Apathy Now on Slashdot

[pusher robot]

Apathy Now, are you here? On slashdot, you said:


Shows how much you know about leftism ...

I'm an anarchist, all anarchists are socialists* (using the broad definition of socialism, not "state" or Marxist socialism) and progressive.

As an anarchist, I oppose the state. The state forces people to do things, takes away their "rights".

The only thing about anarchism, is that it doesn't allow people to force others to do things, or to create a social hierarchy. In practice, this only affects one area of "rights" as commonly understood. That is the area of "property". The unlimited accumulation of property would not be permitted in an anarchist society. The control of resources allows a person to dictate to others. Fuck that.

* "Anarcho-capitalists" are not true an anarchists, anarchists are against hierarchy, capitalism creates hierarchy.

So, to sum up. You are wrong and a troll. A fuckwit indeed. If you want to learn what at least some leftism is about, see my "homepage". Here you will find political ideologies ranging from the "Stalinist" and "leftists" that you seem to be talking about, to true anarchists and autonomous communists. If you want to discuss this with people, feel free. But you will have to do it in the cage, as you are likely to disrupt conversation otherwise.

I found your response interesting, but I noticed one big hole in your explanation. I understand this: "As an anarchist, I oppose the state. The state forces people to do things, takes away their 'rights'." But without a state, exactly how do you propose to enforce the rule that "the unlimited accumulation of property would not be permitted in an anarchist society." Would mobs of people just go around stealing from anyone who accumulated "too much"? Or are people supposed to voluntarily give up the "too much"? The former does not seem desirable and the latter does not seem plausible.

Am I missing something here?

* NOTE: I am not the poster you replied to - I did not participate in that discussion.

[apathy maybe]

Interesting that you chose to address me as "Apathy Now". My user name was chosen a number of years ago (2002) when I was not politically active or nearly as politically minded (in 2003 I was not an anarchist for example, though I did seem to know enough about what it was). I am not apathetic, I have simply chosen not to change my username based on a variety of reasons, not least that it screws with people who know my username and that I can't be fucked thinking of another username.

Anyway, thank you for visiting this fine board. I'm glad to see you took the time to ask the question.

So, you ask about unlimited property. The only way that individuals can accumulate control of resources beyond what they can use is through the use of force. This force is either private security or similar (and the only way that it would happen in an "anarcho-capitalist" system) or currently the state (and private security).

Do you see how the unlimited accumulation of property would create hierarchy? If you don't, I (or someone else) will explain that later. So, anarchists don't want this hierarchy.


There are a few different types of anarchism around. Communist anarchism (or anarchist communism or anarcho-communism) is basically communism. Because all the resources are owned communally, and individuals can get what they need to use from the communal warehouse (or whatever), no one needs to accumulate stuff. Societal pressure would mean that anyone who tried to monopolise certain resources, wouldn't.

I have to go and cook dinner now, but later (maybe tomorrow) I'll explain how in individualist anarchism would prevent the unlimited accumulation of resources. In the mean time, have a look around this forum (you can use the search feature), check out the stickied threads, or go for the long hard read of An Anarchist FAQ http://anarchyfaq.org

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 07, 2007 05:17 pm
Do you see how the unlimited accumulation of property would create hierarchy? If you don't, I (or someone else) will explain that later. So, anarchists don't want this hierarchy.
I only partially understand this. I have always understood the term "anarchy" to mean "without rule" or "without law", but not "without inequality." Humans beings are naturally not equal in many different respects, and it seems that, as with every other social animal on the planet, natural inequality will inevitably result in a hierarchy, whether that hierarchy is based on intelligence, stamina, good looks, or physical strength.

Suppose, for example, that I am born with the gift of being unnaturally wise, and many people, recognizing my wisdom, seek my advice. I find that I am now powerful, for my word carries far greater weight than that of others, and as a result, there exists a hierarchy with my opinions accorded weight above that of other people. As my influence grows, my reputation grows, and as my reputation grows, so grows my influence.

Another example is prisons: inside a typical U.S. prison, money is of little value; but strength is highly valuable in getting what one wants. As a result, a hierarchy exists where the strong are powerful and the weak serve the strong in rival, rigidly hierarchical organizations - even though nobody is accumulating much in the way of property.

Is anarchy in your view opposed to these types of hierarchies as well? If so, how do you propose to break down these types of hierarchies without resorting to totalitarian measures? It seems to be that it the unlimited accumulation of not property but power that causes hierarchies, and the only thing that can prevent an accumulation of power is an opposing accumulation of power. But if an anarchist opposes accumulation of power for any purpose on principle, what is the mechanism by which accumulation of power is thwarted?

[KC]

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Karl Marx, Ch. 1, Critique of the Gotha Programme (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm)

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Zampanò@March 07, 2007 06:14 pm

Karl Marx, Ch. 1, Critique of the Gotha Programme (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm)
I don't understand how this is responsive to my questions, considering that I am asking about anarchism and not communism.

[KC]

I don't understand how this is responsive to my questions, considering that I am asking about anarchism and not communism.

Classless society is something both communists and anarchists strive for; therefore, it's applicable.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Zampanò@March 07, 2007 10:52 pm

I don't understand how this is responsive to my questions, considering that I am asking about anarchism and not communism.

Classless society is something both communists and anarchists strive for; therefore, it's applicable.
Thanks, I generally understand that concept, but my question is about implementation. Conceptually, a communist can implement a classless society because a communist does not object in principle to the use of coercive force as a means to achieve the ends. But doesn't an anarchist, in opposing all hierarchies of power or class, also then oppose in principle any means of eliminating hierarchies that tend to arise spontaneously?

[KC]

Thanks, I generally understand that concept, but my question is about implementation. Conceptually, a communist can implement a classless society because a communist does not object in principle to the use of coercive force as a means to achieve the ends. But doesn't an anarchist, in opposing all hierarchies of power or class, also then oppose in principle any means of eliminating hierarchies that tend to arise spontaneously?

No. Anarchists aren't simply anti-hierarchy or anti-authoritarianism. They recognize that a proletarian revolution will inherenly be authoritarian as it's the violent use of force. However, what anarchists are against is a hierarchical bureaucracy that is implemented during the transition to communism. They believe that the form that proletarian rule should take would be a horizontal, autonomous one; usually that takes the form of workers councils which vote on everything and everyone has equal say and an equal vote.

Now, where Marxists and anarchists differ is generally on the subject of the state. You have to remember that I'm talking about Marxists and anarchists in general, as there are some on either side that disagree on other issues, but the krux of the matter is the state. The state defined by Marxists is:

"The state is the institution of organised violence which is used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule."

Anarchists disagree with this usually on the basis that it's a very general definition. They claim that the state is inherently hierarchical and bureaucratic, and thus are opposed to all states. Marxists would disagree and say that states don't always have to be hierarchical, and because of this the definition above is applicable.

Marxists define the period of transition to communism (the dictatorship of the proletariat) as a state because it is a set of institutions constructed by the proletariat to maintain its rule. With this definition, this period will always be a state because it always fits the definition. This includes any conceptions by anarchists on the form that rule should take in this period. Anarchists disagree and say that it's not a state, though, because states are inherently hierarchical and because this one would be horizontal and autonomously organized that it's not a state.

Wow that seemed complicated. But that's the basic rundown on the point of departure between anarchists and Marxists.

[apathy maybe]

OK, sorry for the gap. I cooked tea, went to bed, and then went skiing the next day (I'm so bourgeois). And then my Internet has been fucking up.

Right then. I'll answer your questions. Then I'll go on and explain how in an Individualist anarchist society things would work.


I only partially understand this. I have always understood the term "anarchy" to mean "without rule" or "without law", but not "without inequality." Humans beings are naturally not equal in many different respects, and it seems that, as with every other social animal on the planet, natural inequality will inevitably result in a hierarchy, whether that hierarchy is based on intelligence, stamina, good looks, or physical strength.
Anarchism does not mean without inequality (though many (most?) anarchists do believe that with inequality comes hierarchy). However, you must remember that there are two sorts of inequality. That based on natural things (such as strength) and those based on social things. For example, all people are (supposedly) treated equal before the law (let us not get into this one just here). If someone was given preferential treatment because they were stronger then someone else, there would be an outcry. I'm not sure if I am clear here.


Suppose, for example, that I am born with the gift of being unnaturally wise, and many people, recognizing my wisdom, seek my advice. I find that I am now powerful, for my word carries far greater weight than that of others, and as a result, there exists a hierarchy with my opinions accorded weight above that of other people. As my influence grows, my reputation grows, and as my reputation grows, so grows my influence.
OK, Bakunin said something about bootmakers. He would bow to the authority of the bootmaker, in regard to bootmaking. He is not forced to, but chooses to. Similarly, people are not forced to listen to you. Your influence is in thought, not in deeds. You would not be able to tell others what to do, and force them to do it. Though it is possible that you might persuade them by force of argument. Any influence is voluntary. You cannot force your opinions to be given greater weight then another persons.


