Ask an Anarchist

[Ajidica]

How would an anarchist society handle large-scale projects, such as space exploration?

Any update?

 

[Gary Childress]

I have a question (well several maybe). If I started to answer questions posted by other people in the "ask an anarchist" thread, would that amount to anarchy? And if it amounted to anarchy would that make me an anarchist? If that made me an anarchist and I started fielding questions in the "ask an anarchist" thread because I'm now an anarchist would it then no longer be anarchy? And if it is no longer anarchy, would I lose status as an anarchist and no longer be allowed to field questions in the "ask an anarchist thread"?

 

[Borachio]

I think you've answered your own question there.

Clearly the "answer" is both yes and no. Or rather a winking in and out from one to the other, and back again.

I think it's a nicely anarchic question.

 

[Takhisis]

I think my brain might have just melted from trying to process Gary's question.

 

[Gary Childress]

LOL Takhisis! Sorry about the brain melt. I'll try to ask better questions next time!

 

[Set]

That's a good question, and not one I have a very good answer to. The usual arguments against coercion assumes a certain baseline of rationality or self-control which isn't a given- it won't be found in small children, or in some mentally disabled people. (I think children achieve a capacity for self-government quicker than we give them credit, in part because our culture does a poor job of either fostering or recognising self-government.) And I'm not entirely sure how we'd resolve that one, beyond saying that we should aspire to respect their rationality as much as possible, and endeavour to employ coercion as little as possible. And how much is "as possible"? And does this, by analogy, imply to adults who are not acting with absolute rationality? It's a tricky one, no doubt, and I tend to suspect that we won't ever find an answer so long as our machinery remains so heavily meat-based.

This feels like it should be a major issue within Anarchism, but it's something that doesn't seem to be addressed in most of the anarchist stuff I've read (Some Graeber, some Foccault, some stuff from Tiqqun). Do you know of any books that discuss this?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Any update?

I'll take a swing at this. I wanted to give you a well considered answer, but I'll give you the best one I can manage.

Which first, is to question whether or not large scale projects are as necessary or even beneficial as they would seem. Large scale projects are usually attempted by regimes that do not have an interest in the human scale, and are usually attempting to overawe humans with something beyond them. When humans understand what is beyond them, and what they properly owe awe too, this purpose will lose it's luster.

Second, frequently these large scale projects are a solution to problems that exist as a result of centralization in the first places. Large highway systems are needed to connect large empires, large dams needed to centralize control of vast amounts of energy, a diversified, smaller world would need more diversified smaller solutions.

I'm not ruling out the possibility of large scale projects, conducted cooperatively on a perhaps global scale, but Anarchism never offered a way to do the same thing as state power, only better. We're not Kruschev telling you we will bury you.

I'm at least telling you, we can do things differently. More humbly perhaps, but more humanely.

 

[Mouthwash]

Second, frequently these large scale projects are a solution to problems that exist as a result of centralization in the first places. Large highway systems are needed to connect large empires, large dams needed to centralize control of vast amounts of energy, a diversified, smaller world would need more diversified smaller solutions.

And you don't think that people won't simply be less productive as a result of losing intercontinental highways?

 

[Borachio]

Less productive in what sense, though? In the sense of producing fewer consumer white goods? Yeah, probably.

 

[ParkCungHee]

And you don't think that people won't simply be less productive as a result of losing intercontinental highways?

I specifically said the point of Anarchism is not to do capitalism, but more so.

 

[Flying Pig]

Productive is perhaps the wrong way to look at it; we don't work because we want to, we work because it gives us money to buy things that we want. Certainly people wouldn't be able to enjoy as many consumer goods as they do now. If nobody was sailing warships around the Indian Ocean, you would certainly expect the price of a Japanese television to go up. By definition (admittedly a definition rooted in the capitalist desire to quantify) that means a lower quality of life.

I resent the idea that grand scientific projects are entirely a matter of awe, though. Yes, they have that function, but in the absence of a state that would be changed into emphasising the collective power of humanity rather than the individual power of (say) the USA or the USSR. I'd say that landing on the moon and finding the Titanic both have some intrinsic value to them.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Productive is perhaps the wrong way to look at it; we don't work because we want to, we work because it gives us money to buy things that we want. Certainly people wouldn't be able to enjoy as many consumer goods as they do now. If nobody was sailing warships around the Indian Ocean, you would certainly expect the price of a Japanese television to go up. By definition (admittedly a definition rooted in the capitalist desire to quantify) that means a lower quality of life.

