Alternatives to Being Against the State
I sort of see the Anarchist concept of the State to be somewhat archaic and think that it only applies to the nineteenth and early twentieth century. It was much more applicable during the First World War then it is now. This is, in my opinion, partially because the structure of the nation state has changed as a result of gloabalization. It's not that the concept does not, in some way, still apply, it's just that the focus of the Anarchist project, or a political project in general, does not necessarily make sense in so far that its axioms are levelled purely against "the State".
The concept of the State could, perhaps, be modernized, but since Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri have already conceptualized the concept of "Empire", which I think holds up pretty well, I don't think that there is pressing need to do so. Being said, are there other alternatives to the concept of the State? There is, of course, Capital, but I also suspect for Capital not to fully address the plights incurred under the current ruling order as it is defined in purely economic terms.
It's been a while since I've read Empire, but I do recall more or less just agreeing with what they had to say. I think that they might have placed too much of a focus upon "network-power", but it's honestly been too long since I've read that text for me to give a decent critique. If anyone has read Empire, do you think that their concept holds up? Does it adequately describe the contemporary geopolitical situation? What qualms do you have with their theory?
Empire aside, are there other alternatives to the concept of "the State"? Do they hold up? Should the concept of the State even be abandoned? What do you think, The Philosophy Forum?
The concept of the State could, perhaps, be modernized, but since Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri have already conceptualized the concept of "Empire", which I think holds up pretty well, I don't think that there is pressing need to do so. Being said, are there other alternatives to the concept of the State? There is, of course, Capital, but I also suspect for Capital not to fully address the plights incurred under the current ruling order as it is defined in purely economic terms.
It's been a while since I've read Empire, but I do recall more or less just agreeing with what they had to say. I think that they might have placed too much of a focus upon "network-power", but it's honestly been too long since I've read that text for me to give a decent critique. If anyone has read Empire, do you think that their concept holds up? Does it adequately describe the contemporary geopolitical situation? What qualms do you have with their theory?
Empire aside, are there other alternatives to the concept of "the State"? Do they hold up? Should the concept of the State even be abandoned? What do you think, The Philosophy Forum?
Comments (66)
I am not advancing that the State plays no role in whatever it is that goes down. To do so would be absurd.
In my opinion, aside from that there are wars and that there is a criminal justice system that could be regarded as being unjust, the State is, anymore, just frustrating. It's just kind of a nuissance and not necessarily the problem itself. I feel like there is some other heirarchic social configuration that is really what causes the most harm. I see it as being somewhere between the State and Capital and, perhaps, encompassing something else entirely, but am unsure as to what exactly.
I would, perhaps, invoke a concept of "regimens", but, as I have only just devloped this idea, I am only capable of saying so much.
Proceeding partially from Deleuze and Guattari's concept of "Several Regimes of Signs", I would suggest that there are regimens who enforce unjust social arangements. There is a regimen of what is negative about the State. There is a regimen of the war apparatus, a regimen of the police, a regimen of the mafia, a regimen of Capital, etc.
I don't know how useful this would ultimately be, but that is something that I am tossing out there.
I replied twice becuase I edited my post too much.
A regimen is like a minor regime. It's like a microcosmic totalitarian order enforcing political body. There is a regimen of Avanguardia Nazionale and a regimen of the Italian state. The social configuration of the Italian state is ultimately negative, but it is not negative in the same sense that the rule that Avanguardia Nazionale seeks to impose is negative in spite of that there probably is a connection between Avanguardia Nazionale and the Italian state. When you are dealing with either the Italian state or Avanguardia Nazionale, you are dealing with two entirely different political bodies. Everything is like this. The problem is that there are particular regimens who enforce something like their own will to power and not necessarily that there is a particular social configuration that necessarily results in illiberal, unequal, and warlike society.
This is an idea that I've just cooked up, and, so, it's probably bound to fraught with contradictions and drawbacks.
But you've said that you're an anarchist.
I am an Anarchist. I interpret Anarchism as advancing some form of maximal liberty and equality. Because the State has stood so much in the way of this historically, Anarchism is often slated against the State, but I don't necessarily define "Anarchism" as being in opposition to the State. Some people might, and they could be correct, but, as I don't think that they are, I don't see a reason to adopt another term to refer to my political philosophy. Anarchism can be defined as what it advances positively as well as what it is slated against. I'm somewhat critical of a purely negative political approach as I think that it fails to offer a creative alternative to whatever it is critical of. Granted, I, too, don't have much to suggest as to what I think it is that society ought to be like. The distinction between Anarchism and Communism as being that Anarchism is slated against the State and that Communism is slated against Capital is, to me, somewhat confusing. It's easy to generally regard this as being true without taking into consideration the problems that doing so will eventually result in.
Though perhaps this isn't the focus of your thread -- I just wanted to point out that unless one is aligned with the right-wing libertarian sorts, that anarchists are opposed not just to states, but to capital because they are both instantiations of hierarchical social organizations.
I've always understood "radical" in the political sense as referring to advancing a complete reform of a political body. Anarchists can be Radicals, but some Anarchists may not identify as such.
Just slating Anarchism against heirarchy is fine by me. I had thought that it was more of a problematic concept than it actually is as I had assumed that heirarchy implied that there was just one person at the top. I don't really think that President of the United States of America can be held to be responsible for all of the plights within the current geopolitical situation. It doesn't actually mean that necesssarily, and, so, my qualms were unfounded.
You're not wrong. After all if you believe there is a root cause to many problems, what else would you do other than act to make a complete reform of a political body? If there is some root problem, then the very political institution you are railing against grows from that root problem -- hence needing to dig it up and start anew.
Quoting thewonder
Maybe hierarchy needs to be clarified more. My preferred conception is to say that hierarchies are established when there are people who have decision making power when others are effected by said decision making power. What is decision-making power? I hope, at least, that this is clear: merely the ability to make decisions. But if you want to question me on this then we can. I merely mean that there are people who can say "Yes" or "no" or have the ability to formulate creative responses to questions, and those responses -- yes, no, or otherwise -- effect other people who do not have ultimate say in the decision. As an example: Voters may contact their representatives, and tell them the reasons they believe their representative should vote such and such, but the representative is the one who can vote "yay" or "Nay".
I've posted this before, but maybe it deserves a reposting. In spite of the ironies of having an authoritative resource for anarchy I recommend the Anarchist FAQ. -- looks like it changed since I posted it last. Damn it's almost like a bunch of folks who hate rulers are fine with changing shit on the fly. ;)
But it looks mostly the same. It's just a bunch of writing on the notions of anarchy. Hopefully it proves educational.
Which would mean the abolition of the State, which would mean disorder. That's what it would mean, unless you set boundaries protecting the State and defined maximal with the State as an exception. But then it wouldn't truly be maximal liberty and equality. And it wouldn't be conducive to a just and orderly society by minimising the role of the State, anyway. That would be counterproductive.
I guess what I am positing is that the root problem isn't any longer the State. The State plays into whatever the root problem is, and may have been it in the past, but isn't any longer what the root problem is, if there is one. I'm not sure that it is even the case that there could just simply be one primary political plight which disaffects all of humanity. Take heirarchy, for example. In general, it makes sense to slate things against heirarchy because it generally results in a social configuration that could only be percieved negatively. It too readily allows for the abuse of power. Heirarchy may not necessarily be the problem in every given situation, however. It is possible for a chain of command to have merit. That it is unlikely is what makes slating a political position against heirarchy generally agreeable, but I don't think that we can fully identify heirarchy as a root cause per se.
I was under the impression that heirarchy necessarily implied that there was a sole ruler which is false. Google dictionary defines the term as "a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority" which I think is more or less agreeable.
Defining heirarchical power as the capacity to make decisions which effect other people's lives could be interesting, but I'm unsure as to whether or not it is adequate given an Anarchist framework. It seems like you would have to invoke some sort of implicit coercion in order to use the term in a purely negative sense.
