The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Anarchism

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
User avatar
gad-fly
New Trial Member
Posts: 11
Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm

Anarchism

Post by gad-fly » November 1st, 2019, 1:42 pm

If I were Mr. Anarchy, I would yell to the world: “Hey. Give me a break. What is a good soul like me doing in a place like this, a quagmire of the lunatic fringe? Why is everyone allowed to dress up with the time, but my narrative is left behind in the time frame of the Spanish Civil War? It is not fair."

Anarchy, in essence, is about equality of leadership among all members of the group, be that group as small as a family and as large as a country. Not a game of follow-the-leader, there is no Chairman Mao and the little red book. Come decision-making, one cannot be more equal than another. Anarchy is for disorganizing? Nonsense. A group seeking to disorganize is asking for its own dissolution, like announcing its own dead sentence. Anarchy is not that stupid. Anarchy is against government? Nonsense again. Government is the necessary executive, like limbs to brain, but not both. No government, no action, period. Government may be large or small. In a family, government is the parents. Family is often not an anarchy. The kids should know.

Witness the current ongoing Liberation Movement in Hongkong. Failing for words, some would describe the protesters as “leaderless”, as no such individual can be identified. But the protesters can operate with almost military precision. Thanks to the internet, social group, and ‘telegram’, they can make on-site decision efficiently, with each voice listened by all. No wonder the movement survives week after week, with no end in sight since June. If that is not Anarchy, I don’t know what is. This showcase is a constructive outburst in the winding river called Democracy. It will be pondered upon and argued among academics and social theorist long afterwards.

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 2490
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Anarchism

Post by Consul » November 2nd, 2019, 4:16 pm

gad-fly wrote:
November 1st, 2019, 1:42 pm
Anarchy, in essence, is about equality of leadership among all members of the group, be that group as small as a family and as large as a country. Not a game of follow-the-leader, there is no Chairman Mao and the little red book. Come decision-making, one cannot be more equal than another. Anarchy is for disorganizing? Nonsense. A group seeking to disorganize is asking for its own dissolution, like announcing its own dead sentence. Anarchy is not that stupid. Anarchy is against government? Nonsense again. Government is the necessary executive, like limbs to brain, but not both. No government, no action, period. Government may be large or small. In a family, government is the parents. Family is often not an anarchy. The kids should know.
Collectivist anarchism (anarcho-communism) doesn't reject communities, social organization and cooperation; but it rejects the state and its institutions, especially government.

"Anarchist ideology is defined by the central belief that political authority in all its forms, and especially in the form of the state, is both evil and unnecessary. Anarchists therefore look to the creation of a stateless society through the abolition of law and government. In their view, the state is evil because, as a repository of sovereign, compulsory and coercive authority, it is an offence against the principles of freedom and equality. Anarchism is thus characterized by principled opposition to certain forms of social hierarchy. Anarchists believe that the state is unnecessary because order and social harmony do not have to be imposed ‘from above’ through government. Central to anarchism is the belief that people can manage their affairs through voluntary agreement, without the need for top-down hierarchies or a system of rewards and punishments. However, anarchism draws from two quite different ideological traditions: liberalism and socialism. This has resulted in rival individualist and collectivist forms of anarchism. While both accept the goal of statelessness, they advance very different models of the future anarchist society."

(Heywood, Andrew. Political Ideologies. 6th ed. London: Palgrave, 2017. p. 137)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

User avatar
gad-fly
New Trial Member
Posts: 11
Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm

Re: Anarchism

Post by gad-fly » November 3rd, 2019, 1:31 am

Anthropology: A state is a society larger than a tribe. Building up: individual - family - tribe - state, or i - f - t - s. With i -f, no choice. With f - t, very little choice, but a few may come and go. With t - s, much more choice, as affected by geography, culture, religion, and so on. 100 tribes may form a state, or two states each with 50 tribes. What matters is that formation from a smaller society to a larger must be voluntary. Individual can also form society outside his family, such as union, political party, club, and so on. Thus an individual can belong to more than one society.

Is Anarchy against the voluntary formation of societies, or that Anarchy want to put a full stop on social and natural association? I don't think so. I don't think Anarchy says: each on his own from now on. Anarchy, or at least the educated version, understands human is a complex social animal. Yes, social. Anarchy would be nuts to deny the definition. It should then remain condemned to the lunatic fringe. Conclusion: Anarchy is not against the state, as long as the state is voluntarily formed.

