What is Anarchism

Akrasia

There are a lot of misconceptions about what exactly Anarchism stands for. Many people associate it with 'Chaos' and 'Disorganisation' when in reality, anarchism promotes a highly organised society, it's just organised from the bottom up and not the top down.

I'll get the ball rolling and put out some of the central beliefs of anarchism and if anyone wants to challenge them or add to them, then I'll respond to the best of my ability.

Anarchism means 'no rulers'. It is a political philosophy that is opposed to all kinds of hierarchy in favour of bottom up participatory democracy. In anarchism, all the means of production are directly owned and controlled by the workers themselves (unlike Marxism where power is held by a central government 'on behalf' of the ordinary workers)
Anarchists believe the private ownership of property (the means of production) is the single biggest cause of inequality poverty and dis-empowerment. Instead of absolute ownership of property, anarchists promote 'effective ownership' which basically means that, using an agricultural metaphor, you own the piece of land that you are currently farming, for as long as you continue to use that land, and if you ever decide to stop using it, someone else is free to take over that land. You can not employ anyone to work for you because if they work the field with you, then they are part owners of that field and you are partners, not employee and employer.)

Anarchists promote a society based on solidarity, not competition. We believe that co-operation, mutual aid, is a much more efficient use of our limited resources than constantly competing with each other all of the time.

Anarchists are anti Capitalist (anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron). Capitalism is a divisive, individualistic destructive greedy system. Wealth is a huge cause of poverty (in order for one person to accumulate vast wealth, he must exploit hundreds or thousands of others and the luxury he lives in is a huge waste of the limited resources that should be distributed equally to all)
Anarchists are completely against the spread of large Corporations and the increasing control they exercise over almost every aspect of our lives. These corporations are completely unaccountable and not only lack any morals or ethics, but are in fact legally obliged to disregard them in favour of increasing shareholder value.


That's a short description of only some of the aspects of anarchism. I can clarify any of the above points or any other points people might want to bring up

metrovelvet

Questions regarding the land scenario you mentioned.

1. What if you get ill or suffer a farming accident and can no longer "work the land"?

2. Do those who work the land also live on it with families? And if so, if you stop working it do you or others knock down-transfer your house?

3. Are those who build homes on the land, also effectively "working the land" so they own it too?

4. How do people make money to buy the stuff you produce on your land?

5. What do you do if you and your fellow land workers cant agree on how things should be run?

5. Are children also required to provide labor?

Dirk Gently

With out a state in a transitional phase before the end product of an anarchist society how would the new communal society survive external threats from unfriendly capitalist nations?

Take Venezuela for example, obviously not an anarchist society but a country which is aiming for a socialist society through the spread of direct democracy, co-ops and social programmes. Venezuela has been under a constant barrage since Chavez took over, with the U.S. waging a propaganda war, a military coup, funding opposition and sabotage and destabilisation tactics within the country. Without a state in place how would anarchists survive such an onslaught?

I understand the communist and the anarchist society are the same end result but with the communist route socialism is the means to the end of having a free communal society. I just don't see the anarchist approach of an overnight shift from capitalism to the communal society as being achievable. At what point is the withering away of the state an achievable goal? Can the state ever wither away while hostile capitalist interests still lurk on the boarders?

Akrasia

metrovelvet wrote:

Questions regarding the land scenario you mentioned.

1. What if you get ill or suffer a farming accident and can no longer "work the land"?

Well anarchism is not an individualistic ideology. Not everyone will be farmers, I just used that example to explain the concept of effective ownership. The local community would provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves. Anarchism is often called as 'Libertarian communism' or 'Libertarian socialism'.
The principle of Mutual aid is most important in this case. There are very few people who can't contribute anything of value to society. one problem with capitalism is that it marginalises people who are not economically profitable to employ.

2. Do those who work the land also live on it with families? And if so, if you stop working it do you or others knock down-transfer your house?

The principle of effective ownership is that you can not sell your property for a profit, or control property that you have no intention of using. If you are living in a house with your family, then you effectively own it. If you move away then the house reverts to the ownership of the community and they can decide what to do with it in a democratic way.

3. Are those who build homes on the land, also effectively "working the land" so they own it too?

yes but they can't sell it for a profit so there wouldn't be property speculation. You could trade your house for someone else's house somewhere else, but that would have to be by mutual agreement. You could not be a landlord because nobody would be prepared to pay you rent and if you are not personally using the house, you have no claim over it.

4. How do people make money to buy the stuff you produce on your land?

Many anarchists are in favour of 'moneyless societies' Goods are produced based on democratic decisions by the community and distributed based on the democratic decisions of the community. Federations of communes trade in goods according to what the members of their communities are prepared to provide and what they feel they need.
I know this sounds pretty insane, it ignores the 'laws of supply and demand'
But an economy based on democratic consumer councils and democratic producer councils would ensure that our scarce resources are focused on providing the things we need and not just the things we want.
Such councils worked very well in Anarchist parts of Spain for a number of years before Franco eventually won the civil war.

5. What do you do if you and your fellow land workers cant agree on how things should be run?

All decisions are made democratically, the particular style of democracy is also to be agreed democratically. There are advantages and disadvantages to be found with both consensus and majority rule forms of decision making. In reality, most decisions would be made in a hybrid of the two forms. If someone does not want to take part in the community, to avail of the services or to participate in the decision making processes, they would be free to live as they wish (as long as they are not exploiting others)

bonkey

Akrasia wrote:

Anarchism is often called as 'Libertarian communism' or 'Libertarian socialism'.

Surely these would be types or "flavours" of anarchy, rather than just descriptions which are often used to describe any form of same.

As a parallel, I'd say you'd be hard pressed to find two nominally-democratic nations on the planet with the same flavour of democracy. You'll also have people who tell you there are no "real" democracies anywhere in the first place, as well as differing opinions of where the line is drawn between democratic, non-democratic, and partially-democratic systems.

I would personally be surprised if anarchy was not the same. Indeed, I would find it difficult for there to be a single, clear definition of what constitutes anarchy. Arguably, the existence of such a definition in and of itself is non-anarchic or even anti-anarchic.

What I find most interesting is the concept of an anarchic society, given that the general principles of anarchy seem to lean more towards the notion of anarchic communities. I would have serious misgivings as to how it could/would scale. It is quite possible - even today - to form a small community of willing participants who agree to abide by a system. However, once that scales to a society, it also has to cater for those who choose not to abide by the system. In any "top-down" form of governance, rules can be imposed on those who do not wish to abide by them....but I'm at a loss to see how that would work with anarchy.

Akrasia

clown bag wrote:

With out a state in a transitional phase before the end product of an anarchist society how would the new communal society survive external threats from unfriendly capitalist nations?

With great difficulty is the honest answer. The aggression of imperialist capitalist societies is probably the main reason why anarchism has never survived for more than a few years anywhere in practise. The most famous example of anarchism in action was in 1930's Spain where vast parts of Catalonia and the Basque regions existed as anarchist syndicates.

Anarchists don't expect an overnight revolution where everyone will suddenly start acting like anarchists. Anarchists are utterly opposed to the vast military industrial complexes that maintain state power domestically and abroad, and part of the transition to an anarchist society would necessitate the dismantling of these forces.

Take Venezuela for example, obviously not an anarchist society but a country which is aiming for a socialist society through the spread of direct democracy, co-ops and social programmes. Venezuela has been under a constant barrage since Chavez took over, with the U.S. waging a propaganda war, a military coup, funding opposition and sabotage and destabilisation tactics within the country. Without a state in place how would anarchists survive such an onslaught?

It would be a serious challenge. But in reality, this is an argument against supporting imperialist capitalism rather than an argument against supporting anarchism. If we achieve critical mass then we can survive.

I understand the communist and the anarchist society are the same end result but with the communist route socialism is the means to the end of having a free communal society. I just don't see the anarchist approach of an overnight shift from capitalism to the communal society as being achievable. At what point is the withering away of the state an achievable goal? Can the state ever wither away while hostile capitalist interests still lurk on the boarders?

The problem with Communism is that the vanguard state will never wither away, it is much more likely to simply usurp power and then use it against the people while it installs itself as the new rulers. Anarchists don't expect an overnight revolution. Anarchists hope to change things through a snowball effect perhaps sparked by general strikes by politicised worker controlled unions.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

lol

Anarchism will never work.

As much as it is a lovely thing to aim for, and works in THEORY, communism also worked in theory. It's application however was an abomination. Anarchistic theory fails to take into account the fundamental human trait of greed. The fact is "people like to own stuff" and own stuff properly.

Akrasia

bonkey wrote:

Surely these would be types or "flavours" of anarchy, rather than just descriptions which are often used to describe any form of same.

well, classical anarchism is a form of Libertarian socialism. There are other subdivisions. like Individualist anarchism and 'Anarcho-Capitalism' which, in my opinion at least, are not genuinely anarchist philosophies because they do not fully reject Hierarchy or stick to the central principles of Equality, Liberty and Solidarity.
Of course, I should point out, that no one particular category of anarchist would ever expect all of their theoretical expectations to be transplanted into a real world application. Anarchists try to provide alternative ways of thinking, and it is entirely up to the members of each community to implement social change in whatever way they think is best

I would personally be surprised if anarchy was not the same. Indeed, I would find it difficult for there to be a single, clear definition of what constitutes anarchy. Arguably, the existence of such a definition in and of itself is non-anarchic or even anti-anarchic.

like I just said, anarchism is really just an idea, a philosophy that can be interpreted in many different ways (consistent with the 3 core principles). Most anarchists would agree on a lot of the most important issues, but there will always be debate about how best to run a society in the real world. And in reality, there could be many different kinds of anarchist societies all living together

What I find most interesting is the concept of an anarchic society, given that the general principles of anarchy seem to lean more towards the notion of anarchic communities. I would have serious misgivings as to how it could/would scale. It is quite possible - even today - to form a small community of willing participants who agree to abide by a system. However, once that scales to a society, it also has to cater for those who choose not to abide by the system. In any "top-down" form of governance, rules can be imposed on those who do not wish to abide by them....but I'm at a loss to see how that would work with anarchy.

The most important aspect of anarchism is the bottom up approach. Federations are voluntary associations comprised of delegates from each community. Each community and each member of each community is autonomous and free to abide by any decision or choose to opt out. This means that some kinds of large scale co-ordination would be very difficult, but at the same time, large scale co-ordination is not always desirable. Priority should be given to local activity as much as possible. If large scale co-ordination is unavoidable, it will also be an important enough issue as to merit a complex democratic process.

(edited to say) I should point out that delegates in an anarchist sense do not have the power to make decisions on behalf of the people they represent, (at least not important decisions) they can only represent the decisions democratically arrived at by the communities themselves to the wider forum and then carry any queries back to the community for clarification before a final set of proposals are voted on.

Akrasia

sean_keevey wrote:

lol

Anarchism will never work.

As much as it is a lovely thing to aim for, and works in THEORY, communism also worked in theory. It's application however was an abomination. Anarchistic theory fails to take into account the fundamental human trait of greed. The fact is "people like to own stuff" and own stuff properly.

communism doesn't work in theory. The abomination that was predicted materialised in it's worst forms. Anarchists opposed central planning for a reason, and Stalin/Mao/Kim Jung Il are consequence of allowing the vanguard party to take control.

People will always want to improve their own situation. The current consumerism culture that we are subject to is not natural, it is manufactured.

Fanny Cradock

Lofty ideals aside, people need a structure to operate under (yes, under). This is the way it always has been, and this is the way it always will be. You can see this a non work environment as people will naturally try to sort out some sort of hierarchy. And, for that matter, it is mirrored in the natural world. Without social structure there would, in the strictest meaning of the word, be anarchy.

So what would happen if Ireland suddenly adopted anarchism?
*How, as a "nation" of communities, would we survive?
*How could these small communities effectively band together (remembering that they set their own rules and agendas) to secure imports of fuel and other essentials?
*How would infrastructure and health care services be maintained and shared if some communities decided to have very low taxes or none at all?
*What controls would be set in place to stop small communities merging together to bully others, or people becoming too powerful? Because, as sure as the sun rises, this would happen just as it always has.
*What about laws? For instance, if one community makes something illegal and another doesn't then it would be horribly messy.

It's not good enough to have a vague decree, and it is a decree, that people should live by "effective ownership". I'd really love to see this being done on a large scale. I'd predict that there would be endless bickering and constant disputes over the flimsy notion of effective ownership so as to make the ideals of anarchism unworkable. You can't micro-manage millions of people.

DadaKopf

fanny craddock wrote:

people need a structure to operate under (yes, under)

As I understand anarchism, it doesn't preclude 'structure'. Anarchism opposes forms of power (or power relations) whose structures limit people's freedoms, as identified by (what could so broadly termed as to be nearly meaningless) 'anarchist analyses'. Anarchism calls for structures (primarily institutional as I understand it - rather than culture-ideological, but that too) to be under constant negotiation among equal participants in societies or collectivities. The concern here is for structures to be kept open to prevent abuses of power of the likes we see today.

The question, therefore, is how and to whom do people derogate responsibility and authority? Again, I would imagine anarchism does not necessarily preclude the derogation of responsibility to individuals or groups (i.e. provide 'structures' to operate 'under' but more 'alongside' - again, the crucial point of anarchism is the precise manner in which power operates in a group or society. In anarchism, individuals are active decisionmakers in societies - participative democracy is a necessary social relation, not a mediated system of subordination by ruling classes via the ballot box which simulates popular consent. Anarchism is a strategy to preserve liberty.

Akrasia

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Lofty ideals aside, people need a structure to operate under (yes, under).

Anarchism is highly organised. Instead of being accountable to a king or a boss, you're accountable to the democratic will of your local community.

This is the way it always has been, and this is the way it always will be.

When you say 'this' I hope you don't mean our current political and economic structure, because the way we live now is extremely new in the grand scheme of human society. There is no single way humans can live, the fact that we are highly adaptable is the reason we have become the dominant species on this planet.

You can see this a non work environment as people will naturally try to sort out some sort of hierarchy. And, for that matter, it is mirrored in the natural world. Without social structure there would, in the strictest meaning of the word, be anarchy.

What kind of people do you socialise with?
That is certainly not my experience.

So what would happen if Ireland suddenly adopted anarchism?
*How, as a "nation" of communities, would we survive?

well, Ireland wouldn't survive as a nation. It would still be an island, and there would still be communities, but the political entity that is the Irish state would be defunct.

*How could these small communities effectively band together (remembering that they set their own rules and agendas) to secure imports of fuel and other essentials?

Well, families are a group of people and they often have different rules and agendas, but this doesn't stop them from engaging with other families in a social context.
People and communities could organise themselves through co-operatives, an already proven way to achieve even complex goals through co-operation and not competition. In Ireland, dairy Co-Ops were the way individual farmers could get the milk from their farms to the market and it worked fine for decades.

*How would infrastructure and health care services be maintained and shared if some communities decided to have very low taxes or none at all?

How would an anarchist health service work? It would be based on self-management, with close links to the local commune and federations of communes. Each hospital or health centre would be autonomous but linked in a federation with the others, allowing resources to be shared as and when required while allowing the health service to adjust to local needs and requirements as quickly as possible. Because of the principle of free and voluntary association, communities would be free to take part in the local health care federation, or if they are not prepared to contribute to the cost, they can provide their own alternative. I would suggest that most communities would value a good health care system and would be prepared to contribute as necessary
here's how healthcare worked in Spain

he Spanish Revolution indicates how an anarchist health service would operate. In rural areas local doctors would usually join the village collective and provided their services like any other worker. Where local doctors were not available, "arrangements were made by the collectives for treatment of their members by hospitals in nearby localities. In a few cases, collectives themselves build hospitals; in many they acquired equipment and other things needed by their local physicians." For example, the Monzon comercal (district) federation of collectives in Aragon established maintained a hospital in Binefar, the Casa de Salud Durruti. By April 1937 it had 40 beds, in sections which included general medicine, prophylaxis and gynaecology. It saw about 25 outpatients a day and was open to anyone in the 32 villages of the comarca. [Robert Alexander, The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, vol. 1, p. 331 and pp. 366-7]

*What controls would be set in place to stop small communities merging together to bully others, or people becoming too powerful? Because, as sure as the sun rises, this would happen just as it always has.

Anarchists would defend themselves from outside bullying or attempts to control them the same way they organise everything else, from the bottom up and in a self managed way. As long as people believe in the principles of anarchism, they will defend them.

*What about laws? For instance, if one community makes something illegal and another doesn't then it would be horribly messy.

One of the principles of anarchism is that people are free to do anything they like as long as it does not harm or exploit others. Most other 'laws' would be common sense bans on anti social behaviour.

It's not good enough to have a vague decree, and it is a decree, that people should live by "effective ownership". I'd really love to see this being done on a large scale. I'd predict that there would be endless bickering and constant disputes over the flimsy notion of effective ownership so as to make the ideals of anarchism unworkable. You can't micro-manage millions of people.

effective ownership is just a device I use to explain away the myth that most people have about the 'no private property' position. (What, i can't even own my toothbrush?) What I meant is that the land and resources is always socially owned by everyone, but that doesnt mean you don't have any rights to a home or to appreciate the work you put into your community.

metrovelvet

There seems to be a huge emphasis on community. Where does the individual fit in? How is this compatible with multi-culturalism? Have you ever read Shirley Jacksons chilling short story "The Lottery?"

DadaKopf

fanny craddock wrote:

You can see this a non work environment as people will naturally try to sort out some sort of hierarchy. And, for that matter, it is mirrored in the natural world. Without social structure there would, in the strictest meaning of the word, be anarchy.

Here we go. And a perfectly interesting debate descends into a reduction to absurdity. "Oh, sure, it's just that I believe this, and there's no evidence I'm right, so let's just not discuss it because just imagining an alternative is just too grotesque to imagine!"

metrovelvet wrote:

There seems to be a huge emphasis on community. Where does the individual fit in? How is this compatible with multi-culturalism? Have you ever read Shirley Jacksons chilling short story "The Lottery?"

Yes, indeed there is. Because, apparently, that's what humans live in. No, we haven't read The Lottery. Maybe you could tell us about it.

fanny craddock wrote:

*How could these small communities effectively band together (remembering that they set their own rules and agendas) to secure imports of fuel and other essentials?

People do this every day of their lives. I think you imagine that anarchism is some utopian political philosophy. It's not. In fact, it's the opposite, as I understand it.

Akrasia

metrovelvet wrote:

There seems to be a huge emphasis on community. Where does the individual fit in? How is this compatible with multi-culturalism? Have you ever read Shirley Jacksons chilling short story "The Lottery?"

Actually, Anarchism is highly suited for a multicultural society, If you want to have seperate cultures sharing the same space and never interacting with each other, then they could just join separate communes rarely meet one another. It's not a very nice version of a society though.

Interculturalism however, is a much more desirable state of affairs, but whether or not communities choose to embrace outsiders or not would be a matter for them to decide on democratically. I would hope that most communities would be open and accepting towards people of different backgrounds. The reason why immigration is even a problem in modern society is because Immigrants are perceived as a direct threat to the local population when everyone is competing for a limited number of jobs in an alienated society where social interaction is down to the bare minimum of what people need to survive. Mass immigration is a problem because it threatens the local identity and that is understandable. But the reasons for mass immigration are two fold. 1. our economic system forces us to constantly expand just to stay still which means
2. Employers are constantly looking for the cheapest form of labour. Neither of these factors would be a problem in an anarchist society.
(another reason for mass migration is war and famine, but these too are products of authoritarian and capitalist regimes)

Fanny Cradock

DadaKopf wrote:

Here we go. And a perfectly interesting debate descends into a reduction to absurdity. "Oh, sure, it's just that I believe this, and there's no evidence I'm right, so let's just not discuss it because just imagining an alternative is just too grotesque to imagine!"

So, you feel it necessary to rewrite my words? I could throw what you wrote back in your face: "Oh, sure, it's just that I choose to respond with snotty retorts rather than actually talk about the issue, so let's just not discuss it anymore!". Seriously though, I'm terribly sorry for lowering the tone of this debate . However, I'm sure, as you construct your new society, you wont encounter any opposing viewpoints.

Anyway, you make some interesting points, Akrasia. Yet, I'm still very skeptical that the larger support structures, which we all rely upon, could be effectively and efficiently managed on a community basis. A great deal of what you seem to propose seems to rely heavily upon unity, but I think discord is natural when it comes to issues of power.

I could see a local hospital working quite well if it was dealing with 'minor' injuries/ ailments, but what about vastly expensive and highly specialised treatments? As an example (and it's only that), how could a community(s) possibly afford, let alone agree on where to locate an incredibly expensive piece of machinery? If 10 (I'm pulling that figure out of the air) communities banded together to purchase this machinery, how could they possibly agree where to house it if each community is essentially looking out for themselves? Does it really serve the greater good if a community is chiefly looking out for its own members?

I also wonder about infrastructural/ utility bodies, e.g. air/ rail/ road, electricity travel, electricity, water etc. - who controls these? Would a certain community not have a huge advantage if they just so happened to inhabit an area rich in recourses needed by less fortunate communities ? I wonder would this be the cause of huge tensions.

Do you not think that people would view Ireland ceasing to exist as a country as an outright attack? I'm sure there would be a groundswell of nationalism amongst that majority, some of which would do pretty much anything to stop this happening. Would countries choosing this philosophy not be open to a type of civil war or possibly being annexed by another country?

As for my point: "in a non-work environment people will naturally try to sort out some sort of hierarchy", I wasn't talking about my personal relationships, I was speaking in more general terms (no point in giving examples). Though, I think that if the correct circumstances arose this hierarchy could arise even between a group of friends.

Some of what you talk about sounds interesting, but parts of it I'm not convinced about. I think that many of mankind's greatest achievements and advancements would have remained undiscovered had we not formed our vast and (sometimes) enlightened cultures and pooled our resources. I also believe that many of the problems that exist nowadays: corruption; crime; greed; selfishness etc. are part and parcel of the human condition, and would eventually float to the top whatever the environment - so we would still be left with the same problems.

metrovelvet

Akrasia wrote:

One of the principles of anarchism is that people are free to do anything they like as long as it does not harm or exploit others. Most other 'laws' would be common sense bans on anti social behaviour.

How do people come to agree on what is harmful and what isnt? How do you define exploitation.

Can you explain how infrastuctures are set up, like energy supplies, cash, prisons, etc etc.

What your describing sounds like what Africa was before Europe got its hands all over it, a series of communities which lived on and off the land. Is this the vision behind this theory?

oscarBravo

It's interesting that someone mentioned healthcare. When anarchic societies are described, I always find myself thinking about why people choose to become doctors - it takes years of training, followed by years of incredibly hard work. The reward at the end is prosperity.

[Don't get me wrong: I'm not claiming that doctors have no motivation except financial reward; rather that there's a necessarily high barrier to entry to the profession, and that the reward is commensurate.]

This leads to the question: why would anyone choose to be a doctor? You could put in the years of training and long hours, or you could serve your time as an apprentice carpenter, or you could get a day's training and drive a forklift. At the end of the process, the reward is the same: you get a place to live and three squares a day.

I'm coming at this from the perspective of a fundamentally lazy person (which, I'm sorry to admit, I am). I'm working hard right now (sometimes more than twelve hours a day), but only to build the foundations of a business that will generate a passive income for me at a later time. If that reward wasn't in store, I simply wouldn't bother.

