Can anarchy work among non-anarchists? Who is the third part

by curious, USA, Sunday, October 27, 2013, 17:02 (1278 days ago)

For anarchy to work, it must assume that there will be a large faction, if not a majority, of people who oppose anarchy and want government (initially, at least). To assume that anarchy would work when there are only anarchists is meaningless - any system would work if everyone believes in it, which is why small, homogeneous societies throughout history have experienced very little social conflict. How can this be resolved without force? All revolutions have its dissenters, and dissenters are usually put down by institutions such as military or police. They keep order. The flaw in anarchy, to me, seems to be that there is no third party to mediate disagreements or serve as an 'objective' look on the conflict (enforced system of laws) when there are conflicts. No one has any right to impose one's own will over another individual, or another group. I'm not saying I believe that we have that right inherently, not philosophically speaking, anyway. But one must admit that it makes things very convenient and streamlines the conflicts that inevitably rise when groups don't see eye to eye with one another. How can this be resolved?

Can anarchy work among non-anarchists? Who is the third part

by Whalewriter, Sunday, October 27, 2013, 18:32 (1278 days ago) @ curious

The question is indeed relevant.
Especially because Anarchy is something that is 'without' any rules, we don't often have any straight' answers or solutions for every problem.
This is also due to the fact Anarchy has never ever been given a real chance to evolve, become the emancipating, liberating process, world we long for.
Next to that, Anarchy has 'many ways', and so we are often (in honesty) not even able to present one main idea as being best, but instead we come up with a book full of different ideas..a good thing, but maybe confusing to many out there who look for straight answers and solutions.

To explain Anarchism to the masses is something that is needed.
A dirty job, but somebody gotta do it(:
At the same time (as many phamphlets/writings have already told us)we shouldn't wait, count on the 'masses'. This is in some way a contradiction.
Cause we do need them, the 'masses' to at least understand (and embrace/live to) the principles of true liberty and anarchy if we ever want to build towards a total free world.
Is that utopia itself, to believe humanity is strong, wise, creative and caring enough to ever get to the point we could live in anarchy?
That is also the MAIN question to many folks out there, who mostly dont believe in anarchism because to them it would cause a situation wherein certain groups or individuals still seek power, still start opressing others.
Will small scale anarcho communities as well lead to competitive and ignorant seperated ghetto's in the end? In short; will the prison of opression become the 'same, or just as bad?
(as today is the same wrong situation btw, meaning that we schouldn't care too much for the unknown I guess, cause this current situation is shit as well, or can it get even worse?!)
Even 'freedom' is always something 'abstract' and diverse to people as well.

Questions that are often not answered or scare people are:

"Will new powers not rise and take control in anarchy?
"What should we do with people who do harm to others like rapists if there is no law, judges or a (written down) 'justice system' (meaning a justice institution to them)
"Exchanging goods, not using any money, is often not very handy'.
How much bikes you get for 100 breads? That means, money only as a tool to exchange goods, is not a direct problem in my mind but also a solution, when certain goods are not needed on one side for example, then trade can still continue this way. (capitalism is however-can they be apart really?)
Can these two (money just as a exchange 'tool', and capitalism as structure/system) be seperated really, not leading to greed and this stinking shit again?

It is quetions or remarks on Anarchy like these we need to be able to answer, if we want Anarchy to be understood, taken seriously, explained, to become more part of a future most people can believe in, see and fit their own liberty and lives in, without being 'scared' for it.

I am not aiming to seduce any masses,to make Anarchy look better,or to wait on any masses for a real revolution/break with the old.
But I am also aware I am not alone and we cant simply ignore (most) people.
If we want to grow (in the good sense, not only thinking in numbers here) we need to reach out in all ways, in direct action, media, and so also in explaining our cause without having to leave any flaws.
We can't predict the future, any outcome of a revolution before it happens.
All I know is, we do need support, because the prison will simply remain the same, people will rather rely on the so called 'safety' of the known traditions, institutions, their media and companies (we need to get rid of the whole idea they are needed)if nobody believs in the (A)lternatives that there are.

This all however doesn't mean we have to wait, or first seek complete consensus (you never gonna get)with all people. We also need to start our own projects, propaganada, collectives etc regardless to what anybody else thinks.
Being fully detached to the 'mass, or others opions' (not the same as unaware or ignorant btw) in that sense is needed to ever get a revolutionary idea in the first place.

The question is: "To be (A), or not to be (A)" (:


RSS Feed of thread
[A-REVOLT].org : digital anarchy