Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What is Anarchism
Options
-
31-10-2006 5:04pm#1There are a lot of misconceptions about what exactly Anarchism stands for. Many people associate it with 'Chaos' and 'Disorganisation' when in reality, anarchism promotes a highly organised society, it's just organised from the bottom up and not the top down.
I'll get the ball rolling and put out some of the central beliefs of anarchism and if anyone wants to challenge them or add to them, then I'll respond to the best of my ability.
Anarchism means 'no rulers'. It is a political philosophy that is opposed to all kinds of hierarchy in favour of bottom up participatory democracy. In anarchism, all the means of production are directly owned and controlled by the workers themselves (unlike Marxism where power is held by a central government 'on behalf' of the ordinary workers)
Anarchists believe the private ownership of property (the means of production) is the single biggest cause of inequality poverty and dis-empowerment. Instead of absolute ownership of property, anarchists promote 'effective ownership' which basically means that, using an agricultural metaphor, you own the piece of land that you are currently farming, for as long as you continue to use that land, and if you ever decide to stop using it, someone else is free to take over that land. You can not employ anyone to work for you because if they work the field with you, then they are part owners of that field and you are partners, not employee and employer.)
Anarchists promote a society based on solidarity, not competition. We believe that co-operation, mutual aid, is a much more efficient use of our limited resources than constantly competing with each other all of the time.
Anarchists are anti Capitalist (anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron). Capitalism is a divisive, individualistic destructive greedy system. Wealth is a huge cause of poverty (in order for one person to accumulate vast wealth, he must exploit hundreds or thousands of others and the luxury he lives in is a huge waste of the limited resources that should be distributed equally to all)
Anarchists are completely against the spread of large Corporations and the increasing control they exercise over almost every aspect of our lives. These corporations are completely unaccountable and not only lack any morals or ethics, but are in fact legally obliged to disregard them in favour of increasing shareholder value.
That's a short description of only some of the aspects of anarchism. I can clarify any of the above points or any other points people might want to bring up0
Comments
-
Questions regarding the land scenario you mentioned.
1. What if you get ill or suffer a farming accident and can no longer "work the land"?
2. Do those who work the land also live on it with families? And if so, if you stop working it do you or others knock down-transfer your house?
3. Are those who build homes on the land, also effectively "working the land" so they own it too?
4. How do people make money to buy the stuff you produce on your land?
5. What do you do if you and your fellow land workers cant agree on how things should be run?
5. Are children also required to provide labor?0 -
With out a state in a transitional phase before the end product of an anarchist society how would the new communal society survive external threats from unfriendly capitalist nations?
Take Venezuela for example, obviously not an anarchist society but a country which is aiming for a socialist society through the spread of direct democracy, co-ops and social programmes. Venezuela has been under a constant barrage since Chavez took over, with the U.S. waging a propaganda war, a military coup, funding opposition and sabotage and destabilisation tactics within the country. Without a state in place how would anarchists survive such an onslaught?
I understand the communist and the anarchist society are the same end result but with the communist route socialism is the means to the end of having a free communal society. I just don't see the anarchist approach of an overnight shift from capitalism to the communal society as being achievable. At what point is the withering away of the state an achievable goal? Can the state ever wither away while hostile capitalist interests still lurk on the boarders?0 -
Well anarchism is not an individualistic ideology. Not everyone will be farmers, I just used that example to explain the concept of effective ownership. The local community would provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves. Anarchism is often called as 'Libertarian communism' or 'Libertarian socialism'.metrovelvet wrote:Questions regarding the land scenario you mentioned.
1. What if you get ill or suffer a farming accident and can no longer "work the land"?
The principle of Mutual aid is most important in this case. There are very few people who can't contribute anything of value to society. one problem with capitalism is that it marginalises people who are not economically profitable to employ.
The principle of effective ownership is that you can not sell your property for a profit, or control property that you have no intention of using. If you are living in a house with your family, then you effectively own it. If you move away then the house reverts to the ownership of the community and they can decide what to do with it in a democratic way.2. Do those who work the land also live on it with families? And if so, if you stop working it do you or others knock down-transfer your house?
yes but they can't sell it for a profit so there wouldn't be property speculation. You could trade your house for someone else's house somewhere else, but that would have to be by mutual agreement. You could not be a landlord because nobody would be prepared to pay you rent and if you are not personally using the house, you have no claim over it.3. Are those who build homes on the land, also effectively "working the land" so they own it too?
Many anarchists are in favour of 'moneyless societies' Goods are produced based on democratic decisions by the community and distributed based on the democratic decisions of the community. Federations of communes trade in goods according to what the members of their communities are prepared to provide and what they feel they need.4. How do people make money to buy the stuff you produce on your land?
I know this sounds pretty insane, it ignores the 'laws of supply and demand'
But an economy based on democratic consumer councils and democratic producer councils would ensure that our scarce resources are focused on providing the things we need and not just the things we want.
