I'm more of a syndicalist. I like to focus on the labor movement and revolution from below, as opposed to reform from above.
If you look at the press during the 1840s in America, probably the point at which it was the freest, each factory or industrial zone ran its own paper. Time and time again, workers would express their discontentment with the fact they did all the work, yet did not own the factory itself. Capitalism and private property were alien concepts to them. For all those who argue capitalism is the economic system most compaitable with human nature, I remind them of this.
However, I have another question. Well two actually, and I suppose Drace could answer it aswell:
1) How does an anarchy maintain itself as an anarchy?
2) Does it have any safegaurds against the tyranny of the majority?
Note that I realise TotM exists under representative democracy in a more crude form, but it is still an issue anarchy has to deal with.
1) How does an anarchy maintain itself as an anarchy?
Through collective action. The best example of Anarchy in action is the Spanish Civil War. In many parts of Spain, Anarcho-Syndicalists "took over" and abolished government. Money was replaced with work vouchers. 1 hour of work meant you earned 1 work voucher, no matter what job you had. Everyone earned an equal wage, assuming they worked. Decisions in every business were governed by worker's councils. Regular workers voted on important decisions of the company, instead of a CEO making decisions for profit. The people in Anarchist areas took in the elderly, homeless, refugees, and orphans and took care of them. Through collective work, Anarchy thrived.
2) Does it have any safegaurds against the tyranny of the majority?
The military and police worked in the same way in anarchist Spain. They operated in a Collectivist way by not allowing any leaders, Generals, or ranks. Decisions were made by everyone in Direct Democratic votes. If anyone tried to gain power, they could, and would, be punished or even exiled. Everyone collectively insured that no tyrants would rise up.
The reason why Anarchist Spain fell was that Hitler heavily supported the Fascist movement in Spain (The Nationalists, led by Fransisco Franco). They were too powerful for the Anarchists to survive.
If anyone tried to gain power, they could, and would, be punished or even exiled. Everyone collectively insured that no tyrants would rise up.
How can you insure this though, outside of the context of Spain? The people of Spain were ideologically predisposed towards collective forms of living. I highly doubt the individualistic West would be ready for such a sea change. I mean, if a country in which a government can arrest and interrogate people arbitrarily still can't rid itself of criminal gangs and terrorist cells, what makes you think a country with no government system at all will fare any better?
Decisions were made by everyone in Direct Democratic votes.
Specifically, I was referring to the opression of minority groups, which could easily occur. It is human nature to identify with one group of people and not another. When those two groups come to a head, for whatever reason, it is the group with the greatest voting power in your direct democracy who is able to oppress others with ease. Tyranny of the majority.
Unless of course you're going to brainwash people into being happy go lucky all the time.
Note I acknowledge that many non Western are extremely collectivist, and may be able to manage some of these problems, but since it is the West who decides how people live and would be the only group of nations able to instigate such large scale change, how do you propose working around these problems?
Regular workers voted on important decisions of the company, instead of a CEO making decisions for profit.
I really can't get behind that. The problem with direct democracy is that the majority of people are not intelligent or knowledgeable enough to to make it function. I know this sounds bad, but I think that many people don't know what is best for themselves or for the community (or they do know, but don't act accordingly). I do not think that the factory workers should have NO say, just not as much influence as someone highly educated in business.
This is way I am in favor of an adaptive goverment: something that can grow in power when the country needs it, but also shrink away in happier times to let the country freely evolve.
1) How does an anarchy maintain itself as an anarchy?
How does it not? By giving power to the people.
That's really the misconception of anarchism. It assumes ALL power will be abolished and that all organization would be lost in favor of chaos.
A well organized community with a police force, a militia, etc could very well maintain itself as such.
Colonial America was somewhat close to this model in regards to organization, however it was ruled not by the people but Britain and authoritative local governments.
2) Does it have any safegaurds against the tyranny of the majority?
What tyranny of the majority? While the society would strive for independent freedom and voluntary organization, collective action is at times required. The best democratic way of making such decisions is direct democracy. The only alternative is an oligarchic one...where a few man decide the fate of the many others.
Needless to say, so there wouldn't be "Let's vote on what Bob would do today". Its ridiculously stupid for such a situation to arise.
I really can't get behind that. The problem with direct democracy is that the majority of people are not intelligent or knowledgeable enough to to make it function. I know this sounds bad, but I think that many people don't know what is best for themselves or for the community (or they do know, but don't act accordingly). I do not think that the factory workers should have NO say, just not as much influence as someone highly educated in business.
The workers themselves know whats best for themselves! Who else knows your interest better than yourself? By allowing people to make collective decisions in their factory they are also given the chance to learn.
Also, whats wrong then with a more democratic, but representative organization in factories.
In fact, such a model has been adopted in many co-operative consciousnesses.
Only the Icelandic Commonwealth lasted more than 50 years. The Icelandic Commonwealth ended in 1262, which is such a long time ago that it is questionable if such society would have lasted so long today. Christiania, the only other anarchist community that really exists today, only includes about 1000 residents. It's not too hard for 1000 people to live in relative peace. However, they are living within a government controlled territory.
None of this is proof that a whole nation can run succesfully under anarchism. It does prove that small communities can exist, but even that's a bit of a stretch.
There is also the primitive history of man.
