Anarchism and Democracy

[trivas7]

Do anarchist believe in democracy?

George Woodcock wrote: "[...] even were democracy possible, the anarchist would still not support it...Anarchists do not advocate political freedom. What they advocate is freedom from politics..." But democracy authority is still authority. Since it has no way of resolving disagreements and difference among the inhabitants of Theleme, its unlimited freedom for each individual is indistinguishable from unlimited despotism by just that individual, exhibited by the words of its greatest proponents.

[Norseman]

Anarchists oppose representative democracy, but generally support direct democracy.

[Morpheus]

Depends on the anarchist and on how you define democracy.

[trivas7]

Depends on the anarchist and on how you define democracy.
Well, how do you define democracy? Historically AFAIK all anarchist theoreticians have been anti-democratic, no?

[apathy maybe]

Well, how do you define democracy? Historically AFAIK all anarchist theoreticians have been anti-democratic, no?

Democracy is rule by the people (generally clarified as "the majority"). As such, of course anarchists are against it. Anarchists are against all rule over people (especially themselves), no matter if it is a majority or a minority. By what right does the opinions of 1000 matter more then that of one? (Normally the right is "might", but that does not make it good.)


Of course, that is very much a simplification of matters. Anarchists don't have a problem with voluntarily accepting rule, so long as they are free to reject it at a later stage.

But again, that's a simplification as well.

Basically, if you want a good answer to many questions about anarchism, you need to read a lot, or actually understand anarchism.

That quote by George Woodcock is a good quote, and yet I would suggest that you read the rest of the chapter of that book to put it into context. (I'm assuming it is from his book on anarchism, which I did read at one stage, but I can't recall that quote exactly.)


So yeah, again, define politics. I've written posts on RevLeft explaining that anarchists are a-political, they are against politics, if you define politics to equate to parliaments, parties and all that bullshit.

Similarly, anarchists are against democracy, if democracy means that the majority are able to enforce their will on a minority (why was it wrong for the "whites" in South Africa to oppress the majority "black" population? Why would it be wrong for the "blacks" in South Africa to oppress the minority "white" population?).

However, anarchists are for democracy, if you define it differently. If you say "democracy is each individual making decisions about their own life", or perhaps "democracy is each individual being directly involved in, and actually having an impact on, the decision making process for things that effect them", then yes anarchists support such things.

Yeah, read that book if you can, read as much as you can about anarchism. Learn about it, and then the answer will come to you, and you won't need to ask the question in the first place.

Anyway, to quote Proudhon (being quoted by An Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA2.html))

Unless democracy is a fraud and the sovereignty of the People a joke, it must be admitted that each citizen in the sphere of his [or her] industry, each municipal, district or provincial council within its own territory . . . should act directly and by itself in administering the interests which it includes, and should exercise full sovereignty in relation to them." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 276]
Complicated answer? It's (partly) because you can't assume that words are defined the same way by everyone.

[Rawthentic]

If there were an anarchist society (if..), how would decisions be made?

Wouldn't it be inevitable that some decisions would come down to a democratic vote? Not everyone will support what everyone else wants, but things will need to proceed and the majority consensus should be carried through.

This whole thing seems so abstract and divorced from reality (whether that be now or in a rev society).

[trivas7]

Democracy is rule by the people (generally clarified as "the majority"). As such, of course anarchists are against it. Anarchists are against all rule over people (especially themselves), no matter if it is a majority or a minority. By what right does the opinions of 1000 matter more then that of one? (Normally the right is "might", but that does not make it good.)

Complicated answer? It's (partly) because you can't assume that words are defined the same way by everyone.
Here's my problem with your answer. Proudhoun wrote: "The principle of liberty is that of the Abbey of Theleme [in Rabelais]: do what you want!" and the principle meant: "any man who cannot do what he wants and anything he wants has the right to revolt, even alone, against the government, even if the government were everybody else." But then how do anarchists assume to resolve disputes among themselves? How does the unlimited freedom of the individual differ from despotism? This is the sense of the brilliant insight by Dostoyevsky's Shigalev: "Starting from unlimited freedom, I arrive at unlimited despotism." The story is similar with Bakunin, whose political schemes were for dictatorship and suppression of democratic control.

[apathy maybe]

If there were an anarchist society (if..), how would decisions be made?

Wouldn't it be inevitable that some decisions would come down to a democratic vote? Not everyone will support what everyone else wants, but things will need to proceed and the majority consensus should be carried through.

This whole thing seems so abstract and divorced from reality (whether that be now or in a rev society).

Define democracy.

If a decision is made that affects me, with or without my involvement, and I am unable to remove myself from that situation, then I would suggest that such a scenario may be "democratic", but it probably wouldn't be "anarchistic". Individuals always should have the right to divorce themselves from decisions that society makes, and (ultimately) the right to divorce themselves from society itself.

[apathy maybe]

Here's my problem with your answer. Proudhoun wrote: "The principle of liberty is that of the Abbey of Theleme [in Rabelais]: do what you want!" and the principle meant: "any man who cannot do what he wants and anything he wants has the right to revolt, even alone, against the government, even if the government were everybody else." But then how do anarchists assume to resolve disputes among themselves? How does the unlimited freedom of the individual differ from despotism? This is the sense of the brilliant insight by Dostoyevsky's Shigalev: "Starting from unlimited freedom, I arrive at unlimited despotism."

Go to the page of An Anarchist FAQ that I linked to. Find the quote I quoted. Read the paragraphs above and below.

Heck read the entire page.

But, basically, to anarchists, there is no "unlimited freedom". (At least not to the sane rational anarchists, I ignore, for the sake of convenience and for their apparent non-existence, the so called "egoists" who claim a right to do anything they wish.) My freedom to swing my fist ends at your face (as the saying goes). My freedom is limited to what does not limit your freedom. And yes, anarchists do argue that individuals have the right to revolt, even if the government that they revolt against comprises everybody else! For what right does the million have to silence the one, when the one does not have the right to silence the million?

Anyway, you are also conflating issues. How do anarchists resolve disputes (by not getting into them...), by discussion, or debate, or democracy, or darts, or otherwise agree methods of arbitration. The resolving of disputes is quite different from the making of decisions in a general sense.

[trivas7]

But, basically, to anarchists, there is no "unlimited freedom". (At least not to the sane rational anarchists, I ignore, for the sake of convenience and for their apparent non-existence, the so called "egoists" who claim a right to do anything they wish.)

By what anarchist principle is the individual constrained in her freedom? You must eschew the plain words of Proudhon and Bakunin to think otherwise.


Anyway, you are also conflating issues. How do anarchists resolve disputes (by not getting into them...), by discussion, or debate, or democracy, or darts, or otherwise agree methods of arbitration. The resolving of disputes is quite different from the making of decisions in a general sense.No, you've already ruled out democracy. Nothing in principle precludes violence as a method of resolving conflict between anarchists AFAIK.

[Decolonize The Left]

Democracy is a "government for, of, and by, the people." As such, it is necessarily "direct": each person maintains one equal part in said government - free to advocate support, withdraw support, and share in the discussion/debate as felt appropriate/necessary.

