Putting Anarchy in its Place

I've always been an anarchist, in the sense that i've always valued freedom and voluntary association. I've always detested authority and coercion. I think a lot of people have these same intuitive values even though they may not call themselves anarchists.

To me anarchy is simply the view that hierarchical authority is without justification. I could go on and on presenting a philosophical case for why this is so, but that's not my intention here.

I think a lot of the criticisms of anarchism are directed against revolutionary anarchism, which advocates the violent overthrow of the state and capital in the short term. I tend to think this view is a little too idealistic and not quite practical.

In my eyes anarchism is an ideal to strive for, not a practical social system that can be realized overnight. I think that anarchy, a social condition of freedom and voluntary associations without hierarchy, is a very possible future scenario, given that human consciousness continues to evolve. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, anarchy becomes more and more possible. Before it can happen though, there needs to be a cultural transformation. People need to stop seeing power as necessary and start seeing each other as brothers and sisters.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know...anarchy! Until then, the most we can hope for is to expand personal freedoms, keep power in check, and promote freethinking and camaraderie. Lets plant the seeds for the future so that, a few generations down the line, anarchy will no longer be a dream but rather a common sense approach toward living together as human beings.

Thoughts?

 

i mainly agree, but...

how do you expect for these to be achieved when you do not believe or agree with a hierarchy? what qualifies a personal freedom? if you would agree that there will always be some kind of authority, whatever it may be, what would it be in your idealistic world? if you don't agree that there isn't always an authority, why do you think so? and how is this voluntary association and camaderie done? also how do you think people will change?

 

Direct Action. It has been wisely said that if voting changed anything they'd make it illegal. Direct Action is different, as it involves people coming together and taking their own stand to achieve something. Just like workers had to fight for the 8 hour work day, we have to fight for each and every step in the direction of more freedom and less control. We can do this by organizing wide-spread defiance of unjust laws, etc. We can also build alternative institutions and frameworks in the here and now.

Well I'm talking about personal freedom in the sense of being able to do what you want without being coerced into or out of any given action. The only qualifier to this would be that you don't hurt anyone else. As soon as you hurt someone else you utilize power, authority, and coercion over them, making you a ruler. As soon as you become one of these we have the right to dethrone you.

I'm pretty much against all authority. Would I take issue with a parent pulling their child out of the street so they don't get hit by a car, even though it may be a form of "authority"? Of course not. But I do think all authoritarian institutions should be dismantled and people should live together on common terms without seeking to exploit each other.

Look at life. All the most meaningful and enjoyable moments of life are moments of voluntary association with people you trust and care about. Whether a group of friends smoking down or two lovers doin the deed, there is no coercion, violence, or bossing involved. These anarchies already exist right now and we love them! We need only try to expand these forms of interaction into more and more places.

Most likely through the experience of dis empowerment in the form of increasingly centralized control systems. Collective struggle for common ends will also contribute greatly to an expanding consciousness. Further, as people's minds are opened more and more by information technology and instantaneous communication with multitudes of people, human consciousness will evolve at greater and greater speeds.

 

what qualifies as hurting someone? would you say giant corporations hurt people? and its interesting how hurting someone qualifies authority, when the most common way of authority is simply wealth. so what's your stance on business in general, like fundamentally are you more for equal classes or laissez-faire? in this voluntary association thing, how is money and resources handled basically?

i agree. but what is the root problem for why people boss people around, use violence, steal, and acknowledge greed through action? this is the most important question.


and great post, Skip.

 

I'm an anti-capitalist. Capitalism is based on private ownership of socially-necessary resources, or social capital. This means the things that everyone is dependent on (land, productive resources, etc) are owned and controlled by a small minority. The only reason this small minority can control social capital is because the state has a monopoly on violence and can defend the capitalists against any attempt to deprive them of "their" property, which happens to be those things we ALL depend on. This is a hierarchical dynamic of vicious proportions. Under capitalism the impoverishment of the many is the necessary precondition for the prosperity of the few. I would prefer something like free communism.

Adaptation to a given social context. In a condition of material scarcity, stratification of wealth is necessary, leading to classes and struggle. In the condition of a competitive economy mutual aid is not exactly the most advantageous practice. Now in a classless society mutual aid IS adaptive and is more likely to be practiced.

