BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

On the Varieties of Anarchy

  
 
SMS
00:33 / 27.11.03
Illmatic in “Patterns in Age Politics, and Gender”
I don't really want to go down that route as you start dreaming up all kinds of Anarcotopia's which isn't really that productive.

Er.... so that’s kind of what this topic is about. Excpet that I would suggest not thinking of anarchy as utopian.

Babelith seems to have enough active members able to discuss anarchy, and it sounds like anarchists are about as varied in their opinions as statists are. You have the left-wingers, the free-market capitalists, the anarcho-fascists, and so on. Let’s discuss the variety of ways that a state-free society can function. What advantages and disadvantages would one system have over another and how could we move from a land with government to a land without.

I’d like to have this topic work under the assumption that anarchy is the way to go, so a lengthy debate between statism and anarchy deserves its own topic.

A first definition of government: a coercive monopoly of power.

Feel free to offer modifications to this if needed. I’m taking it from Randy Barnett, self-described as a classical liberal but his wonderful book The Structure of Liberty really advocates for anarchy, even though he doesn’t say so.
 
 
SMS
00:49 / 27.11.03
Also see this Barbelith discussion onThe Purpose of Government.
 
 
No star here laces
04:53 / 27.11.03
I used to know which anarchist had said what, and what the different types were called, but can't remember anymore, so will put forward my view without any references (better that way anyhow, IMHO).

So: all concentrations of power and arbitrary rules of any type result in injustice (basic tenet of anarchism).

I like the idea that there is a limit to the size of group that can be self-governing. So, say, 50 people can govern themselves without structures in place, but 1,000 people cannot. The exact number at which the switch happens is not important, but I think most people place it at around 200. So it makes no sense to talk of an anarchist "nation" or "world". Only the self-governing unit can be anarchist, and only a small unit can be governed this way.

So I think that the most just (note: not most efficient) mode of living is in small groups of less than 200 without any permanent governmental structures or laws. Where an individual's actions are questioned by the group, action is decided on by a discussion among all members of the group.

The group takes collective responsibility for everything, including the well-being of all individuals within the group.

I like the aspects of anarchism that emphasise the human qualities above the organisational. To me, for it to work as a philosophy, it has to be about communication, improvisation, friendship and creativity and not about abstracts like "freedom".

Each case and each individual are treated as such, without preconceptions or strictures. Life is based on a deep and full knowledge of the individuals in the community.
 
 
gotham island fae
07:46 / 27.11.03
The group takes collective responsibility for everything, including the well-being of all individuals within the group.

Like melee weapons and shit, eh?

Seriously, I agree with you, jefededelaces.



Seriously, anybody DOing it, now, today?
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
11:43 / 27.11.03
Yep Frater, Israeli Kibbutzin have been around for ages, there are still communes and autonomous communities all over the place.

The possible forms of Anarchism:

1) The small agricultural commune as mentioned by Jefe above. Essentially a kibbutz, with a little trade between communes to provide necessary stuff (say one commune has a surplus of wheat but nothing to harvest it, the other builds combine harvesters but has no wheat)
pros: peaceful, green, egalitarian, what most consider to be 'true' Anarchism.
cons: dull, potentially primitive (200 isn't enough to run a power station) vulnerable to gangs and natural disasters.

2) Anarcho-Capitalism: essentially what we have today minus government regulation and subsidies. Everything is for sale, security and healthcare are provided by competing companies. Companies run either as hierarchies (like today, with a board of directors and stock holders and a union to represent workers) or cooperatives (with all workers holding joint stock in the company and electing a president)
Pros: it'd be easy to adapt our current infrastructure, it'd be popular with already existing companies who could fund the transitional phase, techonological progress, market forces would kill off inneficent industries and immoral companies because they wouldn't have a government to subsidise them thru taxes.
Cons: with no monopoly laws there could quickly be a handful of 'mega-corporations' running everything, labour struggle could quickly turn violent, inequality.

3: Anarcho-Primitivism: Tear it down and start over, we all return to pre-agricultural 'hunter-gatherer' society.
Pros: Green, 'natural', interesting (you'd always have something to do, bringing down a buffalo with a flint spear must be a good laugh)
Cons: Violent, there's nothing to stop a tribe from adopting agriculture or industry, bound to be unpopular.

4: Anarcho-Communism: an extended versh of Jefe's tribal anarchism. Industrial cooperatives work together to provide for their members, trading goods pro-bono as opposed to for profit. The outcome is basically a more equitable version of what we have now, but with no capital or cooercive authority and with greater space for freedom and individuality.
Pros: Organised, democratic, maintains the same level of technology as we have now.
Cons: Difficult to make a transition, may quickly return to old-style Communism.

Okay, you may disagree with a few of the pros and cons, and think of your own, but these seem to be the four main strands of Anarchist thought at the moment. The only way I can concieve of Anarchy working is to have all four societies running in tandem, with free movement of individuals between them: if you got pissed off with Capitalist employment then you could join up with a commune, or 'go native' with a Primitivist tribe, and vice-a-versa.
What do people think? Would any of the societies be antagonistic to each other? Can you think of any more?
 
 
cusm
21:41 / 28.11.03
If you do away with the state in any functional anarchy format, the social responsibilites the state once mandated becomes the responsibility of the individual. In effect, the "laws" would have to be adopted and enforced by the individuals. Basicly, if everyone understood the rights and wrongs and was agreeable to standing by them, it could work. But what you've basicly done there is replace a state with a religion. It only functions for so long as everyone continues to abide by the rules of the religion. As soon as someone says "bugger this" and does something like steal their neighbor's chickens, you are left with the choice of letting the violated party deal with the matter in a "might makes right" sort of way, or emply the force of society to make things right again. With the first option, one is left with a rather unpleasently violent environment which forms defense groups that in time evolve into states. With the second, the people are jumping right into state-like action. So, you don't really keep "true" anarchy for long. There's a reason humans invented the state-like structures they have. They're damn essencial to survival and progress.

But back to ideals, a type of anarchy where the people form collectives to resolve problems without those collectives remaining as states, and doing so because the people involved feel a responsibility to do so, is in a sense an anarcho-theocracy, a type not yet mentioned. this type focuses on shared standards of acceptable behavior, and takes it upon themselves in mob style to enforce them. This is probably the most likely format to be successful, as the mob formation offers the enforcing strength of the state to keep peace. It only requires a religion good enough for everyone to want to follow fanaticly to hold it together. Which of course means that the collected populous is itself still a state, but one in which every citizen is also a member of that state. Hmm. Would that make it an anarcho-cooperative? Like, everyone holds an equal share in the non-existent government that only comes into existence when it needs to.
 
 
SMS
22:41 / 28.11.03
The only way I can concieve of Anarchy working is to have all four societies running in tandem, with free movement of individuals between them: if you got pissed off with Capitalist employment then you could join up with a commune, or 'go native' with a Primitivist tribe, and vice-a-versa. Would any of the societies be antagonistic to each other?

The anarcho-capitalistic society seems to be one that is both very welcoming of the others, and would possibly engulf them completely. Small agricultural communities would have to be able to deal with those large corporations offering better services at lower prices, so they might wind up having to form corporations themselves, but still maintain a small, gated commune.

Primitivists wouldn't be a problem as long as they didn't become too numerous. They probably would realize this and keep their numbers down, but where would they hunt and gather? If all anarchies were working together, the primitivists would have to own chunks of land just to keep their lifestyle going, but this gets a little too close to forming a little nation, for my tastes. The best plan to deal with primitivists is to make sure they don't acquire too much contiguous land.

Anarcho-communism seems impossible alongside anarcho-capitalism. It isn't so much that they have to be antagonistic to each other, but that most people with resources would be tempted to leave the communistic system in favor of the capitalistic system so that they don't have to give them up. You could get little communes, but not big ones.
 
 
No star here laces
03:12 / 29.11.03
As soon as someone says "bugger this" and does something like steal their neighbor's chickens, you are left with the choice of letting the violated party deal with the matter in a "might makes right" sort of way, or emply the force of society to make things right again

errr....no.

Firstly, its dubious whether the word "steal" has any meaning in an anarchist society.

Secondly, most anarchists would say that actually what you do is "option 3" where all parties involved sit down and discuss what has happened and decide what to do depending on the particular circumstances.

eg if the guy stole the chickens because he was starving and the guy who had the chickens didn't particularly need them, then you do nothing.

Finally, the whole principle is that disputes are resolved without using authority - i.e. in the same way that you interact with your friends. There is no "punishment". Wrongdoers have the choice to maker right, wronged have the choice to forgive and forget and life goes on...