Given this definition of democracy, I see no reason why it would be incompatible with anarchism. Democracy, understood in this fashion (as opposed to 'representative democracy'), is entirely feasible under anarchism. It could not operate on a large scale - all 'governments' would be decentralized by necessity, and all people within the community would be part of the 'government.'

An anarchist who has not thought this through, or is curious, might ask: but why would we require such a government, I thought anarchism was opposed to governments?

The answer to such a question is simple: anarchists are opposed to hierarchical authority, and hence are opposed to all conventional governments.
A democracy is non-hierarchical in all senses, it is complete political equality. And since a public, open, equal, forum will be necessary to coordinate a society based on the maxim 'to each according to need, from each according to ability', democracy is the best option.

- August

[trivas7]

anarchists are opposed to hierarchical authority, and hence are opposed to all conventional governments.

What is an example of a non-hierarchical authority? I can ignore to my peril the authority of my doctor; nevertheless, isn't he the authority in terms of my medical care?

[GPDP]

I would say a true, meaningful democracy, one that I as an anarchist would vouch for, would give each person a say in a decision in proportion to the degree that such a decision affects them. This goes for all matters, whether they be economical, political, or social.

Thus, if an issue is brought forth in the community by, say, a person who wants to build a bridge, and this bridge, by this person's design, would disrupt the flow of a river, the people who are sustained by this river would have greater say in the building of this bridge. However, the people that live miles away from the river, and stand to neither benefit nor face consequences because of the bridge, would get little to no say in this decision.

That was kind of a stupid example, but you get the point.


What is an example of a non-hierarchical authority? I can ignore to my peril the authority of my doctor; nevertheless, isn't he the authority in terms of my medical care?

That is definitely an example of legitimate, non-hierarchical authority, one which anarchists do not object to.

[apathy maybe]

By what anarchist principle is the individual constrained in her freedom? You must eschew the plain words of Proudhon and Bakunin to think otherwise.
Don't be a fucking idiot. I don't believe you are this fucking stupid, and so I conclude that you are trolling. Don't.

The individual is constrained by not being permitted to impact upon others or their freedom. I already said that.


No, you've already ruled out democracy. Nothing in principle precludes violence as a method of resolving conflict between anarchists AFAIK.
I ruled out one definition of democracy, and I ruled it out for general decision making processes. I then said that dispute resolution is not the same thing. Go back and read my posts again.

And no, I didn't rule out violence as a method of resolving conflict between anarchists, I said "otherwise agree methods of arbitration". If two individuals wish to fight to resolve an issue, and they explicitly or otherwise make clear that they do not wish others to intercede, then I don't see anything wrong with that. (For an example, go and read The Dispossessed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dispossessed) where a fight does take place to settle a "dispute".)

So yeah, I believe you are trolling, and as such request that you stop it. (I find it difficult to believe that someone can be so stupid otherwise.)

[Norseman]

What is an example of a non-hierarchical authority? I can ignore to my peril the authority of my doctor; nevertheless, isn't he the authority in terms of my medical care?

That's an example right there. Your doctor can't force you to do anything; nevertheless, his knowledge and experience makes him an authority on that topic, so, although he can't force you to do anything, he can be very good at persuading you. If you want to make doctors hierarchical, then you could, for example, require that people follow their orders, whether or not people agree with those orders. Of course, some authority would be needed to appoint those doctors, and some other authority would presumably be needed to appoint that authority, and so on. Lack of hierarchy means that no one has the legitimate authority to force anyone else to do anything; in particular, no one legitimately uses the deprivation of human rights to make other people do what they want.

Human rights, of course, are not the same around the world, and we can argue a lot about what they include. Certainly, some basic ones are the right to live, the right to be safe, and the right to be free.

For example, if there is no hierarchy, and a self-proclaimed police officer, dressed up and armed, decides to tackle someone to the ground, handcuffs and kidnaps them because they were smoking marijuana, that police officer's actions would not be considered legitimate. Of course, it's up to the people to decide what is and is not legitimate, and how to deal with it, but if they accept the three rights that I listed, then they would reject the legitimacy of such actions.

[trivas7]

That's an example right there. Your doctor can't force you to do anything; nevertheless, his knowledge and experience makes him an authority on that topic, so, although he can't force you to do anything, he can be very good at persuading you. If you want to make doctors hierarchical, then you could, for example, require that people follow their orders, whether or not people agree with those orders. Of course, some authority would be needed to appoint those doctors, and some other authority would presumably be needed to appoint that authority, and so on. Lack of hierarchy means that no one has the legitimate authority to force anyone else to do anything; in particular, no one legitimately uses the deprivation of human rights to make other people do what they want.

But this confuses authority with coersion. In anarchist society why would I need to be appointed by anyone to engage in a medical practice?

IMO authority by definition is hierarchical, because knowledge and talent are. Anarchism in theory is vexed by such simple probings.

[Norseman]

But this confuses authority with coersion. In anarchist society why would I need to be appointed by anyone to engage in a medical practice?


You wouldn't. I said "If you want to make doctors hierarchical..." In anarchy, when you have no hierarchy, all you would need is to know enough about medical practice to help people.



IMO authority by definition is hierarchical, because knowledge and talent are. Anarchism in theory is vexed by such simple probings.

"IMO authority by definition is hierarchical..." Yes.
"...because knowledge and talent are." No.

How do you see hierarchy in knowledge and talent? :confused:

[trivas7]

How do you see hierarchy in knowledge and talent? :confused:
Just as in the example of my doctor, knowledge confers authority, no? My doctor re medical knowledge stands hierarchically above me.

[apathy maybe]

trivas7, stop fucking trolling.

I'm convinced that you know well enough that the word "authority" has more then one definition, and that anarchist theory since at least Bakunin have distinguished between the two senses. From http://www.panarchy.org/bakunin/authority.1871.html



Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognise no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.
I also suggest reading the entire article, as it is worth reading, and is only short.

[Norseman]

Just as in the example of my doctor, knowledge confers authority, no? My doctor re medical knowledge stands hierarchically above me.

Because your doctor gives you orders and will punish you if you don't obey him...? Simple knowledge is not hierarchy. It's a completely different thing. Your doctor's knowledge only gives him whatever authority you give to him. If you think your doctor knows fuck-all about medicine, you're still free to do whatever you like.

[trivas7]

Because your doctor gives you orders and will punish you if you don't obey him...? Simple knowledge is not hierarchy. It's a completely different thing. Your doctor's knowledge only gives him whatever authority you give to him. If you think your doctor knows fuck-all about medicine, you're still free to do whatever you like.
Hierarchy doesn't imply coercion, agreed. But doesn't his knowledge confer hierarchical authority? In that sense isn't any authority hierarchical?

[redarmyfaction38]

Go to the page of An Anarchist FAQ that I linked to. Find the quote I quoted. Read the paragraphs above and below.

Heck read the entire page.

But, basically, to anarchists, there is no "unlimited freedom". (At least not to the sane rational anarchists, I ignore, for the sake of convenience and for their apparent non-existence, the so called "egoists" who claim a right to do anything they wish.) My freedom to swing my fist ends at your face (as the saying goes). My freedom is limited to what does not limit your freedom. And yes, anarchists do argue that individuals have the right to revolt, even if the government that they revolt against comprises everybody else! For what right does the million have to silence the one, when the one does not have the right to silence the million?

