to anyone who can work... Getting back to an agricultural lifestyle would kick-start our immune systems again!! :)

I see borders as a thing of the past.

I see an enormous 'clean-up' project regarding the land and the seas.

I see the values in people becoming the new currency, rather that the value of money..

The truth is that we have to turn our backs on Government. All forms of government are corrupted, eventually. I believe that the reason that we have lost so many of our rights in America because we decided that Government should be the entity that protects our rights. MISTAKE... I protect YOUR rights,,, and you protect MINE.. That is the only way it will work.. Government has failed us...

I see the entire world standing up and demanding their rights, similar to the way we did it in America, so many years ago. I see Americana as having an opportunity to become 'born again',, with regards the sovereignty and open hearts of People!!


Dennis, I don't see a clear path there,,, but it is a vision that I hang onto in my heart.

Love to you, Brother.
Jake.

[gripreaper]

My Cherokee Grandmother used to tell stories about how things were done in the old days. I don't believe that there were political parties within tribes, though a loosely defined hierarchy.. There were the councils of Elders, who generally had the most respect of a tribe. Then there was the younger men, the 'braves', with its own leaders etc... Then There was the women of the tribe, who basically kept everything together...

Yes Jake, and it was the The Iroquois Tribes who helped draft the original articles of confederation for the original 13 colonies, who were mostly comprised of self determined and self actualized rugged individuals. If I could talk to my great great grandfather and ask him, what happened that you gave up freedom for slavery, he would probably say something like:

Well, back in the early 19th century, the globalist fomented the first world war, killed off 50 million people, and put the whole world in debt, Then they released a bio-weapon on the world, the Spanish flu, and 100 million people died. In this state of debt, abject poverty and disease, it was easy for them to bankrupt the Republic, set up their fiat system, and take over governance. We were all too sick, tired and broke to stop them.

Does this sound familiar today? Are we not being set up for the fully centralized system, under the digital age of surveillance and commerce, to once again, face a plague of debt, disease and poverty, to keep the scarcity paradigm in place? Are not the BRIC alliance countries attempting to circumvent this attempt, and are they not being challenged on every front?

This is a critical juncture for mankind. He has the internet, where he can talk to his fellow man all across the world, and the covert nature of the totalitarian tiptoe is being exposed all around the world. We all have cell phone cameras where we can film tyranny and share it all over the world, and we can and do shine the spotlight on the globalists. It is hard for them to remain covert in their shenanigans, yet they hold all the cards.

But, I am still encouraged because things happen energetically before they manifest in the physical realms. If we realize our potential, we can shift it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCfKrzLZzxw

[ulli]

Had the elders been on the ball they would have used every ounce of their authority
to prevent members of their tribes from going near firewater, which destroyed what remnants the Spanish flu missed.

There is a parallel here as well...can the Elders in the global awakening movement step forward and warn people about the dangers of a permissive lifestyle?

Just because a few could handle themselves under the influence of drugs doesn't mean the rest of the population can.
This was one area where I feel Terence McKenna and Graham Hancock are not seeing the bigger picture, in my view.

[bruno dante]

It seems that basic common sense has been corrupted, and probably deliberately so (see: "outraged") And from this corruption, the lunatics in power have attempted to legislate everything, right down to the minutiae. Problem, reaction, solution.

We(i)live in a country where the majority feel.that the solution to our gun problem is more guns. We(i)ve in a country where a great number of people believe that in order to honor fallen soldiers, we should keep sending soldiers into battle to be slaughtered. Our wonderful healthcare professionals put people with heart problems on a treadmill and ask them to run till they drop. And they call this a diagnostic tool.

Yikes.

I wonder how the majority of Americans can even begin to grasp what's discussed here when they're still struggling with "see Spot run, see Spot sit, see Spot sh!t".

There is no pill for corrupted common sense (yet!). I wouldn't put it past Pfizer though. Even if one of the dozens of insidious side effects included "muddled thinking", folks would still likely be lining up at the pharmacy.

Sheesh. I wanted this post to be positive, I really did. And I meant to say something about anarchy too, I swear. Maybe I have, in a really really indirect way.

[christian]

When a water main freezes and bursts in February in Duluth Minnesota, I don't know anyone who would volunteer to dig through the street and ice and freezing water and do the repair.

In that situation, you'd have loads of people who'd be willing to pay good money for someone to fix this. Don't you think you'd find someone who'd take the job then? That goes for all jobs that are looked at as unattractive. If they need to be done, there will be people willing to pay. Under these circumstances, people would actually earn what they deserve. Demand drives the price.

The problem when everything is owned by everyone/no-one is that few people actually care. It's always this, "It's not mine anyways, let others do it." If you stress private ownership (which can also be as in private groups, of course), then it would be a much more direct responsibility and people would most probably care more, simply because it's their property. I also don't see a problem with for example environmental issues. We **** up the environment big time today, it could hardly be any worse. But when people get into the notion of I am responsible, it would certainly get better, simply because more people would care.

I think the reason why there's so much poverty and scarcity right now is because of suppression and fascism (merger of state and corporate power). In my vision for a better world I don't think in terms of redistributing what we currently see, but freeing the potential that has never really been touched upon while coming to terms with the fact that many of the power brokers today are committing crimes against humanity and have been for a long time. This cannot be allowed to continue and the wealth they accumulated through crimes cannot remain rightfully theirs.

After you'd limit or do away with governments, you'd still have all kinds of organizational bodies similar to current governments, simply because this is needed. Again, it's the demand that's the driving force behind action/creation. However, you would enter contracts with any organizational body on a voluntary basis and you could add provisions to any contract so that you can get out of it if what you get isn't what you want. It's not that suddenly everybody would live completely independent from everyone else, whether it's concerning administrative issues or economic processes. People would still want to do business together and cooperatively administrate things.

A large scale anarchist society is based on the empowerment of the individual and on voluntary cooperation. It's where humanity is headed, in my opinion. And it's not so much about constructing this framework in an abstract way, but about implementing anything that has to do with self-responsibility in our daily lives and in our dealings with one another. Then it takes real roots in the hearts and minds of people and grows pretty much by itself.

The interesting thing is, the more people put the emphasis on personal freedom and self-ownership as a way out of the mess we're in right now, the more we enable a great variety of social experiments, while if you push for a certain form of government that rules all you'll never find full agreement. But in a more free society you could of course start all kinds of socialist and whatever-ist communities—you just wouldn't force anyone to participate who doesn't want to.

Laws, regulations, organization—that's all fine. But forcing people to follow your ideals or else fining, imprisoning or killing them, even if they're otherwise peaceful, is not.


Tell me how anarchy will ensure that everyone will act selflessly, and I'm on.

Tell me what form of society ensures that everyone will act selflessly. I don't think there is a way to ensure this. I think the best we can do is live self-responsibly and encourage people to also do so. We can inspire people to see that they're best served if they care about others' needs just as they care about their own. I think that's the way to go. Ensuring something often implies force, but enforced charity is toxic and in the end it helps neither the one who gives nor the one who takes. If we have a society that's based on freedom, I think there's enough love (http://learninglove.org/) in the hearts of humans that all the poor, sick, old, young and underprivileged will be supported voluntarily.

[ghostrider]

to the controllers anarchy is any money not part of the global monetary scam ... to the military anarchy is another military in control of everything ... to me it is leaders breaking laws that everyone else is forced to follow ... it would depend on who's eyes you look through ... hey get to work and work hard as I leave for another five week vacation ... a billionaire counting his billions while others stand on the street corner and beg for coins ... let me pick on Wal-Mart for a minute , three billion to the owner who's employees need food stamps to get by ...anarchy = one person making all the money while someone else does all the work ... Anarchy- making things so bad , everyone will submit to insanity to ensure food on the table ...

[ulli]

When a water main freezes and bursts in February in Duluth Minnesota, I don't know anyone who would volunteer to dig through the street and ice and freezing water and do the repair.

In that situation, you'd have loads of people who'd be willing to pay good money for someone to fix this. Don't you think you'd find someone who'd take the job then? That goes for all jobs that are looked at as unattractive. If they need to be done, there will be people willing to pay. Under these circumstances, people would actually earn what they deserve. Demand drives the price.

The problem when everything is owned by everyone/no-one is that few people actually care. It's always this, "It's not mine anyways, let others do it." If you stress private ownership (which can also be as in private groups, of course), then it would be a much more direct responsibility and people would most probably care more, simply because it's their property. I also don't see a problem with for example environmental issues. We **** up the environment big time today, it could hardly be any worse. But when people get into the notion of I am responsible, it would certainly get better, simply because more people would care.

I think the reason why there's so much poverty and scarcity right now is because of suppression and fascism (merger of state and corporate power). In my vision for a better world I don't think in terms of redistributing what we currently see, but freeing the potential that has never really been touched upon while coming to terms with the fact that many of the power brokers today are committing crimes against humanity and have been for a long time. This cannot be allowed to continue and the wealth they accumulated through crimes cannot remain rightfully theirs.

After you'd limit or do away with governments, you'd still have all kinds of organizational bodies similar to current governments, simply because this is needed. Again, it's the demand that's the driving force behind action/creation. However, you would enter contracts with any organizational body on a voluntary basis and you could add provisions to any contract so that you can get out of it if what you get isn't what you want. It's not that suddenly everybody would live completely independent from everyone else, whether it's concerning administrative issues or economic processes. People would still want to do business together and cooperatively administrate things.

A large scale anarchist society is based on the empowerment of the individual and on voluntary cooperation. It's where humanity is headed, in my opinion. And it's not so much about constructing this framework in an abstract way, but about implementing anything that has to do with self-responsibility in our daily lives and in our dealings with one another. Then it takes real roots in the hearts and minds of people and grows pretty much by itself.

The interesting thing is, the more people put the emphasis on personal freedom and self-ownership as a way out of the mess we're in right now, the more we enable a great variety of social experiments, while if you push for a certain form of government that rules all you'll never find full agreement. But in a more free society you could of course start all kinds of socialist and whatever-ist communities—you just wouldn't force anyone to participate who doesn't want to.

Laws, regulations, organization—that's all fine. But forcing people to follow your ideals or else fining, imprisoning or killing them, even if they're otherwise peaceful, is not.


