Anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism

[Marxist ßastard]

Okay, this thread has been derailed with anarchism a lot lately, and this prior thread is too old to be serviceable. I'll link again to In Defense of Anarchism, a 1970 essay by Robert Paul Wolff, a political philosopher and critic of liberalism (review). But really, it's just too obtuse.

 

Based on what other members said earlier, I'd just define anarchism thus: Top-down, hierarchical organizations like the State ought to be abolished, their power given to the people, who will voluntarily organize themselves from the bottom-up while maintaining near-absolute freedom.

 

And that's bunk.

 

People naturally form hierarchical groups with top-down control, and this behavior is seen among hunter-gatherers, animals, and children at summer camp. Each of us needs an in-group and an out-group, people below us and people above; just as we seek friends, we seek enemies; and we all want to serve some higher goal in life. In anarchy, these needs are unfulfilled except during wartime, where the out-group is the enemy, survival is a sufficient goal, and everyone fights in solidarity. There were two examples of mildly successful wartime anarchies in the previous thread: Spain and Ukraine. Neither survived to see peace. But if they had, they'd have been left with no more statists to fight, no more churches to burn, and no obvious way to move forward. There could've been only three outcomes:

• Members voluntarily submit to state power in the name of efficiency.
• The whole society stagnates and falls prey to an outside state.
• The society tears itself apart looking for bandits, parasites, and tyrants within.

And until one of those happened, the normal violence and chaos of war would not have subsided. "Winning the peace" is difficult even for powerful states – how should it be easier for unorganized workers' collectives?

 

Remember that states and other top-down, centralized authorities can house people dedicated entirely to geopolitics, economics, military logistics, and so on – and where its skills are deficient, it can bring in specific experts. The best states consolidate power to a system which is more capable and better informed than any one person, drawing upon the expertise of all its citizens. Federalism can bring together distinct groups of people and force them to compromise and cooperate to their mutual benefit. But in an anarchy, there is only a mass of balkanized, unorganized collectives whose decisions reflect the lowest common denominator of their members.

 

Anarchists have legitimate grievances, but anarchism itself means abandoning the greatest advance humanity has ever made, an advance upon which all others rest. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Marxist ßastard

[marharth]

Seems to me like humans suck to much to be able to do that.

[imperistan]

Do take the time to learn how flexible horizontalism works. Vertical and inflexible power structures are not the only means of sustaining a society. Then again, I may indeed have to explain what that is anyway because it is a concept I came up with.

 

There were two examples of mildly successful wartime anarchies in the previous thread: Spain and Ukraine. Neither survived to see peace. But if they had, they'd have been left with no more statists to fight, no more churches to burn, and no obvious way to move forward. There could've been only three outcomes:

Members voluntarily submit to state power in the name of efficiency. Which would never happen unless those members were never on-board with anarchy in the first place, in which case they are essentially just excess baggage that didn't bother to say anything when they got throw in with the bunch.

The whole society stagnates and falls prey to an outside state. No reason for this to happen unless the members are just lazy bums. Though "stagnates" is a fairly undefined term in this context. What exactly do you think would stagnate?

The society tears itself apart looking for bandits, parasites, and tyrants within. No, because these people if they indeed be true detriments will show themselves in time, and if not, then its likely because of poor border policies. Free movement is core to anarchism, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a record of who specifically is coming and going.

 

Remember that states and other top-down, centralized authorities can house people dedicated entirely to geopolitics, economics, military logistics, and so on – and where its skills are deficient, it can bring in specific experts.

 

And there is nothing about anarchy that says it can't also house these kinds of people. In fact, Anarchist Spain and the Free Territory did so well because they both had functional militaries and for that matter fairly competent political leaders. They failed to survive not because of any internal problem but because they were set down upon by stronger statist countries, which is something any anarchist society looking to be that successful would have to avoid. IE, by establishing themselves through peaceful channels and through the use of civil disobedience.

 

And until one of those happened, the normal violence and chaos of war would not have subsided. "Winning the peace" is difficult even for powerful states – how should it be easier for unorganized workers' collectives?

 

Not to respond to this out of order, but this way makes it easier for my argument to stay coherent. It would be easier because any future anarchist hopefuls would not try to establish their society in war-time, nor with any actual coercion at all. Peaceful establishment using a select group of initial members (who would have already established that they will not be disrupting society, but instead the exact opposite) is going to minimize if not outright eliminate the problems introduced by violent revolution and seizure of land.

