Anarchy Poll and Discussion Thread

As a teaser, here is a quote where Sheldon Wolin summarizes Thomas Hobbes' outlook on anarchy, which I lifted from the Rolling Political Philosophy thread (courtesy of ilxor 'difficult listening hour'):

The state of nature symbolized not only an extreme disorder in human relations, causing men to consent to the creation of an irresistible power; it was also a condition distraught by an anarchy of meanings. In nature each man could freely use his reason to seek his own ends: each was the final judge of what constituted rationality. The problem posed involved more than the moral issues arising from man's vanity or his desire for pre-eminence. It was a genuinely philosophical one involving the status of knowledge....

[Man] alone of all the animals possessed speech and was capable of science, yet he alone could turn speech into deception, ideas into sedition, learning into mystification.... These ironical overtones rule out interpreting the state of nature as belonging to the remote past... Instead, it represented an imaginative reconstruction of a recurrent human possibility ... built on the causes and consequences of political breakdown. Its meaning remained eternally contemporary and urgent....

In this sense, the concept did not belong solely to the past or even to the present. Its status was that of an ever-present possibility inherent in any organized political society, a ubiquitous threat which, like some macabre companion, accompanied society in every stage of its journey. It was present each night, as men sealed themselves in their homes and succeeded only in locking in fear.... The content of the state of nature could be filled in by consulting "the manner of life which men that have formerly lived under a peaceful government, use to generate into, in a civil war."

Obviously, this is not Prince Kropotkin's idea of anarchy at all.

The poll won't end for a month eight months.

I Embrace Anarchy - it would end civilization forever, and that's fine by me

not into utopias, don't trust aspiring utopia builders like most well known anarchists. not totally attached to the word anarchy except for want of anything better

this is what I feel
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/baedan-baedan

This is incidental, but I find it fascinating that you cite a document as aligning with your 'feelings', rather than your 'thinking', and I discover the document is a highly academic treatise containing such sentences as:

This blind spot within Marx’s thought must remain present in our critique of reproductive futurism and its social order. It is useful to examine the moments where people willfully resisted the reproduction of society through the subtraction of their bodies from the flows of futurity.

The point of such language is to scrub it of all overt emotional content. Not that it matters much. I think I see your position. I just was surprised by the incongruity.

Anarchy is for the young and able-bodied.

nah, see photos of awesome old anarchists here (part of a book/CD that Chumbawamba put out):

http://www.caseyorr.com/i-portraits-of-anarchists.php

voted "sure it's flawed, but the alternatives are worse" btw

sleeve otm -- also, please post the great meme about anarchists and meetings

How the media portrays anarchists: Okay guys let’s smash some shit!

Actual anarchists: Okay so it’s been 8 hours but we finally reached consensus on the use of the word “guys” in meetings

— merritt k (@merrittk) June 3, 2020

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/04/stop-blaming-everything-bad-anarchists/

I'm not trained in political science by any stretch, but as near as I can make out, the utopian anarchists envision anarchy as producing an organized society, where the organization arises from a cooperative recognition of common purpose, needs and interests, and where solutions to problems are arrived at through personal creative initiative, communal discussion, and the eventual adoption of actions by individuals who then naturally cooperate toward that identified commonality. It's amorphous, but directed, and does not resort to force at any point.

Archaeologists have theorized that the early civilization of Mohenjo-Daro may have been organized along such anarchist lines, largely because the physical remains include ample evidence of cooperative efforts, such as irrigation canals and towns with shared sewers, but there are no remains of fortifications or weapons, and no identifiable 'palaces' or visible signs of wealth inequality. But all conclusions about their social organization are highly speculative.

Other than this, I am not aware of any civilization-level societies lasting for many centuries that could be described as fitting this proposed social model.

some anarchists would argue that "civilization" as you refer to it there is really "surplus with hierarchy" and as such is antithetical to anarchism, since as you touch on anarchy represents organization without hierarchy, in a rhizomatic form as opposed to an arborescent one.

The point of such language is to scrub it of all overt emotional content.

