|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
 Posted - 08/12/2003 : 08:25:21
|
I would like to start a discussion about the pros and cons of anarchy and really what a true anarchical society would look like. I normally consider myself as a Libertarian, but support capitalism and a limited government with maximum individual liberties. I also consider myself a strict adherent to the Constitution of the U.S. and the Bill of Rights. However after doing some reading on anarchy I find myself somewhat pulled in that direction.
Many of its concepts ring very true with me, liberty, individualism, solidarity, no Gods, no Masters, just people being equals and entering into voluntary agreements and owning what they make. No elite class hoarding the wealth built upon the backs of the workers and so on. The more I shed the previous misconceptions of what anarchy meant to me (anarchy = chaos for instance) to what its true meaning means, it seems the more I like what it says.
However it does seem also to ring somewhat "utopian" to me and I do have some problems envisioning certain aspects of modern society living under such a system. However when I think of this I also think that anarchy was the basic system people lived under for the majority of all humanity and hierarchical systems only seem to have appeared in the last 10,000 years or so. In fact there are people living under pure anarchy/egalitarian systems today such as the Yanamamo of Brazil. So if they can do it, what stops an industrialized society?
Now I would really like to have a fruitful discussion on anarchy, showing its pros and cons, etc. Note by anarchy I mean libertarian socialism/communism as its original intent was defined or basically "without authority".
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2003 : 08:35:27 [Permalink]
|
Good morning! It's beautiful today on the Left Coast.
My understanding of communism is that it's based on an authoritarian government, not a libertarian one. Socialism is, as far as I know, an economic system, not a political one.
Libertarianism assumes two things that do not sit intuitively well with me:
1. That without laws, people will always do the right thing.
and
2. That we have no obligation to sacrifice *any* of our personal gratification to benefit the greater good of society--or perhaps more accurately, that this obligation is trumped by our individual pursuit of happiness.
I believe strongly in our civil liberties, and that government should be kept out of our private lives as much as possible. I'm a card-carrying member of the You Know What Union... I do think, however, that reasonable people can create reasonable laws that benefit the greatest number of people. |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2003 : 09:10:09 [Permalink]
|
Anarchy is chaos. Anarchism is another matter.
According to Anarchists such as Chomsky, anarchism is nothing more than the rejection of illegitimate authority.
What constitutes illegitimate or legitimate authority is something that is subject to debate, but George Bush and Tony Blair are good examples of illegitimate authority.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2003 : 09:55:50 [Permalink]
|
Ok, let's get our terms straight first and foremost and not quivel over them much after that: I would rather not spend much time on this as I would rather discuss the pros and cons of these matters:
Gorgo,
quote:
Anarchy is chaos. Anarchism is another matter.
From my readings the terms are interchangeable and have the same meaning, so lets use them interchangeably here. Both have the same Latin roots which implies "without authority" or "without a ruler". Both also imply a non-hierarchical society or an egalitarian society. In either case lets let the word mean libertarian communism/socialism.
quote:
According to Anarchists such as Chomsky, anarchism is nothing more than the rejection of illegitimate authority.
Yes I agree, note that legitimate authority is authority based on expertise, for instance the authority a doctor has in providing healthcare or as Chomsky says, the authority of a parent to stop their child from darting into a busy street. Chomsky advocates the same type of anarchism I am talking about, "I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom. That includes political power, ownership and management, relations among men and women, parents and children, our control over the fate of future generations (the basic moral imperative behind the environmental movement, in my view), and much else."
As Chomsky states, it is the authority's burden to prove they have a use.
Renae,
quote:
My understanding of communism is that it's based on an authoritarian government
From my understanding that is only a conception fostered upon us by the "communistic" regimes that manifested themselves in the USSR, China, etc. and that true communism, at least the kind being discussed here has absolutely nothing to do with an authoritative government.
quote:
Socialism is, as far as I know, an economic system, not a political one.
Both socialism and communism refer to both the political/social and economic systems and are interchangeable or at least they are for this discussion.
quote:
Libertarianism assumes two things that do not sit intuitively well with me:
1. That without laws, people will always do the right thing.
and
2. That we have no obligation to sacrifice *any* of our personal gratification to benefit the greater good of society--or perhaps more accurately, that this obligation is trumped by our individual pursuit of happiness.
