NationStates Jolt Archive

I was curious about how a system of anarchism would protect the environment from being ruined by industry.

I know we had to create government bodies like the EPA and pass protection laws in order to get businesses to comply since no community group or private business could do the job so I was wondering how having no government would resolve this issue.

(Please try to refrain from posting a link to the anarchist manifesto as an answer. The key to good writing is brevity.)

I've always taken the view that in a theoretical anarchic state, the former "government" would have essentially become an eco-terrorist organization.
Think about it:
anarchists believe that in an "ideal world" people can look after themselves, that they no longer need a government telling them how to do things properly.

so the government moves on. It loses it's primary purpose, to watch over the people and tell them what to do, and it gains a new purpose - watch over the earth, and keep it alive.

However, I'm not an anarchist. I'm not sure what the actual position is on this issue.

Anarchy would handle it through direct democracy and decentralization. Because things would be handled locally and through direct democracy, the community would own and manage factories in its vicinity. The people there would have a good reason to prevent pollution since they would live relatively close to the factories their community manages.

There is also far less motivation to pollute in anarchism, anyway, since products aren't being made for profit. Because the maximization of profit isn't the goal, there is a much smaller incentive to skimp on pollution reducing measures. The factories would be managed heavily by nearby communes, so the people operating them would have to take that into account.

Anarchy would handle it through direct democracy and decentralization.

I'm a little confused. This sounds like how communism was described back in the good old days, not anarchy.

There are plenty of examples of anarchy. In Somalia there is little or no heavy industy, so you could say that anarchy is good for the environment. On the other hand, most people live as subsistance farmers, which generally isn't that good for the environment, but as least you could say they live close to nature as they have little clothing or shelter to create an artificial barrier between them and the natural world.

I'm a little confused. This sounds like how communism was described back in the good old days, not anarchy.

To Letila, Communism and Anarchy are one in the same.

As for the question, it can be assumed that, even in an anarchy, a judicial system would still be in place, to settle contract and criminal cases. Pollutants who do damage to public or private property would be held liable within the judicial system. If they harm someone else's well being or property, they are held responsible and will be made to rectify the situation at whatever cost. If it bankrupts them, so be it.

even in an anarchy, a judicial system would still be in place, to settle contract and criminal cases.

Wow! Do you know how big a government would be required to do that? They would need a police force to coherce people who didn't agree with their rulings on contract and criminal cases. They'd need prisions or other correctional services. They'd need to train/educate judges, police, correctional services officers. Could any of this work without public education of some kind? If a large chunck of the population ends up illiterate, it will become hard to enforce contracts. And of course they will need taxes to pay for all this.

This sounds like big government anarchy.

And once you do have a government, what's to stop people demanding public goods such as immunization or sewage systems? It only takes one good ebola epidemic to convince people to submit to the onerous slavery of centrally planned disease prevention.

Wow! Do you know how big a government would be required to do that? They would need a police force to coherce people who didn't agree with their rulings on contract and criminal cases. They'd need prisions or other correctional services. They'd need to train/educate judges, police, correctional services officers. Could any of this work without public education of some kind? If a large chunck of the population ends up illiterate, it will become hard to enforce contracts. And of course they will need taxes to pay for all this.

This sounds like big government anarchy.

And once you do have a government, what's to stop people demanding public goods such as immunization or sewage systems? It only takes one good ebola epidemic to convince people to submit to the onerous slavery of centrally planned disease prevention.

I don't believe true anarchy will ever be acheived because it requires a universal mindset. Everyone must believe that their end of the social contract must be upheld. Judicial systems could be privately maintained if that universal mindset is reached, so technically, government wouldn't be required.

I was curious about how a system of anarchism would protect the environment from being ruined by industry.

I know we had to create government bodies like the EPA and pass protection laws in order to get businesses to comply since no community group or private business could do the job so I was wondering how having no government would resolve this issue.

(Please try to refrain from posting a link to the anarchist manifesto as an answer. The key to good writing is brevity.)

This is actually an excellent question, and one that I've often pondered being close to an anarchist mindset myself.

You see, anarchy is really just the flipside of rightwing libertarianism when you really look at it. Both espouse a type of free market, do as you will mentality. But while that doctrine would work wonders to solve many of this country's ills, certain facets would surely suffer, the poor and the environment being just a couple examples.

I really don't have the answer. Maybe the truth is that some form of regulatory government is necessary until people evolve to the point where they're actually able to honestly police themselves.

in addition to what letila said, a lot of anarchists (along with many environmentalists more generally) hold the position that our ecological crisis is largely an outcome of our social system. we dominate and subdue and exploit nature because we dominate and subdue and exploit humans. except in cases where humans are a newly introduced predator species, ecological crises for human societies occur not to egalitarian groups, but to ones which are hierarchical. to quote bookchin's "what is social ecology" (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/socecol.html):

"The way human beings deal with each other as social beings is crucial to addressing the ecological crisis. Unless we clearly recognize this, we will surely fail to see that the hierarchical mentality and class relationships that so thoroughly permeate society give rise to the very idea of dominating the natural world."

and

"We must emphasize, here, that the idea of dominating nature has its primary source in the domination of human by human and the structuring of the natural world into a hierarchical Chain of Being (a static conception, incidentally, that has no relationship to the evolution of life into increasingly advanced forms of subjectivity and flexibility). The biblical injunction that gave to Adam and Noah command of the living world was above all an expression of a social dispensation. Its idea of dominating nature can be overcome only through the creation of a society without those class and hierarchical structures that make for rule and obedience in private as well as public life. That this new dispensation involves changes in attitudes and values should go without saying. But these attitudes and values remain vaporous if they are not given substance through objective institutions, the ways in which humans concretely interact with each other, and in the realities of everyday life from childrearing to work and play. Until human beings cease to live in societies that are structured around hierarchies as well as economic classes, we shall never be free of domination, however much we try to dispel it with rituals, incantations, ecotheologies, and the adoption of seemingly "natural" ways of life."

