Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[narskie]

I think the best path to anarchy or libertarianism here in the US or anywhere requires first the elimination of corporations.  Remove their charters for example.  Then democratize and constantly reform government, pushing the institution to the limits as far as it can serve our interests and needs.  Then when we finally realize government and the idea of the nation-state isn't fit to fully serve our needs, we abolish that.

I think the mistake some so-called libertarians make is targetting the government first and essentially ignoring corporations.  As though they represent freedom and free markets, and only the government is bad.  This plays right into the hands of corporate tyrannies, because the more we limit government the more power is placed in hands of institutions that are totally secretive and unaccountable. 

I can't say I understand the fear of your fellow man.  Humans are social creatures and we work together towards shard goals.  We're not lonely predators that stalk around looking for other people to rip off.  We do anti-social things occasionally because the system forced on us is anti-social, but we're not.  The system that developed in Europe and now dominates the world (the nice word for it is capitalism), is spread and maintained through terror, violence and propaganda.  It demands these methods, because it is so unnatural to us. 

[Servant Corps]

Libertarianism is part of neo-libearlism, which believes in protecting private property, which includes corporations. There are libertarian "anarchists", but for the most part, they are seperate from most anarchists, which lean left. Libertarians don't agree with the elimnation of corporations since the protection of one of the most basic rights, that of private property, would suffer greatly.

And you still get the problem of how do someone know that your system is 'superior'. You're basically asking for someone to abolish everything we have before and then society will be all better. How is that convicing to anybody except those who already agree to you? You need to prove that your society is correct, and that means creating a society without said corporations and showing the world how's its done. Your society may not hand out charters, everything may be held in common or held by the state.

But meh.

[mainiac]

English invented modern democracy?  My muscular buttocks they did!

Modern democracy is highly based on the principal of constitutionalism whether or not the democracy in question is in fact constitutional.  The key isn't just that people have the avenue to affect government but rather in the living apparatus of the state, both writen and traditional.  Early democratic movements of the enlightenment believed that the mere act of vesting the power in the people would lead to good governance.  The US constitutions turned that system on it's head in the constitution by stating that it was through the participation in a state with the proper forms of representation and recourse, not the act of voting, which ensured a representative system, after witnessing the failures of early enlightenment democracy during the time of the articles of confederation.  Although other countries had democracy, it was the US constitution and the Federalists who created the first modern democracy by creating this idea of the modern democratic state.  Any successful democracy has emulated this model whether in code or merely in tradition, by creating the rules of governance which democratic action must adhere too.  Denying the American innovation in this regard, given the groundbreaking nature of the constitution and the federalist papers is something I cannot abide.

[E. Albright]

And how you prevent people from blaming all the 'autonomous zones' failures on lack of people as opposed to fundemental flaws?

And the example of Liberal Representative Democracy ignores the fact that democratic forms of government was done on small scales in the 13 colonies before the Revolutionary War. They aren't the Liberal Democracy of today, but there are town hall meetings and elections, so democracy was tested in North America and proven to work. This is far different from promoting an ideology that has not been tested before.

But it outlines the fundamental flaw in thinking that a system should be judged "fundamentally flawed" if it cannot succeed on a microscopic scale when surrounded and technically governed by a much larger and diametrically opposed (if not outright hostile) system. The fact that such a system fails once doesn't in any way prove it's fundamentally untenable. It prove that it failed in that circumstance. We cannot issue blanket statements claiming that it must be fundamentally unsound if it cannot survive this arbitrary trial-by-fire. The Liberal Market Democracy example ignores nothing of this (though colonial America was hardly an example of Liberal Market Democracy in any modern sense; if absolutely nothing else, consider carefully the prevailing labor models before thinking to make such a claim). Citing smaller-scale examples where this ideal did not fail is totally irrelevant, because you're suggesting that we ignore that possibility. You're suggesting that we draw a conclusion about the fundamental coherence and correctness of a theory base on a single data point. You're suggesting that those discontent with the current prevailing system should try to drop out of it (without actually leaving it), and if (when) their solitary efforts fail, they should conclude their ideals were muddle-headed and Utopian.