Such councils worked very well in Anarchist parts of Spain for a number of years before Franco eventually won the civil war.
All decisions are made democratically, the particular style of democracy is also to be agreed democratically. There are advantages and disadvantages to be found with both consensus and majority rule forms of decision making. In reality, most decisions would be made in a hybrid of the two forms. If someone does not want to take part in the community, to avail of the services or to participate in the decision making processes, they would be free to live as they wish (as long as they are not exploiting others)5. What do you do if you and your fellow land workers cant agree on how things should be run?0 -
Akrasia wrote:Anarchism is often called as 'Libertarian communism' or 'Libertarian socialism'.
Surely these would be types or "flavours" of anarchy, rather than just descriptions which are often used to describe any form of same.
As a parallel, I'd say you'd be hard pressed to find two nominally-democratic nations on the planet with the same flavour of democracy. You'll also have people who tell you there are no "real" democracies anywhere in the first place, as well as differing opinions of where the line is drawn between democratic, non-democratic, and partially-democratic systems.
I would personally be surprised if anarchy was not the same. Indeed, I would find it difficult for there to be a single, clear definition of what constitutes anarchy. Arguably, the existence of such a definition in and of itself is non-anarchic or even anti-anarchic.
What I find most interesting is the concept of an anarchic society, given that the general principles of anarchy seem to lean more towards the notion of anarchic communities. I would have serious misgivings as to how it could/would scale. It is quite possible - even today - to form a small community of willing participants who agree to abide by a system. However, once that scales to a society, it also has to cater for those who choose not to abide by the system. In any "top-down" form of governance, rules can be imposed on those who do not wish to abide by them....but I'm at a loss to see how that would work with anarchy.0 -
With great difficulty is the honest answer. The aggression of imperialist capitalist societies is probably the main reason why anarchism has never survived for more than a few years anywhere in practise. The most famous example of anarchism in action was in 1930's Spain where vast parts of Catalonia and the Basque regions existed as anarchist syndicates.clown bag wrote:With out a state in a transitional phase before the end product of an anarchist society how would the new communal society survive external threats from unfriendly capitalist nations?
Anarchists don't expect an overnight revolution where everyone will suddenly start acting like anarchists. Anarchists are utterly opposed to the vast military industrial complexes that maintain state power domestically and abroad, and part of the transition to an anarchist society would necessitate the dismantling of these forces.
It would be a serious challenge. But in reality, this is an argument against supporting imperialist capitalism rather than an argument against supporting anarchism. If we achieve critical mass then we can survive.Take Venezuela for example, obviously not an anarchist society but a country which is aiming for a socialist society through the spread of direct democracy, co-ops and social programmes. Venezuela has been under a constant barrage since Chavez took over, with the U.S. waging a propaganda war, a military coup, funding opposition and sabotage and destabilisation tactics within the country. Without a state in place how would anarchists survive such an onslaught?
The problem with Communism is that the vanguard state will never wither away, it is much more likely to simply usurp power and then use it against the people while it installs itself as the new rulers. Anarchists don't expect an overnight revolution. Anarchists hope to change things through a snowball effect perhaps sparked by general strikes by politicised worker controlled unions.I understand the communist and the anarchist society are the same end result but with the communist route socialism is the means to the end of having a free communal society. I just don't see the anarchist approach of an overnight shift from capitalism to the communal society as being achievable. At what point is the withering away of the state an achievable goal? Can the state ever wither away while hostile capitalist interests still lurk on the boarders?0 -
Advertisement
-
lol
Anarchism will never work.
As much as it is a lovely thing to aim for, and works in THEORY, communism also worked in theory. It's application however was an abomination. Anarchistic theory fails to take into account the fundamental human trait of greed. The fact is "people like to own stuff" and own stuff properly.0 -
well, classical anarchism is a form of Libertarian socialism. There are other subdivisions. like Individualist anarchism and 'Anarcho-Capitalism' which, in my opinion at least, are not genuinely anarchist philosophies because they do not fully reject Hierarchy or stick to the central principles of Equality, Liberty and Solidarity.bonkey wrote:Surely these would be types or "flavours" of anarchy, rather than just descriptions which are often used to describe any form of same.
Of course, I should point out, that no one particular category of anarchist would ever expect all of their theoretical expectations to be transplanted into a real world application. Anarchists try to provide alternative ways of thinking, and it is entirely up to the members of each community to implement social change in whatever way they think is best
like I just said, anarchism is really just an idea, a philosophy that can be interpreted in many different ways (consistent with the 3 core principles). Most anarchists would agree on a lot of the most important issues, but there will always be debate about how best to run a society in the real world. And in reality, there could be many different kinds of anarchist societies all living together
I would personally be surprised if anarchy was not the same. Indeed, I would find it difficult for there to be a single, clear definition of what constitutes anarchy. Arguably, the existence of such a definition in and of itself is non-anarchic or even anti-anarchic.