I have not seen these assumptions made yet in my reading. In fact I have seen just the opposite for the 2nd assumption you list, in that anarchy promotes individual liberty as long as it does not infringe upon the liberties of others. I have also not seen the "no laws" idea either. Laws would be established by the people, but not a hierarchical authoritative structure.
quote:
I do think, however, that reasonable people can create reasonable laws that benefit the greatest number of people.
Yes exactly (except you left out the other part which is also to protect the minorities)! This is exactly what anarchism is about at least it seems to me, without an authoritative structure setup. No one has power over anyone else. No bosses, no masters, no Gods, no presidents, no kings, etc. only the collective will of the people.
*****
From my initial readings there appears to be allot of misconceptions about what anarchism is. I had many of them myself and probably still have some, or maybe some new ones.
I offer this link for anyone interested in reading more:
An Anarchist FAQ: http://flag.blackened.net/sai/faq/
This is a huge compiliation, and I may reference from time to time, I also may reference several works written by various historical anarchist. Section A hopefully can clear up some misconceptions so we get to the real discussion of the pros and cons and can it work. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2003 : 10:58:54 [Permalink]
|
Renae,
Here is a link that you might find of interest in explaining the original intents of socialism/communism as implied by The Communist Manifesto,
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/manifesto.html
"For Marx socialism was the more comprehensive term; communism was an advanced stage of socialism. Socialism would prepare the way by nationalizing the "means of production" (factories, farms, mines, transportation, etc.) and putting them under the control of those he viewed as the sole producers of wealth: the workers. He viewed political equality and freedom as incomplete (or even illusory) without economic equality. Therefore this redistribution of economic power was aimed at extending democracy far beyond the limits envisioned by earlier democratic revolutions. Social services like health, education, and housing would be provided free, but people would still be paid wages according to their work."
and
"When all nations had developed socialist economies, they would begin to evolve into an international communist society. The vision of communism was very similar to that of anarchism: a stateless society in which central government had "withered away," local, ground-up control of all affairs by strictly democratic processes based at the place of work, abolition of the market system (no money, no buying and selling) and its replacement by a system according to which people would voluntarily work for the common good to the extent they were able under the understanding that they could receive whatever they needed for free..." (emphasis mine)
Strangely in modern times, socialism/communism has been twisted to mean anti-democratic, when actually it is more democratic, at least in idea, then our capitalistic, republic society we live in. Undoubtedly the USSR and China among others has tainted our view of what the original intentions of communism were, but of course a good deal of U.S. propaganda has done the same. In fact one could label these systems as authoritative communism as opposed to libertarian communism, even though they started under the pretense of the latter. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2003 : 11:10:07 [Permalink]
|
JM, can you show me an example of how anarchism has worked in a modern society, for a reasonable period time? Plenty of things sound great in academic or abstract terms (the Atkins diet, astroturf, and religion come to mind ) but aren't manifested very well in reality. Anarchism might be one of those.
From a cursory reading (and I'm no historian), it seems that the kind of communism/socialism you're referring to removes the freedom of the people to make money from the fruits of their labors. Capitalism is not okay, correct? What if the will of the people is actually to have a boss, or to have an authority, or to make money by their own hand? What then?
I'm with you on questioning authority, and totally with you on the need to make freedom a high priority. But if the only rule of law is the 'will of the people', who enforces that will? The people? What if the will of the people is in conflict, and what happens when it changes (which invariably happens?) Who, then, is the arbiter?
You're making me think on a sunny summer day.
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2003 : 11:21:40 [Permalink]
|
For the purposes of this discussion, then, anarchism is socialist?
I don't have a good background in understanding all the aspects of all of this, but it seems to be a good thing to work towards that which removes illegitimate authority, and that which works towards the benefit of "the people." People think that democracy means voting, but Cubans vote a lot and they don't think that's democracy. Democracy has to mean that which benefits "the people."
Now, all of that is too simplistic but it seems to me that at this stage, it's better to try to head towards those goals than to write up some specific dogma for every situation which may not work when reality strikes.
It would also seem to me that the nature of "legitimate" authority would be some kind of democratic socialism. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2003 : 11:26:54 [Permalink]
|
Anrachy seems to fall into the category of direct democracy and "true" communismm. They are utopian ideal that may work on small scales, but are wholly inadequete to large scale populations. Government types don't neccesarily work at all scales.
