Sotionov
18th August 2013, 05:20
I have purposefully posted this topic in philosophy and not the theory forum- it doesn't concern the existing ideological frameworks, but the philosophical meaning of anarchism.
I want to raise three questions that I have thought and discussed with some friends about and their relation with to philosophy of anarchism- capitalism, state, and elections.
So, everyone familiar with the history and the etymology of the term anarchism knows that two meanings most associated with it are falsifications, that it doesn't means advocation of chaos and mayhem nor of the simple abolition of the government, but that what it means is a rejection of hierarchies among people. An anarchist by definition is not for chaos which implies not principles being upheld, being that he's for a system devoid of hierarchies, obviously a principle that anarchism posits that should be upheld; and anarchism also doesn't oppose only hierarchies in politics, but also in economy and society in general.
So, let's start with the question of state. Anarchism is against the government, against the state. But it against the state per se? Is it against the state as we know it, as has existed throughout history, or against all possible states? What about a non-hierarchical state? If such a state would to exist, it seems that anarchism would not oppose it.
Now, all seminal anarchist thinkers were also voluntaryists, not only against hierarchies, but also also against coercion, they didn't want to force anyone into this or that form of anarchist organization, they thought that all should be free not to participate as long as they don't oppress or exploit anyone, as encapsulated by Malatesta's comment that I have quoted in my signature. They obviously wouldn't support any form of state, being that it's existence implies at least some rudimentary form of involuntary participation, e.g. a minimal possible tax in an individualist or a mutualist community.
Still, the point remains that people, if they can organize themselves into an anarcho-communist society- can just as easily form a non-hierarchical, directly democratic state; and being that the core of anarchism is opposition to hierarchy, such an organization could be, it seems, properly called an anarchist state.
The next point- capitalism. I assume that we all aware that the conception of voluntaryist capitalism as advocated by Molinari, Rothbard and those who agree with them cannot be called "anarcho-capitalism" being that wage-labor is intrinsically hierarchical, and therefore such a name used for their ideas is a contradiction in terms.
But what is a fact, although one not often pondered upon, is that capitalism can be modified to be non-hierarchical. Such a form of capitalism is in fact advocated by David Ellerman, a great philosopher- a master of rationalistic, enlightenment thought based argumentation against wage-labor. He does oppose wage-labor, but not other unearned incomes. He sees nothing wrong in rent of property, including money, which was by all anarchist thinkers, being socialistic, seen as exploitation. So, even though he does oppose wage-labor, and is for workers' control over production, he is still a capitalist; he advocates abolition of capitalists that are bosses, but not of capitalists that are rentiers.
Yes, anarchism historically emerged from the labor, socialist (anti-capitalist) movement, but that by definition means that it is not identical to socialism. Is it it's sub-part, and can it be divorced from socialism? Well, socialism is an idea economic, whereas anarchism is wider, and even where they meet they are not necessarily connected. Socialism can in theory be hierarchical, with the positions of authority in the economy being regulated by certain rules, filled by election and rotation, and people in those positions being accountable and recallable. Just like socialism can be non-anarchist, it looks like anarchism can be non-socialistic.
An anarchist society- society without hierarchical relations among people, could adopt Ellermanian economy, there is no impossibility and contradiction there, and therefore it would seem that there is a possible society which could be called anarcho-capitalist without that name being a contradiction in terms.
Not only that, but having in mind the previous point- it could also be state anarcho-capitalist society.
One last point. Almost since anarchism's inception, to this day, members of the anarchist movement have as a rule advocated direct action and opposed electioneering. But literally all arguments that anarchists give against participation in elections are practical ones, they all concern themselves with how it's not practical, but not that it's per se non-anarchist to do it. There are anarchists that say that electioneering is incompatible with anarchist on principle, but that is not true- it is only generally so, but it is not necessarily so. Electioneering does in general imply hierarchical party organization, but does not imply it in itself, being that it is possible for a non-hierarchically organized party to run for elections. In fact, it is practiced by the impossibilists. Therefore, direct action needn't be the only method of struggle for anarchism, being that political action, too, can be non-hierarchically organized.
While discussing these questions with some friends, the conclusion turned out to be that it is possible to be an anarchist that is a capitalist, a statist, or supporter of electioneering, or even all three at once, there is no contradiction in those ideas with the core philosophical notion of anarchism.
Personally, I myself am a state-anarchist and in favor of participation in elections, I am, as can be seen from my title and tendency- an impossibilist and a "horizontalist without adjectives".
