What is anarchism?

[Traitorfish]

Part of the difficulty in understanding anarchism is that it has no neat genealogy. With something like liberalism or socialism, you can map out a loose but workable map from its origins to the present day, plotting the various schools along a timeline, but anarchism comes from a hundred directions at once, and goes in a hundred more. It can emerge in radical Christianity and revolutionary syndicalism, it can advocates the abolition of the technology or the abolition of work, it can draw on Marx, Rousseau, Tolstoy, or all three at once. "Anarchism", used in general and rather than in a specific context (e.g. to refer to the Bakunin faction of the First International), can only really describe the commonalities of all these tendencies, for which the definition you quote- "belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force"- is about as close as you'll get. Simply put, there is no anarchism, but rather anarchisms, each very much their own creature.

 

[Global Skeptic]

What about the rest of the statement?

part of one's duty in society should be to try to make the world a suitable place for all to live well in. No one should be striving to make the world an uglier place.

Granted this is not an all encapsulating statement. There will surely be other caveats. Also I've bolded and underlined two words which are matters of interpretation. I would think that the fact that they are matters of interpretation should not disqualify them from being guiding principles. It just means that there is room for some human judgement on the matters. AND I removed the parts about doctors, lawyers, etc as they aren't an exhaustive list.

Now as far as your statements above which I've underlined:

Doesn't this run the risk of becoming tribal or territorial, so that I only seek to help myself and maybe a few others whom I know. So in a sense we have small groups looking out for themselves and not giving care to others. Shouldn't the general welfare be the ultimate aim? Now you may say that this may cause more harm than good, however, if it is causing more harm than good, then by definition it is not part of the "general welfare" of society and therefore should be rejected.

You are asking good questions!
Now the we I use doesn't have to be tribal/territorial; i.e. it could be a limited, yet global we, but we might never get there if some of us start with a functional universal/objective well and ugly, because then at least some people stop listen the moment they realize that our version of universal/objective is not theirs.
In other words it will always be a messy, somewhat ugly compromise or an all out war of different versions of the Truth.

 

[Gary Childress]

So now what about what some call anarcho-capitalism? If everyone is entitled to express their views and live according to their beliefs (within reason of course) then surely anarcho-capitalists have a right to their form of social organization as much as those against technology have a right to express their views and live according to their beliefs. Would this not be the case?

I suppose in a sense this would be the "propertarian" faction of anarchism. Assuming that anarcho-capitalists are entitled to live life as they view best, what happens if there is a resource located near two anarchist factions. Let's say one faciton is anarcho-capitalist and the other is anarcho-communist or some faction that does not believe in personal property. Now the anarcho-capitalists claim that this resource belongs to X who lives among them and the communists say the resource belongs to no one. So both sides are at odds. How is the situation to be solved?


EDIT: In this case I suppose the communists might simply walk over and try to take what they may need of the resource. Now the anarcho-capitalists would be inclined to use force to enforce their property rights, whereas the communists would simpy be reacting to the force initiated by the capitlists. For simply approaching a resource and reaching out to take some involves no imposition of force at all. Preventing someone from taking some of this resource WOULD involve force to prevent them from doing what they want. So the anarcho-capitalist must therefore believe in the use of force where the communist, at least in this sense, does not need to believe in the use of force.

Is this a fairly accurate description of anarcho-capitalism?

Any anarcho-capitalists feel free to jump in if I am wrong about anarcho-capitalism initiating the use of force.

But now perhaps there is a drawback to non-propertarian anarchism let's say I want to use a shovel to dig in the garden. I see a shovel and decide to take it. Now someone else wants to use the shovel to work on the road so they take if from me. Not believing in property rights I allow the other to take the shovel from me. The other person also being a non-propertarian must likewise yield to me if I try to take the shovel back. Now we have an endless cycle of taking the shovel. This seems to lead to an absurd situation. How is this situation resolved. Would not some form of right of ownership be necessary to resolve the situation. This right of ownership might be nothing more than the right of the individual to "own" the shovel for just as long as they are using it.

Would this be an accurate description of non-propertarian anarchists?

 

[Global Skeptic]

...Now the anarcho-capitalists claim that this resource belongs to X who lives among them and the communists say the resource belongs to no one. So both sides are at odds. How is the situation to be solved?

In practice either they compromise or fight.

