Explain Anarchy to me
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
To me, a great many of those ideals, especially when joined to one another, fit the bill of "great on paper." How would you propose to have democracy without capitalism? Even a state that is phased out over time will eventually not exist or at least not exist in any effective capacity. Without a state, even with unions and communes, how do we stop society from descending into chaos?Rooster Cogburn said:
This sounds good, as it would take care of some problems. But what about factories that produce dangerous products? Would we not then rely on the labor to police the company leadership on the matter?Rooster Cogburn said:
Start by reading Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin and make sure to look into Marx and Engels early works about communism to get a better picture as well as Trotsky. You might also want to have some basic knowledge about philosophers like Kant or Hegel to better understand it, plus a good knowledge of French Revolution to provide necessary background.funguy2121 said:
Anarchism is not really something easy, it's as complicated as any other doctrine and to understand it's reasoning you do need to read a lot of different works.
Yes and no. What I am talking about is the group of movements that have been known as Anarchism historically. Maybe I left out Mutualism, but I suspect you're thinking about newer branches like Anarco-Capitalism. Adherents of traditional Anarchism tend to object to the union of Anarchism and Capitalism, which perhaps philosophically and certainly historically are very much in opposition. In practice, historical Anarchism and Anarco-Capitalism are so different I don't see any reason to discuss them together outside of the title assumed by the latter or to argue their respective merits.zehydra said:
As movements and ideologies, they are very different.
Could you be more specific? A society run by unions and communes is not in chaos. I think I know what you're getting at, but what kind of issues do you mean?funguy2121 said:
Do you mean, for the sake of protecting the workers in the factory? The leadership would be elected 'officials', and their 'constituency' would be the workers themselves. The workers could use this influence to ensure safe conditions. As for relationships between factories, and, say, the guy who lives next to the factory, we're getting into territory where ideas like communism and syndicalism start to step in and clash.funguy2121 said:
Headed to work now, but I will check this thread tonight.
A private police force, a private military (both of which would = mercenaries), and a fully privatized healthcare industry would produce a great many issues; for example, many of the people who go into lifelong debt after a major surgery would now simply be denied the surgery outright.Rooster Cogburn said:
I mean products that are unsafe for the consumer. Though I would expect an overall higher sense of "duty" in producing a safer product amongst actual factory workers than amongst shareholders and CEOs, I still would not approve of entrusting the toys my children use, the meat that I consume or the surgical implants put into my grandmother to any form of self-regulation.Rooster Cogburn said:
funguy2121 said:
Ideal of anarchy assumes you don't need army because there is countries or borders to start with and thus no reason to wage wars. The police force is also non existence and more in line of neighbourhood patrols... just more competent. There is also no debt because the concept of currency is changed and there is no privatization as you understand in in capitalism terms. It's more of collective/communal ownership idea where workers as a fully democratic group control the given service, not a single person on a high seat in some fancy suit.
As far as quality control and such goes, who says there can't be collective of people who do that prior to putting given product on the communal market? They can rate the products and just leave the decision to consumers.
It sounds like you got way too used to the 'advanced world' standards. Did you forgot the existence of folk, hand crafted wooden toys? Did you never bought fruits or vegetables directly from a farmer in your life? Not everything has to have 10 attests and certificates to be edible, not to mention that as our lives get more sterile we also lower our natural immunities.
Though you certainly make some valid points, I would ask who is going to do this. 'Advanced world' standards must be imposed when it comes to safety regulations for both workers and consumers, because the people who are running the factories now have imposed 'advanced world' standards in hiding their flaws and offenses, and we can't un-learn that they exist; another words, whoever is in control of factory X in the society you describe has those tools at his/her disposal, whether we acknowledge it or not, so something like OSHA is needed at the very least, and equal standards of protection for the consumer are required because we've shown that at long as we're able to generate food/products en masse, we've been happy to do it while killing/maiming/poisoning workers and consumers whenever we are not policed.Keava said:
I hope none of this sounded snarky. I'm writing hurriedly in between dealing with some personal things.
No, we really aren't. Anarchy and anarchism as a political theory has nothing to do with anything "going down the drain" or people "doing what they want."CommanderKirov said:
You have Anarchy and anarchism confused with societal collapse. One of the key principles of anarchism is that there is no rulers. Ergo, there can be no "rule of the strong". That would be more akin to totalitarianism/autocracy. From its very etymological roots anarchy is at total odds with your statement.
