Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    This needs to go on the OP! :awesome:
    I think that in the OP you ought to put the resources into subsections so you have one subsection devoted to anarcho-capitalism, another section devoted to social anarchism and one more section devoted to individualist anarchism (of the Benjamin Tucker ilk, not so much the likes of Rothbard &co.). Otherwise, some people may be confused since what people don't realise is that

    anarchism is as divided as pro-statist ideologies

    (point highlighted, not for your benefit but for the benefit of other people). The Mao Zedung report can go under a seperate subsection of revolutionary tactics for social anarchism (since the main bulk of revolutionary anarchists are social anarchists and vice versa [the main bulk of social anarchists are revolutionaries, rather than evolutionaries]).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    In Mutual Aid, Kropotkin discusses the cooperation between animals and their holistic approach to life. On the whole that all seems very well, as these animals, squirrels, cattle, horses etc…all work together for the benefit of all. However, these animals in their own subgroup have their own structure. Usually there is a form of hierarchy.

    Now, regarding the existence of the alpha individual within animal communities. This alpha takes upon himself/herself the role of leadership, handing out discipline and protecting the community. Chimpanzee communities usually submit to the alpha, giving them preference through letting them be the first to eat.

    Looking at this, it would appear that it is natural within societies and communities for someone to take lead and with the position receive benefits and thus a greater lifestyle than the subordinates. Even within tribes there exists a leadership whereby the elders provide wisdom and inform upon what decisions should be made due to their experience and knowledge. Within an anarchist community, would not someone take the lead?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zedbrar)
    In Mutual Aid, Kropotkin discusses the cooperation between animals and their holistic approach to life. On the whole that all seems very well, as these animals, squirrels, cattle, horses etc…all work together for the benefit of all. However, these animals in their own subgroup have their own structure. Usually there is a form of hierarchy.

    Now, regarding the existence of the alpha individual within animal communities. This alpha takes upon himself/herself the role of leadership, handing out discipline and protecting the community. Chimpanzee communities usually submit to the alpha, giving them preference through letting them be the first to eat.

    Looking at this, it would appear that it is natural within societies and communities for someone to take lead and with the position receive benefits and thus a greater lifestyle than the subordinates. Even within tribes there exists a leadership whereby the elders provide wisdom and inform upon what decisions should be made due to their experience and knowledge. Within an anarchist community, would not someone take the lead?
    I do despise these sorts of discussions as they nearly always relate to an abstract concept known as "human nature" (what is human nature? - humans can be greedy or generous, good or bad, intelligent or stupid, loving or hating - if such a concept as human nature exists it is extremely conflicting to even begin with). However I will persist.

    This point comes up quite a bit and I will relate it to primitive societies in which there is often an enwisened elder or so forth to "instruct" the rest of the tribe (this will make the point easier to address). Otherwise, there is no such form of centralised form of hierarchy (tribes that are based in distant geographical locations can co-operate, or fight [though this risk would be reduced by the age of technological communication and the fact worker's free associations will need to co-operate to further economic and social goals - with an extended population, it would be impossible for free associations to provide for their members without trade links and so forth]) and the hierarchy is otherwise minimal (sure there is an Alpha male but there is, otherwise mutual respect between the members for one another and for their leader himself [who is family and not unknown to them unlike a bureacrat or politician] - providing for the village, farming, hunting, etcetera). Indeed, some form of direction and organisation is necessary in such society (or any society) to organise the distribution of labour in a way which will benefit all, so the question is, how will this be accomplished without authority?

    Well must decisions in free associations would be democratic and, here is the point, extended through the use of delegates. Unlike leaders, delegates must carry out the decisions of the masses; they are at the submission of the masses and not the other way round. Whereas what we have a form of representative democracy in the modern age in which the representative is elected but not recallable via a petition system and therefore does not have to submit to the will of the masses, the delegate would be recallable via a petition system under a future anarchist system. Free associations (which operate through delegative democracy) would not be bound on a national basis into a state. Workers would organise votes on major political or economic decisions through their system of grass roots free associations in mass assemblies not actually organised by the delegates themselves (as to further reduce their power from what must be/should only be purely administrative tasks). Labour itself would be self-managed. In tribal situations, most of the above which are key characteristics of an anarchist society exist (freedom to associate whether it be the individual associating with the tribe, the tribe expelling the individual (freedom to associate is freedom not to associate or the tribe associating [co-operating] with other geographically based tribes) but (a) there is a lack of technological or social expansion and (b) there are leaders selected by the submission of the tribe.