Tell me how anarchy will ensure that everyone will act selflessly, and I'm on.

Tell me what form of society ensures that everyone will act selflessly. I don't think there is a way to ensure this. I think the best we can do is live self-responsibly and encourage people to also do so. We can inspire people to see that they're best served if they care about others' needs just as they care about their own. I think that's the way to go. Ensuring something often implies force, but enforced charity is toxic and in the end it helps neither the one who gives nor the one who takes. If we have a society that's based on freedom, I think there's enough love (http://learninglove.org/) in the hearts of humans that all the poor, sick, old, young and underprivileged will be supported voluntarily.

This article sums where we are at as a society of enlightened anarchists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/21/fashion/at-burning-man-the-tech-elite-one-up-one-another.html?_r=1
30 "Sherpas" to every twelve attendees.

[Lifebringer]

Sorry, but you will never get these stick in the muds to think past themselves and therefore, we must rely on those like minded like us that are unconditional, yet careful to not invite chaos as a guest to peace, if they aren't there yet. I think the greedy have to be retaught. They are so far gone, it'll be like pulling teeth without anethesia to get them to wake up. Only like 35% now, but boy what a tough 35% it is. Can we just set the visionary page, and check in with imput or improval when all are here are on the same page? Just tired ya'll. Been a long week of trying to ensure I get all evidence or video of the Ferguson case, before making any decisions in my political life. If this cop proves rogue, then I'm taking him down. Death of our "unarmed" youth is too tough to talk about even here, as my sons are that age. My God, help us.

I'm trying to keep an open mind on how to correct it, but' I've read Enoch, and know there are some who will NEVER STOP DOING WHAT THEY ARE DOING which is why we have a "end of days in the 1st place." Looks like prophecy is right on time and not a moment too soon.

I can't think forward on a problem, until I have all of the numbers and signs to make a deduction, this causes me and perhaps 12% of my people to finish one thing at a time, because we've lived under massive stress for centuries, and just recently decades. The damages done do carry, you can look it up under maternal birth and mental emotions carrying in the child. It's why we feel what we do when we go through, what we do. You can say get over it, and still the pain's there, because you can't cry today, you have to cry tomorrow, there's too much to do today. My first book was called "I'll Cry Tomorrow." A domestic violence survival novel. I feel like that today, because I don't have time to cry for it, we've done enough of that.

Which reminds me as now I have all the witnesses I need to declare this. I am a African American author who has neither the funds, to have any of the books I've written published, because of financial hardship. Afraid/not trusting of any other publishers to put my book out, as it came from within, and is 3 books. Should anything happen to me, I want to declare that PA c/o Bill Ryan(who I will download them to should I not be able to put them in print, so he'll have lots to keep the site open, and a small stipend for my spouse or children, should they survive me. My name is Kim Shepperson-Jones aka K.J. Avalonian(seudonym name) and I have some really great stuff that's happening now, although I wrote it 4 years ago when given to me, and it's still coming. I think we are to write the "new books" for the new age, based upon the 'whole truth." (that just came to me in explanation) so you see, I've got to get them printed to awaken the masses by allowing their imaginations to open. Here it goes again..."No hope, no vision, no future." Jeesh, this is serious.

Deep breath...okay, I just wanted to let ya'll know. Who knows when I send it to him, perhaps a free copy will be here for all of you to read. I would want it so. I just feel as if, perhaps, my journey/mission will come to an end, because I've gotten so bold as to spill everything I've been told virally on the net. Hopefully, I'll make it, but I've given instruction, in the event of..

Just in case..
Either way, I'm willing the books for the world under Bill who invited me here, and I've had a lovely time and hopefully many more times here. Just covering my aces. LOL I don't know why I was sent to tell you this either, but, at least I followed through. Sounds like a few loose ends finally being finished from my guide. Hope hubby can take it. I have to talk to him, but he's not on that page yet of losing me. I just 'know" that I've been told and I've got to tie loose ends. Perhaps it's just that I won't have access here anymore by not having electricity, idk, but I love you all every new and old of you all. Best spiritual truthful friends a body, mind spirit can have.:cool: Bill I'll PM you about it, may need your help in a week to gather it together, and you can read it and see if you gain any knowledge from what I've been told.

[Maunagarjana]

I have lived in a black (97%) country, and also among high society Brits.
Attended Hopi ceremonies and a court case in a downtown Chicago court building.
I have walked through the slums which surround Manaus in the Amazon region of Brazil,
and been a guest in the home of of a major movie producer in Beverly Hills (Back to the Future)
Everyone of those groups has their share of idealists, but hardly anyone believes a society can function without laws and regulations.
To receive justice people need to know there are laws they can refer to when someone doesn't respect their rights,
be that garbage collection, or the right to visit their children.
Tell me how anarchy will ensure that everyone will act selflessly, and I'm on.

One of the main misconceptions about Anarchy is people assume that it would be devoid of rules or organization. Those things would still exist. Actually, I would say Anarchy requires more organizing in a way that eliminates the need for hierarchical structures. However, I don't have a lot of hope that Anarchy can be achieved at this stage of human development. First, we need a better humanity.

[Dennis Leahy]

:focus::lalala::fencing::boink::ballchain::shout::wizard:


"What I need help with is understanding whether 300 million people, or 8 billion people, could actually live in stateless/anarchist society...and what that would be like."
"Is a large-scale anarchist society possible?

Thanks for any insights you offer."Dennis

[Pris]

Where I have trouble is the reality of the selfish, greed-driven, exploitative pricks being part of this society. I also have trouble visualizing how we would ever get to that horizontal society when we're starting from our current reality - where so many people are dirt poor - even people working full-time jobs are often a few paychecks away from being homeless. There are also a large number of people that are physically or emotionally unable to put in enough work to sustain themselves, and I wonder if your vision is to allow them to die-off so they won't burden the envisioned society any more. I hear about "voluntaryism", but my real-world experience is that very few people actually do volunteer.

I see an 'anarchistic' contributionist society (Michael Tellinger) as a wonderful place to start. This evens the playing field for the whole planet.

http://www.michaeltellinger.com/ubuntu-cont.php

Perhaps it's because of the current, broken system that explains why so very few people actually do volunteer/contribute. I don't think it's a reflection of our state of mind in general. We're just stuck in a system of lack and limitation so everyone is so defensive/self-serving. If we have a system that is built upon contribution'ism', then volunteering/contributing would be considered the 'right thing to do'.

Without money as a motivator/enslaver (all forms including barter and trade), people would act for the betterment of humanity IMO. This new spirit of giving and sharing freely would motivate others to do the same.

Anyone who does not want to 'play nice', wouldn't fit in very well... to put it mildly. Negative, anti-social behaviour would not be tolerated by the majority like it is now. I wish I could say we'll find a place for them... but I doubt it. Unless they change and desire to help humanity as well, we'll probably end up corralling them and fencing them off lol. It would be part of our new responsibility to protect the new 'system'.

Also, a resource-based society (no money) shows good potential (Jacque Fresco). I'm not for the exploitation of the Earth and animals etc. We need to be guardians/caretakers of the Earth and everything on it -- including ourselves. Also, we require freedom to develop ourselves spiritually any way we like (with emphasis on the idea that everything we do is for the benefit of ourselves and everyone else). When people act from the heart while using intelligent discernment with no restrictions from a government/authoritarian system, I think amazing things can happen. We are absolutely capable of self-governance. And, yes, I think this can go planet-wide without too many problems.

We can only imagine what that's like because we've had our spirit (freedom) crushed out of us for so long.

[Carmen]

Dennis, I'm not very good at wading through or understanding the endless convaluted political and societal systems but I will attempt to answer your question.

Wasn't it Einsten who said that a problem can never be solved on, or at, the level the it was created at. With that in mind we have to think in higher dimensional mind to solve any problems at the physical, 3 D level. We have to connect with the spiritual realm, our personal spiritual realm. The individual on higher levels of thinking (think more expanded levels) takes responsibility for their thoughts and actions always.

Jakes description of how the Indians tribes functioned as cohesive units describes very well how society could and would function with no 'bosses'. The individual takes responsibility and thinks with the good of the tribe in mind. The elders they look up to,and take direction from,are those very much in touch with spirit and the intelligence of spirit. The power of the that spiritual contact protects and directs all the actions of the tribe for everyone's welfare.

All tribes throughout the world functioned in the way. Religion undermined all of that but thats another story!

When a family, a tribe or a nation, operates from a strong connection to spirit, it succeeds. And there are very few rules as they are not needed. Every individual 'knows' and is free of the tyranny of a 3d realm. This is what is meant by 'being in the world, but not of it'.

Many people think that the spiritual stuff is only applicable to Sundays, high days and holidays, or when they aren't immersed in the grind of endless work and survival! Not so! 3D is the very place to bring spirit into play!

[Nasu]

IMO, anarchy is not a contempory solution to societies ills. Even if we could convince our whole race to act responsibly, be self supportive, self sustaining and act only from a place of mutual respect and love, our planet would be even easier to co opt or dominate than it is today. Using the dictum of devide and rule the anarchistic model would have to unite in order to survive and thrive in the face of an organized opposition. Organization is therefore the only true model, the severity of the laws and their application still the largest nut to crack... Like the rest of us, I don't have all the answers, I'm still working on it... N

[Observer1964]

First, for those who have been influenced by the attempt to equate "anarchy" with "chaos" and even "mayhem", a political definition of anarchy means "no rulers." Modern supporters of anarchism express various flavors of anarchism - one frequently mentioned is "anarcho-capitalism" (which may refer more to the economic dealings of society rather than an overall anarchist society.) The term "stateless" is also often used.

What I need help with is understanding whether 300 million people, or 8 billion people, could actually live in stateless/anarchist society...and what that would be like. I can visualize this in a commune. I can visualize this in an area maybe as big as a "county" in the US, as long as everyone within that county had a fully self-sustaining ranch. I have difficulty visualizing anarchy beyond that point, and cannot visualize it as an entire society. Some of you have been thinking about this and talking about this and dreaming about this and visualizing this for decades - and I know that you can help me to understand your vision.

