Anarchist government!?

[liberationjunky]

I know generally anarchism is against leadership and government but I think it would be necessary to have at least (and perferably) a purely democratic government. The people could then decide how to handle forign affairs, run court systems, or any other need for government through popular votes.

I have heard alot of talk on this site about anarchism being against government and i think as long as the government has no rule over the people and instead is the rule of the people it would still be anarchism. I also personally believe this is the only way anarchism could work.

So does anyone agree or dissagree even in anarchism a government is needed?

[Delta]

Anarchists are opposed to governments, but we are certainly not opposed to cooperation. Cooperation is essential. If the government is actually purely democratic and acts in the true wishes of the people, then what good is it for? Why couldn't the people just organize themselves and do as they wished?

[Rawthentic]

Exactly. Your point is a simple one that many Capitalists and people I have talked to fail to grasp. If people live in a society where they administer things in common and produce for human need, then what is the need for government?

[liberationjunky]

I understand both of your points and not to be a devil's advocate because I think anarchism is a brilliant concept but, as I mentioned before:

1)How would we handel international affairs?

2)How would a murderer, or a rapist, or any other crime be dealt with without a court system? (I know this is a popular question)

If these questions seem stupid bare with me I am still learning.

[LSD]

I know generally anarchism is against leadership and government but I think it would be necessary to have at least (and perferably) a purely democratic government.

That really depends on what you mean by "government". I think that a lot of the confusion about Anarchism really stems from a semantic disagreement over what exactly constitutes a "government" (or a "state").

From an Anarchist perspetive, a "democratic state" is a contradiction in terms. Democracy implies popular governance; "state" implies elite rule.

Remember, none of the so-called "western democracies" are actually democratic, they're republican; that means that rather than the people determining policy, the "people's representatives" do. And these "representatives" are overwhelmingly selected from the elite political caste.

Real democracy is incompatible with "representation" because "representation" nescessitates a divide between the popluation at large and its "leaders".

Anarchist government is predicated on the notion that the people themselves are qualifed to set policy and that no "professional" elite is needed to "lead" us.

Revolution, after all, is all about self-liberation. If we trust the workers to manage their economic lives, how can we not trust them to manage their political lives as well?

If there's one thing that we can learn from the failures of twentieth century socialism, it's that "transition" doesn't work. If we want to eliminate oppressive hierarchy we need to start fresh from the begining.

No masters, no leaders, no "commisars for the protection of the wellfare of the people".


1)How would we handel international affairs?

Democratically.

Foreign agreeements/policies will be put to the entire community to be voted on; foreign ambassadors will be demarchically appointed as needed.


2)How would a murderer, or a rapist, or any other crime be dealt with without a court system? (I know this is a popular question)

Just because there is no formal state does not mean that there is no system of justice.

Laws will still be made and violent crimes will still be prohbitied. Should such a crime be committed, an ad hoc court can be set up, with a large citizens' jury servinc as the deliberative panel.

The exact mechanism of how these courts will be organized and how evidence will be considered remains to be determined, but the basics are certainly understandible and more than feasible.

Our present overcomplex systems of hierarchical "supreme courts" and "bar assocaitions" is absolutely unnescessary. And by eliminating "property law" in all it byzantine manifestations, we will finally remake the law into something genuinely popular instead of a mere playground for the rich and powerful.

[Everyday Anarchy]

1)How would we handel international affairs?
We wouldn't. We wouldn't be nationstate, therefore we wouldn't partake in "international" affairs. Blah... another example of semantics confusion I guess.

[Aurora]

just because there is no formal state does not mean that there is no system of justice.
Who would decide the "system of justice" and how would they be organised?

Should such a crime be committed, an ad hoc court can be set up, with a large citizens' jury servinc as the deliberative panel.
Who will set up the court?

[LSD]

Who would decide the "system of justice"

The people, democratically.

Who else?


and how would they be organised?

Obviously that's up to the community to decide, but I don't think it would be particularly difficult to organize.

The complexities of the modern "jurisprudence" system is mainly a by-product of property dynamics and the elitist judicial interest in keeping "the law" as byzantine and mysterious as possible. By opening up the legislative and judicial processes to public governance and accountability we can finally make the process of law enforcement about justice rather than profit.

The simplest option is to set up large juries which will hear all the relevent information and then render a decision. If new evidence is discovered a new trial can be con conducted or alternatively the community at large could vote to overried a jury decision, although that would undoubtable be quite rare.


