Ask an Anarchist

[Traitorfish]

(Probably obvious, but for the sake of clarity, where I leave a question unanswered, I basically agree with Park, so the following either represents a differing viewpoint or an additional comment.)

How far would a perfect anarchist society go in terms of removing government institutions? Where do you draw the line and how do you provide the removed services to the populace once they are no longer provided by the government?

In addition to what Park said, it's also worth pointing out how little the state actually provides. The primary function of the state here is mediatory, of organising others to provide these services. These providers may be state-owned, or they may be private, but the distinction does not appear to me essential, because in both cases the day-to-day provision of the service is achieved without the direct involvement of the state. It's possible to imagine a state with an absolutely minimal concrete presence, even while providing an expansive welfare system, through the extensive use of private contracts- and, indeed, European liberals have been spent the last thirty-odd years pushing for just that.

One might argue that the state is most or even uniquely capable of ensuring that such services are supplied effectively, but that is not to say that the state itself provides them.

How do the various breeds of anarchists view each other?

Do "true" (read: left) anarchists view anarcho-capitalists as anarchists?

A lot of left-anarchists make a distinction between "individualist anarchism" and "anarcho-capitalism", the former being accepted as genuine-if-misguided and the latter shunned as anarchism-in-name-only. In practice, though, and even in those instances in which the distinction is warranted, it tends to be used to plaster over a narrow-minded and dismissive attitude towards market anarchism in general, so that the pro-market politics of anarchists we admire may be overlooked and the criticisms raised by those we dislike may be ignored.

How dissimilar are anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism?

Most anarcho-syndicalists would also tend to think of themselves as anarcho-communists (including myself), so the distinction is not categorical. If people identify themselves a "anarchist-communist" as opposed to anarcho-syndicalist, what this tends to imply is a rejection or at least a low prioritisation of the syndicalist program, rather than denying anarcho-syndicalists as anarchist-communists.

Further, non-syndicalist communists vary as much among themselves as they do from syndicalist, whoever, ranging from bomb-throwing insurrectos like Galleani to agrarian pacifists like Tolstoy, so the categorisation of "syndicalist/non-syndicalist" represents more than anything else the historical dominance of syndicalism in the anarchist movement, and the consequent tendency to identify oneself in opposition to it.

Would a hypothetical anarchist society rely on a utopian view of human nature and how humans would interact with one another?

I don't think so, no. The proposition is only that human beings are capable of living together without authority, not that they are angels. It's an optimistic view of humanity, but not a utopian one.

Isn't anarchism essentially self-contradictory?

Which is to say: if a society were ever truly anarchic, then there would be no society?

Or is this just an incredibly naive question?

"Anarchism" means, in essence, opposition to authority, and I don't think that society assumes authority. There are a lot of examples of stateless societies which, although far from self-consciously anarchistic, had highly developed cultural and social mechanisms for resistance to concentrations of authority, but they weren't any less social for it.

 

[ParkCungHee]

"Anarchism" means, in essence, opposition to authority, and I don't think that society assumes authority. There are a lot of examples of stateless societies which, although far from self-consciously anarchistic, had highly developed cultural and social mechanisms for resistance to concentrations of authority, but they weren't any less social for it.

I've heard this definition before, but I've never been able to ask, what's the meaning of "authority" in this definition?

 

[Traitorfish]

There's probably as many answers to that as anarchists who subscribe to that definition, but the gist of it is going to be something like "the power to compel or command".

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Are the forum moderators compatible with anarchism?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Isn't anarchism essentially self-contradictory?

Which is to say: if a society were ever truly anarchic, then there would be no society?

Or is this just an incredibly naive question?

I don't think it's self-contradictory, but you've hit exactly on why I don't like answering questions about "anarchist societies." Societies, as we use them in every day speech, are determined by the geographic limits of states. When you get rid of them, or ignore them, you don't have a defined limit to society any more, and it becomes very difficult to discuss because we're using an artifact of a different mode of thinking.

Are the forum moderators compatible with anarchism?

This, like the topic of hand to hand combat, is something I've thought about a great deal actually, and haven't been able to come to a concrete example of. Obviously, there is theoretical situations when altering the information a person's computer receives stretches any reasonable definition of non-coersion, so I am not happy with a categorical "it's on a computer, therefor it's kosher."

