Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    One thing I don't understand about anarchism is how you can enforce it. If you have an anarchist society, how do you stop a group of people forming a government?
    You see the problem is not so much order (as we want society to organise itself to maintain the "law" - well they are not so much written legislations rather ethical codes, namely that man must not infringe upon the civil liberties of others) we are more afraid of hierarchy: that is, within these organisations we want each member of society to have equal power.

    To keep these organisations as egalitarian we propose electing delegates (those who are appointed to solely administrative tasks and carrying out the will of the masses. They do not have a particularly higher income than anyone else - wealth does not become power) who may be instantly recallable at any time if they are deemed to be exercising too great a power. We would hold assemblies in which important decisions are carried out. These assemblies (known as free associations) are entirely voluntary: you may leave at any time in favour of forming your own assembly/joining another or being entirely exempt from assemblies [though you must oblige to basic ethical codes - i.e. not harm another citizen].

    Members of free associations submit their labour to the free association in exchange for their fair share of the goods and services that the free association has to offer (i.e. communism). You cannot expect anything from a free association that you are not part of though these free associations would co-operate with one another if they desired.

    Free associations are bound to each other on a national and international basis not by coercion (like with a state) but because they have similar economic and social goals: that is they desire to keep civil order, they desire to form trade links with other associations so that they may provide for all citizens at said free association.

    The free associations are also appointed to the tasks of organising the distribution of labour. Labour is mostly self-managed and the means of production (factories, warehouses, transport, etc.) are owned by the workers who work there and they are joined together (with other worker owned firms) by free association. Smaller shops and farms do not count as they are owned by "small family units" - that is literally a family, a group of friends or a self-employed individual. However these small family units will need to co-operate with the commune (another word for free association) in order to obtain what they need. They may join said commune or they may simply want to co-operate with it (in which case they get no say in how the commune is run, they merely get to trade their services with the commune).

    In a free association you do not get away with not working but how they deal with laziness is up to the individual association. For instance, anarcho-communists (Kropotkin was a notable anarcho-commie) believe that the lazy and unproductive should be asked to leave the commune. Anarcho-collectivists (e.g. Bakunin) believe that the commune should directly reward productivity. I am an "anarchist without adjectives" and believe that the best system (which I personally think would be collectivism) would be the one to naturally "catch fire" around communes. Edit - this is an important part I forgot to mention, the only ones exempt from this rule, of course, would be the old, sick, young and physically or mentally disabled who are genuinely unable to work. These people, therefore, would be able to take whatever they needed, regardless of productivity.

    If people want to set up a system of capitalism or statism that is up to them (provided they are not forcing anyone to join in which case other communes would intervene to keep peace) but we believe that after having seen the benefits of anarchism, few people would desire to live under hierarchy (that is be exploited as a wage labourer for a boss or live under a tyrannical regime).

    This of course, is an extremely narrowed down format for an anarchist society. Anarchism is extremely open to flexibility, spontaneous new ideas and to just "go with the flow" in general. All I have mentioned in the above is the rules of thumb.

    An excellent example of a society with anarchist principles would be Spain in 1936. Of course, we cannot describe the society as an anarchy as anarchy is the end result, the ideal but we can describe it as a sort of transition phase to anarchy or a major anarchist social revolution.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    You see the problem is not so much order (as we want society to organise itself to maintain the "law" - well they are not so much written legislations rather ethical codes, namely that man must not infringe upon the civil liberties of others) we are more afraid of hierarchy: that is, within these organisations we want each member of society to have equal power.

    To keep these organisations as egalitarian we propose electing delegates (those who are appointed to solely administrative tasks and carrying out the will of the masses. They do not have a particularly higher income than anyone else - wealth does not become power) who may be instantly recallable at any time if they are deemed to be exercising too great a power. We would hold assemblies in which important decisions are carried out. These assemblies (known as free associations) are entirely voluntary: you may leave at any time in favour of forming your own assembly/joining another or being entirely exempt from assemblies [though you must oblige to basic ethical codes - i.e. not harm another citizen].

    Members of free associations submit their labour to the free association in exchange for their fair share of the goods and services that the free association has to offer (i.e. communism). You cannot expect anything from a free association that you are not part of though these free associations would co-operate with one another if they desired.

    Free associations are bound to each other on a national and international basis not by coercion (like with a state) but because they have similar economic and social goals: that is they desire to keep civil order, they desire to form trade links with other associations so that they may provide for all citizens at said free association.

    The free associations are also appointed to the tasks of organising the distribution of labour. Labour is mostly self-managed and the means of production (factories, warehouses, transport, etc.) are owned by the workers who work there and they are joined together (with other worker owned firms) by free association. Smaller shops and farms do not count as they are owned by "small family units" - that is literally a family, a group of friends or a self-employed individual. However these small family units will need to co-operate with the commune (another word for free association) in order to obtain what they need. They may join said commune or they may simply want to co-operate with it (in which case they get no say in how the commune is run, they merely get to trade their services with the commune).

