Especially egregious communities and anarchism

[Diagoras]

One of the weaker areas of anarchist theory, I feel, is how we go about approaching communities that we perceive as committing especially egregious acts. Reasonably assuming that, even if the state apparatus were dismantled, there would still be groups of people/communities that perhaps maintained sexual hierarchy (even with support of its female members, as in some religious communities), or violently discriminated against one minority group or another, or whatever other manner of activity you care to include in determining that a community has gone astray... how might we interact with these groups, and what manner of influence/force would be justified in dismantling patriarchy... or stopping systemic discrimination... or even stopping something like genocide?

Obviously responses will differ if we are talking about how to approach genocide presently, and how to approach such things in a post-state or mid-revolution scenario.

Yes, this is largely just theoretical masturbation, but I am curious.

[Qayin]

Constantly revolutionary communes or unions of radical anarchists?

[Bilan]

Sounds like you found one of the many errors in the petit-bourgeois forms of anarchism which support "communalism" and walking backwards.
Isolated "sovereign communes" are reactionary, I wouldn't be too shocked if a reactionary tendency created reactionary social structures.

[Cult of Reason]

Since I advocate the existence of one directly democratic "great federation" above the entire economy (which would not necessarily be the whole earth), this problem would not apply to what I envision. There would be many levels of federation, with most parts having their own constitutions, which all have to be consistent with the consitutions of the levels above them, up to the top level. The top level constitution would contain rules about voting rights etc., and so could say, for example, "all humans above the age of 18 years have full voting rights and all other rights," which would render difficult a lot of social discrimination. Since it would be necessary, for this to work, for there to be a ban on secession, defying the top-level constitution would invite reprisal.

Humans are social, and modern technologies mean that it is not feasible to have small, isolated communities, where some welcome homosexuals and some stone them. In the system I propose, no such discrimination would be possible if the top-level constitution made it illegal, while, at the same time, it would be possible to have certain communities that do not allow guns into their land/commune/urbanate/whatever and some that regularly hold celebrations for the gun, assuming the top-level laws do not forbid such weapons.

[apathy maybe]

Sounds like you found one of the many errors in the petit-bourgeois forms of anarchism which support "communalism" and walking backwards.
Isolated "sovereign communes" are reactionary, I wouldn't be too shocked if a reactionary tendency created reactionary social structures.

Care to explain what you mean by "reactionary" in this context? Because as far as I can tell, you're mis-using the word.

Care to also explain what you mean by "petit-bourgeois forms of anarchism", how a person's relation to the means of production means that they will have always have different perception of a political idea (if indeed this is what you are saying)?

[Niccolò Rossi]

Care to also explain what you mean by "petit-bourgeois forms of anarchism", how a person's relation to the means of production means that they will have always have different perception of a political idea (if indeed this is what you are saying)?

I think you know exactly what he means. SouB is obviously referring to the Anarchist currents descended or drawing influence from the heyday of classical anarchism, including Proudhon, Bakunin and their ilk, a group which is fundamentally petit-bourgeois in origin and perspective, obsessed with communalism, localism and federalism.

[MarxSchmarx]

If communes are created de novo, it seems to me the natural solution is to have in place a system that lets people leave their commune and start over in another that better fits their interests.

So if there is a commune that discriminates against an ethnic minority, say, that minority can leave and other communes should welcome them with open arms, ready to help them rebuild their lives.

Obviously this isn't a perfect solution, because you run into situations where a hitherto tolerant community could go bad. But it's hard to imagine that being a very common situation at all in a future world where the values of individual freedom are deeply treasured.

[Diagoras]

Since I advocate the existence of one directly democratic "great federation" above the entire economy (which would not necessarily be the whole earth), this problem would not apply to what I envision. There would be many levels of federation, with most parts having their own constitutions, which all have to be consistent with the consitutions of the levels above them, up to the top level. The top level constitution would contain rules about voting rights etc., and so could say, for example, "all humans above the age of 18 years have full voting rights and all other rights," which would render difficult a lot of social discrimination. Since it would be necessary, for this to work, for there to be a ban on secession, defying the top-level constitution would invite reprisal.

Humans are social, and modern technologies mean that it is not feasible to have small, isolated communities, where some welcome homosexuals and some stone them. In the system I propose, no such discrimination would be possible if the top-level constitution made it illegal, while, at the same time, it would be possible to have certain communities that do not allow guns into their land/commune/urbanate/whatever and some that regularly hold celebrations for the gun, assuming the top-level laws do not forbid such weapons.