I like this Anarchist FAQ because it isn't written by a Post-Left Anarchist (which is something that I only have so many qualms with) and it defines Anarchism as being "libertarian socialism". I have kind of an odd manner of speech because I think that you should do things like capitalize certain terms such as the "Socialism" in "libertarian Socialism", but I do have more than a vague understanding of what Anarchism is.
I don't know that it would necessarily result in "disorder". "Disorder" is a charged term that refers to a state of confusion. Anarchism doesn't just seek to produce chaos. Because there is no term for "without order", I'm not quite sure how to precisely describe the state of affairs which Anarchists would seek to produce as it relates to order.
I do seek the abolition of the State. I do think that the State still stands in the way of maximal liberty and equality. I do think that the creation of "nations or territories considered as an organized political community under one government" can not result in maximal liberty and equality. There should be some sort of participatory democratic plurality. I'm not suggesting that the State isn't a problem; I'm just not sure that it is any longer the problem.
Edit: I don't really agree with what I stated in the first paragraph. I was just thinking about this too abstractly for the sake of argument.
Edit: Is it "Communitarianism"? You may have to qualify the term to use it as such, but I think that that could be correct.
If by that you mean participatory democracy, then I agree.
I'm actually looking for alternatives to the concept of the State, though.
No, I don't mean participatory democracy. I mean democracy. Like the self-rule of the people. So, in this case, the alternative to the concept of the State is the concept of the self-governed Demos.
Participatory democracy is that.
I mean the concept of the State from a more or less Anarchist framework. Like, I'm not asking what to substitute the State with; I'm looking for an alternative to the Anarchist concept of the State.
No, it's not. 'Participatory democracy' is the State's leasing of decision making to its subjects.
Quoting thewonder
What's the anarchist concept of the State?
How is participatory democracy leased? Participatory democracy is what was practiced during the Paris Commune.
I don't know how to adequately define "the State" right now. It's like an almost purely negative assessment of a nation state.
Quoting thewonder
You asked for an alternative to the anarchist conception of the state. If you don't provide a working definition to what conception of the State am I supposed to give an alternative to?
If you read the Wikipedia article on participatory democracy you will find out what it is.
I just don't have a working definition of "the State" right now. I think that you know what it is, however.
I don't need to find out what it is. You asked for a discussion on the conceptual level and I gave you a basic conceptual analysis. Why don't you just provide further conceptual analysis instead of sending me to wikipedia? I'm arguing that as long as distinct political levels exist, I have no good reason to call that a democracy. 'Participatory democracy' might be a genuine step towards democratization though. Having said that, we need to distinguish between furthering democratic practice within a democracy and trying to establish democratic processes in a non-democratic system. Even if at some point there might be a society which is effectively and essentially democratic in its processes while still maintaining the distinct political levels on paper, as a relic from its past (the reverse is possible too, of course). I know of no such examples. Do you know any?
Your wikipedia link in its 21st century participatory examples section, says:
or
That these things are examples of 'participatory democracy' (or simply democracy) is but a joke. And putting together contemporary USA and Russia, the Athenian democracy, the Paris Commune, as examples of participatory democracy is a conceptual mess. Funnily enough, the go-to example of contemporary 'participatory democracy', Switzerland, is not even mentioned in the article!
Quoting thewonder
What I don't know is what you have in mind as the anarchist conception of the State.
Out of interest, what do you mean by this?
If everyone is completely free, how would equality be maintained, and vice versa?
I posted the link to the Wikipedia article so that I wouldn't have to explain what it was. Participatory democracy just simply emphasizes the participation of individual constituents in a democratic project. It is that form of democracy that's more democratic than democracy itself. I think that what you are advocating for is a form of participatory democracy.
What I'm trying to explain is that I wasn't asking for alternatives for the State in the sense that "the State is bad and, so, what can effectively replace it?" I was asking for alternatives to the State in the sense that "the State may be an outdated concept, and, so, what are political axioms to be levelled against?"