    In a free association you do not get away with not working but how they deal with laziness is up to the individual association. For instance, anarcho-communists (Kropotkin was a notable anarcho-commie) believe that the lazy and unproductive should be asked to leave the commune. Anarcho-collectivists (e.g. Bakunin) believe that the commune should directly reward productivity. I am an "anarchist without adjectives" and believe that the best system (which I personally think would be collectivism) would be the one to naturally "catch fire" around communes.

    If people want to set up a system of capitalism or statism that is up to them (provided they are not forcing anyone to join in which case other communes would intervene to keep peace) but we believe that after having seen the benefits of anarchism, few people would desire to live under hierarchy (that is be exploited as a wage labourer for a boss or live under a tyrannical regime).

    This of course, is an extremely narrowed down format for an anarchist society. Anarchism is extremely open to flexibility, spontaneous new ideas and to just "go with the flow" in general. All I have mentioned in the above is the rules of thumb.

    An excellent example of a society with anarchist principles would be Spain in 1936. Of course, we cannot describe the society as an anarchy as anarchy is the end result, the ideal but we can describe it as a sort of transition phase to anarchy or a major anarchist social revolution.
    So it's not "no government" at all. It's just a different form of government.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    So it's not "no government" at all. It's just a different form of government.
    This really and truly does depend upon how you define government.

    However if you define government as any organisation whatsoever, then to be quite frank, you are making a mockery out of the English language. I think the fact that government is a hierarchical, authoritarian organisation leads most citizens to the conclusion that any organisation must be hierarchical and authoritarian (this includes the workplace which is a hierarchy of boss over employee and modern day principles of private property which is often a hierarchy of landlord over tenant and so forth).

    The anarchist definition of a government often goes along the lines of "an instrument of minority rule designed to preserve the status quo of the authority of the traditional elite and the economic system of capitalism".

    A free association is not so much a government (you may leave free associations freely - hence the word "free" - and live peacefully by your own rules, provided that you do not hurt anyone else).

    A republic is different to a democracy because it is a representative democracy where citizens have the right to elect representatives but no right to pass new laws/vote on new laws or have any real say in politics. However a democracy, is, like a republic, still a government because every citizen within its national confines are bound to its legislation - even if this legislation is democratic and controlled by the majority. An anarchist system would not be like so but if you must describe it as a government, please provide me with another name for my ideology so I may correct myself (and consequently a name for the "types of government" that I oppose) - its not easy, is it?

    You can see what I mean, then, when I say that I oppose democracy. You will have to elaborate as to why my described system would necessarily imply "governments" or "hierarchies". Keep in mind that absolute liberty is not anarchistic - as it is a hierarchy of criminal over victim (where the criminal is provided with the ability to harm his victim without restrictions and consequently the victim has no real liberty and neither does the criminal [he lives in a society where others may freely exploit him] - therefore absolute liberty is an impossible concept) we instead subscribe ourselves to equal liberty - freedom to do as you please provide you do not infinge upon the liberties of others.

    Does this answer your question?

    (Original post by Oswy)
    Yeah. I'd even go so far as to say that the very presence of their pro-capitalism and pro-private property agenda cuts their formal commitment to anarchy from under them. They simply replace one institution of power with another. Moreover, their replacement of the state with the power of capitalist institutions and landed elites is so glaringly anti-democratic and monopolising of power that mainstream anarchist would rightly see the anarcho-capitalist as having less common ground than a state-accepting socialist like myself
    Yes. Marxists and anarchists have a great deal in common - we both advocate a stateless, classless society. Sadly, due to our differences about the transition phrase to such a society, we will never truly be able to work together and this is a problem for anarchists as Marxism seems to dominate the far-left more than our own ideology. Often anarchists and Marxists have come into great conflict (for instance, Trotsky's assassination of the Kronstadt sailors - though some would not deem Trotsky a true Marxist, admittedly). I think, though, that if there were a libertarian socialist revolution, Marxists would be free to add their contribution (though they would have to settle for not being able to seize the state assuming it had been completely dismantled with the military arms decentralised into the masses of the population so they may have the power to suppress the bourgeois) provided they did not go all authoritarian on us Overall though, I think adopting Marxist strategies and understanding his critique of capitalism is an invaluable tool to be used at the disposal of anarchists such as myself. I fully look forwards to reading Marx's "Das Kapital", though it is certainly a tremendous beast of a read.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    This really and truly does depend upon how you define government.

