I'm assuming WOI isn't the anarcho-capitalist type. How these different anarchist communities will work it out is beyond me. I suppose no one will enforce the no money rule and everyone will be very happy about it. Everything is free. Goods and services, including your own, are free. Maybe they will come up with a bartering system. What do you think I can get for a weenie dog? His name is King Louie. And why do I think we have suddenly taken a HUGE step back in time? I'm picturing cavemen.

__________________
New to the forum? Check out our Newbie's Guide!
Interested in supporting USPO? Click here!

No, my argument is much simpler than that. If an anarchy is not based on anarchism then it's not an anarchy (this is merely a transit to the next and not an argument by itself!). Hence (here's the transition), anarchy is - not 'must be' but is - based on either 1., the voluntary accomplishment of an ideology or, 2., the enforcement of an ideology. If either one of those two prerequisites fails then anarchy will fail. However, if either one of those two succeeds, anarchy will not necessarily succeed. And this is my argument, because if anarchy is achieved on the basis of no. 2, then, as far as I'm acquainted with that particular ideology (or set of slightly varying ideologies) it will contradict the basic tenet of anarchism and become the worst and most brute kind of authority one can imagine. Much like theocracy.

Of course, if anarchy is achieved by no. 1, it is still its own authority (can't exist if not adhered to) but I'll admit that chances are that it will be accepted without pretension and still be anarchy.

As far as I can tell, you believe that 1. is feasible. I believe it is not. Whether or not either of us or perhaps both of us are under influence of whatever indoctrination, the feasibility seems to remain a matter of opinion since it has not yet been resolved beyond mere polemics.

It would be impossible. As I have already explained, society is made up of leaders and followers. These followers will elevate someone to the top creating a hierarchy. I gave an example of how this would happen. Once a hierarchy is created then there is no anarchy.

__________________
New to the forum? Check out our Newbie's Guide!
Interested in supporting USPO? Click here!

If it is a forced ideology, is it still anarchy? oh, wait, I re-read and see where you explained it. I agree, although it may be more like an oligarchy.

__________________
New to the forum? Check out our Newbie's Guide!
Interested in supporting USPO? Click here!

I do understand when WOI's turns this around, though, and say that if there is no need for money then it's as authoritarian to have money as it's authoritarian not to have money when there's a demand for money.

Good entertainment, nonetheless

I'm failing to see why hierarchy is absolutely essential. Leadership, IMO, doesn't necessarily confer power. It will certainly confer moral authority but that isn't the same thing as the power that one finds in hierarchies, is it?

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

Seems to me that by money WOI means a monetary system. Is such a thing necessary? Why wouldn't bartering and IOU's suffice?

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

In one word: Dependency. Due to the limits of reality (or, as some would put it, lack of magic), every task only has so many ways to succeed. Thus, as a bare minimum, the success of a task depends on certain events and/or the presence and utilization of certain resources, most often in a certain order. Moving beyond the bare minimum, the chance of success increases with the ability to trigger, manipulate and control the events and resources needed for accomplishment.

For example, a body depending on a working infrastructure such as a constant blood stream will either cease to function or initiate the task of repair in case of puncture. If the latter comes into prominence then it must be able to trigger various events and resources that lead to the repair. Otherwise, it will most likely die while waiting for the events to take place at random. In other words, for the strategy to work, processes must be able to control other processes that again control yet other processes etc. And, lo and behold, hierarchy is not only born but it's born out of the necessity of accomplishing a task in a limited reality.

Now, as a bare minimum for human existence, consider the task of feeding your family ....

If that's what it is, it ends here.

Probably. I'm under influence by the doctrine that money, or at least some other means of mutual exchange, is needed. So I wouldn't know.

In trying to find some successful anarchist communities I came across this.


List of anarchist communities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israeli Kibbutz Movement: The Kibbutz movement deviates from anarchist philosophy. The order associated with the Kibbutz is collectivist order, not lack of order. On the contrary the Kibbutz system is highly organized in a more oligarchical fashion and quite democratically. The economic system paired with anarchy, communism, is a classical pairing not in accordance with the actual definitions of the words. The kibbutz system is not anarchy but rather an example of an effective form of socialist economic policy controlled by oligarchical democracy, and in many cases direct democracy with participation by all members.

Whiteway Colony (1898 to present):Whiteway Colony in the Cotswolds near Stroud, Gloucestershire was set up in 1898 and still exists today. Though it no longer has an explicitly anarchist outlook, it still retains a flavor of its roots and many of its residents are both aware and proud of its origins. Today the traces of its anarchist past can be seen in the communal facilities such as the playing field, hall and swimming pool built and used by residents, and in the way the governance of the community is still carried out by general meeting of all residents. Whiteway is regarded as a collectivist anarchist society and is one of the longest running anarchist experiments in existence.

Now, I've never been to either one of these societies, but IMO, these anarchist societies have had to take in a certain amount of democracy, thus they aren't really anarchist societies. Why have other communities tried and fail? Could it be because it simply doesn't work? A true anarchist society can not be successful in the long run.

__________________
New to the forum? Check out our Newbie's Guide!
Interested in supporting USPO? Click here!

White Rabbit's post was, yes.

Personally, no. I consider it as nothing more than free association between truly free individuals whom have achieved the Nietzschian concept of the (wo-)man who is beyond morality.
There may be some ad hoc leadership stemming from expertise but that would always be transitional, as there are no calcified structures that confirm this leadership.

Why would there be ? The separation into leaders and followers is a cultural construct, not an innate property of humans. It's not surprising that this perception arises when every aspect of education enforces the idea. Parents (mostly), schools, churches are all tools that stamp this idea into the heads. People who have received a non authoritarian education do not identify themselves as either leader or victim, pardon, follower.

No, you need someone with expertise. That's all. Do you accept and comply to the morality of the individual that built your fence ? No. Do you allow the constructor of the fence to choose the color, the height, and whatnot of the fence ? No. Yet, that's exactly what people who acquiesce to authority do. They give the responsability for far more important issues out of their own hands.
Having said that, a little less specialization would do society much good.

You also appear to be assuming that the people in a hypothetical anarchist community would be similar to what you are most familiar with, whereas I assume that such people would have significant differences re mindset from that of normal folk. For example, I'd expect such people would not be materialistically inclined and that their values would consequently be quite different. Such people, IMO, would be more inclined to cooperate with one another as acquisition of material wealth beyond what is necessary for survival wouldn't be considered a human priority.

As I stated earlier, much less would get done but is that necessarily a bad thing?

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson