Anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism

[imperistan]

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.

 

Well, it'd be impossible to give a one-sentence definition that will encompass the true whole of anarchism, however the basics (which I'm sure is what you're actually asking for) of what an anarchist society is (and thus what anarchism is about) can be summed up as thus:

 

Anarchism is a philosophy that bases itself around the abolition of hierarchical organization, and as such the abolition of the state, and instead replaces it with an opposing form of organization known as horizontalism, which spreads power out over the people rather can concentrating it on singular individuals or groups of individuals, the attainment of near absolute freedom for all, and voluntary association and organization. In economic terms, anarchism can take on virtually any economic model. The most common one however, tends to be a form that is based around a communist-like economy the fruits of labor are freely produced, given, and taken. It also tends to be split on terms of coercion, with one side advocating violent revolution, the other peaceful "revolution" via civil disobedience.

 

As I've already touched on, I've taken leaps towards developing anarchism past the rather obvious flaws present in that basic definition.

 

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.

 

The presence of a criminal justice system (which is a really crucial function for any society, statist or not) is not exclusive to a statist system of government. And besides, disregarding anarchy and statism altogether, you can't really expect any society to not have some sort of criminal justice system, unless we're talking hypothetical utopias, in which case we're speaking of things that will not exist until we all turn into indiscriminate balls of pure energy. :tongue:

 

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......

 

It is true that global anarchy would be silly to try and do. However, flexible horizontalism does provide for military capability. Thats the entire point of power bending upwards when the need arises. In the case of a military trying to organize, this power would be bending for the chain of command.

 

Research, if I'm understanding what you're referring to, doesn't even fall under this system of power because things like that would tend to organize themselves by virtue of ability, intelligence, and knowledge. You wouldn't see the hobbyist be a leader of a research team, because they'd most likely be totally incapable of meeting the demands of such a position. Obviously there would still be bickering, but this happens regardless of organization anyway. And in the case of military R&D, you'd have the chain of command organizing the team.

 

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

 

Indeed, most humans do suck too much for anarchism to work for them. But, generally anarchy (at least in the eyes of those who have taken the time to fully understand what is and isn't possible as far as anarchy is concerned) isn't meant to be for a majority of the human race, and certainly not any time soon.

 

From what I know, they're are approximately 1-3 million anarchists worldwise. I would imagine out of all that, at least half aren't just doing it for fun or because its the "cool" thing. That's more than enough people for a small country, which would really be the most ideal place for anarchy, especially in a world still dominated by statism.

[Marxist ßastard]

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.

The presence of a criminal justice system (which is a really crucial function for any society, statist or not) is not exclusive to a statist system of government.

But it is a tremendous centralization of power, and it imposes a lot of organizational structure. You now have laws – who writes the laws? You have an organized police force – who gets to be a member? You have police internal affairs – how is their authority over the main police force made explicit? You try criminals – how? Do you have a prison? Are the prison guards allowed to just walk out?

 

Personally, I'd say that even just having laws means you have a State, since the laws are imposed (by social contract) on people who didn't agree to them. There is such a thing as a minimal state. Pure anarchy implies rule-of-force.

 

Also, you say "near-absolute" freedom. I'd like for you to elaborate on that – do you mean enforcing the maximum aggregate freedom for all residents?

[imperistan]

But it is a tremendous centralization of power, and it imposes a lot of organizational structure.

 

You could say that, but its only temporarily.

 

You now have laws – who writes the laws? You have an organized police force – who gets to be a member?

 

I could ask the same thing about a statist society and I'd get the same answer as the one you're asking for.

 

You have police internal affairs – how is their authority over the main police force made explicit?

 

If there is reason for IA to have to do anything, then their authority overtakes that of all those involved to the point that it serves their duties. Basically its an extension of that basic "you're right to swing your fist ends at the other person's nose" concept. You're power of authority ends where its legitimate use to the power of that authority ends. As such, you can't abuse your power as a police officer to exploit citizens, or start "investigating" IA personnel without reasonable cause. In the same way, an IA officer can't use his power to prevent police from carrying out their duties without reasonable cause.

 

You try criminals – how? Do you have a prison? Are the prison guards allowed to just walk out?

 

Court systems. Yes. And absolutely not.

 

The thing about anarchy is that it isn't a system where you can just do whatever you want. You certainly can do so, but only to a point. Again, your right to swing your fist ends where the other man's nose begins. So if you go past that man's nose, then you are violating the basic principle of that system, and thus committing a crime. And when you commit a crime, you give up a significant portion of your freedoms because of that, which in turn places the proper authorities above you for the duration of the police investigation (presuming you are a suspect), your arrest, time in court, and time in prison.

 

Personally, I'd say that even just having laws means you have a State, since the laws are imposed (by social contract) on people who didn't agree to them.

 

Except you do agree to them by signing up to live there. This is the most basic social contract and the only acceptable one. The law must be followed, as that is the only way to sustain society in a world where not every human being is ideal. The difference would simply be that you would be able to literally sign a contract, and if you deny to sign it, then you will simply fall under the category of people that would fend for themselves without societies help. And indeed, should people who aren't participating in society still commit a crime against that society then they will still fall under the jurisdiction of the justice system, just as any criminal who isn't a citizen would be in any other country.

