[Sven G]

Very interesting thread!

... As for me, I'm essentially an anarchist, in the sense of a libertarian socialist (or libertarian communist, another frequently used term among anarchists); "libertarian" (with lowercase L), here is in the European meaning - *not* in that of the US "Libertarian Party", which has nothing to do with anarchism (even if they claim they are "anarcho-capitalists" - which is just an oxymoron).

I think we should bring back Hegel (of whom I'm not particularly a fan, but *some* of his theory is interesting) to this discussion, as there has been a rather polarized splitting of views: on one side, capitalism, on the other, socialism/communism/anarchism. It almost seems that capitalism and socialism are the two polarities in a thesis-antithesis couple - what could the synthesis be? Has anyone tried to address this fundamental question?...

Capitalism <---> Socialism; Individual <---> Collective; Liberty <---> Equality; Free Market <---> Government; Local <---> Global; etc., etc...

... These are some of the "polar opposites" that have been discussed (partly also here): why not try a synthesis of all those - a dynamic, complex and multiply connected synthesis? What would you get, in a society that could be able to "synthesize" - in a dynamic, Yin-Yang-like "positive balance" - individual liberty with social equality, individual difference with collective decision-making, and so on...?

IMHO, you get anarchy in its original meaning: that is, a classless society in which human beings don't have to rely upon externalities to "motivate" themselves, but are first of all *interiorly* motivated by the sense of pleasure of a meaningful life, both individually and collectively. Just imagine how interestingly complex and multicolored life could be if everyone were free from the artificial scarcity and misery (both spiritual and material) that capitalism (and authoritarian, "real" - sic! - socialism/communism, for that matter) imposes upon people...

And it's not at all an utopia (IMO): it simply requires some deeper ethical values and education, and more individual *and* social responsibility (not the almost purely economically motivated one that has been predominant sofar).

BTW, here are some good hints at how an anarchistic/libertarian federalist/socialist society could look like (I'm not making propaganda: it could just be interesting for those who had requested some alternatives - these seem to be quite viable alternatives, indeed!):

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html

Personally, I think that anarchism explicitates some very fundamental human values, which would be quite easy to apply in practice, *if* there were enough "critical mass" for a quantum leap (see the '60s for a partial "(r)evolution" on this front, for example): many of those values - such as liberty, solidarity, difference, etc. - already widely exist among most people (at least at a subconscious and/or "private" level) - it's just, essentially, a matter of letting them have the opportunity to "self-educate" themselves within an ethical framework (education, of course, in its original meaning of "letting come out what is already within"). I'm not saying that "human nature" is inherently good (if there even is a human nature: the post-structuralists, for example, would say that there is not) - but it's certainly perfectible and freedom-loving, if allowed to expand beyond purely "material" worries. Capitalism (and its unseparable ally, the State), unsurprisingly, tends to forcedly keep everyone "busy", often with completely useless and dispersive ways of "working" - thus largely inhibiting self-consciousness and the search for more fulfilling ways of living and interacting with oneself and others.

P.S.: A *very* practical example of anarcho-syndicalism in action was the so-called Spanish Civil War, and in particular Barcelona in 1936: even if they were in war, people managed to self-organize a whole city through anarchistic principles, even widely *improving* the efficiency of industries, farms, public transportation, etc. - without the need for oppressive hierarchy and money! So it *is* possible for people to self-manage their lives without any sacrifices to their current standards of living; on the contrary, the "capitalistic" standards of living would be enormously improved upon for everyone - truly "democratically" - in a libertarian federalist and socialist society.

[driven]

Originally posted by deekay1:


you are exactly right, driven, and i have long ago stoped applying these terms of classification.

to me human beings are a biological entity that tries to survive, just like any other species. doing what it has to do in order to survive. once resources are limited, it might (or might not) take (or defend itself) from others in order to guarantee its survival.

"good" and "bad" then become points of view, depending on what side you are on. but it is NOT a question of essence (as some religions might want you believe).

so to end this, i leave you with a quote from our beloved shakespear:"nothing is good or bad,- thinking makes it so".

Ahh ... but that is NOT a religious point of view. It's purely a political and philosophical view. (And it has been debated by far greater men than ourselves.)
(I'll leave the background as a research project for you ... it's worth a gander if you've never looked at or heard of these debates before.)

[denim]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Liberty <---> Equality;

Explain how these are polar opposites, please.

Just imagine how interestingly complex and multicolored life could be if everyone were free from the artificial scarcity and misery (both spiritual and material) that capitalism (and authoritarian, "real" - sic! - socialism/communism, for that matter) imposes upon people...

