Economic models in anarchism: what actually works?

Zachary Turner6 said: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.

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.

William Gonzalez3 said:Honestly, you all are such little fighters.
If the US military were made up of people like you, toppling the global order and establishing a new one would probably be nothing more than a joke.

That being said, I suspect this discussion on anarchism shouldn't get too... well, anarchic—we really ought to steer back toward the actual subject at hand.
In my view, everyone seems to be approaching this from the wrong angle.
Essentially, you are searching for viable, practical economic models—and every other kind of framework, for that matter.
However, you seem to be overlooking the fact that anarchy is, by its very nature, a utopian concept. Therefore, any economic model intended to govern within it shouldn't be anything less than utopian—which is to say, impossible.
The possible simply cannot function within the impossible.
So, perhaps we should pivot toward looking at more idealistic solutions.
For instance, let's consider how an anarchist society might actually operate, and what specific preconditions would need to be met for it to even work.
In an anarchist system, society would have to act in direct opposition to how things work today regarding those who cause harm to the community.
Instead of rewarding or celebrating them—instead of feeling that envy or thinking, "Look at him, he really made it, if only I could do the same"—everyone should simply turn their backs on them.
Workers would need to refuse to work for unscrupulous employers; families would need to distance themselves from members who choose paths of vice, malice, or general debauchery.
To take a local example, an organized anarchy on a forum like this would be entirely feasible if the members of every sub-forum just ignored those who stir up trouble, commit wrongs, or spread toxic thoughts and bad vibes.
In that scenario, moderators wouldn't even be necessary.
Broadly speaking, if we functioned that way, neither institutions nor authorities would be needed, and the world certainly wouldn't descend into chaos.

Look, what’s "possible" always stays tucked inside certain boundaries, right? But the "impossible"—man, that thing has zero limits. That means the "impossible," even when it feels totally incomprehensible, actually swallows up the "possible" too.
Basically...
the "possible" can actually function within the realm of the "impossible."

And get this—on the fringes of what we call possible, you’ve got those "marginal" types—you know, the weirdos and outliers my aunts used to talk about—who basically leapfrog over the boundaries. They smash through barriers and turn the impossible into reality just by existing (just look at any major scientific breakthrough in American history).

Oh, and time is a massive factor here. Why? Because what’s a total impossibility today could easily be standard procedure tomorrow.

@redtinker36 — I dig everything you wrote, really, but I’m tripping over one thing: how can you claim you're nothing without neighbors, yet argue that anarchy is the future? See, if anarchy is where we're headed, then your whole list only matters if your neighbors lose so much value to you that you become totally indifferent toward them. You only truly become "Something" once your neighbors mean absolutely "Nothing" to you.
So, anarchy only works as a path forward if you're "something" while being alone. Like lions out on the plains. There’s no room for two males to coexist there (unless they’re brothers, and even then, it's rare).
Did I totally misread you, or are we speaking two different languages here?

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.

Sounds like you view people as irresponsible and unwilling to look out for themselves. Sure, some people don't care, but looking at it from the perspective of those actually building wealth (the state, or those not producing anything), the solution is economic freedom. Let people keep what they earn. One of the best parts of living in a community is cooperating with others—trading goods and services. That means everyone wins if we prioritize the producers. And yeah, that includes those social cases you mentioned.
Why should some bureaucrat get to decide how to redistribute the wealth a business owner creates? Who actually benefits? Maybe if you're thinking short-term, the social cases win, but long-term you're just enabling their lack of responsibility.
Plus, using economic repression makes it impossible for social cases who *do* want to achieve something (take responsibility) to actually build anything. Why bother creating when the government is just going to take it anyway? Or when they can just rely on some other businessman being forced to give them what he earned?
Thinking like that just fuels irresponsibility.

What kind of society would you actually want to live in—one where people are responsible, or one where they aren't?

.. an employee can't just walk away from a terrible boss .. the whole situation is far more complicated than it looks ..

