Ask an Anarchist

[christos200]

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 meeting none of those criteria. (In Spain, for example, the Spanish Legion were competent and enthusiastic, but few in number, the Moroccans were competent and numerous, but unenthusiastic, while the right-wing volunteers were enthusiastic and numerous, but incompetent.)

That means that an anarchist country is impossible because it will not be able to protect itself and it's citizens from an external enemy.

Thanks for answering my questions. All of my questions about anarchism have been solved.

 

[Traitorfish]

That means that an anarchist country is impossible because it will not be able to protect itself and it's citizens from an external enemy.

See, you're still treating anarchism as a form of statehood, an anarchist society as an "it" which has a possessive relationship to "its" inhabitants, which I've been trying to explain is simply not the right way of thinking about it.

If you judge anarchism by its ability to function as a state, then you've already decided against it, and what can I possibly say to that?

 

[Takhisis]

TF, in line with that, do you think an Anarchic area/region (because it's not a state after all!) can exist while other areas are ruled by states? Or would anarchy only be practicable as a world-wide non-government?

 

[timtofly]

It would seem that in either an anarchist or communist society for either to flourish, you would have to change the minds of those people who just enjoy "ruling" over others. State is just an organized way of saying we want someone to rule over us. State can exist along side of a group of anarchist and communist as long as there is mutual agreement that neither will have a need to expand into each other's territories. When it comes to economizing the world's resources is where conflict comes into play. The greatest need is explaining to people that just because the desire is there to control others, there are other ways to focus that desire.

 

[sophie]

That means that an anarchist country is impossible because it will not be able to protect itself and it's citizens from an external enemy.

Thanks for answering my questions. All of my questions about anarchism have been solved.

Traitorfish has it right - you have to remember we are talking about a society which exists outside the state apparatus. An anarchist society would not care about an invading army because that society fundamentally rejects the notion of statehood or authority. The conquering army can impose levies or taxes or bureaucracy but it's not going to stick because the society rejects that these things have any authority or legitimacy. Look at Afghanistan. The United States invaded with its army, but that army on the whole has failed to enact any lasting change to the society because the society fundamentally rejects the authority of the Western state system; the tribal bonds are too strong for a military force to break down. An invasion of an anarchic society would be similar. It's also important to remember that for a large chunk of history, anarchic-esque society was the norm, not the exception. Although in medieval society nominal hierarchic structures existed, at the local level often communities were rather state-less.

 

[Berzerker]

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

 

[Alassius]

Traitorfish has it right - you have to remember we are talking about a society which exists outside the state apparatus. An anarchist society would not care about an invading army because that society fundamentally rejects the notion of statehood or authority. The conquering army can impose levies or taxes or bureaucracy but it's not going to stick because the society rejects that these things have any authority or legitimacy. Look at Afghanistan. The United States invaded with its army, but that army on the whole has failed to enact any lasting change to the society because the society fundamentally rejects the authority of the Western state system; the tribal bonds are too strong for a military force to break down. An invasion of an anarchic society would be similar. It's also important to remember that for a large chunk of history, anarchic-esque society was the norm, not the exception. Although in medieval society nominal hierarchic structures existed, at the local level often communities were rather state-less.

You are saying that the US invasion could not impose a system on Afghanistan. That is very different from saying the US invasion could not affect the Afghan people. In fact this example serves precisely to demonstrate how terrible it can be if a people cannot defend themselves. As far as invaders go, the US is one of the nicer countries with relatively few atrocities. What if you have Genghis Khan instead?

 

[Traitorfish]

The point is that "bigger state is best state" is a logic which only functions between states. When you're dealing with the relationship between states and non-state societies, it's a more complex matter, and one which defies generalisation.

TF, in line with that, do you think an Anarchic area/region (because it's not a state after all!) can exist while other areas are ruled by states? Or would anarchy only be practicable as a world-wide non-government?

