What If We Tried Anarchy? HBO's The Anarchists Explores.
"There really is no panacea, either technological like cryptocurrency or philosophical like anarchism," says director Todd Schramke.
HD DownloadWhat happens when a bunch of radical individualists try to start a community?
That's the subject of The Anarchists, a new six-part docuseries from director Todd Schramke and his wife and co-producer Kim Kylland that's now available to stream in full on HBO Max.
The pair spent six years documenting Anarchapulco, an annual conference for anarchists started in Mexico by Jeff Berwick, a political commentator who calls himself the Dollar Vigilante.
The series took a dark turn when, mid-production, Schramke found out about the murder of one of his subjects, a man who called himself John Galton. And then rumors started that other members of the anarchist community may have been involved.
"It really was one of the most emotionally complicated few weeks of my life," says Schramke. "It was just this really, really intense feeling of knowing this was going to change my life in so many ways."
Reason's Zach Weissmueller talked with Schramke about how making the film has shaped his view of anarchism and libertarianism and what the story of Anarchapulco can teach us about the challenges of launching new experiments in alternative living.
"The biggest thing I took away was realizing that regardless of what ideologies we hold, what belief systems we ascribe to, no matter what we have to be looking inward as people and figuring out how to deal with our own mental health, dealing with our own relationships before we can have an improved society," says Schramke.
Watch the full interview above.
Produced by Zach Weissmueller; edited by Danielle Thompson and Weissmueller; additional footage courtesy of HBO Max.
Music: "Corner of the Eyes" by Amulets via Artlist; "Dark Matter" by Notize via Artlist.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Spoiler Alert.
One of the main participants was murdered in Episode 4. The conference itself was pure anarchy. The main guy that organized the event (Nathan Freeman from Atlanta) died soon after the series was completed. The annual event was pure chaos.
It was kind of like a H&R meetup would go.
Spoiler alert: You should be shunned.
A few years back you posted kiddy porn to this site, and your initial handle was banned. The link below details all the evidence surrounding that ban. A decent person would honor that ban and stay away from Reason. Instead you keep showing up, acting as if all people should just be ok with a kiddy-porn-posting asshole hanging around. Since I cannot get you to stay away, the only thing I can do is post this boilerplate.
https://reason.com/2022/08/06/biden-comforts-the-comfortable/?comments=true#comment-9635836
Thanks, and I've bookmarked that link so I can post it a few times too.
I am making 80 US dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. (eas-03) I have not ever thought like it would even achievable however my confidant mate got $27k only in four weeks easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail. Look extra details:-
.
Going this web-page;>>> https://extradollars3.blogspot.com/
I'm pretty sure a H&R meet-up would be a lot of drinking and avoiding eye contact. We all know too much about each other.
It would be a FBI sting operation
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (anu--219) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://smart.online100.workers.dev/
Here is what happens if we tried anarchy. Day one in my neighborhood at least, nothing changes. The world goes on as it always has. Eventually, however, someone does something wrong. Say, for example, a teenage boy rapes or assaults a girl. The father of the girl then goes to the boy's family for justice. The family doesn't believe their son would do such a thing, and indeed the girl may be lying, and tells the father to fuck off. Eventually the father gets tired of seeing the boy walking free around the neighborhood and blows his head off. The boy's family, thinking their son was innocent, sees the father as a murderer and takes revenge by killing him. That starts a cycle of violence and revenge killings between the families.
In places where the government has ceased to exist or function in a meaningful way, people naturally form clans usually based on extended families for protection. Crimes still occur. No one really wants to get involved in a cycle of revenge killings in most cases. So, you end up with blood money payoffs taking the place of revenge and life being treated as a monetary commodity. It is either take the blood money and defend your family's honor or everyone starts killing each other. You also end up with things society always blaming the victim of a rape. This happens in places like Afghanistan because if a woman is raped, it is an attack on the honor of every male in her family such that they are obligated to go out and murder the man who did it. To avoid the resulting death and carnage that would come from that, everyone just agrees to blame the woman. If it is the woman's fault, no one honor was insulted and there isn't a feud.
What anarchists don't understand is that the state to step in and be a third party to administer justice, all justice becomes personal and familial. And that inevitably leads to blood feuds, honor culture, and blood money and the general devaluing of life. If we have a functioning state and the kid next door rapes my daughter, the state arrests him and throws him in jail. If the family thinks that was unjust, they blame the state instead of blaming me and making it a blood feud.
So there's just as much injustice, but the blame is focused on an entity that's too formidable to shoot back at, until all of society revolts?
Life is hard and unjust in many cases. It is often impossible to know what the "just" result even is. So, yeah, you don't want such questions settled on a personal and familial level.
