Anarchism

[Michael]

Anarchism

This term seems to have a wide variety of meanings to different people. To some people, the term is synonymous with 'chaos' or the 'law of the jungle'. To others, the term carries connotations of 19th century violent or radical terrorists in Europe (most notably in Russia). The term is also closely associated with the idea of 'extreme libertarianism' (i.e. anarchic capitalism). For some others, the term refers to a system of organization characterized by an absence of a hierarchical structure. Some few others consider the term to be synonymous with Marx's (undefined) ultimate communist society. Others associate the ideas of anarchism with some forms of meritocracy, technocracy, syndicalism and/or communitarianism. As it stands, the term of 'anarchism' seems to mean so many different things that it ends up seeming to mean nothing at all.

Knowing that there are several members here who are interested in various forms of anarchism, I should like to explore each of these various types of 'anarchism' to see what they might perhaps have in common, or if they are all unique and unrelated to each other. If they are actually separate concepts, then I propose we ought to try to come up with terms to label the various different varieties of anarchism.

So what does the term 'anarchism' mean to you? Or what do you think about the various 'other' ways the term is used? What do you think of the different varieties of anarchism? Are they all just the same thing in different clothing?

[Dominick]

Anarchism

This term seems to have a wide variety of meanings to different people. To some people, the term is synonymous with 'chaos' or the 'law of the jungle'. To others, the term carries connotations of 19th century violent or radical terrorists in Europe (most notably in Russia). The term is also closely associated with the idea of 'extreme libertarianism' (i.e. anarchic capitalism). For some others, the term refers to a system of organization characterized by an absence of a hierarchical structure. Some few others consider the term to be synonymous with Marx's (undefined) ultimate communist society. Others associate the ideas of anarchism with some forms of meritocracy, technocracy, syndicalism and/or communitarianism. As it stands, the term of 'anarchism' seems to mean so many different things that it ends up seeming to mean nothing at all.

Knowing that there are several members here who are interested in various forms of anarchism, I should like to explore each of these various types of 'anarchism' to see what they might perhaps have in common, or if they are all unique and unrelated to each other. If they are actually separate concepts, then I propose we ought to try to come up with terms to label the various different varieties of anarchism.

So what does the term 'anarchism' mean to you? Or what do you think about the various 'other' ways the term is used? What do you think of the different varieties of anarchism? Are they all just the same thing in different clothing?
It's really simple; Anarchism is the collection of political theories/forms of societal organization that are marked by one fundamental characteristic : the absence of authority.

With that definition the answers to the questions become evident :
To some people, the term is synonymous with 'chaos' or the 'law of the jungle'.
That's anarchy, not anarchism. While the two words obviously share the same etymology, anarchy refers to a situation in an authority-based system, viz. the situation within that system when the authority is ignored or actively opposed.


To others, the term carries connotations of 19th century violent or radical terrorists in Europe (most notably in Russia).
Those connotations are correct and justified.


The term is also closely associated with the idea of 'extreme libertarianism' (i.e. anarchic capitalism).

That's a total misnomer, in fact a genuine oxymoron. Capitalism is inherently and fundamentally antithetical to anarchism. Capitalism de facto creates a caste society where the owners of capital have extreme authority over those that haven't. That this authority is 'private' rather than 'public' is of no consequence. It's still authority. One could in fact argue that it's in fact unadulturated authoritarianism as there are no checks and balances that other forms of authority might have.
A better name for anarcho-capitalism is quite simply : corporate fascism.


Some few others consider the term to be synonymous with Marx's (undefined) ultimate communist society.
There's a similar problem here. Marx' transitional phase of prole dictatorship is fundamentally incompatible with anarchism. While these systems have a common ancestry, it was already at the very dawn of both movements that they diverged, and diverged radically, finally and on multiple occasions violently.


For some others, the term refers to a system of organization characterized by an absence of a hierarchical structure.
Hierarchy implies authority and therefore this statement is always applicable.


As it stands, the term of 'anarchism' seems to mean so many different things that it ends up seeming to mean nothing at all.
Only if people ignore the fundamental definition. You can call a cat a cow but it still won't give you any milk. :)

[Greendruid]

I'd like to throw a thought or two into the mix. In the absence of authority I assume that Dominick is referring to authority of one person (or several persons) over another (or several other persons). My question is from a philosophico-religious perspective I guess; does authority over other living things ever come under consideration? We are, after all, largely a species that consumes life in an effort to sustain our own. There are in fact very few other species on the planet that don't do this. Some draw the line at exerting power over vegetative matter. Others exert their power over other animals. Is this exertion of authority over other life forms something one who supports anarchism might consider or is there a line drawn around human authority?

[Korimyr the Rat]

My question is from a philosophico-religious perspective I guess; does authority over other living things ever come under consideration? ... Is this exertion of authority over other life forms something one who supports anarchism might consider or is there a line drawn around human authority?