Anyway, you are also conflating issues. How do anarchists resolve disputes (by not getting into them...), by discussion, or debate, or democracy, or darts, or otherwise agree methods of arbitration. The resolving of disputes is quite different from the making of decisions in a general sense.


so basically "anarchists" are calling for a return to the principles of "the old religion" where "an individual is free to do as he wishes but harm no one".
the only debate being whether "no one" includes the individual.

[apathy maybe]

so basically "anarchists" are calling for a return to the principles of "the old religion" where "an individual is free to do as he wishes but harm no one".
the only debate being whether "no one" includes the individual.
No exactly. Anarchists call for "an individual is free to do what they wish, so long as it does not interfere with another's freedom".

If I want to kill myself, cut myself, do drugs or whatever, that's fine. My body, my life.

If I want *others* to beat me, cut me or whatever, then that is also fine, so long as I am consenting, and the other is consenting too.

Basically, anarchists are calling for freedom.

[Incendiarism]

Hierarchy doesn't imply coercion, agreed. But doesn't his knowledge confer hierarchical authority? In that sense isn't any authority hierarchical?

Yes, but it does not impede on the liberty of another. It's about social equality, and it doesn't seem far off to me for one to be considered an intellectual, or known as the strongest in an anarchist society.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I think what most non-anarchists fail to understand is that anarchism doesn't propose radical individualism where we all just naturally go about our choices with no repercussions. People would associate, but since association is free and I can easily leave your group to find another, there wouldn't be "politics" - there would only be necessary decisions. Obviously there may be some bitter debates, but rarely would someone leave a defense association if - say - it bans the consumption of otter skins for preservation purposes.

Representative democracy is burdensome and it has no strict benefits. If you want to take a quasi-rightist approach, anarchism is competition of governments. The best equipped (socialist, direct democracy probably being that) would outperform the rest.

[chatterboxes]

If there were an anarchist society (if..), how would decisions be made?

Wouldn't it be inevitable that some decisions would come down to a democratic vote? Not everyone will support what everyone else wants, but things will need to proceed and the majority consensus should be carried through.

Theoretically, in an anarchist society, decisions wouldn't be made for the group. Each individual makes his or her own decisions. If some people are on the same page, they would probably band together for their own best interest.

In my opinion, true anarchy is like true, full-on communism - it's never happened, and it never will happen. Its an interesting theoretical construct to discuss, though!

Anarchy is actually, in my understanding, very, very right, not left at all, though some people with otherwise leftist view report they are anarchists. They are anti-government in the truest sense of the word - there should be no one making any decisions for anyone else. There should be no police, no military, nothing.

Most people I've met who claim to be anarchists are actually more Libertarian, or they are 14 years old and, due to their stage of development, are trying to separate themselves from authority figures (as well they should - that's the point of adolescence [sp?]), and anarchy sounds good to them, having not fully thought it through. When you ask them, "but what if your house is on fire - there would be no one organized to come and help you, because in many societies, the fire dept is a government agency." That tends to wake them up.

There are a few true anarchists who somehow believe this lack of a system would work. I don't get it, but to each his/er own!:)

[chatterboxes]

I think what most non-anarchists fail to understand is that anarchism doesn't propose radical individualism where we all just naturally go about our choices with no repercussions. People would associate, but since association is free and I can easily leave your group to find another, there wouldn't be "politics" - there would only be necessary decisions. Obviously there may be some bitter debates, but rarely would someone leave a defense association if - say - it bans the consumption of otter skins for preservation purposes.

Representative democracy is burdensome and it has no strict benefits. If you want to take a quasi-rightist approach, anarchism is competition of governments. The best equipped (socialist, direct democracy probably being that) would outperform the rest.




Hmm. Interesting point. However, I can't help but feel your point is inherently flawed. If you disagree with the group, you leave, taking with you any assets you have, possibly to the detriment of the group. Or, you suck it up and stay, angry. Its still your individual choice, and there will be no repercussions for it. In any other form of government (I hate to call anarchy a form of govt, because its not), however a decision is made, its made. You either get in line and follow that decision, or you face a consequence. That consequence leads most people to follow at least the major laws of the land, while continuing to provide the assets they have to the community. If the law is broken, you are removed from the community in one way or another until you are deemed "punished," or are ready to resume your role. It sounds cold, until you look at the alternative in a similar light. In anarchy, you do whatsoever you choose, regardless of its repercussions on others. So, if you hate the butcher, you can kill the butcher, and then leave the community. Now, they may lynch you, or they may not. Either way, they are out a butcher. Both outcomes in that situation are much worse that should happen in a more controlled society.

Anarchy is not the opposite of representative government - it is the absence of it. The opposite of a representative government is pure, true democracy where every person gets a vote on every thing, these votes are counted person for person, and whichever side gets the most points wins.

[trivas7]

Anarchy is not the opposite of representative government - it is the absence of it.
What decides conflict between individuals in the absence of representative government?

[chatterboxes]

What decides conflict between individuals in the absence of representative government?

In which context? As I just stated, anarchy is not the opposite of representative government. I'll answer to both ways it could go that I mentioned:

1. anarchy: the individuals. It would be their problem. If the issue was big enough that it involved the rest of the community, factions may band together. But, at the end of the day, there would be no protocol. Whoever had the most assets or the most physical strength would win.

2. true democracy: the people. Each and every person who wants to would vote on it, and majority would rule.

[#FF0000]

What decides conflict between individuals in the absence of representative government?

Simple. Free agreement. They work it out themselves. Dealing with people isn't like herding cats. Society and history is loaded with examples of individuals coming together to figure something out and walking away with a solution that makes things work. Government does not need to get involved for things to happen in society. People know what they need to meet their material needs, and they aren't so stubborn that they can't work together and get things done without one being in a position of power.

Honestly, now, how many of you have read any anarchist theory?

[trivas7]

Simple. Free agreement. They work it out themselves.
Free agreement already assumes the absence of individual conflict. Don't you see that that's a pipe dream? You beg the question of what insures free agreement.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

If the majority of power is centered in people who uphold anarchism, there are no immediate problems - similarly, if fascism was upheld by 70% of the world, you couldn't expect anarchism to operate. We saw a similar circumstance develop in Spain.

I'm failing to see where free associations can be classified as a pipe dream. Obviously some criminal types would exist, and - if bad enough - associations might act against this rogue person, but other free associations aren't going to rush up and defend a rapist or murderer. We don't see European wanting war against other countries because of their different laws. International affairs operate in this manner.

[trivas7]

If the majority of power is centered in people who uphold anarchism, there are no immediate problems - similarly, if fascism was upheld by 70% of the world, you couldn't expect anarchism to operate. We saw a similar circumstance develop in Spain.

Is this why bourgeois politicians always agree with each other, Communist parties always see eye to eye, and conflicts never arise between people who share the same beliefs?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Is this why bourgeois politicians always agree with each other, Communist parties always see eye to eye, and conflicts never arise between people who share the same beliefs?

People with similar beliefs rarely go after each other. China and the Soviet Union didn't engage in open warfare, libertarians and conservatives often work together, and rarely does one liberal republic go after another.

