Posts by Zachary Turner6

Edward Flores4 said:

says:
The whole anarchist movement doesn't actually lay out a blueprint for building a "healthy and balanced" society—it just tells us we need to tear down what they call "flawed knowledge, toxic values, and broken institutions."

Come on, don't be stubborn—just take a look at what this guy has to say about anarchism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ghoXQxdk6s

And don't think I've forgotten about you. I've been a bit swamped with work lately, but I'm planning to carve out an hour or two over the weekend to get better acquainted with good old Noam Chomsky—then I'll be back in the game.

fadedbison17 said:Regarding our fellow tech guy🙂 I finished my CS degree, now I'm diving into philosophy.

Great question! Feels like you're actually looking for a real answer here, not just small talk.

I was gonna write out a full response but changed my mind. There's this one article that tackles exactly what you're asking. Hope I'm not being annoying by dropping a link instead of typing it all out, but after re-reading it myself, I figured you'd get much more consistent info from the source than anything I could scramble together in a single post. If anything sounds crazy or if you have follow-ups, I'm down to chat.
Again, sorry for the link dump instead of a direct answer, but this piece was literally written to address your exact dilemma... and honestly, it's way more insightful than a few back-and-forth posts. Hope that's cool 😉

A READER ASKS: In a society of laissez-faire capitalism, what would prevent the formation of powerful monopolies able to gain control over the entire economy?

Nice link. Thanks. (And honestly, I didn't realize until now that laissez-faire advocates actually push for the abolition of licensing and trademarks *blush*)

The author is persuasive, sure, but I’m still not entirely sold. Here is why:
Who is going to stop massive corporations from forming a conglomerate or a cartel to squeeze out the competition? We call it "merging," and while it's an incredibly efficient way to boost profits, it’s also a direct path to monopolizing an entire sector. Look, let's take a hypothetical: imagine if Microsoft and Yahoo decided to merge. In the world of commercial software—not talking about games or trivial stuff—those two companies really only face legitimate competition from Google and Apple... and, well, that's pretty much it. If those two giants decide to merge too, well, game over. Suddenly we have two ultra-giants instead of one. How is the market supposed to support anyone else trying to exist or thrive? At best, everyone else gets the crumbs, assuming they get anything at all.

(Though, I will say, computer science is one of those rare fields where open-source projects—which are essentially a prerequisite for anarchy—could function perfectly fine, provided users are a bit more educated.)

Furthermore: he argues that competition is the best defense against monopolies. I agree. He also claims that government regulations are what actually enable monopolies to exist. Fair enough. But here’s the kicker—if the state completely abandons its role in regulating the market, who stops these companies from simply resorting to force to secure their monopoly—to "trademark" their territory through sheer power? Animals do it—they use force to protect what they consider theirs. And since laissez-faire is supposed to represent the "natural laws" of the market, isn't that exactly what would happen?

fadedbison17 said:So, I'm actually pretty curious—what's your field? What do you do for a living? Just asking because it'd be cool to tailor my future examples to what you actually do... might make things a bit less abstract and more down-to-earth...

Look, I don't really know how much you actually know about economics... just a heads up...
I’m assuming you get where I'm coming from—if anarchy is all about individual freedom, then it only makes sense that the economy should be just as free... no government regulations, no strings attached...

So, I just caught the thread title... "economic models in anarchism."
You earned that condescending tone—I just assumed you were actually focused when you typed that out. Based on your last post, I figured I’d have to break things down for you step-by-step... but now that you've admitted you didn't even read my reply and were just rushing through it, I guess I was wrong to think you were actually dialed in. We can go back to the abstract stuff then... 😉

Why would anyone bother doing that?
The detour was fine by me. Honestly, you'd probably pick up a ton of useful info if you gave this article a read. The whole dilemma you brought up with your tangent kind of solves itself if you look at it this way.Ayn Rand: Man's rights.
The piece breaks down exactly what rights are, how they actually work, and the whole connection between liberty and rights.

P.S. Just to be clear, I'm not pushing anarchy—you know, the total abolition of the state—because I just don't think it's realistic. I've laid out my reasons for that before. What I'm actually talking about is laissez-faire capitalism, where the government stays completely out of the economy (similar to anarchy), but still handles things like the courts, the military, and the police.