 

[Traitorfish]

So now what about what some call anarcho-capitalism? If everyone is entitled to express their views and live according to their beliefs (within reason of course) then surely anarcho-capitalists have a right to their form of social organization as much as those against technology have a right to express their views and live according to their beliefs. Would this not be the case?

They would be free to do as they wish provided they did not attempt to exercise power over others. However, that rules out capitalism, so the whole project is basically stillborn.

I suppose in a sense this would be the "propertarian" faction of anarchism. Assuming that anarcho-capitalists are entitled to live life as they view best, what happens if there is a resource located near two anarchist factions. Let's say one faciton is anarcho-capitalist and the other is anarcho-communist or some faction that does not believe in personal property. Now the anarcho-capitalists claim that this resource belongs to X who lives among them and the communists say the resource belongs to no one. So both sides are at odds. How is the situation to be solved?

I think that any process which succeeded in abolishing the state would also abolish property, so I don't see this scenario as ever emerging. Any attempt to claim ownership over a natural resource that emerged at a later debate could only be regarded as self-evidently spurious.

 

[Gary Childress]

Sorry I edited my post behind you with the following:

EDIT: In this case I suppose the communists might simply walk over and try to take what they may need of the resource. Now the anarcho-capitalists would be inclined to use force to enforce their property rights, whereas the communists would simpy be reacting to the force initiated by the capitlists. For simply approaching a resource and reaching out to take some involves no imposition of force at all. Preventing someone from taking some of this resource WOULD involve force to prevent them from doing what they want. So the anarcho-capitalist must therefore believe in the use of force where the communist, at least in this sense, does not need to believe in the use of force.

Is this a fairly accurate description of anarcho-capitalism?

Any anarcho-capitalists feel free to jump in if I am wrong about anarcho-capitalism initiating the use of force.

But now perhaps there is a drawback to non-propertarian anarchism let's say I want to use a shovel to dig in the garden. I see a shovel and decide to take it. Now someone else wants to use the shovel to work on the road so they take it from me. Not believing in property rights I allow the other to take the shovel from me. The other person also being a non-propertarian must likewise yield to me if I try to take the shovel back. Now we have an endless cycle of taking the shovel. This seems to lead to an absurd situation. How is this situation resolved. Would not some form of right of ownership be necessary to resolve the situation. This right of ownership might be nothing more than the right of the individual to "own" the shovel for just as long as they are using it.

Would this be an accurate description of non-propertarian anarchists?

Perhaps one of you could comment on this?

EDIT: By the way I thank Traitorfish and Global Skeptic for participating in this discussion. Others are certainly encouraged to jump in and express their views. I would especially love to hear from anarcho-capitalists and how they resolve the problem of force used to enforce property rights.

EDIT#2: Another faction I would like to hear from are those who believe in a strong central government. To you I will ask, what is wrong with anarchism? And what is right about a strong central government?

 

[Tahuti]

But now perhaps there is a drawback to non-propertarian anarchism let's say I want to use a shovel to dig in the garden. I see a shovel and decide to take it. Now someone else wants to use the shovel to work on the road so they take if from me. Not believing in property rights I allow the other to take the shovel from me. The other person also being a non-propertarian must likewise yield to me if I try to take the shovel back. Now we have an endless cycle of taking the shovel. This seems to lead to an absurd situation. How is this situation resolved. Would not some form of right of ownership be necessary to resolve the situation. This right of ownership might be nothing more than the right of the individual to "own" the shovel for just as long as they are using it.

Most non-propertarian anarchists distinguish, within private property, capital a.k.a. "means of production" and personal property (like toys, clothes, etc.) , the latter one being legitimate. While a shovel is strictly speaking capital, considering these can be easily made in abundance, would probably qualify as personal property. There is however little dispute among Anarcho-Communists that land is a form of capital, and must be commonly owned. And I do think that capitalism as we know would indeed cease to be once no one can exclude others from using land.

They would be free to do as they wish provided they did not attempt to exercise power over others. However, that rules out capitalism, so the whole project is basically stillborn.

Note that free-market anarchism doesn't necessarily mean anarcho-capitalism. Free market-anarchists such as Karl Hess support a completely free-market but are also explicitly anti-capitalistic, their definition of capitalism being the ability to extract profit from property, which they deem impossible in a completely government free market, which they'll predict will be centered around cooperative businesses and one-person enterprises.

I think that any process which succeeded in abolishing the state would also abolish property, so I don't see this scenario as ever emerging. Any attempt to claim ownership over a natural resource that emerged at a later debate could only be regarded as self-evidently spurious.

What if the protection of private property would be carried by property owners themselves, perhaps in the form of PMC's and security companies?

You know, I'm beginning to think anarchism is logically impossible: There always will be those with leverage ready to re-establish the state as a polity. Any anarchism where property rights are sustained would probably quickly corrupt into Feudalism, in which property owners seek to exclude others from using their property by paying to security companies (i.e. feudal lords), while in non-propertarian anarchism, unused land will be homestead by individuals (i.e. privatized), leading to the reinstatement of property rights, and thus to Feudalism.

 

[Quackers]

Honestly, just read Kropotkin's Appeal to the Young to get a good background on classical anarchism.
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/appealtoyoung.html
This, along with a few short tracts by Goldman and Bakunin have served me well enough. At the very least, I know enough to be able to ask decent questions when the subject comes up. I can however say that Amadeus' style of Anarchism is a decidedly modern invention. For much of its history Anarchism, Communism, and Socialists were more or less interchangeable. (The Anarchist Emma Goldman was initialy a support of the October Revolution before she became dissolusioned with its authoritarian streak.)

This is from the article:

I take it for granted that you have a mind free from the superstition which your teachers have sought to force upon you; that you don't fear the devil, and that you do not go to hear parsons and ministers rant. More, that you are not one of the fops, sad products of a society in decay, who display their well-cut trousers and their monkey faces in the park, and who even at their early age have only an insatiable longing for pleasure at any price.

Is that sweet irony?
Anyway reading on..

 

[Leoreth]

What's ironic about it?

 

[Quackers]

Sorry, I think hypocrisy suits it better. Well, critisising the parsons for ranting and then putting in your own emotional, irrational rant.

 

[Leoreth]

I wouldn't consider everything written down in an emotional manner a rant.

 

[Gary Childress]

This is from the article:



Is that sweet irony?
Anyway reading on..

I take it perhaps you are of the opinion that people like Kropotkin are the ones who are truly ranting and "fops, sad products of a society in decay."

Is this correct or can you better explain the "ironic" part.

EDIT: Sorry, never mind, looks like my post crossed with your explanation.

 

[Gary Childress]

Sorry, I think hypocrisy suits it better. Well, critisising the parsons for ranting and then putting in your own emotional, irrational rant.

What is irrational about the essay? Korpotkin seems to be concerned for the welfare of the working poor. Is that not a noble thing to be concerned with?

 

[Traitorfish]

What if the protection of private property would be carried by property owners themselves, perhaps in the form of PMC's and security companies?

I didn't simply mean that abolishing the state would lead to the abolition of property, but that their abolition would have to be in the same act. The capitalist state cannot exist without capitalist social relations; capitalist social relations cannot exist without the capitalist state. You can't knock down the state and leave the social relations standing, any more than you can knock down the social relations and leave the state.

EDIT: In this case I suppose the communists might simply walk over and try to take what they may need of the resource. Now the anarcho-capitalists would be inclined to use force to enforce their property rights, whereas the communists would simpy be reacting to the force initiated by the capitlists. For simply approaching a resource and reaching out to take some involves no imposition of force at all. Preventing someone from taking some of this resource WOULD involve force to prevent them from doing what they want. So the anarcho-capitalist must therefore believe in the use of force where the communist, at least in this sense, does not need to believe in the use of force.

Is this a fairly accurate description of anarcho-capitalism?

If you feel that you have a right to deploy systematic violence in order to control others, then you are not in any meaningful sense an anarchist, and your system is not in any meaningful sense anarchist. So it may be an accurate description of some of those who call themselves "anarcho-capitalistst", but it doesn't describe any sort of anarchism.

But now perhaps there is a drawback to non-propertarian anarchism let's say I want to use a shovel to dig in the garden. I see a shovel and decide to take it. Now someone else wants to use the shovel to work on the road so they take if from me. Not believing in property rights I allow the other to take the shovel from me. The other person also being a non-propertarian must likewise yield to me if I try to take the shovel back. Now we have an endless cycle of taking the shovel. This seems to lead to an absurd situation. How is this situation resolved. Would not some form of right of ownership be necessary to resolve the situation. This right of ownership might be nothing more than the right of the individual to "own" the shovel for just as long as they are using it.

