Anarchism

[mistadubalina]

Cant do it eh matt b. Define anarchism in your own words that is. Whys that ? At least have a go. Whats stopping you ? of course it's much easier to troll me...

re: primitive societies. My first culture is polynesian and in the islands it's still relatively intact. we have histories of non violent opposition to colonial state oppression and have hierarchies based on heredity but theres no guarantee of succession to the first born. Its usually whoevers most worthy. The chief's responsibilty is to serve the family not the other way round and we have always raised children comunally.

But perhaps a better model to study re anarchism would be communities of interest on line such as dissensus where all are basically equal but often dominated by a few and where ostracization and marginalisation of ides is commonplace based on a percieved intellectual superiority

i think it is entirely possible to self rule by consensus using a log in or a cell phone to vote for referenda on just about any issue regarding governance and de volve the whole statehood and parliamentary structures which favour the privileged and the rich.

is that anarchic enough for you?

 

[nomadthethird]

I take on board what you're saying, although i am wary of making such broad generalisations on the basis of one historical form of criminal org/gang - i.e. the Italian mafia in this case. It seems very likely that there will be wide variation in the way criminal networks structure themselves internally - relating to socio-cultural and historical dynamics.

Of course there is variation. I wasn't generalizing there, I pointed out that most crime syndicates run according to strict hierarchal top-down power dynamics, then I provided one specific example in the Sicilian mafia. That wasn't supposed to be a general account, that was a specific one.

 

[nomadthethird]

Anyway, my main point is this: has anyone ever documented a society that is naturally anarchistic? I'm talking about 'primitive' societies here, I guess, so societies which are organised in that way because that's how they've always been organised, not as the result of a popular reaction against an establishment or power hierarchy.

Well, I can't think of them off the top of my head but David Graeber talks about examples of anarchist societies (esp non-Western ones) a lot. He's an anthropologist anarchist.

 

[scottdisco]

fascinating stuff from P here. cheers!

they're really big on autonomy & self-management (autogestión”. they're also quite clear that they're not trying to secede from Mexico, I think I've mentioned they have a kind of "we are true Mexican patriots line". so they want essentially a kind of semi-autonomy where they control local matters as I described above but also I guess vote in state & federal elections, have their economy integrated at some degree with that of Mexico, etc. I am very unclear on exactly how this would work out.

the semi-autonomy w' federal/state participation as above confuses me a bit as to how this is squared, i'll admit.

but then realising anything along your ideal lines will involve a flight between systems and compromise, (so that solves my query) as you so eloquently make the point later in this thread.

i'm w' Nomad on the criminal orgs thing. there's a lot in different parts of the world and they don't all just operate in North America or Europe but her hierarchy description can surely be telegraphed out w' a degree of accuracy.

 

[john eden]

Sorry to rewind the thread but I had a quick look at that netwar stuff the Rand Corp published. I didn't find the examples cited all that useful as they seemed to be a weird combination of individualism, hieararchy and very specific.

I.e. football hooligan crews are ridiculously hierarchical with "top boys" and newbies and "faces" and whatever. And they obviously have a very narrow focus.

Far right "leaderless resistance" is essentially individualistic, right down to "lone wolf" psychos trying to escalate the race war etc.

What unites both of these groups, and Al Qaeda and organised crime is their outright authoritarianism in their relations with non-members/targets.

Maybe some of the Seattle G20 stuff is worth checking out but I had to laugh at the descriptions of "anarchists, legitmate protestors and opportunistic criminals".

I guess the text has to be seen for what it is - a text by a corporation's futurologist trying to anticipate theats.

 

[matt b]

The most fundamental unit of human organisation, the family, is inherently hierarchical.

I don't think actual collective action is possible on anything other than a very small scale without some kind of hierarchy. A totally flat structure implies incredibly complex linkages between nodes -- functional organisational telepathy, basically. Failing that, orders emerge.

'inherently' hierarchical? are you sure- there may be a tendency as families are currently constructed, but that is all.

On the other hand, you could equally argue that families are often the site of altruistic behaviours.

Kropotkin talks about nodes and networks (obviously using different language) and felt that small autonomous groups can easily co-operate to create complex systems- he talked about rail networks.

