Ask an Anarchist

[H4run]

Here is my question, can we consider anarchism as part of libertarianism?

As both want to abolish the power of government to empower individual, but it varied regarding on how far they dismantle the government. If they dismantle the government existent or coercion only in the economical aspects and later breed with that laissez-faire capitalism they become the common libertarianism that we know.

If they totally abolish the government roles in nearly every subject, except as the protector of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud, and the government only posses an institusion like military, police, courts, fire departments, prisons, etc they become Minarchists.

If they called for completely abolition of government they become anarchists. But all of them is only a variation of libertarianism.

So anarchism is a branch of libertarianism, am I correct?

 

[Traitorfish]

We might think of it that way, but I don't think it would be particularly useful to do so. Libertarians are averse to states, yes, and anarchists totally averse to states, but that reduces it to a single dimension, an "aversion" absent any real content. It identifies Rothbard the anarcho-capitalist Goldman the anarchy-syndicalist, Tolstoy the anarcho-pacifist and d'Annunzio the anarcho-fascist as occupying a shared space on the far end of the "libertarian" spectrum, despite the enormous practical gulfs between their actual beliefs.

Instead, I think it's more useful to think of anarchism and libertarianism as overlapping but distinct positions. If we understand libertarianism as a concern for individual liberties and anarchism as an opposition to states, we're able to recognise that the two are frequently associated but not necessarily entailing each other. Not only that some libertarians (including both ultra-liberals and libertarian socialists) are not anarchists, but also that some anarchists are not libertarians, because their anarchism isn't constructed in terms of individual liberty.

I think this is especially important when considering what you might call "folk anarchism", the tendency of many pre-industrial societies to avoid integration into states and to prefer their own, autonomous social institutions, which was unlikely to be framed in philosophical terms of individual liberty proceeding from the Enlightenment, which I think "libertarianism" necessarily is. If you took, e.g. an Oneida Iroquois c.1700 and told him that man was a free individual, he'd think you were nuts, because it would be common sense to him that man was formed by a complex network of relationships, relationships which imposed upon him certain obligations. A conception of humans as fundamentally-unconstrained atoms would be incapable of explaining his world as he experienced it, so in that sense he could not be considered a libertarian. But his sense of these obligations would not translate into exclusive obedience to a state-authority, and indeed would tend to run directly contrary to it, because the state was unlikely to be able to contain the range and complexity of these relationships, which is born out by the document aversion of the Iroquois to state-like authorities. So he was still an anarchist- and in a far more practical sense than most modern who explicitly identify as such- which we would have a hard time explaining without serious misrepresentation if we insisted upon anarchism as a kind of ultra-libertarianism.

 

[Tahuti]

because their anarchism isn't constructed in terms of individual liberty.

Add also the fact many have totally different conceptions of individual liberty to begin with, raging from stateless societies with property rights to lex talionis to communism.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's also a factor. A lot of those who I would tend to count as "libertarian-anarchists" for simplicity's sake have views regarding concepts like "the individual" and "liberty" that aren't particularly compatible with common wisdom. (And that probably includes myself.)

 

[Mouthwash]

I asked on Debate.org a while back about whether public fornication would have to be permitted in a libertarian anarchist society. I'd like to know what you think of this description of anarchism.

EDIT: My god, that is embarrassing to look at now. I had no idea what the term "civil rights" even meant.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's mostly very fair. I'd say that there seems to be an assumed conception of anarchist society as "the present, minus states", specifically in assuming that contemporary categories of legality and criminality would make sense in an anarchist society, but that could be excused by observing that it's a mistake most self-identified anarchists make, so if the intention is only to argue from a typical anarchist position for the sake of a specific question, it's not a big deal. [edit: Also, I suppose, the "law is overrated" point acknowledges that these categories would not be binding, and the point about "this weird presupposition that law is supposed to take care of everything" rings true.] So while I wouldn't endorse this Codyfellah as presenting the anarchist perspective on the question, it's reasonable enough as an anarchist perspective.

 

[ParkCungHee]

OK, health is up, need a distraction from work, time to catch up on this.

What would the difference be between "pure" Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism

"Pure" Anarchism doesn't even exist in theory. There may be Anarchism without qualifiers attached, but generally speaking hyphenated-anarchisms are proposals or theories about how Anarchism can or should be implemented, and why. Anarchy is a fairly simple idea, but one that, as this thread is an example of, poses countless unexpected questions. The hyphens are about how we answer those questions.