Anyway, we're not supposed to be discussing this stuff here.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
12:53 / 29.11.03
SMatthewSlote: Yep, agreed there. Anarcho-Capitalism would probably 'engulf' a lot of the population of the post-state world, probably 80-90%. Maybe 'engulf' is the wrong word here, that implies it'd be something forced on peaceful commune dwellers by evil black armored corporate cops. Nice idea for a sci-fi story maybe, but it's going to be more likely that the communes that don't work so well (they can't provide for their members, they become internally repressive etc.) would disband and the members would either form better communes or join up with the Capitalists. This fluidity is a strength of the multi-societal approach, it allows people to vote with thier feet and doesn't make defacto assumptions about what kind of society is right. (Personal note: I've never met or read another Anarchist who thinks this. They seem to all have the 'religious' approach to their particular brand of Anarchy and the heartfelt belief that all six billion people on Earth will unanimously agree with them as soon as they can, like, educate them with bad punk rock and worse poetry)

On the subject of the Primitivists, maybe there could be 'reservations' set aside for them by mutual agreement. There's still a lot of wilderness in the world (maybe not in the UK, but definitely in America). It'd still be an unpopular mode of living, more a temporary lifestyle choice that people fall in and out of when they feel like a change than a sustainable alternative to modern life.
 
 
Widing
22:15 / 29.11.03
For me...

Anarchism is not a utopian society. There will never be a perfect way of organizing humans.

Anarchism is a way of living and thinking, accepting no constraints from without.
___
http://interactingarts.org
 
 
cusm
16:00 / 30.11.03
That's a bit of what I was getting on about Anarchy being a religion, or at least any functional version of it acting as such. Regardless of the economic model used, a functioning anarchy requires a set of ideals to be upheld in a religious manner by those participating in it. This leads to a form of anarchy where this relationship is centered upon with greater emphesis, the anarcho-theocracy. There is no governing body, but all members agree on the central tennents of the religion in question, enforcing it amongst themselves as needed. Its a bit of a meta form, as other economic forms can exist within it, so long as they don't violate any of the core values held by the system.
 
 
griffle
21:52 / 01.01.04
'There is no governing body, but all members agree on the central tennents of the religion in question, enforcing it amongst themselves as needed.'

I dont think that what you are talking about is a function of religion, rather of cultural assumptions that we all share to a greater or lesser degree in any society. Isnt this one of the clarion crys of anarchists that all we need is a 'paradigm shift' get people thinking and therefore behaving in a more healthy way socially?

PS would this be a pacifist society?
 
 
griffle
23:55 / 01.01.04
I have recently been reading 'The Dispossesed' by Ursula Le Guin. In this book she explores many aspects of an Anarchist society. One of the issues she explores is the inevitable emergence of a bureaucracy and de-facto government through public opinion and social pressure. Within a communalistic social structure there would be great pressure to conform. This pressure might perhaps stifle individual ingeneuity and creativity. Some of these ideas are explored in Ayn Rand's Anthem and Yevgeny Zamiatin's We.
 
 
Jester
03:25 / 02.01.04
2) Anarcho-Capitalism: essentially what we have today minus government regulation and subsidies. Everything is for sale, security and healthcare are provided by competing companies. Companies run either as hierarchies (like today, with a board of directors and stock holders and a union to represent workers) or cooperatives (with all workers holding joint stock in the company and electing a president)
Pros: it'd be easy to adapt our current infrastructure, it'd be popular with already existing companies who could fund the transitional phase, techonological progress, market forces would kill off inneficent industries and immoral companies because they wouldn't have a government to subsidise them thru taxes.
Cons: with no monopoly laws there could quickly be a handful of 'mega-corporations' running everything, labour struggle could quickly turn violent, inequality.

Personally, I would object to the idea that this is actually Anarchism. Mainly because it would seem to me to be replacing the rule of that state with the rule of the company. Removing even the nominal 'representation' of the people in the system that governs them. Especially if you define government as a 'coercive monopoly of power'.
 
 
SMS
22:29 / 02.01.04
The idea behind it is that it eliminates the monopoly on power, because you can switch from one government to another as easily as you might switch from one type of car to another. It's the absence of the monopoly bit that lets it into the definition of anarchy.
 
 
Rage
06:16 / 08.01.04
You think there are only three possible forms of anarchism? Talk about crap!

We might as well force anarchy upon the masses and see who's able to make it through the shit. If only there were more anarcho-fascists in the world! If only.

Someone in the other thread was asking what the hell anarcho-fascism was. The term was initially a joke, ya, but it really depends on how you're viewing it. There's always the survivalist anarchy thing... the violent chaos sort... the interesting kind of anarchy...

Floating in between the extreme left and the extreme right (both of which are bunk, of course) might be considered anarcho-fascism or at least anarchist individualism. A lot of people lump this in with anarcho-capitalism, unfortunately.

Not to mention anarcho-futurism or anarcho-syndicalism or anarchy-of-every-day-life-look-at-the-world-man-it's-already-anarchy-dude. (most-people-just-don't-see-it)
 
  
Add Your Reply