I think that we need to break away from the "Risk board" model of thinking, the assumption that we can look at any given region and determine in a straightforward manner where it is "state" or "stateless". The logic of "this is mine/this is not" is an organising principle of states rather than a description of empirical reality, so it doesn't make much sense for anarchists to think in those binary terms. The authority of the state is also spotty, partial, spatially limited, even in the most ruthlessly . So if we look at this from the other side, not from the perspective of states but from the perspective of ordinary people trying to negotiate them, it's not a question of the ability of anarchy to persists despite states, but of states to extend their authority into an area in which people have no particular interest in cooperating with them, which (as above) evades generalised claims. The one thing we can say is that in a modern, complex, industrialised economy, autarky is a dead-end, so we can rule out local anarchist enclaves in direct military confrontation with the state, but, again, territorial sovereignty is a pretence of states, so anarchists can evade that obstacle by simply declining to form that sort of territorial enclave.

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

I'd draw a distinction between "law" and "legality", in this case. We can talk of a law as a code of behaviour without supposing further categories of legality and illegality, which describe the relationship of individuals to a higher authority, specifically the state. Breaching, e.g. early Norse codes of hospitality was contrary to the law, but it wouldn't make much sense to call it "illegal", because there was no central authority to which that category could refer. Codes like that were about defining mutual expectations and providing frameworks for the resolution of disputes and grievances, rather than defining (what amount to) categories of obedience and disobedience. One defines the obligations of what are conceived of as essentially autonomous actors, the other the permissions extended to what are conceived of as essentially heteronomous one.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

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.

And here I think we could take a worthwhile lesson about anarchism. Interesting that this was precisely the solution that the Zimmerwald-minded socialists and communists sought before World War I.

Given your above comments, and previously voiced general attitude, would you mark that policy/assumption/hope as the last point before the divergence of anarchist and communist thought and/or practice? Or was the Leninist policy of " revolutionary-minded state assuming all duties of the economy and so abolishing classes and itself in the process" the death knell to cooperation, because that's not something anarchists could possibly endorse?

 

[Rashiminos]

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

Physical acts, laws, contracts, words, ideas? Do any of those topics contain examples of coercion by your understanding?

 

[Takhisis]

As far as invaders go, the US is one of the nicer countries with relatively few atrocities. What if you have Genghis Khan instead?

You're just discussing degrees/scales of evil. But then, according to the standards of the time, Temujin wasn't that much of a brute, while the US are.

I think that we need to break away from the "Risk board" model of thinking, the assumption that we can look at any given region and determine in a straightforward manner where it is "state" or "stateless". The logic of "this is mine/this is not" is an organising principle of states rather than a description of empirical reality, so it doesn't make much sense for anarchists to think in those binary terms. The authority of the state is also spotty, partial, spatially limited, even in the most ruthlessly . So if we look at this from the other side, not from the perspective of states but from the perspective of ordinary people trying to negotiate them, it's not a question of the ability of anarchy to persists despite states, but of states to extend their authority into an area in which people have no particular interest in cooperating with them, which (as above) evades generalised claims. The one thing we can say is that in a modern, complex, industrialised economy, autarky is a dead-end, so we can rule out local anarchist enclaves in direct military confrontation with the state, but, again, territorial sovereignty is a pretence of states, so anarchists can evade that obstacle by simply declining to form that sort of territorial enclave.

Most people in pre-state societies (not so long ago) had a sense what was theirs and what was not, i.e. private property. Which shows that the state is not completely necessary to enforce such things, at least not in the invasive, omnipresent way that it is today. However, is it necessary in order to keep the 'modern, complex, industrialised economy'? The official answer would be 'yes', but businessmen always want less state intervention, except when it's to be bailed out. What does the Anarchist say?

I'd draw a distinction between "law" and "legality", in this case. We can talk of a law as a code of behaviour without supposing further categories of legality and illegality, which describe the relationship of individuals to a higher authority, specifically the state. Breaching, e.g. early Norse codes of hospitality was contrary to the law, but it wouldn't make much sense to call it "illegal", because there was no central authority to which that category could refer. Codes like that were about defining mutual expectations and providing frameworks for the resolution of disputes and grievances, rather than defining (what amount to) categories of obedience and disobedience. One defines the obligations of what are conceived of as essentially autonomous actors, the other the permissions extended to what are conceived of as essentially heteronomous one.

