Protection in an anarchist society

[christopher_walken]

Hello!

I'm generally what some of you might call a democratic socialist and have recently become interested in libertarian socialism like anarcho communism or anarcho syndicalism. One question I have about anarchism, though, is on government - and from all the reading I've done on libertarian socialism (which is pretty small at the moment) I've never found a clear answer. The government is a monopoly on force and without this monopoly, wouldn't we have survival of the fittest wherein whoever is stronger and with the most weapons, wouldn't they win out and conquer everyone? I mean, isn't that where the state came from in the first place? Shouldn't there then be a state that is in the hands of the people to serve the interests of the people rather than no state at all? How would the weak be protected against the strong in an anarchist society and how would it be made sure that everything is voluntary rather than coerced?

[syndicat]

First of all, the "monopoly of force" definition goes back to Max Weber and is not the concept of the state that most libertarian socialsts use. A better way of looking at the state would be via Engels' idea of the state is a structure that stands over and against society, separate so that the mass of the people can't control it. This means it is organized in hierarchical structures, with administrators, judges, hierarchical army and police forces and so on. A structure of this kind can't be controlled by the mass of the people and exists to defend dominating and exploiting classes.

However, libertarian socialists generally do propose to replace it with a structure of popular power. This would be rooted in the direct democracy of assemblies in workplaces and neighborhoods, and there would be delegates elected to congresses or councils for larger areas. Thru the people's popular power there would also be sort of militia, under tight civilian control, that is, by the mass of the people. This popular power would have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in the revolutionary territory. But it wouldn't be a hierarchical apparatus apart from popular control, and that's why it wouldn't be a state.

[christopher_walken]

Well, wait, isn't that what we have already with democracy? Or, as is my opinion, is it not considered to be democratic enough? Would that make me an anarchist then?

[Tablo]

Well, wait, isn't that what we have already with democracy? Or, as is my opinion, is it not considered to be democratic enough? Would that make me an anarchist then?
What we currently have is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The people voted in are the ones with the most money poured into their campaigns and in return they work in office for their financiers.

Also, how can a Society without democratic control of the economy or the workplace be really considered democratic? Those are the most major parts of our lives and without those being democratic we live under dictatorship.

Whether you are an Anarchist can probably be based on whether you like the idea of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. In the long run both the Marxists and Anarchists want to eventually establish largely the same extremely democratic society.

[Left-Reasoning]

Hello!

Greetings, comrade! I look forward to our future discussions.


I'm generally what some of you might call a democratic socialist and have recently become interested in libertarian socialism like anarcho communism or anarcho syndicalism.I would recommend Mutualism. We are simply unterrified Jeffersonian democrats.


One question I have about anarchism, though, is on government - and from all the reading I've done on libertarian socialism (which is pretty small at the moment) I've never found a clear answer. The government is a monopoly on force and without this monopoly, wouldn't we have survival of the fittest wherein whoever is stronger and with the most weapons, wouldn't they win out and conquer everyone?“The alternative to state-run crime control services operating as a politicized, compulsory monopoly would be decentralized crime control systems organized, operated and funded by communities, individuals, families, voluntary associations and private organizations. Conceptually, this is nothing particularly new or unique. Such systems were the norm in many societies throughout most of history. Indeed, modern police forces did not become commonplace until the nineteenth century and were initially created by the British Empire and the proto-military states of Napolean Bonaparte and Otto von Bismarck.” - American Revolutionary Vanguard

A pdf on the topic can be found here: http://invisiblemolotov.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/crime_in_a_free_society.pdf


I mean, isn't that where the state came from in the first place? Shouldn't there then be a state that is in the hands of the people to serve the interests of the people rather than no state at all? How would the weak be protected against the strong in an anarchist society and how would it be made sure that everything is voluntary rather than coerced?If your fear is that the strong would exploit the weak, then the last thing you want to do is give a group of men a monopoly on violence.