I think I'd rather it were. It's a personal problem, seems it'd best have personal solutions. And no lawyers to stir things up even potentially.
There are a few things for which a collective solution would be much more economic than allowing only individual ones. Sometimes without eminent domain for building some linear feature, endless gaming to try to be the one to extract enormous rents would ensue. But for a case of alleged rape, I think the individualized approach would be best. Perfect there will never be.
I think I'd rather it were. It's a personal problem, seems it'd best have personal solutions.
That is because you have never seen what happens when issues of life and death and honor are settled on a personal level. If you had, you would think differently. As it is, you have lived your entire life with the benefit of a functioning government and an acceptable criminal justice system and take the benefits of such for granted.
The other problem with anarchy is that in general, free markets result in bell-curve distributions of pretty much every resource. That includes guns and other mechanisms for making war, and imposing your will. At some point someone gets enough ability to impose force that they can break the anarchy.
But this isn't necessarily absolute. The Feudal system was largely based on the idea that a couple of well paid knights could outclass thousands of peasants due to the technical and martial superiority they could achieve by dedicating money to armor and a life of training.
The advent of the firearms broke the Feudal system. A single citizen with a few weeks of training could end a well trained, well armored knight in an instant. And even today, places like Afghanistan and Iraq show the difficulty of a very wealthy elite to impose their will on the people.
It is a deeper problem than the elite imposing their will. The problem is how do the people themselves settle their disputes. Without a government, they will settle them on a personal level and that means blood feuds and the like. You never get anarchy as in no rules. You get tribalism where everyone is part of a clan and the rules are made by the clan's leaders or collectively with the price of breaking them being death either directly or indirectly through banishment.
" Without a government, they will settle them on a personal level and that means blood feuds and the like."
I don't think government is the only solution here. You made a good point about truly horrible crimes. But many disputes are solved today through private arbitration.
I am not necessarily arguing for an anarchy. But the things that absolutely require the government (murder, rape) become vanishingly small when you get down to it.
So what's your (our) excuse?
Too facile a description of anarchic chaos vs monopolistic coercive state as the only two choices. States murdered 100 million civilians in the 20th century, hardly a sterling counter-example to anarchy.
The historical record is way too muddied to say what the best form of government is. Socialism arose as a response to the industrial revolution and its wage slaves, as factory workers were called; before then, most workers owned their own shops or farms. Factories invented workers who had no tools of their own, no skills independent of the specific factory slot they filled, and it scared a lot of people, and along came socialism, trying to restore worker ownership of the means of production.
At the same time, democracy was increasing, communications (books, newspapers, literacy) was increasing, and wealth was increasing. The poor were part of this, and just as the USSR fell apart because Gorbachev let the peasants have a taste of freedom, so the workers got their first taste of wealth and wanted more. This is also why the CCP will probably fall apart in a decade or two, and Kim is scared to death of his peasants getting a taste of freedom.
All this is also why State power kept expanding and US Progressives took the lesson of the Civil War to heart: Government can change anything it wants, even if it takes 800,000 dead. Statists worldwide learned the same lesson, thus WW I and II.
The point is that only one form of government has been tried: coercive monopoly. It always grows, because that is the nature of coercive monopolies. It also fails, because that is the nature of monopolies without competition to keep them focused on serving their market.
If the US isn't socialist / fascist now, it is close enough as makes little difference. It is better than most dictatorships, but is it better than anarchy? There's no way to tell.
It is easy to sneer at anarchy as always turning to warlords, but that is just guesswork. It has never been tried under the same circumstances as the coercive monopolies which have been tried. If you could create a parallel universe starting in 1774 or so, and replace the Continental Congress with an anarchic equivalent, would that world have ended up murdering 100 million civilians in the 20th century? No one knows.
It is very hard to say what the best form of government is. The answer depends largely on the circumstances. It is, however, very easy to say that no government is nearly always an inferior option. Yes, there are cases where government power can become so extreme that you would be better off in a failed state. I would rather live in Somalia and deal with the war lords than live in North Korea or Stalin's Russia. No question about that. That, however, doesn't make anarchy any less undesirable. It just means that it is possible to think of worse things. It may in fact be true that no government is a better situation than total government. As you say, however, it is not an either or choice. Some government is better than no government in pretty much every case. It is only at the extreme that it becomes worse.
"This happens in places like Afghanistan because if a woman is raped, it is an attack on the honor of every male in her family such that they are obligated to go out and murder the man who did it. "
The Taliban originally got their legitimacy when a family whose daughter had been raped appealed to the government. The government did nothing and the family turned to Mullah Omar who saw that justice was done, greatly increasing the respect for his organization among Afghans.
Anarchists have, in every historical instance, been nothing more than the first wave, or cannon fodder, of communists.
Very true. I would say that the Miniarchism proposed by the Founders, Ayn Rand, John Hospers, and Tibor Machan had it as just right as it can be for mortal beings.
Really, when you think about it, Anarchism and Totalitarianism are both forms of rule by whim. With Totalitarianism, it's by the whim of Ideology with the Dictator and Party as Vanguards, and with Anarchism, it's by everybody's whims against everybody else's.
It would be highly surprising if a species that evolved not to be anarchists fared well under anarchy. "Contrary to nature" arguments tend to be the province of conservatives or theologians, but evolutionary psychology is a real thing.
yeah- a real dumb thing.
Take 2 pseudo sciences and create a hybrid source for progressive talking points.
So you're saying that Evolution is a pseudoscience? Giga-Wut???
Not that i disagree with your main point - I think its foolish to think that somehow overall we would choose peaceful self regulated societies, human nature being what it is.
Human nature being a combination of violent and peaceful, less violent than chimps, less peaceful than bonobos, and in many respects typical primates with better tech.
The idea that our brains evolved, just as our bodies did, is not obviously wrong, and analysing how our brains respond to environment whether physical or social is not obviously unscientific.
Now tell us how a man with intact testes and a penis can become a biological woman by wearing a padded bra, kiddie fucker.
Fuck off, peasant
Biggest collection of losers and posers imaginable.
It was at times hilarious watching these LARPers pretend they had landed on the some new planet and the Mexicans were some indigenous species they could ignore
They don't know what they want but they know how to get it.
it's coming sometime! maybe?
Only if you give a wrong time and stop a traffic line. Then Mexico turns into a council tenancy
there was *a murder in their ranks* it was literally the perfect time to document how justice is severed in Anarchovania.
Spoiler Alert:
I usually don't rtfa but this time the author spoiled it in pp4
I have nothing but contempt for anyone who hasn't been kicked in the head a half dozen times too many and still believes you can have a working anarchist society.
It is just an even dumber but no less evil version of socialism. Socialists believe that mankind can be perfected by the government. Anarchists believe that mankind can be perfected by being left alone. Both ideas are equally stupid, destructive, and Utopian.
Agree, but I'd say it's a dumb evil extremist version of libertarianism.
Socialism is more like the tribalism that is assumed (probably rightly) to fill the void.
So it was a bunch of people who identified as anarchists but were in a non-anarchist enclave?
@1950 he describes the fundamental problem with
any utopian idealanarchism.Resorting to anarchy is based upon the false assumption that the state is the same as government !
The state is a coercive monopoly government which leaves open the possibility of supporting non-coercive government even before the concept of anarchy comes up.
When I was younger I was an anarcho-capitalist, and I still think we should be working in that direction, given where we are not. But as I got older, and better acquainted with actual people, I came around to believing that E. O. Wilson's quip about communism, "Great theory. Wrong species." was probably as applicable to humans.
Still, we could likely profit from getting a LOT closer to anarchism than where we find ourselves today.
I suspect every politically aware teenager probably flirts with Anarchism (I know I did.)
The idea of "competing governments" or Polyarchy embraced by Anarcho-Capitalists is what made it untenable gobbledygook. I mean, what makes them think that governments would willingly operate on a subscription basis if they already have captive audiences?
And if freedom for the Individual is the goal, why should so-called "voluntary" Feudalism, Theocracy, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, or Nazism even be on the table?
From there, I decided that some form of Miniarchism is probably for the best.
At this point, we could call something miniarchism that the founders of this nation would have viewed as oppressive, the government has grown so much, just in my lifetime. Probably the worst part of it is people confidently assuring me that society would just collapse into some kind of Mad max dystopia if the government wasn't doing things it wasn't doing half a century ago!
I am making 80 US dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. I have not ever thought like it would even achievable however my confidant mate got $27k only in four weeks easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail. Look extra details
going this web-page… https://incomebuzz7.blogspot.com/
Authoritarianism or voluntarism, there is no panacea? With voluntarism, there is a beginning, a possibility for reason, rights, personal sovereignty. NOT so with authoritarianism, the world's only politics. So what? So, anarchism is the rejection of authoritarianism and the only option is no systematic force, threats, meaning the only system left is one based on mutual respect, i.e., rights. This is compatible with our nature as humans, unlike coercion.
I can't find who said it, but it was in a list of Extropian/Transhumanist quotes from the Nineties: Men would have to become gods before they could become Anarchists.
And need I say it? *Readies to tip his fedora.* 😉