anarchism & institutions

[trivas7]

Social institutions are conglomerations of interrelated roles to serve human needs (hopefully). The factory as an institution is the roles and the relationships between assembly line worker, maintanence worker, supervisor, etc. But this has important implications of the tendency among some anarchists to conceive of the goal of liberation as the abolition of all institutions. Anarchists correctly note that individuals are not completely "free" as long as institutional constraints exist. Any institutional boundary makes some individual choces easier and others harder, and therefore infringes on individual freedom to some extent. But abolishing social institutions is impossible for the human species.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I am not sure this has been posted in the right section.

Theory perhaps?

[Forward Union]

Social institutions are conglomerations of interrelated roles to serve human needs (hopefully). The factory as an institution is the roles and the relationships between assembly line worker, maintanence worker, supervisor, etc. But this has important implications of the tendency among some anarchists to conceive of the goal of liberation as the abolition of all institutions. Anarchists correctly note that individuals are not completely "free" as long as institutional constraints exist. Any institutional boundary makes some individual choces easier and others harder, and therefore infringes on individual freedom to some extent. But abolishing social institutions is impossible for the human species.

Anarchists do not oppose institutions.

[Grunt]

Anarchists do not oppose institutions.
Right ! As long as the people themselves 'are' the institutions.

[Forward Union]

Right ! As long as the people themselves 'are' the institutions.

As long as the institutions are democratically managed, yes.

[Grunt]

As long as the institutions are democratically managed, yes.
Yes - of course! :) The 'institutions' must be directly controlled
and managed by the people themselves!

[trivas7]

All institutions are managed by people.

So then, are you saying that anarchists don't oppose hierarchical relationships and the state (which is just an institution)?

[Forward Union]

All institutions are managed by people.

So then, are you saying that anarchists don't oppose hierarchical relationships and the state (which is just an institution)?

No because the state is a specific way of organising certain institutions. It neccesitates government by a select few people.

Rather than a governing body, Anarchists propose direct management by the people, not by some people, over the rest. In workplaces this would take the form of syndicates that would manage production through regular assemblies. In communitites this would take the form of community assemblies (in russia they were called soviets), and nationally this would take the form of mandated delegates councils. At no point would there be state management.

All institutions would be managed horizontally through a federation of workers and community councils. Infact, once upon a time anarchism was actually called Federalism.

So for example, during the Spanish Anarchist Revolution, of 1936 the Anarchist Union the CNT managed to organsie some of the best improvements to the Catalan Tram system seen in the past 100 years. The Anarchists ran most of the telephone exchanges, managed car production, arms production, food distribution, education, libraries, stores, radio, television, hospitals, you name it.

http://libcom.org/files/collectivised-CNT-tram.jpg

[Grunt]

All institutions are managed by people.
Yes I know. What I meant is -how shall I say- that they directly
controll whatever institutions may be necessary to have. And I am
strictly talking about the 'local level'.



So then, are you saying that anarchists don't oppose hierarchical relationships and the state (which is just an institution)?
No, no ! I am not saying that !

No state, no masters, no elite, no hierarchical bureaucracy.
But sure - there will be 'institutions' on the local level - like
daycare for example.

[trivas7]

No state, no masters, no elite, no hierarchical bureaucracy.
But sure - there will be 'institutions' on the local level - like
daycare for example.

How do institutions -- on any level -- function without hierarchies?

[Grunt]

Cross-Posting. Sorry !


Rather than a governing body, Anarchist propose direct management by the people, not by some people, over the rest. In workplaces this would take the form of syndicates that would manage production through regular assemblies. In communitites this would take the form of community assemblies (in russia they were called soviets), and nationally this would take the form of mandated delegates councils. At no point would there be state management.

Things would be managed from the bottom up.

Yeah - thats what I meant. But I couldn't put it into words. :)

Wat Tyler is much smarter than me - and thus found exactly the
right words. Thanks comrade ! :)

[Grunt]

How do institutions -- on any level -- function without hierarchies?
Its possible ! Take for example the company I work for. Sure they
are capitalist exploiters - but the company has only 2 levels:
The two bosses and 50 odd employees.

So if very very flat hierarchies are possible even in the capitalist
system - then sure as hell institutions without hierarchies should be
possible in an anarchist society.

