Explaining anarchism to others

[EscapeFromSF]

Surely, many of you, having declared yourself an anarchist, have had to explain anarchism to others.

In addition to teaching a class in public speaking, this quarter I am also a teaching assistant for a professor in a media and government class. This professor, my advisor (or at least, he was), had me give a lecture last Tuesday. I guess this went well enough, even as he steered the class discussion to anarchism and I defended it as well as I could, not having expected the topic. (When he has a guest lecturer, what that really means is that he grills them for something like an hour and a half.)

He returned to the topic on Thursday, trying to get me to explain how to run an anarchist society of 300 million people. I tried to get him to explain why he chose the number 300 million, instead of 6 billion (okay, so its 6.6 billion on the planet, now), or some other number. He never answered, but clearly dissatisfied, particularly with my refusal to be the least bit polite about the other side, demanded a paper.

Okay, so maybe very few of you have had an experience quite like this.

But in order to write anything like a sensible paper, I needed some questions answered. Hence the following exchange in email (names elided):

Before I can do a paper that addresses your questions on anarchism, I need several questions about the assumptions that underlie your position answered.

First, when you question how 300 million people can be administered through anarchism, how do you arrive at this number? Why not a world population of over 6 billion? Why not the population of a large city, or of a small town? Why do you choose 300 million people?

If it is because this number approximates the United States population, why do you assume that an inherently imperialist, authoritarian political entity such as this would persist in an anarchist paradigm? First, how could that even make sense? Second, why would it be necessary for an entity on that scale to exist?

You seem to persist in confounding the present image of authority--which anarchists consider illegitimate--with any sense of organization whatsoever. Why do you believe that only elites who mostly inherited their money and pretend to merit can organize large scale projects? Why is it that collectively selected committees with representatives who truly serve at the pleasure of their constituents cannot?

Finally, I am troubled that you have so often lumped anarchists with (capitalist) Libertarians. While capitalist and communist/socialist libertarians agree on a need to annul political hierarchy, capitalist libertarians fail to address economic hierarchy. Particularly when we have an understanding of political, economic, and military hierarchy in which power is held by members of a single elite class acting in elite interests, and particularly when it is the economic hierarchy that is more directly oppressive of common interests, the capitalist libertarian position illustrates an incomplete but self-serving position you rightly attribute to wealthy white men. Yet such a view is just as far from that of an anarchist as that of an extreme authoritarian. I have explained this to you in the past, yet you repeat this error, even as you distrust any other political system than an imperialist and elitist white male hegemony. Oddest of all, you trust this system to correct itself despite a history spanning millennia, dating in fact to the foundation of cities, of moving in the opposite direction.

Do you see how the challenge you think so cogent to my position in fact betrays fundamental assumptions? Do you see how your questions disintegrate under the exposure of these assumptions?

I fear it would take far more than a paper from me to address your questions. I would suggest reading instead--since you seem to hold Noam Chomsky in low esteem--Peter Kropotkin and Emma Goldman. Michel Bakunin would be another, but more difficult, source.His response seems to confirm that the question I had taken from our conversation after class Thursday was indeed the question he wanted addressed in the paper (I wasn't sure):

300 million seems to be a good number to start with. I agree that the number approximates the size of the U.S. population. That fact notwithstanding, it seems a good number to begin with. Had I offered you the option of one billion, the size and complexity of the task may have proven too much :-)

It is unfortunate that you assume that disagreement is equivalent to confusion and misunderstanding. Making such a claim is a common debating tactic, normally employed to distract attention from uncomfortable facts.

I might also note that dumping all manner of negative baggage on one's opponent is another tired debating tactic. I have in mind your allegation that I am a proponent of all you detest in the current global order.

In any event, I await the Anarchist onslaught on the forces of Capitalism, Imperialism, Hierarchy and white male hegemony. Good luck :-)Observe that he hasn't actually answered any of my questions, even the initial one, in any substantial way. So I remained perplexed:


> 300 million seems to be a good number to start with. I agree that the number approximates the size of the U.S. population. That fact notwithstanding, it seems a good number to begin with. Had I offered you the option of one billion, the size and complexity of the task may have proven too much :-)

But the very fact you ask such a question proves the claim which you below call an assumption.

> It is unfortunate that you assume that disagreement is equivalent to confusion and misunderstanding. Making such a claim is a common debating tactic, normally employed to distract attention from uncomfortable facts.

After correctly criticizing me for treating a few million Indians monolithically, does it not seem odd that you now ask me to treat an entire population of 300 million monolithically? To prescribe in advance how all the communities that make up that 300 million should establish their own cooperatives would, in itself, be a form of illegitimate authority. We trust in people to work it out, as they have in times past, even on a large scale.

> I might also note that dumping all manner of negative baggage on one's opponent is another tired debating tactic. I have in mind your allegation that I am a proponent of all you detest in the current global order.

If you are not such a proponent, you would not ask questions that make no sense. If you truly believe that your questions make sense, then please do explain them.

Finally, if you are going to accuse me of "debating tactics," I would point out that it is you who assumes 1) that the elite have an argument, 2) that I can ethically argue it, and 3) that such an argument has any merit whatsoever. No, it is not I who plays such a game; rather, I have consistently criticized that game, beginning, you may recall, when, as an undergraduate, I took [name omitted] class on argumentation and debate.

For me, the advocacy for the status quo simply rests on historical facts that fortune has brutally favored a few with vast privileges over the rest of us, and that they are determined to keep them. Merely by appeal to antiquity, and by denial of historical fact, we are to understand that no other manner of structuring our affairs is possible.

We are to accept this understanding, even if humans lived in largely non-hierarchical societies for thousands of years prior to the formation of cities, even if workers have "consciously practised . . . [syndicalism in] France, Italy and Spain," according to Emma Goldman, in her 1913 essay, "Syndicalism: Its Theory and Practice," beginning in 1895. She criticizes an "American" ignorance of such efforts. In this line of questioning you appear not merely to exemplify such ignorance but to enforce by cutting me off before you can answer. It is amply clear from such experience that anarchist organization on a mass scale is entirely feasible and that the lessons to be drawn from this experience are not the futility of anarchism but that anarchists must be better prepared to defend themselves in the future.