I'm a little confused. This sounds like how communism was described back in the good old days, not anarchy.

here we go again.

back on the merry-go-round. weee!

I'm a little confused. This sounds like how communism was described back in the good old days, not anarchy.
Alot of people make the mistake of thinking anarchism has nothing to do with socialism. This is false. An anarchist societry would be socialist meaning that their wouldn't be private industry--the people would own the means of production collectively. Yet unlike a leninist socialist state, there would not be an government body dictating to the people, decisions would be made and carried out collectively.

I was curious about how a system of anarchism would protect the environment from being ruined by industry.

I know we had to create government bodies like the EPA and pass protection laws in order to get businesses to comply since no community group or private business could do the job so I was wondering how having no government would resolve this issue.

(Please try to refrain from posting a link to the anarchist manifesto as an answer. The key to good writing is brevity.)

In an anarchist society the institutions that promote and reinforce the cancer-like mindset of growth at any cost would be absent. People's power would be limitted to only those decisions that affect them. Therefore, I personally wouldn't be able to compell another community to accept my pollution. The only person or community that I could pollute would be my own. This might sound like a wildly radical assertion to some, but I think very few people would knowingly consent to being poisoned absent any coercion.

Alot of people make the mistake of thinking anarchism has nothing to do with socialism. This is false. An anarchist societry would be socialist meaning that their wouldn't be private industry--the people would own the means of production collectively. Yet unlike a leninist socialist state, there would not be an government body dictating to the people, decisions would be made and carried out collectively.

An anarchist society would not have to be communist. It is just as, if not more reasonable to assume that an anarchy would rely on private property.

It would be nearly impossible for there to be a public property system in the absense of a state.

In an anarchist society the institutions that promote and reinforce the cancer-like mindset of growth at any cost would be absent. People's power would be limitted to only those decisions that affect them. Therefore, I personally wouldn't be able to compell another community to accept my pollution. The only person or community that I could pollute would be my own. This might sound like a wildly radical assertion to some, but I think very few people would knowingly consent to being poisoned absent any coercion.

I think he is more or less talking about unlawful pollution. Polluting without the consent of others.

There is no need to compel others to accept your pollution when you can shoot it out of a smokestack.

An anarchist society would not have to be communist. It is just as, if not more reasonable to assume that an anarchy would rely on private property.

It would be nearly impossible for there to be a public property system in the absense of a state.
That is not anarchism. Anarchism is not simply an absence of government, it is the abscence of hierarchy including economic hiearchy. Most anarchist doctrine focuses on decentralizing power to municipalites, towns, and factories etc. Unlike Leninist Socialism there would be no central planning, 5 year plans or anything like that.

An anarchist society would not have to be communist. It is just as, if not more reasonable to assume that an anarchy would rely on private property. Not if you accept the premise (as P.J. Proudhon espouses) that private property (as distinct from private possesions) is theft. Theft from the common good to be more accurate.
It would be nearly impossible for there to be a public property system in the absense of a state. That's the idea.

There seem to be a lot of people on this thread who are commenting on the goals and philosophies of anarchy without having read any of the theories espoused by anarchists over the last several centuries. While I commend your creative and analytical abilities, I think you would benefit from reading some of them.

An excellent collection of anarchist theory is located at the anarchy faq (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/).

Some authors you might like to read are located here at the anarchy archives (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/index.html).

I think he is more or less talking about unlawful pollution. Polluting without the consent of others.

There is no need to compel others to accept your pollution when you can shoot it out of a smokestack.

No, I'm talking about all pollution. And yes, you do have to compell others if you want to shoot it out of a smokestack. People live downwind. If you pump it out into the sky without their consent they might object. Absent the profit motive you'd have no need to poison others.

That is not anarchism. Anarchism is not simply an absence of government, it is the abscence of hierarchy including economic hiearchy.

Then anarchy is patently impossible.

Hierarchy will exist in any society that is not completely egalitarian, and hierarchy is not a limitation of freedom.

Most anarchist doctrine focuses on decentralizing power to municipalites, towns, and factories etc. Unlike Leninist Socialism there would be no central planning, 5 year plans or anything like that.

Impossible for modern society. Regional specialisation, geographical pooling of resources, and the ease of transportation and information would immediately create hierarchy amongst the municipalities.

An anarchy can't have a governing body of ANY level.

As even the Anarchist FAQ posted says, anarchy is "Contrary to Authority".

That includes authority of the community over the individual.

The moment one person in an anarchy has any power over another person in an anarchy, it is no longer an anarchy.

Then anarchy is patently impossible.

Hierarchy will exist in any society that is not completely egalitarian, and hierarchy is not a limitation of freedom.



Impossible for modern society. Regional specialisation, geographical pooling of resources, and the ease of transportation and information would immediately create hierarchy amongst the municipalities.
You are probably right, I am not an anarchist, I was just trying to explain what it is, but I don't militantly defend anarchism.

However I might suggest you check out "Homage to Catalonia" by george orwell, about his adventures in Anarchist spain if you think anarchism is totally impossible. You also might try to do a little reading about the Paris Commune, the first but very short lived real attempt at an anarcho socialist community.

Absent the profit motive you'd have no need to poison others

I don't understand this. Why is there no profit motive under anarchy? If I'm in an anarchy (perhaps Somalia) and I make a pair of boots, what's to stop me from selling them for a profit?

An anarchy can't have a governing body of ANY level.

