What is anarchism?

[Tahuti]

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.

As a former anarcho-capitalist, I can say that it all revolves around property rights. I defended and even advocated private property anarchism on the grounds that without property rights, individual rights would cease to exist. I contended that by common ownership of the means of production, certain groups could deprived from basic life needs, by the whims of the majority in a system of anarcho-communism, which I perceived was basically unchecked majority rule that would be prone to make decisions based on superstitions, charismatic domination and/or ethnic, racial or religious prejudices. Naturally, I was also opposed any form of government as an invasion of private property rights.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Untouchable private property without any form of government? How on earth did you rationalize that?

 

[Tahuti]

Untouchable private property without any form of government? How on earth did you rationalize that?

Private property didn't originate from the state, but from natural rights, which in turn arose from the interaction of humans. Or so the narrative goes.

 

[Traitorfish]

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

Statelessness is not anarchism, and commerce is not capitalism.

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

What other logic is there for it?

 

[Tahuti]

Statelessness is not anarchism, and commerce is not capitalism.

That's your opinion, but fact is that Anarcho-Capitalists would consider such... well uhm.... Anarcho-Capitalist.

What other logic is there for it?

The current arrangement in which private property is enforced by physical force isn't sustained by one great man either, so why should a system in which private property that is enforced by charisma be an exception to the rule?

 

[Traitorfish]

That's your opinion, but fact is that Anarcho-Capitalists would consider such... well uhm.... Anarcho-Capitalist.

If they want to believe that a society could be anarchistic when it contained slavery, or that it could be capitalist before the historical advent of capitalism, that's their business, but they shouldn't expect anybody else to humour them. Medieval Iceland was an interesting political society, certainly, and worth investigation, but it's no more a model of anarcho-capitalism than Lakota society was anarchist-communism.

The current arrangement in which private property is enforced by physical force isn't sustained by one great man either, so why should a system in which private property that is enforced by charisma be an exception to the rule?

Class society is at its root a question of the organisation of production. As such, any claim that charismatic authority might produce a new class system demands an explanation of how charismatic authority could produce a new, hierarchical organisation of production.

 

[Gary Childress]

As a former anarcho-capitalist, I can say that it all revolves around property rights. I defended and even advocated private property anarchism on the grounds that without property rights, individual rights would cease to exist. I contended that by common ownership of the means of production, certain groups could deprived from basic life needs, by the whims of the majority in a system of anarcho-communism, which I perceived was basically unchecked majority rule that would be prone to make decisions based on superstitions, charismatic domination and/or ethnic, racial or religious prejudices. Naturally, I was also opposed any form of government as an invasion of private property rights.

What about critics of anarchism in general? Anyone care to share their views on what they believe is misguided in anarchism? It sounds to me prima facie that anarchism has some good ideas. Is this not the case? if not, why not? What is bad about the abolition of all government and/or that society be organized in a voluntary cooperative basis without recourse to force? Why do you appose either or both of these?

 

[Gary Childress]

Statelessness is not anarchism, and commerce is not capitalism.

I'm guessing that you are here making the distinction that not all statelss societies are anarchist and not all systems of commerce are capitalism? And I assume you are not saying that anarchism is not stateless or that capitalism is not a system of commerce?

 

[Traitorfish]

That's it, yeah.

 

[Tahuti]

Class society is at its root a question of the organisation of production. As such, any claim that charismatic authority might produce a new class system demands an explanation of how charismatic authority could produce a new, hierarchical organisation of production.

As you said earlier, use of public property has to be negotiated in order to prevent coercion. The problem is that in this fashion, those with superior negotiation skills might potentially gain disproportionate amount of usage rights to public property, to the point it de-facto becomes their private property, which paves the way for re-establishing property rights.

What about critics of anarchism in general? Anyone care to share their views on what they believe is misguided in anarchism? It sounds to me prima facie that anarchism has some good ideas. Is this not the case? if not, why not? What is bad about the abolition of all government and/or that society be organized in a voluntary cooperative basis without recourse to force? Why do you appose either or both of these?