> In any event, I await the Anarchist onslaught on the forces of Capitalism, Imperialism, Hierarchy and white male hegemony. Good luck :-)

Such an onslaught is hardly necessary. These forces collapse even now under their own weight. I never thought I'd see the day when people stockpile rice.I should perhaps explain that an earlier thesis idea--I still haven't really settled on one (and I really need to)--was inspired by a group of Lakota who presented papers in Washington, DC, withdrawing from their treaties with the US government, declaring portions of five states an independent nation, the Republic of Lakotah. I will not do justice to this story here, but the upshot of it for me was, who can speak for Indians?

This professor criticized me then for treating Indians as a monolithic group. I eventually decided he was right in that the topic was far too large to be done adequately for a thesis project; in ignorance, I had severely underestimated the diversity amongst Indians.

But he still doesn't answer the questions.


> It appears that you belive me too ignorant to really comprehend the vast and pure nature of your intellect and insights into human possibility. On reflection, I suspect you are correct. i surrender.This is a lousy way to "surrender;" it is obvious that he really doesn't mean it, and I tell him so:


Me, accuse you of ignorance? When it is your own readings that propelled me in this direction? Nonsense.

I'm simply trying to point out that you cling to assumptions that simply don't make sense.Now, he turns patronizing (and it goes down hill from here):


Ideas that don't make sense to whom? :-)

PS: I might note that I went through my era of being fascinated and enthralled with Anarchism many decades ago. I am more familiar than you surmise with Krotpotkin, Goldman, and the large host of their intellectual progeny, Chomsky included.

Thus, you are not preaching to the unaware and improperly indoctrinated. I have heard it all before, and, as I indicated during class yesterday, I believe I know the Liturgy of Anarchism better than most of those new to the faith.

As time passes, I assume you will come to understand the shortcomings of the Anarchist dream in much the same manner as many who have gone before you.

Until then, enjoy your precious discovery and enthusiastic embrace of an ethos whose best options for becoming the dominant path for humanity eased into obscurity long before the building of the pyramids.In class, he has also criticized those who merely criticize, but fail to offer solutions. Yet he has always demurred from actually offering solutions of his own.

I see this as pretty much a dichotomy. Either you embrace people power or you embrace power of an elite, based on control of resources. If, therefore, he does not embrace people power, he embraces elitist power. And his oft-repeated complaints about social conditions must mean he hopes the wealthy will do something about them. Of course, I am not impressed:

So your solution is noblesse oblige?This really sets him off:

Scholars study things. They don't generally offer solutions, and certainly not single solutions for all humanity. That's the provence of politicians, seers and True Believers.

When I was your age (younger and more gullible) I was convinced that I knew the so-called "solution" to the world's problems.

These days my agenda is far more modest. Unlike yourself, these days I am still attempting to determine the nature of the situation/problem.

Nonetheless, I applaud your pluck. And I really am waiting with high anticipation the formal launch of the Anarchist assault on the world's various forces of hierarchy and oppression.

Be be forewarned that when you throw the revealed truth of the alleged unexamined wisdom of Krotpotkin, Goldman and Saint Chomsky at your opponents, they are most likely to respond with great boredom, and the claim that they have "heard all that tired shit already."

Does it ever give you pause to wonder why you consistently assert that Western intellectuals of a certain elite sort possess the solutions to humanity's problems?

I assume you believe that most everyone else is not sufficiently intelligent to "get it."

In any event, it all sounds very myopic, self serving and superior, if not embarassingly colonial, to me...This, of course, is ridiculous. If "they" have "heard all that tired shit already," it is clear that just like this professor, they remember it poorly, or never studied it seriously in the first place.

But I decided to argue from a sociological/anthropological view (his undergraduate degree was in sociology, so I know he should know better):

> Does it ever give you pause to wonder why you consistently assert that Western intellectuals of a certain elite sort possess the solutions to humanity's problems?

How do you reconcile this accusation with an anthropological definition of the term tribe in terms that strongly resemble anarchism; the important differences being of 1) matrilineal or patrilineal descent, and 2) of a horticultural economic base? As many anarchists, including Bakunin and Kropotkin, have observed, people lived successfully, and perhaps less stressfully, for thousands of years with this solution that you attribute to "Western intellectuals of a certain elite sort." Now, who is attributing what to whom?

> I assume you believe that most everyone else is not sufficiently intelligent to "get it."

Where do you get this? Because I reject your premises?

> In any event, it all sounds very myopic, self serving and superior, if not embarassingly colonial, to me...

So the next time you complain about those who point fingers and fail themselves to offer solutions, should I point to your own demurral? And what does that demurral serve?

If you accuse me of smugness, what about that of insulating yourself from from any responsibility for actually solving problems? Finally, what about the smugness of the wealthy, whose position your demurral protects?This has, of course, now completely gone to hell, and, in disgust, I appear to have misplaced his final response, which probably wouldn't have been worth republishing here anyway. But it was something to the effect that *I* was being "righteous."

So, obviously, even with a professor I respected highly, whose readings indeed set me in more leftward direction, assumptions underlying the status quo appear beyond challenge, as ideology.

What do people do about this?

[Kronos]

Man I hate to sound like an ass, but anarchism absolutely will not ever, ever, ever, work. Ever. The only difference between anarchism and nihilism is that the anarchist is honestly wrong, that is, he truly believes that no government or police state would be necessary to maintain order, whereas the nihilist wants the absence of government and police state because, well, he's an irrelevant asshole. If the nihilist had his way, he'd make the human species extinct. The anarchist would do the same, only unwittingly and by accident.

Anarchy was a plausible theory only at a very specific and unique time in history. That time is long over.

I believe that anarchy is nothing more than a trend practiced by people who are angry, and who can't identify the real problem or the solution to that problem. Anybody who thinks that the human species would flourish in a state without any organized government whatsoever is living a pipe-dream. So anarchy is out of the question. The better question which concerns socialists and communists is: how can a central state government remain uncorrupted over extended periods of time. That is the only question to be asked right now.

