A couple of questions for self-identified "Anarchists"

In your ideal world:

#1: Seniors, children, the disabled, who don't have anybody to rely on. What guarantees their health and safety in such a society?

#2: How will clean air, water, food be regulated?

#3: Who will pave the roads, build libraries and schools, and fund education?

wants everyone to fend for themselves or create small "villages" to help each other.

We can just all get along, hunky dory. So what happens when two people in the village have a dispute? What happens when some psycho axe murderer or rapist starts terrorizing the village? It just seems so utterly idiotic to me to think that you can just have a society where everybody can do anything they want without any consequences.

but thats what he believes.

"It just seems so utterly idiotic to me to think that you can just have a society where everybody can do anything they want without any consequences."

You are right. Anarchism requires you to respect others and take responsibility for your actions.

As I said, it would be all hunky dory if everybody behaved that way. But they don't.

You framed the question as "in an ideal world" and then critique it for idealism? Do you see that?

Like I said, if you are just out to score cheap points by defining anarchism as you like and then you can, in fact, you prove your own point as to the implausibility of relying on individual reason.

I counter that the discussions, ideas, and even success of applied anarchism is greater than you are allowing for. I provided links for those who are interested.

Those who aren't are welcome to throw stones and feel smug.

Clearly by "your" I was referring to a world in which anarchy was implemented, not a world in which human nature is magically different.

...to smash it.

I don't know what your motives are. I suspect that you think anarchy and chaos are what anarchism is about. I also suspect that the coming government shutdown has got you worried, but I don't know.

So far you haven't contributed to a discussion.

You know what semantics means right? You must have learned about it in your state funded school.

It's all covered in my answer to your question.

You are playing semantic games. By definition any ideal I could offer would be "my" ideal unless I cited a source.

You asked for a picture in an ideal world.

will be killed. The greatest service to humankind is a closely knit society where every segment of that society does it's part to make the whole work.

That is, in fact, what they did, while also defending their villages and cities.

As opposed to few controlling all through totalitarianism, capitalism or oligarchy or monarchy.

Think about it for a second. Every resistance movement starts from anarchy. Every existing system rose from anarchy.

Find the tools to facilitate cooperation voluntarily, and I argue you have a more powerful force.

replacing the government with basically guilds or trade unions. Not being an Anarchist I've asked them the same question, usually you kind of get some vague response. Of course I'm not an Anarchist so I'm probably biased.

It's just governance based on "syndicats" (aka unions). It's a form of socialism for people too scared to come out as socialists.

But these guys wanted no central authority or directed economy. Which I'd say was pretty much anarchism in its trade unionist/guild variety.

socialist."

While I'm not an anarchist, please don't confuse anarchist who espouse leftwing, socialist politics with the right.

but :kick:ety :kick: :kick: :kick:

captain :kick:eroo

since post #10...

You know, I'm a commie. I come right out and say the parts of my ideology that are tough to swallow.

If you're true anarchist... you want roads? Build 'em yourself.
You get sick? Pray for a miracle.

Quit dancing around the questions. If you're an anarchist, make it clear.
Not this "Oh but if we really need a government, we can get it" bullshit.

Anarchists organize man...

They always have. See post #10 and follow a link or two.

ranting and raving at random people in this thread :rofl::rofl:

I've given you several, called out your leading question, pointed out your rhetorical fallacy, and responded to various forms of name calling and labeling.

Hardly angry.

For those who want a definition, try: http://www.infoshop.org/index.php

Hell, even Wikipedia is more coherent than this collection of misconception.

-Sandy

I'm most familiar with Anarcho-syndicalism (no expert though), but know a little about some of the other varieties.

That would imply a syndicalism, but it is more a practical matter of working inside the system that is.

In true anarchist form, I haven't pinned a label on myself. I sympathize with socio-anarchist positions on most large scale distribution problems, like the ones that started the thread. I fall in with individiualist-anarchists on many social issues.

Flexibility is usually what I find separates anarchists from libertarians. Both want less government, but libertarians see absolutes. Anarchists, perhaps by definition, are not one size fits all.

I am definitely NOT an anarcho-capitalist. :-)

And I've voted Democratic in nearly every election for 20 years out of practicality.



-Sandy

on this thread. Which I've actually never meet one in person. Although some Libertarians seem to almost be advocating this.

It is the definition of evil.

I used to think I was...till I knew I was not!..Turned out I was a DEMOCRAT!

After reading more I realized I was actually advocating more of a Democratic-Syndicalism. Then I read more, learned more and realized I was a Democrat.

This course has been amazing iPod listening:

http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/

I am sure, sure, sure that the Koch Brothers understand Marxism now. Of course they turn Capital upside down and consider it an operating manual.

-Sandy

Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. But yeah, the more of him I read the more it turned me off.

Of course, like most 13 year olds I didn't know shit. Once you understand how fundamentally fucked up people are you can no longer entertain such childish idealism.

#1: Seniors, children, the disabled, who don't have anybody to rely on. What guarantees their health and safety in such a society?

There would be a governmental structure that provided these services where voluntary methods created gaps. In an ideal world, society would recognize and support these aims. Individuals would actively support them.

Even the governmental structure would not be required in a really ideal world. There would be a simple base level of care and sustenance provided via voluntary structures, but that requires real responsibility to your fellow man. Most people would rather just pretend those problems don't exist.

#2: How will clean air, water, food be regulated?

Through similar methods. Anarchists almost universally oppose forces that diminish freedom. Poisoning food, air and water is a monstrous crime to an anarchist.

#3: Who will pave the roads, build libraries and schools, and fund education?

It depends, but where they were needed, they would be funded and supported. Individuals would not be forced to subsidize the transportation industries through coercive taxes and other methods of opaque wealth redistribution.