As even the Anarchist FAQ posted says, anarchy is "Contrary to Authority".

That includes authority of the community over the individual.

The moment one person in an anarchy has any power over another person in an anarchy, it is no longer an anarchy.
Yes but the communities would be run through direct democracy. It is not like every little town would have its own stalin ruling with an iron fist, more like decisions would be made through town hall type gatherings and such.

Then anarchy is patently impossible.
Hierarchy will exist in any society that is not completely egalitarian, and hierarchy is not a limitation of freedom.
Impossible for modern society. Regional specialisation, geographical pooling of resources, and the ease of transportation and information would immediately create hierarchy amongst the municipalities.

What's interesting here is that the question posted at the beginning of the thread wasn't whether anarchy was possible or not, but rather how an anarchist society would deal with pollution. The answer to the pollution question, is "easily".

If you'd like to move on to the new question -- Whether a complex, technologically advanced anarchist society can exist -- I'll be happy to engage you on that one.

Yes but the communities would be run through direct democracy. It is not like every little town would have its own stalin ruling with an iron fist, more like decisions would be made through town hall type gatherings and such.

If my neighbor has a say as to whether I do something, I'm not living in an anarchy.

It doesn't matter if you break it down in to a billion democracies, a democracy is NOT an anarchy.

If there are three people in the world, and two of them can vote to make the third one do something they don't want to do, it is NOT an anarchy.

An anarchy can't have a governing body of ANY level.
As even the Anarchist FAQ posted says, anarchy is "Contrary to Authority".
That includes authority of the community over the individual.
The moment one person in an anarchy has any power over another person in an anarchy, it is no longer an anarchy.

Yes, so why would I, as a dweller in an anarchist community accept the power of a person over my freedom? For that matter, why would anyone in my community stand by and allow another to coerce me?

Yes, so why would I, as a dweller in an anarchist community accept the power of a person over my freedom? For that matter, why would anyone in my community stand by and allow another to coerce me?

Then it's not a democracy, it's self-elected participation.

If my neighbor has a say as to whether I do something, I'm not living in an anarchy.
It doesn't matter if you break it down in to a billion democracies, a democracy is NOT an anarchy.
If there are three people in the world, and two of them can vote to make the third one do something they don't want to do, it is NOT an anarchy.

Your neighbour would only have a say in your actions to the extent that they have an effect on her. He would be completely in her rights to say "Don't kill me." "Don't take my last bagel." and "You look tired brother, how 'bout I carry that for you?"

And you are right, anarchy isn't a democracy. Who said it was?

If there were three people in the world, do you think it would be possible for them to negotiate a relationship based on mutual aid, as opposed to one based on mutual competition and coercion?

If my neighbor has a say as to whether I do something, I'm not living in an anarchy.

It doesn't matter if you break it down in to a billion democracies, a democracy is NOT an anarchy.

If there are three people in the world, and two of them can vote to make the third one do something they don't want to do, it is NOT an anarchy.
Again Anarchism as a political doctrine means something very differnet than utter chaos. There would be cooperation and organization on a decentralized non hierachal basis. I don't know what else to say...

Then it's not a democracy, it's self-elected participation.

I never claimed an anarchist society was a democracy and I wish you wouldn't imply that.

Democracy is one form of social decision making, consensus is another. Assigning stakeholders varying degrees of voting power is yet another. In those cases where consensus was impossible to achieve, there are a wide variety of methods for making collective decisions each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Hence the many different strains of anarchist thought, from the syndicalists to the anarcho-communists to the primitivists and beyond.

Again Anarchism as a political doctrine means something very differnet than utter chaos. There would be cooperation and organization on a decentralized non hierachal basis. I don't know what else to say...

I feel your pain and frustration. Do you think they are deliberately missing the point or is it some fundamental inability to envision a society free of structures of domination and submission?

Your neighbour would only have a say in your actions to the extent that they have an effect on her. He would be completely in her rights to say "Don't kill me." "Don't take my last bagel." and "You look tired brother, how 'bout I carry that for you?"


Have you read the rest of the thread? Someone on here advocated a court system within an anarchy. Contradictory.


And you are right, anarchy isn't a democracy. Who said it was?


Read the rest of the thread. Read Letila's statements.


If there were three people in the world, do you think it would be possible for them to negotiate a relationship based on mutual aid, as opposed to one based on mutual competition and coercion?

Mutual aid -is- coercion and competition.

"I won't help you unless you help me, I won't avoid hogging the deer unless you avoid hogging the deer."

Again Anarchism as a political doctrine means something very differnet than utter chaos. There would be cooperation and organization on a decentralized non hierachal basis. I don't know what else to say...

Anarchism relies on self-elected participation. The moment there is an individual or GROUP with any form of power over anyone else, democratic or otherwise, it ceases to be an anarchy. Families aren't even anarchies.

I never used the word chaos, so you're pullng a damned Limbaugh like the hard-line Communists and Christians keep doing.

I feel your pain and frustration. Do you think they are deliberately missing the point or is it some fundamental inability to envision a society free of structures of domination and submission?
Definitely the second option. Also the term anarchy has been so overused by slick marketing people to sell sports drinks and bad alternative music that young people couldn't possibly hope to have any idea what the term really means.

Wow! Do you know how big a government would be required to do that? They would need a police force to coherce people who didn't agree with their rulings on contract and criminal cases. They'd need prisions or other correctional services. They'd need to train/educate judges, police, correctional services officers. Could any of this work without public education of some kind? If a large chunck of the population ends up illiterate, it will become hard to enforce contracts. And of course they will need taxes to pay for all this.

This sounds like big government anarchy.

And once you do have a government, what's to stop people demanding public goods such as immunization or sewage systems? It only takes one good ebola epidemic to convince people to submit to the onerous slavery of centrally planned disease prevention.

It's pretty much why government appeared, really. Difficulties needed solutions and the Chief and Shaman were there to offer their solutions.

Later on as technology improved to make lives easier the primitive chief/shaman model evolved into a king/minister model and work was divided by the ministries/departments. Many of these ministries DID have their basis in local religion (temples were the first organized schools after all) and even taught the sciences (or what qualified as science at the time) and complex maths (the construction of temples/pyramids/etc. have a lot of math and knowledge involved in their construction without a doubt).

Democracy came about when the leaders were abusing people. The 'people-run' democracy was representative of all people in the nation and all their problems got more attention (your results may vary :p ).

As far as I can reason, government is the evolution of society and reflects our level of technical and psychological knowledge. Government will inevitably get bigger and any shrinkage is a step back (unless it is an increase in efficiency by stremlining bureaucracy) into a more primitive society to which few people would want to return.

Then there is the military problem: like the Romans against the Guals. The Romans were organized with extensive government and had great technology. Greed and nationalism took root and they rampaged over the small village communes. Those that were organized could not fight back well because they lacked the technology and suffered heavy losses and eventual defeat. On the plus side: they got roads :)

To make sure no one creates an army and begins to pillage you'd have to make sure everyone adhered to a commune anarchist lifestyle: enter communism. This form of communism wouldn't have the anti-religion sentiment as the one we know now since it won't be created (hypothetically) in the anti-religion fervor that existed during Marx's day. However, the level of tolerance would be determined from the guys running the government: enter eventual dictatorship: enter genocide and neglect: enter revolution: enter democracy.

Incenjucarania you read way too much into Letila's statements while neglecting mine on the variety of ways that collective decisions could be reached.

Furthermore you made the somewhat absurd claim that mutual aid is coercion rather than respectful decision between free agents and then in your very next posting you said, I never used the word chaos, so you're pullng a damned Limbaugh like the hard-line Communists and Christians keep doing.
I think that we could have an interesting discussion here if you refrain from pointless hairsplitting and hasty generalisations.

Definitely the second option. Also the term anarchy has been so overused by slick marketing people to sell sports drinks and bad alternative music that young people couldn't possibly hope to have any idea what the term really means.

True, the term has been misused and debased. Many people discussing anarchy for the first time are generally unfamiliar with the general concepts of heirarchy, domination and control and I don't fault them for that whatsoever, the beautiful thing about ignorance is that it can be corrected.

What I find more than a little disturbing is that fact that so many people posting on the subject seem to find the concepts of cooperation, autonomy and mutual aid completely incomprehensible.

Incenjucarania you read way too much into Letila's statements while neglecting mine on the variety of ways that collective decisions could be reached.

Furthermore you made the somewhat absurd claim that mutual aid is coercion rather than respectful decision between free agents and then in your very next posting you said, .
I think that we could have an interesting discussion here if you refrain from pointless hairsplitting and hasty generalisations.


Democracy is all over the thread. Read the thread. It's short. Don't be lazy.

And my 'absurd claim' is based on not couching reality in BS PC-style language.

Euphemisms are for dishonest preachers.

And learn some damned science behind behavior already.

Altruism is a biological function used to advance your genes, before anything else, that was expanded through cultural things to include things more distant than your species, partially because it benefits us to maintain the current ecology, since we evolved in it.

Coercion doesn't mean "I put a gun in your face" any more than selfishness means "I'm greedy".

Both are neutral terms if you step away from emotional garbage.

I'm a little confused. This sounds like how communism was described back in the good old days, not anarchy.

Most anarchists advocate communism, which is really an economic system. Marxism is also for communism, but differs from anarchism in that it approves of government as a way to reach communism whereas anarchism rejects government. There are a few forms of anarchism which go for market socialism, though.

Mutual aid -is- coercion and competition.

"I won't help you unless you help me, I won't avoid hogging the deer unless you avoid hogging the deer."

As though market-based contracts are any different. The current market requires the coersive institution of government to enforce contracts. Mutual aid is based on free association.

I don't understand this. Why is there no profit motive under anarchy? If I'm in an anarchy (perhaps Somalia) and I make a pair of boots, what's to stop me from selling them for a profit?

You could, but under communism, there would be no point as people could get them through free distribution elsewhere.

As though market-based contracts are any different. The current market requires the coersive institution of government to enforce contracts. Mutual aid is based on free association.


I never claimed otherwise.

It's all the same garbage, just with varying levels of various features.

May as well say that an ice cube isn't water just because it's cold and solid.

No, I'm talking about all pollution. And yes, you do have to compell others if you want to shoot it out of a smokestack. People live downwind. If you pump it out into the sky without their consent they might object. Absent the profit motive you'd have no need to poison others.

Even with the profit motive there will be problems with pollution. Would anarchy do away with industry?

If I make a pair of boots, what's to stop me from selling them for a profit.

You could, but under communism, there would be no point as people could get them through free distribution elsewhere.
Today 1:38 AM
Ignoring how boots get distributed for free under communism, how do they get distributed for free under anarchy? If I'm a boot maker I don't want to give them away.

Ignoring how boots get distributed for free under communism, how do they get distributed for free under anarchy? If I'm a boot maker I don't want to give them away.

That is a good question, but you should have said "If I'm a boot maker, how do I know that my products are distributed fairly and to everyone."

Even with the profit motive there will be problems with pollution. Would anarchy do away with industry?

The profit motive is the cause of pollution. Pollution occurs because an industry -- in an attempt to reduce operating costs and maximise profit --does not take steps to eliminate pollution. With the profit motive removed, and with an industry incapable of coercing a population to accept the unwanted byproducts of it's manufacturing process, pollution would cease.

