Russian analyst predicts 'breakup' of USA; France surrenders

[skeptik]

Why do people actually believe that anarchism is possible in such a society that we live in today? It's ridiculous. It's a nice but impossible ideal to strive for. I also don't think I would want to live in such a society to begin with whatwith the hindrances such a society would necessarily have on advancement of certain fields. It also assumes that removing a formal authoritative body somehow magically eliminates hegemonic and coercive power. Basically what anarchism boils down to is that "a society made up of "good people" can maintain itself by itself". But this applies to all ideologies and is a fault in all ideologies. Anarchism will fall due to corrupt individuals just as democracy will.

 

[Dak]

Why do people actually believe that anarchism is possible in such a society that we live in today? It's ridiculous. It's a nice but impossible ideal to strive for. I also don't think I would want to live in such a society to begin with whatwith the hindrances such a society would necessarily have on advancement of certain fields. It also assumes that removing a formal authoritative body somehow magically eliminates hegemonic and coercive power. Basically what anarchism boils down to is that "a society made up of "good people" can maintain itself by itself". But this applies to all ideologies and is a fault in all ideologies. Anarchism will fall due to corrupt individuals just as democracy will.

Agreed.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Win.

 

[Death Aflame]

What "style" of anarchism do you propose? Obviously not arachno-primitivism... do you propose a removal of government and a shift to a pure free market economy, where private businesses build the roads and deliver the water, etc.? Do you propose somehow getting rid of property, where everyone is equal and nobody owns anything? How do you propose to get there from here? It is ingrained in us from birth that property, from land and houses to objects like TVs, cars, computers, etc., is one of/the most important aspect of human existence. How do you think we will get rid of that belief? I dismiss anarchism not because of human nature, because I don't claim to know what human nature is. I dismiss anarchism because I simply don't see how we could get there from here.

Those are all great questions, many of which I admit, I do not know the answer too as I am still trying to gain a more holistic knowledge of the finer points of anarchist thought.

I am not an anarcho-capitalist/right libertarian, so no I do not advocate for a 'pure free market economy' because such a condition where one is able to obtain large amounts of wealth (private property, copyright, etc.) I believe will necessarily lead to infringing on the freedom of others (if multinationals were left unchecked in such a society--the theoretical undesired results should be fairly obvious).

Regarding who would be responsible for maintaining an anarchist society, well this would fall on the people directly where they would engage in mutual aid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_aid_(politics)) by co-operating to form voluntary, decenteralized organizations (syndicates) to get whatever job that needs to be done, done.

Regarding your more specific questions about property, I don't know the answer to this question off the top of my head, however it is most likely buried in the economics section of this FAQ: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI3.html , if you care to do some searching yourself. However, I should say that mainstream anarchist thought does not attempt to get rid of property, merely to make its distribution far more equitable to the communities to which economics are bound in a way that maximizes both (individual and collective) freedom and social well being. This is probably an unsatisfactory answer to you, and I agree, but that I think that is at least the core idea behind how the conception of property would shift in an anarchist society.

 

[Ender Rises]

You don't think Mutual Aid syndicates would eventually work to centralize their power and use that power? Let's say there are 6 companies that build roads, and these companies contend for contracts with cities. You don't think those 6 are going to band together to force cities to pay more for roads or start cutting corners in their building so that bridges, etc., become less safe as they strive for more profits? And if they're non-profit, you don't think some ideology would cause them to not build a cities' roads because of something that city does that pisses the syndicate off? There's way too much in that idea that can go wrong.

 

[Death Aflame]

These societies were also very often characterized by violence between tribes/groups.

And our society isn't? (this seems to be the question you are inferring for my response, so I figured I would throw it out there anyhow)

Anarchism never claimed to be rid of violence, just as it never claimed to create social Utopias on earth. In fact Anarchist thought advocates 'violence' (though it doesn't call it this) when defending yourself becomes required.

Now I am not justifying nor condoning the violence between these First Nations groups, rather I used them as examples that show, at least in some capacity, anarchist principles in action as distinct from our capitalist society.

 

[Death Aflame]

You don't think Mutual Aid syndicates would eventually work to centralize their power and use that power? Let's say there are 6 companies that build roads, and these companies contend for contracts with cities. You don't think those 6 are going to band together to force cities to pay more for roads or start cutting corners in their building so that bridges, etc., become less safe as they strive for more profits? And if they're non-profit, you don't think some ideology would cause them to not build a cities' roads because of something that city does that pisses the syndicate off? There's way too much in that idea that can go wrong.

First I think you should better understand what a syndicate is and isn't:

Production for use rather than profit/money is the key concept that distinguishes collectivist and communist forms of anarchism from market socialism or from the competitive forms of mutualism advocated by Proudhon and the Individualist Anarchists. Under mutualism, workers organise themselves into syndicates, but ownership of a syndicate's capital is limited to its workers rather than resting with the whole society. The workers' in each co-operative/syndicate share in the gains and losses of workplace. There is no profit as such, for in "the labour-managed firm there is no profit, only income to be divided among members. Without employees the labour-managed firm does not have a wage bill, and labour costs are not counted among the expenses to the subtracted from profit, as they are in the capitalist firm. . . [T]he labour-managed firm does not hire labour. It is a collective of workers that hires capital and necessary materials." [Christopher Eaton Gunn, Workers' Self-Management in the United States, pp. 41-2]

And to answer your further questions about potential dangers, sure there are always dangers in any form of social organization for exploitation, however properly organized societies can reduce and perhaps even eliminate these instances of economic exploitation.

This part of the FAQ is particularly useful in outlining the different ways that syndicates and federations of syndicates could operate so as to minimize and eliminate exploitation:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI3.html#seci33

 

[Ender Rises]

Are you even capable of answering a question without resorting to that FAQ? The workers get the money directly for their work, OK... how would a decision be made about a new type of road that is harder to put down but is cheaper and more durable? Do you think the fuckers that put the road down are going to vote (assuming that would be the way they would come to a decision on this) to make their work harder?

 

[Death Aflame]

Why do people actually believe that anarchism is possible in such a society that we live in today? It's ridiculous. It's a nice but impossible ideal to strive for.

No anarchist believes that anarchism is possible within capitalist societies, rather they argue that anarchist societies themselves (temporary, permanent or semi-permanent) must be just that--their own societies. Of course they would have to interact with capitalist societies, which always makes their existence as such under threat, but this is moving away from your original point.

I also don't think I would want to live in such a society to begin with whatwith the hindrances such a society would necessarily have on advancement of certain fields.

What fields are you referring to? Science and Technology?

If so there is a large section in an AFAQ that covers this: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI4.html#seci49

The short answer: it is not necessary for anarchism to reject technology and science to be anarchistic, but rather, akin to economics, it must transform how technology and science is structured and used for the benefit of humankind:

"Technological change would develop along new lines, ones which will take into account human and ecological needs rather the power and profits of a minority."

Peter Kropotkin, an early anarchist thinker, was himself a scientist and thus advocated not for an elimination of such a field of study, but merely a transformation of it to meet the needs of the newly structured society.

It also assumes that removing a formal authoritative body somehow magically eliminates hegemonic and coercive power.

There is no magic involved. However, this is not to say that it wouldn't be difficult considering how governance becomes internalized by people today:

"the strength of the government rests not with itself, but with the people. A great tyrant may be a fool, and not a superman. His strength lies not in himself, but in the superstition of the people who think that it is right to obey him. So long as that superstition exists it is useless for some liberator to cut off the head of tyranny; the people will create another, for they have grown accustomed to rely on something outside themselves." [George Barrett, Objections to Anarchism, p. 355]

No doubt that it will be a struggle to shift perceptions and actions (As I am trying to achieve here with no success, it seems) but it is doable--consider, for instance, how both chattel slavery and feudalism were removed despite them being naturalized within their respective societies.

Moreover, this strive to eliminate coercive hegemonic power is always-already at play in current societies through the act of resistance and adaptation:

So as well as adaptation to hierarchy, there is resistance. This means that modern society (capitalism), like any hierarchical society, faces a direct contradiction. On the one hand, such systems divide society into a narrow stratum of order givers and the vast majority of the population who are (officially) excluded from decision making, who are reduced to carrying out (executing) the decisions made by the few. As a result, most people suffer feelings of alienation and unhappiness. However, in practice, people try and overcome this position of powerlessness and so hierarchy produces a struggle against itself by those subjected to it. This process goes on all the time, to a greater or lesser degree, and is an essential aspect in creating the possibility of political consciousness, social change and revolution. People refuse to be treated like objects (as required by hierarchical society) and by so doing hierarchy creates the possibility for its own destruction.