As someone currently studying computer science, among other things, 😁

Hmm... alright then.
But how exactly would you prevent a monopoly under that system? In a laissez-faire (or strictly liberal) capitalist framework, it's essentially "survival of the fittest"—the big fish eat the small fish, and the even bigger fish eventually consume them. It follows a sort of natural market law. However, what happens when one player achieves absolute dominance? It’s inevitable, really, since the status quo never lasts forever. We just end up facing a different kind of tyranny—not a state ruling over society, but a single private entity ruling over everyone else. If everyone is constantly pushing to become stronger just to survive, once someone reaches the top, they will inevitably use their massive advantage to ensure they stay there. How do you regulate that? 🤷

After all, looking at the US, we see a pretty prime example of why an economy struggles when it's left to be self-sustaining (essentially left entirely to its own devices).

P.S. I'm currently reading through that article you sent over. If I run into any points that seem problematic, I'll bring them up so we can dissect them.

fadedbison17 said:I wasn't talking about pros and cons of anarchy—I was talking about seeing anarchy as a principle used to achieve SOMETHING. Let me rephrase so it hopefully clicks...
Do me a favor and just focus for a second... relax... drop the tension in your shoulders and neck... don't rush through this... just breathe... while you read.

When I said "negative," I meant viewing anarchy as a principle where the main goal is being AGAINST something.
...
When I said "positive," I meant viewing anarchy as a principle where the main goal is working FOR something.

It seems like you're stuck seeing anarchy strictly as a tool to fight the government, so then you're lost once the government is gone. Totally understandable given your perspective...
...
Deep breath... exhale... and just try to flip the script for a moment and see anarchy as a principle for building something. Forget about the state disappearing for a sec... that's just one byproduct of what you're actually after. What you really want is freedom... *your* freedom. That means being able to do whatever makes you happy. ... So, what makes you happy? ... See, that's the whole point of anarchy.

You're free to decide for yourself what's best for you. And then, you have the freedom to go out and make it happen however you see fit.
Maybe that sounds a little scary... being totally on your own... nobody telling you what you should or shouldn't do... but maybe you'll dig it... the excitement... imagining all the possibilities open to you... You're free to choose what YOU want... That's what freedom is...

Get it? 😉

My apologies. There was a bit of a misunderstanding—I only skimmed your post before rushing to scribble down those nonsense remarks I thought were appropriate at the time. I'll try to make sure that doesn't happen again.
It turns out I was right all along: you can’t honestly claim something works until you’ve actually sat down and scrutinized its flaws. You have to see if those downsides are truly acceptable or—more importantly—if they’re even solvable. My professional training has always hammered home the importance of looking at any idea or system through a critical lens—which, in my experience, requires a thorough decomposition of every moving part. I don't aim to be "for" anything, nor am I "against" anything; I just prefer to approach everything with a healthy grain of salt.

It seems to me that you’re viewing anarchy solely as a tactical tool for fighting the state—which is fine, I suppose—but then you're left completely stranded once the state actually disappears. It's a bit of a logical dead end. Honestly, given your perspective, I can't say I'm surprised you've hit a wall there.

Anarchy is essentially a struggle—an intellectual battle, really—where the ultimate prize is individual liberty. Fine. We both get that. But let’s stay on track here. Look at the thread title again: we aren't actually debating the concept of freedom itself; we are discussing the actual socio-economic framework of an anarchist society.🙄

...
Take a deep breath... now exhale. Just for a second, try shifting your perspective and looking at anarchy not as a destination, but as a principle—a method for actually achieving something. Forget about the collapse of the state for a moment; that’s really just one byproduct of what you’re actually chasing. What you truly want is freedom. Your own individual freedom. It means having the autonomy to pursue whatever actually makes you happy. So, let me ask you—what is it that brings you fulfillment? That right there—that pursuit—is the real goal of anarchy.

...
Take a look at the thread title.
And I’d appreciate it if you could dial back the condescension just a bit.
Anyway—and I know I’m going off on a tangent here, so bear with me—has it ever occurred to you that our definitions of freedom might be worlds apart? It’s entirely possible that my concept of liberty and yours could clash violently when put into practice. How exactly do we resolve that? The reality is that the world is full of people who are either amoral or flat-out immoral; not everyone is a saint like us forum dwellers. So, how do we actually solve that problem?
You mentioned something about separating the responsible individuals from the irresponsible ones. I’m curious—how exactly does that work in practice? How do we actually sort them out, and more importantly, who on earth would be tasked with making that call?