[Bilan]

AM, your understanding of democracy and anarchism also seems entirely utopian.
You don't seem to grasp the realities of the organization of modern industry, and modern society at all, and long for a utopian (and by that I mean, unachievable) world.

[Sentinel]

Gotta agree, people will not be able to claim total independence in every given situation in anarchism -- that's not how human society works. Therefore the individual must act in a way which benefits the collective.

Democratic local level majority voting is how things will be determined, not by consensus. Consensus voting is the best way to never ever achieve a shit, and is especially fatal if applied in threatened situations such as during a revolutionary war.

[#FF0000]

Free agreement already assumes the absence of individual conflict. Don't you see that that's a pipe dream? You beg the question of what insures free agreement.

How do you figure? People whose aims conflict somewhat can still come to an agreement without a bureaucrat being assigned to their case. People who disagree can compromise, and when something needs to get done, they will compromise. Humans aren't so petty that they'll forget about taking care of things they need to survive just because they disagree with someone.

[apathy maybe]

AM, your understanding of democracy and anarchism also seems entirely utopian.
You don't seem to grasp the realities of the organization of modern industry, and modern society at all, and long for a utopian (and by that I mean, unachievable) world.
Forgive me for not agreeing with you.

It may well be that we never achieve a true anarchist society, however, there is no point lowering the benchmark and point to the new level and saying "this is now all we need before we can say we live in anarchy".

Basically, what I've said about anarchism and democracy is perfectly correct, even if it is "utopian". Because if there is a situation where a vote is taken on an issue, and the majority orders (and can enforce the order) someone to take some action or do something, that is not anarchistic.

So yeah, I'll keep my standards high, even if they are utopian, because I want anarchism, not some almost anarchy. And if you want to lower your standards, then don't let me stop you, but don't expect me to respect your calling it anarchism. (I also really don't think that "platformism" is any sort of anarchism either.)


Gotta agree, people will not be able to claim total independence in every given situation in anarchism -- that's not how human society works. Therefore the individual must act in a way which benefits the collective.
And again, I disagree. Well, let me rephrase that, people can claim total independence in certain scenarios, and where they cannot, they are free to leave society. The point is, if I don't agree, I don't have to follow what is best for the collective, I am free to leave.

I also disagree with the second sentence, why must the individual act to benefit the collective as a whole? What if that seriously disadvantages the individual?

Democratic local level majority voting is how things will be determined, not by consensus. Consensus voting is the best way to never ever achieve a shit, and is especially fatal if applied in threatened situations such as during a revolutionary war.
Two things, revolutionary war is not "anarchism", though we should try and organise along anarchistic lines (I have written else where about the possible organisational structures for an "anarchistic" army). And, well shit, I disagree that consensus is never the best way to do stuff.

I have worked in organisations where consensus works, and it works quickly, and everyone is happy with a decision (and a decision that isn't a minor one at that).

At the same time, I have worked in places where voting is the way to do things, and you are much more likely to find people less then happy with the outcome, and not putting nearly as much into the work as they may have done otherwise.

Let me try and explain it again, where a vote is taken, and 49% of people disagree with the outcome, that is not conducive to a healthy working environment. A free anarchist system would not prevent those 49% of people from simply not participating in the carrying out of that decision, or even from doing something different. (Though if that something different was in direct opposition to what the 51% were doing, then there would be cause for alarm, and a consensus should really be reached to prevent splitting the group.)
The same principle applies if it is 1% of the group instead of 49%, or even one person. (You will not convince me that a simple majority has any more right to rule over anyone else, then a single person. And 50%+1 is no more valid then 75%, I have read and analysed the arguments before.)


So where was I? trivas7 is a troll and people should stop responding to them. And if anarchism is utopian, then that is still no reason to lower the standards for what we want.

[Bilan]

Forgive me for not agreeing with you.

It may well be that we never achieve a true anarchist society, however, there is no point lowering the benchmark and point to the new level and saying "this is now all we need before we can say we live in anarchy".

This isn't about "lowering standards", its about being realistic, and understand the requirements and necessities of a revolutionary situation.

Total consensus is rarely possible, but is a desired goal.
But that doesn't mean the over throwal of egalitarian and democratic organising: the structures of an anarchist group wont change and betray the principles of anarchism and the revolution for the sake of it.
It means however that you can't just go stomping your foot for constant consensus when its entirely impossible.



Basically, what I've said about anarchism and democracy is perfectly correct, even if it is "utopian". Because if there is a situation where a vote is taken on an issue, and the majority orders (and can enforce the order) someone to take some action or do something, that is not anarchistic.

What manifests as a majority, and what the issue being voted on, is far more relevant than you're treating it as.
51/49 is not something you'd follow, as its obviously completely unanarchistic, and undemocratic.

But enough with the pussy footing; the reality of struggle desires realistic methods and demands (Don't you dare quote bookchin at me on that :p), not petty utopianism.



So yeah, I'll keep my standards high, even if they are utopian, because I want anarchism, not some almost anarchy. And if you want to lower your standards, then don't let me stop you, but don't expect me to respect your calling it anarchism. (I also really don't think that "platformism" is any sort of anarchism either.)

I'm not a platformist?
And come on, don't be so bloody arrogant. You're not even arguing a point, you're just flapping your wings about how anarchist you are, while failing to provide how your methods and theory will practically apply - because when push comes to shove, that's what counts. Doesn't matter how much floaty liberte rhetoric you use.

[chatterboxes]

AM, your understanding of democracy and anarchism also seems entirely utopian.
You don't seem to grasp the realities of the organization of modern industry, and modern society at all, and long for a utopian (and by that I mean, unachievable) world.

I agree. It was like I was saying earlier, when AM discounted egoists: you can't just ditch something because it doesn't fit your argument. And you can't expect things to always go smoothly because there is a theory to support that it could happen.

I think the main thing anarchists are forgetting is entropy - its true for societies as well as the universe. Things are always moving towards chaos, and it takes work to fight it. Such loose associations just won't cut it.

[chatterboxes]

Anarachy Maybe, you are treading through dangerous waters - blindly holding onto an ideal regardless of any argument presented as you have done in several replies (please don't make me go back and find all the quotes - I'm too old and tired) is foolish at best. Can we all be honest with eachother? There is really no such thing as a perfect theory of government. That is why there is no country on earth that perfectly follows any of them. As soon as you give up your right to think critically about things in lieu of dedication to a way of thought, you give up everything. So long as you blindly follow the teachings of the anarchists, you are giving up the heart of anarchy, which is free will.

[nuisance]

wow, this thread is terrible. I mean, where to start!? Obviously some people need to know what they're talking about before making ridiculous assertions.

[chatterboxes]

wow, this thread is terrible. I mean, where to start!? Obviously some people need to know what they're talking about before making ridiculous assertions.

Care to elaborate? As it stands, you could be talking about any of us. :)

[chatterboxes]

And, by the way, as far as the thread being, "terrible," this IS in the learning section - statements like that, regardless of their validity, does nothing to encourage further understanding, growth and development for people who presumably are seeking those things. Especially when it is not qualified with specifics or examples of what you find to be a "ridiculous assertion." They're undoubtedly here - I think that's going to be par for the course when you're dealing with people who are still learning (as are we all, I suppose - I know I am), especially if someone has tightly linked themselves to a theoretical construct that they feel defines them - you are going to get far more emotional, rather than logical, responses.