And no, anarchy wouldn't do away with industry, why would people want that?

The profit motive is the cause of pollution. Pollution occurs because an industry -- in an attempt to reduce operating costs and maximise profit --does not take steps to eliminate pollution. With the profit motive removed, and with an industry incapable of coercing a population to accept the unwanted byproducts of it's manufacturing process, pollution would cease.

And no, anarchy wouldn't do away with industry, why would people want that?

I am nowhere near an expert on this, but I surmise that you cannot just do away with pollution. It can be limited but not done away with.

Also, if society decided that the goods whose production lead to pollution were not worth the pollution, they would easily enough end the production of the goods. I think it can be assumed that since people still actively seek out the goods and do not demand legislation against the polluters, they believe that the benefit of the goods outweighs the cost of the pollution.

I am nowhere near an expert on this, but I surmise that you cannot just do away with pollution. It can be limited but not done away with. If I gave the impression that a magic wand would waved and Voila! Pollution would disappear then I apologise. There would naturally be a transition period since so much of our industry is based on externalising the costs of production on society at large as well as the environment. Also, if society decided that the goods whose production lead to pollution were not worth the pollution, they would easily enough end the production of the goods. I think it can be assumed that since people still actively seek out the goods and do not demand legislation against the polluters, they believe that the benefit of the goods outweighs the cost of the pollution. Well, yes, these things happen all the time actually. Erin Brokovich? Rachel Carson? Many, many forms of pollution are allowed to persist in our society because evidence of their harm is frequently surpressed, regulatory regimes are underfunded and toothless. When the evidence becomes broadly available social movements are launched and frequently win. Remember lead in gasoline? How about DDT?
Hell Du Pont is facing a massive class action lawsuit about it's production of teflon. It's also one of the reason that so many polluting and exploitive industries are being shipped overseas to oppresive states where people have considerably less autonomy.

You seem to make the assumption that the vast majority honestly care.

We still have insect parts in our candy bars. What was it, two antennas per Hershey's?

This stuff is KNOWN.

Nobody cares.

Even with the profit motive there will be problems with pollution. Would anarchy do away with industry?

Anarchy is the most primitive form of government and can't exactly degrade any further technologically or socially. Naturally, they cannot support industry without being more complex.

Raw material needs to be harvested, shipped, refined, turned into product, education of technicians, marketing, the drive for advancing technology and knowledge, disposal of waste (properly or recklessly)...so many factors need regulation of some sort. A decentralized set of regulatory bodies could do the job, but they would have to communicate with each other to increase efficiency and keep people from dying: A ministry of agriculture/mining (raw material), transportation (make sure goods can get back and forth), education (keeping education standards high for pumping out funky new materials and technologies), security (to prevent robberies/piracy), judiciary (for a multitude of reasons).

BEHOLD! A government is born. A nice confederation of regulatory bodies.

The search for raw material itself would cross the globe (for example there are only a few places on earth where you can find Columbite-tantalite (coltan for short), a necessary and valuable metal used for cellphones). In primitive societies the cost of going these distances would be extraordinary (death, injury and whatnot) so they based their economies on what they produced locally. The technology to make long trips efficiently would be made from advanced society. Anarchy would just be canabilizing off of the previous society's technology while producing nothing new.

The only sustainable system of technology under anarchy will have to be simple. You can forget about the internet. They'll be using a guy running to the next village with a letter in his hand. He may use a horse.

Something to consider: Many of the higher primates have a government system. Those that don't are usually solitary, or live in mobs.

Anarchy is the most primitive form of government and can't exactly degrade any further technologically or socially. Naturally, they cannot support industry without being more complex.

oh, so you didn't want to talk about anarchism then?

Someone on here advocated a court system within an anarchy. Contradictory.

not it ain't. how would having some form of independent arbitaration be contradictory to anarchism?

no rulers, not no rules

oh, so you didn't want to talk about anarchism then?

I'm just keeping the thread going by introducing more details to discuss.

Besides, industry WAS brought up.

oh, so you didn't want to talk about anarchism then?
Well, said :D
I've got to work on my pithy rejoinders, I was just going to ignore him and check the thread occasionally in the hope of finding an apposite post.

not it ain't. how would having some form of independent arbitaration be contradictory to anarchism?

no rulers, not no rules

Enforcement requires authority. Authority can't exist in an anarchy.

Something to consider: Many of the higher primates have a government system. Those that don't are usually solitary, or live in mobs.

Yup. No government = very primitive.

Anti-social even.

That is a good question, but you should have said "If I'm a boot maker, how do I know that my products are distributed fairly and to everyone."

If I'm a boot maker, why would I care if my products are distributed fairly and to everyone? I don't want anyone taking my boots without giving me something I want in return. If that something is the absence of a hole in the back of my head, then I'm not going to be very happy.

Well, said :D
I've got to work on my pithy rejoinders, I was just going to ignore him and check the thread occasionally in the hope of finding an apposite post.

Ow.

I admit I was stirring up a subject in which I was very junior in my comprehension (which I why I did it).

Fine. I'll go back to lurking and post when I have a question and not a comment. I'll leave the debate to the seniors.

Enforcement requires authority. Authority can't exist in an anarchy.

Unless those involved in the dispute agree to abide by the decisions of the arbiter? Seems like a mutual agreement to accept someones authority on a limitted basis to me.

Authority can exist in anarchy. For instance, during the Spanish Civil War the Republican forces elected the commanding officers of their units and obeyed their orders during combat. Each of the CO's were subject to instant recall, and none of them could have been officers from the previous regime. Officers that had attained rank under the Emporer could advise but never issue orders. The CO's were granted authority, on a limitted basis, by their troops. Higher ranked individuals were determined all the way up the chain of command, all of whom were subject to instant recall.