You, and many others equating anarchy with chaos/lawlessness are confusing anarchy the political philosophy/theory with the common use of the word to refer to a period of lawlessness and upheaval - not the same thing. Indeed, the common usage can be attributed to the fear many of the governments anarchism wanted to overthrow during its period of formalization, and their desire to equate it with violent revolution and a generally negative context, in much the same way some governments have demonized communism and capitalism.
I'm going to have hide behind blaming the translation I readExterminas said:
And absolutely, it's a major flaw in the practical application of anarchism that humans aren't peace-loving flower children by nature. And Kant wasn't a particularly strong or vocal supporter of anarchism, per se, though it did fit into his philosophical ideas relating to natural law and the categorical imperative quite well. But that's a whole other thread.
It was explained to me as such:
There is a man with an egg in his hand. Should the man squeeze the egg too hard he will crush it. That it Fascism. Should the man's grip become too loose, the egg will fall and break. That is called Anarchy.
There is a man with an egg in his hand. Should the man squeeze the egg too hard he will crush it. That it Fascism. Should the man's grip become too loose, the egg will fall and break. That is called Anarchy.
To start at the beginning. Anarchy was a concept that mostly evolved at end of XIX and early XX century so many of today's concerns that are flaws of technological advance after WW2 were not that present back then. Of course the ideology evolved and adapted over years as well.funguy2121 said:
Problem is you seem to miss the point. You are trying to find a person that owns the production means while that's not exactly the case with the social/economical aspects of most notable anarchism concepts. En masse production of good that has a profit as primary goal is flawed according to anarchism, instead of this people produce things because they need things.
This in theory should eliminate flawed products of mass production as nothing would be produced purely for the sake of gathering profits.
Would a collective of workers really risk poisoning if they had possibility to avoid it through their own decisions? Anarchy assumes that they wouldn't because it's counter productive.
Another option is that while there is collective of workers, they may as well exist collective of scientists that test the products. Anarchism doesn't force you to be factory worker, it's just the simple fact that if you are good at making chairs, you make chairs, because there is someone who needs a chair, same could be said about any other physical good or service.
Thing with anarchism is that it expects the community to be self aware and responsible for the actions. It's a well known fact that people see forms of government/state as necessary due to the the fact it takes great deal of responsibility from them. You don't need to worry about consequences that much if you have someone telling you how exactly you have to do things and in the end, it will be their decisions that will be criticized. Societies need forms of rulership so they can blame them for various things they don't want to get involved into themselves.
Now of course, collective anarchism is just one of many schools of thought, i don't think however it's a good idea for me to outline each and every of them as you may just read on them yourself if you are curious. You have mutualism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, various forms of individualist anarchism, participatory economy and plenty of other ideas about how anarchistic society could exist. There even is anarchism without adjectives which tries to find a way for all different variations of anarchism to co-exist benefiting from each other.
No Anarchist police force or healthcare provider would be "privatized" in the for-profit way that you mean. What people don't realize is Anarchism is really an anti-capitalist, pro-democracy philosophy that happens to oppose the traditional state. In many ways, an Anarchist society would resemble the modern state in that resources would be directed in a democratic manner, but in a way that is participatory and decentralized. Don't forget, Anarchism opposes property, either in the sense of legal title to the means of production, or depending what flavor of Anarchist, any claim of ownership including personal possessions. Instead of private owners making decisions about industry and the like, these types of decisions would be made at the level of the commune in Anarco-Communism or at the federated level in the case of Anarco-Syndicalism (these are the most common branches). The whole point of Anarchism is to give people a say in decisions like that.funguy2121 said:
Well, maybe you're just not an Anarchist. But I should caution that any talk about self-regulation or privatization smacks of private for-profit industry, which is what Anarchists oppose. Giving you a say in those types of decisions through democratic institutions and social decision making is what Anarchism is all about. It's only 'self-regulated' in the sense that it is not the traditional state which is handing down decisions through legislation. In fact it is regulated by society. The exact nature of how such participatory, democratic, and decentralized institutions might operate is kind of a deep rabbit hole, and cause for much debate between Anarchists. An Anarco-Communist will give you a different answer than an Anarco-Syndicalist. You can kind of guess what form the Communist social decision making might take. Syndicalism is a little harder to grasp but perhaps more relevant to post-industrial society.funguy2121 said:
I'm afraid that there are a few fundamental miscommunications between "capital A" Anarchists and the rest of us in the thread, let me see if I can clear them up.