Thanks for reading, all rational and constructive comments are welcome.
I want to raise three questions that I have thought and discussed with some friends about and their relation with to philosophy of anarchism- capitalism, state, and elections.
So, everyone familiar with the history and the etymology of the term anarchism knows that two meanings most associated with it are falsifications, that it doesn't means advocation of chaos and mayhem nor of the simple abolition of the government, but that what it means is a rejection of hierarchies among people. An anarchist by definition is not for chaos which implies not principles being upheld, being that he's for a system devoid of hierarchies, obviously a principle that anarchism posits that should be upheld; and anarchism also doesn't oppose only hierarchies in politics, but also in economy and society in general.
So, let's start with the question of state. Anarchism is against the government, against the state. But it against the state per se? Is it against the state as we know it, as has existed throughout history, or against all possible states? What about a non-hierarchical state? If such a state would to exist, it seems that anarchism would not oppose it.
Now, all seminal anarchist thinkers were also voluntaryists, not only against hierarchies, but also also against coercion, they didn't want to force anyone into this or that form of anarchist organization, they thought that all should be free not to participate as long as they don't oppress or exploit anyone, as encapsulated by Malatesta's comment that I have quoted in my signature. They obviously wouldn't support any form of state, being that it's existence implies at least some rudimentary form of involuntary participation, e.g. a minimal possible tax in an individualist or a mutualist community.
Still, the point remains that people, if they can organize themselves into an anarcho-communist society- can just as easily form a non-hierarchical, directly democratic state; and being that the core of anarchism is opposition to hierarchy, such an organization could be, it seems, properly called an anarchist state.
The next point- capitalism. I assume that we all aware that the conception of voluntaryist capitalism as advocated by Molinari, Rothbard and those who agree with them cannot be called "anarcho-capitalism" being that wage-labor is intrinsically hierarchical, and therefore such a name used for their ideas is a contradiction in terms.
But what is a fact, although one not often pondered upon, is that capitalism can be modified to be non-hierarchical. Such a form of capitalism is in fact advocated by David Ellerman, a great philosopher- a master of rationalistic, enlightenment thought based argumentation against wage-labor. He does oppose wage-labor, but not other unearned incomes. He sees nothing wrong in rent of property, including money, which was by all anarchist thinkers, being socialistic, seen as exploitation. So, even though he does oppose wage-labor, and is for workers' control over production, he is still a capitalist; he advocates abolition of capitalists that are bosses, but not of capitalists that are rentiers.
Yes, anarchism historically emerged from the labor, socialist (anti-capitalist) movement, but that by definition means that it is not identical to socialism. Is it it's sub-part, and can it be divorced from socialism? Well, socialism is an idea economic, whereas anarchism is wider, and even where they meet they are not necessarily connected. Socialism can in theory be hierarchical, with the positions of authority in the economy being regulated by certain rules, filled by election and rotation, and people in those positions being accountable and recallable. Just like socialism can be non-anarchist, it looks like anarchism can be non-socialistic.
An anarchist society- society without hierarchical relations among people, could adopt Ellermanian economy, there is no impossibility and contradiction there, and therefore it would seem that there is a possible society which could be called anarcho-capitalist without that name being a contradiction in terms.
Not only that, but having in mind the previous point- it could also be state anarcho-capitalist society.
One last point. Almost since anarchism's inception, to this day, members of the anarchist movement have as a rule advocated direct action and opposed electioneering. But literally all arguments that anarchists give against participation in elections are practical ones, they all concern themselves with how it's not practical, but not that it's per se non-anarchist to do it. There are anarchists that say that electioneering is incompatible with anarchist on principle, but that is not true- it is only generally so, but it is not necessarily so. Electioneering does in general imply hierarchical party organization, but does not imply it in itself, being that it is possible for a non-hierarchically organized party to run for elections. In fact, it is practiced by the impossibilists. Therefore, direct action needn't be the only method of struggle for anarchism, being that political action, too, can be non-hierarchically organized.
While discussing these questions with some friends, the conclusion turned out to be that it is possible to be an anarchist that is a capitalist, a statist, or supporter of electioneering, or even all three at once, there is no contradiction in those ideas with the core philosophical notion of anarchism.
Personally, I myself am a state-anarchist and in favor of participation in elections, I am, as can be seen from my title and tendency- an impossibilist and a "horizontalist without adjectives".
Thanks for reading, all rational and constructive comments are welcome.