DadaKopf

I think this debate is happening on two levels. On one hand, some people are opposing anarchism because they think it could never work on a pragmatic level. On the other hand, and much less discussed, some people are discussing anarchism on the normative level because they want to establish whether, morally, a more democratic society ought to happen. The normative discussion leads to the pragmatic discussion.

metrovelvet wrote:

What your describing sounds like what Africa was before Europe got its hands all over it, a series of communities which lived on and off the land. Is this the vision behind this theory?

Actually, many African societies were very well organised, and were, in fact, quite large. Some were even very well organised and socially stratified. Ethiopia is the prime example, and Ethiopia is left out of much African colonial literature because it was never colonised because it was organised enough to resist it for quite some time. Bantu societies spread across much of southern Africa.

If, instead, you're implying that so-called primitive, paternalist, authoritarian, warlike 'tribes' is how Africa was before colonialism, there is ample evidence to show that it was colonialism which led to this - i.e. the violent incorporation of the continent and its peoples into industrial capitalism. This image of 'tribal violence' we see in the media (vastly exaggerates) is therefore not a necessary outcome of different forms of social organisation.

'A series of communities that lived on or off the land' also sounds like most of Europe's history until recent times (look at Ireland and Finland for recent examples). So you're going to have to qualify that statement a lot more.

fanny craddock wrote:

However, I'm sure, as you construct your new society, you wont encounter any opposing viewpoints.

*I* construct *my* new society? Where did I say I was an anarchist? Perhaps I should have phrased my point more delicately, but I've been on boards long enough to have seen how these debates tend to go. If this is a political theory board, it should - to my mind - be about discussing possibilities. Usually, interesting discussions get derailed because people refuse to consider new possibilities - maybe they're wrong, but they're worth exploring. So, it's left to others to do the exploring for them. And so the discussion shuts down. I'm not saying this at you, it's a general observation.

Thanks for your latest post, it was enjoyable to read, and there are some good points.

I think that many of mankind's greatest achievements and advancements would have remained undiscovered had we not formed our vast and (sometimes) enlightened cultures and pooled our resources. I also believe that many of the problems that exist nowadays: corruption; crime; greed; selfishness etc. are part and parcel of the human condition, and would eventually float to the top whatever the environment - so we would still be left with the same problems.

The flipside of this is that this has brought about the single greatest threat to the world - global warming. These discoveries, this progress, have come at a massive cost. I believe it would be incorrect to idealise development.

On the same point, you again imply that anarchism is a utopian escape from the political realities of the human social world. As I understand anarchism, it does believe that circumstances shape behaviour (i.e. if circumstances changed, people's behaviour would change), but it doesn't believe that anarchism is utopia - anarchism is simply a strategy to deal with conflicts of interest and power in a specific way. This way seeks to ensure that everyone is in control of their own society through maintaining an open political system of governance. This would be the opposite of what we have today. But I don't think anarchism precludes complex social organisation. I do think that technology - like the internet, and the emergence of the network society - could provide people with the means to organise more effectively beyond political parties. This is already happening - the global social movement may be a nascent version of this.

So, the question is: if an anarchist society is impossible, and assuming that people here oppose the injustices going on today, what do people here think should happen to fix it, and how?

DadaKopf

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm coming at this from the perspective of a fundamentally lazy person (which, I'm sorry to admit, I am). I'm working hard right now (sometimes more than twelve hours a day), but only to build the foundations of a business that will generate a passive income for me at a later time. If that reward wasn't in store, I simply wouldn't bother.

People have to find the love, man. [Serious.]

I'm working hard to develop a career in the development aid sector. I'll never earn more than an average industrial wage, but I've made my choice. I feel it's more important to do the right thing and to get by in relative comfort, than to be successful and stinking rich. I enjoy what I do because I get a lot of love back and enjoy giving it. I feel morally bound to improve the lot of poor people in the developing worldand could not see myself doing much else.

Maybe I'm just weird.

metrovelvet

DadaKopf wrote:

I think this debate is happening on two levels. On one hand, some people are opposing anarchism because they think it could never work on a pragmatic level. On the other hand, and much less discussed, some people are discussing anarchism on the normative level because they want to establish whether, morally, a more democratic society ought to happen. The normative discussion leads to the pragmatic discussion.

I am still at the trying to grasp it conceptually stage, which is why I have lots of questions.

DadaKopf wrote:

Actually, many African societies were very well organised, and were, in fact, quite large. Some were even very well organised and socially stratified. Many were egalitarian, while others were matriarchal. Ethiopia is the prime example, and Ethiopia is left out of much African colonial literature because it was never colonised because it was organised enough to resist it for quite some time. Bantu societies spread across much of southern Africa.

If, instead, you're implying that so-called primitive, paternalist, authoritarian, warlike 'tribes' is how Africa was before colonialism, there is ample evidence to show that it was colonialism which led to this - i.e. the violent incorporation of the continent and its peoples into industrial capitalism. This image of 'tribal violence' we see in the media (vastly exaggerates) is therefore not a necessary outcome of different forms of social organisation.

Yes I am aware of this which is why i said BEFORE EUROPE got its hands all over it. I am once again trying to gather information so I can grasp this conceptually.

DadaKopf wrote:

'A series of communities that lived on or off the land' also sounds like most of Europe's history until recent times (look at Ireland and Finland for recent examples). So you're going to have to qualify that statement a lot more.

Well right, what was described sounds like a bizarre form of egalitarian feudalism. Look, its confusing, Im trying to get a clearer picture.

DadaKopf wrote:

As I understand anarchism, it does believe that circumstances shape behaviour (i.e. if circumstances changed, people's behaviour would change),

SPeaking of behavior, does Anarchism have a perspective on human nature, like many other political theories, and if so what is it?

Akrasia

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Anyway, you make some interesting points, Akrasia. Yet, I'm still very skeptical that the larger support structures, which we all rely upon, could be effectively and efficiently managed on a community basis. A great deal of what you seem to propose seems to rely heavily upon unity, but I think discord is natural when it comes to issues of power.

Well, the entire universe is founded on a state of constant flux and change, and it is no different with societies and communities. There are constant power relationships being played out all of the time, and anarchism can't hope to eliminate them, but by removing the tools of oppression and by changing people's attitudes towards authority, one would also minimize the consequences of individual attempts to exercise power in a negative way. (I'm reminded of the saying 'What would all of Hitler's crimes have amounted to if he was left to carry them out alone"

I could see a local hospital working quite well if it was dealing with 'minor' injuries/ ailments, but what about vastly expensive and highly specialised treatments? As an example (and it's only that), how could a community(s) possibly afford, let alone agree on where to locate an incredibly expensive piece of machinery? If 10 (I'm pulling that figure out of the air) communities banded together to purchase this machinery, how could they possibly agree where to house it if each community is essentially looking out for themselves? Does it really serve the greater good if a community is chiefly looking out for its own members?

Socialized health care has been proven to be a much more efficient and cost effective way of providing medical coverage to the community.
Health care cooperatives would run in much the same way as all other kinds of cooperatives. They would localise as much as possible and then pool their resources to accomplish the more intensive tasks. The problems of deciding on where to locate these hospitals would be no more divisive than they are today, except the decisions would be arrived at in a democratic manner instead of by the decree of whoever happens to be minister for health at that time.

I also wonder about infrastructural/ utility bodies, e.g. air/ rail/ road, electricity travel, electricity, water etc. - who controls these? Would a certain community not have a huge advantage if they just so happened to inhabit an area rich in recourses needed by less fortunate communities ? I wonder would this be the cause of huge tensions.

they would in a competitive society, but not in a cooperative one.

Do you not think that people would view Ireland ceasing to exist as a country as an outright attack? I'm sure there would be a groundswell of nationalism amongst that majority, some of which would do pretty much anything to stop this happening. Would countries choosing this philosophy not be open to a type of civil war or possibly being annexed by another country?