.. they can't because they simply don't have the strength .. if you surveyed workers across America, you'd find 90% of them feel like they're working for absolute scumbags .. yet they live in constant fear that without that paycheck, they might actually starve .. so .. they're stuck ..
.. they can't .. they can't .. but maybe that isn't the worst part ..

.. it really comes down to a power struggle ..
.. some employees allow themselves to be screwed over so thoroughly it’s almost unbelievable .. but it isn't strictly a matter of employer versus employee ..
.. for instance .. it could be worker against worker .. which is arguably even uglier ..

.. so .. what does anarchy actually mean here?
.. anarchy is drawing a line in the dirt and saying .. if you cross this, you're dead ..
.. it's actively contemplating how one might .. let's say .. take out a boss ..
.. focusing on the technicalities .. so that you .. you son of a bitch .. don't accidentally let him walk away alive ..

.. within all of this, there is one .. almost magical .. detail ..

(.. it's .. when you are without neighbors, you are somewhat .. meaning, when you are without neighbors, you are everything. That is how lions and gods live ..
.. lions without brothers .. or sisters .. and mostly .. without any fucking around, because sex equals trouble. Dalai Lama .. end of quote ..
.. and gods .. they also avoid sex .. because if you fuck a god just because you need a woman .. then needing a woman leads to wanting sex .. and desires are the root of all misery .. end of quote. Buddha.))

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.

Shouldn't we look at anarchism as a product of its own era? It’s like trying to apply Thomas More's "utopia" to the world we live in today.
To me, anarchism aligns the core interests of the individual with those of society. It frees the individual from that split identity, merging them into one. You lose that whole Ford dilemma of "to have or to be."
In a philosophical sense, you could basically equate anarchism with communism—the only real difference is how fast they want to force social change.

Zachary Turner6 said: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.

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.

Zachary Turner6 said: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."🤷

Of course, I was simply trying to point out that this online collaborative economy is still nowhere near true anarchism. Though, in my view, it definitely represents a very positive middle finger to capitalism. 😍

Quincy:

nothing is ever truly free. there is always some sort of profit motive behind it for someone. neither the Google teams, nor Mozilla, nor the people behind phenomena like YouTube or Facebook are altruists doing this for the greater good of humanity—even if users feel like things are "free." you moderators are my idols of selflessness (assuming you are indeed volunteers, which I have no reason to doubt). but hey, you know how it goes—people tend to value most what they can't have.😁😢🙂 But everyone else benefits from it too (myself included, and let's not forget that), so it's completely irrelevant to me whether someone profits from me chatting with friends or watching video clips. Honestly, I'd give anything for that concept to hold true!🙏

I agree with you. But from what I understand, the idea of anarchy implies that things should be, in some sense, entirely free. I am merely saying that such a thing is an illusion.

fadedbison17 said:Sounds like you view people as irresponsible and unwilling to look out for themselves. Sure, some people don't care, but looking at it from the perspective of those actually building wealth (the state, or those not producing anything), the solution is economic freedom. Let people keep what they earn. One of the best parts of living in a community is cooperating with others—trading goods and services. That means everyone wins if we prioritize the producers. And yeah, that includes those social cases you mentioned.
Why should some bureaucrat get to decide how to redistribute the wealth a business owner creates? Who actually benefits? Maybe if you're thinking short-term, the social cases win, but long-term you're just enabling their lack of responsibility.
Plus, using economic repression makes it impossible for social cases who *do* want to achieve something (take responsibility) to actually build anything. Why bother creating when the government is just going to take it anyway? Or when they can just rely on some other businessman being forced to give them what he earned?
Thinking like that just fuels irresponsibility.

What kind of society would you actually want to live in—one where people are responsible, or one where they aren't?

