A short critique of anarchism

[Dimentio]

One problem with anarchism and the small-scale localised voluntarism associated with it, might be that the formation of social hierarchies could be a biological rather than an economical factor. What I of course is referring to is not a class system but social relations between individuals.

Even in a baseball or soccer team organised entirely for socialisation, an indirect hierarchy has been established between alpha males and alpha females and the followers. The abolishment of capitalism (or the entire price system) or the state won't directly affect human behavior in that aspect, but rather encourage such formations - which indeed could be healthy.

The problem is of course that not all human beings are eager to learn or to adapt to the community, and that we have a considerable minority of people with very low popularity and talent, who are restricted in their opportunities to do harm against a social group in the current society by the officialised and inofficial hierarchies pertaining social relationships today, but in a society with equal opportunities, these individuals could very well play to limit other persons abilities to conduct successful projects.

Beware that this criticism is not put out to destroy anarchism, but to rather open up a discussion about it.

Given that the holonic model of organisation have some similarities with syndicalist federalism, I think it is highly relevant to modern technocracy as well.

[MarxSchmarx]

Even in a baseball or soccer team organised entirely for socialisation, an indirect hierarchy has been established between alpha males and alpha females and the followers. The abolishment of capitalism (or the entire price system) or the state won't directly affect human behavior in that aspect, but rather encourage such formations - which indeed could be healthy.

The problem is of course that not all human beings are eager to learn or to adapt to the community, and that we have a considerable minority of people with very low popularity and talent, who are restricted in their opportunities to do harm against a social group in the current society by the officialised and inofficial hierarchies pertaining social relationships today, but in a society with equal opportunities, these individuals could very well play to limit other persons abilities to conduct successful projects.

Well isn't that bloody convenient, that the same sort of hierarchical relations that exist in our economic lives exist in a microcosm in our day-to-day relationships - e.g. some people, just by virtue of grace, "inherently" have "social" capital, just as some people, by virtue of grace, "inherently" have economic capital. Surely a big reason why we are attracted to gregarious, unusually thick skinned people is because of their unnatural wealth as salespeople, or uber-nerds like Bill Gates, because of their superfluous wealth due to their cunning? Not to mention eye candy like Patrick Dempsy. We all want to be seen with successful people - who are, coincidentally, rich and at the top of the economic hierarchy.

Yes, there are very real differences in talent - I wasn't writing symphonies at age 4, much less today. But imagine a musical prodigy in China who is stuck making toys for European toddlers? Who really wants their lives? The notion that there is some "inherent quality" that justifies people's station in life is deeply bourgeois and feudal.

Moreover, why are those who happen to be "blessed" with good genes deserving of social success as those who happen to be "blessed" with wealthy parents and connections? I have a mountain of respect for you, serpent, and I know in your heart of hearts you reject this nonsense. But with respect to the ideas you mention, there is simply no place in the left for this kind of essentialist gibberish.

[Dimentio]

Talents are not the foundation for social hierarchy, and a lot of talented people tend to be rather disliked by their fellows, while a lot of people with no particular talents could be well-liked and respected.

It is not essentialist, it is a biologist standpoint. We must remember that just 10.000 years ago, humans were hunter-gatherers living in small packs, were the need for a small inofficial hierarchy was needed in order to be able to organise society.

Monkeysphere (http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html)

I was not defending capitalism, I was making a stand for how anarchism could be successfully unified with human nature, and I think that anarchism - if applied in a healthy way - could be a lot more psychologically beneficient than capitalism.

[MarxSchmarx]

I was not defending capitalism, I was making a stand for how anarchism could be successfully unified with human nature, and I think that anarchism - if applied in a healthy way - could be a lot more psychologically beneficient than capitalism.

I completely agree with the second half of your statement. This is a very real question that should be addressed.

However, I think that just because we are "hard-wired" for certain things doesn't mean it's right to be so. For instance, it might be "right" from an evolutionary standpoint for me to take resources from another's child and give them all to mine. But, as I'm sure you are well aware, this hardly justifies it. It seems to me a "biologist" view is a red herring.

