Anarchist Government Bookmarks

[A_Ciarra]

As an anarchist I run into one particular, very erroneous myth more than any other; that anarchist's do not believe in ORGANIZED STRUCTURE. I hesitate to say GOVERNMENT, but that is essentially what I am speaking of.

Of course when I say government, I define that as non-hierarchical, and strictly local structuring that revolves around intense direct democracy principles, worker councils, paticipatory economics, etc - nothing like what we are used to in the USA etc.

I'M LOOKING to GATHER TOGETHER BOOKMARKS to web pages that address this issue. Pages that define libertarian_socialist/communist structural theory and clearly show that we DO actually believe in "government" (as defined above). ....being able to send people to reliable web sources will help them to understand where the hell I'm coming from!

I have the Infoshop Anarchist FAQ bookmarked, but would love to know what other anarchist's have bookmarked on this subject! Pages that are not to complex (so outsiders can digest) that I can pass on to others that need a little polite correction. :) It does not matter how short the pages are, I'd just like to build a decent collection of links.

TX

[The Douche]

In all fairness not all anarchists agree to some sort of "organized structure".

Insurrectionary anarchists namely. Do not seek to pin down exactly what the post revolutionary society will look like and maintain that it will be very diverse with different people choosing to run society in thier area differently.

[coda]

I'll help! i have tons of links. and i am looking to collaborate on anarchist projects, theoretical writings, propaganda, etc. pm if you're interested.

[JazzRemington]

Yay government!

[Forward Union]

I'm not sure I understand the question. You want links to pages that define Anarchism as a form of organisation? Here are the three main forms of Anarchist Organisation, Communism, Syndicalism and Platformism.


http://libcom.org/thought/anarchist-communism-an-introduction

http://libcom.org/thought/anarcho-syndicalism-an-introduction

http://libcom.org/thought/platformism-an-introduction

Hope this helps.

If you want examples of Anarchism in practice. You could look at the Anarchist Revolution in Spain http://libcom.org/library/anarchist-revolution-spain-new-statesman

The Anarchist Revolution in Ukraine...

http://libcom.org/history/1917-1921-the-ukrainian-makhnovist-movement

And the Anarchist Revolution in Korea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jwa_Jin

Any more questions just ask me.

[A_Ciarra]

C-money, I'm not trying to pin down what post revolutionary society would look like... I'm trying to bring together info showing that rarely, do many anarchist's believe in a absolute non-cooperative, free for all, unstructured society.

I would hope it that at this site it is understood that neither do anarchist's believe in INVOLUNTARY structures, or telling others how to live in their communities.. or how to live their lives. I'm not sure if I confused that issue with my post (I hope not).

As an anarchist it's also a little tricky to talk about our beliefs without perhaps people feeling like we are wanting to impose our beliefs on others. I know that sounds obvious, but then again I think you are sort of viewing the statement of my own beliefs that way. As though you feel I'm "designing the WORLD some how" instead of pondering life in my own community. "Nope," I am just wanting to dispel the myth that we are not all completely insurrectionary. Anyway, and to give a clear example: if I believe in a anarcho_socialist parecon model, and I want to live that way, that does not mean that I'm wanting to create an entire world that lives the way I would like, ot that I would want a revolution designed around dictating to others or building a society by that ONE vision.

We are so used to revolutions that are very dictatorial that it is easy to imagine that even anarchist's want to dictate. "Nah," and I have to laugh at the Marxist's here (sorry people), but that is part of the beauty of anarchism, we allow people the freedom to direct their own lives. Designing a post revolutionary world seems grossely distorted in my mind. Designing your own COMMUNITY by 100% consensus is fine by me though.

There is only one thing that I myself would feel inclined to absolutely impose on the world, and even then you have to allow people to see it on their own, and decide to end it on their own.... so I would not, but I would want absolutely eradicate CAPITALISM. And hopefully the silly Marxist's and Socialist's will also learn that people will also revolt from that system, once they figure out that they have little representation and are being ruled once again.