Additionally, if anarchy is a lack of control, who prevents people from simply taking advantage of others, or commiting actions that would impose on the freedoms of others? Every argument I have heard for arachism seems to be overly idealistic, with little in the way of practical application.
|
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2003 : 13:15:37 [Permalink]
|
Renae,
quote:
JM, can you show me an example of how anarchism has worked in a modern society, for a reasonable period time? Plenty of things sound great in academic or abstract terms (the Atkins diet, astroturf, and religion come to mind) but aren't manifested very well in reality. Anarchism might be one of those.
If by "modern" you mean recent industrialized nation, no I cannot, although several good attempts have been made (Spain for instance). Also I would say that:
1. The idea of anarchism is highly opposed by those in power today. Overcoming that resistance by the elite class will take allot of work and time.
2. Industrialism hasn't been around that long to say that anarchism cannot work in a "modern" society.
3. Societies do exist today that are anarchist, although they are not industrialized.
4. It appears that some form of anarchism was the dominate mode of government for most of humanity.
This link gives a summary of some of the successes of anarchy:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/leval/collectives.html
This page has a bunch of links covering the history of anarchism by country:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/worldmovements.html
quote:
From a cursory reading (and I'm no historian), it seems that the kind of communism/socialism you're referring to removes the freedom of the people to make money from the fruits of their labors. Capitalism is not okay, correct?
Right capitalism is not ok, but instead of removing the freedom of the people to make money from the fruits of their labors, it removes the freedom of people to accumulate wealth based on the labor of other people and directly enhances the power of people to make money from the fruits of their labors. It prevents people from having authority over others and exploiting the workers to accumulate mass wealth while allowing the workers to own what they make.
quote:
What if the will of the people is actually to have a boss, or to have an authority, or to make money by their own hand? What then?
I doubt very few people would choose having an authority or boss over them that is getting wealthy off of their work, while they toil the days away for meager earnings. As far as making money by their own hands, that is exactly what anarchism is about.
quote:
But if the only rule of law is the 'will of the people', who enforces that will? The people? What if the will of the people is in conflict, and what happens when it changes (which invariably happens?) Who, then, is the arbiter?
These are good questions, which in my novice knowledge of anarchy I do not know the exact answers too. I do know that anarchism is based upon direct democracy, with majority rules, but with protections for the minority. This problem seems to exist in capitalistic states as well, except the answer is, the state enforces the will.
Thanks for thinking on such a fine day :> |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2003 : 13:17:45 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo,
quote:
For the purposes of this discussion, then, anarchism is socialist?
I am not for sure, it does mean libertarian socialist, which might be different then just "socialists", but it depends on how you define it.
The main idea is that people assemble into collective groups, let's say a group to run a factory to produce automobiles. Here the factory and its profits are all collectively owned and everyone equally shares from the profits of the factory. They all democratically make the decisions for the factory and there is no authority system over the workers. This same relationship also dictates how societies are structured.
quote:
I don't have a good background in understanding all the aspects of all of this, but it seems to be a good thing to work towards that which removes illegitimate authority, and that which works towards the benefit of "the people."
I don't either, which is why I started this topic :> and I agree.
quote:
Now, all of that is too simplistic but it seems to me that at this stage, it's better to try to head towards those goals than to write up some specific dogma for every situation which may not work when reality strikes.
Yes! This also seems to be a point recognized by most anarchist readings I have read so far.
quote:
It would also seem to me that the nature of "legitimate" authority would be some kind of democratic socialism.
Which is basically anarchism, at least how I understand it. Another key point is that it is egalitarian in nature and not hierarchical.
Edited to add:
Gorgo, I just looked through the FAQ, which I have only started to read and it appears that anarchy is not the same as socialism or at least not state socialism. It is opposed to state socialism, is at the least the opinion I have from a quick look. |
| Edited by - jmcginn on 08/12/2003 13:22:15 |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2003 : 13:19:18 [Permalink]
|
Darwin Storm,
quote:
Anrachy seems to fall into the category of direct democracy and "true" communismm. They are utopian ideal that may work on small scales, but are wholly inadequete to large scale populations.
I would like to know why it does not work. That is why I started this thread. I have my suspicions too, but why will it not work? What is preventing it from working on a large scale? Why is it simply a utopian dream as opposed to a realistic goal to strive towards? Why will it fail where authoritative, hierarchical systems succeed?
quote:
Government types don't neccesarily work at all scales.
