Hi. Welcome to the site. Please check out the About Us, and if you have a question about crime and/or punishment, perhaps look at some previous questions along those lines first.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

When Anarchy comes about...wouldn't the different types of Anarchists just get along?

0 votes
By this i mean if and when the revolution happens and Anarchy comes about, would the different factions such as the Ancaps, Ancoms, primitists, transhumanists, etc. co-exist peacefully? Or is this just not possible.
asked Dec 4, 2016 by WolfGangsta (160 points)

people that disagree can get along, but mostly they don't seem to. and i see no reason why they have to. as long as nobody is imposing their shit on me and those i care about, i don't care what they think or do. 

the idea "can't we all just get along?" seems naive and utopian to me. voluntary association (and disassociation) is a core tenet of my anarchy, and that concept goes a long way.

i have no desire to "get along" with some labeled group. i will choose what individuals i care to get along with based on circumstances and context.

my ability to "get along" with another person changes constantly, whether anarchically, or not.

2 Answers

–3 votes
In over ten years of my routinely asking people if they know the simple distinction between a democracy and a lynch mob nobody has answered correctly and over half have confided that they are suspicious of the dictionary and sometimes prefer to make up their own definitions despite almost every one of them being clueless that the common dictionary merely contains popular definitions. Its impossible to have a democracy or an anarchy if nobody knows the meaning of the damn words. The situation reflects how memory centric systems logic are the simplest possible way for people or animals to organize with a chicken flock pecking order and Three Stooges slapstick and Gonzo the Muppet providing classic examples.

Pecking orders enforce that people pay attention to those with better memories because, collectively speaking, while the lights might be on nobody is home. Its the default organization and, for example, this is how the neurons in the brain organize and there is very little difference between how a chicken acts and how any of its individual neurons behave. Forty years of intensive research have discovered that the amount of working memory a person has is the only reliable way of predicting their career potential. Notably, if the lights are merely left on and nobody is home both anarchy and democracy become meaningless and, conversely, if people are actually aware of what they are doing collectively then they make distinctions between the two terms and anarchists would consider democracy an aggressive way of organizing against them.
answered Dec 5, 2016 by wuliheron (90 points)

" Its impossible to have a democracy or an anarchy if nobody knows the meaning of the damn words. "

i don't agree. people's behavior does not require words/labels to define it. folks can absolutely act anarchically without knowing what the word "anarchy" means (as if there were a single, accepted definition). 

Words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in specific contexts. If acting spontaneously is synonymous with anarchy then you don't require two distinct words and its much simpler and more descriptive to describe them as acting spontaneously.

" If acting spontaneously is synonymous with anarchy..."

i did not say that, nor mean to imply it. one could act spontaneously like a fascist dictator. and one does not need to know the definition of "fascist" or "dictator" to either behave that way, or know how they feel about - and respond to - such behavior. those are simply labels humans use to describe something that we associate with (define) that behavior (and the thinking behind it, perhaps).

acting spontaneously says absolutely nothing about the type of activity, other than it was not "planned" (or something like that). so i don't see how acting spontaneously is in any way synonymous with anarchy; though again, the spontaneous behavior may well be what i describe as "anarchic".

Anarchy means without rulers, and acting spontaneously is by definition to have no rulers. Hence, although we might refer to a dictator as acting spontaneously in some situations, the word only has demonstrable meaning in specific contexts and, in broader contexts, it is as meaningless to call a dictator spontaneous as it is to refer to them as anarchists. The issue is how specific the context is rather than any specific definition of the term. That's why words have more than one definition.

"Anarchy means without rulers, and acting spontaneously is by definition to have no rulers."

but as funky already pointed out, authorities can certainly act spontaneously, acting spontaneously has nothing to do with anarchism/anarchy. Under anarchy, individuals would both plan things and act spontaneously as they already do. The difference between this and non-anarchy is how people would suffer the consequences of their own actions: under anarchy, everyone must suffer the consequences for their actions, in non-anarchy, some people are protected by either an institutional or bureaucratic framework, while other people are punished by those protected by the institutional/bureaucratic framework on a regular basis.

Your answer seems to imply that people need to be "educated" in order to live properly. Well, people are educated by "knowledge", and look at the world today....

Splitting semantic hairs is merely debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Authorities can also act anarchistically, such as violating the very laws they are supposed to defend. 

Until the white man came, the !Kung of South Africa had no words for greed or guilt and are estimated to have had one serious murder, rape, or theft every four hundred years. Of course, they lived in small family groups in the middle of the dessert. Like our words, their behavior was dependent upon the context and once they were herded onto reservations everything changed.

i agree with nihilist here:

"Your answer seems to imply that people need to be "educated" in order to live properly. "

and i would add that i find "educated" people, far too often, to be far too subservient to words. not to mention, they use too fucking many of them when trying to express themselves. i value conciseness and clarity. which is obviously subjective.

wuliheron, if you want to declare "anarchy" and "sponteneity" to be synonymous, go for it. they are not so to me.

"Until the white man came, the !Kung of South Africa had no words for greed or guilt and are estimated to have had one serious murder, rape, or theft every four hundred years. Of course, they lived in small family groups in the middle of the dessert. Like our words, their behavior was dependent upon the context and once they were herded onto reservations everything changed."

right, they had no words for greed because they didn't have a mass of material posessions like we do. One thing that bothers me about a lot of anarchists/radical thinkers these days (not saying you are making this mistake, but if you are...) is they try to control other people's word usage, and shame/scare people into not using words deemed "sexist" "racist" ect., but they don't tend to real that language comes out of conditions and trying to change the words other people use is completely pointless

Socrates said, knowledge is the only good and, I would add, ignorance is the only evil because knowledge without awareness is an oxymoron. People need to be aware in order to live anarchistically and if you can't see how the greater context of the truth determines how aware we become that's not something I can help you with.

Nor did I say spontaneity is necessarily synonymous with anarchism, however, it certainly can be if you have the knowledge and awareness that words only have demonstrable meaning in specific context because the greater truth is what actually determines what any of our words mean.

like many other binary distinctions, i see the "spontaneous" vs. "planned" distinction as not very useful.

wuliheron: "Socrates said, knowledge is the only good and, I would add, ignorance is the only evil because knowledge without awareness is an oxymoron. "

and who defines "knowledge", or "the truth"?

for me to live (in a moment) anarchically, i only need to disregard the concept of authority in the way i relate.

"Socrates said, knowledge is the only good and, I would add, ignorance is the only evil "

ah, another moralist. 

notwithstanding ba@'s point about defining "knowledge":

i have knowledge of: how to gas thousands of jews; how to rape a woman an get away with it; how to kill anyone i disagree with; ...  

but knowledge is "good". i won't even go into the other side of that binary.

my guess is that the word "knowledge" will be redefined to fit.

In over ten years of routinely asking people over half of them have confided that they are suspicious of the dictionary and, sometimes, prefer to make up their own definitions despite almost all of them being clueless that, for the most part, the common dictionary only contains popular definitions. On rare occasions publishers will modify a definition just to suit more vocal minorities pushing their private agendas, however, even if it makes a little more money they seldom do so because they know its a fight nobody can win.

I have a free standing offer to teach anyone how to use a dictionary and search engine and how to identify Three Stooges slapstick where everyone argues over the definition of stupid and who is the better example. Which, of course, nobody has ever taken me up on.

I would add, that quoting Socrates does not make me a moralist. Without knowledge and awareness morality is meaningless.
as i have mentioned elsewhere, i don't look to a dictionary for the "truth" or correctness - i look at it for common understanding, for clarity in communication. nothing more.

being "suspicious" (or skeptical) of a dictionary only makes sense to me if one sees it as an authority. if one sees it as nothing more than a human-constructed reference for common understanding of words, there's really nothing to be suspicious of. other than humans.
A dictionary can be a tool just like any other tool and cussing out a tool or being suspicious of it without even knowing what it does is more Three Stooges slapstick. The Stooges are suspicious of everything because they have been conditioned to be suspicious of everything including themselves and one another. When you can no longer identify that you have identified nothing you have personal bullshit to deal with and not merely that of an outside authority. Socrates urged everyone he met to "Know thyself" and know that wonder is the beginning of wisdom.

"quoting Socrates does not make me a moralist"

no, it is the actual content of the statement that i referred to, not the fact that it came from socrates. knowledge = good, ignorance = evil. that - if in fact you believe it - is what would make you a moralist to me. i find good and evil, like morality itself, to be words that are only useful for control over others. 

i guess it's time for me to express my voluntary disassociation.