I do feel one hell of a revolution is coming though, and that it will be global this time, so in a fresh way we are coming up to thinking of things on the global scale overall. Not ruling on a global scale, but revolting and independently re-building on a global scale.

~~~No Gods, No Master's

[A_Ciarra]

Hey there Wat,

I'm not really looking for anarchist models so much as I'm looking for any and all web links that explain that we anarchist's DO actually believe in organization and structure too (some if not most of us). There seems to be a big gap in people (outsiders) understanding this! So I'm looking for that seldom seem introductory info that clarifies this issue with out necessarily going into advanced models. The people that I would be showing this stuff too, are people that don't even look at the actual models because they are not conceiving of anarchist's as anything other than "punk's that like to spray paint and throw rocks". Sad I know, but I think I can interest a few people if I can shoot them to something very simple that will dispel some initial myths. Then they can explore things further. The Infoshop Anarchist FAQ is well over 100 pages and not about to capture the interest of people that are going off knee-jerk misunderstanding's. I am around a lot of potential radicals, but they are also pretty damn misguided and looking for something they see as having true potential.

Most people are very tuned into the fact that absolute non-structure achieves nothing at all. and leaves them feeling like anarchism means being alone and vulnerable etc., etc., So they never get past the myths and actually explore anarchist theory... I mean why would you if you think it is the stuff of an 8 year olds dream. So I need pages to get them past that FIRST BUMP and then get their minds really considering viable alternatives to our undemocratic, classist and slave society.
:-)

[coda]

Misconceptions of Anarchism by Sam Dolgoff
29 Oct 2005 This talk by noted anarchist Sam Dolgoff discussed the main principles of constructive anarchism.
Misconceptions of Anarchism
(This talk discussed the main principles of constructive anarchism.)

Anarchism Is Not Absolute Anti-social Individualism
Anarchism does not connote absolute, irresponsible, anti-social individual freedom which violates the rights of others and rejects every form of organization and self-discipline. Absolute individual freedom can be attained only in isolation- if at all: "What really takes away liberty and makes initiative impossible is the isolation which renders one powerless." (Errico Malatesta, Life and Ideas, Freedom Press, p. 87)

Anarchism is synonymous with the term "free socialism" or "social anarchism." As the term "social" itself implies, anarchism is the free association of people living together and cooperating in free communities. The abolition of capitalism and the state; workers' self-management of industry; distribution according to needs; free association; are principles which, for all socialist tendencies, constitute the essence of socialism. To distinguish themselves from fundamental differences about how and when these aims will be realized, as well as from the anti-social individualists, Peter Kropotkin and the other anarchist thinkers defined anarchism as the "left wing of the socialist movement." The Russian anarchist Alexei Borovoi declared that the proper basis for anarchism in a free society is the equality of all members in a free organization. Social anarchism could be defined as the equal right to be different.

Anarchism Is Not Unlimited Liberty Nor the Negation of Responsibility
In social relations between people certain voluntary social norms will have to be accepted, namely, the obligation to fulfil a freely accepted agreement. Anarchism is not no government. Anarchism is self-government (or its equivalent, self-administration). Self-government means self-discipline. The alternative to self-discipline is enforced obedience imposed by rulers over their subjects. To avoid this, the members of every association freely make the rules of their association and agree to abide by the rules they themselves make. Those who refuse to live up to their responsibility to honour a voluntary agreement shall be deprived of its benefits.

The Right to Secede
Punishment for violation of agreements is balanced by the inalienable right to secede. The right of groups and individuals to choose their own forms of association is, according to Bakunin, the most important of all political rights. The abrogation of this right leads to the reintroduction of tyranny. You cannot secede from a jail. Secession will not paralyse the association. People with strong, overriding common interests will cooperate. Those who stand more to lose by seceding will compromise their differences. Those who have little or nothing in common with the collectivity will not hurt the association by seceding, but will, on the contrary, eliminate a source of friction, thereby promoting general harmony.

Essential Difference Between Anarchism and the State
The vast difference between the anarchist concept of freely accepted authority in the exchange of services which is the administration of things, differs fundamentally from the authority of the state, which is the rule over its subjects, the people. For example, repairing my television: the authority of the expert mechanic ends when the repairs are made. The same applies when I agree to paint the mechanic's room. The reciprocal exchange of goods and services is a limited, not a personal, cooperative relationship which automatically excludes dictatorship. But the state, on the contrary, is an all-pervading apparatus governing every aspect of my life from conception to death, whose every decree I am compelled to obey or suffer harassment, abrogation of rights, imprisonment and even death.

