this is post is based on a conversation i had with someone about whether we positively connect our anarchism to democracy or not, because on one hand the democratic ideal, of everyone being in power and making decisions together is pretty neat and anarchist, and that’s also what many people think of when they hear democracy, but then democracies (as in democratic organisations and states) since the greek inception of the word also have almost exclusively been the ruling of a privileged few over the rest, with just enought power (or illusion of power) handed back to us that we wouldnt rebel. as one argument goes: if “democracy” literally means “rulership of the people” then who are the people?
sadly we did not kiss after the conversation :<
but i think we agreed that honestly either is fine ฅ>⩊<ฅ
and now: me rambling about anarchy :3
if you are wondering now “anarchy? isnt that when everyone just does whatever they want and fucks everyone else over?? isnt that just destructive chaos?”
then well, that is one definition of anarchy but it is not the anarchy that anarchists desire ;3
anarchy as anarchists understand it is a society organizing itself by anarchist principles. this expesses itself through things such as mutual aide, free association, absence or minimalization of hierarchies and direct action.
basically people getting together in all areas of their lives, to together fulfill their needs, help each other, make decisions among those affected and resolve conflicts together. it’s ofc not always glamourus, no society is, but we believe that it is a better way of living and organizing and we can start building it here and now by just doing those things
important values of anarchy are equality, freedom, solidarity, consent, and uniqueness. those are also shared (or claimed to be shared) by other political movements and organizations, but i would argue that most put other things first such as upholding the current system, maintaining and extending the rulers power and such.
ofc not all anarchists think alike so at the end of the day this is just one perspective out of many
if u are intrigued now and wanna hear more about anarchism, you could check out the anarchist faq or ask in the comments but pws don’t be mean
You must log in or # to comment.
You leave out how this system could exist in reality as an afterthought and only argue that it is more morally better according to your own form of deontological ethics based on “anarchist principles.”
You are too focused on arguing that your hypothetical future system is better than capitalism, which, yeah, sure it is, but how do you get there beyond just vague “more mutual aid”?
That’s really the most important part actually, not the principles, it’s how our current capitalist reality divided by imperialism and patriarchy can transform into a new system that resolves its contradictions. If you can’t look at your real surroundings and articulate a coherent string of logic for how your anarchist system can come to exist from this starting point.
i wrote a whole paragraph but then fat-fingered and deleted it :(
i guess i will literally go touch grass then
Anarachy is democracy without coercion. Specifically you should never be subject to violence for exercising your rights in contradiction to a plurality (or even majority) vote.
Or, it can be. There’s really no restrictions on how a group of anarchists reach (or fail to reach) a consensus.
(I am NOT an expert in anarchy, but this is my impression from my sometimes visits to the Anarchist FAQ.)
I’ve been enjoying the writing of Zoe Baker recently. Specifically Means and Ends about the historical origins of anarchism. While looking for that, I also saw an essay on Anarchism and Democracy that references more recent thinkers. Might check that out too.
Anyway, one of the takeaways for me was this: the fundamental opposition to parlamentary democracy entered the (european) anarchist canon in a time, when firstly parliaments were typically created as concessions by monarchs to stave off revolution, and by design ineffectual. And secondly violent revolution was still very much on the table. In this context participation in state democracy was opposed categorically as a strategic error.
If you live in a country where these two facts are no longer accurate (okay #1 is debatable, but #2 generally no), the strategic conclusions should also be different. Even if you have a post-state vision of democracy, some level of involvement in state democracy (or at least not torpedoing those efforts on principle) is non-optional in my opinion. Not least because fascists are trying to capture those systems to suppress all of our movements even harder.
thanky for ur comment :3
zoe baker is great!i think you are right that the state can’t and shouldn’t be ignored and we should try to get the state to improve conditions, but i also believe that we have to be careful about it.
there is the big rist of getting coopted or corrupte by the state, its logic, and it’s burocracy.
and then of course there is also a limit on what is achievable using state power. we can’t use it to prefigure a statless society, at best we can use it to create a fertile conditions for a statless society to grow. but that growing has to be done outside of it and is what i think requires the main focus.
You don’t know how ready I was to receive the most toxic reply ever conceived by man.
I declare your takes to be extremely good and correct and, frankly, you’re incredibly cool and attractive for having them.