    However if you define government as any organisation whatsoever, then to be quite frank, you are making a mockery out of the English language. I think the fact that government is a hierarchical, authoritarian organisation leads most citizens to the conclusion that any organisation must be hierarchical and authoritarian (this includes the workplace which is a hierarchy of boss over employee and modern day principles of private property which is often a hierarchy of landlord over tenant and so forth).

    The anarchist definition of a government often goes along the lines of "an instrument of minority rule designed to preserve the status quo of the authority of the traditional elite and the economic system of capitalism".

    A free association is not so much a government (you may leave free associations freely - hence the word "free" - and live peacefully by your own rules, provided that you do not hurt anyone else).

    A republic is different to a democracy because it is a representative democracy where citizens have the right to elect representatives but no right to pass new laws/vote on new laws or have any real say in politics. However a democracy, is a government though because every citizen within its national confines are bound to its legislation.

    You can see what I mean, then, when I say that I oppose democracy. You will have to elaborate as to why my described system would necessarily imply "governments" or "hierarchies". Keep in mind that absolute liberty is not anarchistic - as it is a hierarchy of criminal over victim (where the criminal is provided with the ability to harm his victim without restrictions and consequently the victim has no real liberty and neither does the criminal [he lives in a society where others may freely exploit him] - therefore absolute liberty is an impossible concept) we instead subscribe ourselves to equal liberty - freedom to do as you please provide you do not infinge upon the liberties of others.

    Does this answer your question?
    How would it work on a large scale without any kind of hierarchy? Presumably on a large scale there wouldn't be one massive free association, there would be an association of free associations. How would that association make decisions without each free association electing a representative, hence introducing a hierarchy?

    I just think what you're proposing would, over time, tend towards what we have now anyway.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    How would it work on a large scale without any kind of hierarchy? Presumably on a large scale there wouldn't be one massive free association, there would be an association of free associations. How would that association make decisions without each free association electing a representative, hence introducing a hierarchy?

    I just think what you're proposing would, over time, tend towards what we have now anyway.
    I don't fully understand what you mean. I already stated that it would not be delegates, rather than representatives whose only power is to carry out the will of the majority, being elected (also, they are instantly recallable at any given time). However, these delegates would mostly be assigned with purely administrative tasks. The supreme system of direct democracy (i.e. free association) would be the one to "catch" fire around communes, as, in theory at least, these would be the most efficient way for society to manage itself. So workers within co-operatives would hold a vote on big decisions like forming trade links with other free associations (their own labour, would however for the most part be self-managed). Hierarchies tend to be inefficient due to extensive bureacracy (as we can see with the NHS today, governments spend more money on paperwork and management than front line staff - doctors, nurses, etc.) so I believe that the more "autonomous" the commune, the greater its efficiency. I don't think hierarchies would "catch on" for this reason - they are inefficient. If we had free associations based on bureacracy, power, domination I don't think they would last for very long. Also, seeing the benefits of non-hierarchies, I don't think that citizens would be asking for new systems of wage labour, government, etc. Again, the Spanish Revolution of 1936 is the key ideal that most anarchists would hold as an example of functioning anarchy.

    Another theory would be anarcho-capitalism (right-wing anarchism), though as Oswy states, this is completely different to mainstream lefty anarchism. Essentially you would have unfettered capitalism, business contracts would be extremely important, the free market would be relied upon to efficiently allocate goods, if a business started to behave like a state (i.e. exert its dominance) apparently that would cost money and apparently it would be destroyed in the free market. Also, competition in the market would be relied upon to push down prices (e.g. health insurance, price of goods and sevices, etc.) and improve working conditions and wages (without any tariffs such as minimum wages, etc.). People would freely pay private protection agencies and privatised law courts to keep order - their customer policy, therefore would be very important (though I can see the blatant corruption if say, a business was to pay bribes to the PPA and law courts [private protection agency] - apparently though, in the free market, bribes would be too expensive). I can't pretend I know an awful lot about the ideology - don't attack it though, because I am not an ancap (anarcho-cappie).
    • Offline

      16
      (Original post by tieyourmotherdown)
      Anarcho-Capitalism is just classic liberals on speed.
      :rofl:
      • Offline

        16
        (Original post by Psyk)
        One thing I don't understand about anarchism is how you can enforce it. If you have an anarchist society, how do you stop a group of people forming a government?
        Anarcho-capitalism is extremely different to the conventional left-anarchism. For me, the de-establishment of the state takes place through the gradual privatisation of what the services and goods the state has arrogated itself a coercive monopoly.

        "how do you stop a group of people forming a government?" - Briefly put, it's not in their interest.
        Offline

        14
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by lovely_me)
        Where there is authority, there is no freedom.

        you got wash your clothes on that guys abs! :eek:
       
       
       
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • Poll
      Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
      Useful resources
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

      Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

      Quick reply
      Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.