 

And these laws would be simple common sense laws. Don't murder, don't steal (though this one might be a bit obsolete depending on what kind of economy is established), don't rape, etc etc. Basically, don't cause harm to anyone. Period. Other problems that absolutely need to have a law governing it (like say traffic law) or problems that fall into a grey area (namely things like you would see in civil court) will either be written into law at the discretion of that society (and thus at the consent of it) or handled by civil courts, respectively.

 

Also, you say "near-absolute" freedom. I'd like for you to elaborate on that – do you mean enforcing the maximum aggregate freedom for all residents?

 

Basically. You would be free to do as you please, so long as it does not violate the laws. Simple as that. Laws would be limited to those I lined out above, which are perfectly reasonable and indeed logical limitations on human actions, so that the nearest thing to absolute freedom (which is virtually impossible) can be achieved while also sustaining a functioning, civilized society alongside it.

[grannywils]

Well HY and Aurielius, let's make that three. I've just finished cleaning not only my monitor, but my whole desk! :whistling:

[Nintii]

An anarchistic system will fail miserably because it will leave a hole in the human heart ... the hole being the desire for order, humans cannot survive or thrive without order

and control gives us a sense of stability.

However, control taken to the extreme is like Winston Smith the character in George Orwell's novel 1984, he hated the Party and Big Brother with a passion but ultimately ended up the most satisfied when he was under the most control.

But, Control needs to be tempered, a binding Constituition to enforce your freedom while under control is the only solution and way forward to survival ... everything else has been tried and found wanting.

 

People will never change, and will rebel against the rebellion of anarchy ... freedom in the human heart is not freedom unless their is control.

I am most satisfied with my life when order prevails and this usually means that I have goals and goals mean planning and resources and they don't just fall on you.

Anarchy is a rebellion against the human spirit and it will never succeed ... you will always have control.

In a society where every vestige of government has been removed you will have the law of the jungle ... the strongest will survive and the strongest will not neccessarily be

the most compassionate or humane.

 

What you will get is a dictatorship where you have no say, because you gave up that right when you abolished the government and now the strongest has arisen and taken control

rather fit's better you shape the current lauthority at the polls and live than hand over your freedom which you gain under control to a mob or a dictator.

Anarchy is like driving at a 150miles an hour and taking your hands from the steering wheel.

Anarchy is misery, anarchy is control without freedom, anarchy is death.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Nintii

[grannywils]

Well said, as always, Nintii.

[Ghogiel]

In a society where every vestige of government has been removed you will have the law of the jungle ... the strongest will survive and the strongest will not neccessarily be

the most compassionate or humane.

Social mobility is pretty much stagnant and the ones at the top now, remain at the top. It's not much different to what we have now when saying the strongest has risen and taken control of just about everything you can imagine. compassion, they ain't doing it right as is.

 

And when you go on to mention having a dictatorship, If I am grasping this anarchism business, then I think we have strayed out of the realm of its domain. Having a dictator would mean there is a hierarchical pyramid and would be placing someone at the top, in power over everyone else. Doesn't that break the whole point of it?

[HeyYou]

In a society where every vestige of government has been removed you will have the law of the jungle ... the strongest will survive and the strongest will not neccessarily be

the most compassionate or humane.

Social mobility is pretty much stagnant and the ones at the top now, remain at the top. It's not much different to what we have now when saying the strongest has risen and taken control of just about everything you can imagine. compassion, they ain't doing it right as is.

 

And when you go on to mention having a dictatorship, If I am grasping this anarchism business, then I think we have strayed out of the realm of its domain. Having a dictator would mean there is a hierarchical pyramid and would be placing someone at the top, in power over everyone else. Doesn't that break the whole point of it?

 

Yep. Trouble is, that's the way it would end up in any event. Whomever could come up with the most friends..... would be boss. Kinda like the feudal system. :D

[zegh8578]

in a sense, people do whatever they want, whenever they want, despite laws and rules

 

people who feel like speeding in a residential area, they do just that. ive been the uncomfortable passenger many a time.

 

people who feel like buying illegal goods, will buy illegal goods whenever they feel like it.

people who feel like punching and kicking others, they will do just that.

and so on.

 

laws cannot prevent anything.

 

in practice "anarchy" would inevitably be much the same as society as it is just now. in a paradoxal manner of course, since society right now is-and-isnt a practical anarchy, and an anarchy would-and-wouldnt be a real anarchy/become just a normal society by itself.

consider this: nobody sat down and agreed that we are going to live in a state society. it just happened.

[Marxist ßastard]

That doesn't sound like anarchism at all – especially the part about limiting individual freedoms to protect the majority's rights and welfare. Really, you seem to be describing an ordinary liberal state with maybe a tinge of libertarian socialism.

 

I mean, the bit about "flexible horizontalism," which you claim to have invented? We already have that, even in the US – it's the Fourth Amendment and the warrant system. How is your idea fundamentally different?