[HoniSoit]

By HoniSoit

1 ) What is Anarchism?

Anarchism advocates the abolition of economic monopolies (e.g. capitalism) and of all political and social coercive institutions within society (e.g. the State, patriarchy and racism). In place of the present system, anarchists support a free association of all productive forces based upon cooperative labour and the democratic control of all social institutions, aimed at satisfying the needs and creative potentials of every member of society rather than serving the special interest of privileged minorities.

2 ) Do you need to call yourself an anarchist to embrace anarchist principles?

No, you don’t need to regard yourself as anarchist to find the ideas of anarchism appealing. Anarchism attempts to encompass ideas and practices that would fulfill human need and potential, and create a fair and decent society. These ideas and practices may well easily resonate with non-anarchists. This is also the reason why one might find in many social movements which do not see themselves as anarchist but which would uphold anarchist principles and ideals.

3 ) Who are the major Anarchist thinkers? (by axm)

There have been many thinkers throughout history who have anarchist themes running through their works. Modern left-wing or social anarchism begins with the thoughts of the first self-proclaimed anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who developed an economic system known as mutualism and who emphasised federalism and workers’ self-management. His ideas were built upon by Mikhail Bakunin, who proposed collectivist anarchism and highlighted the importance of mass insurrection and militant labour movement. Peter Kropotkin, who developed anacho-communism, identified mutual aid, rather than competition, as the best means by which individuals can develop and grow. Some other modern and contemporary influential anarchists were: the anarchist and feminist Emma Goldman; the founder of anarcho-syndicalism Rudolf Rocker; the Italian anarcho-communist Errico Malatesta; and more recently Murray Bookchin who has had a great influence in modern Anarchism with his works on social ecology.

Further Reading:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA4.html

4 ) If there was no government would complete chaos break out?

Firstly, anarchism does not mean no government. Whilst it is true that anarchists wish to abolish top-down forms of government, they are in favor of social organisations. Anarchists have always been in support of a highly organised society to be built from bottom up, based on participatory democracy, decentralisation of power and voluntary association. Secondly, anarchism does not mean absolute liberty of individuals or no rules, which might indeed entail chaos and disorder. Instead, anarchists are firmly against the kind of individual liberty that will coerce, oppress and impeach the rights and liberties of others.

Further Reading:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA2.html#seca23

[Oxymoron]

Bottom up society will never work, as it creates to large a beauracracy and little central control. Meaning resources will not be properlly distributed, and the common defence will be to slow and inaffective.

[HoniSoit]

Thanks for the comment, Oxy.

Bottom up society will never work, as it creates to large a beauracracy and little central control. Meaning resources will not be properlly distributed, and the common defence will be to slow and inaffective.

1] Can you expand on why you think it would necessarily lead to a large bureaucracy?

2] As for central control, it depends on what it means in practice. If it simply means concentrated effort, I don't see why it cannot to achieved; if it refers to centralised control, I don't think it's something particularly desirable as it tends to lead to authoritarianism.

3] With regard to distribution of resources, it's difficult to argue centralised control would be more effective given the experience of the Soviet Union.

4] Defense is a more complicated issue. By and large, conflicts are to be avoided and anarchism may have to be international in character to avoid this. However, I'm not sure why it has to be slow and inaffective as long as there are good coordination.

[Fasces]

What is your opinion on a syndicated society?

[HoniSoit]

Anarcho-syndicalism, or some other variants?

[Oxymoron]

1] Can you expand on why you think it would necessarily lead to a large bureaucracy?

Duplicity.For example in the city of Pittsburg the boroughs unlike in New York are pretty independent of central control and have huge problem with the budget because each section has many duplicate administrative positions. A job that can be done by one Administrator is done by 10 each with a staff. Just a minor example there are other things that would contribute to expanding Beauracracy.

2] As for central control, it depends on what it means in practice. If it simply means concentrated effort, I don't see why it cannot to achieved; if it refers to centralised control, I don't think it's something particularly desirable as it tends to lead to authoritarianism.

I mean that like the Articles of confederation it will create a weak central goverment, and there will arise huge trade issues, Defence issues, and the inability to create quick concensus on things that require quick action.

3] With regard to distribution of resources, it's difficult to argue centralised control would be more effective given the experience of the Soviet Union.

To much corruption, not enough qualified and educated Supervisors as most left or were arrested. This tradition of corruption has continued to plague Russia up to today.

4] Defense is a more complicated issue. By and large, conflicts are to be avoided and anarchism may have to be international in character to avoid this. However, I'm not sure why it has to be slow and inaffective as long as there are good coordination.

Conflicts cannot be avoided by being pacifist and how do you see it being international? Are you going to export it like GWB did with Democracy? Also how would you have good coordination with out central planning and control?

[Average Voter]

I like the post. It leaves a lot to be asked, though, about the basics of anarchism.

Anarchism advocates the abolition of economic monopolies (e.g. capitalism) and of all political and social coercive institutions within society (e.g. the State, patriarchy and racism). In place of the present system, anarchists support a free association of all productive forces based upon cooperative labour and the democratic control of all social institutions, aimed at satisfying the needs and creative potentials of every member of society rather than serving the special interest of privileged minorities.

