Anarchism- is it possible for humans to live peacefully without any form of authority?
I am just going to place some disclaimers before I start talking about my question: I am a high school student that has no background in philosophy, and I only started reading on the topic of Anarchism because I saw it on the internet and it intrigued me. So if there are any inaccuracies, please correct them for me.
I understand that anarchism is the belief that all types of states are illegitimate. That only by abolishing human-made laws can men be complete, in the political sense of the word, free. I have also read that authority and autonomy cannot co-exist. If we wish for authority by a government, then our autonomy must be given up. Even democracy, which attempts to have it so that man is both the lawmaker and obeyer is false, do we really have any say in the laws that are passed? However, my question is that by completely getting rid of human laws, can we survive as a society? I read in the essay "Anarchism: What It Really Stands For?"by Goldman that as long as people are not living lives they hate and not doing things they enjoy, crime will continue. But, let's say we do allow people to do whatever they want, without human laws holding them back from anything, will crime stop? Are there not individuals that would take advantage of this? Does human nature allow us to live in a state of no laws, no "overseer"? I know that it is not like governments at the moment do a great job of reducing the crime rate, and that the justice system is most certainly not fair in many cases, but at least there is the well known fact that certain actions, like murder or theft, are not allowed or "illegal". You could argue that our human laws at the moment are not achieving the very thing they were made to do, and that if we take them away, there will be no significant change. But, by taking away these laws, are we not just letting the crime rate increase because suddenly all these people that were being held back by law enforcement or were already commiting crimes but not as prominently to avoid law enforcement are now free to do what they wish?
Thank you for reading my question. I genuinely just want to learn and understand this topic better, so again if there are any errors, let me know. :D
I understand that anarchism is the belief that all types of states are illegitimate. That only by abolishing human-made laws can men be complete, in the political sense of the word, free. I have also read that authority and autonomy cannot co-exist. If we wish for authority by a government, then our autonomy must be given up. Even democracy, which attempts to have it so that man is both the lawmaker and obeyer is false, do we really have any say in the laws that are passed? However, my question is that by completely getting rid of human laws, can we survive as a society? I read in the essay "Anarchism: What It Really Stands For?"by Goldman that as long as people are not living lives they hate and not doing things they enjoy, crime will continue. But, let's say we do allow people to do whatever they want, without human laws holding them back from anything, will crime stop? Are there not individuals that would take advantage of this? Does human nature allow us to live in a state of no laws, no "overseer"? I know that it is not like governments at the moment do a great job of reducing the crime rate, and that the justice system is most certainly not fair in many cases, but at least there is the well known fact that certain actions, like murder or theft, are not allowed or "illegal". You could argue that our human laws at the moment are not achieving the very thing they were made to do, and that if we take them away, there will be no significant change. But, by taking away these laws, are we not just letting the crime rate increase because suddenly all these people that were being held back by law enforcement or were already commiting crimes but not as prominently to avoid law enforcement are now free to do what they wish?
Thank you for reading my question. I genuinely just want to learn and understand this topic better, so again if there are any errors, let me know. :D
Comments (72)
I maintain a lot of things boil down to personality, but that area of research is currently a mess because there are such a huge number of variables, many of which are unaccounted for. An anarchistic society would need to (somehow) account for these variables to maintain a bare minimum of social function in figuring out who is most vulnerable to patterns of destructive behavior, assuming such a thing exists.
As a second-best, a belief system can be a persuasive motivator. It's like a cultural hack which can prevent the kind of alienation you're talking about, where people feel like they're valued and crime is less enticing. Crime wouldn't stop, and people would still push their luck, but the "overseer" would be internal instead of external. People need structure. Specifically, they need a shared ontology and vocabulary.
I doubt people are naturally bad, but if the rules of the game allow for cheating, it becomes a strategy.
Funnily enough I was in high school when I first started researching Anarchism-it was actually for my grade 12 philosophy course thesis...really interesting stuff and at the time, I got pretty into academic research. Emma Goldman actually happens to be one of my favourite political and feminist thinkers-she is an incredibly radical (and if you read her biography) fascinating person, even by our standards.
I don't think its my place to sit here and tell you that Anarchism can "work or not", because, given our current society and how it shapes personality/belief/goals ect. we are biased by that. As Chomsky said (another Anarchist thinker you should look into) what we often mistake as 'natural' human traits-are actually largely shaped by social function ect. ect. Hence why some Anarchists such as Kropotkin focused on 'altruism' as being a driving social personality, rather than greed-we are more given to altruism than greed (or some thinkers say equally) however our society/economy necessarily encourages greed more than altruism.
All I will say when studying Anarchism is don't listen to others until you have done your own research. Come to the table with facts, knowledge, and history before any discussion of the sort. Anarchism is one of the most misunderstood, understated, and badly misrepresented theories (maybe second only to communism, but so much less known than communism) and regardless of its practicality, there are so many relevant thinkers involved in Anarchist thought and history, and many injustices done to Anarchists and their movements (look up the Haymarket Massacres, the event actually inspired Goldman to pursue Anarchism). In fact, Anarchists were the forefathers to many prominent social movements such as free healthcare, womens rights, the draft/war, abolition ect. and Anarchists were one of the first groups to publicly contradict fascism and the Nazis in the early 1930s (even before the communists)...arguably even the communist/socialist ideals and policies would not be where they are today without the aid of many of these thinkers.
I'm sorry that I didn't answer your question directly. I would suggest you look up Proudhon and his "Spontaneous Order Theory" if you want more concrete understanding of practicalities...Chomsky also has a book On Anarchism that is more contemporarily based...however, seeing as I was also in high school when I was studying this, below I've copied my bibliography I used for my research essay, and feel free to message me privately if you would like to read the essay-its no masterpiece, but even years later re-reading it, I feel it provides a very readable introduction to the theory, especially seeing as I was (assuming) around your age when I wrote it (I'm 21 now).
Also if you want any more help researching some of these thinkers, feel free to let me know, because I have access to some free PDFs/additional resources I came across more recently :) .
Chomsky, N. (2014). On Anarchism
Curtis, M. (2008). The Great Political Theories. New York: HarperPerennial ModernClassics. [This is a collection of many different political theories/summaries, which is interesting of itself but contains great information on Anarchism)
Goldman, E. (1970). Living my life. New York. [This is her autobiography]
Gornick, V. (2014). Emma Goldman Revolution as a Way of Life. New Haven: Yale University Press.
GREEN ANARCHIST INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATIONG A I A Eco-Anarchist International Green Grass ConfederationGreen Anarchists' Network World Wide. Retrieved June 11, 2017, from http://www.anarchy.no/green.html
Haymarket Massacre. (2011, August 07). Retrieved June 11, 2017, from http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/augustspiesaddress.html
Hoffman, J., & Graham, P. (2010). Introduction to Political Ideologies. New Delhi, India: Pearson Longman.
Marshall, P. H. (2008). Demanding the Impossible: a History of Anarchism. London: Harper Perennial. [This is a massive book of about 500 pages but it contains everything you ever would need to know about the history of Anarchism and Anarchist theory, and goes over/summarizes all the main theorists, and includes pieces of their essays and work, great resource to start with]
Nicholson, C. B. (2010). Emma Goldman: still dangerous. Montréal: Black Rose Books.
Also, individually, I would look up:
Joseph Proudhon
Thoreau (he was a naturalist/Anarchist thinker and a beautiful writer)
Godwin
Kropotkin
Bakunin (one of more 'pro-violent' Anarchists, which is, to be fair, pretty rare among Anarchist though)
The Diggers (late medieval era group)
Shulasmith Firestone (radical feminist, who espoused the lesser tenets of Anarchism and free love, the conception of Anarchist sexuality, again, very interesting and very under emphasized, people have the misconception that all Anarchists were men just interest in blowing stuff up, when really, many great thinkers were women, focused on destabilizing sexist institutions such as the Church, marriage, the family, and prosititution)
Anarchism is not about getting rid of all governing structures, it is about self governance without a privileged class, by birth, wealthy or aristocracy. "Direct democracy" is a modern euphemism for anarchism.
The word anarchism is simply a literal juxtaposition to hierarchy. Our modern conception of government and most social organization, such as in a business and most religions, is hierarchical, with superiors and inferiors; however, getting rid of this hierarchy does not mean getting rid of government nor the specialized management where needed. The foundation of an anarchist society would be equal political participation in forming decisions, the concept and goals of society, and participating in and choosing managerial specializations when necessary. This is in opposition to modern "market democracies" where democratic participation is mostly through token measures; it's not conceptually excluded that any given individual can participate in democracy as an "equal" by becoming rich and hiring lobbyists, keeping a coop of propagandists, and funding super pacs; so people are equal in this deboched and ludicrous sense in the imagination of said propagandists who create material for super-pacs (lobbyist and super-pac consultants do not generally believe this notion, but are simply sell their skills to the highest bidder out of contempt for the poor, who they generally view as human trash, if they bother to think of them at all), but such a system is not equal in any real sense for the vast majority who are not rich.
