practical flaws in anarchism

[jvs]

i've been thinking about anarchism, the concept of a society without a state, and also about human greed.

now the status quo is that we live in a capitalist-dominated society. people either employ or are employed, and the name of the game in life is to obtain wealth.

this has been the situation for hundreds of years in western civilisation. indeed the US was based on it (slavery and tobacco fields, etc etc), so one can imagine its fairly ingrained in society's colective unconscious.

if there were no state to have authority over society, then people would have to live in equality and harmony, which in itself is a very admirable goal.

but, my thoughts on this are that because of the history or capitalism, there is undoubtably going to be capitalists who are going to try and exploit others in anarchist society. and as there is no state to regulate this, then they would be free to run amok. if someone tried to stop them, they would be putting themselves in a position of authority over the capitalist, contradicting the basic theory of anarchism.

what i'm trying to say is that capitalist greed is a major problem in anarchism.

i admit i'm no expert on anarchist theory, but this is an observation i've noticed.
i dont mean to offend anyone, the concept of anarchism is still a sound theory.

could someone please tell me how this problem could be solved?

[anomaly]

Most anarchists are also communists (I believe all anarchists on this forum want communism), so I'll try to solve this problem using my knowledge of communism.

a communist society is made up of small communes, obviously. So, if anyone is extremely exploitive, the people could simply decide, communally, to throw that person out of the commune. But, let's say this is a 'friendly' (extremely friendly) commune, and they don't throw people out, ever. Then, we have to analyze what the object of this greed truly is, and how exploitation would take place in communism.

I think all people are greedy to an extent, and while the treatment described above may be appropriate for a few cases, it is not appropriate for most cases of greed. now, does the existence of human greed mean a communist society is impossible? No. The simply reason is that the object of greed in a communist society will be radically different than in a capitalist society. In communism, which has no official hierarchy, and no monetary system, the object of one's greed must be something else. There are two possibilities, either this greed's object is material of immaterial.

If the greed is immaterial, the greed is usually a very good thing. For example, say we have two boys in a communist society working on an agrarian commune. Natural sibling rivalry emerges, and the two boys try to impress their mother, perhaps, by trying to work harder than the other. This will result in greater productivity, and so this greed turns out to be a good thing. In communism, I think great value will be placed doing one's duty, that is, producing and aiding the rest of society. Everyone is greedy for some form of power, and in communism, power will likely be seen in the form of getting respect from one's compatriots. So greed may be seen in the form of trying to work harder than others, which again has positive consequences.

Material greed, however, is usually a very bad thing in a communist society. Goods, of course, will divided according to each person's needs, so if material greed takes place, one person will take more than is needed, he will essentially steal. If he is caught, obviously some punishment may be decided communally, but let's assume he is not. He takes another's goods by taking more than he needs, and this in turn hurts that other. The other then does not have enough, and loses productivity, and this productivity can not be taken up by the thief, even though he has more. With this loss in productivity, the society will not produce enough, leading to a deficit. So we see that one person's greed leads to negative consequences for the entire society, including, of course, the thief. So basically greed by one person will eventually hurt that person, so why would anyone want to hurt themselves? It is simply not logical.

[jvs]

i see your point. i never considered communes throwing someone out before. but wouldnt the commune then be showing authority over the greedy individual? isnt equality a basic ideal of anarchist society? i dont understand.


the object of greed in a communist society will be radically different than in a capitalist society.

eventually, in time, after the society has been established for some time, this may be so. but after a revolution, hypothetically, one cant simply 'flick a switch' and change the capitalist ideals that have been ingrained in people's minds for centuries. those who were previously bourgeios would undoubtedly exploit the stateless situation and be allowed to run unrestrained and exploit the rest of society. the only solution i can see to this is a state to control them and have authority over society, which brings me back to my initial problem?

for anarchist ideals to be accepted on a widespread, uniform scale, it would take at least more than a generation. how can a successful anarchist revolution keep an anarchist society?