Do your leading questions mean you don't understand the history and theories in anarchism or the difference between individual and social anarchists? Did you think this post was some form of rhetorical "gotcha" or are you genuinely curious?

If you are interested, try this as a starting place:

http://www.infoshop.org/index.php

I'd also read up on anarchists in the wake of Katrina.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4860770

http://reason.com/archives/2006/12/11/a-healthy-dose-of-anarchy

The difference between a mob and a society is generally based on the information and commitment to each other inherent in the individuals.

In any group, there will be some men who want to watch the world burn. In anarchist circles, they are generally just individuals. In society at large, they appear to be teabaggers and talk show hosts. :-)

-Sandy

I surely see government type boundaries as unnecessary, even detrimental, in an ideal world.

In reality, I line up with the social whatevers, because, while I agreed with Barry Goldwater on civil rights, in principle, (he was for them, but not enforcing them) the job had to be done. I believed you couldn't make being an asshole illegal. But they did, and rightly so.

Second stage Marxism is anarchic, and wonderful. You don't need government. I don't think I'll see it though.

--imm

Thanks for restoring some of my faith here. :-)

I vote and organize on largely Democratic lines, having staffed several campaigns, but my heart lies in a hopeful humanism and the only people who share that vision tend to be anarchists or social-somethings as you say.

I wish people could be responsible enough for it to work. There are lots of great applied examples and social theories and even great science fiction on what that might look like.

-Sandy

Normally, I'm a better writer, but crafting the right meaning here might take some time.

I am surely a product of American thinking. And because of that I think that flags, borders, anthems, pledges are retreads of ancient tribal themes. Throw them in the dumpster!

Mark Twain to Phillip Jose Farmer... the frontier...

--imm

Goldwater was surprisingly very socially "liberal". Even though he abhorred segregation and had done something about it on the State level. He just couldn't get past of using the Fed Gov to enforce something against the states will. I think though if you look at it from an individual rights perspective, using the federal government to uphold individual rights is more important than upholding collective states rights.

I see wealth disparity as a major obstacle to social justice. Libertarians are not much help here either. They try to give moral justification to what you would otherwise think of as "just being a dick." :shrug: It's hard to tell the difference.

--imm

mutually beneficial contracts.

When I was a younger man, I was a Democrat with a capital "D" but as they have come to look like Mitt Romney of the 1990s, I've found myself questioning the entire system.

Anarchists are a few of the thinkers I identify as having views outside the standard "Left/Right" frame that is increasingly defined by the right.

-Sandy

I certain would NOT HAVE them depend on:
"governmental structure" (especially as an anarchist in an anarchist world),
"voluntary methods", or expect that
"society would recognize and support", nor expect an ideal world that would supply a
"real responsibility"

WHEN I FEEL THAT:

"Most people would rather just pretend those problems don't exist."

How do you believe in that last sentence you make, and still keep the prior ones, and for that matter, the sentences that follow as well?

Sorry, if I'm not being sensitive. It's just that this kind of thinking keeps us all from moving forward with debate on real issues oft enough.

You are describing a stoned conversation in high school.

The discussion among actual anarchists covers everything from sewers to journalism.

http://www.infoshop.org/index.php

The quote posted is tongue in cheek. Amazingly, I've had actual discussions with actual anarchists, and while they were all good people, they never impressed me with their belief in it to the point where it was a philosophy that I would be overly interested in fully adopting for myself.

If it makes you feel better, I'm certainly not sold on Capitalism either (or any other system). I can find tenets of almost every system that I can relate to, anarchy included (which one might argue isn't a system, but I think it's naive to the max to think that it won't end up as one), but i don't fully buy into any of them. And let's be honest, a good chunk of the people who think anarchy sounds cool do so because it has a cool logo and cool bands talk about it. That may not reflect well on the many anarchists who are actually thoughtful and intelligent, but it's still true.

I honestly don't mean to gore your sacred cow here, if this is one, I just don't buy into it. I'm not some ignorant asshat on this topic (maybe on other ones lol). I know very well the side of this that you're presenting, and don't even disagree with much of it. But to me it has as many holes as any other idea seems to, and the quote in my first reply captures that feeling to perfection. Don't take it as a personal affront. :)

First response in this entire thread that didn't assume anarchists were simply here for their amusement.

-Sandy

Just people looking for a better way. I can respect that. :toast:

I'm starting to think this thread is an example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

:spray:

:thumbsup:

You know, like the exact opposite of anarchists. Bombthrower Bakunin is an anarchist.

Years ago, as a promoter, I knew several self-proclaimed "Anarchists". They were basically Libertarian Punks with a Progressive flavor. Most were great artists, though. Not sure if that has anything to do with a possible conflict between left and right brain. Their theories were interesting, but unrealistic in a civilized society.

As my curmudgeonly uncle used to quote: "throw a stone into a pack of dogs and listen for the ones that howl - it's them that got hit."

Curmudgeons are often great thinkers. I had a great-uncle that hated people, but was a fantastic story teller. He was also a private humanitarian. Something we didn't know until he died.

The hit-and-run "YOU SUCK!" comments that contain no basis are always my favorites. Hey. I'm willing to accept the fact that I'm a bitch, but you'd better have a damned good reason for calling me one.

They were, however, friends and shared Anarchist beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_India

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism

Isn't he an anarchist? I know he is a libertarian socialist and I think those are different terms for the same thing, but I could be wrong, I haven't studied anarchism enough yet.

said with much love to (and tons of respect for) Chomsky.

He focuses on foreign policy mainly and it may or may not be useful to anarchists.

