Can anarchism work? questions.

the anarchists on this site are libertarian communists, so we don't see anarchism as 'everyone do what you like with no rules or organisation', but a highly organised society structured to maximise freedom (both freedom of action and freedom from want). you're right, that in the absense of organisation you get a free-for-all like Somalia, but we'd advocate a system of organisation based on direct democracy, probably using federated councils and mandated, recallable delegates to ensure there is a cohesive, inclusive society that is also egalitarian and democratic.

"when a conflict between freedom of two individuals occurs who resolves it?"
We should hope that two mature individuals could resolve a conflict between themselves.

The Anarchist FAQ (for all it's faults) is alway a really good place to start. The index is really nice because if you have a question you can just "jump" to that section?

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/

(just realized RG already mentioned this, but it's still got my vote...)

Also, and not to "toot my own horn", but I wrote up a short, easy-to-understand (in my opinion, anyway) pamphlet entitled "What is Libertarian Socialism?". If you PM your e-mail address, I'll gladly send it down your way:)

Whether it could work or not is an irrelevance given that we will probably never again get to a point to try make it work.

To Alderson Warm Fork ,

Humanity did not start out as superstitious and ignorant , If you are referring to early Homo Sapiens , just because they didn't have metallurgy , written language or urban structure does not mean they were not sophisticated. They were advanced in ways which we can only fathom , to be able to hunt , domesticate wild animals , and carry out the basic tasks of survival in the stone age would have required great intelligence and versatility. They had a connection with nature that could be argued to be telepathic and understood the workings of the cosmos as in the Dogon tribe of Africa. We need to move away from this ignorant assumption that technologically primitive people are automatically by definition ignorant. It has been shown through archaeological evidence that some ancient peoples abandoned urban organistaion through choice to revert to a nomadic life in nature.

I think we can learn a lot from ancient peoples and the way in which they lived prior to the 'Takers' taking over the show. People left to their own devices tended to organise into sophisticates social structures such as Brehon law in Ireland which conferred equal rights to Women and an anarchist way of life which lasted from thousands of years ago to about six hundred years ago.

I think you have to recall Kropotkin suggesting that anarchists are not waiting for the revolution to start, that it has already started and that it is an ongoing thing. Really I don't see a cut off point where you can say we now have an anarchist society. That's looking in utopian terms which often negate reality and practicality. I see anarchism as a model for striving to get rid of systems which are inherently and morally corrupt and replacing them with agreed models which will need to be amended as and when. I see this as taking place on many levels but often it is relegated to 'politics' as if it didn't apply to the rest of culture (and there's an important lesson in that in terms of why anarchism is marginalised).

Anyone who wants a society where everyone agrees is going to get kicked up the arse! Anarchism is a striving, mutating and beautiful virus not a wet liberal fantasy.

Anarchism has been proven not to be an ideal as evidenced in the field by the anarchists of Catalonia or the Makhnovists in the Ukraine (the Zapatistas might also be included here though they are not anarchists per se) but since it's 'peak' anarchism (by which I mean anarchist-communism) was driven ruthlessly underground, and its credo -confused by ignorance and by intention with assorted Marxisms and self-appointed martyrs ever since- has long been the brunt of propagandists and petty idealists who think it 'can't work' because it isn't happening 'now'.

Certain conditions are necessary for anarchism to occur on the large scale and that is what anarchists organise towards. The revolution in Spain could not have happened if organisation had not been ongoing for years beforehand to generate the conditions necessary. The failure of the anarchists in the 1905 revolution in Russia was largely down to disorganisation.

But to keep on subject - I don't think it's useful to speculate on how humanity started out. True Columbus and other genocidists noted that the indigenous societies they encountered were friendly and not competitive. Although non-capitalist there was still patriarchy etc. I think ideas appear in different places and times when conditions allow. Anarchism is a step on from communism which was a step on from socialism .

Again speculations on social constructs in an anarchist society will be entirely relative. Direct democracy means that people will create understandings (laws) on matters relevant to their own position and they may or may not have to enforce these decisions accordingly. If they do this may involved the use of 'police', 'courts' or 'prison' but this should not be confused with the horrendous institutions we have today.