NationStates Jolt Archive

im no political expert but look up anarchy faq on google. thats all you need to explain anarchism.

But I am thinking of every single hunter-gatherer society that has grown in population to the point of having to farm food rather than find it

this is a fundamentally mistaken way to imagine the origins of farming, either for original inventions or for the later transitions from foraging to agriculture. as far as origins go, how could it even work? agriculture is not something you can just start doing from scratch with wild plants and get a better return from it than from gathering. anyone who tried (if the idea would even occur to them) would starve. additionally, population growth follows food availability growth rather than the other way around (though clearly population growth doesn't necessarily follow increased food availability, as we can see now that we have severed the link between sex and reproduction and empowered women, for example).

as for foragers making the transition later, in almost every case we have seen (directly and archaeologically), everywhere on the planet, the transition must be forced on them and only really 'works' when done with either genocide or in the aftermath of an epidemic-caused population collapse.

I can't see a state not having some type of border control for long. Certainly none today do.


Whys this? Because of the threat of invasion? Or of too much of an influx of immigrants coming in? Surely the problem remains even with anarchism then?



As far as trading with other territories, anarcho-communism could be sustainable without it

So, in theory, you could have communism within a state that has border control.

My favorite quote to describe anarchy comes from Ammon Hennacy;

Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them so what good are they?

Second, agricultural societies do tend to be more hierarchical, but it does not follow that this is due to coordination problems.

the iroquois would seem to be an instructive case here

My favorite quote to describe anarchy comes from Ammon Hennacy;

Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them so what good are they?

Anarchists don't necessarily object to law enforcement.

Whys this? Because of the threat of invasion? Or of too much of an influx of immigrants coming in? Surely the problem remains even with anarchism then?Because a state is, in the words of Max Weber, a body that "(successfully) claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory". The territory has to be clearly defined for the state to monopolize any aspect of it, and in the process of doing so would most likely, if not certainly reserve the right to determine who gets to enter or exit it.

So, in theory, you could have communism within a state that has border control.Well, no, since communism is stateless.

the iroquois would seem to be an instructive case here

I wouldn't call them agricultural.

no, i'm clarifying what the jargon means. which is why it was sort of an aside before going on to more important matters in my original reply. big man systems form an intermediate type between radically egalitarian foraging societies and significantly more entrenched systems of command like chiefdoms (though not on some scale of progress or evolution, just in terms of certain relevant features)


also, why are you always so whiny when people argue with you?
I'm just reading this while finishing my coffee before going out, so I don't have time for a substantive post.

I just wanted to point out that you can't hear me talk over the internet, so any "whining" is inside your own head. You're reading that into my words, because my words don't have a voice attached to them.

I would also point out that telling people they are "whiny" is a common put-down. So why do you start putting people down when they argue with you?

More stuff on point later.

I'm a fruit flavoured Fungineer.

Because a state is, in the words of Max Weber, a body that "(successfully) claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory". The territory has to be clearly defined for the state to monopolize any aspect of it, and in the process of doing so would most likely, if not certainly reserve the right to determine who gets to enter or exit it.


Yes, but this isn't a problem if the leaders of the state decide that everyone has a right to enter and exit (hence me originally saying, as long as you have absolute freedom of movement). But government, realistically, works in the same way, since you can't have a government if there is no territory to govern.


Well, no, since communism is stateless.

You know what I meant.

Anarchism and Communism are founded on the principles of ideals that shall never be used in a cohesive, sensible, and are not possible in the light of the world progressing to so oppositely from their ideals. I dislike all gov't, but no system'll work.

Yes, but this isn't a problem if the leaders of the state decide that everyone has a right to enter and exit (hence me originally saying, as long as you have absolute freedom of movement). But government, realistically, works in the same way, since you can't have a government if there is no territory to govern.Sure, there is a correlation between the type of government we are talking about now and territory, but simply because a body is governing a particular territory doesn't mean it claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within it.

You know what I meant.Heh.
Well, to put it quite simply, our goal is to abolish social class, and the state has two classes - the people who make the rules and the people don't.

Sure, there is a correlation between the type of government we are talking about now and territory, but simply because a body is governing a particular territory doesn't mean it claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within it.


It has to, otherwise there's no reason to follow its laws, it just becomes a bunch of people shouting stuff at you, but that you don't have to listen to.


Heh.
Well, to put it quite simply, our goal is to abolish social class, and the state has two classes - the people who make the rules and the people don't.

You inherently have a class of people who make the rules with government as well.

I wouldn't call them agricultural.

i would. i mean, they did a mix of foraging and farming, but farming 'the three sisters' provided the bulk of their calories most of the time.

So why do you start putting people down when they argue with you?

because i like being mean. it makes the argument more pointed.

Anarchism and Communism are founded on the principles of ideals that shall never be used in a cohesive, sensible, and are not possible in the light of the world progressing to so oppositely from their ideals. I dislike all gov't, but no system'll work.

What are these "principles of ideals", anyway? Furthermore, why are they not possible? Are you going to bother to actually support these assertions, or are you going to make an appeal to an undefined human nature?

Hell, we even had someone who claimed to be an anarcho-primitivist for a while.

Real anarcho-primitivists wouldn't use vile things such as technology and the internet. If I'm being unreasonable here, then it would be appreciated if someone would tell me.

I am increasingly becoming Christian anarchist.
While I still had a Christian faith, I, for a while, had views that were approaching a Tolstoyan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolstoyan) nature.

Leo Tolstoy's book where he outlines what would later be called Tolstoyan political theory, The Kingdom of God is Within You, is a must-read not only for any Christian with desires for a more equal social structure, but for those on the lib-left who reject the notion that no common ground can be had between the secular lib-left and those on the religious left.

Why would a lack of concern be the optimal system?
Because it would mean that I could be an anarcho-capitalist commune, and you could be an anarcho-communist commune, and someone else could be some sort of religious commune or a bunch of anarcho-primitivists, and we could all interact with each other without having to impose any opinions, values or anything else. Rather than having to agree on lots of stuff, we just need to agree on a trade and then go back to whatever it is we want to be doing.

Real anarcho-primitivists wouldn't use vile things such as technology and the internet.

Real anarcho-primitivists wouldn't impose agriculture, class society, and the division of labor upon free foraging groups.

If I'm being unreasonable here, then it would be appreciated if someone would tell me.

Sure. Anarcho-primitivists don't necessarily object to technology as such. If a computer dropped from the sky, they would have no problem with using it.

Their objection is to the social and economic structures of agricultural and industrial societies, and refraining from using technology doesn't help solve those problems in the slightest. On the other hand, it does make the task of achieving their ends essentially impossible.

you just hire the other one to protect you. Actually you buy into various insurance programs which because it is cheaper to protect then pay out entitles the bearer to protection.
And what is their motivation for taking only the "payment", instead of just killing you and taking everything you have, since it is a given that they have the power?
Also its the only form of Anarchy that has had a stable historical government. In both Pre-Christian Ireland and Pre-Christian Iceland.
Enforced by mutual hostage-taking.

So historic examples of anarchist societies only worked because of violence used against individuals (taking someone hostage is an act of violence against that person, since you rob that person of his or her freedom), which is, if I'm not mistaken, directly against the basic principles of anarchy. Well, that's nice.

The way the hostage exchange usually worked is that you sent some of your children over there, and they sent some of theirs over here. The kids didn't really understand that they were under threat of death from their foster parents.

Because it would mean that I could be an anarcho-capitalist commune, and you could be an anarcho-communist commune, and someone else could be some sort of religious commune or a bunch of anarcho-primitivists, and we could all interact with each other without having to impose any opinions, values or anything else. Rather than having to agree on lots of stuff, we just need to agree on a trade and then go back to whatever it is we want to be doing.Sure, but why would the lack of opinions, values, et al., be optimal?

Sure, but why would the lack of opinions, values, et al., be optimal?
It would be optimal in the sense that it maximises people's ability to choose and stick to a set of values and live among likeminded people, which is something that anarchism seeks to achieve.

But of course we could argue that one set of values is superior, and the existence of people who don't share it would be suboptimal. Whether that's a particularly anarchist view to take however, is another question.