Look, you’re ultimately the only one in the driver's seat when it comes to deciding what’s actually good for you—no one else gets a vote in that department. And once you’ve made up your mind? Well, you have the total freedom to go out and chase that goal using whatever methods you see fit.
It might sound pretty terrifying at first—that feeling of being completely on your own, where nobody is breathing down your neck telling you what to do or how to act... but maybe you actually enjoy the rush... imagining all those endless possibilities... having the absolute freedom to choose exactly what YOU want. That’s what true liberty looks like.

😲😲
I'm just jerking myself off here, honestly...
...look, I am trying my best to stay serious—I really am—but...😂😂

What you wrote holds water, my dear interlocutor, but once again: can we please try to stick to the actual topic in the title instead of churning out manifestos and political slogans, okay?

redtinker36 said:.. and what exactly does it take for you to find some peace and be content?

"A good meal, a clear sky, and a head full of dreams..." (Joe)
Fair enough—though I suspect everyone else wants the exact same thing.

fadedbison17 said:Sounds like you’re viewing anarchy as a "negative"—it's against something (the state). So once the state is gone, there's nothing left to be against. It's like you think the whole point of anarchy is just destroying the government for the sake of it.

I look at anarchy (even though, mind you, I'm no anarchist) as a "positive." It's for something (individual liberty). For a person to actually be free, the state gets in the way. That's why people want to move past it. The goal is freedom, and getting rid of the state is just one of the results...

Not quite. Sure, there are downsides, but there are benefits too. That said, when you're trying to judge the actual quality of a concept, I've always found it much more telling to scrutinize its flaws than to dwell on its perks.

I look at anarchy (even though—and I should clarify—I am not an anarchist) as a "positive." It is for something (individual liberty). For a person to truly be free, the state becomes an obstacle. That is why people want to move past it. The goal is freedom; dismantling the state is just one of the resulting consequences.

Fair enough. But what comes next once the state is gone? And just as importantly: how do we actually get there?

redtinker36 asks:
.. so, what exactly does your ideal permanent state look like?

Peace and all good vibes to everyone out there.

hollowpuma762 said:Bad management of the system and its resources, along with all the frustration that triggers, starts at the very foundation of society. We're talking about foundations built on shaky knowledge, toxic values, and half-baked institutions.

In a healthy, balanced system, decisions would be made by people who have actually proven they're the most capable. It would just be their duty to the public, period. No flashy election campaigns, no empty promises.
Think of it like a "Council of Sages" that the public could pick from a small pool of qualified candidates. A true sage wouldn't abuse power because they can actually see the domino effect that corruption creates.

Plus, you can't have functional leadership without the vision and raw energy you only get from the younger generation.

Okay, sure, I agree with you—but we actually have to get there first. Anarchism doesn't really tell us how to build such a "healthy and balanced" system; it just tells us that we need to tear down the "shoddy knowledge, toxic values, and broken institutions" (it occasionally hints at a solution, but usually through militant, revolutionary means that—while perhaps necessary at times—are equally unappealing). That is the primary critique leveled against it compared to, say, socialism or capitalism, which function as constructive ideologies, whereas anarchism is fundamentally destructive (on that basis, anyway). Still, that doesn't mean it can't be incredibly useful.

Let's look at the logic: if "values are toxic and institutions are broken," then social structures are essentially screwed. We're left with two choices...
1.) Determine that the system is flawed but salvageable through upgrades, incremental changes, and so on, and act accordingly (an upgrade, not a replacement—let's evolve system AAA 1.0 into system AAA 2.0
2.) Determine that the existing system is so fundamentally broken that it is beyond repair, necessitating its total dissolution in favor of designing and building something entirely new (scrap system AAA 1.0 and launch system ZZZ 1.0)

Anarchists will exclusively advocate for option 2. They’ll insist, "Yes, system AAA 1.0 is garbage and needs to be dismantled to make way for system ZZZ 1.0," yet they won't say a single word about how to actually create that system ZZZ 1.0.