For one thing no one has a patent on the word so a self identified Anarchist, from one person to the next, could hold widely divergent views on many issues. The same could be said for self identified Christians.

For most who do now or who have in the past taken Anarchy seriously, it is a complex and nuanced field of political thought. Anarchists were pretty much as influential in the early days of international socialism as were those who became Marxists. Lenin pretty much tilted the playing field decisively by seizing control of a nation - a real buzz generater at the time.

One person you might want to read up on, or better yet actually read, is Errico Malatesta, a popular and very thoughtful Italian anarchist (1853– 1932) Emma Goldman was a prominent American anarchist.

Malatessa was very influential in spurring on the growth of the Spanish Anarchist movement after touring Spain once speaking only in Italian. The Spanish anarchist movement probably represents the largest, most complex and real world experiment in practical anarchy. Built over generations, anarchists were a powerful anti fascist force during the Spanish Civil war and organized (yes organized) anarchists "administered" Barcelona for over a year along with entire regions of Spain.

The major anarchist movements throughout history were strongly pro freedom as one would expect, which frequently pitted them aaainst Marxists, but they were usually simultaneously socialist in their ideology. However right wing anarchism also exists, somewhere further out past the positions taken by many modern libertarians. Right wing anarchists put the focal point of all power in the individual and tend to be extremely wary of forms that stress voluntary cooperation with any emphasis on cooperation.

Where anarchy has flourished most it has done so within the context of a conscious culture that educates its members of Anarchy's basic values and social responsibilities. Spanish anarchists had their own well developed school systems, credit union type institutions, ongoing councils, unions, guilds and so on.

Anarchy does not presume that force will not exist in the world - that everyone will happily agree to everything together all of the time. Anarchy however strongly opposes the sanctification of coersion as an acceptable tool for social progress as represented by governments that hold vested powers cloaked in legality that allows government agents to demand compliance with government laws, vested with the power to imprison or even kill those who disagree citing the authority of the state to do so. Anarchy stress the desirability for people to enter into their own voluntary agreements after thorough consultation, and embrace decision making models that employ bottom up, rather than top down, decision making.

Anarchist movements have devoted significant resources in the past toward facilitating the growth of of voluntary associations of people who have a direct stake in the outcome of their shared work being able to pursue ways and means of achieving positive solutions to the issues that most concern them. Anarchy, outside of right wing anarchy which was never an international nor national forces anywhere, honors and supports cooperation and active forms of social organization that are not based on coersion. Anarchist istitutions are NOT a contradiction - they play a central role in anarchy.

Most grass roots activists in this country have been active participants at one time or another in movements and causes that pursue their ends using anarchistic forms of social organization.

With a strong positive social value placed on solidarity and cooperation embedded inside advanced anarchist movements, problems such as the needs of the sick poor and weak tend to be voluntarily addressed as a high rather than low social priority, with an enlightened community as the prime unit of organization working to provide for the basic needs of all its members.

For example:

http://kboo.fm/node/3118

adulthood is the other main enemy of anarchists

somebody please pay attention to me! hello, pay attention to me! look at me! i'm "BOG PERSON", i'm "BOG PERSON"! look at me! look at me! look at me!

To clarify something: I don't believe I'm "self-identified" anarchist because I don't go around spouting that I'm an anarchist (I do like that DU has an anarchist avatar and I use it, of course, but people may think it's ironic given some of the positions I take here). I have always had anti-authoritarian tendencies, even since I was a child. I've always protected those who I perceived as weak, I've always sided with the poor (being poor myself). I've always hated certain contracts that didn't seem "fair." It was only that I discovered anarchy that I found a philosophical theory that backed up my inate human tendencies. I do not believe these tendencies were "taught" or "learned." My family used to rent stuff from Rent-A-Center a lot, and I was only 10-15 years old and understood just how unfair and unjust it was, so many fights would happen over rentals from that fucking store, a store which by all accounts is the epitome of capitalism. I'm just saying, I'm fine with being called a self-identified anarchist, but truly I believe it is a part of my intellectual makeup, and I cannot tell you where it comes from (my parents were hard line Christian fundamentalists, it wasn't taught to me)

That said, your answers are fairly easy on the scheme of things, there are far more difficult questions like how would one deal with criminals (authoritarians who rape, kill, pillage, etc, pedophiles, and so on, which I'll be glad to get in to but that's a long ass discussion).



False premise. They most certainly would have many people to rely on. Anarchism isn't the lack of social society, it is the lack of authoritarian hierarchies. So seniors, children, and the disabled could well be taken care of via the same mechanisms we have now.

In current capitalist society seniors are seen as a burden to be "taken care of," because at one point they stop being functional profit streams. So society has set up ways to make it so that those seniors continue to be profit streams (Social Security is one of those ways). In an ideal anarchist society seniors would have access to free health care, free housing, and free nutrition, just like all people in said society, the reason being that monetary profit streams would not be the sole functioning aspect of society. You don't do something for money, you do something because you want to do it, and because you perceive benefit in some way. That is, rather than working to put a roof over your head, to pay for utilities, and to pay for garbage disposal, and to pay for whatever appliances or gadgets you have, those things would be provided, for free, by the society at large. People who want to provide those things in collective manufacturing and recycling facilities.

Children are in a completely different situation than seniors, because they are seen as a valuable tool which can be molded and created into good capitalists. Classrooms are effectively work-place simulators where you drop your kids off 6-8 hours a day to learn how to be functioning drones in a class based hierarchy. Indeed, you can even see this where these same schools use their diet plans to train children to eat very unhealthy corporate provided foods. (A very very bad position to take here, I know, but again, I don't shove it down anyones throat so I hope I can get away with it here.) In that vein anarchists would probably treat educating and caring for children differently. Rather than hierarchical training facilities, they'd more likely be prone to collective raising like humans have done for the vast, overwhelming, majority of our history. Since parents won't be compelled to work 8 hour days doing whatever menial labor that capitalism requires, they'd have ample time to spend with their children and teach them their values and their various ways of life. Curriculum would be completely open, free, and everyone can mold how it is taught to the children over time.