Moreover, at least part of the argument of evolutionary psychology seems to be that "human nature" is inherently hierarchical, petty, and, well, reflective of patriarchical, cometitive chimp societies - precisely a reflection of capitalism and late feudalism. Yet increasingly it appears our ancestors had much in common with bonobos - rather tolerant, matriarchical, and communal. It's an open question about which more accurately reflects "human nature" http://www.primates.com/bonobos/experiment.html
but the jury is still out, and it's far from obvious the caveman proto-capitalist is most indicative of our past.

[Hyacinth]

To weigh in on this discussion regarding talent; having studied educational psychology one of the biggest myths that is perpetuated is that talent, be it intelligence, musical talent, athleticism, etc. is something inborn. Even the word “talent” suggests that it is something that you either have or that you don’t.

The educational psych research points that this is false; the reason the myth persists shouldn’t be too hard to figure out, since, after all, it is in the interests of any ruling class in any class society to perpetuate the notion that somehow there are those who are inherently superior to rule.

Let’s take an example of a musical prodigy, since musical talent has been brought up in this thread. Let us use the real-life example of an acknowledged musical genius: Mozart. He was indeed composing symphonies at a very young age, nevertheless this ability didn’t come from nowhere, nor from our genes (since, after all, there are no genes for musical ability). Mozart, since a very young age, possibly as young as three, was made by his father to practice the piano, and other instruments, for several hours each day. The Mozart that we know today was made, not born. If you take any child and were to put them under a similar educational regiment, you could make a Mozart.

Now, I’m not taking the nurture side of the nature vs. nurture debate, things aren’t that simple. There are certain predispositions which we have that are determined by our genes, but our genes don’t code for anything very specific. You might be predisposed to be a better athlete than your average person, nevertheless, unless this predisposition is harnessed nothing will come of your athleticism.

Most of the reason that we have children doing poorly in school these days has little to do with the abilities of the child, but is rather due to the failure of the education system. Different children will have different learning styles, yet we only cater to a certain learning style. In fact, schooling mostly consists of pointless busy work, rather than real learning; the children who are marked as “gifted” and who do well in schools tend to merely be the ones who learn how to play the system.

In a communist society, with proper resources dedicated to education, I think that we’ll find far less of a gap in people’s abilities than we see in present day society. We can’t even begin to imagine what most people are capable of, given that the vast majority of people have never been given a proper opportunity to develop their abilities.

[MarxSchmarx]

If you take any child and were to put them under a similar educational regiment, you could make a Mozart.Please justify ;) I mean, I'm sure countless parents have tried this, but it seems to me like an olympic sport - without the training, all your good genes are pointless, and, as you note, it's not as simple as nature. v. nurture.

Still, I think there is much to be said for the view that only the truly, genetically "gifted" have their pieces performed regularly across the globe and loved by millions for centuries. I don't think this makes them better people or more deserving of social recognition - it's just that we all have our talents and abilities, and it just so happens that in this shitty capitalist order, the ability to compose a moving symphony, build a mansion, or write elegant code is valued mor than the talent to teach young children. ;)

[Hyacinth]

Please justify ;) I mean, I'm sure countless parents have tried this, but it seems to me like an olympic sport - without the training, all your good genes are pointless, and, as you note, it's not as simple as nature. v. nurture.

Still, I think there is much to be said for the view that only the truly, genetically "gifted" have their pieces performed regularly across the globe and loved by millions for centuries. I don't think this makes them better people or more deserving of social recognition - it's just that we all have our talents and abilities, and it just so happens that in this shitty capitalist order, the ability to compose a moving symphony, build a mansion, or write elegant code is valued mor than the talent to teach young children. ;)
Well, it is even more complicated than I stated in the first point. One cannot simply take a child, put them under some educational regiment, and expect to turn out a musical genius; it doesn’t work quite that way.

