- 05 Mar 2014 03:10
#14371915
The last two months, I've been thinking and reading as much as I could about Anarchist ideas. From Anarchist Communism to Anarcho-capitalism, I tried to consider every thinker and every ideology. As a result, I've come to accept Anarchism theoretically, but there are still many doubts wandering in mind about its practicality.
Because I know that my vision of economic matters tends to be a biased capitalist one, I would like someone to contend my claims on why an Anarchist society would not be possible/desirable - just to make sure that if I reject Anarchism theories it's not because of having been manipulated by the society I live in.
Enough for an introduction. The following are my reservations about Anarchism as a whole. I am aware that some of my doubts may not be applicable to every kind of anarchist ideology, especially to Anarcho-Capitalism and to other individualist anarchist systems. So allow me to focus mainly on Social/Communist/Marxist anarchist philosophies, as I believe in present day (at least in the West) it is not the State's authority on political/social liberties that's unacceptable, but its defense (based solely on authority) of an unjust economic system:
Economic matters:
· If the economy is run by workers' associations, the distribution of "income" (as credit, vouchers, or whatever) in the economy will be unjust or prone to disputes. Possible clashes may occur between these associations. After all, who is to say that this job is harder/easier than another job? And who determines which workers have or don't have the ability to do it? Unlike a capitalist or state socialist economy, there is no one (not even a market) to assign a value to labor. Unless everybody received the same income (or goods, in a moneyless anarcho-communist economy for example) no matter what job you are doing, in which case....
· There would be no motivation for the workers to do their job right. If we assume human beings to be self-interested individuals, they wouldn't put more effort into their work just for the sake of it. In a money-less communist society, workers get their goods at the end of the day, whether they did their work as effectively as they could or not; since remuneration goes "to each according to his need". One could argue that a lazy worker could be fired by the workers' "council" but that's against the whole spirit of brotherly generosity between humans. If that's allowed to happen, then it's not impossible for a worker to lose his job because the council wanted another man in his place or because they didn't like him.
· Even if you had a democratic management of the economy (with decentralised economic planning, kind of like the case in Parecon), it could be the case that the population doesn't take the best decisions about its management. Let's say people, on the whole, imagine they would like to acquire 500 pairs of shoes this month. Now, since there's no authority to control the distribution of goods, it may be the case that someone who hadn't planned to buy shoes this month decides to do it now. As a result, one of the people who had originally planned to buy a pair will have none. It probably doesn't sound like a big deal, but what happens when a situation like this occurs in a big scale? You could have a serious shortage of a good, or viceversa, a big surplus of unwanted goods. True, it could all be solved if the person who took the pair that didn't belong to him said next time that he is intending to buy one. But what if he doesn't? Or what if someone else does the same he did? That way, the economy would be experiencing shortages and producers would not respond to the call (because on paper, they keep receiving the task to produce 500 pairs). This would probably not happen in a market. There is no price mechanism in this situation, so if it was agreed that the apple was worth 2 credits then it will remain the same in spite of an increase in the demand for it. Had the apple been worth 3 credits as a result of its high demand, then maybe those that decided all of a sudden to buy one would back out. Bottom-line, Anarchism requires full cooperation from every member of society. At the same time, if that happened it would mean consumers have no "real" freedom of choice.
Social matters:
· Conflicts would be incredibly problematic. For one thing, these societies can't have laws; otherwise they'd abolish certain liberties. As there can be no set of rules in which to base on, it would be difficult to reach a solution which could be considered "just". Yet most importantly, there would have to be an organisation for this, because someone has to decide the issue, right? So there should have to be a judge or a jury. In which case you give special authority to people (something that Anarchism should not do). But even if it does - democratically or in any other way - who would enforce the law? What if the victim/guilty party do not agree with the verdict? You can't send communal police or the like to enforce the verdict, because in that case you would have created a new mini-State.
I apologize in advance if this has gone on for too long.
Look forward to hearing what you have to say
Because I know that my vision of economic matters tends to be a biased capitalist one, I would like someone to contend my claims on why an Anarchist society would not be possible/desirable - just to make sure that if I reject Anarchism theories it's not because of having been manipulated by the society I live in.
Enough for an introduction. The following are my reservations about Anarchism as a whole. I am aware that some of my doubts may not be applicable to every kind of anarchist ideology, especially to Anarcho-Capitalism and to other individualist anarchist systems. So allow me to focus mainly on Social/Communist/Marxist anarchist philosophies, as I believe in present day (at least in the West) it is not the State's authority on political/social liberties that's unacceptable, but its defense (based solely on authority) of an unjust economic system:
Economic matters:
· If the economy is run by workers' associations, the distribution of "income" (as credit, vouchers, or whatever) in the economy will be unjust or prone to disputes. Possible clashes may occur between these associations. After all, who is to say that this job is harder/easier than another job? And who determines which workers have or don't have the ability to do it? Unlike a capitalist or state socialist economy, there is no one (not even a market) to assign a value to labor. Unless everybody received the same income (or goods, in a moneyless anarcho-communist economy for example) no matter what job you are doing, in which case....
· There would be no motivation for the workers to do their job right. If we assume human beings to be self-interested individuals, they wouldn't put more effort into their work just for the sake of it. In a money-less communist society, workers get their goods at the end of the day, whether they did their work as effectively as they could or not; since remuneration goes "to each according to his need". One could argue that a lazy worker could be fired by the workers' "council" but that's against the whole spirit of brotherly generosity between humans. If that's allowed to happen, then it's not impossible for a worker to lose his job because the council wanted another man in his place or because they didn't like him.
· Even if you had a democratic management of the economy (with decentralised economic planning, kind of like the case in Parecon), it could be the case that the population doesn't take the best decisions about its management. Let's say people, on the whole, imagine they would like to acquire 500 pairs of shoes this month. Now, since there's no authority to control the distribution of goods, it may be the case that someone who hadn't planned to buy shoes this month decides to do it now. As a result, one of the people who had originally planned to buy a pair will have none. It probably doesn't sound like a big deal, but what happens when a situation like this occurs in a big scale? You could have a serious shortage of a good, or viceversa, a big surplus of unwanted goods. True, it could all be solved if the person who took the pair that didn't belong to him said next time that he is intending to buy one. But what if he doesn't? Or what if someone else does the same he did? That way, the economy would be experiencing shortages and producers would not respond to the call (because on paper, they keep receiving the task to produce 500 pairs). This would probably not happen in a market. There is no price mechanism in this situation, so if it was agreed that the apple was worth 2 credits then it will remain the same in spite of an increase in the demand for it. Had the apple been worth 3 credits as a result of its high demand, then maybe those that decided all of a sudden to buy one would back out. Bottom-line, Anarchism requires full cooperation from every member of society. At the same time, if that happened it would mean consumers have no "real" freedom of choice.
Social matters:
· Conflicts would be incredibly problematic. For one thing, these societies can't have laws; otherwise they'd abolish certain liberties. As there can be no set of rules in which to base on, it would be difficult to reach a solution which could be considered "just". Yet most importantly, there would have to be an organisation for this, because someone has to decide the issue, right? So there should have to be a judge or a jury. In which case you give special authority to people (something that Anarchism should not do). But even if it does - democratically or in any other way - who would enforce the law? What if the victim/guilty party do not agree with the verdict? You can't send communal police or the like to enforce the verdict, because in that case you would have created a new mini-State.
I apologize in advance if this has gone on for too long.
Look forward to hearing what you have to say