People can freely secede from a group or association, even organize one of their own. But they cannot escape the jurisdiction of the state. If they finally do succeed in escaping from one state to another they are immediately subjected to the jurisdiction of the new state.

Replacing the State
Anarchist concepts are not artificially concocted by anarchists. They are derived from tendencies already at work. Kropotkin, who formulated the sociology of anarchism, insisted that the anarchist conception of the free society is based on "those data which are already supplied by the observation of life at the present time." The anarchist theoreticians limited themselves to suggest the utilization of all the useful organisms in the old society in order to construct a new one. That the "elements of the new society are already developing in the collapsing bourgeois society" (Marx) is a fundamental principle shared by all tendencies in the socialist movement. The anarchist writer, Colin Ward, sums up this point admirably: "If you want to build the new society, all the materials are already at hand."

Anarchists seek to replace the state, not with chaos, but with the natural, spontaneous forms of organization that emerged wherever mutual aid and common interests through coordination and self-government became necessary. It springs from the ineluctable interdependence of mankind and the will to harmony. This form of organization is federalism. Society without order (as the term "society" implies) is inconceivable. But the organization of order is not the exclusive monopoly of the state. Federalism is a form of order which preceded the usurpation of society by the state and will survive it.

There is barely a single form of organization which, before it was usurped by the state, was not originally federalist in character. To this day only the listing of the vast network of local, provincial, national and international federations and confederations embracing the totality of social life would easily fill volumes. The federated form of organization makes it practical for all groups and federations to reap the benefits of unity and coordination while exercising autonomy within their own spheres, thus expanding the range of their own freedom. Federalism - synonym for free agreement - is the organization of freedom. As Proudhon put it, "He who says freedom without saying federalism, says nothing."

After the Revolution
Society is a vast interlocking network of cooperative labour, and all the deeply rooted institutions now usefully functioning will in some form continue to function for the simple reason that the very existence of mankind depends upon this inner cohesion. This has never been questioned by anyone. What Is needed is emancipation from authoritarian institutions over society and authoritarianism within the organizations themselves. Above all, they must be infused with revolutionary spirit and confidence in the creative capacity of the people. Kropotkin, in working out the sociology of anarchism, has opened an area of fruitful research which had been largely neglected by social scientists busily mapping out new areas for state control.

The anarchists were primarily concerned with the immediate problems of social transformation that will have to be faced in any country after a revolution. It was for this reason that the anarchists tried to work out measures to meet the pressing problems most likely to emerge during what the anarchist writer-revolutionary Errico Malatesta called "the period of reorganization and transition." A summary of Malatesta's discussion of some of the more important questions follows.

Crucial problems cannot be avoided by postponing them to the distant future - perhaps a century or more - when anarchism will have been fully realized and the masses will have finally become convinced and dedicated anarcho-communists. We anarchists must have our own solution if we are not to play the role of "useless and impotent grumblers," while the more realistic and unscrupulous authoritarians seize power. Anarchy or no anarchy, the people must eat and be provided with the necessities of life. The cities must be provisioned and vital services cannot be disrupted. Even if poorly served the people in their own interests would not allow anyone to disrupt these services unless and until they are reorganized in a better way, and this cannot be achieved in a day.

The organization of the anarchist-communist society on a wide scale can only be achieved gradually as material conditions permit, and the masses convince themselves of the benefits to be gained and as they gradually become psychologically accustomed to radical alterations in their way of life. Since free and voluntary communism (Malatesta's synonym for anarchism) cannot be imposed, Malatesta stressed the necessity for the coexistence of various economic forms - collectivist, mutualist, individualist - on condition that there will be no exploitation of others. Malatesta was confident that the convincing example of successful libertarian collectives will

attract others into the orbit of the collectivity . . . for my part, I do not believe that there is "one" solution to the social problem, but a thousand different and changing solutions, in the same way as social existence is different in time and space. [Errico Malatesta, Life and Ideas, edited by Vernon Richards, Freedom Press, London, pp. 36, 100, 99, 103-4, 101, 151, 159]

"Pure" Anarchism Is a Utopia
"Pure" anarchism is defined by the anarchist writer George Woodcock as "the loose and flexible affinity group which needs no formal organization and carries on anarchist propaganda through an invisible network of personal contacts and intellectual influences." Woodcock argues that "pure" anarchism is incompatible with mass movements like anarcho-syndicalism because they need

stable organizations precisely because it moves in a world that is only partially governed by anarchist ideals . . . and make compromises with day-to-day situations . . . [anarcho-syndicalism] has to maintain the allegiance of masses of [workers] who are only remotely conscious of the final aim of anarchism. [Anarchism, pp. 273-4]

If these statements are true, anarchism is a Utopia, because there will never be a time when everybody will be a "pure" anarchist and because humanity will forever have to make "compromises with the day-to-day situation." This is not to say that anarchism excludes "affinity groups." Indeed, it is precisely because the infinite variety of voluntary organizations which are formed, dissolved and reconstructed according to the fluctuating whims and fancies of individual adherents reflect individual preferences that they constitute the indispensable condition for the free society.

But the anarchists insist that production, distribution, communication exchange and the other indispensable which must be coordinated on a world-wide scale in our modern interdependent world must be supplied without fail by "stable" organizations and cannot be left to the fluctuating whims of individuals. They are social obligations which every able-bodied individual must fulfil if he or she expects to enjoy the benefits of collective labour. It should be axiomatic that such indispensable "stable" associations, anarchistically organized, are not a deviation. They constitute the essence of anarchism as a viable social order.

Charting the Road to Freedom
Anarchists are not so naive as to expect the installation of the perfect society composed of perfect individuals who would miraculously shed their ingrown prejudices and outworn habits on the "day after the revolution." We are not concerned with guessing how society will look in the remote future when heaven on earth will at last be attained. But we are above everything else, concerned with the direction of human development. There is no "pure" anarchism. There is only the application of anarchist principles to the realities of social living. The one and only aim of anarchism is to propel society in an anarchist direction.

Thus viewed, anarchism is a believable, practical guide to social organization. It is otherwise doomed to Utopian dreams, nor a living force.


From "Fragments: A Memoir", by Sam Dolgoff (Refract Publications, 1986)

http://cpanel3.proisp.no/~subveylw/as101/images/comment.gif Add comments (http://cpanel3.proisp.no/~subveylw/as101/newswire/display_any/238/index.php?comment=true#add) | http://cpanel3.proisp.no/~subveylw/as101/images/envelope.gif Email this Article (http://cpanel3.proisp.no/~subveylw/as101/archive/display/238/index.php#) | http://cpanel3.proisp.no/~subveylw/as101/images/printer.gif Printer friendly format (http://cpanel3.proisp.no/~subveylw/as101/archive/display/238/index.php?ss=print_letter)
http://cpanel3.proisp.no/~subveylw/as101/images/footer_iwa.gif
http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/

[A_Ciarra]

NYA! Right on the target! :-)

I'd love to gather these kind of materials. And not sure where, but possibly even get some page up that goes directly to the issue of "myths". Not to under mine the different factions with anarchism (on the left) but just to clarify on some of these very confusing myths. I mean most anarchist pages will talk about being anti-government but then turn right around and talk about structural theory. It can be very contradictory... I think most pages do more of a disservice to people trying to figure out what we are about than help clarify things. Unfortunatley this one myth of non-structure gets lost under to much extraneous info as well.

Maybe we can see how many links can be gathered here, then either ask Inforshop to add a section on this, or just put up an independent page... Not sure a independent page is needed though. But people should be able to Google anarchism and be lead to a good page on common myths too. I mean if we hope to appeal to anyone or draw people in other than through underground movement's.

I'm chatty aren't I ;-) better cut these post's shorter... lol

[The Douche]

C-money, I'm not trying to pin down what post revolutionary society would look like... I'm trying to bring together info showing that rarely, do many anarchist's believe in a absolute non-cooperative, free for all, unstructured society.

Oh aren't you? No anarchists advocate a "free for all". Anything could define that, the encyclopedia britanica being your best bet if you're trying to show people a "respectable" source.


I would hope it that at this site it is understood that neither do anarchist's believe in INVOLUNTARY structures, or telling others how to live in their communities.. or how to live their lives. I'm not sure if I confused that issue with my post (I hope not).

But what you are doing is propagating your idea of a post revolutionary society on oppressed people. And agitating along the notion that yours is the correct idea and revolutionary solution to the ills of capital and the state.


I am just wanting to dispel the myth that we are not all completely insurrectionary.

I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by "insurrectionary anarchism". I am refering to an actual strain of anarchist thought/praxis.


I believe in a anarcho_socialist parecon model, and I want to live that way, that does not mean that I'm wanting to create an entire world that lives the way I would like, ot that I would want a revolution designed around dictating to others or building a society by that ONE vision.


So you are an anarcho-communist that doesn't want an anarcho-communist revolution?


and I have to laugh at the Marxist's here (sorry people), but that is part of the beauty of anarchism, we allow people the freedom to direct their own lives.

Your lack of understanding marxism is bothersome. Maybe you should investigate the situationists or autonomism.


Designing a post revolutionary world seems grossely distorted in my mind. Designing your own COMMUNITY by 100% consensus is fine by me though.


Then you are not an anarchist communist. You obviously do not advocate an anarchist communist revolution if you allow the possibility that the post revolutionary society may not be anarchist communist.


And hopefully the silly Marxist's and Socialist's will also learn that people will also revolt from that system, once they figure out that they have little representation and are being ruled once again.

Again, you should investigate into radical politics farther than infoshop and the anarchist FAQ. There is so much more to marxism than lenin and there is so much more to anarchism than rudolf rocker.

[A_Ciarra]

Cmoney, do not be so touchy about my feeling you did not follow me. And shit, talk about trying NOT to understand a person.... Can you possibly put any more words into my mouth, or nit-pick any more for what ever you think you can find in order to return an embarrassment (unintentional)???

Look dude, deal with it! You missed the mark and assumed I was trying to dictate what a post revolutionary world would look like. There is no need to invent plausabilities in what you think I believe.... Just face the situation that you miss read me from the start. Take some responsibility! Have a little less ego! Could it be possible that you responded to me with a bit of authoritarian inclination and projected that onto me? So what, I don't care!!! You would still be alright in my book if that were the case... I don't expect perfection from people, however, I do expect self responsibility!

Next time try relaxing a bit, and not be so hyper conscious of appearances. They are only superficial appearances and I am sure your a decent guy. A little hyper and vengeful, but decent.

[The Douche]

Cmoney, do not be so touchy about my feeling you did not follow me. And shit, talk about trying NOT to understand a person.... Can you possibly put any more words into my mouth, or nit-pick any more for what ever you think you can find in order to return an embarrassment (unintentional)???

Look dude, deal with it! You missed the mark and assumed I was trying to dictate what a post revolutionary world would look like. There is no need to invent plausabilities in what you think I believe.... Just face the situation that you miss read me from the start. Take some responsibility! Have a little less ego! Could it be possible that you responded to me with a bit of authoritarian inclination and projected that onto me? So what, I don't care!!! You would still be alright in my book if that were the case... I don't expect perfection from people, however, I do expect self responsibility!

Next time try relaxing a bit, and not be so hyper conscious of appearances. They are only superficial appearances and I am sure your a decent guy. A little hyper and vengeful, but decent.

So you're just going to avoid my critiscism instead of adressing it? Clearly if I has misunderstood you it will be easy for you to demonstrate how.

If you are an anarchist communist then you fight for anarchist communist revolution. Your revolution is based on the need to turn the people into anarchist communists.

[Johann]

Hmmm I read something that expressed similar views to this a while back; the author described it as "post leftist". I find the idea quite strange.

It does border on what I suppose could be called relativism. The problem being as cmoney has pointed out that you are actively inflicting you views on everyone else. You maintain that the relativist position is the correct one, and that an 'absolutist' position is not.

However, this position is self defeating. Since all competing systems are equal (as your unwillingness to back an overall favourite would suggest) then there is nothing that gives your system an edge. The point is that at any one point in time there can only really be one truth. or to put it into context, under certain conditions one method of organisation and distribution can be the most effective one (or at the very least that there will be those which are successful to varying degrees and those which will fail miserably), simply because it may be difficult to decide which one that is does not mean we should blindly accept all of them because 'people want them'.
Maybe this isn’t clear.

Consider a parent who believes that MMR vaccinations are linked to the onset of autism.
Should these parents be able to stop their child receiving the vaccine?
The fact of the matter is that there is no link; however, you maintain that you will not dictate to this parent.
Consequently the child goes unvaccinated and vulnerable to mumps, measles and rubella.

Admittedly not a perfect example, but it could just as easily be used in a different situation. Nevertheless you can choose a harmful course of action, in denial of the evidence, based on your so called 'libertarianism' and on what at best may be a simply misunderstanding or at worst a malicious lie.

Libertarianism should not grant the freedom to have an opinion in the face of overwhelming, indisputable evidence to the contrary. Libertarianism should not be the freedom to be wrong.


On a similar note how would you feel about allowing groups like the 'Jesus radicals' (.com 'fraid I can't post links) to operate in your post revolutionary world (if you have the time, based on their FAQ)

[A_Ciarra]

I found one very good leaflet (pdf) called "What is Anarchism" at a anarcho site.

Revleft won't allow me to post the link until I am at 25 or above posts though. :p Please Google that one if interested!