[The Douche]

Man I hate to sound like an ass, but anarchism absolutely will not ever, ever, ever, work. Ever. The only difference between anarchism and nihilism is that the anarchist is honestly wrong, that is, he truly believes that no government or police state would be necessary to maintain order, whereas the nihilist wants the absence of government and police state because, well, he's an irrelevant asshole. If the nihilist had his way, he'd make the human species extinct. The anarchist would do the same, only unwittingly and by accident.

Anarchy was a plausible theory only at a very specific and unique time in history. That time is long over.

I believe that anarchy is nothing more than a trend practiced by people who are angry, and who can't identify the real problem or the solution to that problem. Anybody who thinks that the human species would flourish in a state without any organized government whatsoever is living a pipe-dream. So anarchy is out of the question. The better question which concerns socialists and communists is: how can a central state government remain uncorrupted over extended periods of time. That is the only question to be asked right now.

You're not a communist if you don't believe in the eventual destruction/colapse of the state.

[cappin]

Until then, enjoy your precious discovery and enthusiastic embrace of an ethos whose best options for becoming the dominant path for humanity eased into obscurity long before the building of the pyramids.
Tell him that long after the building of the pyramids we still don't know how to live, we're still developing governments that are failing, and we still live in a world with the same species that hasn't evolved, only multiplied.

People thinking for themselves and living without being told what they can and can't do according to the law- it sounds good. Unfortunately, people are dumb and don't always do what's best for the community, and only think of themselves. Where's our solution? Politicians aren't any smarter or fitter to rule than anyone else- they just persuade people to believe they are. It takes a lot of balls to designate yourself leader, and a lot of charm to go with it. Once you're there, and you're in the position where you can make decisions that other people can't it gets very tempting, so tempting in fact, that nobody seems able to resist taking advantage of it.

[Kronos]

You're not a communist if you don't believe in the eventual destruction/colapse of the state.

Nobody is a communist yet. Such a utopian ideal is far more difficult to imagine than a socialism. For the human species to reach a true communism is to expect radical changes in human nature. I'm not saying that isn't possible, but I will say that is a loooooooong way ahead. The following next five generations will not see it, if it even happens at all.

But don't misunderstand me. I would prefer complete anarchy, and would likely be the last man standing. I don't condone anarchy for other people's sake. I think those people who call themselves anarchists would be in for a rude awakening if government ever collapsed.

[Sublevarse]

Man I hate to sound like an ass, but anarchism absolutely will not ever, ever, ever, work. Ever. The only difference between anarchism and nihilism is that the anarchist is honestly wrong, that is, he truly believes that no government or police state would be necessary to maintain order, whereas the nihilist wants the absence of government and police state because, well, he's an irrelevant asshole. If the nihilist had his way, he'd make the human species extinct. The anarchist would do the same, only unwittingly and by accident.


You are falling into the old trap of thinking that an anarchist wants to do away with all forms of societal organization. While anarchists do want to be rid of centralized states and reduce the functions of government to a minimum, this does not mean anarchists oppose all government. Anarchists do support a decentralised, directly democratic government structure. As to the "police state" (a rather unfortunate choice of words there), anarchists do not necessarily oppose the creation of democratically elected courts or a voluntary police force to deal with any crime.


The better question which concerns socialists and communists is: how can a central state government remain uncorrupted over extended periods of time. That is the only question to be asked right now.

As has been noted, such a question would not concern communists, as communists advocate a "withering away" of the state after a socialist transition period.


Nobody is a communist yet.

A communist SOCIETY has not existed yet, a communist is someone who advocates the creation of a communist society, so I would certianly say that communists exist.

[Vlad tdf]

Hello !
I'm new arround here i would like to thank you all wery much because you help me learn new things and i just want to say that kronos is right about anarchism ! :D
Can anyone give me a definition of anarchism please because sometimes i think that i have a wrong idea about it .

Thanks in advance !!

[Sublevarse]

Can anyone give me a definition of anarchism please because sometimes i think that i have a wrong idea about it.

Trying to condence political theories into a succinct little sentence inevitably misses important points about those theories. This is a nice passage from the 'Making Sense of Anarchism' sticky here in the Learning forum and the Anarchist FAQ:


Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy, "the absence of a master, of a sovereign." [P-J Proudhon, What is Property , p. 264] In other words, anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be that control by the state or a capitalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary.

Another good defenition would be the same as that of a communist society: A stateless, classless society based on common ownership of the means of production.

Like I said, a simple defenition isn't really sufficient, I would recommend reading the sticky I mentioned earlier, and perusing the links included there.

[EscapeFromSF]

The conversation resumed today. He has expressed optimism in Barack Obama's candidacy and, correctly, I think, blasted the media treatment of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But I have seen Obama sounding more like--in the terms of Malcolm X--the "house negro" than the "field negro," so I forwarded him an article that appeared in Carolyn Baker's mailing list by Pam Martens, entitled _Obama's Money Cartel_:


Me: So Obama is the candidate of change?

Him: So, what do you recommend?

Me: Ah, but we've been through that argument. Where you see no hope for anarchism, I see it as the only hope for humanity. As long as we rely on an elite class to rule us, they will, one way or another, be exempt from any norms of civilized and humane conduct.

So barbarism will continue until the system collapses and, crucially, people recognize that replacing one set of thugs with another solves nothing.

Him: Does this mean that you, satisfied and assured that you know what needs to happen, are going about your normal business waiting for the grand collapse?

Me: That's my strategy.

Him: If so, what do we do if no grand collapse occurs?

Me: If humans aren't otherwise motivated to throw off their chains, they will remain slaves. I see a grand collapse as the most likely form such motivation could take.

Him: Human beings are "slaves?" You are beginning to sound like a sidewalk preacher :-)

Me: When the worth of human beings is quantified only in money, and money can only be earned in service to others who can choose not to hire you, and only the possession of money permits the necessities of life, then those that have money command lives themselves.