Anarchism is mostly associated with chaos due to the propagation of a false dichotomy by the above mentioned propagandists that government simply cannot function without the hierarchy and the subordination of the lazy poor to a system that forces them to work, and therefore, by whatever means are expedient, must be prevented from having any real say in the decisions of society. If the poor can be made to actually want their own subordination and truly love their rich overloads, so much the better; but whether a king is better loved or feared by the people is ageless debate the upper classes have between themselves.
A small, later groups of anarchists started blowing stuff up. In some cases it accelerated the right to vote (women who blew stuff up to vote saw the right to vote for women in their life time) ... in other cases it regressed democratization and ultimately contributed to a communist overthrow of the government and much more oppression than before as well as mass starvation and forced creation of hierarchical forms of farming that didn't even exist before. Anarchist union education and leading helped bring workers rights such as 40 hour work week (which we view as a lot of time today, but is not very close at all to how long someone can work in a week if they don't have a choice), safety laws, child labour laws and the entire concept of the welfare state as practiced in Europe to larger or lesser degrees, Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New-Zealand, and Canada (so, most importantly free and equally funded education at all levels, or highly subsidized, and free health-care, which is the foundation for equal participation in democracy). The welfare states are the embodiment of this anarchist transitional idea of "the state fading away" (wealth does not buy much influence, managerial positions are help to account by both transparency and democratic processes), ultimately due to real education (and the welfare state was originally conceived of mostly by social democratic anarchists and communists). The foundational theory of this view of society is that once enough people understand an idea is simply true, they simply don't accept a government in contradiction to that idea very long; exactly how the government catches up to what people believe, or how people go about making their government change, does not really need to be attended to in a mechanical way, it just happens.
Great! I see Grre wrote an informative post with complimentary information to the above as various nuances of anarchist theory and direction and the main authors.
General point being, anarchists to not believe some experiment should be run where there is no rules of government, but believe in getting rid of structures of oppression.
Anarchists disagree with other "leftist" movements in terms of what exactly is oppressive (obviously slavery is oppressive and every kind of "left" world view would agree, but under what conditions and to what extent market forces are oppressive or then would lead to oppressive structures re-emerging would be a point of disagreement) and, assuming agreement on what's oppressive, how best to change those oppressive structures (anarchists generally don't like identity politics where token or ornamental things are fought fiercely over but don't change oppressive structures much, and so end up being mostly a distraction and a sort of trap because such movements are allowed to flourish precisely because they don't threaten the powerful in any meaningful way, indeed the powerful can play at "fighting the oppressor" in these movements; other leftists that agree with identity politics sometimes have a "one-battle-at-a-time" world view, though often don't really have any theoretical idea of politics precisely because such a theory must be excised from the movement to be able to appear in mainstream news and thus "win"). Anarchists disagree with the right (obviously starting on the point of slavery, vis-a-vis the extreme right) not in "how to achieve the goal" ways, but on the fundamental issue of both hierarchy (many "right" movements want submission to authority, be it the church, the boss or a "strong political leader") as well as what would happen without hierarchy ("right" economics is usually based on the idea that poor people are simply lazy and need to be coerced to work one way or another, whereas anarchists view this characteristic of the working class, especially the poor working class, as an expression of the understanding-by-living that they do not really benefit from their work, they do not participate in forming the vision society they are contributing to, precisely due to these coercive structures they're trapped in they have no time for real political discussion, participation and agency; hence, they always seek to be free from these oppressive structure, which logically expresses in a first step of wishing not to work hard and longing for little under an abusive boss and doing so whenever they can -- sometimes constructively, like starting a pottery business, and sometimes destructively, like cooking meth in a trailer; the emotional element to anarchism is not blame the oppressed for self-destructive reactions to oppression, but rather to have a general compassion for these behaviours as chronic psychological oppression injury little different than the black lung, and to blame the oppressors, and the wealthier professional classes that act as a sort of side kick and have the access to information to know better, for maintaining such structures).
Excellent! A much more detailed summary than mine. Would agree with everything you said.
Definitely want to highlight what you wrote about it not only being censored (which it is, and why its so important do research and read the primary works of these thinkers) but its difference from the rest of what we would consider the Left (although some, like myself, see political theory not as linear so much as multidimensional). Socialists/communists largely believe in a collective organization-which is where the misconception that 'slavery under communism' comes from-ie. its totalitarian history-that people have no choice but participate and sacrifice themselves to this 'collective'. Whereas Anarchists primarily believe in liberty + equality, in the form of voluntary free association, and like Boethius explained, through the destruction of caste based systems in favour of decentralized/grassroots/personal authority. In the Church, state, even the family (many feminist thinkers focused on the family unit as the fundamental oppressive state) you have what is called "centralized authority" meaning, authority/power is had by only select people/groups of people (those in charge) whereas the rest are subject to that power. Of course, power itself is a complex topic in philosophy (Look up Foucault) but being general here, Anarchists wish to return power to each individual as an autonomous agent. Well won't people be evil if they suddenly can do whatever they want?? Thats a fair reaction, given the environment we are socialized in. However, the Anarchist response (and largely my own to an extent) is that many of the issues we see in individuals ie. cruelty/greed/violence is the result of the oppressive caste system we inevitably live under (whether it be class, race, gender-or on a more micro scale, individual power hierarchies, like an asshole boss or cruel parents) these fundamentally shape who we are, our choices, and our desires. Take away this system and people might, voluntarily, act very differently. Hence power is decentralized-to individuals or small, voluntary collectives such as small tribes or clans ect. Meaning Anarchism is far from a partisan political theory, its not one that has a national or supranational identity per say (not a national Party), but rather, would be a way of life.
This seems very radical and it is. For good reason. There's a reason why much of the Left that mainstream media exposes to us (and what is taught in public school) is pretty toned down-again like Boethius says, much of it focuses on smaller, minute, or individual identity politic issues-which, of course, are issues-but they are also symptoms of a much larger systemic problem. The Liberal/NeoLiberal (which is far from Left, more like middling centre) focuses on these one-issue campaigns (ie. abortion rights, gay marriage ect.) which, maybe slightly progressive in comparison to the more centre-rights (Republicans, Conservatives) ect. are pretty much ineffective in addressing the whole system, and in fact, some thinkers have argued that placing emphasis on these identity politic issues obscures the system even more so, a prime example is with regards to environmental movements. Sure, everyone should recycle, but placing the onus on a small minority of individual obscures the much larger systemic issue of an economic system based on consumerism, and the giant corporations that create tonnes more waste than one individual ever could in their lifetime.
Not so. Anarchism is not majoritarian.
True. Anarchism is voluntary free association-majoritarian would imply some larger non-voluntary collective. However, I think what @boethius meant was that Anarchism seeks to destabilize systems of power-returning power (decentralized) back to the autonomous individual to make their own choices-not reliant on class/elitism ect.
The author Steven Pinker claimed he was once anarchistic until the Montreal police went on strike in 1969. The police were forced back to work to restore order to the ensuing mayhem. There were riots and looting.
I agree with him to the extent that there can be no doubt that opportunists would capitalize on such a moment. But for how long? And what of the vast majority of people who never acted on such an opportunity, but abided by the law even though there was little enforcement of them?
The Anarchist response to opportunists would be that such were 'created' in turn by a system that values greed (I believe it was Chomsky). Arguably then, Anarchism is more of an ideal theory than a short-term practical one. Take away all centralized power and very likely such mayhem would ensue, the question is, if the power remained taken away-would future generations act in such a way? Perhaps not.
I think so. I don't think it would be long before others banded together to defend their property and rights.
Yes it is.
No anarchist writer has a belief that governing decisions could be based on minority votes. It makes no sense on the surface, nor at any other level.
Speaking on behalf of nearly every writer on anarchism that has read other writers discussing anarchism:
Where anarchists disagree with "majorities" is when the process is not equal to begin with; that majority does not equal democracy, other conditions are required to participate in a decision process as an equal.
For instance, an anarchist does not view the US system as genuinely democratic; however, the fact a minority of votes can elect the president is not one good point about the US system among many bad points, it's an even more absurd and terrible thing about it.
Likewise, anarchists do not believe that even when votes are genuinely majoritarian that they are somehow inherently moral; there's nothing upon which to decide if whatever the outcome is is correct. The majority can be wrong, hence the focus on education and knowledge as the primary force of liberation.
Anarchists are also deeply suspect of majority elected managers who are then not practically accountable and can easily corrupt the entire system of voting that is claimed to make them accountable from time to time (gerrymandering to straight vote rigging). Anarchists do not like first-past-the-post representational systems, precisely because they are only majoritarian in a plausible deniability way; anarchists prefer proportional representation where better representation, and more discussion and learning take place; but this too can be improved upon.
Anarchists believe strongly that political participation is best when done most, and this goes well beyond voting. That everyone is "co-creating", to translate an anarchist idea into woke corporate terminology, the political structure, not subservient to it. This is a radical change to what government would mean in practice to most people; almost so different as to be not recognizable as government, but to say this is no government or some sort of magical non-elite and non-majoritarian organization without any sensical way to make decisions as a society, is well off the mark.
Point being, none of these issues give rise to a belief that a good governing structure would be one that the majority of people would or could disagree with and that this good government therefore must have the power to continue to govern anyway (in a text-book definition of elite statist oppression that would lead anarchists directly to an obvious and silly contradiction with their most basic pretensions).