[trivas7]

How do you figure? People whose aims conflict somewhat can still come to an agreement without a bureaucrat being assigned to their case. People who disagree can compromise, and when something needs to get done, they will compromise. Humans aren't so petty that they'll forget about taking care of things they need to survive just because they disagree with someone.
I don't know what you're asking. All I'm saying is that people whose politics agree will still have personal conflicts. In my experience -- even among comrades, among people who respect and love each other, yes -- people are petty.

[Sentinel]

I also disagree with the second sentence, why must the individual act to benefit the collective as a whole? What if that seriously disadvantages the individual?Society does not exist to serve the individual on it's own expense. It would hardly be seen as positive if someone who has benefited from the society all his life suddenly goes against it, especially in the time of need. To each according to need, but also from each according to ability, remember.


I have worked in organisations where consensus works, and it works quickly, and everyone is happy with a decision (and a decision that isn't a minor one at that).Ohh, organisations with a charismatic leader then. :lol:

Seriously, I sure would agree to use consensus in certain situations during peacetime, when the revolution is secured and noones lives or living standards are at stake. But it's by definition an utterly inefficient and dangerous method especially in pressed situations.

Also, at this stage before the revolution, consensus can be successfully used in orgs and people can just 'leave' and start a group of their own, or quit politics and go back to watching Glamour or whatever, if they can't agree with the decisions. But in a revolutionary situation the scenario is entirely different:


And again, I disagree. Well, let me rephrase that, people can claim total independence in certain scenarios, and where they cannot, they are free to leave society. The point is, if I don't agree, I don't have to follow what is best for the collective, I am free to leave.Leave where? Either to join the ranks of the counter-revolution or to start a separatist fraction of some sort, which would also benefit the enemies of the revolution. At best, to hide somewhere and refuse to defend the revolution (to later emerge and reap it's fruits). I don't see how any of that could be tolerated during a revolutionary war, when the collective responsibility of the proletariat towards itself must be evoked -- it would fall under deserting.

You have for some reason a strong bias in favor of individualist anarchism. I'm fine with that, but what bothers me is your claim of the title anarchist exclusively for yourself.

[#FF0000]

I don't know what you're asking. All I'm saying is that people whose politics agree will still have personal conflicts. In my experience -- even among comrades, among people who respect and love each other, yes -- people are petty.

I'm not saying that personal conflict won't arise. No one ever did. What I'm saying is that it is ridiculous to say that free agreement is impossible because people will never disagree. People can be petty, but what it seems you're asserting is that humans are so much so that they simply can't get on with things on their own, and this simply isn't true, with evidence of this existing all over the place in society today and in history.


Care to elaborate? As it stands, you could be talking about any of us. :)

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I think he's talking about. It seems like some people (in particular, you and trivas7) have no idea whatsoever about what anarchism's about. Now, hey I criticize the ideas of Marxists all the time, but I at least do them the courtesy of reading Marx first and getting acquainted with their ideas first. From what I see here, it doesn't seem like many people have bothered to crack open a book about anarchism beforehand.

EDIT: Not to say that I mind people asking questions and answering them for you, but I'm not going to start and square one with someone and school them on anarchism, especially when they make it clear that they aren't listening by ignoring the answers and explanations.

[trivas7]

I'm not saying that personal conflict won't arise. No one ever did. What I'm saying is that it is ridiculous to say that free agreement is impossible because people will never disagree. People can be petty, but what it seems you're asserting is that humans are so much so that they simply can't get on with things on their own, and this simply isn't true, with evidence of this existing all over the place in society today and in history.


What decides conflict between individuals in the absence of representative government?


Simple. Free agreement. They work it out themselves.

I'm not saying that free agreement is impossible because people will never disagree. I'm saying that free agreement is possible only if something else -- government, tradition, appeals to the Oracle, violence -- decides in its absence. Free agreement is the first -- not the last -- court of appeal. It sounds as if you disagree with this, correct?

[redarmyfaction38]

No exactly. Anarchists call for "an individual is free to do what they wish, so long as it does not interfere with another's freedom".

If I want to kill myself, cut myself, do drugs or whatever, that's fine. My body, my life.

If I want *others* to beat me, cut me or whatever, then that is also fine, so long as I am consenting, and the other is consenting too.

Basically, anarchists are calling for freedom.

ok, but can you see that "freedom" being attainable in any society other than a "communist" one?
also, an economic question, if an individual chooses not to contribute to "society", should that individual enjoy the benefits of "society"?
or should they be cast asunder, so to speak?

[chatterboxes]

I'm not saying that personal conflict won't arise. No one ever did. What I'm saying is that it is ridiculous to say that free agreement is impossible because people will never disagree. People can be petty, but what it seems you're asserting is that humans are so much so that they simply can't get on with things on their own, and this simply isn't true, with evidence of this existing all over the place in society today and in history.

Examples, please? Its very poor argument to say, "evidence exists all over the place" without any back up. On what scale? In what contexts? I agree on small scale it happens all the time, but unless you're planning on going tribal, that's not really going to work in our current more global society, is it? If you were trying to pursuade an audience of any nature - academic, public, whatever - this simply would not suffice. The same is true in this case.



[/quote]I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I think he's talking about. It seems like some people (in particular, you and trivas7) have no idea whatsoever about what anarchism's about. Now, hey I criticize the ideas of Marxists all the time, but I at least do them the courtesy of reading Marx first and getting acquainted with their ideas first. From what I see here, it doesn't seem like many people have bothered to crack open a book about anarchism beforehand.[/quote]

Wow, you're kind of a dick, aren't you? I have read about anarchism, thank you. As I've stated in other posts, I'm certainly still learning about all political theory, and anarchism is not my forte, partly because its never jived with me, and almost every anarchist I've known gave up their support of the theory when they were about 15, so there hasn't been, in my circles, much opportunity to discuss it. I can read until my eyes bug out, but until it is discussed with others - the ideas bounced back and forth - its much less meaningful. That's why I, and others who are not anarchists but wish to learn, are here.

As I stated to someone else, when people are rude and hypercritical of others, it does nothing to foster an environment for learning, and for getting your points across. It breeds defensiveness. Even I, who is quite aware of this, am getting defensive, and you started with a defensive tone. Defensive does not breed thought and discussion. Quite the opposite.

[/quote]EDIT: Not to say that I mind people asking questions and answering them for you, but I'm not going to start and square one with someone and school them on anarchism, especially when they make it clear that they aren't listening by ignoring the answers and explanations.[/quote]

I don't believe anyone is asking you to start at square one. In fact, I don't believe I asked you anything personally. Please inform us exactly what we said that was so far off - educate me. I manage to maintain an open mind. Even though I find your communication style very off-putting, and your tone unbearably arrogant, I find it very easy to believe that you have something to add, and that you quite likely know more about anarchism than I. You have yet to say anything in your post to back that up, however, so if you're going to jump in with insulting statements, please back them up. The rest of us have put ourselves out there already with what we know - and what we don't. You have no right to insult when you've added nothing except an unsupported claim that people can compromise (again, what is the scale you're referring to? what contexts - your statement is far too vague). At least, that's all you've added to this thread - I don't really want to go throughout the entire board and find other posts of yours. This thread is what we are referring to, so that's all I referenced.

