What is anarchism?

[Gary Childress]

This thread is going to start from a slightly different point of departure from the one started by Amadeus back in March. Amadeus starts this thread with the statement "Not in the sense of Proudhon, Bakunin, or Kropotkin". I OTOH would like to get to a more solid understanding of anarchism without prematurely dismissing anyone's views. Though I would like to try to come to some sort of reasonable consensus eventually if possible. (Not sure of the context of Amadeus' thread, it looks like it picks up from a discussion somewhere else.)

In this thread I would like to discuss anarchism in all its manifestations, rightly or wrongly conceived, and try to come up with a good definition of what it is and what it is about. From there I hope to answer questions such as:

1. What are the characteristics of an anarchist society?
2. Is such a society a desirable one? Why or why not?

Ideally I would like to come up with some sort of definitive answer as to whether or not anarchism should be an ideal for all of us or not. If it is not something we can all agree upon after reasonable consideration then so be it but I think under most circumstances any society should be something all invovled can consent to.

Everyone's input is welcome, though I hope to eventually narrow things down to something we would all agree upon. (I know...probably will never happen, but it's worth a try.)

First off, some ground rules:

1. Please avoid strawmen where possible. If you have an objection please don't mischaracterize someone's position in order to make that objection.

2. As always, please try to be civil and avoid ad hominems

3. Please no quip replies or "one liners" which are not designed to enlighten. If you don't want to take the conversation seriously, then don't participate.

4. Please try to be reasonable. If someone has a good point, try to acknowledge it.

5. For those who do fashion themselves anarchists, please Try to be patient with those of us who are maybe "not on the same page" or whatever. This is perhaps your chance to win converts, just be ready to have some good points.

and...

6. try to be just a little open minded. I know we will be dealing with a lot of uncharted territory, it's certainly within reason to be skeptical but if someone does have a good point, please approach it thoughtfully.

Hopefully something constructive will come of this, even if it is nothing more than to dispell myths or prejudices which are unfounded. OR..conversely if it turns out that anarchism is not the social ideal some may think.

To start of with:

Upon Googling the terms "Anarchism Definition" this is what came up at the top of the page:

an·ar·chism/ˈanərˌkizəm/

Noun:

1.Belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force

or...

2.Anarchists as a political force or movement.

first off, Is this a good definition? Why or why not? If not, what would be a better definition?

Thank you for participating.

 

[Ajidica]

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.)

 

[Global Skeptic]

First off, this will involve the no true Scotsman fallacy, because someone will claim this is not representative of true anarchism. But anyway, here it goes: If you take the time to hang out where there are people, who call themselves anarchists, you will come across the following claim -
Justice is not group based, rather justice is derived from the fact that someone hurts someone else. The latter, the victim, or his/her family can then seek justice.

Now I am a skeptic, so I don't value truth, I value false. For any universal claim I will try to get it to "break down" and that is also possible for the above one. Imagine an anarchist society, where you and I come across a young child without parents. I take out my gun, shot and kill the child. Since the child can't not seek justice and as long as no family can be found, no crime has taken place.

That problem was already noticed, before anarchism became an ideology and we can e.g. find it here:

The king and country chiefs office to monitor sentences and do right and save those who are forced by violence, such as widows and the defenseless, children, pilgrims and sojourners and poor - those are most often (the victim of) violence - and not let the wicked men who will not improve, living in his land;
"Google translate"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Holmiensis
http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyske_Lov
Det er Kongens og Landets Høvdingers Embede at overvaage Domme og gøre Ret og frelse dem, der tvinges med Vold, saasom Enker og værgeløse, Børn, Pilgrimme og Udlændinge og fattige - dem overgaar der tiest Vold - og ikke lade slette Mennesker, der ikke vil forbedre sig, leve i sit Land

 

[Gary Childress]

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.)

Well I read the first half of the essay. I'll have to read the rest tomorrow as it is getting late, but it is a very interesting read and I will be curious how others may interpret the essay.

