Anarchistic Economy?

[DeadFishCorpse]

I just was wondering what different theories are out there about how to have an anarchistic society and still have scientific progress and how a market would work?

[RedLenin]

Well it would be communism. Goods distributed based on need. As far as the structure, it would be mainly composed of federations of workers collectives. It would be impossible to explain everything so Ill give you some links that will answer all your questions on anarchist economics.

What would the economic structure of anarchy look like? (http://www.anarchism.ws/faq/secI3.html)

How would an anarchist economy function. (http://www.anarchism.ws/faq/secI4.html)

[DeadFishCorpse]

Thanks that makes sense now.

[apathy maybe]

It has to be understood that there are effectivly as many types of Anarchism as there are Anarchists. So why you might find some people talking about workers collectives, others might be talking about individual frontier style capitalism. Many primitivists want to go back to a hunter-gather style society.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Apathy [email protected] 4 2005, 01:59 AM
So why you might find some people talking about workers collectives, others might be talking about individual frontier style capitalism. Many primitivists want to go back to a hunter-gather style society.
Neither "frontier type capitalism" nor "primitivism" are forms of anarchism.

[apathy maybe]

I disagree.
Non-Hierarchy, so long as there are checks in place from the community to prevent any individual from gaining control of the resources, no problem.

Equal Decision-Making Power, sure you can have types of primitivism that don't have this, but equally you can have them that do.

Voluntarism, this seems to fit as well.

Due Process, no problem here.

As far as I can tell there is nothing stopping certain sorts of primitivism from being anarchist. While perhapes "individual frontier style capitalism" is not the best label for what I am trying to describe here, having individuals or families as the basic economic unit with a decentralised governing stucture.

[The Feral Underclass]

Capitalism and Primitavism are variants and are no more commited to class struggle (which is what anarchism is) than Anarcho-Nationalism or Anarcho-boobooism.

[monkeydust]

I'm aware that the majority of people on this site wouldn't like to admit that such things as anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-primitivism are "real" anarchism; however, the fact remains that nearly all current textbooks and thinkers in policitical ideology would class them as such. In this respect, it's a bit unfair to say that ApathyMaybe is categorically wrong on this issue.

[Black Dagger]

...however, the fact remains that nearly all current textbooks and thinkers in policitical ideology would class them as such.

Text books? 'Thinkers in political ideology' (bourgeois 'intellectuals'?)? These are who 'define' anarchism and anarchist variants? Text books, right off the bat is irrelevant, taking 'text book' definitions of political theories (anarchist or not) is as bad as taking a dictionary definition of 'communism', 'democracy', or 'anarchism'/'anarchy', in replace of actually reading the discourse of anarchists themselves. I'm sure the majority of anarchists could care less what university lecturers prescribe in 'ideology class', we're not children, and thus we dont need 'grown-ups' TELLING us what defines our movement, especially when they're most likely divorced from or never were in fact, a part of or supporters of that movement.

For an explanation and critique of anarcho-primitivsm,

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secA3.html#seca39

"How this current expresses itself is diverse, with the most extreme elements seeking the end of all forms of technology, division of labour, domestication, "Progress", industrialism, what they call "mass society" and, for some, even symbolic culture (i.e. numbers, language, time and art). They tend to call any system which includes these features "civilisation" and, consequently, aim for "the destruction of civilisation". How far back they wish to go is a moot point.

Some see the technological level that existed before the Industrial Revolution as acceptable, many go further and reject agriculture and all forms of technology beyond the most basic. For them, a return to the wild, to a hunter-gatherer mode of life, is the only way for anarchy is exist and dismiss out of hand the idea that appropriate technology can be used to create an anarchist society based on industrial production which minimises its impact on ecosystems."

The more 'extreme' elements of primitivism are just silly, 'abolishing technology', to make the lives of working people harder? From my perspective, it seems largely irrelevant. The vast majority of anarchists, marxists, and people in society more generally, reject this idea instantaneously, it has zero credibility, and i dont how it could ever 'appeal' to the working class, or society more generally, least of all because it seeks to make peoples lives harder. I understand the desire to minimise the degradation of the environment, but i'm a human, not a tree, and human society and technology will always impact on the environment, but that can be minimised without 'destroying' technology all together.