Under the conditions in which anarchism emerged as an ideology, it was necessary. Not necessarily to trigger a literal "social revolution"—which would imply bloodshed, and blood is never a good thing—but to empower the consciousness of the lowest tier of citizenship (to put it bluntly, the working class) so they realize they possess rights as both humans and workers. That is the most positive aspect of anarchism, and it remains necessary today—as it will always be necessary—so long as there are people holding absurdly massive amounts of resources and power while millions of others struggle to survive on crumbs. (Which, if we want to be pessimistic—or merely realistic—will always be the case.)

fadedbison17 said:I get where you're coming from.
I remember learning about the two types of freedom—negative and positive.
Positive freedom is stuff like: you gotta pay taxes to the government, or you gotta serve in the military... sounds a lot like a duty.
Negative freedom is more like: you just can't hurt anyone else (basically, you can do whatever you want as long as you aren't causing harm). That doesn't feel like a duty. If you look at it logically, you aren't really giving anything up.
To me, that "positive freedom" feels a lot like repression.

You've got me interested. I'm actually a fan of something similar to anarchism—if by anarchy you mean getting rid of the state entirely to maximize individual liberty. We're talking total separation of state and economy... where the government only handles the police, the military, and the courts—pure laissez-faire capitalism (think Ayn Rand and Objectivism).
If you want to dive into those anarchist loopholes you mentioned, I'd love to hear what you think is broken. If you write it out, try to keep each hole to just 3 sentences max, please.

Anarchism is the struggle—the necessity of dismantling the existing social structures and organizations that we've already established are fundamentally broken.

Even if those organizations and power structures (the way resources and authority are distributed) were successfully dismantled—meaning the anarchists actually achieved their goal of social anarchy—we'd still face a dilemma.

Anarchy becomes the new status quo.
It might serve as a transitional phase, because once the conflict ends—since the goal has been met—you have to move toward a state of peace to actually progress. Beyond that, there's a practical need to rebuild some form of rules and structure (which won't exist since we just tore everything down), because without some framework, there is no community. And let's face it, humans are inherently zoon politikon—social animals, right?

So, where does that leave us? Anarchism fails to move past the state of anarchy itself. Constant anarchy cannot be a sustainable or desirable permanent state for the reasons I've laid out, and therein lies the problem.

My apologies, I went over your limit—that was essentially three premises plus a conclusion (an aporia). Elaborate on that, and then we can dive into the details.😉

hollowpuma762 said:Look, people aren't built the same way, and they definitely don't have the same skill sets across the board. These fantasies about how a stateless society could actually work? They’re just products of a shallow worldview, fueled by nothing more than frustration with how inefficient our current government systems feel.

Pooling knowledge, resources, vision, and energy together equals evolution.
But pooling things together requires a system.
And a system without any actual decision-making? That’s just a circus.

True. Anarchism as an ideology hits a wall halfway through (see my point below), though it does possess two pure elements...
It's fundamentally about dissatisfaction with existing structures and the way resources—and therefore power—are distributed. It's about finding ways to fix those unacceptable conditions, much like almost every other socio-political-economic movement, whether you're looking at capitalism, communism, or socialism.
The real question isn't about the existence of structure, but rather how decisions are made—and whether I should allow someone else to make them on my behalf. If so, when, and under what specific circumstances?

fadedbison17 said:You basically answered your own question there. Not EVERYONE is going to be perfect or super responsible—now or ever. Let's just face that reality and let the folks who actually want to act right live in peace. We can make sure they stay protected from the scammers and cheats through objective justice... and leave the irresponsible ones to their own devices. They'll realize pretty quickly that being a jerk doesn't work when nobody's cleaning up after them.

Thinking repression will force someone to be responsible is a total illusion. Same goes for thinking some bureaucrat (or the government) knows better than any single person out there...
Just protect the good people—they're the ones who actually matter—and don't go hitting them with repression just because they're doing things right.

The enforcement elements of a system shouldn't exist to "force" anyone to be responsible; their purpose is to protect those who are from those who aren't. It all comes down to implementation and how those enforcement arms actually function: I am willing to VOLUNTARILY accept the police, for instance, as a necessity that protects my rights—but that obviously comes with certain duties, too. Ideally, the police would act more like a moderator gently nudging you in the right direction, rather than slamming you over the head every single time you cross a line. In other words, an organization doesn't necessarily have to be bad—nor does its structure or the power it holds over me—provided that I VOLUNTARILY grant it that power.
I'm against any kind of repression, and just so we're clear, until a few years ago, I used to get quite carried away with anarchist ideas. However, I started looking at them critically very quickly and found plenty of holes in the logic; now, through these discussions, I'm seeing if I can patch at least some of those gaps.
Someone once mentioned that anarchism should be viewed as a tool rather than a final destination. I think they hit the nail on the head.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:But that’s really just isolation—essentially locking away anyone who doesn't fit the mold—whereas true anarchy represents the absolute peak of individual liberty...(an organized anarchy😍)