The disabled are kind of in between, depending on what sort of disability you're looking at. Capitalism sees some who are disabled as slogs, people who cannot provide anything to society in any useful way. An ideal anarchism would treat those cases differently, of course. Someone who has lost a leg would have freely available prosthetics, someone who is deaf would likewise be taught sign language in one of those collective classes.



Trivally. An anarchist society cannot by definition pollute, because then they would be harming others, and their actions would be undoubtedly authoritarian. What is important to understand is that capitalism uses resources that are profitable to obtain. Every inch of soil has aluminum in it, but capitalists get aluminum from bauxite mines. Primarily because of the energy used, but also because of ease of control over those resources. If we had the energy to extract aluminum from sea water or from common crustal material, we wouldn't have to rely on those resources. This has a side effect, too, because waste disposal is just as costly, so capitalists try their damndest to avoid proper waste disposal when they can. An anarchist would place value on wastes, and therefore it would not be released into the environment at large except for, say, water vapor and carbon dioxide (not from fossil fuel production but other biologic functions). It requires smart cities, though, cities where you grow your own food in vertical gardens and recycle waste to use as feedstock for that same food.



I will. And many others like me. And maybe you if you're bored or have nothing better to do.

Consider for a moment that you are posting on a website that is running on Linux. That operating system is provided by free to the administrators. The administrators do have to pay for bandwidth and they do have to pay for their own living arrangement (and I don't think DU is their primary revenue stream). The software used in hundreds of routers or switches to get you to this point is also likely running on hardware which has free software backing it. The web browser you are using, if it is not Internet Explorer, is likewise likely provided for free, by many hundreds of individuals who have the ability to actually write it and give it away for free. Granted, a lot of those people are working with corporations who have been benevolent enough to let the software be made free (a huge swath of Linux is written by capitalist corporations), but imagine how things might be if we had an open, transparent, non-hierarchical society, where everyone with the capacity to produce could do so?

Eben Moglen makes a better argument than I do, though he doesn't tie it to anarchism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbcy_ZxXLl8

Transcript: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Free_and_Open_Software:_Paradigm_for_a_New_Intellectual_Commons

http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Eben_Moglen_in_Bangalore

Transcript: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Freeing_the_Mind:_Free_Software_and_the_end_of_proprietary_culture

Times are changing and if you're not too ancient you should live to see it.

I'll have to check it out. I chose open source (wxWidgets) as the basis for our app. MS MFC stinks.
In off hours, have been trying to learn about the Semantic Web.

(Wrt teaching, I guess you're familiar with Alfie Kohn?)

Some of the best advocates are those who actually were teachers and found that the process was wrong in some way.

And yeah, Eben Moglen is really the face of the coming techno revolution with open hardware. Yeah, we're going to start sharing hardware like we do software, it's going to be really neat, and I think we'll live to see it.

So strong, so powerful.

The best quote is the one about brains, but I'll let you find that yourself. :hi:

"The most important unchangeable reality about human societies heretofore is the every human society since the beginning, whenever that was, has wasted almost all the brains it possessed."

Yup, I saw it first-hand. After the end of Apartheid, I saw an interview with an African musician who was about 67 years old and had always wanted to be a music teacher. Now, that he was at last able to do so, he was too old. It tore me apart.

Then, when I was recently searching the web to learn about Drupal, I came across this web site by Talifhani Luvhengo in South Africa, and was blown away. Under Apartheid, his would have been a wasted brain. Now, all he needed was to afford a computer and an internet connection, and the "information highway" would available for him to create something like this:
http://www.semicolon.co.za/

Web developer: Talifhani Luvhengo
http://www.linkedin.com/in/talifhani

One day I thought I may write a book about my experiences, and that quote would be perfectly apt.

Thanks. :-)

What do you do when someone murders another person? All societies need some form of law enforcement, or they fall apart. You can't just hope that people don't break laws, because they always will, especially if they know they can get away with it. I know you said you didn't want to get into it, but it's a valid hole in anarchism. If the people running jails have no authority, then what would be the point of jails? Then, you have a lawless society where everybody goes around murdering each other.

If you think the exploitation of the poor is bad now, it would be even worse under anarchism, as all laws stopping the rich from exploiting the poor have ceased to exist. Slavery, and selling your children to work in factories would now be legal in the absense of laws. Basically, whatever your guilds or unions decide the laws will be will be the new laws, and they won't always be rational. At least a large government like in the US promotes rationality because of its size, and the diverse amount of people it has to serve. Our government has decided, based on history, that children should not be forced to work, for example. What if the consensus of a anarchist union is that all children should be forced to work in coal mines, or around dangerous equipment?

Different unions could have different values, leading to some bizarre and irrational (and even openly hostile) societies. How would you deal with unions that are barbaric or hostile? Basically, what you would have was a bunch of unions battling it out, and sometimes forming alliances. These unions would then decide that they would be safer and more efficient if they formed together to make a bigger union (which gets progressively bigger until we've formed a government, back at square one, so pure anarchism is pretty pointless and against common sense).

Let's say you disagree with somebody in an anarchist union. They decide to blow your brains out the next day. If nobody liked you in that union, then nobody would actually care or do anything about it. If they did, they wouldn't have any form of law enforcement, so they would probably just go and blow that guy's brains out. Is that really better than set law enforcement standards? Why do people loyal to your town's mayor not come to your home right now, set it on fire, and then steal all of your money? Because they would be thrown in jail. If they knew they could get away with it, however, would they?

