I've never understood (even after reading this article) how anyone who's anti-authoritarian can honestly believe that removing a government is a good idea. The author claims that it's human nature to abuse power as an argument in favor of anarchism. But to me it seems very obvious that that is exactly what will happen if people are left without constraints. Those who can get some power will get more, and there's nothing to stop them.
So, is there anyone who sympathise with the author who would like to explain how a society could become more equal/fair/anything positive without a government?
I was a "left-anarchist" or "ultra-leftist" in my early 20's so I can explain this point of view in a moderately sympathetic way. The following is not my actual opinion, but rather a summary of the beliefs I once held. As far as I'm aware it's also fairly different from Goldman's viewpoint too.
The starting point is to identify classical liberalism as a veneer over power structures based on arbitrary authority. For example, the same society that claimed to support freedom of expression would lock women away in mental institutions for acting in a way deemed inappropriate (not so much nowadays, but definitely in the 30's). Today we still see a lot of arbitrary authority (often illegal) exercised by the government and its agents. Only a small portion of this is deemed "political" enough to gain media attention, and perhaps be corrected in the courts.
Furthermore, the ideology of individual rights can be used to create "rights" that couldn't even be justified from a natural rights perspective, but are rather created to bolster the idea of an atomized society. Government subsidization of roads (rather than public transport) is a good example of this. While there is no natural right to drive a car on a government subsidized road, the ideology of individualism leads people to suppose that people are somehow more "free" under this setup than under a regime of mainly public transportation.
To summarize, left-anarchists view classical individual rights as a chimera, where the real agenda is a society of atomized individuals with no sense of community, all subject to the authority of the state. The main claim of left-anarchists is that in the absence of this oppression, a natural order based on community enforcement will evolve, in which strict legal rights are not necessary to protect individual's wellbeing, because the community is good and cares about its members. Various examples are given for this, such as primitive tribal societies, temporary anarchistic situations such as during the Spanish civil war, working class communities who self-police rather than cooperating with law enforcement, and social orders that arise around the use of common property, such as with surfing.
First of all, thanks for just the kind of explanation I was looking for.
> The main claim of left-anarchists is that in the absence of this oppression, a natural order based on community enforcement will evolve[...]
And my problem with such claims is that it seems like you're actually just proposing another kind of government; a local and decentralized one. After all a government is just an agreement between a set of people to organize affairs of mutual interest, right?
Would it be correct to say that anarchists (in general or the left kind) actually prefers several smaller societies rather than one big central one?
Also one could argue (as you kinda did) that once upon a time there were only such tribal societies, and that the societies we see today have evolved from those. So if you (with the belief you once held) argue that we should revert to such a system, how would you propose to prevent the inevitable "degradation" to the current system?
>And my problem with such claims is that it seems like you're actually just proposing another kind of government; a local and decentralized one. After all a government is just an agreement between a set of people to organize affairs of mutual interest, right?
Agreed, but left-anarchists tend not to argue based on some absolute principal, so this is not an issue (as I mentioned in my disclaimer, our views were quite different from "classical" anarchists).
>Would it be correct to say that anarchists (in general or the left kind) actually prefers several smaller societies rather than one big central one?
Yes
>Also one could argue (as you kinda did) that once upon a time there were only such tribal societies, and that the societies we see today have evolved from those. So if you (with the belief you once held) argue that we should revert to such a system, how would you propose to prevent the inevitable "degradation" to the current system?
I agree, which is one reason why I no longer hold these beliefs. But the more important reason for me is that these societies just weren't as good as they were claimed to be. It's easy not to notice the problems in a society that you don't live in or even know very much about.
The only beliefs that I have in common with those groups are (1) that formal rights need to be closely scrutinized to see if they actually correspond to some rights in the real world, and (2) there may in some situations be ways of producing the best outcome that don't involve formal rights, but instead involve informal conventions that arise from the community.
it seems very obvious that that is exactly what will happen if people are left without constraints. Those who can get some power will get more, and there's nothing to stop them
Then clearly after we abolish government, we just need to establish some kind of power structure to limit this effect. Perhaps to keep things fair, we can put this power structure subject to votes by the people.
But the moment you've done that, you've established a de-facto government, thus violating the definition of anarchy. This happens with a lot of utopian schemes, actually: the logistics of maintaining them require them to mutate into something decidedly other than the original intent. Eventually, in the case of anarchy, the de-facto government inevitably finds a way to cement its power in a more de-jure fashion, and from there corruption proceeds as normal.
Have you ever investigated the origins and etymology of the word "utopia"? Most these days seem happy to sling the word around without knowing where it came from and what it means; should you be among that number, I recommend the subject to your attention, as you may well find interest in the result of such investigation.
> a government that is limited to and efficacious in protecting them (individual rights).
Oddly, you just provided the downfall of such a government. From the obvious 'think of the children' type of abuse of power you would also have those that see protecting some rights as infringing on others.
The FDA is an example of the latter. The FDA is a consumer rights organization, yet there are no shortage of people that see any protections as infringing on their rights.
Because the majority may disagree. The majority will choose to infringe upon the rights of whatever minority there is if they disagree with it for whatever reason. Sometimes it's just the loud that push it and the majority don't care and stay quiet, but the result is the same.
Protecting rights is an aim every good government must have but it can not be the only aim. It must also recognize when to step in to put a stop to the majority infringing on the rights of others. A government exists for the good of the society as a whole as well as the good of the individual.
In my original comment, part of what I said was that I wanted a society that understood and cherished individual rights. If we had such a society (we don't) the majority would not choose to infringe upon the rights of minorities.
As regards the second paragraph, above, if a government is committed to protecting individual rights, implicit in that is not allowing majorities to infringe the rights of others.
A government that genuinely protects the rights of individuals also provides for the good of society as a whole, but this happens by side effect, if you will, rather than as the result of an explicit aim of the government. In other words, when you protect individual rights, you do what is best for all concerned.
Finally, I want to emphasize that I do not expect to see such a society anytime soon. Said differently, I think that what I advocate is possible, but unlikely.
No, not really. It does not even remotely represent patients needs, and patient organizations do not take part in any of the FDA decisions, as far as I know.
Yes it is. Just because it doesn't rush the newest cancer treatment to market or that it doesn't work the way you think it should doesn't change that.
I saw an old advertizement the other day declaring the health benefits of donuts. The other day we had a link here with Mickey Mouse hawking amphetamines as, again, a healthy way to perk up.
You can't sell food or drugs in the US that make false health claims because of the oversight of the FDA. You can't bring a drug to market without extensive testing for the same reason. Your food has to be clearly labeled with it's contents and a real breakdown of its nutritional facts because of FDA regulations.
Then if it were the case why isn't the FDA paying way more attention the quality of clinical trials before approving new drugs? Why do they only require a single successful clinical trial to register anything? Why don't they audit the clinical trial sites to confirm that the results reported by the drug companies are reliable and not falsified?
I suppose that the amount of people that are willing to work in quantifiable/effective ways that give the individual, as much as any society, the incentive to push towards a society that understands and cherishes individual rights, and a government that is limited to and efficacious in protecting them will be less than the amount who want it, so in the logical conclusion of things:
we will get neither until that imbalanced can be addressed.
Pure anarchism has many of the same problems as pure communism. In practice it's a system that is typically unstable and rapidly degenerates into simple autocracy or oligarchy.
Humans have lived for nearly 200,000 years without states. States, which for their ~10,000 year history have been very ephemeral. Civilization keeps barreling on while states collapse and begin again. The forces that lead to the flux of states like internal power struggles, class conflict, and environmental destruction wouldn't exist in anarchy/communism.
Check out Clastres who argues that pre-civilization human communities had mechanisms to ward off the formation of states.
You're arguing with the wrong person, I'm not arguing for statism. I'm saying that naive anarchism is dangerous. Which it is. And primitive pseudo-anarchism (even 200,000 years ago societies had power structures) is probably not suitable for the modern, industrialized age.
Does that mean that powerful central authorities, states, are the only answer? Not at all. But I would appreciate it if there weren't so many anti-statists who fulfilled every caricature of folks who liken libertarianism and anarchism with a desire to regress to the chaos of somalia or what-have-you.
There are likely many ways to have a free and egalitarian society without a central authority but the idea that all it takes is removal of the state is extraordinarily naive and has the potential for as much human misery as has been caused by all of the failures of institutional communism in the 20th century.
Wasn't intending to argue with you, I was just using your comment as a springboard for a comment. I agree with all your points!
I'm not inclined towards a pure conflict against the state without a currently-unfathomable communist process behind the insurrection that topples the state. Look at Egypt: pure conflict that toppled the state, but no great force underlying the conflict to sustain the necessary life outside the state. So you get the Muslim Brotherhood and the military quickly occupying the same state space. I'm interested in conflict, for sure, but only conflict supported by (communist, decentralized, anti-authoritarian, anti-statist) organization capable of sustaining beautiful lives amidst state collapse.
I seems to me that hackers are by nature anarchists and even a simple idea of authoritative power(goverment) is repulsive to them. I don't see point arguing for or against goverment, it's just the attitude that matters in my opinion.
I do sympathise with the author and I think that on the countrary, if people were more involved in their society, which is a major part of anarchism and the decentralisation it promotes, such people would have a much harder time aquiring such power than today. Today, those kind of people have whole instutions adjusted to such aims, the government and capitalism.
Thus, the aim is to build a society that people want to defend by themselves, not just a paid subgroup - e.g the police or military.
Regarding fairness and equality there's a lot of things that anarchism promotes, here's a few controversial:
* Socialism
* Decentralisation and organisation from the bottom up.
* Abolishment of the ownership of land and private property.
And no, the last point does not mean that someone will steal your toothbrush, rather that someone should not be able to amass the tools of explotation, such as more industry/machines than one can use by oneselve or acquire land that one cannot possibly culativate by their own.
It's obvious that this ideal society of yours is modelled for a rather small group. Complete lack of delegation can't possibly scale very far at all. But to me it seems a society has to grow and specialize to become more effective. If for not other reason than because there will be competition from external groups.
If you have two or more of these decentralized groups, how would conflicts be handled between them? If two or more wants to trade or create an alliance, some kind of organizing unit has to formed to ensure all parties play by the rules. Voila, a government.
I assume you're not advocating for going back to some tribal farming-style society? If so, can you explain how the anarchist society you're proposing would perform more complex tasks such as trade, or just large-scale manufacturing, without a government?
> It's obvious that this ideal society of yours is modelled for a rather small group.
Why is that?
> Complete lack of delegation can't possibly scale very far at all.
I have not said anything about a complete lack of delegation. I think representation voted from the bottom up is a rational way of representing a group of people. However, this kind of representation differ much from one would call representation today, eg:
* The members of an organisation (e.g a workplace or a community) would either vote for someone to be a representative or that status would be rotated among the members.
* A representative's task would be to forward the issues or votes that the members have voted on.
* A representative's status would be revocable at any time.
* Being a representative would not in anyway be a full-time occupation, rather a very limited part.
> But to me it seems a society has to grow and specialize to become more effective. If for not other reason than because there will be competition from external groups.
I'm not sure I follow here, what do you mean by the need to become more effective. To what end?
> If you have two or more of these decentralized groups, how would conflicts be handled between them? If two or more wants to trade or create an alliance, some kind of organizing unit has to formed to ensure all parties play by the rules. Voila, a government.
I have no reason to belive people can't organise rationally without a government, rather the opposite. A highly organised society - from the bottom up - is not a government. Additionally, I don't think one can argue in favour of government in the realm of conflict handling as governments have quite a poor track record regarding this.
> I assume you're not advocating for going back to some tribal farming-style society? If so, can you explain how the anarchist society you're proposing would perform more complex tasks such as trade, or just large-scale manufacturing, without a government?
That's correct. I'm not advocating for a "back-to-the-roots" society. Naturally the exchange of goods in one way or another will occur, however I would like to emphasize that large-scale manufacturing per se, and perhaps the concept of perpetual growth, is no goal of an anarchist society compared to todays growth-based economy. Basically, if there's a need for large scale industries, it would be organised, otherwise not.
This is a very broad and complex subject, and many people (and various anarchist writings) is better than me to answer this, but maybe you could be a bit more specific in your questions to make them more answerable?
I'm sorry if I was a bit unspecific. I haven't really formed a clear opinion yet so it's hard to articulate what I don't understand. Also that was written while I shoveled down my lunch.
About the obvious small group thing, it thought the following quotes:
> "if people were more involved in their society"
> "the aim is to build a society that people want to defend by themselves"
meant that you'd prefer that people get involved directly rather than elect people to "defend" or rule their society for them. It seems I misunderstood that part though.
However now I'm now confused by you clarification. If there's any kind of voting and representation, no matter how revocable, isn't that a form of government? If these persons are elected by the majority (I don't see any other option) they will sooner or later make choices for you? I was under the impression that anarchism is about getting rid of any kind of government?
in most governments today representatives' statuses can be revoked. It might be more or less difficult and opaque - I'm the first one to admit that most current governments are broken - but that does not necessary mean that governments are inherently bad.
---
My thoughts about efficiency and organization was based on the assumption that large scale organization can't happen without a governing body. I realize now that might be were my major misassumption and possible our disagreement lies. You say that
> A highly organised society - from the bottom up - is not a government
I would argue that in any highly organized society the top unit is the government. Assuming of course that the top unit has some actual increase responsibility and/or accountability compared to the rest of the organization (otherwise they're not really on the top).
I'd also argue that all governments was at one point formed from the bottom up. I'm not sure if it's very productive to reason this way though, but governments are not a separate unit from the rest of human society. They are created by humans and are upheld because most people agree enough to not try to abolish them.
A counter-argument here might be that people are sheep and irrational and that the governments have evolved into something so complicated and convoluted that they're not able to change to the people's will anymore, but I don't see how that changes anything. If the current governments occurred as a result of earlier (eventually) anarchisticish societies, what will prevent them from regressing?
> However now I'm now confused by you clarification. If there's any kind of voting and representation, no matter how revocable, isn't that a form of government?
No, just as any kind of organisation would not be called a government, the kind of organisation I promote wouldn't be. For example, you wouldn't call your local union or workplace a government.
Let's not pretend that current representatives are revocable, it not in the hands of the voters. For another society, it wouldn't even be a part time occupation for a worker among other workers.
Anyways, I would like to hear why authority needs to exist, rather than explain why it doesn't.
They would indeed rather delegate governance, and for the best of reasons; the more effort an individual is required to expend on governing, the less she has available to pursue her own talents and interests.
As for the respondents suggesting the answer is, in paraphrase, to "make governance interesting again" -- I would suggest they may wish to think twice about that superficially appealing suggestion. The process of governance was "interesting" in 1950s China, in 1930s Germany, 1920s Russia, the United States around 1925-1945; while conditions were vastly different in each case, of course, there is a strong common thread, and it is simply this: the process of governance is interesting only when times are not good; indeed, the worse things are, the more interesting the task of running the show tends to be. The argument eventually reduces to a suggestion that it would be nice to have a disaster or two around the place, in order to liven things up for everyone. Which it would, no doubt! But I submit such excitement is hardly worth the cost.
And that might be because politics seem distant, irrelevant, unalterable and (maybe as a result of this) plain boring. If politics and power became more decentralized, perhaps it would become more relevant and engaging to people.
I believe that if people feel they can make a difference, people will get involved. If generally people can't make a difference, like today, people get apathetic.
I agree more might get involved but I'm less than convinced it would be enough to stave off the accumulation of power by warlords etc, and the eventual degeneration to a neo-feudal society.
But it's all just opinion at this end of the debate.
So, is there anyone who sympathise with the author who would like to explain how a society could become more equal/fair/anything positive without a government?