What the heck is anarchism?

[hongi]

Could someone describe for me, in somewhat simplistic terms, what anarchism actually is? I've read the Wikipedia article, but I'm still a little confused.

[Enforcer Talen]

Conveniently enough, there has been a debate on it.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=119628

[hongi]

Now how did I miss that? Oh, Hall of Shame.

Cheers.

[Feil]

Anarchism: that political philosophy which holds that there should be no government.

[hongi]

Anarchism: that political philosophy which holds that there should be no government.

Why? Why do anarchists think that there should be no government?

[Nephtys]

Anarchism: that political philosophy which holds that there should be no government.

Why? Why do anarchists think that there should be no government?

Because most of them haven't exactly thought it out too well, and fall into three categories as far as I can tell.

1. People who think anarchism means they're 'hardcore', so they can wear stitched As into their dirty, ugly sweatshirts.

2. People who think it'd be kickin' rad if they were able to rule over people who are less armed than they are.

3. People who think less government = more better, no matter what. Because everybody knows that firefighters, cops and military defense should all be left to spunky free market monopolies.

[Patrick Degan]

Anarchism: that political philosophy which holds that there should be no government.

Why? Why do anarchists think that there should be no government?

It's a wholly unrealistic view which holds that any form of government is enslavement. The anarchist's belief is that without the restraint of government imposing force and ideologies, and engaging in theft (taxation), supposedly natural human relations would reenter the picture and people in a society would cooperate for mutual benefit and the profits of human labour would be realised for immediate individual benefit.

I briefly toyed with anarchism as a political philosophy for a time but of course found that there was no way to practically implement even a democratic transition to such a state and ensure that a viable society would continue in being. Or to guarantee that people would simply behave in the manner that an ideal anarchist society would require to function at all.

Of course, the idea of anarchism as a workable social principle is destroyed simply by reference to typical primate behaviour —of which human behaviour is still patterned even after about four million years of evolution separating us from our tree-swinging cousins.

[Shroom Man 777]

Anarchism is Somalia. Mohammad Farrah Aidid! Ayeee-yi-yi-yi! *gets exploded*

Basically, idiot revolutionaries who want to overthrow the guvment and replace it with... well, they haven't got around to thinking bout what comes after.

[Darth Wong]

Anarchism: that political philosophy which holds that there should be no government.

Why? Why do anarchists think that there should be no government?

Because they don't realize how much government benefits them. They can only see the negatives, and they take the positives for granted. Even a dysfunctional government is preferable to total anarchy, but they believe that if you removed the harmful controlling influence, a free-market paradise would spontaneously spring up.

Interestingly enough, the US actually tested this theory recently, in a small country in the Middle East called Iraq. A free-market paradise did not spring up after the destruction of the dysfunctional government in place, but most of the people who believed in this theory are unperturbed by that colossal failure. In their minds, the various warring factions which spontaneously sprung up in the resulting void are also forms of government, and in no way dispel their theory that the removal of government would cause spontaneous paradise (they also seem unperturbed by the fact that according to their expanded definition of government, the removal of government is also impossible, and thus anarchy belongs in the same trash heap as other brilliant social engineering schemes such as "can't we all just get along").

[TheKwas]

Actually, that thread is a terrible example of what typical/famous anarchist thinkers believe. That guy was an anarcho-capitalist, which would mean that most 'traditional/classical' anarchists and other observers (such as I) wouldn't consider him an anarchist at all, since hierarchy is inherent in a market system.

Basically, look at the word itself:
An = no/lack of
archy = rulers/masters (hence monarchy, theocracy, ect)

Contrast to Anomie, which 'no rules/laws' or simply 'chaos'. The distinction is lost on many, but it's pretty central to the political philosophy. More broadly interpreted, anarchy means lack of hiearchy, which is why many anarchists don't actually consider 'anarcho-captitalists' real anarchists, and generally dispise the group for tainting the 'anarchist' label more than it already has been tainted by the association with 'chaos'.

That's basically the only thing that unites all anarchists: No rules. After that, there are countless strains of anarchism of differing degrees of crazy (with the anarcho-capitalists and some anarcho-communists at the most crazy end).

The most famous and probably the most influential school is anarcho-syndicalism, so I think it's most relevant to talk about it specifically. I also happen to think it's the least crazy of all the schools anyways.

The best way to envision anarcho-syndicalism is if the worker Unions owned their own factories and made decisions via workplace democracy/consensus. Laws and regulations would remain in place (contrary to what someone would typically think), and would be enforced by the collective (the unions) as a whole on whatever level is most appropriate (as all big unions have subsections and sub-groups). This is often considered a form of 'government', but many anarchist claim it's just a system of 'governance', since the word government implies hierarchy. Payment would generally be left up to the individual unions to work out, although it's generally believed that the ideal would be that you'll be paid according to time spent working and the danger of your work, thus allowing for increased equality while compensating for harder workers.