    So to summarise my points, there would be equality of authority and political power but some will have more influence and charisma - this is "human nature". We are just looking to develop a system where it is impossible for personal differences to result in a meritocracy - an imbalance of power of the select few with charisma over the vast majorities of people.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    x
    I have made some changes to the OP. Tell me what you think of them and what needs to be changed, if anything. Thanks for the suggestion.

    (Original post by zedbrar)
    In Mutual Aid, Kropotkin discusses the cooperation between animals and their holistic approach to life. On the whole that all seems very well, as these animals, squirrels, cattle, horses etc…all work together for the benefit of all. However, these animals in their own subgroup have their own structure. Usually there is a form of hierarchy.

    Now, regarding the existence of the alpha individual within animal communities. This alpha takes upon himself/herself the role of leadership, handing out discipline and protecting the community. Chimpanzee communities usually submit to the alpha, giving them preference through letting them be the first to eat.

    Looking at this, it would appear that it is natural within societies and communities for someone to take lead and with the position receive benefits and thus a greater lifestyle than the subordinates. Even within tribes there exists a leadership whereby the elders provide wisdom and inform upon what decisions should be made due to their experience and knowledge. Within an anarchist community, would not someone take the lead?
    This is an interesting question to put. Whilst Kropotkin isn't the definitive name on anarchy (of course, nobody is :awesome:), the observation made by him and subsequently analysed by yourself is something worth going into deeper detail with.

    So what I'd first say is about animal communities that you and Kropotkin refer to. Personally, I don't believe we can ever truly understand the psyche and dynamic of an animal pack because we just communicate and assess on an entirely different level. So whilst there may be an alpha, this alpha may just be a kind of nominal role. For example, in human communities, the tribal chief may be elected to carry out tasks or serve as an ambassador to other tribes (I'm not saying that animals have ambassadors, merely pointing out that there is scope for these 'alphas' to be doing other things than running an autocracy).

    As well as that, I see nothing wrong with hierarchy per se. I start to have a problem when someone else tells me I have to accept that authority and the people being ruled by that authority have no say, nor can they topple and replace that authority with a new order. That, for the most part, is currently what I think government enforces and what monarchy previously enforced. If the rule is accepted by the commune, then it becomes less of a problem although I can see you might think this may easily evolve into another state. I can explain more later why I think this wouldn't be the case if you like. Also, I think it's important to note that Kropotkin was often termed an anarcho-communist. Whilst I can't speak for the specific anarchic strain of Communism, certainly in its purest form, all authority is devolved aside from one 'alpha', so to speak. So that theory may be Kropotkin trying to push his own agenda as a universal truth.

    In tribal communities, as I have mentioned in above paragraphs, the tribal chief often acts as an ambassador or some kind of role which still makes he or she (yes, women in Botswana bushmen tribes often hold a lot of respect) recallable to the public they serve. Botswana actually does have parts which still works in a pseudo-anarchic style and there is virtually no hierarchy. Not only is that true socially, but due to the gift economy, there is a lack of economical hierarchy too. For more modern examples, look to the Spanish form of gift economy. So yes, someone may take the lead, but this is only if everyone wants that and even then, powers would be limited for a variety of reasons including the people's desire to maintain their independence and freedom.

    Hope this has answered your question.

    ANARCHY__
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    ...
    Interesting post and surprisingly similar to my own - the key point here would be that "leaders" (actually delegates) would easily be made recallable and all systems of goverance would be decentralised (much like the tribal system).

    Just to create a new individualist anarchism sub-section in the OP, here is a good article I have found: http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/mcelroy1.html

    Well I'm off - night night!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Interesting post and surprisingly similar to my own - the key point here would be that "leaders" (actually delegates) would easily be made recallable and all systems of goverance would be decentralised (much like the tribal system).

    Just to create a new individualist anarchism sub-section in the OP, here is a good article I have found: http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/mcelroy1.html

    Well I'm off - night night!
    Yes, I agree with that. It's strange how similar our ideas were considering we posted within minutes of each other. As you say, leaders should be recallable and this sort of thing happens with the Zapatista and their 'Good Councils'.

    Also, thanks for the link! I'll put that up in a new sub-section.

    Goodnight.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Yes, I agree with that. It's strange how similar our ideas were considering we posted within minutes of each other. As you say, leaders should be recallable and this sort of thing happens with the Zapatista and their 'Good Councils'.

    Also, thanks for the link! I'll put that up in a new sub-section.

    Goodnight.
    I found this link which helps to explain the extremely complicated concepts of dialectical materialism.

    http://www.marxist.com/what-is-diale...aterialism.htm

    This link also gives an insight to the Marxist criticism of capitalism which can follow on nicely from the above link:

    http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/sw/index.htm
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    LH: purely from a learning, and not debating, point of view, now, how exactly would these private protection agencies work?
    Hey, I decided to make a big post because I have been asked this before.



