In anarchism, who will govern?

[benhur]

Comrades,

In anarchism, if we take 'no rule' literally, that wouldn't make sense. Let's say there will be no authority, but there must be governance. And if there's governance, there must be people who govern, and who are those people? If they're going to be the same people, then they're going to become the new authority for the rest. Which means, there must be leadership on a rotational basis?:(

Put simply, if there's governance at all, it's chaos, and I am sure no anarchist has such view. But if governance is restricted to a few, it's bourgeois where few rule over many. If we deny both, we must accept that everybody must be a ruler? But that's plain weird.

So how is the contradiction resolved?

[apathy maybe]

Why must there be governance?

Why shouldn't everyone deal with their own lives without interference from others (so long as their own lives do not interfere with others)?

Why is "governance of all" chaos?

---

You are making assumptions that make you look silly. First ask yourself why people need to have rulers. If they need rulers then anarchism can't work. If they don't, then they don't need "governance". (Oh, and people don't need rulers.)

[Forward Union]

Comrades,

In anarchism, if we take 'no rule' literally, that wouldn't make sense. Let's say there will be no authority, but there must be governance.



Exactly. Anarchists don't really propose no government. They propose no state, you could argue that what anarchists want is a government in which all people are a member. Because you're correct; Resources, services etc would still need to be operated and managed in some way. There would still need to be agreements saying that Murder is not acceptable, and processes for dealing with people that are thought to have murdered (as to prevent mob rule)

Instead we propose a system of workplace and community councils and assemblies that would federate nationally and internationally to form overall policy. They would come to decisions based on majority vote, using representative delegates where necessary. There would be the right to democratic participation for everybody. Though I do have to say that in my personal opinion this is not a form of government. Whether you call it one or not is a bit of a non-issue really, it's what Anarchists propose.

In other words there would be a system of direct democracy where power is decentralized to the lowest common denominator. Laws, industrial policies etc are formed by a mandate from the masses.

[Revy]

I think that the problem many may have with anarchism is it makes them think of a society without rules. Laws protecting people from other people, their rights from the tyranny of the majority and such.

What if this autonomous council starts to discriminate against a marginalized social group. I think many may feel that a state under socialism, allows for protection of people across everywhere and that would be its purpose.

One thinks of brutal mob "justice" too - or lack of formal legal justice, two extremes but both equally unpleasant. Does anyone have any links about these subjects?

[JohnnyC]

Everyone will govern themselves the way they please, and things that affect everyone will be decided collectively.The only "rule" is, do as you like as long as you don't hurt anyone.In reality it will likely be more complicated but it's basically like that.

Same "rule" goes for communism of course.

[eyedrop]

In some ways according to the Law of Cardemon.



You should not bother others,
you should be nice and kind,
otherwhise you can do as you please. From a childrens story called People and Robbers in Cardemon Town. It has it's own theme park in Kristiansand, Norway. Way better than crappy Disney Land.

[Post-Something]

The people.

[Eros]

'Under' communism/anarchism the people will rule through a highly organised system of direct democracy which will control and organise production according to peoples' needs and also facilitate a way to deal with whatever remaining contradictions and conflicts that exist between people (i.e. people with criminal tendencies like paedophilia etc.). A similar system will operate under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat when capital, and therefore the state-structure, is being dismantled. Well that's what the books say anyway. :D

[Tower of Bebel]

Under anarchism nobody governs; under communism everybody governs but nobody will feel like governing ;).

"Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing."

[Dhul Fiqar]

There are almost as many approaches to this as there are anarchists. Anarcho-syndicalism is one idea, it basically involves abolishing the wage system and installing workers' collectives or unions in charge of individual units of production.

Wikipedia has a fairly good entry on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

Then, of course, there is this piece of gold, in which Monty Python imagine the King of England encountering a commune of anarcho-syndicalists in the middle ages:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI

--- G.