In your photography of the homeless, have you never reflected on the message of private property, that deprived of any place to legally be, these human beings have no legal right to be? Does it not follow then that when jobs are scarce, and jobs that pay rent are scarcer, that employers have power of life and death over employees? Does it not follow that when capital is infinitely more mobile than labor could ever be, that the elite manipulate this power to subjugate humans to the most degrading circumstances possible?

I think you have led a sheltered life, my friend.

Him: Welcome the the real world :-)

Me: And if there is no hope to change that world, then we are where we began today; that there is no hope for humanity.

Him: I assume you have to grace and sensitivity to refrain from informing humanity that there's "no hope."

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Man I hate to sound like an ass, but anarchism absolutely will not ever, ever, ever, work. Ever. The only difference between anarchism and nihilism is that the anarchist is honestly wrong, that is, he truly believes that no government or police state would be necessary to maintain order, whereas the nihilist wants the absence of government and police state because, well, he's an irrelevant asshole. If the nihilist had his way, he'd make the human species extinct. The anarchist would do the same, only unwittingly and by accident.

Anarchy was a plausible theory only at a very specific and unique time in history. That time is long over.

I believe that anarchy is nothing more than a trend practiced by people who are angry, and who can't identify the real problem or the solution to that problem. Anybody who thinks that the human species would flourish in a state without any organized government whatsoever is living a pipe-dream. So anarchy is out of the question. The better question which concerns socialists and communists is: how can a central state government remain uncorrupted over extended periods of time. That is the only question to be asked right now.

You're not adhering to the misinterpretation of anarchism, I hope? The one that believes in a lawless society? Democratic entities still persist under anarchism.

[apathy maybe]

EscapeFromSF, sounds like your prof. is being an arsehole. I don't have the time to provide possible answers to all your questions, but here is something to start with (though it sounds like you already know what you are talking about).

Why 300 million? Why not 10.000? We'll start with ten thousand, and then once we have established how anarchy could work for that small city, we can extrapolate to a much large system.

First of all, cities that small can already look after themselves regarding things like water and waste management. Power perhaps not, but it isn't hard to form cooperatives with other local cities to run the power stations.

The thing about anarchism is that it lends it self to decentralisation. So, as you say, to talk about 300 million is meaningless. There is no single organisational structure that large that can fit the anarchist paradigm. Even when you have large centralised states (e.g. China), they are still forced to decentralise to massive extents.

So, assuming that this small city/suburb of 10.000 can organise effectively, with a rotating militia to assist people etc. (crimes of property are going to almost disappear, so muggings shouldn't be a problem), and a rotating permanent "court", and of course the wonders of ICT (information communication technology), well things can just go on.

Economically, people turn up for work, do their work, pick up some supplies on the way home, enjoy themselves.

Now, take this 10 thousand strong city and multiply it by 10, local environmental problems are worked on together by the local cities, things such as power stations that are currently centralised will be shared too (until cities start to develop their own systems), the metro will still run between the cities.

Multiply up again, and really nothing changes. You get more examples of cross city interaction, but at the lower level, everyone is still free.

As I've said in other threads, this city might be communist, this one might have a form of currency based on labour time, that one might be technocratic etc.

Ultimately, you can't talk about 300 million or 6 billion people, you talk about the small groups, because these are most important.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Anyone who has been paying attention for the past 50 years should realize that even a federalized republic can't efficiently manage 300 million people.

[Herman]

Anyone who has been paying attention for the past 50 years should realize that even a federalized republic can't efficiently manage 300 million people.

Not if a hierarchical and bourgeois system is in place anyway.

[welshboy]

Um Escape from SF, I'm not being funny here but he actually sounds like quite a good teacher. Learning by arguing is a really good way of solidifying your politics and world view and giving you a good foundation to build from. If he just agreed with you then he wouldn't be doing his job which should be to make you think.
If you can't discuss your politics and defend them then you need to learn how to do so.
Arguing about his use of an arbitrary number is a bit ridiculous and answering a question with a question is a weak response, particularly in a proper debate. Have you never thought about how it is possible to maintain power supplies and other resources along a decentralized federal model?
If you really want to engage in this debate with him then rather than answering the thing about 300 million how's about at least explaining how your state or city could function then spread it out in a federative entity of the wider bio-region then into the current size of the US.
Also using Anthropological arguments don't really work as the tribal model of society could not work for the vast amount of people who live on the planet.
Good luck with this, sounds like it will be an interesting debate/lecture whatever happens.
Oh and for the record my best teacher in school was the guy with whom I disagreed about nearly everything, arguing with him week in week out helped me form my political views and have the knowledge and experience to defend them.

[EscapeFromSF]

EscapeFromSF, sounds like your prof. is being an arsehole. I don't have the time to provide possible answers to all your questions, but here is something to start with (though it sounds like you already know what you are talking about).

Why 300 million? Why not 10.000? We'll start with ten thousand, and then once we have established how anarchy could work for that small city, we can extrapolate to a much large system.

First of all, cities that small can already look after themselves regarding things like water and waste management. Power perhaps not, but it isn't hard to form cooperatives with other local cities to run the power stations.

The thing about anarchism is that it lends it self to decentralisation. So, as you say, to talk about 300 million is meaningless. There is no single organisational structure that large that can fit the anarchist paradigm. Even when you have large centralised states (e.g. China), they are still forced to decentralise to massive extents.

So, assuming that this small city/suburb of 10.000 can organise effectively, with a rotating militia to assist people etc. (crimes of property are going to almost disappear, so muggings shouldn't be a problem), and a rotating permanent "court", and of course the wonders of ICT (information communication technology), well things can just go on.

Economically, people turn up for work, do their work, pick up some supplies on the way home, enjoy themselves.

Now, take this 10 thousand strong city and multiply it by 10, local environmental problems are worked on together by the local cities, things such as power stations that are currently centralised will be shared too (until cities start to develop their own systems), the metro will still run between the cities.