The most important aspect of anarchism is the bottom up approach. Federations are voluntary associations comprised of delegates from each community. Each community and each member of each community is autonomous and free to abide by any decision or choose to opt out. This means that some kinds of large scale co-ordination would be very difficult, but at the same time, large scale co-ordination is not always desirable. Priority should be given to local activity as much as possible. If large scale co-ordination is unavoidable, it will also be an important enough issue as to merit a complex democratic process.What I find most interesting is the concept of an anarchic society, given that the general principles of anarchy seem to lean more towards the notion of anarchic communities. I would have serious misgivings as to how it could/would scale. It is quite possible - even today - to form a small community of willing participants who agree to abide by a system. However, once that scales to a society, it also has to cater for those who choose not to abide by the system. In any "top-down" form of governance, rules can be imposed on those who do not wish to abide by them....but I'm at a loss to see how that would work with anarchy.
(edited to say) I should point out that delegates in an anarchist sense do not have the power to make decisions on behalf of the people they represent, (at least not important decisions) they can only represent the decisions democratically arrived at by the communities themselves to the wider forum and then carry any queries back to the community for clarification before a final set of proposals are voted on.0 -
communism doesn't work in theory. The abomination that was predicted materialised in it's worst forms. Anarchists opposed central planning for a reason, and Stalin/Mao/Kim Jung Il are consequence of allowing the vanguard party to take control.sean_keevey wrote:lol
Anarchism will never work.
As much as it is a lovely thing to aim for, and works in THEORY, communism also worked in theory. It's application however was an abomination. Anarchistic theory fails to take into account the fundamental human trait of greed. The fact is "people like to own stuff" and own stuff properly.
People will always want to improve their own situation. The current consumerism culture that we are subject to is not natural, it is manufactured.0 -
Lofty ideals aside, people need a structure to operate under (yes, under). This is the way it always has been, and this is the way it always will be. You can see this a non work environment as people will naturally try to sort out some sort of hierarchy. And, for that matter, it is mirrored in the natural world. Without social structure there would, in the strictest meaning of the word, be anarchy.
So what would happen if Ireland suddenly adopted anarchism?
*How, as a "nation" of communities, would we survive?
*How could these small communities effectively band together (remembering that they set their own rules and agendas) to secure imports of fuel and other essentials?
*How would infrastructure and health care services be maintained and shared if some communities decided to have very low taxes or none at all?
*What controls would be set in place to stop small communities merging together to bully others, or people becoming too powerful? Because, as sure as the sun rises, this would happen just as it always has.
*What about laws? For instance, if one community makes something illegal and another doesn't then it would be horribly messy.
It's not good enough to have a vague decree, and it is a decree, that people should live by "effective ownership". I'd really love to see this being done on a large scale. I'd predict that there would be endless bickering and constant disputes over the flimsy notion of effective ownership so as to make the ideals of anarchism unworkable. You can't micro-manage millions of people.0 -
As I understand anarchism, it doesn't preclude 'structure'. Anarchism opposes forms of power (or power relations) whose structures limit people's freedoms, as identified by (what could so broadly termed as to be nearly meaningless) 'anarchist analyses'. Anarchism calls for structures (primarily institutional as I understand it - rather than culture-ideological, but that too) to be under constant negotiation among equal participants in societies or collectivities. The concern here is for structures to be kept open to prevent abuses of power of the likes we see today.fanny craddock wrote:people need a structure to operate under (yes, under)
The question, therefore, is how and to whom do people derogate responsibility and authority? Again, I would imagine anarchism does not necessarily preclude the derogation of responsibility to individuals or groups (i.e. provide 'structures' to operate 'under' but more 'alongside' - again, the crucial point of anarchism is the precise manner in which power operates in a group or society. In anarchism, individuals are active decisionmakers in societies - participative democracy is a necessary social relation, not a mediated system of subordination by ruling classes via the ballot box which simulates popular consent. Anarchism is a strategy to preserve liberty.0 -
Advertisement
-
Anarchism is highly organised. Instead of being accountable to a king or a boss, you're accountable to the democratic will of your local community.Fanny Cradock wrote:Lofty ideals aside, people need a structure to operate under (yes, under).
When you say 'this' I hope you don't mean our current political and economic structure, because the way we live now is extremely new in the grand scheme of human society. There is no single way humans can live, the fact that we are highly adaptable is the reason we have become the dominant species on this planet.This is the way it always has been, and this is the way it always will be.
What kind of people do you socialise with?You can see this a non work environment as people will naturally try to sort out some sort of hierarchy. And, for that matter, it is mirrored in the natural world. Without social structure there would, in the strictest meaning of the word, be anarchy.
That is certainly not my experience.
well, Ireland wouldn't survive as a nation. It would still be an island, and there would still be communities, but the political entity that is the Irish state would be defunct.So what would happen if Ireland suddenly adopted anarchism?
*How, as a "nation" of communities, would we survive?
Well, families are a group of people and they often have different rules and agendas, but this doesn't stop them from engaging with other families in a social context.*How could these small communities effectively band together (remembering that they set their own rules and agendas) to secure imports of fuel and other essentials?
People and communities could organise themselves through co-operatives, an already proven way to achieve even complex goals through co-operation and not competition. In Ireland, dairy Co-Ops were the way individual farmers could get the milk from their farms to the market and it worked fine for decades.
How would an anarchist health service work? It would be based on self-management, with close links to the local commune and federations of communes. Each hospital or health centre would be autonomous but linked in a federation with the others, allowing resources to be shared as and when required while allowing the health service to adjust to local needs and requirements as quickly as possible. Because of the principle of free and voluntary association, communities would be free to take part in the local health care federation, or if they are not prepared to contribute to the cost, they can provide their own alternative. I would suggest that most communities would value a good health care system and would be prepared to contribute as necessary*How would infrastructure and health care services be maintained and shared if some communities decided to have very low taxes or none at all?
here's how healthcare worked in Spainhe Spanish Revolution indicates how an anarchist health service would operate. In rural areas local doctors would usually join the village collective and provided their services like any other worker. Where local doctors were not available, "arrangements were made by the collectives for treatment of their members by hospitals in nearby localities. In a few cases, collectives themselves build hospitals; in many they acquired equipment and other things needed by their local physicians." For example, the Monzon comercal (district) federation of collectives in Aragon established maintained a hospital in Binefar, the Casa de Salud Durruti. By April 1937 it had 40 beds, in sections which included general medicine, prophylaxis and gynaecology. It saw about 25 outpatients a day and was open to anyone in the 32 villages of the comarca. [Robert Alexander, The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, vol. 1, p. 331 and pp. 366-7]
Anarchists would defend themselves from outside bullying or attempts to control them the same way they organise everything else, from the bottom up and in a self managed way. As long as people believe in the principles of anarchism, they will defend them.*What controls would be set in place to stop small communities merging together to bully others, or people becoming too powerful? Because, as sure as the sun rises, this would happen just as it always has.
One of the principles of anarchism is that people are free to do anything they like as long as it does not harm or exploit others. Most other 'laws' would be common sense bans on anti social behaviour.*What about laws? For instance, if one community makes something illegal and another doesn't then it would be horribly messy.
effective ownership is just a device I use to explain away the myth that most people have about the 'no private property' position. (What, i can't even own my toothbrush?) What I meant is that the land and resources is always socially owned by everyone, but that doesnt mean you don't have any rights to a home or to appreciate the work you put into your community.It's not good enough to have a vague decree, and it is a decree, that people should live by "effective ownership". I'd really love to see this being done on a large scale. I'd predict that there would be endless bickering and constant disputes over the flimsy notion of effective ownership so as to make the ideals of anarchism unworkable. You can't micro-manage millions of people.0 -
There seems to be a huge emphasis on community. Where does the individual fit in? How is this compatible with multi-culturalism? Have you ever read Shirley Jacksons chilling short story "The Lottery?"0
-
Here we go. And a perfectly interesting debate descends into a reduction to absurdity. "Oh, sure, it's just that I believe this, and there's no evidence I'm right, so let's just not discuss it because just imagining an alternative is just too grotesque to imagine!"fanny craddock wrote:You can see this a non work environment as people will naturally try to sort out some sort of hierarchy. And, for that matter, it is mirrored in the natural world. Without social structure there would, in the strictest meaning of the word, be anarchy.
Yes, indeed there is. Because, apparently, that's what humans live in. No, we haven't read The Lottery. Maybe you could tell us about it.metrovelvet wrote:There seems to be a huge emphasis on community. Where does the individual fit in? How is this compatible with multi-culturalism? Have you ever read Shirley Jacksons chilling short story "The Lottery?"
People do this every day of their lives. I think you imagine that anarchism is some utopian political philosophy. It's not. In fact, it's the opposite, as I understand it.fanny craddock wrote:*How could these small communities effectively band together (remembering that they set their own rules and agendas) to secure imports of fuel and other essentials?0 -
Actually, Anarchism is highly suited for a multicultural society, If you want to have seperate cultures sharing the same space and never interacting with each other, then they could just join separate communes rarely meet one another. It's not a very nice version of a society though.metrovelvet wrote:There seems to be a huge emphasis on community. Where does the individual fit in? How is this compatible with multi-culturalism? Have you ever read Shirley Jacksons chilling short story "The Lottery?"
Interculturalism however, is a much more desirable state of affairs, but whether or not communities choose to embrace outsiders or not would be a matter for them to decide on democratically. I would hope that most communities would be open and accepting towards people of different backgrounds. The reason why immigration is even a problem in modern society is because Immigrants are perceived as a direct threat to the local population when everyone is competing for a limited number of jobs in an alienated society where social interaction is down to the bare minimum of what people need to survive. Mass immigration is a problem because it threatens the local identity and that is understandable. But the reasons for mass immigration are two fold. 1. our economic system forces us to constantly expand just to stay still which means
2. Employers are constantly looking for the cheapest form of labour. Neither of these factors would be a problem in an anarchist society.
