How does anarchism work?

[HeyJustLooking]

Hey, sorry if this is too much of a newbie question, but I have just started to study socialism and there is one thing that confuses me in particular:


Anarchism


How would anarchism work and what is wrong with the state?


I have heard that even a lot of the most authoritatian communists thinks that at some point of time, the state will no longer be needed and communism will turn into anarchy.

How will that happen and why would society be better off without the state?


When there is no state, then who will organise the hospitals, schools, police, science research, shops, factories and so on, in the whole international world? Private organisations? :confused:

Isn't anarchy just capitalism without the state? It's sounds kind of like extreeme liberalism to me.


I agree that the state shouldn't control private things like freedom of speech, arts, religion, race and sexuality and that everyone should be easily able to express their opinion within the state and their workplace.

But what is wrong with the state organising the overall market, institutions and politics?

I'm not trying to attack the anarchists, I'm just trying to learn. :)

[Luisrah]

I guess one of the answers you'll be getting is that it never will work, actually.

[core_1]

Hey, sorry if this is too much of a newbie question, but I have just started to study socialism and there is one thing that confuses me in particular:


Anarchism


How would anarchism work and what is wrong with the state?


I have heard that even a lot of the most authoritatian communists thinks that at some point of time, the state will no longer be needed and communism will turn into anarchy.

How will that happen and why would society be better off without the state?


When there is no state, then who will organise the hospitals, schools, police, science research, shops, factories and so on, in the whole international world? Private organisations? :confused:

Isn't anarchy just capitalism without the state? It's sounds kind of like extreeme liberalism to me.


I agree that the state shouldn't control private things like freedom of speech, arts, religion, race and sexuality and that everyone should be easily able to express their opinion within the state and their workplace.

But what is wrong with the state organising the overall market, institutions and politics?

I'm not trying to attack the anarchists, I'm just trying to learn. :)
Well many of these institutions such as the army, police, market wouldn't exist so there wouldn't need to be a state to coordinate them. General assemblies and workers councils would run society. Delegates would be recallable at any time and representation would give way to 'direct democracy'. This sounds a bit strange at first but societies such as ancient Athens, revolutionary Ukrain, Revolutionary Russia (for a while) and parts of Spain have functioned on this basis.
The human race has existed for appraximately 50 000 years, whereas class rule has existed for around 5 000 years. If the human race can function without a body that continually causes murderous wars, exploitation and environmental destruction, we ask why are we still living under this thing? The state developed when a class of exploiters began and started to hoard resources and farming produces. To make sure the 'toilers' didn't demand that this be shared equally as it used to be, a priesthood arose telling them that "god said that these guys deserve it because of their noble birth". More recently, the state became the modern nation state when a standing army developed to say "If you try to benefit from your own labour and not earn money for us, if you try to share out resources equally, we will kill you".

[Kuppo Shakur]

To put it simply, humanity can reach a point where everyone just knows, through education and evolution, how things should be happening and what they should be doing to make the world work. So, it would be better than a controlling state, because at that point, people in general will be able to progress the world closer towards perfection, instead of needing to go through many levels of hierarchy to cause change.

[whore]

one of the many objections to the state/government,, is that it is an opressive force. anarchists are pro-freedom, and state/government can't provide true freedom. state/government is reliant on force to exist, and to enforce the rules and laws.

who then runs all those things you mentioned? well, those that are needed would be run by the community. you don't need a government to do anything. you just need people.

capitalism needs government, it needs regulation, government controlled courts and police, and even (to a certain extent) government issued money.

anarchists object to capitalism because you can't have capitalism without hierarchy and oppression. capitalism is only freedom for some, not all.

so no, true freedom (aka anarchism) is not capitalism.

[NecroCommie]

An easy way to answer this would be that it works exactly the same way as final communism. Marxists and other communists just believe that class war makes a transitional period necessary. Propably meany "statist" communists would critisize anarchism as naive, rather than impossible, as both ideologies share the same goal but are different when it comes to reaching that goal.

Fine, so this assumes that you know how communism works, but many good explanations have already been given so I just remove myself from here now...:blushing:

[AK]

Anarchism? Work? I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean...