But of course we could argue that one set of values is superior, and the existence of people who don't share it would be suboptimal. Whether that's a particularly anarchist view to take however, is another question.
I wouldn't say it is per se.

Anarchist thought encompasses such a wide variety of views, some hardly discussed (or recognised) at all by non-anarchists, that I don't think you could say the above was "a particularly anarchist view".

Anarchists don't necessarily object to law enforcement.


I think its more of an objection to having a government that tries to enforce laws.

The way the hostage exchange usually worked is that you sent some of your children over there, and they sent some of theirs over here. The kids didn't really understand that they were under threat of death from their foster parents.

Wow, that sounds like the system we have in my area...

I'd loosely describe myself as an anarcho-communist.

the big man societies are actually a later development too, typically tied to the rise of horticulture.

but anyway, i suppose if you are taking 'known' in the sense of 'europeans having met them' to be the key, then you have something of a point. however, we do know that foraging societies existed everywhere and were the only type of societies around for 90+% of human history (and were the numerically predominant type for most of the rest). we also know that when we look at the present and recent examples of such societies across a wide range of environments and such, they share a significant number of general features, including a rather radical egalitarianism. thus it seems like we would need some good argument for believing that all those societies that we didn't meet didn't also partake in this very robust cross-cultural generalization from the ones we did. so far, i haven't seen one.

given that, it seems absurd to think that the "tendency towards equality may well be no more than a temporary aberration". the vast bulk of human societies presumably actually enacted that tendency. not to mention the fact that that tendency has repeatedly shown itself throughout the history of non-egalitarian societies in revolts and rebellions aiming at such. rather than the tendency being a temporary aberration, it appears to be a very deep passion; one that can be thwarted in its goals in certain contexts, but which continues to reassert itself over and over again, making and defending gains whenever conditions allow.

Why does everyone ASSUME ethnocentralism on my part? I don't give a damn when Europeans met anyone; they're a bunch of johnnie-come-latelies. I'm only interested in when we have RECORDS for - and a lot of that comes from places like China, India and the Fertile Crescent.

As to our "passion" for egalitarianism, virtually NO revolts have sought such goals. Revolts happen from repression (usually incompetent repression - competent repression is usually effective enough to prevent revolts), religious fervour, nationalism, scarcity of resources (especially food) or government incompetence - not usually from any especial desire for "equality". Even freedom gets short shrift - there have been a grand total of ONE successful slave revolt in all of human history.

And I outright reject your surmise that the societies we've found have had ANY sort of "rather radical egalitarianism." Some FEW societies practiced a level of equality 'below the government' (The Iroquois Federaton comes to mind) but most had at least three social classes - rulers, citizens and slaves.

the term 'big man' was solidly brought in to anthropology by marshall sahlins in reference to the horticulturalists of melanesia whose organization was different from the standard polynesian chiefdoms (in which power was vaguely feudalistic) and different from that of hunters and gatherers (in which power mostly amounts to convincing people that something is a good idea). that's just sort of the point of the term.

anyway, one of the key points to the big man's power is his ability to accumulate goods to be given away as he sees fit and to use those give-aways to create personal obligations to him. the absence of this sort of thing is one of the robust cross-cultural generalizations we see in foraging peoples - they operate on generalized reciprocity, rather than balanced or negative reciprocity (within the group - everybody uses these with out-groups) and semi-centralized redistribution aimed at increasing the personal power of the redistributor.

i could dig up some specific cites if you like (start with sahlin's "poor man, rich man, big-man, chief" in comparative studies in society and history, vol. 5 no. 3), but, iirc, wiki covers most of this. it's kind of just some background anthropology.

But you're forgetting that there's a fairly big chunk of Anthropology that disagrees with Sahlin's separation of the minor-Horticultural "Big Man" societies and the hunter-gatherer societies. Diamond, Gerrold and a number of others have criticised this as a "distinction without a difference" - that H-G societies can be Big Man or Chiefdom societies equally as much as horticultural societies can.

Now, I'm a historian, not an anthropologist, but you need a thorough grounding in the one to make a good other. To me, the Diamond hypothesis makes a lot more sense than the Sahlin one.

Any anti capitalist anarchists on this site? I am an anarcho communist.