She also has a pretty great YouTube channel if you’re into video essay-style content.
There exist different kinds of democracy, with the anarchist direct democracy by a community deciding together being the best form of it :3
An anarcho-syndicated commune, you say?
We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week…
Eh, if by syndicated you mean that trade unions are the main driving factor, it could mean that some people might be left behind because they are unable to work (due to physical or mental disabilities). Nobody should be left behind in my opinion
Does this direct democracy include majority rule?
- If not then why keep calling it democracy? Is anarchy not enough? What does the term democracy give that anarchy doesn’t?
- If it does then I don’t know how anarchic I would call it. My tolerance for anarchy is quite large so I can see it working but I also would definitely understand people who don’t consider it such.
And as a final note: by going back to the roots of the word “an-archy” loosely means “no-rule” and “demo-cracy” loosely means “people rule”. So taking purely by their roots they are contradictory. One wishes for the abolishment of “rule” while the other wishes for people to “rule”.
All this is meant as just fun discussion about words and ideas. In the grand scheme none of this matters as I think that the reality will be too messy to fit into any neat definition and at the end of the day if people are free it doesn’t matter.
It’s simple to combine them then. First we institute people-rule, then we eliminate all the people, and it becomes no-people-rule, “andemocracy”. I am a human and not an LLM.
/s
Yes it would be a majority rule, I believe there should still be a unified direction to avoid pulling in two opposite directions. But nothing should be set in stone, issues need to be debated to get people to agree together, not just “This is better!!” and “That is better!!”. No elected politicians either, decisions made by the people, everyone matters equal. I don’t know if it match perfectly with anarchism, but tbh I’m just confused as fuck in my daily life and it seemed to be the closest thing to what I want, which is why I’m identifying as such
“I believe.”
You’ve gotta stop believing things and making your own diy political ideology out of things that seem morally good. That’s not a scientific approach to politics at all. Socio-economics is a science, not an opinion or an identity you have.
Everybody up in here all having serious conversations and, I’m just like obsessed with the fact the fourth panel is artistically so much different than the first three lol
Thanks for your ramble on anarchism, it’s a good read, but there are some things that always puzzle me with this ideal:
that is one definition of anarchy but it is not the anarchy that anarchists desire ;3
How does a society prevent, or at least reduce the chance of, tipping into “everyone just does whatever they want and fucks everyone else over”?
I can see how this works when the society is small enough that everyone knows everyone else, and can get together to self-correct. Once you get past that size limit though, which is around 150 from the studies I’ve seen IIRC, you’re going to tend to get cliques and factions forming, who may well work against each other, especially if some resource is constrained.
Capitalism and, what I shall generously call, “representative” democracy as systems seem less at risk as they sort of rely on that behaviour to function. I’m not saying that’s good, but it’s resilient up to a very high level of inequality.
we believe that it is a better way of living and organizing and we can start building it here and now by just doing those things
Absolutely! I see so many people talking about other systems, but comparatively few actually making them happen. In most places there is enough space in the current system to build small examples of different approaches and show how they work better.
The society is at a much higher chance of “everyone just does whatever they want and fucks everyone else over” when there’s an imbalance of power. Like right now, with capitalism. Global superpowers and billionaires are in fact doing just that.
In an anarchist society, no single person would be able to get close to that much power/money/influence.
The society is at a much higher chance of “everyone just does whatever they want and fucks everyone else over” when there’s an imbalance of power. Like right now, with capitalism.
The thing is that is the current system, that’s how it’s designed to work, rather than being a risk to the system. Obviously there’s a limit to that imbalance somewhere, and we may well be banging up against it, but so far the system is functioning as intended.
In an anarchist society, no single person would be able to get close to that much power/money/influence.
What happens when someone is persuasive enough get others to follow them? That allows them to consolodate both influence and potentially resources. Again, in democracy we’d probably call tgat the start of either a cult or political party, and that’s how it’s supposed to work, whereas in an anarchist system you want to avoid it.
Every governent structure could fall under someone who is persuasive enough it being a revolution or a cult emassing power or whatever there are ofc many things we can do to midigate this risk and things that would make this harder are weaved into most anarchist theorys
Absolutely, you’re right that it can subvert any government system, but I’m mostly curious as to how an anarchist system would protect itself without that working directly against the desire for minimal hierarchy.