One thing struck me most prominently is that Kropotkin seems to be advocating helping the poor and destitute. That I perfectly agree with. The poor and desittute deserve help. Can anyone deny this? Is it not a mission of us all to make the world a good place for all? I don't think something like that could be disputed as it has been a common theme for thinkers throughout the ages.

The second thing that struck me: There is much tado made of the greedy. Here's where (at least reading the piece so far) I maybe part company with Kropotkin slightly.

Clearly the rich don't like being despised and don't like revolutionaries. So they will often level the claim that revolutionaries are evil and out to murder the rich. Things like assasinating rich people I don't think works very well. Essentially, to some degree Kropotkin is perhaps playing the blame game and trying to find the rightful culprits or the monsters to destroy. Yes, there is reason for outrage over the conditions of the poor, and yes the rich are often oblivious to their own role (as very powerful people) in making the world what it is. However, perhaps it would be more fruitful for social justice advocates not to place much stock in who is to blame. Yes there is plenty to be angry about but confronting another person with anger usually results in a fight. Then you have the powerful reacting against you.

Instead of this, wouldn't it be more fruitful to make ones plea more universal? In the essay Kropotkin seeks to address the young and idealistic (he more or less states this himself right from the start). What about the old and set in their ways? Are they not worth appealing to? If one is going to change society, shouldn't one's proposals be in the interest of all and something all can consent to?

So, momentarily putting aside the issue of exploitation and who is guilty and who is innocent, let's take the basic premise that part of one's mission in society should be to make the world a suitable place for all to live well in. Doctors should treat the sick, engineers should shape nature to our needs, lawyers should protect the innocent and prosecute the guilty, teachers should instill the right virtues in our children. No one should be striving to make the world an uglier place.

NOW, can we all agree with the emphasized passage directly above? I don't care if one is a "capitalist" a prince, a rock star or a revolutionary, who in their right mind cannot say that the poor and sick deserve help and that we should all strive to make the world a suitable place for all to live in? By helping others, do we not also help ourselves?

So let us take this point first and try to figure out whether or not this is something we can ALL agree upon. If not then why not? It is my first contention that this is something common we can and should all work toward. NOTE: How we get there is something secondary and can be addressed later. Primary is our intent upon what it is we should be working toward. Again, we will not yet address issue of who is guilty or who is innocent and so forth. Of primary concen is the general welfare.

Does anyone have any rational objections to the basic premise bolded above? Remember we have not yet addressed how this is to be done and we have not yet addressed any issue of guilt or blame for the current injustices of the world. Are we so far in universal agreement? If not then it needs to be addressed what is wrong with the premise above and how to fix it so that it is right.

 

[Global Skeptic]

...So, momentarily putting aside the issue of exploitation and who is guilty and who is innocent, let's take the basic premise that part of one's mission in society should be to make the world a suitable place for all to live well in. Doctors should treat the sick, engineers should shape nature to our needs, lawyers should protect the innocent and prosecute the guilty, teachers should instill the right virtues in our children. No one should be striving to make the world an uglier place.

NOW, can we all agree with the emphasized passage directly above? ...

No, because well is not objective, but subjective.

 

[Gary Childress]

Now I am a skeptic, so I don't value truth, I value false. For any universal claim I will try to get it to "break down" and that is also possible for the above one.

You don't value truth? What the heck is the point of being a skeptic if you don't value anything except breaking everything? Is this a worthy enterprise? I mean, what do you accomplish by breaking everything. This is sophistry at its most blatant and most pointlessness.

 

[Gary Childress]

No, because well is not objective, but subjective.

How do you know this? Can you give me one argument that proves your contention?