(another reason for mass migration is war and famine, but these too are products of authoritarian and capitalist regimes)0 -
DadaKopf wrote:Here we go. And a perfectly interesting debate descends into a reduction to absurdity. "Oh, sure, it's just that I believe this, and there's no evidence I'm right, so let's just not discuss it because just imagining an alternative is just too grotesque to imagine!"
So, you feel it necessary to rewrite my words? I could throw what you wrote back in your face: "Oh, sure, it's just that I choose to respond with snotty retorts rather than actually talk about the issue, so let's just not discuss it anymore!". Seriously though, I'm terribly sorry for lowering the tone of this debate
. However, I'm sure, as you construct your new society, you wont encounter any opposing viewpoints.
Anyway, you make some interesting points, Akrasia. Yet, I'm still very skeptical that the larger support structures, which we all rely upon, could be effectively and efficiently managed on a community basis. A great deal of what you seem to propose seems to rely heavily upon unity, but I think discord is natural when it comes to issues of power.
I could see a local hospital working quite well if it was dealing with 'minor' injuries/ ailments, but what about vastly expensive and highly specialised treatments? As an example (and it's only that), how could a community(s) possibly afford, let alone agree on where to locate an incredibly expensive piece of machinery? If 10 (I'm pulling that figure out of the air) communities banded together to purchase this machinery, how could they possibly agree where to house it if each community is essentially looking out for themselves? Does it really serve the greater good if a community is chiefly looking out for its own members?
I also wonder about infrastructural/ utility bodies, e.g. air/ rail/ road, electricity travel, electricity, water etc. - who controls these? Would a certain community not have a huge advantage if they just so happened to inhabit an area rich in recourses needed by less fortunate communities ? I wonder would this be the cause of huge tensions.
Do you not think that people would view Ireland ceasing to exist as a country as an outright attack? I'm sure there would be a groundswell of nationalism amongst that majority, some of which would do pretty much anything to stop this happening. Would countries choosing this philosophy not be open to a type of civil war or possibly being annexed by another country?
As for my point: "in a non-work environment people will naturally try to sort out some sort of hierarchy", I wasn't talking about my personal relationships, I was speaking in more general terms (no point in giving examples). Though, I think that if the correct circumstances arose this hierarchy could arise even between a group of friends.
Some of what you talk about sounds interesting, but parts of it I'm not convinced about. I think that many of mankind's greatest achievements and advancements would have remained undiscovered had we not formed our vast and (sometimes) enlightened cultures and pooled our resources. I also believe that many of the problems that exist nowadays: corruption; crime; greed; selfishness etc. are part and parcel of the human condition, and would eventually float to the top whatever the environment - so we would still be left with the same problems.0 -
Akrasia wrote:
One of the principles of anarchism is that people are free to do anything they like as long as it does not harm or exploit others. Most other 'laws' would be common sense bans on anti social behaviour.
How do people come to agree on what is harmful and what isnt? How do you define exploitation.
Can you explain how infrastuctures are set up, like energy supplies, cash, prisons, etc etc.
What your describing sounds like what Africa was before Europe got its hands all over it, a series of communities which lived on and off the land. Is this the vision behind this theory?0 -
It's interesting that someone mentioned healthcare. When anarchic societies are described, I always find myself thinking about why people choose to become doctors - it takes years of training, followed by years of incredibly hard work. The reward at the end is prosperity.
[Don't get me wrong: I'm not claiming that doctors have no motivation except financial reward; rather that there's a necessarily high barrier to entry to the profession, and that the reward is commensurate.]
This leads to the question: why would anyone choose to be a doctor? You could put in the years of training and long hours, or you could serve your time as an apprentice carpenter, or you could get a day's training and drive a forklift. At the end of the process, the reward is the same: you get a place to live and three squares a day.
I'm coming at this from the perspective of a fundamentally lazy person (which, I'm sorry to admit, I am). I'm working hard right now (sometimes more than twelve hours a day), but only to build the foundations of a business that will generate a passive income for me at a later time. If that reward wasn't in store, I simply wouldn't bother.0 -
I think this debate is happening on two levels. On one hand, some people are opposing anarchism because they think it could never work on a pragmatic level. On the other hand, and much less discussed, some people are discussing anarchism on the normative level because they want to establish whether, morally, a more democratic society ought to happen. The normative discussion leads to the pragmatic discussion.
Actually, many African societies were very well organised, and were, in fact, quite large. Some were even very well organised and socially stratified. Ethiopia is the prime example, and Ethiopia is left out of much African colonial literature because it was never colonised because it was organised enough to resist it for quite some time. Bantu societies spread across much of southern Africa.metrovelvet wrote:What your describing sounds like what Africa was before Europe got its hands all over it, a series of communities which lived on and off the land. Is this the vision behind this theory?
