The Best Form of Anarchism?

Admittedly, I was not the most informed guy when it comes to Anarchism; I knew little about it, and assumed that the only qualification required to be an Anarchist is to oppose an established, authoritative state. However, after reading some writings from Chomksy, I realized that Anarchism goes much deeper than that, and, more importantly for this thread, that there are a lot of subdivisions of Anarchism.

So my question is this: even if you are opposed to Anarchism, which system of Anarchism would you say is the best?

My vote: Anarcho-Syndicalism.

Even though I don't support it, the best kind is probably Anarcho-capitalism.

polryt wrote:

Even though I don't support it, the best kind is probably Anarcho-capitalism.

ah are you a liberatarian?

Yes I am.

lol no im not.

Platformism.

It is worth pointing out that opposing an established state is the only thing that unites all those who call themselves anarchists (anarcho- capitalism - communism or whateverism).

how about....anarchy where everyone is nice to eachother? let's just start there as a basis. Really, a no authority system won't work without nice people. You'd have riots and crap all over the place.

WeiWuWei wrote:

Admittedly, I was not the most informed guy when it comes to Anarchism; I knew little about it, and assumed that the only qualification required to be an Anarchist is to oppose an established, authoritative state.

Unfortunately, most people don't even believe the standard to being an anarchist is that deep. People normally believe that all you have to do to be an anarchist is vandalize shit, whereas that isn't at all even a part of it.

Quote :

My vote: Anarcho-Syndicalism.

Why is that?

Quote :

Even though I don't support it, the best kind is probably Anarcho-capitalism.

How could that even exist? Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoronic falsehood. That's like saying.... Jumbo-shrimp (or some better example).

Quote :

Platformism.

Why do you believe that? And is their goal communism or individualism? You're merely saying this is the most efficient, likely means to the end, no? But what is the end-game of those who call themselves "platformists"? Is that not equally, if not more important?

Quote :

It is worth pointing out that opposing an established state is the only thing that unites all those who call themselves anarchists (anarcho- capitalism - communism or whateverism).

Anarchists oppose capitalism. You cannot be an anarchist and a capitalist, no matter how much you tell yourself you are both. capitalism and anarchy would inevitably lead back to the formation of a state, in some form or another.

Quote :

So my question is this: even if you are opposed to Anarchism, which system of Anarchism would you say is the best?

Communism of course. It is the only way to ensure the greatest amount of liberty and economic equality (which inevitably leads to the former, which cannot be without the latter).

Individualism is hardly ideal with it's belief that everything should be divvied up completely even; not everything is of equal quality, so this does not ensure equality, or even equal opportunity.

Quote :

how about....anarchy where everyone is nice to eachother? let's just start there as a basis. Really, a no authority system won't work without nice people. You'd have riots and crap all over the place.

That's what the social revolution is for. If you were to just immidiately take away authority, things would get pretty nasty and, once they settled down, we would end up where we started, with authority and exploitation, or we would figure out how to coexist and associate to accomplish what we would like to get done (the latter is the much more unlikely of the two).

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

WeiWuWei wrote:

My vote: Anarcho-Syndicalism.

Why is that?

What first drew me to the Anarcho-Syndicalist movement was their emphasis on the labor movements, specifically unions, which I feel are vital in protecting workers' rights, especially in a country like mine where corporations have their hands deep in the pockets of many politicians, Republican and Democrat alike. I don't think I need to cite examples, but I'll just briefly mention that Enron should have showed the U.S. why corporations need to be strictly monitored, if not abolished.

I was brought up in a fiercely pro-union family, too. So that may have influenced me, as well.

And, while I think that a governing body should not necessarily be abandoned, I feel that if power over the means of production, and the products themselves, were to be put in anyone else's hands aside from the state, it should go directly to the people.

If you work at a mill, you should own the mill, and the grain that you produce. And all of the other factories and such would contribute to a shared, communal gathering of all of these products. Fundamentally, that feels like a good principle to me. But maybe I'm getting mixed up with Collectivism.

---

I should mention, though, that I think Anarchism and Capitalism don't necessarily have to be in opposition to each other. However, when unrestricted as it would be in a stateless society, the free market on its own would not be able to stop monopolies from being formed, thus defeating the purpose of abolishing a state in the first place. You would take down one restrictive body and replace it with another. Except this one bankrupts the entire country and widens the gap between the rich and the poor like you wouldn't believe. It's a whole new kind of tyranny: economic tyranny.

But, then, you would essentially be right; a new state, in some form or another, would come about. In this case, it would be the biggest business(es).

I'm not a fan of Capitalism, but if we didn't have a government set up to ensure that businesses are kept in check and to ensure that workers get paid fair wages and get the rights that they deserve, you would take a bad system and instantaneously make it the worst.

e.g. Anarcho-Capitalism.

