What is Anarchism

Akrasia

ISAW wrote:

so you condone non violent insurgency? Would that include hacking into banks and pension funds and destroying data?

I would support targeted electronic attacks if they took measures to protect the livelyhoods of the poor.

This isnt reserved for anarchists.It is a valid form of civil disobiedience for many many more people than anarchists.

I never said it was reserved for anarchists.

Co operatives are NOT an anarchist perogative! Indeed many are set up in Ireland . They own land and property! some are housing co operatives. Many are in cities and not far from the system.
There are even co operative banks! Ireland is a world leader in them! They are called credit unions. We dont need anarchism to have them.

I know, and the fact is that they can work. I never said they were exclusively anarchist. The fact that they own property is absolutely necessary in a capitalist society, because if they did not, others would buy up their premises and prevent them from operating as workers cooperatives.

I wont go into this particular issue because i have some sympathies. Indeed I have published on how oil companies exploit locals before. But let us deal with the principle you raise of local wishes. That might just be NIMBYism. People dont want dumps mental hospitals prisons power plants etc. built beside them but they have to be built somewhere.

no they don't. there are alternative ways of dealing with all of those issues, especially now that we have advanced technology. But even where unpopular facilities are required, it is better that the process of locating them be done so in a democratic way and not at the decree of a minister who's primary concern is to site them as far away from his own vote base as possible

Iti isnt there to defend the claim it is ther to enforce the law as regards who has the valid claim. And if there was no enforcement arm then whats to stop the landlord or anyone else havng a gang of thugs turf you outon the road?

And who gets to decide what is a valid claim? How is the landlord getting a gang of thugs to throw you out on the street any different from him using state bailifs do do the same thing?

Great- back to fudalism. Some people on housing estates in Limerick will really love that.
And how will you stop people from imposing things?

You think feudalism was democratic? do you know what feudalism was? (it was one landlord who owned everything and all the peasants worked for him and his army)

This is not true in theory. A state could have no ownership of land but still have commodities and personal possession. It isnt pratical but it is possible.

Anarchists are opposed to private property held by individuals and corporations, not just the state. Capitalism is a system that hinges on private ownership of capital. any system without private capital is not capitalism.

So prices on every commodity will stay the same for ever and people will only ever use the same amount never over consume and they will be an infinite supply to replace the products used and the cost of disposal will never change?

No, distribution and production of goods and services will be decided by democratic consumer and producer counsils, not by individual demand and supply. This is how industry functioned in Anarchist Spain where they abandoned money altogether.

Why dont you back up what you claimed about genuine socialist countries?

You do realise I can't answer you in real time, this is a bulletin board, not live chat

Led by Ortega. I thought you didnt like leaders? Ortega was elected this week as president? So is Nicaragua a "genuinly socialist" country?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6117704.stm

I didn't say these were anarchist countries, I said they were socialist which means that the means of production is owned collectively by the workers and essential goods are distributed by need and not by means. There has never been an instance where a socialist leaning regime was voted out in favour or a right wing capitalist regime. You have yet to provide one.

Since 1524, the year Pedro de Alvarado of Spain conquered the Mayan inhabitants, there have been indigenous rebellions on an average of every 15 years.

that's colonialism for you.

there was nt an election until 1954 and Guatemala was controlled almost entirely by a handful of families and their economic interests.

There was an election in 1951, Guatemalas's first ever election where Jacobo Arbenz Guzman took power and started to implement socialist land reforms to take back the land that had been controlled by those few oligarchs that you mentioned. In 1954, your 'first election' was actually a CIA backed military coup instigated to protect the United Fruit Company's land assets from reverting back to the ownership of the indigenous people.

From 1960 to the signing of the peace accords in 1996 there were an estimated 55,000 victims of the war, including 30,000 murdered by the army in the 1980´s alone. Ninety percent of these victims were civilian leaders and 75% were indigenous. Amazingly, 80% of these causalities took place between 1980-83.

So in what way is this a "genuinely socialist" country?

All of that violence took place after the CIA coup when a right wing dictator was put in power.

I assume you referto the tudeh?
http://www.iranian.com/History/2001/November/Tudeh/index.html

hmmm. military wing ? friendly with soviet russia? leaders again? and factions infighting and disarry. Hardly a picture of genuine socialism is it?

I never said they were anarchist, I said they were socialist. The socialist aspect is the land reform and the collective ownership of the means of production.

Yu are only contradicting yourself here.
So you are saying now that your claim about "lots of genuine socialist countries" is really not "lots" but "none" and not "genuine" but "potential" since they never got off the ground. i.e. you claim a socialist country is a route to a true anarchist society and will certainly happen but anywhere the first step was tried it failed or never got off the ground because it was destroyed from outside or within.

I dont have problems with pipe dreams but clearly say they are that and not that they are historical or actual fact.

I never claimed a socialist country was a route to an anarchist country, I was responding to a question, 'what if people vote for capitalism' by saying that I can't think of a single situation where a socialist country voted for neoliberal capitalism. I said that Capitalism is not the preferred system for the vast majority of the people of the world, it is forced onto them with bombs and death squads. Capitalism is inherently violent and can not survive against the will of the people without exerting that force and the threat of that force

Sand

Dadakopf:

However, anarchists would likely counter that those 'checks' can often be instruments of power used by elites to marginalise the 'true will' of the majority

And equally those checks can be instruments of power to protect individuals from the racism, bigotry or hatreds of the majority. Either way, our representitives are accountable to the electorate.
Akrasia

Sand, in a representative democracy, there is nothing to stop a sufficiently charismatic oppressor from being elected, and there is nothing to stop him/her from calling a referendum that will change the constitution to allow him any power he wants.

In liberal democracy there is tremendous oversight by the courts on the laws passed by typically two chamber assemblies. Constitutions arent set in stone, but to change them typically requires far more than a simple majority. They have evolved with the specific goal of reducing populist movements - everything from Germanys 5% vote limit, to term limits preventing Clinton running again when he probably would have won easily enough.

Anarchism would simply have your basic assembly - no checks on a charismatic speaker swaying the mob to their point of view given its absolute focus on "direct democracy" and removing the states "oppression" which often translates as the measures that dampen populism.

That is why anarchists build their democratic institutions around the principle of limiting the ability of any one individual or elite group from taking power for themselves.

Yeah, the Romans tried that. Didnt really work out.

Yeah, they were introduced to protect the rich from the poor. You can't have peasants voting for land reform now can you?

So you think the Germans preventing a party taking its seats unless its taken more than 5% of the vote nationally is *bad* in that it protects the rich from the poor and the various neo-nazis would vote for land reform?

If someone was going around saying something like "kill all jews" lots of people probably would tell him to stop. Most people would probably just ignore him. If he persistently kept spouting fascist hate filled bile, people might start to get physical. Anarchists would have a democratic court system to deal with problems like this.

And what if it was East Germany and lots of people agreed with them? I guess Jewish people would just have to flee? 1933 all over again.

Wouldnt your anarchism devolve into tribalistic communities where "outsiders" would fear to tread, without a strong state committed to defending the rights of the individual even if the majority want to burn them at the stake?

Anarchists would have a constitution too

Would they? And who would decide the interpretation of the law? And enforce those rulings? The majority shoving the victims into the gas chamber again?

Anarchism has been conceptualised to deal with the problems that liberal democracy ignore.

Bollocks - it was conceptualised back around the turn of the century and hasnt moved forward since an iota. Still back in the the communist village mentality and the reversion of humanity to a tribalistic society.

Comfort blanket for people unable to keep up with modern society.

Anarchist principles have been tested and refined, and they have worked very well.

No they havent. The only anarchist societies I can think of run by *humans* would be the Somalian collapse of state power back in to early 90s.

Now by the anarchist vision of state power, oppression and violence Somalia without a state government should have become extremely peaceful and free - not state using violence (and all violence is from the state) and no oppression (again all oppression is from the state).

Unfortunately, Somalians are human beings with all the flaws that entails. Theyre not the sort of divine angelic hosts that would be required to make a anarchist society work.

It has a track record in Spain 1936 where it did very wellin extremely difficult conditions in both Urban and rural environments until franco's fascist army overcame them and took victory in the civil war.

Wow, 1 year in a war zone. Well I guess we can throw out cumulative centuries of liberal democratic experience.

it's a good thing we have geniuses like you to tell the rest of us idiots what to do.

I consider it a public service.

Seriously though, mobs of people tend to be pretty ****ing stupid and the political system needs to be designed to keep the stupidity to tolerable levels. I mean, youve got people bombing kids in shopping high streets over the colour of the flag over their heads. Completely stupid.

How is that a democracy? if you only let people choose between options that are carefully designed to not disturb the prevailing system?

Because people hold their representives accountable through elections. If parties are centrist and relatively conservitive its because most people are not foaming at the mouth radicals. This is the misfortune of foaming at the mouth radicals, not an indictment of the political system. Liberal democracy is supposed to evolve - not have blood in the street revolutions every 5 years for the convenience of arts students looking for the opportunity to give the fingers to the man.

look at mankinds most disgusting moments, and you will see authoritarianism at the helm.

Like the PSNI protecting school children going to school through an estate where they were pelted with stones, bombs and had abuse hurled at them?

The state and the bastardly oppression. Why couldnt they have let the local direct democracy advocates have a go at those kids?

That was satire.

Pretty damn good satire at that. Telling too.

