Regulatory organizations in Anarchism

[Sosa]

In an Anarchist society:

1. would there still be regulatory agencies/organizations like the FAA or FDA for example?

[revolution inaction]

the Federal Aviation Administration and the Food and Drug Administration?

I think we'd need rules about things to do with safety of buildings, transport, food, drugs etc. so probably

[Sosa]

the Federal Aviation Administration and the Food and Drug Administration?

I think we'd need rules about things to do with safety of buildings, transport, food, drugs etc. so probably

Yes. I don't mean those agencies specifically, but any organization like that that regulate parts of industry...like travel, food, etc...

[syndicat]

This depends on how the economy is organized. if a libertarian economy is organized on the model of negotiation between communities and worker organizations, then the local assemblies and regional congresses might have committees or associated staff associations that do research and help develop planning proposals. thus their role would be to look at the various industries from the point of view of the consumer or the community as a whole. on this model, what is produced comes out of a process of negotiation between workers and the communities they serve or the people they're making things for. so there wouldn't be a need for a "regulatory agency" of the present type because consumers are empowered to defend themselves via their local assemblies, regional federation etc.

also, any agency would have to be self-managing, since it does a certain kind of work. it might be a staff association that is attached to, say, the regional federation, or some local community assembly/committee. but "self-managing" in this context means merely that the workers there are collectively accountable to the community, rather than via a command hierarchy as at present. on the other hand, a regulatory agency like OSHA wouldn't be needed because the people running the industries would be the workers, and they wouldn't need a distant agency to look out for their health. Rather, they'd have their own organization for this purpose, that is, to investigate safety and health standards.

so it's likely there would be some equivalent of what at least some regulatory agencies do (such as FDA), but the way they would be organized would be different.

[Sosa]

More specifically how would they be composed? I would think that they would serve a different function, in the sense that right now they serve (at least in theory) to protect consumers from businesses, and since capitalism would no longer be the economic system there would be no need to protect consumers from greedy companies.

[Peace on Earth]

More specifically how would they be composed? I would think that they would serve a different function, in the sense that right now they serve (at least in theory) to protect consumers from businesses, and since capitalism would no longer be the economic system there would be no need to protect consumers from greedy companies.
Instead of protecting from greedy companies, there still is the need to watch over products for overlooked problems that arise due to the use of them. I won't assume that all production in a post-revolutionary society would be flawless.

[PoliticalNightmare]

I've got it. People would freely associated themselves with communes, organisations democratically organised by society in order to receive the goods and services of society. Regulation would be part of the agreement and thus a voluntary arrangement on the behalf of the communes.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

No.

The "necessity" of such organizations simply reflects the economy as it now exists.

Further, I really hope that an anarchist world is a world without pharmaceuticals. At the very least, if there are pills, I hope they are ecstasy, made by your uncle in his basement. I trust yr uncle not to give anyone bad ecstasy, especially if there is no profit motive.

[Noinu]

No.

The "necessity" of such organizations simply reflects the economy as it now exists.

Further, I really hope that an anarchist world is a world without pharmaceuticals. At the very least, if there are pills, I hope they are ecstasy, made by your uncle in his basement. I trust yr uncle not to give anyone bad ecstasy, especially if there is no profit motive.

Why do I get the feeling you no squat about medicine.

EDIT: As in, there are actual medical conditions that require medical (pharmaceutical) treatment, to be able to keep those people alive. Many of these diseases come from extremely bad luck, genetics and freaky accidents; no fault of the persons themselves. I find it rather insulting, that someone would be so arrogant as to think that life without pharmaceuticals would be somehow extremely good or healthy. What if you got an infection to a wound, for example? Sure you could grow penicillin in a petrie dish, but what if that bacteria is resistant? You might easily die, like so many even just a hundred years back.

[F9]

In an Anarchist society:

1. would there still be regulatory agencies/organizations like the FAA or FDA for example?