[ Let me stop and make a disclaimer: my personal current vision includes pieces of socialism (where many things - air, water... roads, bridges, rivers, lakes, public lands, sewage treatment, power plants, for example, are in "the commons", "owned" by everyone/no one - and personal property is owned by individuals), restrained capitalism (goods and services can be bought and sold, but not allowing human exploitation or ecocidal practices), and quasi-anarchism (as few laws as possible - mostly aimed at preventing exploitation and ecocidal practices, shared, horizontal responsibility for the minimalist bureaucracy for a functioning society, ad hoc committees/councils for temporary community service rather than term positions and certainly nothing resembling "careers" or lifetime appointments.)

I want to note that The Reset Button does NOT aim at my personal vision, or at socialism, or capitalism, or libertarianism, or anarchism, or any specific political ideology, but rather is a movement to throw-off the control of oligarchs and give complete power over governance to the ordinary citizens. If something like The Reset Button movement does not happen, then we are just kitchen table philosophers who will never ever have a chance to see any of our visions become reality; if something like The Reset movement does happen, then citizens are in a position to actually chart a course toward a specific political ideology...or maybe even split into regions or states, or even split into countries with non-integrable political ideologies. The fascist-corporatist-militarist USA has become so malevolent globally as well as domestically, that I would say that any direction that a citizen-based government would go would be a vast improvement over where the USA is now and is metastasizing into.

I just wanted it to be clear that this thread is NOT about The Reset Button or my own personal vision. If you define yourself as an anarchist, I want to understand your vision. ]
I can visualize a bunch of very high-functioning, evolved, loving, compassionate people forming a horizontal, anarchist, tribal society. Where I have trouble is the reality of the selfish, greed-driven, exploitative pricks being part of this society. I also have trouble visualizing how we would ever get to that horizontal society when we're starting from our current reality - where so many people are dirt poor - even people working full-time jobs are often a few paychecks away from being homeless. There are also a large number of people that are physically or emotionally unable to put in enough work to sustain themselves, and I wonder if your vision is to allow them to die-off so they won't burden the envisioned society any more. I hear about "voluntaryism", but my real-world experience is that very few people actually do volunteer.

I can also visualize an existing infrastructure (built by socialism) could be taken over by anarchists, but have to wonder about it being maintained (especially considering it would be volunteer maintained.) When a water main freezes and bursts in February in Duluth Minnesota, I don't know anyone who would volunteer to dig through the street and ice and freezing water and do the repair. You may be thinking that in an anarchist society, everyone would be responsible for digging their own well, and providing their own sewage treatment, on their own self-sustaining property. But, is that realistic considering how few people can afford that? Further perplexing to me is the idea of taking a completely undeveloped area and forming an anarchist society on it - especially considering that probably most of the people who could afford to build a self-sustaining ranch from scratch would not be interested in using their time or money on infrastructure that others would share.

That's probably plenty to show my confusion. I'm asking those who envision an anarchist society to explain/expound upon your vision...and to include starting from our current reality, where 90% of the population could not possibly afford to purchase property, a small tractor, dig a well, put in septic tanks/leech fields, build a home, build a road, put in solar/wind/geothermal to provide all energy needs, build a huge garden/micro farm, etc. that would be required to be self-sustaining.

Is a large-scale anarchist society possible?

Thanks for any insights you offer.

DennisTo start with your last question, Yes I think it is possible, in fact I think it is the only possible political form that will bring us to higher levels of mental and social evolution.

Many of the questions you ask here are basicly answered in a book about an alien contact that happened in the 60's in my country.
In the contct the contactee was given an oversight of an alien civilisation on a planet called Iarga.
It describes how this civilisation is organised , and gives a kind of description of how to get from our kapitalist system to a system they call cosmic universal economy, wich has manny resemblence with a resource based economy as promoted by the Zeitgeist movement, but ppl are basicly earning the right to use, evrything is collectively owned, so you are are garanteed a minimum income or right to use that is enough to live in relative abundance.

they do have a kind of government and president, but everything is decided by referendum, so politicians are merely advisors on how to vote and politicians are not lawyers but scientist.

goods are basicly rented, and small goods are basicly 'payed' for life.
if a product brakes down car, tv or whatever, the manufacturer has to beasicly replace it imidiatly as you have right to use, but goods are made of a quality to last for a lifetime.

Becoz everything is owned colectivle, their economy is really economic, they recycle everything and preserve their natural resources as much as possible, not like here on earth where it is made into money as fast as possible !!!

there is an english version online here
--> http://www.galactic-server.com/rune/iarga.html


A tv interview with the contactee from the '60s

QXueHVKRCS8

Mt_P24Bi5D8

[Octavusprime]

I think at the basic level a shift in allegiance needs to take place. The shift is from Government/Country/Race allegiance to neighbor/community/family. Once we rely more on other people we will begin to trust other people and in doing so a desire to help others becomes a desire to help the community which is really a desire to help yourself.

For me the current money system plays a huge hand in this. I rely on my job to provide me money, I bend over backwards to make them more money but when my mortgage is late or my water main breaks my job doesn't care. The issue is we don't have any incentive to become a true community but if we could break the chains of debt and focus on helping others without telling them how to live and believe the world would be a drastically different place. In such a place there would be 100 neighbors helping fix my water main if it broke. In such a place we would care for everyone in our community. When one of them falls we all pick them back up.

From community and sharing is built friendship, love and understanding. When you care for those around you "laws" are unconsciously formed. They form naturally due to the presence of chaos. So in a way anarchism is closely linked to chaos but not as a synonym but a reaction to chaos. Balance must be kept, it is the natural order of things.

So in order for the natural anarchism to rise, chaos must be ever present.

To directly answer your question. Can 8 billion people throw away the current system and live in a "lawless" land? I think so but first we will need to plummet into the chaos to really appreciate and believe in ourselves again.

What does it look like? I imagine people growing their own food and using trade as the prime currency. I help you build your addition you give me your crib that your youngest child doesn't need anymore. People aren't focused on throw away goods and getting the newest and biggest TV. People invite their neighbors to dinner. People talk to one another again.

The more I type the harder it is for me to imagine this actually occurring. The risk to the chaos theory would be an over shot into deep and enduring chaos with the end result being that the world self destructs before the balance is struck again.

Thanks for the questions. Your really have my head spinning now.

Cheers,

Octavusprime

[Jake]

The American Indian/tribal model would require a basic understanding of what Russell Means calls 'natural law'... Which is organizing how we act as human beings individually, and as groups by observing nature.. He gives a few good examples in this vid.. A bit of Social Darwanism, perhaps... He stresses that basic trust within smaller communities cannot be matched by the 'mega-corporation' mentality.. And that getting back to a simpler way of life would be easy and natural if we weren't challenged by the Global World Cabal.. (full documentary here... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3TtPOmq1tI)

It is definitely worth the 7 minutes... :) I particularly like the lesson of the TP,
and how each TP gets its strength, not from the foundation, but from where the poles come together at the top, and are bound in unity. Natural law!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFxVfaQGzVU


Of course, I know that we have to BE the change...
Jake.

[Pris]

Where I have trouble is the reality of the selfish, greed-driven, exploitative pricks being part of this society. I also have trouble visualizing how we would ever get to that horizontal society when we're starting from our current reality - where so many people are dirt poor - even people working full-time jobs are often a few paychecks away from being homeless. There are also a large number of people that are physically or emotionally unable to put in enough work to sustain themselves, and I wonder if your vision is to allow them to die-off so they won't burden the envisioned society any more. I hear about "voluntaryism", but my real-world experience is that very few people actually do volunteer.

I see an 'anarchistic' contributionist society (Michael Tellinger) as a wonderful place to start. This evens the playing field for the whole planet.

http://www.michaeltellinger.com/ubuntu-cont.php

Perhaps it's because of the current, broken system that explains why so very few people actually do volunteer/contribute. I don't think it's a reflection of our state of mind in general. We're just stuck in a system of lack and limitation so everyone is so defensive/self-serving. If we have a system that is built upon contribution'ism', then volunteering/contributing would be considered the 'right thing to do'.

Without money as a motivator/enslaver (all forms including barter and trade), people would act for the betterment of humanity IMO. This new spirit of giving and sharing freely would motivate others to do the same.

Anyone who does not want to 'play nice', wouldn't fit in very well... to put it mildly. Negative, anti-social behaviour would not be tolerated by the majority like it is now. I wish I could say we'll find a place for them... but I doubt it. Unless they change and desire to help humanity as well, we'll probably end up corralling them and fencing them off lol. It would be part of our new responsibility to protect the new 'system'.

Also, a resource-based society (no money) shows good potential (Jacque Fresco). I'm not for the exploitation of the Earth and animals etc. We need to be guardians/caretakers of the Earth and everything on it -- including ourselves. Also, we require freedom to develop ourselves spiritually any way we like (with emphasis on the idea that everything we do is for the benefit of ourselves and everyone else). When people act from the heart while using intelligent discernment with no restrictions from a government/authoritarian system, I think amazing things can happen. We are absolutely capable of self-governance. And, yes, I think this can go planet-wide without too many problems.

We can only imagine what that's like because we've had our spirit (freedom) crushed out of us for so long.

I want to add... that not everyone can contribute or is expected to contribute in a contributionist society. Whether from illness, handicap/physically challenged, accident, old age etc. It is our responsibility to take care of these people. And, for those who can contribute, they are only expected to contribute what they feel they can. Everyone is different. No more than a few hours per week would be... loosely... encouraged to benefit the community or group. The rest of the time is free to the individual to choose what they want to do.

It's important to point out that much of our stress/disease is a direct result of our current broken system.

[Hazel]

This here site looks like an interesting 'go to' for finding areas of action:

http://www.creatingthenewworld.org/world/create-a-new-world.html

And for my two-pennies: the will to anarchy/change is alive while it lives within us... and intergenerational damage can be assuaged with tolerance, modelling the benefits and collaborative spirit, a person at a time.

[Dennis Leahy]

To All,

Are you an anarchist? If yes, I am asking you to take a few minutes to expound - even promote - your vision of anarchism, starting from where we are right now, with the exact same humans that walk the earth right now. Not just the philosophical high points, but the nitty-gritty reality. I've already told you that I'm confused by what I have heard in the past, and that my understanding of the real-world day-to-day working of anarchism seem far beyond the reality of who we are (not just you and I, but humanity, or at least a nation-full of people.)