 

And if peaceful and official channels cannot garner success, then the answer is civil disobedience until the state gives in or when all members are no longer free to disobey because they've been imprisoned or otherwise preoccupied.

 

unorganized False. Totally false. Organization is key for any anarchist hopeful society.

 

workers You're approaching the worker as Marx saw it, which in general tends to be a different animal compared to those people that would make up an anarchy

 

collectives? Depends on what kind of anarchy you are talking about. Not all flavors of anarchy put emphasis on the collective. Many put emphasis on the individual instead

[grannywils]

@Imperistan, can you spell condescending???

[marharth]

@Imperistan, can you spell condescending???

Why do I even post here anymore.

Edited February 17, 2012 by marharth

[Lisnpuppy]

@Imperistan-I have seen enough of your post to have formed an opinion of them. Please keep it to the facts and stop taking shots at people. There is no need for it and the next time I see it you are getting a strike, I suggest you also review the Terms of Service and Forum Rules

 

@Granny-please report any issues that you find in the future. Thank you. :thumbsup: ~Lisnpuppy

 

 

[imperistan]

@Imperistan, can you spell condescending???

 

Yes actually. :biggrin: C-O-N-D-E-S-C-E-N-D-I-N-G

 

But anyway sparing the smart-assness, its generally because I've had a bad streak of discussing anarchy with people who seriously had zero knowledge about what they were trying to argue against, which caused a massive bit of frustration on my part. Also doesn't help that often times I had to formulate my own theories, concepts, and so on simply so I wouldn't fail to keep up my side of the argument just because anarchy hadn't developed properly in that particular area that was being discussed, which does make me feel smart in kind of a silly way :happy: .

 

For instance, flexible horizontalism. It was a concept I had to come up with in order to account for something anarchism didn't. IE, the general in-feasibility of trying to base certain society functions around multiple people or indeed the entirety of the population, as well as the absence of coercion. Foreign relations, military organization, police forces, etc all can't operate under those conditions so I came up with a system that would allow these functions to work in a way that still maintained the near-absolute freedom that anarchy promises while still allowing certain societal functions the power to carry out their duties.

 

And this works by making power a flexible, horizontal line. When no duties need to be carried out and things are just going normally, the line stays flat. But say when a police officer (or officers) needs to investigate a murder, then the power-line bends to a reasonable point for the officer so that he can carry out his duties. And as soon as these duties are finished, the line goes back to normal and that officer has no power to order anyone to do anything or to really comply with anything he says.

 

@Imperistan-I have seen enough of your post to have formed an opinion of them. Please keep it to the facts and stop taking shots at people.

 

I wouldn't say I'm taking shots at people (My tone might be bad but I sincerely don't intend to insult anyone. Unless I've made a mistake somewhere and as such forgotten that I may well have done so. If so, I apologize), but so be it.

Edited February 17, 2012 by imperistan

[Marxist ßastard]

I've had a bad streak of discussing anarchy with people who seriously had zero knowledge about what they were trying to argue against

Okay, I'd like people to be informed coming in here too. So first off I'd like to settle on a clear, one-sentence definition of anarchism. If you don't agree with the one in the OP, say so and I can edit it.

 

If you also have any basic references you'd like added to the OP, I can add those as well. Wolff is seriously lacking.

 

when a police officer (or officers) needs to investigate a murder, then the power-line bends to a reasonable point for the officer so that he can carry out his duties

So we have a uniform criminal code, crime reporting, a police force, police internal affairs, presumably a whole criminal justice system... That's an awful lot of State you're bringing in already.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Marxist ßastard

[HeyYou]

Seems to me like humans suck to much to be able to do that.

 

Ok Marharth. You owe me a monitor cleaning. This post caused me to spew coffee all over my monitor. (again..... no, you aren't the first to induce this behavior)

 

THANK YOU. That one just made my day. :D

 

In a global environment, anarchy cannot possibly work. The idea of Flexible Horizontalism would also be unworkable, as the first country that came along with an organized military would walk right in, and take over. Anarchy can't account for defense, or research. You need some manner of organization for that......

[Aurielius]

Seems to me like humans suck to much to be able to do that.

 

Ok Marharth. You owe me a monitor cleaning. This post caused me to spew coffee all over my monitor. (again..... no, you aren't the first to induce this behavior)

 

THANK YOU. That one just made my day. :D

 

Make that two monitor cleanings...lol, Must thank you for the referential quotation HY otherwise I would have missed that peerless observational gem.