Multiply up again, and really nothing changes. You get more examples of cross city interaction, but at the lower level, everyone is still free.

As I've said in other threads, this city might be communist, this one might have a form of currency based on labour time, that one might be technocratic etc.

Ultimately, you can't talk about 300 million or 6 billion people, you talk about the small groups, because these are most important.
I think I wouldn't make this argument with regard to power generation. When one considers environmental effects, centralized power might in fact be one of the better arguments against central authority. Solar cells and windmills, on the other hand, don't require any centralization at all. While I wouldn't want to argue that they are harmless environmentally, I think their harm pales before a Morton's fork between global warming and further accumulation of nuclear waste.

[EscapeFromSF]

Um Escape from SF, I'm not being funny here but he actually sounds like quite a good teacher.

He is. Prior to this incident, I regarded him as my favorite professor. I'm not so sure, now.


Learning by arguing is a really good way of solidifying your politics and world view and giving you a good foundation to build from.

In class, however, he first cut me off before I could argue my side, and then demanded I should argue the opposite side.


If he just agreed with you then he wouldn't be doing his job which should be to make you think.
If you can't discuss your politics and defend them then you need to learn how to do so.
Arguing about his use of an arbitrary number is a bit ridiculous and answering a question with a question is a weak response, particularly in a proper debate. Have you never thought about how it is possible to maintain power supplies and other resources along a decentralized federal model?

Actually, his use of an arbitrary--but large--number is just the point. It may very well be true that only an authoritarian model can administer such a large group of people as a single group and preserve it as a unified group. As an anarchist, however, I would expect each community within the former nation to administer itself on cooperative and egalitarian lines.

Thus, when another person here suggested that we should start with 10,000, I felt (s)he was much more on point. Each neighborhood would begin to administer itself on just such a basis. To look at an aggregate of 300 million or 1 billion or whatever is ridiculous, which means this professor's question was ridiculous.


If you really want to engage in this debate with him then rather than answering the thing about 300 million how's about at least explaining how your state or city could function then spread it out in a federative entity of the wider bio-region then into the current size of the US.
Also using Anthropological arguments don't really work as the tribal model of society could not work for the vast amount of people who live on the planet.

You might have a point here, but I have a caution. In the email exchange, I expressed confidence that people could work it out. Along with that, I want to avoid being prescriptive in advance--not only would my lofty plans certainly fail (and have to be adjusted--d'oh--by those who would actually implement them), but the very act of doing so is an authoritarian act.


Good luck with this, sounds like it will be an interesting debate/lecture whatever happens.
Oh and for the record my best teacher in school was the guy with whom I disagreed about nearly everything, arguing with him week in week out helped me form my political views and have the knowledge and experience to defend them.

Alas, I think we're done with this topic. You never know, though.

[welshboy]

You might have a point here, but I have a caution. In the email exchange, I expressed confidence that people could work it out. Along with that, I want to avoid being prescriptive in advance--not only would my lofty plans certainly fail (and have to be adjusted--d'oh--by those who would actually implement them), but the very act of doing so is an authoritarian act.

How on earth is it authoritarian to plan things? As workers we admittedly have better idea how to organize our own industries better than those with which our only contact is through consumption but we can use our natural human intellect to try and figure out how to make the world run properly.
I assume you are not accusing federalism of being authoritarian?
One of the main failings of Anarchism is its adherents willingness to subscribe to an 'it'll be alright on the night' sort of thinking. This is one of the things that keeps us looking like a bunch of fuck wits without a clue about how the world works.
Seriously put a bit of thought into what it is you want the world to look like. You are one of the workers who seeks to benefit from a revolution so you have as much right to an input into the revolutionary future as anyone else.

[EscapeFromSF]

How on earth is it authoritarian to plan things?

By the very fact that I would do it as an academic rather than as someone who would actually implement the plans, I would do so as an abstraction.


As workers we admittedly have better idea how to organize our own industries better than those with which our only contact is through consumption but we can use our natural human intellect to try and figure out how to make the world run properly.

It is entirely reasonable for you to consider what you would do with your workplace following an anarchist revolution.

But for me, there is nothing to discuss, as I already, for the most part, run my workplace. I teach with hardly any supervision. While a university is inherently an extremely hierarchical organization, and I am required to impose (sometimes) harsh judgments upon my students, I would welcome a setting as suggested by Paulo Freire in _Pedagogy of the Oppressed_.


I assume you are not accusing federalism of being authoritarian?

Federalism simply lowers the level of centralization to--in the example of the United States--the state level rather than the federal level. Of course it is still authoritarian.

Many of the worst sins against humans are committed at this level, particularly in the criminal justice system.



One of the main failings of Anarchism is its adherents willingness to subscribe to an 'it'll be alright on the night' sort of thinking. This is one of the things that keeps us looking like a bunch of fuck wits without a clue about how the world works.

The "'It'll be alright on the night' sort of thinking" is essential to anarchism; it reposes trust in workers themselves to organize themselves according to their needs at the moment. Any prescription prior to this denies them this trust; such is inherently hierarchical.


Seriously put a bit of thought into what it is you want the world to look like. You are one of the workers who seeks to benefit from a revolution so you have as much right to an input into the revolutionary future as anyone else.

I'm more concerned about the prospect that a revolution that arises will not be "our" revolution; it will be yet another exercise in replacing one set of thugs with another.

[welshboy]

So because you work in a University you are for some reason not going to help out when the garbage gets collected, or do a stint shepherding cattle or growing vegetables/fruit? You don't expect to have a say in where a new road is placed or the manner in which one is upkept?
When I said federalism I did not mean the model employed in the US. federalism is a central point of Anarchist organization. Never heard of the IAF? Or NEFAC?
No wonder you couldn't argue the point, you really do need to brush up on a bit of theory. Sorry that sounded a bit harsh but it's true.
What do you do for a living? You teach right? That does not make you an academic that makes you a teacher. Your school relies upon many things working in order for you to do your job. Would you really have no say in how or when the electrics in your school get repaired/maintained? Or would you leave that to the decision of the janitors? Would this not be creating new divisions similar to those along class lines?
What of your students would they have a say in where a new playing field is placed or how a new science laboratory is built? Who would make these decisions and how would they be made? The stone and metal to build these buildings and resources will need to be mined, how will the decision on where to mine the metal and quarry the stone be made?
Have you really never thought of these things?