Not quite. Personal freedom can't just expand infinitely—eventually, it’s bound to crash headlong into someone else's rights. But if we could actually discipline ourselves—without needing some authority figure hovering over us with a baton—well, now we're talking. That would actually get us somewhere close to anarchist principles.
Sure, anarchy equals maximum personal freedom. But if we screw over others, they’re going to screw us right back, and suddenly our "freedom" starts shrinking again. I mean, what kind of freedom do you really have when you're living in a state of constant conflict?

So... how exactly do you envision any community functioning without some established set of rules? Does that even work? No. It doesn't. It’s really just a question of how those rules are implemented (whether it's an oligarchy, an autocracy, a democracy, or a bureaucracy...😁). The goal should be to move away from vertical power structures and toward horizontal ones.🤷

If someone doesn't mesh with a community, they can either learn to integrate or simply isolate themselves—or perhaps find a different group altogether. The catch is that everyone has this deep-seated desire to belong. But honestly, how far are we willing to go? What are we actually prepared to sacrifice just to feel like we belong?
The sense of belonging is precisely what anarchism seeks to uproot. Though, in practice, that sounds like an incredibly difficult task to pull off.

electrictiger70 said:👍 Exactly. Without institutions, it is difficult for a society to even exist. In such a vacuum, anyone could do whatever they wanted—for instance, if someone stole from me, I could burn their house down or hit them over the head with a club, and no one would be able to stop me.

I believe the government is necessary, but only as a minimal participant (much smaller than it is today)—strictly limited to the military, the police, and the judiciary. The state should be completely decoupled from the economy.

A state that is entirely disconnected from the economy would struggle to function, because that is essentially attempting to rely on Adam Smith’s invisible hand, and we have already seen that it doesn't always work. A market completely severed from the state ignores social needs entirely; it results in a market where people are left at the mercy of raw capitalism.

Still, it seems to me that the core issue isn't primarily economic, though the economy certainly has its issues (after all, where does progress and the drive to improve come from without competition? 🤷), but rather a matter of social organization.

I suspect people wouldn't know how to handle that level of responsibility if they had to decide everything themselves. It seems to me that most people have no desire to deal with social issues at all. Furthermore, there always seems to be a need for someone to make the final call—even if decisions are made based on some form of social consensus, there still has to be someone to count the votes and announce the results. Whether they want to or not, that person holds a privileged position, which inherently grants them a greater degree of social power and influence than everyone else—which effectively dismantles the entire concept of anarchy.
So, I don't know. To me, this version of anarchy is nothing more than a pure utopia.

Man, this is a fantastic thread.
Exactly. If we view the idea of anarchism as a liberty for the people movement rather than a drive toward societal chaos (that man is a wolf to man state—which is how the simpletons and the uninformed tend to see it)—then it rests entirely on the pillar of personal responsibility. But, as Cervantes so astutely pointed out: what happens if not everyone possesses that sense of responsibility? (And let’s be real, there will definitely be those who don't.) We don't even need to descend into the extreme of being amoral; it's enough if someone is simply "lazy"—if you'll allow me to paraphrase there, quite without irony, believe me. How does the system hold then?

This is one of the fundamental aporias of anarchy. Is it ever truly surmountable?🤷

electrictiger70 said:Come on now. Who exactly is profiting from those Premium subscriptions for a service like Dropbox? ☕

the other two points are theoretically viable, but they're far too susceptible to manipulation to maintain any real credibility

There you go, suburban. Here is some food for thought for your seminar: you connect anarchism (philosophy) with web technologies (computer science) to derive methods for distributing goods—both information and capital—that align with anarchist principles (economics). Because nowadays, agriculture is secondary. Information is what matters. It is the ultimate capital.

I agree that there is a significant shift happening within information technology, but you are overlooking the fact that this shift does not lead to anarchy. There is still someone who owns all these supposedly "open" platforms, and the tech industry and its massive lobbying power in the USA are essentially the new oil lobby.
That is a far cry from anything one could actually call anarchistic. 🤷

Pfft, honestly—who exactly is forcing you to go Premium? I’ll give you this much: it’s definitely a lure, no argument there. But look, let’s be real for a second—if you actually want the data—the actual information—then pay up. Or, you know, go find some other way to get it. Your call.😁
I never said they weren't making money. On the contrary—dear lady—both YouTube and Dropbox, along with the ever-growing torrent scene, are massive cash cows. And besides, don't worry, Premium subscriptions aren't even the primary driver of revenue for Dropbox...