This is an unusual angle from which to examine the concept of anarchism... but I find that it underscores my primary objection to anarchist social theories. Anarchists, for the most part, believe that freedom is the natural state of man and that authority is an artificial and intolerable imposition upon that natural freedom.

The problem is, as you have noted, that authority by way of naked force is at least a natural phenomenon, if not the natural state of all animal life. Human authority is only unnatural in the sense that we seek to justify and rationalize it; as social animals, we also possess instincts which lead us to defer to authority without physical conflict, and to recognize authority beyond the capacity for violence.

One could then argue that freedom is still a beneficial condition, but all that argument would accomplish is leading us to the conclusion that balance between freedom and authority is necessary, and perhaps that some specific balance between freedom and authority is the ideal state for human development. The blanket rejection of authority is ruled out as not only unnatural and nonviable, but actively undesirable; just as the human being requires freedom in order to grow and change, he requires social order and knowledge of his place within it in order to maintain both psychological and social stability.

[SMadsen]

A most excellent point by Greendruid that coincides with my own reservation towards the sheer posibility of cutting off authority and hierarchy from human society.

If we express authority towards someone or something that we live off of then we most certainly will always express authority towards fellow human beings since humans will, by definition, or at least as long as we can't but gather in societies, live off each other. That's what society is all about.

[Dominick]

I'd like to throw a thought or two into the mix. In the absence of authority I assume that Dominick is referring to authority of one person (or several persons) over another (or several other persons). My question is from a philosophico-religious perspective I guess; does authority over other living things ever come under consideration? We are, after all, largely a species that consumes life in an effort to sustain our own. There are in fact very few other species on the planet that don't do this. Some draw the line at exerting power over vegetative matter. Others exert their power over other animals. Is this exertion of authority over other life forms something one who supports anarchism might consider or is there a line drawn around human authority?
You've opened a can of worms here :D

This is actually the topic of a generational conflict within anarchist movements. Old school (including me) are not very preoccupied with this as they focus on political aspects and emerging authoritarianism/fascism.
But the younger generation is most definitely investigating these issues. The result of these investigations is usually indeed hardcore veganism and die-hard environmentalism. It's perfectly logical after all, both from a theoretical as from a practical viewpoint. The massive abuses of the environment are directly linked to the massive abuses of third world countries and their populations.

Personally I agree with that viewpoint in as far as it doesn't devolve into mysticism. The danger here is that when these issues are put on the forefront while the context is still capitalistic, these ideas would have to be enforced rather than emerge spontaneously as they inevitably would in an anarchist society. First the politics, then the rest :)

[Dominick]

[...] Anarchists, for the most part, believe that freedom is the natural state of man and that authority is an artificial and intolerable imposition upon that natural freedom.
Correct.


The problem is, as you have noted, that authority by way of naked force is at least a natural phenomenon, if not the natural state of all animal life. Human authority is only unnatural in the sense that we seek to justify and rationalize it; as social animals, we also possess instincts which lead us to defer to authority without physical conflict, and to recognize authority beyond the capacity for violence.

One could then argue that freedom is still a beneficial condition, but all that argument would accomplish is leading us to the conclusion that balance between freedom and authority is necessary, and perhaps that some specific balance between freedom and authority is the ideal state for human development. The blanket rejection of authority is ruled out as not only unnatural and nonviable, but actively undesirable; just as the human being requires freedom in order to grow and change, he requires social order and knowledge of his place within it in order to maintain both psychological and social stability.
But this doesn't follow from the above. Lack of order = anarchy, not anarchism. You assume that order must come from authority, but that is not the case. All social order requires is reversibility and a focus on cooperation rather than competition. The singular focus on competition in -dare I say- predominantly Northern American culture is ideological, it's not human nature.

[Korimyr the Rat]

But this doesn't follow from the above. Lack of order = anarchy, not anarchism. You assume that order must come from authority, but that is not the case.

Actually, I assume no such thing. My argument is based on the idea that authority and coercion are the natural state of man, and that both our psychological functioning and social structures evolved around this condition. Take authority away from man and he will merely recreate it, because it is necessary for his understanding of the social environment.

All social order requires is reversibility and a focus on cooperation rather than competition. The singular focus on competition in -dare I say- predominantly Northern American culture is ideological, it's not human nature.

Even more cooperative societies than North America have hierarchies. Most often, the more cooperative the society is, the more unified, the stricter the hierarchies that it adheres to. Competition is a function either of encountering those outside of one's own in-group, or a function of an unclear and uncertain hierarchy that would allow one to improve one's position.

[The Drunk Guy]

I've always imagined a sort of Wild West lifestyle when I think of Anarchism. Local towns and villages provide their own forms of legality and are loosely linked together through wanderers and telecommunications. Hard to picture that in today's society full of manufacturing and commuting, but one could imagine.