I think your points are very idealistic. They address how people should be acting, and not how they really act. People shouldn't stab or shoot each other, yet they do it every day. People shouldn't go to war, because war is pointless, but that happens too. How would you address this? People aren't always going to want to act in what's in the best interest of society. If they always did, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

And you also appear to be perpetuating a "human nature" meme.

http://eng.anarchopedia.org/An_Anarchist_FAQ_-_What_about_Human_Nature%3F

Easily enough debunked.

"People will act perfectly if given the chance too, etc."

Yes, it's possible that a society could have Anarchy because people act so good in it that there's no need for laws. However that just... never happens. It's never happened in history before. Why would someone expect it to happen in the future?

I don't really know what they're getting at in that article. They claim that human nature is irrelevant because everybody would just fall into line and make the system work. What a poor assumption.

It would be like a teacher handing out a test to students, and then just leaving the room, and expecting the students not to cheat. Some wouldn't, some would, so the test is kind of pointless at that point. Sure, they all might take the test fairly, but then again, they might also all get together and do the test. Which do you think would be the more likely assumption, knowing that there would be no consequences from authority figures?

The first mistake that article makes - the writers assume everybody in the world thinks exactly like them, and have the same motivations.

"Oh people will attack each other therefore we need police."

Nevermind that police are reactive and their job is to uphold capitalist property claims. That they react to crime more so than anything else. That their "crime prevention" is little more than educating people to avoid letting criminals have an easy go at things, and possibly cracking down on petty criminals and only perpetuating crime as a career.

The vast majority of negative inter-human relationships are due to disproportionate classes. I have more than you, therefore you have less than me. You want what I got, I refuse to let you, or indeed, I go out of my way to make sure you are incapable of it, period.

The whole point is that there is no test. Everyone gets an A! You exist, you're a living breathing sentient entity, therefore you deserve to continue existing. Capitalism, with all its police and all its charities, says that if you don't work within the system and do what the system demands of you, then you will wind up in the street eating out of garbage cans and taking showers in the rain. Such a process is foreign to me, as an anarchist, because I'd say "Hello, friend, have a place to stay." (Assuming of course Eben Moglen's precepts pan out, I am a realist, and I know that anarchism is currently not viable, but I do believe it can be soon.)

and Marxism too is that it decreases Production. I believe competition increases it. I'd like more individual control over production, but I do think production would decrease under either system.

An "h+ anarchist" if you will. One thing Eben Moglen says that the end of the first speech he made that I linked, that this is basically the first time in the history of the critique that we actually can set out to do what we dream of doing.

I press a button and a thousand people are fed, that sort of thing. I'd contend with Moglen that this has actually been the case since the beginning of the industrial revolution but that the capitalists have used intellectual property over that same period of time to stem the labor/worker/production dynamic just a century further. But that ultimately we'll move past it.

I think we will be producing more.

we need to "consume less" Anarchists.

...not just politically, by "ridding ourselves of our bosses" but also technologically, "by ridding ourselves of the technologies which the bosses use to exploit us." I believe ultimately anarchism should strive to give every single person on the planet a comfortable habitat, clean running water, and food. Across the board.

It's an extremely transhumanist view (if h+ is a term you're not accustomed to).

I'm also pragmatic, because I'm lucky enough to live in a relatively decent democracy, so I vote for the Democrat just like most of us here (and it'll shock people when I have to start defending Obama like crazy come 2012).

can be some good that comes from less production. America is often cited as the most productive country on earth, but how much of what we produce is really a necessity?

Do you really need the 50" plasma? Do you really need a Blu-Ray DVD player? Do you really need a $2000 couch?

We produce a lot of needless stuff.

I really don't see a problem with producing less as long as we are meeting everyone's basic needs.

seems to miss.

Each individual in a society does not have the same role. Men can't simply decide to have the babies. An individual can not both hunt and build a hut, at the same time. The old and disabled can't do for themselves, and others must help them.

Role differentiation becomes critical. And with it, you get a certain amount of tribal structure that impacts tribal decision making.

Let's consider a tribe that both hunts and also gathers. The decision as to when to follow the animals as they migrate is not something that everyone gets to decide on. The tribal elders, who have been through many migrations, make the decision.

One of the reasons man has survived and flourished is role differentiation.

In your initial statement, you said that (paraphrasing) Anarchists can't pollute. Actually, the can't not pollute. Humans, even those living in caves, create WASTE PRODUCTS, usually multiple times a day. Every time we FLUSH the toilet. And the cave humans created the same waste. And all kinds of other waste.

And they consumed resources. They cut down trees.

Let's imagine that a new tribe sets up camp 1 mile up stream from your tribe's camp. They use the river as their bathroom. They gather their water somewhat upstream, meanwhile, you get to enjoy their waste.

...then that "anarchist" is no longer an anarchist in the eyes of those who are being polluted on.

But you're correct that anarchists might pollute, it would just not be conductive to anarchism and if they continued to pollute even after the effects were harming others (and those others made it known), they could no longer be considered anarchist.

However, in the context of how I would see it working, all waste would have value, and we wouldn't be putting it in to streams for the simple fact that it can be used again in feedstocks to make our food or our clothing or whatever other things we like.

Shit has value.

But still, the notion that anarchists don't pollute is silly.

And as human history shows, the upstream tribe will put its own needs above the down stream tribe.

Ideally that would not be true. But thousands of years of Human evolution tell us other wise.

We can agree to try to minimize that reality, try to work against it. But it does not go away. At least not yet.