I'm not really sure what else I can say, but there's a few examples of 'anarchist' societies throughout history that might be insightful (wikipedia has a pretty exhaustive list here, but it includes both anarcho-capitalist and normal anarchist societies). The most prominent one being the Spanish Revolution, where much, if not most, of the Republican side of Spain was ran according to general anarchist principals. I suggest George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia for a great read on the subject.

[Lusankya]

Because they don't realize how much government benefits them. They can only see the negatives, and they take the positives for granted. Even a dysfunctional government is preferable to total anarchy, but they believe that if you removed the harmful controlling influence, a free-market paradise would spontaneously spring up.

In my experience, most people take pretty much every positive in their life for granted. I can't begin to count the number of arguments I've had with people who insist that modern society is worse than mediaeval society, because despite the rampant disease, oppression and starvation, people back then were "a lot less stressed". (Yes, that last bit is a direct quote.)

I think that a lot of the advantages of the government are "invisible". Most people don't really pay attention to their roads being fixed, and if they do, they just see the workers doing their job - they don't see them getting paid. Probably their only experience with the police is the police giving them a speeding ticket, but since they did't kill anyone because they were speeding, the benefit of speeding tickets is largely invisible to them. The benefit of the government subsidising infrastructure such as water pipes, electricity and telephone/internet wires is also invisible, since they then have to pay a private enterprise for using it (never mind that the private enterprise may actually be leasing the use of the infrastructure from the government).

For people like the ones I know who think life was better in the past, the invisible benefits are things like not dying of plague, not starving to death, and being allowed the freedom to express their stupid beliefs. These things are invisible to them, because as far as they're concerned, it's "normal" to be free from these things. They're unaware of how much effort has been put in over the last hundred years to ensure that they have the freedom to a) not be dying of plague or smallpox and b) openly express their view that life would be better if they were living in a time when a) was a very real possibility.

To an even greater extent, anarchists probably find the benefit of community programs invisible as well. They just see the government spending their taxes on someone else's welfare, and miss the fact that the investment in poorer communities is part of what's stopping them from getting mugged when they walk down the street.

[Aquatain]

In my experience, most people take pretty much every positive in their life for granted. I can't begin to count the number of arguments I've had with people who insist that modern society is worse than mediaeval society, because despite the rampant disease, oppression and starvation, people back then were "a lot less stressed". (Yes, that last bit is a direct quote.)

I usually find it more potent to point out that in medieval times people had rotting teeth and smelled of urine and shit, personal hygiene wins every time

[K. A. Pital]

Basically, idiot revolutionaries who want to overthrow the guvment and replace it with... well, they haven't got around to thinking bout what comes after.

The best summation of anarchism I've heard in a long while. You get sigged, sir!

[Patrick Degan]

That's basically the only thing that unites all anarchists: No rules.

I think by your definitions you meant "no rulers". Technicality.

The most famous and probably the most influential school is anarcho-syndicalism, so I think it's most relevant to talk about it specifically. I also happen to think it's the least crazy of all the schools anyways.

The best way to envision anarcho-syndicalism is if the worker Unions owned their own factories and made decisions via workplace democracy/consensus. Laws and regulations would remain in place (contrary to what someone would typically think), and would be enforced by the collective (the unions) as a whole on whatever level is most appropriate (as all big unions have subsections and sub-groups). This is often considered a form of 'government', but many anarchist claim it's just a system of 'governance', since the word government implies hierarchy. Payment would generally be left up to the individual unions to work out, although it's generally believed that the ideal would be that you'll be paid according to time spent working and the danger of your work, thus allowing for increased equality while compensating for harder workers.

I'm not really sure what else I can say, but there's a few examples of 'anarchist' societies throughout history that might be insightful (wikipedia has a pretty exhaustive list here, but it includes both anarcho-capitalist and normal anarchist societies). The most prominent one being the Spanish Revolution, where much, if not most, of the Republican side of Spain was ran according to general anarchist principals. I suggest George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia for a great read on the subject.

Sounds a bit like Marx's "withering away of the State". Nice idea, if you can make it work. But in a stateless society, there is no mechanism for ensuring the fair and universal application of law and regulation or preventing the rise of an authoritarian faction from organising an attempt to seize power. No mechanism for ensuring a unified response to such a challenge or to an external threat. Which is how just about every one of the anarchist societies listed in the Wikipedia article met their end. The ones which are so small-scale that they're practically just a village or a commune hardly count as examples of a successful society on any appreciable scale since they're still operating within the larger framework of an established nation-state.

