The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Benblag wrote:I strongly believe that the subject matter of anarchism is not rightly defined here, which will then pave the way for a proper philosophical debate on the topic. The definitions all given here are political definitions and not philosophical.
Philosophically : Anarchy is a state of apex morality. It is a state where all men have attained complete wisdom and understanding of the self, thereby reducing governmental institutions and laws to superfluous. Anarchism is a state of complete order resulting from morality.
From this standpoint, anarchism ceases to be a state of chaos as popularly ill-defined by the masses.
Don't people with wisdom and understanding also create institutions to foster those qualities in their society and multiply their effectiveness?
I think the problem with Anarchism is that its all a question of WHICH institutions govern - whether their implicit, social, religious or formal and governmental.
Benblag wrote:I strongly believe that the subject matter of anarchism is not rightly defined here, which will then pave the way for a proper philosophical debate on the topic. The definitions all given here are political definitions and not philosophical.
Philosophically : Anarchy is a state of apex morality. It is a state where all men have attained complete wisdom and understanding of the self, thereby reducing governmental institutions and laws to superfluous. Anarchism is a state of complete order resulting from morality.
From this standpoint, anarchism ceases to be a state of chaos as popularly ill-defined by the masses.
You complain that "aranchism" is not rightly defined here, then proceed to use your own strange definition.
The real definition of anarchy - the one that people in the real world use - is:
a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
What is the difference between liberty and anarchy ? The classical understanding of anarchy is chaos; the classical understanding of chaos is synonymous of danger and harm. If this is the kind of anarchy we’re talking about it is clear it will curtail liberty itself. There is a big difference between freedom and anarchy in this case.
Liberty endeavours to ascertain what is truly harmful and not; the little it binds, it binds for the sake of the one who cannot curb himself or envision the ramifications of his wishes and deeds. Liberty is both about freedom and restrictions for the sake of survival, while in this case anarchy is the opposite. I find this notion of how anarchy can be something else than harmful, (in the case of human societies), a beating around the bush. Simplify all words and ideas to a single real synonym and dilution will stop.
We are a frozen spirit; our thoughts a cloud of droplets; different oceans and ages brood inside – where spirit sublimates. To some our words, an acid rain, to some it is too pure, to some infectious, to some a cure.
Daniel Owen mentioned about human nature and access to dangerous powers.
I've got to say that the backing reason for people to seek power could be fear or lack of trust in others. It's reasonable because people can be cruel and brute towards each other if they so will and that same cautiousness is also part of our nature. We seek to have aces in our sleeves for our foes.
Now even if we respect each others' freedom, we could still find a need of securing ourselves from harm. We are emotional creatures and it could be that those temperamental features would ruin our access to a respected society. Conflict is in our nature. Anger and its focus are both a risk and opportunity to this sort of society as against a common enemy, people would be more united by that mutual feeling and would develope ways to stop the threat but in the other hand, be ready to strike against others if they would oppose their freedom.
Then again the right kind of conflict environment would support upkeeping the order within the society. I myself support anarchism that would solve all of its problems without violence, more competitively and in such a common way that it is equal to everyone (=everyone is aware of the held rules).
Anarchy is unsustainable. It might be possible to imagine but it can't be accomplished in real life. Everyone can't do everything alone: build shelter, harvest, raise livestock, produce durable goods, produce solar panels to produce own electricity, etc. There has to be some type of hierarchy or mechanism of production and distribution of goods. Some type of authority must be delegated to prioritize the allocation of manpower to achieve specific goals set forth by a large group of people. A direct Democracy, as someone had suggested, could be possible given modern technologies in communication. However, even then some group of people would have tremendous power in overseeing such infrastructure with possibility to manipulate the decision making process. Multiple layers of oversight in checks and balances would be required that would add to the strain on the system with decrease in efficiency. Hacking and fraud would have to be resolved using some type of police force and judiciary system. Inevitably, subgroups would form to coordinate the decision making efforts towards their specific agendas at the expense of the rest of the people. Another huge issue is with the method of goods exchange. Would it be a barter, monetary, or some other system? Who would control the exchange rate? This is historically the critical component of true power and problem with any type of Government.