I agree that there’s a massive shift happening in the tech world—there really is—but you’re forgetting one crucial detail: this evolution isn't exactly leading us into some kind of digital anarchy. We aren't living in a lawless frontier just because things are changing quickly. At the end of the day, there are still a handful of gatekeepers who own almost all these "open" platforms we rely on. Honestly, if you look at the influence the tech industry and its lobbyists wield in the US today, they’ve basically become the new oil lobby.
That’s a far cry from anything that could actually be labeled as anarchistic. 🤷

Look, I’m not even going to argue that the tech lobby exists—it’s massive, powerful, and incredibly well-entrenched. There's no denying that. But honestly? In this day and age, there are more ways than ever to push back against them.
If you have even a modicum of digital literacy—we’re talking basic common sense here—you wouldn't dream of throwing money away on software from Microsoft, Lavasoft, Symantec, or any of their ilk. Why pay a premium when you can find identical, if not superior, alternatives for free? We’re mostly talking about operating systems and various applications, which are scattered all over the web if you actually know where to look. This is exactly why they say the internet is our best friend... though, of course, I’m strictly referring to individual users. Corporate entities and legal departments, unfortunately, don't really have the luxury of playing fast and loose with "pirated" software.

Nothing in this world is ever truly free. There is always a motive—usually a massive profit margin—hidden behind the curtain. Let’s be real: the folks at Google, Mozzila, or the teams driving giants like YouTube and Facebook aren't exactly driven by pure altruism or a sudden desire to uplift humanity through free services. They’re businesses, plain and simple. Now, you moderators? You guys are my personal icons of selflessness—assuming it's actually true that you're all volunteers, which I have absolutely no reason to doubt, of course. But hey, that's just how it goes—people always seem to value the things they can't actually have.😁😢🙂
Look, everyone else is reaping the benefits here—myself included, and let’s be clear, that’s a pretty significant point—so I honestly couldn't care less if some giant corporation is making a buck off me chatting with my buddies or scrolling through YouTube clips. If anything, I’d say they should be paying us for the idea.🙏

All in all—to wrap this whole thing up—here we are.There are actually several ways for an individual user to push back against the neo-imperialism practiced by giants like Microsoft and their ilk. Of course, we’re technically breaking the law when we use pirated versions of Windows or download cracked software and unauthorized data—but look at it this way: by playing by their rules, we’re essentially subsidizing their monopolies and stripping ourselves of any real digital freedom. So, whether you're grabbing a movie via a torrent or hunting down an antivirus through Google, you're—in a small, somewhat chaotic way—engaging in a bit of resistance against the "information lobby."🤷

Mark Torres14 said:I just highlighted the parts that belong in a sci-fi novel given where humanity is currently at. Otherwise, this is just a slightly more liberal version of capitalism stripped of any actual governance. It all boils down to "voluntary" participation.
What if I'm a killer? How does this society defend itself against me?

And right there we hit the necessity for certain repressive elements within a society. Anarchism would function beautifully—mostly because it relies on individual, human responsibility—if *everyone* were equally conscientious and accountable. However, how do you stop those who aren't from causing harm to the rest of society? That’s another question left hanging in the air.

Bravo, servantes!

-> As someone working in IT, I’d argue that those setups aren't just theoretical; they are already actively being used.
Your first point is pure web advertising—take YouTube or Dropbox, for instance. They are great examples: free sites, free uploads, free downloads; the end user doesn't pay a single cent, yet these platforms have the potential to generate multi-million dollar revenues. How? Through advertising. And these are essentially virtual companies, networking their resources via a decentralized web that belongs to no one.

Furthermore: Dropbox or BitTorrent are excellent examples of open-source software that undergoes constant, iterative updates...

And moving further: how do you even envision a stock market that doesn't track supply and demand? There are people—hell, entire corporations—whose sole business is selling INFORMATION that influences the market (which is a massive amount of data), thereby driving both supply and demand. All stock exchanges are interconnected within the global market and remain interdependent—this recent crisis is just another perfect example of how the whole world suffers due to the total incompetence of Americans.