On the other hand, there is an inarguable total lack of physical coercion involved.

However, forum moderation represents a every day example of one of the most powerful tools of non-coercive organization: peer condemnation.

I'd say therefor that they are probably compatible, and any incompatibility is trivial. This is also an excellent example of why, as I said, I don't like discussing "anarchist society". Anarchism, at a social level, is a goal rather than a binary switch. Praxis is complicated and necessarily messy, with any ideology.

 

[warpus]

In addition to what Park said, it's also worth pointing out how little the state actually provides. The primary function of the state here is mediatory, of organising others to provide these services. These providers may be state-owned, or they may be private, but the distinction does not appear to me essential, because in both cases the day-to-day provision of the service is achieved without the direct involvement of the state. It's possible to imagine a state with an absolutely minimal concrete presence, even while providing an expansive welfare system, through the extensive use of private contracts- and, indeed, European liberals have been spent the last thirty-odd years pushing for just that.

The funding for all these public projects comes from the state though. Where will it come from when the state is gone? The reason private companies are able to complete a lot of these tasks is because they get paid for it. Without money, nobody would really jump at the chance to do it all for free.

Or would they?

 

[Takhisis]

Are we allowed to discuss Makhnolandiazemlja here?

 

[Tahuti]

Would a government(-like) entity that presents itself as a country but doesn't rely on taxation or any other form of coercion be compatible with anarchism?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

That seems self-contradictory. How would there be a country when there is no coercion?

 

[Takhisis]

You're confusing country with state, SiLL.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I'm curious about anarchist historical analysis, if there is any such school of thought.

 

[Takhisis]

Does this mean that TF is officially out of Ask a Red?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Does this mean that TF is officially out of Ask a Red?

Of course not. As he indicated above, his identity transcends mere pigeon-holing ideological boundaries.

 

[Hygro]

How do we distinguish between adults and children in anarchy, when there are disputes between them?

 

[FredLC]

I'd love to know how public/collective projects and initiatives work in a dominantly anarchist system. Would economy have anything to do with large corporations... and if not, how to allocate resources? What about public interests that require large investment with long-term profit or no profit... Say, dams, or cross-country roads?

More directly, would there be admissible any form of representation whatsoever, at least in the most eminently practical aspects of life, or would there be a complete rejection of authority?

Is it at all possible, in an anarchist view, to have a society without representation that isn't utopical?

Regards .

 

[Gary Childress]

I remember going to a Ralph Nader political rally when he ran for US President back in 2000. I get the impression that a lot of people who attend Green Party and other such political events seem to call themselves "anarchists". I was about 33 at the time, but it seemed like the median age of the rest of the participants was probably something like 19-21 years old. Reminded me a bit of a rock concert. Contrast this with a political convention by one of the major mainstream political parties and it seems like there is quite an age difference going on there. In my experience it seems like most people who call themselves "anarchist" or at least are most visible in the movement are usually pretty young. Would you agree? And if so why do you think this is?

 

[Bootstoots]

Does the size of a society cause any problems for anarchist organization? Do difficulties tend to arise when a society (e.g. a city) grows large enough that the most of the members do not know most of the other members, and is this sort of excessive scale a major cause for the formation of hierarchy?

 

[Berzerker]

I'm an Anarcho-Pacifist, someone who rejects the use of violence against man as a means of legitimate problem solving, and therefor must reject this violence when it's done by soldiers or police as well as by us "ordinary individuals." Which means that from my perspective, when I hear Anarcho-Capitalists talking about enforcing their property rights, or Anarcho-Communists talking about stringing people up, I'm not seeing much distinction. You've simply reinvented the state, the monopoly of violence, in a new name.

but you believe in that monopoly of violence if someone attacks you?

then why wouldn't the police share in that monopoly if you cant defend yourself?

and if I take the property you've spent years acquiring, you'd just give it up without a fight?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

You're confusing country with state, SiLL.

New question then: How would there be a country without a state?

 

[Tahuti]

New question then: How would there be a country without a state?

States and countries often overlap but are not necessarily mutually dependent. The UK is a state that consists of countries, while an individual US state or an individual Swiss state isn't a country, but are - naturally - states. Countries can also exist due to voluntary political association.