I see a couple of people have seen that the current system imposes a quasi-reality on people and trains us to be socially ill-prepared for anarchy, but that this would iron itself out once anarchy arrived. If I look at a list of logical fallacies (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/), I know I'll find that one (it could be true, but is certainly not necessarily true.) So, maybe that could be true, but quite likely we could be "re-conditioned"/reprogrammed to live under any type of social system. Look at where we are now: slaves without physical chains, refusing to make a move to organize and end our slavery! We may not "like" it, but we sure as hell have acquiesced to it.

The examples of semi-anarchist tribal societies (such as aboriginal "Americans"*) are good, but I'd need to also see how we could ever get there. Before the day I was born, every single piece of land in my birth country was already "owned" by someone else (and all of the land in my birth country was stolen from its original inhabitants.) So, show me how 200 million poor and relatively poor (certainly non-land-owning) US citizens are going to get their start in the New Anarchist Frontier. Do I see any volunteers here that would be willing to go unarmed (no coercion, remember) to the ranchers in Montana and tell them we need to re-allocate resources and need their land?

I'm not trying to be funny. I really cannot see - even post-economic-collapse - how the vast majority of people in my own country - hundreds of millions - (that own virtually NOTHING, and have virtually no homesteading skills) could possibly transition into autonomous, self-sustaining homesteads and be part of a functioning anarchist society.

Looking back through the posts in this thread, I see some are on-topic and trying to clear-up my confusion over what a large-scale anarchist society would be like (warts and all) and how we could possibly transition to it. Some other posts are completely off-topic, or trying to answer questions this thread isn't asking.

I'm pretty sure there are some people on Avalon that self-describe as anarchists. Can I ask you to post on the topic?

Do you self-describe as an anarcho-capitalist? If yes, maybe you have a vision of how it wold work for everyone (not just a small percentage at the top who start with a million dollar grubstake.)

Thanks,

Dennis

*(I'm actually not so sure that "American Indians" were anarchists. Seems they had a benevolent hierarchy, accepted by the group members. I'll leave it to modern proponents of anarchy to say whether this was truly a model of anarchy or not. Maybe the subject of another thread.)

[Jake]

Traditional Public Administration: (http://www.academia.edu/6977044/Transition_from_Traditional_Public_Administration_to_Network_Governance_via_New_Public_Management_wi th_an_Emphasis_on_the_Role_of_Public) The TPA can be characterized as an administration under the formal control of the political leadership which was based on a strictly hierarchical model of bureaucracy, staffed by permanent, neutral and anonymous officials, motivated only by the public interest, serving any governing party equally, and not contributing to policy but merely administering those policies decided by the politicians.

New Public Management: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_public_management) (NPM), a term formally conceptualized by Hood (1991),[1] denotes broadly the government policies, since the 1980s, that aimed to modernise and render more efficient the public sector. The basic hypothesis holds that market oriented management of the public sector will lead to greater cost-efficiency for governments, without having negative side-effects on other objectives and considerations. Ferlie et al (1996)[2] describe 'New Public Management in Action' as involving the introduction into public services of the 'three Ms': Markets, managers and measurement.

Network Governance: (http://www.analytictech.com/borgatti/netgov1.htm) coordination characterized by informal social systems rather than by bureaucratic structures

Admittedly, the Network Governance concept is most likely being discussed in regards to Markets and Businesses, however, is a fairly new social model that is emerging that may go hand in hand with the concept of Anarchy. Unlike the other two models above, the NG model " Includes taking into consideration the voluntary, private and public sectors, national, regional and international institutions in the performance of different functions of governance. In such models, people face various roles. "

For example, with Public assistance under the current TPA model, people are considered passive recipients of benefits... Under NPM or NG, there is a much more active role and participating potential, regarding decision making processes and implementation.

Our world is plummeting toward a Global Governmental Order that does NOT require, or desire public interest in the decision making process. We are to become passive members that are ruled over..

Under the NPM model, Governance is shifted a bit to the Private Sector, and Corporations for more latitude, and freedom regarding decision making and implementing, yet it is a world ruled by a completely free market, which has traditionally NOT taken into account the poorest and weakest in society. This is the problem of pure Social Darwanism. IMHO...

Under the NG model,, (still yet to be completely defined..) All peoples within a given network are involved in all aspects of governance from decision making to implementation and all other aspects of society. And all pods in the network can offer sovereignty to their people.


If I am not mistaken,, there HAS been some transition from the Traditional model to the NPM model, but it is still a corporate mentality that is bureaucratic, and ultimately NOT open to participation from sovereign citizens. (Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.. ) :) AND the NPM model is still under Global Governmental Dominance,, so it still stinks of Cabal...

Trust in governments and freemarkets can only be restored by transitioning into a Network Governance type of structure... IMHO. Smaller groups and communities have a tendency to offer participation to almost every single citizen. Traditional approaches have a tendency to not give a damn about citizens.

One of the problems is the enormous divide between Political leaders and the people. The more populated the planet gets, the more this divide is re-enforced and the more 'apart' we live from the people who govern us.. Personal responsibility and sovereignty are NOT welcome the Traditional approach. The centralization of power is in direct opposition to Network Governance. The corporate model is also in direct opposition to Network Governance. (Though, it doesn't have to be..)

Right now, these forms of Government are just labels that we have put on different levels of sovereignty..

The American Indian model may not be an 'anarchist' model. But if something like that was to pop up NOW,,,, dare I say,,,, It would be considered Anarchy... :)

To think bigger, we have to think smaller, in terms of community.. We cannot change the world,, but we can change OUR world. (not so, if ruled over by Government.)

I agree with Russell Means,,, if we weren't being 'ruled over',,,, the world would naturally evolve into a global Network Governing Community...

IMHO
Jake.

[bruno dante]

My feeling is that in an anarchist society, as defined by Dennis, we'd still need leaders. The difference is that they'd be unelected. Natural-born leaders would emerge organically (I hate using that word, sorry). I can't sit here and say they'd be definitively good or bad. Who could? Look, life is a risk. Some will be good, some will be bad. It could all go horribly awry. Evolution is not a linear line.

I'm reading a book now which details pre-life states, life plans, soul plans, soul mates, soul families so forth. If it's to be believed, many spirits in your so-called "soul group" actually agree - because you've asked - to do harmful things to you in the next life. They do it reluctantly, of course, but it's done out of love. Get a load of that! Your biggest enemies on earth are often your closest loved ones on the other side. Interesting.

All the world's a stage!

Now I know Dennis is looking for practical answers here, so I'll try and get my head out of the clouds in a minute. However, if you don't allow yourself to loiter up there a bit I don't think we'll ever really grasp what's going on here. The world is the way it is for a reason. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try and improve it, it just means that it will frequently resist your attempts to push it's pace. When I think of planet earth I envision a massive ocean going vessel, turning ever so slowly as it rights it's path. Nothing, outside an act of God, will make it go faster. Does that mean our efforts are in vain? On the contrary, the ship is only moving, albeit painfully slow from our perspective, due to our efforts. Keep pushing!

So, anarchy or self government...
It will only arrive, and be effective, when humanity has evolved to a certain level of spiritual maturity. I realize that can pretty much be an answer to anything, but it doesn't make it any less true. You cant legislate anarchy - boy, that's oxymoronic! - so all you can really do is wait...wait till humanity evolves. Or hits rock bottom...

For the record Dennis, I am in alignment with the large portions of your ideas (Reset Button etc). As I said, all the world is a stage; people play different roles. My role, as is painfully obvious here, is not as a facilitator of structure and policies. I hardly know my times tables. But I felt that I should attempt something meaningful to make up for that last meaningless post I wrote.

[Skyhaven]

Hi Dennis,

I have learned a lot about anarchism through Noam Chomsky, an MIT professor, he talks extensively about the topic. Maybe you'll find it insightful/interesting too. Here's a video of an interview:

YAGtExCOudo

[Maunagarjana]

Even if we could convince our whole race to act responsibly, be self supportive, self sustaining and act only from a place of mutual respect and love, our planet would be even easier to co opt or dominate than it is today.

The irony, as I see it, is that it's quite the opposite. It's easier to dominate hierarchical systems because those who control the top of the pyramid in effect control the whole pyramid, because they set the parameters of what is possible. Hierarchies are inherently exploitable by elites and offworlders alike. Hierarchy is the main reason we are such easy pickings on this planet. But in an Anarchy that is based on a holographic principle (Holarchy would be another way to describe it) it would be quite impervious to complete control by any one group or sets of groups of people.

If you want to look for models of Anarchy, look to distributed computer networks (like the internet), peer to peer networks, open source software development for inspiration. These things work very well in ways that seem counter-intuitive to conventionally-minded individuals, and the principles they are based on could be adapted for other areas of doing things and organizing things. Most people think of Anarchy and think, "chaotic, crude, and weak" (mostly because they've been conditioned to think this way), but personally, I think Anarchy and I think, "organized, sophisticated, and durable".

Anyway, Dennis....as Observer1964 pointed out already, if you want to see the best example I've ever read of what living in an Anarchy would be like, I would also suggest you read "UFO Contact From Planet Iarga". It's a book written by contactee Adrian Beers under the name "Stefan Danaerde". The original was written in Dutch under the title "Buitenaardse Beschaving" or "Alien Civilization". Even if one reads it as science fiction, I think a lot can be learned from it. In fact, I think it should be required reading in schools, even if it's presented as Sci-Fi.

[Carmen]

To All,

Are you an anarchist? If yes, I am asking you to take a few minutes to expound - even promote - your vision of anarchism, starting from where we are right now, with the exact same humans that walk the earth right now. Not just the philosophical high points, but the nitty-gritty reality. I've already told you that I'm confused by what I have heard in the past, and that my understanding of the real-world day-to-day working of anarchism seem far beyond the reality of who we are (not just you and I, but humanity, or at least a nation-full of people.)