[welshboy]

oops
I just realized how harsh my above post is.
I stand by what I said but it really flabbergasts me when people who advocate Anarchism, a political theory that if enacted would drastically change the world we live in more than the advent of agriculture, industry or technology; refuse to apply any forethought into how we would practically change the world.
I am an Anarchist and an ardent proponent of Anarchism; but our politic needs to be practical as much as philosophical or we will remain irrelevant and on the fringe of an ever diminishing left.

[Kropotesta]

I am an Anarchist and an ardent proponent of Anarchism; but our politic needs to be practical as much as philosophical or we will remain irrelevant and on the fringe of an ever diminishing left.
Well said.
On this also, I have been criticised by green anarchists for argeeing with various anarchist theorists and even the British AF!, because by, appartently, reading theory and pamphlets is moreso brainwashing rather than aiding a more indepth idea. Some anarchists, I feel, really need to get out of the idea that anarchism is some sort of ambigous thing, opposed to workers self management through federalism.

[welshboy]

Seconded.
'Yeah but like dude, organization is like authoritarian, you can't like expect me to actually do any work maaaaaaan'

[EscapeFromSF]

So because you work in a University you are for some reason not going to help out when the garbage gets collected, or do a stint shepherding cattle or growing vegetables/fruit? You don't expect to have a say in where a new road is placed or the manner in which one is upkept?

First, where do you get this? Second, how is it relevant to your point?

These are all details that are eminently amenable to being worked out at the time. It would be ridiculous to plan this ahead of time.


When I said federalism I did not mean the model employed in the US. federalism is a central point of Anarchist organization. Never heard of the IAF? Or NEFAC?

I was unaware there was another conception. A Google search turned up a page (I do not yet have link posting privileges) which, while expressing a history of anarchism at length, fails utterly to explain the concepts or the merits of this federalism.

It sounds like some form of obsession with borders to me, yet another form of authority.

Any cooperative arrangements between communities should not be fixed with borders; rather they should be fluid to suit the needs of the people at any given point in time.

It strikes me that you are seeking a five-year plan, a ten-year plan, and a twenty-year plan. You do not want people to have the flexibility to deal with individual situations in ways that make sense on a case-by-case basis. You hunger for the state.


No wonder you couldn't argue the point, you really do need to brush up on a bit of theory. Sorry that sounded a bit harsh but it's true.I see you believe yourself to be an anarchist. You can believe what you like.


What do you do for a living? You teach right?Actually, I am a graduate student. I teach a class in public speaking, work as a lab assistant, and as a teaching assistant. Even all of this does not pay the bills; I still rely on financial aid for the bulk of my cash flow.


That does not make you an academic that makes you a teacher. Your school relies upon many things working in order for you to do your job. Would you really have no say in how or when the electrics in your school get repaired/maintained? Or would you leave that to the decision of the janitors? Would this not be creating new divisions similar to those along class lines?You assume that the university would continue to exist in something like its present form and that I would continue to participate in the university in that form.

You need to read Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed. This is a completely different picture of learning which diminishes the notion of a teacher with a vast store of knowledge to be deposited in students. Rather, all exchange knowledge, compelling a profound relevance.


What of your students would they have a say in where a new playing field is placed or how a new science laboratory is built? Who would make these decisions and how would they be made? The stone and metal to build these buildings and resources will need to be mined, how will the decision on where to mine the metal and quarry the stone be made?
Have you really never thought of these things?Why are you so worried about sorting all this out in advance? Why are you so concerned with the preservation of an inherently hierarchical institution? Why? If you think you are an anarchist, why is advance planning so important to you?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I was unaware there was another conception. A Google search turned up a page (I do not yet have link posting privileges) which, while expressing a history of anarchism at length, fails utterly to explain the concepts or the merits of this federalism.

Federalism (as in localized self-rule) has historically been an important early component of anarchism, as expounded upon by anarchist thinkers like Proudhon and Bakunin.

[welshboy]

EFSF before we continue this can you please have a wee read of the following links.

IAF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_of_Anarchist_Federations) - Home Page (http://www.iaf-ifa.org/)
AF(UK) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Federation_%28Britain_and_Ireland%29) - Home Page (http://www.afed.org.uk/org/index.html)
NEFAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEFAC) - Home Page (http://www.nefac.net/)
Anarchist Society (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html)

It seems to me that the problem you had whilst trying to defend Anarchism was that you didn't have a clear cut idea of what it is. Anarchism has a long proud history and is not a vague notion of freedom. Anarchists have, over the last 100+ years put a lot of time and thought into how an anarchist world would work and the sort of structures we would need to allow for the maximum amount of individual freedom and autonomy coupled with community self rule.

For a bit more reading on education could I recommend the excellent book by Paul Avrich on the History of the Modern School movement in the US. It's available from AK.

[EscapeFromSF]

EFSF before we continue this can you please have a wee read of the following links.

<snip -- still can't post links, even when quoting others>

It seems to me that the problem you had whilst trying to defend Anarchism was that you didn't have a clear cut idea of what it is. Anarchism has a long proud history and is not a vague notion of freedom. Anarchists have, over the last 100+ years put a lot of time and thought into how an anarchist world would work and the sort of structures we would need to allow for the maximum amount of individual freedom and autonomy coupled with community self rule.

For a bit more reading on education could I recommend the excellent book by Paul Avrich on the History of the Modern School movement in the US. It's available from AK.

You have utterly failed to make a point with this posting. None of these links show me anything new. Your patronizing attitude towards my understanding of anarchism simply further illustrates your own desperate grab at hierarchy.