More to the point:

For the inequality in wealth and power produced by hierarchies, between the powerful and the powerless, between the rich and the poor, has not been ordained by god, nature or some other superhuman force. It has been created by a specific social system, its institutions and workings -- a system based upon authoritarian social relationships which effect us both physically and mentally. So there is hope. Just as authoritarian traits are learned, so can they be unlearned. As Carole Pateman summarises, the evidence supports the argument "that we do learn to participate by participating" and that a participatory environment "might also be effective in diminishing tendencies toward non-democratic attitudes in the individual." [Participaton and Democratic Theory, p. 105] So oppression reproduces resistance and the seeds of its own destruction.

There is more here, if you wish to investigate this avenue of discussion further or feel that I have insufficiently answered your critiques: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secB1.html#secb16

Basically what anarchism boils down to is that "a society made up of "good people" can maintain itself by itself".

No it does not.

For a more exhaustive refutation of this assumption go here: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secA2.html#seca216
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secA2.html#seca217

Some excerpts:

So, to conclude, the creation of an anarchist society is not dependent on people being perfect but it is dependent on a large majority being anarchists and wanting to reorganise society in a libertarian manner. This will not eliminate conflict between individuals nor create a fully formed anarchist humanity overnight but it will lay the ground for the gradual elimination of whatever prejudices and anti-social behaviour that remain after the struggle to change society has revolutionised those doing it.

But this applies to all ideologies and is a fault in all ideologies. Anarchism will fall due to corrupt individuals just as democracy will.

I think it is important to use more precise terminology, as anarchism is democracy in the sense that it would privilege direct democracy. Thus, anarchism is not in opposition to democracy in general, merely the hierarchical forms of it (i.e. the only democratic right we currently have is too choose our 'vanguards'--this is not enough for anarchists desiring freedom). What Anarchism is indeed in opposition to is the contemporary capitalist system: neoliberalism.

 

[Ender Rises]

And what little square of land are you going to use for your nation? The world is pretty well divvied up, dude. You'd have to convert like Iceland or Australia, or secede from an existing nation, and good luck with that shit.

 

[Death Aflame]

Are you even capable of answering a question without resorting to that FAQ?

Is your line of discussion about me or Anarchism? I consider myself an Anarchist but obviously I am not a walking encyclopedia on the subject. The AFAQ is just an easier and often more thorough way of answering the questions you and others have (they are fairly common questions obviously).

In fact, if you and others knew more about anarchism I wouldn't have to do so much work trying to do the ideas justice, which makes it much more difficult for me to engage in this discussion.

Not that I mind, I am just sayin' that if I answer you in an unsatisfactory way perhaps you could seek the answers elsewhere--Proudhon, Bakunin, Godwin, Landauer and Chomsky are good places to start.

The workers get the money directly for their work, OK... how would a decision be made about a new type of road that is harder to put down but is cheaper and more durable? Do you think the fuckers that put the road down are going to vote (assuming that would be the way they would come to a decision on this) to make their work harder?

I think you are thinking within the capitalist realm far too much, as you are implying two capitalist-based assumptions: i) that work is necessarily harrowing and undesirable and ii) that exploiting others would be deemed a viable mode of praxis for those choosing to partake in anarchist society (most likely the syndicate building the road would also be using it frequently--it is not merely about the narrow advantage that 'profit' would bring).

Anyways I am done for awhile, I enjoy discussing this stuff with you guys, and I hope that I least have shown a hint of what Anarchist thought is really about beyond the assumptions that are often made about it.

Some good books for those who want to inquire more deeply about it:

Gramsci is Dead: Anarchist Currents in the Latest Social Movements
An Anarchist FAQ
Chomsky on Anarchism

+ classics by the older anarchists (Godwin, Bakunin, Proudhon, Landauer) that I brought up before.

Cheers all.