EDIT: I apologize, I am perhaps being a little too pointed. But I think we need to draw some boundaries for what is socially acceptable and what is not, otherwise we can theoretically entertain all type of absurdities. Simply running around smashing something for no apparent reason is not the profession of a philosopher. A philosopher looks for truth and is guided by truth. If you reject truth then you essentially have by default removed yourself from the realm of rational discussion. We can simply speculate that shooting young children is perfectly acceptable and spend the rest of our lives trying to come up with an airtight argument to prove it isn't. I think such things are universally rejected for good reason. Radical skepticism essentially seems to ask, "how do you know" and then procedes to reject every method of knowing. Therefore we know nothing and cannot know anything. First, if that is true, then how does one make the claim that one knows nothing if one presumably cannot even know that? Secondly dissent should involve reasonable objections, not simply we cannot determine an objective standard for "well", ergo "well" is subjective. It does not follow from our inability to find an objective standard that one does not exist and I don't think making such assumptions are fruitful. I think we must be somewhat pragmatic about social issues. We also need to exercise our better human instincts and allow ourselves to be guided by them. Simply objecting for no other reason than to be coy or difficult will not get us anywhere.

 

[Global Skeptic]

Hi Gary Childress

...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

What this quote is about, is methodological doubt. I.e. you don't find truth by looking for truth, you find truth by looking for false and what is left is truth. So I don't value truth as such, because it is false that leads me to truth.

How do you know this? Can you give me one argument that proves your contention?

No, because I can't do that as what you ask of me is subjective! You are asking me as a subject based on my subjective understanding of reality to prove that my understanding is objective.
Let me show you how that works:
Me: I only state objective facts!
You: Wait a minute, the statement "I only state objective facts!" is not an objective fact, it is a subjective opinion/belief.
Me: No, it is not. I don't hold any subjective beliefs; I don't claim anything subjective and all I state are objective facts.
You: Whatever works for you, works for you.

 

[Gary Childress]

Hi Gary Childress

What this quote is about, is methodological doubt. I.e. you don't find truth by looking for truth, you find truth by looking for false and what is left is truth. So I don't value truth as such, because it is false that leads me to truth.


No, because I can't do that as what you ask of me is subjective! You are asking me as a subject based on my subjective understanding of reality to prove that my understanding is objective.
Let me show you how that works:
Me: I only state objective facts!
You: Wait a minute, the statement "I only state objective facts!" is not an objective fact, it is a subjective opinion/belief.
Me: No, it is not. I don't hold any subjective beliefs; I don't claim anything subjective and all I state are objective facts.
You: Whatever works for you, works for you.

You admit that you cannot prove to me that something is subjective, sorry but all the smiley faces in the world are not going to get you a pass from the universal requirement of proof to back your claims. You claim to be able shred everything. Can you shred yourself? I think I can. Now put your money where your mouth is and prove there is no objective standard for the term "well". Give me reason to believe you.

 

[Global Skeptic]

You admit that you cannot prove to me that something is subjective, sorry but all the smiley faces in the world are not going to get you a pass from the universal requirement of proof to back your claims. You claim to be able shred everything. Can you shred yourself? I think I can. Now put your money where your mouth is and prove there is no objective standard for the term "well". Give me reason to believe you.

What is the universal requirement of proof???
What is the word requirement???
Who/what requires and who/what is this who/what that requires?

 

[Tahuti]

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.)

Anarcho-Capitalism is usually considered a contradiction in terminis with　"traditional" anarchism because of the former's support of property rights, which are viewed as a form of government intervention.

Do note that Anarchism can also denote an cynical attitude towards power rather than a clearly fleshed out political ideology.

 

[Global Skeptic]

How do you know this? Can you give me one argument that proves your contention?