I really am serious - please explain yourself more. I'm happy to acknowledge your greater knowledge of this subject matter if you demonstrate it, and while I doubt it will convince me to become an anarchist, a broader understanding would be an unbelievable asset to myself as a human being, because it would lead to a greater understanding of my fellow man. :-)

Tag, you're it.

[chatterboxes]

OK - sorry. I can't get the quote thing to work well in my post, but you guys get the drift.:)

[#FF0000]

Sorry about my tone. Meant to sound exactly the opposite and failed. Frustration leaking through. :lol:


Examples, please? Its very poor argument to say, "evidence exists all over the place" without any back up. On what scale? In what contexts? I agree on small scale it happens all the time, but unless you're planning on going tribal, that's not really going to work in our current more global society, is it? If you were trying to pursuade an audience of any nature - academic, public, whatever - this simply would not suffice. The same is true in this case.

Do I really need to give an example of free agreement in the world? How about a contract for starters? Two parties agreeing and compromising to reach a mutually beneficial end. Right there, in any good contract. Peter Kropotkin also points out a couple great examples of free agreement achieving great ends in The Conquest Of Bread:



We know that Europe has a system of railways, 175,000 miles long, and that on this network you can nowadays travel from north to south, from east to west, from Madrid to Petersburg, and from Calais to Constantinople, without stoppages, without even changing carriages (when you travel by express). More than that: a parcel thrown into a station will find its addressee anywhere, in Turkey or in Central Asia, without more formality needed for sending it than writing its destination on a bit of paper.

This result might have been obtained in two ways. A Napoleon, a Bismarck, or some potentate having conquered Europe, would from Paris, Berlin, or Rome, draw a railway map and regulate the hours of the trains. The Russian Tsar Nicholas I dreamt of taking such action. When he was shown rough drafts of railways between Moscow and Petersburg, he seized a ruler and drew on the map of Russia a straight line between these two capitals, saying, “Here is the plan.” And the road ad was built in a straight line, filling in deep ravines, building bridges of a giddy height, which had to be abandoned a few years later, at a cost of about £120,000 to £150,000 per English mile.

This is one way, but happily things were managed differently. Railways were constructed piece by piece, the pieces were joined together, and the hundred divers companies, to whom these pieces belonged, came to an understanding concerning the arrival and departure of their trains, and the running of carriages on their rails, from all countries, without unloading merchandise as it passes from one network to another.

All this was done by free agreement, by exchange of letters and proposals, by congresses at which relegates met to discuss certain special subjects, but not to make laws; after the congress, the delegates returned to their companies, not with a law, but with the draft of a contract to be accepted or rejected.

...And the most interesting thing in this organization is, that there is no European Central Government of Railways! Nothing! No minister of railways, no dictator, not even a continental parliament, not even a directing committee! Everything is done by contract.

Granted, the parties involved here happen to be businesses. However, if you can't look past that, then he also presents another example in Holland, concerning Holland's canal system.

You see, in Holland, the canals were used to transport just about everything around the country and sometimes to others. Of course the boats on the canals need some sort of regulation, like any other sort of traffic, especially when deciding which boats would pass before which. Of course, something so complicated and important must require state intervention to ensure things work out and resources get where they need to go! Surely simple workmen could not organize something so grand on their own!


Yet it is not so. The Dutch settled matters in a more practical way, long ago, by founding guilds, or syndicates of boatmen. These were free associations sprung from the very needs of navigation. The right of way for the boats was adjusted by the order of inscription in a navigation register; they had to follow one another in turn. Nobody was allowed to get ahead of the others under pain of being excluded from the guild. None could station more than a certain number of days along the quay; and if the owner found no goods to carry during that time, so much the worse for him; he had to depart with his empty barge to leave room for newcomers. Obstruction was thus avoided, even though the competition between the private owners of the boats continued to exist. Were the latter suppressed, the agreement would have been only the more cordial.


Oh.


I should also point out that joining one of these guilds was completely optional. Boatmen could do their thing without being in a guild. However, the guilds still spread, with German boatmen and Russian boatmen joining up as well, helping with traffic regulation in the rivers and canals in Germany and the Baltic. And all without a single, centralized governing body..



I'm not saying that free agreement is impossible because people will never disagree. I'm saying that free agreement is possible only if something else -- government, tradition, appeals to the Oracle, violence -- decides in its absence. Free agreement is the first -- not the last -- court of appeal. It sounds as if you disagree with this, correct?

Your language is pretty muddy here. Intellectual sounding words strung together that obscure what you're saying. I am assuming you meant to say this:



Free agreement only works if there's some consequence associated with not fulfilling one's part of the agreement.In which case, I'm not sure if I agree or not. I'm not even sure it's relevant, since there will always be a consequence of not fulfilling one's side of the deal, such as not meeting that very important mutually beneficial end. Individuals and groups who want something done will get something done, especially if it's important. They'll reason and compromise and argue, and then settle on a suitable agreement. I don't see what's so utopian about this. People have been doing this since the beginning of history.

EDIT: sorry for the hasty post here. Sort of in a hurry!

[trivas7]

Your language is pretty muddy here. Intellectual sounding words strung together that obscure what you're saying.
i said what I meant to say; I suggest you reread what I wrote more slowly when you're not pressed for time.

[apathy maybe]

I'm going to go through the thread and respond to things that look interesting. That might mean I don't respond to a point that is addressing me. C'est la vie.


I think what most non-anarchists fail to understand is that anarchism doesn't propose radical individualism where we all just naturally go about our choices with no repercussions. People would associate, but since association is free and I can easily leave your group to find another, there wouldn't be "politics" - there would only be necessary decisions. Obviously there may be some bitter debates, but rarely would someone leave a defense association if - say - it bans the consumption of otter skins for preservation purposes.
Yes, anarchism doesn't propose radical individualism (at least in a general sense, some anarchists sure do). But the consequences of anarchism do mean that if you don't like a decision, you are free to leave. Your description here is good, and matches my opinion fairly well.


Most people I've met who claim to be anarchists are actually more Libertarian, or they are 14 years old and, due to their stage of development, are trying to separate themselves from authority figures (as well they should - that's the point of adolescence [sp?]), and anarchy sounds good to them, having not fully thought it through. When you ask them, "but what if your house is on fire - there would be no one organized to come and help you, because in many societies, the fire dept is a government agency." That tends to wake them up.Just because in the society we live in today the fire department is a "government agency", doesn't mean that into the future it has to remain that way. In many places the only thing the government has to do with a particular fire brigade is providing funds, land and trucks. The rest is done by volunteers.

The rest of your posts tend to show a misunderstanding of what anarchism is as well.


---------


This isn't about "lowering standards", its about being realistic, and understand the requirements and necessities of a revolutionary situation.Umm, we may be talking about two different things, I tend to be talking about a "future perfect" society, post revolution/transition. Of course, in a revolutionary period we aren't going to be living in anarchy. We try and live as anarchistic lives as possible, working together and so on.

It means however that you can't just go stomping your foot for constant consensus when its entirely impossible.
Indeed, during a "revolutionary" or "transitional" period, it would be foolish. Even during a future perfect society consensus may not be desirable. But in that future perfect society, if a person disagrees with a decision, they don't have to help implement it.