WH, i'm curious about what you're interested in getting here. you seem to be having a conversation more with yourself than with anyone who is responding to you (lots of references to things you said before to  people not on this site, etc).

is there something that we all need to know? are you here to tell us?
I merely responded to the original post and anyone who asked me what my response meant. Why do you ask? Can it be that you are used to fighting deciding the truth of everything?
i'd still like to know what you mean by "the truth".

In more abstract terms, there are many lesser truths and, then, there is the One Greater Truth of Socrates which he called the memory of God that none can remember in all its glory. The greater truth being the eternal truth which is never mere content to be to be debated, but the greater context that justifies itself and determines the identity of everything. Statistics, for example, can be considered a lesser truth which can be perceived as either a context in which we might perform meaningful calculations or merely content as in "a statistic of one" where the context of "one" transforms the identity of statistics into the contents of an oxymoron. The whole may only become greater than the sum of its parts at the cost of diminishing their individual impact and, the other way around, the influence of any individual part may only increase by diminishing their collective synergy. In each case, the eternal truth that none can see in all its glory is what makes the difference.

Fighting determining the truth is the basis of dualistic western logic which excludes the middle. Either something is true or false, black or white, fought for or fought against with the idea of remaining neutral being excluded by principle. We might say that something is a gray area or a white lie or whatever, but the logic asserts that it is still predominantly black or white, good or bad, etc. because nothing can ever be equally both. This type of thinking leads to contentious western culture being infamous for thinking of contentment as a losing proposition and life as survival of the fittest.

It is also why a common saying is that the first you learn about systems logic is that half the world doesn't even know such a thing is possible. By who you hate, by this are you truly known when the law of the excluded middle promotes what is sometimes called the law of contention with Three Stooges slapstick providing a comedic example.
i calculate i've heard enough about socrates and the three stooges for now.
The first quantifiable theory of humor has already established that humor revolves around anything low in entropy, otherwise known as bullshit.
i don't feel interested in quantifying my (or anyone else's) sense of humor.
Yeah, I've had a good laugh at the comments you've made, and they are altogether fairly interesting....

Here is a question for you, mr. anti-bullshit: what is it that you are trying to tell us, and why are you making these comments/answers?
wh -- all i'm getting from your non-stop assertions is that you're not actually interested in what anyone else here thinks.
You are right that I'm not terribly interested in anything this website has to offer because I've lived anarchistically most of my adult life. I'm a Warrior of the Rainbow or tribal hippie. Unlike most so-called anarchists we can trace our traditions back 12,000 years and anarchy is a way of life for us rather than merely a political or philosophical stance.

I just thought I'd answer a few questions people asked and see what kind of bullshit people might spout. If nothing else, its good to let people know that real anarchists are out there living the lifestyle rather than debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and fighting losing battles against the religious or whoever. Beautiful words are honest words that defy unbalanced gravity itself and take on a life of their own and I'm writing a book on the subject just looking for inspiration. If nothing else, this website inspires me on what not to write.

" I'm a Warrior of the Rainbow or tribal hippie"

oh, that explains it - you're probably one of the "high holies". some of the most condescending, self-important, passive-aggressive authoritarians i have ever met.  not to mention delusional, magical thinkers.  i've never talked with a single one whose "anarchist" critique - much less "way of life" - was anything but shallow regurgitation of the social anarchist/hippie ethos. despite aggressive attempts at "appropriating" american indian culture, you all don't (or didn't) even talk with the local indian tribes before inviting 10-20,000 of your best friends to their neck of the woods.  and oh yeah, a friend and myself once investigated "the bank" at  a gathering (at the request of 3 different kitchens), and looking at the "books" from a couple years made it pretty clear that lotsa money was disappearing.

yeah, you all have had it fully figured out for 12,000 years. ROFLMAO!!!!