I'm curious to find out more about what you have to say about democracy if you care to go on, however.
I don't think that Somalia has ever significantly attempted to engage in an Anarchist project. I think that you're equating "anarchy" as a pejorative with Anarchism itself. I haven't quite parcelled out enough of what I think that Anarchist society should be like to really explain that it's not like it would just be mayhem, but Anarchism really doesn't just advance mayhem. That's just the common cultural depiction of Anarchists.
I wish there was a better word for maximal because I think that it sounds somewhat ridiculous, but "maximal" is really the only term that I can think of that explicitly means "of or constituting a maximum or the highest or greatest possible". I mean that society should, at all times, be as liberal and equal as humanly possible. It should continually develop in such a manner.
I think that liberty and equality aren't necessarily at odds. I think that there's a natural human preference for liberty but that equality necessarily follows from this. Unequal conditions almost invariably necessitate some form of coercion. In order for everyone to be truly free, it follows that they must also be equal. Egalitarianism complements liberty rather than hindering it, in my opinion.
I've only realistically hashed so much of this out. I could, paradoxically, probably say more after getting a decent handle upon what the other position is. I suspect that my theory is antithetical to Ethical Egoism (which doesn't have anything to do with Max Stirner who was not an Ethical Egoist), but only know of a few places to find anything on Ethical Egoism. It'd be like the antithesis to Murray Rothbard and Thomas Hobbes.
Then again, why thing in purely negative terms? I really ought to be able to put forth a creative political ideas.
The wikipedia article is just bad and it's just an article in an encyclopedia, it's not theory or philosophy. That's why it can fit under the same category systems as different as the Athenian democracy or the russian dictatorship. Which is dumb.
Quoting thewonder
I didn't consider the State bad and in need of replacement. You asked for an alternative concept and I gave you one. Another one could be feudalism. What does it mean that the state is an outdated concept?
Between the fall of Siad Barre's government in January 1991 and the establishment of the Transitional National Government in 2006, there was no central government in Somalia.
And no, I'm aware of the etymology and origins of the term "anarchy", and what it is commonly associated with - it is similar in this respect to a term like "cynicism" - but I'm making an assessment irrespective of that. I genuinely think that it would lead to disorder, whatever we happen to call the political position in question.
I'm positing that the State could have changed enough as a result of globalization for the concept to not be as applicable as it was in the past. I think that you're still kind of confused as to what it is that I was looking for. I'm not explaining myself terribly as I'm quite sure how to put this. I'm looking for something to replace what we understand as the State as a concept and not necessarily an alternative to the State. In Empire, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri created the concept of "Empire". I'm looking for something like that for the purpose of critique.
I am curious as to what you have to say about democracy if you care to elaborate, though.
I'm not discounting that there was not no government in Somalia. I'm stating that there are not a significant number of Anarchists in Somalia to consider the crisis there to be chalked up to an Anarchist aporia. Almost no one tried to implement an Anarchist project in Somalia. The crisis in Somalia is, in all liklihood, resultant of the failures of what could be considered to be Neo-Liberal Capital. It's not a crisis spawned by a delusional belief in "anarchy".
"I was asking for alternatives to the State in the sense that "the State may be an outdated concept, and, so, what are political axioms to be levelled against?" is indeed a terrible way to put it.
My answer is that yes, the world is still organized in states. The states are still the proxies through which the ruling classes mainly act. Globalization is not new, it's just intensified both in space and time. In what way is the new concept of the 'Empire' distinct from the traditional concepts of 'empire', 'imperialism' and 'world sytem' and not just an elaboration on them?
I'm not sure if I follow. Humans are not created with equal faculties, and some persons are simply smarter, stronger or more social (to name but a few criteria) than others. Doesn't it follow that in order to make people equal we'd have to impede on the freedom of those more fortunate? As such, freedom and equality seem to be at odds so long as humans are not born identically.
And what constitutes this true freedom you speak of, and how is equality a prerequisite for this kind of freedom?
It seems you are advocating for a sort of middle-ground between freedom and equality, however doesn't the necessity for a middle-ground hint at these two concepts being at odds? Also, doesn't our current form of society already seek such a middle-ground? How would anarchy bring us closer to it? Anarchy would probably create more freedom, but in all likelihood at the expensive of equality.
Maybe not the State in particular, but statism in general seems to be the prevailing dogma.
I don't think that egalitarianism necessarily implies that the skilled will be hindered by that they will be forcibly held back in order to make up for those who are lacking in certain skill sets. It is more than possible to imagine an equitable social relationship that allows for proficiency. I think that what is good about technocracy can be maintained in a society that abolishes it.
Freedom is the freedom to live, act, choose, and do as one please, etc. I mean it in the sense that is generally understood by more or less everyone. Freedom is the prerequisite. I am suggesting that people will demand that they are free before they demand that they are equal. Equality simply follows from a preference for freedom. A person that is free to live, act, choose, and do as they please will need the substantial means to do so. I think that it is entirely possible to create a society where those means are garunteed without relying upon a coercive appeal to a distorted egalitarianism.
I am not advocating for a middle ground. I am advocating for the maximal advancement of both freedom and equality. As I don't think that they are at odds, I don't think that there is an inherent contradiction in my reasoning.
Their concept does draw from those ideas. My working definition of "Empire", which is rather poor, is the "regimens of the State and Capital as they relate to the reticulum of political power". Their definition would probably invoke their concept of "network-power" which I think is good enough, but may rely too much upon an information network metaphor. I'm pretty sure that they define their concept explicitly in the book somewhere, but I can't quite remember as to where and don't feel like sifting through the entire text.
I question whether the State is still the proxy through which the abuse of Capital is enacted. It is a proxy, but I wonder if it isn't the case now that there is something else that is going on. I kind of suspect that it ultimately is still the State, but am curious as to whether or not there are other theories.
Who is a statist? People say this, but I've almost never met someone who identifies as being a "statist". Even Marxist-Leninists don't call themselves "statists".
A statist is someone who believes the state should have substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs. I believe this is the prevailing dogma, especially in the west.
But it's not the prevailing dogma. The Democratic Party does not advance anything like the Centralized state beaurocracy of the Soviet Union. The prevailing dogma is something like concessional Liberalism.
I think it’s a little deeper than politics, and by west I meant not just the US. But if you read the Green New Deal, or even the New Deal, it’s pure statism.
I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. The relevance of the example is that during that period there was no central government, which is what anarchists call for. Funnily enough, it didn't work out too well. Not the kind of place you'd want to spend your holiday.
I don't know too much about what the Green New Deal implies, but don't necessarily see environmental oversight as hazarding crossing over into the nebulous terrirory of "statism". I just see it as merely only being so effective.
From what I can tell, the problem is that people are led to believe that there is this grand project of Liberalism which has all of these lofty ideals, many of which are laudable, when those ideals are sacrificed on a whim to either some sort of botched pragmatism or to the many machinations that Capital allows for. From an Anarchist perspective, aside from that it necessarily invokes the State, Liberalism isn't necesarily inherently problematic. The problem is just that is, by in large, disengenuous.
I think that dangers of "statism" also appear as a result of certain degree of hypocrisy and what is generally called "cynicism". The problem is that the structure of the State allows for the abuse of power by that it is hierarchic, but what particularly disaffects people is the abuse of power. The abuse of power is pathological. It feeds off of that it is reproduced by itself. The abuse of power necessitates revolt and is primarily constituted by the suppression of revolt. Totalitarianism is predicated upon the constant suppression of its constant revolt. Power can not be secured in the absolute. It is merely fueled by a inane, self-destructive quest to maintain its percieved ascendency at all costs.
The inherent flaw in the State is that it allows for the abuse of power. The distorted logic of beaurocratic state repression is an ideological problem, but it is not the problem itself. "Statism" is merely an excuse for the abuse of power. The real problem is not what it is excused by.