This is not a primitivist view, this is a technologist/transhumanist view. You simply have no reason for those mitigating factors to affect anyone else. The reason mitigating factors do now is the profit motive and the culture of authoritarianism and class. As it stands now we need sweatshop workers to make our cheap clothes. Once clothe making is automated and doesn't require human labor, then you have taken out a whole swath of class requirement for our standard of living.

I'll await your claims about who makes and repairs the robots of course.

what happened?

At one time, a gun smith was a king because he could make a great weapon. When that same weapon could be mass produced, he lost his job.

Should we go back to the old west?

Should we go back to riding horses?

Every technology advance is painful.

Rather then pretend they don't happen ... we should be telling Americans to expect them and be ready to change.

...transitioned away from the culture we have now.

You look at the industrial revolution and hundreds of thousands of people were freed from agriculture. Pow, done. No more people slaving away in the farmlands. But, of course, more technologies were to be invented, so they left the fields and went into the factories.

There's an upper limit to human consumption and resource utilization. The western world has, to a large extent, met that. Energy use in the western world has been flat if not on the decline (due to efficiency gains) for decades (note: per capita). We already have media devices that can hold music libraries so large that it would take months to view it all. Within the decade we'll have devices capable of holding all media ever made. What then?

This is not an argument for a "return to the wild west." The entire argument is technological, and it is amazing how you keep attempting to take it backward toward a less technological time.

There are isolated villages in Papua New Guinea and South America that would appear to be operating under this utopian code.

I hope you'll let me call it utopian without getting upset or taking that the wrong way.

So with so many villages looking out for one another, with no apparent class hierarchy (other than maybe a leader or village elders) or capitalist influence, they do appear to be getting by. But in a society like that, I wouldn't count on anyone developing web browsers or operating systems. Because you're going to be in a bamboo hut without any electricity.

Sure the healthcare is free, but it's not coming from a modern hospital, it'll be coming from the village medicine man.

I'm also reminded a little of Amish communities.

Are villages like this basically what you had in mind or was it something else?

Those tribes have a LEADER. And a group of Elders who the other tribe members look to when an important decision is to be made.

Honestly, it is much harder to find social groups in which there is "no hierarchy".

Native American Indians had one.

Aztecs. Egyptians. Sumerians.

As I mention high in the main thread, the need for "role differentiation" leads to a hierarchy of some form.

Since every member of society is not equaly suited to all tasks, the task are distributed based on who is more adept at those tasks. Men can't just decide to have children. That fact immediately demonstrates a role differentiation.

Or take hunting. The group that goes out to hunt and kill a large animal is taking a significant risk, one could get killed doing it. But gathering berries is usually not so dangerous.

And with so little demonstration of a successful social group with no hierarchy, then why require that there is none?
It seems like human nature and animal instinct that a group of individuals will seek leadership and direction. Children do this. At what age are children weaned?

Hunting was required in part because of the seasons. The berries were not always available. So the tribe had to follow the herds.

The idea that you can create a social group, that has no leaders, and no role differentiation, simply does not reflect how humans have advanced.

But why focus on Human hierarchies and their role differentiation?

Comparative psychology studies the social behavior of animals. Ants have a hierarchy. Bees have one. Lions have one. Elephants have one.

Even Dolphins, who are one of the more socialistic creatures around, have one.

Then there are Sharks, and other "loners" who rarely form groups of any size.

Or even specialization? Where did I imply that?

was in the exchange with us. I didn't realize it was a different person.

Once you have "leaders" and "specialized roles", anarchism stops meaning very much.

I've been involved in a several work collectives for example where specialized roles were discussed and agreed upon by the whole collective. One of them was a newspaper. We worked out a set of goals and operational principles that we all signed off on. Then we figured out who could best take responsibility for certain roles and work areas being accomplished and divided up responsibilities. The collectivize as a whole retained ultimate authority to change anything that wasn't working.

Part of the culture of anarchy that I am familiar with is a belief in skills building. If someone had no experience in taking on a certain type of task but showed interest in doing so, those who had those skills attempted to share them with that person to help them learn the ropes to the point where they could do what needed to be done. Before achieving that skill level though they were in a sense apprentices, and those who had mastered those skills already retained overall responsibility, with the collectives consent, to see that agreed upon goals were achieved as agreed upon.

In one case we needed to designate one person as the projects "coordinator" so that outside agencies who could only relate to hierarchical structures would know where they could start an interface with us. That person need3ed a certain skill set, but had no more ultimate authority than anyone else in the collective.

Be it someone flipping dozens of burgers to meet the fast food rush or someone assembling one part of a whole on a factory line in China.

No matter how much you want to make the roles equal, a man can't DECIDE to have children.

That fact alone draws lines that have NOTHING to do with your simplistic assembly line premise.

Its not about productivity.

For early man, the young and strong hunted. The women gave birth and "gathered". The elders predicted the seasons.

This is not a discussion of factories, its a discussion about how Humans moved from being just one of the many animals found on earth, to our present status at the top of the foo chain.

You want to keep this simplified anthropological view and make it seem like it applies to a technological human society.

the reality is that we have always had a "technological human society".

For early man, the technologies were simple. Today, they are more complex.

I agree that a "collective" can make decisions. That is not the question.

The question is "what happens when the members CAN'T reach a common decision".

I have no question that small groups can share authority. But when issues arise, which they always do, some formal structure is needed.

...is an almost implicit assumption that if it seems unlikely to work perfectly all the time, than it is an unworkable model for social organization. In reality though anarchy is an alternative to other models for social organization - NONE of which work perfectly.all the time.

What happens if a King goes mad? What happens if a President violates the Constitution but his party holds power in Congress? And all the way down to mundane issue like what happens if money corrupts the state system?