    This is going to be a brief explanation of a certain setup that might arise in anarcho-capitalism in dealing with the efficient production of protection. I do not have specific details in mind, or such. It is guaranteed to be a lot more complicated & complex than the associated image. But, in any case, I think this could be a potentially successful model. I would also like to end by refuting an ancient myth about Laissez-faire Capitalism, which is explicitly linked to this topic, and, never fails to arise in this discussion.

    Each person would be involved in the purchasing of rights on the free-market. Since rights are economic goods subject to supply & demand, their outcomes would tend to be more efficient through the use of voluntary cooperation, and not through force and central planning. Thus, each person would choose which provider they would like to purchase protection from. They would then enter into a contract with the Private Protection Agency (PPA). That PPA would be involved in ensuring my protection on the free-market against coercion. So, let’s suppose that you discover one day that someone stole your bike. You would contact your PPA and let them know. You may suspect it is me, for instance. You express this to the PPA, and they bring a chap over to investigate and have a-few-words with me. It would operate much like the police but a lot more efficient, and consumer-driven. That is not the only possible arrangement. It might be beneficial for a whole street to collectively organise a neighbourhood watch scheme, or arrange for a private policeman. Or they could just protect each other’ property, while the other is away. The limits to solving this “problem” is the extent to which humans can create solutions.

    - But what about disputes?

    When your PPA come around to my house, and explain the situation (remember you’re a potential future customer!) to me. I might decide to adopt an aggressive stance. I tell them to leave at once, and that I don’t even know you. We now have a problem on our hands. But your PPA would go above me & to my PPA. They have been in this business for some time, and will have plenty of disputes to get through. They will arrange beforehand to go to a neutral arbitrator who will observe the facts, and make a decision. Whatever the outcome, both parties will agree to respect the decision. So, if it becomes apparent that I did, in fact, steal your bike, then my PPA would send me a notice explaining that they don’t protect thieves, and that the best decision is to cooperate with your PPA.

    Arbitrators have no incentive to accept bribes in their line of work. Their wages and salary are reflected by their CV. Most companies would rather deal with a neutral arbitrator and would spend a great deal of time ensuring that they contract to such an arbitrator. It would be in their interest to have an arbitrator who rules in their favour, but it is difficult to make contracts with such terms! Moreover, they might find themselves the victims of bribery. They might begin to realise that they always seem to lose the cases. Thus, their interests drive them to find and associate themselves with honest, unbiased, and neutral arbitrators.

    - But won’t one PPA control the other?

    The argument is occasionally put that one PPA will pay-off another PPA to bring in a policy they want to see, which they know will negatively affect the second PPA. The very point regards the very policy we are discussing. The purchasing of protection encompasses certain standards that customers come to expect. So, whilst there will be some differences in the market, there will be a standardisation. For the very same reason that all ATM cards are the same size & shape, despite having been made by different banks. So, the benefits that one PPA will enjoy will not significantly damper the service the other PPAs provide. At least, until customers decide to go elsewhere – in which case, until then, there is no problem.

    - Won’t one PPA start using violence (becoming a tyrant scene)

    This is just absurd, and reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of laissez-faire Capitalism. The free-market is a system of profit-and-loss. You get rewarded for providing people with something that they value. Thus, the use of force and violence is contra the free-market because it is (1) costly and (2) risky. A company that starts attacking its own clients of random people is going to have to acquire those economic goods to be able to do so. They must employ more-and-more people, train them on how to attack; and increase their wages (to incentive the high-risk job). This is going to make the business balance sheet rise. Costs are going to increase, and they can only be bourne from the consumer. Thus, clients will realise that they have to pay more-and-more to sustain this business approach. It is difficult to acquire such funds, let alone sustain such a policy for an extended period of time, because it is not in anyone’s interest or capacity to do so. The only way to become a dominant figure is by providing excellence, reducing wastage and becoming increasingly efficient.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    Oooh, I have a question (mostly for the capitalist types) - where does your ontology of "rights" come from? Why are they absolute? Why are they important? Are they a means to an end or an end in themselves? Couched in Libertarian terms, ownership cannot exist without the self and the self cannot exist without ownership - can self-ownership exist?
    Well, you certainly have more than a question, but here is my set of responses:

    Where does your ontology of "rights" come from?
    -- The scarce world around us

    Why are they absolute?
    -- An odd question, but no.