What manifests as a majority, and what the issue being voted on, is far more relevant than you're treating it as.
51/49 is not something you'd follow, as its obviously completely unanarchistic, and undemocratic.

But enough with the pussy footing; the reality of struggle desires realistic methods and demands (Don't you dare quote bookchin at me on that ), not petty utopianism.
Why would you not say that 51/49 is democratic? Is it required that the split be 75/25? Why one and not the other? (Lots of people have attempted to answer the question of numbers and democracy, the only number that is truly convincing is 100%, anything else has philosophical problems, though obviously 75/25 is less problematic.) And again, talking about now, transition/revolution and future perfect? I think that maybe where we are having trouble.


I'm not a platformist?
And come on, don't be so bloody arrogant. You're not even arguing a point, you're just flapping your wings about how anarchist you are, while failing to provide how your methods and theory will practically apply - because when push comes to shove, that's what counts. Doesn't matter how much floaty liberte rhetoric you use.
I didn't say you were a platformist. I was saying that despite what they say, platformists aren't actually anarchists in the true sense. And, if you want a society (a future perfect society, let's make the distinction between revolution and future perfect again) which isn't anarchistic, then don't expect me to call it that.


I agree. It was like I was saying earlier, when AM discounted egoists: you can't just ditch something because it doesn't fit your argument. And you can't expect things to always go smoothly because there is a theory to support that it could happen.

I think the main thing anarchists are forgetting is entropy - its true for societies as well as the universe. Things are always moving towards chaos, and it takes work to fight it. Such loose associations just won't cut it.
Can you post to where I talked about egoists and you responded? And I don't think B&R is going to agree with your bullshit about entropy either. They are (as far as I can make out, at any rate), an anarchist, and as such support "loose associations" in opposition to states and government. Meh.


Anarachy Maybe, you are treading through dangerous waters - blindly holding onto an ideal regardless of any argument presented as you have done in several replies (please don't make me go back and find all the quotes - I'm too old and tired) is foolish at best. Can we all be honest with eachother? There is really no such thing as a perfect theory of government. That is why there is no country on earth that perfectly follows any of them. As soon as you give up your right to think critically about things in lieu of dedication to a way of thought, you give up everything. So long as you blindly follow the teachings of the anarchists, you are giving up the heart of anarchy, which is free will.
*Yawn*, you maybe old, but I'm sure I know far more about anarchism then you do. And I don't "blindly" follow the teachings of anarchists, I read, I think and I come up with my own opinions. You though, it seems, need to do more reading, or at least thinking. There is no such thing as a "perfect theory of government", because government is not a perfect thing. It is an oppressive thing, and rests upon the maxim "might is right" (it is the only way that governments exist). Anarchists and anarchism object to this maxim, and reject governments which rest upon it (which are all, for the term "government" loses it's meaning if it is applied to what anarchists desire).


Society does not exist to serve the individual on it's own expense. It would hardly be seen as positive if someone who has benefited from the society all his life suddenly goes against it, especially in the time of need. To each according to need, but also from each according to ability, remember.
No indeed. (I don't agree with "from each according to ability" unless such ability is interpreted as "desire", which at least one Leninist I've talked to interprets it as such.)


Ohh, organisations with a charismatic leader then.

Seriously, I sure would agree to use consensus in certain situations during peacetime, when the revolution is secured and noones lives or living standards are at stake. But it's by definition an utterly inefficient and dangerous method especially in pressed situations.

Also, at this stage before the revolution, consensus can be successfully used in orgs and people can just 'leave' and start a group of their own, or quit politics and go back to watching Glamour or whatever, if they can't agree with the decisions. But in a revolutionary situation the scenario is entirely different:
Actually, the organisations I don't recall had a leader at all, the main one I'm thinking of had about six people who pushed things forward (not always agreeing, but agreeing that something needed to be done).

As I said to B&R above, I've been thinking and talking about a "future perfect" society, not present or revolution. Such things cannot be run 100% along anarchistic lines (though we try).


Leave where? Either to join the ranks of the counter-revolution or to start a separatist fraction of some sort, which would also benefit the enemies of the revolution. At best, to hide somewhere and refuse to defend the revolution (to later emerge and reap it's fruits). I don't see how any of that could be tolerated during a revolutionary war, when the collective responsibility of the proletariat towards itself must be evoked -- it would fall under deserting.
Revolution/transition vs future perfect.
(But, and I've had this disagreement with others before, screw the "proletariat". The term is simply a convenient short-hand to mean the mass of people, and to my mind, class war is not some Marxist thing, with historical destiny. Class war is the mass of people without power taking it back from the people who have it. And as such, there is no "collective responsibility" to the "proletariat", because as a Marxist term, the group would be split come a revolution anyway. Oh dear, I've just given my detractors ammo for banning me haven't I :p.)
Anyway, regardless of what I think of Marxian terms and concepts, in any war you never have 100% of the population involved in fighting that war. And that includes the class war. Someone has to be in the factories, or running the farms. As such, to "desert" an armed unit, or a factory because you disagree with them is not such as terrible thing. Say, you don't really think that the "leader" of the unit is doing such a good job, indeed, you suspect that the "leader" is going to get you all killed..., well one great thing about anarchism is that you don't have to stay in that unit, you can move over to the next one and join their ranks instead. That isn't joining another "fraction", it is moving from a group of people you don't feel comfortable being with (because you think they are going to get you killed for example), to being with another armed group, on the same front line, fighting the same enemy. Or if you think that the factory you are working at could increase production by double, but everyone else thinks you are nuts, you are free to move to some place else and try and implement your ideas. No one person is so indispensable that their leaving is going to jeopardise the entire group.

So yeah, I invite you to think about what I've said (with regard to "deserting" in a "revolutionary" situation), and reflect upon what you said. Moving from one group to another doesn't automatically invite disaster upon the group you leave.


You have for some reason a strong bias in favor of individualist anarchism. I'm fine with that, but what bothers me is your claim of the title anarchist exclusively for yourself.
I don't really have a strong bias in favour of "individualist anarchism" as such (at least not if it is defined as a market based system with limited property and all the rest, Benjamin Tucker's anarchism for example). I just have a strong bias towards the rights of the individual full stop. I really do think that anarchism is all about the individual, and my understanding of the big theoretical debates amongst anarchists in the past have mainly been about who's ideas would mean the most freedom, for the individual. Not for the group or collective. It is what attracted me to anarchism in the first place (before I even learnt about it properly).

Anyway, I don't try and claim the title "anarchist" exclusively for myself (and I do apologise if I give that impression). I simply object to other people apparently throwing away what I perceive to be essential aspects of anarchism. (Such as the right to free association.)