LOL, bold words from someone who probably couldn't organize people to dig a latrine. It was anarchists who organized Occupy Wall Street, taught those who showed up how to actually talk to each other with respect, and then split knowing all the so-called civilized people know how to do is fight.
but wuliheron...when you "organize" people it's not out of some sort of general love-for-humanity...it's out of fear...and by the way it sounds, you want to keep this dirty secret a secret from everyone including yourself...

unless your just a troll which I also suspect...but you know, as i was explaining to one of my friends recently, the troll is always an expression of something real...
During the Warring States period of ancient China they were herding each other like cattle, surrounding their enemies and picking them off like fish in a barrel. As a result, the Chinese peasants began to starve themselves in order to make more babies faster so they could surround their enemies first. The primitive tribes isolated in the mountains saw what was happening, took pity on them, and sent them a copy of the Tao Te Ching.

Many in my Rainbow Family prefer to live in such isolation and avoid civilization whenever possible. I know some who have not left their communes in over twenty years, but occasionally they take pity on civilization's endless Three Stooges slapstick and try to show them that fighting is not the solution to everything. I write "The Book That Can Never Be Written" because the book writes itself and we all have karmic debts to pay. Something Mother Jones would understand and why I sympathize with her refusing to call herself an anarchist. You have to be a parent and suffer loss yourself in order to fully appreciate that fear, anger, and greed are not the only things motivating people.

Hmmmm....so from your previous comments I've gathered two things: 1. You want to write a book 2. That book you write is based off what NOT to write....

That is a very ambitious goal! There are about an infinite/gazillion combinations of things not to write, but there is only one way to write a book (not 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7), so best of luck with that!

When everyone else seemed to think they knew things they did not, Socrates became famous as the wisest man in the world because he alone knew what he did not know.
ahhh...but the people who knew what they did not know, yet didn't let many other people know that they knew what they didn't know....well, they didn't become famous....that much i know.
Then you can add to your knowledge that they did not write books either.
i don't know that....for all i know, they wrote them and no one read them.
you see, this is why now adays im not much of a fan of non-fiction books, because I always end up analyzing them, to the point where I can't even finish reading them. In fiction books you can just read them, and just take comfort in knowing that it's just a story, and the tidbits of "truth" are up to anyone's interpretation..
The Tao Te Ching is written in a paradoxical style that encourages the reader to interpret it for themselves, so, its fiction or nonfiction depending upon who reads it and what mood you happen to be in.
over the years, i've tried to approach everything i read without distinguishing between fiction/non-fiction - another arbitrary line in the sand, i say. people tell and write stories - some resonate with me and some don't to varying degrees. i see the writing as someone's interpretation of experiences, thoughts, and feelings, with the concepts of what "is real" and what "is imaginary" fading into the background of my mind...

but when I read books where the author is proclaiming to know something about this "reality" we live in, I like to actually know what they mean, which means you gotta look words up in the dictionary. The reality books are read now adays, I read like 10 pages of it then just move on to something else cuz I can't stand it when I start thinking

Thinking is over-rated by those who make distinctions between who they are and what they are doing. Surround yourself with people who let you be you and return the favor. Lead by following and your thoughts are no longer your own, nor do they belong to anyone else.

"I'm a Warrior of the Rainbow or tribal hippie. Unlike most so-called anarchists we can trace our traditions back 12,000 years and anarchy is a way of life for us rather than merely a political or philosophical stance."‚Äč

The Warriors of the Rainbow or Rainbow Warriors. You're a follower of these evangelicals and their "Warriors of the Rainbow" evangelical screed that attacks Native American cultures and attempts to evangelize them, all the while trying to convince them that y'all are just trying to fulfill "the Native American prophecy" about the second coming of Jesus. Y'alls "traditions" dates back the early 1960s, not 12,000 years ago. I was wondering what you're dealio was, but now I know and I no longer have to wonder. 

I have to say, y'all Rainbow people are pretty big douche-bags. The shit y'all pulled at Black Hills and other places indicates y'alls douche-baggery has no bounds. Especially, the part when y'all ran to the state when the Lakota said y'alls shit wouldn't be tolerated at Black Hills.

+1 vote
I'm pretty sure I could get along with them for the most part, until an anCap tried to tell me to leave a plot of land and showed me some bullshit deed of purchase, or a stream I was using got polluted because of an irresponsible transhumanist. This is where it gets messy.
answered Jan 27 by Denver332 (480 points)
I really appreciate the simplicty of this answer, combined with the way it pokes at a couple of the reasons we actually wouldn't all just get along.