    Why are they important?
    -- They are only important, in so far as people want & value them

    Are they a means to an end or an end in themselves?
    -- People choose for themselves

    Couched in Libertarian terms, ownership cannot exist without the self and the self cannot exist without ownership - can self-ownership exist?
    -- Only I seem able to exert exclusive control over my body. I think that can be easily accepted as an axiom. Not sure about the concept of "ownership" though.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    x
    Do you think anarchy is always synonymous with nihilism?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    ...
    Good stuff...cheers
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by zedbrar)
    In Mutual Aid, Kropotkin discusses the cooperation between animals and their holistic approach to life. On the whole that all seems very well, as these animals, squirrels, cattle, horses etc…all work together for the benefit of all. However, these animals in their own subgroup have their own structure. Usually there is a form of hierarchy.
    Now, regarding the existence of the alpha individual within animal communities. This alpha takes upon himself/herself the role of leadership, handing out discipline and protecting the community. Chimpanzee communities usually submit to the alpha, giving them preference through letting them be the first to eat.
    Looking at this, it would appear that it is natural within societies and communities for someone to take lead and with the position receive benefits and thus a greater lifestyle than the subordinates. Even within tribes there exists a leadership whereby the elders provide wisdom and inform upon what decisions should be made due to their experience and knowledge. Within an anarchist community, would not someone take the lead?
    I am glad you brought this up. I have a theory regarding the observation that animals sometimes tend to arrange themselves with a leader.

    The first thing to note is that a lot of animals do not have a leader. They tend to be self-interested and caught in their own little worlds. It slightly baffles me when you see a zebra standing several meters away from another zebra getting mauled by lions. It doesn’t seem to have concerned them at all. It’s only ‘bad’ when they might themselves get attacked. But we have entire herds that travel large distances across the savannah in search for food or whatever, or swim up lengthy rivers to lay their eggs, or fly across continents. None of which seem to have a leader centrally planning it all.

    And on the other hand, we have a different set of animals that exhibit leadership- including, most obviously, the primates. The Gorilla family immediately comes to mind. But my theory is that this is a biological evolutionary adaptation to spreading the “stronger genes”. I don’t think it is because without a leader, the group would just collapse. The leader tends to exhibit the traits that make him evolutionary more desirable over other potentials. That is why the position is often contested, and involves fights. The alpha leader gets to have first picks with all the ladies! Sure, he gets other perks, but it is all about sex. So, in my view is that leadership is more of an evolutionary sexual adaptation, rather than a means of producing better results for the group (i.e. central planning).

    I don’t know if someone else has come up with such a theory, but that’s just my own thoughts.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Good stuff...cheers


    (Original post by theths)
    Do you think anarchy is always synonymous with nihilism?
    Nope. I don't see why. It always seem to be synonymous with everyone going insane and stabbing each other.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)

    Nope. I don't see why. It always seem to be synonymous with everyone going insane and stabbing each other.
    haha cheers, that was, er..profound
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theths)
    Do you think anarchy is always synonymous with nihilism?
    I can assure you, there are not very many nihilists posting in this thread.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    I found this link which helps to explain the extremely complicated concepts of dialectical materialism.

    http://www.marxist.com/what-is-diale...aterialism.htm

    This link also gives an insight to the Marxist criticism of capitalism which can follow on nicely from the above link:

    http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/sw/index.htm
    Thanks for these links. I have added them to the OP with their appropriate titles etc. Hope you like it.

    (Original post by theths)
    x
    Please elaborate on what you mean.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)




    Nope. I don't see why. It always seem to be synonymous with everyone going insane and stabbing each other.
    Hey, I put your diagram on the OP, is that ok?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    I can assure you, there are not very many nihilists posting in this thread.
    aha ok
    i guess thinking about it, i can see that the two are far from synonymous, but i'm quite interested in the ideas of Nietzsche and how they led to ideas of both anarchy and nihilism and i guess in some ways they're connected

    like in my mind, both are associated with a general contempt for the values imposed by society/religion/the law, and a desire to follow your own moral path

    i guess nihilism just takes it that one step further by actually rejecting even basic moral codes and i guess it also acknowledges that the personal way of living isn't just different, but actually far superior

    am i on the right track?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    I can assure you, there are not very many nihilists posting in this thread.
    Ooh! Ooh! What am I?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)

    Please elaborate on what you mean.
    i replied to another post with this, i kind of guessed i wasn't getting anywhere

    (Original post by theths)
    aha ok
    i guess thinking about it, i can see that the two are far from synonymous, but i'm quite interested in the ideas of Nietzsche and how they led to ideas of both anarchy and nihilism and i guess in some ways they're connected

    like in my mind, both are associated with a general contempt for the values imposed by society/religion/the law, and a desire to follow your own moral path

    i guess nihilism just takes it that one step further by actually rejecting even basic moral codes and i guess it also acknowledges that the personal way of living isn't just different, but actually far superior

    am i on the right track?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 5, 2011
The home of Results and Clearing

971

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

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

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