[monkeydust]

You've touched upon one of the paradoxes of anarchism.

On the one hand, they want maximum freedom, no authority, no compulsion in life and a general ability to "do what you want" as much as possible.

But as soon as you propose something that itself doesn't fit those criteria you end up being forced and compelled to either stop what you are doing or forcibly chucked out of the commune.

What this means is that the reality of an anarchist commune might be one of veiled compulsion behind a set of values and the use of force or "social pressure" to prevent other values which are deemed undesirable to anarchist doctrine. In other words, in reality the commitment to opposing authority and upholding freedom can entail a degree of authoirty an coercion itself.

Is that what you're getting at?

[jvs]

thats exactly what i'm getting at

thank god someone else has observed it too. i was beginning to worry there was some simple solution to it all and i had made a fool of myself by being ignorant about anarchist ideology.

for it to be successful, i think there needs to be some sort of compromise, for a temporary period of time.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 12:24 PM
On the one hand, they want maximum freedom, no authority, no compulsion in life and a general ability to "do what you want" as much as possible.
That's rather a vulgar interpretation of anarchism.

Anarchists reject hierarchy which creates the authority that restricts and forcibly submits human beings. We see this as unjustifiable and antithetical to rationality, freedom and equality.

When anarchists talk about everyone being free, we mean that everyone is free insofar as their freedom does not affect the freedom of others. So the idea that we want "everyone to do what they want" is not true.


But as soon as you propose something that itself doesn't fit those criteria you end up being forced and compelled to either stop what you are doing or forcibly chucked out of the commune.

What does this something mean? It's rather vague saying "something."

When communes, collectives or communities re-organise themselves they will do so through a process of voluntary participation, direct democracy and autonomy. If you enter that process you do so by your own choice.

Attempting to subvert that process or exert your authority over it, will of course see that commune, collective or community defending itself. If you don't like the process, the simple answer is: Don't be apart of it.


What this means is that the reality of an anarchist commune might be one of veiled compulsion behind a set of values and the use of force or "social pressure" to prevent other values which are deemed undesirable to anarchist doctrine.

Anarchism isn't a doctrine. It's a philosophy and a practical process, which is rooted in Logic. If a community has collectively decided to take control of itself and believes in the process of direct democracy and autonomy then it is voluntarily entering into that system of organisation.

People are free to choice to either be apart of it or not. There is no social pressure. You either do, or don't. If people don't want to be apart of that particular community then they can leave and start another one somewhere else. That is the point of autonomy.

[monkeydust]

(Disclaimer: I'm playing devil's advocate on behalf of jvs here. If he wants to carry on the argument himself he's free to do so, but I'm bored so I'll argue as I think the approach he's taking has it).

TAT,

Your solution to the problem - making the whole process voluntary, clarifying what you mean by freedom, restricting its scope where it affects others, allowing people to leave a commune if they wish to and so on - is a valid one.

But - and there has to be a "but" lol - the solutions you give lead to further concerns when looked at more closely. Here's a couple of examples of what I mean.


When anarchists talk about everyone being free, we mean that everyone is free insofar as their freedom does not affect the freedom of others. So the idea that we want "everyone to do what they want" is not true.


The problem here is that you rely on both a largely subjective definition of freedom and a subjective definition of what it means to "affect the freedom of others", i.e. impinge on someone else's freedom or harm them.

Freedom is a very contentious term, and if you ask a group of people what it really means you're likely to get a wide variety of divergent answers. I don't see any prior reason why the anarchist's answer should be seen as any more "objective" than anybody else's. For example, an anarchist - or, to be precise, a anarcho-communist like most of those on this board - would not accept economic freedom or, in many cases, religious freedom. Others would.

On top of this, your "limiting factor" - allowing freedom to the extent that it doesn't "affect the freedom of others" - in practice will entail a myriad of subjective matters particular to Anarchism. The answer to the question "what does it mean to affect (limit) someone else's freedom?" will also vary according to who is answering it. Does, for instance, public religion threaten freedom in all cases? The Anarchist would very likely say "yes", but others would say "no".

What I'm getting at here is that, although you're trying to offer definite boundaries for action based on such desirable "objective" principles as freedom, in effect you are universalizing the anarchist conception of what freedom is for all people, and in pursuing this you're paradoxically denying others' freedom by limiting what their available definiton of freedom can be - they "have" to take the anarchist's view on it.


Similar problems arise with regard to this point:


Attempting to subvert that process or exert your authority over it, will of course see that commune, collective or community defending itself. If you don't like the process, the simple answer is: Don't be apart of it.

Is this answer really so "simple"? I, for one, don't think so.

It reminds me of a response I've found put to me a few times when I'm criticizing the UK's social and political system: "If you don't like it...go to France or Germany!"

The problem here, of course, lies in the fact that (a) it's not so simple as "just leaving", what with the matter of leaving behind your friends, family, needing to learn a new language and so on; and (b) the France and Germany aren't all that different!

Same goes for your anarchist commune. If you have the option of either staying and effectively having to tolerate a system you don't like or being put out on your arse in the wilderness struggling to live on your own, is it a real choice? Likewise, if we're talking on the large-scale, where almost all communes are anarchist in nature, where do you go if you don't accept the anarchist framework itself?

The answer seems to be that you'll just have to "put up with it". By the effectively institututional limitations on choice, you'll pretty much have to stay where you are and to the extent that this is your only "real" choice to take, you're coerced to take it.

Likewise with this...


If people don't want to be apart of that particular community then they can leave and start another one somewhere else.

Can one really "just leave" and start their own community? What are the odds of many people actually doing this or being able to successfully?


Of course, all this is conjecture. But I think we have to at least take the view that matters aren't so "clear cut" as you portray them.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 06:11 AM
i see your point. i never considered communes throwing someone out before. but wouldnt the commune then be showing authority over the greedy individual? isnt equality a basic ideal of anarchist society? i dont understand.


the object of greed in a communist society will be radically different than in a capitalist society.

eventually, in time, after the society has been established for some time, this may be so. but after a revolution, hypothetically, one cant simply 'flick a switch' and change the capitalist ideals that have been ingrained in people's minds for centuries. those who were previously bourgeios would undoubtedly exploit the stateless situation and be allowed to run unrestrained and exploit the rest of society. the only solution i can see to this is a state to control them and have authority over society, which brings me back to my initial problem?

for anarchist ideals to be accepted on a widespread, uniform scale, it would take at least more than a generation. how can a successful anarchist revolution keep an anarchist society?
In an anarchist society, I think the power will consist in the people. Now, if someone simply 'begins exploiting', the people themselves could decide to throw this person out of their commune. If the individual is allowed to roam freely, and simply not adhere to the people's wished, we have not a communist society, but a bourgeois society.

Also, what are the chances of having the bourgeoisie living in the commune? In a revolution, the object will be to expell the bourgeoisie from a particular area of land, so why, after the revolution, would the people simply decide to 'let' this exploiter back on their land?

I think you have an illusion that in communism, there will be no power at all, that no one will have power. But there will have to be rules, obviously. Anarchism is no rulers, not no rules, as most true anarchists say. What will change is how these rules will be made, and who will make them. To make decisions of any kind, the people will get together and hold a vote. Depending on the severity of the matter at hand, the decision will either be made through majority-rules democracy, or consensus. Now, TAT, if this is not how you see anarchist society, that's fine; I'm simply describing how I see it.

Now, in regards to having to 'flick a switch' to change people's mindset, you obviously think that the people involved in a revolution will not want the revolution, they will not want the change. This simply cannot be true. For a revolution to be successful, revolutionaries must have popular support, if they don't, the revolution will fail. Now, the lack of bourgeois support is to be expected, which is why the bourgeoisie will likely be expelled if the revolution is successful.

[jvs]

i see your point.

regarding the bougeoisie, if they expelled from a commune, then they would then form communities of their own, logically. doesnt think show that anarchism on a global level is practically impossible? i.e. you can expel them from land after each revolution in each country, but eventually there will be no more land to send them to?



Now, in regards to having to 'flick a switch' to change people's mindset, you obviously think that the people involved in a revolution will not want the revolution, they will not want the change.

doesnt a revolution involve the masses rising up and overthrowing rulers?
if anarchism took contol of a country, and eradicated the government, then surely there would be some amount of people within that country (assuming the idea of a nation still exists) who werent directly involved in the revolution, who just sat at home on their lounge and watched it on their television, who are still accustomed to the capitalist way of thinking? would there be no place for these people in true anarchist society, and these people would be expelled from the commune? i'm not referring to the bourgeois employers, but the apathetic people. your average joe would still want to make a buck out of the situation, even if he's a factory worker.


once again, i admit i'm not expert on anarchism, and i may be an ignorant fool rambling on, but perhaps someone could answer these questions and cure my skepticism?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 03:54 PM
The problem here is that you rely on both a largely subjective definition of freedom and a subjective definition of what it means to "affect the freedom of others", i.e. impinge on someone else's freedom or harm them.
But anarchists don't need to take into consideration what the subjective opinions on freedom are that other people have. We only have to worry about what we are attempting to promote.


Freedom is a very contentious term, and if you ask a group of people what it really means you're likely to get a wide variety of divergent answers.

You're right, but so what? Peoples subjective opinions on freedom do not alter the fact that anarchists believe that freedom is a state of human interaction where people are able to choose how to live their lives without interference from others.

The rest falls in logically? Anything which restricts those choices is therefore contradictory to the idea of freedom and in anarchist’s terms, not acceptable.


I don't see any prior reason why the anarchist's answer should be seen as any more "objective" than anybody else's.

I don't think I am necessarily saying it is any more objective than someone else’s subjective view on freedom. It's a more logically approach to human interaction, however, which allows the best development of the individual and the community.


For example, an anarchist - or, to be precise, a anarcho-communist like most of those on this board - would not accept economic freedom or, in many cases, religious freedom. Others would.

You cannot stop individuals from voluntarily choosing to their exploitation or subservience to a god, but when religion or capitalism attempts to exert its authority over society or individuals then you have the justification to defend yourself from it. Violently if necessary.


The answer to the question "what does it mean to affect (limit) someone else's freedom?" will also vary according to who is answering it.

I don't think this is relevant.


Does, for instance, public religion threaten freedom in all cases? The Anarchist would very likely say "yes", but others would say "no".

The trick that is religion is a danger to any free society. This is an opinion of most communists and it's right. What others believe is only relevant in so far as you engage them in changing their minds.

The argument here is not whether religion is antithetical to freedom, but whether logic is a more accurate way to determine human interaction. When you win that argument the concepts of freedom become easier to define. Many people believe that to be dogmatic, but logic usually only has one theme: Material evidence. There cannot be a variation of that.


What I'm getting at here is that, although you're trying to offer definite boundaries for action based on such desirable "objective" principles as freedom, in effect you are universalizing the anarchist conception of what freedom is for all people, and in pursuing this you're paradoxically denying others' freedom by limiting what their available definition of freedom can be - they "have" to take the anarchist's view on it.

No. I'm simply saying their wrong, and I'm right. When you engage people in debate and use logic as a process to justify your opinions, people either agree or disagree. Usually they agree.

In a revolutionary situation, people will subscribe to differing concepts of revolutionary struggle but I believe that any revolutionary struggle that erupts in the West, in Europe especially will be libertarian in nature.


Same goes for your anarchist commune. If you have the option of either staying and effectively having to tolerate a system you don't like or being put out on your arse in the wilderness struggling to live on your own, is it a real choice?

