Ask an Anarchist
- Thread starter Traitorfish
- Start date
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Not in so many words. "Worker" isn't really a meaningful category outside of a certain kind of class-structure.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
Could you elaborate on this a bit more? I remember that a lot of Socialist movements in Europe settled down into Social Democracy, but I was under the impression that the Bolsheviks and Communists tended to set themselves up as the 'true' socialists as opposed to SocDem.
If you're defining them as opposed to those who, in the present setup, own the means of production but do not work on them by themselves, maybe. But, if you define them as 'people who work', excluding people who can't work because of their age or disabilities how would they organise at all?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
"Social Democracy" only really acquired the meaning of "moderate socialism" after 1917, when it came to be defined in opposition to "Communism". Until then, it was taken as a synonym for "socialism", particularly in areas which were heavily influenced by the German Social Democratic Party, such as the United States and Russia. When Lenin & Pals took the barricades in 1917, they regarded themselves as revolutionary social democrats; the label "Communist" only came to use in 1918, when the Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic & Labour Party reconstituted themselves as the Russian Communist Party, borrowing from Marx's manifesto a term that had been generally regarded as obsolete. You were more likely to see it in sensationalist reports about the radical left than in their own literature, in which context it was treated as a synonym for anarchism or nihilism. Presumably, despite its age, it carried provocative, revolutionary connotations which the Bolsheviks found understandably appealing.
The pro-Bolshevik parties that were founded in the wake of the Russian Revolution followed this usage, adopting the term "Communist" to distinguish themselves from. However, so did non-Bolshevik groups like the Party of Revolutionary Communism in Russia, the Communist Workers' Party in Germany and the Communist League in the UK. Between 1918 and about 1921, '22, "communism" basically meant "supporter of the current revolutionary movement", without particular ideological or institutional baggage. It's only from the early 1920s, when the wave of post-war unrest collapsed that the term acquired the narrow association with Moscow.
I don't think they would organise on the basis of collective interest. As you say, when "worker" becomes purely descriptive, ceases to mean one who must work and simply describes one who is currently working, it doesn't really make sense to organise people as workers. So I think that we'd probably see some form of organisation inherited from the era of class struggle, but reduced to a purely practical function, organisation for the purpose of carrying out work.
RFC_Viceroy
Warlord
I generally understand how law is enforced in an anarcho-capitalist society, but how is law enforced in an anarcho-communist society? (Or any other form of left-anarchism.) How are murderers dealt with? (I won't assume that theft is still a crime in such a society, though I suppose that is another question.
Gary Childress
Student for and of life
I posted the questions in the spoiler below in a prior post but never saw an answer. So I'd like to repost it.
Spoiler :
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
There're two main possibilities, I think (if I might be so bold as to offer an answer -this is after all an anarchist's thread, so why not?).
One is to form an ad hoc posse and hunt the murderer down.
The other is to recognize the murderer as a person with agency, and suppose that he, or she, had a perfectly good reason for murdering his, or her, victim.
Another paradigm is that every individual is a product of their society, so that murders are seen as a failure of socialization. Or something. Blah blah blah.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
A group of vigilantes appear, become venerated by the people as heroes. Eventually they become nobles and their leader king.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Couldn't tell you. It depends on the transgressor, the transgression and the transgressed; on who has done what to who and why. It wouldn't exactly by anarchism if I was able to sit here, now, and dictate jurisprudence to the future.
The one thing I could say is that I imagine "law", in a stateless society, would be understood more in terms of conformity to certain standards of behaviour than in terms of obedience to authority. The whole logic of crime and criminality presumes some sort of overarching authority, which is evidently contrary to anarchist ambitions. I'd expect to see a logic of lawfulness and unlawfulness, rather than legality and illegality, if that makes sense.
I'm not sure it does, or at least not to me - could you elaborate?
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
That was an attempt at a concise elaboration. If you want to get technical, there may be more humans alive today that adhere to a deity than there ever were in the past, but the point remains. Even the Romans held their chief ruler as a deity. The Greeks were the humanist who did not need a deity, but were more democratic in their approach to authority.
Being self governed is not necessarily an anarchy. The US is very attached to their guns and central government, but technically the lines of government have changed and that central government has become a separate authority between the governed and their government.
Even an Anarchy type government will either tolerate a murder or will deal with it by doing what the community agrees with (even "capital" punishment). The difference would be that the local community deals with it and not a form of governmental authority.
@ Gary Childress
IMO a Republic is closer to an Anarchy type government than a Kingdom would be. The governed in a Kingdom are giving up their authority to the King. In a republic, there is a central representative for the people, as opposed to no central authority. I am not sure of the question. Anarchist are not anti production and they may have agreed to manufacture certain items having sympathy for the Republic. Neither is Anarchy to be confused with Pacifism. It is quite possible that any form of government that would be against violence would not last long, when threatened by violence, not just one who accepted Anarchy as their form of government. It would seem to me that even Anarchist could easily be motivated to violence and retaliate with violence against their oppressors, especially if they did not want to be subjected to such authority.
Being self governed is not necessarily an anarchy. The US is very attached to their guns and central government, but technically the lines of government have changed and that central government has become a separate authority between the governed and their government.
Even an Anarchy type government will either tolerate a murder or will deal with it by doing what the community agrees with (even "capital" punishment). The difference would be that the local community deals with it and not a form of governmental authority.
@ Gary Childress
IMO a Republic is closer to an Anarchy type government than a Kingdom would be. The governed in a Kingdom are giving up their authority to the King. In a republic, there is a central representative for the people, as opposed to no central authority. I am not sure of the question. Anarchist are not anti production and they may have agreed to manufacture certain items having sympathy for the Republic. Neither is Anarchy to be confused with Pacifism. It is quite possible that any form of government that would be against violence would not last long, when threatened by violence, not just one who accepted Anarchy as their form of government. It would seem to me that even Anarchist could easily be motivated to violence and retaliate with violence against their oppressors, especially if they did not want to be subjected to such authority.
RFC_Viceroy
Warlord
As an anarcho-capitalist myself I am aware of the difficulties this presents. I'm not asking for an absolute, unchanging blueprint. But from what I understand of anarcho-capitalist societies, the market takes on the role of "the sword" against violent criminals so to speak. What I'm asking is how this works without a market. Or is there still a market even if there isn't "Capitalism?"
Let me make it simple. Say Mr. A murders Mr. B. Is Mr. A punished, and if so, how is he punished?
what is this i dont even
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Perhaps not "The Market" but market forces have existed long before capitalism and will continue to after capitalism. By some definitions capitalism is itself is called the "anti-market". I don't feel like explaining but search your heart, you know it to be true.
Linkman226
#anarchy
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2007
- Messages
- 2,493
Old Hippy
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 3,606
A group of vigilantes appear, become venerated by the people as heroes. Eventually they become nobles and their leader king.
and then the people pray for abunch of vigilantes to appear...
sorry TF, a subscription post
Similar threads
