[Suska]

Organized society leads to state

wrong.

As the Zen Master said, "if the problem is a system, do you really want a system to deal with the system?" - organization as cooperation needs no directives or doctrines or programmed actions, but the state must have them and hierarchies too.

[ninurta]

Though anarchy still has the problem of defending against a large invading force, unless you have a high population that is trained in combat. Then you will be like the vietnamese against USA and win simply by wearing out the invading force.

At least until you get better tech.

[DubiousDan]

Telluro:

Fair enough, but what then is the different between a state and a stateless state?

This, I think, is the basic problem with anarchism, amongst secondary other. Once the state is removed, all efforts towards organization will lead to a new state. I think Plato/Socrates elucidated it best in The Republic. Organized society leads to state. True, a state developed from scratch will probably be more organic, direct, less beauracratic and corrupt, but still, it's a matter of development.

Me:
I look at it differently. The problem is not organization, you can organize within a state. The problem is creating the stateless state. You must have borders in order to maintain the stateless area. Maintaining those borders is the problem. A problem that has never been resolved, as far as I know, in the history of Mankind.

The state is normally government, and government is compulsion. It doesn’t matter what form the government takes, if it mandates by force, it’s not anarchistic. Mutualism can be anarchistic. People can organize for their purposes as long as it’s voluntary. Voluntary is the indispensable word in anarchism. That doesn’t mean nine out of ten agree, that means ten out of ten agree. One can decide to walk, that’s his option. Of course, then he is outside. By outside, I don’t mean outside an area, I mean outside of what is being agreed upon.
If you have a militia, everyone in it must be there voluntarily. If at any time, they don’t agree with what is being done, then they can walk. However, when they do that, they are outside the militia. This part is not that hard. Many Amerindian war parties worked the same way. When the chief called for warriors, those who came, came of their own free will. If they got tired, they went home. Of course there were social pressures that worked against that.
The difference between an anarchistic militia and a democratic republic militia is that the organization of the militia in an anarchistic militia must be internal. In order for it to be responsible to the community, it would have to include nearly everyone in the community.

The greatest problem of a viable militia in a stateless state is the installation. Niccolo Machiavelli’s disaster in Florence was creating a militia and putting it in play. Not smart. Machiavelli wasn’t doing anything radical by using a militia. At the time, the Swiss militias were the bad boys on the block. However, they trained from late childhood on. They just didn’t pick up a pike and become a militiaman.
Once you set up borders, you had better have a well trained militia in play. That means that you are going to have to train them long before the stateless state comes into being.
What that really means is that long before you have a stateless state, you are going to need an organization to put it in place.

Of course this is assuming that you are going the militia route. There are other ways, but they are really, really tricky. To use them, you are going to have to create a very sophisticated organization ahead of time.

[Suska]

You must have borders in order to maintain the stateless area

you assume the Anarchy will arise like a state - in isolation from the rest of the world, in fact - in diffusing the revolution by coercion and indoctrination the state has spread the seeds of Anarchy to every corner of the Earth and in that nations are currently the only option they have pressurized it and given it the capacity to consume the state from the inside.

I agree with the rest of what you say, but the "How to defend Anarchy" scenario assumes an Anarchy v State condition which needn't be the case. The question then is really only is coercion more effective than voluntaryism? Because a large territory like the United States could be a cooperative too.

[DubiousDan]

Suska:

you assume the Anarchy will arise like a state - in isolation from the rest of the world, in fact - in diffusing the revolution by coercion and indoctrination the state has spread the seeds of Anarchy to every corner of the Earth and in that nations are currently the only option they have pressurized it and given it the capacity to consume the state from the inside.

Me:
I suspect that you assume in error as to my assumption. Perhaps this will clarify my position. I don’t believe civilization and anarchy can coexist.
As to your argument, I am unclear as to your meaning. I certainly don’t believe that an anarchy can exist in isolation from the rest of the World. States can’t do that. I believe that before an area can be occupied successfully and with any hope of long time success, there will have to be organizations operating external to the area to be occupied. If you examine how the state of Israel was created, you have an example of the concept.

Civilization and anarchy are incompatible, but the seeds of Anarchy must grow within civilization. To do so, the end result of the seed must be concealed from civilization.
I’m not certain that I understand your consuming the state from the inside. If you mean to transform an existing state to a stateless state, that is possible, but for how long?
Once done, the problems of borders arise.
As for the dissatisfaction with existing social orders, that is widespread. However the concept of Anarchism is not. People may seek alternatives to existing governments, but most don’t consider Anarchy. Most of the so called Anarchistic ideas in play aren’t really Anarchistic.
Perhaps you could make your argument a little clearer. I am old, my brain lacks the agility and clarity of youth.

Remember, the idea of an area controlled by Anarchy is not “the” solution. It is one solution, and perhaps not the most viable. The other solutions are exceedingly complex and depend upon philosophical concepts not common in Western cultures.

[DubiousDan]

Suska:

I agree with the rest of what you say, but the "How to defend Anarchy" scenario assumes an Anarchy v State condition which needn't be the case. The question then is really only is coercion more effective than voluntaryism? Because a large territory like the United States could be a cooperative too.

Me:
I just realized that I didn’t clearly address this question. Is coercion more effective than voluntarism? Effectiveness depends on the task. Civilization evolved from war and continues to evolve on the basis of ability to wage war. In the contest between persuasive social orders and coercive social orders, civilization is the clear winner on the basis of its ability to wage war. That is why civilization dominates the world today.
The social orders that dominate today are those which have the greatest military potential. The Inca Empire was better at satisfying the needs of its subjects than the Spanish Empire, but it was inferior in its ability to wage war.
The challenge to Anarchy is to either evolve a military potential greater than that of civilization or to change the game so that military potential is not the dominate factor. Neither of these are small problems. I consider neither unsolvable, but it will require competence beyond the Anarchy of today. In order for Anarchy to be other than a theoretical concept in the context of today’s world, it must evolve. Yes, it can exist in temporary conditions in its present form but not on a long term permanent basis.
Of course, neither can civilization in its present form, but when it goes, it will probably take Humanity with it, so Anarchy may be a consideration for AIs but not Humans.

That brings up another problem. Anarchy doesn’t have unlimited time in which to evolve. Humanity in its present form has probably less than a Century left. So if Anarchy is going to evolve to a greater level of competence, it had better start evolving.

[Suska]

Civilization and anarchy are incompatible

I dunno what you mean bu Civilization here, but you seem to have a fair grasp of what Anarchy is. I think what you mean by Civilization is Hegemony/Balance of Power Politics and Business, that is to say; Money and Politics, but I don't think there's a contradiction between Anarchy and realism unless you want Anarchy to assert itself like a state does, which it won't. But when the only sort of politician or business man or wealthy person you can find are all Anarchists, in that case Money and Politics (dealing with other nations in terms of force and Concert of Power...) are not gone or replaced, they are just Anarchists, and actually that seems to be the trend of history overall even though there are something like wave actions. Nations all start out Anarchies, the question is how do we avoid getting jaded, lazy and corrupt - that and nothing else is what rules Anarchy out.

You:

[telluro]

I don’t believe civilization and anarchy can coexist.

I knew you were a consistent thinker.

[DubiousDan]

Telluro:

DubiousDan wrote:
I don’t believe civilization and anarchy can coexist.

I knew you were a consistent thinker.

Me:
Not really, the brain cells kind of slow down when the blood vessels get plugged up.

What I meant to say is that civilization and anarchy are mutually exclusive sets. Of course they can coexist. The Inuit shared Greenland with the Norse for nearly five centuries. The Norse were civilized, the Inuit were anarchists. According to DNA tests, they didn’t interbreed. That kind of indicates a degree of social isolation. The Inuit were very much into interbreeding.