Ranvier wrote:Anarchy is unsustainable. It might be possible to imagine but it can't be accomplished in real life. Everyone can't do everything alone: build shelter, harvest, raise livestock, produce durable goods, produce solar panels to produce own electricity, etc. There has to be some type of hierarchy or mechanism of production and distribution of goods. Some type of authority must be delegated to prioritize the allocation of manpower to achieve specific goals set forth by a large group of people. A direct Democracy, as someone had suggested, could be possible given modern technologies in communication. However, even then some group of people would have tremendous power in overseeing such infrastructure with possibility to manipulate the decision making process. Multiple layers of oversight in checks and balances would be required that would add to the strain on the system with decrease in efficiency. Hacking and fraud would have to be resolved using some type of police force and judiciary system. Inevitably, subgroups would form to coordinate the decision making efforts towards their specific agendas at the expense of the rest of the people. Another huge issue is with the method of goods exchange. Would it be a barter, monetary, or some other system? Who would control the exchange rate? This is historically the critical component of true power and problem with any type of Government.
To respond:
Anarchy isn't meant to be sustained. Anarchy can be the start. As human beings, we all have natural instincts, in which we have natural hierarchies. By abolishing a formal government system, we are allowing for access to that natural hierarchy to form. It would start as an anarchy, but eventually those who are natural leaders would lead, and those who are followers would follow. As opposed to having a formal government to supply education, healthcare, regulations, etc. there would be independent businesses. If a bridge needs to be built, somebody will build it. If there is a dangerous threat, people will find a way to protect themselves and each other. My view of anarchy is relatively altruistic because I do put a lot of faith in humanity. The issue I find with pure anarchy is technology. Now that we have so many government funded projects and all of this technology, I feel anarchy would be almost impossible without becoming chaos.
Bump. Somebody asked for an Anarchy thread. Here is an old one you can read through and continue the debate.
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world"
So my positions on this topic have evolved in the several years since I commented on this thread. I now believe that taxation IS theft, and anarchy would be an ideal. However, I maintain my contention that it is impossible, as it requires common customs (ie laws) to be consented to by the masses. This is a democratic process, which is inherently governmental. Establishing rules and customs would be antithetical to anarchy in principle. Furthermore, I do think hierarchy would flourish absent any laws. People would more readily lie, cheat, and steal if they knew there were no consequences. Government is evil, but unfortunately human nature just isn't ready for that. I think if we transitioned to libertarianism and reduced the scope and size of the federal government, we could encourage the individual states to experiment with various attempts to reduce the state's authority over individuals.
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world"
Etymology of the word anarchy = from the Greek word anarkhos, meaning an- ‘without’ + arkhos ‘chief, ruler’, so a society without one single chief or ruler.
Advocates of left-wing anarchism desire that the world move away from a system of government where one single leadership position dominates political discourse.
So, for me this means ideally moving from:
· A two-party representative system to…
· A multi-party system through preferential voting to…
· Some local gov positions being elected by sortition to…
· The majority of society being so content with worker-co-ops and syndicalist unions that we transition from representative democracy to direct democracy. So, a chamber of ministers to federated spokes councils.
All with the option of voting to go back a step or more if it's shown people don't have the proper education yet to be competent enough to handle that level of democratic participation.
-
A recent example of the value of pushing for anarchism working is The Federation in Northern Syria.
Abdullah Ocalan who lead the PKK in a war of liberation against Turkey was kidnapped abroad, brought back to Turkey and has been imprisoned over 20 years. In prison he begun to embrace a form of anarcho-communism through the readings of Murray Bookchin, wrote his own theory applied to the Kurdish regions and it was enthusiastically adopted by the Kurdish people.
During the Syrian civil war if the Kurdish people had proclaimed an independent ethno-state from Syria, they would have instantly been invaded by Assad’s forces, as happened to the conservative Kurdish party in Iraq by Iraqi forces.
If they had stayed Marxist-Leninist like the region was during the cold war, they would have been seen for a conquering army in other ethnic regions they liberated from ISIS.
Instead they provided aid and trained Yazidis to form their own army units and do as they liked, some joined their families in Iraq to help re-build and protect there, some joined with the Kurds to defeat ISIS.
-
There simply is a positive movement of political advocates of left-wing anarchism that are about challenging dictatorships and corrupt representative democracies, getting closer to direct democracies doing a lot of good in the world, including historic examples such as; anarchist Catalonia, French and Greek partisans in WW2. And present examples such as; the Zapatistas, labour unions, housing co-operatives, free schools, climate change rallies, habitat preservation campaigns, etc. Etc.
So even though I don’t think I’ll see a large scale fully anarchist society in my lifetime, I do think it’s a noble ideal to work towards.