Moreover 'converting' everyone to a primitivist approach borders on the impossible, how do adherents intend to 'persuade' people to this opinion? With violence and coercion? Technology and it's various cultural forms are ingrained in human society, not just capitalism, are we just going to abandon EVERYTHING that exists? What if a group of workers chooses to maintain their workplace? To produce goods they want? Will they be forced to destroy their factory/shop? The whole idea seems not only unrealistic, but potentially very authoritarian (and thus anti-thetical to anarchism).
Seems similar, to some extent, to pol-pots forced agarianism, abandoning the 'modern' cities etc.

[monkeydust]

I agree with your critique of primitivism, but this...


I'm sure the majority of anarchists could care less what university lecturers prescribe in 'ideology class', we're not children, and thus we dont need 'grown-ups' TELLING us what defines our movement, especially when they're most likely divorced from or never were in fact, a part of or supporters of that movement.


No one's telling you what your movement is. I'm not saying that there's a group of "bourgois intellectuals" dictating what the definitions of anarchism are and are not and that we should agree with them without question.

But the point remains that - whether you like it or not - historically, anarchism has taken many more forms than your narrow "anarcho-communism", and that anyone wanting to be taken seriously cannot just say that "their not anarchism, only we are" without any argument.

Sure, you can argue that your blend of anarchism is the right one; but you'd be hard pressed to be accurate in saying it's the only one - that's plainly false.

And, by the way, I don't think it's fair to reject any established thinkers on grounds that they're all "bourgois intellectuals".

[LSD]

But the point remains that - whether you like it or not - historically, anarchism has taken many more forms than your narrow "anarcho-communism"

Has it, though?

So called "Anarcho-Capitalists" call themselves "Libertarians" or "Objectivists" or some-such. Very few consider themselves Anarchists, if they don't want the word, why should we throw it at them?

Furthermore, while there certainly have been numerous variants of Anarchism over the centuries, the prevailing underlying theme has always been a society free from hierarchy. Certainly none could legimiately claim that any capitalist society fulfills this requirement!

In so far as "primativism". Any society that attempted to create, effectively, a technologically-free environment would require strict controll to repress huamnity's natural curiousity and desire for, say, MEDICINE. Sorry, but "hierarchy-free primativism" is a contradiction!


Sure, you can argue that your blend of anarchism is the right one; but you'd be hard pressed to be accurate in saying it's the only one - that's plainly false.

Well... not really. After all, the difference between "right" and "only" is wholly semantic.

The DPRK calls itself democratic. Should we accept their claim? After all, couldn't we just say its a "variant"?

The answer is no! Democracy has a defintion; crafted by its creators and sharpenned over time, that definition is not subject to politics, it is what it is.

Likewise for Anarchism.

[monkeydust]

As for your first point, I see what your saying - although it is nevertheless true that some right-wing capitalists have adopted the term "anarchism" to describe what they're after.

But this I take issue with.


Democracy has a defintion; crafted by its creators and sharpenned over time, that definition is not subject to politics, it is what it is.


And what, may I ask, is it?

[OleMarxco]

I thought that was commonly known now, but since you're prolly just saying it to filibust on it (Even if I agree, that "Democracy"-statement sounds very arrogant to me...) I will say it nevertheless;

Democracy is a way of system where the people control the government, and there is two sub-kinds of this: Indirect Democracy, the "most common": You have parties to vote to become the next government, a parliament made of people from every party according to their popularity, and the government has to get accept for their laws trough the parliament in which it's representants are ALSO voted in by the people, and the people can also become the politicans. Then there is the legislative power, they get the laws out in practise. This is based on the "triangle"-system of Democracy.

Direct Democracy is simply just direct control from the people to issues, like in Switzerland. There are no parties and parliament, people get a poll and what gets most votes in a yes/no question wins. Bear in mind, 'tho, this is VERY simplified ;)

[NovelGentry]

But the point remains that - whether you like it or not - historically, anarchism has taken many more forms than your narrow "anarcho-communism", and that anyone wanting to be taken seriously cannot just say that "their not anarchism, only we are" without any argument.

