BillyC wrote:
I have concluded that in order for anarchy to exist we must have one single class.
It would perhaps be accurate to say that there would be no class divisions within anarchy. A class cannot exist without another.
Quote:
Now its also evident that anarchy would only work in a tribal setting or in communes (or any type of collective community)
Not according to the individualist anarchists. At least, the non-primitivist individualists. I'm quite certain that Max Stirner did not advocate any sort of collectivist community.
Quote:
Dealing with large populations would require representation which would again give rise to a system.
Perhaps you should realize that anarchy is not without rules but without rulers. Even a collectivist commune would have a "system". The question is not whether anarchy would have a system - but rather, what sort of system would be compatible with anarchism?
Quote:
Having this said, if anarchy were to occur tribally, differing enviormental needs and social adaptations would create difference between tribes/communes, followed by dispute and warfare.
Why is that a necessary consequence? It is impossible to live in peace amongst different individuals and societies - or is humanity so shallow that we can only be in peace when we are uniformed and identical drones?
Quote:
If you noticed, this happened on a small scale between native americans who's form of government could be considered modified anarchy.
But it would be a mistake to think that the Native Americans were anarchists. Anarchy is not merely a form of government - and many Native Americans did not have a society any where close to anarcy.
Quote:
I am open to any suggestions or solutions to this problem that has been troubling me and diminishing my faith in anarchy.
Perhaps you should cease thinking of anarchy as some sort of idealized society in the utopian future that would be reached after a glorious revolution of sorts - and start thinking of anarchy as an approach towards life - one that does not promise "solutions" to hypothetical problems. A means rather than an end. Or as Gandhi puts it, where the means are the ends.
http://www.infoshop.org/forums/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=264