For "Government", read "'Executive Branch of state". More broadly, read "Executive Branch of a society", big or small. Anarchy against government in a society is like cutting limbs off a human. Where can he go from now on? An anarchistic society with no government of its own is a dead society. R. I. P.
How did the Anarchists function in the Spanish Civil War? Did each soldier shoot in each and every direction according to his mood? No. They made a decision, and they followed the decision as exercised by their governing body, whatever it is called.

"Central to Anarchism is the belief that people can manage their affairs through voluntary agreement , without the need for top-down hierarchies." Well said. "Anarchism draws two traditions of liberalism and socialism." Maybe so, but my concern is how Anarchy evolves today. Time to sweep away the cobweb, outmoded definition, and unjustified accusation. Time to release the prisoner who has served his sentence. Let him go, and let him grow.

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 748
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Anarchism

Post by h_k_s » November 3rd, 2019, 1:58 am

gad-fly wrote:
November 1st, 2019, 1:42 pm
If I were Mr. Anarchy, I would yell to the world: “Hey. Give me a break. What is a good soul like me doing in a place like this, a quagmire of the lunatic fringe? Why is everyone allowed to dress up with the time, but my narrative is left behind in the time frame of the Spanish Civil War? It is not fair."

Anarchy, in essence, is about equality of leadership among all members of the group, be that group as small as a family and as large as a country. Not a game of follow-the-leader, there is no Chairman Mao and the little red book. Come decision-making, one cannot be more equal than another. Anarchy is for disorganizing? Nonsense. A group seeking to disorganize is asking for its own dissolution, like announcing its own dead sentence. Anarchy is not that stupid. Anarchy is against government? Nonsense again. Government is the necessary executive, like limbs to brain, but not both. No government, no action, period. Government may be large or small. In a family, government is the parents. Family is often not an anarchy. The kids should know.

Witness the current ongoing Liberation Movement in Hongkong. Failing for words, some would describe the protesters as “leaderless”, as no such individual can be identified. But the protesters can operate with almost military precision. Thanks to the internet, social group, and ‘telegram’, they can make on-site decision efficiently, with each voice listened by all. No wonder the movement survives week after week, with no end in sight since June. If that is not Anarchy, I don’t know what is. This showcase is a constructive outburst in the winding river called Democracy. It will be pondered upon and argued among academics and social theorist long afterwards.
Hong Kong is about rebellion, not about anarchy. Although I am sure there are a few if not many anarchists in the crowd enjoying the chaos of it all, and starting fires, etc.

User avatar
gad-fly
New Trial Member
Posts: 11
Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm

Re: Anarchism

Post by gad-fly » November 3rd, 2019, 7:17 pm

Hongkong is in the heat of a Liberation Movement, not a rebellion against its present regime. Hence regime change would not be the right medicine, though no doubt it will help to some extent, giving the present impasse a break. The Movement is organized in the anarchist manner, or the leaderless manner as some may say. I suggest 'anarchistic' is a better term, as theirs is collective leadership thanks to the internet, and it works very well.

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 2490
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Anarchism

Post by Consul » November 3rd, 2019, 11:45 pm

"The ideology we call anarchism has a variety of forms and includes a number of different ideas. Most studies of anarchism have focused on a select group of men: Prince Pyotr Kropotkin (1842–1921), Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865), Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876), Count Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910), Max Stirner (1806–1856), William Godwin (1756–1836), and William Morris (1834–1896), who rejected the label. Lesser-known figures include Errico Malatesta (1853–1932), Élisée Reclus (1830–1905), Benjamin Tucker (1854–1939), and Josiah Warren (1798–1874). Today anarchists and scholars of anarchism recognize the significant contribution made to the anarchist movement and anarchist theory by women. Emma Goldman (1869–1940) is generally recognized as the most important, but women have always been involved in all aspects of anarchism.

An approach focusing on individual anarchists, although valid, is just as likely to result in a misunderstanding of the similarities and differences among anarchists. The approach here, therefore, is to select those parts of the anarchist tradition that are most important today while striving to maintain a balanced presentation.
Kropotkin once defined anarchism as

the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government—harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.
[Peter Kropotkin, “Anarchism,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed. New York: Encyclopaedia Britannica Co., 1910, Vol. 1: 914.]

Anarchism is, then, a political philosophy that says no group in society should be able to coerce anyone. Such a society should contain a wide variety of groups that reflect the interests of its members. Anarchists differ somewhat on the relationships among these groups and on the importance of particular groups, but most would agree with this definition. As another anarchist, Alexander Berkman (1870–1936), stated, “Anarchism teaches that we can live in a society where there is no compulsion of any kind. A life without compulsion naturally means liberty; it means freedom from being forced or coerced, a chance to lead the life that suits you best.” [Alexander Berkman, ABC of Anarchism, 3rd ed. London: Freedom Press, 1964: 10.]
Anarchists envision a peaceful, free life without rules and regulations. Of course, opponents of anarchism believe the result would be chaos rather than a peaceful, noncoercive society.

The basic assumption of anarchism is that power exercised by one person or group over another causes most social problems. As one anarchist says, “Many people say that government is necessary because some men cannot be trusted to look after themselves, but anarchists say that government is harmful because no man can be trusted to look after anyone else,” [Nicolas Walter, About Anarchism. London: Freedom Press, 1969: 6.] and all anarchists would agree with this statement. They contend that power corrupts, and that human beings are capable of organizing their affairs without anyone exercising authority over others. This does not mean there will be no order in society; it means that people will cooperatively produce a better system than one based on power relations. “Given a common need, a collection of people will, by trial and error, by improvisation and experiment, evolve order out of chaos—this order being more durable than any kind of externally imposed order.” [Colin Ward, “Anarchism as a Theory of Organization,” Anarchy 62, Vol. 6 (April 1966): 103.] This order—this organization—will be better designed for human needs than any imposed system could be because it will be “(1) voluntary, (2) functional, (3) temporary, and (4) small.” [Ward, “Anarchism,” 101.]

Each of these points is important for an understanding of anarchism. First, basic to all anarchism is the voluntary nature of any association. Second, an association will develop only to fill a fairly specific need and thus will be designed to fill that need alone. Third, it will therefore disappear after the need is met. Finally, it must be small enough so people can control it rather than be controlled by it. Many examples of such organizations…exist today.

All anarchists agree that it is possible to replace a coercive society with voluntary cooperation, and “the essence of anarchism, the one thing without which it is not anarchism, is the negation of authority over anyone by anyone.” [Walter, About Anarchism, 8.] Or as another theorist put it, “Nobody is fit to rule anybody else. It is not alleged that people are perfect, or that merely through his/her natural goodness (or lack of same) he/she should (or should not) be permitted to rule. Rule as such causes abuse.” [Albert Meltzer, Anarchism, Arguments For and Against. Edinburgh: AK Press, 1996: 19.]

Beyond this, anarchism divides loosely into two categories: (1) collectivist, with emphasis on the individual within a voluntary association of individuals; and (2) individualist, with emphasis on the individual separate from any association. The former is sometimes divided into communist anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism; the latter is usually divided into individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. In each case, though, the similarities are more important than the differences."


(Sargent, Lyman Tower. Contemporary Political Ideologies: A Comparative Analysis. 14th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2009. pp. 210-2)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

User avatar
gad-fly
New Trial Member
Posts: 11
Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm

Re: Anarchism

Post by gad-fly » November 4th, 2019, 3:34 pm

I cannot agree more with Consul's summary: "Each of these points is important for . . ." My comment on the last point is that small is relative. Small in size is what failed Anarchy in the past, but the internet has allowed vast expansion. I believe what happens in Hongkong will be copied and pasted, whole and part, time and again. Come on, Anarchy, show us what you have got. I may or may not join you later.

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 748
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Anarchism

Post by h_k_s » November 7th, 2019, 12:40 pm

gad-fly wrote:
November 3rd, 2019, 7:17 pm
Hongkong is in the heat of a Liberation Movement, not a rebellion against its present regime. Hence regime change would not be the right medicine, though no doubt it will help to some extent, giving the present impasse a break. The Movement is organized in the anarchist manner, or the leaderless manner as some may say. I suggest 'anarchistic' is a better term, as theirs is collective leadership thanks to the internet, and it works very well.
"Liberation" or "rebellion" are just 2 words for the same activities.