As you say, in our society educators aren’t as valued as others, so perhaps the reason that many parents who try to create little Mozart’s fail is because they simply aren’t very good at teaching the kids.

Also, another factor that is ignored in the nature vs. nurture debate, which is extremely important (in fact, I would say that it has a greater impact on one’s chances of success in a given field than either nature or nurture): namely, determination. Einstein was purported to have said: “Genius is 1% inspiration, and 99% perspiration.”

In order to do well in a field one has to have determination, and in order to be determined one has to like what one is doing (I mean, after all, when you enjoy something it doesn’t feel like work, on the other hand doing a boring activity is mentally quite draining). The reason that most people aren’t musical geniuses likely has more to do with the fact that most people simply aren’t interested enough in music to devote the time and effort necessary to compose a symphony. Even the so-called musical genius doesn’t do this without considerable time and effort (it is a much propitiated myth that anything like the composition of a symphony can be done so effortlessly).

[Hyacinth]

While we’re at it let’s not also forget the role that luck played in the making of many historical persons who regard as geniuses. Take Darwin, those theory of natural selection has, no doubt, the greatest impact on biology (apart from maybe germ theory). Alfred Robert Wallace, a contemporary of Darwin, came up with the idea independent of him, and yet we pay great homage to Darwin, and not to Wallace, despite both having contributed to the advancement of human knowledge with respect to introducing the theory of natural selection.

Let’s also remember the words of another person who is regarded as a genius: “I was only able to see so far because I stood on the shoulders of giants.” Progress in both the arts and sciences results from building on the works of others, or perhaps from tearing down the works of others. In either case it is not something that is done alone. Einstein, no matter his innate abilities, would not have developed the theory of general relativity were it not for the numerous other advancements in theoretical physics that had taken place before him. And while his theory was indeed very innovative, it was not the product of his mind alone.

Just as the great man theory of history puts an emphasis on few individuals as the movers and shakers of historical events, so too this notion of genius I think is akin to the great man theory. It proposes that scientific progress, cultural progress, etc. is all made due to the contributions of great men, these geniuses. It entirely ignores all the prerequisites that had to be in place in order for these people to make the mental leap to developing their theories. As well, it ignores the psychological and sociological factors (such as interest in a particular field of study, proper education, etc.) that go into the construction of such an individual, and explains their achievements by appeal to some innate talent.

In short, things are far too complicated to say that it is simply innate talent on the part of these individuals that results in their genius. Genius, whatever it is, consist in something far far greater than just talent, and is as much a product of the upbringing, socialization, education, etc. of an individual, as it is of the biological dispositions of the individual.

This is why, among other reasons, I’m reluctant to accept the proposition that there are some out there who are just innately better suited for some tasks.

[Module]

Well if we're talking specifically about 'genius', that is those with an IQ of 136 and above (according to Wikipedia.). From what I know, intelligence is primarily genetic. Intelligence to a large degree gives people a greater capacity to do 'great' things, such as compose symphonies.

Though I agree with what you've said in regards to building upon the work of others - that is true, although Einstein may not have been able to achieve what he did without other's work, I am reluctant to accept that many others could have achieved such things in the same circumstance.
There is no doubt, in my opinion, that Einstein was innately better suited to developing the Theory of Relativity than most other people.

Serpent, what you've said I have previously considered. Not so much that social hierarchy is 'biological', but that in an environment without economic restrictions of position, certain people may seek to ... 'establish' themselves where they know that they can, socially.
If it was biological, I think there would, probably, be less of a chance that those who were 'unpopular' would seek to harm those above them. (Or.. I don't know ;))

Though, environments where social hierarchy are most prominent is where there is more freedom for this hierarchy to materialise itself in other ways. Even if it was biological, where distribution was based on need, it would be restricted, or unnecessary.
As far as I am aware, social hierarchy is to a large extent based upon economic environment, and/or culture. It manifests itself differently in different parts of the world. In an 'anarchist' society I don't see how social hierarchy would manifest itself in a way that would be too restrictive for those at the bottom of it.