 

yup. i agree once again.
i agree completely with you, but one thing holds the ideals back from forming and lasting, and that is the monetary system. when there is a price to resources, whether it be in a communistic or capitalistic economy, realities of corrupted authority will always exist, and voluntary association to patch up what is wrong is not reliable, it'd be based on faith.

i agree with you that material scarcity demands some kind of stratification, but fairly new scientific concepts (self-sustainability and automation) can oppose this scarcity entirely. the idea is called a resource-based economy, and it is very similar to your ideals, but without relying on the human factor to uphold things (because it's not a reliable source when taking into consideration what Skip said about fascism, and that people would not like working and then contributing or voting on an economic decision, and that people like distinguishable recognition between more important jobs and not-so-important jobs). the concept demands more technological development, but it is a more ideal and reliable concept to work for than what you have portrayed. and there is A LOT of complexity and discussion to be made of a resource-based economy so this is just a vague introductory post haha.

 

to elaborate more, a resource-based economy is what the name implies, the distribution of resources based on the resources, not based on a profit-motivated basis. science plays the decision maker in the grand scenario, rather than profit, dictatorship, or votes. fundamentally, the concept of this is humans prospering with earth, as opposed to fighting eachother while destroying earth.

democracy is slowly being made obsolete year by year, and that is due to science. for example, when someone goes to the hospital, and has certain symptoms, science and facts decide the best course of action, not a group of people that vote on what that patient should do. apply this example to our economic system, and that's pretty much a resource-based economy. democracy with it's political parties, and it's side-taking has skewed people's thinking. there's no republican way of making the best airplane, and there isn't a democratic way of making the best airplane, the design for the best design is simply itself and should automatic, based on common knowledge which is based on facts.
but that's not saying humans will have no say in how things will be run. science and logic doesn't have a reason to shut out the human voice when what it supports is human life and prosperity. people in the system can run ideas to improve economy in any sense, and if it is possible, there isn't a reason why it shouldn't be implemented unless it hurts other people. this is going along with what you originally said in the op.

the technological aspect is one that can't easily be imagined and visualized in our world because obviously we don't operate like that now. but pretty much technology will be designed to be the most efficient, while being self-sustainable, while being eco-friendly, while being equal to everyone, and working synchronized. monetary system simply cannot accomplish any two of these together without ruining the other aspects and that's because there is a huge conflict of interest.

the current monetary system, which is with fiat money (units of value based on literally nothing) nowadays is based on inequality. one dollar bill's value is based on how many other dollar bills are out there (70% of this money being digitally on computers), this means that when one entity has money, it's money value's debt is elsewhere. this fundamental fact makes it impossible for people to have a monetary system and be equal. communism therefore would only work when it doesn't have monetary values to it. communism doesnt work because authority is a subject that always goes weary.

the lack of a monetary system leads to many things. it means that there wouldn't be a need for all crimes except domestic abuse, and murder (in which i think would diminish also because society wouldn't be so sick). most crimes are because of power inequalities, for example shoplifting, stealing, plagiarism, etc. which also leads to the other result of not having a monetary system, is that there wouldn't be a need for property, and therefore no need for nations. property is based on work, recognition, and scarcity, all which would be made obsolete. so this is the collectivist thinking paragraph haha. crime in general (of what is still left from removing corrupt motives) would be dealt with as it is a symptom. people will not be thrown in jail for wrong-doing, they will be rehabilitated, and dealt with by the scientific process.

for a better explanation, you can watch the documentary i initially got the idea from.
http://vimeo.com/13770061
this is the second movie of three. don't watch the first movie, it's pointless compared to the second one. and the third one will be out in january.
here's a description:
"Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, by director Peter Joseph, is a feature length documentary work which will present a case for a needed transition out of the current socioeconomic monetary paradigm which governs the entire world society.
This subject matter will transcend the issues of cultural relativism and traditional ideology and move to relate the core, empirical "life ground" attributes of human and social survival, extrapolating those immutable natural laws into a new sustainable social paradigm called a "Resource-Based Economy"."

there are many ways of executing a resource-based economy, so whatever is covered and explained is the skeletal basics of what could be. the things i would not agree with the Zeitgeist people is how drugs are dealt with. their collectivist answer to it is that people wouldn't feel a need for it because they'd live fulfilled lives, which is a bit ridiculous. also religion, because religion is irrelevant to the economic concepts unless it conflicts with science in which a lot of religion doesn't really too much.

i felt that this was the appropriate thread for this because the op's ideals are identical to mine and the zeitgeist movement's. the only difference being the human factor used in economy

 

I am interested to read this whole thread when I get a chance, but I just wanted to comment on the OP for now.

I've never heard such a thoughtful and rational description of anarchy from an anarchist. You seem to have put a lot of thought into this, and have done well to keep your feet grounded.

 

What science, common knowledge and facts are going to determine whether we make the airplane or not?