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 748
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Anarchism

Post by h_k_s » November 7th, 2019, 12:47 pm

gad-fly wrote:
November 3rd, 2019, 1:31 am
Anthropology: A state is a society larger than a tribe. Building up: individual - family - tribe - state, or i - f - t - s. With i -f, no choice. With f - t, very little choice, but a few may come and go. With t - s, much more choice, as affected by geography, culture, religion, and so on. 100 tribes may form a state, or two states each with 50 tribes. What matters is that formation from a smaller society to a larger must be voluntary. Individual can also form society outside his family, such as union, political party, club, and so on. Thus an individual can belong to more than one society.

Is Anarchy against the voluntary formation of societies, or that Anarchy want to put a full stop on social and natural association? I don't think so. I don't think Anarchy says: each on his own from now on. Anarchy, or at least the educated version, understands human is a complex social animal. Yes, social. Anarchy would be nuts to deny the definition. It should then remain condemned to the lunatic fringe. Conclusion: Anarchy is not against the state, as long as the state is voluntarily formed.

For "Government", read "'Executive Branch of state". More broadly, read "Executive Branch of a society", big or small. Anarchy against government in a society is like cutting limbs off a human. Where can he go from now on? An anarchistic society with no government of its own is a dead society. R. I. P.
How did the Anarchists function in the Spanish Civil War? Did each soldier shoot in each and every direction according to his mood? No. They made a decision, and they followed the decision as exercised by their governing body, whatever it is called.

"Central to Anarchism is the belief that people can manage their affairs through voluntary agreement , without the need for top-down hierarchies." Well said. "Anarchism draws two traditions of liberalism and socialism." Maybe so, but my concern is how Anarchy evolves today. Time to sweep away the cobweb, outmoded definition, and unjustified accusation. Time to release the prisoner who has served his sentence. Let him go, and let him grow.
Government evolves naturally out of a mutual desire among individuals to have peace and order.

Sometimes it is usurped, in which case it results in the slavery of the masses to the power of the sovereign chieftain.

Other times it results from the diplomatic arrangements of one or more individuals bonding together to create it peacefully, like on the Mayflower (hopefully you learned about this sailing ship and its passengers in history).

Anarchy is unstable therefore it cannot last because it is subject to usurpation by a chieftain or organization by a group.

That's why you don't see anarchy except temporarily in some places which are best by cataclysm or violence.

Oh by the way, try to avoid Oakland California because it sits on the precipice of anarchy currently. But if you want to experience and participate anarchy then go ahead and migrate to there.

User avatar
gad-fly
New Trial Member
Posts: 11
Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm

Re: Anarchism

Post by gad-fly » November 9th, 2019, 12:17 am

Government emerges as necessary to execute the collective wishes of a society, which may be a state or a tribe. Government is the executive branch. It undertakes defense, and so on. Parliament is the legislative branch. The Judiciary is the third. No branch is solely charged to bring peace and order. They must work in conjunction.

Anarchy is unstable because it is subject to usurpation? Everything is subject to usurpation. Indeed, anarchy evokes against usurpation of leadership from beginning to end. No sovereign (unless symbolic), no leader head and neck above the rest, no 'more equal' than equal.

Oakland California on the precipice of anarchy? No more than geography borrowing a term from politics.

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 748
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Anarchism

Post by h_k_s » November 9th, 2019, 4:05 pm

gad-fly wrote:
November 9th, 2019, 12:17 am
Government emerges as necessary to execute the collective wishes of a society, which may be a state or a tribe. Government is the executive branch. It undertakes defense, and so on. Parliament is the legislative branch. The Judiciary is the third. No branch is solely charged to bring peace and order. They must work in conjunction.

Anarchy is unstable because it is subject to usurpation? Everything is subject to usurpation. Indeed, anarchy evokes against usurpation of leadership from beginning to end. No sovereign (unless symbolic), no leader head and neck above the rest, no 'more equal' than equal.

Oakland California on the precipice of anarchy? No more than geography borrowing a term from politics.
You have divided the powers of rule into 3 divisions. That is a convenient idea which is taken from the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers' experiments with first the Articles Of Confederation followed by the original Constitution.

Sargon The Great had no such constraints upon his own power. He ruled with no such division. The body of priests were separate from him, as a Priesthood, but he probably had immense power over them as well.

It is likely however that Sargon's power was divided between himself and the body of the Priesthood. But the Priesthood had no powers of legislation nor of judiciary.

Do some reading about Sargon in your spare time. It will help your philosophy as well.

Post Reply