The other two points are theoretically viable, but they're far too susceptible to manipulation to maintain any actual credibility.

There you go, suburban—a little something for a seminar topic: link anarchism (philosophy) with web technologies (computer science) to find ways of distributing goods (information and capital) that align with anarchist principles (economics). Since agriculture isn't the primary driver anymore, information is the key. It's the most powerful form of capital out there today.

Mark Torres14 said:Pure utopia.
It won't work.😕

The first three points aren't just theoretical—they’re actually happening right now. Any serious business model looking to stay competitive—which basically means staying one step ahead of the pack—is already implementing these kinds of operational strategies.

As for items 4 and 5? Those are pure fantasy. You will always find someone willing to manipulate the system for their own gain, and frankly, that’s not even a difficult feat—if you actually read them, I can certainly provide some real-world examples if anyone is interested.

Michael Moore3 said:sure, in some sort of theoretical vacuum

but in our capitalist system, we have a few complicating factors:
1. currency
2. price fluctuations driven by shifts in supply and demand

my proposal avoids all of that. mostly because the term "barter" implies an exchange of goods—something for something else—rather than using money as a middleman to buy stuff.

The law of supply and demand is essentially the bedrock upon which all market laws are built—which, let’s be honest, is the single most important concept in capitalist economics. I get where you're coming from, really, but I have to add a bit of nuance here: there is no exchange of goods—whether we're talking barter, traditional trade, the stock market, or anything else—without the relationship between supply and demand. Period. It doesn't matter what system you run.

Quincy:

but capitalism features: 1. money 2. price formation through production adjustments (up or down)

That second point is indeed one of the levers used to manipulate prices—true enough—but if there’s actual competition in the market (meaning, no monopolies), that shouldn't be an issue. Unless, of course, every single manufacturer decides to collude, which is wildly illegal, and frankly, it's the government's job to stop that—you know, via the FTC or some similar antitrust legislation. Look, there are plenty of theoretical solutions out there; anarchism, communism, and the rest are just the more "extreme" flavors on the menu.

Quincy:

My proposal avoids all that. Especially since the word "barter" implies a direct swap of goods (something for something, rather than money for something).

Hmm... your suggestion isn't bad, per se, but even setting aside the fact that it's practically impossible to pull off, there are a few holes in it. Direct "item-for-item" barter is just too impractical today because of how much we need to overcome geographical distance quickly. If the technology exists to make it work (and it does) and there's a genuine NEED for it (and thank God there is, given the global population), then it seems absurd to suggest abandoning a system that clearly works for people just to regress a thousand years by forcing a return to pure bartering. That's the biggest flaw, anyway, though there are others.

Money is becoming a virtual, almost imaginary concept anyway—essentially just a unit of measurement for the value of goods and services. In a few years, the Western world won't even be touching paper cash or physical equivalents; we'll be moving entirely through digital credits (we already do this with credit cards, after all), which would be earned based on merit or the sale of goods and services (in a perfect, theoretical world, at least).

It's human nature to accumulate resources. If people stockpile just enough to live comfortably, there’s no real issue—today, we actually have the capacity to produce massive amounts of food, clothing, and so on. The real problem lies with those who try to grab a million or a billion times more than they could ever need, which inherently creates a massive imbalance on both a local and global scale. We need to put a stop to that kind of behavior, and whether you look at anarchism, socialism, or various other schools of thought, they all seem to agree on that point.

Peter Parker62 said:While I was digging through various anarchist texts for a research paper I'm working on, I noticed a pattern. It seems like most of the philosophers and critics I've come across focus almost entirely on the ideology itself—basically just arguing why the state is a bad idea and why it needs to be dismantled. They might touch on getting rid of our current version of capitalism, but it feels like a secondary thought in most of the literature I've read so far.
On the flip side, it feels like hardly anyone—maybe nobody?—actually offers a concrete roadmap for solving the practical problems. Like, if you're planning to get rid of the whole employer-employee dynamic, how does labor actually get organized? If the goal is to scrap money, how do we handle the exchange of goods and services? How would production, transportation, and supply chains even function? I mean, we keep circling back to the same issue: how am I supposed to pay for bread and milk at the grocery store? It’s pretty obvious that offering some random service to the cashier isn't exactly the most efficient solution... (and let's be honest, that's probably not going to work out well either).
Basically, I was wondering if anyone could share their thoughts on what an economic system under these conditions might look like. Also, if you have any reading recommendations—ideally stuff available online—that would be great.