You still haven't answered the question which I will rephrase for the benefit of all those who have failed to see its absurdity:

Why do you insist that I should plan details in areas which I have no competence well in advance, without meaningful consultation with those who now do the work and therefore are the ones who ought to do this planning, when there is no immediate prospect that these plans could anytime be put into force? And why should I be the one to do this?

And having asked such an absurd question, why do you pretend to know anarchism better than I do?

[welshboy]

The point I made with that posting was that you don't appear to have a clear grasp of what Anarchism is beyond a vague notion of individual autonomy.
Federalism is a central tenet of Anarchic organization yet when I mentioned it you seem to for some reason equate anarchist federalism with stateist federalism showing a lack of knowledge on the subject.
I myself know diddly squat about the ins and outs of coal mining but I have ideas about how the local coal pit should interact with the community those who work the mine live in as well as the school their kids learn in and the people who grow the food they eat. And how that community and workplace interact with others in the area and how those communities in a wider area interact on a global arena.
I also know bugger all about space exploration but should there be a space exploration project on the go I would have an input in the allocation of resources for the project.

And by the way your method of arguing is poor to say the least, you would have been better trying to answer the profs question and losing the debate rather than dodging the issue and complaining about his arbitrary number. It made you, and by extension your politic look daft.

I'm sorry if I am coming across as rather harsh but you obviously educated and have a position of responsibility when you act as a teacher I am therefore not going to temper my answers as if you were a twelve year old who believed in @nARKY 4 TEH W!N!!!

The reason I insist that you think about what an anarchist society would look like is that you are never going to be able to have a reasoned debate on any level beyond lame philosophy unless you know what you are arguing for.
What kind of structures would we have in place in order to ensure the distribution of food? How will we maintain the global communications network? What recourse to aid from neighbouring regions will communities have in the face of natural disaster and how would decisions be made as to the allocation of resources?
I'm not asking that you draw up some kind of grand scheme about exactly how the world will be run down to the tiniest detail but you need to at least have some sort of idea.
The reason I posted those links was that you do not seem to understand the concept of federalism hence the links to the three federations. You also clearly haven't put any thought in to what an anarchist world will look like and how it would operate. That's why I pasted the link to the Anarchist FAQ.

[Comrade Krell]

Anarchism is a petty-bourgeois ideology that functions as a 'fringe' arm of the bourgeois state along with fascists and other 'street' ideologies which take their inspiration from a crude idolization of the lumpenproletariat. They consider random acts of spontaneous violence with no organization or hope of accomplishing anything as 'revolutionary'.

[Kropotesta]

Anarchism is a petty-bourgeois ideology that functions as a 'fringe' arm of the bourgeois state along with fascists and other 'street' ideologies which take their inspiration from a crude idolization of the lumpenproletariat. They consider random acts of spontaneous violence with no organization or hope of accomplishing anything as 'revolutionary'.
Do you actually know anything about anarchism?:rolleyes:
No organisation? do you ever wonder why you have negative rep with dumbshit posts like that?
:lol:

and to quote you from the Marxism=Science? thread


Such a statement can only come from someone who has a total ignorance of Marxism.

What is it with noobs like you? You come onto the scene and suddenly think your the new Lenin, you think your limited skim-reading of some leftist rhetoric on the internet classifies your 'opinion' as something special.

You're just another naive fool who hasn't discovered his own views aren't original yet.

I think this sums up your position entirely, applied to anarchism instead of Marxism.

[welshboy]

rofl

[EscapeFromSF]

Welshboy, you still aren't making any sense.

You continue to insist that I should prescribe a structure to social relations. This is inherently an hierarchical act and for me to do this would be anti-anarchist.

Revolution will not change the fact that there are already people who know what they are doing supplying essential services, producing essential products. They are perfectly capable of of doing so because they've been doing it all along. Revolution might mean that they ask for my participation in some way, but this will be their call and is not for me to judge in advance.

What anarchism proposes to change is the notion that someone who is not engaged in an activity and has no legitimate claim that they participate in it is more competent to organize it than those who are. Yet you keep asking me to do just that.

Now, I don't know how to spell this out in any simpler terms. But you have persuaded me that you are not an anarchist but an authoritarian. As near as I can see, in anarchism, federalism is an empty concept--a false knowledge--which you use to attempt to establish yourself as a knowledge authority. In my eyes, your attempt to establish authority is illegitimate. I am not interested in discussing this further with you.

[Os Cangaceiros]

As near as I can see, in anarchism, federalism is an empty concept--a false knowledge--

No, it isn't. In fact, it's absolutely essential to the concept of "anarchism".

Anarchists believe that activities and services that benefit people can best be carried out on a local level (of course).

Pointing that out is not "hierarchical".

[Bilan]

Anarchism is a petty-bourgeois

petit-bourgeois* ;)


ideology that functions as a 'fringe' arm of the bourgeois state along with fascists and other 'street' ideologies which take their inspiration from a crude idolization of the lumpenproletariat.:confused:
What absolute drivel!

Firstly, anarchism has no association with the bourgeois state - it's only relationship with it is one of conflict: anarchists seek the abolishment of the bourgeois state - and all states. It is no fringe.

For example,
"Every type of political power presupposes some particular form of human slavery, for the maintenance of which it is called into being. Just as outwardly, that is, in relation to other states the state has to create certain artificial antagonisms in order to justify its existence, so also internally the cleavage of society into castes, ranks and classes is an essential condition of its continuance.
Rudolf Rocker.


"Yes: death--or renewal! Either the state forever, crushing individual and local life, taking over in all fields of human activity, bringing with it its wars and its domestic struggles for power, its palace revolutions which only replace one tyrant by another, and inevitably at the end of this development there is...death! Or the destruction of the state, and new life starting again in thousands of centers on the principle of the lively initiative of the individual and groups and that of the free agreement. The choice lies with you!"

Peter Kropotkin.


Comparable with fascists? Absurd. You're either stupid, or just obscenely ignorant. The position of anarchists within capitalist society is no way comparable to that of fascists; and their relationship with the state is even further different.

There is no idolization of the lumpenproletariat with anarchism. What absolute bollocks.