You should explain things a bit better, we arent all from UK or US to know things like FAA etc.That way you help us to help you.;)


With just naming ri gave, and in any way even without them the case for Anarchism is clear.Organizing is a very vital aspect of Anarchism and will be used now and after Anarchism.Of course and some experts may needed to gather for an extended thinking and giving the correct path we should follow.
We aint all mechanics or architectures, we dont all know what some medical symptoms can lead to, there are going to be experts trained to handle this things and yes they are gonna form a kind of an organization for better coordination, better communication and many other things.
Now if hey are gonna be said FAA, or NBA it plays no matter..

It all comes to basic understanding of Anarchism imo.Someone rejecting this i think s/he is missing somewhere the point.


Fuserg9:star:

[F9]

No.

The "necessity" of such organizations simply reflects the economy as it now exists.

Further, I really hope that an anarchist world is a world without pharmaceuticals. At the very least, if there are pills, I hope they are ecstasy, made by your uncle in his basement. I trust yr uncle not to give anyone bad ecstasy, especially if there is no profit motive.

What?!?:huh: Things like that made me looking out left communism and marxism more than i "should". Give us one logical reason why a group of experts from various community gathering on how coordinating to find a treatment for cancer is "against Anarchist ideas", why experts gathering to share information on some new info some people got on a food that turned to be poisoning people and start spreading the word to stop its production is again against Anarchist ideas. There is no reason, other than we "just say no".Thats not Anarchism.

And yeah, fuck all the pills curing you, beside the ones making you high.I can understand this might be a joke or something, but its still pretty weird.


Fuserg9:star:

[Ovi]

Regulation exists mainly to protect consumers from profit driven producers. It's virtually impossible for every consumer to know everything about the products they buy. Did you know that many baby bottles made today contain bisphenol-A, an endocrine disruptor and a potential carcinogenic? Did people a few years ago, before banishment, knew the damaging effects of DDT on their health and the environment? That common food additives such as erythrosine, BHA, are carcinogenic, tartrazine causes hyperactivity in children, citrus red 2 is used to enhance the color of oranges and that it's not regulated because it's not expected to eat the peel (though I know cookie recipes myself which require orange peel), that flour is chemically bleached, even though leaving it in an open container exposed to air for 10 days would achieve the same effects, but it's marginally more expensive, thus rejected, that the new car smell is caused by chemicals 35 times the health limit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_car_smell) and it takes 3 years until it permanently drops below the limit?

Since it's impossible to know everything about what you buy, there is no such thing as a rational consumer and the so called free market is reduced to people tricking each other into buying their products by promising things that are not realistic and hiding the negative parts as much as possible. What consumers know is mainly what they're told by these companies through ads, thus the criticism of consumer capitalism as a society of mass manipulation for the benefit of the upper class. It's not my job to know the health effects of erythrosine, but that of the producers; they're the one who are supposed to know what they're doing, that's why we have engineers, doctors, researchers. To accomplish that, we first need to eliminate the profit motive. If we still need to reward labor, than let's reward people by how much they work, not by how much profit they make and let's produce things that are useful and satisfy our needs, rather than tricking each other into buy things we don't need and are damaging to our health.

This alone will make the concept of regulation unnecessary. Of course, since consumers are directly affected by the things they buy, they can organize themselves in councils, with well trained individuals giving advices and helping in establishing a common policy for everyone who's part of the council. They can therefore regulate the products they buy with direct democracy, without anyones freedom being the subject of someone else's choices, while at the same time be protected by unscrupulous producers, though I don't know to what degree this is necessary once we abolish capitalism. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[Sosa]

You should explain things a bit better, we arent all from UK or US to know things like FAA etc.That way you help us to help you.;)


ooops, sorry about that!
FAA=Federal Aviation Administration
FDA=Food and Drug Administration

[ctminarchist]

In an Anarchist society:

1. would there still be regulatory agencies/organizations like the FAA or FDA for example?
No. If these agencies to force regulation on individuals came about then we really wouldn't have a society truly without government.

Now would we?

[syndicat]

No. If these agencies to force regulation on individuals came about then we really wouldn't have a society truly without government.

Now would we? Today 03:51
No. If these agencies to force regulation on individuals came about then we really wouldn't have a society truly without government.