Yes, but Anarchists clearly do not call for that there should be no central government in the sense that there should be warring factions of various political extremists. That the lack of a central government creates a power vaccum does pose a problem for Anarchists, but no Anarchists would advocate for that power vaccums should be exploited for the purposes of installing a fanatical regime as, say, The Islamic Courts Union would. It's not quite apples and oranges as that the situation that an Anarchist project would produce does hazard that the power vaccum that is created can be exploited by all kinds of nefarious parties, but it's not like there was an Anarchist insurrection in Somalia which resulted in the civil war.
I like what you wrote there.
The state is, by it’s very nature, the abuse of power. It has the monopoly on violence and coercion, on justice, on plunder and on rule-making.
I love this statement. Evidence of this can be seen in slavery, which flew in the face of the founding notions of the country. But surely liberalism also made evident the hypocrisy and wore it down, leading to abolition.
I'm glad that you like what I have to say.
I don't see the State as being by nature the abuse of power, however. I just see that it inherently flawed by that it allows for that.
Liberalism, of course, has done some good, but I think that it is the case now that the Liberal project has deviated too far from what there is that is good about it to be meaningfully salvaged aside from either radical reform or some other political alternative. I think that Anarchism is the best option.
I’m with you on that. Anarchism is the best option. But I fear a moral and ethical populace populace is required for it to work.
That seems to be one of the problems with Marxism as well, the so-called “withering of the state”, which Engles thought was an inevitability. It turns out the state only got bigger.
Of course they don't call for that! But that's the kind of thing that you'd get by abolishing the pillars of society. It is the height of naïveté to think that it would actually go as imagined in your lofty ideals of a liberal and cooperative society. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Which is why it will never work.
I have an added response from the previous comment. I guess I don't see the State as being "evil"; I just think that it lends itself too well in the way of evil.
I kind of see Anarchism as being necessarily amoral. Morality seems, to me, to invoke an appeal to the social mores of the ruling class. Anarchism could, perhaps, be Ethical. I think that a situational ethic could be invoked so as to be able to settle disputes. Granted, everyone is bound to have their own Ethical paradigm.
The "withering away of the state" is rather complex. On some level, it was used as a justification for all sorts of abuses in the Soviet Union. Someday, you were supposed to enter the kingdom of Heaven on Earth and anything could justified in the name of that. I actually think that the concept can interpreted quite positively from a Anarchist perspective, however. The "withering away of the state" describes a historical process which allows for the creation of new societies as the general populace generally becomes more aware. The whole "building a new world in the shell of the old" sort of thing.
Being naive is better than being cynical in my opinion.
As a result they will become unequal. Examples of this we see all over the human and animal kingdoms.
If one wishes to "correct" this inequality, the freedoms of those with greater faculties will have to be limited.
Of course, one could be in favor of liberty, but at the same time favor equality in certain aspects of society, like equality to the law. Even then some liberty is being conceded of those who would otherwise use the law in their favor.
In short, equality is not a natural state of being, and needs to be forcibly brought about somehow. In this process, freedom is taken away from "the strong", who would otherwise be free to exploit "the weak".
But such pragmatic realism is precisely the kind of concessionary logic which allows for the political situation as it stands today. Why agree to a state of affairs which disproportionately disaffects so many people?
To thrive is not necessarily the same thing as to exploit. There will still be specialists who exceed at what they do. It would not be beneficial to society to limit the potential of specialists.
I just don't think that equality is unnatural. Creatures have been shown to have the capacity for alturism. It is social. I guess I don't necessarily see an inherent human flaw which necessarily makes for the creation of egalitarian society to be coercive. Egalitarianism is as natural as Social Darwinism, both of which only exist because of a social relationship.
It is not only that freedom is not opposed to equality, they can only co-arise. If you don't have one you can't have the other. And 'the state of nature' has nothing to do with freedom whatsoever; if anything, it's its antithesis.
Thriving of the strong and exploitation of the weak, while not the same, often go hand in hand.
How would these specialists be compensated for their talents? Compensating them would lead to inequality, no?
