Anarchy?!?

[ack]

I still don't understand how you can expect to maintain an anachist society/community wihout leaders. I don't actually know any anarchists, and this has been bothering me for a while.

Surely a society that requires such a thorough organization must have leaders of some sort?

[Eleutherios]

Why do you think social organization requires leaders? We are egalitarians, and we believe decisions should be made democratically by the people whom the decision affects. We don't need leaders to tell us what to do; we can figure that out for ourselves.

[ack]

Yes, I understand that. Don't get me wrong. I'm an egalitarian too.
However, I don't think everyone isn't just going to come together and and vote on something. Someone needs to make a decision. Or maybe they will. I don't know. That's what I'm asking.

[analfilth]

exactly, this same point has been frustrating me too! and i know lots of anarchists. the concept of anarchy has always greatly intrigued me but i still think that some form of leadership will be needed in such a society. because who exactly is going to come up with this 'decision' that the people are going to decide on? what is going to stop those who are against this decision from going and doing the complete opposite to it? how is word going to be spread around about the decision that the people are going to have to decide on? and who is going to make the people spread the word? in a small community this would work 100% but not on a world wide scale, as there would need to be a representative of each 'community' or 'whatever' to go to other communities or whatever and voice their opinions... decisions... etc. but wouldn't this representative be one of the more powerful individuals in the community who has an impact on the people? thus we have a leader.

these are just my thoughts... don't yell at me.. please!!

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:19 pm
exactly, this same point has been frustrating me too! and i know lots of anarchists. the concept of anarchy has always greatly intrigued me but i still think that some form of leadership will be needed in such a society. because who exactly is going to come up with this 'decision' that the people are going to decide on?
The decision will present itself. If the community finds a problem that it feels needs to be resolved, it will be obvious to everybody that some kind of decision needs to be made about it.

what is going to stop those who are against this decision from going and doing the complete opposite to it?
It depends on what they're doing exactly. If they're actively causing harm to somebody or the community, defensive action will be taken by a voluntary people's militia. If they're just disagreeing with our actions and refusing to take part in them, then there is no need for recourse.

For instance, say there is a coal power plant which is causing a lot of pollution. The community decides it is too vital and votes to not shut the power plant down, but there is a minority who believe strongly that it should be shut down anyways. If some protesters start attacking the plant workers or setting fire to the plant, then of course the populace should (and is going to want to) take defensive action. But if the protesters are just picketing, refusing to support the plant and setting up solar panels and windmills in their backyards, then there would be no need to do anything. We would just allow them to disagree and to try to change the community's mind.

how is word going to be spread around about the decision that the people are going to have to decide on?
The media, under the control of the people.

and who is going to make the people spread the word?
Themselves, if they feel it is an important enough word to spread. If it isn't an important issue to anybody, then why should anybody care about it?

in a small community this would work 100% but not on a world wide scale, as there would need to be a representative of each 'community' or 'whatever' to go to other communities or whatever and voice their opinions... decisions... etc. but wouldn't this representative be one of the more powerful individuals in the community who has an impact on the people? thus we have a leader.
Not necessarily, if the representative is instantly recallable and if her sole responsibility is to communicate the decisions made by her community.

these are just my thoughts... don't yell at me.. please!!
I understand your problems with anarchism. When you live in a society where leaders dictate just about everything in economics and politics just because that's the way it's always been, it's hard to think of a society without them. An anarchist society would not look like ours; people would have to find innovative new solutions to problems that have traditionally been dealt with by authority. But we anarchists believe that human imagination and intelligence are sufficient to overcome this problem.

With the globe being linked up by a communications network unlike any before it, it should be a trivial matter to disseminate information on community issues and get the community's opinion on them.

[bcbm]

I still don't understand how you can expect to maintain an anachist society/community wihout leaders. I don't actually know any anarchists, and this has been bothering me for a while.

Surely a society that requires such a thorough organization must have leaders of some sort?

I think there will always be "leaders" in some way or another in that there are those who are just naturally better at organizational tasks. The point is that they will not have any measure of authority in an anarchist society; they will be no more important than any other individual, and everyone's opinion will still need to be taken in to account.


For instance, say there is a coal power plant which is causing a lot of pollution. The community decides it is too vital and votes to not shut the power plant down, but there is a minority who believe strongly that it should be shut down anyways. If some protesters start attacking the plant workers or setting fire to the plant, then of course the populace should (and is going to want to) take defensive action. But if the protesters are just picketing, refusing to support the plant and setting up solar panels and windmills in their backyards, then there would be no need to do anything. We would just allow them to disagree and to try to change the community's mind.

