[pikachu]

* "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder).

Without the implication of disorder? It's like saying I intend to shoot another person through the head without the implication of killing him.

The idea of Anarchy was first applied in Ancient Greece in 5th b.C age at ancient Athena. It was applied as an open public Democracy where all citizens of the city had the same value of oppinion and the same chances to get elected in a power position.

I don't know where you've got this idea from, but Athens clearly doesn't fit any of the definitions you've quoted. Besides, if you know anything about Athens, it wasn't that much a democracy anyway - citizenship was limited to an elite minority which excluded women, slaves, foreigners, etc.

No society can ever qualify to be called a society yet not have a government. A lack of a State under its current definition is extremely implausible, but at least imaginable (e.g. a society where subordination to the government is completely voluntary and internal coercion is no longer necessary). The lack of a government, however - nay, I can't even imagine that. It's like a human being without a nervous system.

[Abood]

goddamnit abood will you ever smarten up and at least start reading what people say before inserting your opinions?

You said anarchists are opposed to organization because they're opposed to states... I said states aren't the only organizations and you don't have to be opposed to the principle of organization if you're opposed to one type of it.

[pikachu]

You have obviously ignored/failed to understand everything I said in this thread.

Anarky!

[Abood]

A state is only one form of government: namely, a government with a monopoly over force in a certain geographic area. Anarchists aren't opposed to all governments; they're just opposed to states. A state does not have to exist for there to be a functional government. A government can be based on mutual consent, and those who are opposed to it do not have to participate and will not be under its jurisdiction. That's all in theory, of course.

[pikachu]

Anarchists aren't opposed to all governments

Settle that among yourselves folks, because the wikipedia source that Anor links clearly implies an absence of a governing authority. Let me quote it for you again:

Anarchy (from Greek: αναρχία anarchía, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:

* "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[1]
* "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[2]
* "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[3]
* Without government or law

That's all in theory, of course.

Right, which is what I said above. "Maybe in some parallel universe. Not here." A government which has no means to enforce its laws, protect itself and the established order - cannot survive, and never could.

And furthermore, in my view, if such government could potentially exist, the definition of the State should simply be expanded to take it into account, because I don't see a substantial difference between a government which uses a degree of coercion to maintain integrity, and one which relies solely on some other means (whatever they are). As long as there is a body of people which exercises authority over some specific area - sounds like a state to me.

[Abood]

Well, it might sound like a state to you. Good for you. Doesn't really matter. A definition is just a definition. I'm not going to argue what a state is and what isn't, because my ideals are not based on semantics.

As for whether an anarchist society can have a government or not: Yes, there's a lot of debate about that. I hold the belief that it can, like most social anarchists.

[ingliz]

As for whether an anarchist society can have a government

That is why anarcho-communism is not considered an anarchy by all other anarchists. It is impossible to govern an industrial society without the state. An industrial society relies on standardisation. Government is forced to regulate and requires the state apparatus to enforce that regulation. In recognising this anarcho-communists cease to be anarchists and become minarchists.

[Red Star]

Who doesn't consider anarcho-communists anarchists? The communists surely don't consider them communist! Anarcho-syndicalists work very closely with anarcho-communists (in the UK there were talks of merging the anarcho-communist AFed with the syndicalist SolFed for example).

If you are an individualist anarchist ala Stirner, then sure, anarcho-communists are not anarchists. But I haven't heard any collectivists disagree that people like AFed are anarchists.

[pikachu]

It is impossible to govern an industrial society without the state.

Or any other society, for that matter. Speaking of "the beginning of civilization" we usually imply the beginning of states, when the migrating tribes finally settled down and took control of certain areas.

[ingliz]

Who doesn't consider anarcho-communists anarchists?

Individualist anarchists and I, but then I am not an anarchist.

Federalism without autonomy is not anarchist. Anarcho-communism is federalist and in an industrial society federalism cannot be autonomous. Each factory working as an autonomous unit, deciding which standards to apply on a whim, would lead to artisanal production. Anarchy cannot work in a mass produced environment. No form of government is just the product of a political philosophy; government and the economy are entwined. The modes of production and distribution necessarily decide how a society can be organised.

The communists surely don't consider them communist!

I would not say they are communist! I would characterise them as left libertarian minarchists.

[FallenRaptor]

Ingliz, where did you get the idea that anarcho-communism is miniarchy? Peter Kropotkin seemed very opposed to a state of any size: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Ar ... t/ch3.html

[ingliz]

Platformism:

Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists

The Platform has 4 key organizational features which separate it from the rest of the anarchist movement. They are:

- Tactical Unity - A common tactical line in the movement is of decisive importance for the existence of the organisation and the whole movement: it removes the disastrous effect of several tactics in opposition to one another, it concentrates all the forces of the movement, gives them a common direction leading to a fixed objective.

- Theoretical Unity - "Theory represents the force which directs the activity of persons and organisations along a defined path towards a determined goal. Naturally it should be common to all the persons and organisations adhering to the General Union. All activity by the General Union, both overall and in its details, should be in perfect concord with the theoretical principles professed by the union."