I knew you'd try and make that comparison. If someone is an alcoholic, is it a process of re-education to help them to realise that they don't need drink to survive?

Speaking from experience, alcoholics will tell you whatever they think you want to hear and will attend any course under the sun and sit through hours though of talks. Its all a complete waste of time. Unless they want to stop drinking, they wont. You cant teach an alcoholic to not be an alcoholic and you cant teach a dependant personality to be a forthright advocate of their own views.

Its nonsense to teach someone to think for themselves - all youre doing, unconciously or otherwise is teaching them to think like you.

I recognise youre very committed to this particular version of anarchism but anarchism isnt exactly a new idea. Its got serious, serious problems. You can choose to recognise them or ignore them, but its all fairly theoretical as an anarchist society will never arise beyond the tiniest scale - possibly those ahmish communities qualify as anarchist society - so we might as well be discussing the merits of rule by our martian overlords.

DadaKopf

sand wrote:

Either way, our representitives are accountable to the electorate.

See, the anarchist analysis is that elections in representative democracies are transfers of power from the people to an elite. And an electoral system, within the boundaries of conservative comparative political theory, is simply a mechanism to transfer votes into seats. It does not necessarily follow, in actual practice, that politicians are accountable. This depends on many things - precise formula used to transfer votes to seats. More than that, extra-political processes interfere with the social contract.

I absolutely don't believe that anarchism is a solution, or panacea. But there are many interesting ideas that can/could be integrated with existing practise to punch through the power inequalities and abuses that limit people's freedom.

Participative Economics, rightly, identifies the ownership of the means of production as a key instrument in the present system. Fine if you agree with it, if you profit from it, but this dynamic - this accumulation strategy - is producing global poverty, destroying the environment and dissolving real choice by people. The anarchist solution - not too radical given corporatism in theory - is to collectivise ownership of the means of production while people can continue to own personal possessions.

Maybe it's worth discussing this - there are probably enough people here who know enough economics to have a decent discussion about this.

Akrasia

Sand wrote:

Akrasia
In liberal democracy there is tremendous oversight by the courts on the laws passed by typically two chamber assemblies. Constitutions arent set in stone, but to change them typically requires far more than a simple majority. They have evolved with the specific goal of reducing populist movements - everything from Germanys 5% vote limit, to term limits preventing Clinton running again when he probably would have won easily enough.

Anarchism would simply have your basic assembly - no checks on a charismatic speaker swaying the mob to their point of view given its absolute focus on "direct democracy" and removing the states "oppression" which often translates as the measures that dampen populism. [/quote]
No it wouldn't Anarchism has a complex network of democratic processes, not just a 'basic assembly' You are justifying Representative democracy by alluding to the detailed complexities of the system, and you are criticising anarchism by referring to an overly simplistic straw man argument.

Yeah, the Romans tried that. Didnt really work out.

Elaborate please.

So you think the Germans preventing a party taking its seats unless its taken more than 5% of the vote nationally is *bad*

I think representative democracy in general is *bad*

in that it protects the rich from the poor and the various neo-nazis would vote for land reform?

what does that have to do with anything that I have been talking about? You say the German 5% is good because it stops the Nazi party from taking any seats, but what about the Jews? The Jewish population in Germany is less than 5%, What if they wanted to elect people to represent jewish interests? they would be prohibited from having any representation too. But again, you could hardly have made a more irrelevant point. Anarchists do not have elected representatives, or political parties.

And what if it was East Germany and lots of people agreed with them? I guess Jewish people would just have to flee? 1933 all over again.

The holocaust would never have happened without the Nazi party and the German army. The german people would not have voted for the extermination of the Jews. The biggest cause of the holocaust was because individuals felt they had no choice but to 'follow orders' and because psychopaths were put in a position of supreme authority.

Wouldnt your anarchism devolve into tribalistic communities where "outsiders" would fear to tread, without a strong state committed to defending the rights of the individual even if the majority want to burn them at the stake?

Anarchism is not a system of Majority rule, no matter how often you keep asserting that.

Would they? And who would decide the interpretation of the law? And enforce those rulings? The majority shoving the victims into the gas chamber again?

A constitution is a set of guiding principles. It does not necessarily have to be a strict legalistic document like what we have here. If it was to be changed, it would require a democratic process.
Courts in an anarchist society would function based on the same principles as everything else. Self managed, democratic institutions. A model for this kind of process can be found in Aboriginal societies

Bollocks - it was conceptualised back around the turn of the century and hasnt moved forward since an iota. Still back in the the communist village mentality and the reversion of humanity to a tribalistic society.

When you say bollocks to something I say, it's probably a good idea to not follow up with some unadulterated Bollocks of your own. Most anarchists are not primativists, most anarchists are in favour of industrial activity. We just believe that decision making should be devolved to the lowest level and not imposed from the top of an artificial pyramid.

No they havent. The only anarchist societies I can think of run by *humans* would be the Somalian collapse of state power back in to early 90s. Now by the anarchist vision of state power, oppression and violence Somalia without a state government should have become extremely peaceful and free - not state using violence (and all violence is from the state) and no oppression (again all oppression is from the state).

Somalia was never an anarchist society. They never rejected private property, they were closer to an 'anarcho capitalist' society, there were no socialist element at all, and this is why nominal wealth increased, but so did violence poverty, child mortality and illiteracy.
All violence does not come from the state. When did I ever say that? Violence comes mainly from heirarchy and private property

Unfortunately, Somalians are human beings with all the flaws that entails. Theyre not the sort of divine angelic hosts that would be required to make a anarchist society work.

they never had anarchism to begin with.

Wow, 1 year in a war zone. Well I guess we can throw out cumulative centuries of liberal democratic experience.

How many cumulative centuries? The french revolution happened about 200 years ago. Before that we had absolute monarchy and feudalism.
Ireland has only had 'Liberal' democracy for about 80 years, and even so, the country we have now is unrecognisable compared with the Ireland of even 40 years ago.

Seriously though, mobs of people tend to be pretty ****ing stupid and the political system needs to be designed to keep the stupidity to tolerable levels. I mean, youve got people bombing kids in shopping high streets over the colour of the flag over their heads. Completely stupid.

What is the Dail only a mob of people? If Mobs of people are stupid, then why do we entrust all of the important decisions affecting our own lives to power hungry mobs for 5 years at a time? Or you don't consider a the Dail to be a mob? well if the Dail isn't a Mob, then neither is an anarchist syndicate or federation

Because people hold their representives accountable through elections. If parties are centrist and relatively conservitive its because most people are not foaming at the mouth radicals. This is the misfortune of foaming at the mouth radicals, not an indictment of the political system. Liberal democracy is supposed to evolve - not have blood in the street revolutions every 5 years for the convenience of arts students looking for the opportunity to give the fingers to the man.

And fascist dictatorships intend their reign to last for a thousand years.

ISAW

Akrasia wrote:

Anarchism has a complex network of democratic processes, not just a 'basic assembly'

But no legislation? And if they have legislation then how will binding legislation be enforced?

I think representative democracy in general is *bad*
...Anarchists do not have elected representatives, or political parties.

Neither does the Irish or US constitution (parties that is)! c.f. federalist 10 thread. Factions naturally occur. Even in an anarchist system!

The holocaust would never have happened without the Nazi party and the German army.

But this is a circular argument! I assume you mean the "german nazi army killing the jews" holocaust? Other holocausts HAVE happened. If you define the holocaust as a group killing off another group then of course one cant have one without the first group doing the killing!
Now if the Germans didnt have an Army the Russians would have come in and pogromed the Germans! You may then claim in a perfect anarchist society the Russians wouldnt have an army either. But nor would they in a perfect Christain society or a perfect Monarchy or a perfect world democracy. Perfection isnt the sole perogative or endpoint reserved for Anarchism.

The german people would not have voted for the extermination of the Jews.

But they did do as much. The Nurnberg laws; the Pass laws in South Africa; The Penal Laws in Ireland; slave laws in the Americas; in history people have been happy to vote for or consent to oppression.

The biggest cause of the holocaust was because individuals felt they had no choice but to 'follow orders' and because psychopaths were put in a position of supreme authority.

this is an apologists approach.It does not necessarily stand up to scrutiny. It isnt much better than "we didnt know it was happening" support it please. And they DID know. they knew aboiut the Nurnberg laws but it kept most Germans in jobs.

Anarchism is not a system of Majority rule, no matter how often you keep asserting that.

But then it has to have mechanisms to prevent a minority from being oppressed. What are these mechanisms?

A constitution is a set of guiding principles. It does not necessarily have to be a strict legalistic document like what we have here. If it was to be changed, it would require a democratic process.
Courts in an anarchist society would function based on the same principles as everything else. Self managed, democratic institutions. A model for this kind of process can be found in Aboriginal societies

So you wouldnt have a body of laws? Do you know what a "kangaroo court" is?

. We just believe that decision making should be devolved to the lowest level and not imposed from the top of an artificial pyramid.

No wonder anarchists dont have armies. Imagine an army run on this idea? Lets attack? No lets have a meeting first. Okay .wait they are attacking us. what will we do? Lets have a meeting to discuss it.

I also wonder what would happen when a million people are camped out in an epidemic and the anarchist trucks arrive with enough food blanket and medicine for all. "Okay people we want you to decide for yourselves. there is enough food and medicine for all. Decide what you want to do with it. We are not going to organise you or tell you what to do as it is against our principles to make top down decisions.