No, I don't see them that way. I just think the average citizen, say in a place like Chicago, doesn't really have the desire to spend their limited free time deciding on amendments to some specific law or debating a particular budget item. I'm not saying that's a good thing, and it would certainly be great if they did, but I think anarchism fails by conflating its idealized vision of how people *should* behave with how people actually *do* behave.
Naturally, it would be better if people had more opportunities to participate in decision-making. However, one must account for the fact that humans are not inherently altruistic beings whose primary motivation is thinking about the collective good. Perhaps some are, I won't deny that, but the majority of people will naturally prioritize their own interests first.
Then you run into this whole cascade of systemic issues. Take the education gap, for instance—you have people who haven't even finished high school struggling to grasp basic concepts like a federal budget reallocation.
I am telling you, it is not that simple. You have to resolve an entire spectrum of foundational problems just to reach a point where someone possesses the actual capacity to contemplate social issues. And even then, you are still left with the problem of motivation, which, in my view, is the most significant hurdle of all.

Quincy:

The reality is that some people simply do not care. If you look at it from the perspective of those generating wealth—those actually producing value for the country versus those who aren't—the solution to making life easier for them is economic freedom. It is the freedom to retain what they earn.

But isn't that, in a sense, a deeply selfish worldview? What about investing in the community? What about supporting socially vulnerable groups?

Quincy:

One of the greatest advantages of living in a society is cooperation with others through the exchange of goods. This implies that absolutely everyone would benefit if we prioritized the producers. That includes the very social cases you are mentioning.

However, a pure barter system would slow down the economy and progress so drastically that it would throw us back into the Middle Ages. That is simply not viable in the 21st century; it is completely unrealistic. Imagine if you needed internet access, but first you had to negotiate with AT&T regarding exactly how many chickens your connection was worth 😁. You bring three chickens to the counter, only to be told that the exchange rate isn't quite right 🤣, forcing you to invent a new currency on the spot... Large-scale systems simply cannot function without some form of standardization. A barter system might work in tiny, isolated communities, but large nations would collapse under such an organization, or descend into total chaos.
This is my fundamental issue with anarchism. I want to improve society, and I certainly don't believe our current system is perfect, but let’s try to discuss things in terms of what is real, achievable, and practical.

Quincy:

Why should a bureaucrat decide how to redistribute the wealth created by a business owner? Who actually benefits from that? You might see short-term relief for social programs, but in the long run, you are merely incentivizing irresponsibility.

True, but if the kind of arrangement advocated by anarchism were actually implemented, the wealth that entrepreneurs create wouldn't exist in the first place. 🤷 Bartering goods is certainly not a sustainable economic foundation for societal progress.
So, instead, let us think about it this way: let the entrepreneurs focus on creating wealth, and then we attempt to figure out how the total accumulated wealth of a nation can be distributed most effectively so that no one—or at least the majority—is left behind. We should focus on designing mechanisms that channel that wealth toward the general public good.

Quincy:

Furthermore, by using economic repression, you're effectively stripping away any incentive for people struggling on welfare to actually build something or take ownership of their lives. Why would anyone bother creating value when the government is just going to seize it anyway, or when they can simply rely on some other entrepreneur being forced to hand over what they earned just to keep them afloat? That kind of logic only serves to breed more irresponsibility. What kind of society would you actually want to live in—one built on individual responsibility, or one where everyone is essentially unaccountable?

Those are all very noble ideas you're presenting, but have you ever actually dealt with someone on public assistance in person? I think you might be surprised by how many of them truly have zero interest in taking responsibility for themselves. Of course, there are exceptions, but shouldn't our focus be on building an economy that uses market mechanisms to prevent these social issues from arising in the first place, rather than trying to force people to become more responsible through mandate? 🤷

You cannot design a social structure based on the assumption that human behavior will align with our ideals, or that we can somehow coerce people into being more responsible. It’s a lovely thought, and certainly something worth dreaming about, but as a starting point for organizing a society, it simply fails the reality test. Perhaps people don't want to be "responsible" in the way this argument suggests. If I understand you correctly, being responsible in this context requires a massive investment of time, resources, and intellect into the community at large. Who is going to do that when they could much more easily spend those resources on self-improvement? If memory serves, even in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, there wasn't a specific tier dedicated to communal investment; there was a focus on self-actualization, and only after that does the desire for altruism emerge. That likely applies to maybe 1% of the population, certainly not 90%. Assuming the majority of people act this way ignores the actual state of human nature.