Humans can't live w/o some sort of organization. We're not yet at the point where we can both enjoy life and provide everything we need for ourselves with no outside help.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by denim:


Explain how these are polar opposites, please.



Humans can't live w/o some sort of organization. We're not yet at the point where we can both enjoy life and provide everything we need for ourselves with no outside help.

For the first point: in the sense that capitalism and (neo)liberalism (in theory!) favors individual liberty at the expense of social equality, and "traditional" socialism (in theory!) favors social equality at the expense of individual liberty: anarchism as a political theory gives equal weight to liberty and equality - yes, also the US constitution has some anarchistic aspects!

For the second point: "no outside help" - exactly! Self-management means this: that *everyone* (as far as possible) should be a leader. Personally, I think it could be quite possible, and not without organization, but *with* a truly federalistic organization: anarchy *is* organization (remember the circled "A"?) - a non-hierarchical, decentralized, "networked" organization.

[denim]

Originally posted by Sven G:
For the first point: in the sense that capitalism and (neo)liberalism (in theory!) favors individual liberty at the expense of social equality, and "traditional" socialism (in theory!) favors social equality at the expense of individual liberty: anarchism as a political theory gives equal weight to liberty and equality - yes, also the US constitution has some anarchistic aspects!

For the second point: "no outside help" - exactly! Self-management means this: that *everyone* (as far as possible) should be a leader. Personally, I think it could be quite possible, and not without organization, but *with* a truly federalistic organization: anarchy *is* organization (remember the circled "A"?) - a non-hierarchical, decentralized, "networked" organization.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any aspect of that response which doesn't set off my bullsh!t meter: it's totally bogus.

First of all, I asked about the (uhoh) diametricality between "liberty" and "equality". You added some other things to try to illustrate it, and failed dramatically.

Second, you didn't say anything about my second point. All you did was add something which didn't address it.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by denim:


I'm sorry, but I don't see any aspect of that response which doesn't set off my bullsh!t meter: it's totally bogus.

First of all, I asked about the (uhoh) diametricality between "liberty" and "equality". You added some other things to try to illustrate it, and failed dramatically.

Second, you didn't say anything about my second point. All you did was add something which didn't address it.

... In other words, you didn't understand my points.

Let's make it simpler: (for anarchists) liberalism (or free-market capitalism) is essentially an incomplete theory of liberty, while "socialism" (or "state capitalism", aka "real socialism" � la USSR) is essentially an incomplete theory of equality: in practice, neither accomplishes their primary goal, and even less that of overall justice and freedom. Of course, if you want to know why liberty and equality could be diametrically opposite in "absolute" terms, I can't help you, as they aren't...

Your second point is something about humans not being able to live without some form of organization, etc.: a rather arbitrary statement, IMO, as the problem is not whether we should organize, but *how* we should organize - but I presume that you meant that it's impossible for "ordinary" people to live without top-down organization from above...?

Probably, we just have different opinions...

[driven]

In repsonse to an early exchange with Ca$h about Communism I'll add this article which I found today.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/807429.asp

Apparently North Korea is going the way of China and embracing a market economy.

Another one gives up on the utopian dream.

[denim]

Originally posted by Sven G:
... In other words, you didn't understand my points.

I must admit that you've clarified quite a bit this time. I got lost in the weeds while trying to plow my way through the prior explanation.

Let's make it simpler: (for anarchists) liberalism (or free-market capitalism) is essentially an incomplete theory of liberty, while "socialism" (or "state capitalism", aka as "real socialism" � la USSR) is essentially an incomplete theory of equality: in practice, neither accomplishes their primary goal, and even less that of overall justice and freedom.

I suggest that this is arguable; it's not a "given".

Of course, if you want to know why liberty and equality could be diametrically opposite in "absolute" terms, I can't help you, as they aren't...

The posting you originally posted that in implied that they were. If you don't stand behind that aspect, I'm all set with my question.

You seemed to be trying to set up a multi-dimensional graph to display different (dis)organizational philosophies, but you can't do that if you don't have the axies right. Using liberty versus equality is not appropriate, as they aren't gradiations on the same scale, which is my point.

Your second point is something about humans not being able to live without some form of organization, etc.: a rather arbitrary statement, IMO, as the problem is not whether we should organize, but *how* we should organize - but I presume that you meant that it's impossible for "ordinary" people to live without top-down organization from above...?

No. I meant that people form organizations to manage the normal process of living. They're lost without them. Whether the organization is top-down or some sort of amorphous comittee formed by all the people involved, is a separate issue: my point is that there will be some form of organization because there seems to have to be in situations where people aren't all alone. A man is not an island. If he was, he'd have to provide everything for himself, which is generally not the situation.

Even if he is on his island with only his woman, or with his woman and their children, the organization involved is a "pairing" or a "family" respectively, not so much an anarchy as a socialist (in the former case) or fascist (in the latter case) regime: a kind of "you'll take out the trash because I said so, or I'll beat you" sort of thing. It's still an organization because there are relationships between the people. Am I making any sense here?

[Sven G]

Originally posted by denim:
[...] No. I meant that people form organizations to manage the normal process of living. They're lost without them. Whether the organization is top-down or some sort of amorphous comittee formed by all the people involved, is a separate issue: my point is that there will be some form of organization because there seems to have to be in situations where people aren't all alone. A man is not an island. If he was, he'd have to provide everything for himself, which is generally not the situation.

Even if he is on his island with only his woman, or with his woman and their children, the organization involved is a "pairing" or a "family" respectively, not so much an anarchy as a socialist (in the former case) or fascist (in the latter case) regime: a kind of "you'll take out the trash because I said so, or I'll beat you" sort of thing. It's still an organization because there are relationships between the people. Am I making any sense here?

Good: perfectly clear!

Of course, IMO, the most effective form of organizations are (as far as possible) those "among equals", that is, the "horizontal", federative ones; delegation and top-down "management" should be kept to a minimum (only when and where necessary, if at all), and *always* revocable in any moment: the problem with many of today's "organizations" is that "power" stagnates and becomes concentrated among an elite, thus vanifying democracy itself.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Sven G, thank you for contributing to my thread so intelligently, and eloquently. You put into words what I have had turning in my head for months.

Good show

[Sven G]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
Sven G, thank you for contributing to my thread so intelligently, and eloquently. You put into words what I have had turning in my head for months.

Good show

Oh, thanks! I also hope others will (continue to) contribute to this great thread...

BTW, if you are really interested in anarchism (and related theories and practices), http://www.anarchistfaq.org is a *very* good and interesting starting point - also with plenty of links to other sites.

[denim]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Of course, IMO, the most effective form of organizations are (as far as possible) those "among equals", that is, the "horizontal", federative ones; delegation and top-down "management" should be kept to a minimum (only when and where necessary, if at all), and *always* revocable in any moment: the problem with many of today's "organizations" is that "power" stagnates and becomes concentrated among an elite, thus vanifying democracy itself.

I have no argument with this at all.

[Chuckmcd]

Originally posted by deekay1:

you are exactly right, driven, and i have long ago stoped applying these terms of classification.

to me human beings are a biological entity that tries to survive, just like any other species. doing what it has to do in order to survive. once resources are limited, it might (or might not) take (or defend itself) from others in order to guarantee its survival.

"good" and "bad" then become points of view, depending on what side you are on. but it is NOT a question of essence (as some religions might want you believe).

so to end this, i leave you with a quote from our beloved shakespear:"nothing is good or bad,- thinking makes it so".

Driven is right, this is a philosphy problem, not a religious one. Religion and philosphy are two very different subjects, throw in theology and you have an even tougher discussion.

Your theory has some problems though... was what Hitler did wrong dispite the fact that it was legal (agreed upon as right) in his society? If so, than there is one universal, or absolute... one opens the door to others. So if there is a Moral Law, even just one.. where did it come from?

[bryh28]

Sven G has certainly written some robust arguments in favour of anarchism.
Myself, I'm a leftist . More from instinct than from learning. A lot of replies on this thread cite various political philosophers that I find it hard to comment on due to this lack of learning and I shy away from those whose arguments are thus better informed than my own.
It's a difficulty that I have always had in discussion with neo-liberal capatilists and anarchists alike through the years. (You know you're right but can't express why!)

I believe that the rights of all individuals were fought for by the collective action of the underclass, and won when their representative organisations moved into government and were able to take power from the elitists and the cliques that saw such control as a birth-right, ie. the aristocracies. This leads me to the conclusion that the only way to spread equality and eradicate poverty (surely the ultimate goal?) is through the structures set in place by the autocratic rulers in the first place, ie. government. A government that sees its duty as representing the poorest in society and will regulate and tax those whose primary goal is to amass personal wealth regardless of their impact on the wealth, opportunity and environment of those less empowered to alter their circumstances. It goes without saying that these goals apply to the international as well as the national community.
My question to SvenG then is this: Does anarchism have the power to turn the tide of neo-liberal capatilist "democracy"? Put another way, there is theory and there is RealPolitik. Can you convince a public that sees "Socialism as un-American" (to quote Michael Franti) to accept a more radical approach like Anarchism? If not, is Anarchism destined to be no more than intellectual masturbation.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by bryh28:
[...] My question to Sven G then is this: Does anarchism have the power to turn the tide of neo-liberal capatilist "democracy"? Put another way, there is theory and there is RealPolitik. Can you convince a public that sees "Socialism as un-American" (to quote Michael Franti) to accept a more radical approach like Anarchism? If not, is Anarchism destined to be no more than intellectual masturbation.