Quoting thewonder
Humans behave differently in smaller groups, so perhaps in a tribal context humans are more inclined to social behavior. Though, even in tribes there's a clear hierarchy, and thus there too people are unequal.
Do you have any examples that can make me understand the type of society you envision?
In principle, able-bodied males must do military service to protect the borders of the territory and lower its internal levels of random violence. If you do not want to perform military service, and the powers that be allow for that, you can pay compensation in lieu of military service.
Therefore, poor able-bodied males can in principle receive daily stipends for spending a few hours per day at the gym, the shooting range, and the exercise field. In many countries, however, private security firms will offer more money than the government for guarding property for all kinds of private clients. Furthermore, the government generally prefers younger men while private security firms do not seem to mind age, as long as you are sufficiently fit.
In my impression, there are no unemployed males with no income, especially here in SE Asia. They are all soaked up in private and public security-related work. I personally do not see why they should receive unemployment benefits instead of doing this kind of work. What's wrong anyway with going to the gym and the shooting range? They cannot just sit at home, can they?
I don't agree with the status quo, I just don't lend my support to unrealistic causes, for obvious reasons. When your pipe dream has become a realistic cause, then get back to me. I won't be holding my breath. In the meantime, if you really want to make a positive difference, then you should vote for your main left-wing party, as I do.
Says it all, I think.
I agree that freedom and quality are somewhat interdependent and that they can co-arise, but don't know that I would say that freedom is not natural. I think that the desire for freedom is something which all human beings share. It only goes so far, but I do think that it is natural.
They may not be compensated monetarily but woul be rewarded for their merits in so far that it would be in keeping with free and equal society to do so. I don't think that people necessarily need something like a profit incentive in order to motivated to achieve great things. Because an ideal society would be, well, ideal, people would actually want to partake and contribute to it.
There are no examples. You can take the Paris Commune as an example or a lot of different Anarchist communes as being somewhat exemplary, but, I am sure, that there is some fault to be found in all of them. Anarchism is relatively new theory of what society should be like which has never been effectively tried. Had it been, I am sure that there would be a lot more Anarchists in the world. Suggesting that Anarchism fails because it never went anywhere is like suggesting that because the Gnostics were never able to overcome that most of the Christian faith regarded them as being heretics that they must've been wrong. They may have been wrong, but that they never successfully proselytized is not evidence of this.
There is no main left-wing party in the United States, though. I plan on voting for the Democratic Socialists of America if they put up a candidate. It's partially out of spite as the Democratic Party will consider that to be a vote that has been lost, but partially sincere as I do think that political parties should be more like the DSA.
I have found out that the DSA just supports Bernie Sanders and, so, my plans have been foiled. I'll just have to vote Green I guess. I've just realized that I can vote in the Green primaries. I might vote for Dario Hunter.
The Democratic Party is the main left-wing party in the United States. They're a centre-left party, and that still counts as left-wing, regardless of your more radical alignment. Once again, albeit in a difference context this time, you don't get to just define things however you please. And with someone like Bernie Sanders at the helm, a result which would meet with my approval, then they'd move even further to the left.
Quoting thewonder
Well, if you want to waste your vote, then so be it, but I wouldn't encourage it.
Well, yeah, I mean why vote for Howie Hawkins when there's Bernie Sanders? I am being somewhat stubborn. The Democratic Party just had it out for me and I feel some sort of need to get back at them. It's ultimately rather childish.
I just simply wasn't sure if you were using "left-wing" to denote being 'left' of center or to refer to the radical left. For instance, if I lived in Sweeden, I would take that to mean that you were suggesting that I should vote for Feminist Initiative or the Left Party, but you could have been suggesting that I should vote for the Sweedish Social Democratic Party, who, all in all, is probably pretty alright, but I would probably give the vote to the Left Party or FI given the chance to. My point is that in Europe there are other options.
I am from Europe, specifically the United Kingdom, and more specifically England. We have a multiparty system here, and more so than the United States, but there's still only two realistic options to choose from, those being the two main parties, Labour and Tory. I'm a member of the Labour party.