If, instead, you're implying that so-called primitive, paternalist, authoritarian, warlike 'tribes' is how Africa was before colonialism, there is ample evidence to show that it was colonialism which led to this - i.e. the violent incorporation of the continent and its peoples into industrial capitalism. This image of 'tribal violence' we see in the media (vastly exaggerates) is therefore not a necessary outcome of different forms of social organisation.
'A series of communities that lived on or off the land' also sounds like most of Europe's history until recent times (look at Ireland and Finland for recent examples). So you're going to have to qualify that statement a lot more.
*I* construct *my* new society? Where did I say I was an anarchist? Perhaps I should have phrased my point more delicately, but I've been on boards long enough to have seen how these debates tend to go. If this is a political theory board, it should - to my mind - be about discussing possibilities. Usually, interesting discussions get derailed because people refuse to consider new possibilities - maybe they're wrong, but they're worth exploring. So, it's left to others to do the exploring for them. And so the discussion shuts down. I'm not saying this at you, it's a general observation.fanny craddock wrote:However, I'm sure, as you construct your new society, you wont encounter any opposing viewpoints.
Thanks for your latest post, it was enjoyable to read, and there are some good points.
The flipside of this is that this has brought about the single greatest threat to the world - global warming. These discoveries, this progress, have come at a massive cost. I believe it would be incorrect to idealise development.I think that many of mankind's greatest achievements and advancements would have remained undiscovered had we not formed our vast and (sometimes) enlightened cultures and pooled our resources. I also believe that many of the problems that exist nowadays: corruption; crime; greed; selfishness etc. are part and parcel of the human condition, and would eventually float to the top whatever the environment - so we would still be left with the same problems.
On the same point, you again imply that anarchism is a utopian escape from the political realities of the human social world. As I understand anarchism, it does believe that circumstances shape behaviour (i.e. if circumstances changed, people's behaviour would change), but it doesn't believe that anarchism is utopia - anarchism is simply a strategy to deal with conflicts of interest and power in a specific way. This way seeks to ensure that everyone is in control of their own society through maintaining an open political system of governance. This would be the opposite of what we have today. But I don't think anarchism precludes complex social organisation. I do think that technology - like the internet, and the emergence of the network society - could provide people with the means to organise more effectively beyond political parties. This is already happening - the global social movement may be a nascent version of this.
So, the question is: if an anarchist society is impossible, and assuming that people here oppose the injustices going on today, what do people here think should happen to fix it, and how?0 -
People have to find the love, man. [Serious.]oscarBravo wrote:I'm coming at this from the perspective of a fundamentally lazy person (which, I'm sorry to admit, I am). I'm working hard right now (sometimes more than twelve hours a day), but only to build the foundations of a business that will generate a passive income for me at a later time. If that reward wasn't in store, I simply wouldn't bother.
I'm working hard to develop a career in the development aid sector. I'll never earn more than an average industrial wage, but I've made my choice. I feel it's more important to do the right thing and to get by in relative comfort, than to be successful and stinking rich. I enjoy what I do because I get a lot of love back and enjoy giving it. I feel morally bound to improve the lot of poor people in the developing worldand could not see myself doing much else.
Maybe I'm just weird.0 -
DadaKopf wrote:I think this debate is happening on two levels. On one hand, some people are opposing anarchism because they think it could never work on a pragmatic level. On the other hand, and much less discussed, some people are discussing anarchism on the normative level because they want to establish whether, morally, a more democratic society ought to happen. The normative discussion leads to the pragmatic discussion.
I am still at the trying to grasp it conceptually stage, which is why I have lots of questions.DadaKopf wrote:Actually, many African societies were very well organised, and were, in fact, quite large. Some were even very well organised and socially stratified. Many were egalitarian, while others were matriarchal. Ethiopia is the prime example, and Ethiopia is left out of much African colonial literature because it was never colonised because it was organised enough to resist it for quite some time. Bantu societies spread across much of southern Africa.
If, instead, you're implying that so-called primitive, paternalist, authoritarian, warlike 'tribes' is how Africa was before colonialism, there is ample evidence to show that it was colonialism which led to this - i.e. the violent incorporation of the continent and its peoples into industrial capitalism. This image of 'tribal violence' we see in the media (vastly exaggerates) is therefore not a necessary outcome of different forms of social organisation.
Yes I am aware of this which is why i said BEFORE EUROPE got its hands all over it. I am once again trying to gather information so I can grasp this conceptually.DadaKopf wrote:'A series of communities that lived on or off the land' also sounds like most of Europe's history until recent times (look at Ireland and Finland for recent examples). So you're going to have to qualify that statement a lot more.
Well right, what was described sounds like a bizarre form of egalitarian feudalism. Look, its confusing, Im trying to get a clearer picture.DadaKopf wrote:As I understand anarchism, it does believe that circumstances shape behaviour (i.e. if circumstances changed, people's behaviour would change),
SPeaking of behavior, does Anarchism have a perspective on human nature, like many other political theories, and if so what is it?0 -
Advertisement
-
Well, the entire universe is founded on a state of constant flux and change, and it is no different with societies and communities. There are constant power relationships being played out all of the time, and anarchism can't hope to eliminate them, but by removing the tools of oppression and by changing people's attitudes towards authority, one would also minimize the consequences of individual attempts to exercise power in a negative way. (I'm reminded of the saying 'What would all of Hitler's crimes have amounted to if he was left to carry them out alone"Fanny Cradock wrote:
Anyway, you make some interesting points, Akrasia. Yet, I'm still very skeptical that the larger support structures, which we all rely upon, could be effectively and efficiently managed on a community basis. A great deal of what you seem to propose seems to rely heavily upon unity, but I think discord is natural when it comes to issues of power.
Socialized health care has been proven to be a much more efficient and cost effective way of providing medical coverage to the community.I could see a local hospital working quite well if it was dealing with 'minor' injuries/ ailments, but what about vastly expensive and highly specialised treatments? As an example (and it's only that), how could a community(s) possibly afford, let alone agree on where to locate an incredibly expensive piece of machinery? If 10 (I'm pulling that figure out of the air) communities banded together to purchase this machinery, how could they possibly agree where to house it if each community is essentially looking out for themselves? Does it really serve the greater good if a community is chiefly looking out for its own members?
Health care cooperatives would run in much the same way as all other kinds of cooperatives. They would localise as much as possible and then pool their resources to accomplish the more intensive tasks. The problems of deciding on where to locate these hospitals would be no more divisive than they are today, except the decisions would be arrived at in a democratic manner instead of by the decree of whoever happens to be minister for health at that time.
they would in a competitive society, but not in a cooperative one.I also wonder about infrastructural/ utility bodies, e.g. air/ rail/ road, electricity travel, electricity, water etc. - who controls these? Would a certain community not have a huge advantage if they just so happened to inhabit an area rich in recourses needed by less fortunate communities ? I wonder would this be the cause of huge tensions.
People have a greater attachment to the Island of Ireland and to the people of Ireland than they do to the Government of Ireland. In the beginning there would probably be a lot of resistance to change from those who feel they are losing out on their private wealth or their nation, but as with any social change, things would settle down and people would get on with life. The reason for Irish nationalism is because the British were actively oppressing the Irish people. They were fighting for freedom from britain, and the Irish nation was the way they hoped to achieve this.Do you not think that people would view Ireland ceasing to exist as a country as an outright attack? I'm sure there would be a groundswell of nationalism amongst that majority, some of which would do pretty much anything to stop this happening. Would countries choosing this philosophy not be open to a type of civil war or possibly being annexed by another country?
Perhaps many of our achievements would have, but those achievements include the Atomic Bomb, the Pyramids at Giza, the technology to over fish, over farm and cut down thousands of square kilometres of pristine rainforest.Some of what you talk about sounds interesting, but parts of it I'm not convinced about. I think that many of mankind's greatest achievements and advancements would have remained undiscovered had we not formed our vast and (sometimes) enlightened cultures and pooled our resources. I also believe that many of the problems that exist nowadays: corruption; crime; greed; selfishness etc. are part and parcel of the human condition, and would eventually float to the top whatever the environment - so we would still be left with the same problems.
I consider the greatest achievements of Mankind to be in the forms of art and sports and culture and community. In the current system, most of the worlds research capacity is spent on developing tools of war and chemicals for profits. Imagine if the researchers were motivated by something other than profits. what could we achieve?
In relation to the Human condition, Crime is mostly caused by poverty, Greed is caused by materialism and corruption is caused by a power lust. All of these things are confronted by Anarchism. I am not suggesting that it would be a Utopia, There would be plenty of problems and issues, I just think that on the balance, we would all be much better off.0 -
I don't think you're weird. I greatly admire what you're doing, and I genuinely believe people like you make more of a difference to the world than people like me.DadaKopf wrote:I'm working hard to develop a career in the development aid sector. I'll never earn more than an average industrial wage, but I've made my choice. I feel it's more important to do the right thing and to get by in relative comfort, than to be successful and stinking rich. I enjoy what I do because I get a lot of love back and enjoy giving it. I feel morally bound to improve the lot of poor people in the developing worldand could not see myself doing much else.
Maybe I'm just weird.
Unfortunately, there are more people like me than people like you. I'm not unhappy with who I am (if I was, I'd change), but I don't think people like me are going to go along with the anarchist ideal. Right now, I look at what Akrasia's describing, and I can see the attractions, but my overall feeling is "meh".0 -
Akrasia, just to pose the question: what makes you seem sure that an anarchist society could work?0
-
Communism doesn't work in theory the exact same way anarchism doesn't work in theory.Akrasia wrote:communism doesn't work in theory. The abomination that was predicted materialised in it's worst forms. Anarchists opposed central planning for a reason, and Stalin/Mao/Kim Jung Il are consequence of allowing the vanguard party to take control.