To use myself as an example, I'm an Anarcho-Pacifist. Which means I believe anarchism necessitates pacifism, and pacifism necessitates anarchism. This is certainly, I would maintain, a less pure vision of anarchism, and I think you'll find many anarchists who would doubt my vision of society is anarchistic, but that does not me they agree with my arguments that pacifism is strictly necessary for anarchy to exist, or that it's the best way to bring it about.

You can argue the politicization of psychiatric treatment and its potential for abuse and such, but we the folks trying to understand anarchism are often interested precisely in these types of questions: for example how does anarchy handle pathologically violent people who refuse help from their violent pathology?

I'll generally back up Traitorfish's position that it's a bit much to expect a solid answer on something this technically sophisticated, while I do understand where you're coming from.

If I wanted to get into the actual details, I'd have to first get into the details of it. What's the pathology we're talking about? What's their physical condition? Why do they refuse help? Do they reject help categorically, or in part? If so, why? Etc. Etc. Etc.

But I think the point of all these questions, and why I'd feel the need to have answers before getting into the specifics is that, broadly speaking, an Anarchist society would deal with people on a personalized, individualized basis rather then some broad law which people are required to fit into, which is largely the point of the Anarchist project as a whole.

If you want a concise answer to the question, that's the best one I can give to you.


Second, I think the reason many of this find these sorts of questions tricky to answer is that "Anarchist society" is the sort of abstraction that many of us, myself especially are looking to avoid. "Anarchist Society" obviously can't do anything about the Mentally Ill, because it's a heuristic mental object we've created in our heads. The question would/should be more accurately be asked "What should you do about the pathologically violent who refuse treatment?" But even then, at that level of personal philosophy, it becomes obviously apparent that the question is a bit too broad and unwieldy to be answered easily. All the old questions "What kind of pathology, is he immediately endangering himself or others, who am I" start cropping up immediately, and so even in this form, the question needs to be more precise.

A questions to any and all anarchists in this thread: What are your personal views on religion? Do you think there is a God, an "afterlife"? Are you more agnostic? Or do you see religion as playing a kind of placebo effect on the masses, giving them a false sense that justice will prevail in the end and so forth, sort of along the lines of Marx's comment that it is the "opium of the masses"?

Religion is the core of my anarchistic philosophy. I think it's fair to say I'm an anarchist only so far as is incidental to my religious position. I don't believe states as they exist are compatible with the Law of God, and if we were to practice that, states would disappear as a tautology.

I belief there is a god, and that more that we shall some day face an incarnate afterlife.

So to get this straight: If I want to to be an Anarchist, then I need to believe in the following axiom: That people actively prevent the accumulation of power, rather than getting trapped in its vortex.

No, you do not.

I suppose a decent question for any of these threads would be 'how far does calling oneself an anarchist make one an anarchist?'

Not very! Unlike most political philosophies, Anarchism as a term really developed as a descriptor applied to others, frequently to people who don't think of themselves as Anarchists.

Anarchism doesn't suggest any sort of coherent program, but a descriptive label of what may be coherent programs, as such the room for inclusion is vast and broad, and includes people I may not enjoy being included with, but also has a very clear line of demarcation where it stops.

I may someone is not a very good practicing anarchist, or I may say someone's professed beliefs are not deeply held. But if I say someone is not an anarchist, I am making a much more specific and observation based statement then I am by saying someone is not a conservative (a moniker I have put on and off myself sometimes, actually.)

the question is: do people also oppress each other under virtually any conditions?

Well yes, obviously. Anarchism isn't about making clinical observations

What are your thoughts on Distributism?

A broadly humane program. Their vision of society is closer in touch with the human condition than most, and is broadly compatible with society as envisioned by myself.

Here is my question, can we consider anarchism as part of libertarianism?

No, I don't think so. Libertarians are quite happy with the existence of a coercive apparatus, they simply feel that this coercive apparatus should avoid coming down in peculiar circumstances, and some extreme instance, believe parts of this apparatus should be a "private" rather than "public."

This, to me, does not seem all that different from the myriad of other political philosophies who have objected to the intrusion of this apparatus into their affairs in the past or present.

I'd like to know what you think of this description of anarchism.

I don't see a lot to object to, and a lot to sympathize with. Particularly the level of detail. I've spent years studying how a society works under Tannistry, and there the answers are right there. I still couldn't tell you how a society operating under Tannistry would deal with a public orgy. I'm certain no one else here could tell us how such a society would deal with such a problem. But it works, and nobody can dispute it works, because it worked for thousands of years.

EDIT: My god, that is embarrassing to look at now. I had no idea what the term "civil rights" even meant.

If you're not embarrassed by what you wrote before, it means you're not improving.

