Ask an Anarchist

[Berzerker]

Well, that question answered itself, didn't it? With no state, categories of legality and illegality are meaningless, so the question of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour has to be entirely recast.

Isn't a law or anarchic determination of unacceptable behavior the same thing? Seems you've replaced the names but not the concept.

 

[Takhisis]

No pensions. No wages. No money to begin with. "To each according to his ability, to each according to his need", see?

No ability but quite some need. How do you balance the two?

Through entities which are not states. States hardly have a monopoly on famine-relief, and for the most part aren't even very good at it.

We should establish a Bob Geldof Liberation front then.

If it takes a long time to make major decision, then that's how long those decisions are supposed to take. If people are insufficiently educated, then they will educate them. I can't imagine why their would be demagogues in an anarchist society, but regardless, it doesn't seem to be my place to tell people who they may and may not listen to. These are only "problems" if you set out from a particular image of what societies should look, of how they should work, which we do not.

Who's that bolded 'we'?

Also, some major decisions need to be taken very fast. You can't wait for a full consensus to form.

Also, I'll remind you that this thread is "Ask an Anarchist" not "Interrogate an Anarchist", so in future please try to take a more constructive approach.

I suppose we could lay off the tongs and use the coals for marshmallows and red peppers.

 

[christos200]

Well, that question answered itself, didn't it? With no state, categories of legality and illegality are meaningless, so the question of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour has to be entirely recast.

Let's say someone murders your entire family. Since there is no state, not law, no acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, the murderer will not be punished, right? Is this how a society should be?

No pensions. No wages. No money to begin with. "To each according to his ability, to
each according to his need", see?

If there are no money, how will people buy things? Or those that produce them will give them for free?

Also, how would older people live?

Sorry, but can you explain about this, since I do not know from where this pic is?

If it takes a long time to make major decision, then that's how long those decisions are supposed to take.

If there is an emergency, then how will decisions be made?

If people are insufficiently educated, then they will educate them.

Who will educate them? No state, no schools. So, who will educate them? Also, those who are insufficiently educated will be allowed to vote or will they have to wait until they are educated?

I can't imagine why their would be demagogues in an anarchist society, but regardless, it doesn't seem to be my place to tell people who they may and may not listen to.

Because people want power. People want to protect their faction (be it their friends or family) and make proffit. And if the system has not any type of protection against demagogues, then how would you prevent them from making the people to decide stupid things, like in Ancient Athens, which lost the Pelloponnesian war, because it's citizens voted to invade Sicily?

Other questions:

Who will decide who will vote? No authority means that no one can tell who will vote or who will not vote? I could have my dog to vote and no could say anything about it because there is no authority and no law.

 

[christos200]

Also, if all the citizens go to vote on every decision, who will do all the jobs? In Ancient Athens, the citizens could vote because they had slaves to do the work. What about in your anarchist society? Or no one will work?

 

[Rashiminos]

I'm afraid I don't understand the question?

If that is addressed to me:

What methods(/actions/etc) employed by states are coercive?

 

[Ajidica]

Sorry, but can you explain about this, since I do not know from where this pic is?

The picture is representing Anarchist Catalonia, a political entity that emerged during the Spanish Civil War and (loosely) allied to the Republicans. The CNT stands for Confederacion Nacional de Trabajo (National Confederation of Labor) and FAI stands for Federacion Anarquista Iberica or Anarchist Federation of Spain.

 

[Tahuti]

Also, if all the citizens go to vote on every decision, who will do all the jobs? In Ancient Athens, the citizens could vote because they had slaves to do the work. What about in your anarchist society? Or no one will work?

Actually, I've once raised a concern in the Ask a Red thread that Communism might degenerate into a Völkisch communes, in which the labor is done ethnic minorities. TF answered me, and I remember he said something like that might be a possibility. So much for equality.

 

[Traitorfish]

Who's that bolded 'we'?

Sorry, that should have read "they will educate themselves".

Also, some major decisions need to be taken very fast. You can't wait for a full consensus to form.