This flies in the face of reality and it's probably one of the most naive statements I've ever heard. To begin, the removal of money would necessitate the rise of the barter system, which is only another form of monetary system. Theft will still happen, disputes will still occur, power will still be sought and anger will still exist. All you will accomplish by removing money is to shift the object of desire to a more fundamental level.

Without money property will become the new monetary exchange.

The problem here is that social scientists cannot agree on anything and some crime, such as pedophilia, has no remedy other than removing some individuals from society.

The human factor is the very reason this concept will not work.

.

 

science and technology is how we make the airplane. i was explaining the difference in the way we decide on economic decisions. as for why or how many to build, is determined by man's demands. that's part of the human factor in this system.
and on a sidenote completely aside from the point, airplanes wouldn't be used because they aren't efficient to support an idealistic economy.

bartering would be entirely different, as i am not talking your system, i am talking about the resource-based economy. the requirement of technology is an important factor for a reason, it creates an abundance of resources (remember how i said by taking out scarcity of the equation, stratification isn't necessary?) this abundance forces bartering absolutely pointless, along with stealing.

i dont see how you can call me naive and then say this statement. land (as i'm assuming what you mean) is a resource, which is then efficiently and properly used by science.
if you study technologic concepts in how efficiency can rule an economy, you'll find ideas of cities made for living in which everything will be provided. if you want to live outside of that, fine but you aren't competing with anything so what's the point in calling "ownership" on it? it's irrelevant to the actual economy

yeah rehabilitation would probably mean to remove them from society temporarily in many cases like this.
and these scientists, youre talking about psychology scientists right? because yes there is a wide range of possible outcomes in psychology, but there definitely is a basis of facts to go by, as the resource-based system supports both that wide variety and the facts. there wouldn't be a reason why not to.

i think you're a lil confused. what i was saying is the human factor wouldn't have a need to do what the op is portraying, because technology can compensate. There is a human factor in the resource-based economy, and it is to create, innovate, and to prosper, as opposed to the current human factor is to work, stress, and fight eachother (while becoming very unhealthy in the process)

 

So, your idealistic economy would abandon disaster relief and all other issues that would require the movement of people and/or supplies over distances quickly?

I just figured out why you think this is such a good idea, you think that people will be happy if all of their needs are provided.

I mean property in the sense of anything that one owns. We have a massive underground economy today that, among other medium, includes goods and services. In the absence of a government economy this would rise to rival it.

except the most basic of human needs, something to strive for.

.

 

..no im just saying it'd use trains instead lol
cuz planes have to use gasoline, a resource that will not be around forever, and technology probably won't find a way to power an airplane without gas any time soon. trains on the other hand can use magnetic force to excel at impressive speeds, all with current possible technology. one design by a group called MagLev is supporting this idea, with also another interesting design. the train can be made in all one piece pretty much except maybe the doors, because it hovers off the ground causing no friction, the main cause of decay.
ideas like this can be applied interchangeably to almost anything and everything material.

the reason why they arent like that now is because profit feeds off of failure or mediocrity, in the sense that pharmaceutical companies dont want diseases to go away because thats how they make money. or computer companies dont want to make lasting computers because they wont make money. this is a paradigm that needs to be more widely realized.

as opposed to letting struggle and inequality reside in the fundamentals of all economic systems? um..well yeah much happier! certainly not making their lives content and fulfilled, but numerous times better than our current system. and why do you think needs shouldn't be provided?

the resource-based economy can't really be achieved when other "nations" so-to-speak destroy them, of course. but that's why a resource-based economy can't just be established in one country in a monetary world. a grass-roots movement or revolution must take place with interconnectedness (as the op originally said) as a requirement. a resource-based economy is an equilibrium, or a flame metaphorically, that require a few requirements to uphold, but when its established, it satisfies most ideals.

and if for some reason after a resource-based economy is established, a gang of people decide for some reason to try to stop the system somehow, how would they rival it? and for what reason?

i originally read this wrong.
so you would trade off a system of equality and abundance for a system of corruption and conflict so that humans can strive for something? i don't consider working 50% of your life to become manager of your business much to strive for. in this monetary system, what do people strive for? what is there to achieve? mostly happiness and wealth. and maybe to raise children well. all are still strive-able in an RBE except for being rich. and this should kind of explain itself if you've been following what i've been saying. this relates to my sig, "how do you expect to make a living by working?" and what is there to be achieved that wouldn't be achieved in a resource-based economy besides maybe being proud of being rich, being more elite than other people? kinda sick if you ask me.

in a system in which all services and goods are provided to you, and human labor isn't required, there are still things to strive for. everyone would be entitled to learning, theorizing and engineering, creating art, creating social lives, exploring the world, enjoying any kind of hobby, playing games/sports, and probably using drugs. some things to strive for can be raise children right, find that contentness in your personal preference, become a scholar, teach (depending on the system and culture), become a distinguished artist whether it be in music or visual arts, and be a benefit towards the economic plan.