[i]n common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear: and that all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by the producers of wealth. And. . . they maintain that the ideal of the political organisation of society is a condition of things where the functions of government are reduced to minimum. . . [and] that the ultimate aim of society is the reduction of the functions of government to nil -- that is, to a society without government, to an-archy"Kropotkin.

If you weren't such a stubborn ass you'd realize that the roots of anarchism and communism are in much the same place.


They consider random acts of spontaneous violence with no organization or hope of accomplishing anything as 'revolutionary'.No, 'they' don't. Some of 'them' do. But 'most' don't. 'Most' just dont turn their backs on comrades who do take part in violent direct action. Perhaps because solidarity isn't just rhetoric to anarchists?

[welshboy]

Welshboy, you still aren't making any sense.You aren't understanding as you obviously have no understanding of what anarchism is.


You continue to insist that I should prescribe a structure to social relations. This is inherently an hierarchical act and for me to do this would be anti-anarchist.Trying to insist that you put a little bit of effort into actually thinking about the kind of world you want see emerge from a revolution beyond vapid rhetoric and hyperbole makes me an authoritarian? Your refusal to use your imagination makes you both ignorant and shows you to be a lazy fool.


Revolution will not change the fact that there are already people who know what they are doing supplying essential services, producing essential products. They are perfectly capable of of doing so because they've been doing it all along. Revolution might mean that they ask for my participation in some way, but this will be their call and is not for me to judge in advance.You mean that you are too lazy to participate in any meaningful dialogue over how the world may be run and are trapped into thinking that you are somehow have different aims from the working class, this may well be true as your idea of anarchism seems to come straight from the liner notes of a punk record.
(apologies to the punks)


What anarchism proposes to change is the notion that someone who is not engaged in an activity and has no legitimate claim that they participate in it is more competent to organize it than those who are. Yet you keep asking me to do just that.You're almost there laddy. Anarchism also means that all those affected by a decision have an equal say in the matter. i.e if the drainage water from a mine is having an effect on the ground water in a region then the people of a region have a say in how those who work the mine fix the problem.


Now, I don't know how to spell this out in any simpler terms. But you have persuaded me that you are not an anarchist but an authoritarian. As near as I can see, in anarchism, federalism is an empty concept--a false knowledge--which you use to attempt to establish yourself as a knowledge authority. In my eyes, your attempt to establish authority is illegitimate. I am not interested in discussing this further with you.That's OK sweetheart you have convinced me that my dear old mother knows more about Anarchism than you. You are simply a lazy, good for nothing drop out, middle class bourgeois muppet with nary a clue as to what anarchism is nor for that matter logical thought.

Or to put it in a mildly politer way. You sir are a buffoon. Go read some.

[EscapeFromSF]

Welshboy has pissed me off so much that I missed this:


Federalism (as in localized self-rule) has historically been an important early component of anarchism, as expounded upon by anarchist thinkers like Proudhon and Bakunin.

At least you define the term. Remarkably, you also manage to do so without referring to a dozen general websites. Though Bakunin, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, and Noam Chomsky clearly envision society on these lines, I have not seen the term in my readings of anarchism prior to this time.

Such does not advance Welshboy's point, however. If he believes that I do not recognize this, then he attributes to me statements I have not made. Further, he makes an issue of something so basic as to defy imagination as to what one could possibly suggest as an alternative.

[welshboy]

Such does not advance Welshboy's point, however. If he believes that I do not recognize this, then he attributes to me statements I have not made. Further, he makes an issue of something so basic as to defy imagination as to what one could possibly suggest as an alternative.

What is basic about restructuring the entire planet? I was trying to point out that until you have a clear vision in your mind of what it is you want the world to look like you will never be able to argue for it.

The websites I pointed you to were picked as they are all anarchist groups that organize along a federative basis.

If you want to have a proper debate with someone you need to know what it is you are talking about, this is what I said in my original post in which I was polite and I hoped to be helpful. Since then you have shown a complete ignorance of even the most basic tenets of Anarchism and have responded by calling me an authoritarian.

As Agora has said federalism is a fundamental part of anarchist organization and until you take this on board you are never going to be able to figure out how 6000 people could work together let alone six billion.

Oh and you do realize that by calling me authoritarian for advocating federalism and pre-planning you have probably insulted the majority of the anarchist movement by proxy. Well done laddy. :p

If you want to know more about the federative model simply ask, or you could read the websites of the three federations that I posted.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Under anarchism one can certainly live on their own - so long as they don't expect the benefits of civilization or intrude on another's liberty.

Ironically the competitiveness brought about by anarcho-collectivism and anarcho-communism will render any large-scale capitalist attempt fruitless.

[EscapeFromSF]

GeneCosta,

You, but more especially Welshboy, attack a straw person. No one here as advocated individualism.

Even in the emails I quoted above I spoke of cooperation. So this entire line of argument is silly.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

GeneCosta,

You, but more especially Welshboy, attack a straw person. No one here as advocated individualism.

Even in the emails I quoted above I spoke of cooperation. So this entire line of argument is silly.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. My post wasn't directed towards you. :)

[welshboy]

Straw man?
I have simply pointed out that in order to effectively argue for something you need to have a clear idea of what it is. I was polite and tried to be helpful, you insulted me so I called you a buffoon. For someone who teaches a class in public speaking you really don't have very good debating skills.
You asked for help, I tried to help you. I do not take well to being called an authoritarian.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I do not take well to being called an authoritarian.

You're not fooling anyone. We all know that that's what the "A" in your avatar stands for.

[Raúl Duke]

What I did was write a small essay on anarchism for my friends who constantly complained that the Anarchist FAQ was to large (even when I repeatedly told them to read only the damn first section...but it was still too long. SO I wrote a 1 page essay).

While some people commented positively as a work of prose (as in it was a good essay) I don't think many people turned anarchist because of it. :(
(maybe I should have made a 1 pg series talking about many issues....)

[welshboy]

You're not fooling anyone. We all know that that's what the "A" in your avatar stands for.
Curses! I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you pesky kids.