[TheKwas]

To an even greater extent, anarchists probably find the benefit of community programs invisible as well. They just see the government spending their taxes on someone else's welfare, and miss the fact that the investment in poorer communities is part of what's stopping them from getting mugged when they walk down the street.

Anarchists are some of the biggest supporters of community programs... Liberally speaking, commmunity programs are the only thing they support.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

An easy way to describe Anarchy would be something like Communism without the State. Small communities of people who exist for co-benefit and such. The idea that chefs shouldn't work to provide tourists with fancy meals, but feed the people in their neighbourhood, in return for the security guard protecting the people in his neighbourhood instead of protecting the giant Wal-Mart, and the teacher and artist and engineer and so forth.

Sadly, people don't tend to work in neat, happy little collectives (though it has happened- Argentinian anarcho-syndicalism, Catalonian collectives, some village soviets).

If you want a good anarchist view of their own philosophy, try to find a copy or two of Rolling Thunder. One of my more annoying friends lent me his copies. It descends into self-parody alot, though, so be careful.

[Shroom Man 777]

The best summation of anarchism I've heard in a long while. You get sigged, sir!

You're welcome, mang

Anarchism. Basically the ideological equivalent of a teenager who wants to stick it up to The Man, his parents, school, and stuff. He quits school, can't get a job, and ends up doing drugs since he's an idiot who doesn't think of the consequences and now has nothing.

Unlike children who have parents to beat them up with sticks to keep them in line, nations don't get parental guidance. And like kids without parental guidance, nations that have descended into anarchy end up robbing grocery stores for money to blow on coke and crack.

Hooray for ideological juvenile delinquency! Mohammad Farrah Aidid!

[TheKwas]

I think by your definitions you meant "no rulers". Technicality.

Yeah, typo.

Sounds a bit like Marx's "withering away of the State". Nice idea, if you can make it work. But in a stateless society, there is no mechanism for ensuring the fair and universal application of law and regulation or preventing the rise of an authoritarian faction from organising an attempt to seize power. No mechanism for ensuring a unified response to such a challenge or to an external threat. Which is how just about every one of the anarchist societies listed in the Wikipedia article met their end. The ones which are so small-scale that they're practically just a village or a commune hardly count as examples of a successful society on any appreciable scale since they're still operating within the larger framework of an established nation-state.

The mechanism, according to anarchists, would be the collective as represented by the Unions. Or to put it in another way, one big union that would function like a government, except incorporating direct democracy and all that grand anarchist stuff. In the case of Spain, the example would be the CNT union, or in the hypothetical example of an anarchist world, the International Workers Association (which the CNT is affiliated with).

Really, it's the same as a government, but rather structured around a complex system of workplace direct democracy instead of representative democracy.

Also, all the large-scale examples mentioned in the wiki article fell due to external forces, but they all put up a pretty good fight. The Spanish anarchists were central to the fight against Franco (who was much better armed) despite the fact they weren't supported by the Soviet Union like the Spanish communists were. George Orwell also talks alot about how the Spanish communists were as focused on crushing anarchist control on the Republican side as they were in facing off against Franco, causing them to constantly keep fighting units back in the cities to invade and take over anarchist strongholds. Ultimately in the end, the anarchists obviously lost, but I can't see how their political organization can be blamed for it.

Same goes for the Makhnovist movement. Admittedly, I know a lot less about Makhno compared to the Spanish Civil War, but my impression from what I have read is that he led an extremely successful military movement (in the sense that they often won battles where they were grossly outnumbered) that was ultimately crushed by a simply much stronger force (The Bolsheviks).

The Kibbutzniks are hit and miss, as while there are still plenty of Kibbutzniks, there are few that still retain the same degree of anarchist qualities. It seems they evolved over time towards mainstream Israeli society as agriculture became less important in the Israeli economy.

The only other major society that is bigger than village-size is the Zapatistas (made up almost solely of indigenous peoples) in Mexico, and they are still around, about 500,000 thousand strong.

There are still a few interesting smaller anarchist communities that are worth a look at as well, such as Freetown Christiania in Copenhagen.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I believe, for the record, that Syndicalism can and will work--when guided by a state government. I have a fair number of friends these days who are Anarcho-syndicalists; I joke with them that once capitalism finally goes then we'll have to start killing each other. Anarcho-Syndicalism basically proposes a Distributivist/Integralist society which spontaneously organizes; realistic individuals like myself consider that such must be generated by state power instead.

[Darth Wong]

How would syndicalism handle things like national defense or national infrastructure projects? Just assume everyone will co-operate and think collectively and long-term?

[TheKwas]

I would imagine they would handle it the same way modern societies do, except by syndicates rather than representative parliments. What makes you think that the situation would differ?

After all, the aforementioned anarchists managed to wage total war on their well-organized and armed enemies relatively effectively. If total war doesn't require collective and long term planning, what does?