I am certain that within such an anarchic structure, someone would immediately step up to figure out how to exploit the entire system for profit. Predicting the emergence of these types of individuals is the fundamental flaw of anarchism; they undermine the entire concept before it even gets off the ground. 🤷

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, 🙂

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.

electrictiger70 said:Of course, I was simply trying to point out that this online collaborative economy is still nowhere near true anarchism. Though, in my view, it definitely represents a very positive middle finger to capitalism. 😍

Quincy:

nothing is ever truly free. there is always some sort of profit motive behind it for someone. neither the Google teams, nor Mozilla, nor the people behind phenomena like YouTube or Facebook are altruists doing this for the greater good of humanity—even if users feel like things are "free." you moderators are my idols of selflessness (assuming you are indeed volunteers, which I have no reason to doubt). but hey, you know how it goes—people tend to value most what they can't have.😁😢🙂 But everyone else benefits from it too (myself included, and let's not forget that), so it's completely irrelevant to me whether someone profits from me chatting with friends or watching video clips. Honestly, I'd give anything for that concept to hold true!🙏

I agree with you. But from what I understand, the idea of anarchy implies that things should be, in some sense, entirely free. I am merely saying that such a thing is an illusion.

No, I don't see them that way. I just think the average citizen, say in a place like Chicago, doesn't really have the desire to spend their limited free time deciding on amendments to some specific law or debating a particular budget item. I'm not saying that's a good thing, and it would certainly be great if they did, but I think anarchism fails by conflating its idealized vision of how people *should* behave with how people actually *do* behave.
Naturally, it would be better if people had more opportunities to participate in decision-making. However, one must account for the fact that humans are not inherently altruistic beings whose primary motivation is thinking about the collective good. Perhaps some are, I won't deny that, but the majority of people will naturally prioritize their own interests first.
Then you run into this whole cascade of systemic issues. Take the education gap, for instance—you have people who haven't even finished high school struggling to grasp basic concepts like a federal budget reallocation.
I am telling you, it is not that simple. You have to resolve an entire spectrum of foundational problems just to reach a point where someone possesses the actual capacity to contemplate social issues. And even then, you are still left with the problem of motivation, which, in my view, is the most significant hurdle of all.

Quincy:

The reality is that some people simply do not care. If you look at it from the perspective of those generating wealth—those actually producing value for the country versus those who aren't—the solution to making life easier for them is economic freedom. It is the freedom to retain what they earn.

But isn't that, in a sense, a deeply selfish worldview? What about investing in the community? What about supporting socially vulnerable groups?

Quincy:

One of the greatest advantages of living in a society is cooperation with others through the exchange of goods. This implies that absolutely everyone would benefit if we prioritized the producers. That includes the very social cases you are mentioning.

However, a pure barter system would slow down the economy and progress so drastically that it would throw us back into the Middle Ages. That is simply not viable in the 21st century; it is completely unrealistic. Imagine if you needed internet access, but first you had to negotiate with AT&T regarding exactly how many chickens your connection was worth 😁. You bring three chickens to the counter, only to be told that the exchange rate isn't quite right 🤣, forcing you to invent a new currency on the spot... Large-scale systems simply cannot function without some form of standardization. A barter system might work in tiny, isolated communities, but large nations would collapse under such an organization, or descend into total chaos.
This is my fundamental issue with anarchism. I want to improve society, and I certainly don't believe our current system is perfect, but let’s try to discuss things in terms of what is real, achievable, and practical.

