Humans basically need rules and order to survive, I mean, if the government (including the police force and other law enforcement agencies) of you're country decided to disband today, I'm pretty sure the country would practically degenerate to shit with in a number of days, if not hours. This is a pretty uneducated opinion about the topic but I'm sure it holds some truth.
So in theory anarchism could work in theory but never work in the real world, at least I've never heard of it working anyway.
That would happen cause the people simply are not yet willing and ready to rule themselves. If a revolution happened though the people would be willing and ready to rule themselves and the country would not degenerate.
Any big government has no plan in using capitalism. Capitalism means reduced governmental control over corporations/businesses, which means less tax money, which means smaller government, which means less power. That's why any statist capitalist systems always gravitate toward socialism as they "progress."
So, let's take an example of capitalist institutions. Let's take for example the US goverment and the NATO. These two institutions are capitalist. So, take the example of the US goverment. Wouldn't you call the US goverment a big goverment? Of course you would cause the US goverment not only affect the lifes of Americans but of the rest of the world, too. Take for example the Iraq and Afghanistan War. Take for example the "war on terrorism". Aren't those intervetionist methods a form of imperialism? Aren't big goverments imperialist? Let's take the example of NATO. They invaded the Balkan area and bombarded the Serbs. Wasn't that an imperialist action? Yet, both institutions support capitalism. That's why capitalism cannot work in an anarchistic society. Cause capitalism walks hand in hand with imperialism and interventionism.
Of course that doesn't means that socialism doesn't suck too. It's the other side of the same coin. The only economical systems that could work in an anarchistic society are mutualism, voluntaryism and a form of economical individualism (in the form that you are allowed to do whatever you want to yourself in the economic field).
Mutualism is something I could go for, but I still much prefer individualism. I'm not fully schooled in the ways of mutualism, but something between collectivism and individualism is up for compromise.
Look, I'm an individualist myself and I don't see mutualism as a compromise. Mutualism is still not the perfect way for me though. I'd prefer voluntaryism. But still both mutualism and voluntaryism are a viable alternative to capitalism and socialism as they are non-oppresive.
You cannot abolish all hierarchies, my friend. In primativism, there are hierarchies. You can eliminate the scale, so that hierarchies only exist on a micro level, as opposed to macro, but they can't be entirely done away with.
I'm not a primitivist although I often flert with it probably because of my relations with enviromentalism. The only hierarchies that you cannot eliminate are the ones that were made by Nature. You cannot eliminate the food chain for example. That's true. But you can eliminate leaders, you can eliminate religions, you can eliminate centralized control, you can eliminate sexism and so on.
Lostwolf is pretty much spot on though. Societal laws on a small scale make sense. Sure its not "anarchy" in the hyper theoretical sense but I think only Mors was defending the theoretical stuff in pure form.
Some societal laws on a very small scale would make sense but only if all
the members of the community accepted these laws freewillingly
. But yeah, lostwold is on the spot.
I agree with you that I would favor a totally free market of mutualism and/or voluntaryism. I don't think it's ever going to happen, however. If you're an absolutist, I could see why you wouldn't like capitalism, but don't you agree it's the only system that comes closest, especially laissez-faire capitalism? We have never seen laissez-faire capitalism; some people would say laissez-faire capitalism is utopian, and I would agree with them in the sense that politicians will never manage to let their "hands off" the ecomony.
If laissez-faire capitalism is never going to happen why not choose instead voluntaryism for example? Even laissez-faire capitalism is oppresive as it still requires a goverment with centralized control (be it small or big it's still a goverment). It's no wonder that Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker and Max Stirner (the three great proponents of individualist anarchism) rejected both capitalism and socialism.
What if I am friends with people who have weapons? What if we decide to get together as a group and bully all those who are weaker than us into submission? Let's say that we ally with the next-strongest few groups and each take a territory of people to terrorize with our superior armaments. We are not afraid of them fighting back because we are militarily superior, and no greater force exists to dissuade us from our morally unpleasant, yet highly rational, expansion. Not all people will have the connections necessary to defend themselves: some will be old and frail, or economically incapable of paying for a defense group. This situation will naturally occur because people are not born equal: some live under favorable conditions, others do not. Natural selection is favorable toward those individuals and groups which are capable of out-performing other members of their species. If individuals compete, those who are more aggressive and driven are more likely to succeed; likewise with groups. If a group is capable of dominating other groups, through the use of high-grade military weapons and terror tactics, for example, and there is no authority capable of enforcing its laws on the group's actions, it will conquer others.
Unless you can do away with the human desire to compete, your society will never exist. It might be an ideal, but one that is considerably outside the scope of realistic approach.
Keep in mind that you won't be the only one to have guns. What would happens is simple: Another armed group that would oppose you would come and fight you. Both groups would end up dead and with both sides dead life would continue as it was before. As I said before action-reaction
Have you considered that a person might be more powerful than another individual? OH NOES!
Of course. But remember that the world does not consist only of two individuals. Another strong individual would come up and fight the "strong" individual and they both would end up wounded. It's practically the same I said to Osmium. Remember only one thing people: Action-reaction
"The crowd". Isn't this against your notion of individualist anarchy? Certainly, a crowd forms and you have a somewhat primitive society. But again, you say there is no law to enforce, so what the fuck is this group enforcing? The notion of punishment implies retribution for a wrong doing, so isn't this a form of law? A "rule" or "law" doesn't have to be written down in large books to be enforced. Again, you manage to contradict yourself.
EDIT: Fixed the quote so it displays properly. I hate trying to organise those things.
The crowd is simply a number of individuals that live in said area. So, it's not against my notion of individualist anarchism as said crowd doesn't have to operate or think the same (as everyone lives, acts and thinks freely in that crowd). That said group (which doesn't have to be the whole of the individuals that live in said area) is not enforcing a law or a punishment. It's just an act of self-defense. It's more than visible that if one tries to impose himself upon one individual he / she could do the same to the remaining individuals. So, simply they are not going to leave him cause they could be his / her next victims.
Yes, my friend you cannot use the fists that you defend yourself in order to tyrannize others. Cause that will simply lead to the other person to defend back. The law of action and reaction. That's how nature works. So, if you don't want to get harmed do not harm others. As simply no one will be there for you to protect you.
See Osmium's post.
See my response to Osmium
The law will not exist to protect the weak either. And don't assume that every baddie will be getting heat from a crowd. In fact, terror regimes often work successfully by divide et impera. Righteous crowds might not form because any prospective member is himself afraid of the tyrant's retribution, or of that of his friends.
EDIT: Also see Bezerko's post.
First, the law have never ever protected the weak. The law exists only for the rich ones. It is a way to keep the mob quiet.
Second, every "baddie" as you name that person (I dislike such terms but for the sake of discussion I will use them) has enemies. If in a society that everyone governs himself, an individual tries impose his way on thinking upon others the rest of the individuals will react and bring him down. It's not a matter of morality (if such thing exists). It's a matter of logic and self-defense.
Wrong again. If I can keep things that I need in my possession, without control nothing prevents me to gather more and more things into my possession, just to be on the safe side if there's a crisis. The desire for safety is the root of greed. If there's a drought, my anarchist ideals that all remaining resources should be shared out equally won't stop me from starving, so I'll suspend my ideals to feed myself at others' cost. As Brecht said: "Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral" or "first the feed, then morals."
As Stirner said property comes through might. If you think that your might is higher than the summed might of the rest of the individuals that live in your area then you're free to try to exploit them. Guess what, my friend. They are not going to let you exploit them. They will defend themselves and they will defeat you.