[Pablo Sanchez]

How would syndicalism handle things like national defense or national infrastructure projects? Just assume everyone will co-operate and think collectively and long-term?

Syndicalism in itself doesn't demand the elimination of the ruling body--it can coexist quite happily with very overbearing forms of government. Fascist ideology owed a lot to Integralism and Syndicalism, actually--though I'm not saying that in an effort to poison the well.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

How would syndicalism handle things like national defense or national infrastructure projects? Just assume everyone will co-operate and think collectively and long-term?

Syndicalism in itself doesn't demand the elimination of the ruling body--it can coexist quite happily with very overbearing forms of government. Fascist ideology owed a lot to Integralism and Syndicalism, actually--though I'm not saying that in an effort to poison the well.

It's important to note when you say that, that you're referring to REAL fascist ideology, not what is commonly called fascist today.


Anyway, Pablo is right. Though I tend more toward the Chesterbelloc economic scheme, the basic idea is highly distributed ownership of everything in society. A good example of how this works is the Mondragon CC in the Basque Country, one of the largest corporations in Spain with its own private schools, university, and extensive manufacturing and marketing branches, all worker-owned and governed by an elected body of workers. The Autogestion movement in Argentina is also a very laudable example of how workers have simply returned to their jobs in closed-down factories, ignoring the owners (and fighting the police, sometimes) for the right to keep on working, and sell their own products. Something which may be lauded on account of the old principle of Terra Nullius--if you aren't using the factory, the workers you fired should have the right to take it over and seize the deed from you. Use it or lose it in land terms is actually a pretty old concept in law, and should be revived.

[Patrick Degan]

The mechanism, according to anarchists, would be the collective as represented by the Unions. Or to put it in another way, one big union that would function like a government, except incorporating direct democracy and all that grand anarchist stuff. In the case of Spain, the example would be the CNT union, or in the hypothetical example of an anarchist world, the International Workers Association (which the CNT is affiliated with).

Really, it's the same as a government, but rather structured around a complex system of workplace direct democracy instead of representative democracy.

And how does it respond to immediate needs which won't allow for the delay of gathering all the collectives to vote on issues? Or enforce the laws of the land universally?

Also, all the large-scale examples mentioned in the wiki article fell due to external forces, but they all put up a pretty good fight.

Who cares if they "put up a good fight"? They lost.

The Spanish anarchists were central to the fight against Franco (who was much better armed) despite the fact they weren't supported by the Soviet Union like the Spanish communists were. George Orwell also talks alot about how the Spanish communists were as focused on crushing anarchist control on the Republican side as they were in facing off against Franco, causing them to constantly keep fighting units back in the cities to invade and take over anarchist strongholds. Ultimately in the end, the anarchists obviously lost, but I can't see how their political organization can be blamed for it.

A comparison with Mao's Peoples' Liberation Army answers that question.

Same goes for the Makhnovist movement. Admittedly, I know a lot less about Makhno compared to the Spanish Civil War, but my impression from what I have read is that he led an extremely successful military movement (in the sense that they often won battles where they were grossly outnumbered) that was ultimately crushed by a simply much stronger force (The Bolsheviks).

That stronger force had the national government and the national army to back it up, along with its ideological as well as its practical political strength. The Makhnoists evidently failed because they were never able to take control of the revolution or offer a more viable governing structure than the Bolshies could.

The Kibbutzniks are hit and miss, as while there are still plenty of Kibbutzniks, there are few that still retain the same degree of anarchist qualities. It seems they evolved over time towards mainstream Israeli society as agriculture became less important in the Israeli economy.

The Kibbutzes, according to the article cited, were (are) far more socialistic than anarchistic and encouraged by the quasi-socialist Israeli government. Also, they existed within the context of the Jewish State.

The only other major society that is bigger than village-size is the Zapatistas (made up almost solely of indigenous peoples) in Mexico, and they are still around, about 500,000 thousand strong.

The Zapatistas continue to exist at the indulgence of the Mexican government. Were that situation to change, they would not win against the army if it came down to actual conflict, as in 1994.

[Uraniun235]

How would anarchism cope with regional issues?

Example: Hydroelectric dams on the Columbia river kill a number of fish each year. Conservation measures can include not running the turbines at full-tilt all the time so as to reduce the number of fish killed. In the current system, the federal government has authority over the dams to regulate and decide how to balance electrical needs with environmental needs and with the needs of people who are more dependent on harvesting salmon for their livelihood.

In an anarchist system, how would two physically separate communities, both with interests linked to the dam, be able to peacefully resolve a dispute concerning the use of the dam?


Maybe there's subtleties I'm missing, but it seems to me like anarchy is a very insular model.