In all seriousness, though. Anarchists have a problem shared by so many of the idiots in this world; they jump straight to conclusions. You can't just go and fuck it all up with the immediate abolition of the state. There needs to be a transitionary period where the people learn how to run things in the absence of the state for when the state finally vanishes. You don't just go and dump all these workers with all the responsibility... and they don't even know what to do. You have to remember that nearly all of the working class that we support and liberate aren't going to be Anarchists or Communists, they'll be stuck there, starving and seeing their economy transform into pieces of shit streaking past their eyes in a blur.

[Tablo]

Anarchism? Work? I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean...

In all seriousness, though. Anarchists have a problem shared by so many of the idiots in this world; they jump straight to conclusions. You can't just go and fuck it all up with the immediate abolition of the state. There needs to be a transitionary period where the people learn how to run things in the absence of the state for when the state finally vanishes. You don't just go and dump all these workers with all the responsibility... and they don't even know what to do. You have to remember that nearly all of the working class that we support and liberate aren't going to be Anarchists or Communists, they'll be stuck there, starving and seeing their economy transform into pieces of shit streaking past their eyes in a blur.
We believe there must be mass understanding. We do not see the need to have some glorious leader and his vanguard to tell us what to do. It isn't like we will instantly have Communism. We see a brief transition in some situations. We just don't want to have the KGB watching us take a shit and having to worry about our labour being exploited by the elite of the party.

[AK]

We believe there must be mass understanding. We do not see the need to have some glorious leader and his vanguard to tell us what to do.

Because authoritarian cults of personality are just a GREAT idea that ALL of us commies love. :laugh:


It isn't like we will instantly have Communism. We see a brief transition in some situations. We just don't want to have the KGB watching us take a shit and having to worry about our labour being exploited by the elite of the party.

And that's all of us commies just LOVE bureaucratic totalitarianism. :laugh:

I mean, I thought anarchists were clueless. But you... wow.

[Chambered Word]

Hey, sorry if this is too much of a newbie question, but I have just started to study socialism and there is one thing that confuses me in particular:


Anarchism


How would anarchism work and what is wrong with the state?

I have heard that even a lot of the most authoritatian communists thinks that at some point of time, the state will no longer be needed and communism will turn into anarchy.

True, communists believe that we need to crush the capitalist state and establish a new socialist state. Presumably once the remaining reactionary and former bourgeois forces have been defeated can then begin withering away the state as it will be redundant.


How will that happen and why would society be better off without the state?

We can organize ourselves and don't need a perpetual state to tell us what to do.


When there is no state, then who will organise the hospitals, schools, police, science research, shops, factories and so on, in the whole international world? Private organisations? :confused:

There will be no private organizations. The workers will organize themselves how they see fit. It has been shown to be possible numerous times in history.


Isn't anarchy just capitalism without the state? It's sounds kind of like extreeme liberalism to me.

That would be more like anarcho-capitalism which is a reactionary ideology. Anarchists want the working class to destroy the state and organize themselves because they see the state as inherently capitalist and exploitative, and therefore oppressive. Anarcho-capitalists don't want the state because it has the power to regulate the market.


I agree that the state shouldn't control private things like freedom of speech, arts, religion, race and sexuality and that everyone should be easily able to express their opinion within the state and their workplace.

But what is wrong with the state organising the overall market, institutions and politics?

I personally don't see anything wrong with it seeing as I'm not an anarchist, but I figure that once we don't need a formal state we might as just abolish it.

And guys, if we're going to turn this into a sect war, could we at least direct it at the Stalinists? :rolleyes:

[Chambered Word]

We believe there must be mass understanding. We do not see the need to have some glorious leader and his vanguard to tell us what to do.

I think we need unity under a vanguard party myself, but it's just a small ideological difference. This is why I think we shouldn't be constantly slagging the anarchists down.

[Tablo]

I think we need unity under a vanguard party myself, but it's just a small ideological difference. This is why I think we shouldn't be constantly slagging the anarchists down.
Thank you for understanding. Sorry for being so rude and bashing the vanguard concept, but when people with no understanding of Anarchism bash the ideology I get a little pissed off. :)

[AK]

We believe there must be mass understanding.
As I said, most of the working class that gets liberated won't be familiar with the ways of communism and how to get to it. That is why the vanguard/state needs to educate the workers so the need for a state disappears.