Government can be implemented in anarchy. As well as the anarchaic crisis is the anarchaic serenity, where naturally, people form alliegence, harmonizing toward a certain goal.
There is authority as such as there is philosophy to guide the minds.
Let's just say following the moral objective is some part necessary; we have to feed our bellies; it is enough policy without a Government agenda like capitalism.
People will create politics naturally, a moral policing force would form, but it's legitimately moral in nature.
The main thing that has stayed true in anarchism is a deep mistrust of schemes that seem to carry the clear risk of "being a useful fool".
Obviously, Stalin wasn't a communist in any recognizable sense of the communist theory of the time (and other leaders of the Russian revolution), but communists were useful fools for Stalin. Anarchists (correctly in my view) both at the time and since recognized that coercive state power can not be used for good (for instance to then "force" people to be good collectivist farmers or "force them to learn the truth").
However, anarchists view this fundamental learning required for genuine change as a long process, so at at given point in time things are multidimensional as you say. Anarchists can be all over the place doing what they see is clearly a good thing on a small scale, without bringing much attention to the word "anarchism". Theory is a tool for local actions, rather than a template for a new state. Acting locally requires cooperating with people at their current understanding of politics, but who want to go in a better direction; if an anarchist believes in equality, then an anarchist doesn't believe in insisting people accept they know the truth and should therefore make all the decisions.
All to say, that a nuanced multidimensional view of politics at any given time is not incompatible with:
Quoting Grre
Where we completely agree on what the foundation of anarchism is.
Quoting Grre
This is definitely a good summary of most anarchists issue with single-issue left movement.
However, one this to add is that these movement are ineffective not because attaining those issues aren't worthwhile things, but if and when they collaborate with the dominant structure of power. As a counter-example to contemporary examples that have clearly contributed to giving us Trump vs Biden, desegregation was a single-issue leftist movement. Obviously it was good to desegregate. However, MLK clearly understood that desegregation simply to be poor didn't accomplish all that much, and also understood that the structure of poverty regardless of race was as important as the blight of slavery and segregation. MLK was assassinated before really getting into this second phase; the system praises his work on desegregation every year (insofar as it's presented in a way that doesn't challenge the power structure), but mentioning his thoughts on poverty makes one a dangerous pariah (an interesting example of long term double think the system can support).
Only some communists were statists; there's an interesting history of anarchists first cooperating and then breaking with communists, but then some parts of the communist movement breaking with revolutionary theory and going towards anarchism.
Communists (mostly historical as there's not really any contemporary) were mostly social-democratic. The reason communist vanguardists who wanted to capture a state and run their experiments needed to do so in Russia, is because their ideas simply didn't get much attention in central Europe: trade unionism and democratization clearly made more sense, attracted more supporters and got results without crazy risks (creating ultimately the welfare states rather than the dystopian Soviet Union failed experiment that killed millions).
The more fundamental disagreement with historical communists is the view of industrialization as a good thing and the idea capitalism creates wealth that then communism can come later and takeover and redirect. Anarchists were deeply skeptical if not diametrically opposed to industrialization. Again forerunners of a hip idea: decentralized production.
However, most of the time in most places, communists and anarchists would be willing to agree to settle these theoretical differences through democratic process, and both were allied against fascists.
Great point on the double think. Another, more contemporary example of such a "double think" would be the hailed progressive (centrist-Liberal) achievement of allowing gay marriage. This seems great (and for many of course, it is, I identify as LGBTQ myself) but the issue is of course much more complex...one has to consider why homosexuality was barred from legitimacy at all (meaning, to question the founding imperatives of Judeo-Christian morality systems, difficult to do with the recent rise of extremist political christianity to an almost fascistic nature (MAGA and the regressive right)) why is homosexuality such a threat? A threat to what? Well the nuclear family ideal (which as many feminist writers have highlighted is based in sex class oppression and as Engels highlighted, is its own form of capitalist oppression, and serves a greater capitalist industrial system)-hence some thinkers have pointed out that by allowing homosexuals the socially(and economically) constructed legitimacy of state (and religious to some extents) marriage, reinforces the importances of marriage and nuclear family ideal; thus serving the bigger system of capitalism.
Again, such an issue of importance (in this case, recognizing the legitimacy, state or otherwise of homosexual relationships and ensuing social acceptance and normalization), is hailed as a "single-ticket" issue-which seems good and progressive, but really collaborates with larger systems of power-hence going unseen and ensuring the status quo (meaning nothing too radical) goes on. That is, bluntly speaking, the MO of most neo-liberal/centerists politics, bureaucratic acquiescence to soft issues.
That’s exactly what I mean by “not majoritarian”: just being the majority vote doesn’t make it right. Just being some minority’s vote doesn’t make it right either, but I wasn’t implying it did.
All good points. I should add then to my own summary, that some of the tenets of Anarchism and Anarchic thought are in a return to more primitive life/minimalism and self-sustainability. Arguably in Greek history, Diogenes was one of the first Anarchist thinkers-living in his box as he were, on his own terms.
"If you would only learn to compliment Dionysus, you wouldn't have to live on lentils."
Diogenes replied, "But if you would only learn to live on lentils, you wouldn't have to flatter Dionysus.”
One of the more contemporary thinkers who showed how this self-sustainability could be put into practice was Thoreau-who built himself a cabin in the woods and lived, pretty peacefully, for almost two years. Again, even more recently, this is why Anarchism is closely associated with many radical environment movements today; they focus on unearthing the larger (capitalist) systems that have lead to the environmental crisis we are facing, and then see grassroots level, self-sustainability (some more primitive than others), as a viable solution.
Agree, but that's not what almost anyone in political theory means by majoritarian. It goes without saying that the majority is not intrinsically morally right (leading the absurdity that they would be unable to know which vote was right before the cast it and saw the results); I know of no prominent philosopher or political theorist that has made such a claim, and certainly no prominent anarchist. The confusion around majoritarian rule is "what kind"; anarchists do not believe in "consent of the governed" but rather "governing by the governed", but both can be described as majoritarian rule, so the issue is not on that point of agreement (which to be clear, no American constitutionalist or whatever brand of status-quo'is is even in this little club of agreeing about majoritarian rule, just disagreeing about what is genuine, as the "losing side" in term of votes "winning" is not majoritarian rule, and yet happens in the US system; "losing the popular vote" just means "not democracy"; not to say you agree with the US system, just pointing out that if one group identified their system as "freedom and democracy" they may not understand the analysis of another group that does not make such an identification, and they can be very confused if they don't bother to understand the alternative point of view).
And direct democracy in the usual sense is normally functionally majoritarian. If 51% of the electorate directly approve of something then it’s law, fuck the other 49% if they disagree and can’t persuade 2% more to change their minds. Anarchy isn’t “direct democracy” like that.
That's true. I can't see how Anarchism could be implemented through traditional party politics. I think it could only come about through collapse or disaster, perhaps settling after a period of strife. But that's also unlikely; there is always that power vacuum, where some group would eventually assert its authority for the sake of order, and many would probably welcome it.
Perhaps anarchism serves better as a way of thought than a political system.
Ya, I've recently started dating a Sikh who I've come to realize their belief system is akin to Anarchism in some ways-excuse my paraphrasing, but much of Sikhism is not about centralized religion or obeying a monotheistic god, but rather a way of life and thought that promotes what they see as positive and worthy attributes.
I could see Anarchism overcoming a power vacuum if conditions are right. Like you said, a total disaster could give way to enough fear mythology for the surviving generations to fear any kind of use of power. Coupled with a return to more self-sustaining, maybe nomadic (meaning no personal property to defend) lifestyles could mean voluntarily free associating groups. Now we're getting into anthopology though...I recommend William Sumner Folkways, I need to re-read it but he presents an interesting analysis of fundamental aspects of human society/life in a very materialist way, which I largely agree with. Things do not "appear randomly"-every aspect of our life, like evolution itself, serves some purpose or attribute ie. religion was not just randomly 'discovered', its a useful storytelling tool for unity and group identity.
Yes, anarchists usually like this sort of direct democratic participation; which is majoritarian.
Quoting Pfhorrest
I don't know where you're trying to go.
Anarchists like democracy, votes happen in a democracy.
Anarchists do not end their political analysis with simply "majority decides", but that does not mean they are in disagreement with the principle of majority based decisions.
For instance, anarchists do not equate "voting" with "equal political participation". One definitely would be able to vote on an issue as an equal, and voting means that "the majority wins" the vote; that's simply what voting is and anarchists do not have some totally different way of making decisions in a group. However, anarchists do not view simply the presence of voting as a strong indication of equal political participation (equal agency to form society), as I've explained (they are against pointing to votes and saying "see, democracy, nothing more to discuss" but they are not against votes nor democracy).
As for voting itself, assuming it's a genuine system that empowers people "equally enough" to be preferred by anarchists over less empowering systems, then, yes, sometimes mistakes are made and hopefully society learns and reverses those mistakes through voting the other way. However, essentially no anarchist believes in a "super structure" of government that cannot be voted on or about that guarantees certain undiscussable conditions (such as deed rights to landed property).
