Simple questions on Anarchism

[NextElement]

So I've been attracted to the idea of Anarchism or Anarchocommunism just recently, and the more I think about a society under these systems the more questions I have. Sorry if they seems dumb or minuscule:

In an anarchy, who would maintain the essential buildings of the government they just overthrew? I'm not talking about schools or something like that. I'm thinking more along the lines of nuclear facilities that must be maintained or large scale disasters would occur. You might say that the people who work there now would maintain them, but how then would those people get their food or supplies?

In the case of Anarchocommunism, if the state were to collapse and the people were free to do as they please, who would force the distribution of resources? I can imagine many people would pool items and not be willing to share, so who would take it from them and give to others if there were no organized state? Or am I totally seeing the idea of Anarchocommunism wrong?

Thanks

[Blake's Baby]

Yup, you're seeing it wrong.

People are, by and large, quite sensible and concerned with their own welfare. Freed from the restrictions of capitalism and the state, people would be free to act in a way consistent with their own welfare. The best guarantee of the welfare of the individual is the welfare of all individuals, so collective freedom and welfare guarantee individual freedom and welfare. It is in our collective and individual interest to share, because then others share with us; it is in our collective and individual interest to act conscientiously to others and they to us.

So, freed from the restraints of capitalism and the state there would be a great upsurge in sharing, collective living, 'democracy' and what under capitalism might be considered 'altruistic' (or plainly stupid) behaviour.

Consider the nuclear power workers who say 'ha! We control the plant! Give us all your... whatevers'. They may have electricity but they don't have food, blankets, water, clothes, eyeglasses, bicycles, books, medicine... if they threaten everyone else, isn't it easier to boycott them, than for them to boycott the rest of the world? Why would those workers do that? It's not in their own interest to do so, as it's obvious and logical that social co-operation is a more optimal way of organising society than through conflict.

So, yeah, if people are free to be assholes, they'll quickly discover that being an asshole isn't a good way to get what you want, because no-one is under any compulsion to do anything for you. And as there is no state protecting the assholes, one might even consider that it would be a bit dangerous to throw your weight around in an Anarchist society.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

In an anarchy, who would maintain the essential buildings of the government they just overthrew?

Depends on whose conception of anarchy you are asking about. If anarchy is the hope placed in a future society that is marked by an absence of hierarchy, then (in my case) I want nothing to do with it because it is imaginary and ignores the present moment, it makes me sacrifice the here and now for an imaginary future that can never come. So I personally completely reject the framework of your question. It is mere speculation.

If, however, we entertain such thoughts, then we could say that in anarchy people would create horizontal groups based around free association, groups of people who use recallable delegates and consensus OR democratic decision making to run organisations that task themselves with maintaining the health of everyone and so on. So everyone would have a hand in maintaining the beneficial functions that the government originally was tasked to do, but in a different way.



In the case of Anarchocommunism, if the state were to collapse and the people were free to do as they please, who would force the distribution of resources?

Nobody would force the distribution of resources if such an imaginary state of existence is accepted. Ideally, people would distribute resources as their needs demand, seeing as the restrictions placed on production would no longer exist. Commodities would therefore be produced in abundance, enough to satisfy everyone's needs and would eventually wind down to prevent over-production.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

A nuclear facility could run based on consensus for day to day activities but some sort of centralized decision making within the facility would need to be in place for emergencies. Of course that centralized decision maker could be given the ability or stripped of it outside of an emergency situation in an immediate fashion, and there would have to be some kind of agreed upon practice to remove those abilities during an emergency as well.

I personally think nuclear facilities would be done away with in a communist society, as I don't think most people would be willing to work there or have one near where they live, if given the choice. Unfortunately just doing away with one would take quite some time anyhow, so it would need to be managed through that process.

[Blake's Baby]

...centralized decision making ... centralized decision maker ...

Moving the goal-posts much?

Of course a nuclear facility needs centralised decision-making. I expect the workers would have an executive sub-committee subordinate to the general assembly. Not a manager.


...I personally think nuclear facilities would be done away with in a communist society, as I don't think most people would be willing to work there or have one near where they live, if given the choice. Unfortunately just doing away with one would take quite some time anyhow, so it would need to be managed through that process.