[Forward Union]

How do institutions -- on any level -- function without hierarchies?

Let's take one institution, the health service for example.

In individual workplaces, you have regular democratic assemblies. This could be a meeting of all the people in the hospital or, a meeting of delegates from each group in the hospital, the cleaners, ward nurces, file clerks etc. They then decide management between them. They then carry out the decisions they made.

They have regional meetings with other hospitals/clinics/etc. And through regional assemblies, decide how to manage themselves. And so on and so on up to the national level, where they have to coordinate with other industries.

I can provide you with multiple cases if you want.

The army however, would have to be managed from the top down, and Anarchists have always proposed this. And carried it out.

[Grunt]

The army however, would have to be managed from the top down, and Anarchists have always proposed this. And carried it out.
Really ? I didn't know that ! :blushing:

But it makes sense, I reckon !

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

How do institutions -- on any level -- function without hierarchies?

Would you call a New England town hall meeting hierarchical? No. Would you call it an institution? Well its been around for several hundred years, so yeah its an institution.

[trivas7]

Let's take one institution, the health service for example.

In individual workplaces, you have regular democratic assemblies. This could be a meeting of all the people in the hospital or, a meeting of delegates from each group in the hospital, the cleaners, ward nurces, file clerks etc. They then decide management between them. They then carry out the decisions they made.

Are you telling me that doctors don't give orders to nurses, nurses to paper shufflers, etc.? Doesn't this constitute hierarchical relationships?

[trivas7]

Would you call a New England town hall meeting hierarchical? No. Would you call it an institution? Well its been around for several hundred years, so yeah its an institution.
Who runs it, how is this decided, and what does the town meeting decide?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Who runs it, how is this decided, and what does the town meeting decide?

Its run by the town, all decisions are made by direct democratic vote and the meeting decides most if not all town policy. Rather institutional don't ya think?

[apathy maybe]

The army however, would have to be managed from the top down, and Anarchists have always proposed this. And carried it out.
Meh, remember folks, Wat doesn't speak for all anarchists when he says stuff like this.

Firstly, anarchists don't support the idea of "the army", armies are institutions of the state (along with police forces, something else which Wat thinks can be part of a hierarchy-less society).
Of course, armies are also bodies of armed people organised to fight other people. So yes, you could have an "anarchist army", but don't make the mistake of thinking it will be like a state army.

There probably will be some sort of hierarchy, but it will be based on respect and competence. The people being ordered about have to respect the people doing the ordering. One of the best ways to do this is elections, the officers can be elected for a time, and are delegated to make decisions on tactics and strategy.

However, there won't be any saluting bullshit, nor will officers get higher (or lesser) pay.

The difference between soldiers and officers will simply be that the latter is selected from the former (by the former) to help organise the organisation, and to help sort out tactics and strategy.

The officers will be obeyed, not because the soldier will get shot or imprisoned if they don't obey, but because they make sense.


What is the difference between organising logistics for a factory and organising logistics for a company of soldiers?
The only difference between the armed forces of an anarchist society and other organisations in that society, is that sometimes you need to have very quick decisions taken. And that is the only reason for the existence of officers in an anarchist army.

[trivas7]

Its run by the town, all decisions are made by direct democratic vote and the meeting decides most if not all town policy. Rather institutional don't ya think?
Who is "the town"? If it's the city bureaucracy who elected it? Surely it too is a hierarchy.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Who is "the town"? If it's the city bureaucracy who elected it? Surely it too is a hierarchy.

The town is anyone of legal age living inside the city limits silly. No one is elected to anything, its a directly democratic town hall meeting.

[Forward Union]

Are you telling me that doctors don't give orders to nurses, nurses to paper shufflers, etc.? Doesn't this constitute hierarchical relationships?

Yes but these are natural hierachies not institutional ones. There's no other way of doing it.

As the famous Anarchist Bakunin said "Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought! in the case of boots, i refer to the authority of the bootmaker"

That said, doctors will nto be able to decide policy. By this I mean, the overall running of the hospital will be decided by everyone. Nurces, and orderlies are as much an important part of the hospital as the doctor or surgeon, and have as much right to say in the management of the institution.

[Forward Union]

What is the difference between organising logistics for a factory and organising logistics for a company of soldiers?
The only difference between the armed forces of an anarchist society and other organisations in that society, is that sometimes you need to have very quick decisions taken. And that is the only reason for the existence of officers in an anarchist army.