Tyranny of the majority doesn't strike me as especially anarchist.

[LSD]

Before addressing your points in detail, it should be brought up that the primary difference between anarchism and communism is one of method, not objective. But both theories aim to create a classless stateless society.

So if you object to the anarchist notion of a leader-free society, than you must also object to the communist one since, fundamentally, they're the same idea.

Which makes the title of this thread unnescessarily restrictive. Your questions really could be asked of virtually everyone on this site, since we all favour the creation of a classless stateless society free of political and economic "leaders".


Surely a society that requires such a thorough organization must have leaders of some sort?

Depends on what you mean by the term.

No one's suggesting that everyone can be an expert in everything and obviously ad hoc bodies will occasionaly need to be set up to deal with specific problems, but the debate over "leadership" is about political leadership.

That is, whether or not there should be a distinct group of people with reserve authority over the rest of society.

Stephen Hawking may be a "leader" in astrophysics, but he has no authority over your or my life and anything which he does decide only manifests if our political leaders agree with it.

Anarchism is about transfering that political authority to the rest of us, so that when "leaders" in various fields come to conclusions, whether it be about physics, or engineering, or education, or whatever, it's not judged by some politician or "delegate", but by us.

Now 50 years ago that probably wouldn't have been possible, there just wasn't a means for that kind of rapid efficient communication. There still isn't in much of the world.

But for the first time in history, there are finally places where that kind of complex and large-scale internetworking exists. And so, for the first time, the infastructural requirements for communism have been achieved.

The next step is to lay down the political ones.


because who exactly is going to come up with this 'decision' that the people are going to decide on?

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. But maybe that's because you're thinking too legalistically.

Bourgeois governments thrive on inventing problems. Because they're unable to actually solve the problems of capitalism, they're constantly searching for ways to make it appear that they're accomplishing something.

Obviously that won't be a probleem in anarchist governance. On the contrary, an anarchist society would legislate purely reactively. That is, when there's an actual problem that needs to be solved.

So to answer your question, circumstances would dictate what decisions need to be made and when they need to be made. 'Cause most of the time, the society would simply run itself.

Remember, most government work today is economic; managing property, dispensing funds, "hampering" the market, etc... none of which would be an issue post-capitalism.

The fact is, postcapitalist governance won't be nearly as much work as you think.


what is going to stop those who are against this decision from going and doing the complete opposite to it?

Now you're talking about enforcement which is an entirely different issue.

No matter how a decision is made, some kind of mechanism is going to be nescessary to execute it. But you hardly need leaders for that. After all, it's not like George Bush runs around America making sure that people are following his laws.

Regardless of how a murder law was passed, murderers will still be prosecuted. A jury will still be assembled, evidence will still be presented, and a decision will still be reached.

Again, when it comes right down to it, "leaders" contribute very little to the actual running of society.


how is word going to be spread around about the decision that the people are going to have to decide on? and who is going to make the people spread the word? in a small community this would work 100% but not on a world wide scale, as there would need to be a representative of each 'community' or 'whatever' to go to other communities or whatever and voice their opinions... decisions... etc.

Stop thinking like it's the 1930s.

We're not talking about getting everyone together into a big room and having a show of hands. We're talking about broadband network connections and full-motion video.

If an electrical plant just exploded 100 miles away, you'll get a notice on your cell phone with all the relevent details. If you want, you can whp out your laptop and join in the discussion as to what to do right that second.

"Small communities" only have a democratic advantage when communication is limited to the range of the human voice. But that hasn't been the case for almost 100 years.

And as for intercommunity communication, again, all that's required is a good enough medium and a processor capable of parsing the data, both of which we already have plenty.

The need for "representatives" went out with the VHS.


Tyranny of the majority doesn't strike me as especially anarchist.

Well it's sure as hell better than the alternative!

[bcbm]

Well it's sure as hell better than the alternative!


Bourgeois democracy is better than fascism, so why bother pushing for more!

[LSD]

So what exactly are you proposing? What's "more" democratic than democracy? Nihilism???

[bcbm]

So what exactly are you proposing? What's "more" democratic than democracy? Nihilism???

Don't be dense. :rolleyes:

And who said more "democratic?" :unsure:

Perhaps a modified democratic-consensus based system?