Under Anarchy no one really wants THEIR system of self government, for lack of a better term, to become dysfunctional. Everyone is fairly invested in making it work. That type of impass you describe is extremely uncomfortable for people to live with. Ultimately something gives. It has always been that sway, even with authoritarian states, Revolutions happen. New constitutions get written etc.

Anarchy can use structures just as "formal" as anything a State could have, but those structures would exist using anarchistic principles. An agreement to accept binding arbitration is not necessarily inconsistent with anarchy, for example. It might depend on factors concerning how the arbitrater is chosen, and whether that method to resolve disputes was freely agreed to, etc. Whether a person has a choice to disengate from a project, where possible, if that arbitration does not leave all parties willing to abide by it might be a factor. For example, If one were a part of a housing collective, the alternative to accepting a binding arbitration decision might be to allow that person to withdraw from that collective with some resources to apply toward their next choice of housing, based on how long the were a part of the original collective etc.

More often though peer pressure comes into play. What many forms of social anarhy result in is a slower decision making process than in authoritarian structures. That is because people really are given their say. Time is given to listening to their concerns and considering them BECAUSE that is the right thing to do. Often, if people really believe they were given the opportunity to fully make their case in a fair manner, but they fail to convince the majority to see things their way, they will concede the point untill something happens in the future to make that question relevent again.

The nice thing about slow decison making processes is 1) people don't rush headlong into stupid mistakes that can casue huge problems in the future and 2) people buy into owning a decision once it was made through a means that honored their imput.

When things break down in authoritarian systems, someone might end up getting arrested under trumped up charges. When things break down in an anarchistic system, someone may feel brow beaten into submission on a given decision. No system is perfect becasue humans aren't perfect. The Abolone
Alliance, an anti nuclear coalition of thousands of people in dozens of member groups throughout the State of California was probably the most complex organization I ever belonged to that operated under anarchist principles. And to this day I have never been part of a more effective political organization than that one.

I am more theoretical than in practices. Have I seen you on ABC or other websites? I think I've crossed your path before (going under a different nickname).

so that isn't it. I've talked about anarchy a few times over the years here at DU when someone else started a thread on it - and had a debate with a number of fols in an off site forum that used to be known on DU as the site that can not be named during the web wars between Dean and Clark supporters years back, lol.

I've been very attuned to anarchist themes in group process over the years, having been part of quite a few (sometimes self identified anarchis work projects but more often not) work and housing collectives and bottom up grass roots political movements. Years ago I was one of those people you spoke of who did a lot of anarchist reading.

Your name does look awfully dang familiar though, but I suspect it's because of my DU years. :hi:

And then only if that dependency cannot be freely associated with. So if you have a leader, like in the free software movement, and that leader is trying to invoke draconian policies on the use of their works, then you disassociate and "fork" the requisite technologies from that person.

But first let me say that no one person can speak for everyone's idea of how anarchy functions in all potential cases.

A person can occupy a leadership role, and the conditions under which that person does amke all the difference between whhether or not it is consistent with anarchy. At one extreme of possibilities, "the leader" is a dictater with all that that means. Clearly not anarchy. But different people have different leadership skills and there is nothing about anarchy thatcan't embrace that. The key distinction is whetuer a leader can use state sanctioned force to compell a follower to follow if that follower objects.

Actually the leadership model of many Native American nations was generally consistent with anarchy. When the people no longer give their trust to a leader that persoin ceases to be their leader. People were free to leave and, without needing to follow complex legal procedures, pick a different leader who had their trust. Leadership was also conceptualized differently in many Native American nations. A leader truly was a servant of the people and not the abstract embodyment of the state.

A key principle for most anarchists who embrace a need for cooperative organizational structures to help people work through differences and coordinate activities, is that power flows up from the people to be used by people with leadership functions to then put into place, with the actual consent of those who that person is representing in whatever task they then are involved in. Process is very important to social anarchists. Means do determin the ends and not vice versa. The way in which decisions are made is an intrinsic component fo reaching correct decisions.

How that looks in practice has varried from one anarchist orgainization or territory to another. In some cases delegates from social units convene with other such delegates to work through a predetermined set of issues, having been given a certain amount of guidance from those they are there to represent. A delegate whom that group feels is not representing them in good faith faces the possiblility of a recall that strips them of their right to negotiate. Agreements go back to the larger groups for discussion and consent before becoming recognized.

Those are examples of bottom up decision making. Management is a function that can be seperated from hard and fast "authority". If a situation requires that one person make decisons for the group in order for that group to function well in that type of situation, that can be voluntarily consented to in advance - but that person can and would be replaced if their decisions were not felt to be in the entire groups interests.

These models have all existed in the real world and continue to, often side by side with a legalistic state framework that is dealt with in a manner decided on by that group given the circumstances they must deal with. In Spain in the 1930's millions of people cooperated and "governed" their own lives using anarchy.

No, it's technological. Technology does not necessitate hierarchies, and indeed, the internet and open source software have shown that anti-hierarchies are the most effective means to produce software that you give away.

There exist no current examples of what I am talking about outside of online internet communities, unfortunately, but I believe with the right technologies we can create it.

edit: very weird, I re-read my original post and it's hard to see where anything primitivist is even implied...

So you want to take an unproven, and untried (if you don't count primitive villages and places like Somalia) theory, and somehow develop a technology that would enable us to create it. But of course the technology would have to be developed for the good of all and not for profit.

Did I get that right?

That is technology being made by a few for the benefit of all.

Papua New Guinea is full of cannibals, where many of the tribes do not have a word for "murder", because killing someone is not illegal. If that's anarchism, I don't want it.

to see how anarchism was organized in practice.