People have a greater attachment to the Island of Ireland and to the people of Ireland than they do to the Government of Ireland. In the beginning there would probably be a lot of resistance to change from those who feel they are losing out on their private wealth or their nation, but as with any social change, things would settle down and people would get on with life. The reason for Irish nationalism is because the British were actively oppressing the Irish people. They were fighting for freedom from britain, and the Irish nation was the way they hoped to achieve this.

Some of what you talk about sounds interesting, but parts of it I'm not convinced about. I think that many of mankind's greatest achievements and advancements would have remained undiscovered had we not formed our vast and (sometimes) enlightened cultures and pooled our resources. I also believe that many of the problems that exist nowadays: corruption; crime; greed; selfishness etc. are part and parcel of the human condition, and would eventually float to the top whatever the environment - so we would still be left with the same problems.

Perhaps many of our achievements would have, but those achievements include the Atomic Bomb, the Pyramids at Giza, the technology to over fish, over farm and cut down thousands of square kilometres of pristine rainforest.
I consider the greatest achievements of Mankind to be in the forms of art and sports and culture and community. In the current system, most of the worlds research capacity is spent on developing tools of war and chemicals for profits. Imagine if the researchers were motivated by something other than profits. what could we achieve?

In relation to the Human condition, Crime is mostly caused by poverty, Greed is caused by materialism and corruption is caused by a power lust. All of these things are confronted by Anarchism. I am not suggesting that it would be a Utopia, There would be plenty of problems and issues, I just think that on the balance, we would all be much better off.

oscarBravo

DadaKopf wrote:

I'm working hard to develop a career in the development aid sector. I'll never earn more than an average industrial wage, but I've made my choice. I feel it's more important to do the right thing and to get by in relative comfort, than to be successful and stinking rich. I enjoy what I do because I get a lot of love back and enjoy giving it. I feel morally bound to improve the lot of poor people in the developing worldand could not see myself doing much else.

Maybe I'm just weird.

I don't think you're weird. I greatly admire what you're doing, and I genuinely believe people like you make more of a difference to the world than people like me.

Unfortunately, there are more people like me than people like you. I'm not unhappy with who I am (if I was, I'd change), but I don't think people like me are going to go along with the anarchist ideal. Right now, I look at what Akrasia's describing, and I can see the attractions, but my overall feeling is "meh".

DadaKopf

Akrasia, just to pose the question: what makes you seem sure that an anarchist society could work?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Akrasia wrote:

communism doesn't work in theory. The abomination that was predicted materialised in it's worst forms. Anarchists opposed central planning for a reason, and Stalin/Mao/Kim Jung Il are consequence of allowing the vanguard party to take control.

People will always want to improve their own situation. The current consumerism culture that we are subject to is not natural, it is manufactured.

Communism doesn't work in theory the exact same way anarchism doesn't work in theory.

I could list off countless situations where an anarchic societywould just break down. You credit people with a greater sense of justice and equality than they could ever naturally posess.

In response to my hypothetical situations, you would no doubt try and expand the situationand prove that it would in fact work.

With a lack of central planning, there would a sectarian society within days. It would be the equivelant of a tribal society. There would be civil war, and eventually one group would gain power and we would be left in a right mess.

DadaKopf

sean_keevey wrote:

I could list off countless situations where an anarchic societywould just break down.

And there are also plenty of examples of organised societies/systems breaking down, too.

metrovelvet

Is this essentially mob rule?

If everything is voted on democratically, then what happens when they vote to privatise health care or exterminate people who dont fit in?

What if theres one domineering bully who intimidates the community [ala Lord of the Flies]?

Whats there to protect the minority voice?

Akrasia

metrovelvet wrote:

How do people come to agree on what is harmful and what isnt? How do you define exploitation.

Democratically if there is any dispute. Most of this is down to cultural relativism and would be easy to agree by consensus

Can you explain how infrastuctures are set up, like energy supplies, cash, prisons, etc etc.

Money is open to different approaches. Barter, local currencies, time banks, consumer and producer councils are some of the solutions to how we distribute resources.
Other economic is collectivised and carried out through Syndicates, federations of Syndicates, Co-operatives etc. The underlying principles are all the same, Decisions are made by the people affected by them in a democratic and accountable way. here is a basic explanation of the principles

There would be a system of consumer councils beginning with neighborhood councils, extending into ward, county, regional, and national federations of councils. Certain goods, such as hospitals, parks, rail systems etc. would be collectively consumed. The consumer councils and federations would discuss first their collective needs for a share of social production, beginning at the national level and moving on down. After collective needs are taken care of, the councils would arrive at budgets for average individual and family consumption. Individuals might retain the right to opt out, becoming "one person" councils, though they would then forfeit their share of collective conveniences.

http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SA/en/display/367

What your describing sounds like what Africa was before Europe got its hands all over it, a series of communities which lived on and off the land. Is this the vision behind this theory?

There are some green anarchists who wish to revert back to a primitive form of society, but these are in the minority. Most anarchists want to keep technology, but just use it more efficiently for the good of everyone and not just a small few.

Akrasia

oscarBravo wrote:

It's interesting that someone mentioned healthcare. When anarchic societies are described, I always find myself thinking about why people choose to become doctors - it takes years of training, followed by years of incredibly hard work. The reward at the end is prosperity.

That's a pretty cynical view of why people become doctors in the first place. It is a very rewarding job just because you get to save people's lives

The reasons why it is such a hard job in the current system is because there are an artificially low number of doctors being trained and they are expected to do far too much work to cover the lack of manpower. In Cuba there are far more doctors and most are happy to do their job without receiving massive salaries in compensation.
In terms of the length of their training, 7 years to become a GP is only 2 years more than what it takes to be a teacher.

This leads to the question: why would anyone choose to be a doctor? You could put in the years of training and long hours, or you could serve your time as an apprentice carpenter, or you could get a day's training and drive a forklift. At the end of the process, the reward is the same: you get a place to live and three squares a day.

Most people want more out of life than just the means to survive. Self actuatalisation is an important psychological need that is hard to find in a boring low wage, low skill job.

I'm coming at this from the perspective of a fundamentally lazy person (which, I'm sorry to admit, I am). I'm working hard right now (sometimes more than twelve hours a day), but only to build the foundations of a business that will generate a passive income for me at a later time. If that reward wasn't in store, I simply wouldn't bother.

Well, an anarchist society would probably have much shorter working days than the current Capitalist society because you are only working for yourself and your family, and not to line the profits of the landowners. Anarchists wish to abolish all wage labour in favour of a system of worker self management.

Akrasia

metrovelvet wrote:

SPeaking of behavior, does Anarchism have a perspective on human nature, like many other political theories, and if so what is it?

As DadaKopf has already said, Anarchists believe that human behaviour is strongly affected by the conditions that we find ourselves living in. Chomsky said 'Under the right conditions, any one of us could find ourselves either as a gas chamber attendant, or a saint'

Other than the small number of genuinely medically deranged people in our society, most of us respond to our circumstances

Akrasia

DadaKopf wrote:

Akrasia, just to pose the question: what makes you seem sure that an anarchist society could work?

Well, i think it could work, but it would require a critical mass before it could survive. There would need to be strong support from anarchist unions and there would need to be a change in international conditions to stop powerful capitalist countries from invading anyone who tries to leave their mafia family.
I doubt anarchism would ever spring from Ireland, It is most likely to emerge from latin america where they are much more revolutionary than we are in this country.

Basically, We have about as much a chance of surviving global warming as we have of ever seeing anarchism in operation (again). (the two are linked, Global warming will be a severe shock to the current system and if we survive, there will need to be an alternative)

DadaKopf

Yeah, fair enough.

oscarBravo

Akrasia wrote:

That's a pretty cynical view of why people become doctors in the first place. It is a very rewarding job just because you get to save people's lives

I don't doubt that there are those who would do a doctor's job for average industrial wage, but I suspect they're in the minority. As I've already said, I don't claim that doctors are only motivated by money, but it's naive to assume that it doesn't form a susbtantial part of the motivation.