[ack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 05:27 pm
Before addressing your points in detail, it should be brought up that the primary difference between anarchism and communism is one of method, not objective. But both theories aim to create a classless stateless society.

So if you object to the anarchist notion of a leader-free society, than you must also object to the communist one since, fundamentally, they're the same idea.

Which makes the title of this thread unnescessarily restrictive. Your questions really could be asked of virtually everyone on this site, since we all favour the creation of a classless stateless society free of political and economic "leaders".


Surely a society that requires such a thorough organization must have leaders of some sort?

Depends on what you mean by the term.

No one's suggesting that everyone can be an expert in everything and obviously ad hoc bodies will occasionaly need to be set up to deal with specific problems, but the debate over "leadership" is about political leadership.

That is, whether or not there should be a distinct group of people with reserve authority over the rest of society.

Stephen Hawking may be a "leader" in astrophysics, but he has no authority over your or my life and anything which he does decide only manifests if our political leaders agree with it.

Anarchism is about transfering that political authority to the rest of us, so that when "leaders" in various fields come to conclusions, whether it be about physics, or engineering, or education, or whatever, it's not judged by some politician or "delegate", but by us.

Now 50 years ago that probably wouldn't have been possible, there just wasn't a means for that kind of rapid efficient communication. There still isn't in much of the world.

But for the first time in history, there are finally places where that kind of complex and large-scale internetworking exists. And so, for the first time, the infastructural requirements for communism have been achieved.

The next step is to lay down the political ones.
The title was more to attract attention than to add to my philosophy.

And, thank you, that is the kind of answer I was looking for.

[R_P_A_S]

yeah LSD kicks ass. you should teach a class!

[Karl Marx's Camel]

you should teach a class!
Perhaps this message board is a class in itself? :)

A class doesn't have to be a formal one, at least not in this day and age.

[kurohata]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 12:19 am
exactly, this same point has been frustrating me too! and i know lots of anarchists. the concept of anarchy has always greatly intrigued me but i still think that some form of leadership will be needed in such a society. because who exactly is going to come up with this 'decision' that the people are going to decide on? what is going to stop those who are against this decision from going and doing the complete opposite to it? how is word going to be spread around about the decision that the people are going to have to decide on? and who is going to make the people spread the word? in a small community this would work 100% but not on a world wide scale, as there would need to be a representative of each 'community' or 'whatever' to go to other communities or whatever and voice their opinions... decisions... etc. but wouldn't this representative be one of the more powerful individuals in the community who has an impact on the people? thus we have a leader.

these are just my thoughts... don't yell at me.. please!!
analfilth; first off, you are using lots of words like "who's going to stop...." "whos is going to make...".

not to be critical, but one of the major points of anarchism it that there isnt a person/group of people compelling people to do anything.


how is word going to be spread around about the decision that the people are going to have to decide on? and who is going to make the people spread the word?

well see the thing is that in most situations a decision is only going to be made that will effect only a small number of people. and only those people who it will affect will have a say in it. this is direct democracy, as opposed to the "democracy" that people in the first world countries of today are told that they live in.

if another group of people elsewhere face the same situation, nothing says that they must also follow the same decision as any other group of people, and hence it does not particularly concern them.

one of the problems i see with the nature of the "democracy" employed in most contemporary societys is that decisions are made by people whom the situation does not affect, and this decision cannot meet the needs of everyone that it does affect, due to the fact that the decision is enforced on a national, or state scale.

[BettyJugend]

I'm not sure I completely understand, how is everyone in a community to come to one decision? If a group of people come together, instinctively, there has always been a dominant character. How would this not apply, if that's the way the human kind has evolved? I like the idea of not having people make decisions on behalf of other people, but in a society such as ours, I can't see it working any other way. For instance, there was a mention of a voluntry people's militia. Everyone must agree on what to do, but what if something doesn't go according to the original plan? Does everyone have to pull back and redecide on tactics? Could some explain how it works?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I can see how an anarchist community would work, but I see a problem with something else: How will anarchist communities interact with each other?

Obviously, the size of an anarchist community will have to be limited by natural factors (even though you could get one million people to join a big internet conference in order to make some decision, there simply wouldn't be time to let everyone speak - thus true anarchy requires smaller communities). So, how will these communities work with each other? A modern economy requires large-scale economic integration.