Another example is prisons: inside a typical U.S. prison, money is of little value; but strength is highly valuable in getting what one wants. As a result, a hierarchy exists where the strong are powerful and the weak serve the strong in rival, rigidly hierarchical organizations - even though nobody is accumulating much in the way of property.OK, this is different to the first example. This is a case of a social hierarchy, when one (the strong) can force another (the weak) to do something. (And illustrates an example of economy not being relevant.)


Is anarchy in your view opposed to these types of hierarchies as well? If so, how do you propose to break down these types of hierarchies without resorting to totalitarian measures? It seems to be that it the unlimited accumulation of not property but power that causes hierarchies, and the only thing that can prevent an accumulation of power is an opposing accumulation of power. But if an anarchist opposes accumulation of power for any purpose on principle, what is the mechanism by which accumulation of power is thwarted?
So, anarchists are opposed to the second example, but the first not so. The difference is one of force and power. As you point out, it is power that causes hierarchies (Marxists consider control of the means of production to be the relevant 'power'). In a civilized society, disputes are settled with words, not violence. Thus strength is not relevant (sidenote, the USA is not civilized, and would rather settle disputes with violence).
Anarchists (which includes myself) do not think that the only thing that can oppose an accumulation of power is an equal accumulation in some other area (the state for example). Rather, the way to prevent the accumulation of power by an individual or group is for all to share equally in the available power (and to reduce the amount of "available power"). So, rather then what we have now, where a minority of the population have the majority of power (both through control of violence (the army, police and private security), the control of resources (the rich and partly the state) and "legal/judicial" (the state)), anarchists propose that there is not an army or similar (besides which, if all the world were anarchistic ...), the control of resources is limited to what one can use, and all citizens have a say in any legal/judicial aspects of society.

Imagine a system of direct democracy, where all citizens can use the Internet to vote on laws and changes to laws. For one, you would see a lot less laws (if the system was setup correctly). You would do away with the need for politicians as well (which is why it is unlikely to be implemented).

I think I may have rambled a bit here, did I answer your question?

(Rather then writing even more about individualist anarchism, I'll post to a thread on the topic. http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...alist+anarchism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=61608&hl=individualist+anarchism)
Also, for more on "anarcho-capitalism" or capitalist "anarchy" see these couple of threads.
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...alist+anarchism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58398&hl=individualist+anarchism)
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...alist+anarchism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62684&hl=individualist+anarchism)
)

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 09, 2007 09:20 am
Imagine a system of direct democracy, where all citizens can use the Internet to vote on laws and changes to laws. For one, you would see a lot less laws (if the system was setup correctly). You would do away with the need for politicians as well (which is why it is unlikely to be implemented).
Thank you for your replies. You've been very helpful at increasing my understanding of your views. I think my chief issue is with the reconiciliation of your use of the term "anarchy" and the description above. (E.g., absence of government or authority). I think you are using a nonstandard definition of "anarchy." Otherwise, I simply cannot imagine how a system of laws and voting does not entirely presuppose an organized state, backed by violence of some kind. Simply having direct democracy is no assurance that everyone will agree. If 51% vote for something that 49% hate, who is going to force the 49% to comply? If nobody, then the entire concept of "law" becomes totally meaningless. What you describe sounds more like a democratic collective.

[KC]

I think you are using a nonstandard definition of "anarchy."

He's not. He's using the correct definition; you're nust not used to it.


Otherwise, I simply cannot imagine how a system of laws and voting does not entirely presuppose an organized state, backed by violence of some kind.

The state only exists to mediate the class struggle; it only exists when classes exist and when classes no longer exist it becomes superfluous and negates itself. In a communist society the "laws" will be enforced by society as a whole.


Simply having direct democracy is no assurance that everyone will agree. If 51% vote for something that 49% hate, who is going to force the 49% to comply? If nobody, then the entire concept of "law" becomes totally meaningless.

I can't think of whenever that would happen, because the only use of voting and stuff would be to determine the distribution of products and to determine construction plans and stuff. Government won't really exist; these democratic bodies will merely be used as administrative organs.

[pusher robot]

I think you are using a nonstandard definition of "anarchy."

He's not. He's using the correct definition; you're nust not used to it.

I didn't say "incorrect." I said "nonstandard" and I stand by that.


In a communist society the "laws" will be enforced by society as a whole.

What does this mean? Suppose I refuse to comply. Who exactly comes to my home to force me to comply? By what means do they force my compliance?


I can't think of whenever that would happen, because the only use of voting and stuff would be to determine the distribution of products and to determine construction plans and stuff. Government won't really exist; these democratic bodies will merely be used as administrative organs.

I understand from this that this social system presupposes a population that will work to uphold its aims. I think that this is the missing piece that I was looking for. Thank you for your replies.