Ideally, every communist would be an anarchist (with the exception of those Stalimaos); it's just that communists see the impossibility of the state disappearing abruptly and society continuing on.

[Old Man Diogenes]

Hey, sorry if this is too much of a newbie question, but I have just started to study socialism and there is one thing that confuses me in particular:


Anarchism


How would anarchism work and what is wrong with the state?


I have heard that even a lot of the most authoritatian communists thinks that at some point of time, the state will no longer be needed and communism will turn into anarchy.

How will that happen and why would society be better off without the state?


When there is no state, then who will organise the hospitals, schools, police, science research, shops, factories and so on, in the whole international world? Private organisations? :confused:

Isn't anarchy just capitalism without the state? It's sounds kind of like extreeme liberalism to me.


I agree that the state shouldn't control private things like freedom of speech, arts, religion, race and sexuality and that everyone should be easily able to express their opinion within the state and their workplace.

But what is wrong with the state organising the overall market, institutions and politics?

I'm not trying to attack the anarchists, I'm just trying to learn. :)

I found most of the answers to your questions on the Anarchist FAQ.

[Chambered Word]

Thank you for understanding. Sorry for being so rude and bashing the vanguard concept, but when people with no understanding of Anarchism bash the ideology I get a little pissed off. :)


As I said, most of the working class that gets liberated won't be familiar with the ways of communism and how to get to it. That is why the vanguard/state needs to educate the workers so the need for a state disappears.

Ideally, every communist would be an anarchist (with the exception of those Stalimaos); it's just that communists see the impossibility of the state disappearing abruptly and society continuing on.


Quoted for truth. Group hug time!

[whore]

any idiot who thinnks that anarchism is all about going straight from capitalism to anarchism is clueless.

no anarchist argues that. anarchists argue for a transitional that will work. that means, no government or state, as they have a tendancy to perpetuate themselves.

[Tablo]

Because authoritarian cults of personality are just a GREAT idea that ALL of us commies love. :laugh:



And that's all of us commies just LOVE bureaucratic totalitarianism. :laugh:

I mean, I thought anarchists were clueless. But you... wow.
Obviously you do not desire that, but the examples we have of vanguard parties taking power are rather poor. Your lack of understanding of Anarchism makes me giggle. Maybe you should read a bit before you criticize.

[AK]

any idiot who thinnks that anarchism is all about going straight from capitalism to anarchism is clueless.

no anarchist argues that. anarchists argue for a transitional that will work. that means, no government or state, as they have a tendancy to perpetuate themselves.
Damn right I'm clueless. But despite having a thread on this subject made by me, it still makes fuck all sense.

Quoted for truth. Group hug time!
-hug-

[Chambered Word]

any idiot who thinnks that anarchism is all about going straight from capitalism to anarchism is clueless.

Here you imply that there is a transitional period between capitalism and anarchy in the anarchist ideology.


no anarchist argues that. anarchists argue for a transitional that will work. that means, no government or state, as they have a tendancy to perpetuate themselves.

Yet here you imply that this transitional period will not involve a government or state, which would therefore be anarchy.

Please explain to us.

[whore]

Here you imply that there is a transitional period between capitalism and anarchy in the anarchist ideology.

yes... funny that.


Yet here you imply that this transitional period will not involve a government or state, which would therefore be anarchy.

Please explain to us.
no... anarchism is a free society. yet, it is not possible to get to a free society using unfree means. i.e. a government or a state cannot be used to get to anarchism (or communism).

so, what transition is suggested? well, people suggest various things. but, basically, we go straight to workers control. but, of course, we can't get rid of all those crazy shit ideas over night. sexism, racism etc. are engrained in the very culture.

i suggest, if you really actually give a shit, you start a thread, or simply search revleft. for example: http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchist-paradigm-transition-t30602/index.html?t=30602

[Chambered Word]

yes... funny that.


no... anarchism is a free society. yet, it is not possible to get to a free society using unfree means. i.e. a government or a state cannot be used to get to anarchism (or communism).

so, what transition is suggested? well, people suggest various things. but, basically, we go straight to workers control. but, of course, we can't get rid of all those crazy shit ideas over night. sexism, racism etc. are engrained in the very culture.

i suggest, if you really actually give a shit, you start a thread, or simply search revleft. for example: http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchist-paradigm-transition-t30602/index.html?t=30602

Seems fair enough.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Ideally, every communist would be an anarchist (with the exception of those Stalimaos); it's just that communists see the impossibility of the state disappearing abruptly and society continuing on.