I've heard anarchists proposing that different communities send representatives to inter-community councils. But won't this basically create a hierarchy of soviets? I have no problem with it, but I assume anarchists wouldn't want any kind of hierarchy making political decisions.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:08 am
I'm not sure I completely understand, how is everyone in a community to come to one decision?
Through Democratic assemblies, otherwise known as "soviets"


If a group of people come together, instinctively, there has always been a dominant character.

Anarchists are against artificial hierarchical constructs. That is, ones that are installed for their own sake, or for the benefit of that class of people. There are of course natural hierarchies in human societies, which are beneficial and desrieable. Bakunin once said "Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought! In the case of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot maker"

and added

"The liberty of man consists solely in this, that he obeys the laws of nature because he has himself recognised them as such, and not because they have been imposed upon him externally by any foreign will whatsoever, human or divine, collective or individual"


For instance, there was a mention of a voluntry people's militia. Everyone must agree on what to do, but what if something doesn't go according to the original plan? Does everyone have to pull back and redecide on tactics? Could some explain how it works?

If somebody refused to follow the democratically decided plan of action, and consequently jeopardises the war effort, or the good of the community. They would be ejected from the militia, and may even be executed.

The Makhnovists were well known for executing memebrs of the Army that Looted or were guilty of anti-semitism.

Previous Anarchist Armies (such as the military wings of the CNT and the Makhnovists) have had officers, who, for practical reasons will make the tactical decisions for the militia, or division. These officers are democratically elected, and democratically recallable if they are not performing their function - They are subject to the democratic will of the militia, which is in turn subject to the will of the federation, made up of everyone. The millitary would be under the control of the civillian population, and can only perform mandated tasks agreed upon by the federation.

The structure of such a federation would resemble the second example here; "decenteralised"

http://www.anarkismo.net/attachments/jun2005/network.gif

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 13, 2007 03:13 am
I've heard anarchists proposing that different communities send representatives to inter-community councils. But won't this basically create a hierarchy of soviets? I have no problem with it, but I assume anarchists wouldn't want any kind of hierarchy making political decisions.
It's not a hierachy at all, if the delegates are simply mandated individuals, who are elected and recallable - the representative isn't making decissions for the community, but is simply bringing to the conference what s/he was told to by the people. And if this person fails their mandated task, or does not do what they were meant to, they'll have to face the punishment of the people that mandated them.

[Boriznov]

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 13, 2007 09:06 am
It's not a hierachy at all, if the delegates are simply mandated individuals, who are elected and recallable - the representative isn't making decissions for the community, but is simply bringing to the conference what s/he was told to by the people. And if this person fails their mandated task, or does not do what they were meant to, they'll have to face the punishment of the people that mandated them.
Exactly, a delegate would be used to just tell the ideas, plans, ... of the community it is elected from but if he/she would try to take power or abuse it's position he/she would be taken way it's position of delegate and a new one would be elected.

[Jitsu]

The question of whether Direct Democracy as advocated by Anarchists is viable without rulers is a mute point. It has already been demonstrated in action, so there is no need to speculate. We already have our answer.

Classical Direct Democracy as practiced in some Ancient Greek city-states, and other Surfdom communities worked just fine.

The Anarcho-Syndacalists of Spain practiced both Direct Democracy and Radical Unionism from the bottom up, and it seemed to work just great for the duration it was practiced.

Anyone who claims that Direct Democracy from the bottom up must be replaced with authoritarian rulers to make decisions for us is ignoring history.

[analfilth]

because who exactly is going to come up with this 'decision' that the people are going to decide on?

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. But maybe that's because you're thinking too legalistically.

Bourgeois governments thrive on inventing problems. Because they're unable to actually solve the problems of capitalism, they're constantly searching for ways to make it appear that they're accomplishing something.

Obviously that won't be a problem in anarchist governance. On the contrary, an anarchist society would legislate purely reactively. That is, when there's an actual problem that needs to be solved.

So to answer your question, circumstances would dictate what decisions need to be made and when they need to be made. 'Cause most of the time, the society would simply run itself.

Yeah, sorry about that, I don't really understand what i was trying to get at either now. But you are right, as I was thinking too legalistically but thankyou for trying to clear it up for me and you did so quite well! I did think that circumstance would play a part in what and when decisions need to be made but i wasn't exactly sure. I'm not sure what exactly I thought, to be honest! But basically when it appears a decision needs to be made about something, it will be!? (hoping it’s not too late in some cases :P )




what is going to stop those who are against this decision from going and doing the complete opposite to it?