Even something as simple as a cinema ro concert ticket queue would be entertaining to watch when the Arnarchist principle of "no rules no leaders" was applied.

Somalia was never an anarchist society.

I am still waitin gfor the example of one that was. Or even your so called transition step the "genuine socialist" society. where is or was there one?

All violence does not come from the state. When did I ever say that? Violence comes mainly from heirarchy and private property

So if you do away with hierarchies and private property you will do away with violence? I think you would only result in making everyone equally poor.

How many cumulative centuries? The french revolution happened about 200 years ago. Before that we had absolute monarchy and feudalism.

Nope! Magna carta preceeded that by eight centuries. Monarchism was not absolute. And that is only in europe.

Ireland has only had 'Liberal' democracy for about 80 years, and even so, the country we have now is unrecognisable compared with the Ireland of even 40 years ago.

But this does not stand up either because if you claim the change only came recently because of liberalism the Ireland of 1940 was as much changed from that of 1900 and that in turn of 1850.

What is the Dail only a mob of people?

Wrong! It is in factions! A mob is an unorganised group with a single short term superficial motivation and possible elements who no respect for law. Politicians however are bound by law.

If Mobs of people are stupid, then why do we entrust all of the important decisions affecting our own lives to power hungry mobs for 5 years at a time?

We dont! The Civil service has more power. The courts also mediate.

Or you don't consider a the Dail to be a mob? well if the Dail isn't a Mob, then neither is an anarchist syndicate or federation

But in practice while they are allowed to be so Parliaments are not loose federations. They naturally divide into factions.

And fascist dictatorships intend their reign to last for a thousand years.

Actually that was a communist dictator - Mao.

Akrasia

ISAW wrote:

But no legislation? And if they have legislation then how will binding legislation be enforced?

Most laws in any statute book are drawn up to protect property rights and enforce contracts. The principles of natural justice cover the important aspects of human interaction and most humans are equipped to make judgements on these for themselves. In matters of dispute, anarchists would set up courts made up of members of the community would who act as a jury. The fundamental principle of anarchist 'law' would 'non coersion' individuals are free to act in any way they choose as long as it does not violate the rights of other individuals.

Neither does the Irish or US constitution (parties that is)! c.f. federalist 10 thread. Factions naturally occur. Even in an anarchist system!

There would be organised unions and people would probably gravitate towards those with whom they have the most in common in any particular issue, but if they organise themselves according to the principles of anarchism, these groups would be non hierarchical and democratic, unlike current political parties which are mini dictatorships

But this is a circular argument! I assume you mean the "german nazi army killing the jews" holocaust? Other holocausts HAVE happened. If you define the holocaust as a group killing off another group then of course one cant have one without the first group doing the killing!
Now if the Germans didnt have an Army the Russians would have come in and pogromed the Germans! You may then claim in a perfect anarchist society the Russians wouldnt have an army either. But nor would they in a perfect Christain society or a perfect Monarchy or a perfect world democracy. Perfection isnt the sole perogative or endpoint reserved for Anarchism.

I am saying that a non authoritarian anarchist society would not be inclined towards war or conquest, Authoritarianism is the cause of war, without the authoritarian structures inherent in the Nazi party at the time of the holocaust, the 'final solution' would not have been possible, certainly not on the scale that it happened, nor would the invasion of Poland. World War 1 would certainly not have happened if it wasn't for lunatic power hungry 'leaders' forcing their people to fight their wars. The ordinary people do not want war, they do not want violence or conquest, that is why governments have to put so much effort into convincing their populations that the war is just and necessary. Howard Zinn spoke about this at great length on many occasions.

But they did do as much. The Nurnberg laws; the Pass laws in South Africa; The Penal Laws in Ireland; slave laws in the Americas; in history people have been happy to vote for or consent to oppression.

People do not vote for laws, they choose representatives from a closed ballot and on their manifesto for election and those manifestos are usually fraudulent documents. Oh, and the examples you mentioned of the slave laws and the Apartheit laws in South Africa were the minority forcing their will on the majority and preventing people from having any say in their own destiny. That is the exact opposite of anarchism.

this is an apologists approach.It does not necessarily stand up to scrutiny. It isnt much better than "we didnt know it was happening" support it please. And they DID know. they knew aboiut the Nurnberg laws but it kept most Germans in jobs.

The philosopher Hannah Arendt wrote a book "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil" which describes how evil is only possible when the individuals reject their individual responsibility to speak out against evil. The reason for this is that people have been trained to not question authority and that they should follow 'proper procedure'. 'I'm just doing my job' would not be a feature of an anarchist society. In anarchism, people are responsible for their actions because they have a role in making the decisions that decides their own actions. They can't just blame the boss because there are no bosses. http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Cont/ContAssy.htm

But then it has to have mechanisms to prevent a minority from being oppressed. What are these mechanisms?

the mechanism is to give minorities a voice through which they can speak out and defend themselves. In the current system, the majority is constantly being oppressed by the minority because the minority control access to mass media, and have done so for hundreds of years.

So you wouldnt have a body of laws? Do you know what a "kangaroo court" is?

yes, but just because a court system has complex structures does not make it fair. The law is currently applied through the courts overwhelmingly to protect the interests of the wealthy because all of the legal structures are carefully designed to achieve this outcome.

No wonder anarchists dont have armies. Imagine an army run on this idea? Lets attack? No lets have a meeting first. Okay .wait they are attacking us. what will we do? Lets have a meeting to discuss it.

Anarchists have been involved in wars, they had militias in the spanish civil war that fought against Franco's better equipped, better trained and authoritarian organised army and did very well. The Spanish Civil war was never going to go any other way though, The Fascists had the backing of Germany, Britain, France, Portugal... Homage to Catalonia by Orwell describes how they operated (it's also an excellent read)

I also wonder what would happen when a million people are camped out in an epidemic and the anarchist trucks arrive with enough food blanket and medicine for all. "Okay people we want you to decide for yourselves. there is enough food and medicine for all. Decide what you want to do with it. We are not going to organise you or tell you what to do as it is against our principles to make top down decisions.

In new Orleans, there is a group called 'The Common Ground Collective' which organises disaster relief based on anarchist principles, and they are completing almost as many home repairs as FEMA are with a tiny tiny fraction of the resources of this state body.And even better than that, they are doing so in a way that helps to strengthen the community and not just hand out charity.
http://www.commongroundrelief.org/

Even something as simple as a cinema ro concert ticket queue would be entertaining to watch when the Arnarchist principle of "no rules no leaders" was applied.

Anarchists do not oppose leaders, we oppose rulers. We don't oppose rules, we oppose authoritarianism.

So if you do away with hierarchies and private property you will do away with violence? I think you would only result in making everyone equally poor.

or equally rich. Why do you think some people should be allowed to have billions of dollars, when the people who actually do the work to earn them that money get less than a dollar a day?

Wrong! It is in factions! A mob is an unorganised group with a single short term superficial motivation and possible elements who no respect for law. Politicians however are bound by law.

Then anarchist society does not fit the description of a mob either, so why bring it up? Straw men arguments won't work here

Von

metrovelvet wrote:

Really? Well what if he was a charismatic leader/bully of a community that went around to other members of that community and said "kill a jew or die" with a gun to said person's head. How would your court system deal with that? What if your court system was run by people who were servicing this jew killer? What if thats what the community wanted, to kill all jews?

Anarchists in the russian civil war shot pogromists and looters in the back of the head.

DadaKopf

Hey Von, haven't seen nor heard from you in a while. Hows's it going? Berlin, eh? Funtown.

ISAW

Akrasia wrote:

Most laws in any statute book are drawn up to protect property rights and enforce contracts.

so what? The finance act may reach from the floor to the ceiling but that does not mean a one page law saying "Ireland does not have the death penalty" is not valid. the volume of civil legislation does not make any difference as to human rignts.

The principles of natural justice cover the important aspects of human interaction and most humans are equipped to make judgements on these for themselves. In matters of dispute, anarchists would set up courts made up of members of the community would who act as a jury. The fundamental principle of anarchist 'law' would 'non coersion' individuals are free to act in any way they choose as long as it does not violate the rights of other individuals.

But this is no different from current courts save they atre temporary. also courts depend on decisions made by others. It is called "case law". are you going to re invent the wheel and ignore all other courts? And if you do are you suggesting anarchist courts should have no knowledge of prior anarchist courts?

There would be organised unions and people would probably gravitate towards those with whom they have the most in common in any particular issue, but if they organise themselves according to the principles of anarchism, these groups would be non hierarchical and democratic, unlike current political parties which are mini dictatorships

Pish! you are just arguing against someone forcing their opinion. If you have the chance to enforce anarchism would you do it against your own principles? well then how do you suppose it will ever come about?

and you havent shown how pparties are dictatorships.

I am saying ... The ordinary people do not want war, they do not want violence or conquest, that is why governments have to put so much effort into convincing their populations that the war is just and necessary. Howard Zinn spoke about this at great length on many occasions.

But the people can change the government. Look at the US. The recent elections were (for the first time) about foreign affairs.

People do not vote for laws, they choose representatives from a closed ballot and on their manifesto for election and those manifestos are usually fraudulent documents.

Actually they DO vote for constitutional changes in Ireland! It is the people (millions of then) voting to change the primary law. As guaranteed by the constution which says the people are the primary source of law.