You're assuming that human beings are incapable of creating their own environment. That's patently not true. Human beings have created their surroundings since the beginning of humanity. It's possible for people to create.

A commune is created out of a vast and majority driven desire for change. If an individual or group of individuals do not agree with that to the point they reject every principle, there is little the commune can do.

If someone doesn't want to tolerate a community then they have the resources around them to build their own house, harvest their own food. People do it all the time. If they don't want to do that; if they are too lazy, then they are making the choice to tolerate it.

I think it's also important to ask the question: Why would someone oppose a free and equal society? It's usually for purely selfish materialist reasons.


Likewise, if we're talking on the large-scale, where almost all communes are anarchist in nature, where do you go if you don't accept the anarchist framework itself?

Most will usually join the counter-revolution and attempt to defend the "old ways." If they don't they will probably flee the country and if they don't do that, they will live among people attempting to subvert the process which has been created.


The answer seems to be that you'll just have to "put up with it". By the effectively institututional limitations on choice, you'll pretty much have to stay where you are and to the extent that this is your only "real" choice to take, you're coerced to take it.

How can you be coerced into having a choice?


Can one really "just leave" and start their own community? What are the odds of many people actually doing this or being able to successfully?

First of all this is just an abstraction of little importance. There's no debating value in theorising on the practicalities of certain scenarios.

The question is, will people be free to make choices? The answer is yes. Some choices are no so easy, but that does not mean they do not exist and that's the only point.


Of course, all this is conjecture. But I think we have to at least take the view that matters aren't so "clear cut" as you portray them.

In the expanse of the abstract nothing is clear-cut, but reality is somewhat different.

[monkeydust]

Let's look at your first set of arguments. My initial point here was that:

"although you're trying to offer definite boundaries for action based on such desirable "objective" principles as freedom, in effect you are universalizing the anarchist conception of what freedom is for all people, and in pursuing this you're paradoxically denying others' freedom by limiting what their available definiton of freedom can be - they "have" to take the anarchist's view on it"

To this you seem to have offered at least four counter-arguments.

1. "Anarchists don’t need to worry about competing conceptions of freedom. We just pursue what we want"

Whether or not you choose to worry over competing conceptions of freedom is, I suppose, your own concern. But if it doesn't bother you at all, then presumably what you "want" is to universalize your subjective conception of freedom for all people, denying them their choice of what it means and thereby limiting their practical freedom insofar as freedom only exists in your terms.

There seems to me no other way to reconcile your apparent disregard for dispute on the matter with your staunch determination just to get "what you want". People will disagree with you on this issue, and not just the ruling classes or those with economic interests.

2. Anarchists believe that freedom is a state of human interaction where people are able to choose how to live their lives without interference from others. Anything which restricts those choices is therefore contradictory to the idea of freedom and, in anarchism's terms, not acceptable.

This seems to me only tangential to the matter at hand. I didn't ask for what your conception of freedom is, but rather what makes it necessarily the only valid one.

Besides the point, the definition of freedom you gave there is a little too nebulous for your actual position, and would actually be accepted by Liberals as well. The real problems and disputes lie in the particularities: what you consider to be something that "restricts" choices, or how best to arrange for people to best live their lives without "interference". It's these areas where dispute is more common.

3. The Anarchist conception of freedom, while not necessarily any more "objective" than any other, is the most logical as an approach to human interaction in that it allows the best development of the individual and the community.

This seems to be a bit of an odd argument to me. On the one hand, you're saying that your approach to freedom is more "logical" than others; on the other, you're using criteria which themselves are not subject to logic in any real sense.

In particular, how do we logically assess what good "development" for the individual or the community? To me it appears more a matter of personal, often irrational, belief. In fact, because personal development is by definition an individual matter it seems paradoxical to assume that it can be assessed in the impersonal terms of "logic", and therefore it seems wholly absurd to suggest that one way of measuring what it is is better than the next.