Why can't society continue without centralised power?

Society will continue with different forms of organisation, decentralised federations of workers councils.

[LeninistKing]

Anarchism is communism (State-less socialism), and you have to realize that each political stage lasts about 400 to 700 years. So if capitalism has around 500 years, and the next stage will be socialism, which would be a smaller stage than capitalism. We can sort of predict that anarchism (communism) might be applied in the year 2300 or ealier or later.

.



Hey, sorry if this is too much of a newbie question, but I have just started to study socialism and there is one thing that confuses me in particular:


Anarchism


How would anarchism work and what is wrong with the state?


I have heard that even a lot of the most authoritatian communists thinks that at some point of time, the state will no longer be needed and communism will turn into anarchy.

How will that happen and why would society be better off without the state?


When there is no state, then who will organise the hospitals, schools, police, science research, shops, factories and so on, in the whole international world? Private organisations? :confused:

Isn't anarchy just capitalism without the state? It's sounds kind of like extreeme liberalism to me.


I agree that the state shouldn't control private things like freedom of speech, arts, religion, race and sexuality and that everyone should be easily able to express their opinion within the state and their workplace.

But what is wrong with the state organising the overall market, institutions and politics?

I'm not trying to attack the anarchists, I'm just trying to learn. :)

[Sam_b]

What nonsense, LK.

[LeninistKing]

Well, some political philosopher told me that Marx said that each political stage lasts about 500 years and he said that the dictatorship of the proletariat will be a shorter stage because it would be a transtional temporary, preparatorial stage toward anarcho-communism

.


What nonsense, LK.

[Black Sheep]

I have heard that even a lot of the most authoritatian communists thinks that at some point of time, the state will no longer be needed and communism will turn into anarchy.What marxists mean is that when the bourgeoisie will cease to exist as a class and when the bourgeoisie elements will have been eradicated, the state will be redundant and since it will have no relevance it will wither away.
However,keep in mind that state according to marxism differs to state according to anarchism.
See this post for the two definitions:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1659173&postcount=39




How will that happen and why would society be better off without the state?As explained in the link,every society has a state,in a marxist sense.
Even in communism we do not know if a new class antagonism will be born.



When there is no state, then who will organise the hospitals, schools, police, science research, shops, factories and so on, in the whole international world? Private organisations? :confused:Their own workforce! All the above should be self-managed, with their workers constantly discussing with others of the same field and from other fields to improve and coordinate the production.
From below.


Isn't anarchy just capitalism without the state? It's sounds kind of like extreeme liberalism to me.No,classical anarchism is socialism, with a libertarian decentralized structure.
The necessity of clarification comes from the rise of popularity of marxism in the internationals.



I agree that the state shouldn't control private things like freedom of speech, arts, religion, race and sexuality and that everyone should be easily able to express their opinion within the state and their workplace.Me too.However,to be sure that as in the above fields, the state will not repress any other, i expand libertarianism to all the aspects of socialism, and thus i support anarchism.
Because the 'private things' you describe aren't all a state can take advantage of and exploit, but decision making and workers' democracy as well.



But what is wrong with the state organising the overall market, institutions and politics?Centralized economy and power tends to rip the workers from control of the workplace and of decision making, and democratic centralism too often turns out to be a joke.That's why we don't take any chances and ensure the above with a structure of federated workers' councils.


Keep in mind though, that while marxists and anarchists fight over this matter, in theory often the models marxists (trots mostly) propose are very similar to ours.

[whore]

Anarchism is communism (State-less socialism), and you have to realize that each political stage lasts about 400 to 700 years. So if capitalism has around 500 years, and the next stage will be socialism, which would be a smaller stage than capitalism. We can sort of predict that anarchism (communism) might be applied in the year 2300 or ealier or later.
.

