(January 19, 2012 at 3:52 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Color me an extremely critical skeptic of this anarchist stuff.
You can crow about the nice stuff. What I really care about is the long term stability, social dynamics in a real world, with life, death, resources and theft.
Mind you, Somalia could be considered in anarchy for the above definition 1a (Absence of government) -- I'll ignore the rest of the definition as it incurs an emotional context that is not required in discussing an-archy (without government).
They're not forming spontaneous social circles that stabilize the region. I wonder why.
Perhaps the real world is much more difficult to model than some crap game?
Look, Im not putting much weight on a game, and yes people are much more difficult to figure out than code.
Please be aware that you are using the American demonized definition of Anarchy (which is really chaotic mob rule and ??dictatorship??)
wikipedia - anarchy Wrote:Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā), has more than one colloquial definition. In the United States, the term "anarchy" typically is meant to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority.[1][2] When used in this sense, anarchy may[3] or may not[4] be intended to imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society.
Outside of the US, and by most individuals that self-identify as anarchists, it implies a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a nation state level although there are a few successful historical examples[5], that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society.[6]
If you have a dictatorship, it is the exact OPPOSITE of anarchy.
If you have a "mob rule", it is not anarchy. Anarchy supports individual freedoms over the masses.
If you have "war lords" (as is the case for Somalia), then you do not have an anarchy.
If you have any kind of state or centralised authority, then you do not have an anarchy.
If your society is ruled by religion (which is also the case for Somalia), then you do NOT have an anarchy. - Example: some people blamed the authoritarian communists for the destruction of many churches in Sapin during the revolution. In reality the trade union anarchists tore down the churches. Why? Because they were in cohoots with Franco. Not all of the churches were destroyed by the anarchists. A handful of independent churches were left alone. Why? Because they didnt force themselves or authority onto the people through the government. (source= George Orwell "homage to Catalonia")
If your economy is state planned, then you do not have an anarchy.
-You have the left economy, which is state planned
-You have the right economy, which is "free market" with the govt only existing to enforce property legislation
-You have the "third way", which is fascism
- and then you have syndicalism, which is a free market with no government enforcement of property.
(there are more economic systems, Im just using these as popular examples)
Syndicalism is completely cooperative and decentrallised. With no govt all property is held in common. This doesnt mean your toothbrush or the sanctity of your home. This means LAND and resources are held in common by all people. The trades come together and perform their trade. By "direct action" of the trade workers the economy is controlled by the people without centralised planning through the labor exchange.