Oh, and the examples you mentioned of the slave laws and the Apartheit laws in South Africa were the minority forcing their will on the majority and preventing people from having any say in their own destiny.

one can cite ancient Rome or Greece. Indeed even in the US at some time slaves were in the minority. so it was also a majority forcing their will on a minority and dismissing human rights.

The philosopher Hannah Arendt wrote a book "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil" which describes how evil is only possible when the individuals reject their individual responsibility to speak out against evil. The reason for this is that people have been trained to not question authority and that they should follow 'proper procedure'. 'I'm just doing my job' would not be a feature of an anarchist society. In anarchism, people are responsible for their actions because they have a role in making the decisions that decides their own actions. They can't just blame the boss because there are no bosses. http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Cont/ContAssy.htm

But this is true without anarchism! One cant say "i was following orders" and do wrong!

the mechanism is to give minorities a voice through which they can speak out and defend themselves. In the current system, the majority is constantly being oppressed by the minority because the minority control access to mass media, and have done so for hundreds of years.

this seems self contradictory. You are in favour of "giving minorities a voice" but you are against minorities having a voice which has any consequence? We can know what everyone thinks but not be bound to act on that??Go figure??? In fact we have developed laws based on what individuals thought about slavery etc. and tyhe laws state that it is binding (whether people have an opinion on it or not) that slavery is not allowed, or murder or insider trading etc.

yes, but just because a court system has complex structures does not make it fair. The law is currently applied through the courts overwhelmingly to protect the interests of the wealthy because all of the legal structures are carefully designed to achieve this outcome.

this is a conspiracy theory. while the system may mithgate in favour of richer people (and I dont mean the courts system I mean society) the overarching law is "ALL PEOPLE" are equal under the law.

Anarchists have been involved in wars, they had militias in the spanish civil war that fought against Franco's better equipped, better trained and authoritarian organised army and did very well.

did they? How many victories in the War did the fifth Brigade have? Who won that war by the way? Do you think if the Germans all sat down for a conference every time a "lightning strike" was required that Blitsscrige would have worked?

The Spanish Civil war was never going to go any other way though, The Fascists had the backing of Germany, Britain, France, Portugal... Homage to Catalonia by Orwell describes how they operated (it's also an excellent read)

By backing I suppose you include logistical support or money tanks airplanes etc. delivered in an ORGANISED manner and not according to anarchist principles.

Then we have the disorganised Satraps with an army of about a million who
came up against eh ORGAINSED and militarily line of command army of about 40,000 of Alexander at the Iussus?? was it?

Anyway the Macedonian army which was outnumbered over ten to one hammered the Persians.

In new Orleans, there is a group called 'The Common Ground Collective' which organises disaster relief based on anarchist principles, and they are completing almost as many home repairs as FEMA are with a tiny tiny fraction of the resources of this state body.And even better than that, they are doing so in a way that helps to strengthen the community and not just hand out charity.
http://www.commongroundrelief.org/

Good for them. i am not surprised local groups do better than the wasteful federal government. I did not propose the Us administration as a model to aspire to.

Anarchists do not oppose leaders, we oppose rulers. We don't oppose rules, we oppose authoritarianism.

Well if that is the case so do democrats! If someone abuses their position they can be turfed out!

or equally rich. Why do you think some people should be allowed to have billions of dollars, when the people who actually do the work to earn them that money get less than a dollar a day?

Why? well what is the alternative? to each the same? Let us assume you have the power to do that ( excusing anarchist principles which would not allow you to have such authority). Say you give everyone the same amount of money and the consequent collapse of all sorts of financial systems eventually settles down. POn day one all people have the same. By day two some people will have more and some less. come back in a hundred years time and some people will be billionares and some be on a dollar a day.

This is where I come into conflict with the US. In the Us there is vast poverty. I have no idea if it is a "dollar a day" I dont think anyone could live on 360 dollars a year. Even a dog couldnt! Aside- outside the US a dollar a day is sufficient to live on because prices are lower e.g. Vunezuala petrol is 20 cents a gallon. But the US is the richest country in the world and a welfare state should support the poorest at least to the level where they can survive. this means adaquate food health care and housing. If one has to get the rich to pay for that then that is what the government should do. what has George Bush done? Rather than a "Chicken in every pot" he gave tax breaks to the super rich!

Then anarchist society does not fit the description of a mob either, so why bring it up? Straw men arguments won't work here

actually I didnt! YOU brought up "mob rule" of the Irish Parliament didnt you?

ISAW

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Akrasia, it's clear that you are passionate about this form of 'goverment' (is this the correct word?), but how would people who are opposed to such a way of life be treated? You only have to do a count of the responces in this thread to get an idea that there would be a large majority who would be against this form of life.

Ironically if people had a chance to vote for anarchism they wouldnt vote for it.
If people had anarchim imposed and then had the vote to remove it they would vote to remove it.

Akrasia claims that in a democracy a charismatic dictator getting them to vote to get rid of the constitution is just as likely as in an anarchist system. But that isnt a reason to CHANGE from democracy to anarchism is it? By the way I dont accept the premise anyway. A dictator could take over an anarchist society easier than a current democracy bt it is an seperate argument.

DadaKopf

ISAW wrote:

But this is true without anarchism! One cant say "i was following orders" and do wrong!

This doesn't negate Akrasia's point. His point was that an anarchist form of governance would change the way power is distributed in a society. Because there is no singular authority figure, power could not be deferred to any one person. While in theory, a vote by consensus could decide to transfer power, the argument is that it would be unlikely because of the perceived benefits of being free from the control of one person (or institution). But everything is relative.

Anyway the Macedonian army which was outnumbered over ten to one hammered the Persians.

This is the ultimate problem of democracy. In smaller, simpler societies, anarchism can work very well. Communication lines are short and profuse. Trust and cooperation among society members are good. Decision-making structures can be efficient and right decisions can be made. But when these groups expand, problems of decision-making emerge - namely: the problem of efficiency. How efficient is a community at making decisions and effecting change in relation to neighbouring (competitor) communities?

In response, institutions are formed. Institutions aren't compatible with anarchism, but only particular forms are permitted.

This is fine, except for the fact that, for various reasons, people do not share equal power and, incrementally, it is very easy for unequal forms of rule to emerge. Anarchism is good at exposing visible power, but how good is it at exposing and dismantling invisible power.

Ultimately, human beings are overwhelmed by the power of nature and their mortality. Ultimately, as much as human beings are motivated by love, human beings are also motivated by vulnerability and fear.

In societies, this can be manifested in deference of power to authority figures, or the agglomeration of power, incrementally by individuals, families, factions, organisations, regimes, states. Ultimately, they can do this because they find means to be more efficient than others. People feel protected when they know an efficient institution is protecting them. People will feel that this makes sense, so oppressive power structures (under anarchism) can still emerge under the guise of a strategy of open, mutual protection.

Anarchism is very laudable, but it's true that it exposes people, makes them feel vulnerable in some ways. Ways which prey on human beings' deepest fears. It's a shame, because its central motivating factor - love - gets overshadowed.

Akrasia

ISAW wrote:

so what? The finance act may reach from the floor to the ceiling but that does not mean a one page law saying "Ireland does not have the death penalty" is not valid. the volume of civil legislation does not make any difference as to human rignts.


But this is no different from current courts save they atre temporary. also courts depend on decisions made by others. It is called "case law". are you going to re invent the wheel and ignore all other courts? And if you do are you suggesting anarchist courts should have no knowledge of prior anarchist courts?

You have missed my point. I am arguing that the technical nature of state laws is unnecessary and that the reason we currently require professional courts and professional lawyers, is because we have made the system unnecessarily complex. The most important laws are based on natural justice which most people have their own conception of, all the other laws are just the artificial rules of capitalism and representative democracy. Anarchist courts would follow the basic principles of natural justice. each person has a right to represent themselves or choose someone else to represent them, nobody should be the judge in their own case, people would be innocent until proven guilty as decided by a jury of their peers. That is a good system.

Pish! you are just arguing against someone forcing their opinion. If you have the chance to enforce anarchism would you do it against your own principles? well then how do you suppose it will ever come about?

Anarchists have made the conscious decision to organise under anarchist principles. Anarchists do not believe in a vanguard revolution, it has to be participatory.
There are many ways it could happen. Factory closures followed by workers occupying the premisis and organising collective ownership is one way anarchist thought is seeded. You could say that the anarchists are 'forcing anarchism' onto the owners of that closed factory, I would reply, 'Screw them'

and you havent shown how pparties are dictatorships.

If you do or say something against the orders of your party leader, he can throw you out

But the people can change the government. Look at the US. The recent elections were (for the first time) about foreign affairs.

Good point, the parliament was changed. the people voted overwhelmingly against the U.S. foreign policy. A majority of Americans want the U.S. army to withdraw from Iraq. Will that happen? Will it ****.

Actually they DO vote for constitutional changes in Ireland! It is the people (millions of then) voting to change the primary law. As guaranteed by the constution which says the people are the primary source of law.

In Ireland at least, there is no mechanism for the people to call a referendum. it is entirely at the whim of the government, and so is the format of the question.
Other countries allow petitions to call binding plebicides. that is a positive step towards a more healthy democracy.

one can cite ancient Rome or Greece. Indeed even in the US at some time slaves were in the minority. so it was also a majority forcing their will on a minority and dismissing human rights.