I'm a neutral-good elf rogue.

i'm not anti anything just to be anti something, but, while i'm not neive enough to expect procustianism to gratify my perspectives, i have absolutely no doubt that makiavellianism does not, will not and can not.

considering as how niether have existed more then a few centuries, i see no reason to assume we could not get along, with a high level of tecnology, and that being in comeplete sustainable harmony with nature's cycles of renewal, without either of them.

i also don't see any nation of the face of planet earth as being the will of any diety.

so in a sense you could call me an anarchist-pacifist.

confronations may be romantic, but i believe it is possible, and even more effective, to simply nonconfrontationally avoid supporting, perpetuating, and contributing to incentives for, the perpetuating of the ongoing problems, even if i have to sleep under a bridge to avoid doing so.

so yes, i'm an anarchist in that i don't support the notion of hierarchy being inhierently bennificial. i don't see the tangable universe we're surrounded by as being hierarchal either. yes there's something big friendly and invisible that gives great hugs, but there is no hierarcy for its own sake that is any will of its, as far as i can see.

infrastructure, certain kind of physical tangable infrastructure, are the only GOOD reason and excuse for having, using, high levels of social organization, and even these, don't require the existence of general political hierarchy. of anyone having to be in charge of everyone else generally. only within the limited context of the provision of a particular physical infrastructure and keeping environmentally harmonious.

It has to, otherwise there's no reason to follow its laws, it just becomes a bunch of people shouting stuff at you, but that you don't have to listen to.Sure there is. You can exercise violence without having a monopoly on it.

You inherently have a class of people who make the rules with government as well.Unless you use direct democracy, where everybody makes the rules.

It would be optimal in the sense that it maximises people's ability to choose and stick to a set of values and live among likeminded people, which is something that anarchism seeks to achieve.

But of course we could argue that one set of values is superior, and the existence of people who don't share it would be suboptimal. Whether that's a particularly anarchist view to take however, is another question.Ah, I see. I disagree with your interpretation, and would not say that anarchism is free of judging others, but I get where you're coming from.

Sure there is. You can exercise violence without having a monopoly on it.


I'm not exactly sure what you mean on this, if there other institutions just as powerful, then you're probably going to end up with civil war.


Unless you use direct democracy, where everybody makes the rules.


Nope, only the majority make the rules, but you have to have some form of leadership and co-ordination, you can't have a government of a few million people, or nothing will ever get done. And if you have direct democracy, then I personally believe that people will merely choose to end communism, but that's a different matter.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean on this, if there other institutions just as powerful, then you're probably going to end up with civil war.I don't mean just as powerful, no. I mean, sure, violence sanctioned by the community will be more acceptable than violence that isn't, but simply because the community hasn't sanctioned a particular act of violence doesn't mean it would necessarily be disallowed.

Nope, only the majority make the rules, Incorrect. Democracy is rule by the people, not rule by the majority of the people.

but you have to have some form of leadership and co-ordination, you can't have a government of a few million people, or nothing will ever get done.Why must the commune hold a few million people? Most likely there would be hundreds of communes.

And if you have direct democracy, then I personally believe that people will merely choose to end communism, but that's a different matter.Indeed, one that is impossible for me to show you that you're wrong. :)

I don't mean just as powerful, no. I mean, sure, violence sanctioned by the community will be more acceptable than violence that isn't, but simply because the community hasn't sanctioned a particular act of violence doesn't mean it would necessarily be disallowed.


My point is, unless one institution has a monopoly on power, your going to end up with civil war, or a very very weak and unstable government.


Incorrect. Democracy is rule by the people, not rule by the majority of the people.


A 'rule by the people' in that sense is just meaningless rhetoric. It's impossible to have a system where every individual can decide how the country should function, and have each individual completely agree with each other. If there are disagreements, then either nothing gets done, or the policy with the most support gets implemented (rule by majority).


Why must the commune hold a few million people? Most likely there would be hundreds of communes.


Back up a second, I'm not talking about the governance of one commune, I'm talking about the governance of the whole area where the system of communism is implemented, when you talked about government, I took it to mean a central administration that has control over all the communes in that area. Did you mean something else?