Anarchists also don't believe that simply being able to vote (for now) about who manages a powerful centralized state is a stable situation likely to continue for long. Anarchists want to see local political units able to spontaneously organize outside of a central managerial structure (previously agreed about) to simply dismantle and replace such a structure if it went rogue (a variation on "state rights" but not racists nor stupidly appealing to constitutional originalism at the same time).
I find it very astute of you to qualify your notion of freedom, as bandied about by anarchists, to the strictly political sense, because one thing that some socialists accuse anarchists of is that they fail to distinguish political freedom from human freedom, and even where they do distinguish it they think that the important type of freedom is the former and not the latter. In fact, for some very crude anarchists, political freedom is just equated with economic freedom. For the socialists I have in mind, and Marx arguably was one of them, one can be free as a human being within a law governed society. A necessary, but not sufficient, condition for such human freedom is, however, economic equality. Economic equality is a notion that many anarchists find anathematic, especially "right wing" minimal state anarchists of the kind well represented by Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia, since economic equality is something that has to be ensured. Left wing anarchists are really just liberals with guns, but at least they do not pose the question "why can't we all just get along?".
It's best to just call these "right wing" anarchists libertarians, if that's your implication, as that's what they call themselves.
Someone simply writing a book with "Anarchy" in the title, having essentially nothing to do with with previous anarchist literature and no association or commentary on anarchist movements, and core ideas of which was immediately labeled something else, is not a good representation of historical anarchism. Not sure if your intention is to place "Anarchy, State and Utopia" in the anarchist tradition, or whether you would agree with the above.
In any case, it's interesting to point out the difference between "left wing" anarchists and US libertarians, whether you want to call them "right wing anarchists" or just US libertarians (the think tanks that created and keep this movement going generally avoid the term anarchism, or "ancho-capitalists" to avoid needing to bring up the subject of anarchism).
The key difference, is indeed that left anarchists do not view "political freedom" as distinct from "economic freedom". I completely agree.
The reasoning is of course the critical part. Insofar as economic freedom is maintained by institutions, backed by force, then it is simply a political issue. One can make a moral argument that certain social creations of property should be made and certain freedoms allowed within them, but this is not an argument that such a process is somehow apolitical, pre-political or has a sensical moral meaning outside a political process. If one has an argument justifying something is "really" someone's property but no argument that a political process should conclude the same, then for left anarchists it's simply a non-sensical opinion of property and, critically, even more non-sensical that the political process in question should nevertheless agree that such a notion of property is paramount despite not having any reason for doing so (i.e. yes, the majority has no reason to accept billionaires, lobbyist and astro-turf movements billions finance, and indeed society has every reason to dismantle such a power structure based on property deeds maintained by society, and ... therefore, society should never be allowed to deliberate on such an issue precisely because the majority may make the wrong decision, because despite it being a general harm to society it is a fundamental right to be able to collect such property deeds and insist society go to whatever lengths necessary to protect them, even risking its own destruction).
The uniting theme of libertarians is a fear of submitting definitions of property to an equal political process. Therefore, there must be political structures that the majority cannot change that guarantee property rights. For most anarchists, it's simply centralized statist elite aristocratic rule, with extra fuzzy sounding steps.
However, this is a distinct issue from "maintaining economic equality" in absolute terms. Anarchists are against being able to amass so much property as to be able to corrupt the political system and simply found a new aristocratic one (property being used to subvert political processes), but anarchists are not against property, and differences in property, as such (property is a result of political discourse and cooperation, not an a priori to it).
In the end, anarchists and socialists want the same thing, the disappearance of the state, at least it is not unreasonable to make that suggestion. Socialists also want substantive economic equality, not just equality of economic opportunity, and see that as a necessary condition for human freedom, and human freedom is the final goal. So let me start with this question: Do anarchists care about economic equality in that way, or do they see it as a peripheral issue? I'm genuinely curious, by the way, I'm not just looking for a fight :wink:
Only in matters where multiple people have a legitimate stake, though, and not even always then.
51% of people, all of them white, deciding that nonwhites may be enslaved, isn’t anarchic. That’s just tyranny of the majority.
If the people who live in a building or work in a company need to make a decision about that building or company that they all have a stake in, that may require a vote, and majority rule might be the best that can be done in such a vote, but even then many anarchists would argue that it is consensus, not majority, that matters.
The important point though is that 51% of the general populace doesn’t get any say on what goes on inside that house or company; only the people who actually have a legitimate stake in it.
In a sense yes. But if there was no ‘state’ the anarchic attitude would still exist as it is fundamentally about questioning authority rather than going along with the crowd - ironically in modern day terms the kind of people who call themselves anarchists, that you see wearing masks and throwing rocks, are merely going along with their own group insisting on their authority over others rather than simply questioning.
There are numerous positions on the political scale that are moderate yet still hold the term ‘anarchism’ to heart. As with all -isms there is no one true definition just a core gist surrounded by nebulous ideas and movements. Anyone who sides with anarchism in the sense that they oppose all societal structures of authority is essentially encouraging the death of millions because they believe they are ‘correct’. Naivety often goes hand in hand with extreme liberalist views, but that doesn’t make them useless either.
I am certainly someone who leans to ‘anarchism’ in the sense that I question authority where I can - within and without - rather than avoid rocking the boat. To grow as an individual a reasonably large helping of anarchism is essential as far as I can tell. Too much, like almost anything, is poisonous though.
Any political attitude used en masse is anti-anarchical. The true use of the anarchic attitude - as far as I care for it - comes from within. That is to oppose one’s own attitudes and beliefs with rigourous questioning.
Do the nonwhites get to vote in your example? Did African nations where the slaves are captured get to vote?
But, assuming we agree it's a-historical "what if" game, whatever scenario you're trying to construct, the problem is not solved for anarchists by some super-governing structure that can't be voted on at all. Yes, the majority of people can be wrong from the anarchists point of view, indeed so wrong that collaboration is no longer possible even. Anarchists don't have a problem with violent resistance movements to Nazi Germany, even if we assume 51% of German's and 51% of French approved of Hitler.
Lot's can be said from an anarchist point of view on democratic processes, but I know of know anarchist writer or movement that is against democratic ways of people making decisions (other than "right wing anarchists" who insist on calling themselves anarchists -- which, to be clear, they are free to do and I have no problem with that -- but who do not engage with anything that can be remotely called the anarchist school of thought). For most, perhaps all, "left" anarchists, the risk of centralized managerial structures is mitigated by local organization, not an even more centralized and non-democratically accountable power structure such as a supreme court or central bank.
Yes. This is a hypothetical to illustrate the point. Take the current population of the United States, which is about 3/4 white, and magically make the whole country a direct democracy, in the sense that every person gets one vote, and the country as a whole can get together and vote on whatever they want. If 51% of those people, all of them white, could decide that nonwhites should all be slaves again, then that is not anarchy. But that is direct democracy. So anarchy is not just the same thing as direct democracy, and direct democracy is not just a euphemism for anarchy, which is what you said that started this argument.
Quoting boethius
That was the point I was making before about stakeholders. The reason why the above is not anarchy is because the whole population of the country aren't stakeholders in the freedom-from-slavery of every other person, so whether or not a given person is or isn't a slave isn't the kind of thing that's up for a national vote, and it doesn't matter if 51% of the country would (given the opportunity) vote that that person should be enslaved. Anarchy doesn't put that kind of thing to a vote in the first place.
(From an anarchic perspective) When a vote is absolutely necessary, a majority prevailing is better than any minority prevailing, but it's far more important to recognize who has any say over what in the first place, and even among people who all have a legitimate say in some matter, to avoid having to come down to a vote in the first place to decide which side has the bigger numbers and so wins over the other side, instead of finding a consensus that lets everybody win.
Yes, we agree we agree on the terminology.
People can definitely call themselves "right wing anarchists", but it simply leads to confusion to talk about people who do not call themselves anarchists, such US libertarians, as if they are a form of anarchism, whether viewed historically or theoretically.
I have nothing against it, we can also discuss right-wing "anarcho-capitalists", but it wasn't clear if you wanted to got that way or refer to US libertarians.
Quoting jkg20
I would tend to agree with the broad statement that anarchists and socialists want the same thing.
The major difference, both theoretically and in practice, is in relation to the state. Anarchists want to avoid all collaboration with the state, always be in a position of either resistance, subversion or then indifference but never collaboration. Anarchists do not trust the state, even if it looks ok for the time being under consideration, nor would they ever trust another anarchist to run the state.
I use the term "central managerial process" above as to avoid the term "central authority". If you don't have a central authority, it's no longer clear what property means.
Within this context, most of what we easily ascent to as property cannot exist without state power to back it up. If we are talking about these forms of power and what it defines as belonging to who (large proprietary tracks of land the community is excluded from and the owner can permanently degrade so as to reinvest in the next exploitative venture or then large corporations that run the state with other elites such as their shareholders) then economic equality is in a theoretical sense a peripheral issue to the structure of power issue that then creates its own idea of property.
This is where libertarians usually simply don't get what anarchists are talking about. If we view property as some sort of fundamental physical attribute to objects, or then vaguely understand the social nature of property but only consider the status quo of what property means today, and furthermore view all political points of view as built up through a relations to this concept of property, then different movements on the left can be rendered intelligible from this point of view as wanting some differing degree or type of "economic equality".