 

[Mouthwash]

Are there statists who think that anarchism is possible under extraordinary circumstances and even desirable, but highly unlikely to ever be realized? Anarchism would be an ideal upon which to measure a society's progress, but not something that would feasibly ever come about.

 

[Traitorfish]

Most socialists have tended to believe that anarchism of some sort represents the ideal sort of society, but have been sceptical as to its viability, at least in anything like the foreseeable future. Typically they'll be following a logic broadly similar to Orthodox Marxism or Marxism-Leninism, that a stateless communism requires a certain level of material productivity, but expressed scepticism that a sufficient level of productivity can be achieved without tremendous technological advances, if at all.

 

[Tahuti]

Are there statists who think that anarchism is possible under extraordinary circumstances and even desirable, but highly unlikely to ever be realized? Anarchism would be an ideal upon which to measure a society's progress, but not something that would feasibly ever come about.

Defines on what you view as anarchy. Most anarchists (and Traitorfish especially) would view anarchism more as a state of mind than as a political philosophy, which would also extend against capitalism, religion etc.

Assuming you view anarchy as the absence government, there have been very few - if any - genuine appearances of anarchy. Somalia is wrongfully asserted as an example of anarchy since in reality, it is a tug of war between the claiming government and several non-state actors that are supported by foreign governments.

Anyway, as a 'statist', I think a state is desirable for its own sake, as an ideal state would be able to endow its subjects with meaning and community and act as a patron of the arts. I reject the notion of 'progress', since ultimately, whether a society is good or bad comes from the moral character of those in charge. When the libertarian present forth his arguments, they often reveal a certain ugliness that cannot be surmounted, especially considering its heavy handed focus on economics yet seem to reject the notion of humanity: I feel vindicated for my views whenever I see that.

 

[Berzerker]

is self defense compatible with anarchism?

and if so

how can anarchists oppose a state based on self defense?

 

[civver_764]

I'm interested in market anarchism. Do you guys have any reading suggestions?

 

[Berzerker]

David Friedman, Milton's son, is an author and anarcho-capitalist

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm interested in market anarchism. Do you guys have any reading suggestions?

I think Markets Not Capitalism might interest you. It's an anthology including a range of individualist and market anarchists, old and new. There isn't much in there that I agree with, but it's the sort of stuff that I can disagree with productively.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Most socialists have tended to believe that anarchism of some sort represents the ideal sort of society, but have been sceptical as to its viability, at least in anything like the foreseeable future. Typically they'll be following a logic broadly similar to Orthodox Marxism or Marxism-Leninism, that a stateless communism requires a certain level of material productivity, but expressed scepticism that a sufficient level of productivity can be achieved without tremendous technological advances, if at all.

In my experience, the single largest objection by Marxist-Leninists to anarchism of the anticapitalist sort is that it lacks any viable method of defeating the inevitable counter-revolution and defending the new society from capitalist and fascist threats which will surely dedicate every effort to snuffing it out.

 

[timtofly]

Even anarchy has to be the will of the people. The will of the people does not always have to include force, but an understanding, that if force is necessary, then the will of the people is no longer backing up the reason to have anarchy in the first place.

Pure anarchy would realize that any necessary force has defeated the whole purpose of allowing anarchy to work. Many would view anarchy as a self defeating form of control, but a true anarchist would have to admit they had disrupted the peace and give in to any "punishment" willingly to allow anarchy to remain a stable form of society.

Anarchy would be more a society of trust, not that there is an unspoken code of law or even enforcement, but where every one looks out for the interest of others and not just putting their own needs as the main objective.

 

[Flying Pig]

Even anarchy has to be the will of the people. The will of the people does not always have to include force, but an understanding, that if force is necessary, then the will of the people is no longer backing up the reason to have anarchy in the first place.

I thought the point was more that appealing to the will of 'the people' means overriding the will of some of the individual persons - Max Stirner put it as 'liberty of the people is not my liberty'. So anarchist systems have to be opt-in on the individual level, rather than the collective.

 

[civver_764]

I think Markets Not Capitalism might interest you. It's an anthology including a range of individualist and market anarchists, old and new. There isn't much in there that I agree with, but it's the sort of stuff that I can disagree with productively.

That is perfect. Cheers man.

 

[Traitorfish]

In my experience, the single largest objection by Marxist-Leninists to anarchism of the anticapitalist sort is that it lacks any viable method of defeating the inevitable counter-revolution and defending the new society from capitalist and fascist threats which will surely dedicate every effort to snuffing it out.

Anarchists tend to respond that carrying out the very same counter-revolution under a red flag isn't much of a response either.

Neither defeat or self-cannibalism offer much by way of a working model.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

So, what are some examples of a working model for anarchism?