Only the wealthy owned slaves. I very much doubt if there was a fair and fully inclusive democratic vote on slave ownership, if the poor and the slaves would have voted for slave ownership. One can't quote ancient Rome, because in roman democracy, only the wealthy had a vote.

But this is true without anarchism! One cant say "i was following orders" and do wrong!

Yes you can. people do it every second of every day. one can argue that the entire corporate structure is designed to remove personal responsibility off the individual for the evils carried out by the institution. Corporations are Legally bound to put the shareholders financial interests above every other concern, including human rights and environmental protection.

this seems self contradictory. You are in favour of "giving minorities a voice" but you are against minorities having a voice which has any consequence? We can know what everyone thinks but not be bound to act on that??Go figure??? In fact we have developed laws based on what individuals thought about slavery etc. and tyhe laws state that it is binding (whether people have an opinion on it or not) that slavery is not allowed, or murder or insider trading etc.

the laws in an anarchist society are simple, you can do anything you like as long as it doesn't harm or exploit others. Anarchists are completely against coercion, you can not coerce me, and I have the right to defend myself against coercion by others. In other words, We would enshrine the words of Jesus as a fundamental basis for our society "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". That is the basis for natural justice. Minorities have the right to defend themselves against attempts to oppress them.

this is a conspiracy theory. while the system may mithgate in favour of richer people (and I dont mean the courts system I mean society) the overarching law is "ALL PEOPLE" are equal under the law.

all people are equal under the law in theory, but the laws are written to allow the wealthy to commit unspeakable acts without punishment. Obvious example is happening in Mayo at the moment. If I want to build an extension onto my house, I have to get planning permission. If I want to build a dangerous pipeline through 9 kilometres of other people's land, I just have to have a chat with a politician or two who will change the law so that pipelines don't need planning permission, and then enforce compulsary purchase orders to force local people to sell their land to the corporation.
If I beat you over the head with a stick because you are blocking my driveway with your car, I am charged with assault. If a Garda beats someone over the head for blocking a Shell truck, he's 'enforcing the law'

did they? How many victories in the War did the fifth Brigade have? Who won that war by the way? Do you think if the Germans all sat down for a conference every time a "lightning strike" was required that Blitsscrige would have worked?

anarchist militia held the lines in spain for months against the better equipped authoritarian structured fascist army. The fascists won because they had more resources and support from external actors, not because their army was organised better. Anarchist tactics have consistantly beaten police tactics over and over again. I was at the G8 in scotland last year. The police had massive resources, they had helicopters, the army, tanks, sharpshooters, anarchists just had their legs and wits and anarchists managed to breach all of the security and get past all of their fences. If it was a war, anarchist militia would use geurilla tactics to the same effect.

Good for them. i am not surprised local groups do better than the wasteful federal government. I did not propose the Us administration as a model to aspire to.

so do you acknowledge that cooperative organising and mutual aid can be far more efficient than wasteful authoritarian structures?

Well if that is the case so do democrats! If someone abuses their position they can be turfed out!

to be replaced by another ruler

Why? well what is the alternative? to each the same?

Abolish private property, organise in a non hierarchical way.

Let us assume you have the power to do that ( excusing anarchist principles which would not allow you to have such authority). Say you give everyone the same amount of money and the consequent collapse of all sorts of financial systems eventually settles down. POn day one all people have the same. By day two some people will have more and some less. come back in a hundred years time and some people will be billionares and some be on a dollar a day.

not if private property is abolished. Unless you can control capital, you can not accumulate vast wealth.

This is where I come into conflict with the US. In the Us there is vast poverty. I have no idea if it is a "dollar a day" I dont think anyone could live on 360 dollars a year. Even a dog couldnt! Aside- outside the US a dollar a day is sufficient to live on because prices are lower e.g. Vunezuala petrol is 20 cents a gallon. But the US is the richest country in the world and a welfare state should support the poorest at least to the level where they can survive. this means adaquate food health care and housing. If one has to get the rich to pay for that then that is what the government should do. what has George Bush done? Rather than a "Chicken in every pot" he gave tax breaks to the super rich!

that's capitalism. Only the rich hold power, and they only care about their own interests

actually I didnt! YOU brought up "mob rule" of the Irish Parliament didnt you?

No, you implied that anarchism would be 'mob rule'. I said anarchism is just as much mob rule as a parliamentary system is. the term does not apply to either.

Akrasia

ISAW wrote:

Ironically if people had a chance to vote for anarchism they wouldnt vote for it.
If people had anarchim imposed and then had the vote to remove it they would vote to remove it.

That's very presumptuous of you.
If a vote was held today, it would not be a fair reflection as the vast majority of people are uninformed on what anarchism actually is, and many people have been poisoned against it through the constant negative associations in the media whenever there is violence or disorder.

DadaKopf

Akrasia wrote:

That's very presumptuous of you.
If a vote was held today, it would not be a fair reflection as the vast majority of people are uninformed on what anarchism actually is, and many people have been poisoned against it through the constant negative associations in the media whenever there is violence or disorder.

Which may be, in part, due to bad strategy.

I mean, take Reclaim the Streets. An example of radical environmentalism on anarchist lines. A brilliantly simple and at once complex form of political and social transformation through collective willpower. A glimpse of a possible world.

I honestly think everyone would love RTS to happen every year.

The problem is that those who organise it and many who end up participating in it send out these signals which set up a them-and-us scenario which turns potential participants away.

While the media has an important role in framing how people see social struggles, those doing the struggling should think about the environment they're operating so that they can popularise their vision of the world.

Akrasia

DadaKopf wrote:

Which may be, in part, due to bad strategy.

I mean, take Reclaim the Streets. An example of radical environmentalism on anarchist lines. A brilliantly simple and at once complex form of political and social transformation through collective willpower. A glimpse of a possible world.

I honestly think everyone would love RTS to happen every year.

The problem is that those who organise it and many who end up participating in it send out these signals which set up a them-and-us scenario which turns potential participants away.

While the media has an important role in framing how people see social struggles, those doing the struggling should think about the environment they're operating so that they can popularise their vision of the world.

Anarchists have a huge mountain to climb to educate people about what they believe in. With reclaim the streets, the fact that it's an illegal street party means that it has to be organised in an underground fashion or else the police will just stop it before it happens, if it was any other way, it wouldn't be reclaim the streets, it would be corporate sponsored with security staff and rules and insurance and all that ****e.

I think the best way anarchists can spread their ideology is through engaging with people on their own terms. There are hundreds of people in Mayo now who view anarchists in a very positive light because they have gotten used to the camp they have in belanaboy and realise that we're not all scary nihilists who are only interested in destruction and violence.
We can't rely on the mainstream media, it is in their interest that anarchism remains on the fringe, and the media is a very bad at educating people on complex issues as they have a tendency to over simplify everything.

Even in the world of cinema, films like 'V for Vandetta' which is based on a graphic novel promoting Anarchism, specifically avoids referring to V as an anarchist. That was a conscious decision made by film executives probably because they don't want to give anarchism any positive exposure.

oscarBravo

DadaKopf wrote:

I honestly think everyone would love RTS to happen every year.

I wouldn't.

DadaKopf

You wouldn't relish the opportunity to party in the streets? I don't believe you.

Anarchists have a huge mountain to climb to educate people about what they believe in. With reclaim the streets, the fact that it's an illegal street party means that it has to be organised in an underground fashion or else the police will just stop it before it happens, if it was any other way, it wouldn't be reclaim the streets, it would be corporate sponsored with security staff and rules and insurance and all that ****e.

I know RTS is civil disobedience, and many people are just plain scared of going beyond norms. But so long as RTS remains an anti-consumerist, non-hierarchical collective transformation of urban space - not a protest but more than a party - its popularity ought to spread.

This discussion is going nowhere. As a thought experiment, maybe it's a good idea to discuss anarchism by example? What is RTS, how can it be popularised, how can it be preserved as it expands?

Akrasia

DadaKopf wrote:

You wouldn't relish the opportunity to party in the streets? I don't believe you.


I know RTS is civil disobedience, and many people are just plain scared of going beyond norms. But so long as RTS remains an anti-consumerist, non-hierarchical collective transformation of urban space - not a protest but more than a party - its popularity ought to spread.

This discussion is going nowhere. As a thought experiment, maybe it's a good idea to discuss anarchism by example? What is RTS, how can it be popularised, how can it be preserved as it expands?

well, RTS is excellent fun for the people who are prepared to get involved, but there is no way it's an idea that would be universally applauded, not in the current climate at least.
I can Imagine Joe Duffy's phone line clogging up with complaints from people claiming to have been imprisoned in their home for the hour or two the party was outside their house, or giving out about the drinking on the streets, or parents blaming the organisers because a kid twists his/her ankle playing football on parnell street...

RTS works in a big city like dublin because the risk is lower. I tried to get one going in Ennis where I'm from, but nobody was willing to help me because they knew that if they were branded as 'trouble makers' by the local police, that their lives would become a living hell. There are also other costs, the sound system is often confiscated, individuals are often arrested usually because they stray from the group and are done for stupid things like drinking on a public street or other 'public order offences'.

It is a brilliant idea and it works really well, but it takes a lot of organising a dedicated group of people and it's only feasable in big cities at the moment.

mountainyman

DadaKopf wrote:

You wouldn't relish the opportunity to party in the streets? I don't believe you.