You answer your own question here.

[apathy maybe]

You answer your own question here.

Yes, I was just making the point that an anarchist army isn't a hierarchical beast in the same sense a statist army is. The only hierarchy is voluntary and delegated.

[Forward Union]

Yes, I was just making the point that an anarchist army isn't a hierarchical beast in the same sense a statist army is. The only hierarchy is voluntary and delegated.

That's fine, but the hierachy, although volontary and delegated (by the soldiers and not the party) would still be able to impose iron rule on the army, draw up the plans for war and make people do it. Otherwise it's an army in name alone.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Yes but these are natural hierachies not institutional ones. There's no other way of doing it.

As the famous Anarchist Bakunin said "Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought! in the case of boots, i refer to the authority of the bootmaker"

That said, doctors will nto be able to decide policy. By this I mean, the overall running of the hospital will be decided by everyone. Nurces, and orderlies are as much an important part of the hospital as the doctor or surgeon, and have as much right to say in the management of the institution.


Watt I think you've skimmed over the recent work on balanced job complexes. After the revolution we will eliminate situations like this where there are those who have empowered, authority rich jobs, while others are doing more menial work. It inevitably leads to an unequal division of power where the doctors can use their skills and knowledge to command more control and more privileged, while the nurses and orderlies are still performing labor that is alienating and harmful to their being. The profession of doctor is a byproduct of late capitalism and its obsession with credentials. Doctors have made it difficult to enter their profession in order to secure more power, wages and prestige. After capitalism and the state this shouldn't be the case. Most medical problems don't require highly trained specialists. Hell, in my experience half of my doctors get it wrong.

[trivas7]

Watt I think you've skimmed over the recent work on balanced job complexes.
Ala PARECON? IMO it would be a rather tidy little revolution indeed that would be able to implement anything like these on any kind of scale.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Ala PARECON? IMO it would be a rather tidy little revolution indeed that would be able to implement anything like these on any kind of scale.

Parecon came up with it, but its not wedded to parecon. And yes it would be a rather tidy revolution. Considering that a revolution is the complete restructuring of society, balanced job complexes are a minor aspect of a rather large task.

[trivas7]

The town is anyone of legal age living inside the city limits silly. No one is elected to anything, its a directly democratic town hall meeting.
Surely you're not telling me that state and federal law encourages -- let alone allows -- anarchist organization of townships.

[apathy maybe]

That's fine, but the hierachy, although volontary and delegated (by the soldiers and not the party) would still be able to impose iron rule on the army, draw up the plans for war and make people do it. Otherwise it's an army in name alone.
Err, no.

We don't impose iron rule on anyone, and we don't make people do stuff. That's the whole fucking point of anarchism.

I've been trying to make the point, an anarchist army is an army in name only. It is not a statist army. There will not be executions for disobeying orders. There will not be military police.

There will be elected, and accountable officers, who will make broad sweeping decisions, and quick decisions, because that is needed.

Otherwise the difference between the army as an organisation, and a factory, or industry as an organisation, is very little.

Factories generally don't need quick decision making, so they don't need to elect accountable people to make those decisions.

That is the only difference between the way an anarchist army is organised, and any other organisation in an anarchist society.

(I'm very interested in hearing how you can justify "iron rule" (Bolshevik?) and forcing people to do stuff (under threat of what?) using an anarchist framework.)

[trivas7]

Yes but these are natural hierachies not institutional ones. There's no other way of doing it.

That said, doctors will nto be able to decide policy. By this I mean, the overall running of the hospital will be decided by everyone. Nurces, and orderlies are as much an important part of the hospital as the doctor or surgeon, and have as much right to say in the management of the institution.
All human hierarchies are institutional. I.e. there's no such thing as natural as opposed to some other kind of hierarchy, at least for human beings. Doctors don't decide hospital policy now under capitalism.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Surely you're not telling me that state and federal law encourages -- let alone allows -- anarchist organization of townships.

Well they've been around for a very long time, it would be difficult to get rid of them, folks would riot. Besides its not like they pose a real threat to capital, they have little power and few resources. But much like worker's cooperatives, they are a limited way to show a new society in the shell of the old.