Would this be an accurate description of non-propertarian anarchists?

The point of anti-propertarianism isn't utter passivity, it's about negotiating possession without coercion. All possession is, at the end of the day, negotiated: we reach an agreement, implicit or explicit, about who gets to keep and use what. Property emerges when violence is introduced to the negotiation, and those who are able to deploy violence begin to dictate terms to those who are not. In the absence of any elites capable of the systematic use of violence, possession returns to free negotiation.

 

[innonimatu]

You know, I'm beginning to think anarchism is logically impossible

Welcome to the club!

Well, I couldn't call it logically impossible, it can happen. Just not for long.

 

[Tahuti]

I didn't simply mean that abolishing the state would lead to the abolition of property, but that their abolition would have to be in the same act. The capitalist state cannot exist without capitalist social relations; capitalist social relations cannot exist without the capitalist state. You can't knock down the state and leave the social relations standing, any more than you can knock down the social relations and leave the state.

However, I've simply raised the possibility that capitalist social relations may be self-sustaining and that a capitalist social relations deprived of a capitalist state will simply establish another one, like a decapitated worm. To cite history, Feudal Iceland pretty much resembled a stateless with property rights to the point that even Anarcho-Capitalists themselves hailed Iceland as an example of what Anarcho-Capitalism would be like, even though the political system allowed Medieval Iceland to become Church property and eventually a typical feudal (e)state. Given the fact, the Capitalist state itself is a manifestation of capitalist social relations, no further explanation is needed here.

The point of anti-propertarianism isn't utter passivity, it's about negotiating possession without coercion. All possession is, at the end of the day, negotiated: we reach an agreement, implicit or explicit, about who gets to keep and use what. Property emerges when violence is introduced to the negotiation, and those who are able to deploy violence begin to dictate terms to those who are not. In the absence of any elites capable of the systematic use of violence, possession returns to free negotiation.

This does leave a possibility for exploits (and thus the re-establishment of private property): What if for example a particularly charismatic person gains permission to use multiple pieces of nominally owned public property and in so doing eventually gains effective ownership over such items? It would seem to me that in a property-"free" society, coercion is simply replaced by manipulation.

 

[Quackers]

What is irrational about the essay? Korpotkin seems to be concerned for the welfare of the working poor. Is that not a noble thing to be concerned with?

I was just pointing out that section and that one only. Reading on now.

 

[Traitorfish]

However, I've simply raised the possibility that capitalist social relations may be self-sustaining and that a capitalist social relations deprived of a capitalist state will simply establish another one, like a decapitated worm. To cite history, Feudal Iceland pretty much resembled a stateless with property rights to the point that even Anarcho-Capitalists themselves hailed Iceland as an example of what Anarcho-Capitalism would be like, even though the political system allowed Medieval Iceland to become Church property and eventually a typical feudal (e)state. Given the fact, the Capitalist state itself is a manifestation of capitalist social relations, no further explanation is needed here.

Well, sure: that's what we would call a failed revolution. They had one in Russia.

And I don't see what Medieval Iceland has do with anarcho-capitalism, given that it was neither anarchist nor capitalist.

This does leave a possibility for exploits (and thus the re-establishment of private property): What if for example a particularly charismatic person gains permission to use multiple pieces of nominally owned public property and in so doing eventually gains effective ownership over such items? It would seem to me that in a property-"free" society, coercion is simply replaced by manipulation.

I don't subscribe to Great Man theories.

 

[Tahuti]

And I don't see what Medieval Iceland has do with anarcho-capitalism, given that it was neither anarchist nor capitalist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth#Interest_among_anarchist_writers

I don't subscribe to Great Man theories.

Great man theories do not necessarily need to hold true for the possibility of charismatic domination to arise anarcho-communist societies.

 

[Gary Childress]

I was hoping to have a broader debate from more viewpoints but I have not seen any arguments yet expounding anarcho-capitlism and defending it from acusations that it is not anarchism at all. I am interested in hearing the defense of the anarcho capitalists on behalf of their beliefs.

I am also very interested in hearing any arguments against the things anarchists appear to believe in common. Presumably some of the beleifs that all anarchists share:

1. belief in the abolition of all government

2. The organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force

Are any of these ideals not worthy of pursuing? If so why not?