My point is, unless one institution has a monopoly on power, your going to end up with civil war, or a very very weak and unstable government.I don't think it would require a monopoly, merely significantly more power than any opposition.

A 'rule by the people' in that sense is just meaningless rhetoric. It's impossible to have a system where every individual can decide how the country should function,It would depend on how small or large the country is. I don't think that with the use of technology it would be impossible for 10,000 or more people to decide.

and have each individual completely agree with each other.If every individual agrees, you have consensus, which is a form of democracy that does not depend on majority rule.

If there are disagreements, then either nothing gets done, or the policy with the most support gets implemented (rule by majority).How does one policy being implemented indicate that the majority rules?
Would you say the same thing if the policy was implemented or not as the result of some random process?

Back up a second, I'm not talking about the governance of one commune, I'm talking about the governance of the whole area where the system of communism is implemented, when you talked about government, I took it to mean a central administration that has control over all the communes in that area. Did you mean something else?Government could apply to both - to the commune's decision making as well as a central administration. The commune could have decisions made by direct democracy, and if a central administration is deemed necessary, once could form. The central administration would likely not be directly democratically run in the traditional sense, but would most likely involve the electing of a delegate who would attempt to being the opinion of the commune s/he represents to the central body. The delegate would have the potential to be recalled instantly, for any reason. If it is necessary to have a central body, most likely it would take the form of a confederation.

I don't think it would require a monopoly, merely significantly more power than any opposition.


Yes but in every state there are oppositions with significant powers. What's crucial is that it has a monopoly on executive power, if you're going to have some form of central committee. If it doesn't have that, then it will loose control on some of the communes.


It would depend on how small or large the country is. I don't think that with the use of technology it would be impossible for 10,000 or more people to decide.

Yeah I'm not saying the idea of each individual deciding is impossible, I'm saying it's impossible to have a consensus amongst every individual, realistically.


If every individual agrees, you have consensus, which is a form of democracy that does not depend on majority rule.


Yes, but again, this goal is pretty much impossible to achieve. There will always be disagreements.


How does one policy being implemented indicate that the majority rules?

But it conforms to what the majority wants, but is against what a minority wants.


Would you say the same thing if the policy was implemented or not as the result of some random process?


No, if that was the case, then it would merely be 'tyranny by random process'.


Government could apply to both - to the commune's decision making as well as a central administration. The commune could have decisions made by direct democracy, and if a central administration is deemed necessary, once could form. The central administration would likely not be directly democratically run in the traditional sense, but would most likely involve the electing of a delegate who would attempt to being the opinion of the commune s/he represents to the central body. The delegate would have the potential to be recalled instantly, for any reason. If it is necessary to have a central body, most likely it would take the form of a confederation.

Right, so going back to my original point, this class of delegates, are the ruling class that I'm talking about.

Why does everyone ASSUME ethnocentralism on my part? I don't give a damn when Europeans met anyone; they're a bunch of johnnie-come-latelies. I'm only interested in when we have RECORDS for - and a lot of that comes from places like China, India and the Fertile Crescent.

fair enough, but almost nobody's records are particularly objective until very recently. and archaeological records have to count as well. and you'll find that the records support my position here.

As to our "passion" for egalitarianism, virtually NO revolts have sought such goals. Revolts happen from repression (usually incompetent repression - competent repression is usually effective enough to prevent revolts), religious fervour, nationalism, scarcity of resources (especially food) or government incompetence - not usually from any especial desire for "equality". Even freedom gets short shrift - there have been a grand total of ONE successful slave revolt in all of human history.

attempted change of subject noted. success (let alone success of slave-specific revolts) has fuck all to do with anything; the animating spirit is what matters.

and the fact of the matter is all over the world, all throughout history, people have struggled to be free, struggled to make their social world more fair. so you have rebellions from ancient china to the middle ages europe to modern south america again and again demanding equality for all.

in fact, the idea of fairness is one of the main foundations for our species' sense of morality and justice.

And I outright reject your surmise that the societies we've found have had ANY sort of "rather radical egalitarianism." Some FEW societies practiced a level of equality 'below the government' (The Iroquois Federaton comes to mind) but most had at least three social classes - rulers, citizens and slaves.

well, the ethnographic atlas disagrees with you - societies lacking both slavery and class distinctions make up the single largest grouping in the standard cross-cultural sample.

fair enough, but almost nobody's records are particularly objective until very recently. and archaeological records have to count as well. and you'll find that the records support my position here.

Quite on the contrary. Pre-literate societies left us a wealth of knowledge, it's true, but almost all of it was about physical things, and to a certain extent burial rituals and treatment of the dead. From this we can deduce SOME aspects of their societies and cultures, but to the extent of understanding their cultural divisions and social structure? Hardly.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying we don't know, and I'm unwilling to make any assumptions in the face of a complete lack of evidence.



attempted change of subject noted. :confused:

success (let alone success of slave-specific revolts) has fuck all to do with anything; the animating spirit is what matters.

I can accept that.

and the fact of the matter is all over the world, all throughout history, people have struggled to be free, struggled to make their social world more fair. so you have rebellions from ancient china to the middle ages europe to modern south america again and again demanding equality for all.

So you've asserted, yet I find little in the historical record to support the position.

Revolts there have been, of many and varied type. But analyzing them, searching for their reasons and meaning, equality/egalitarianism just doesn't rate until the fifteenth or sixteenth centuries. Now, lets be nice and stretch it to a full 500 years - a long time, but compared to the 10 000 years of history we hold, a drop in the bucket.

in fact, the idea of fairness is one of the main foundations for our species' sense of morality and justice.

Yes. But fairness and equality aren't even close to being synonymous.

A peasent in medieval Europe would have said his lot was fair - he knew where his place was, and as long as he did his job, his lord would protect him, he'd have enough to eat, a place to live and a few pennies for entertainments on feast days, and he'd go to heaven when he died. Oh it would be nice to be a noble, but god chose where you were born, so make the most of it.

Likewise, an Untouchable in the Moghul Empire would likely have found his life hard, but not unfair. He had his job, his family, a purpose in life, and the promise of a better life next time if he did well in this one.

Would WE consider such lives fair? Of course not, but fairness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Would there be times when our hypothetical peasent or Untouchable have revolted? Certainly - in times of famine, in times of misrule and chaos, or if they were being overtaxed and couldn't take it any more. These reasons would make sense. Equality? They'd laugh in your face.

well, the ethnographic atlas disagrees with you - societies lacking both slavery and class distinctions make up the single largest grouping in the standard cross-cultural sample.

In the modern era, I'd expect that. But the modern era only dates to the Napoleonic Wars.

Yes but in every state there are oppositions with significant powers. What's crucial is that it has a monopoly on executive power, if you're going to have some form of central committee. If it doesn't have that, then it will loose control on some of the communes.Most likely there would be some form of standard arbitration to deal with disputes, and this form of arbitration would be viewed as being more legitimate than other forms of arbitration or dispute resolution, such as vigilantism. Nonetheless, vigilantism wouldn't be inherently intolerable.

Yeah I'm not saying the idea of each individual deciding is impossible, I'm saying it's impossible to have a consensus amongst every individual, realistically

Yes, but again, this goal is pretty much impossible to achieve. There will always be disagreements.

But it conforms to what the majority wants, but is against what a minority wants.Perhaps this is the case, but simply because one disagrees with a decision doesn't mean one didn't take part in the making of the decision.
The process of discussing which decisions to make is part of the decision-making process, and anyone could participate in that.

No, if that was the case, then it would merely be 'tyranny by random process'.So then you believe all forms of decision-making are tyrannical?

Right, so going back to my original point, this class of delegates, are the ruling class that I'm talking about.It's debatable to what degree the delegates make up a class. Firstly, they are elected and instantly recallable. Secondly, they wouldn't have absolute decision-making ability. Depending on the structure of the commune, they might only be able to present the commune's general opinion to the confederation, regardless of whatever opinion they personally hold. If this isn't the case, there would at least be proxy forms for an individual commune member to put their personal decision on which would be counted in the voting process.

A peasent in medieval Europe would have said his lot was fair

When Adam delved and Eve span,
Who was then the gentleman?