Akrasia wrote:

Most people want more out of life than just the means to survive. Self actuatalisation is an important psychological need that is hard to find in a boring low wage, low skill job.

That's another reason I'm working as hard as I am now: I'm building something that is delivering a social benefit as well as an income for me.

But I'm also building to a point where I hope to be able to do things that are just a little out of my reach at the moment. I'd like to get back into flying lessons and earn a PPL - not for any productive reason, but because of the sheer joy of flying. I'd like to own a sailing yacht, for similar reasons.

How do such frivolities fit into an anarchist society?

Sand

Anarcho - Capitlaism is not on oxymoron. What would be an orxymoron is some authorithy claiming anarcho-capitalism is not allowed. If a community organise themselves on anarcho-capitalist grounds which authority will overule them? Especially as many claim government regulation is required to restrain naked capitalism.

Essentially though despite the hype, and my own sympathy for small government, anarchic societies will fall victim to the same inescapble realities of human nature that communism - and Akraisias version of anarchy is just communism less the KGB, for now - fell victim too. Anarchism demands fanatical political activism and/or fanatical devotion to blind legalism. Without either, anarchism will devolve to populism, personsified in some charismatic leader.

I.E dictatorship. Ask the Romans.

mountainyman

DadaKopf wrote:

.
If, instead, you're implying that so-called primitive, paternalist, authoritarian, warlike 'tribes' is how Africa was before colonialism

That's precisely the opposite of what she was saying. You are clearly less interested in exchaninging information than you are in pointless egoising and demonstrations of what you feel (inacurately) to be hidden knowledge.

DadaKopf wrote:

.
there is ample evidence to show that it was colonialism which led to this - i.e. the violent incorporation of the continent and its peoples into industrial capitalism. This image of 'tribal violence' we see in the media (vastly exaggerates) is therefore not a necessary outcome of different forms of social organisation.

Is it your contention that prior to the development of 'Industrial Capitalism' there was no violence in africa.
Is it your contention that prior to the development of 'Industrial Capitalism' well organised states in West Africa (to leave Ethiopia out of it) practised a form of statecraft that was not based on domination and exploitation?
How did the Abyssinian state fund the Christaina Moslem wars?

MM

mountainyman

oscarBravo wrote:

I don't doubt that there are those who would do a doctor's job for average industrial wage, but I suspect they're in the minority.

They might not be the same people who are currently doctors but it is one profession that we will always need and will never have trouble filling.

I am more concerned about accountants, how would one monitor inputs and outputs in an Anarchist society, If my commune builds a ship how would we know that the ship was useful.

Capitalism tolerates alot of useless economic activity (it is clearly a wasteful system- the belief is that the dynamism of capitalism compensates for this) the command economies avoided this duplication of activity but were not dynmaic.

Would anarchism lead to duplication of effort and a lack of economic activity, to wasteful stagnation?

How would one avoid waste?

oscarBravo wrote:

I'd like to get back into flying lessons and earn a PPL - not for any productive reason, but because of the sheer joy of flying. I'd like to own a sailing yacht, for similar reasons.

How do such frivolities fit into an anarchist society?

No one would own a Yacht or a plane but you could sail them and fly them every so often. You wouldn't necessarily get to do it that often.
People wouldn't live as well as the parasitic expoliter class currently does.

MM

Akrasia

oscarBravo wrote:

How do such frivolities fit into an anarchist society?

Anarchists have no objection to frivolous activity as long as they are open to everyone. You wouldn't be able to buy a personal yacht, but I'm sure there are loads of people out there who would be willing to help you to acquire use and maintain one

Akrasia

Sand wrote:

Anarcho - Capitlaism is not on oxymoron.

Yes it is. Anarchism is against capitalism. You can call laissez faire capitalism whatever you like, but that doesn't make it a form of anarchism.

What would be an orxymoron is some authorithy claiming anarcho-capitalism is not allowed. If a community organise themselves on anarcho-capitalist grounds which authority will overule them? Especially as many claim government regulation is required to restrain naked capitalism.

Anarchists wouldn't stop people from trying to set up their own little 'libertarian' community somewhere (those poor people) as long as they didn't try to force others to comply with their rules. Anarchists would refuse to accept their ownership of whatever land they would lay claim to, so there would doubtlessly be conflict if they were in close proximity with each other.

Essentially though despite the hype, and my own sympathy for small government, anarchic societies will fall victim to the same inescapble realities of human nature that communism - and Akraisias version of anarchy is just communism less the KGB, for now - fell victim too.

What exactly are those 'inescapable realities of human nature'? The entire advertising and marketing industry is built on the very idea that human behaviour is highly suggestable and can operate within a wide range of parameters if trained and influenced in the right way. Individualism and mass greed is a 20th century invention.
The severe problems with communism can all be traced back to the authoritarian, centralised government. How can you say that anarchism would repeat those problems when we reject the entire concept of top down centralised decision making?

Anarchism demands fanatical political activism and/or fanatical devotion to blind legalism.

No, anarchism requires an educated population who are conditioned to think for themselves and question authority. It is not 'Human nature' to respect authority, it takes years of indoctrination from birth and the threats of punishment from the state if the authority is disobeyed. It is an illusion though. Most people already disregard laws that they don't agree with (how many people have been to a lock in in a pub after official closing time? How many people jay walk? How many people have ever used an illegal substance?)

You are probably going to say next that most people are too stupid to understand complex political life?

I.E dictatorship. Ask the Romans.

When were the Romans ever anarchists?

mountainyman

Communism without the KGB is a big change.

Akrasia without a command economy how do you guard against duplication of effort?

What about tea, tea pickers earn 7cents an hour. Lets say that is a ppp of 70 cents an hour, they are an exploited group.

Where would I get tea.
Would there be cars?

How would large projects be adminstered.
How would you prevent people in essential services from running those services in a manner that only suites themeselves.
How would you stop th tram drivers working only 10 AM to 2 PM for example.

MM

DadaKopf

Akrasia without a command economy how do you guard against duplication of effort?

Presumably through communication and cooperation.

What about tea, tea pickers earn 7cents an hour. Lets say that is a ppp of 70 cents an hour, they are an exploited group.

Where would I get tea.
Would there be cars?

I'm not sure I get your point here.

I actually share your concerns, and I haven't a problem with social organisation. What I have a problem with is exploitation and abuses of power, which are part and parcel of the system we have today. So, what are the alternatives?

If you were living in 17th century France, would you be saying that the divine right of kings is now and ever shall be? Or do you accept that things can and do actually change?

What if you were that tea-picker? It reminds me of a story I heard: this fella got a foreign body stuck in his eye, it was large and he couldn't see. His friend said, "Sure don't worry about it, I'm sure it'll be grand". The guy with something in his eye roared back, "Yeah? That's fine for you, but it's my eye!"

mountainyman

The fact is that we in the west are beneficiaries of a system which pays the tea picker 7cents an hour. In a sense we all form part of a massive boss class compared to the rest of the world. In a Christian sense we are all the rich who won't get into heaven.
EDIT:
Clearly the treatment of the tea pickers is disgraceful but it is how we get tea.

DadaKopf: To say communication and cooperation is all very well but it is a bit of handwave isn't it?
If you have a 'Central Coordinating Commitee' don't you have an incipient government?

How would one track inputs and outputs?

Lets say that the Congolese Bauxite Miners Union sends bauxite down to the International Aluminum Smelter Workers Union plant in Soyo to be part refined and then part of that gets sent to germany to be turned into airplane wings at the German Federation of Airplane Manufactrurers plant in Kiel. In exchange the African Railway Workers Union is to get 9 new locomotives from the French Federation of Locomotive Manufactory Workers.

How will the Africans know that the trains will be of serviceable quality, how will the Angolans and Congoles know they will get some benefit from the deal and who tracks the inputs and outputs in this deal?
EDIT: How do the French know they will get some value for their trains?