Now you're talking about enforcement which is an entirely different issue.

No matter how a decision is made, some kind of mechanism is going to be nescessary to execute it. But you hardly need leaders for that. After all, it's not like George Bush runs around America making sure that people are following his laws.

Regardless of how a murder law was passed, murderers will still be prosecuted. A jury will still be assembled, evidence will still be presented, and a decision will still be reached.

Again, when it comes right down to it, "leaders" contribute very little to the actual running of society.

Ok, I do understand this and agree that political leaders offer very little, but will other leaders exist? I mean like is a principle of a school a leader? S/He isn't a political leader but will s/he still be in 'charge'? More so, will there be schools? And if so will children have to attend? Haha this is an entirely different subject too but I was just wondering. People will obviously have to have some form of education but to what level?

Also with enforcement, will it be one specifically assigned group? What sort of enforcement would it be anyway, for instance in day to day matters? I'm guessing they won't monitor the streets like the police do but what happens if a crime is committed? Will there someone or something whom the 'victim' can call who will be able to help them? Or am I just COMPLETELY off track here?



how is word going to be spread around about the decision that the people are going to have to decide on? and who is going to make the people spread the word? in a small community this would work 100% but not on a world wide scale, as there would need to be a representative of each 'community' or 'whatever' to go to other communities or whatever and voice their opinions... decisions... etc.

Stop thinking like it's the 1930s.

We're not talking about getting everyone together into a big room and having a show of hands. We're talking about broadband network connections and full-motion video.

If an electrical plant just exploded 100 miles away, you'll get a notice on your cell phone with all the relevent details. If you want, you can whp out your laptop and join in the discussion as to what to do right that second.

"Small communities" only have a democratic advantage when communication is limited to the range of the human voice. But that hasn't been the case for almost 100 years.

And as for intercommunity communication, again, all that's required is a good enough medium and a processor capable of parsing the data, both of which we already have plenty.

The need for "representatives" went out with the VHS.

And fine, I will stop living in the past. :rolleyes:
But will everyone have a computer with access to the internet? Or will everyone have access to a television. Obviously many will have at least one or the other but there are still a few who can't or simply don't want to! But then there is also word of mouth in such cases, or they may just be a bit late in finding out the big news!

Also, what kind of communities are we talking about here? Cities? Villages? Countries? Wait.. will countries be countries? Or will anarchist communities be in countries but live ‘separate’ to them? Kind of like the Amish but not so isolated? And then ultimately will countries not exist? Ahh I don’t think that’s the best wording for what I’m trying to get at but I’m sure you’ll be able to work it out hehe. Anyway thanks, I’m enjoying this! :lol:

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 09:13 pm
Classical Direct Democracy as practiced in some Ancient Greek city-states, and other Surfdom communities worked just fine.
Except that only 10% of the population could vote. The rich, white, male section.

[Tiparith]

Originally I supported the idea of Anarchy but it has three major drawbacks in this world.

One: Anarchy won't work with 6.6 billion people on this planet. I'm sorry but spitting into smaller communities will only make the problem of resources a larger issue. What if one community said they didn't care to much about the environment and didn't support putting filters in factories. The next community over has no right to boss them around because it doesn't work like that and meanwhile the next community over has acid rain in its water sources.

Two: Whether or not you accept it some people are more charismatic then others by nature and humans have specific parts of the brain devoted soley to believing in some higher person. All it takes is one person to be a swift talker in the council and she/he will be regarded as the dominating member. Soon she/he will have a larger say in peoples minds. And power is a toxin.

Three: Your Anarchy won't solve the existing social problems. What if a community of primarly christian people decide they don't like the Muslim city forty km away thats affronting their god. War would be a constant feature of Anarchy. As well if this happens it will be so easy for a natural born leader like that in #2 to take over.

There are probably more problems but I don't have time for this. But as far as I'm concerned all Anarchy leads to stagnation of culture and technology and leads to de-evolution of existing society to the point at which we have to push through a new Feudal and Capitalist Age. And the planet couldn't handle that.

However, the form of goverment I do support gives you most of those individual freedoms you want with community that you need. My envisioned goverment is ruled by a coucil of elected people (elected every two years) and the council is whatched over by a senate (two representatives from every territory and elected every other two years. There is also a constitution of inalieable rights that is amendable only every twenty-five years and EVERY politician is recallable.

[Ol' Dirty]

A polity is not neccasserily a state.