[Northern-Anarchist-X]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durruti_Column

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_ ... _Civil_War

The Republican government responded to the threat of a military uprising with remarkable timidity and inaction. The CNT had warned Madrid of a rising based in Morocco months earlier and even gave the exact date and time of 5 A.M. on July 19, which it had learned through its impressive espionage apparatus. Yet, the Popular Front did nothing, and refused to give arms to the CNT. Tired of begging for weapons and being denied, CNT militants raided an arsenal and doled out arms to the unions. Militias were placed on alert days before the planned rising.

The rising was actually moved forward two days to July 17, and was crushed in areas heavily defended by anarchist militants, such as Barcelona. Some anarchist strongholds, such as Zaragoza, fell, to the great dismay of those in Catalonia; this is possibly due to the fact that they were being told that there was no "desperate situation" by Madrid and thus did not prepare. The Government still remained in a state of denial, even saying that the "Nationalist" forces had been crushed in places where it had not been. It is largely because of the militancy on the part of the unions, both anarchist and communist, that the Rebel forces did not win the war immediately.

Anarchist militias were remarkably libertarian within themselves, particularly in the early part of the war before being partially absorbed into the regular army. They had no rank system, no hierarchy, no salutes, and those called "Commanders" were elected by the troops.

The most effective anarchist unit was the Durruti Column, led by already legendary militant Buenaventura Durruti. It was the only anarchist unit which managed to gain respect from otherwise fiercely hostile political opponents. In a section of her memoirs which otherwise lambastes the anarchists, Dolores Ibarruri states: "The war developed with minimal participation from the anarchists in its fundamental operations. One exception was Durruti..." (Memorias de Dolores Ibarruri, p. 382). The column began with 3,000 troops, but at its peak was made up of about 8,000 men. They had a difficult time getting arms from a fearful Republican government, so Durruti and his men compensated by seizing unused arms from government stockpiles. Durruti's death on November 20, 1936 weakened the Column in spirit and tactical ability; they were eventually incorporated, by decree, into the regular army. Over a quarter of the population of Barcelona attended Durruti's funeral. It is still uncertain how Durruti died; modern historians tend to agree that it was an accident, perhaps a malfunction with his own gun or a result of friendly fire, but widespread rumors at the time claimed treachery by his men; anarchists tended to claim that he died heroically and was shot by a fascist sniper. Given the widespread repression against Anarchists by the Soviets, which included torture and summary executions, it is also possible that it was a USSR plot. [7]

Another famous unit was the Iron Column, made up of ex-convicts and other "disinherited" Spaniards sympathetic to the Revolution. The Republican government denounced them as "uncontrollables" and "bandits," but they had a fair amount of success in battle. In March 1937 they were incorporated into the regular army.

The `problem`in anarchist military action results from the priori assumption that anarchist societies are utopian and are entirely incapable of pragmatic reasoning.

The ironic thing is that the essential premises for this conclusion seem to be that the anarchist society is a utopia, and this contradicts martial ability.

Anarchists generally propose alternative organization (hence Dubius Dan`s distinction between civilization and anarchy, based not on standard of living but organization). That does not preclude success nor failure in the realm of the daily.

[DubiousDan]

The `problem`in anarchist military action results from the priori assumption that anarchist societies are utopian and are entirely incapable of pragmatic reasoning.

The ironic thing is that the essential premises for this conclusion seem to be that the anarchist society is a utopia, and this contradicts martial ability.

Anarchists generally propose alternative organization (hence Dubius Dan`s distinction between civilization and anarchy, based not on standard of living but organization). That does not preclude success nor failure in the realm of the daily.

I think I jumped to some conclusions regarding this post. I'll either change it again or leave it like this.

[Northern-Anarchist-X]

I wasn't referring to you so much as the first page ignorance crew. Anyways, I have more comment to make:

Nations all start out Anarchies, the question is how do we avoid getting jaded, lazy and corrupt - that and nothing else is what rules Anarchy out.

The concept of a leisure class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory ... sure_Class largely explains why we got to the nation-state. I believe that liberal enlightenment philosophers had an inkling of truth when they spoke of a desire for recognition. As a result, society has tended towards the coercion towards recognition at some point, "the dawn of civilization" one could say.