Sometimes, but rarely on any scale that would justify the existence of an entire state apparatus, or at least not with states creating these problems for themselves.

Even today, states aren't really in the business of making snap decisions. What they mostly do is develop and enforce particular structures, protocols, etc., and very often in a manner which makes rapid decision-making difficult outside of very specific contexts. What they offer is uniformity, not dynamism.

Let's say someone murders your entire family. Since there is no state, not law, no acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, the murderer will not be punished, right? Is this how a society should be?

I don't think that people should be punished, no. What good has that ever done anyone? As I said, anarchism means tossing out our state-centred assumptions about how societies regulate themselves, which first and foremost means abandoning a disciplinarian attitude towards social transgression.

If there are no money, how will people buy things? Or those that produce them will give them for free?

Also, how would older people live?

Again, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". It's the only authentic moral or free way which human beings have ever found to relate to each other.

Sorry, but can you explain about this, since I do not know from where this pic is?

CNT-FAI militiawoman, Barcelona, 1936. Point being, resistance to aggression is not premised on statehood. I could have chosen other examples without the overtly anarchist overtones, and indeed many which were avowedly statist- the French Resistance, for example, which was dominated by left-republicans and Communists- but this seemed the most appropriate.

If there is an emergency, then how will decisions be made?

I don't know; "emergency" is a pretty vague category, so if we're not assuming Leviathan, it'd be pretty silly to assert a general model of how people should deal with them.

Who will educate them? No state, no schools. So, who will educate them? Also, those who are insufficiently educated will be allowed to vote or will they have to wait until they are educated?

States have been in the business of education for maybe a century or so, and less in most of the world, so I don't really understand the assumption that one is a prerequisite of the other. Certainly universal education has generally been state-lead, but that only indicates the difficulty of supplying educational in a grossly unequal world, because mass education pre-dates universal by centuries, having previously been overseen by churches, guilds, workers' associations, an other non-state organisations.

Because people want power. People want to protect their faction (be it their friends or family) and make proffit. And if the system has not any type of protection against demagogues, then how would you prevent them from making the people to decide stupid things, like in Ancient Athens, which lost the Pelloponnesian war, because it's citizens voted to invade Sicily?

People have a right to make stupid decisions. My hope is that, in a freer and more equal society, they will not do so.

Who will decide who will vote? No authority means that no one can tell who will vote or who will not vote? I could have my dog to vote and no could say anything about it because there is no authority and no law.

That's true. But, nobody has an obligation to pay any attention to what your dog has to say, because there is no authority and no law. So that solved itself, didn't it?

Also, if all the citizens go to vote on every decision, who will do all the jobs? In Ancient Athens, the citizens could vote because they had slaves to do the work. What about in your anarchist society? Or no one will work?

As Park has said, anarchism is in essence anti-political, which means rejecting the construction of distinct spheres of work and citizenship, of material and political life, upon which this question is premised. Anarchists don't assume democracy as something which occurs outside of work, which only refers to it from the standpoint of a gentleman of leisure (however temporarily assumed), but as something which has to structure our entire social being. What good is being able to vote in some micro-parliament if you still have a dictatorship on the factory floor?

Also, I will again have to ask you to adopt a less combative and more constructive attitude towards this thread. It's one thing to be confused about the details of anarchist thought- that's why we're here!- but another thing to come in swinging your ignorance like a hammer. The point of this thread is to share our ideas with those who may be curious, not to submit ourselves to interrogation.

If that is addressed to me:

What methods(/actions/etc) employed by states are coercive?

...Coercive ones? I'm afraid I still don't quite understand what you're asking.

Actually, I've once raised a concern in the Ask a Red thread that Communism might degenerate into a Völkisch communes, in which the labor is done ethnic minorities. TF answered me, and I remember he said something like that might be a possibility. So much for equality.

Saying that something is conceivable is not to say that it is probable or that is acceptable.

 

[Ajidica]

Can an Anarchist society exist side-by-side with 'traditional' states?
Or, are Anarchist societies limited to 'slightly silly hippie communes' until they foment world revolution?