Who will set up the court?

I don't understand your question. What do you mean by "set up"?

Again, criminal courts will be organized around large juries which will be composed of randomly selected citizens.

[YSR]

Who will set up the court?

"Hey, why don't we go down to that park off Main Street, say around 5 pm?"
"Good idea."

[Aurora]

If a crime was commited against me who would i inform?

Would there be a regular local meeting?

[LSD]

If a crime was commited against me who would i inform?

You would start by contacting your local citizens militia who would try and prevent the crime if it was still underway or capture the perpetrator if it was after the fact.

If unable to do so immediately, they would start an investigation. Anyone interested in criminal detection or forensics would be welcome to participate. Eventually, a suspect would be identified and, hopefuly, arrested.

The militia would then contact whoever is running scheduling that day (a position which should be demarchically rotated) to arrange a trial date, within the week if possible -- trials would doubtlessly be much quicker and far less bogged down in legalistic technicalities.

After considering the evidence and deliberating, the jury would render a decisions and the accused would either be punnished or set free.

Simple, no?

[LoneRed]

the quid pro quo of anarchism, how delightful

[Aurora]

I see,thanks.Maybe i should start a new thread for this but... are there diferent levels of anarchist society as with marxist?
As i understand it in Marxism,socialism is a lower stage of communism and there are several others within communism.
Do anarchists support a move from capitalism directly to the most advanced level of communism/anarchy?

[LSD]

Do anarchists support a move from capitalism directly to the most advanced level of communism/anarchy?

We recognize that class society cannot be simply willed away and that the transition to a functional stateless society will not be immediate. But, unlike classical Marxists, we also realize that the state is a power within itself and that it intrinsically perpetuates class hierarchy.

"Transitional states" do not "wither", they perpetuate their own power.

Accordingly, whilte some transitional bureaucracy will doubtlessly be needed, it is essential that, from the begining, postrevolutionary society be structured along libertine lines.

That means that even "transitional" forms of governance and economic management must be fully democratic and particpatory. Any provisional instutions shuold be considered nescessary evils and accordingly dismantled at the earliest possible opportunity.

[KC]

Anarchists are opposed to governments

Guess what happens when you succeed in a revolution? You set up a government.


Why couldn't the people just organize themselves and do as they wished?

Because you have to maintain that rule, somehow, so the power of the state doesn't fall back into bourgeois hands.



We wouldn't. We wouldn't be nationstate, therefore we wouldn't partake in "international" affairs. Blah... another example of semantics confusion I guess.

That's ridiculous! Are you fucking kidding me? You're not going to deal with other countries? How are you going to get supplies you need?


But, unlike classical Marxists, we also realize that the state is a power within itself and that it intrinsically perpetuates class hierarchy.

Yeah, that's the whole point. :rolleyes:



"Transitional states" do not "wither", they perpetuate their own power.


That's an incredibly simplistic, and frankly childish, analysis of history.

[Delta]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 21 2006, 06:10 AM
Because you have to maintain that rule, somehow, so the power of the state doesn't fall back into bourgeois hands.

If the people are committed to the revolution, why would they let that power slip?





But, unlike classical Marxists, we also realize that the state is a power within itself and that it intrinsically perpetuates class hierarchy.

Yeah, that's the whole point. :rolleyes:

Perpetuates class hierarchy within the working class.


But, as LSD said, I wouldn't be opposed to a short-term, directly controlled bureaucracy exerting more power than I would otherwise like them to have if it was warranted under the circumstances. I wouldn't want a 'Worker's State' with the people being told that they needed to have allegiance to some government. It seems that that loyalty to the government that would be generated could be used by the leaders to further their own power, not to mention the fact that people leaving the work to be done by the State makes them rely on the State when they need to be realizing that it is through their own actions that their lives will be improved.

[KC]

If the people are committed to the revolution, why would they let that power slip?



Originally posted by GOVERNMENT
Government is the institution which exercises public political power in society. Government is a fairly vague term, and should be distinguished from the state, as understood by Marxists, being the social entity which survives many “changes of government” and includes not only the elected officials of the legislature, but particularly includes the unelected police-military machine, which from time to time throws the parliamentarians into prison.

Government is the means by which the state is controlled.

[Chaz]

One thing that seems to pop up alot in this thread concerns a democratic government and opposes it with the cooperative collection of the masses.