Maybe we should draw a distinction between norms, laws, and customs?

 

[Alassius]

You're just discussing degrees/scales of evil. But then, according to the standards of the time, Temujin wasn't that much of a brute, while the US are.

No, I'm saying that life in Afghanistan is already pretty bad. I'm sure none of the anarchists in this thread will want to move there. If we have a Temujin instead of an Obama, it will be more obvious how bad it could be.

It's not unimaginable that another Temujin will come along. By the end of 19th century Europe was considered a civilised place. Yet we had a genocide. The US not being up to par to modern standards doesn't preclude a different country from committing worse atrocities. China for example could be liable due to the unbelievable degree of xenophobia and jingoism.

 

[sophie]

No, I'm saying that life in Afghanistan is already pretty bad. I'm sure none of the anarchists in this thread will want to move there. If we have a Temujin instead of an Obama, it will be more obvious how bad it could be.

It's not unimaginable that another Temujin will come along. By the end of 19th century Europe was considered a civilised place. Yet we had a genocide. The US not being up to par to modern standards doesn't preclude a different country from committing worse atrocities. China for example could be liable due to the unbelievable degree of xenophobia and jingoism.

My point had nothing to do with Afghanistan as an ideal or anarchist society. It was more a proof of concept that armies prima facie can't really effect genuine, fundamental, societal change on a group of people, and therefore a society which was genuinely anarchist would not on the whole be changed by the introduction of a Chinggis or US Army to the region. Would they be affected? Sure. Would anarchist society break down? If the society is truly anarchist, no.

 

[Alassius]

My point had nothing to do with Afghanistan as an ideal or anarchist society. It was more a proof of concept that armies prima facie can't really effect genuine, fundamental, societal change on a group of people, and therefore a society which was genuinely anarchist would not on the whole be changed by the introduction of a Chinggis or US Army to the region. Would they be affected? Sure. Would anarchist society break down? If the society is truly anarchist, no.

And I'm saying "can't impose what they want" is not the same as "can't effect genuine, fundamental, societal change". An invader can try impose a nice democracy on an anarchist people, and fail, and create a genuine, fundamental, societal change for the worse.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I think that having fluffy anarchists like PCH and Traitorfish makes this thread boring. We need more aggressive insurrectionism - burning stuff, smashing stuff, killing people etc. - in this thread.

 

[timtofly]

This is anarchism, not communism.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

This is anarchism, not communism.

Oh, stop it.

I save lives, I do not take them.

Sent from a communist via heavily-monitored mobile.

 

[timtofly]

Do we have examples of anarchist attempting to over throw the state even peacefully. If the state does degrade, is communism any further along? Communism and anarchism are not that different, but are slightly different states of being.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Not to step on anything the approved answerers would say, but speaking as a communist, the end results of communism and anarchism are the same: a classless, and, therefore, stateless by definition, society.

Names are of little or no importance.

Sent via mobile.

 

[timtofly]

Words are important if you are trying to make a point. The words communism and anarchism do have meaning and make a point in and out of historical context. Communism can be used in a state setting, but does not have to be. Perhaps that is why it does not work, because it is forced into a state economy. Anarchism can never work in a state setting. I was not downplaying communism, but I was pointing out that communism has been a lot more violent than anarchism.

I assume that some anarchist may be violent, but violence is still posing one's will over another's. Even a kingdom is a state where one is ruler over all. Decisions are made and enforced. Anarchism is where no one's will is preferred over another's. Communism would be an economic portion of Anarchism as long as it is not imposed against anyone's will.

Even anarchist can oppose forces without imposing them, if backed against a wall in self defense, but it is not an easy option to come by. I doubt a nation like the US would even have to attack (as in intervention) an anarchist group, seeing as there would be no need to do so. The settling of the US did push out those who were anarchist. They did not fight back, but were driven away by force and the land grabbing that went on.

I may be wrong, but even migrant workers are a form of anarchist. They are not part of any state, but they work and exist despite the state.