Since my paper isn't quite finished yet, it would also be really helpful if you could mention what you see as the biggest flaws in a final state of anarchy, or even the flaws in the transition process leading up to it...

Thanks, 🙂

As I’ve already pointed out, anarchism as an ideology focuses heavily on fighting against coercion—that imposed authority we all despise—but offers us very little, if anything, in terms of what comes next once that fight is won (sure, there are theories, but they are far from being remotely practical, let alone implementable).

Anarchism is an incredibly abstract concept, lacking any sort of concrete, actionable blueprint.
It functions more like a state of consciousness or a social process—a struggle for human freedom and dignity. It’s funny how we tend to split things into two camps: the individualist anarchists and the collectivist ones, though the latter sounds pretty ridiculous and contradictory to anyone who hasn't spent years overthinking it.

Anyway, I won't waste any more of your time—here is a link to a blog that lays out the fundamental concepts and tenets quite clearly (and fairly accurately). If you’re specifically hunting for the flaws in anarchism, pay close attention to point number 4, right at the top.

Beyond that, just use Google to look up names like Kropotkin, Malatesta, Bakunin, or Godwin (you’ll likely need to stick to English-language sites for this one).

If you dig a bit deeper, you’ll even find traces of anarchist thought embedded in ancient philosophy.😉

And just a side note: don't count Chomsky among the anarchists; I think the author of that blog was being a bit overly ambitious with that classification.

Michael Moore3 said:The future, if you ask me, looks like a collection of self-sustaining economies and settlements where trade is reduced to simple bartering, with the value of goods being determined entirely by whatever happens to be agreed upon at the exact moment of exchange.

It’s the exact same thing happening in modern American capitalism—if everyone is screaming for a specific product, the price skyrockets; meanwhile, if nobody gives a damn about something, it becomes practically worthless, regardless of how rare or "intrinsically valuable" it might actually be. (Just the basic laws of the market, really...)

Brenda Cooper3 said:The very word "anarchy" implies chaos. It's the absence of order. So how can you even ask what kind of order would exist in an anarchy?! There wouldn't be any. Zero. Zilch. Nothing.
Man, it would just be total breakdown everywhere. People would be looting, killing, and clawing for survival like animals in the jungle. Some people argue that this might actually be fine because only the strongest would survive, which they claim would somehow ensure a certain quality of life for humanity from one specific perspective.
But then again, some individuals simply can't suppress their conscience. To feel human, they have to act according to certain rules—to behave humanely (which contradicts the idea that only the strong deserve to survive). If you ask me, the people preaching anarchism are fools; they'd be the first ones to get crushed because I'm assuming they aren't nearly as cunning as Don Vito Corleone, as tough as Schwarzenegger, or as invincible as Chuck Norris.

Saying "anarchism equals social chaos" is honestly one of the dumber things people say about the movement. If you follow that logic, anarchism couldn't possibly function as a final social state, but rather just a "transitional phase." Why? Because people live in communities, and any community requires *some* form of organization (regardless of who makes the rules or how they're enforced)—otherwise, a community effectively ceases to exist.

The term "anarchy" has been interpreted in a staggering number of ways. Just compare the writings of Bakunin, Goldman, or Malatesta, and you'll see the massive spectrum. The one thing all anarchists seem to agree on is the STRUGGLE AGAINST IMPOSED AUTHORITY—to paraphrase: "No one has power over me unless I personally grant it to them." Even their methods vary wildly—from Goldman's somewhat ridiculous militancy to Malatesta's much more moderate approach (which I personally find brilliant). When they talk about imposed authority, they're obviously including all the social injustices an anarchist seeks to rectify.

What Servantes wrote regarding Bakunin's premises is spot on. Personally, I've found incredibly little—practically nothing—regarding what anarchists actually think about the economic organization of society (how they envision it working), which is arguably one of the biggest flaws in their ideology (which, let's be real, is pretty full of holes, even if I admit there are smart bits in there). From what I've gathered reading his texts, Bakunin and his contemporaries were quite close to agrarian socialism.
Those more recent theorists (late 20th century) focus way more on the fight than on what happens *after* the fight, which is... well, beating a dead horse—or more accurately, just pure nonsense (yet another glaring weakness of anarchism as an ideology).