I'm not a full-time anti-anarchist myself, but anti-anarchist opinions could - based on what I've observed so far - be broken down the following arguments (though neither are mutually exclusive):

1) It leads to war of all against all. The most straightforward argument against anarchism. Basically, it implies that humans always seek conflict with each other, unless an entity that is more powerful dissuades them from doing so. You'd might want to check out Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan for a more detailed version of this argument.
2) Anarchism will lead to unrestrained Capitalism, which is bad. This one naturally implies Anarcho-Capitalism is the most natural form of Anarchism and welfare states are necessary in maintaining positive liberty. Predictably, I've seen this argument coming mostly from Social Democrats ala Sweden, though I can't seem recall when I last this one on CFC.
3) Anarchism may work from a public order/economical perspective, but authoritarian states could basically run over any stateless society they wish to conquer. A popular argument across the entire political spectrum. World War II is often cited as an example.
4) Anarchism may be fine in theory, but as a social institution, the state will inevitably re-establish itself. Robert Nozick has argued for this position in further detail from a Libertarian perspective in Anarchy, State & Utopia and Albert Camus very implicitly raised a similiar objection in L'homme révolté.

 

[Traitorfish]

As you said earlier, use of public property has to be negotiated in order to prevent coercion. The problem is that in this fashion, those with superior negotiation skills might potentially gain disproportionate amount of usage rights to public property, to the point it de-facto becomes their private property, which paves the way for re-establishing property rights.

That's a bit nebulous. If property represents, I suggested, the organisation of labour, then by what means would the post-capitalist labour process be reorganised in such a manner as to produce a new class society? It is not at all obvious by which means "those with superior negotiation skills" might convince the whole of society to reorganise itself for their benefit; certainly nothing like that has ever happened historically, at least as far as I know.

 

[Gary Childress]

That's a bit nebulous. If property represents, I suggested, the organisation of labour, then by what means would the post-capitalist labour process be reorganised in such a manner as to produce a new class society? It is not at all obvious by which means "those with superior negotiation skills" might convince the whole of society to reorganise itself for their benefit; certainly nothing like that has ever happened historically, at least as far as I know.

Well in a sense isn't the early transition of human societies from small clans to larger and larger communities sort of an example of how certain individuals can emerge as socially superior to others. Early kings and other members of royalty might have been deemed the best warriors or the best to lead. Soon it became a matter of birthright. Now, hopefully humanity has learned much since then and wouldn't repeat the same mistakes as our earliest ancestors perhaps? But isn't there a tendency among us humans at times to idolize certain individuals whom we deem exeptional and to bestow privilege upon them of some form?

 

[Traitorfish]

Well in a sense isn't the early transition of human societies from small clans to larger and larger communities sort of an example of how certain individuals can emerge as socially superior to others. Early kings and other members of royalty might have been deemed the best warriors or the best to lead. Soon it became a matter of birthright. Now, hopefully humanity has learned much since then and wouldn't repeat the same mistakes as our earliest ancestors perhaps?

There's no one route by which a class society emerges, but generally speaking the key is mediation, not simple charisma: that a particular stratum emerges uniquely positioned to mediate in relations with other communities, between different sections of the community, between the community and divinities, and so on. Charisma might play a role in deciding the details, but it is a bottom a question of the organisation of social activity, not simply of bamboozling people into think that you're great. In the absence of any need for a permanent mediator-class, any individual or clique assuming such power would be able to do so on a wholly unstable basis.

But isn't there a tendency among us humans at times to idolize certain individuals whom we deem exeptional and to bestow privilege upon them of some form?

No an intrinsic one, as far as I know. You'll find that in those societies operating with a non-institutionalised heirarchy, it's not uncommon for leaders who get too big for their boots to be assaulted and even murdered by resentful tribesfellows.

 

[Tahuti]

That's a bit nebulous. If property represents, I suggested, the organisation of labour, then by what means would the post-capitalist labour process be reorganised in such a manner as to produce a new class society?

By re-establishing property rights, with the difference being they are (at least initially) enforced by social pressure instead of physical coercion, as property rights as we know them are assumed to have originated from.

It is not at all obvious by which means "those with superior negotiation skills" might convince the whole of society to reorganise itself for their benefit; certainly nothing like that has ever happened historically, at least as far as I know.