If you have professional deal brokers/structurers hw do you stop them turning themselves into Compradors?



MM

Fanny Cradock

Akrasia wrote:

The entire advertising and marketing industry is built on the very idea that human behaviour is highly suggestable and can operate within a wide range of parameters if trained and influenced in the right way.

It may well be, but all advertising is built around, and focused upon, the iron clad staples of human desire: sex; violence; love; adoration; comfort; safety etc. (I'm sure Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs could be inserted here), which in turn dictate our very nature. Whatever the product, our fundamental desires are used against us to try and make that new "thing" (which we really don't need) appear wholly necessary.


::Edit::

My point above is that our essential nature remains the same whatever system we find ourselves operating under/ in. The problems we have now would, i believe, be replicated and possibly worsened by such a fexible system.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Out of curiosity, has this ever been tried on a mass scale (I’m talking about a number of communities, each with 1000's of people)? Or is this more of a theory that appears sound?


:::::::::::::::END TRANSMISSION:::::::::::::::::::

mountainyman

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Out of curiosity, has this ever been tried on a mass scale (I’m talking about a number of communities, each with 1000's of people)? Or is this more of a theory that appears sound?

It was tried in northern Spain during the 1930s: high level overview anarchist organisation works better than 1930s Spanish Capitalism. Productivity increased in factories: but the period was short and it was a revolutionary/ war situation.

I am more interested in the medium term, the mundane and humdrum, how would we stop people drifting back to old patterns and relationships.

MM

Akrasia

mountainyman wrote:

The fact is that we in the west are beneficiaries of a system which pays the tea picker 7cents an hour. In a sense we all form part of a massive boss class compared to the rest of the world. In a Christian sense we are all the rich who won't get into heaven.
EDIT:
Clearly the treatment of the tea pickers is disgraceful but it is how we get tea.

If there is no way we can get tea without exploiting foreign workers, then we should do without it. In terms of sustainability, It is not environmentally sustainable to continue transporting our food the whole way across the world. It is much better to produce locally as much as possible. We would probably still trade in things like tea and chocolate, but such trade would be on fair and just terms.

There is no moral argument that supports our 'right' to consume luxury products that are produced using slave labour.
Right wing types argue in terms of our 'right to choose' and completely ignore the responsibility we have towards our fellow man.

DadaKopf: To say communication and cooperation is all very well but it is a bit of handwave isn't it?
If you have a 'Central Coordinating Commitee' don't you have an incipient government?

not if the decisions are made by the people via systems of direct democracy. Committees in anarchist organisations are elected for fixed terms and to carry our specific tasks. An example would be a committee appointed to find a building for a new social center. The committee has this specific task and they carry it out as best they can, when they are ready, they report back their findings to the rest of the organisation, and the organisation as a whole decides whether or not to accept the findings of the committee.
Committees are immediately recallable at any time, and once their task is complete, the committee automatically disbands.

How would one track inputs and outputs?

using a pen and paper probably.

Lets say that the Congolese Bauxite Miners Union sends bauxite down to the International Aluminum Smelter Workers Union plant in Soyo to be part refined and then part of that gets sent to germany to be turned into airplane wings at the German Federation of Airplane Manufactrurers plant in Kiel. In exchange the African Railway Workers Union is to get 9 new locomotives from the French Federation of Locomotive Manufactory Workers.

How will the Africans know that the trains will be of serviceable quality, how will the Angolans and Congoles know they will get some benefit from the deal and who tracks the inputs and outputs in this deal?
EDIT: How do the French know they will get some value for their trains?

If you have professional deal brokers/structurers hw do you stop them turning themselves into Compradors?

The federations of producers would probably operate in much the same way as co-operatives work today. The Mondragon cooperative is a huge conglomerate and remains amongst the best examples of how this can work
(well, it's starting to slide now in order to compete with the race to the bottom effect that globalisation has brought.)

The sovereign body is the 650-member Co-operative Congress, its delegates elected from across the individual co-operatives. The annual general assembly elects to a governing council which has day-to-day management responsibility and appoints senior staff. For each individual business, there is also a workplace council, the elected President of which assists the manager with the running of the business on behalf of the workers

this is their organisational structure http://www.mcc.es/ing/estructura/estructura.html
In an anarchist society, those principles would be carried even further

metrovelvet

Akrasia wrote:

If there is no way we can get tea without exploiting foreign workers, then we should do without it. In terms of sustainability, It is not environmentally sustainable to continue transporting our food the whole way across the world. It is much better to produce locally as much as possible. We would probably still trade in things like tea and chocolate, but such trade would be on fair and just terms.

What about affordable clothing? Would it make more sense to apply economic pressures to those foreign nations who allow their workers to be exploited. For example, simply boycott goods made in [insert nation of exploited workers].

Akrasia wrote:

There is no moral argument that supports our 'right' to consume luxury products that are produced using slave labour.
Right wing types argue in terms of our 'right to choose' and completely ignore the responsibility we have towards our fellow man.

Do you consider tea a luxury item? What about runners? What about chocolate? What about the phone? What about your PC?

Akrasia wrote:

not if the decisions are made by the people via systems of direct democracy. Committees in anarchist organisations are elected for fixed terms and to carry our specific tasks. An example would be a committee appointed to find a building for a new social center. The committee has this specific task and they carry it out as best they can, when they are ready, they report back their findings to the rest of the organisation, and the organisation as a whole decides whether or not to accept the findings of the committee.
Committees are immediately recallable at any time, and once their task is complete, the committee automatically disbands.
using a pen and paper probably.

You know this sounds a little freaky, a little bit like Disney's housing estates "Celebration."
http://celebration.nm1.net/

Akrasia wrote:

Individualism and mass greed is a 20th century invention.

Oh because before the 20th century the money was in the hands of the few? What are you talking about? Status is a part of human nature.

Akrasia

metrovelvet wrote:

What about affordable clothing? Would it make more sense to apply economic pressures to those foreign nations who allow their workers to be exploited. For example, simply boycott goods made in [insert nation of exploited workers].

Well, the 'international pressure' that governments may or may not bring can not hope to compete with the pressure that they are under to facilitate exploitation by corporations. Especially when the 'international community' themselves are in bed with those same corporations.

Do you consider tea a luxury item? What about runners? What about chocolate? What about the phone? What about your PC?

Tea is a luxury item when you consider that the people who we get to produce it do not earn enough money to be able to afford to consume it themselves. I think that's a fair measure of what a luxury Item is.

You know this sounds a little freaky, a little bit like Disney's housing estates "Celebration."
http://celebration.nm1.net/

Well, democracy is a freaky process.

Oh because before the 20th century the money was in the hands of the few? What are you talking about? Status is a part of human nature.

money was in the hands of the few before the 20th century. and it still is.

I'm reminded of a saying by Epicurus from about 270 bc

Nothing is enough to someone for whom what is enough is too little

mountainyman

Akrasia wrote:

Tea is a luxury item when you consider that the people who we get to produce it do not earn enough money to be able to afford to consume it themselves. I think that's a fair measure of what a luxury Item is.

No they drink all the tea they want, tea is cheap in India.

I still think that to answer questions about tracking inputs and outputs with the answer paper and pencil (why not a computer- no labour saving devices that seems odd) is too much of a handwave.

People will still have to do boring jobs like track inputs and outputs.

Would large deals like the above have a coordinating committee, like a 'Coordinating Commitee to Arrange the Shipment of 9 Trains to the African Railway Workers Union from the French Federation of Locomotive Manufactory Workers'.

How would you stop the Frenchmena and Angolans on that commitee from robbing the Airplane workers and Bauxite miners blind, even if indivdual wealth was irrelevant wouldn't people still pursue sectional interests?

