Anarchy is practical and effective.

Since the title of the debate is a little convoluted, my argument is that anarchy is practical and effective when compared to other forms of human organization. I argue that anarchy is practical in the sense that it can be used by anybody to address any number of issues. It is quick to set up, non-hierarchical, and reflective of the available resources in a community. It is effective given its disregard for state authority and the belief that people know what is best for them, they just need t be involved in the conversation. Especially when compared to capitalism (or fascism, which I will return to), anarchist principles are the most effective strategies for reducing capitalist waste, often generated by the employment of economic rents. Now since neither of us specified a particular flavor of anarchy, let's just say they are all up for grabs. I will start with anarcho-syndicalism, or anarchist organization of labor within a capitalist society. Anarcho-syndicalism advocates for worker self-control of the means of production. Using Marx's Theory of Alienated Labor, workers sell their labor to others for subsistence to their capitalist employers. Since capitalism is based on the exploitation of many by a few, the best that workers can do is control the means of production, but not own it, theoretically. While syndicalists believe in worker controlled enterprises, achieving their goal by use of unions, anarcho-syndicalists believe that no state-controlled labor board is better for dealing with the problems in a workplace. The anarchist believes in Direct Action, or directly taking care of your own problems. This is surely more practical and effective than using the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for workers, though capitalists complain about fairness. But there are more workers than owners, and their collective utility is greater than the single owner's. However, when calculated mathematically, neither a fully unionized economy nor a fully non-unionized economy is preferred to a mixture of the two. Currently, the capitalists have the upper hand through their economic rent powers. Anarchists are uniquely positioned to shift the balance of power, through their empowerment of many. But unions are not perfect, far from it. They are a business like anyone else. So the type of union I am speaking about is similar to the IWW, where there is no union staff, everyone participates in decisions, making everyone leaders since they all have the same voting weight, and the union is only as strong as the people that compose it. While I may not touch on the abolishment of private property much, it is of course a core belief of the anarchist, which in today's capitalism, seems more important than making sure the bankers' rights are protected when they sold homes to people who couldn't afford them. Why does the bank get the house back? Can JP Morgan live in it? Where are the rights of an individual, or a community? So now a few real-world examples of where anarchist principles outperformed capitalist methods; we can look to Occupy, specifically Occupy the Farm (OTF), Occupy Sandy (OS), and Debt Strike (DS). OTF was a group of people who decided to appropriate a piece of land for use in gardening from the University of California. The land track had been unused for decades, overgrown with brush, which was unsightly and a fire hazard according to the neighbors. This group took it upon themselves to use the land the UC left idle. They didn't take a building that was in use, but they did violate capitalist law, which protects private property, and they were removed by the state police. Another example was the quick response to Superstorm Sandy by community organizers and anarchists. While the state was still trying to figure out what to do, people self-organized under participatory principles that the community knows what is best. Food lines were set up, donations collected and distributed in a timely manner, and people were rescued quicker. There is a great photo of two National Guard soldiers listening to community organizers for details and directions. If more anarchists like OS live in New Orleans during Katrina, the situation probably would have turned out better. Lastly is Debt Strike, a project with the sole intention of destroying the crippling debt mounted on the working class. DS purchases debt for pennies on the dollar, and then forgives it, while capitalists purchase the same debt for pennies and somehow think they are entitled to the full amount (again through economic rents). How is the current system better than an anarchist alternative? Surely OTF, OS, and DS are better for society in the long run. I guess I can make this argument more now than previous decades since the form of capitalism the US has now is closer to the formal definition of fascism, that is the joining of corporate and state power. Since bribery is legal (lobbying), people are commodities (for-profit prisons), and the police state is becoming hyper-militarized, I see no reason to justify any part of the fascist system. Anarchy, today, is more practical and effective for more people since they can't compete against corporations' money and media control. So we invalidate your system, from passive non-violence to property destruction, or "within the shell of the old" we build our new society. If capitalism today was more like Adam Smith's capitalism, where the real wealth of nations was the wealth of its people, I might have a harder time making this argument. So in conclusion, anarchist principles are practical and effective, sometimes, and definitely today. A fully anarchist society is probably not practical or effective, but neither is a fascist one. Anarchy, however, remains a plausible model of organization in our modern "capitalist" economy, who's time has come and inefficiencies are perverse. Looking forward to your response.