Well, let us take the most obvious form of capital: Land. We live in anarcho-commie paradise, but suddenly, the goofjocks (yeah cliched, I know ) decide to occupy a piece of land. Of course, they cannot physically exclude others from using that piece of land, but factually, they already do so by their socially intimidating presence. So far, there has been no coercion or whatsoever, but they do have a leverage in a way that is not completely unlike today's property relations. From there on, such can further degenerate into property rights as we know today.

Don't tell me you've never experienced something like this first-hand!

But isn't there a tendency among us humans at times to idolize certain individuals whom we deem exeptional and to bestow privilege upon them of some form?

That's certainly the case. Humanity is naturally inclined to think in hierarchies. It's built-in our line of thinking. While it is popular to refer to hunter-gatherer's are classless, remember hunter-gatherer's themselves were one of the lower classes in a society better known as "the wilds".

 

[Gary Childress]

No an intrinsic one, as far as I know. You'll find that in those societies operating with a non-institutionalised heirarchy, it's not uncommon for leaders who get too big for their boots to be assaulted and even murdered by resentful tribesfellows.

Perhaps "too big for one's boots" is one thing, but if a charismatic individual had "big boots" to start with so to speak, it might take a bit more before he becomes too big for them. In other words perhaps it is the little fish that most easily come to be recognized as too big for their boots. Take the guy who recently overthrew the government of Mali (if I recall correclty) it was practically a coup by accident. The coup has perhaps collapsed because the leader was way in over his head (and also due to international action) but there have evidently been coups which involved leaders who managed to hold onto their gains by whatever means. Perhaps some people are more skilled in the ability to attract allies than others. For instance I am probably the last person on earth who could even organize one person to ally with me in anything. But there are surely people out there with the capability of "putting me in my place" and assming leadership of a small group. Such individuals might be said to be charismatic. where as I am about as far the opposite as there is. Pee Wee Herman is probably many times more charismatic than I am. If I am so uncharismatic and there are people who are much more charismatic than I am, then someone doesn't need to be all that charismatic to be many times more charismatic than me.

Would it be possible for a "Lord of the Flies" scenario to spontaneously emerge from an anarchist collective gone bad, as it were. This sort of brings us to objection # 3 cited by Kaiserguard. If so much as one Ghengis Khan emerges with the ability to unite enough people behind him, maybe by appealing to racial or ethnic loyalties then this leader might be a threat to all the lesser groups around him.

 

[Traitorfish]

By re-establishing property rights, with the difference being they are (at least initially) enforced by social pressure instead of physical coercion, as property rights as we know them are assumed to have originated from.

Property rights are a legal-political claim, they are not a social relationship in and of themselves. A property claim in a propertyless society is incoherent babble, as much as wandering around a modern republic claiming divine kingship. Social relations of property have to exist before they can obtain legal articulation.

Well, let us take the most obvious form of capital: Land. We live in anarcho-commie paradise, but suddenly, the goofjocks (yeah cliched, I know ) decide to occupy a piece of land. Of course, they cannot physically exclude others from using that piece of land, but factually, they already do so by their socially intimidating presence. So far, there has been no coercion or whatsoever, but they do have a leverage in a way that is not completely unlike today's property relations. From there on, such can further degenerate into property rights as we know today.

How? All you've established is that it would be possible to squat in a field and that, if nobody particularly needed it, people would do their best to ignore you. Nothing in that carries the basis for a new social division of labour.

Perhaps "too big for one's boots" is one thing, but if a charismatic individual had "big boots" to start with so to speak, it might take a bit more before he becomes too big for them. In other words perhaps it is the little fish that most easily come to be recognized as too big for their boots. Take the guy who recently overthrew the government of Mali (if I recall correclty) it was practically a coup by accident. The coup has perhaps collapsed because the leader was way in over his head (and also due to international action) but there have evidently been coups which involved leaders who managed to hold onto their gains by whatever means. Perhaps some people are more skilled in the ability to attract allies than others. For instance I am probably the last person on earth who could even organize one person to ally with me in anything. But there are surely people out there with the capability of "putting me in my place" and assming leadership of a small group. Such individuals might be said to be charismatic. where as I am about as far the opposite as there is. Pee Wee Herman is probably many times more charismatic than I am. If I am so uncharismatic and there are people who are much more charismatic than I am, then someone doesn't need to be all that charismatic to be many times more charismatic than me.