I see a couple of people have seen that the current system imposes a quasi-reality on people and trains us to be socially ill-prepared for anarchy, but that this would iron itself out once anarchy arrived. If I look at a list of logical fallacies (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/), I know I'll find that one (it could be true, but is certainly not necessarily true.) So, maybe that could be true, but quite likely we could be "re-conditioned"/reprogrammed to live under any type of social system. Look at where we are now: slaves without physical chains, refusing to make a move to organize and end our slavery! We may not "like" it, but we sure as hell have acquiesced to it.

The examples of semi-anarchist tribal societies (such as aboriginal "Americans"*) are good, but I'd need to also see how we could ever get there. Before the day I was born, every single piece of land in my birth country was already "owned" by someone else (and all of the land in my birth country was stolen from its original inhabitants.) So, show me how 200 million poor and relatively poor (certainly non-land-owning) US citizens are going to get their start in the New Anarchist Frontier. Do I see any volunteers here that would be willing to go unarmed (no coercion, remember) to the ranchers in Montana and tell them we need to re-allocate resources and need their land?

I'm not trying to be funny. I really cannot see - even post-economic-collapse - how the vast majority of people in my own country - hundreds of millions - (that own virtually NOTHING, and have virtually no homesteading skills) could possibly transition into autonomous, self-sustaining homesteads and be part of a functioning anarchist society.

Looking back through the posts in this thread, I see some are on-topic and trying to clear-up my confusion over what a large-scale anarchist society would be like (warts and all) and how we could possibly transition to it. Some other posts are completely off-topic, or trying to answer questions this thread isn't asking.

I'm pretty sure there are some people on Avalon that self-describe as anarchists. Can I ask you to post on the topic?

Do you self-describe as an anarcho-capitalist? If yes, maybe you have a vision of how it wold work for everyone (not just a small percentage at the top who start with a million dollar grubstake.)

Thanks,

Dennis

*(I'm actually not so sure that "American Indians" were anarchists. Seems they had a benevolent hierarchy, accepted by the group members. I'll leave it to modern proponents of anarchy to say whether this was truly a model of anarchy or not. Maybe the subject of another thread.)


Dennis, you talk about land ownership. I surely have but a tiny piece of understanding about land ownership in America but I have some experience of holistic management practices and how farmers have applied the practice in America. Seems to me many farms and land generally in America is owned by absentee owners. The first lecture on holistic management I attended was by a farmer who started leasing land to graze cattle in the holistic model. He now owns four farms and has 1200 head of cattle, and he started out in debt. So, if any keen people want to go farming I think in America there is still opportunity. Nothing is given, everything is earned. Many holistic farmers take on apprentices to learn the system. Joel Salatin in Virginia has enabled many young people to realize their dream of farming and farm ownership.

[Pris]

To All,

Are you an anarchist? If yes, I am asking you to take a few minutes to expound - even promote - your vision of anarchism, starting from where we are right now, with the exact same humans that walk the earth right now. Not just the philosophical high points, but the nitty-gritty reality. I've already told you that I'm confused by what I have heard in the past, and that my understanding of the real-world day-to-day working of anarchism seem far beyond the reality of who we are (not just you and I, but humanity, or at least a nation-full of people.)

Am I an anarchist? I like to think so... I'm definitely non-conformist.

1. don't vote
2. don't get vaccinated
3. don't eat or drink anything I think is bad for me
4. don't smoke cigarettes, drink booze, or do drugs
5. don't support any form of competition
6. don't own property or invest
7. frugal living
8. don't buy brand names
9. don't eat out
10. don't take prescription drugs
11. self-healing
12. no TV (avoid brainwashing lol)
13. no cell phone, no Wi-Fi
14. no 'career'
15. not interested in 'playing the game'
16. I'm vegan

If everyone lived like this, I think we'd have a revolution. :biggrin1:

[DNA]

My early work is politically anarchist fiction, in that I was an anarchist for a long period of time. I'm not an anarchist any longer, because I've concluded that anarchism is an impractical ideal. Nowadays, I regard myself as a libertarian. I suppose an anarchist would say, paraphrasing what Marx said about agnostics being "frightened atheists," that libertarians are simply frightened anarchists. Having just stated the case for the opposition, I will go along and agree with them: yes, I am frightened. I'm a libertarian because I don't trust the people as much as anarchists do. I want to see government limited as much as possible; I would like to see it reduced back to where it was in Jefferson's time, or even smaller. But I would not like to see it abolished. I think the average American, if left totally free, would act exactly like Idi Amin. I don't trust the people any more than I trust the government.
"Robert Anton Wilson: Searching For Cosmic Intelligence" - interview by Jeffrey Elliot (1980)

[DNA]

My Cherokee Grandmother used to tell stories about how things were done in the old days. It was usually a grumpy reference to whatever she was watching on the news. lol...

I don't believe that there were political parties within tribes, though a loosely defined hierarchy.. There were the councils of Elders, who generally had the most respect of a tribe. Then there was the younger men, the 'braves', with its own leaders etc... Then There was the women of the tribe, who basically kept everything together.

I would like to think this was the case, but I just don't think so.
Starvation was a real problem in all hunter/gatherer societies.
So much so that regular raiding parties would be launched on neighboring tribes.
People would kill you for your food stores, and kill you by the way if they stole your food stores and you starved in the winter.

Native Americans warred with each other so much, one of the most successful strategies of the American Eugenics program launched against Native Peoples was pitting them against each other.
The US Cavalry would find a large group of Native Americans they wished to get rid of, find a neighboring tribe much smaller that hated the larger tribe, arm the smaller tribe with rifles and send them after the larger tribe. The US Cavalry did this with the Utes and the Navajo.

The Annasasi Indians used shock troops or their version of storm troopers.
If you were within the Annasassi empire, let's say you were a small village, and the people of your village were starving to death. If a member of your village was caught stealing from the empire's stores, the Annasasi would send their cannibal storm troopers to your village, and they would eat your entire village one by one. They did this in front of the would be victims. They consumed the entire person bones and all, as if to say "it is as if you have never been, not even your bones are left".

In my mind Anarchism does not work.
There is no model for it ever having worked in any kind of population size.

[Agape]

There's certain number of things you don't want to return to , in terms of civilisation.

You don't want illiteracy boost or half of the populace losing an access to advanced education just for your family who support homeschooling and can do that by their own means . Not all parents/families can . Not all would do it well .

You'd be surprised how low can civilisation get without the ability to read and write , access to information and ability to understand what's going on.

So this is one pillar you have to build society on, think of it as culture . Old tribes we all like to quote had high cultures yet , very few were perfect societies .

The other pillar you can't dismiss if trying to cultivate human society on earth is health care , of men , animals and all the system together . It should be a common and shared effort to take care of everyone the way they need it and is respectful to them,
whether they are child, adult man or woman or a senior ,
if we let people dying without help while the human force and means are available, you are bound to call yourself cruel society .

You may be happy to do without TV and radio or most of it , as I'm but you may not want to lose internet connection.

People will always want TV , some anyway , because it's simple .

In fact we need much better interconnectivity , not less .. the stress horizon is rising , internet or not but if something can save people and situations it's the ability to talk, communicate message between one people to another without being interpreted by some sort of 'authority' . Many wars , conflicts and conspiracies could be prevented that way .

You want to be more free ...globally .. not less . I don't want to live on allocated patch of land even if it's the best patch and small group of people keep it clean ,
and once I cross a border - if I'm allowed to do that at all - the first thing I step to is big waste yard .

We want to be free to move and be part of human society at large, understand more not less and cross the boundaries . No, not everyone wants their territorial and ecosystemic boundaries crossed . People should be allowed to live in peace .
But they should be allowed to roam freely as well .

Free society can't equal prison planet .


But I'm not saying this is a recipe .. I see there is an evolution of human consciousness and conscience taking place , simultaneously at all places on earth, internet or not .
Consciousness that is yet to turn 'on' , fully , for many people and let them realize their sovereign status, as human beings .. and spiritual beings .. ensouled beings .. and citizens of the Universe .


:angel:

[Jake]

Perhaps a personal Declaration of Sovereignty (http://consciousselfgovernance.ca/wp-content/uploads//2011/09/Declaration-of-Sovereignty-V.2.0.pdf) is becoming relevant..

http://consciousselfgovernance.ca/wp-content/uploads//2011/09/Declaration-of-Sovereignty-V.2.0.pdf

This document looks like a work in progress, but it is on the right track. IMHO.


A nation of personal sovereigns would not permit the existence of any government at all. (http://planet.infowars.com/resistance/personal-sovereignty-is-the-ultimate-resistance)

I don't think that everyone will be willing to send back their passports, I.D.'s, bank accounts, social security, any and all legal contracts, etc... We are facing a mulit-headed beast, for certain.

It starts with understanding what it means to be sovereign, and that requires KNOWING ONES SELF.

Next may be the Declaration of Sovereignty, in an official manner. I imagine that you would have to get a lawyer to pull it off... Then fire him,, immediately!! ;)

Cheers
Jake.

[Pris]

Perhaps a personal Declaration of Sovereignty (http://consciousselfgovernance.ca/wp-content/uploads//2011/09/Declaration-of-Sovereignty-V.2.0.pdf) is becoming relevant..

http://consciousselfgovernance.ca/wp-content/uploads//2011/09/Declaration-of-Sovereignty-V.2.0.pdf

This document looks like a work in progress, but it is on the right track. IMHO.


A nation of personal sovereigns would not permit the existence of any government at all. (http://planet.infowars.com/resistance/personal-sovereignty-is-the-ultimate-resistance)

I don't think that everyone will be willing to send back their passports, I.D.'s, bank accounts, social security, any and all legal contracts, etc... We are facing a mulit-headed beast, for certain.

It starts with understanding what it means to be sovereign, and that requires KNOWING ONES SELF.

Next may be the Declaration of Sovereignty, in an official manner. I imagine that you would have to get a lawyer to pull it off... Then fire him,, immediately!! ;)

Cheers
Jake.

Papers? Dates? Signatures (curses, blood, what-have-you)?

How about 'declaring one's sovereignty' from the top of the highest peak at the top of one's lungs? Oughtn't that be enough? :)

[Jake]

Perhaps a personal Declaration of Sovereignty (http://consciousselfgovernance.ca/wp-content/uploads//2011/09/Declaration-of-Sovereignty-V.2.0.pdf) is becoming relevant..

http://consciousselfgovernance.ca/wp-content/uploads//2011/09/Declaration-of-Sovereignty-V.2.0.pdf

This document looks like a work in progress, but it is on the right track. IMHO.