Read up on the Spanish Civil War, and especially George Orwells writing. You'll find it illuminating, since it was a technologically advanced society operating on anarchist principals.

Ow.

I admit I was stirring up a subject in which I was very junior in my comprehension (which I why I did it).

Fine. I'll go back to lurking and post when I have a question and not a comment. I'll leave the debate to the seniors.

Nothing wrong in commenting on topics you are ignorant of, making dismissive comments and sweeping generalizations about a topic you (by admission) are ignorant of does present a problem. Since they are common tactics of trolls and wind up artists.

Why not ask for some reading sources instead, or ask for clarification instead?

Nothing wrong in commenting on topics you are ignorant of, making dismissive comments and sweeping generalizations about a topic you (by admission) are ignorant of does present a problem. Since they are common tactics of trolls and wind up artists.

Why not ask for some reading sources instead, or ask for clarification instead?

Then I request clarification sir/ma'am!

Then I request clarification sir/ma'am!

On the whole topic? Not enough space here, so I'll refer you to the anarchy faq. (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/)

And the sir/ma'am is insulting. I'll take "your lordship" any time. :D

Unless those involved in the dispute agree to abide by the decisions of the arbiter? Seems like a mutual agreement to accept someones authority on a limitted basis to me.


Why would someone who did an act accept punishment for that act willingly?


Authority can exist in anarchy.


How funny that something that is "Contrary to Authority" can be full of so much authority.

I wonder if that means the pope could be an Atheist.


For instance, during the Spanish Civil War the Republican forces elected the commanding officers of their units and obeyed their orders during combat.


Sounds like they elected a LEADER.

That's not an anarchy. That's a democratically elected official, ala Presidents.


Each of the CO's were subject to instant recall, and none of them could have been officers from the previous regime. Officers that had attained rank under the Emporer could advise but never issue orders. The CO's were granted authority, on a limitted basis, by their troops. Higher ranked individuals were determined all the way up the chain of command, all of whom were subject to instant recall.


...And you think that this was an anarchy?

It was a democratic elected office system with ready impeachment. Basically a commanding republic.


Read up on the Spanish Civil War, and especially George Orwells writing. You'll find it illuminating, since it was a technologically advanced society operating on anarchist principals.

According to what you've written, the US is an anarchy, so...

Why would someone who did an act accept punishment for that act willingly?
Many reasons, of the top of my head, making restitution for a wrong committed against another could be motivation for one reason for accepting punishment. Ever pay a late fee?
How funny that something that is "Contrary to Authority" can be full of so much authority.
I wonder if that means the pope could be an Atheist.
Sounds like they elected a LEADER.
That's not an anarchy. That's a democratically elected official, ala Presidents.
...And you think that this was an anarchy?
It was a democratic elected office system with ready impeachment. Basically a commanding republic.
According to what you've written, the US is an anarchy, so...
You are confusing a specific case of a method of collective decision making with that of a general system of heirarchy. The instance I cited had to do with the limitted authority granted to an individual for a short duration by willing members of a collective. You are absolutely right, they elected a leader subject to instant recall - as distinct from ready impeachment which implies a crime has been committed. Elections through direct democracy are one method for collective decision making, which is perfectly in accordance with anarchist principles.

Many reasons, of the top of my head, making restitution for a wrong committed against another could be motivation for one reason for accepting punishment. Ever pay a late fee?


Late fees are essentially paying someone to trust you to borrow again.

It doesn't require authority.

Generally (not always), if someone WILLINGLY and WILLFULLY commits an undesirable act, unless they suddenly realize there's some massive benefit to lose, they're not going to turn themselves in, admit their wrong, then ask the community to decide their punishment.

When this does happen it's often a matter of being afraid that you won't survive as a criminal.

There's a reason we have police, you know.


You are confusing a specific case of a method of collective decision making with that of a general system of heirarchy.


No, I'm recognizing that "Follow this guy's orders unless he proves to be an idiot" is a form of authority. It might be fragile authority, but it IS authority.


The instance I cited had to do with the limitted authority granted to an individual for a short duration by willing members of a collective.


What does the Anarchy FAQ say Anarchy means, again? What was that term? Gee, I somehow know it's related to this...


You are absolutely right, they elected a leader subject to instant recall - as distinct from ready impeachment which implies a crime has been committed.


It's the democratic system, on speed. WHOO.


Elections through direct democracy are one method for collective decision making, which is perfectly in accordance with anarchist principles.

...Then anarchists don't want an anarchy, and they're just using the word because it's popular.

Then anarchists don't want an anarchy, and they're just using the word because it's popular.

yeah, that must be the reason

If they want a system of small democracies, they're microdemocrats or something.

Anarchy, by definition, by the definition GIVEN in the Anarchism FAQ, denies authority.

To give authority to the village is to remove onself from anarchy.

Being a Council Communist; which puts me sort of close to the Anarchists (not quite, but close, our ideologies are actually pretty compatiable with each other).


What really ticks me off is the misrepresentation of Anarchism; even though I don't agree with all the views of Anarchism, its still annoying.


Anarchism is not about the absence of law. (ANARCHISM not ANARCHY)

Anarchists aim to pretty much skip the Socialist stage in Marxist philosophy and jump right to Communism. They see that state power will always get alienated from the working class no matter what; which makes them very hostile to the Marxist concept of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat".

Anarchism has worked; take example of the Spanish Anarchist Communes in the Spanish Civil War under CNT-FAI.

I personally feel that Anarchism is self-contradictory and will set up something on Marxist guidelines eventually if they mean to or not; it really depends on your interpreation of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Not that it's a bad thing. ;)

Then why the bloody do they involve the word "Anarchy" in the Anarchism FAQ?