So, that is one way to take the question: deconstructing what "economic equality" even means.
However, taken as an issue of difference between "leftists" generally construed, then there is a lot of variation of opinion. For instance, a mainstream social democrat in Europe may simply not think much about the issue, just be concerned about fixing "unfairness" when they see it in a pragmatic way, but also be willing to permit themselves to radically curtail property rights whenever it seems necessary but while somehow denying they hold that theoretical power to redefine what property means even while they are doing it. Anarchists seeing these sorts of things (environmental laws, limitations of money in politics, progressive taxes etc.) they are smiling from the window.
Where there is more well-informed debate, I would say the key dividing issue on the left is not in economic theory but rather the very practical issue of ruralism vs urbanism. The same principles in abstract agreement can lead to very different conception of society if you believe people should primarily live in a rural or urban setting. Anarchists are generally ruralists; sometimes an anarchist will become an urbanist, concluding that ruralism is an impossible dream, but then they usually have trouble squaring that with what anarchists usually want. However, the rural vs urban debate goes well beyond discussions of political organization in the abstract.
Ok, we agree this is an ahistorical thought experiment.
Quoting Pfhorrest
I've already dealt with this issue if you read my comments.
But to put it another way, how would you stop 51% of people voting on something, in this case who's going to be slaves, in an anarchist way? What would be an "anarchist structure of power" that prevents this happening, that is not the elite state power anarchists are all about not wanting?
While you think about that, the anarchist view of 51% of people voting for something terrible is that anarchists (presumably on the side of "let's not have slaves") failed to convince enough people, the people failed to be moral, and that terrible thing must be resisted (such as Nazi Germany, even assuming 51% really did vote for Hitler).
Now, if we had a democratic system that is "anarchist approved", if 51% of people voted for something terrible, then the anarchists communities who didn't want that would not participate in it's implementation, they may even feel compelled to go and liberate slaves in the communities implementing such a policy.
People voting for stupid, even evil, things is not a theoretical problem for anarchists, as anarchists do not view voting in itself as the political ideal and feel the need to defend what a majority decides on any given occasion. Doesn't mean there's a better way to avoid violence that doesn't include voting, doesn't mean voting needs to be re-thought in a non-majoritarian way, nor does it mean voting is guaranteed to prevent violence on every occasion.
In other words, "voting" in anarchism is a tool of collective decision making, but not the only tool (one must have some moral system to decide what to vote on in the first place) and neither do votes create moral authority; people who vote maintain as much moral agency before and after voting, and they may or may not feel like continuing to participate in the organization they've been voting in if they disagree with a given decision (a majority being mistaken, in the anarchists view, maybe morally tolerable or intolerable, depends). Anarchists do not view it as a moral duty to carry out the wishes of the majority, depends what those wishes are, but they don't have a better way of collective decision making (such as a politburo or unaccountable supreme court "making sure people don't go out of bounds").
Anarchists believe they have better ways to organize society on many other dimensions, economic and political, but these do not substitute for voting as such; rather, they make voting better and more effective.
Anarchists who decide collaboration with the majority is no longer morally tolerable, would still try to organize to decide what to do about it, and need to vote on, for instance, if assassinating someone is going to help and who to assassinate and how (and depending on when and where we're talking about, people will react to this "keeping things open" with "ahh, dangerous idiots!" or then "yes, yes, would be great if someone killed Hitler"); and, again, if an anarchist finds the majority of anarchists in this meeting's decision to not assassinate someone morally intolerable, they may reject this majority decision as well and go and make their own meeting with people who do agree.
This is why statists equate anarchism with chaos -- at no point do anarchists give up their moral autonomy and accept to serve the will of another person group, no matter how large, without being convinced its a good idea at every step; there is no theoretical clockwork mechanism of social stability and keeping still that statists crave. Statists will say "look, a majority of people have, at the least, acquiesced to state power, and so those anarchists are against democracy!" to which the anarchist's response (which is never allowed to be heard) is "well, first of all, just voting on something doesn't entail I should abandon my world view -- why would I? -- and second, acquiescence is not equal participation so the results are highly suspect.
Now we are agreed how we are using the term "anarchist", I think I might need to be a little clearer about my use of the term "socialist". I do not mean to refer to the kind of socialist that is a member of an established political party, content with the existing mechanisms of the state, but who just sees the policies it enacts as in need of a tweak towards a little more redistribution of wealth. Nor do I mean the kind of socialist that simply wants to replace one kind of state with another, perhaps even more authoritarian one. I am talking about the kind of socialism that Marx and Engels propounded that sees the state as, in effect, an executive committee for the management of the affairs of the bourgeoisie, and the disappearance of which is a necessary step to reach the final goal of human freedom. People can have property under socialism and anarchism, that I understand, after all, who would want to share my toothbrush with me? So perhaps we need to distinguish also between what we might call personal property, on the one hand, and private property on the other. The distinction is a little difficult to define, particularly in boundary cases, but for a socialist the key idea would be that with the idea of private property comes the idea of private ownership of the means of production in a society, which includes arable land as much as it does nuclear power plants, and it is private ownership of those means of production that is anathematic to socialism. From what you say, private ownerhip of means of production is compatible with anarchism. However, since the so called left wing of any movement covers a much broader church than the right wing, I wonder if there is room within anarchism for the rejection of the principle of private property as well? Or is it on that specific point that you think we really boil down to the essential difference between socialism and all forms of anarchism?
Yes, I agree. I mentioned the "what does it look like when this doesn't happen" example of MLK to contrast with examples where these issues are clearly worked to maintain the status quo: create outrage about homosexual issues, abandon worker issues, fleece the workers and trade way protection of the black community franchise to "be tough on crime" to attract republican voters, declare victory. However, it gets messy when trying to disentangle the good-faith actors concerned about a legitimate single issue and the power structure that co-opts them; generally, they do not have the analytical capacity to understand what is going on, so can hardly be blamed for being used, though there are notable exceptions.
I'll try to collect my thoughts on what these identity politics things mean from an anarchist perspective. Feminism is definitely the most complicated.
I would argue that feminism is intrinsically implied in Anarchist principles-seeing as they seek to dissolve all power structures and return power to the autonomous individuals, this necessarily must include women and the sex class system. Emma Goldman, one of the founding writers and thinkers of modern Anarchism-was also one of the most radical feminist thinkers; highlighting that there can be no equality until women are freed from marriage, family, and the obligation to be reproductive chattel. Also it was Goldman (among others) that highlighted systems theory; she recognized that the sex industry, and subsequently the hated prostitute, were resultant of larger systems of oppression and exploitation.
Feminism appears complicated but it operates among the same lines as political ideologies, there is conservative (reactive) feminism that seems womens issues as "secretarian" and lesser to larger male/universal issues like war, the draft, ect. ect. First wave feminism got largely co opted by this line of thought. Liberal feminism is what is largely exposed mainstream, it acts the same as other Liberal ideologies, attempting to address one-ticket issues that ultimately end up changing very little and obscure the larger systemic causes...examples of this are the whole Trans+ pronoun debate that the regressive right gets so up and arms about (haha theres 80 genders wow omg these libtards!) but Liberal campaigns frame as individual "Free choice" and not the result of some larger deconstuction of gender ideals more radically (which is where the Trans+ movement began, as a fierce critique of the genre binary). Also lets not forget the ultimate co opting of previous (second and third wave) feminists attempts to critique beauty ideals and how those are used culturally to enslave women...Liberal campaigns have co opted this to be "look good for you" and equated (usually harmful) beauty practices with self care, self love, and independence, when really-as radical writers have shown, there can be no independence from the male gaze, you are not wearing makeup for "You" no matter how much you want to believe it. Hence once again Liberal ideology obscures larger systems-perhaps in more damaging ways than in economic or social policy...
I must say, I am really enjoying our discussion here.
You've hit upon one of the many crises of todays politics, which I also see-leading to the political apathy the pervades many people, especially minorities and the working class, who arguably need to be involved the most.
The two party system itself is toxic to the entire concept of democracy, especially when the two parties are (despite what you have been lead to believe) historically quite similar in their policies in approaches...and more contemporarily, takes a one step forward one step backwards approach (hence why we are still hearing rulings attempting to unearth Roe v Wade-which was a good 40+ years ago, like move on already), its also why people become apathetic to the point that politics don't "do" anything and then "voting" doesn't do anything. In fact, many Anarchist thinkers have highlighted that-radical feminist anarchists like Goldman went against the conservative suffragists of the time to declare that a woman's vote would not change a woman's oppression (which is true, its more of a fake symbol then anything else. sex class remains as real as ever)-and Thoreau argued that voting was all a game, meant to distract from the real issues at hand (read Thoreaus essay"Civil Disobedience" theres free pdfs online if you search in Google). The electoral system, and what we have in Canada, a first-past-the-post system is not only unduly complex, but it is far from democratic. And having only two real "viable" choices is far from democratic or allowing for any real substantial change. In Canada we theoretically have a multi-party system (we usually have 4+ viable options), but seeing as the majority only really vote for the two biggest-the two/three/four others are discouraged because people have the misconception that voting for the others is "throwing away your vote", thus just like Thoreau believed, voting becomes a strategical game. Which it shouldn't be.