But really, wouldn't a society governed entirely by the citizens agreeing upon matters and not by a small group of elite members of society be the purest form of democracy? That's what I always drew from it.
So if someone questions whether or not an anarchist society would work without a democratic baseline, can't you just explain that it's basically getting rid of the annoying representative and distilling it down to the most hands-on version of democracy?

[Dyst]

I believe in decentralization of government. Small, local governments (basicly small committees with elected or randomly picked representatives of the people in the communes) would decide upon the local affairs of the commune itself. The judicial system could also be implemented in the same way.

Larger issues, such as sharing products between the communes, the army of the people, or aid could be decided through communication between the communes. Needless to say, communication has evolved quite rapidly lately and this would be less of a problem.

Would this classify as anarchism?

PS: I think anarchism can be quite foolish sometimes because it sets a goal that there should be no leaders, ever. This seems somehow foolish and metaphysical to me, because there are a number of situations where having a leader is the most effective way of organizing. Though I agree with a lot of anarchist thought, I think some of it is based on pure idealism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 07:44 PM
I think anarchism can be quite foolish sometimes because it sets a goal that there should be no leaders, ever. This seems somehow foolish and metaphysical to me, because there are a number of situations where having a leader is the most effective way of organizing. Though I agree with a lot of anarchist thought, I think some of it is based on pure idealism.
What is a leader? Why is rejecting leadership "metaphysical" and what are these situations where having leaders is the most effective way of organising?

[Dyst]

Metaphysical was the not the word I was actually thinking of, sorry hehe.

I meant more like dogmatic.

By leader I mean someone who keeps track of who's to do what, for example. A leader can also purely be for guidance and like having expert knowledge or something. Note that for the most part I am against this. Not because necessarily having a leader is a bad thing in itself but because it often leads to unfair situations.

I'd say it can be effective having a leader if a group is having trouble thinking as one, with a longsighted goal or such in mind.

As said before, I am against centralization of power. So I'd only accept "leaders on a small scale" and only oftenly elected or randomly picked people out of the group they are representing.

[Aurora]

That means that even "transitional" forms of governance and economic management must be fully democratic and particpatory. Any provisional instutions shuold be considered nescessary evils and accordingly dismantled at the earliest possible opportunity.
Could that be considered the dictatorship of the proletariat?

[LSD]

By leader I mean someone who keeps track of who's to do what, for example.

That sounds more like a computer than a "leader".


A leader can also purely be for guidance and like having expert knowledge or something.

That would be an advisor, you know, someone who advises.

Obviously there are people who are better trained in specific areas and they should be listened to when they have information to relay. But no matter how smart or educated someone is, they do not have the right to "lead" anyone.


Could that be considered the dictatorship of the proletariat?

I suppose it could be considered whatever you want it to be; but the DoP, at least as its been understood for most of the past century is something far more perminent. Obviously Marxism asserts that "socialism" will eventually "wither", but because it also demands a "centralized workers' state", that becomes very unlikely to occur.

Following a successful revolution, the bourgeoise for all intents and purposes will be economically destroyed. They will undoubtably still be some cappie loyalists, but classwise, everyone will be de facto proletarians.

The problem with trying to structure a class "dictatorship" within the context of an effectively classless state is that new classes will emerge to fill the vacuum. The state is an expression of class society; as long as there are classes, the state will remain and as long as there is a state classes will remain.

The difference between an Anarchist transition and the dictatorship of the proletariat is that an Anarchist transition from the begining aims to abolish itself.

There will be no institutional state, no formal positions, no official bureaucracy or hiearchical management schemes. Organizational work which needs to be done will be done on an ad hoc without deferring to any centralized body.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 21 2006, 01:10 PM

Anarchists are opposed to governments



Why couldn't the people just organize themselves and do as they wished?

Because you have to maintain that rule, somehow, so the power of the state doesn't fall back into bourgeois hands.



We wouldn't. We wouldn't be nationstate, therefore we wouldn't partake in "international" affairs. Blah... another example of semantics confusion I guess.

That's ridiculous! Are you fucking kidding me? You're not going to deal with other countries? How are you going to get supplies you need?


But, unlike classical Marxists, we also realize that the state is a power within itself and that it intrinsically perpetuates class hierarchy.

Yeah, that's the whole point. :rolleyes:



"Transitional states" do not "wither", they perpetuate their own power.



bah.



Guess what happens when you succeed in a revolution? You set up a government.

Semantics aside, I think you would agree alot wth what anarchists theoretically propose.

Anarchism is not against government, government could mean any form of community organization and networkings.