I wouldn't relish the opportunity to party in the streets with a bunch of prolier than thou rich kids. I've been to a couple of RTSs and they were 'objectively' crap. Ugly children dancing in the streets are still ugly children dancing to bad music.
Look at what happened at the benefit for Terence Wheelock a couple of weeks ago, his brother was thrown out because 'his face didn't fit'.
Admit that all of this stuff is just a way for the rich to assert their class status. 'I am so rich that I don't need to worry about money'.

If you want to convince people of your ideas then drop the word 'Anarchy' it has a meaning already.

MM

DadaKopf

mountainyman wrote:

I wouldn't relish the opportunity to party in the streets with a bunch of prolier than thou rich kids. I've been to a couple of RTSs and they were 'objectively' crap. Ugly children dancing in the streets are still ugly children dancing to bad music.
Look at what happened at the benefit for Terence Wheelock a couple of weeks ago, his brother was thrown out because 'his face didn't fit'.
Admit that all of this stuff is just a way for the rich to assert their class status. 'I am so rich that I don't need to worry about money'.

If you want to convince people of your ideas then drop the word 'Anarchy' it has a meaning already.

MM

"GRRRRR, I'm so angry!!! GRRRRR!!! Children are stupid!!! GRRRRR!!! Why don't people just grow up like me!!! GRRRR!!! Life is pain!!! GRRRRR!!! I have no willy!!! GRRRRR!!!"

Hehehe, you crack me up.

I don't fancy the music myself, but think RTS is a good idea. My point is: it doesn't have to be an 'anarchist' thing, just a social thing. Which is why it'd be worth getting legitimised. The most successful one ever had Green and Labour politicians at it.

Now, if Akrasia here wants to keep it elitist, that's his decision, but if you ask me that's just bollocks.

oscarBravo

DadaKopf wrote:

You wouldn't relish the opportunity to party in the streets? I don't believe you.

I have no issue with partying in the streets. I party in the streets at least once a year. I don't consider it "reclaiming" the streets, and I do it in accordance with the rules set out by the relevant authorities. Any inconvenience caused by such partying is kept to a minimum by careful organisation, advance planning, and full co-operation with the police.

DadaKopf

oscarBravo wrote:

I have no issue with partying in the streets. I party in the streets at least once a year. I don't consider it "reclaiming" the streets, and I do it in accordance with the rules set out by the relevant authorities. Any inconvenience caused by such partying is kept to a minimum by careful organisation, advance planning, and full co-operation with the police.

Hey, that sounds like reclaim the streets! (Mostly.)

oscarBravo

DadaKopf wrote:

Hey, that sounds like reclaim the streets! (Mostly.)

Sure - apart from the "in accordance with the rules set out by the relevant authorities" and "full co-operation with the police" bits.

Von

DadaKopf wrote:

Hey Von, haven't seen nor heard from you in a while. Hows's it going? Berlin, eh? Funtown.

Ello, I left Berlin 3 or 4 months ago. In Poland now. But going back to Berlin in spring.

Anyway, have you ever read any stuff about the Makhnovists in the russian civil war? Very interesting but just about all the material focuses on the military side of things.

FionnMatthew

DadaKopf wrote:

As a thought experiment, maybe it's a good idea to discuss anarchism by example?

Science fiction can often be seen as thought experiment in action.

Iain M Banks' 'Culture' series of novels depicts a highly advanced culture that seems to operate along anarchistic principles. I think, implicitly, he links anarchism to post-scarcity environments, where all undesirable work is automated anyway. Has anyone read any of his novels? They're certainly food for thought.

Also, Kim Stanley Robinson's 'Mars' trilogy is an extremely succinct meditation on how anarchistic principles might be put into practise alongside more conventional modes of social organisation. His account of the writing of the constitution of Mars in 'Green Mars' is compelling. Has anyone given that a look recently?

mountainyman

The best book about an Anarchist world is Ursula leGuin's The Disposessed.

MM

Mr. Incognito

Akrasia,

I admire your passion and you have presented some excellent retorts to some points made by other posters which I would agree with, but I think ultimately anarchism is a flawed, and ultimately is over simplistic perspective in policy and theory.

Human beings are social creatures. Our basic unit is a family unit, with a father, mother and siblings. We organise ourselves into families, extended family i.e friends and society is no different really. We have a structure and a head of the family. We have been conditioned this way by thousands of years of evolution. We WANT structure, we WANT leadership and we will instinctively defer to it. Every social experiment that has started along the lines of democracy, true democracy has, within the space of a few short years developed into a dictatorship or defacto leader assuming the reins of power and worse, without institutions to check that power as they have been disolved and in the vacuum the dictatorship has begun. People turn to socialist ideals after periods of intense and widespread civil strife when the current government is not meeting their basic needs. i.e Russia, 1917 after the disatrous wars against Japan, and circa Germany 1932 in the depths of depression and hyper inflation.

Anarchist views overlook a few key traits. All men are not created equally. Some are more moral, some more cunnng, some stronger, some violent, some weak, etc. Within family units there can be discord, within a society with no structure this will lead to tribal warfare,

Society is no different, people argue over everything, but the core needs remain the same. Where resources are limited, people, tribes, aye and countries will fight over them. The leaders may give grand and noble reasons but most wars are over resources.

I'm not going to pick over your posts and argue every single point but I noticed that you had mentioned Orwell. I love reading Orwell and it's relevent here. Your arguments are reminisct of animal farm. You promise a utopia, but when it gets down to it the practicalities of running a society for millions of people demand centralised organisation. Your committees that were founded for, in theory, short periods would never get the chance to disband such would be the demands on their time. People would get frustrated and some would attempt to leave the new utopian way, these people leaving would then be tried by their communes and socialy outcast. These social outcasts would attempt to attack the communes and would have to be represed forcefully, a malitia would be created "for the short term" to supress the outsiders and ce la ve, -every socialist experiment has ended this way. Even today in Cuba, with its wonderful healthcare there are fighters in the hills and human rights violations. Counter revolutionaries are rounded up and dealt with harshly.

You also have some very strange notions of the laws in this country. Have you studied law? I noticed you have made comments on several occasions that the laws are for the protection of the rich and the oppression of the poor. I'm a solicitor and I specialise in civil law. I assure you I know of no law that is for the exclusive protection of wealth. Indeed most laws in this country are passed for civil protections and to be honest I'd argue that you are a lot better off in modern western capitalist societies with regards to civil rights, human rights protections and recourse. Rights for the individual are balanced against rights for society. You've used the argument that if your landlord disagrees with you over the ownership of your property that you will be forced to pay rent, but what is wrong with that? He has worked to afford property whereas you are waltzing in demanding a right to someone eles labour and enterprise. You own value on individualistic rights are flawed. You are not devinely entitled to be provided for in any system, even your own anarchist system, you must work to support it. your compensation is relfective of your ability to contribute to society. In fact, you seem to want to adopt the benefits of modern capitalism, i.e technology and a constitution that enshrines these rights but you need an entity to enforce these rights and prevent oppression no matter what system you adopt. It is true that the wealthy have better access to these systems to enforce their rights due to their ability to afford lawyers but even Rossport which you have mentioned had their day in court. They could not show any evidence of material damage to society that would warrant that the pipeline be moved offshore.

Moving onto technology, anarchism would stifle technological advances. I find the idea of collectives sharing machinery and other common goods very simplistic. Who is going to produce these items? A few anarchists tinkering away isn't going to have access to the raw materials, specialised knowledge and equipment to produce these items individually. Mass production works for a reason. The reason we have cars and trains and lightbulbs and the like is because we have an organised producation methods and companies that develop new technologies.

That said capitalism is not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than throwing out all the development since the industrail revolution. People have a much better standard of living now than they did in the past. You have said that greed and consumerism is a relatively modern invention. I disagree. Greed and acquirement of wealth has always been a feature of humanity. It is impossible to eradicate without a fundamental shift in our evolutionary natures. We are not as advanced as we would like to believe. The measure of any successfull society is its ability to care for its citizens. Our government is democratically elected and if you think they are doing a bad job you can vote them out, but the central approach to government here is that they are elected to care for and provide for the people. That is priceless my friend. There is accountability. Individualist approaches under anarchism just would not work. It's obvious common sense.

Arguing about your subsequent points about how things may be organised under an anarchist system are like arguing over the colour of a unicorns fart. The unicorn doesn't exist except in imagination, and neither does anarchism. Your time would be better served ironing out the kinks as you see them in capitalism rather than restructuring society against its natural grain. People will never receive a system that demands they forsake all that they have in the hope of a natural equality unless:

a) they have practically nothing. (this is why socialism flourishes in poor countires or countries in strife after self destructive civil wars)
b) they are very naive and poorly educated
c) they are brainwashed into an ideal that they believe will work

In a modern, educated, aye and wealthy developed country who will give up everything for an approach that has never been successful in any form. Not I.

You mentioned that housing committess have been sucessfull in New Orleans rebuding homes. I would believe that, but they piggy back on capitalism for their raw materials. And when I have to join a collective to have my house built and help my neighbours I'll be the first out with a hammer. But a large scale rejection of a proven, political model under which I live, I just will not accept. Companies are not blindless, souless, world eating corporations. They are run by people for people. Maybe they are the next form of government? Who knows but there are sucessfull companies that promote health (bia blasta) the environment etc. If you want to contribute to a cause that helps the third world, buy fair trade. Vote or contribute your earnings from society for that society to lean in a direction you would like. When people all lean together things change. That is democracy, and in truth that is probable anarchism too when you get down to it. Majority rule. I don't see much differnce only labels. If you want to go live on a self sufficient community join a commune, but there is an intrinsic hypocritical approach to rejecting the institutions that are in place that were put there to replace the real oppression of the feudal system where private ownership was in the hands of the king and land rights or charges over land flowed from and relacing them with an empty ideal that contridicts the nature of people, society and has flies in the face of what history has taught us time and bloody time again.