This created a leisure class. When 50 men hunt, 50 women pick fruits and tend to the family, and ten men call themselves an army. This may be why we're here.

Anarchism has a realization that coercion isn't moral, isn't efficient, whatever other nasty tags you want to put it on it. While liberals, conservatives, Socialists, and Fascists argue why they can kill, why they deserve to sit in an office while everyone else works; the anarchist sees this as counterproductive.

The argument is that the chosen members should have more freedom, otherwise society becomes: "jaded, lazy and corrupt."

It's largely irrelevant. When communities recognize the wrong in a leisure class, the concept dissapears. The anarchist society's objective would be to pragmatically apply the reasoning behind the wrong in coercion. A democratic mechanism towards exile would likely have to be applied, as DubiousDan alluded to, noting that members remain outside of the decision/action through voluntarism. Economics is one of those areas.

If one group of people work in agriculture, another in industrial production, they've agreed to that aim.

If people want to go it alone or starve to death, by all means.

"From each, according to his ability, to each according to his need" would likely be the ethos of the anarchist economic organization.

To sum up some fragmented reasoning (I've not really included metaphysics or anything into this - though I'd like to publish a complete systematic argument one day):

When politicians and businessmen become anarchists, they cease to become politicians and businessmen. They become savvy anarchists. Nothing more.

The recognition of the futility of their leisure and coercion is the basis.

For example, I was interested in politics, history, and military history in particular. I could pursue any number of "leisure class" careers in those areas. You'll note I made a comment on a discussion on China on the nuclear capabilities of countries like Israel, or China. With the anarchist political philosophy though, I think I've realized an error in my ways and efforts: I've personally become much more interested in what is right over what is easy.

The assumption you're making in the argument is that an anarchist society guarantees the right to do what is easy in contradiction to what is right. If it did so, it would no longer be anarchist, as coercion becomes a necessity. The anarchist society would (and has) recognized the wrong in coercion and not taken the path to what is "easy:" to coerce human beings. To guarantee equality in what is easy is to unbecome anarchist.

The anarchist seeks democracy, freedom, equality, and other ideas not because it by necessity makes the lives of all humans easier (it makes the lives of most humans easier), but because it is right. For instance, a worker-managed factory is not worker-managed to make all the workers feel bourgeois, it is to end coercion; making the factory operate "rightly."

Is that clear? Sorry if it seems muddled. That's I find a side-effect of discovering and learning as you think.

Dubious Dan
You're note on militias being potentially a pragmatic failure is correct, I think. However, in the grand scheme of things, systems fail because of internal contradictions, not one pragmatic lapse or another. There is as little guarantee that all anarchist societies will succeed eternally. I do believe, however, that it is the best method of social organization.

Also, I'm going to throw some largely unfounded opinion out here: Marx's idea that in communism the worker will work in the morning and be poets at night, enjoy leisure class benefits seems silly. I think that humans would behave more "rationally," dedicating themselves to physical and mental excellence in free time for instance, if freed from the chains of coercion and the leisure class ideal. This could give many more societies, as you put it, the "competence of the Swiss."

The ideas of the leisure class (I love the term) would no longer be as practical. Leisure would be reevaluated not in it's "civilization value but instead in human value. For example, is it bettering for me to jog everyday: yes. More valuable than playing soccer (which I do more of). This rationalism actually would probably pale in comparison to the instinct behind this.

In essence, I feel the cultural set as you describe it, would lend itself more to necessity and less to civilizational value: general competence would increase. Poetry for instance would not necessarily dissapear, but it certainly could lose value for instance.

[SecretSquirrel]

How to defend Anarchy

Nukes in every house and a bunker in every backyard!!

[Suska]

For many years now its been in the back of my mind, where did I get the term 'conspicuous consumption' thanks for clearing that up for me.

THE THEORY OF THE LEISURE CLASS

interesting stuff

[Northern-Anarchist-X]

Yourwelcome.

[culturalrider]

Sorry about posting in an old thread but this is too interesting a theoretical topic to pass up!

