[SolarCross]

Anarchists! Just what exactly are the main principles and ideas of your Anarchism? Tell the world here!

For me at the moment it is not about rejecting everything the state does but only rejecting that the state alone should do these things. In short I reject political monopolism. Is your idea different?

I am reading 'Demanding the Impossible - A history of anarchism' at the moment. The experience so far has opened my eyes to the diversity of anarchistic ideas and practices. But what are the core ideas that anarchists of all colours could build a consensus on?

[SecretSquirrel]

The fundamental principle for me is the non-aggression principle. Subsidiary to it is the Kantian principle to always treat humans as ends in themselves, never as means to an end.

The STATE is not possible without aggression. Therefore, the state is never legitimate. Therefore, one owes no allegiance to it and its agents are personally culpable for the crimes that they commit in its name.

Apart from being anti-state and anti-coercion I have no further goals or principles. This makes me voluntaryist. I'm OK with whatever forms of organisation human beings voluntarily form and voluntarily maintain.

I will add that I have the personal moral leanings of an evangelical christian (though I'm Jewish) but those are my personal choices and I would never impose them on others.

[Eran]

I agree with every word (except the personal bit at the end).

I see the non-aggression principle as derivable from the Kantian principle of treating others as ends in themselves. Governments in practice are all about regularising, normalising and thus legitimising the coercive use of some people as means towards societal (or, more likely, opportunistically-selfish) goals.

On a personal note, my moral leanings are very liberal. I adopt a "live and let live" attitude that blesses a wide range of lifestyle choices, always of course conditional on respect for the NAP.

The NAP which both SecretSquirrel and I view as the basis of our political philosophy, deserve explicit formulation. I welcome other people's views. The succinct formulation ("Aggression is Wrong") leaves the term aggression undefined. Substituting initiation of force for "aggression" is only slightly better. Proper understanding of what constitutes initiation of force requires the concept of property.

With an arbitrary definition of property, the NAP loses its content. For example, if our starting point is that the state owns everything, the NAP would sanction any government regime whatsoever.

We could, at this point, detail how libertarians see property being justly acquired. There are only 2-4 principles that can be stated quite briefly. Doing so, however, severs the link to the NAP, which would be odd.

I propose an alternative formulation of the NAP (and, again, would appreciate constructive criticism) along the lines of:

It is wrong to use force against another person or his ongoing peaceful projects

The "peaceful" part creates self-reference, as it refers to conduct itself consistent with the NAP, but this self-reference isn't circular.

From this formulation one can derive the elementary principles of libertarian property theory. It helps defining necessarily abstract terms like homesteading and easement, both critical (and the latter under-appreciated) to that theory. In fact, it helps motivate the concept of property itself.

[SecretSquirrel]

To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.

To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality!

“State, State”—Tjaden snaps his fingers contemptuously. “Gendarmes, police, taxes, that’s your State;—if that’s what you are talking about, no thank you.”
“That’s right,” says Kat, “you’ve said something for once, Tjaden."

[grassroots1]

Apart from being anti-state and anti-coercion I have no further goals or principles. This makes me voluntaryist. I'm OK with whatever forms of organisation human beings voluntarily form and voluntarily maintain.

We've had this discussion a hundred times, but the problem is always what can be considered voluntary. If you are living at subsistence wages and "voluntarily" accepting a contract from your employer in that situation to contract out your labor, how "voluntary" is that action? Labor movements of the past have existed because of the lack of voluntary nature of the unhindered capitalist system which (unless I am mistaken), is what you support S_S. So what freedom is there if people are living in shanty-towns with no electricity, while some live in mansions with all of the amenities of life? What is the oppression here? Is it the taxing of the rich man (which could be considered voluntary, since the people have come to the decision through a democratic process) or the virtual enslavement of the poor one (which can be considered voluntary, because the worker could technically, if not realistically, turn down the contract)? There is a balance between these things.

[Eran]

We've had this discussion a hundred times

I know! But doesn't it just get to be more fun every time?

the problem is always what can be considered voluntary

True. Like "freedom", "property", "fairness", "force", "aggression" and "exploitation", "voluntary" is a flexible concept, used differently by different people.

How about the following formulation of the basic libertarian normative tenet of the Non Aggression Principle:

It is wrong to physically interfere with another person's ongoing peaceful projects

Setting aside life-threatening emergencies, the principle is a reasonable concrete expression of the liberal notion of inherent equality of authority between people. I am not better than you, it says, and consequently I have no right to second-guess or otherwise interfere with your projects (provided, of course, that your projects are "peaceful", i.e. respect other people, both me and third parties).

[SolarCross]

We've had this discussion a hundred times, but the problem is always what can be considered voluntary. If you are living at subsistence wages and "voluntarily" accepting a contract from your employer in that situation to contract out your labor, how "voluntary" is that action? Labor movements of the past have existed because of the lack of voluntary nature of the unhindered capitalist system which (unless I am mistaken), is what you support S_S. So what freedom is there if people are living in shanty-towns with no electricity, while some live in mansions with all of the amenities of life? What is the oppression here? Is it the taxing of the rich man (which could be considered voluntary, since the people have come to the decision through a democratic process) or the virtual enslavement of the poor one (which can be considered voluntary, because the worker could technically, if not realistically, turn down the contract)? There is a balance between these things.

The mistake you are making is in thinking that the state ever hinders the capitalist (or better say oligarch) system. In practice it always serves the capitalist more than the worker. In real terms it always taxes the poor man more than the rich and hands over the best benefits to the capitalist.

Anarchy wouldn't be an unhindered capitalist system but rather an unprotected or undistorted capitalist system. Unprotected by the state capitalism (in the sense of money monopolism) would become marketism which would put suppliers and demanders on a even playing field. Note workers are suppliers in the sense they are selling a commodity, their labour. Employers are in a sense demanders is the sense they are purchasing the workers commodity.

[acvar]

For me it is very simple. Anarchy is the understanding that the state is nothing more then society with a gun, and that society is imaginary. Society does not exist. Individuals exist. Society is an imagainary scapegoat created to rationalize away actions that give us pause. The state does not arrest you. The policeman kidnaps you. The state does not tax you. The taxman steals from you. The state does not imprison you. The warden and his gauards throws you in the cage. The state does not execute you. The exectutioner kills you. The state does nothing. Individuals do it all. I just want to get rid of all the obfuscation so we can honestly interact with each other.

[michael3]

For me it is very simple. Anarchy is the understanding that the state is nothing more then society with a gun, and that society is imaginary. Society does not exist. Individuals exist. Society is an imagainary scapegoat created to rationalize away actions that give us pause. The state does not arrest you. The policeman kidnaps you. The state does not tax you. The taxman steals from you. The state does not imprison you. The warden and his gauards throws you in the cage. The state does not execute you. The exectutioner kills you. The state does nothing. Individuals do it all. I just want to get rid of all the obfuscation so we can honestly interact with each other.

Good points. The 'State' provides a means of rationalizing what would be otherwise considered evil or criminal behavior, by the claim of the 'State' to have a legitamate monopoly of the use of force and indeed, the intitiation of violence and theft, and the Agents of the State use a fictional writ or mandate from this metaphysical Entity to do so.

How many people are initiated into what would otherwise be socially considered evil or criminal behavior by involvement with or observation of the State? If Prisons are a 'School' for Criminals, so to speak, and are themselves an institution of the State, then perhaps the other institutions of the State such as the Military are likewise schools for rationalized and learned bad behavior? Government then would be considered rightfully the biggest sinful 'structure' there is in the World today, a curse and parasite upon Civilization.

[Paradigm]

Anarchy is a society in which there is no ruling class. All people are involved in day-to-day decision-making and all people have equal access to the means of production. People are free to run their own lives to the extent that they do not interfere with the lives of others, and when collective decision-making is needed, it is done through consensus rather than imposed upon people through the mandate of some separate state entity.

Anarchism holds in common with libertarianism a rejection of the authority of the state. But it differs from libertarianism, including so-called anarcho-capitalism, in terms of where this critique comes from. For libertarians and an-caps, the critique of the state comes from the non-aggression principle, viewing any initiation of force by one individual against another as illegitimate. Anarchists also recognize the state as a violent, coercive entity whose power is based on force, but force is not seen as negative in itself. We might agree with the non-aggression principle if it applied to collective systems of power and had a broad enough definition of self-defense, but most libertarians would not go to that extreme.