Also, the notion that they should either try (and likely fail) to live their ideals or totally abandon them in favor of the status quo is a classic Radical Moderate strategy to eliminate "extremists". There's no reason ideologues cannot cling to ideals they'll likely never see come to full fruition in their lives, even if they never try to implement them. They can instead attempt to incrementally shift the existing system closer to the preferred outcome. Evolutionary change rather than revolutionary change. Or more bluntly, refusing to let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

[Servant Corps]

But it outlines the fundamental flaw in thinking that a system should be judged "fundamentally flawed" if it cannot succeed on a microscopic scale when surrounded and technically governed by a much larger and diametrically opposed (if not outright hostile) system.

This assumes said "larger and diametrically opposed (if not outright hostile) system" would know, much less even care about your system. As long as you follow the laws and pay taxes, the larger system will not care (Austraila has lots of micronations that they don't crack down as long as they pay taxes, for instance, and the US has several micronational projects too). The whole act of an autonomous zone is to test your ideas, away from the system, paying nominal loyalty to it and obeying its laws, but carrying out your own reforms within your zone, to prove your ideology can work.

If you don't like living there, then you could desire to be fully 'indepedent', but I prefer having the experiment be easy to do, rather than focus solely on trying to get indepedence without actually implementing said ideology and seeing if it works.

The fact that such a system fails once doesn't in any way prove it's fundamentally untenable.

That may be true, but if you believe this is true, you need to repeat the experiment again, this time ensuring that the cirmustances are more 'favorable'. If you want, you can have more and more experiments being done, having more "data points", then compare and constrat, seeing how many systems 'failed' or 'succeded'.

I can't see how one can propose a ideology without having any experience in showing that this ideology actually works (or, more accurately, how do you 'implement' said ideology in the correct manner to allow for a functioning community). I really can't. If it can work, it should work. And merely believing in an ideology without any proof whatsoever, to waste valuable time and resources to promote something that may not even be true...that is far too risky.

I mean, hack, I know people state that some ideologies might work only on the micro-level, and not on the macro-level, but to state that an ideology might not work on the micro-level, but work on the macro-level...well...

EDIT: I did some discussion with other people. It is true that just because a community fails, it may be due to other reasons. I still hold onto the belief that if more experiments were done, we will be able to conclude how successful such an ideology would be. Oh well, meh.

[Rezan]

This assumes said "larger and diametrically opposed (if not outright hostile) system" would know, much less even care about your system. As long as you follow the laws and pay taxes, the larger system will not care (Austraila has lots of micronations that they don't crack down as long as they pay taxes, for instance, and the US has several micronational projects too). The whole act of an autonomous zone is to test your ideas, away from the system, paying nominal loyalty to it and obeying its laws, but carrying out your own reforms within your zone, to prove your ideology can work.

If you succeed, you prove it can work. In that exact circumstance. If you fail, you prove that it cannot work. In that exact circumstance.

This is the point I believe E. Albright tried to make you understand.

If you don't like living there, then you could desire to be fully 'indepedent', but I prefer having the experiment be easy to do, rather than focus solely on trying to get indepedence without actually implementing said ideology and seeing if it works.

Ideology should never be about simplicity. The world is not simple. Why should your ideology be? It can be no simpler than what it is trying to affect.

That may be true, but if you believe this is true, you need to repeat the experiment again, this time ensuring that the cirmustances are more 'favorable'. If you want, you can have more and more experiments being done, having more "data points", then compare and constrat, seeing how many systems 'failed' or 'succeded'.

I can't see how one can propose a ideology without having any experience in showing that this ideology actually works. I really can't. If it can work, it should work. And merely believing in an ideology without any proof whatsoever, to waste valuable time and resources to promote something that may not even be true...that is far too risky.

I mean, hack, I know people state that some ideologies might work only on the micro-level, and not on the macro-level, but to state that an ideology might not work on the micro-level, but work on the macro-level...well...

It is necessary to actually try the "system" on a macro-scale to determine whether it is suitable there. Testing out micro-scale systems will only help you determine whether a system could work on a micro-scale. An indication might be given as to whether a macro system would work, but nothing more - and one cannot base any actions on merely an indication.

[narskie]

If we're still talking about anarchy, it has been tried in a large-scale industrial society.  And it was successful.  That what I was talking about with the whole Spain thing.

Read the Spanish Revolution article on wiki.  So we don't need any micro experiments to prove that it works.   

[mainiac]

One, solitary anarchist society composed of a very fortitous slice of the population was able to survive for a very short time before being destroyed by outside forces it was in no possition to resist.  That hardly proves that anarchism would have survived over a large area, for a longer amount of time or with a less inclined population.  Many of the proponents of anarchism in fact exibit tendencies not found in the Catalonia example, namely an individualism streak a mile long. 

Furthermore, the Catalonia example is not what most people think of when they think of anarchism, including many anarchists.  I myself would say that Catalonia would be better described as voluntary communitarianism being widely adopted by a population (an event that does not require any significant political change and has happened very often throughout history, many religious groups had such an experience and some hippie communes were as lucky) and meeting a sudden political vacuum (something that is rare in such communities.)

Saying therefore that anarchism is proved to have "worked" because for a short time it found success in Catalonia about on par with many movements which shared many traits with Catalonia (a sense of solidarity, a broad desire for equality and the sudden possibility for a classless society.)  And I believe that the widespread acceptance of communitarian sentiments can not be ignored in the Catalonia example as that is THE common factor in akin political bodies.  And communitarianism is a belief which anarchists with libertarian tendencies (which I believe is most of them) seem to despise.

Which is not to say that Catalonia isn't a very interesting case, as the most industrialized and one of the largest examples of widespread voluntary communitarianism I am aware of.  However, I believe the more pressing questions are 1) how can we allow a society to emerge which is sufficiently communitarian for an anarchist political society to emerge and 2) how can we allow that anarchist society to remain anarchist and communitarian knowing that many such movements that aren't destroyed from the outside lose these traits over time.  Attempting to achieve anarchism directly is entirely the wrong goal.

[Aqizzar]

Catalonia is still a pretty poor example of Anarchism "working".  For one thing, it's hardly anarchic, with a representative government and a strong police force with a serious espirit de corp.  It's also ultimately subsumed under the Spanish government, and has no real power of autonomy outside of it's own borders.

Then there's the significant difference from these "tear it all down and start over" anarchists, that Catalonia has been a distinct entity for thousands of years.  It has a shared and distinct language, culture, and public identity that gives it a perpetuating, stabilizing strength far greater than any kind of political ideology.  Patriotism, even in a microstate, is a stronger political bond for many more people than academic debate over the methods of rule.

And of course there's their tiny little problem that the Catalonia state established in 1932 failed, i.e. lost it's independence to Franco.  Why?  Franco had more people, money, and guns.  That is not "cheating" or "evil" or "conspiratorial" or "unfair" or "irrelevant".  That is a excellent demonstration of one of the strengths of traditional, centralized states - allocation of resources over a larger scale.  It is a simple fact of reality that you do not found a state in a vacuum, and if someone is hell bent on conquering you, you're going to have to fend them off.  And if you can't stand up to that fight, you lose, because indignation is not a weapon.

[Servant Corps]

Meh. I still like some way of verifying ideologies work via experimentation rather than relying on rhertoic. It doesn't seem right to accept an ideology based on faith, but oh well.
***
I think I rather care more about the anarachist bands who controlled some areas after the Revolution of 1905 and the Revolution of 1917. I'm not quite sure how they worked, but I think they seized factories and run them by themselves (altough that sounds very similar to Russian Soviets).

They didn't last long enough for 'ideological corruption' to set in. You need effective organization to win wars, and the anarachists didn't have that at all.