Akrasia

SetantaL wrote:

Akrasia,

I admire your passion and you have presented some excellent retorts to some points made by other posters which I would agree with.

Thank you

but I think ultimately anarchism is a flawed, and ultimately is over simplistic perspective in policy and theory.

Human beings are social creatures. Our basic unit is a family unit, with a father, mother and siblings. We organise ourselves into families, extended family i.e friends and society is no different really. We have a structure and a head of the family.

Well, there can be a structure without a someone in charge

We have been conditioned this way by thousands of years of evolution. We WANT structure, we WANT leadership and we will instinctively defer to it.

I don't know how much of that is the way we are socialised or how much is innate instinct, but there is also another part of our nature that demands justice fairness and our need to have our voices heard. There can be leadership without authority. People can lead by example or advice, it is when they order people around that Anarchists start to object.
Anarchists, contrary to popular belief, and perhaps even contrary to what I've been saying myself occasionally, do not reject all authority all of the time. The essence of anarchism is that all authority should be challenged for legitimacy all of the time. If I am looking after a child I have a legitimate authority to prevent the child from running out in front of a car on a busy street. That is a form of legitimate authority. However, I do not think it is legitimate that someone should get to order me around just because they claim a monopoly of ownership or an official office.

Every social experiment that has started along the lines of democracy, true democracy has, within the space of a few short years developed into a dictatorship or defacto leader assuming the reins of power and worse, without institutions to check that power as they have been disolved and in the vacuum the dictatorship has begun. People turn to socialist ideals after periods of intense and widespread civil strife when the current government is not meeting their basic needs. i.e Russia, 1917 after the disatrous wars against Japan, and circa Germany 1932 in the depths of depression and hyper inflation.

I agree, but they have always been seriously misled to follow authoritarian socialism or to accept it's imposition from above. Anarchism is different from marxism. If it ever had a chance to take root it would flourish IMO and spread to other oppressed areas. This requires a huge amount of work and organisation and a new social movement which I believe will come out of S. America. Without a doubt, the biggest challenge anarchism would face would be to defend the new society without being driven to resort to authoritarianism. It can happen but it requires specific geo political conditions or a highly educated and motivated population.

Anarchist views overlook a few key traits. All men are not created equally. Some are more moral, some more cunnng, some stronger, some violent, some weak, etc. Within family units there can be discord, within a society with no structure this will lead to tribal warfare,

Anarchist societies would have structure, and Anarchism deals with the power hungry and the cunning by trying to eliminate people's ability to take control of community resources by removing the 'right' or ability to control private property. This is a fundamental aspect of anarchism, You can be as power hungry as you like, but without the means to coerce or bribe people to follow you, you are much less able to oppress others.

Society is no different, people argue over everything, but the core needs remain the same. Where resources are limited, people, tribes, aye and countries will fight over them. The leaders may give grand and noble reasons but most wars are over resources.

Yeah, and most resource wars are to enrich the leaders, not to provide for the people. There are very very few wars throughout history that the people pushed for from below.
There might be a bit of a tribal mentality, but as you already pointed out, this is part of human nature, and in a cooperative society instead of a competitive one, the different communities could work together in harmony for mutual benefit. (most of the time... there will always be conflict in every kind of society)

I'm not going to pick over your posts and argue every single point but I noticed that you had mentioned Orwell. I love reading Orwell and it's relevent here. Your arguments are reminisct of animal farm. You promise a utopia,

It's not a utopia, it's a different kind of society. I think it would be a better, more sustainable and more equitable one (but that wouldn't be hard would it?)

but when it gets down to it the practicalities of running a society for millions of people demand centralised organisation. Your committees that were founded for, in theory, short periods would never get the chance to disband such would be the demands on their time.

There are already participatory budgeting programs in many towns and cities around the world. They are a good case study of how large scale decision making can be democratic efficient and accountable. The best example is at Porto Alegre which has been running for almost 2 decades. The success and failure of these projects is highly dependent on how much trust and power is given to the community. In cases where there is a lot of political interference from the wealthy and political elites, there are disappointing results, but in those few cities that embrace democracy, they have flourished.

People would get frustrated and some would attempt to leave the new utopian way, these people leaving would then be tried by their communes and socialy outcast. These social outcasts would attempt to attack the communes and would have to be represed forcefully, a malitia would be created "for the short term" to supress the outsiders and ce la ve, -every socialist experiment has ended this way. Even today in Cuba, with its wonderful healthcare there are fighters in the hills and human rights violations. Counter revolutionaries are rounded up and dealt with harshly.

This is true of Authoritarian socialism, but if people are given true democratic freedom, they are much less likely to be disillusioned. One of the most important principles in anarchism is free and voluntary association.

You also have some very strange notions of the laws in this country. Have you studied law? I noticed you have made comments on several occasions that the laws are for the protection of the rich and the oppression of the poor. I'm a solicitor and I specialise in civil law. I assure you I know of no law that is for the exclusive protection of wealth. Indeed most laws in this country are passed for civil protections and to be honest I'd argue that you are a lot better off in modern western capitalist societies with regards to civil rights, human rights protections and recourse. Rights for the individual are balanced against rights for society. You've used the argument that if your landlord disagrees with you over the ownership of your property that you will be forced to pay rent, but what is wrong with that? He has worked to afford property whereas you are waltzing in demanding a right to someone eles labour and enterprise. You own value on individualistic rights are flawed. You are not devinely entitled to be provided for in any system, even your own anarchist system, you must work to support it. your compensation is relfective of your ability to contribute to society. In fact, you seem to want to adopt the benefits of modern capitalism, i.e technology and a constitution that enshrines these rights but you need an entity to enforce these rights and prevent oppression no matter what system you adopt. It is true that the wealthy have better access to these systems to enforce their rights due to their ability to afford lawyers but even Rossport which you have mentioned had their day in court. They could not show any evidence of material damage to society that would warrant that the pipeline be moved offshore.

Most laws are designed to protect property rights of some kind or another.
Yes, there are some very good laws designed to protect people from the worst excesses of human endeavours.

I do believe people should contribute to society, but I don't believe that it is a valid contribution to simply wave a pen and release resources so that someone else can build a house for your own profit. I also don't believe that resources are best allocated according to who can afford to control them the most. It is this system of planning that results in thousands of ugly polluting holiday homes strewn around the most beautiful places in Ireland which contribute almost nothing to the local community but bring with them lots of environmental and social problems. These houses were built because of corrupt wealthy self interested individuals were facilitated by the institutions of the state in an undemocratic and incredibly short sighted way.

A constitution and technology are not properties inherent in capitalism. Capitalism is just the existing filter through which these elements mingle and intertwine with everything else in society.

Moving onto technology, anarchism would stifle technological advances. I find the idea of collectives sharing machinery and other common goods very simplistic. Who is going to produce these items? A few anarchists tinkering away isn't going to have access to the raw materials, specialised knowledge and equipment to produce these items individually. Mass production works for a reason. The reason we have cars and trains and lightbulbs and the like is because we have an organised producation methods and companies that develop new technologies.

We also have stifling intellectual property rights and patents that prevent innovation and eliminate competition.
Look how successful wikipedia and open source software has become. It is perfectly plausible to believe that wiki science could prove to be an extremely efficient way of sharing scientific information and speeding up peer review and collective knowledge sharing.

Anarchism does not mean the end of industrial production either. It means a significant change however, from competition to cooperation. Goods will be produced based on need and sustainability, not manufactured desire. It might mean less choice for the 'consumer' but according to Dr barry Schwartz, that's a good thing for everyone. http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bschwar1/Schwartz,%20Markus,%20Snibbe.pdf

That said capitalism is not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than throwing out all the development since the industrail revolution. People have a much better standard of living now than they did in the past. You have said that greed and consumerism is a relatively modern invention. I disagree. Greed and acquirement of wealth has always been a feature of humanity. It is impossible to eradicate without a fundamental shift in our evolutionary natures. We are not as advanced as we would like to believe. The measure of any successfull society is its ability to care for its citizens. Our government is democratically elected and if you think they are doing a bad job you can vote them out, but the central approach to government here is that they are elected to care for and provide for the people. That is priceless my friend. There is accountability. Individualist approaches under anarchism just would not work. It's obvious common sense.

If society is capable of electing people to pursue what we think is our best interest, what is to stop us from voting ourselves for the proposals that we know are in our own best interest or getting actively involved in governing our own lives and deciding things for ourselves?

Arguing about your subsequent points about how things may be organised under an anarchist system are like arguing over the colour of a unicorns fart. The unicorn doesn't exist except in imagination, and neither does anarchism. Your time would be better served ironing out the kinks as you see them in capitalism rather than restructuring society against its natural grain.

The Kink that i see in capitalism is the fundamental tendency for fewer and fewer people to control more and more of the worlds resources and use them exclusively to pursue their own perceived self interest. That is a kink that needs to be worked out with a pneumatic drill, not an Iron.