- Collective Responsibility - "The practice of acting on one's personal responsibility should be decisively condemned and rejected in the ranks of the anarchist movement. The areas of revolutionary life, social and political, are above all profoundly collective by nature. Social revolutionary activity in these areas cannot be based on the personal responsibility of individual militants."

- Federalism - "Against centralism, anarchism has always professed and defended the principle of federalism, which reconciles the independence and initiative of individuals and the organisation with service to the common cause."

Towards a Fresh Revolution

ps. I would argue that if all anarchists are autonomous federalists then all anarchists are primitivists

[FallenRaptor]

I would argue that if all anarchists are autonomous federalists then all anarchists are primitivists

In that case, I guess you could say that social anarchists are really minarchists. Libertarian Socialism would probably be the better term to describe them then.

[Dr House]

If we start down that path then there is no such thing as anarchism.

[ingliz]

Technically federalism would be autonomous, would still be an anarchy, in an industrialised society if everyone was in perfect agreement on everything all the time but as soon as anyone marches out of step the system breaks down and society begins to fragment - the trains will stop running on time.

Everything is so interrelated and interlocked, as Mr Kropotkin points out in your link Raptor, that to work at all, all have to work together. Think about something we all take for granted, air travel for instance. Imagine just trying to build a modern 300 seat jet airliner in an anarchy, never mind building thousands, and the infrastructure necessary to maintain and fly it.

[Anor]

pikachu:

I don't know where you've got this idea from, but Athens clearly doesn't fit any of the definitions you've quoted. Besides, if you know anything about Athens, it wasn't that much a democracy anyway - citizenship was limited to an elite minority which excluded women, slaves, foreigners, etc.

Ancient Athens indeed did have a democracy for people who had the right to vote and were stated as citizens of the city-state. Foreigners till today do not have a right to vote, Women established that in the early 19th century.

It was a democracy based uppon equal value of the individual's oppinion and their equal right to take turn into leadership.

The idea of democracy was based more uppon that no law or other legislation/action would apply , if it was not voted (via sound ...later with shells) from the public in the ancient market (agora). Compared to today where an elite community is deciding on the people's behalf , sometimes against the majority's will.

The idea of the simple citizen being able to vote legislation in a positive or negative position is what we call open (public) democracy. That concept by default takes authorities out of the picture , since there is no room for congressmen, presidents or other political persons as simple people had a "say" on all matters.

That alone consists lack of authority ...aka in Greek ... anarchy... where the first letter "a" stands as the absense of "archy" which means Authority in Greek.

Now as for today i do agree that such a system would not work due to number of population and the problem of being able to address each and every one for his beliefs, mind, vote on all matters of a country. That is why Republic replaced Democracy and is considered as the most accepted poiticla system for a state (with Authorities).

Gandalf

[HoniSoit]

Can you describe to me what a social organization based around "workplaces" would be like, in such a way that it would not be a state OR be part of a state? Who makes laws? Who enforces laws? Who decides whether the laws are implemented correctly? Who ensures unity? Justice? Domestic tranquility? Who provides for the common defense and promotes the general welfare?

Sorry to take so long to get back to this.

I certainly don't have a clear answer for this. I think any anarchist/socialist/communist system based on anti-hierarchical and anti-authoritarian principles would have to face similar questions. There is recently a political model for anarchist society called Participatory Polity which is interesting but by no means answer all these questions.

In any case, I guess for many left/social anarchists, the point is not to have no law-making and -enforcing organisations, but rather the focus is on how democratic they are. You may call these organisations part of a State. That I cannot argue with.

[DubiousDan]

Dr House:

I personally know full well what anarchy is, and I consider it far from the best ideology around. most organized anarchist ideologies are offshoots of quasi-Marxist socialism, while anarcho-capitalism would pretty much be the industrial world's version of a feudal dictatorship.

Me:
Just the fellow I have been looking for. Could you spare a little of your wisdom? I’m not really interested in the deviations from anarchy. I’m interested in the pure form. I’m definitely not interested in this Marxist brand because as I recall, Pierre Proudhon was a bit unhappy with that Marx chap. And this anarcho-capitalism is a little modern for me. What I would like to understand is essential anarchy reduced to its final irreducible state.

[JimmiBaez]

Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron, anarchists are against hierarchy, oppression, and therefore are against capitalism. True anarchy is the presence of order and organization yet the absence of oppression and hierarchy.

http://infoshop.org/faq/

Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy, "the absence of a master, of a sovereign." [P-J Proudhon, What is Property , p. 264] In other words, anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be that control by the state or a capitalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary.

[DubiousDan]

JimmiBaez:

Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron, anarchists are against hierarchy, oppression, and therefore are against capitalism. True anarchy is the presence of order and organization yet the absence of oppression and hierarchy.

Me:
What then of the hierarchy of ability?

Is the restraint of action oppression?

Is not order and organization present in all that is?