In the Biden v Trump election, many will try to vote Biden in a way that offsets Trump, but MAGA and the regressive right are too strong-if seen in the context of a two party system, Trump will win again. Also Biden is a disgrace in and of himself, and undoubtley many of the true Left will ignore the election entirely as a result. What the Left in America should do (and I don't mean those who are middling democrats, but real Left) is refuse the vote. Not, not show up on election day-but actively refuse their vote. I read somewhere that is an option in America, meant to safeguard the electoral process against the possibility of two unworthy candidates; which is what they are facing now.
And that’s exactly what distinguishes it from being identical with democracy. Anarchy may sometimes use democratic methods, and when it does it uses direct democratic methods, but you said “direct democracy” was just a modern euphemism for anarchy, when it’s clear even you understand that that is not true.
I apologize if I made anything more unclear for you. However its good that we both can see how the two-party system is toxic.
But if voting does not result in authority, then it's not collective decision making, either. If any actual compliance to the outcome of the vote is incidental rather than based on the actual voting process, one might as well dispense with the voting and just have a discussion.
Exactly, this is why I was talking about consensus vs majority. Consensus means everyone gets to add their thoughts and everyone’s thoughts are fairly considered and a collaborative solution taking into account all sound arguments is worked out. If there is a failure to build consensus then maybe a majority vote is the next best option. But going straight to a majority vote is not the anarchic way.
I'm not disagreeing, but for the sake of discussion-since this seems to be a prominent point being discussed here. All decisions of an anarchist group could be consensual and unanimous-if there was a minority that strongly disagreed with a group decision then they would end their association with said group and voluntarily join a different group that better matched their ideas? By very definition Anarchist societies are based on voluntary free association. It may take discussion and compromise to reach certain decisions, but I don't feel like in any true Anarchist group there could be a majority over a minority...(tyranny of the majority) because that would apply a power imbalance.
Hence one can see the difficulties of imagining Anarchist societies on national or supranational scales-how could thousands, millions, or billions of people ever come to unanimous compromises on issues?
I'm not saying its impossible, I'm just saying that this is one of the main aspects of Anarchism, in my opinion even more than the issue of "everyone will be greedy!", that takes some real consideration when attempting to apply it in a practical way.
However, if examined on a micro level, say in small groups-I believe we see varying levels of Anarchist organization in friendship and colleague group associations-arguably the healthiest of which...even in larger family units (although nuclear families, as per the radical feminist line, are inherently oppressive in their own way-i'm not denying this). In healthy friendship groups (or perhaps adult family groups like siblings/older parents/cousins/uncles-children are their own subclass so cannot be seen as equals) everyone voluntarily chooses to associate with each other-they are not dependent or forced to. At any time you can freely choose to leave friendships and their attending groups, and many people obviously do many times throughout their lives...usually when their are disagreements often in majority/minority style-people take sides, and sometimes the group even splits into smaller groups ect. This is all a natural (although painful) at times process, that ultimately, leads to 'better' or at least, more fitting future friendships and groups. The fact that people outgrow people with changes in life and circumstances is indisputable. All of this is a very organic process, and at all times the individual, though seeing themselves as part of the collective group, and doing their "part" for the group (ie. picking up group members, hosting dinner parties w/e) remains individual and autonomous, they do not subvert their identities in any meaningful way (vs. in more collectivist political theories like communism/socialism, the individual is expected to subvert their identity for the good of the group). I think we see the very real actualizing of Anarchist organization in these kinds of healthy friendship groups, which are basically defined as a group of individuals voluntarily associating with each other-there are certainly differences amongst those in the groups, but these differences are resolved through compromise, consensus, and mutual respect and care for members. Arguably, these types of group organizations are the most sought after-explaining why shows featuring them such as Friends, The Big Bang Theory, Modern Family ect. became such popular hits (among many other books, movies, and other mediums), also perhaps why people work so hard to form them, and generally, if the group is healthy...enjoy their time in them. In no way are these groups necessarily permanent, that would imply that they are no longer voluntarily-and they do end, or inequalities and power imbalances do happen leading to as I already said, a breaking down of the group. But the individual remains autonomous, and when they leave, they then seek out another group that better fits their needs/interests/beliefs ect. Hence voluntary free asscociation-the Anarchist social organization, and one I feel is a very fundamental and healthy
human social pattern.
However, you've clearly expressed what it is about anarchism that concerns you - chaos as an inevitable consequence and with that you probably want to discredit anarchism.
Prima facie, anarchism seems to be in deep trouble for chaos does follow the removal of authority put in place (by the state) to check people and the fact this is a well-documented consequence of missing authority goes to show that, contrary to what anarchism claims, people are incapable of living in a non-coercive setting.
However, if you take a close look at this chaos-authority connection, you'll find that society has problems that make it, and keep it in a, volatile, near-chaotic, state that erupts into pandemonium the moment authority goes missing e.g. socioeconomic inequalities. While I won't claim that these problems are a direct consequence of authority, I would like to remind you that solving them would sever the chaos-authority connection - no longer would it be true that an absence of authority inevitably leads to chaos. This means that for anarchism to be practical all we need to do is solve the problems of society that keep it always on the verge of chaos, the only thing keeping the peace being an authority. Easier said than done, methinks.
The small communities that Anarchism supports are a good thing. (I agree that the nuclear family is not ideal, thoiugh not I think for feminist reasons; I benefitted greatly from grandparents and aunts in my upbringing.) But they split when they cannot agree. And without a state, their fights can get bloody; there are disputes about church property, which the legal system-- though chary about taking sides on theological issues -- must somehow resolve. But anything but a liberal state wll squash religious minorities. We have seen how quick even a nominally liberal state is to declare churches, but not liquor stores and gun shops, 'inessential.' Hence we return to the liberalism from which we began, and in fact require a more robust form than we now have.
I used the term "moral authority", because I was talking about moral authority.
The outcome of a voting process does not create new moral imperatives.
Quoting Echarmion
Therefore, this does not follow from what I have wrote.
Anarchism is not distinguishable from democracy in the abstract sense of "people power". In this sense, anarchism is simply standard democratic argument with some additional "decision efficiency arguments" as well as some economic argument representing what people may find works best in using their power.
Anarchism criticizes "representational democracy" as too easily a form of not-democracy: controlled by the rich resulting in what amounts to an aristocracy that merely calls itself a democracy.
However, anarchists do not view the basic principles of democracy, for instance that would be typically advanced to justify the US constitution, as erroneous, but rather the criticism is that those principles are not realized in practice and are not elaborated to a reasonable conclusion.
Yes, I definitely agree with these statements.
Quoting Grre
Yes, I did not mean to imply the basic political argument is complicated. If people are equally free and exercising their moral autonomy as equal participants in the political process, so too women, clearly.
Rather, what I was referring to as complicated is the history of feminism understood as identity politics, the episodes of being co-opted and subverted wherever possible by the power structure, as you immediately get to, so I think we're on the same page.
Quoting Grre
I'm not certain I agree, but it's useful to clarify meanings of "feminism", and for my purposes, what it means for a movement to be "co-opted".
For instance, it is not necessarily the case that anyone who actually starts a social movement that gains momentum is themselves co-opted; indeed, this is rarely the case. Rather, what is being co-opted is the representation of the movement in the press and popular culture; these milieu being controlled by elite power structures anyway, it is not surprising that they can be made to say anything at all. It is the popular conception of the movement, usually a dissident view that effectively overcomes suppression and is suddenly a "issue", that slowly or quickly is transformed into something that is no longer disruptive but in fact supportive of the power structure. This process is with or without whoever started things off; indeed, people who "start" things are often unwavering radicals.
So, what makes analyzing identity based political movement complicated,firstly (precisely because it is so easily co-opted) is that the power structure gets pick and choose who to promote as authentically representing that identity; unsurprisingly, they choose to promote people that are not threatening in anyway to the power structure (are useful idiots or are aware of their part in the con).
Were "first wave feminists" co-opted? or were entirely new people branded "feminist" essentially fabricated by the media to represent first wave feminists and replace them in the general consciousness. We cannot assume anything simply because the word "feminism" pops up at different time and is assigned to different things.
A second important consideration is that people "in the movement" at any given time may not really know what it's about in any argumentative sense. Obviously, these are the marks of those doing the co-opting, but they also can create confusions entirely spontaneously all on their own.
Quoting Grre
So yes, in the context of what I wrote above, what I would maybe change is that "Liberal feminism" is what's allowed to broadcast on mainstream television.
Quoting Grre
I like to call this "commercial feminism" and it represents the vast majority of intellectual content about feminism most women actually encounter. Indeed, co-opting a social movement to sell something (cigarettes) started with feminism.
However, not only is the exact mechanism of co-opting complicated, both in abstract description and as they play out historically, but simply the presence of co-opting is not enough to conclude things are "counter-productive". The co-opting can be viewed also from the angle of "comes with the territory and is simply part of the battle", that power structures have so much influence on representation of movements (which then affect those movements, producing even more acceptable representations) and that this is a formidable weapon simply means it must be dealt with as best as possible, just as moving production oversees is a formidable weapon against the union movement. So to get into all the details to try to first define what we mean by "feminism" for the purposes of then arguing "feminism has this or that" is a very long task.