Well, some political philosopher told me that Marx said that each political stage lasts about 500 years and he said that the dictatorship of the proletariat will be a shorter stage because it would be a transtional temporary, preparatorial stage toward anarcho-communism.
first, why trust "some political philosopher"? second, why trust marx?

i strongly suggest reading marx directly if you want to comment on how long each "stage" will last. also, "primitive communism" (pre "slavery" era) lasted a lot longer than "500 years", as did the "slavery" stage. anyway, marx's history is very euro-centric, other cultures followed different development paths. (if nothing else, i would reject that australia pre-european contact was past "primitive communism", and north america generally i doubt could be said to have had either a "slavery" or "feudal" stage.)

we don't even know if marx is correct about "socialism" ("communism") following capitalism. for all we know, a new class society might emerge. (certainly in the soviet union there was not "traditional" capitalism, but it also wasn't socialism.)

non-marxist writers have posited dates for "anarchism" (and/or "communism") anywhere from within their life times, to past 2600 ad. a lot of it depends on technological development. if someone/somepeople invented a cheap, "desktop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_manufacturing)" universal duplication machine (3d printing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_Printers) is getting some way to this point), that could duplicate basically any manifactered good, then capitalism would virtually collapse (or at least radically transform). assuming that companies and/or goverments didn't squash the idea.

anyway, when the time comes, historians will be able to say "it started about here, and then this happened, and that was a turning point", but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[syndicat]

in regard to the transitional period as society emerges out of capitalism, it is essential that the working class consolidate its power not only throughout the economy, by expropriating the capitalists and establishing organizations of direct worker management, but also that it create a grassroots popular governing power over the society. If this isn't done there is a power vacuum that will allow authoritarian groups to re-impose some top-down statist regime.

to put this another way, there is, as Kropotkin said, a distinction between government and state. Government in some form is just the way a society makes rules for itself and enforces those rules. This is inevitable but could take a wide variety of forms. A state however is a bureaucratic, hierarchical apparatus that, as Engels pointed out, presides over society but is separate from real control by the people.

The problem with any form of state is that it is inherently a class institution, that is, an institution to defend the interests of some dominating and exploiting class. The state itself is dominated by its bureaucratic class administrators, politicians, experts etc.

Government, however, can be based on the direct democracy of assemblies at the base, in workplaces and/or neighborhoods. Delegate congresses can be controlled by the base. A popular militia can replace the old hierarchical army.

So in fact anarchism does presuppose a government. Also, worker self-management of industry. And a system of grassroots social planning to replace the market.

the problem with the idea of a "workers state" is that it is self-contradictory. a state is an apparatus that is not the people ruling themselves, and creates a bureaucratic apparatus. this apparatus will not give up power voluntarily. it becomes the basis of a new class regime, of domination and exploitation of the immediate producers. this is what has happened in all the Communist controlled revolutions.

there are some anarchists, the extreme individualists, who say they are against any government. but that is not a feasible idea. most social anarchists nowadays advocate a form of popular power. see the book "Black Flame" on this point.

[ZeroNowhere]

anyway, marx's history is very euro-centric, other cultures followed different development paths.Given that he was generally writing the history of European states, this would seem to make sense. And writing history which was not Euro-centric would probably not have been a particularly good idea at the time, though indeed he was working on his Ethnographic Notebooks later, which have yet to be translated fully into English, I believe.


(certainly in the soviet union there was not "traditional" capitalism, but it also wasn't socialism.)'Traditional' capitalism mostly doesn't exist anywhere else, either. Incidentally, Marx discussed that.

[whore]

So in fact anarchism does presuppose a government.
for a given definition of "government". i, personally, reject "government" because i see it as a indistinishable from the state. government and the state, from my perspective are basically the same thing.

which is not to say that i reject administration, or organisation. just sementics.

@ZeroNowhere, umm, i haven't heard of those notebooks. i guess if they hvaen't been translated to english, i wouldn't have much of a chnce to read them.

[comradshaw]

How would anarchism work and what is wrong with the state?