Quincy:

Why should a bureaucrat decide how to redistribute the wealth created by a business owner? Who actually benefits from that? You might see short-term relief for social programs, but in the long run, you are merely incentivizing irresponsibility.

True, but if the kind of arrangement advocated by anarchism were actually implemented, the wealth that entrepreneurs create wouldn't exist in the first place. 🤷 Bartering goods is certainly not a sustainable economic foundation for societal progress.
So, instead, let us think about it this way: let the entrepreneurs focus on creating wealth, and then we attempt to figure out how the total accumulated wealth of a nation can be distributed most effectively so that no one—or at least the majority—is left behind. We should focus on designing mechanisms that channel that wealth toward the general public good.

Quincy:

Furthermore, by using economic repression, you're effectively stripping away any incentive for people struggling on welfare to actually build something or take ownership of their lives. Why would anyone bother creating value when the government is just going to seize it anyway, or when they can simply rely on some other entrepreneur being forced to hand over what they earned just to keep them afloat? That kind of logic only serves to breed more irresponsibility. What kind of society would you actually want to live in—one built on individual responsibility, or one where everyone is essentially unaccountable?

Those are all very noble ideas you're presenting, but have you ever actually dealt with someone on public assistance in person? I think you might be surprised by how many of them truly have zero interest in taking responsibility for themselves. Of course, there are exceptions, but shouldn't our focus be on building an economy that uses market mechanisms to prevent these social issues from arising in the first place, rather than trying to force people to become more responsible through mandate? 🤷

You cannot design a social structure based on the assumption that human behavior will align with our ideals, or that we can somehow coerce people into being more responsible. It’s a lovely thought, and certainly something worth dreaming about, but as a starting point for organizing a society, it simply fails the reality test. Perhaps people don't want to be "responsible" in the way this argument suggests. If I understand you correctly, being responsible in this context requires a massive investment of time, resources, and intellect into the community at large. Who is going to do that when they could much more easily spend those resources on self-improvement? If memory serves, even in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, there wasn't a specific tier dedicated to communal investment; there was a focus on self-actualization, and only after that does the desire for altruism emerge. That likely applies to maybe 1% of the population, certainly not 90%. Assuming the majority of people act this way ignores the actual state of human nature.

I am certain that within such an anarchic structure, someone would immediately step up to figure out how to exploit the entire system for profit. Predicting the emergence of these types of individuals is the fundamental flaw of anarchism; they undermine the entire concept before it even gets off the ground. 🤷

Heh, I think we had a bit of a misunderstanding. I'm not suggesting (nor does anarchism suggest, as far as I know) getting rid of money entirely. Maybe I didn't word that right.
What I was actually getting at is that economic freedom is a win for everyone. Regarding those social welfare cases you brought up—I already told you—just go ask those people if they’d rather have the chance to earn their own way or have the government hand them stuff out of pity. If you actually respect people, you give them the opportunity to take care of themselves instead of treating them like they're helpless and need a handout. You sound like you know how social services work—so why not just talk to them?

I get the feeling you might be missing the bigger picture because you're focusing too much on local issues that hit close to home... In short—if the political climate is a mess, it's because most people either think it's fine or they don't have a better idea. Saying things can't change for the better just means you're prioritizing what everyone else thinks over your own principles (or maybe you just don't have any better ideas).
Just because the majority believes something doesn't make it right. And if the majority is doing something wrong, that doesn't mean you should follow suit. But I'm starting to ramble now, feels like we aren't even talking about the same thing anymore 😉
Things *can* change—you just gotta know what you're aiming for—and obviously, it won't happen overnight.

I've managed to tangle myself up in this debate so much I don't even know how to get out of it...🙂
Let's just save this argument for another day 😉

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: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.😉

Zachary Turner6 said: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?

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.

.. what would your ideal steady state look like? ..

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.)

.. what would your ideal baseline state actually look like.. ?

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

Peace and all good vibes to everyone out there.

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

Zachary Turner6 said: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.😉

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...

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?