[RebelDog]

For me anarchist society must be the antitheses of hierarchy and of course it becomes this not by changing 'human nature' or by persuading people to be better people etc. Anarchism would of course work by changing the material conditions, and in most peoples minds, foremost in this, comes the complete change in economic relations. If we do not have economic equality then there is no chance of anarchism.

But also absolutely crucial to achieving anarchism/communism is the need for self management of workplaces and the abolition of the division of labour therein. If we fail to achieve this then hierarchy will come back very quickly. We must destroy the institutions that encourage hierarchy. The fundamental reason for hierarchy is parasitical, it is to allow some to live of the labour of others. People will try to carve out a position in a competitive society that allows them to gain more resources and an advantage over others and in capitalism the way to greater wealth is to greater exploit the labour of others, be that through ownership or power. Workers self-management and the destruction of the division of labour through balanced job complexes, whereupon all monotonous and empowering work is shared out equally, is the economic base that will negate the need and desire for hierarchy. If we have an economic structure that strives to collectively and individually empower us through self-management and democracy, destroys the division of labour and abolishes the market, then we have a social system where any attempt to return to hierarchy would be conspicuously obvious because it would have to mean a change to the economic base.

What drives 'human nature' is what drives any other animal, the will to survive. There is no default human nature, we have a many-sided nature which allows us to adapt to the material and social conditions we find ourselves in, to me this is so easy to see I don't know why we question it. If you were to be lucky enough to be brought up in a society that had abolished all institutions of exploitation and instituted horizontal democratic planning with workers and communities empowered and controlling their futures, it would not be desirable as an individual to endanger ones inclusion in such a society. In a post-capitalist libertarian society people would be of the mindset that does not see them seeking to exploit others. Capitalism clearly promotes and encourages exploitative, anti-social behavior and it does this because it is itself predicated on such things and must promote an idea that this is the natural way of things. Anarchism would be predicated on an economic system that encouraged the social sides of human nature like cooperation and solidarity and our collective survival would become the same thing as our individual survival.

The tendency to establish hierarchy is not an immovable 'hard-wired' human tendency but a evolutionary response that manifests itself where the material conditions allow and indeed favour and reward it. If we change the conditions we change the way humans respond to their environment and to other humans and we will see the positive human qualities being promoted and rewarded and favoured. If there is no economic reason for a hierarchical structure then there is no moral one either and the ruling class position that dominates the present society will crumble away.

[Dimentio]

I do not claim that capitalism is in tune wth human nature, but neither is probably internationalist socialism. What seems to be the most "natural" order of things is for us to dwell in small groups of 150-200 people.

[RebelDog]

I do not claim that capitalism is in tune wth human nature, but neither is probably internationalist socialism.To say that anything is in tune with human nature is meaningless really. Human nature is not fixed, it has mixed responses which best suit the conditions and thus give a better chance for survival. This no more negates the possibility of libertarian communism than it does capitalism. What is different is the areas of human nature these opposing systems promote, encourage and reward. Elemental Marxism clearly points out how important the economic base is in influencing the political and cultural superstructure of any social system. Clearly capitalism and anarchism are worlds apart in how the economy is structured and the respective corresponding societies are also.


What seems to be the most "natural" order of things is for us to dwell in small groups of 150-200 people.How is that the natural order of anything? Surely the materialist view is to conclude the method of social production determines the size of communities?

[Dean]

One problem with anarchism and the small-scale localised voluntarism associated with it, might be that the formation of social hierarchies could be a biological rather than an economical factor. What I of course is referring to is not a class system but social relations between individuals.

Even in a baseball or soccer team organised entirely for socialisation, an indirect hierarchy has been established between alpha males and alpha females and the followers. The abolishment of capitalism (or the entire price system) or the state won't directly affect human behavior in that aspect, but rather encourage such formations - which indeed could be healthy.