Though of course you have to realize examples of anarchism would naturally be relatively few considering the whole globe is and has been organized through states with huge military and aggressive ambitions for expansion.
Nonetheless, the examples still show that organization without government is possible.
The Spanish anarchist movements were only destroyed because of the military defeat.
1) How does an anarchy maintain itself as an anarchy?
By strenght and the survival of the fittest. No "government" could exist in anarchy because this alone defyes the concept of it. So the only option is violence. And that alone would eventually become a government.
That's really the misconception of anarchism. It assumes ALL power will be abolished and that all organization would be lost in favor of chaos.
If all forms of centralised power are destroyed and the product of direct democracy is the election of a leader you are back to square one. What's to stop people from voting for leadership or for opportunist individuals to take advantage of the political power vaccum?
What tyranny of the majority?
Needless to say, so there wouldn't be "Let's vote on what Bob would do today". Its ridiculously stupid for such a situation to arise.
Well, as I have already stated, the oppression of minorities. Recent examples being Prop 8 and the ruling on minarets in Switzerland.
Animals practice racism, which is really nothing more than differentiation based on phenotypical traits; to put forth an example, rhesus macaques form social groups and dominance hierachies. Grouping behaviour such as this makes a great deal of sense and is quite natural. Just leave it to people to blow it out of proportion. With this in mind, how would an anarchic society deal with this problem of TotM? You seem to assume that the collective body will reach rational decisions which will enable freedom for all. My point is that there is a very big danger this would not happen.
While the society would strive for independent freedom and voluntary organization, collective action is at times required. The best democratic way of making such decisions is direct democracy.
If the laws are decided by the majority, the majority could easily get away with oppression of minorities for their own benefit. Since the only power in a direct democracy is voting power, these minorities have no effective power to alleviate themselves from possible ills.
The workers themselves know whats best for themselves! Who else knows your interest better than yourself?
They might know their own interests, but they might not know the outcome of their interests. The notion that everyone should vote on everything is ridiculous, because people know very little about even less.
Example: You believe that a direct democracy anarchist society would be ideal. You think that everyone should vote on everything, or nearly everything. You believe that such a system will have more benefits than the current representatitive one (if that isn't what you think, my apologies).
But the majority of people do not share your beliefs, nor do they know very much about anarchy.
Therefore, if everyone (in the U.S.) voted on a political system using your own guidelines (IE everyone gets an equal vote), a different system would be chosen.
Assuming you are right about anarchy, the majority of people would have made the wrong choice.
The Spanish anarchist movements were only destroyed because of the military defeat.
They only existed because they were at war as well.
There is also the primitive history of man.
We are not primative people anymore. We also live in much larger societies.
What about the Native American, African, and Indian societies that existed without a national government?
Native Americans, Africans, and Indians were all made up of small tribes that constantly fought and raped each other all the time. That's the problem with anarchy, it only works for small groups of people.
If you look at the Spanish Anarchist movement, it merely started before it failed. Even if these people weren't driven by war and the desire to revolt, there's no evidence that such a large society would have been able to sustain themselves.
If all forms of centralised power are destroyed and the product of direct democracy is the election of a leader you are back to square one. What's to stop people from voting for leadership or for opportunist individuals to take advantage of the political power vaccum?
I dunno, whats stopping people from electing a king?
Well, as I have already stated, the oppression of minorities. Recent examples being Prop 8 and the ruling on minarets in Switzerland.
What stops the oppression of minorities in any system? Even in the US if the majority of people decided that all gays should die, they would have power over the situation.
Its a very hypothetical situation.
They might know their own interests, but they might not know the outcome of their interests. The notion that everyone should vote on everything is ridiculous, because people know very little about even less.
I dunno, when you vote on building a community hospital, I think the outcome of it is rather obvious.
Vote on everything? Of course not. But an individual should have a say in something that affects them versus some "highly intellectual" people decide whats best for you.
They only existed because they were at war as well.
The anarchist movement did rise after the war, but what relation does that have to do with war? Anarchism can only exist under war?
While it may have sparked the movement, Spanish anarchism proved itself workable - where up to 60% of the land was under worker control.
Native Americans, Africans, and Indians were all made up of small tribes that constantly fought and ***** each other all the time. That's the problem with anarchy, it only works for small groups of people.
That was more due to the social backwardness of the time. They were also organized as clans and tribes.
But I don't know how true the statement that "they constantly fought" is. European powers probably inflicted much more war and damage.
Even in the US if the majority of people decided that all gays should die, they would have power over the situation.
Not true, such an action would surely be stopped by the Supreme Court (who are not elected by the way).
Vote on everything? Of course not. But an individual should have a say in something that affects them versus some "highly intellectual" people decide whats best for you
So if everything isn't controlled by direct democracy, then who decides what gets voted on?
I dunno, when you vote on building a community hospital, I think the outcome of it is rather obvious.
Except life is never that simple. The question is never "Do we build a hospital yes/no?"
It is more like: How many hospitals do we build? How much money do we spend on each hospital? How large will each hospital be? Where is this money going to come from (IE what are we going to NOT build so we can build a hospital)? Who is going to build the hospital? Who is going to run the hospital? What kind of treatment will the hospital give (Abortion? Resuscitation?) Who will the hospital treat, and what coverage will it give? Where will the hospital(s) be located? How many people will work at each hospital? What kind of equipment will the hospital use?
Do you really think people will know the true effects of all these choices?