What I think is interesting for this thread is the general anarchist view that identity politics has the uncanny tendency of being always a fight for a place within the state; indeed, often identity groups try to emphasize how obedient they are for supporting their case that the state should grant them more comparable conditions of wage slavery as it grants other groups.
Definitely lot's of things worth discussing.
Which anarchists have you read? Maybe we can help with better understanding them.
Fair enough. Does it create any other authority/ imperatives then?
Voting creates no imperatives.
As for authority, voting for anarchists does not create authority in the statist sense of people with essentially all the power.
Being a political equal means there is no authority in the sense we usually understand it.
Genuine democracy for anarchists means that a deliberative body never hands over all the power to some small executive team that then run everything.
Certainly anarchist's also need to elect people for specialized tasks, but they retain the ability to recall them at any moment so the authority did not move away from the members in a practical sense. If such a manager "went rogue" anarchists would be organized in such a way as to immediately take their power away in a practical sense of whatever resources this person was using.
The authority remains in the voting itself, and no new authority is created through voting; the people concerned could at any moment do something else.
Things get implemented because the people who vote for it see to it that it gets implemented, which, yes, may require violence. Anarchists maintain that deliberation and decisions between political equals does not give rise to such divisive differences as to lead to many occasions of violence; however, anarchists propose no system that would "force people to not be violent", things can, in principle, get out of hand at any moment (just as with any social system; other social systems merely claim it is otherwise; such as representing an order created and maintained by god, or simply claiming that a institutions with the most force, for now, collaborating are therefore unassailable, and so cannot be undermined and changed or even turned against each other -- that monopoly is absolute and forever and there is no epistemological alternative to submission).
This is why I mention in a previous comment anarchism is easiest in a rural context.
Anarchist organization would also have just as much tendency towards a de facto monopoly of force as any other. What anarchists want to avoid is a central monopoly of power that can simply ignore the wishes of it's constituent members and communities.
Anarchist communities also enforce their laws. The anarchist contention is that the more people do not effectively participate in making those laws, the worse those laws are and the less reason people have for following them, increasing crime; in other words, the incompetence and inefficiency of the state breeds the problem of rampant crime that the state then claims it's necessary to solve.
Quoting TheArchitectOfTheGods
Anarchy doesn't want states, so to claim that interactions of states in absence of even more extreme concentration of power is somehow analogous to interactions between individuals is disingenuous at best and simply foolish at worst.
Global anarchy is exactly that, ~200 cavemen with clubs of different sizes. The small depending on the goodwill of the big. Sad but true. So I really cannot understand anyone arguing for anarchy, we have it already! Anarchy = no government. And it means the possibility of war and hostilities, a dog eat dog planet (or cave). Whether it is 200 people or 200 states, this analogy holds absolutely true and is permissible.
-philosophy a kind of parenthood, is best suited for judging the political system and ideology as bad.
Which anarchist proposes this formula?
Philosophy rarely says anything is absolutely anything, let alone such as assumption of that. Are you an expert in sociology, anthropology, or history then? Do you actually have evidence of this "absolute" truth you are so claiming? I think you are purposefully misunderstanding @boethius - Anarchism wants to prevent the 'might' of anyone. While you could claim that sometimes brute strength overcomes the weaker in situations where power is not centralized (and that certainly has been an argument, although usually a weak one, against Anarchism-ie. the consequences of creating such a power vacuum) these are not in line with Anarchism principles that are the topic of this discussion. Anarchy is not about no government, but a collective (government) based on free association. While the current global political situation may indeed be seen as totalitarian, chaotic, and imbalanced, this by no means can be equated to Anarchism as a political system...I'm not sure if this is an ignorant mistake of yours, to confuse "anarchy" as an adverb to describe chaos and disorder (which is actually the work of 200+ years of political propaganda and has nothing to do with the true Greek etymology of the word) with the detailed summaries of Anarchism many have outlined here-or if it is purposeful to try to bluntly push your opinion on the topic which completely contradicts history, and 200+ years of thinkers on the subject.
Didn't Bakunin propose it?
Statism and Anarchy
Well, thanks for going and reading an anarchist text.
Kropotkin also says literally "we want no government", so it is a point worth discussing, just not worth it with someone who hasn't read or even bothered to web searched any anarchists.
However, it's a fairly trivial detail, the word "government" is clearly used interchangeably with "the state" in such passages from anarchists from this period; and it seems to me, in particular Russian anarchists.
The meaning of "government" as is used today in philosophical discussion has become more abstract to refer to basically any collective decision making process whatsoever.
Bakunin clearly states anarchy is about "social organization from the bottom up" not "no organization whatsoever: might is right" as is using the word.
If you cite passages written 150 years ago, you need to check that they are using the word in the same way.
Moreover, Bakunin is writing in Russian, so there must be pause for thought of the impact of translation.
However, in this case, clearly government is not being used as an abstract term for collective decision making, but as an equivalent of "the state".
The fact the book your citing is literally has "statism" in the title, may also be a clue that he is referring to "government" in the form of a "state".
Kropotkin also uses the phrase in English writing (I believe), but whether this is an error on his part, again, clearly interchangeable with "the state", and goes to some length to explain that anarchism is not about people just doing what they want without rules, but collective decision making between equals (decision on things like rules). Kropotkin talks a lot about people holding congresses all the time to decide on this or that; so, with how the word "government" is used in philosophy today, we would say Kropotkin is describing "a form of government" and we might inquire further about it.
For what it’s worth I wasn’t trying to refute any argument you made, I was just trying to answer your question.
My question to you?
Well, but then why not call it by its name and call it direct democracy instead of anarchy? In the 21st century we even have a realistic technological chance to make that happen. After all, there is power / might and decisions to be managed, as you are admitting. And what would then be a correct label for the current political organization of the world, if not 'Anarchy' (no-rule)? No-rule and collective decision making (I assume this includes collective enforcement of the rules) are not the same. So we need to call one anarchy and another direct democracy.
The question “Which anarchist proposes this formula?“.
Anarchy advocates direct-democracy, of one form or another, but is not reducible to direct democracy. There is more moral and political content to anarchy than simply how it is proposed decisions be made.
Quoting TheArchitectOfTheGods
Yes, if anarchists get together and vote on some objective or some rule then they would presumably vote on how to implement that at the same time or then some later time. So, they would need the power to accomplish their goal, and we would hope their plan takes that into account.
However, this is not the same as a moral claim "might is right".
The difference between "state power" and an "anarchist collective power of political equals" is that state power (as it was seen in the 19th century, 20th century, and today) is coercive, whereas anarchist power is not coercive. It is the coercive nature of the state that anarchists have issue with, not any of it's legitimate functions. Statist argue that the legitimate functions of the state cannot be carried out without the coercive nature of the state, whereas anarchists argue there is another way to get things done.
Quoting TheArchitectOfTheGods
As points out, it is the propaganda of various states that has made the association of "anarchy" with either "chaos" or "no organization".
Political theorists usually refer to the international order between states today as "multi-polar", not anarchy.
There are political lessons to take from the international order, such as freely entered agreements that parties can freely exit (Brexit being a good example).
However, the issue of using the failure of states to competently organize to solve problems (as we see with Coronavirus, over fishing, global warming, soil depletion, famines, poverty, on-top of the preventable wars) anarchists would argue is a failure precisely due to the corrupt nature of the state. That states tend to be bad-faith actors when dealing with other states (acting precisely in the greedy and bad faith way statists argue individuals act without the state to coerce them into being productive!) and so problems don't get solved, anarchists would argue as further evidence states are fundamentally corrupt and incompetent. Anarchists would argue, when the same kind of structures (UN discussions, free-agreements, etc.) are built from the bottom up then you would see good-faith actors and problems actually solved.
Yes, so my question in the context of how was using "government", so answering my question would have required addressing the meaning of the word as relevant to my question and used by Bukanin, and not just the meaning in English in the 19th century but also in Russian.
Anarchists generally differentiate themselves with any self-described "Marxist communist", most vehemently on the statist compatibility. All historical anarchists I'm aware of reject capturing the state to build the new society (Soviet Union confirms this criticism for Anarchists), and a key them in anarchism is the "evolutionary" principle of needing to work with people as they are and change institutions as they are towards an anarchist direction (the Welfare states of Switzerland, Scandinavia, Canada, etc. being an anarchist achievement, just not solely due to anarchists who view it as only one step and want to go further).
I'm not aware of any anarchists school that agreed with the idea a "strong state is needed to protect the revolution". Though of course what Marx himself would think of this theory is highly debatable.
What's a more clear difference with Marx himself, is that anarchists were more skeptical of revolutionary theory, historical materialism, historical dialectic.
Revolutionary anarchists seem in complete agreement with revolutionary Marxists (take down the state and large private property holdings), but precisely because the revolution is not some historical guarantee it will only happen if revolutionary acts are undertaken to make it happen.
Anarchists also tend to criticize the Marxist wing of socialism as too abstract for normal people. Anarchists want to get to a society where everyone is politically equal and no one coerced and exploited, but also want to help people as best they can along the way due to this same concern. For instance, Russel's main critique of Marx was not on any particular logical point, but rather that Marx's motivation was too much hatred for the bourgeoisie and not enough "positive emotion", which is why Russel identifies with anarchism, which brings this positivity (about human nature, about a moral foundation for society).