If not I will gladly answer whatever other questions you have. The OP was generalized, therefore the answer has to be generalized.

There are some interesting insights in this:

http://www.ted.com/talks/tom_chatfield_7_ways_games_reward_the_brain.html

The dragon Kill Points especially made me think of this thread.

Players elf organized a monetary system, and ten years later, it is the basis of every large reward system in every MMORPG.

That is the power of anarchy, to get out of the way and let human ingenuity reign.

If you think people are all evil and need to be controlled, why do you even pull the lever with the D? Just give into your base lack of faith and pull that R.

Syndicates are a fancy way to say "union"

Anarcho as in no dictating central authority

Government from the other direction - people to the government, rather than vice versa

It wouldn't be obvious if you did unless you are looking for someone who not only IS an anarchist but also makes promoting anarchy under the name anarchy a primary cause they identify with and work to advance.

The fact that we don't have an anarchist society does not stop those who identify with anarchism from working and functioning inside our society as it is. Most anarchists I know coexist with the legal system pretty much as well as everyone else does. They may have a different fundemental philisophical retaltionship with the underpinnings of law and authority than others, but they understand they are subject to it as things stand and act accordingly.

Anarchists who I know are a pretty realistic bunch. They aren't wasting time calling for the destruction of the state, they cocentrate on strengthening modes of voluntary cooperation and resisting authoritarian tendencies within orgainizations and institutions they participate in.

1) Philosophical anarchists who really read dozens of anarchist books and understand it, and will always hold it dear to their heart even if they move on from activism.

2) Activists anarchists who aren't as educated about anarchist theory but know and understand the gist of it, and whom use it to further their own personal agendas in whatever way, to fulfill whatever is lacking in themselves politically.

3) For show anarchists who aren't as educated as either of the two, but some who do know and understand the gist of it, while others are in it for the fun of it. Basically these are what Bookchin would have called "lifestyle anarchists." However, I consider that term insulting, because I started off as one of those "freaks of nature," and I consider myself in all three camps at one point or another. You can't discount the kids burning cars, even if they are not representative of the other two camps.

How would you adapt your anarchistic principles to solve the problems we face in modern day america.

Nobody is going to be able to have the perfect political system but you should be able to demonstrate how at least some of those principles would solve a problem.

Glad I was here while it was doing great, but there's nothing that can be done for the United States, or rather, I don't know that I'd want to adapt.

Best to just start again somewhere else.

I bet the people who already live "somewhere else" might have something to say about that :-) Like the environmental activist Julia Butterfly Hill says when she talks about the fallacy of thinking we can throw things 'away', "Where exactly is 'away'? there is no 'away' any more."

I'd love to imagine Mars or something but even I am not that dreamy/stary-eyed/optimistic. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millennial_Project:_Colonizing_the_Galaxy_in_Eight_Easy_Steps

Apparently a bunch of dirty capitalists are already looking at how to exploit the black smokers (those underwater lava vents). Since it's in international waters they believe they can take the minerals and sell them on the markets.

As an anarchist if we were to do something like this we'd use it to build the city and give it away, not sell it to the markets.

better link: http://tmp2.wikia.com/wiki/Aquarius

I'm more of a philosopher on the topic, though I readily identify myself as an anarchist if people ask (they usually don't).

One of my favourite anarchist philosophers is John Zerzan, and my favourite anarchist text is the Tao Te Ching.

I call myself a quasi anarcho-primitivist. I think that the A-P critique about how we got into our current predicament is exactly on point, but their prescriptive recommendations about what we ought to do about it (re-wilding etc) are bullshit. We are where we are, we can't go backwards in time, and there are now far too many of us for the "noble savage" meme to be useful.

Here are some negative aspects of societies that I think an anarchist perspective can help address:

1. Power hierarchies. These are the primary social evil for me. They act as power pumps, constantly moving power and wealth away from the periphery or base of the social pyramid (i.e. away from the general populace) and towards the center or tip of the pyramid (i.e. into the hands of the power elite). The deeper the hierarchy, the more pronounced this effect becomes. Now, humans have the tendency to lead and follow built into our brains, in the reptilian and limbic systems of our evolved triune brains, so we will never be able to avoid at least a two-level hierarchy in most social situations. However, people in general tend to be happier, more productive, less alienated and more empowered in social structures that have flatter hierarchies. So the answer is to work with whatever means are at our disposal to reduce the levels of hierarchy in our organizations, or at least to bypass as many levels as we can. We can do this by getting involved with reorganizations and guiding them in this direction, or by monkey-wrenching existing hierarchies.

2. Social size. Anthropologists have observed that effective social organizations are small. The maximum size that's usually quoted is Dunbar's number - somewhere between 100 and 200 people. This size allows us to keep our interactions as personal as possible. More personal interactions maximize cooperation, and minimize alienation and empire-building. We see this when we compare they dynamism of small organizations like local environmental groups or high-tech startups to their larger cousins like Greenpeace or Lucent.

3. Alienation. Alienation is directly related to two things - too few deep personal connections (related to social size and community structure), and a sense of dis-empowerment (which can stem from being buried at the bottom of a power hierarchy). There is one other source of alienation, but it's a little more controversial. This is the deeper sense of being separate from nature and each other - a sense that many A-P thinkers ascribe to the growth of increasingly complex technology that mediates our interactions with each other and nature.

I don't call myself an activist, because I don't believe that converting large numbers of people to some "anarchist ideal" is a sensible approach. Instead I believe in taking the three ideas outlined above (flattening hierarchies, shrinking organizations and reconnection with other people and nature) as the operating principles of a good life, and moving towards those ideals at every opportunity.