First, the word itself - "lower case a" anarchy means simply the absence of rulers. It makes no more promise than that, it's highly unpredictable and can lead to a wide range of social or anti-social behaviours, hence why a number of posters are synonimising it with chaos. It is generally assumed that the way that anarchy resolves is by pockets of "rule of law" forming (despotic, democratic, it varies) then taking over, and society resuming in a new configuration. "Capital A" Anarchy is the belief that there is a working way of staying in that state without rulers indefinitely without needing to resort to "top down" forms of government in order ot make life liveable. I can see where they're coming from, but I just don't buy it as a means of sustaining mass society.
It's really a question of what you believe about the state of nature. As I reckon about half of you are aware, this is the philosophical question of how mankind behaved before civilisation, and it implies how mankind will/should behave if societal structure was abandoned. John Locke and others thought that reason and fairness would assert itself as a law of nature given the time and space to do so, and that's the worldview that informs Anarchism. Hobbes and others saw it differently - they thought that without something holding us all back, enough of us would want to exert dominance over each other that the whole thing would descend into 'a war of man against man' forever. To Hobbes, society protects us from our own worst tendencies, and I tend to subscribe to that belief. This is the fundamental philosophical argument a number of you are really having right now.
As I say, I can see the appeal of Anarchism, and I'd explain it thus - the most successful Anarchist movement on the planet is the "night out with the mates". Think about it; no one 'leads' your friends when you all go out on the town together and yet everyone is working together for the common goal of having a good time, there is an unspoken pact of mutual protection without any formalism, decisions are made organically with input from all, and there is a sense of exhiliration in the fact that you can do whatever you want, you are master of your own destiny. However, like a great party, Anarchism just doesn't scale well. If more and more people join the group, factions and sub-groups start to form as more and more voices compete for the same conversation time, and voices aren't heard. As people you've never met before join the group, it can be really hard to keep the same feel of cameraderie (especially if they have a slightly different idea of a good time), and that's when the group stops working smoothly and some kind of organisation is needed - in my experience someone with a plan usually steps up and starts forming a little steerage committee for your pub crawl. And now we're building governance.
First, the word itself - "lower case a" anarchy means simply the absence of rulers. It makes no more promise than that, it's highly unpredictable and can lead to a wide range of social or anti-social behaviours, hence why a number of posters are synonimising it with chaos. It is generally assumed that the way that anarchy resolves is by pockets of "rule of law" forming (despotic, democratic, it varies) then taking over, and society resuming in a new configuration. "Capital A" Anarchy is the belief that there is a working way of staying in that state without rulers indefinitely without needing to resort to "top down" forms of government in order ot make life liveable. I can see where they're coming from, but I just don't buy it as a means of sustaining mass society.
It's really a question of what you believe about the state of nature. As I reckon about half of you are aware, this is the philosophical question of how mankind behaved before civilisation, and it implies how mankind will/should behave if societal structure was abandoned. John Locke and others thought that reason and fairness would assert itself as a law of nature given the time and space to do so, and that's the worldview that informs Anarchism. Hobbes and others saw it differently - they thought that without something holding us all back, enough of us would want to exert dominance over each other that the whole thing would descend into 'a war of man against man' forever. To Hobbes, society protects us from our own worst tendencies, and I tend to subscribe to that belief. This is the fundamental philosophical argument a number of you are really having right now.
As I say, I can see the appeal of Anarchism, and I'd explain it thus - the most successful Anarchist movement on the planet is the "night out with the mates". Think about it; no one 'leads' your friends when you all go out on the town together and yet everyone is working together for the common goal of having a good time, there is an unspoken pact of mutual protection without any formalism, decisions are made organically with input from all, and there is a sense of exhiliration in the fact that you can do whatever you want, you are master of your own destiny. However, like a great party, Anarchism just doesn't scale well. If more and more people join the group, factions and sub-groups start to form as more and more voices compete for the same conversation time, and voices aren't heard. As people you've never met before join the group, it can be really hard to keep the same feel of cameraderie (especially if they have a slightly different idea of a good time), and that's when the group stops working smoothly and some kind of organisation is needed - in my experience someone with a plan usually steps up and starts forming a little steerage committee for your pub crawl. And now we're building governance.