4. People do take different views on what freedom is, but, in TAT's words, "they're wrong, and I'm right".

Why? Let me tell you now that there's no prior reason why your conception of freedom is necessarily more valid, from a logical standpoint, than a number of others.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On to the second point.

Against your claim that someone can just "up and leave" if they don't like the running of a certain commune or society, I said that practical considerations would in many cases dictate that on will be compelled to remain where they are and "put up with" conditions they don't accept, effectively being coerced to accept a certain collective means of existence.

To this you say:

1. You're assuming that human beings are incapable of creating their own environment. That's patently not true. Human beings have created their surroundings since the beginning of humanity. It's possible for people to create.

No doubt. But historically this has taken a collective form, needing a fairly large number of people to "work" properly.

I suppose there's an argument to be had that people could up and leave and survive fairly reasonably on their own, as individuals. I think it might be quite tricky, but it's not really an issue that we can find an answer to in this place or time.

2. How can you be coerced into having a choice?

You can't. But this isn't the point I'm making. The Anarchist commune you envisage doesn't so much overtly coerce what coices people make as it limits the choices they have available.

If someone wants to have, for example, a collective religous existence, they can't. Similarly, if someone wants to have the option of risking their livelihood, perhaps succeeding but probably failing, in the market, they can't.

3. The question is, will people be free to make choices? The answer is yes. Some choices are no so easy, but that does not mean they do not exist and that's the only point.

This is a very negative view of freedom. It reminds me of certain capitalists who claim that you have freedom to dine at the ritz, buy what you want, or get a great car if you want.

Sure, no one's blocking your way, there's no doors locked to you. But what's important is very often the positive side of freedom: the capacity to actually in practice take those options, the ability to reach the doors themselves, irrespective of whether they're open to you or not.

What this boild down to is this: if a choice is so difficult to realistically take that you can't take it, whether or not that choice is open to you or not makes little difference.



You aso made this additional point:


I think it's also important to ask the question: Why would someone oppose a free and equal society? It's usually for purely selfish materialist reasons

This is central to the issue at hand here.

The point I'm trying to make is that, whilst very few people would oppose a free and equal society, what "free" and "equal" mean is vastly different for different people.

Those that don't accept the anarchist definition of these terms are, in the anarchist society, paradoxically denied their freedom.

[(R)evolution of the mind]

The point I'm trying to make is that, whilst very few people would oppose a free and equal society, what "free" and "equal" mean is vastly different for different people.

Those that don't accept the anarchist definition of these terms are, in the anarchist society, paradoxically denied their freedom.


There's the saying "might makes right". I shall expand on this: "only might makes right". Currently people who have the anarchist notions of freedom do not have the might. In an anarchist society those with the capitalist notions of freedom (mostly so-called "negative freedoms" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty)) would obviously not have the might to enforce their views. So they can't exercise what they think as their "rights" to expoit others. Too bad. Any talk of moral superiority of either sets of freedoms is bullshit; I do not believe in absolute morals, only personal and subjective although influenced by one's communities. I just selfishly want a particular set of freedoms that would make my life better, and also I believe most of the humandkind's. The cappies also selfishly want the freedom to exploit others. Too bad they can't have that if people who think like I have more might.

Instead of talking of freedoms and one set's superiority over another, one could describe what at least some anarchists want as extreme decentralisation of decision making and ownership (the current trend being extreme centralisation). People and communities (both geographical and interest group) should only have and take a say in matters that directly affect them, and should only control such property that they can frequently use.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 03:40 AM
i see your point.

regarding the bougeoisie, if they expelled from a commune, then they would then form communities of their own, logically. doesnt think show that anarchism on a global level is practically impossible? i.e. you can expel them from land after each revolution in each country, but eventually there will be no more land to send them to?