Now would we? Today 03:51
No. If these agencies to force regulation on individuals came about then we really wouldn't have a society truly without government.

Now would we?

libertarian socialism aka anarchist socialism is not a society with no governance system, or no way to make and enforce rules. rather, it's about radical democratization of governance, by the working class taking over collective management of production, and rooting governance of industry and society in the direct democracy of assemblies and delegate democracy controlled by the base assemblies. having a governance system is not the same thing as having a state, with its bureaucratic hierarchies.

"anything goes" is not a possible social arrangement.

[MarxSchmarx]

No. If these agencies to force regulation on individuals came about then we really wouldn't have a society truly without government.

Now would we? libertarian socialism aka anarchist socialism is not a society with no governance system, or no way to make and enforce rules. rather, it's about radical democratization of governance, by the working class taking over collective management of production, and rooting governance of industry and society in the direct democracy of assemblies and delegate democracy controlled by the base assemblies. having a governance system is not the same thing as having a state, with its bureaucratic hierarchies.

"anything goes" is not a possible social arrangement.

"No governance", at least by the regulators - that's actually a pretty real challenge that gets at the heart of the matter.

To the extent that the working class collectively manages and delegates decision making power to regulatory bodies, they forfeit an element of knowledge and arguably consent, especially the more arcane and technical the regulatory agencies questions become. To appeal to an "original delegation of power" alone is somehow insufficient, as arguably bourgeois liberalism also operates on the premise that the current highly undemocratic order rests on some "original consent" to abide by a social contract, from which the governing apparatus of the modern state derive. And it is precisely the skepticism of this "original consent", either in fact or theory, from which a significant portion of the modern critiques of bourgeois democracy derive.

Of course one could argue that under socialism such social contracts won't be mere legal fictions and political philosopher's conveniences, but living breathing realities that confer upon social policy a true democratic legitimacy. Yet one is, I do believe, not in much more position to truly assess the pros and cons of rejecting a social contract of sorts even after class societies have been abolished.

Nor do I particularly desire to live in a society where I am expected to be an expert on everything from satellite technology to stem cell therapy to post-modern architecture in the design of libraries. Social complexity, it would seem, necessitates a delegation of authority to handle the enormous complexity - a delegation not dissimilar from what currently goes on at least in kind, and, again, at least in theory.

Is it therefore the case that is sought in transitioning from a reasonably well run, accountable version of the capitalist FDA (perhaps something that doesn't exist quite yet except in the minds of a few legislators and reformists), say, to a post-socialist FDA, is merely a matter of degree?

Thus the trick really is to find that careful delegation of power, especially of the regulatory sort imbued with the ability to approve or deny products that subsequently become available, at which the regulatory agencies are on a very tight leash but are capable of doing their job. At least as I see it, if the much talked about democratic assemblies go too far one way in delegating authority to the regulatory agency, it defeats the point of having a liberatory society. However, if they don't go far enough, they risk losing the point of having our specialties enrich us all.

[ctminarchist]

libertarian socialism aka anarchist socialism is not a society with no governance system, or no way to make and enforce rules. rather, it's about radical democratization of governance, by the working class taking over collective management of production, and rooting governance of industry and society in the direct democracy of assemblies and delegate democracy controlled by the base assemblies. having a governance system is not the same thing as having a state, with its bureaucratic hierarchies.

"anything goes" is not a possible social arrangement.
That's a form of government tho. So... in reality it would just be libertarian socialism and not anarchist socialism. Anarchist socialism would be where anything goes, no government, what-so-ever. Even tho over time if anarchy was achieved, people really wouldn't be hurting each other because their would be no reason to do so.

I would ask if these assembly governments would collect taxes but we're talking about communism here, so automatically all forms of capital one owns would go to the government, correct?

[Magón]

Well for one, FAA would cease to be Federal Aviation Administration, I think you could call it the World Wide Aviation Union (name pending), which would be collective of people from all around the world, working on, maintaining, and keeping the sky's safe for people flying from city to city, etc. They wouldn't make these stupid regulations that they have now, it would be simple and easy, and there would be no need for these scare tactics they use at airports nowadays.