Well, quite. I assumed that's what the OP was talking about. Until we get things sorted, we're going to have to put up with the inheritance of a bazillion tonnes of shit from the society we have now.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I don't see any goal posts no, centralized decision making within the facility would be in effect by default since were taking about a communist nuclear facility, but yes the emergency decision maker would need to be an individual due to the nature of an emergency. If something goes wrong in the middle of the night it seems crazy to expect a consensus meeting to take place on how to handle it, what if only a small handful of people are onsite at that time? A nuclear facility under emergency conditions is one of the only situations I can imagine that would need this kind of policy in place, and it's one that can't be avoided simply by shutting it down. The individual isn't a manager, they're just the one who everyone has agreed gets to make decisions during a freak accident, and there would need to be multiple people with this role to account for different shifts and people being unavailable, etc. As I said though, there should be a procedure in place to strip the individual of these decision making powers both outside of an emergency and during one.

[helot]

A nuclear facility could run based on consensus for day to day activities but some sort of centralized decision making within the facility would need to be in place for emergencies. Of course that centralized decision maker could be given the ability or stripped of it outside of an emergency situation in an immediate fashion, and there would have to be some kind of agreed upon practice to remove those abilities during an emergency as well.


Please tell us how much of an expert you are in emergency procedures in nuclear power plants. Your assertion of the need of a centralised decision-maker for emergencies is not based on any knowledge of that industry.

The only serious accidents in nuclear history has occured because of plant hierarchy, not in spite of it. We can look at Chernobyl, Fukashima, 3-mile island... Why do you think the IAEA has been pushing for over a decade now for a reduction of management in plants and pushing for decision-making down to the lowest possible level?

Are you just parroting David Harvey?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Why are you assuming that this decision maker is not part of the "lowest possible level"? I'm not advocating for management nor am I claiming to be a nuclear expert.

[helot]

Why are you assuming that this decision maker is not part of the "lowest possible level"? I'm not advocating for management nor am I claiming to be a nuclear expert.


"Centralised decision-maker"

"Centralised decision-making"


It's not the self-directed teams the IAEA endorses.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I honestly just must be confused by what you two are taking issue with. This is a communist plant, so obviously the decisions of day to day operations would be decided democratically by the people running the plant right? And the surrounding community I would expect.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Oh I see you edited your mean comment out and replaced it with something else ;p

Is the word centralized what this is about? Because by that I mean inside the plant itself amongst these participants who are self directed by default since its communism

[Blake's Baby]

...The individual isn't a manager, they're just the one who everyone has agreed gets to make decisions during a freak accident, and there would need to be multiple people with this role to account for different shifts and people being unavailable, etc. As I said though, there should be a procedure in place to strip the individual of these decision making powers both outside of an emergency and during one.

So, not a 'centralised decision maker', but a bunch of people tasked with being able to make safety decisions?

[helot]

Oh I see you edited your mean comment out and replaced it with something else ;p

Yeah i didn't intend for it to be mean i was just trying to be a bit cheeky but realised that it was too extreme for that. Was hoping to remove it before you saw it tbh. My apologies.




Is the word centralized what this is about? Because by that I mean inside the plant itself amongst these participants who are self directed by default since its communism

It's about not only the word 'centralised' but also 'decision-making' and 'decision-maker' and those terms combined.


Ok, let's suppose two different organisations: the first is a federation wherein decision making lies at the base of the organisation and they use mandated, recallable, rotating delegates. The second is where a small percentage of the members engage in decision-making whereas the remainder of the members are alienated from the decision-making process by virtue of not being part of this small percentage.

Are they both centralised? We need a different term to avoid confusion.


Let's suppose a nuclear power plant within the context of this federal system and ofc assuming communist mode of production. Now, this person you identified as being a 'centralised decision-maker', just doesn't sit well. First of all that's singular and not plural. Secondly they wouldn't be a decision-maker nor engage in decision-making within that position. The decision has already been reached by the plant workers in conjunction with the rest of society about the best procedures during an emergency. They merely enact these.


Tbh, you confuse me :p