I agree to this, but I would like to see reasons why, no matter what form of government is considered.
quote:
Additionally, if anarchy is a lack of control, who prevents people from simply taking advantage of others, or commiting actions that would impose on the freedoms of others?
This was the misconception I also had of anarchy, this appears to be a misconception fostered upon us by our capitalist government. I highly suggest you read the FAQ I gave above as it describes this in detail.
quote:
Every argument I have heard for arachism seems to be overly idealistic, with little in the way of practical application.
These are the points I am trying to get out on the table. Is it idealistic or is it practical, or somewhere in between? Let's dig out some details and see. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2003 : 13:27:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jmcginn
I would like to start a discussion about the pros and cons of anarchy and really what a true anarchical society would look like. I normally consider myself as a Libertarian, but support capitalism and a limited government with maximum individual liberties. I also consider myself a strict adherent to the Constitution of the U.S. and the Bill of Rights. However after doing some reading on anarchy I find myself somewhat pulled in that direction.
Many of its concepts ring very true with me, liberty, individualism, solidarity, no Gods, no Masters, just people being equals and entering into voluntary agreements and owning what they make. No elite class hoarding the wealth built upon the backs of the workers and so on. The more I shed the previous misconceptions of what anarchy meant to me (anarchy = chaos for instance) to what its true meaning means, it seems the more I like what it says.
However it does seem also to ring somewhat "utopian" to me and I do have some problems envisioning certain aspects of modern society living under such a system. However when I think of this I also think that anarchy was the basic system people lived under for the majority of all humanity and hierarchical systems only seem to have appeared in the last 10,000 years or so. In fact there are people living under pure anarchy/egalitarian systems today such as the Yanamamo of Brazil. So if they can do it, what stops an industrialized society?
Now I would really like to have a fruitful discussion on anarchy, showing its pros and cons, etc. Note by anarchy I mean libertarian socialism/communism as its original intent was defined or basically "without authority".
OK.
Anarchy was able to work as a concept until populations swelled to a level which made it untenable. Anarchy is also subject to domination of the strongest. Anarchy had a remedial form of leadership called "I'm bigger and stronger than you". This form was only effective in small groups and broke down when the "leader" was too demanding and abusive. His (or her) power was tempered by the ability of the followers to kick his ass.
Once the groups became large enough in an area, higher forms of governance came into play. They were required to prevent the chaos that is endemic to human greed.
Communism assumes that the state can provide for you and makes people equal by denying them ownership. This form is easiest to pervert by greedy individuals. Communism as conceptualized by Marx (who didn't believe that it was obtainable due to human greed) is an Utopian society.
Chomski has no problem with legitamate authority. He evidentally recognizes the need for order within a society to prevent us from destroying one another in petty power struggles. I personally have a disagreement with what he considers illegitamate authority. I also disagree with quite a few conclusions he comes to.
The other problem is that people are not equal. We all have different levels of intelligence and different levels of naivete'. The clever, greedy individuals would still be seperating the marks from their money and still be hoarding wealth made from the backs of others. Without authority, crimes cannot be punished unless a vigalante mob of a sort is formed and the perpetrator hunted down. (no promise that this will actually happen nor that the right person will be targeted.)
Quite frankly, I do not see Anarchy/Communism being viable outside of very small clutches of individuals in remote areas.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2003 : 14:01:03 [Permalink]
|
Really interesting thread! Thanks, JM.
One lesson I have learned, at a personal level and multiple times over, is the "There's no free lunch" thing. In other words, things that sound to good to be true because they require little or no sacrifice usually turn out to be just that: too good to be true.
Examples of this: a hot fudge sundae diet, multilevel marketing, and freedom without sacrifice or responsibility.
Again speaking intuitively rather than with great historical knowledge: it seems that anarchism is almost too good to be true. The cost (financial, practical, or otherwise) might be too great to an industrialized society. Or perhaps as others have mentioned the risk is too great.
Not to confuse the personal and political, which I may be doing. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2003 : 14:21:23 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer,
quote:
Anarchy was able to work as a concept until populations swelled to a level which made it untenable.
I would like to see reasons why anarchy (or libertarian socialism if you prefer) is untenable with large populations.
quote:
Anarchy is also subject to domination of the strongest. Anarchy had a remedial form of leadership called "I'm bigger and stronger than you". This form was only effective in small groups and broke down when the "leader" was too demanding and abusive.
This has nothing to do with anarchy and is the same misconception I had before I started reading about it. These are egalitarian societies without hierarchies and thus without strongmen ruling over them. This appears to be the way all societies existed prior to agriculture and the invention of "wealth".
A quick study of these societies show that they do not suffer from abusive strong men grabbing power and that power for the most part is shared equally by all. Leadership is decided by the group as a whole with liberty for dissenters.
quote:
His (or her) power was tempered by the ability of the followers to kick his ass.
An anthropological study of hunter/gatherer and "primitive" agriculture societies show that no such situation exists today and since these are often used to model as to how we think pre-agriculture societies existed then for most of human history. In fact this very form of government didn't seem to start appearing until agriculture began to appear and wealth began to accumulate in the hands of a few. Since then, we have lived in various caste societies with occasional revolts where we kick the leader's ass.
quote:
Once the groups became large enough in an area, higher forms of governance came into play. They were required to prevent the chaos that is endemic to human greed.
I would like to know how dictatorships, feudalism, and even republics are "higher" than libertarian anarchism? It appears to me, that libertarian anarchism is the "higher" form of government. The chaos based on "human nature" argument fails on many accounts including the accounts of human history. Yes there are always bad apples in a barrel, but are there more effective ways of dealing with them than the current system of ruling elites?
This link addresses the "human nature" argument against anarchism:
http://flag.blackened.net/sai/faq/secA2.html#seca215
quote:
If human nature is so bad, then giving some people power over others and hoping this will lead to justice and freedom is hopelessly utopian.
quote:
Communism assumes that the state can provide for you and makes people equal by denying them ownership.
This is what state communism does, but not libertarian communism, which is what anarchy is. There the people own collectively what they make (or individually if you make it by yourself :>) not the state nor an elite class.
quote:
This form is easiest to pervert by greedy individuals. Communism as conceptualized by Marx (who didn't believe that it was obtainable due to human greed) is an Utopian society.
Please why is this an Utopian society?
quote:
Chomski has no problem with legitamate authority. He evidentally recognizes the need for order within a society to prevent us from destroying one another in petty power struggles.
While "authority" is a touchy subject with anarchy, they also recognize the need for order within a society, they just don't think placing authority in the hands of a few elites is the way to achieve it.
quote:
The other problem is that people are not equal. We all have different levels of intelligence and different levels of naivete'.
Equality does not equate that all people have equal abilities, this is well covered in the FAQ I provided.
http://flag.blackened.net/sai/faq/secA2.html#seca25
quote:
The clever, greedy individuals would still be seperating the marks from their money and still be hoarding wealth made from the backs of others. Without authority, crimes cannot be punished unless a vigalante mob of a sort is formed and the perpetrator hunted down. (no promise that this will actually happen nor that the right person will be targeted.)
I will have to continue to study to see how anarchist propose law and order be maintained without authority. So far the only conclusion I have come to, is that anarchism, communism, and socialism are poorly understood by many, myself included. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2003 : 14:30:56 [Permalink]
|
Renae,
quote:
Again speaking intuitively rather than with great historical knowledge: it seems that anarchism is almost too good to be true. The cost (financial, practical, or otherwise) might be too great to an industrialized society. Or perhaps as others have mentioned the risk is too great.
The cost of anarchism, at least initially would be great and even if I were to adopt an anarchist position, which I am still debating within myself and openly on these boards, I would never advocate simply flipping a switch from a capitalism system to anarchy. Such a move would result in pure chaos for quite some time and would jeopardize both the discarded capitalism and the new budding anarchism.
Such a system would take time, with small systematic changes and is already happening in the U.S. Let us not forget the labor movements and the unions which are all based on anarchist ideas.
If such a system was allowed to establish slowly over time in an industrialized system or to establish fresh as a new system in an unpopulated area then I have yet to see how the costs could be too high. In fact it appears that our capitalistic society of the many supporting the few may have too high of a cost for long term survival. In the U.S. we have already had numerous revolts leading to a blend of capitalism with anarchism ideas. This combined with our libertarian past has led to some success and possibly a longer sustainable life. However history shows that the elite can only exploit the working class for so long before the system becomes compromised.
I think that a true anarchist system would lead to greater stability over the long haul plus do away of the system of master and slave that capitalism inspires. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