The anarchist critique of the state is based primarily on hierarchy. We reject as illegitimate any social system based on class class, and that includes any political class. The state may be defined as any political entity in which there is a separate political class whose decisions are enforced on the populace. We view this separation of politics from the people as illegitimate, even if the people are given the opportunity to decide which people to elect to this political class. The state creates all sorts of institutions to impose upon people and prevent them from taking their lives into their own hands. A prime example is the police. We are taught that they are necessary to uphold the peace and prevent crime. Yet any well-armed community could just as easily police itself. The police are instead imposed upon the population in order to perpetuate systems of oppression such as capitalist exploitation and white supremacy.

For anarchists, the critique of the state cannot be separated from the critique of all other forms of oppression and hierarchy, whether it be wage slavery, resource exploitation, patriarchy, white supremacy, or any number of other systems of oppression. We recognize that the state is necessary in order to uphold capitalism. It is only through the power of the state that capitalists can gain the kind of control over the means of production necessary to compel workers to come work for them rather than produce for their own livelihood. But we do not pretend that all such systems of hierarchy will disappear with the abolition of the state. Patriarchy and white supremacy are certainly aided by elements of state power, but they are more cultural problems than anything, and will require changing the culture. This is why the work of anarchism will never be complete. There will always be new layers of hierarchy and oppression to deconstruct.

[Sceptic]

We might agree with the non-aggression principle if it applied to collective systems of power and had a broad enough definition of self-defense, but most libertarians would not go to that extreme.

I'm curious as to what you mean about applying NAP to collective systems of power. Are you referring to the supremacy of hierarchy over aggression in a community's moral approach? In other words, when you talk about applying NAP to collective sytems of power, are you essentially making the point that forms of hierarchy such as exploitation (via wage labour) are in themselves aggression? And when you talk about a 'broad[er] definition of self-defence' I presume you are referring to self-defence against said forms of aggression?

[Paradigm]

I'm curious as to what you mean about applying NAP to collective systems of power. Are you referring to the supremacy of hierarchy over aggression in a community's moral approach? In other words, when you talk about applying NAP to collective sytems of power, are you essentially making the point that forms of hierarchy such as exploitation (via wage labour) are in themselves aggression? And when you talk about a 'broad[er] definition of self-defence' I presume you are referring to self-defence against said forms of aggression?

Pretty much. An individualistic perspective doesn't allow you to see the broader systems of hegemony. If libertarians were better at thinking in terms of systems, their view of what constitutes aggression might be a bit broader.

[Sceptic]

Pretty much. An individualistic perspective doesn't allow you to see the broader systems of hegemony. If libertarians were better at thinking in terms of systems, their view of what constitutes aggression might be a bit broader.

You see I both agree and disagree with you here. On one hand, I believe that anarchists and the left in general are much better at accounting for the bigger picture, whereas libertarians are too focussed on their black and white thinking (perhaps some of the an-caps on this forum ought to heed SecretSquirel's advice and take Georgism a bit more seriously). But then it also seems to be a logical consequence that if you remove coercive institutions, people will want free trade, wage labour and property rights (specifically private property). This is not necessarily preferable, or more ethical even, to the sort of society you envision but on the whole they don't have to twist semantics to fit in with their conceptions of the State, property and force.

[Paradigm]

But then it also seems to be a logical consequence that if you remove coercive institutions, people will want free trade, wage labour and property rights (specifically private property).

That is an assumption that a lot of libertarians make, but private property as we know it today could not exist without the state, and wage labor is a result of the artificial scarcities caused by private property. Did you know that there were no police forces until the rise of capitalism? That's no mere coincidence. Capitalism relies upon the security state, and one thing we're seeing right now is that as capitalism becomes less able to provide for the people, the security state takes up a larger and larger proportion of the economy.

Of course, simply abolishing the state and letting the chips fall where they may is not what most anarchists advocate(insurrectionary anarchists do, but those fuckers are crazy). We see the need for a dual power strategy that builds counter-institutions on anarchist principles, so as to create the new world in the shell of the old.

[Sceptic]

That is an assumption that a lot of libertarians make, but private property as we know it today could not exist without the state, and wage labor is a result of the artificial scarcities caused by private property. Did you know that there were no police forces until the rise of capitalism?

It's interesting that the left anarchists tend to use a historical approach as opposed to the a priori assumptions that catallactics is based on. Essentially, the argument could be proposed that the concept of private property is based on voluntary transactions, such as wage labour (exploitation negotiated) as opposed to the historical existence of land enclosures, such as private property. Furthermore, 'police' exist in different forms, such as the State mandated police force of today as opposed to the civil militias of a left anarchist society, or the private military and security contracts of an anarcho-capitalist society. Before the historical, as opposed to the catallactic theory of capitalism, Ancient Rome, for example, didn't have a police force but then it also had much higher crime rates than the society of today.