 

[droid]

To clear up this Khmer Rouge thing, the SAS didn't actually train Khmer Rouge. They trained a couple of other Cambodian groups fighting the Vietnamese, that both had acrimonious relations with the Khmer Rouge. The idea being to forge a non-Communist alternative to both Khmer Rouge and the Vietnamese.

Thanks for clearing that up so authoritatively Oliver. I also hear that the bombs and booby traps they trained them to use were made of flowers and exploded in delightful puffs of jasmine and honeysuckle.

 

[john eden]

I should also point out that I wouldn't consider myself an anarchist these days. There are a load of reasons for this and I am writing them here for my own benefit as much as anyone else's so bear with me

1) Anarchism is not a useful term. It has too many associations with chaos, punk, disorder. Even actual anarchism contain so many ridiculous strands I have no desire to be associated with - primitivism, egoism, anarcho-capitalism, "national anarchism", pacifism, moralism. Bringing it up in conversation with people I am engaging with politically is a shortcut to disaster.

2) I don't see the prospect of revolution in the near future or in my lifetime and I don't think anybody outside of the dwindling revolutionary left does either. If I am wrong then I am sure I will still have access to as many pamphlets and historical examples as I require. I do think it is good people are ensuring that this stuff remains available.

3) Anarchism's critique of hierarchy is its best contribution, but it also allows all sorts of excuses for inaction and tedious arguments along the lines of "fuck you I won't do what you tell me". For example I was involved in some community politics stuff which was criticised by a fairly sensible anarchist because we weren't empowering people to take control of their own lives, we were seen as "doing it for them". Of course said anarchist had all sorts of ideas about how this could be done, he just wasn't actually doing them himself.

4) Generally the revolutionary left are not people I wish to spend much time with. Whilst I find sectarian gossip and russian history more interesting than the next man it does seem to be that large portions of the left are more interested in that than actually making a difference to the lives of working class people. Or they are adrenaline junkies chasing the next "action" without reflecting on where it is getting them.

 

[matt b]

Cant do it eh matt b. Define anarchism in your own words that is. Whys that ? At least have a go. Whats stopping you ? of course it's much easier to troll me...

In my own words:

Anarchism is a broad political philosophy that argues that human beings can successfully live and work with each other on an equal footing, in ordered communities without the need of government or a state.

It is a movement that as well as the state, the exploitation of others, the profit motive etc are at odds with the basic premise of individual liberty.

Beyond that, there are many branches of anarchism with different peculiarities.

This is obviously not the same as chaos, which is what you are talking about.

 

[vimothy]

if you're referencing the nuclear family or even the extended family I would challenge that that is the most fundamental unit of human organization & argue that it's only becoming the prevailing viewpoint rather recently.

It depends on what you mean by "recently", I guess, but I think that it still holds whether you're talking about being raised by the nuclear family, my two dads or the women of the African Himba tribe.

I don't see this as necessarily bad, or a reason to try to circumvent "the family", but as evidence to support my hypothesis that hierarchies can be socially useful.

Props for a well made Blinko link, tho!

but, I mean "actual" collection action w/absolutely no hierarchy, not even an informal, unspoken, perhaps even subconscious one. come on, nothing ever obtains it's absolute ideal. so in that sense, no, there is no "actual" collective action.

Well, I think that non-hierarchical collective action is possible among a small group of people who know one another and share affinities. But that's about it, as far as I can see. Better to have much more limited and acheivable goals.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

alright, up early this morning (on a very strange schedule this week) & thought it'd be well to knock together some links.

Fragments of An Anarchist Anthropology by David Graeber - the anarchist anthropologist mentioned by Nomad above. haven't read it myself (tho it's just moved up to next on my reading list) so can't speak to everything within.

I gather Graeber did his field work on the Tsimihety (don't know if any of his writings on them are online) people of Madagascar. More Graeber writings - mostly articles & essays - are available at his wiki, Where you can also read about Yale's apparently controversial decision not to rehire/grant him tenure.

link on the Tsimihety

Incidentally the anthropologist who wrote that blurb on the Tsimihety, one Peter J. Wilson, also has an interesting looking book called The Domestication of the Human Species on, I'd guess, the transition from nomadic hunter-gatherer to a sedentary agricultural societies.