So, although these key differences aren't on economic questions, it does I think point to the "difference in style" usually found between historical anarchism and Marxist-communism.
Quoting jkg20
Yes, this is where there would be agreement what Marx got very right. The key focus being "means of production". If I have a thing that gets produced, it's not a problem that it remains mine if society owns the means of producing that thing and can ensure other get one too.
The most critical means of production is of course land and resources.
Quoting jkg20
Yes, anarchists are much more open to markets than Marxist-communists. Marxists-communists, certainly in the Lennon-Stalin direction, believed the the bourgeoisie would basically pop out of any market relations whatsoever.
Anarchists have usually a more positive view of human nature and tend to believe that free political equals could manage a market responsibly; though usually as a step towards a local sharing economy type situation as we learn to do more and more things without markets (and as society simply gets wealthier, and good things accumulate). Marxist-communists would tend to argue that such a step would not go anywhere and just get rolled backwards (the accumulation tendency of private capital would overwhelm regulation).
Quoting jkg20
It's compatible in the sense that politically equal people may choose such an arrangement for a wide range of things.
Anarchists would argue equal people wouldn't choose to do so for anything important (health-care, education, etc.) and would eventually lose more and more market relations in favour of community relations.
Quoting jkg20
Do you mean rejection of "personal property"?
But definitely many anarchists, especially early anarchists, had a vision of taking down the state, abolishing all property and then everyone suddenly just accessing what they need when they need it.
Anarchists can also be essentially in line with the socialists in this regard, just have differences such as the why, how and skeptical of historical-materialism as determined without human individual agency.
Marx saw this naivety of the socialists before him and solved it by simply stating capitalism will solve all the problems of production first, and only then workers can unite to take over.
However, anarchists also started to try to solve this economic problem without needing capitalists (anarchists usually view the entire capitalist enterprise as a fundamental mistake that hurled humanity towards the abyss), and so some anarchists view communal living as immediately practical whereas others are open to markets regulated in the right way (after taking over all privately owned land and monopolies) -- it's usually this question that produces the large variations in anarchist theory; where anarchists stay united is the belief that humanity can figure out what works best given equal uncoerced participation, and so a lot of differences are therefore simply speculative about what such people would do.
Yeah I apologize for that I should have read the context. I thought you genuinely wanted to know the answer to the question. But I’ll trust that the translation of the term “government” was accurate, and the term hasn’t changed much since Bakunin’s time.
Thank you for these explanations, appreciated. It would be historically interesting to appraise though, how much of this perceived coercion is due to the fact that the countries of the early anarchist thinkers were not democracies. Because surely, exercising of power by the state of its laws is perceived differently in a universal democracy where people could have a say in making these laws, as opposed to a tyranny or partial democracy where no one or only a select part of the population can vote on the laws that are being coerced.
When you take a starting point at Weber's definition of relative Power as the probability (chance) to achieve ones own will even against the resistance of others, regardless of the underlying causes of this probability, then it is hard to see how Power could exist without a means of being enforced / coerced. Logically, a power that cannot be enforced is not a power at all, but I am happy to hear further arguments to the contrary.
Quoting boethius
Just as an example, in such a society, how exactly would a murderer be punished if not by coercion of the collective power? The murderer, even if he knows he is guilty and was proven to be guilty, does not want to go to jail, much less receive a death penalty. How does the collective anarchy enforce a punishment here if not by coercion?
Quoting boethius
Yes. And on exactly these same points, which could be termed global problem areas that transcend nation state boundaries, global statists would argue that only a global governance consisting of legislative, judiciary and executive would be able to address such problems adequately and in a democratic way. One could argue that it is not due to it's corrupt nature that a state fails to address problems of a global scope, but precisely due to their scope being global, not local.
Thanks for asking and curiosity about anarchism.
As a general point, anarchist view that coercive authority structures corrupt moral and political language, so that "common sense" becomes the same as "obedience to the state and / or church".
Obviously "submission to the will of god", for the kind of theist that likes such a saying, is not supposed to be in practice "submission to the whims of a corrupt preacher". Likewise, "collective defense" is not supposed to be simply protecting the interests of the elite in practice. That things turn out this way is, for anarchists, reflects a very deep corruption (much deeper than other leftists are willing to consider).
Lot's of anarchists arguments are pointing out what abstract reasoning actually means in practice. Another example, most arguments justifying "law and order" you encounter are meant to be understood to justify the state. Anarchists usually want to deconstruct that sort of argument insofar as it justifies the state; however, usually anarchists then drop that terminology for something that is neutral; such as "cooperation", "organization" or "harmony" as a substitute for "law and order", which in the most abstract interpretation can mean the same thing.
However, the anarchist tradition is often to write for normal people that are currently oppressed and so don't have so much time to go into every theoretical nuance. Kropotkin, for instance, often doesn't make theoretical sense if not interpreted in a colloquial way. However, if interpreted in a colloquial way (such as what average person thinks of as "the government") then it not only makes theoretical sense but is actually readable by the people Kropotkin wants to help. Not that he's unaware of these issues, and he sometimes writes whole pamphlets disambiguating things.
Quoting TheArchitectOfTheGods
Yes, anarchists have no issue with self defense nor with people voting against "rape and murder" and then voting for a system that would deal with when it happens.
People unwilling to use violence even in self defense, are best called radical pacifists. Of course, radical pacifists are also generally in agreement with anarchists on how things "should be", but anarchists as a tradition are not very close to radical pacifism.
Indeed, that anarchists are "not pacifist enough", too violent and too ready to take justice into their own hands, not just letting this task to the state, is often the first criticism of anarchism. So, it's a sort of propaganda tour de force that the second rebuke is that anarchists are not violent enough to be willing to deal with murderers and imagine a world where murderers and rapists run rampant.
Anarchists are not principled pacifist unwilling to use violence.
Anarchists critique the state in creating far more violence than free people would create and, above all, requiring coercive violence to maintain the state, but they do not argue that violence would simply never happen in an anarchist society.
There is a key difference with coercion and violence in self defense.
Coercion is manipulative whereas violence can be honest and direct "if you try to rape me, I'll try to kill you". The latter self-defense statement is not intrinsically manipulative, just saying what one is going to do.
When anarchists talk of free association of individuals they don't mean somehow to exclude free association for self-defense purposes. Indeed, when anarchists associate, how best to defend against agents of the state is a primary concern; but this does not somehow exclude the need to deal with violence between members of their free association.
Of course, if we go "abstract enough" we can view "I will try to kill you if you try to kill me or anyone else here" as a form of coercion and manipulation to dissuade the murderer. Moreso if the would-be-murderer is captured; "Put down the gun!" can be interpreted in such a manipulative way.
The major difference is that without genuine political participation the state is simply no longer a collective self defense pact, but the main threat to (the people who run) the state becomes the general population. The state claims the same collective self defense justification, but is not; and using state power to make people believe that is clearly a far more extreme form of coercion than "put down the gun!".
Quoting TheArchitectOfTheGods
There is no need to mentally manipulate the murderer. This would be the critical difference.
The large majority of anarchists do not have a problem killing a murderer to prevent murder, and if possible capturing the murderer if killing them isn't necessary.
This is just stating what will be done about murder, it is not mental manipulation. It is giving the murderer a choice and making clear what actions will be met with what choice. True, capturing the murderer requires coercive force, but is preferable to killing them outright if that's unnecessary.
Anarchists argue that "punishment" as a deterrent is however mentally manipulative; such as executions and physical and emotionally painful imprisonment.
Making this difference between physical and mental coercion, then anarchism can be best described as wanting to minimize physical coercion (the force needed to deal with violence sufficiently) and not use mental coercion at all.
Anarchists make the argument these deterrence can be taken away and the result would be less criminals rather than more; rehabilitation based justice systems is an implementation of this anarchists theory, and simply work. Constrained freedom of the murderer in such systems is not argued to be punishment in the sense of an unpleasant experience to deter more murders from the same person as well as others but a precautionary measure justified by self defense of the community in which the goal is reintegration of the criminal as soon as responsibly feasible.
For instance, in Scandinavia you can murder someone and then go to what US criminals would consider a vacation resort, yet there is not a rampant murdering problem due to a lack of painful deterrents; "prisons" often do not have walls, are co-ed (as single sex environments are not mentally healthy), and prisoners can generally go into town during the day to work. Rehabilitation programs are also not forced, but based on the moral agency of the prisoner to want to free-associate with society and learn to manage whatever went wrong in that regard and other new skills to re-integrate in the community. Scandinavian prisons and schools follow plans, principles and theories developed by anarchists; they don't say so, but it's easy to verify the anarchist school were central to these developments.
So, there is a large difference between forced labour (i.e. slavery) as practiced in the US and the Scandinavian justice system. There is clearly a difference of degree of coercion as well as type of coercion. Indeed, it is now common wisdom in the US that US prisons "make more and hardened criminals at war with society"; this is exactly the argument of the anarchist school (which was certainly not common wisdom when first proposed).