So yeah.


ok, but can you see that "freedom" being attainable in any society other than a "communist" one?
also, an economic question, if an individual chooses not to contribute to "society", should that individual enjoy the benefits of "society"?
or should they be cast asunder, so to speak?
To the first question, yes, potentially (I'm an "adjective free anarchist", I believe that it is potentially possible for that freedom to be achieved under a number of possible systems, which one is the best is up to the community in the future to decide.
To the second question, perhaps, whichever. I honestly think that in a technological society (such as today), enough people work, and produce enough, that the few "lazy" individuals that don't contribute would not be a drain upon society in general. However, I don't think that to force society to look after such people is anarchistic in the least (and I have written about this before). If there were 50% of people not working to 50% of people working, then that isn't fair (and I wouldn't be supporting the 1 person who depended on me). However, if it is more like 99% working to 1% not, then the drain upon each individual working is small enough that it doesn't matter.



Now then, this seems like a long post, but you don't have to read it all. I'll quickly summarise my conclusion to the disagreements between myself and Black&Red and Sentinel. Namely, I persist in talking about a "future perfect" society unless the context is clearly otherwise, or I say otherwise, whereas, it appears that they were talking about a revolutionary period. Hope that clears that up.

[nuisance]

And, by the way, as far as the thread being, "terrible," this IS in the learning section - statements like that, regardless of their validity, does nothing to encourage further understanding, growth and development for people who presumably are seeking those things.
I know this is the learning section, thus the people whom 'know' the answers should answer. If you disagree with something then say, by all means, and possibly even make it a thread in the Theory section. Point is, if you don't know the answers, don't answer the question, replying isn't complusory here.
This isn't a snipe at you, just a general comment.

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I think he's talking about. It seems like some people (in particular, you and trivas7) have no idea whatsoever about what anarchism's about. .
Exactly this.
However I'm not going to get into a chat about this with you (Chatterboxes and Trivas7), as you are already having/had it with Rorschach.

[chatterboxes]

Sorry about my tone. Meant to sound exactly the opposite and failed. Frustration leaking through. :lol:



Do I really need to give an example of free agreement in the world? How about a contract for starters? Two parties agreeing and compromising to reach a mutually beneficial end. Right there, in any good contract. Peter Kropotkin also points out a couple great examples of free agreement achieving great ends in The Conquest Of Bread:


Thank you for the reference! I haven't read it, and will be sure to do so.

Quick question: what makes a contract mean something? The fact that if it is not upheld by one party, the other party can seek help from the courts. How would this work in anarchy? There are no courts. Drag the whole community into it and put up a vote? That's democracy, isn't it?

I really just think its so idealistic. And someone commented before that one shouldn't lower him/herself from the standards they hold because they're idealistic, and I get that. But, on the other hand, ideals are impossible to keep up.

Thank you all for the input you gave. I think I'm going to leave this board, though, and find one where people do not get so upset if you post the way you understand something to be - where it can lead to a non-defensive discussion. Maybe I'm too sensitive; I don't know. I just feel like rather than being given opportunities to learn, I'm being chastised. Even if that's not the intent, its what I'm picking up, and I don't like to be the kind of person who gets others in a tizzy, feeling they have to defend themselves, in a place that is supposed to be safe for them. We all have to fight enough in the "real world" to get respect for our beliefs. I feel like I'm insulting others more than learning, and that's just not cool. Though its not my intention, it seems to be what's happening.

Good luck to you all! Again, thanks for sharing with me in my brief time here! Maybe when I increase my knowledge of all of the political views presented on this board, rather than just my own, I'll come back. Smiles!

[redarmyfaction38]

Thank you for the reference! I haven't read it, and will be sure to do so.

Quick question: what makes a contract mean something? The fact that if it is not upheld by one party, the other party can seek help from the courts. How would this work in anarchy? There are no courts. Drag the whole community into it and put up a vote? That's democracy, isn't it?

I really just think its so idealistic. And someone commented before that one shouldn't lower him/herself from the standards they hold because they're idealistic, and I get that. But, on the other hand, ideals are impossible to keep up.

Thank you all for the input you gave. I think I'm going to leave this board, though, and find one where people do not get so upset if you post the way you understand something to be - where it can lead to a non-defensive discussion. Maybe I'm too sensitive; I don't know. I just feel like rather than being given opportunities to learn, I'm being chastised. Even if that's not the intent, its what I'm picking up, and I don't like to be the kind of person who gets others in a tizzy, feeling they have to defend themselves, in a place that is supposed to be safe for them. We all have to fight enough in the "real world" to get respect for our beliefs. I feel like I'm insulting others more than learning, and that's just not cool. Though its not my intention, it seems to be what's happening.

Good luck to you all! Again, thanks for sharing with me in my brief time here! Maybe when I increase my knowledge of all of the political views presented on this board, rather than just my own, I'll come back. Smiles!
sad to see you go.
imo, a contract is an agreement drawn up between individuals or groups of individuals, in my idealistic world, such a contract should be honoured by the fully informed contractees as a matter of principle.
in the real world, one side or the other, will intepret a contract in their best interest and then argue about who told the truth.
the capitalist state will then rule in favour of the capitalist unless there is a long term political advantage to be gained by giving a minor punishment whilst maintaining the illusion of democracy and independant judiciary.

[#FF0000]

Quick question: what makes a contract mean something? The fact that if it is not upheld by one party, the other party can seek help from the courts. How would this work in anarchy? There are no courts. Drag the whole community into it and put up a vote? That's democracy, isn't it?

Depends. Ask different anarchists and you'll get different answers. If someone doesn't honor a contract, two things should happen:

*The person or group will be looked down upon by the rest of the community, and others will be less eager to help them, as they're unreliable. Same deal with slackers and those who refuse to do anything.

*Also, the goal that the two parties made the contract to meet will not be met. So, if two groups of people get together and agree to build a dam, or something, and one group agrees to provide the brick/wood/whatever you build a dam with, and the other group agrees to bring the mortar/glue-sticks/tape, and one group doesn't show up with their materials, then no dam gets built, which is apparently a pretty big deal to both parties if they agreed to work on it.

Now, let me say this. Though people can get really petty at times, I think it stands to reason that the bigger and more obvious and severe a problem is, the more willing people are to work together to fix it. Just want to toss this out there.



Thank you all for the input you gave. I think I'm going to leave this board, though, and find one where people do not get so upset if you post the way you understand something to be - where it can lead to a non-defensive discussion. Maybe I'm too sensitive; I don't know. I just feel like rather than being given opportunities to learn, I'm being chastised. Even if that's not the intent, its what I'm picking up, and I don't like to be the kind of person who gets others in a tizzy, feeling they have to defend themselves, in a place that is supposed to be safe for them. We all have to fight enough in the "real world" to get respect for our beliefs. I feel like I'm insulting others more than learning, and that's just not cool. Though its not my intention, it seems to be what's happening.Oh, don't let things get to you. I just mistook your tone earlier as sort of dismissive, and it bothers me if people ask questions they already have their own answers for. Even so, debates get heated, people get worked up over little things, and we're all coming from different places and are dealing with things offline as well. Don't take it personally. :lol:

[Benos145]

Talk of 'freedom' and 'democracy' withing a class society must be categorically rejected as demagoguery, because neither can exist. In bourgeois society 'freedom' becomes free-trade, free-enterprise, free movement of labor-commodities, in short 'free exploitation'. So to is the 'democracy' of bourgeois society a deformed caractature of real freedom.

Bourgeois society has chosen 'democracy' as it's 'shell' because democracy can have a change of government without a change of class, and thus a change in property.

Seriously, read The Renegade Kautsky.