 

[christos200]

I don't think that people should be punished, no. What good has that ever done anyone? As I said, anarchism means tossing out our state-centred assumptions about how societies regulate themselves, which first and foremost means abandoning a disciplinarian attitude towards social transgression.

So, if murder is not punished, how can one protect his family? Will each family fortify themselves and shoot at anyone coming?

States have been in the business of education for maybe a century or so, and less in most of the world, so I don't really understand the assumption that one is a prerequisite of the other. Certainly universal education has generally been state-lead, but that only indicates the difficulty of supplying educational in a grossly unequal world, because mass education pre-dates universal by centuries, having previously been overseen by churches, guilds, workers' associations, an other non-state organisations.

Yes, but the literacy levers grew with state education for everyone. Before that, only the rich could be educated.

Again, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". It's the only authentic moral or free way which human beings have ever found to relate to each other.

Who is to judge if someone is able or not? Who is to judge if someone needs something or not? There is no state, so who will judge?

CNT-FAI militiawoman, Barcelona, 1936. Point being, resistance to aggression is not premised on statehood. I could have chosen other examples without the overtly anarchist overtones, and indeed many which were avowedly statist- the French Resistance, for example, which was dominated by left-republicans and Communists- but this seemed the most appropriate.

But they lost the Spanish war, didn't they?

Also, and in Greece main resistance against the Nazis were the commies, but they had Generals, leaders and an organization.

If there is no government, who will appoint Generals? And why should people obey those Generals?

As Park has said, anarchism is in essence anti-political, which means rejecting the construction of distinct spheres of work and citizenship, of material and political life, upon which this question is premised. Anarchists don't assume democracy as something which occurs outside of work, which only refers to it from the standpoint of a gentleman of leisure (however temporarily assumed), but as something which has to structure our entire social being. What good is being able to vote in some micro-parliament if you still have a dictatorship on the factory floor?

So, those who take part in the voting sessions will not work?

Also, I will again have to ask you to adopt a less combative and more constructive attitude towards this thread. It's one thing to be confused about the details of anarchist thought- that's why we're here!- but another thing to come in swinging your ignorance like a hammer. The point of this thread is to share our ideas with those who may be curious, not to submit ourselves to interrogation.

I am deeply sorry if you see this as an interrogation. And also sorry for my ignorance of how murders can be accepted in a society.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Can an Anarchist society exist side-by-side with 'traditional' states?
Or, are Anarchist societies limited to 'slightly silly hippie communes' until they foment world revolution?

As I said before I think Anarchist societies do exist side-by-side with 'traditional states' and are, in fact, the rule rather than the exception. To go for a very simple example, you and me right now are engaging in interaction without recourse to violence. It's a community of two, but you can probably think of countless personal examples, and very few contrary examples.

There are very few 'Anarchist societies' if you look at the world from the top down, geographically, based on where those with power claim to hold sway. But if you look at the world from the bottom up, from how people interact in their daily lives, the apparatus of state can seem astronomically isolated.

The absence of a state does not imply the absence of political authority.

I'd also add that "absence of a state" is frequently, in the modern world an ideological rather than practical description of affairs. I've frequently cited Taiwan as an example of, if you trust the United States Governments insistence, a society that functions without a formal state apparatus. According to the Government of China, it is a province where the government holds no effective power, due to the influence of Warlords, much like Somalia.

If you trust the perspective of the Provos, six counties in Ireland have been without a government since 1921.

You might say that these are people simply in denial of reality, but then calling Somalia a "stateless society" ignores the fact that Somalia has a President, a Military and a Prime Minister.

You may object that the reality on the ground is that the President of Somalia's power doesn't extend very far, but once you are out of his reach, you are out of the reach of the Federal Republic of Somalia, you enter into the Puntland State of Somalia, with it's own President, military and even maritime police.

Or, you may be in the Republic of Somaliland, with it's own President, Parliament, Police and Military.

If you object to the political situation of Somalia as is, what you are saying is: "I don't recognize the authority of these states." In which case you won't get much argument out of the Anarchists.

 

[timtofly]

Anarchy is not taking matters into one's own hand, it is the ability to exist without being an idiot.

 

[Traitorfish]

So, if murder is not punished, how can one protect his family? Will each family fortify themselves and shoot at anyone coming?

I just told you, abandoning a disciplinarian mindset does not mean abandoning all forms of social regulation. It just means rejecting the Leviathan as the sole source of social order. I don't propose turning a blind eye to violence, but I don't think that the logic of "punishment" does anyone any good.

Yes, but the literacy levers grew with state education for everyone. Before that, only the rich could be educated.

That is true, yes. But I don't think that should lead us to suppose that states are absolutely necessary for the provision of universal education, or indeed even that they're very good at it, only that they're the only entity in capitalist society capable of marshalling the necessary resources.

Who is to judge if someone is able or not? Who is to judge if someone needs something or not? There is no state, so who will judge?

I don't know. Who needs it, what do they need, what for, where are they? The whole point of anarchism is that people are better equipped to each other when they're given the opportunity to work this stuff out for themselves, not to replace one rigid system with another.

But they lost the Spanish war, didn't they?

Well, the independent militias were suppressed by the Republicans in 1937, so technically no.

Also, and in Greece main resistance against the Nazis were the commies, but they had Generals, leaders and an organization.

From what I know of these resistance movements, the actual level of control exercised by the leadership was generally exaggerated until fairly late in the game. For the most part, resistance was spontaneous and localised, and only gradually congealed around more general military and political structures.

If there is no government, who will appoint Generals? And why should people obey those Generals?

Whoever's fighting will have to appoint them, and they should obey them because they appointed them.

So, those who take part in the voting sessions will not work?

No. As I said, for any sort of cooperative decision-making process to be meaningful, it has to be dissolved into everyday life, to be part and parcel of work, learning, consumption, everything. As soon as you rip it out of the mundane and stick on top of some hill outside town, make it something that people can only do in their leisure time, it becomes politics, it becomes a game of power, and that's exactly what we're opposed to.

I am deeply sorry if you see this as an interrogation. And also sorry for my ignorance of how murders can be accepted in a society.

Christos, this is your final warning. If you do not adopt a more constructive tone, I'm going to have to ask the mods to start removing your posts from this thread. We've been nothing but civil with you, so please return the favour.

 

[Camikaze]

Yes, please remember that 'Ask a ...' threads are not for debate or argument, but for questions and answers. Asking for clarification or seeking the rationale for a position is all well and good, but if you wish to engage in a back-and-forth, please start your own thread.

 

[sophie]

I'm no anarchist myself, but re: literacy I'd also submit that: is "formal" education as it exists now really all that necessary? If you're a farmer out in Iowa, how much reading do you really need to perform your job? What about math or science? Presumably the idea behind an anarchist existence is that you learn what you need to know in order to perform your vocation, and anything beyond that is self-taught. If anything that would remove the inefficiencies inherent in standard education systems. People will be a) more enthusiastic to learn what they need to learn (out of interest or need), and b) less likely to waste their time stuffing their head full of erroneous knowledge the state deemed "necessary".

Also I don't know if it means anything, but I appreciated the exchange between you and christos Traitorfish. Combative as it was it certainly helped me get a better understanding of the general anarchist way of thought.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

^^^ Me, too. If you put yourself out there, explanations are forthcoming. Thanks again for this thread. People need to know what's out there.

Sent via mobile.

 

[christos200]

Christos, this is your final warning. If you do not adopt a more constructive tone, I'm going to have to ask the mods to start removing your posts from this thread. We've been nothing but civil with you, so please return the favour.

Sorry if my posts were offensive. I just want to learn how anarchists deal with certain problems that come when there is no government and no law.

just told you, abandoning a disciplinarian mindset does not mean abandoning all forms of social regulation. It just means rejecting the Leviathan as the sole source of social order. I don't propose turning a blind eye to violence, but I don't think that the logic of "punishment" does anyone any good.

So, if someone who murders, attacks or rape someone is not punished, what will stop him from doing the same thing again?

I don't know. Who needs it, what do they need, what for, where are they?