Like I said on another thread, this idea seems inherently non-anarchist. That is, the idea that a single doctrine or means to dictate what anarchism is can exist. There are obvious ground rules and hints in the works of the founders of anarchism that has built a foundation towards certain ideals, but above all, the specifics cannot be determined.

When you establish a doctrine, in particular a specific one, you deviate the position of anarchism itself. I personally find this utterly hilarious and contradictory. It appears most of the people here are anarcho-communists... but certainly I "have no right to tell someone else what they are." Of course not, and neither do you :P

[monkeydust]

I thought that was commonly known now, but since you're prolly just saying it to filibust on it (Even if I agree, that "Democracy"-statement sounds very arrogant to me...) I will say it nevertheless;


No, I am not being "arsy" in order to "filibust"; I'm doing it because it really is the case that democracy is about one of the most hard to "pin down" concepts there is - only a few, such as freedom or justice being equally or more contentious.


Democracy is a way of system where the people control the government, and there is two sub-kinds of this

This is exactly the kind of problem I'm getting at.

You posit that democracy is "where the people control the government", and I'm sure many people would agree with you.

But what does this really mean?

Do "the people" have the "last say" in government, but at the same time there's a separate entity of "the government" with considerable independent power? How much power would this government have? Is it on an elected basis? a rota basis? A direct democracy?

The Ancient Athenians had a radically different conception of democracy to us. Most of their state offices were filled by lot, decisions were made by a show of hands in the Assembly, people could be exiled ("ostracized") on the basis of a majority Assembly vote and so on.

This model was radically different to that of most western states, to te extent that the Athenians would not have recognized our system as democracy and many in our society - if not told its name - would probabky think the same of theirs.

What I'm getting at is that the scope of differences that could fall under your unmbrella definition is so vast that it's hard to say where democracy begins and where it ends. At what point do we "draw the line"? Many would argue that modern liberal democracies offer little substantive power to "the people", but these are still nevertheless classes as democracies. If they became less democratic - say by limiting elections to every 20 years - they'd still fall under your definition.

Because to say that democracy is "where the people control the government" is open to so much interpretation - questions such as "how much control?", "how indendent is the government from the people?" and so on - that it is next to useless.

Democracy is a contentious concept; trying to define it in a one-liner doesn't work.


Like I said on another thread, this idea seems inherently non-anarchist. That is, the idea that a single doctrine or means to dictate what anarchism is can exist. There are obvious ground rules and hints in the works of the founders of anarchism that has built a foundation towards certain ideals, but above all, the specifics cannot be determined.

When you establish a doctrine, in particular a specific one, you deviate the position of anarchism itself. I personally find this utterly hilarious and contradictory. It appears most of the people here are anarcho-communists... but certainly I "have no right to tell someone else what they are." Of course not, and neither do you

This is exactly what I'm getting at.

[OleMarxco]

Perhaps to define Democracy from one line is VERY simplified and too easy, but, I did not come here to lecture but be learned - But you asked ;)

Okay, I see your point. Democracy would be less in the hands of the people if someone could rule for twenty years withouth a new election. But it'd still be democracy. It's therefore a democracy also has a constitution f.eg forcing it to be an elections every 4 years, and one possible re-election after 4 years so they can stay for 8.

So here's perhaps a more filling definition. I suppose you ignored my "direct" and "indirect" sub-kinds. I did not say arsy!

Two-liner definition:
A government controlled by the people, elected by the people, voted on by the people and chosen by the people. There is people in the government.

Hahahah ;)

[monkeydust]

Two-liner definition:
A government controlled by the people, elected by the people, voted on by the people and chosen by the people. There is people in the government.


By your definition the democracy of Athens was not a democracy.

Ipso facto, your two-liner definition is not much better than the first. Keep trying.

[Guest1]

Quite clearly, Anarcho-Communism is not the only kind of Anarchism, and I don't think anyone was arguing that.

However, to imply that denying Anarcho-Capitalists that title is hierarchal is bullshit.

Sorry.

The reality is, Anarchism is and always has been anti-Capitalist. The Capitalist justification for their inclusion, Individualist Anarchism, was established by thinkers who all opposed Capitalism.

This debate is pathetic.