Etymology of the word anarchy = from the Greek word anarkhos, meaning an- ‘without’ + arkhos ‘chief, ruler’, so a society without one single chief or ruler.
Advocates of left-wing anarchism desire that the world move away from a system of government where one single leadership position dominates political discourse.
So, for me this means ideally moving from:
· A two-party representative system to…
· A multi-party system through preferential voting to…
· Some local gov positions being elected by sortition to…
· The majority of society being so content with worker-co-ops and syndicalist unions that we transition from representative democracy to direct democracy. So, a chamber of ministers to federated spokes councils.
All with the option of voting to go back a step or more if it's shown people don't have the proper education yet to be competent enough to handle that level of democratic participation.
Tracing etymology of the word is important. To describe by following opinion is offside.
Advocates of left-wing anarchism desires . . away from one single leadership dominates? True, but so does almost everybody else, including me, and democracy in general.
People don't have the proper education yet to be competent . . . Sounds elitist. Participation should be an inborn right, called universal suffrage.
Ishkah wrote: ↑Advocates of left-wing anarchism desires . . away from one single leadership dominates?
True, but so does almost everybody else, including me, and democracy in general.
I don't know, we had a referendum in the UK for preferential voting a few years ago and we lost. Majorly because people are partisanly tied to the two main political parties, so don't want to see the possiblity of having to enter into coalitions. Plus there's been a revival of reactionairy politics for a right wing leader to have more authoritarian power.
Ishkah wrote: ↑People don't have the proper education yet to be competent . . .
Sounds elitist. Participation should be an inborn right, called universal suffrage.
I think progressing universal standards are important, but shouldn't be saught after blindly, to the detriment of the running of society. I just view the best way of acheiving long-term stable universal sufferage, is being cautious of the whiplash effect towards the country decending into reactionairy politics.
gad-fly wrote: ↑
True, but so does almost everybody else, including me, and democracy in general.
I don't know, we had a referendum in the UK for preferential voting a few years ago and we lost. Majorly because people are partisanly tied to the two main political parties, so don't want to see the possiblity of having to enter into coalitions. Plus there's been a revival of reactionairy politics for a right wing leader to have more authoritarian power.
gad-fly wrote: ↑
Sounds elitist. Participation should be an inborn right, called universal suffrage.
I think progressing universal standards are important, but shouldn't be saught after blindly, to the detriment of the running of society. I just view the best way of acheiving long-term stable universal sufferage, is being cautious of the whiplash effect towards the country decending into reactionairy politics.
leadership may be strong or weak, but dominant leadership is dictatorship, or totalitarian, which modern democracy would advocate against. Win or lose, the UK referendum is held with fair play. In USA, they used to have a literacy test which is now recognized to be discriminative. Education has nothing to do with capacity to vote. Nor is sex.
gad-fly wrote:Win or lose, the UK referendum is held with fair play. In USA, they used to have a literacy test which is now recognized to be discriminative. Education has nothing to do with capacity to vote. Nor is sex.
Right, and the whole point is, I'm advocating we progress at the pace that everyone can participate. So ticking a box is simple. But, if we tried to implement a more directly democratic model, like bottom up spokes council governance, and loud eloquent speakers with bad intent were curropting the process, so that other members of the spokes council weren't able to play a part in governing that they could if it was just ticking a box then... it may be good to go back to ticking boxes, until people are better educated on how spokes council government would work and how best to argue their case.
I'm making precisely the point you are, that it's bad to have a 'how we decide what governance system to chose' system which favores elites.
gad-fly wrote:Win or lose, the UK referendum is held with fair play. In USA, they used to have a literacy test which is now recognized to be discriminative. Education has nothing to do with capacity to vote. Nor is sex.
Right, and the whole point is, I'm advocating we progress at the pace that everyone can participate. So ticking a box is simple. But, if we tried to implement a more directly democratic model, like bottom up spokes council governance, and loud eloquent speakers with bad intent were curropting the process, so that other members of the spokes council weren't able to play a part in governing that they could if it was just ticking a box then... it may be good to go back to ticking boxes, until people are better educated on how spokes council government would work and how best to argue their case.
I'm making precisely the point you are, that it's bad to have a 'how we decide what governance system to chose' system which favores elites.
A government is only as good as the people who have voted it into being. This is not a statement for or against election. I cannot understand what you mean by ticking box. Do you mean referendum or "Cuba Si Yankee Non" slogan? We must be wary of the emergence of totalitarianism and rabble rousing.
But we are straying away from the subject matter of anarchism.