A nation of personal sovereigns would not permit the existence of any government at all. (http://planet.infowars.com/resistance/personal-sovereignty-is-the-ultimate-resistance)

I don't think that everyone will be willing to send back their passports, I.D.'s, bank accounts, social security, any and all legal contracts, etc... We are facing a mulit-headed beast, for certain.

It starts with understanding what it means to be sovereign, and that requires KNOWING ONES SELF.

Next may be the Declaration of Sovereignty, in an official manner. I imagine that you would have to get a lawyer to pull it off... Then fire him,, immediately!! ;)

Cheers
Jake.

Papers? Dates? Signatures (curses, blood, what-have-you)?

How about 'declaring one's sovereignty' from the top of the highest peak at the top of ones lungs? Oughtn't that be enough? :)

Of course.. :) I can't argue with that! :high5: That's enough for m!! :) A personal declaration of sovereignty is a step that we all have to take, eventually... A personal declaration to ones self is one thing,, We live in a world of contracts, I.D.'s, bank accounts, governments, etc,,, a billion or so lawfully sovereign individuals officially declaring their personal sovereignty to their perspective Governmental entities, would be an amazing show of worldwide unity,,

Of course, I am humbled by your words..
Jake.

[Pris]

Papers? Dates? Signatures (curses, blood, what-have-you)?

How about 'declaring one's sovereignty' from the top of the highest peak at the top of ones lungs? Oughtn't that be enough? :)

Of course.. :) I can't argue with that! :high5: That's enough for m!! :) A personal declaration of sovereignty is a step that we all have to take, eventually... A personal declaration to ones self is one thing,, We live in a world of contracts, I.D.'s, bank accounts, governments, etc,,, a billion or so lawfully sovereign individuals officially declaring their personal sovereignty to their perspective Governmental entities, would be an amazing show of worldwide unity,,

Of course, I am humbled by your words..
Jake.

Thanks, Jake!


We live in a world of contracts, I.D.'s, bank accounts, governments, etc,,, a billion or so lawfully sovereign individuals officially declaring their personal sovereignty to their perspective Governmental entities, would be an amazing show of worldwide unity,,

'Lawfully'? I get where you're going with this... but, my gosh, this sends shivers up my spine. Perhaps, the word 'unlawfully'... We'll need a bunch of mountains. :biggrin1:

[Agape]

I suggest passports in form of free notebooks , distributed at birth , with record of your personal data, your parents,
all hand written , signed , by hand as well, if it's fake I don't care .. and then start drawing and writing to it yourself,
yes basically create your passport , nationality, self-definition , see if it gets through customs ...


:sad:;)

[Agape]

There's of course , more than one reason for the idea .. but looking from todays perspective, the bureaucratic apparatus itself has grown enormous ,
and of course, there's an answer to it ..the system is to become digitalised , interconnected and 'more comfortable' for the system rulers to exploit .

I don't want to be told who am I by someone else . I star blank to their X pages questionaries thinking what do the guys think this is good for , and do they want correct answers or human looking answers and which kind of ,
and what can they make of it, about 6 types of humans currently ?

I know this may fall somewhere to spiritual section .. however .. is it permissible to apply the rules of subjective world , its identity or lack of .. to artificial system responding to laws of elementary mathematics ?

The society as I see it here IS crumbling , struggling with humane responses to situations , it's growing more isolated .. because of the need to process and individualise information , perhaps .. yet .. the most next needed course of matters would be is to see the same people going out to their gardens and talking to one another .
I hope it's going to happen for some earlier than later ...

[Richard S.]

To All,

Are you an anarchist? If yes, I am asking you to take a few minutes to expound - even promote - your vision of anarchism, starting from where we are right now, with the exact same humans that walk the earth right now. Not just the philosophical high points, but the nitty-gritty reality. I've already told you that I'm confused by what I have heard in the past, and that my understanding of the real-world day-to-day working of anarchism seem far beyond the reality of who we are (not just you and I, but humanity, or at least a nation-full of people.)

I see a couple of people have seen that the current system imposes a quasi-reality on people and trains us to be socially ill-prepared for anarchy, but that this would iron itself out once anarchy arrived. If I look at a list of logical fallacies (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/), I know I'll find that one (it could be true, but is certainly not necessarily true.) So, maybe that could be true, but quite likely we could be "re-conditioned"/reprogrammed to live under any type of social system. Look at where we are now: slaves without physical chains, refusing to make a move to organize and end our slavery! We may not "like" it, but we sure as hell have acquiesced to it.

The examples of semi-anarchist tribal societies (such as aboriginal "Americans"*) are good, but I'd need to also see how we could ever get there. Before the day I was born, every single piece of land in my birth country was already "owned" by someone else (and all of the land in my birth country was stolen from its original inhabitants.) So, show me how 200 million poor and relatively poor (certainly non-land-owning) US citizens are going to get their start in the New Anarchist Frontier. Do I see any volunteers here that would be willing to go unarmed (no coercion, remember) to the ranchers in Montana and tell them we need to re-allocate resources and need their land?

I'm not trying to be funny. I really cannot see - even post-economic-collapse - how the vast majority of people in my own country - hundreds of millions - (that own virtually NOTHING, and have virtually no homesteading skills) could possibly transition into autonomous, self-sustaining homesteads and be part of a functioning anarchist society.

Looking back through the posts in this thread, I see some are on-topic and trying to clear-up my confusion over what a large-scale anarchist society would be like (warts and all) and how we could possibly transition to it. Some other posts are completely off-topic, or trying to answer questions this thread isn't asking.

I'm pretty sure there are some people on Avalon that self-describe as anarchists. Can I ask you to post on the topic?

Do you self-describe as an anarcho-capitalist? If yes, maybe you have a vision of how it wold work for everyone (not just a small percentage at the top who start with a million dollar grubstake.)

Thanks,

Dennis

*(I'm actually not so sure that "American Indians" were anarchists. Seems they had a benevolent hierarchy, accepted by the group members. I'll leave it to modern proponents of anarchy to say whether this was truly a model of anarchy or not. Maybe the subject of another thread.)

Thanks for this thread Dennis, truly valuable.

In your example of the Montana ranchers, how do you think the people would be greeted if they would go to offer their help on the farms and get bed & food in return?

Is not anarchy based on the flourishing of the groups co-operation?

American natives do have all the habits in place. I am not VERY familiar with their hierarchical model, but I think one is required in order to have good organization. Personally, I would like something similar with an added touch of meritocracy. As I think that anarchism is a good answer to our failing system/ways.

Octavusprime's head spinning nailed it imo, although everyone here is bringing excellent points.

Thank you all for this...

[DNA]

Anarchism is impossible because of a few spiritual truths in my opinion. We are not spirits who incarnate to rid ourselves of greed, impatience, self destruction. These things are inherit in the physical incarnation. We incarnate to experience these things.

I understand some of you as old souls think humanity as a whole will evolve to the point they will overcome the negativity inherit in our species, but I say no we will not. Young souls, intermediate souls and adult souls need to experience these things for physical lessons providing educational inculcation that only worlds like earth provide.

From a spiritual perspective, I do not see anarchism ever working, because some greedy bastard will always attempt to gain control over a population of people who are scattered individuals.

[panopticon]

G'day Dennis & my fellow asylum seekers,

Go get your favourite beverage and have a sits down in a comfy chair 'cause this post takes some twists and turns. :tea::couch2:

No-one ever said I had to respond in a linear fashion... :grouphug:

Very interesting discussion and, as usual at Avalon, some very pertinent observations and thoughtful comments made.

I've got a bit of time now so thought I'd wade into this as there seems to be a lack of direct responses to Dennis' questions about a large scale Anarchist society. These sorts of questions, in relation to Anarchism in modern societies that have numerous internal social groups/fields and heavy integration of services supplied by non-related individuals, go well beyond the small scale anarchist collectivism (eg anarcho-primitivism, paleo-libertarianism) that often gets mentioned in the individualist literature (look at individualist anarchists like Stirner and Thoreau for more on these sorts of loose association, cooperation mutual agreement horizontal organisation ideas for individuals or for more modern examples try Larken Rose and/or his side project "Josie the Outlaw").

I am not an Individualist Anarchist. Many of Dennis' concerns I can't answer from the Individualist perspective as I am unfamiliar with any formulated solution from that position. The same applies to the Anarcho-Capitalist perspective. I have seen attempts (often very long winded and needlessly confusing in my opinion) to describe an idealised Anarcho-Capitalist society but I don't recall anyone ever describing a transitional process to that society. There probably are some but I've just never come across them.

What I can do is describe a Social Anarchist society and a transitional process for getting there.

But first, a quick and dirty history as background...

I know groan, groan, moan, moan...

No-one said it was supposed to be easy!

Anarchism has quite a long history with many rightly pointing out that Lao-tzu (6th Century BCE) referenced many aspects of decentralised group development and individual responsibility within the Tao te Ching (Chapter 48 ‘The world is ruled by letting things take their course. It cannot be ruled by interfering’). Bertrand Russell quoted Chuang-tzu (3rd Century BCE) in his 1918 book ‘Proposed Roads To Freedom’ in reference to Anarchism. Also Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the first person to self-describe as an Anarchist, made reference to Lao-tzu in his 1847 book 'The Philosophy Of Misery'.

Of course these early Taoist sages wrote within the boundaries of the prevailing world view of their time and place, however my point here is that Anarchism is a concept with a long theoretical/philosophical tradition. Anarchism is part of human interaction, it is inherent in our view of ourselves and our place in the world. In our ordinary lives we do not need to ask permission to do many things. We can organise to go to dinner with our friends through agreement, not through State declaration... That is Anarchism in action. Cooperation, mutual agreement and self organisation.

What is usually referenced as being Anarchism is something completely different. Anarchism has been misrepresented for at least the last Century both in 'Liberal Western Democracies' and in the various 'Communist States'.