Hierarchal relations involve dominance in some sense, which is an extremely destructive force for society. If human nature is indeed geared toward hierarchal relations, than the logical evolution of society is probably going to defeat that tendancy. A major aspect of mental health is resolving the conflicts which inevitably arise between your unconscious drives and your rationalized drives, in this case choosing a social rather than exploitative tendancy.

In any case, you are talking about anarchism in a sense that it is the only force which really allows humans to actualize themselves. If it is the case that anarchism is the sole social organization which allows people to follow a hierarchal instinct, than we have the first two steps right and need only to work on the last aspect.

[The Feral Underclass]

Question for Anarchists: How would an Anarchist society complete large projects like dams and freeways?

We'd use magic.

[Dimentio]

Well if we're talking specifically about 'genius', that is those with an IQ of 136 and above (according to Wikipedia.). From what I know, intelligence is primarily genetic. Intelligence to a large degree gives people a greater capacity to do 'great' things, such as compose symphonies.

Though I agree with what you've said in regards to building upon the work of others - that is true, although Einstein may not have been able to achieve what he did without other's work, I am reluctant to accept that many others could have achieved such things in the same circumstance.
There is no doubt, in my opinion, that Einstein was innately better suited to developing the Theory of Relativity than most other people.

Serpent, what you've said I have previously considered. Not so much that social hierarchy is 'biological', but that in an environment without economic restrictions of position, certain people may seek to ... 'establish' themselves where they know that they can, socially.
If it was biological, I think there would, probably, be less of a chance that those who were 'unpopular' would seek to harm those above them. (Or.. I don't know ;))

Though, environments where social hierarchy are most prominent is where there is more freedom for this hierarchy to materialise itself in other ways. Even if it was biological, where distribution was based on need, it would be restricted, or unnecessary.
As far as I am aware, social hierarchy is to a large extent based upon economic environment, and/or culture. It manifests itself differently in different parts of the world. In an 'anarchist' society I don't see how social hierarchy would manifest itself in a way that would be too restrictive for those at the bottom of it.

Well, to adress this point and the point of the guy saying that people's behavior will change given different material conditions. I think that behavior could change over time, and certainly with individual human beings, but we must remember that it was only 10.000 years ago when we left the hunter-gatherer stadium of social development, and that will still be the basis for human relations with other humans.

[Dimentio]

Hierarchal relations involve dominance in some sense, which is an extremely destructive force for society. If human nature is indeed geared toward hierarchal relations, than the logical evolution of society is probably going to defeat that tendancy. A major aspect of mental health is resolving the conflicts which inevitably arise between your unconscious drives and your rationalized drives, in this case choosing a social rather than exploitative tendancy.

In any case, you are talking about anarchism in a sense that it is the only force which really allows humans to actualize themselves. If it is the case that anarchism is the sole social organization which allows people to follow a hierarchal instinct, than we have the first two steps right and need only to work on the last aspect.

Dominance is an inherit feature in hunter-gatherer societies which still are existing. You have one leader which is like a captain, and he must be obeyed. Human beings are pack animals, with a brain which could hardly remember more than 200 faces.

[The Feral Underclass]

Dominance is an inherit feature in hunter-gatherer societies which still are existing. You have one leader which is like a captain, and he must be obeyed. Human beings are pack animals, with a brain which could hardly remember more than 200 faces.

It's all fine and well speaking from a theoretical stand point, but in practice what you say just isn't true. I have worked within the anarchist movement for 5 years now and in my experience people abide by the democratic and consensus decision making processes. Of course there are individual characters who attempt to dominate, but they're easily controlled by the collective structure.

In reality, this "captain" doesn't exist in a decentralised, collectively run process. The system inherently disallows it. Take friendship groups for example. Do you have a friend who tells you what to do and the rest of you obey him? Of course you don't!