Noting that charismatic can produce authority in authoritarian and hierarchical societies doesn't tell you if it will do the same in non-authoritarian and non-heirarchical societies (let alone anti-authoritarian and anti-hierarchical societies, as in practice they tend to be). It's not as if we're talking about a Cossack band here, we're talking about what would be a modern, industrialised anarchist society.

Would it be possible for a "Lord of the Flies" scenario to spontaneously emerge from an anarchist collective gone bad, as it were. This sort of brings us to objection # 3 cited by Kaiserguard. If so much as one Ghengis Khan emerges with the ability to unite enough people behind him, maybe by appealing to racial or ethnic loyalties then this leader might be a threat to all the lesser groups around him.

Why would that happen? It's not enough to say "what if it did?", we have to be able to give a coherent explanation for why and how it might. What if Nazi Germany had invaded Peru? What if the American Civil War was settled by a tug-of-war? What if Caesar had marched on Rome dressed as a chicken? Without an explanation as to why these scenarios might occur, it's not possible to fruitfully speculate about them.

(Also, the whole point of Lord of the Flies was that they were reproducing Western social hierarchies, not that they were descending into some pre-civilisational barbarism. It was specifically written as a response to what Golding identified as the racism of stories like Coral Island, which located that sort of irrational violence as something wholly Other. So not the best analogy, there. )

 

[Gary Childress]

It seems to me that pragmatic objections, objections concerning the long term stability of an anarchist society sort of fall into the same realm as arguing that democracy must devolve into voter apathy and therefore democracy is not a viable system. I suppose the argument should be how much do we value democracy that we are willing to uphold and work toward its ideals regardless of falling short at times?

I think instead of pragmatic objections, the more serious objection would be to the very ideals of anarchism itself, in effect saying that these are ideals which we should not want to even work toward.

I am drawn back and will ask again, is there any reasonable argument to be made against the ideals:

1. belief in the abolition of all government

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

I think if there is no sustainable case to be made against these then it is more difficult to undermine anarchism.

 

[innonimatu]

It seems to me that pragmatic objections, objections concerning the long term stability of an anarchist society sort of fall into the same realm as arguing that democracy must devolve into voter apathy and therefore democracy is not a viable system.

Why do you think that? An anarchist society would be very different from an organized, institutionalized democracy. To start with an anarchist society will lack any and all institutions. Except for the so-called anarcho-capitalists or libertarians who would have institutions enforcing private property, but those are nor really anarchists. Anarchy really can and should be defined as an absence of institutions.

Democracy is stable because there are institutions in place making changes difficult. Anarchy would have what, traditions? Laws? Enforced by whom? Who could arbitrate disputes? Who could avoid accumulations of power as a consequence of disputes? You need more than tradition for that, you need laws and institutions. Otherwise... well, just look at what happened to all those hippie communes from the 60s. And those werre small groups of supposedly like-minded people.

Sorry, I'm not buying old examples with primitive societies about how that is possible. They're bullcrap, remnants of the noble savage fairy tales. And it certainly isn't on a global scale unless you can argue that increasing the number of people involved actually has a stabilizing effect. Hell, we can't even seem to make make direct democracy work on a large scale! Perhaps, just perhaps, in a society of abundance where conflicts motivated by material needs became too much trouble for people to engage in, perhaps it might be done. But as technology stands now I don't see how that can be put to the test.

 

[Old Hippy]

It
I am drawn back and will ask again, is there any reasonable argument to be made against the ideals:

1. belief in the abolition of all government

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

I think if there is no sustainable case to be made against these then it is more difficult to undermine anarchism.

well... you would have people like me in the society that don't belive in the abolition of government and the organization of society is best done in a co-operative way by governments...

before asking is their any reasonable argument to be made against the Ideals
1. belief in the abolition of all government
it should be established that this is an ideal to start with

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Hell, we can't even seem to make make direct democracy work on a large scale!

I concur with the rest of your post - but why does that seem so?