The notion that Anarchism is solely about violent activism comes from the 19th Century and this view was widely promoted by the emerging Industrial Capitalist Elite. The Haymarket Massacre (http://www.illinoislaborhistory.org/haymarket/the-story-of-the-haymarket-affair.html) (1886) is one such example and shows how power was exerted by the industrialists to bring about the execution by the State of innocent people. The media made use of a particular form of protest, ‘the propaganda of the deed’, which emerged in Europe during the late 19th/early 20th Century to create the caricatured moustachioed Anarchist. This was bought into focus in the US with the assassination of US President McKinley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_William_McKinley) by an Anarchist named Czolgosz. This resulted in a massive anti-Anarchist media campaign and the introduction of anti-Anarchist legislation.

While this was happening Marxist Communism appears to have been allowed, by the Industrial & Political Elite of the time, to propagate while Anarchism was targeted as a threat. In addition the idea somehow has become entrenched in tradition that following the Marxist/Anarchist split in 1872 that Marxism was the victor. This is incorrect as following that split Marx & Engels movement of the First International to New York led to its collapse the following year. Of course Marxists/Communists say "it was no longer needed" and that's what their literature of the time said too. This ignores the fact that many of the delegates @ the First International didn't go with Marx but with Bakunin's Anarchists. Anyway, that's a bit of a story in itself and has resulted in more than a few incredibly long and dull books on the subject!

So, I've veered way off topic with this historical interlude but I promise it's pertinent, that I'm going somewhere and that I'll steer this wagon back very soon. :)

So far I've mentioned the schism that happened in the socialist movement in the late 19th Century. Why did this occur?

Well, that's an interesting question. I'm glad you asked. :cool:

Many Anarchists didn't like Marx's pomposity for a start. It's reported that Proudhon criticised Marx's economic theories and philosophy while Bakunin appears to have seen Marx as a self serving leech. Bakunin was a bigger than life character who stood 6' 4", was well over 200 pounds and, by all reports, had a lightning fast intellect. Marx was none of these things. Bakunin said that if a society ever adopted Marx's flawed philosophy that it would end in a totalitarian state:


But according to Mr. Marx, the people not only should not abolish the State, but, on the contrary, they must strengthen and enlarge it. and turn it over to the full disposition of their benefactors, guardians, and teachers – the leaders of the Communist party, meaning Mr. Marx and his friends – who will then liberate them in their own way. They will concentrate all administrative power in their own strong hands, because the ignorant people are in need of a strong guardianship; and they will create a central state bank, which will also control all the commerce, industry, agriculture, and even science. The mass of the people will be divided into two armies, the agricultural and the industrial, under the direct command of the state engineers, who will constitute the new privileged political-scientific class.
Source (https://archive.org/details/al_Michail_Bakunin_Statism_and_Anarchy_a4) (Bakunin, M. 1873. Statism And Anarchy. pg: 7)
As history has shown, the Anarchists were right to see Communist Statism as no different to the feudalism/aristocracy based totalitarianism they were combating. Rousseau's 'Social Contract' is another well trod path that Statists periodically wheel out and has been soundly rejected by most Anarchists.

Anyway, after that little sidetrack I best mention an interesting link between the 19th Century Anarchist Proudhon and the 20th Century. Not only was Proudhon an economist, philosopher and first self-described Anarchist who was there on the barricades in Paris during the revolts and later became a member of the French Parliament (advocating for use of Federalism as an Anarchist system of group collectivism) but he was also an inspiration to Leo Tolstoy. Tolstoy sought Proudhon out in Brussels in March of 1861 and Tolstoy's later tome War and Peace (1869) has the same title, and many of the same themes, as a book Proudhon was working on while Tolstoy was there. Proudhon's book War And Peace was published in 1861 and reviewed in the New York Times (the 1861 NYT review is available here (http://www.nytimes.com/1861/09/02/news/proudhon-war-peace-war-peace-researches-principle-constitution-law-nations-la.html?pagewanted=all) -- which is an interesting topic itself but way away from this one).

Now, Leo Tolstoy was an Anarchist (a Pacifist Christian Anarchist by the way).

How many knew that?

Guess who Tolstoy directly affected through conversation and written correspondence?

Why a little know Indian chap named Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

Yep, the founder of modern non-active direct-action against the State was an Anarchist. Who would of thunk it. That would be why I quote and reference Gandhi quite a bit...

So, step back and think about that for a moment.

Does Gandhi fit the stereotype?
Does Gandhi fit the "chaos" description of Anarchy?

Why is it that the political/philosophical tradition that Anarchists adhere to is portrayed as the caricatured moustachioed Anarchist, seeders of disorder, bringers of chaos and destroyers of the State!

Why not the peace loving Gandhi?

Well, that's easy. We are a threat.

Excluding the moustache of course we largely do want the Nation State to end. The Nation State is only a created institution used as a means of control. It is maintained by the 0.001% (http://www.tni.org/article/global-0001) to make the 1% feel good about themselves so they control the other 99%. That's how the State maintains order (certainly beats having to feed and control slaves). Plutocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy) is the system of Government we are under world wide. Anyone who thinks different simply doesn't know the statistics or believes the propaganda they are told. The use of the Protestant work ethic to control people via the creation of a Statist Dream (eg the "American Dream") is an hallucination used as a means of hierarchical reinforcement.

But enough about what the Nation State is and why Anarchists oppose it. I'm getting a bad taste in my mouth.

You asked a very important question Dennis. One that I've heard many times and one that often gets avoided or side stepped (particularly many Individualists & Libertarian Capitalists somehow seem to believe that the State will produce it naturally through some sort of economic de-regulation, but I just can't see the power and control that comes from the money they have being relinquished by the 0.001%). The question is about transition and where to aim for in that transition.

Now, once again I'm going to head off on a side track. The reason is that the path I took to Social Anarchism is a well trod one (particularly in Australia) and it might be helpful for those reading (if you got this far - wow) to know that path.

I started by reading an article by Einstein from 1949 titled 'Why Socialism? (http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/)'. Now I had an interest in Einstein's decision making and thinking processes which is why I was reading his musings. It struck me that what he wrote in that article had some exceptional insight and the questions he raised towards the end of the article got me really thinking. Those questions were:

'[H]ow is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening?
How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?'

After this, and in no way related at all, I took up Permaculture.

There is a very large part of Permaculture that is about societal reconstruction. It is the 'Permanent Culture' part of Permaculture that is sometimes referenced in passing. It doesn't get spoken about very much but it is the end of a Permaculture Design Certificate (PDC) course and is covered by Permacultures co-founder Bill Mollison in his book 'Permaculture: A Designers Manual' in chapter 14 titled 'Strategies For An Alternative Nation (http://apanopticview.drivehq.com/misc/PDM-14.pdf)'. I've linked a copy of that chapter for those interested.

Now since Mollison wrote the above tome it is included in a PDC and every Permaculturist knows about it. Some teachers (particularly in the US) have made this section of the PDC about localism based in a form of Gaia worshipping spiritualism/mysticism. That simply isn't part of the guide-lines and as a result they left out large swathes of detail around finances, complementary currencies, localised development programs and the evolution of these localised programs into a broader movement at a later time (see Hopkins 'Transition Movement' for an example of one of these localised program moving beyond its geographical area). Others have hypothesised that the reason the material was left out is because they simply didn't understand the material (let's face it the working of fractional reserve banking and alternative/complementary currencies can be complex) but my personal opinion is that they were/are targeting a very specific market that finds this form of information off-topic ("isn't Permaculture about gardening and being at one with nature?") and so they stick to the more populist, palatable material to maintain an income.

Anyway...

David Holmgren (the other co-founder of Permaculture) wrote an excellent book titled 'Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability (http://library.uniteddiversity.coop/Permaculture/Permaculture-Principles_and_Pathways_Beyond_Sustainability.pdf)'. These are all essential reading for any Permaculturist.

David Holmgren is also known for the statement:

'Permaculture is a subversive process.'

Think about that.

As Permaculturists we understand societal reconstruction and the processes involved. This is not about forcing people to do the same things we do. It is about showing a different way to the norm, to the accepted, to the State promoted teachings that are designed to reinforce its own legitimacy. Most Permaculturists don't need long descriptions and deep philosophical/theoretical analysis to know that something is seriously wrong with the world. The artificial dualities presented by the media which lead to controlled cognitive dissonance don't apply to many Permaculturists. Many see it for what it is. Again, that's another story.

So, how would we transition into a Social Anarchist society???

Sssshhhhhh. Don't tell anyone. We've already started. :whistle:

For those who are interested in the various Anarchist approaches to horzontal/non-hierarchy based governance have a look at the Syndicalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism) model, Proudhon's views on Federalism and the economic theory of Mutualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)), Gandhi's Swaraj (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swaraj) and Bookchin's Municipal Libertarianism (http://www.social-ecology.org/1991/04/libertarian-municipalism-an-overview/).

These are all viable and fairly easy to gradually implement using an approach similar to:
local group=>municipal=>Federalism.

We aren't living in 18th/19th Century France and I don't think there's any need for a violent revolution in 'Western Liberal Democracies' (in some countries I would advocate a violent revolution but that is because of their use of violent oppression). Why spill our blood when we can take over and remodel the system. Proudhon, Tolstoy, Gandhi and many others all thought the same...

BTW, I'm not advocating a "change the system from within" approach. That leads to cooption. Just ignore the bastards and get on with building a new reality. Use their structures against them (banking regulations, taxation loopholes, legislative procedure, municipal governance, local initiatives/program, association assistance guidelines/programs) and learn their language. Use, as Mollison suggests, 'the impenetrable armour' of the enemy. If BP can use a Trust to hide money, we can use it. If churches don't have to pay rates, land or goods/services tax then we form a church.

Don't think in terms of their system, but be familiar with it so it can be used against itself.

Remember the Permaculture saying: 'Turn the problem into the solution.'

Permaculture's suggested ethics & principles for societal reconstruction are available here (http://permacultureprinciples.com/).



What I need help with is understanding whether 300 million people, or 8 billion people, could actually live in stateless/anarchist society...and what that would be like.
To answer what it would look like...

Not much different to the world we live in today. :nod:

It really isn't that much of a transition physically. The main difference would be in the system of control that is used being removed.