The members of an individualist anarchist society would be afraid of invasion by foreign invaders. This would create a market demand for military solutions for national defense. Those who have knowledge of military strategy would have to convince potential customers that they are capable of providing the most effective defense-oriented military service at the lowest price. Since defensive weaponry tends to be cheaper than offensive weaponry, there would likely be an ongoing campaign to continually beef up the defenses of the anarchist territory with anything from extensive cutting-edge bunkers to surface to air missiles. One of the things that customers might fear is an out-of-control private military company, so these companies would have to continually prove to their customers that no disreputable business is occurring, such as a diabolical plot to take over the entire anarchist territory. Additionally, there would likely be watchdog groups that would study the military defense services. Since the military services would be funded through customers rather than through tax dollars and deficit financing, sudden changes made to the military service's policy would not go unnoticed. The defense services would have a much higher incentive to keep civilians alive than modern military because each civilian death would not only be a loss of future revenue but would also be very, very bad PR.

[Melodramatic]

Hey culturalrider, why don't you introduce yourself in the in the lobby? get yourself known

I would argue that leaving defense to corporate interests is dangerous and inadvisable. Better to let the community, as in a voluntary community, run it. this will give it much more control and disable that destructive profit motive (although the soldiers themselves will still get paid, so there is no lack of incentive).

Actually defense in a problem for anarchists. Not because they cant do it right, but because, similarly to communism but more drastically, the states are bound to attack. they will make up a million excuses and attack to make sure there ideas will not arouse anything in their own people. This is one of the reasons I prefer waiting for the nations to be weaker, before making any change.

[Figlio di Moros]

Defense is one issue, so is justice. Without a clear hierarchy, even the most basic necessities of civilization become impossible to uphold. An ochlocratic justice system wouldn't presrve justice at all, and similarly for war.

f course, there's another issue with economics; without economies of scale, there's going to be plenty inneffeicient economic skemes, and economic democracy will only exaccerbate them.

DD was right, that anarchy and civilization are mutually exclusive. Civilization requires hierarchy to exist, and unless an anarchist territory recognizes and adopts this, it'll quickly become insolvent.

[kilgram]

For example in Spain in the Civil War there existed anarchist societies, mainly in Barcelona, well the anarchists were the front that more damage did to the franchist troops in some moments of the history of the Civil War.

But also there was a problem, the anarchists in a moment of the war couldn't access to the weapons retained by the republicans, and also they had less provisions and other problems that lead to be less strong, but discoordination wasn't, basically were problems of resources, and low quantities of provisions.

[DubiousDan]

DD was right, that anarchy and civilization are mutually exclusive. Civilization requires hierarchy to exist, and unless an anarchist territory recognizes and adopts this, it'll quickly become insolvent.

Actually I thought I corrected that. What I meant was that they were mutually exclusive within the same social order. The Norse and the Inuit coexisted for centuries in Greenland. Ironically, at that time, it was civilization that lost to Anarchy.
However, Anarchisms at present are not competitive with civilized social orders at the one thing civilization does best, war.
There are two solutions that I see. One is to evolve an Anarchist social order capable of defeating civilized social orders on the battlefield. This is unlikely given the resources needed to fight war at the present time. Two, to create a non-Anarchist social order which will destroy civilization. By destroying civilization, I am referring to my definition of civilization which requires both Harvesters and Elites. By creating a social order without the Elites, you have destroyed civilization. This can be done by converting an existing social order to a form which the Elites or their agents will be unable to control. Then once this social order is in place, perhaps it could evolve into an Anarchism.
This is an evolutionary mechanism to advance to Anarchism.
Anarchism doesn’t reject hierarchy, it rejects coercive hierarchy. It has no problem with, for example, the hierarchy of ability. You can be smarter, but you can’t use your smarts to compel people to your will. In short, the libertarian games are out.

I feel that if Humanity had a few centuries left, we probably would evolve into a post civilized social order, not necessarily Anarchistic, but without the excess baggage of the Elites. Unfortunately, as I see it, we have decades instead of centuries.