People will always want to improve their own situation. The current consumerism culture that we are subject to is not natural, it is manufactured.
I could list off countless situations where an anarchic societywould just break down. You credit people with a greater sense of justice and equality than they could ever naturally posess.
In response to my hypothetical situations, you would no doubt try and expand the situationand prove that it would in fact work.
With a lack of central planning, there would a sectarian society within days. It would be the equivelant of a tribal society. There would be civil war, and eventually one group would gain power and we would be left in a right mess.0 -
And there are also plenty of examples of organised societies/systems breaking down, too.sean_keevey wrote:I could list off countless situations where an anarchic societywould just break down.0 -
Is this essentially mob rule?
If everything is voted on democratically, then what happens when they vote to privatise health care or exterminate people who dont fit in?
What if theres one domineering bully who intimidates the community [ala Lord of the Flies]?
Whats there to protect the minority voice?0 -
Democratically if there is any dispute. Most of this is down to cultural relativism and would be easy to agree by consensusmetrovelvet wrote:How do people come to agree on what is harmful and what isnt? How do you define exploitation.
Money is open to different approaches. Barter, local currencies, time banks, consumer and producer councils are some of the solutions to how we distribute resources.Can you explain how infrastuctures are set up, like energy supplies, cash, prisons, etc etc.
Other economic is collectivised and carried out through Syndicates, federations of Syndicates, Co-operatives etc. The underlying principles are all the same, Decisions are made by the people affected by them in a democratic and accountable way. here is a basic explanation of the principles
http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SA/en/display/367There would be a system of consumer councils beginning with neighborhood councils, extending into ward, county, regional, and national federations of councils. Certain goods, such as hospitals, parks, rail systems etc. would be collectively consumed. The consumer councils and federations would discuss first their collective needs for a share of social production, beginning at the national level and moving on down. After collective needs are taken care of, the councils would arrive at budgets for average individual and family consumption. Individuals might retain the right to opt out, becoming "one person" councils, though they would then forfeit their share of collective conveniences.
There are some green anarchists who wish to revert back to a primitive form of society, but these are in the minority. Most anarchists want to keep technology, but just use it more efficiently for the good of everyone and not just a small few.What your describing sounds like what Africa was before Europe got its hands all over it, a series of communities which lived on and off the land. Is this the vision behind this theory?0 -
That's a pretty cynical view of why people become doctors in the first place. It is a very rewarding job just because you get to save people's livesoscarBravo wrote:It's interesting that someone mentioned healthcare. When anarchic societies are described, I always find myself thinking about why people choose to become doctors - it takes years of training, followed by years of incredibly hard work. The reward at the end is prosperity.
The reasons why it is such a hard job in the current system is because there are an artificially low number of doctors being trained and they are expected to do far too much work to cover the lack of manpower. In Cuba there are far more doctors and most are happy to do their job without receiving massive salaries in compensation.
In terms of the length of their training, 7 years to become a GP is only 2 years more than what it takes to be a teacher.
Most people want more out of life than just the means to survive. Self actuatalisation is an important psychological need that is hard to find in a boring low wage, low skill job.This leads to the question: why would anyone choose to be a doctor? You could put in the years of training and long hours, or you could serve your time as an apprentice carpenter, or you could get a day's training and drive a forklift. At the end of the process, the reward is the same: you get a place to live and three squares a day.
Well, an anarchist society would probably have much shorter working days than the current Capitalist society because you are only working for yourself and your family, and not to line the profits of the landowners. Anarchists wish to abolish all wage labour in favour of a system of worker self management.I'm coming at this from the perspective of a fundamentally lazy person (which, I'm sorry to admit, I am). I'm working hard right now (sometimes more than twelve hours a day), but only to build the foundations of a business that will generate a passive income for me at a later time. If that reward wasn't in store, I simply wouldn't bother.0 -
As DadaKopf has already said, Anarchists believe that human behaviour is strongly affected by the conditions that we find ourselves living in. Chomsky said 'Under the right conditions, any one of us could find ourselves either as a gas chamber attendant, or a saint'metrovelvet wrote:SPeaking of behavior, does Anarchism have a perspective on human nature, like many other political theories, and if so what is it?
Other than the small number of genuinely medically deranged people in our society, most of us respond to our circumstances0 -
Advertisement
-
Well, i think it could work, but it would require a critical mass before it could survive. There would need to be strong support from anarchist unions and there would need to be a change in international conditions to stop powerful capitalist countries from invading anyone who tries to leave their mafia family.DadaKopf wrote:Akrasia, just to pose the question: what makes you seem sure that an anarchist society could work?
I doubt anarchism would ever spring from Ireland, It is most likely to emerge from latin america where they are much more revolutionary than we are in this country.
Basically, We have about as much a chance of surviving global warming as we have of ever seeing anarchism in operation (again). (the two are linked, Global warming will be a severe shock to the current system and if we survive, there will need to be an alternative)0
Advertisement