Anarchism is against the traditional state, not so much against a workers' state--because a workers' state could mean anything from Bolshevik despotism to spanish collectives in 1936.

To destroy class society, it is not enough to transform the traditional statist mechanism--a mechanism used to perpetuate the power of a miniroity--into a state that is benevolent.

The traditional state needs to be destroyed completely, and replaced by something that truly perpetuates the power of a mayority.


Thus, you cannot make a few fatherly figures responsable of the mayority, you need to make the mayority responsable of itself.


That's an incredibly simplistic, and frankly childish, analysis of history.

Ok, give an example where a traditional state abolishes itself.

[Q]

Originally posted by "liberationjunky"
I know generally anarchism is against leadership and government but I think it would be necessary to have at least (and perferably) a purely democratic government. The people could then decide how to handle forign affairs, run court systems, or any other need for government through popular votes.

I have heard alot of talk on this site about anarchism being against government and i think as long as the government has no rule over the people and instead is the rule of the people it would still be anarchism. I also personally believe this is the only way anarchism could work.

So does anyone agree or dissagree even in anarchism a government is needed?
You're confusing anarchism with bolshevism.

[Blue Collar Bohemian]

If you want to get an idea of how an Anarchist Society would function I would definitely read "The Dispossessed" by Ursula LeGuin.

[Aurora]

Thanks comrade LSD you have made the distinction between anarchism and marxism seem alot less in my mind. :)

Lol but i have a problem,i seem to support both!It seems to me that the post revolutionary society should depend entirely on,the country in question,the material conditions and the likelyness of the revolution continuing to other countries in a specific time period.

[LSD]

Thanks comrade LSD you have made the distinction between anarchism and marxism seem alot less in my mind.

That's because class-war Anarchism developed directly out of Marxist thought. I would even go so far as to contend that modern Anarcho-communism is probably closer to the kind of political programme that Marx envisage than the so-called "Marxist" schools of Leninism.

Certainly Anarchism has more in common with Marxism than perverted monstrosities of Stalinism and Maoism.


It seems to me that the post revolutionary society should depend entirely on,the country in question,the material conditions and the likelyness of the revolution continuing to other countries in a specific time period.

That's called materialism and it is a fundamental prerequisite to both Marxist and Anarchist thought.

Obviously Marxists feel that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is feasible and nescesary in modern first world countries, while Anarchists do not.

Which argument you choose to side with should be determined solely on rational material analyses. If you genuinely think that a postrevolutionary state is required, then you're not an Anarchist.

There's nothing "wrong" with that, it's just a different revolutioanry perspectve. And so long as you will fight against capitalism and genuinely seek the liberation of the working class, you are a comrade to all true Anarchists. :)

[Aurora]

Certainly Anarchism has more in common with Marxism than perverted monstrosities of Stalinism and Maoism.
Agreed

That's called materialism and it is a fundamental prerequisite to both Marxist and Anarchist thought.
Yes but alot of leftists dont use it in that manner,they choose one ideology and apply it to all situations.Which IMO dosnt work.

For example Leninism was meant for russia and that specific time,i doubt Lenin thought that it was applicable throughout the world in the future.Or maybe im wrong?

And so long as you will fight against capitalism and genuinely seek the liberation of the working class, you are a comrade to all true Anarchists.
:)

[Janus]

Semantics, once again. :wacko:


That would be an advisor, you know, someone who advises.
But it is also one of the definitions of lead.
Lead:
1.To show the way to by going in advance.
2.To guide or direct in a course


Obviously there are people who are better trained in specific areas and they should be listened to when they have information to relay. But no matter how smart or educated someone is, they do not have the right to "lead" anyone.
There's a difference between guiding someone and actually telling them what to do. The latter is definitely something that should be avoided.

[Dyst]

That would be an advisor, you know, someone who advises.

Obviously there are people who are better trained in specific areas and they should be listened to when they have information to relay. But no matter how smart or educated someone is, they do not have the right to "lead" anyone.

Did you read the other stuff I wrote?

How do you propose the world should be run?

I propose committees for each small commune, which will consist of representatives of the people of the commune directly. They should be switched out often, so that for example none is a committe member for longer than a year.

This is the type of organization and leadership I am for.

If you say, for example, that "no one has the right to lead anyone" that doesn't mean anything in the real world. What matters is what works and what would be best functioning for the people in a post-revolutionary society, while still staying true to the goals of the revolution.