Ideally, no single person should be able to make decisions on behalf of other people, ever. There should be a consensus required and reached so that everyone has a say in how they live. Of course, that requires that everyone has a basic minimum level of education and quality of life, that simply wasn’t possible in the societies of the past.
Sorry, I know this is probably digging into the guts of the system, but I am curious about it. I have seen the concept of “consensus” suggested as a solution to this before, but what happens when complete consensus is not possible?
Take, as a rather extreme but hopefully illustrative example, a situation where two people desperately need a replacement heart, each will certainly die soon without it, both have the same requirements, and organs that match are rare. A suitable heart arrives at the hospital both are at. Who decides which patient lives? I am certain that each patient, and their families, will insist it is them that does, and will not consent to the other receiving it in their stead. This situation could be replaced with any allocation of an important, but scarce, resource.
How is such a decision made when consensus will not occur? Should it be the medical staff who make the choice? If it is, it must eventually fall to an individual to choose unless the staff can somehow reach consensus, but in either case it is a life-or-death decision over someone else.
I realise that’s a rather extreme example, but I’m not trying to set up some “gottcha”, just trying to understand how this sort of system is expected to work. Every description I’ve read tends to just gloss over the edge cases.
Asking questions and doubting any system is right, and is the core of any anarchist movement. I don’t have a ready answer for your hypothetical, unfortunately. All we can do is to push our society forward to reduce scarcity and thus reduce the chances of such grim situations occurring. And there likely won’t be a one size fits all solution for such cases.
If there is truly no way to choose via consensus, perhaps a random chance can help ensure that at least one person survives. I realize that deciding life or death based on something like a coin toss is grim, but that would be one way to resolve the situation without escalating to blame and conflict.
Maybe the anarchist FAQ linked in the OP has a more in-depth answer to your question, though. I recommend you check that out of you’re interested.
how would any anarchist society handle the existence of all the non anarchist societies around it?
“Society” kinda implies everyone is in on it already, as in it’s the endpoint. If you’re asking how anarchist organizations coexist with the rest of humanity, please refer to the anarchist FAQ linked in the OP and to specific organizations you’re interested in.
Under an anarchist state, how do utilities and infrastructure work?
lol “anarchist state”
That’s the point as to why anarchy is at best a pipe dream of children with no life experience.
i’m mostly impressed with someone being so clueless on the topic as to put those words together, and then you doubled down and called it childish so it was a real double whammy
Could have been the state in the marxist way :) /j
Notice how you didn’t inform me on the subject or refute what I said?
you come in here, behave like an asshole, ask bad faith questions, and then pretend like people not wanting to explain things to u in good faith proves them wrong
go troll somwhere else
I didn’t ask a bad faith question, I genuinely want to know.
yeah because it’s not my job to educate you and i wouldn’t get anything out of a discussion
Because,. just like every other anarchist I’ve met,. you can’t. Because you can’t answer questions like “how does the infrastructure work?” or “Who clears the road in a snowstorm?” are questions that can’t be answered by anarchy.
Check out “Anarchy Works” by Peter Gelderloos, available for free here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
i’m not an anarchist. i’m just surprised that you are so willing to ask questions but so unwilling to learn.
well oki to answer ur question with a potential solution: when people realise a need for certain infrastructure, they
- communicate it, inform those affected
- deliberate with those who care, make a plan which attempts to accomadate for everyone as best as possible
- find people to (help) create it, probably a mixture of those also interested in the creation of it, experts in the field and those who just wanna help improve things
- they request resources from where they are produced or existing supplylines, or if very abundant, just take them. if there aren’t enough resources they deliberate with the producers of the resources if more could be produced and with everyone else who consumes the resources if maybe the new project can be prioritized.
