A small problem with anarchism

[black magick hustla]

I think the whole anarchist project of treating "hiearchy" as a swear-word is completely exhausting and mind-numbing. I'd rather delegate some of the decision-making to certain elected people, rather than argue all day in the boring workplace. :)

[apathy maybe]

Amazingly enough, anarchists aren't against "hierarchy" as such. We would rather do interesting work and delegate boring administrative work to others as well.

What we have a problem with is enforced hierarchy, and hierarchy that is permanent.

Anarchists have elected "central committees" before, to make quick decisions when needed. But the point is, that they are recallable, accountable, and have clearly defined and narrow mandates.

Have you heard of the concept of a "spokescouncil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spokescouncil)"? (Wikipedia spells it thus, I would have thought it had a space, but then again, I've only ever heard it spoken.) Basically, different affinity groups select a person to represent them in a council of potentially hundreds of other people. The idea is that rather then clutter up the council with everyone, one person represents between 2 and 20 people (depending on the size of the affinity group). (The Wikipedia article talks about the USA too much, the concept is seen around the world.)

So yeah, I suggest that while anarchists hate hierarchy, it isn't the hierarchy as such, but the power implied by that hierarchy. All hierarchies are built on power, anarchists want the power at the bottom rather then the top.

[Devrim]

I think that the whole thing about 'authoritarianism' is essentially meaningless too.

Devrim

[lombas]

I think the whole anarchist project of treating "hiearchy" as a swear-word is completely exhausting and mind-numbing. I'd rather delegate some of the decision-making to certain elected people, rather than argue all day in the boring workplace. :)

I think you should read Bakunin's What is Authority?
(http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/authrty.htm)
Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognise no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

[black magick hustla]

I have read Bakunin. I used to consider myself an anarchist, and I know his "take on" authority.

Notice he says that he would heed to the engineer but still wouldn't give encommend him some of the decision-making.

Anarchism requires people to "try to hard" to not be authoritarian, its more exhausting than just being a little bit pragmatic an organizing in ways that seem more effective.

[Luís Henrique]

Do you all really think this is (or could become) an in-depth discussion or revolutionary theory? I am afraid that this is just petty bickering around the anarcho-Marxist boundary...

Luís Henrique

[black magick hustla]

I think this is a worthwhile discussion, because this is one of the questions that drove me away from anarchism.

I didn't make this thread with sectarian intent.

Anarchists talk all day about the minimization of the working hour, but its praxis would naturally lead to lots of hours of boring discussion.

[apathy maybe]

I think that it should be moved to learning. You obviously never truly understood the "anarchist praxis" if you think that "lots of hours of boring discussion" is the inevitable outcome of it.

OK, take a perfect communist system which is the outcome of the "inevitable" revolution which lead by a vanguard, passing through "socialism" and after the state has "withered away". Take that communist system, and say to yourself, "is there going to be lots of hours of bring discussion?" If your answer is yes, then I say that you are a boring person. If your answer is no, then ask yourself "why not?".

The answer you think of will invariably apply to an anarchist communist system as much as to the end result of Marxian history communist system.

[black magick hustla]

Lol at the patronizing.
Reading your posts I have probably read more anarchist theory than you did.

Anarchism is not a "unified" theory, so maybe in your brand of "anarchism without adjectives" there are elected people administering certain sectors. However, in exactly this question, there was a division between platformists and those who identified with a more "purist" version.

In fact, Dauvé mentioned ones that a lot of workers would try to avoid the discussions in workplaces in 1936 and would simply feign illness.

I don't know how "marxian communist" will look, I think communism more of a tension rather than a blueprint for a future society - a movement. I think there are things more important to worry about (like bosses sending workers to the slaughterhouse) than trying to visualize how a communist society will look.

[black magick hustla]

Also I have very little against red anarchists who take internationalist communist positions. I just thought this would make an interesting discussion.

[apathy maybe]

Lol at the patronizing.
Reading your posts I have probably read more anarchist theory than you did.

Anarchism is not a "unified" theory, so maybe in your brand of "anarchism without adjectives" there are elected people administering certain sectors. However, in exactly this question, there was a division between platformists and those who identified with a more "purist" version.

In fact, Dauvé mentioned ones that a lot of workers would try to avoid the discussions in workplaces in 1936 and would simply feign illness.

I don't know how "marxian communist" will look, I think communism more of a tension rather than a blueprint for a future society - a movement. I think there are things more important to worry about (like bosses sending workers to the slaughterhouse) than trying to visualize how a communist society will look.Yeah, I'm patronizing. Sorry about that.
But you don't need to tell me that anarchism isn't a unified theory, I've been fighting to get that through people's heads here for over two years. My point is that because anarchism isn't a unified theory, that long discussions is not the inevitable outcome. It maybe one possible outcome, but it is also a possible outcome in a Marxist end of history communist system.

Anarchism isn't a blueprint for a future society, so to say that:
[The Anarchist] praxis would naturally lead to lots of hours of boring discussion. as if it is always going to happen in every possible anarchist scenario, is just plain silly. And shows a distinct lack of understanding of anarchism.

Anarchists support work-place democracy (as you should too if you claim to want a communist society), how this takes place is up to each individual work place to work out. This one might take an hour at the start of each day to discuss the direction of the place and what needs to be done. Others might elect a manager or two, and then meet only once a week.
Others might say screw all this meeting shit, and just get things done.

[BobKKKindle$]

I'd rather delegate some of the decision-making to certain elected people, rather than argue all day in the boring workplace.

An elected official is not the same as hierarchy, as long as the official is subject to the control of those who elected them and can be recalled at any time during the term of office. Anarcho-Communists would not object to the election of delegates, as it is not practical to consult the whole of society every time a decision has to be made.

The Anarchist insistence on consensus as a means of resolving dispute is problematic, as it can prolong discussion, if a small group is not willing to accept the opinion of the majority.

[Cult of Reason]

bobkindles: Not all Anarchists insist on consensus; I do not. It is, however, a good thing to have if you can get it, even if it takes extra discussion, and sometimes even if it takes a little compromise.

[Devrim]

The Anarchist insistence on consensus as a means of resolving dispute is problematic, as it can prolong discussion, if a small group is not willing to accept the opinion of the majority.

I have never met a single anarchist who insists on consensus.

Devrim

[Dean]

What we have a problem with is enforced hierarchy, and hierarchy that is permanent.
I disagree. On a temporary scale, in regards to a transitional society, I understand hierarchy as useful. However, it has a distinct meaning - that is, rule of one over another. Such should not characterize the revolutionary movement, but rather act as a temporary, isolated enforcement of certain fundamentals of the revolution, ideally by a social consensus (but NOT a democratic idolatry).


Anarchists have elected "central committees" before, to make quick decisions when needed. But the point is, that they are recallable, accountable, and have clearly defined and narrow mandates.
This is not hierarchy. Representative democracy (or councilism or bureaucracy), when it serves to give rule over humans, is hierarchal. When it serves to make rules at the behest of the people, however, it is not hierarchal. It is authoritarian, but could be considered a rational rather than an irrational authority, as Chomsky and Fromm describe them. It is only hierarchal when it grants the rule of private, personal activity - i.e. freedom of movement - to a group of people over the "owners" of the activity (i.e. prisons).

That brings up another issue - should we support an extremely limited prison system in an anarchist society? While it goes against the basic tenet of anarchy (that is, opposition to all hierarchy), most anarchists talk of isolated crime as being fought by "posses." Should we not use our abilities to help them to rehabilitate, or at least defend society without callously executing all dangerous offenders? I view such a limited, humanist prison system as the unfortunate, final tragedy for any anarchist society which I don't think can be avoided.


I think that the whole thing about 'authoritarianism' is essentially meaningless too.

Devrim

I disagree. I think that it is clear what is meant by authoritarianism, which I think is a fundamental antagonist to anarchism. While the authority of a scientist can be considered a rational authority to follow, the authority of a leader is distinctly against the point of anarchism.

[Devrim]

I disagree. I think that it is clear what is meant by authoritarianism, which I think is a fundamental antagonist to anarchism. While the authority of a scientist can be considered a rational authority to follow, the authority of a leader is distinctly against the point of anarchism.

I have never understood it. I don't think that it is clear at all.

Devrim

[BobKKKindle$]

I disagree. I think that it is clear what is meant by authoritarianism, which I think is a fundamental antagonist to anarchism. While the authority of a scientist can be considered a rational authority to follow, the authority of a leader is distinctly against the point of anarchism.

How can Anarchism be opposed to authoritarianism, when revolution, the means by which the transition to anarchy occurs, is a process based on the exercise of authority? What is the Anarchist definition of "authority" anyway? Is following someone's orders on the basis of respect for that person's greater experience a form of authority, something which should be challenged? Are all forms of authority equally bad?

[Vi~]

The anarchist critique of authority is useful insofar as the fact that ruling classes /are/ ruling classes and hence struggles against authority necessarily means a struggle against capitalism. ;) But I do think there are more comprehensive arguments to challenge capitalism.