Anarchism

[padraig (u.s.)]

also it's true I don't have data or models to throw at you - no anarchist regimes from which to gather data, it's hard to model something which rejects models - but if you're really interested it is, seriously, worth reading about the Spanish anarchists, by far the best real world case study. read about them from both an anarchist & a non-anarchist viewpoint.

 

[mistadubalina]

"warpathing to the hilt"? "rarking up the establishment"? Pfffffft......

Don't be snide. Bet that sounded way cool in art class.

...and i bet you guys laugh at how asians speak english kind of funny too eh?

 

[john eden]

...and i bet you guys laugh at how asians speak english kind of funny too eh?

Round my way the asians talk like cockneys.

 

[mistadubalina]

haha...sounds hilarious

back on topic, would crime syndicates and gangs be models for anarchist regimes ?

...different moral codes, laws unto themselves, working against the state etc etc

and from the states point of view dont they think of anarchists as criminals bordering on traitors ?

 

[john eden]

haha...sounds hilarious

Not really, everyone takes it for granted.

back on topic, would crime syndicates and gangs be model for anarchist regimes ?

No, they are the exact opposite.

 

[mistadubalina]

why ?

 

[john eden]

why ?

http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/m...500.html#INTRO

 

[droid]

also it's true I don't have data or models to throw at you - no anarchist regimes from which to gather data, it's hard to model something which rejects models - but if you're really interested it is, seriously, worth reading about the Spanish anarchists, by far the best real world case study. read about them from both an anarchist & a non-anarchist viewpoint.

Yeah, and an interesting aside is how the Spanish anarchists were attacked by both sides during the civil war as both the (statist) left and the right view anarchism as a threat, in that its axiomatically opposed to hierarchical structure and control and intended to be genuinely democratic.

I was going to start a thread about this actually... In my eyes, history isn't about the struggle between left vs right, its about elites versus populations - vanguardism in other words - small elites with a handy line in utopian philosophy who decide whats best for everyone else and manipulate or force populations to support, accede or accept their rule. With communism/marxism/maoism (esp. Leninism), the right of the vanguard to rule is built in to revolutionary structures, and force is used to impose that rule. In 'democratic' societies, the vanguard is hidden but implicit, and PR, image manipulation and the manufacture of consent achieves the same aims - that is, the right of elites to ignore or co-opt the wishes of majorities (the bewildered herd) so that they can go about their business - primarily the dissemination of particular economic policies.*

The challenge for anarchism (which of course also has utopian bent) is to create structures and institutions which are capable of fiercely resisting the tendency to slip into hierarchical modes of governance - to prevent vanguardism. The obvious criticism is (of course), that people are selfish and stupid, they don't know whats best for them, they need to be controlled, they want strong leadership etc... all bollocks of course - legions of volunteers around the world participate in all kinds of unpaid work to help others, and people are well capable of making intelligent decisions about their own future when given the opportunity.

I guess the main obstacle to these ideas in the west (other than powerful institutions that would inevitable oppose such a movement) is that the very idea of political participation has been deliberately eroded and society has been atomised to the point where it's almost impossible to conceive of the kind mass democratic participation necessary to bring about significant change.

*Sorry for the blatant obviousness of this.

 

[DannyL]

yep, still the best single (original) book on anarchism I've read. His stuff on housing is excellent too.

Ditto his stuff on kids in the city and the country. Bloody great books.

A really digestable root into Ward is through the book of interviews he did - Talking Anarchy - it's kind of a career summary. Fantastic stuff.

Here's a link to the publishers: http://www.fiveleaves.co.uk/social.html - go right to the bottom of the page for the book.

 

[zhao]

why ?

(john your link don't work)

because while these organizations exist in opposition to state law, they mirror the structure of the state, and are basically little military monarchies which enforce strict order with zero autonomy for its members.

 

[john eden]

(john your link don't work)

because while these organizations exist in opposition to state law, they mirror the structure of the state, and are basically little military monarchies which enforce strict order with zero autonomy for its members.

sorry about that, it's the same link from my post on page 1.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

John: the link you posted ain't working. Interested to know what it is -- any chance of a re-post? Ta. [EDIT: sorry bout the x-post]

Would you say that anarchist groups and criminal syndicates differ in both normative framework and organisational/institutional structure?

In normative terms this is seems to be a matter of personal perspective - tho i guess anarchist groups would tend to define themselves as working in the best interests of the wider masses, while gangs would prolly have much narrower concerns (i.e. self-enrichment).

Organisationally both would seem likely to eschew hierarchy - at least in a rational bureaucratic sense - and therefore tend towards de-centralised networked structures. That said, I can't really envisage criminal gangs having protracted meetings where decisions are taken through consensus. And threats of violence may be pervasive in the decision-making processes of gangs...

While i agree that there are likely to be significant differences between the two, I wonder if they really are "exact opposites" as you suggest...

 

[Mr BoShambles]

I reckon this paragraph from your link supports my point about the normative framework of anarchy being a matter of perspective:

Those who use the word "Anarchy" to mean disorder or misrule are not incorrect. If they regard Government as necessary, if they think we could not live without Whitehall directing our affairs, if they think politicians are essential to our well-being and that we could not behave socially without police, they are right in assuming that Anarchy means the opposite to what Government guarantees. But those who have the reverse opinion, and consider Government to be tyranny, are right too in considering Anarchy, no Government, to be liberty. If Government is the maintenance of privilege and exploitation and inefficiency of distribution, then Anarchy is order.

While i have some sympathies towards an anarchist approach, I know many people who i think would identify with anarchy as "disorder or misrule" and wouldn't perhaps draw such sharp distinctions between criminal groups and anarchists.

 

[john eden]

My understanding is that organised crime is essentially hierachichal and focussed on the acquisition of power and money, often as you say by means of coercion and violence.

Which is exactly how the state works.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

My understanding is that organised crime is essentially hierachichal

Not sure that is the necessarily the case. Yes there will be bosses and lieutenants (or whatever) but this is likely to be far less rigid and formalised than the bureaucratic structures of state departments, offices, parliaments etc. Worth having a look at these i reckon:

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1382/MR1382.ch4.pdf

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1382/MR1382.ch1.pdf

Also, as someone else mentioned upthread, is it not the case that anarchist groups often tend towards some kind of hierarchy through the power grabbing instincts of some members...

 

[john eden]

Not sure that is the necessarily the case. Yes there will be bosses and lieutenants (or whatever) but this is likely to be far less rigid and formalised than the bureaucratic structures of state departments, offices, parliaments etc. Worth having a look at these i reckon:

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1382/MR1382.ch4.pdf

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1382/MR1382.ch1.pdf

Also, as someone else mentioned upthread, is it not the case that anarchist groups often tend towards some kind of hierarchy through the power grabbing instincts of some members...

I'll check out those links later but it seems pretty clear to me that the more successful criminal gangs become over time, the more hierarchical they become.

I don't know if anarchist groups automatically tend towards this or not. It's certainly alluded to in this: http://www.afed.org.uk/online/tyranny.html which suggests that some groups at least are trying to prevent it happening.

 

[droid]

If anything, criminal groups are even more hierarchical than the state or corporations/employers in that they use violence or the threat of violence almost exclusively as a means of control. If you disobey your boss in a normal job you get fired -if you disobey your boss in a criminal gang you get kneecapped... in that sense, criminal groups are the opposite of anarchist groups as they are essentially dictatorships whose only justification for authority is the use of violence - more fluid than state bureaucracies sure, but strictly hierarchical just the same.

 

[john eden]

Also worth mentioning that many business models try to create peudo "flat" hierarchies now, but that doesn't make them anarchist in my book - there is still someone hiring and firing and giving orders and there are still people being hired and taking orders.

Having said that, this is a better option than being lenged up for disrespecting, or being found at the bottom or a river wearing concrete boots.

 

[mistadubalina]

isn't there a form of egoist anarchy which allows for violence and acquistion of power/property by any means necessary ? one which states some of us are more equal than others and have an innate right to lord it over others if in the interest of thte greater good. Like I'm not your equal i'm actually better than you ?

and from my understanding of criminal structures/gangs is, yes, ultimately there is a leader but as subordinates you had free will to enact your own forms of unrest/crime as long as you didnt cross turfs and paid a percentage to the organization.

 

[vimothy]

A few things:

Use of coercive violence is not per se a reflection on organisational structure.

We've all read John Tilly, but there are certainly de-centralised 21st century criminal networks -- though this in itself is no reason to call them "anarchist". Even if it was, this would not imply equivalence on any level other than organisational.

Comparing anarchist and criminal modes of social organisation seems a little moot without some kind of description or definition of anarchist modes of social organisation.