Yes. I will admit that an Anarchist society would almost certainly produce a lower quality of life by that definition. I am not offering an easy solution. But some things are worth pursuing despite difficulties.

I resent the idea that grand scientific projects are entirely a matter of awe, though. Yes, they have that function, but in the absence of a state that would be changed into emphasising the collective power of humanity rather than the individual power of (say) the USA or the USSR. I'd say that landing on the moon and finding the Titanic both have some intrinsic value to them.

I was speaking in generalities there. I do think the Space Program is unique, perhaps unique in Human history. But when I think of large projects of contemporary and historical society, I also tend to think of things such as Three Gorges Dam, Abraj Al Bait, the Pyramids of Giza, Stonehenge projects like that. Projects which tend to get people and societies marked for "historical greatness" but rarely matter at the human scale.

 

[Flying Pig]

I'm not even sure about that. The Three Gorges Dam certainly makes a great deal of difference to people who get their energy from it. So does the Hoover Dam, and the German Autobahns, designed to show off German industrial greatness and allow Panzers to be rolled across Europe, help people get themselves and their goods from A to B. In their day, so too did the aqueducts and Roman roads. Notre Dame provides livelihoods, directly or indirectly, for several hundred people, and no doubt the people who worship there every Sunday think it's a great benefit to them. It's not so simple as a clear line between projects which show off and projects which are worthwhile.

 

[Mouthwash]

Yes. I will admit that an Anarchist society would almost certainly produce a lower quality of life by that definition. I am not offering an easy solution. But some things are worth pursuing despite difficulties.

Then I'm unsure why I should want anarchism when countries like Denmark have already shown statism can work, by whatever standard.

 

[Borachio]

Good question!

But I think Denmark is far more anarchic than you might suppose.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm still meaning to cobble together some coherent thoughts in response to Ajidica's question. I'm not going to produce an essay on the topic, but I'm mulling it over (and over, and over, and over). Briefly, I agree with a lot of what Park says about issues of scale and intent, about the actual human value of large scale projects, but I'm also too much of a crusty old Marxist to toss out industrialism without some qualification.

Then I'm unsure why I should want anarchism when countries like Denmark have already shown statism can work, by whatever standard.

Actually, Denmark has seen a considerable rise in poverty over the last few years, as employment levels have struggled to recover from the crisis and the state has repeatedly attacked welfare despite rising costs of living. Same throughout the latter-day social democratic nations. These countries managed to spin-out the post-war prosperity for thirty years longer than the rest of the developed world, but they aren't immune from the vagaries of the global capitalist economy, nor is there state any more fundamentally humane in enforcing market-discipline.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I'm not even sure about that. The Three Gorges Dam certainly makes a great deal of difference to people who get their energy from it. So does the Hoover Dam, and the German Autobahns, designed to show off German industrial greatness and allow Panzers to be rolled across Europe, help people get themselves and their goods from A to B. In their day, so too did the aqueducts and Roman roads. Notre Dame provides livelihoods, directly or indirectly, for several hundred people, and no doubt the people who worship there every Sunday think it's a great benefit to them. It's not so simple as a clear line between projects which show off and projects which are worthwhile.

Oh, I'm not saying the projects are without any purpose or benefit. I'm saying the decision to do them as "large scale projects" usually reveals thinking and reaction to problems of a modernity focused around centralization.

The comparison I was drawing is not one of Three Gorges dam or no Power, or Notre Dame and no churches. But is Three Gorges Dam a decision made as a result of the problems of making "China?" Is Notre Dame better than dozens or perhaps hundreds of humble churches throughout France?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Then I'm unsure why I should want anarchism when countries like Denmark have already shown statism can work, by whatever standard.

Loads of things work. Tannistry works. Fascism works. Even Somalia works. I expect more from a way of life then self-perpetuation.

 

[timtofly]

Any update?

Education is key. It would seem that anarchism is a state of mind more than a way of life. Most forms of government loose steam, when they reach a zenith and then start to decline into stagnation. I suppose anarchism would do the same thing, if people decided to stop learning and recede back into being uncivilized. Anarchism is not a lack of civility. It is the ability to work on a civil manner without the frame work of an over reaching government.

 

[Gary Childress]

EDIT: Never mind.