MM

DadaKopf

I think the answer to your questions goes back to what Akrasia said when I asked him how he thought an anarchist society could actually come about. He said something that made good common sense - its moment may come when environmental degradation reaches such a point that global capitalist society with all its production chains, political systems, consumption patterns and social relations as we know it come crashing down. Mountainyman, without the ability to transport goods across the world in such quantities, with such speed, your problem with anarchism won't be worth worrying about because it'll be quite simply impossible. There won't be any global trade.

What will happen is that political theories, which are themselves a product of their environments, will change because human behaviour will necessarily change.

As Akrasia said, since this looks like its not too far away - that the limits to growth will be reached - he's thinking about a realistic exit strategy.

In these conditions, local democracy may very well work. It certainly works for the Zapatistas in Mexico.

Attractive Nun

It's a widely believed myth that ideologies such as communism and anarchism are good ideas in theory, simply failures in practice. Anarchism is as bad an idea in theory as it is in practice.

All anarchists acknowledge that for a communal society to function in the long-term, there would have to be a major shift in the way people think. Human self-interest would have to disappear or else, obviously, people simply wouldn't bother contributing to society. An absense of authority would have to actually remove crime, or else society could simply descend into chaos. As utterly untested and blatantly unverifiable as most of this theory is, it is not necessarily implausible. The problem with anarchism lies elsewhere.

As somebody mentioned, anarchism is often referred to as libertarian-socialism (sidenote: anarcho-capitalism is not in any way an oxymoron, as somebody else called it) precisely because its entire focus is on liberty, freedom. It needn't be said that any political ideology that strives for freedom can't be all bad, but anarchism is seriously misguided in what it calls freedom. Nobody but the most extreme nihilist will argue for the absolute freedom whereby an individual would be free to harm others arbitrarily, so there must be a philosophical reason why one cannot do this.

Most thinkers refer to this reason as 'responsibility'. We all have individual rights (another method, for the record, by which we could dismiss anarchist theory - all rights can be shown to derive from the right to property, a right which anarchism denies) and a concurrent responsibility to respect the rights of others, which is fair enough. But anarchism argues that, in addition, individuals have a responsibility to work for society as a whole; that if you neglect your responsibilities in this regard, you will be subjected to the anarchists' idea of a punishment (i.e. social ostracization). Acceptance of this latter responsibility, however, necessarily implies a rejection of one's individual rights, since one cannot have the individual right to live as one pleases if one also has the equivalent of a legal responsibility to give his labour to the community. And individual responsibilities cannot exist without individual rights. Thus, anarchist theory is deeply flawed.

Of course, the above is essentially a non-issue, both because a collective society is utterly impractical and inevitably doomed to failure, and because - in any case - such a society would be a detestable place to live anyway. If given the choice between a capitalist society, where I can choose to live and work as I wish - subject to the risks, excitement and hope that define human life - and an anarchist society, where I am boxed into a community, stuck in the strifling mediocrity of absolute equality with no prospect of change, individual betterment or reward, I will choose the former every time.

Akrasia

Attractive Nun wrote:

It's a widely believed myth that ideologies such as communism and anarchism are good ideas in theory, simply failures in practice. Anarchism is as bad an idea in theory as it is in practice.

All anarchists acknowledge that for a communal society to function in the long-term, there would have to be a major shift in the way people think. Human self-interest would have to disappear or else, obviously, people simply wouldn't bother contributing to society.

That is not a logical necessity. It is in people's self interest to contribute to society. The reason we have society at all is because people realise that we're all better off than we are alone. The shift in thinking that is required is an acceptance that solidarity and cooperation leads to mutual benefits for all, and that individualist competitive and adversarial social interaction leads to a worse outcome for everyone. Anarchists acknowledge the causal relationship between poverty/disadvantage and a whole range of social issues. Individualist capitalists seem to think that these problems are just unavoidable.

An absense of authority would have to actually remove crime, or else society could simply descend into chaos. As utterly untested and blatantly unverifiable as most of this theory is, it is not necessarily implausible. The problem with anarchism lies elsewhere.

Anarchists try to tackle the causes of crime, and not just deal with the consequences when society breaks down.

As somebody mentioned, anarchism is often referred to as libertarian-socialism

yeah

(sidenote: anarcho-capitalism is not in any way an oxymoron, as somebody else called it)

yes it is. And I have already explained why. If you want to discuss those reasons, or why you think I'm wrong, feel free

precisely because its entire focus is on liberty, freedom. It needn't be said that any political ideology that strives for freedom can't be all bad, but anarchism is seriously misguided in what it calls freedom. Nobody but the most extreme nihilist will argue for the absolute freedom whereby an individual would be free to harm others arbitrarily, so there must be a philosophical reason why one cannot do this.

Anarchists don't believe that everyone is free to harm others. Anarchists have emphasis on 'freedom from' while 'liberals' emphasise 'freedom to'
Anarchists support freedom from oppression.
Anarchists do not support people's 'right' to oppress others, and that includes physical violence against innocent people.

Most thinkers refer to this reason as 'responsibility'. We all have individual rights (another method, for the record, by which we could dismiss anarchist theory - all rights can be shown to derive from the right to property, a right which anarchism denies)

How exactly does that work?
If all rights are derived from the right to own property, then do people who don't own any property not have any rights? Please explain your logic.

and a concurrent responsibility to respect the rights of others, which is fair enough. But anarchism argues that, in addition, individuals have a responsibility to work for society as a whole; that if you neglect your responsibilities in this regard, you will be subjected to the anarchists' idea of a punishment (i.e. social ostracization). Acceptance of this latter responsibility, however, necessarily implies a rejection of one's individual rights, since one cannot have the individual right to live as one pleases if one also has the equivalent of a legal responsibility to give his labour to the community. And individual responsibilities cannot exist without individual rights. Thus, anarchist theory is deeply flawed.

So you are saying that everyone should have loads of rights, but not have any responsibility? Do people have a right to live as they please in capitalist society? If I want to be a naturalist and never wear any clothes, I would end up in jail fairly fast. If I decided I didn't want to pay any tax, I'd be in jail.
Living in any society with other people is always going to restrict someone's absolute freedom to do whatever they like whenever they like. In an anarchist society, people at least have a say in deciding what the bouindaries are, and if they don't agree with them, they are free to leave. Anarchists do not seek hegemony, imperialist capitalism does.

Of course, the above is essentially a non-issue, both because a collective society is utterly impractical and inevitably doomed to failure

because the human species has always been individualist and capitalist and it's like that everywhere in the world.

and because - in any case - such a society would be a detestable place to live anyway. If given the choice between a capitalist society, where I can choose to live and work as I wish - subject to the risks, excitement and hope that define human life - and an anarchist society, where I am boxed into a community, stuck in the strifling mediocrity of absolute equality with no prospect of change, individual betterment or reward, I will choose the former every time.

Some of the most capitalist societies in the world are the most desperately poor. You are assuming that capitalism equals 21st century middle class Ireland, but in reality, we are in the richest 10% of the worlds population. Most of the worlds population is capitalist, and most of the worlds population is desperately poor, and getting poorer. And capitalism is destroying the planet as a viable habitat for most of the worlds intelligent life forms including Humans. Global temperatures could rise by 10 degrees celsius this century alone as a result of global capitalism, a rise more than enough to destroy 90% of global biodiversity

SkepticOne

Although I think life without the state is possible and I can see its attractions for some, for most people it would be harsh. It would not be a stable situation as powerful groups and individuals would quickly move to fill the vacuum.

Perhaps I'm wrong but I think most people (including anarchists) will agree that simply getting rid of the state would not in itself lead to any sort of socialism. Some sort of ideology is needed to keep peoples brute nature at bay in the absence of a state and its laws.

The question for anarchists is this: can this ideology be maintained in the face of armed groups who do not hold that ideology and for how long?

Anarchists may not believe in chaos and disorder and dog-eat-dog but this is what they will get. Present day anarchism seems to be motivated by a desire for socialism but disilusionment with what happened when people tried to put into practice Marx's theories. Unfortunately, the same forces that made Marxism unfeasible in practice also makes anarchism of the socialist variety unworkable.