[Dimentio]

It's all fine and well speaking from a theoretical stand point, but in practice what you say just isn't true. I have worked within the anarchist movement for 5 years now and in my experience people abide by the democratic and consensus decision making processes. Of course there are individual characters who attempt to dominate, but they're easily controlled by the collective structure.

In reality, this "captain" doesn't exist in a decentralised, collectively run process. The system inherently disallows it. Take friendship groups for example. Do you have a friend who tells you what to do and the rest of you obey him? Of course you don't!

No, but we have informal leaders and informal followers. As for anarchist groups - they tend to attract people with a special behavioral pattern which is inherently anti-authoritarian - in short the anarchist movements are filled with those 3-4% of a given population that espouses anti-authoritarian pattern behavior. But when the larger society is absorbed by anarchism, you will soon experience a lot of people who do not want to take active part in what you are doing, but a passive part, being told what they should do.

What has kept repressive structures working for thousands of years is that people rather than attacking power as such have been attacking violations of power. As long as they are generally left alone to pursue their own life, they would'nt give a damn about if it is a president, an emperor, a prime minister, a commissar or a führer who is in charge.

In short, people are not naturally tended towards authoritarian or centralised systems, but they are surely tendered towards accepting and submitting to authority, if that authority upholds their economic interests.

What is the biggest progressive force in my opinion is the development of advanced technology which always will make centralised structures of power unnecessary and antiquated.

That will eventually drive society in a more libertarian socialist direction.

[RebelDog]

No, but we have informal leaders and informal followers. As for anarchist groups - they tend to attract people with a special behavioral pattern which is inherently anti-authoritarian - in short the anarchist movements are filled with those 3-4% of a given population that espouses anti-authoritarian pattern behavior. But when the larger society is absorbed by anarchism, you will soon experience a lot of people who do not want to take active part in what you are doing, but a passive part, being told what they should do.I don't know where your figures come from but I am going to dismiss them as totally irrelevant.
A libertarian communist society is not something that is suddenly going to befall us overnight without warning. It will be part of a long, hard, desperate struggle by the working class for emancipation. When libertarian communism is won it will be because the working class has been powerful, confident and determined in its vision of a totally new world. Anarchism is what happens when the working class truly act as a conscious class to liberate themselves and run society in their vision. Libertarian revolution is class warfare at its most brutal and profound level. Its nothing to do with behavior patterns or any rubbish like that.

As regards your last point nobody can or should make anyone take part in anything. What is important is that people will be free to take part in the democratic day-to-day running and the long term planning of society and the economy. It would be silly to abandon the fight for something so desirable, rational and equitable just because different people will have different levels of interaction in the new society.


What has kept repressive structures working for thousands of years is that people rather than attacking power as such have been attacking violations of power. As long as they are generally left alone to pursue their own life, they would'nt give a damn about if it is a president, an emperor, a prime minister, a commissar or a führer who is in charge.People have been challenging power for millennia. The difference today is that capitalism offers us the real possibility (the material conditions) to finally put an end to illegitimate power, hierarchy, privilege and class. We have a huge working class living, working and struggling together and we have the different technological and cultural advances which help us coordinate together globally like never before. Capitalism is a different set of circumstances to what has happened in history and it is the breeding ground for communism.


In short, people are not naturally tended towards authoritarian or centralised systems, but they are surely tendered towards accepting and submitting to authority, if that authority upholds their economic interests.But the present authority does not uphold the interests of the working class and that is the whole point.


What is the biggest progressive force in my opinion is the development of advanced technology which always will make centralised structures of power unnecessary and antiquated.It is the working class that shall make "centralised structures of power unnecessary and antiquated." Whatever challenges technology throws up to the ruling class they will attempt to deal with, but wholesale destruction of existing authoritarian structures will be carried out by those who are oppressed by those structures. In the end the state only has force left in order to survive and it is with force that it itself shall be done to death.


That will eventually drive society in a more libertarian socialist direction.

We should just wait then? Libertarian socialism is carried in human hearts and brains.