To answer your first question, there are lots of different ways anarchy might work, or might look like. The most common conclusion that most of us reach (that was determined quite a long time ago) is that we might function as a loose federation of communities or communes, with popular assemblies and councils arising from within those assemblies. Places of production and shops will be collectively controlled by people in these neighborhoods. I would imagine anarchy working with neighborhood and workers' councils arising from respective popular assemblies. All of this could certainly be done without hierarchy or rulers. Directly democratic means of making decisions are often used by anarchist groups as a way to prefigure the future they would like to see. One way is the horizontal (as opposed to hierarchical) process of reaching decisions by consensus. Also many anarchists are not opposed to one-person-one vote styles of decision-making.

In regards to the 2nd question; anarchists find a great deal wrong with what's called the State. The primary problem is that the State assumes authority over the vast majority of people. The State involves a minority bureaucracy making decisions for everyone, whereas anarchists believe people could make better decisions in their communities on their own.

The State is/has always been the first defense of private property and capitalism. In case you didn't know, anarchists are anti-capitalist. If the State historically protects/preserves something that anarchists are opposed to (ie capitalism), obviously anarchy is a philosophy that is antagonistic to the State.



I have heard that even a lot of the most authoritatian communists thinks that at some point of time, the state will no longer be needed and communism will turn into anarchy.

It's true that in a society where profit trumps human beings, we need police and governments. But we anarchists feel that if we did away with these completely anti-human policies, we could actually achieve a free society. How many prisons would we need if everyone was guaranteed things like shelter, food, water, education, healthcare, leisure, and a sense of community? Anarchists feel like the State, with its rigid agenda that only seems to benefit the working class, and capitalism, actually prevent the aforementioned niceties.

For me communism, ie a stateless, classless, moneyless society, is that which anarchists have always strived for. To me communism is synonymous with anarchism.


How will that happen and why would society be better off without the state?

How will the State and capitalism go away? Well if you have at least one foot planted on the ground as a radical, you'll realize that the revolution is now a long, drawn-out tedious process. Any 20-something who thinks she'll see some glorious revolution, or class struggle in their lifetime, is probably wearing rose-colored spectacles.

Don't get me wrong; this doesn't make me pessimistic. How we make authoritarian institutions go away, or how we dismantle them, is a multi-faceted process. Organization, direct action, and education is key. If we educate ourselves and others through writing, meetings, public education, over a beer, etc, and then attempt to organize, we can then start to talk about tactics. Multiple things can be done: organizing the workplace, the neighborhood, starting a direct action group (ie affinity group or collective), or trying to liberate space for free thought through a community center or infoshop. Yeah, these are small things, but it's a start. It's not like we can hit the streets tomorrow and take on the bourgeois state, and win.



When there is no state, then who will organise the hospitals, schools, police, science research, shops, factories and so on, in the whole international world? Private organisations? :confused:

LOL. Putting more power into the hands of "Private organizations" is the last thing anarchists want. Who will organize the workers at the hospitals, schools, police, etc.? The workers themselves, from below. We'd like to think that the police will dismantle from within, and be replaced by, perhaps, peoples' militias or something.


Isn't anarchy just capitalism without the state? It's sounds kind of like extreeme liberalism to me.

Oh dear god. If I can make you take one thing away from this is that anarchism is antithetical to capitalism, and liberalism, for that matter. Anarchist Peter Kropotkin described it best perhaps: "the no government socialism."

So no: anarchism has nothing to do with capitalism. In fact, anarchists believe since one reinforces the other time and time again, it's difficult to separate the capitalist class and the State.


I agree that the state shouldn't control private things like freedom of speech, arts, religion, race and sexuality and that everyone should be easily able to express their opinion within the state and their workplace.

Sure. But private tyrannies shouldn't have control of these things either.


But what is wrong with the state organising the overall market, institutions and politics?

This is more or less what occurs in the US under the banner of "free" market capitalism. All of the successful industries, ie technology, pharmaceutical drugs, big agriculture, are all heavily subsidized by the State. What has this done for the working class in America? As consumers they haven't gotten a break, and at the workplace they have no real autonomy (the US doesn't even comply with international labor standards and let every industry unionize). So anarchist believe that the economic sphere should be managed by those that participate in it, ie communities and the workers themselves.


I'm not trying to attack the anarchists, I'm just trying to learn. :)

No worries. Hope you learned something here. The beauty of anarchism, too, is that there is some room to play with. It's not hyper-rigid. There are different schools and strains of anarchist thought which advocate different things. There are some commonalities, though. I tried to express some here.