While anti-discriminatory practices would obviously be welcome, how do you reconcile your "ban on secession" with anarchist notions of free association, and your emphasis on the "top" level that is not to be opposed?

[Cult of Reason]

While anti-discriminatory practices would obviously be welcome, how do you reconcile your "ban on secession" with anarchist notions of free association, and your emphasis on the "top" level that is not to be opposed?

In this report (http://www.revleft.com/vb/determination-post-scarcity-t99194/index.html?p=1330609#post1330609) I discuss where Communism (or any other post-scarcity society) would be feasible, i.e. what areas would support a (necessarily) highly integrated egalitarian economic system. In such a system it would be clear that secession must not take place as that would disrupt the workings of the economy. Can you imagine a situation where a power station secedes? Or a large factory? Or a part of the rail network? Any such action would harm the majority, perhaps greatly. Because of this, secession (or the threat of it) is effectively an act of coercion by the minority against the majority, and that must not stand.

Hence, due to this and the fact that secession, even in the absence of an integrated economy, involves a defiance of the wish of the majority, it could be argued that free association is unanarchist, or at least in its extreme form. Free association, of course, must apply to things that are only of minority interest (such as clubs and societies), but for things that affect everyone, such as the economy and the society (one for one), it would only be an instrument of minority tyranny. Essentially, in anything that is important for everyone, free association contradicts democracy. It seems clear, to me, that the latter should be favoured.

Regarding the top-level, that is, I believe, how most significant anarchist groups have operated. You have a decision-making process for the body as a whole, and then ones for subsets. If you have a union that operates across a nation-state, then you will probably have a set of rules decided upon by and for the entirety of the union, including the union constitution. You union may also have branches, which may have their own constitutions etc.. It would not make much sense for the branches to have rules that contradict the rules of the union as a whole. Hence, the top-level, the union as a whole, takes precedence, just as the United States constitution (correct me if I am wrong) takes precedence over state constitutions and federal laws take precedence over state laws.

[Diagoras]

I don't think that a true associative break like secession would be something taken lightly, and I do not think that, if something occurred that led to a sense of irreconcilable difference between persons, it would be likely to occur at a level of singular workplaces. There would be no real benefit for a single workplace to isolate itself from a highly integrated economy, especially one not based on private profit. I would think that if secession were an issue, it would not be occurring at the site of mile-long stretch of rail track, but over a broader area across multiple communities, and for cultural reasons. I see your point about the potential harm of individuals dominating a resource and denying it to the community at large, but that is not what I see as the likely scenario. I do not think integration of the economy would be the issue, given that in an economy that produces for use, rather than profit, inclusion would obviously benefit all involved, so a desire to "secede" would not be something taken lightly. Given the likely community-based nature of a secession movement, it would not be coercion of a minority region to separate, but coercion of the central authority that you seem to be proposing in order to force persons to remain a part of the polity.


Hence, due to this and the fact that secession, even in the absence of an integrated economy, involves a defiance of the wish of the majority, it could be argued that free association is unanarchist, or at least in its extreme form.

I don't see how. The notion that the "wish of the majority" is a good enough reason to force people to do something they may not like (assuming that what they like is not oppressing anyone else) or at least are not willing to consent to does not fit with anarchism, imho. It is not "minority tyranny" to disagree with the majority of the polity of which you are a part, and if the issue is strong enough, to desire to organize in a different fashion or go a different way. It is contrary to how I understand any meaningful concept of democracy in equating democracy with simple majoritarianism.

Most all of anarchist theory that I am familiar has always emphasized organization from the bottom upward, with primacy going to the bottom. The U.S. constitution does favor a central government over the whims of localities... and the U.S. constitution is not anarchic. Centralized decision-making in unions, or any other form of organizational polity, has always been a target of anarchist criticism. Consensus is preferred at the local level when possible (as most decisions are local in effect, and should be operated by those who will be affected daily by said decisions), and as this becomes infeasible at wider federated levels (concerning issues of resource distribution or common economic/industrialization plans, for example), the most common proposal that I am familiar with supports the ability of groups/delegates involved in these wider decisions to either support a proposal, consent (but with some objections given), oppose it but allow it to occur anyway, or outright refuse to participate in it if the will of the local community is so strong on the issue. Regardless, the emphasis has always been on the locality, as it allows the closest to directly democratic opinion on an issue.

I certainly agree that some choices of a locality may be incompatible with anarchism, and such conflicts would have to be addressed and discussed as they came up in social discussion and debate. However, assuming an anarchist revolution is occurring and secured in the first place, the area over which the revolution has been successful will not be as likely to have fundamental disagreements over issues that anarchists hold in common.