For example, the Bolsheviks in 1917 tried to create an army based solely on workers during the Russian Civil War, because ideology told them that their revolution was a workers' revolution. This army based solely on workers wasn't very successful, usually running away, and Leon Troskty was brought in to bring displince to the army and reorganize it.

[E. Albright]

And I believe that the widespread acceptance of communitarian sentiments can not be ignored in the Catalonia example as that is THE common factor in akin political bodies.  And communitarianism is a belief which anarchists with libertarian tendencies (which I believe is most of them) seem to despise.

Catalonia is still a pretty poor example of Anarchism "working".  For one thing, it's hardly anarchic, with a representative government and a strong police force with a serious espirit de corp.  It's also ultimately subsumed under the Spanish government, and has no real power of autonomy outside of it's own borders.

Ah, yes, that traditional American perception that the "realest", most "common" form of anarchism is the right-wing, "freedom-to", anarchocapitalist variety

Anarchism is in its origins (and most of its advocates if we don't limit ourselves to Anglo-Saxon media representations) a non-hierarchical, radically democratic, self-organizing stateless collectivism. To call up a hoary old observation, the revolutionary French slogan proposed three virtues (liberty, equality, and fraternity) that the following century's revolutionary ideologies would prioritize differently: liberalism put liberty first, socialism equality, and anarchism fraternity.

Historically, anarchism has a strong communitarian bent, and I suspect that even within the US (and certainly outside it), serious (as oppose to frivolous or faddish) anarchists remain predominantly of the left-wing variety (e.g., Chomsky) rather than the right-wing sort that the media has rendered synonymous with the term.

[Servant Corps]

"non-hierarchical, radically democratic, self-organizing stateless collectivism"

How is that 'freedom' if you are part of a collective?

See, I reserve anarachism for left-wingers, and libertarianism for right-wingers. No confusion there. My view of anarachism is that there is no such 'collective' at all, everyone is indepedent and free to rule their own lives. There would be no 'collective' telling them what to do. See, if you got a collective, you have the possiblity that eventually somebody would take control of the 'collective', and when that happens...it's no longer anarachy, but rather tyranny. Or, less likely (but still possible), what would happen in a "tyranny of the majority" situation, where a majority of the collective seeks to oppress a single individual person?

[Rezan]

Why would the collective tell them what to do? They would know what to do based on common sense and what their community required. The only thing anarchism is really dependent on is people doing the right thing rather than the thing that benefits themselves most - and obviously honesty, as information and statistics would have to be made in order for people to make decisions on what will benefit the community (meaning statistics on how much food is required, how much industry is required, what have you).

You can still be free in a collective; it's just that the collective wouldn't work without having people cooperating and doing things that benefit it. The individuals in this collective would have to understand and abide by this, otherwise things wouldn't go too well. Again, it would be their freedom of choice to choose whether they wanted to be part of it all and reap the benefits or not.

[Servant Corps]

Oh. That's kinda what I expected about the "experiments" I talked about earlier, but I assumed that there would always be a head leader that tells what people do, after consulting the individuals within the society. (The leader has to consult the individuals, because if the individuals hate the leader, they can always leave. But if the individuals always have the possiblity to destroy the society by leaving it...then the leader never 'really' have power...)

That may explain why my teacher called me an anarchist...

But then why should anarchists want to first take over a whole country in order to implement such a society? Why is it that hard to rent out a warehouse and run your anarachist society by yourself, right here, right now? I know people have done these societies before, and they succeded admirably, but meh.

[mainiac]

Why would the collective tell them what to do?

Because historically, anarchist communities usually adopt some sort of governing structure over time.  Look at Christianity.  It started as an entirely anarchistic society, everyone was free to come and go as they please and they shared willingly with each other.  Many isolated christian communities were founded that existed in the early days, among them anarchistic ones.  But the anarchism vanished and the main branches of christianity became very heirarchical.

I turn your question around on you.  Why the wouldn't anarchism revert to some sort of governing body seeing as that's what's happened to every anarchist community ever?