How would capitalism and racism be abolished? If economic systems are not monopolistic, would different communities have different economic systems? What happens to the cultures incompatible with democracy? Does anarchism presume the right to life? Does anarchism presume the right of revolution? What is a State in anarchism?

anarchism does not mean absolute liberty of individuals or no rules, which might indeed entail chaos and disorder. Instead, anarchists are firmly against the kind of individual liberty that will coerce, oppress and impeach the rights and liberties of others.

How much is anarchism compatible with prostitution, public nudity, drug usage, parents taking their kids to religious school or no school as opposed to secular schools? How compatible is anarchism with freedom of religion, for example, where the people choose to submit the the fruit of their labor to their church or their religion?

[HoniSoit]

Hey - thanks for the comments, Oxy and Average Voter. You've raised lots of good points - I will find the time to respond them.

I like the post. It leaves a lot to be asked, though, about the basics of anarchism.

I agree. It doesn't really purport to be all-encompassing but to provoke discussions.

It's also the first installment - there are two to come.

[Average Voter]

It's also the first installment - there are two to come.

I'll look forward to reading them.

[HoniSoit]

How would capitalism and racism be abolished? If economic systems are not monopolistic, would different communities have different economic systems? What happens to the cultures incompatible with democracy? Does anarchism presume the right to life? Does anarchism presume the right of revolution? What is a State in anarchism?

These questions demand more detailed answers than I could provide here. In any case, my two cents:

- Capitalism is to be replaced by more egalitarian and democratic form of economic arrangement. As to the means, it's a problem facing anarchists and socialists alike; while there is no lack of proposals, there is no obvious or definite answer and any strategy has to be considered in the specific context of a society. With regard to racism, there has been tremendous progress - at least the idea of racism is thoroughly discredited - and this has been achieved through both institutional changes to prevent racial discrimination and a cultural change of intolerance of racist ideas.

- Different communities obviously have to develop social and economic systems that ar mostly appropriate to them - obviously you cannot impose one particular system on every society/community.

- The idea of incompatibility of some cultures with democracy is dubious. However, without getting into this controversial topic, it suffices to observe that even some of the most authoritarian states have claimed themselves to be democratic because, I would argue, the idea of collective decision-making (rather than letting a small minority with their own vested interests to make the decisions for the rest of the population) is very attractive to different people and societies around the world. The precise form of a democratic polity may be debated and have to differ though. But even a given society is not democratic, anarchism would be opposed to imposition from outside forces.

- I don't know why anarchism wouldn't presume the right to life (well, I should have said earlier - what I have been referring to is social anarchism). As to right of revolution, perhaps you could be more specific? If you refer to the right of people to revolt and change the government when the system fails, or no longer serves general interests, then yes.

- Regarding the question of State, anarchism is generally not opposed to political organisation in the form of a government but is opposed to the State, broadly understood as being hierarchical, authoritarian and undemocratic.

How much is anarchism compatible with prostitution, public nudity, drug usage, parents taking their kids to religious school or no school as opposed to secular schools? How compatible is anarchism with freedom of religion, for example, where the people choose to submit the the fruit of their labor to their church or their religion?

- The specific policy decisions of a society organised along anarchist ideas have to be determined by the people who live in that society - which have to take into account established social norms and customs and the notion of compatibility has to be understood in this context - so they will vary. Generally speaking, anarchism would in principle oppose any hierarchical and undemocratic structure - so it's possible that while freedom of religion is upheld but the church needs to be less hierarchical and undemocratic.

[HoniSoit]

Duplicity.For example in the city of Pittsburg the boroughs unlike in New York are pretty independent of central control and have huge problem with the budget because each section has many duplicate administrative positions. A job that can be done by one Administrator is done by 10 each with a staff. Just a minor example there are other things that would contribute to expanding Beauracracy.

I'm not familiar with your particular example but duplicity is not an essential feature of either centralised and decentralised control, and I think it could be minimised or avoided in both cases.

I mean that like the Articles of confederation it will create a weak central goverment, and there will arise huge trade issues, Defence issues, and the inability to create quick concensus on things that require quick action.

Strong vs. weak central government, as I see it (you may think very differently though), is a false dichotomy. It's not either or. What's important is the capability and efficiency with which the government functions. Trade and defense issues are always difficult questions, and frankly there is no easy solution. But the idea that a more consensus-based polity would necessarily have to be slow and ineffective is not necessarily true - of course there is always that potential danger even with centralised government. The point here is that while being consensus-based, it doesn't mean very decision has to be debated and voted on - it does mean, however, those who make these decisions need to reflect the concerns and opinions of the majority of the population, and who need to be held accountable for their actions.

Conflicts cannot be avoided by being pacifist and how do you see it being international? Are you going to export it like GWB did with Democracy? Also how would you have good coordination with out central planning and control?

By being international, I refer to the idea that isolated anarchist societies would obviously face tremendous pressure from both inside and outside the country, and therefore anarchism has to develop as an international movement, not in the way Bush exports democracy, but as the current global justice movement does, to cooperate and form alliance.

To devise mechanisms of good and effective coordination is obviously a difficult question and has to be related to the specific aim of the task. Again, good coordination doesn't necessarily mean every decision has to be taken in perfect coordination; it does mean, however, that decisions should be understood and reached as much as possible by all parties involved. In this context, I still don't see why it has to need central planning and control. Even today, a lot of government policies are carried out by some coordinated bodies without having to have some arbitrary central control.