We see the need for a dual power strategy that builds counter-institutions on anarchist principles, so as to create the new world in the shell of the old.

If it's a question of voluntaryism (i.e. a gradual peaceful revolution as opposed to a violent revolution to overthrow state and corporate power), then the question of justly acquired property rights also needs to be addressed. Depending what spin you put on this concept, it could be entirely compatible within a right libertarian framework.

[michael3]

Anarchy is a society in which there is no ruling class. All people are involved in day-to-day decision-making and all people have equal access to the means of production. People are free to run their own lives to the extent that they do not interfere with the lives of others, and when collective decision-making is needed, it is done through consensus rather than imposed upon people through the mandate of some separate state entity.

Anarchism holds in common with libertarianism a rejection of the authority of the state. But it differs from libertarianism, including so-called anarcho-capitalism, in terms of where this critique comes from. For libertarians and an-caps, the critique of the state comes from the non-aggression principle, viewing any initiation of force by one individual against another as illegitimate. Anarchists also recognize the state as a violent, coercive entity whose power is based on force, but force is not seen as negative in itself. We might agree with the non-aggression principle if it applied to collective systems of power and had a broad enough definition of self-defense, but most libertarians would not go to that extreme.

The anarchist critique of the state is based primarily on hierarchy. We reject as illegitimate any social system based on class class, and that includes any political class. The state may be defined as any political entity in which there is a separate political class whose decisions are enforced on the populace. We view this separation of politics from the people as illegitimate, even if the people are given the opportunity to decide which people to elect to this political class. The state creates all sorts of institutions to impose upon people and prevent them from taking their lives into their own hands. A prime example is the police. We are taught that they are necessary to uphold the peace and prevent crime. Yet any well-armed community could just as easily police itself. The police are instead imposed upon the population in order to perpetuate systems of oppression such as capitalist exploitation and white supremacy.

For anarchists, the critique of the state cannot be separated from the critique of all other forms of oppression and hierarchy, whether it be wage slavery, resource exploitation, patriarchy, white supremacy, or any number of other systems of oppression. We recognize that the state is necessary in order to uphold capitalism. It is only through the power of the state that capitalists can gain the kind of control over the means of production necessary to compel workers to come work for them rather than produce for their own livelihood. But we do not pretend that all such systems of hierarchy will disappear with the abolition of the state. Patriarchy and white supremacy are certainly aided by elements of state power, but they are more cultural problems than anything, and will require changing the culture. This is why the work of anarchism will never be complete. There will always be new layers of hierarchy and oppression to deconstruct.

I tend to agree with most of what you've said. However, I think it's possible to posit a natural and organic hierarchy outside the oppressive man-made structures of human history. Perhaps it's a matter of perspective; after all, many Statists project Hierarchy onto the Animal Kingdom with the Colonial insects such as Ants and Bees, for example, when they are better described as collective beings in total harmony-a perfect example of the ideal Anarchist society of the future, a family where each works and contribute selflessly for the good of all.

[Baff]

Anarchy resets beurocracy to zero for a short period.

Which is the only effective control over it we have.

[michael3]

Anarchy resets beurocracy to zero for a short period.

Which is the only effective control over it we have.

I'm sorry, I would not describe Anarchy as being that interim period between power groups taking over a region of the earth.

To me Anarchy is that revolutionary period in human history when a Stateless Society will establish order without the state, labor without exploitation or the usurpation that we call 'property', and co-operation and peace without force or fraud.

[Baff]

To me anarchy is the revolution itself.

What comes after is just the next government.

[SecretSquirrel]

that is because what anarchists want is not revolution, but rather, insurrection

this was a major point for Stirner

"Revolution and insurrection must not be looked upon as synonymous. The former consists in an overturning of conditions, of the established condition or status, the State or society, and is accordingly a political or social act; the latter has indeed for its unavoidable consequence a transformation of circumstances, yet does not start from it but from men's discontent with themselves, is not an armed rising, but a rising of individuals, a getting up, without regard to the arrangements that spring from it. The Revolution aimed at new arrangements; insurrection leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged"