Ask an Anarchist!

[civver_764]

This is kind of a split off from the Ask a Red thread, but is not solely for economic questions. So in that case, if you consider yourself an anarchist but don't necessarily identify with the left(such philosophical anarchists, egoists, etc.) feel free to participate and answer questions. Anarcho-capitalists do not count as anarchists for the purposes of this thread, sorry.

Some ground rules:

1. NO flaming. It is simply not conducive to intelligent discourse. All the rules for the CFC forums apply in this thread as well.
2. Do not troll, for obvious reasons. If your question seems disingenuous do not expect an answer.
3. If you need clarification for an answer feel free to ask, but this is not really intended to be a full on discussion thread.

A basic FAQ:

Q: What is an anarchist?
A: An anarchist is generally someone who believes that a) all hierarchy requires justification and that b) the state fails to justify itself and is thus undesirable.

Q: What is anarchism?
A: Anarchism is a political ideology that obviously preaches the abolition of the state, and generally wants to restructure society in a directly democratic manner.

Q: Does anarchism preach for utopia?
A: No, there will always be problems with a society of imperfect beings, it simply makes for a better way to deal with these problems.

Q: What can and can't you do in an anarchist society?
A: "Your rights end where mine begin" is an excellent way of putting it.

Q: Why is anarchism often associated with socialism?
A: Because socialism preaches many of the same goals anarchists do, direct democracy in the workplace being the most notable one.

If anyone else thinks I should include other questions here don't shy away from saying so!

Also I highly recommend anyone looking to get deeper in anarchism to check this critically acclaimed FAQ.

With that said, ask away!

 

[_random_]

Do you consider anarcho-capitalists to be anarchists at all? What's your general opinion of their ideology?

How do you propose we get rid of the state?

 

[Ajidica]

If the state is based upon mutual consent by the elected and governed, why has it failed to justify itself and is undesirable?
Using the example Kropotkin gave in 'God and the State', I will yield to the carpenter when it comes to repairing my house as he has more knowledge then me. However, I yield to the carpenter based on my choice rather then any forced choice.
Therefore, why is a representative structure unjustifiable by Anarchists? As long as I yield based on my personal choice, why is that bad?

 

[stormerne]

How does an anarchist society defend itself, its land and its families, from an aggressive neighbor if there is no state to organize and unify?

 

[civver_764]

Do you consider anarcho-capitalists to be anarchists at all? What's your general opinion of their ideology?

No I do not. As they still accept hierarchy within the workplace, a very large part of most people's lives, I don't see how they can be considered anarchists. Your boss is a ruler just as much as the state is.

I also think very bad things would happen if their ideas were ever put in place, such as a high probability of neo-feudalism developing.

How do you propose we get rid of the state?

I think non-violent direct action is probably the best option, especially within America. That way you retain the moral high ground and if the government sends it's police to attack you the public outcry would be on your side.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

How do you compensate for the idea of economies of scale with anarchism?

 

[Karalysia]

Please delete

 

[civver_764]

If the state is based upon mutual consent by the elected and governed, why has it failed to justify itself and is undesirable?

Well you can't vote to elect no one.

Using the example Kropotkin gave in 'God and the State',

You mean Bakunin?

How does an anarchist society defend itself, its land and its families, from an aggressive neighbor if there is no state to organize and unify?

There is still organization in the community, don't be fooled, and it would still be able to retain a military.

To what extent would you say anarchist thought is derived from philosophical nihilism?

I don't know enough about nihilism or it's history to comment.

I disagree. The Black Army was entirely liquidated with little outcry. Anarchist Catalonia was similarly crushed.

That's why I said America. Some countries are obviously very good at suppressing that sort of thing.

 

[Ajidica]

Well you can't vote to elect no one.


You mean Bakunin?

Yeah, my bad.

There is still organization in the community, don't be fooled, and it would still be able to retain a military.

If their is organization, doesn't that still imply some level of hierarchy formed through mutual consent? I chose to follow your instructions because I have decided that your opinion is more informed then mine. Doesn't that still create some form of hierarchial structure, even if only temporary and created through consent?

Furthermore, given that you are an Anarchist, why do you support greater influence by the state in some matters? By allowing that, and in some cases advocating for it, are you not giving passive support to the idea that the state can do some things right and is justified in doing some things?

Also, could you describe what an anarchist society would be like?

 

[Karalysia]

Please delete

 

[civver_764]

If their is organization, doesn't that still imply some level of hierarchy formed through mutual consent? I chose to follow your instructions because I have decided that your opinion is more informed then mine. Doesn't that still create some form of hierarchial structure, even if only temporary and created through consent?

Anarchists are not opposed to all hierarchy, just unjustified hierarchy.

Also, could you describe what an anarchist society would be like?

Well that would kind of go against the idea of it, wouldn't it?

I can give you a general outline though. The world would be highly federalized into different communities(probably towns/townships/cities) that would be run through direct democracy. These different communities would be connected much like they are today and broader decisions between them would probably be run in assemblies with appointees from different communities(different from representatives in that they basically have to do exactly what their "constituents" tell them to do). The internet could even be used for this and human appointees would not even be necessary.

Everything would be voluntary, of course.

However society could develop in all sorts of way. The founders of liberal democracy probably didn't imagine what today's democracies would look like.

 

[Ajidica]

So in many ways, Anarchism rejects the formal edifice of the state, but retains consentual hierarchy when it comes to 'governing'?

 

[emzie]

A highschool Freshman is wearing an anarchy shirt (red A in a circle). An upperclassman punches him. He reports the assault to the principal. Is this ironic?

 

[stormerne]

Anarchists are not opposed to all hierarchy, just unjustified hierarchy.

Justification is subjective, so what one person may see as justified hierarchy, another may disagree and see it as unjustified. Moreover you can't impose any absolutes rules for testing whether hierarchy is justified since that would not be anarchy.

So what happens when people will not budge from their view over what is justified and unjustified hierarchy? Do you get major schisms, or just widespread fragmentation and implosion? Under those circumstances how does an anarchistic society have any coherence?

 

[civver_764]

So in many ways, Anarchism rejects the formal edifice of the state, but retains consentual hierarchy when it comes to 'governing'?

I guess you could say that, although I would define hierarchy as one human being holding more power than another. A community having rules set in place to protect the members of the community is not how I would define a hierarchical relationship. A better example of justified hierarchy would be if a man grabs at his three year old daughter's arm to keep her from running out into the street.

Justification is subjective, so what one person may see as justified hierarchy, another may disagree and see it as unjustified. Moreover you can't impose any absolutes rules for testing whether hierarchy is justified since that would not be anarchy.

So what happens when people will not budge from their view over what is justified and unjustified hierarchy? Do you get major schisms, or just widespread fragmentation and implosion? Under those circumstances how does an anarchistic society have any coherence?

A specific example would be nice.

 

[Ajidica]

Thanks for the responses.
Still curious about this:

Furthermore, given that you are an Anarchist, why do you support greater influence by the state in some matters? By allowing that, and in some cases advocating for it, are you not giving passive support to the idea that the state can do some things right and is justified in doing some things?

 

[civver_764]

Furthermore, given that you are an Anarchist, why do you support greater influence by the state in some matters? By allowing that, and in some cases advocating for it, are you not giving passive support to the idea that the state can do some things right and is justified in doing some things?

If you mean my support of state run health care and stuff I just think it is better at doing it than capitalism is.

Edit: I'm checking out for the night.

 

[Ajidica]

So if the state is good at that and other things, they why is the state not able to justify itself?

 

[Disgustipated]

Moderator Action: Troll post removed.

 

[Zelig]

Which Civilization game do you feel most accuratly represents anarchy as a form of government?