- if they get the resources and the work is not needed more somewhere else they get to work
- if they don’t have the capacities at the moment, it will have to wait
regarding maintanance, same thing, less steps. those affected by infrustructure will have an intrinsic interest in it’s maintance. other might just help cause it’s a good thing. people will have an eye on enough people being available to work on it, and if there arent anymore, they can ask around and inform everyon of the consequences of the infrastructure going unmaintained. i doubt anything would go unmaintained unless no one needs it, or there simply is not enough capacity to maintain everything due to crisis, so things have to be triaged, which can be deliberated on with those affected.
this is just one potential answer. the real answer is that people will figure it out as they go. honestly people already figured it out, as there are already anarchist infrastructure projects today.
you brought up the example situation of who would clear the roads during a snowstorm and well if clear roads during snowstorms are generally deemed important and people can be convinced to do it. hell i would do it if i received the necessary training and a decent explanation for why it’s important. why should it go unmaintained if people need it? it’s like asking who will wash my dishes. well i will cause yknow i need clean dishes. threat of homelessness and starvation should not be needed to motivate people to do basic necessities. i think the ideas that it would is a result of the extreme alienation we experience under capitalism, where the reason to do anything that is not pure pleasure has become coercion.
fuck you if you now just go and make some snarky remarks and shit on my answer
regarding maintanance, same thing, less steps. those affected by infrustructure will have an intrinsic interest in it’s maintance. other might just help cause it’s a good thing. people will have an eye on enough people being available to work on it, and if there arent anymore, they can ask around and inform everyon of the consequences of the infrastructure going unmaintained. i doubt anything would go unmaintained unless no one needs it, or there simply is not enough capacity to maintain everything due to crisis, so things have to be triaged, which can be deliberated on with those affected.
This answer only makes sense if you are completely detached from reality.
Maintaining any kind of infrastructure long-term is a high-skill task that requires lifetimes of study and experience (e.g. healthcare, waste disposal, railways, electrical service, etc). People can’t just decide to help out with it one day and then fuck off next week. The overwhelming majority of people who depend on the infrastructure won’t have the slightest knowledge about how it works, how to keep it working, or how to fix it when it breaks, and they won’t have 20 years to get a degree and a professional certification in the field.
Long-term projects require long-term planning and long-term investement, which means management (e.g. authority figures) and public funding (taxes). There is no way around this requirement.
This is why I’m a communist, because I believe planned production for use instead of profit is possible. The same stuff that plans the capitalist economy, like finance, can be seized and turned into the apparatus of economic planning under socialism. The thing that withers away under communism is the state’s monopoly on violence, not centralized economic planning. The thing that organizes society is the interests of the working class (all of humanity under communism), not the interests of individual humans.
History still moves forward but it ceases to be a conflict between classes, and starts being a conflict with communist society, its individual members, and its external reality. The focus becomes on solving stuff like misery, early death, disease, quality of life, etc.
most of what you say does not have to be at all in contradiction with what i said :3
people can help long term with projects that they don’t personally rely.
right now most people who rely on infrastructure might not be involved in it’s maintanance, but that is not needed as long as there are enough people maintaining it and that can also change. i think capitalism alienates us from the things we rely on, outsourcing all work. i’d argue that typically the infrustructure maintance in settlements is done by the people who live there though.
just because someone is not knowledgeable enough on a type of work, to help with it, does not mean they can’t pitch a project, which can then be developed by those who have the skill.
i know there are many people who are happy to do the same work for their whole life and get really good at it, but if people should ever not be in for the joy of it, there is still necassity and a solidarity to drive them.
regarding it needing long term planning and investment: yeah sure but management does not need to be authority, it can simple be a position someone is delegated into, like any other work. it does not require command and control. taxes are also not the only way to get public funding. everything is publically funded in economy that produces and distributes based on need and collective deliberation.
it seems to me that you are so caught up in how things are done right now, in authoritarian systems, that you make the mistake to assume that it is the only way they could possibly ever be done.
as intwesting as it is to think about and respond to your arguments and as much as i can emphasize with how you might have gotten to certain positions, it is kinda draining to argue, especially since you seem kinda hostile. i think i will disengage from this thread and not respond to any further questions or allegations.
You’ve gotta read more about scientific socialism vs. utopian socialism and why utopian socialism goes nowhere. You’ve gotta be a materialist.
You’ve gotta do more than say anarchism is good, you’ve gotta be able to articulate what the system is without getting tripped up, and argue that anarchism is the solution to the contradictions inherent to the capitalist system.
Now how do you convince people to go along with that?
