AHunter3, do you consider property to be archal or not? In your system is it legitimate for anyone to say “this is mine”?
They do, in two cases I know of. There are doubtless hundreds, if not thousands, of similar organizations around the world, organizations of anarchists going out and doing anarchism.
You’d be amazed how often I hear comparisons between Anarchists (which are by definition anti-authoritarian) and the Bolsheviks (which by contrast suppressed all dissent, locked people up in gulags, and prevented worker’s self management by appointing Bolshevik party officials to act as dictators over workplaces).
The difference between the two is much greater than the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Yet every single far left idea is lumped together with Marxism. Did you know that Anarchist thinkers existed before Marx came on to the scene? That Anarchists and Marxists have had an antagonistic relationship with each other for quite some time?
Every single society in existence has mechanisms in place to ensure that individuals do not violate the social order. i.e. Individuals will be punished for violating the rules. What’s the difference between a formally established authority and an informally established authority?
And this is flat out impossible in a civilized society.
You will need a hierarchy to get any large project done. Want to build a dam so people have access to water? You’ll need an engineer that has the authority to dictate to the construction workers how to build it and what materials to use. You’ll need a foreman with the ability to direct the efforts of the construction crew and to ensure that they’re doing it right.
That context is called reality.
It strikes me that these are self-refuting. First, they’re extremely limited and capable only of existing in a society which protects them. Second, they’re not exactly rejecting society’s roles, rules, and regulations.
I see that they’re currently limited; otherwise, I think you’re making unsupported claims. Wanna support 'em?
The point of anarchism isn’t that there’s no one in charge. It’s that if the guy in charge is a chucklefuck, there’s no money or force holding him in charge. The entire concept of “in charge” is defined by the people who are being led.
An anarchist dam building project would proceed exactly as a capitalist one, except that if the chief engineer and foreman are abusive dumbshits they they get replaced regardless of how much stock they own or who their daddy is.
Sure, in some scenarios this might result in lazy workers who do a shoddy job. Yet in other unpaid, self-organizing contexts there’s a vibrant ecology of productive labor. For example, the open source movement is a clear model of how large anarchist projects can be wildly successful in practice, despite the leaders having no particular relevant capital or authority other than competence and community respect.
You can say it. If you can negotiate a shared understanding of that, or the piece of property is something you tend to carry around with you anyhow, it seems you would not need law enforcement to establish it as yours.
I can readily imagine many things that are special, unique, and/or particularly tailored to my tasted and would want THAT ONE and not some other equivalent. It would be MINE. But I can also imagine a great many things such that, as long as I can have access to or the use of ONE OF them, I don’t really care which one it is and would be relieved to NOT have to have one that was specifically my own, to keep track of / haul around / etc
I think plenty of people have described it pretty well here. I think because it’s mostly been unrealized people have a tough time imagining an anarchist society. One of the central points to Anarchism (or libertarian socialism if you prefer) is that authority must justify itself. If there are criminals abusing society then authority to intervene would be justified, but it would exist at the pleasure of the people and be dissolvable at any point it was no longer needed or overstepped it’s bounds.
For instance the authority to use violence is a dangerous one and should have to meet the highest standards of justification to act. We find that in the USA that the users and controllers of violence and controllers of resources are the least brought to justify their actions. There are always military actions that are opposed by the majority. We just had a cop beat a young man’s head in while he was helpless because he didn’t like the look of him. He is not in custody awaiting trial, he is on paid suspension pending an “investigation” even though the video evidence is clear. Our treasury department has now revealed they lent more than 7 trillion dollars to banks after the housing collapse for .01% interest and those banks were allowed at the same time to buy bonds at 2% or more interest from the government. We effectively paid them to borrow money from us. The hierarchy of our society allowed this to happen in secret. Secrecy should also prove a high burden of justification. (Like nuclear technology)
The ideals of anarchism are not all that radical. They are merely a realization of what most people already understand to be just. If you want a theoretical framework for how the economy might work you can look at Parecon, which has explored this topic extensively.
I don’t think hierarchy is usually efficient at anything but maintaining power for a small number. If an individual was a good leader and had good ideas people would listen to them and the group would follow their advice, but that doesn’t mean you have to give them authority over you to do what they want with community resources even if the community disagrees. There are many industries in the world who are not efficient in and of themselves but only profitable because many of the costs of their operations are laid on the community. Polluters are the main offenders here. There are endless examples of how expensive certain pollutions have been to communities that have not been paid for whatsoever or only in token gesture by the industry. That’s not economic success, it’s just theft. The same goes for industries in the US that do not pay medical but who’s employees regularly use the ER without paying. They are getting their labor at a subsidized discount.
Anarchism is a gradient, and history has been moving closer to the ideal of it at least in image for a long time. The authority to enslave other human begs was deemed unjustified ad so was done away with. The same for women and one’s private religious practices.
It sounds like you’re talking about a police force here. I didn’t think it was possible to have a police force and be an anarchy. After all, if anyone has authority that I don’t have we’ve established a hierarchy and those are supposed to be bad. One thing nobody’s addressed is what do you do when the majority approve of persecuting minorities? How does an anarchy protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority?