They could also have a part of their Union look into more efficient ways of aircraft transportation. Basically I think it'd be like the IWW with all it's different little pieces to the Union, just focused around aircraft and everything that they bring.

As for an FDA, I don't think you'd need anything more than basic common sense telling you what's what with food and stuff. That would be left up to each commune to decide on how they regulate and produce.

[syndicat]

That's a form of government tho. So... in reality it would just be libertarian socialism and not anarchist socialism. Anarchist socialism would be where anything goes, no government, what-so-ever.


sorry but you're wrong. as Kropotkin pointed out state and government are not the same thing. when the anarchists in the villages of Aragon in 1936 replaced the town councils with general assemblies, and elected a revolutionary committee to ensure decisions were carried out, they were creating a government.



Even tho over time if anarchy was achieved, people really wouldn't be hurting each other because their would be no reason to do so.

this is completely naive.



I would ask if these assembly governments would collect taxes but we're talking about communism here, so automatically all forms of capital one owns would go to the government, correct?

Depends on what you mean by "communism." if the products of labor are owned in common along with the means of production, the community needs to figure out some system for how people request products, whether they are remunerated for their work, and so on. if we think of remuneration as consumption entitlement earned through work (as proposed by Marx in The Critique of the Gotha Program and libertarian socialist equivalents), there is still social provision presumably agreed to by the community...sidewalks, libraries, health care, education. if we assume these things are free, then a portion of the total social product created by the labor of those who work must go to support the workers who do these things. but this is simply subtracted from the total social product. to put it another way, remuneration to individuals for individual consumption is the total social product minus their share of support for the things provided by the community as free.

what is subtracted here would be the equivalent of "taxation" but it's not that the government has to do anything special to obtain this. the allocation is already made in the course of working out the social plan for production.

[Sosa]

That's a form of government tho. So... in reality it would just be libertarian socialism and not anarchist socialism. Anarchist socialism would be where anything goes, no government, what-so-ever. Even tho over time if anarchy was achieved, people really wouldn't be hurting each other because their would be no reason to do so.

I would ask if these assembly governments would collect taxes but we're talking about communism here, so automatically all forms of capital one owns would go to the government, correct?

I'm pretty sure libertarian socialism and social anarchism are two labels for the same thing, they are not two distinct ideologies.

if its communism there is no "capital" to "tax".

[Magón]

I'm pretty sure libertarian socialism and social anarchism are two labels for the same thing, they are not two distinct ideologies.

if its communism there is no "capital" to "tax".

They are.

[Morpheus]

sorry but you're wrong. as Kropotkin pointed out state and government are not the same thing.

"Anarchism, the no-government system of socialism, has a double origin" - Peter Kropotkin, http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/kropotkin/ancom/

[syndicat]

Kropotkin used the word "government in various ways. like a lot of traditional anarchist writers, he sometimes uses it, as it is understood very often in common talk, as equivalent to the state (as in the bit you quote).

but if you read thru "Revolutionary Pamphlets" you'll see that he also says that under anarchism governance would "have to resemble the folk-mote form of government." This is a reference to village and town assemblies. In this case, he is using "government" to refer to exactly the sort of assembly based governance that he advocates.

And in one of his essays in that book he distinguishes "state" from "government". And there he is clear that a state governs a territory and is separate from, but presides over, the population.

I think this traditional anarchist slipperiness about "government" and "state" was unfortunate in that it leads to exactly the common confusion, that anarchism means there'd not be any governance system...and that is simply not what the social anarchist movement has advocated historically.

the "free municipalities" advocated (and built in some cases) by the Spanish anarcho-syndicalist movement in 1936, their proposal for defense councils (which some anarchists in Spain called "a working class government"), Bakunin's talk about a federation of worker unions gaining power, and many other examples could be found of proposals of forms of popular governance structures.

[blake 3:17]

if its communism there is no "capital" to "tax".

So how would surpluses be shared in the most egalitarian method?