Quote :

Why do you believe that? And is their goal communism or individualism? You're merely saying this is the most efficient, likely means to the end, no? But what is the end-game of those who call themselves "platformists"? Is that not equally, if not more important?

Well all of the platformists I know have been communists, I would be very surprised if I found an individualist-platformist though, since I would have thought that the ‘collective responsibility’ and so on would be considered to be an unacceptable breach of their ‘freedom’. Furthermore, in my opinion, individualist tendencies are amongst the things that the platform aimed to combat:

The Platform wrote:

It is nevertheless beyond doubt that this disorganisation derives from some defects of theory: notably from a false interpretation of the principle of individuality in anarchism; this theory being all too often confused with the absence of all responsibility…

Quote :

Anarchists oppose capitalism. You cannot be an anarchist and a capitalist, no matter how much you tell yourself you are both. capitalism and anarchy would inevitably lead back to the formation of a state, in some form or another.

Hence why I said “all those who call themselves anarchists” rather than all anarchists.

YEA

score.


A good thing about anarcho-syndacalism is that most of the people in the school are serios. But they are known to be violent (mayday riot).


You might want to look into "anarch with out adjectives" is basically a make your own pizza restraunt for anarchy. Good for beginners, tio have start following a section/school of anarchy. It helps you get the basic princaples down, and then you compare your views to other majority 'schools'.

WeiWuWei wrote:

What first drew me to the Anarcho-Syndicalist movement was their emphasis on the labor movements, specifically unions, which I feel are vital in protecting workers' rights, especially in a country like mine where corporations have their hands deep in the pockets of many politicians, Republican and Democrat alike. I don't think I need to cite examples, but I'll just briefly mention that Enron should have showed the U.S. why corporations need to be strictly monitored, if not abolished.

Unions are good, but not when they are not directly influenced by the workers. If it is centralized, it may come to the same fate as oh so many revolutions with a centralized government.

Quote :

I was brought up in a fiercely pro-union family, too. So that may have influenced me, as well.

Makes sense, but i would be careful how much you let others influence your opinion, especially those closest to you.

Quote :

And, while I think that a governing body should not necessarily be abandoned, I feel that if power over the means of production, and the products themselves, were to be put in anyone else's hands aside from the state, it should go directly to the people.

You believe in socialism as a final stage rather than a transitional period?

Quote :

If you work at a mill, you should own the mill, and the grain that you produce. And all of the other factories and such would contribute to a shared, communal gathering of all of these products. Fundamentally, that feels like a good principle to me. But maybe I'm getting mixed up with Collectivism.

Collectivism is merely a transition, like socialism, but instead of being centralized democracy (or something more sinister), it is decentralized free association. I don't feel that this is a place to go into more detail about it, so i'll leave it at that.

Also, i'd say, red-anarchism is more closely tied to the labour movement than syndicalism. Anarcho-communists generally believe that anarchists should work within the labour-movement guiding it in the directions of liberty and economic equality, whereas syndacalists tend to believe in less latent "politics" (for lack of a better word).

Quote :

I should mention, though, that I think Anarchism and Capitalism don't necessarily have to be in opposition to each other. However, when unrestricted as it would be in a stateless society, the free market on its own would not be able to stop monopolies from being formed, thus defeating the purpose of abolishing a state in the first place. You would take down one restrictive body and replace it with another. Except this one bankrupts the entire country and widens the gap between the rich and the poor like you wouldn't believe. It's a whole new kind of tyranny: economic tyranny.

And how would these monopolisers (ya, it's a word) contain the rebellion that is inevitable? Would his means not end in the constitution of a new state? If not, then he would surely be expropriated and people would either realize their mistake, or create a new state to protect them. Either way, i can't see anarcho-capitalism ending in anything but a new state.

Quote :

But, then, you would essentially be right; a new state, in some form or another, would come about. In this case, it would be the biggest business(es).

Ugh... dammit, i just wrote that thing above before i read this, haha.

Quote :

I'm not a fan of Capitalism, but if we didn't have a government set up to ensure that businesses are kept in check and to ensure that workers get paid fair wages and get the rights that they deserve, you would take a bad system and instantaneously make it the worst.

e.g. Anarcho-Capitalism.

You seem to be implying that anarchism would inevitably lead to anarcho-capitalism. First off, i'd like to say that anarcho-capitalism probably isn't even attainable since it promotes social-darwinism verbatim. And since nothing can be achieved without cooperation and association, i can't see anyone really falling for the facade that anarcho-capitalism is a practical, viable form of society/economy.

If there is a social revolution, why would people get rid of the state but return themselves to their oppressors from whom they are trying to free themselves. Also, if there was a social revolution, people would most likely be filled with a sense of solidarity, community, and brotherhood, as it usually happens in revolution. If then they saw someone making gobs of money more than them, why would they not protest, as they did in the Russian revolution. Once everything is toppled and the social reconstruction begins, there's no more social heirarchy because every privelage is destroyed; i believe contempt for those trying to take economic advantage through the labour of others would be much worse than it is today (it's not that bad in america).