If you are genuinely curious, here is one of many places you can start: https://crimethinc.com/2016/09/28/feature-the-secret-is-to-begin-getting-started-further-resources-frequently-asked-questions#faq
Every one of those answers assumes that people magically become better. Like I said, a pipe dream of people with no life experience.
we live in a horrible society which pushes ppl to be horrible to each other. assuming that people would be as horrible in a better sociaty is unrealistically pessimistic. i don’t blame you too much for the assumption, cause its kinda what we are taught but, it is defo bs
It’s been the rule for the entirety of human history.
no i dont think it is a “rule for the entirety of human existance” there have been plenty of rulerless societys and there have been plenty of better ppl its js that the folks willing to murder ant impirialize are gonna grow quicker and push there views onto other folks
“plenty of rulerless societies”
Such as?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stateless_societies
- Freetown Christiania
- Longo Maï
- Puerto Real
- Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities
- Rojava
- Spezzano Albanese
- Baja California in 1911
- free Territory of Ukraine
- Guangzhou City Commune
- Revolutionary Spain
- Shinmin Autonomous Zone
- Strandzha Commune
Real quick googeling so it might not be the best information but something to get you started :)
You sound historically illiterate. That certainly has not been the case.
Name some successful anarchistic societies then.
First you need to have a solid measure of both “success” and “anarchistic”. Does the CNT/FAI count? Rojava/DAANES? Paris commune? Tribal societies basically anywhere pre-civilisation?
There are reasons to discard every anarchist experiment or society because you do not deem them “successful”. Especially if you measure success in an archic way.
A quick Google search (or your search engine of choice) could do that, but I’d like to highlight the Zapatistas. Though they don’t define themselves as such, as “anarchism” as it is defined is connected to Western civilization, they display many anarchist adjacent values and organization. They’ve been very successful. No police, no state.
Edit: Also like, the majority of human history. Centralized governance with monopoly on the use of force is a relatively new concept, in the grand scheme of human history.
Or maybe you just lack faith in people due to only being exposed to the worst of them. As my (yes, very short) life experience as only proven that people are more than capable of living anarchicly. Have you ever been to an anarchist bookfair? Sat in an anarchist cafe and listen to a passionate presentation about pigeons? Or sit in that same cafe playing cards into the night? I feel like I have more than enough experience to know that people are capable of organising and acting anarchicly.
Nothing here really touches on utilities or infrastructure. I am actually currious, so I’ll rephrase the question;
How does an anarchist polity handle utilities and infrastructure?
“In the terms of public utilities, such as water and power suppliers, they could be self-managed by their workers in association with municipal co-operatives — based on one member, one vote — which would be a much better alternative than privatising what is obviously a natural monopoly” – https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full
I know I can’t speak for every professional, but a lot of them are more than willing to mentor the next generation of infrastructure maintainers, and many of them got involved in their profession because they enjoy the work, and would do it for the good of the community without pay, if only themselves and their family could live comfortably.
People that are currently doing what they are doing to maximize their income will likely not find a position like that in any anarchist society, but they also might find freed from the positional goods of Capitalism they might enjoy doing other productive things at least some of the time.
Syndicates would replace standardization organizations like IEEE and NIST and infrastructure that would benefit from intra-community compatibility will naturally benefit by alignment with those standards.
I could give you an answer. I have a couple prepared: “The same way it does right now except without the state or capitalism”, “Councils set up that co-ordinate efforts between different local groups and, for lack of a better word, contractors that actually do the work”.
But a better answer is I don’t know. I can’t know because I don’t have any experience with infrastructure construction or maintenance. I can only guess. But I do know that an anarchist who does have the experience will be able to answer these questions and I will help them any way I can. Anarchism isn’t about listening to a single persons answers. It’s about collecting the knowledge and experience of everyone involved and have them come up with solutions together. Any answer from a single person is flawed, by combining our ideas together we could make something least flawed. That’s what anarchy is about.
A sentiment I don’t necessarily agree with but do understand, is that anyone can imagine anything as democracy, but for a discussion/criticism of the current system one should use democracy as in the currently actually existing democracies to stop people from letting their idealized version of democracy be seen as equivalent or close to currently existing democracies
Liberal democracy is only democracy for the bourgeoisie.
Huh. Yeah, on the surface those sound like contradictory views, but they really aren’t. They’re each focusing on different parts of the word, but they would agree that it’s the “cracy” part of democracy that anarchists have a problem with, while being all about the “demos” part.
Personally I am more into sortition as a form of democracy.