It’s the methods by which you wish to achieve those ideals that bother me. The elimination of private property, money and any kind of market, are all very radical ideas.
I think you’re using hierarchy in a different manner than I do. If we all choose to listen to someone because we notice they’re really good at the subject we have established a hierarchy.
And? I’m sure there are other industries that are very efficient because of good management.
Eh, those ideals are hardly confined to anarchist and sure as heck weren’t reached because we’re moving closer to anarchy.
This just sounds like you don’t really understand what anarchism is. It is not a black flag waving psychopath throwing Molotov cocktails.
Law enforcement is probably necessary, though not in the way it exists now. For example in an anarchist society fining people for rolling stops at stop signs is not justified if its done safely. Traffic ticket costs driven by fund raising goals are not justified.
Oppressing minorities with a majority is a democracy issue not an anarchy one (I don’t think anarchism can exists without democracy but that’s another tangent). Anarchism says that oppressing minorities is not justified. A majoriy wanting something does not justify it unless the security , health or prosperity are threatened in some material way. Any society can make BS arguments about how cultural/racial/religious minorities threaten them. There is no reason to think that with anarchy this would be more common. If somehow the economy was inferior to modern ones and therefore conditions worse for people than the strain could produce that reaction, but again that’s not inherent and is speculative at best, simple ad hominem at worst.
People afraid of the tyranny of the majority should not be supporting democracy in any case. Anything that moderates the potential for it is an anarchist component of government. (Taking authority away since it is not justified).
In a hierarchy people’s identities are placed above one another’s which is unnecessary. In a more logical system only the superiority of a person’s ideas give them more likelihood of being accepted. Anarchy is closer to that than hierarchical systems.
Good management is better than bad management by definition. Many systems including US research into assembly lines at the turn of the century intentionally took decision making away from workers on the line and gave it to management even though the research showed it to be less efficient. They did this to maintain hierarchy and power at the expense of efficiency.
Anarchism is not a homogeneous system it is merely a pole of types of human organization. When kings ruled over every issue and could do anything they pleased and each person in society had their power based on the favor of the royal family we were far more hierarchical. Becoming less of a hierarchical society makes us more anarchist the same as a less violent society is more pacifistic and a more violent society is more antagonistic.
Not Parable, but I want to answer some of this:
It’s perfectly possible - as long as the police operates on the lines of a volunteer citizen militia and doesn’t delegate any judiciary powers to itself whatsoever.
They have only that power that society has given them - so you’ve given them that authority yourself, and you’re perfectly capable of volunteering and assuming some of that authority yourself.
A decent Bill of Rights, same as in modern Western archy. Anarchism doesn’t mean no rules, it means no rulers.
Not really - one could say they are, in fact, the base state.
No. Listening to =/= granting authority. If we choose to do as someone says, because of their expertise, that doesn’t mean we’ve given them authority over us, we have not established a hierarchy. Social hierarchy is what we’re talking about, BTW - entrenched social inequalities like classes or castes. Not voluntary associations like listening to an expert for advice.
Good management is not synonymous with authoritative management.[
Gee, thanks. If I thought it was just a bunch of flag waving psychopaths I wouldn’t bother posting in this thread.
So in what way will it exist?
It’s not an anarchy problem because no anarchy currently exists. I’m asking a practical question. How would an anarchy prevent a tyranny of the majority? I’m not arguing that a majority wanting something means it’s justified. I’m asking how you deal with the issue in an anarchy. You can’t just wave your hands and say this kind of thing can’t happen in an anarchy. You need to explain to me the mechanism by which human rights will be protected before I start taking anarchy seriously as a political philosophy.
There’s no reason for me to think it would be less common either. So I guess it’s a wash.
So any claims that the economic “system” under anarchy would be preferable to what we have now is equally speculative at best, right? It’s not an ad hominem. I have very concrete reasons why getting rid of money or a market is bad.
I honestly have no idea what you mean here.
What do you mean their identities are placed above another? I have no idea what that means.
Cite? Cars became way more affordable because of Ford’s assembly line. (Though you’re partially right. Skilled workers in the 19th century were incensed that they were being treated as cogs in a machine and that was even before the spread of assembly lines.)
Just because I don’t practice violence on a daily basis doesn’t make me anything close to a pacifist. Again, I use hierarchy in a different manner than anarchist do which makes conversation difficult. When you say “more hierarchical” I think of a chart with more layers on it. It has nothing do with with my rights as a human being or how free or oppressed I am.
Odesio
While I’m not one who says we need to do away with currency entirely, I have to disagree. It’s just not been done on a wide scale (but works for e.g. the open source movement), that really doesn’t make a logical argument that it can’t be done. Argument by assertion is no argument at all. Build me a logical chain for why it is “impossible”, and lay out your criteria for what makes a society “civilized”
So basically what we have now?
It would appear to me that my rulers are the majority in anarchy. At any rate, a decent bill of rights isn’t enough. What practical check is there on the authority of the majority? How are my rights as an individual balanced against the rights of others?
That’s just a poor answer. For the last few thousand years, western civilization has has used money and has had some concept of private property. A departure from that is a radical departure from how we view civilization.
If we all agree to do what Bob the Builder says to do at the construction cite because we all agree he has the best ideas, we are granting him authority. He’s going to be the one dictating how we work, what materials we use, etc., etc. He might not have the authority to make me work but he’s got some authority at the job site. You think the other workers are going to just sit around if I ignore Bob’s instructions on how far to space the studs?
Okay, but you acknowledge that voluntary associations can have a hierarchy with some people have greater or lesser responsibilities as well as authority over other members within the context of that voluntary association, right?
If we’re defining authoritative management the same way, I agree. Then again, I never argued in favor of authoritative management.
The only criteria I have for civilization is for there to be a city that is made up of permanent structures occupied around the year. I admit it, “impossible” was a hyperbole on my part. How do you envision an economy working without money, barter or a market of any kind?
Well sorry, that came off stronger than I meant it to. You have admitted to not being that familiar with Anarchism and many of your comments implied to me that you are at least somewhat coming from the popular imagery of anarchism being about chaos, lawlessness, mad max type stuff which is somehow ingrained in people’s minds without anyone really in any formal setting admitting that anarchism is even a political system or explaining it whatsoever. If it is mentioned it’s usually just in order to insult someone’s suggestion for changes in how society works.
I think Mrdibble covered the form of the police pretty well. Many anarchist models favor most people having more than one job, especially if one job tends to give them more clout than others or to offset the arduousness of various jobs. (Like many contributing to janitorial duties instead of a guy having that be his only job).
Anarchist society prevents tyranny of the majority by having laws and enforcing those laws by protecting those being attacked in violation and punishing those that attack. Same as in the society now though with some different nuances.
I agree that the success of an anarchist economic system would be speculative. With the free exchange of ideas and technology instead of their sequester for personal profit I think the progress of humanity would increase exponentially. So people think the profit motive would prevent this though I tend to think the clout motive would take over. You can get pretty popular by inventing your societies new most useful or enjoyable product or technology.
A person’s Identity being elevated means that that person is given a rank in some context and because of his rank his opinion is always taken over the lower ranked person’s. Like a general vs a private in the military. The general isn’t promoted in pieces he’s promoted wholly. In a non-hierarchical structure collaboration is encouraged and unilateral decision making is only allowed when justified. (Like the guy who has to fix 10 street lights that day might decide to fix them in this order unilaterally because that’s reasonable.)
Sorry I’m a little tired atm to find the source for that bit about assembly lines, maybe Ill find it tomorrow. It’s not something I read recently.
Anarchism can be used to describe a quality in any system or a general political system. “This monarchy still has many nomadic members of society that operate under anarchistic economic systems.”
Anarchism does not mean there is no money or markets. I favor market and money systems for their efficiency, especially with the ability now to have all money be electronic. There is still supply and demand and you can’t micromanage the allotment of goods and services without a hellscape ensuing. So you pay people with money to use for their personal enjoyment. Maybe all medical is always covered, no toll roads, free phones, computers, transport ect, but they use their money to buy jewelry, perfume, flashy sunglasses, get a massage ect.
What markets and money would not be allowed to do in anarchism is allow for private speculation and hoarding of resources.
If you’ve ever worked in a small group that had some task they wanted to do like say decorate the church for a holiday there is usually a person who begins taking point and throwing out ideas for who does what, if someone suggests alternatives they are considered and the group indicates what ideas they like better with many though not necessarily all adding their suggestions. If one person simply tries to seize control and claim authority they’re generally seen as a jerk, or just denied their coup attempt, “This is what were doing. No more discussion. I’ll decide what we do for the rest of the day.”
Authoritative management is how nearly all business is done. There may be the desire to make the work environment more casual and collaborative but when it comes down to it the boss is the boss, especially when it comes to jobs people don’t like doing or do like doing, who gets fired, hired and compensation.
No. What we have now is an authoritative *professional class *of police, also empowered to make judicial judgements and mete out punishments ad hoc.
No. Anarchism isn’t simple democracy. And anyway, “the majority” isn’t an entrenched ruling class the way “the nobility” or “the priests” or “the Whites” is. What’s “The Majority” will definitely change from issue to issue.
The same way they are in your current society - by law and custom.
I’m confused - tell me how do you think this will be different in an anarchist system?
I disagree. It’s a departure from how you view civilization, not a necessity for civilization to function. Again, look at the open source community for example. Shit gets done, and it gets done better than a capitalist model.
But anyway, I see no need to abandon currency. Just private property. And there’ve been lots of small-scale examples of that.
Voluntarily. And if he is unreasonable, or wrong, we don’t have to keep listening to him. So how much authority does he have, really? He has no enforcement authority, and that’s the kind we can do without.
No. But then that’s not Bob’s authority that matters, is it? It’s group consensus. Do you think they’re going to agree with Bob if he insists studs should be 6m apart? No. They’ll follow Bob as long as he makes sense.
Greater and lesser responsibilities, sure. Authority, no. That’s the beauty of voluntary association - I can always leave.
So you agree that one can have good self-management, then?
Like Çatalhöyük?
Some combination of a gift economy and post-scarcity economics.