Quote :

Well all of the platformists I know have been communists, I would be very surprised if I found an individualist-platformist though, since I would have thought that the ‘collective responsibility’ and so on would be considered to be an unacceptable breach of their ‘freedom’. Furthermore, in my opinion, individualist tendencies are amongst the things that the platform aimed to combat:

Quote :

It is nevertheless beyond doubt that this disorganisation derives from some defects of theory: notably from a false interpretation of the principle of individuality in anarchism; this theory being all too often confused with the absence of all responsibility…

Individualists, in the economic sense (if you're referring to those labelled individualists otherwise, then we aren't debating the same point. Further, those individualists aren't even anarchists, they just like to throw things at glass.), aren't necessarily opposed to collective responsibility (the makhnovist term) which was meant for the platform, which is to be used as a programme during the revolution. Individualists merely differ from communists economically, in that they believe that everything should be split equally as far as the means of production go. This way no one is inhibitted from gaining great wealth off of their own skill, labour and resources. It seems to obvious to explain while this is a fickle system.

I've heard in Russia in the 90-ies was popular a movement called "anarcho-stalinism"

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

You believe in socialism as a final stage rather than a transitional period?

I think if there ever were a way in which an organized state can maintain itself for a long period of time, it would have to be a Socialist one - Feudalism, Capitalism, and Fascism will fail and have failed, among other systems. But I don't necessarily think it's the final step. As far as I've come to understand, once Socialism is firmly established, the move to Communism, whether it is desired or not, is just inevitable.

Then again, I think most Marxists would argue that Communism is inevitable everywhere regardless of what system a country administrates itself with - it is simply fated to work that way.

Quote :

You seem to be implying that anarchism would inevitably lead to anarcho-capitalism. First off, i'd like to say that anarcho-capitalism probably isn't even attainable since it promotes social-darwinism verbatim. And since nothing can be achieved without cooperation and association, i can't see anyone really falling for the facade that anarcho-capitalism is a practical, viable form of society/economy.

If there is a social revolution, why would people get rid of the state but return themselves to their oppressors from whom they are trying to free themselves. Also, if there was a social revolution, people would most likely be filled with a sense of solidarity, community, and brotherhood, as it usually happens in revolution. If then they saw someone making gobs of money more than them, why would they not protest, as they did in the Russian revolution. Once everything is toppled and the social reconstruction begins, there's no more social heirarchy because every privelage is destroyed; i believe contempt for those trying to take economic advantage through the labour of others would be much worse than it is today (it's not that bad in america).

Actually, I don't think Anarcho-Capitalism would come from Anarchism at all, nor would it be feasible to have a society based on that system. I was just suggesting that Anarchism and Capitalism can possibly coincide. But it'd be, frankly, stupid, and would defeat the whole point of eliminating the state in the first place - it would replace one bad power with another, possibly worse, one.

Essentially, however, a market can exist without a government, but it would be heavily flawed if it did not incorporate Syndicalist ideas of shared wealth and ownership of the means of production not in the hands of businesses or the state, but the people. The anecdote you've used above details why.

Quote :

Then again, I think most Marxists would argue that Communism is inevitable everywhere regardless of what system a country administrates itself with - it is simply fated to work that way.

The problem with traditional state socialism is that it is unable to progress beyond the dictatorship of the proletariat. They seek to abolish class, but - in reality only replace the old class system with a new one. They seek to abolish property but in doing so only concentrate 'actual control' of property into the hands of the new ruling class.


The problem is that hierarchy is inherent in ALL centralized institutions and they 'require' 'by their very nature'- social relations based on subordination and domination - therefore it prevents equality.

Equality and hierarchy cannot co-exist
Anarchists recognize the corrupting potential of power and so aim to dismantle the institutions of power without holding them.
Traditional Marxists attempt to control the institutions of power and so become tainted by the power itself.

This said most anarchists agree that a 'workers dictatorship' is better than a buguarsie dictatorship.

Quote :

Actually, I don't think Anarcho-Capitalism would come from Anarchism at all, nor would it be feasible to have a society based on that system. I was just suggesting that Anarchism and Capitalism can possibly coincide. But it'd be, frankly, stupid, and would defeat the whole point of eliminating the state in the first place - it would replace one bad power with another, possibly worse, one.

So called - 'Anarco capitalism' seeks to replace the state with what Noam Chomsky describes as - unaccountable market tyranny. This type of society would be far worse than state capitalism considering the only institution with democratic potential will have been dismantled. The masses would be at the mercy of a minority of oligarchs/plutocrats who would rule like feudal lords.