 

That's not a bad idea, you should have given it to the world aid organizations when they were trying to get all of that help to Haiti.

Computers are probably the longest lasting electronic equipment today. They aren't thrown out because of defects, they are replaced by newer technology. Would your society slow down technology to compensate for this "problem." Oh, that's right, you've already removed the human incentive to excel.

You evidently haven't had any of the very basic courses in human behavior. Here's a fact for you. The people who live the longest are the ones who work the hardest throughout their lives and keep working until their death, many times over 100 years. The ones who die the earliest are the ones who retire and sit in front of the TV with nothing to do. People need goals, something to get out of bed for every morning.

With all needs provided in a society that does not allow one to excel past others, the human spirit will be crushed.

So, what's the purpose of this technoculture again, a mere existence?

That's not what I said. I think everyone should have the bare essentials as basic human decency dictates.

I didn't say that either. You're supposing that I like the way things are because I don't like the system proposed here.

Millions of other people do.

I did it for 50 years. My father put me to work in his business when I was 12 and I retired at 62. In between, I had a very fulfilling and happy life. I never got rich, or even wanted to, but I had everything I wanted and did everything I wanted to do. Now I'm retired and I get a check every month that pays for my necessities of life. I don't have to get up every morning to work, so quite often I don't. Presently, my life is without meaning and purpose, my health is failing and I will wither and die unless I find meaning once again. This is the culture that you want to create for everyone. It sucks.

Sick by your standards, but admired by others. You seem to think your standards are the only good ones that exist, they are not. One thing I am proud of is the ownership of my land and home, one thing that is prohibited in your society.

An official list of approved activities, "just don't color outside the lines, children; you don't want to be sent to reprogramming camp." This sounds a bit like fascism.

.

 

*picks up anarchy and puts it someplace else*

 

The only way anarchy will ever work is if we deal with our own problems locally, helping starving people may seem nice, but they will live another day to reproduce and make sure there are more starving kids to make commercials about. People who can't find or grow food for themselves are the weak link, and should be allowed to die off on their own. Then we would experience a population decrease, then have smaller communities where people's opinions actually matter.

I totally agree, but they should strive to complete goals that actually matter to the world, not just material things that make them feel good.

 

Wouldn't it be more compassionate to give them all a fast acting poison? And would you agree to have your life ended rather than collect retirement and be a burden to society; or should you become disabled?

Most people are not qualified for that task.

Do you realize that what is being promoted here is nothing more than Communism with fancy gadgets.

.

 

No, you seem to be taking into account what is "right and wrong" I am not. I'm talking about what is, regardless of how you feel about it.

Everyone is qualified to do something that matters, as doing something that matters is as simple as eating real food from nature and shitting outside putting nutrients in the soil. All I am talking about is living how people are meant to live, not sitting in front of computers and tvs that destroy them because they take all of the trials and tribulations we should have to experience from us, hence we become depressed.

And yeah I see how you can see it as communism, but I don't believe in civilization/large communities at all. So yeah, this wouldn't work in communities and I totally agree with you but a population decrease would help everyone. Yes, people being kept alive on machines should be allowed to die. Yes, people who know they are going to pass on diseases to their children should make the choice not to have kids. Every aspect of society is built to support our flaws when if we were forced to live with them we would evolve to become a stronger species instead of continuing to wallow in misery

Let things take their course instead of trying to fix everything artificially. World hunger will fix itself if we let it.

 

There are a lot of I's in your post. Culture is a We thing, and we all don't agree, that's why our America was designed in such a manner as to allow each of us to live as we choose. I like our basic principals, which, by the way, allow you to live as you have suggested here.

I would also note that technology is alive and well in America and improving lives as we speak. I, however, would prefer to stay in control of it rather than have it control me.

What you are suggesting is a formal set of values and morality by which everyone would be required live. Anarchy, which I believe excludes formal rules, cannot be represented by this presentation.

.

 

Yeah, culture is a we thing. Community is a we thing, Civilization is a we thing. You're right. But in those communities we are told we can have rights that we knew we could have in the first place. It takes away our choice to determine how we should live individually. You don't seem to get that I oppose anyone living in a large community.

Yeah, technology is improving -peoples'- lives, at the cost of the lives of everything else and our own livelihood.

I'm not trying to say what's right and wrong, I'm saying what's right and wrong are right and wrong regardless of what anyone says.