Example: An farmer become crippled in an accident and cannot work anymore. So, he needs food and other products (or money, but you said that in anarchist states there will be no money). Who will give it to him? His family? His neighbours? What if they do not have/refuse to give him? Then what will this farmer do? How will he live?

In a state, he would get a subsidy. What would he get in an anarchist country?

Whoever's fighting will have to appoint them, and they should obey them because they appointed them.

What if the soldiers do not agree on one person? What if someone gets the position because of connections/being popular instead of his skills?

Also, would it not take time for the newly elected General to prepare plans and learn about the war situation? Remember, that the enemy will not wait until a general is elected, prepares a plan and gets to know his men.

From what I know of these resistance movements, the actual level of control exercised by the leadership was generally exaggerated until fairly late in the game. For the most part, resistance was spontaneous and localised, and only gradually congealed around more general military and political structures.

That's why the effects are local and an actual military is needed in order to free/take over a territory.

 

[Traitorfish]

So, if someone who murders, attacks or rape someone is not punished, what will stop him from doing the same thing again?

Other people, by whatever means are practical, necessary and morally acceptable to them.

Example: An farmer become crippled in an accident and cannot work anymore. So, he needs food and other products (or money, but you said that in anarchist states there will be no money). Who will give it to him? His family? His neighbours? What if they do not have/refuse to give him? Then what will this farmer do? How will he live?

In a state, he would get a subsidy. What would he get in an anarchist country?

How is your farmer surviving to begin with? If he doesn't already rely on others, then he's apparently some sort of primitivist recluse, which is exceptional regardless of whether he lives in a capitalist or socialist society. If he is already reliant on others, then he can continue to rely on others, because an increase or decrease in the "according to their ability" part does not imply a corresponding change in the "according to their need" part.

What if the soldiers do not agree on one person? What if someone gets the position because of connections/being popular instead of his skills?

That would be very unfortunate.

Also, would it not take time for the newly elected General to prepare plans and learn about the war situation? Remember, that the enemy will not wait until a general is elected, prepares a plan and gets to know his men.

I imagine it would, yes.


If these answers seem evasive, then it's my roundabout way of stressing the point that anarchism is not an absolute program. We're not saying "here are our blueprints, please permit us to implement them". We're saying that people can, and should, figure out ways of living without the authority of state and capital, and what that means above all else is that they have to figure things out for themselves.

 

[christos200]

Other people, by whatever means are practical, necessary and morally acceptable to them.

So, I could kill a murderer to stop him from killing other people? Would this not lead to the death of people who have been falsely accussed of murder? Do you think that people with guns should decide the law?

That would be very unfortunate.

I imagine it would, yes.

So, you agree that an anarchist state can be easily beaten by an organized army? If yes, then why an anarchist state should not try to organize a proffessional army?

 

[Traitorfish]

So, I could kill a murderer to stop him from killing other people? Would this not lead to the death of people who have been falsely accussed of murder? Do you think that people with guns should decide the law?

"Other people" in the sense of "the rest of their community", not "whoever has a spare afternoon".

So, you agree that an anarchist state can be easily beaten by an organized army? If yes, then why an anarchist state should not try to organize a proffessional army?

I don't think the strength of any anarchist movement is going to come from military force. That is precisely why it is not a state. A workers' movement is simply not going to be capable of direct confrontations with a sizeable, well-trained, well-disciplined and well-equipped professional military. Even those cases where workers' militias have held their own relied on their opponents failing to meet these criteria.

edit: And, really, I should have said this to begin with, instead of that silly rhetorical flourish of "well, the CNT militias...". Perhaps an anarchist movement can be defended by force of arms, especially as the conditions which tend to produce effective anarchist movements tend to undermine states' capacity to field effective, professional armies. But it isn't going to overpower the state, and if it did, would probably have ended up so state-like as to make the victory entirely Pyrrhic. (Looking at you, Soviet Russia.) The viability of anarchism is its ability to prevent armies marching in the first place, not to defeat them in the field; not to beat the state at its own game, but to render the logic of that game invalid.