There would probably still need to be local administration systems used for co-ordination purposes. For example, during the transitional phase a demurrage-charged (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demurrage_(currency)) alternative/complimentary currency system based on an Hour Credit (HC) system might be utilised to reinvigorate a stagnate local (economic) system. This would assist by contributing to internal group growth/coordination and could appear identical to present bank card systems during the change-over phase (see Cyclos (http://www.cyclos.org/) for a mature, award winning, open source banking system, which includes POS, that can be easily tailored to each decentralised groups needs).

Integrating a depreciating value encourages HC usage which invigorates the local eco(nomic)-system. There would, of course, be some form of isolation period for HC's (probably one month) that could be extended (ie quarantined from depreciation) if an individual wishes to accrue HC's for a specific purpose. For example, someone wants to start a business and requests the local groups assistance with a cash injection at the beginning. This is agreed to by the group as long as there is an appropriate business plan submitted, an evaluation undertaken of the businesses prospects and the individual undertakes a certain number of hours work for the group in specific tasks (excluding the HC prerequisite, this is similar to the model used by the Mondragon Corporations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation) co-op Bank evaluations of prospective new co-op ventures).

Remember I'm talking about the transitional phase for a geo-localised group here. I'm not referring to a monumental hierarchy of governance. Yes to having local people who are organisers (maybe with time limited positions of 2 year periods in 10 or something like that to limit power/control problems) no to having someone you don't have contact with controlling your life (based on opportunities for face to face interactions at around 100 members a group may need to divide to maintain "contact" with their local organiser/s). If monetary systems have been made obsolete the HC system I mentioned would be more of a local work allocation schedule for participating persons. There again the local/complementary currency model might be retained. Who can tell. That's not my department and not an area of great interest to me.

I look to point the tree of liberty to the sky and watch it grow.
I don't want to bonsai it's juvenile form into submission.

None of this is new ground. All of it has been successfully used for decades. Yes, it annoys the crap out of the bureaucrats and the system they micro-manage.

The mistakes that have been made in the past need to be avoided. That's where knowledge sharing comes in (but that's another story).

Again, it is all pretty simple once you know what works.

Right, so, I've given background. I've nattered about history. I've explained my path to Anarchism. I've given a vision of a non-hierarchical based system. Think I've covered it all.

Just one last thing.

I do not think that there is a "reset button" for this. There is no quick implementation program.

I think the new will gradually over take the old and it is our job to make sure that that newly emerging future isn't nipped in the bud.

When I talk about this I talk in terms of generations. That is something many people just don't want to hear.

They always want it now.

My response is: "Well then, go and get ten friends and ask them if they think something's wrong."
Viva la resistance! :whoo:

-- Pan

[Pris]

So, how would we transition into a Social Anarchist society???

Sssshhhhhh. Don't tell anyone. We've already started. :whistle:

Yes!! :bounce:


Right, so, I've given background. I've nattered about history. I've explained my path to Anarchism. I've given a vision of a non-hierarchical based system. Think I've covered it all.


Impressive post! Phew, what a mouthful! :clap2:


That is Anarchism in action. Cooperation, mutual agreement and self organisation.

Eeek! Self organisation? :faint2: I'll need help with that one. :biggrin1:

[Dennis Leahy]

G'day Dennis & my fellow asylum seekers,

Go get your favourite beverage and have a sits down in a comfy chair 'cause this post takes some twists and turns. ... ... ... ...

-- PanHey Pan, this has to be one of the best answers to any question I have ever asked, anywhere, about anything. :~) Thanks for taking the time, and for your extraordinarily civil tone (it seems most people eventually wield a weapon, in defense, when discussing their ideology.) You're displaying in-depth, relevant, interrelated knowledge, not a list of facts, with an air of confidence, not arrogance.

I have a bit of homework to do chasing down the leads you gave me, and need to reread your reply a few times and think about your analysis and conclusions before I can offer a cogent response. In the mean-time, allow me to point out that (for people in the US) the US federal government is active, menacing, malevolent, morphing and metastasizing.

To me, that means that eventually, anyone who (for example), thinks they can simply ignore them and just go off-grid and create a permaculture homestead will find out that they will not simply leave us alone. Fees, licenses, property taxes, zoning, eminent domain and other property seizure techniques, regulations, harassment, water rights (even to collect the water that falls on property you "own") - and the corrupt court system, trumped-up charges, false imprisonment...now including the possibility of torture and illegal detainment...

In short, I find it impossible to believe the US federal government would remain static in their oppression tactics, and that any citizen can escape their control by simply ignoring them.

The other quick point I'll make before I crash, is that I agree that any transformation of a nation's political ideology would require a process, not a quick fix 'reset button.' The movement known as "The Reset Button" is deliberately not focused on any particular political ideology, but rather is focused on throwing off entrenched oligarchical rule that is our current reality, that (I believe) will remain the reality ad infinitum if nothing is done. The Reset Button is a critical first step, not a vision of where citizens would direct a particular future or where we would ultimately end up. An analogy would be: Until the jail cells are unlocked and the jailers dismissed, the prisoners are not really able to do much more than dream of the changes they want.

Again, thanks for such an excellent reply, Pan!

Dennis

[panopticon]

Hey Pan, this has to be one of the best answers to any question I have ever asked, anywhere, about anything. :~) Thanks for taking the time, and for your extraordinarily civil tone (it seems most people eventually wield a weapon, in defense, when discussing their ideology.) You're displaying in-depth, relevant, interrelated knowledge, not a list of facts, with an air of confidence, not arrogance.

No worries. I know a bit about the subject so just talk about it. Too many people say "the answer is" but then either don't say what "the answer is" or give no indication of how to get to a place where "the answer is" relevant.

As for ideology. I'm not particularly phased either way. I look for solutions and if Social Anarchism is a dead end then I'd just go back and look at what isn't part of that dead end. I only use the term Social Anarchism because it already exists, is relevant to what I'm describing and other people like to have things labelled.

Beats calling it Panoptinisticism or some such ridiculous non-sense.
If there already exists a name for something that is almost identical (if not identical) to what I'm talking about then why shy away from using it?

That aside the "Anarchism" label is more of a negative than a positive so I usually don't use it when I'm in discussion outside of this environment (not because it isn't relevant but because people get caught up on the notion of "anarchism" [I use the lower case "a" for the main stream understanding] and that directs conversation not the ideas behind what I'm discussing).


I have a bit of homework to do chasing down the leads you gave me, and need to reread your reply a few times and think about your analysis and conclusions before I can offer a cogent response. In the mean-time, allow me to point out that (for people in the US) the US federal government is active, menacing, malevolent, morphing and metastasizing.

To me, that means that eventually, anyone who (for example), thinks they can simply ignore them and just go off-grid and create a permaculture homestead will find out that they will not simply leave us alone. Fees, licenses, property taxes, zoning, eminent domain and other property seizure techniques, regulations, harassment, water rights (even to collect the water that falls on property you "own") - and the corrupt court system, trumped-up charges, false imprisonment...now including the possibility of torture and illegal detainment...

In short, I find it impossible to believe the US federal government would remain static in their oppression tactics, and that any citizen can escape their control by simply ignoring them.

I agree. People who think they can sit on their block of land and be left alone by the bureaucrats etc are very courageous.

I was talking about grass root organisations using the system against itself as far as they are able.

Again, in reference to Mollison's observations, use the impenetrable armour of the enemy.

What process does Bill Gates use to isolate his finances to limit liability? How do the banks make use of charitable Trusts to avoid taxation liabilities? What do Churches use to limit their land charges? What would happen if a group organised as a Church and then donated all their wage to the Church? What about being employed as contractors for that NFP/Church in a present place of employment and having the wage paid to the NFP as a volunteer? Then, would paying wages from the "Church" as "bonuses" to the volunteers minimises/eliminate tax liability? Might work in some areas/regions and not in others, but these are just examples off the top of my head (warning -- no great thought has been used in these examples, do not take them as an endorsement for a specific approach. Investigate what works within the laws of your region as applied by the people with the most money and then see if they can be applied to your circumstances. Always be advised by a professional in this field and don't take the word of someone on the internet!).

There are lots of different ways to turn the system on its head. There are heaps of examples of various approaches being used by "corporate citizens" (though how a transnational corporation is a "citizen" is a bit vague -- always note the language for deconstruction of control/management systems) so why not make use of those techniques?

What could happen? The law gets changed so the corporate "citizen" has to start paying tax?

I don't think so (http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/01/16/corporate-tax-avoidance-is-rife-but-the-ato-is-willing-to-trust-them/).

If the law does get changed, simply change the approach used.

Always isolate the main funds that are the base of the community group. Use of a limited liability would be advised as would Trusts and in particular quarantine property from more speculative ventures.

This allows for something like a syndicalist model for organisation with later development into a con/federation (after the fashion of Proudhon's notions) if viewed as appropriate. This includes, for example, industrial cooperatives being formed from "community" group finances to further the local development cycle. Again, these industrial coops would need to operate within the Permacuture ethics & principles (eg can't poison a water source, pollute ground soil, can use recycled items & promote local cohesion). The 7th Generation story/tradition from the Iroquois Confederacy is incorporated into Permacuture principles & ethics (see Principle 4 (http://permacultureprinciples.com/principles/_4/) as an example) so as to encourage a Permanent Culture.

Seems like a reasonable basis for a new society to me.


The other quick point I'll make before I crash, is that I agree that any transformation of a nation's political ideology would require a process, not a quick fix 'reset button.' The movement known as "The Reset Button" is deliberately not focused on any particular political ideology, but rather is focused on throwing off entrenched oligarchical rule that is our current reality, that (I believe) will remain the reality ad infinitum if nothing is done. The Reset Button is a critical first step, not a vision of where citizens would direct a particular future or where we would ultimately end up. An analogy would be: Until the jail cells are unlocked and the jailers dismissed, the prisoners are not really able to do much more than dream of the changes they want.
Just to be clear, I wasn't having a sly go at the "Reset Button" with my comment (and I didn't think you interpreted it that way in your response but I wanted to make that crystal clear).
I was referring to everyone always seeming to want change to have occurred yesterday but not actually take action today so that tomorrow they can claim the future as theirs.

Again, thanks for such an excellent reply, Pan!
No worries. Always good to have a natter about it.

-- Pan