If they want a system of small democracies, they're microdemocrats or something.
Anarchy, by definition, by the definition GIVEN in the Anarchism FAQ, denies authority.
To give authority to the village is to remove onself from anarchy.

Is this the definition that you keep referring to?
The word "anarchy" is from the Greek, prefix an (or a), meaning "not," "the want of," "the absence of," or "the lack of", plus archos, meaning "a ruler," "director", "chief," "person in charge," or "authority." Or, as Peter Kropotkin put it, Anarchy comes from the Greek words meaning "contrary to authority."

Why don't you refer to this one?
"Anarchism can be understood as the generic social and political idea that expresses negation of all power, sovereignty, domination, and hierarchical division, and a will to their dissolution. . . Anarchism is therefore more than anti-statism . . . [even if] government (the state) . . . is, appropriately, the central focus of anarchist critique." [Reinventing Anarchy, p. 139]

Or this one?
"The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination. They are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores Magon called the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means, a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation of voluntary associations." ["Anthropology and Anarchism," pp. 35-41, Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, no. 45, p. 38]

You didn't by any chance read that one tiny, brief description of anarchy at the beginning of section A.1.1 and not try to seek any context behind the statement did you?
If you would try reading further, you'll find the distinctions between authority and heirarchy clearly explained. In the meantime, I find myself thoroughly exhausted by your straw men.

Anarchy, by definition, by the definition GIVEN in the Anarchism FAQ, denies authority.

To give authority to the village is to remove onself from anarchy.

only by equivocating between different definitions of authority. authority that is voluntarily given and can be voluntarily withdrawn is of a fundamentally different nature from authority as in authoritarian.

so can we get out of this revolving door yet and actually discuss anarchism and the environment?

i can offer a basic reading list on the two basic camps, if anyone is interested.

If anarchy and anarchism are unrelated, they should state it already.

A democracy is a rulership system, by definition. Rule by majority. It doesn't matter how forgiving it is, or how easy it is to kick someone out of power.

Both quotes about Anarchy fail to relate them to anarchism. Anarchists are, likewise, not seeking an anarchy, but an anarchosy or some similar term.

A federation is, GASP, what the US has.

only by equivocating between different definitions of authority. authority that is voluntarily given and can be voluntarily withdrawn is of a fundamentally different nature from authority as in authoritarian.

Authority is authority.

All anarchism suggests to do is make it easier to remove it.

Authority is authority.

and thus your doctor is equivalent to stalin.

now on to anarchism and the environment - what are your thoughts on social vs deep ecology?

Being a Council Communist; which puts me sort of close to the Anarchists (not quite, but close, our ideologies are actually pretty compatiable with each other).
What really ticks me off is the misrepresentation of Anarchism; even though I don't agree with all the views of Anarchism, its still annoying.
Anarchism is not about the absence of law. (ANARCHISM not ANARCHY)
Anarchists aim to pretty much skip the Socialist stage in Marxist philosophy and jump right to Communism. They see that state power will always get alienated from the working class no matter what; which makes them very hostile to the Marxist concept of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat".
Anarchism has worked; take example of the Spanish Anarchist Communes in the Spanish Civil War under CNT-FAI.
I personally feel that Anarchism is self-contradictory and will set up something on Marxist guidelines eventually if they mean to or not; it really depends on your interpreation of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Not that it's a bad thing. ;)
Hey comrade, glad to meet an fellow traveller with a slightly different roadmap. I agree with you that we have more commonalities than differences.

I am not a scholar of Bakunin. However, from what I have read (in God and State) I gather that anarchy - in this way similar to communism - does not dictate an actual "anarchist paradise". Anarchism is more so going against authority, since all authority is oppressive, and challenging it. The whole theories on the redistribution of wealth, etc... are really not Bakunin's strong points. It does not really have any views towards the environment, except the one that an anarchist assumes. For me, it is reasonable that in protecting the nature, we also protect the future of the planet, and so my idea of anarchism is very nature friendly.

so can we get out of this revolving door yet and actually discuss anarchism and the environment?

i can offer a basic reading list on the two basic camps, if anyone is interested.

Please, tell, I'm always interested in expanding my reading list. They wouldn't by any chance be available for free download would they? The capitalist pigs have their hands deep in my pockets at the moment.

and thus your doctor is equivalent to stalin.

now on to anarchism and the environment - what are your thoughts on social vs deep ecology?

I never said a pebble was a boulder, only that they're both rocks.

You'll have to define 'social ecology' and 'deep ecology' for me. The terms have a variety of possible meanings based solely on the actual meaning of their compositions.

Sorry to resurrect this played out thread....
Free Soviets, you got that reading list? I'm interested.

I'm still waiting on those definitions now that we've figured that out anarchism isn't a form of anarchy.

Social vs. deep ecology. Come on. Doing an essay on the importance of The Prince being taught in GE courses, don't have time for Google.

I'm still waiting on those definitions now that we've figured that out anarchism isn't a form of anarchy.

Social vs. deep ecology. Come on. Doing an essay on the importance of The Prince being taught in GE courses, don't have time for Google.

I'm not sure what at GE course is but you may find Howard Zinn's analysis of The Prince (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/Machiavelli_ForPol.html) and it's impact on foreign policy and state propaganda useful.

GE means General Education. It's half of US schooling. The idea is that nobody gets a bachelor's degree unless they've proven they aren't entirely retarded, and are forced to learn at least a little about the world, so their votes are made without absolute ignorance, and other decisions similarly illuminated. I'm going to argue that The Prince should be taught in GE courses because 1) It more or less describes common techniques used by various manipulative groups, 2) It's also used as a how-to guide by them, so it's now that more common than it was before the book was written.