Now, in regards to having to 'flick a switch' to change people's mindset, you obviously think that the people involved in a revolution will not want the revolution, they will not want the change.

doesnt a revolution involve the masses rising up and overthrowing rulers?
if anarchism took contol of a country, and eradicated the government, then surely there would be some amount of people within that country (assuming the idea of a nation still exists) who werent directly involved in the revolution, who just sat at home on their lounge and watched it on their television, who are still accustomed to the capitalist way of thinking? would there be no place for these people in true anarchist society, and these people would be expelled from the commune? i'm not referring to the bourgeois employers, but the apathetic people. your average joe would still want to make a buck out of the situation, even if he's a factory worker.


once again, i admit i'm not expert on anarchism, and i may be an ignorant fool rambling on, but perhaps someone could answer these questions and cure my skepticism?
To the first part, I think world communism (anarchism) is very far off. I am talking about individual communes springing up here, so I'd say that you're right, world communism will be difficult to build (when I say 'world communism', I mean communism without a prior socialist 'stage', this is what the anarchists on this board want, as do I). But there is another way of looking at the predicament you describe: eventually, there will be no more bourgeoisie. Communism is about the abolition of class. Either through their own termination or their acceptance of the new society, the bourgeois class will be destroyed.

On the 'average joe' situation, what this 'joe' would be worried about is not his salary, but his new life (the continuation of his life). If he is promised the material essentials he needs, and thus life (unless he is bourgeois, a better life), what reason does he have to oppose anarchism? Anarchism will give him more power, as power becomes more equally distributed and localized. What person wouldn't want to not have to pay taxes? What person wouldn't want to not have to go paycheck to paycheck? I think that there may be one or two of these 'angry joes', but I assure you, the vast majority of complaint over communism will come from the upper class, as they are the only ones who materially regress. The liberation of communism will be quite difficult to complain about, I think.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 08:41 PM
Whether or not you choose to worry over competing conceptions of freedom is, I suppose, your own concern. But if it doesn't bother you at all, then presumably what you "want" is to universalize your subjective conception of freedom for all people, denying them their choice of what it means and thereby limiting their practical freedom insofar as freedom only exists in your terms.


If I was to force people to accept my view on freedom, then arguably I am restricting them from their own subjective view.

I'm not doing that.

What I am doing as an anarchist is offering my view on freedom and inviting people to disagree with me. Historically, the communist notion of freedom has been accepted at some point. People who agree with me choose to do so.

You're attempting to construct an argument based on an overly abstract idea. You are, in effect asserting that, by me claiming to know what freedom is I am restricting someone else’s view of freedom and therefore contradicting my view on freedom.

My thoughts and opinions, regardless of how much I belief them to be right, cannot restrict someone else’s thoughts. It's materially impossible for my mind to affect the mind of someone else.


There seems to me no other way to reconcile your apparent disregard for dispute on the matter with your staunch determination just to get "what you want". People will disagree with you on this issue, and not just the ruling classes or those with economic interests.

I know that. It happens pretty much every day. The idea is to win the argument.


In particular, how do we logically assess what good "development" for the individual or the community?

Intellectual masturbation is boring and pointless. You want me to delve into the realm of the abstract and it seems absurd to me.

Having food, shelter, services and the opportunity to forge an existence, which allows your ideas and dreams to be real, are what is logically "good." You can't logically argue that the opposite is better.

We live in a society based on these opposites, which the ruling class logically attempt to justify. It is only possible in so far as people accept it as the "realities" of reality and only on occasion do they realise that there is in fact an alternative.

What is logically good for the development of the individual and the community? Communism.


To me it appears more a matter of personal, often irrational, belief.

Capitalism has created this situation. People are often selfish, emotive and irrational and that is why it is important to find a more logical way to deal with life. Communism offers that alternative.


1. You're assuming that human beings are incapable of creating their own environment. That's patently not true. Human beings have created their surroundings since the beginning of humanity. It's possible for people to create.

No doubt. But historically this has taken a collective form, needing a fairly large number of people to "work" properly.

What you fail to understand is that human beings have for hundreds of years had to survive and support themselves without comforts and through many hardships. If someone does happen to despise the idea of economic, social and political equality to the point they want nothing to do with it, then they will have to live that life.

But in reality, who will these people be? Police people, politicians, the bourgeoisie, the Army officers, the Priests? They will be the people who actively attempt to stop the very freedom we are talking about in the first place.


The Anarchist commune you envisage doesn't so much overtly coerce what coices people make as it limits the choices they have available.

Economic, social and political equality does limit the choices that some people have, it's the nature of class struggle.


What this boild down to is this: if a choice is so difficult to realistically take that you can't take it, whether or not that choice is open to you or not makes little difference.

The problem here is that you want me to justify anarchist freedom in terms of everyone. Maybe that was my fault for not being clear.

The fact is anarchists want to create a free society in all senses of the word for the exploited and oppressed in society. Namely the working class.


This is central to the issue at hand here.

The point I'm trying to make is that, whilst very few people would oppose a free and equal society, what "free" and "equal" mean is vastly different for different people.

In terms of class this is true, but the working class are the most important element in communist ideas. The middle classes are of less importance in the grand scheme of creating this freedom and the ruling class are of no importance at all.


Those that don't accept the anarchist definition of these terms are, in the anarchist society, paradoxically denied their freedom.

In so far as they are choosing to do nothing about it.

[Dante]

I think that a much bigger practical problem with Anarchism that no one has touched on yet is how willa federation of seperate communes defend itself from counter revolution? The first Spanish revolution showed us that a capitalist army going from town to town and wiping out the communes one at a time will lead to our defeat, it was the same with the German revolution in 1919-1921. It would have been the same in the Russian revolution too unless the Bolsheviks had raised an army and centrally co-ordinated the defence (thus creating a hierarchy). Even Makhno admitted that centralisation and hierarchy was important, he even named the state he created after himself!

[anomaly]

If and when we have 'many communes' of which to speak, I think that they should, logically, organize networks connecting them. This idea is not only good for trading purposes as it helps greatly with commune's self-sufficiency, but also defense. Networks of communes could organize and agree to ally with each other in times of war. This would ensure that no one commune is ever forced to 'go it alone'. Obviously, not every member of the people's militia could go to aid a commune under attack, but this does not mean we need hierarchy. We could simply use volunteers.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 11:17 AM
I think that a much bigger practical problem with Anarchism that no one has touched on yet is how willa federation of seperate communes defend itself from counter revolution? The first Spanish revolution showed us that a capitalist army going from town to town and wiping out the communes one at a time will lead to our defeat, it was the same with the German revolution in 1919-1921. It would have been the same in the Russian revolution too unless the Bolsheviks had raised an army and centrally co-ordinated the defence (thus creating a hierarchy). Even Makhno admitted that centralisation and hierarchy was important, he even named the state he created after himself!
meh, weapons and ammo were scarce. and also many of the anarchist strognholds were not put on alert when the enemy was coming. the cnt was also focused on furthering the revolution instead of defeating franco. i dont see why that if sufficiently armed militias cant win.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 04:17 PM
I think that a much bigger practical problem with Anarchism that no one has touched on yet is how willa federation of seperate communes defend itself from counter revolution?
How is that a practical problem?



The first Spanish revolution showed us that a capitalist army going from town to town and wiping out the communes one at a time will lead to our defeat

But that's not what happened. The capitalist army didn't need to wipe out the "communes" because the Stalinists had already done it.


It would have been the same in the Russian revolution too unless the Bolsheviks had raised an army and centrally co-ordinated the defence (thus creating a hierarchy).

It isn't necessary to have a centralised authority to determine what defence is necessary and when. The defence of a city will be obvious to that city when the time comes.

If an overview was necessary then an assembly would be called with representatives of each area attending. If things were more immediate then we have systems of communication in this day and age which would help co-ordinate certain things.

In terms of arms production it maybe necessary to have a central distribution centre


Even Makhno admitted that centralisation and hierarchy was important, he even named the state he created after himself!

:rolleyes:

No he didn't!