It would essentially be like a modern variation of feudal society, capitalism
without regulation of any kind. Everything would be for sale and only people with property would know freedom, exploitation would occur on a massive scale - police ect would be privately owned - bounty hunters rather.


Youl notice most of the brats who advocate this type of shit are rich white suburban teens who's fathers own huge companies and rant whenever new minimum wage law is passed.

My profits ! My beloved profits !

Quote :

I'm not a fan of Capitalism, but if we didn't have a government set up to ensure that businesses are kept in check and to ensure that workers get paid fair wages and get the rights that they deserve, you would take a bad system and instantaneously make it the worst.

e.g. Anarcho-Capitalism

Quote :

Actually, I don't think Anarcho-Capitalism would come from Anarchism at all

My bad then. That first thing i quoted up there just threw me a bit, i guess. I guess you were just trying to say removing the government from a capitalist society would lead to anarcho-capitalism; my mistake.

Quote :

Syndicalist ideas of shared wealth and ownership of the means of production not in the hands of businesses or the state, but the people.

Just to clarify, those are communist ideas.

As far as i'm aware, most syndicalists are communists, they just think unions are the best way to spark revolution and make it successful (like comrade Liche's avatar, the anarchist-communist flag). I could be wrong though.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

As far as i'm aware, most syndicalists are communists, they just think unions are the best way to spark revolution and make it successful (like comrade Liche's avatar, the anarchist-communist flag). I could be wrong though.

Yep. Basically communism, but the people have more say.

The goverment is split into beauraeaus and each beuareau gets X ammount of unions. Each union hires workers and starts buisness, while each business gives 10% of their earnings to the union, which then distrbutes that through-out every one in the union, the buisness that made the least money gets the most of the added percintiles, making the entire unions salary equal. The better the buisness do, the better the union does. The better the union does, the better the buisness does.

Kind of like medevil merchants guilds.

But in the case of anarcho-syndaclism, they belive that the unions work together, but not under the controll of a federal goverment. They govern themselves. For example, the automotive union doesn't tell the architect union what to do. One industry can influence the other just not force things upon them. A lot like the Trade Federation in starwars. Its one giant union (like the IWW) that works together to make changes in goverment (Naboo).

Quote :

Individualists, in the economic sense (if you're referring to those labelled individualists otherwise, then we aren't debating the same point...

From an economic view I would have thought that the Constructive section in particular included passages that Individualists would specifically reject:

"The fundamental aim of the world of labour in struggle is the foundation, by means of revolution, of a free and equal communist society founded on the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". "

"There will be no bosses, neither entrepreneur, owner or state-appointed owner..."

"Like industry, the land, exploited and cultivated by successive generations of labourers, is the product of their common effort. It also belongs to all working people and to none in particular inasmuch as it is the inalienable and common property of the labourers, the land can never again be bought, nor sold, nor rented..."

Assuming I'm thinking of it along the same lines as you and haven't total missed the point.

So what is it you specifically dislike about the platform/platformism?

Quote :

The goverment is split into beauraeaus and each beuareau gets X ammount of unions. Each union hires workers and starts buisness, while each business gives 10% of their earnings to the union, which then distrbutes that through-out every one in the union, the buisness that made the least money gets the most of the added percintiles, making the entire unions salary equal. The better the buisness do, the better the union does. The better the union does, the better the buisness does.

Not as communist as i woulda thought. If there's money involved in the end, it's not very communist. I didn't know syndicalists liked the thought of money and profits. No matter, though.

Steel wrote:

From an economic view I would have thought that the Constructive section in particular included passages that Individualists would specifically reject:

"The fundamental aim of the world of labour in struggle is the foundation, by means of revolution, of a free and equal communist society founded on the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". "

They would reject this.

Quote :

"There will be no bosses, neither entrepreneur, owner or state-appointed owner..."

They would accept this, i'm sure. They don't want bosses that are coercive, but if someone willingly, knowingly tends to your land, they would surely have no problem with that.

Quote :

"Like industry, the land, exploited and cultivated by successive generations of labourers, is the product of their common effort. It also belongs to all working people and to none in particular inasmuch as it is the inalienable and common property of the labourers, the land can never again be bought, nor sold, nor rented..."

They would probably reject that as well.

Quote :

So what is it you specifically dislike about the platform/platformism?

Collective responsibility, theoretical unity, tactical unity, "party politics" schema; I don't believe anarchists should work openly as anarchists, but as labourers. They should participate in the labor movement and try to guide it towards anarchic goals. As anyone knows, you basically lose the majority of the points you may have had once you say, "I'm an anarchist". I don't believe all anarchist groups should disband, but it's rather impossible for the educationalists to have any sort of unity with the revolutionaries. I believe people need to find an anarchist organisation which suits them best, and work within it as they see fit; the different organisations need to find a way to work with each other in certain regards, and put up with each other in other regards without being a hinderence to one another.