I don't agree, I think it's a deeply felt text, it does (disrespectfully) use jargon resembling that of the theory it's appropriating: "our task is to distinguish what is useful to our project from what is hopelessly lost in the abyss of the academy". I would apply your description to scientifically oriented marxist and anarchist theory and most of radical academia among other things

some anarchists would argue that "civilization" as you refer to it there is really "surplus with hierarchy" and as such is antithetical to anarchism, since as you touch on anarchy represents organization without hierarchy, in a rhizomatic form as opposed to an arborescent one.

ohhhh yeah thats the stuff

Anarchy is for the young and able-bodied.

― but also fuck you (unperson), Sunday, June 14, 2020 12:37 PM (one hour ago)

actually there is a fair amount of discussion about ableism and many anarchist-aligned groups take that into account when organizing -- including the 8 hour meeting problem.

Write in: there is no such thing as anarchy.

One of the things that's interesting to me about the evolution of anarchism and anarchist organizations is the influence of technology workers and tech bros and how some of that philosophy and organization style has been integrated. I feel like I see a lot of that now (and in the past decade)

"civilization" as you refer to it there is really "surplus with hierarchy"

I purposely did not identify "civilization" as requiring hierarchy. In my view, civilization is tied to organization and to surplus, as you mention, with enough specialization to support the creation and continuation of small cities, providing markets for the distribution of specialized goods and services. It doesn't have to be a big city or a highly specialized economy to qualify. These are social and economic distinctions, not political ones.

But I realize "civilization" is one of those words which have been used as loaded guns aimed by colonialists at subjected peoples to justify their predations and appropriations.

Write in: there is no such thing as anarchy.

I tried to cover that with:

I Am Ambivalent Toward Anarchy - it's a cipher people pour their hopes and fears into

True, but I wouldn't call myself 'ambivalent' towards it.

Anarchy exists, in that it is an idea. The problem arises when you try to discover what that idea entails.

there's an awful lot of documented theory and practice really, granted the shorthand "anarchy" as a reified image/concept is easily misinterpreted or overanalyzed but trust me actual work does happen and is boring and tedious a lot of the time.

I mean, I could Google for you maybe?

here's a good starter:

https://libcom.org/history/anarchy-anthology-emma-goldmans-mother-earth

and more modern stuff here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Autonomous_Zone

^^ I really like both of these, nice bookends to the century

John Zerzan and Chellis Glendinning get more into the "first fence" theories, the Zerzan book is prob more influential but the Chellis book gets into actual healing imo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Primitive_and_Other_Essays

https://books.google.com/books/about/My_Name_is_Chellis_I_m_in_Recovery_from.html?id=T6kNAAAACAAJ

"anarchy" as a reified image/concept is easily misinterpreted or overanalyzed but trust me actual work does happen and is boring and tedious a lot of the time.

you (excluding sleeve) would probably be amazed at the amount of time spent producing and editing spreadsheets and google forms in the name of anarchy

irl lols, god yes plz link some here

is this the thread for misgivings about the agricultural revolution too

This thread can be anything you want it to be.

xp - i mean, if you really want to see something look at the omni commons wiki

sleeve or sarahell, leaving aside the complex question of transition from capitalist/hierarchical society to a realized anarchic society, how do you personally envision the settled forms that a fully realized anarchy is likely to manifest? Just some broad strokes so I can get at your idea of what anarchy would produce, it doesn't need to be book length. or is a fully-realized anarchic society beyond the scope of your goals?

it's a cipher people pour their hopes and fears into

I don't think this is a necessarily ambivalent position - actually, the only way I could see it being ambivalent is if your take is something like "it is a cipher but maybe that's OK if it gives people an outlet for their hopes and fears"?

I voted "cannot endorse". Although it is most likely a cipher, even if it were possible to somehow reorganize all of humanity into e.g. a network of directly democratic collectives based around mass co-operation, I'm not convinced that I would prefer to live in that society.

Where's the "I don't understand the question or the options" option?

lol well it is an Aimless poll

xps Aimless you can look at any intentional community for an abundance of examples, here are two:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania

https://www.ic.org/directory/shannon-farm-community/

but as usual your question falls into the trap of requiring the respondent to jump through an increasingly-arbitrary set of white guy hoops that you will assuredly put into place, so spare me the next hoop plz. there are plenty of real world examples of how anarchist or anarchist-adjacent groups/practice/theory inform larger changes in society.

https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/cahoots-gains-national-attention-as-a-non-police-mental-health-response

https://around.uoregon.edu/oq/with-a-human-face-when-hoedads-walked-the-earth

skepticism about agriculture is OK but IMO hoarding/surplus is more of an issue, cf. Pollan's "Cooked" and the book "1491" I think cooking apes have always been pretty smart and "feeding a society" does not seem to require hierarchy?

I haven't read this other very interesting book but aiui the speculation here is that times of surplus naturally result in increased hierarchy:

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674006911&content=reviews

i am def not trying to make anyone jump hoops -- i truly don't know what my answer is because idk how anarchy is being defined wrt this poll
therefore idk how i feel about it and the options seem pretty limited to options for people who DO understand the question
which i don't :(

it's not super important or anything but i would like to understand

not you LL, that was directed at Aimless, my apologies for xposts

oh ok -- i don't have the time (or inclination honestly) to read a whole book to figure out what anarchy means acc to this question
this must be how my students feel when i ask them to have an opinion on a topic they don't understand. it's bad!

I guess here's my take on the various options:

I Love Anarchy - it's as near to utopia as humanity can hope for
- not many ppl think this, it's largely a strawman but the Bakuninist influence on millanialist (?) peasants and teenage idealists is undeniable

I Cautiously Endorse Anarchy - sure it's flawed, but the alternatives are worse
- in my experience this is more realistic, ppl who actually do the work get it

I Cannot Endorse Anarchy - bad as current society is, anarchy is the wrong solution
-show yr argument please, how is what we have worse? also yes it is really best to read at least one book on anarchist history before answering.

I Loathe Anarchy - civilization would end and life would be nasty, brutish and short
I Embrace Anarchy - it would end civilization forever, and that's fine by me
- these both seems to be the same to be, basically nihilism

I Am Ambivalent Toward Anarchy - it's a cipher people pour their hopes and fears into
- the "intellectual" or classic liberal position, as Lenin said there are decades where you fuck around and weeks when you find out, so let's find out

I Have No Opinion on Anarchy - and you can't force me to have one
- joke option

Other - I have progressed beyond these simplistic choices; let me explain
- possibly joke option but hey w/e

I am Purposely Voiding My Ballot
- joke option

to be to me

Imo you have to show yer work that any potential solution will be MUCH better, cause no matter what the transitional period is gonna be grim

not "MUCH better" according to the question as written, it states "sure but the alternatives are worse" so no the burden of proof is not on anarchists here, it's gonna happen anyway as things break down

the transition is gonna be grim no matter what, that I agree with

to some degree my answer to these questions is informed by the work of Octavia Butler who memorably posits that our problem as a species is that we combine intelligence with hierarchical programming, i.e. Chomsky's quote of "now is the time for us to prove that intelligence is a worthwhile evolutionary trait"

and to be clear my personal take on anarchism is essentially based on communities/groups of 150 or less operating on a consensus-minus-one basis, apply up to scale as needed.

not "MUCH better" according to the question as written

oh tbc I meant in terms of convincing ppl in meatspace

"show us the blueprints" is ideology, and basically an impossible task even for someone who does want to build a better society. how do we do this within the system? running experiments? writing really convincing pamphlets? who's doing the grading? what's better than what?

utopian anarchists/leftists* have a tendency to fall into these traps when they feel the need to demonstrate how their ideal world will offer the same or better standards of efficiency and productivity and progress and middle class comfort (and other euphemisms for ecocidal capitalism) as this one, just without the more flagrantly nasty bits

negativity is less work, it has nothing to offer, no need to please the custodians of an order that is defined against it

*(including/especially the "anti-utopian" scientific types)

how do we do this within the system? running experiments? writing really convincing pamphlets? who's doing the grading? what's better than what?

I think this is generally referred to as "making an effort" and "thinking through ideas"

negativity is less work

https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/sites/default/files/styles/tall_rectangle_custom_user_small_1x/public/images/contributor/adorno_360x450.jpg?itok=RD7qtNTP×tamp=1422048260

O RLY

The method is simple: you arrive at the correct ethical conclusions and you put them into practice RIGHT NOW, no questions asked, no beating around the bush. Furthermore, everyone else is required to do the same immediately.

xp j. knows what's up.

-show yr argument please, how is what we have worse? also yes it is really best to read at least one book on anarchist history before answering.

I think hierarchical structures where people with a justifiable mandate make rules, people with expertise carry them out, and most people follow the rules can be more effective, efficient, and just than decentralized co-operative structures where people spend eight-hour meetings trying to achieve consensus on the word "guys". There are a lot of things I love in contemporary society and idk why I should trust that they would be preserved after a radical restructuring along those lines.

Crass were awesome, though.

Propagandhi and local volunteer initiatives (incl some I've been working with) prevent me from writing off anarchism completely

I think this is generally referred to as "making an effort" and "thinking through ideas"

pfft sounds like school. literally why is this an obligation for me or anyone.

.

i never got into that dialectical stuff btw, seems like a bit of a heavy scene

I love when people point to some bullshit thing under capitalism and say look how bullshit this is clearly capitalism is the only option

https://i.imgur.com/GDijBhG.png

Since compass memes are in vogue nowadays.

turns out i'm a right wing authoritarian

Aimless you can look at any intentional community for an abundance of examples

I am well aware of intentional communities, cooperatives, communes, kibbutzes, the Friends Meeting, and other social groupings that sometimes choose to operate on a non-hierarchical basis. I admire many of them. These can and do exist comfortably within the context of much, much larger and more complex hierarchical societies and economies.

I have more trouble envisioning applying self-organizing consensus being extended to all aspects of an economy, largely because of the asymmetries of knowledge and expertise in large groups do not fit well with decision and action by consensus alone. In my view there needs to be a 'halfway house' where workers allow some hierarchy of differing responsibility and decision-making for the group, based on specialization and demonstrated ability, but where ultimate control is flattened to include all affected workers equally.

As for the larger social units self-organizing, as in most communes and intentional communities, the history of such social enterprises shows how difficult this is even among groups that are self-selected, eager to try, and inclined to cooperation. The landscape is littered with failed communes. There's one just a few miles south of here: the Aurora Commune. Trying to apply consensus methods in society as a whole, made up as it is of everybody out there, including MAGA hatters and their temperamental kindred, seems daunting to me beyond imagining.

I know all this gets ample attention in the community of philosophical and theoretical anarchists, but ilx isn't that community. We are, however, open to ideas, though querulously.

I have more trouble envisioning applying self-organizing consensus being extended to all aspects of an economy, largely because of the asymmetries of knowledge and expertise in large groups do not fit well with decision and action by consensus alone

A key point for me, and when the Hobbesian in me subsumes my better nature. I'm only too pleased to be educated, though, so if someone has lit to recommend...?

I think this is generally referred to as "making an effort" and "thinking through ideas"
pfft sounds like school. literally why is this an obligation for me or anyone.

well eventually other people will just stop listening if you make no effort to think through anything, but you seem to be pretty keen on not being listened to

Aimless otm.

Querelously? What are you some kinda imperialism apologist wordsmith

Don't be such a querent.

I can hang with some AnComms or Social-Ecologist types, tho I am by no means of that persuasion.

AnCaps and AnPrim types can gtfo

ancaps....fuck I do not miss encountering those fuckers in "disruptive tech" circles

kingfish I'm glad yr here, but plz note that in spite of our many solidarities I am a big fan of the anarcho-primitivist analysis in terms of "how did we get here", but yeah in terms of "useful praxis going forward under late capitalism" it's not helpful and sometimes ends up in the nihilist deadend of e.g. Derrick Jensen which is ableist and agesist and transphobic and etc.

What are you some kinda imperialism apologist wordsmith

just a simple purveyor of the apt word

Not taking part in this as Anarchists don't do voting.

US ilxors to begin their initiation into Anarchy by voiding their ballots in the November election.

lol

all the tools in the toolbox, man

I have more trouble envisioning applying self-organizing consensus being extended to all aspects of an economy, largely because of the asymmetries of knowledge and expertise in large groups do not fit well with decision and action by consensus alone.

yeah, this is a lot of my "cautious endorsement" -- having seen this play out IRL -- and there is often "inaction" due to lack of consensus or lack of accountability that ends up making things break. ... then again I have also IRL experienced people with lack of knowledge and expertise being given positions of authority in our current society so ... idk

I think one of the key things is to have "working groups" that actually work.

I have also IRL experienced people with lack of knowledge and expertise being given positions of authority in our current society so ... idk

This could just be an argument for replacing those people, though.

This could just be an argument for replacing those people, though.

It's a systemic problem

I guess the only way I could see anarchy as the solution to that problem is if you think that it discredits the idea of positions of authority altogether

How the media portrays anarchists: Okay guys let’s smash some shit!

Actual anarchists: Okay so it’s been 8 hours but we finally reached consensus on the use of the word “guys” in meetings

I'm pretty sure both sets of self-described anarchists exist. But the first set should more properly be called nihilists who have been drawn to the label "anarchist" by the media's portrayal of anarchists.

The second set is familiar to me from my wife's descriptions of growing up in the Quaker meeting, which is even less hierarchical than the Quaker church. As she witnessed it, even the simplest decisions took forever because some members just liked to hear their own voices and enjoyed having a captive audience who were required to listen respectfully to their interminable dithering over minutiae.

Second set much more common ime

Tho "this asshole just wants to hear himself talk" sort of a universal plague from the boardroom to the classroom to branch meetings

It's a systemic problem.

I like the first set of anarchists they sound cool

There's no initiation rite, no fees, not even a clubhouse or a handshake. Just go out and smash things and you're in the club.

You don't even have to leave home. You could smash your own stuff!

Tho "this asshole just wants to hear himself talk" sort of a universal plague from the boardroom to the classroom to branch meetings

But in a consensus organization, they have the power to delay decisions indefinitely, where in a hierarchical or majority-based organization, they will eventually be kicked to the curb.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

https://libcom.org/files/imagecache/article/images/history/anarchistspeechcartoon.PNG

for the record the concept or state that i take the sheldon wolin excerpt in the OP to be describing is identified in its final two words, not in its use of “anarchy” near the beginning, tho an opponent of anarchy might argue they are identical. (hobbes himself of course had lived under one state, but even in my ambivalent opinion not the other.) while irl anarchic models seek to incorporate/address many conflicting needs and desires i don’t think they suffer from the specific epistemological chaos described, where there is simply no fundamental agreement on what is true or valued— participation in the process itself; a commitment to the refusal of force; the specifics of whatever system of consensus is used (possibly itself a kind of “irresistible power”? idk) would seem to preclude that. to say “yes but attempting to scale these models up would result in the political breakdown described” is of course valid but a distinct argument going beyond what’s in the excerpt. anyway i am hardly a hobbesian but i think about “like some macabre companion” a lot.

key consensus topic for today that took almost 30 minutes: shall we allocate costs per square foot of gross floor area or some other method and why

however, our process for choosing and acquiring meeting snacks is exceptionally efficient

wait, the pettiest consensus topic that took disproportionately too long to resolve was: whether to use the sort function in excel to organize a spreadsheet or just duplicate the current spreadsheet and delete things we don't need

I support the latter option

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

let the record show 16-12 in favor with 16 abstentions

this is gonna take a while to reach a consensus on, should we get takeout?

I think one of the key things is to have "working groups" that actually work.

― sarahell, Monday, June 15, 2020 2:19 PM (eight months ago) bookmarkflaglink

I have done paid organizing and I have done mutual aid and I am here to tell you this is otm. My kingdom for a working group that actually works.

should we get takeout?

First, we need to agree on this, then on what kind(s) to order, if any.

okay, has anyone updated the spreadsheet with the members and their dietary restrictions? That would be helpful in deciding

stuff about worker owned co-ops:

https://www.ztangi.org/report-on-a-worker-cooperative-closure/

a response to the first thing:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQlZnYogSFvFshZsxLYFGf7kcpUkRPWTT0xqAk2TzQ1MN9TimqE-DbDS1oE9HgAZAEItXRJ96b7xpLD/pub?urp=gmail_link