 

[Ender Rises]

Are you high? Would you like to put down roads in the blazing heat? Would you want to do more work for the same amount of pay? And what is the great thing about anarchism anyway? What makes it so desirable? Personal freedom? I haven't noticed the government infringing on any of my freedom any time in recent memory, other than speed limits. If you want more personal freedom you can get it in today's society, it's not necessary to put forth the effort for a better world when what you want can be had in this one, and I don't think that anarchism is a better world. There are always, always, going to be people who want more, more power, more control, etc. How long do you think it would take for someone to overthrow anarchism? Do you think that you could convince them not to? A nation with no military, unless you can imagine an anarchy with a military, and I can't, a nation with natural resources... hell, a religion could come knocking on your door. It simply wouldn't last.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

itt Ender slays.

 

[Death Aflame]

Are you high? Would you like to put down roads in the blazing heat? Would you want to do more work for the same amount of pay? And what is the great thing about anarchism anyway? What makes it so desirable? Personal freedom? I haven't noticed the government infringing on any of my freedom any time in recent memory, other than speed limits. If you want more personal freedom you can get it in today's society, it's not necessary to put forth the effort for a better world when what you want can be had in this one, and I don't think that anarchism is a better world. There are always, always, going to be people who want more, more power, more control, etc. How long do you think it would take for someone to overthrow anarchism? Do you think that you could convince them not to? A nation with no military, unless you can imagine an anarchy with a military, and I can't, a nation with natural resources... hell, a religion could come knocking on your door. It simply wouldn't last.

Most of your assumptions are faulty and typical of someone who hasn't read much about anarchism. If you want specific answers to your hypothetical scenarios that are still mired in the capitalist perspective (i.e. Anarchists would like to abolish 'work' and 'profit' in any of the senses that we know them today) then do some research, I am not about to spend my entire day doing it for you. Sorry.

Also, religious anarchism does exist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism), so assuming that 'religion' is incongruent with anarchism as a practice is simply wrong.

Finally, if you like the world the way it is and all that, more power to you. Similarly if you don't think anarchism would 'work' that is reasonable perspective, but again you should keep in mind that it can and has worked historically and continues to be the political theory that underlies most social movements throughout the world, which are quite often successful in 'reforming' the world for the better.

(What has happened in Venezuela shows many anarchist principles working in practice, for instance http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/12/democratic-socialism-moves-forward-in-venezuela/).

 

[skeptik]

If you don't want to spend your entire day proving your point, then stop raising your point.

Also, your suggestion that disliking manual labor is a "capitalist-based assumption" would have made me spit out my beverage provided I had had a beverage, of which I had sipped, upon the time that I had read that passage.

 

[Ender Rises]

How the fuck would you abolish work?! HOW?! What the fuck are you talking about?! Do you think anarchy is going to be a bunch of people holding hands and magically having enough food to survive without farming?

 

[skeptik]

Actually I think he was saying that that's what you were claiming about Anarchism. Regardless, the idea that manual labor would ever be embraced as something that's desirable in any type of society that is not solely focused on surviving is kind of ridiculous, and to brush this notion off as 'capitalist' is kind of amusing.

 

[Ender Rises]

Ah, I see that now that I reread his post.

 

[cookiecutter]

And our society isn't? (this seems to be the question you are inferring for my response, so I figured I would throw it out there anyhow)

Anarchism never claimed to be rid of violence, just as it never claimed to create social Utopias on earth. In fact Anarchist thought advocates 'violence' (though it doesn't call it this) when defending yourself becomes required.

Now I am not justifying nor condoning the violence between these First Nations groups, rather I used them as examples that show, at least in some capacity, anarchist principles in action as distinct from our capitalist society.

I figured you would ask this question. Clearly our current societies are not free of violence, but it's not like tribe vs. tribe warfare. There is still warfare between nations, but unless you happen to live in a state where war is happening there is no risk of violence. As a person who has lived in America and Canada I have never had to worry about say, the Buffaloans charging across Lake Ontario and attacking the Torontoans. Even in terms of violent crime, we have governmental systems set up to prevent and deal with it. They're not perfect but at least they exist.

 

[Zephyrus]

As a person who has lived in America and Canada I have never had to worry about say, the Buffaloans charging across Lake Ontario and attacking the Torontoans.

You do, it's called Sabres-Leafs.