EDIT: I apologize, I am perhaps being a little too pointed. But I think we need to draw some boundaries for what is socially acceptable and what is not, otherwise we can theoretically entertain all type of absurdities. Simply running around smashing something for no apparent reason is not the profession of a philosopher. A philosopher looks for truth and is guided by truth. If you reject truth then you essentially have by default removed yourself from the realm of rational discussion. We can simply speculate that shooting young children is perfectly acceptable and spend the rest of our lives trying to come up with an airtight argument to prove it isn't. I think such things are universally rejected for good reason. Radical skepticism essentially seems to ask, "how do you know" and then procedes to reject every method of knowing. Therefore we know nothing and cannot know anything. First, if that is true, then how does one make the claim that one knows nothing if one presumably cannot even know that? Secondly dissent should involve reasonable objections, not simply we cannot determine an objective standard for "well", ergo "well" is subjective. It does not follow from our inability to find an objective standard that one does not exist and I don't think making such assumptions are fruitful. I think we must be somewhat pragmatic about social issues. We also need to exercise our better human instincts and allow ourselves to be guided by them. Simply objecting for no other reason than to be coy or difficult will not get us anywhere.

Reflect on the bold part, Gary Childress. Please
If we can't know an objective standard, it doesn't matter whether it exists or not, because it is unknowable.

 

[Gary Childress]

What is the universal requirement of proof???
What is the word requirement???
Who/what requires and who/what is this who/what that requires?

Because you claim to be a "skeptic" and because you claim "well" is subjective, I asked you to give me a proof that "well" is subjective. You have not done that. In fact you even admit you have not done so. This will be my last reponse to your posts unless you provide me with said proof. I suspect you are perhaps intelligent and not just clever. But until you Mr. Skeptic provide me with an argument for the subjectivity of "well" which I cannot "break" then I will also believe you are being hypocritical, for if you require proof of other's arguments it is only fair that others require proof of your arguments.

 

[Gary Childress]

Reflect on the bold part, Gary Childress. Please
If we can't know an objective standard, it doesn't matter whether it exists or not, because it is unknowable.

I have not said it cannot be known. I have said that because we cannot provide a proof of an objective standard it does not follow that there is not an objective standard.

 

[Global Skeptic]

I have not said it cannot be known. I have said that because we cannot provide a proof of an objective standard it does not follow that there is not an objective standard.

Fair enough, but if you can't prove an objective standard, then you can't require others to prove that there is no objective standard. Of course you can require it, but I won't do it.

 

[Gary Childress]

Perhaps it is me who is being unreasonable. I apologize. OK. I will reformulate my statement to try to come to something agreeable.

My original statement was this:

part of one's mission in society should be to make the world a suitable place for all to live well in. Doctors should treat the sick, engineers should shape nature to our needs, lawyers should protect the innocent and prosecute the guilty, teachers should instill the right virtues in our children. No one should be striving to make the world an uglier place.

Now the objection is that "well" is subjective not objective and therefore it somehow follows that

Part of one's mission in society should NOT be to make the world a suitable place for all to live well in

Any takers on this one?

 

[Global Skeptic]

Part of one's mission in society should NOT be to make the world a suitable place for all to live well in

because that is impossible. We should also try to be impartial when we can and try to forgive each other we can't. If we then feel we need to use authority against another human we ought to try to understand what we are doing from as many points of views as possible and still accept that this other human can resist simply because he/she can so.

 

[Gary Childress]

because that is impossible. We should also try to be impartial when we can and try to forgive each other we can't. If we then feel we need to use authority against another human we ought to try to understand what we are doing from as many points of views as possible and still accept that this other human can resist simply because he/she can so.

OK. then how about adding "try" to the formula? (Also changing "mission" to "duty") Thus:

Part of one's duty in society should be to try to make the world a suitable place for all to live well in

Is that agreeable?

 

[Global Skeptic]

Part of one's duty in society should be to try to make the world a suitable place for all to live well in

Maybe
Because it in one sense boils down to pragmatic realism versus a guiding principle, so my personal answer is this:
We can't save humanity as such, we, if we want to save ourselves and others, can try. But we will only be able to save some, not all, some of the time and if we go for all all of the time we might end up doing more harm than good.

 

[Gary Childress]

Maybe
Because it in one sense boils down to pragmatic realism versus a guiding principle, so my personal answer is this:
We can't save humanity as such, we, if we want to save ourselves and other, can try. But we will only be able to save some, not all, some of the time and if we go for all all of the time we might end up doing more harm than good.

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.