[dilettante]

It's really simple; Anarchism is the collection of political theories/forms of societal organization that are marked by one fundamental characteristic : the absence of authority.

I'm curious as to what "authority" entails here.

When I think of authority, I think of someone(s) being "in charge." In my experience working with groups of people, it's extraordinarily hard to get anything done if no one is in charge and generally recognized as being in charge.

[Michael]

[...] Anarchists, for the most part, believe that freedom is the natural state of man and that authority is an artificial and intolerable imposition upon that natural freedom.
Correct.
I agree that's what anarchism is all about.

However, I'd argue that this assertion is deeply flawed since "freedom" is not the natural state of man and authority is not artificial at all. This goes directly to the heart of 'social contract' theory.

Oddly enough, this 'anarchist' theory is dependent upon Christian 'creationism' theory since the ONLY theoretical basis for asserting that humans were actually 'free' prior to joining society is the old Adam and Eve story.

Actual anthropological science doesn't support this conception of human beings living in 'freedom and liberty' prior to joining society. According to all known information about humans, they live in social groups and always have. There is no 'pre-social-group' period about which one can speculate upon. In short, one can't say that humans once had 'freedom' and but became less free by joining society. That makes no sense.

I'm with Aristotle - humans are social animals. That means humans always have been and likely always will be social animals. There is no freedom from the social group and there never has been.

All social order requires is reversibility and a focus on cooperation rather than competition.
This statement makes no sense.

You claim that our present system is capitalistic and thus based on competition. If this is so, then social order doesn't actually require a focus on cooperation as you assert.

This 'focus on cooperation' is your postulation (or your goal or your fantasy) and entirely hypothetical.

(For the record, I believe that both cooperation and competition are necessary and equally important components of human culture)

The singular focus on competition in -dare I say- predominantly Northern American culture is ideological, it's not human nature.
This is nonsense.

First of all, North American culture is entirely derived from, and an offshoot of, European culture. Every cultural element found in North America originates in Europe and is found in Europe. One can only speak of North American culture has having more or less emphasis on any given element of European culture.

Secondly, I would assert that competition is very much part of human nature (alwasy has been). Competition is inherently a social concept. The concept of competition has no meaning outside of like-minded groups. Isolated human groups have no need/want/purpose for competition. Competition is a healthy part of the human social group culture - and always has been. Competitive games for sport, for hunting, for fitness, for social fun, competitive politics, competitive advantage in trade, competitive exploration are all common elements of known human cultural history for thousands of years and this isn't limited to just North America. Indeed, according to the best science available, 'competition' is the key characteristic of all evolutionary history - of which human as a species are part of.

And are not the 'quadrennial' FIFA World Cup and/or the Olympics the largest human cultural events on the planet? Competition is an integral element of human culture, plain and simple.

[Michael]

Some few others consider the term to be synonymous with Marx's (undefined) ultimate communist society.
There's a similar problem here. Marx' transitional phase of prole dictatorship is fundamentally incompatible with anarchism. While these systems have a common ancestry, it was already at the very dawn of both movements that they diverged, and diverged radically, finally and on multiple occasions violently.
The 'transitional phase of prole dictatorship' is Leninism. Pure Marxist theory of history has no need of such violent artifice.

As far as I'm concerned, the USSR stands as a perfect example of all that is flawed with the 'vanguard theory', ditatorships of the proletariat, the Communist Manifesto, Marxist-Leninism, Soviet Socialism, command-style economies and/or state-sponsored socialism. All are monsterous and categorical failures in action.

However, Marx's theory of history suggests that the ultimate communist society will follow after capitalism (and have nothing to do with anything mentioned above) by a process that can only be rationally understood as evolutionary. Similarly, Marx's only description of the 'ultimate communist society' is certainly anarchistic (state-less, class-less, a community of associated producers and an absence of wage-labor - these are the only descriptions given by Marx).

Many non-Soviet Marxist scholars have long believed that the ultimate communist society can only be described as a fully functional system of 'anarchism'.

Hierarchy implies authority and therefore this statement is always applicable.
A blueprint for a building plan calls for a hierarchy of construction. There is thus authority in the blueprints themselves.

The point being that in some cases, authority is necessary and inherent.

Only if people ignore the fundamental definition. You can call a cat a cow but it still won't give you any milk. :)
Please show us this "fundamental definition" and I'll show you why it isn't clearly understood - or why it admits of multiple interpretations.

You yourself appear to be confused (or biased) by both the given examples of Marx's theory of history and by anarcho-capitalism - both are clear examples of anarchism that do fit your 'fundamental definition' but are just 'dismissed' with the wave of your hand because they don't fit with your vision of 'non-competitive' anarchism. The flaw of your reasoning is the assertion of 'non-competition'. It is part of human nature and can't be exorcized - and/or requires authority to control it (which is un-anarchistic).