And thanks for the source, but if I use one, I have to use three, and I'm allowed to just BS through it like I usually do.

My time on NS is basically training for homework. Muhahaha.

GE means General Education. It's half of US schooling. The idea is that nobody gets a bachelor's degree unless they've proven they aren't entirely retarded, and are forced to learn at least a little about the world, so their votes are made without absolute ignorance, and other decisions similarly illuminated. I'm going to argue that The Prince should be taught in GE courses because 1) It more or less describes common techniques used by various manipulative groups, 2) It's also used as a how-to guide by them, so it's now that more common than it was before the book was written.

And thanks for the source, but if I use one, I have to use three, and I'm allowed to just BS through it like I usually do.

My time on NS is basically training for homework. Muhahaha.

We call them breadth courses here in Canada. Like I got my degree in engineering but also took courses in sociology, philosophy, law and ethics. (For the record I don't think many lawyers, philosophers, sociologists and ethicists had to take engineering courses in addition to their regular courseload)

Well, I hope the article helps.

Yeah, some of them are called Width, some are called Breadth.. all the same thing in the end.

Stuff to make sure you're not entirely one-note.

And I'm not going to read the article, at least not until I'm done with the essay. I absolutely hate intellectual plagerism.

Yeah, some of them are called Width, some are called Breadth.. all the same thing in the end.

Stuff to make sure you're not entirely one-note.

And I'm not going to read the article, at least not until I'm done with the essay. I absolutely hate intellectual plagerism.

ARGH!! Why do you ALWAYS impute negative connotations into my posts!!! Seriously, it's pathological. I was responding to your request to free soviets about sources and readings. When you mentioned The Prince I thought I'd recommend a source!!! That's not facillitating to academic dishonesty. It was responding a request.

Please, tell, I'm always interested in expanding my reading list. They wouldn't by any chance be available for free download would they? The capitalist pigs have their hands deep in my pockets at the moment.

hmm, free. let me go check the internet...

the anarchy archives has a bunch of stuff from bookchin (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/BookchinCW.html), whose is one of the main people behind social ecology. can't go wrong starting with "what is social ecology".

and you can't get anywhere on the primmie/anti-civ side without reading zerzan's future primitive (http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/futureprim.htm) and it's postscript (http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/fp.htm)

hmm, what else, what else?
the institute for social ecology has a bunch of stuff up on their online library (http://www.social-ecology.org/index.php?topic=online_library).
http://www.primitivism.com/ has a bunch of stuff too.
the entirety of "against civilization" is up on the web here (http://www.blackandgreen.org/ac/index.html)
and the curious george brigade just put out a thing called "liberate, not exterminate" (pdf available here (http://dominantfiction.com/@city/City%20Zine2.pdf)) - i haven't read it all the way through yet, but it looks cool so far.

i'm sure i'll come across more later

hmm, free. let me go check the internet...

the anarchy archives has a bunch of stuff from bookchin (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/BookchinCW.html), whose is one of the main people behind social ecology. can't go wrong starting with "what is social ecology".

and you can't get anywhere on the primmie/anti-civ side without reading zerzan's future primitive (http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/futureprim.htm) and it's postscript (http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/fp.htm)

hmm, what else, what else?
the institute for social ecology has a bunch of stuff up on their online library (http://www.social-ecology.org/index.php?topic=online_library).
http://www.primitivism.com/ has a bunch of stuff too.
the entirety of "against civilization" is up on the web here (http://www.blackandgreen.org/ac/index.html)
and the curious george brigade just put out a thing called "liberate, not exterminate" (pdf available here (http://dominantfiction.com/@city/City%20Zine2.pdf)) - i haven't read it all the way through yet, but it looks cool so far.

i'm sure i'll come across more later

Thank you, should give a good starting point. time to bookmark like mad.

You'll have to define 'social ecology' and 'deep ecology' for me.

definitions of movements get messy. how about some short articles?

deep ecology:
the shallow and the deep (http://www.alamut.com/subj/ideologies/pessimism/Naess_deepEcology.html)
the eight principles of deep ecology (http://www.deepecology.org/deepplatform.html)

social ecology:
what is social ecology? (http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20031118113538865)
theses on social ecology and deep ecology (http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20031028143511520)

Why do I have to have an exam today? :(

Well this is a tag, so I don't loose those links FS posted.

Why do I have to have an exam today? :(

Well this is a tag, so I don't loose those links FS posted.

you should see the pile of books and journal articles surrounding the table i use as a desk.

stupid paper on radical evironmentalism and forager worldviews

ARGH!! Why do you ALWAYS impute negative connotations into my posts!!! Seriously, it's pathological. I was responding to your request to free soviets about sources and readings. When you mentioned The Prince I thought I'd recommend a source!!! That's not facillitating to academic dishonesty. It was responding a request.

Dude.

1) I made no request.

2) I was polite, and thanked you.

You attatch emotion to posts way too easily. I'm an ice-cold sonofabitch. Relax.

definitions of movements get messy. how about some short articles?

deep ecology:
the shallow and the deep (http://www.alamut.com/subj/ideologies/pessimism/Naess_deepEcology.html)
the eight principles of deep ecology (http://www.deepecology.org/deepplatform.html)

social ecology:
what is social ecology? (http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20031118113538865)
theses on social ecology and deep ecology (http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20031028143511520)


Thanks. I'll read and respond tomorrow.

you should see the pile of books and journal articles surrounding the table i use as a desk.

stupid paper on radical evironmentalism and forager worldviews

:eek:
Even the description sounds daunting.


But to be fair my current problem is all my own fault for pursuing non academic persuits over the weekend.