People will never receive a system that demands they forsake all that they have in the hope of a natural equality unless:

a) they have practically nothing. (this is why socialism flourishes in poor countires or countries in strife after self destructive civil wars)
b) they are very naive and poorly educated
c) they are brainwashed into an ideal that they believe will work

In a modern, educated, aye and wealthy developed country who will give up everything for an approach that has never been successful in any form. Not I.

You mentioned that housing committess have been sucessfull in New Orleans rebuding homes. I would believe that, but they piggy back on capitalism for their raw materials. And when I have to join a collective to have my house built and help my neighbours I'll be the first out with a hammer. But a large scale rejection of a proven, political model under which I live, I just will not accept. Companies are not blindless, souless, world eating corporations. They are run by people for people.

They are by people for themselves (or for other rich shareholders if they're a Corporation) The only legal imperative of a corporation is that it maximises profits and acts within the law. (the acting within the law bit is usually decided on the basis of a cost benefit analysis)

Maybe they are the next form of government? Who knows but there are sucessfull companies that promote health (bia blasta) the environment etc. If you want to contribute to a cause that helps the third world, buy fair trade. Vote or contribute your earnings from society for that society to lean in a direction you would like. When people all lean together things change. That is democracy, and in truth that is probable anarchism too when you get down to it. Majority rule. I don't see much differnce only labels. If you want to go live on a self sufficient community join a commune, but there is an intrinsic hypocritical approach to rejecting the institutions that are in place that were put there to replace the real oppression of the feudal system where private ownership was in the hands of the king and land rights or charges over land flowed from and relacing them with an empty ideal that contridicts the nature of people, society and has flies in the face of what history has taught us time and bloody time again.

Capitalism is just as bloody as any of the other social systems that collapsed because they were too brutal. It is also the only system that has ever threatened the entire future of the human race through it's incredibly unequal and unsustainable nature.
Any system that exists on limited resources but demands constant expansion and increasing accumulation is doomed to collapse in a very violent way

Mr. Incognito

God I promised myself I wasn't going to do this.

A few quick points and then I'll leave it off.

Well, there can be a structure without a someone in charge

I think this statemtent is a complete contridiction. Think what happens when the teacher steps out of the room. At a bus station when the driver hasn't arrived. People are like lost cattle. Who is to decide this structure? Are people supposed to spontanously organise themselves into the anarchist regime? Impossible.

Anarchist societies would have structure, and Anarchism deals with the power hungry and the cunning by trying to eliminate people's ability to take control of community resources by removing the 'right' or ability to control private property. This is a fundamental aspect of anarchism, You can be as power hungry as you like, but without the means to coerce or bribe people to follow you, you are much less able to oppress others.

How would you have structure? A commitee is structured leadership. People aren't co-erced or bribed to follow anyone in society. That would elect that people go against their will. I'm a willfull supporter of the green party. They haven't bribed me yet. People contribute to society all the time without thought or reward of gain. Election volunteers. Reserve Firemen, Social Workers, I myself work with the homeless, the list is endless. People are lifted to leadership by other peoples work. Not bribery or co-ercion.

That is a form of legitimate authority. However, I do not think it is legitimate that someone should get to order me around just because they claim a monopoly of ownership or an official office.

People get to order you around because the majority voted for them. If you don't like the orders vote for someone else, but you have to respect the democratic mandate. Is that not the cornerstone of anarchy also?

Yeah, and most resource wars are to enrich the leaders, not to provide for the people. There are very very few wars throughout history that the people pushed for from below.

I totally agree.

I think it would be a better, more sustainable and more equitable one (but that wouldn't be hard would it?)

I think it would. We're doing okay. I fail to see the oppression you are sufffering under.

There are already participatory budgeting programs in many towns and cities around the world. They are a good case study of how large scale decision making can be democratic efficient and accountable. The best example is at Porto Alegre which has been running for almost 2 decades. The success and failure of these projects is highly dependent on how much trust and power is given to the community. In cases where there is a lot of political interference from the wealthy and political elites, there are disappointing results, but in those few cities that embrace democracy, they have flourished.

Sounds like a county council to me. Urban district councils also come under this umbrella. What's the difference?

It is this system of planning that results in thousands of ugly polluting holiday homes strewn around the most beautiful places in Ireland which contribute almost nothing to the local community but bring with them lots of environmental and social problems. These houses were built because of corrupt wealthy self interested individuals were facilitated by the institutions of the state in an undemocratic and incredibly short sighted way.

I agree here also. However it is not the inherent failings of the institutions but of the people running them and as we know from the tribunals the bribery that resulted in bad planning. I'd like to hope that lessons have been learnt but looking at some of the recent planning decisions I know thye haven't. Still it's no reason to dissolve the whole affair. We should make the decisions more transparent and increase the imput of an impartial assessment by an Bord Pleannala. I fail to see how anachism could counter this as there is no development plan as there is no structured leadership.

We also have stifling intellectual property rights and patents that prevent innovation and eliminate competition.

So competition is good?

Anarchism does not mean the end of industrial production either. It means a significant change however, from competition to cooperation.

So competition is bad?

You have contridicted your own argument in 4 sentences. That is why it is very difficult to pin down exactly what you are saying.

Also intellectual property rights and patents are the cornerstone of modern development. People should be protected when they develop a new an innovative idea. How would you feel if you spent years and thousands if not millions of your own money developing something totally new and someone just copied it. Your back to demanding a place to live for free off your landlord again my freind. How just is that?

That is a kink that needs to be worked out with a pneumatic drill, not an Iron

I disagree. Real sustainable change is gradual. Trial and error. The trick is to recognise what works and what doesn't. For example, rent control was tried and shown to actually increase rents by moving development from the residential sector to the commercial. Real life is more complicated and things need to be attempted.

Capitalism is just as bloody as any of the other social systems that collapsed because they were too brutal. It is also the only system that has ever threatened the entire future of the human race through it's incredibly unequal and unsustainable nature.
Any system that exists on limited resources but demands constant expansion and increasing accumulation is doomed to collapse in a very violent way

Pish Posh. Capitalism is just a word. It's like Bush's war on "terrorism" The only social systems that collapsed were the communist contries and the feudal states that didn't accept new economic ideas. Capitalism isn't a system, it's a method of economic organisation, that works and works through trial and error. And if you had studied economics you may have come accross Schumacher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._F._Schumacher

You may like him. Of course nothing can expand forever, but companies like everything else have a life cycle.

Anyway, that's it for me. I'm off to work.

Akrasia

SetantaL wrote:

I think this statemtent is a complete contridiction. Think what happens when the teacher steps out of the room. At a bus station when the driver hasn't arrived. People are like lost cattle. Who is to decide this structure? Are people supposed to spontanously organise themselves into the anarchist regime? Impossible.

Perhaps I should clarify. When I said 'someone in charge' I meant it in a more authoritarian sense. I have no objection to an adult being in charge of a group of small children for their protection and education because that is a legitimate form of authority. (whereas the owner of a sweatshop is in charge of children but is a illegitimate authority). Anarchists believe that all forms of authority should be challenged and it is up to the person claiming that authority to justify himself/herself, not the other way around

The difference between anarchist social structures and capitalist structures, Is that the Owner in capitalist society has absolute authority over how his private capital is used (within some limited boundaries as defined by law).

How would you have structure? A commitee is structured leadership. People aren't co-erced or bribed to follow anyone in society. That would elect that people go against their will. I'm a willfull supporter of the green party. They haven't bribed me yet. People contribute to society all the time without thought or reward of gain. Election volunteers. Reserve Firemen, Social Workers, I myself work with the homeless, the list is endless. People are lifted to leadership by other peoples work. Not bribery or co-ercion.

Yeah I absolutely agree with that. Anarchists prefer to lead by example and inspiration, rather than by cohersion. However, by far the majority of economic activity in a modern capitalist society is done for renumeration, not voluntarism or altruism. The fact that altruism still exists, is despite of capitalism, not because of it. Anarchists would structure themselves into civil society organisations, voluntary in nature, inclusive in membership and each organisation would be run democratically to complete a specific task. These civic organisations would be a central aspect of day to day life in an anarchist society, compared to Capitalism, where people get involved in their spare time (if they have any left after they meet their economic needs first)
It's a fundamental difference.

People get to order you around because the majority voted for them. If you don't like the orders vote for someone else, but you have to respect the democratic mandate. Is that not the cornerstone of anarchy also?

Anarchists elect delegates on specific mandates and are immediately recallable if they fail to complete their task or if circumstances change. All substantial decisions are made democratically by the collective. Compare this to liberal democracy, where politicians make great sweeping election promises in what amounts to an auction where there is very little pressure to actually fulfill those promises. The "mandate"in these kinds of elections is extremely ill defined because the platform is so broad that the politician can just pick any one of his/her favoured ideological or self serving positions and claim that he/she has a mandate to carry them out when in reality, he may have been elected simply because he/she was the least offensive candidate on the ballot.

I think it would. We're doing okay. I fail to see the oppression you are sufffering under.

We're in one of the richest countries in the world. There is significant inequality within Ireland, but the real crimes are perpetuated against the so called "developing countries" Our "economic success" is completely dependent on the theft of resources from the poorest people in the world.

Sounds like a county council to me. Urban district councils also come under this umbrella. What's the difference?

It's significantly different. I'll post up links to a more detailed description later when I have more time.