The Labour Party is alright, I guess. I honestly don't even really believe in political parties. I like what Simone Weil has to say about them in On the Abolition of All Political Parties, but, as far as political parties go, they're probably, at the very least, better than the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has begun to shift further to the Left, though, and, so, that may not always be the case.
I've heard a lot of Anarchists imply that creating society is somehow sort of Fascist. I think that it's ultimately a means to dismiss an argument without really having to debate it, but do think that whatever form of society there is that would be should spontaneously arise. I state such things for the sake of being brief, but perhaps I should do more to suggest that it is that there is a society which spontenously arises.
I find articulating what I parcel out in Anarchist terms to be somewhat difficult. The words that you need to use just simply aren't really there. I want to say something like "the spontaneous organization of society", but it would ultimately be the case that it wouldn't be organized. You don't want for there to be a formal structure in the form of a heirarchy. So you could say "the spontaneous configuration of society" which means what you mean more expliitly, but I wonder if whoever it is that you are speaking to any longer gets what you're driving at.
I think that "the spontaneous configuration of society" should be used as its meaning can be adequately discovered, but I don't think that there's too much to see in being unintentionally obscure.
It's a way of evading certain questions by cherry picking poor word choices so as to level an ad hominem. When you ask someone "What do you think Anarchist should society be like?", a common response is, "I don't think that Anarchist society should be like anything because I'm not trying to impose a structure upon the world." They're basically implying that the person asking the question is doing so and are not actually adressing what is meant by "What do you think Anarchist society should be like?" All that you're asking is that ey clarify eir position concerning eir endgame.
Whatever their compensation would be, if it is not given to everyone it would lead to inequality. And what about those freedoms that would unavoidably take freedom of others? For example, a strong individual intimidating or overpowering a weak individual? Forbidding such things would inevitably impede the freedoms of the strong.
I could imagine a hypothetical ideal society, with an ideal and enlightened humanity, in which the strong would not require compensation, but unless this sacrifice is voluntary and never forced through the perpetuated norms of the society, it would still be an impediment on the freedoms of the strong.
Maybe not impossible, but, given humanity's present and past state, definitely belonging to the realm of fantasy, as far as I am concerned.
Quoting thewonder
I do not like this comparison, since anarchy is a lifestyle that can be and has been practically implemented. Gnosticism as a spiritual or religious movement cannot so easily be put to the test, if at all.
There are bound to be ways of rewarding merit without producing some sort of structural inequality.
The positive freedom to intimidate an other impedes upon the negative freedom not to be intimidated which should have precedence. That such situations arise would give rise to that they are dealt with by communities. Intimidation would, perhaps, not be formally forbidden, but generally sanctioned by whatever social configuration there is that would arise in each and every given situation. That a person should intimidate another does not benefit anyone as it creates a situation where the intimidator will have to deal with that such actions are justifiably rebelled against. They could go about convincing others to go along with whatever there is that is good about whatever it is that they want to do without creating any social plights whatsoever. As it places even them in a perilous position, there is no reason to regard such a freedom as being valid as engaging in intimidation does not place a person in a position where their capacity to actualize upon their potential for freedom will be maximalized.
I don't necessarily agree with the invokation of "the strong", but think that people would voultinarily sacrifice monetary compensation given a genuine Anarchist society. A better world has more to offer a person than the gains that they can make under Capital.
I don't think that we can really say anything meaningful about humanity in general. All and none of it is all simultaneously 'true'. While there may be inherent qualities to human nature, they have yet become possible to know. I would posit that it is impossible to know them. The human experience is too complex to reduce to a simple adage concerning its nature.
Quoting Tzeentch
Well, I have never been to an Anarchist commune, and, so, I can't give you a concrete example of what one should be like as I do not know what the existing Anarchist communes are actually like. I could pick a commune off of the list of Anarchist communes on Wikipedia so as to put forth an example, but, as I have no experience of being in any of them, I couldn't say as to whether or not I think that they are exemplary of what Anarchist society should look like.