The Original Affluent Society by Marshall Sahlins - on Sahlins' theory that hunter-gatherers were/are not in fact deprived but in fact "advanced" in terms of how much work they did relative to their standard of living (orig published in the mid-60s I believe - the title is in obvious reference to John Kenneth Galbraith's The Affluent Society which any economists - looking at you Vim - will be familiar with)

Two links on the !Kung (or San - I'm unclear as to whether the terms are synonymous or whether the !Kung are one tribe of the San people) - selective quotes but read thru them if you're interested

http://abbott-infotech.co.za/tribes in the kalahari.html

The Bushmen or San does not have a government, a King or a National leader. Not even a "Chief", "Chieftain" or "Captain" in the sense understood in Africa...Each individual do largely as he pleases, within the constraints of their customs [italics mine], and if there is a disagreement about something, the group simply splits up and the families go their separate ways, with little or no coercion."

http://orvillejenkins.com/profiles/kung.html (the guy who's site this is looks like quite an interesting fellow as well)

There are hereditary leaders, sometimes considered chiefs, but they have limited authority. Traditionally social order was enforced by ridicule, dispersal (forced separation) and sometimes even execution.

also on the !Kung - traditionally they are nomadic hunter-gatherers in a very tough environment, the Kalahari Desert, of bands usually no larger than 20. in other words, ideal conditions for a non-hierarchical society. also, don't want to gloss anything over - they've had, I gather enormous problems w/their non-San neighbors & w/adjusting to modern society.

2 novels:

The Sheep Look Up by John Brunner - mentioned this in the fascism thread - written in 1972 - don't want to summarize it - just check the wiki

Ishmael by Daniel Quinn - the On the Road of green/anti-civ anarcho types but still pretty good for all that, hell of an eye opener for me at 15. gets you thinking if nothing else.

*EDIT* also The Dispossessed by Ursula K. LeGuin - I know I mentioned it already, but, seriously, read the damn thing (or I'll force you to have a consensus meeting with me!). The best hypothetical description of an anarchist society functioning on a large scale - I believe ~1 million people in the book. don't think she points an entirely rosy picture either, she raises some very knotty concerns as well.

also I put this together in about 20 minutes so if I have time later I'll try to do more

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

but then realising anything along your ideal lines will involve a flight between systems and compromise, (so that solves my query) as you so eloquently make the point later in this thread.

if I understand what you mean by "flight" then yes that essentially describes my ideals. tho I would not say that my beliefs are anarchism or that anarchism is my beliefs. tho there is certainly an affinity.

 

[vimothy]

'inherently' hierarchical? are you sure- there may be a tendency as families are currently constructed, but that is all.

On the other hand, you could equally argue that families are often the site of altruistic behaviours.

There will be at least two levels (adult; child) even if the children are being raised communally. Possibly three levels (men; women; children), or more. I agree that families are often the site of altruistic behaviour, but I don't believe that there is mutual antipathy between hierarchy and altruism. Families, like most other groups, are a weird mix of coercion and persuasion.

 

[mistadubalina]

what i'm trying to say is, my native peoples have been doing that without western notions of state or government for fucking ages and we have suffered by forced assimilation/colonization which has compromised our values and way of life so if it seems i'm fucked of with whitey, it's cos i am.

and the anarchism you speak of, again defined by western intellect, if it were instituted wholesale on the global public at large, would cause initial chaos then possibly out of that would come order.

so if thats what it takes to make a better world then bring it on! but there better be a system to take its place that can cope with large scale production beyond community self help organizations.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

excellent post from the man like Eden. let me say first that I mostly agree with your points but that I especially empathize with them & the place they're coming from.

1) Anarchism is not a useful term...

agree full-stop. or rather, its usefulness is often outweighed by its problems.

2) I don't see the prospect of revolution in the near future or in my lifetime and I don't think anybody outside of the dwindling revolutionary left does either.

true. but I don't see this as a reason to abandon anything. I was never interested in a storm-the-palace revolution anyway, at least not since I was old enough to understand that it was the same old bullshit in different clothing (so, about 14 - thanks Crass!). on the other hand I am still interested in the creation of non-hierarchical (or which at least attempt to be) parallel structures which seek to simultaneously meet people's needs & give them the opportunity to empower themselves, examples of which I described upthread (tho there are certainly many other possibilities).

 

[matt b]

what i'm trying to say is, my native peoples have been doing that without western notions of state or government for fucking ages and we have suffered by forced assimilation/colonization which has compromised our values and way of life so if it seems i'm fucked of with whitey, it's cos i am.

and the anarchism you speak of, again defined by western intellect, if it were instituted wholesale on the global public at large, would cause initial chaos then possibly out of that would come order.

so if thats what it takes to make a better world then bring it on! but there better be a system to take its place that can cope with large scale production beyond community self help organizations.

1. Where have I mentioned ethnicity?

2. The whole point of anarchism is that it isn't forced on people.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

but I don't see this as necessarily bad, or a reason to try to circumvent "the family", but as evidence to support my hypothesis that hierarchies can be socially useful.

I don't think it's about trying to "circumvent" the family so much as experimenting with different ways in which the family may be organized.

also I'm not sure where I've claimed that no hierarchy is ever useful.

Well, I think that non-hierarchical collective action is possible among a small group of people who know one another and share affinities. But that's about it, as far as I can see. Better to have much more limited and acheivable goals.

not to be a broken record but I feel like that's exactly what I've said in this thread about a dozen times.

 

[massrock]

i think it is entirely possible to self rule by consensus using a log in or a cell phone to vote for referenda on just about any issue regarding governance and de volve the whole statehood and parliamentary structures which favour the privileged and the rich.

Twitocracy?

Obviously lots of potential difficulties but we could certainly have public referenda on more issues. We have the tech, but you can see why career politicians might not be too keen on pushing the idea.

Amongst other things you'd still have to deal with the problems of powerful influence, and who gets to ask the questions.

Might really bring it home how proper public education is in all our interests if more people were directly involved in decision making though.

 

[vimothy]

On Arquilla and Ronfeldt, the netwar approach shouldn't be understood as an attempt to make anarchists look like criminals. Anarchism is only tangentially related at best. Dismiss it as Rand Corp psychos dreaming of sci-fi mass murder if you want, but it doesn't invalidate what they say, viz. that networks are useful, and that criminal organisations use them, just like many other organisations, just as many others have pointed out. The type of structure used has implications for resilience, operational capacity, and so on, but they don't imply an ascribable moral value. Rather, an all-channel network, for instance, is very resilient because even if any one node is removed, all the other nodes are still connected, whereas a hub network is vulnerable at its hub, though not at any of the outer nodes.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

what i'm trying to say is, my native peoples have been doing that without western notions of state or government for fucking ages and we have suffered by forced assimilation/colonization which has compromised our values and way of life so if it seems i'm fucked of with whitey, it's cos i am.

and the anarchism you speak of, again defined by western intellect, if it were instituted wholesale on the global public at large, would cause initial chaos then possibly out of that would come order.

I feel this deserves a response.

first, just nix "if it were instituted wholesale on the global public". the whole point is not to institute (e.g. force) anything on anyone.

about indigenous peoples, colonization, white intellectuals:

there are a lot of valid criticisms to be made. fetishization, straight bullshit noble savage romanticization, yes in some cases Westerners foisting their agendas/ideals onto "primitive" peoples. but I would also say that this is not the whole story - in fact a lot of Westerners/whiteys who write/speak/discuss on this topic are painfully aware of all those problems. to the extent that there is often a strong undercurrent specifically opposing any of those tendencies.

basically, instead of saying "this is anarchism - those nomadic hunter-gatherers are anarchists" a lot of people (I would be much more in this camp) would say "anarchism (or whatever you call it) is an idea that existed well before it become a strictly defined Western tradition, & these may be examples of it".

also, if you don't mind me asking - are you Maori then? cos I know a little bit about Maoris & their struggle (have an anarchist half-Maori friend tho he's an Aussie, from Brisbane). not an expert or anything.