Well - rather embarassing question!

... But it's not really up to me to give you any ultimate answers (anarchists usually don't give "blueprints"): as I essentially said to L'enfanTerrible, the best way to learn about anarchism and libertarian-oriented thought is to read some interesting webpages, books, etc. - you could start with http://www.anarchistfaq.org (part of the Infoshop.org web site, which is *really* well made from an informative point of view - even if I don't agree with all its contents).

And, yes, my path to anarchism has largely been of an intellectual/theoretical kind (from essentially social democratic backgrounds, having also lived in Scandinavia for many years, during the Palme period: I'm 37), but that doesn't mean that it's unimportant from a practical point of view - quite the contrary! For example, in almost any historical period, anarchistic-like practices have coexisted - as a form of "submerged", parallel society - with the "mainstream", hierarchical way of behaving: a very good book on this is Colin Ward's (a contemporary British anarchist architect/urbanist) Anarchy in Action; there are also plenty of associations and movements that are pretty much inspired by anarchistic and libertarian lines of thought (for example, to remain in a field that interests me quite a lot, there is the US movement of New Urbanism: http://www.newurbanism.org ).

The fundamental thing is that anarchism - rather differently from classic liberalism and marxist socialism - is a syncrethic theory/practice (and it may also be considered as the ultimate result of Enlightenment and secularisation): that is, for example, you can't have individual liberty without social equality, and vice versa - and they *must* happen at the same time, in a dynamic equilibrium! (That's also why anarchists are completely against the Marxist/Leninist vanguardism and "dictature of the proletariat", besides being against capitalist and state oppression.)

If you are concerned about the effective practical impact of anarchism, you could just read, for example, something about the Spanish Revolution or the '60s (and 1968), etc., which were truly anarchistic uprisings of the (informed and educated) oppressed, until unethical manipulation by political parties, etc. made them fail: sofar, the "seasons" of anarchy have been short and unfrequent, but that might change in the future, especially if people like you find these ideals interesting - and even more if you find that they are, first of all, *pleasurable* and personally fulfilling (I really think that pleasure is one of the fundamental keys towards successful, non-violent (r)evolutions with permanent effects)...

So, to directly answer your question: yes, I think that anarchism has some quite good chances to considerably influence people's self-management tendencies in the (even near) future - also as the current authoritarian/fascistoid (and "neoliberal") attitudes are doomed to collapse, sooner or later, being completely illogical, and contrary to everyone's interest.

P.S.: A quite practical and "no-nonsense" anarchist of the past was, for example, the Italian Errico Malatesta; it's very interesting to read some of his writings (also available on the web), especially those against fascism: seems to be today...

[deekay1]

Originally posted by Chuckmcd:
Driven is right, this is a philosphy problem, not a religious one. Religion and philosphy are two very different subjects, throw in theology and you have an even tougher discussion.

Your theory has some problems though... was what Hitler did wrong dispite the fact that it was legal (agreed upon as right) in his society? If so, than there is one universal, or absolute... one opens the door to others. So if there is a Moral Law, even just one.. where did it come from?

funny that it came across that i was making it out to be a religious problem.

imo religion, morality, and ethics are very personal things (that you might want to believe in or not, or that you have to a greater extenet or not).

but whatever you do believe, you CHOOSE to believe it. which is different from science (evolution) which is based on scientific facts (yes, in this case i do accept the term fact, though some might argue it is a matter of belief as well ).

so is there ABSOLUTE moral law? no, i don't think so (i'm an agnostic though on that ). was what hitler did "wrong" eventhough what he did was justified by his own countries laws? in "my book", yes, wronger than wrong!, but ABSOLUTELY (or if you like "essentially") wrong,- unfortunately we can't tell.

maybe one could argue that what hitler did was against the principals of evolution, against nature itself, and thus "wrong".

interesting though, how this ties in with all the "religion (absolute truth/existence of god)" and "evolution vs. creation" threads...