Anarchy vs Authority

[Fluffy]

What would you find better in an IDEAL world. A society free of enforced laws and rules (morality etc still exists, it is just not enforced) or a police state/dictatorship which enforces what you view to be the correct way of living?

 

[Cr0wley]

People arn't perfect. In an authority free world it's just too easy to take something that's not yours or hurt someone that doesn't deserve it.

 

[Druidus]

Anarchist through and through.

Willing to debate it too, but this isn't a debate forum.

 

[Cr0wley]

Willing to debate it too, but this isn't a debate forum.

So? Debate it! A mod'll move it fast enough...

 

[Druidus]

I shall address your point:

People arn't perfect. In an authority free world it's just too easy to take something that's not yours or hurt someone that doesn't deserve it.

If people aren't perfect, then why is it that allowing one person to lead many is considered good? Isn't it hopelessly utopian to assume that this one person will lead honourably?

If someone was to hurt someone or steal in an anarchy, they would be punished by society, perhaps by being expelled from the community or country, or another form of punishment. Anarchy does not necessarily mean a lack of a judicial system.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

People arn't perfect. In an authority free world it's just too easy to take something that's not yours or hurt someone that doesn't deserve it.

I tend to agree, but either extreme is not good. For the reason you state, I believe the Government is an important establishment. Governments are bound to be corrupt and less than perfect, but we need them in any heavily populated society.

The best solution is a balance between the two.

 

[Druidus]

I tend to agree, but either extreme is not good. For the reason you state, I believe the Government is an important establishment. Governments are bound to be corrupt and less than perfect, but we need them in any heavily populated society.

The best solution is a balance between the two.

Funny how the Spanish anarchy flourished without one.

 

[Fluffy]

Funny how the Spanish anarchy flourished without one.

Could you expand on that please Druidus?

 

[Druidus]

Could you expand on that please Druidus?

Gladly.

In 1936, against the background of the fight against fascism, was a profound libertarian revolution throughout Spain.

Much of Spain's economy was put under worker control; in anarchist strongholds like Catalonia, the figure was as high as 75%, but lower in areas with heavy Socialist influence. Factories were run through worker committees, agrarian areas became collectivized and run as libertarian communes. Even places like hotels, barber shops, and restaurants were collectivized and managed by their workers. George Orwell describes a scene in Aragon during this time period, in his book, Homage to Catalonia:

I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life – snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc. – had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.

​

The communes were run according to the basic principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," without any Marxist dogma attached. In some places, money was entirely eliminated. Despite the critics clamoring for maximum efficiency, anarchic communes often produced more than before the collectivization. The newly liberated zones worked on entirely libertarian principles; decisions were made through councils of ordinary citizens without any sort of bureaucracy. It is generally held that the CNT-FAI leadership was at this time not nearly as radical as the rank and file members responsible for these sweeping changes.

In addition to the economic revolution, there was a spirit of cultural revolution. Oppressive traditions were done away with. For instance, women were allowed to have abortions, and the idea of free love became popular. In many ways, this spirit of cultural liberation was similar to that of the "New Left" movements of the 1960s.

The Whiteway Colony Anarchy:

Whiteway Colony is in the Cotswolds near Stroud, Gloucestershire. It was set up in 1898 by Tolstoyan anarchists who purchased 40 acres (162,000 m²) of land, then burnt the property deeds on the end of a pitchfork in a symbolic rejection of the notion of property, and still exists today. The early settlers built a number of wooden buildings on what was then open fields. Over the years it has housed many people including immigrant anarchists, Conscientious objectors and refugees from the Spanish Civil War, as well as co-operative ventures such as Protheroe's Bakery (known in the local area for the quality of its bread), the Cotswold Co-operative Handicraft guild and the Co-operative Gardening Group. For a period the Anarchist newspaper Freedom newspaper was produced here by Thomas Keel.

This is their website:

http://www.utopia-britannica.org.uk/pages/whiteway.htm

Ukraine

In March 1918 Russia (led by the Bolsheviks) signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk to pull Russia out of the First World War. The Treaty gave most of the Ukraine to the German and Austro-Hungarian empires. This was done without consulting the inhabitants. Various insurgence groups arose, including the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of the Ukraine, led by the anarcho-communist Nestor Makhno. They won popular support due to their attacks on the Austro-Hungarian puppet-leader Hetman Skoropadsky and the Nationalist Petliurists.

Although the movement was forced to spend great energy and resources on fighting off the invaders, they still managed to carry out a social revolution according to the principles of Anarchism.

It seemed as though a giant grate composed of bayonets shuttled back and forth across the region, from North to South and back again, wiping out all traces of creative social construction. [Arshinov]

​

The Makhnovists aimed for a true social revolution in which the working classes (both urban and rural) could actively manage their own affairs and society. As such, their social programme reflected the fact that oppression has its roots in both political and economic power and so aimed at eliminating both the state and private property. At the core of their social ideas was the simple principle of working-class autonomy, the idea that the liberation of working-class people must be the task of the working-class people themselves. This vision is at the heart of anarchism and was expressed most elegantly by Makhno:

Conquer or die -- such is the dilemma that faces the Ukrainian peasants and workers at this historic moment . . . But we will not conquer in order to repeat the errors of the past years, the error of putting our fate into the hands of new masters; we will conquer in order to take our destinies into our own hands, to conduct our lives according to our own will and our own conception of the truth. [quoted by Peter Arshinov, The History of the Makhnovist Movement, p. 58].

​

Around Gulyai-Polye (Nestor Makhno’s birthplace) several communes sprang up. Several regional congresses of peasants and workers were organised. A general statute supporting the creation of 'free soviets' (elected councils of workers', soldiers' and peasants' delegates) was passed, though little could be done towards its implementation in much of the Ukraine because of the constantly changing battlefront.

 

[Druidus]

The Makhnovist movement consisted almost entirely of poor peasants and in contradiction to the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks the Makhnovists were very popular. Wherever they came, they were enthusiastically greeted by the population, who provided food, lodging and information on the enemy. The Bolsheviks and Whites relied on terror, imprisoning and killing thousands of peasants.

It is rare for a group of anarchists to be named after an individual. This occurred because the movement, although inspired by Anarchism, contained few people who had solidly defined their anarchist views. The movement encouraged learning and political discussion, but most combatants and supporters still called themselves Makhnovists and the name stuck.

The Makhnovist movement was quite a threat to the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks clung to the idea that the “masses” were unable to carry out a social revolution on their own and perform self-management. This was proven wrong by the Makhnovist movement, prompting Bolshevik attacks.

Even in the military area it seemed that the anarchist answer was superior. The Makhnovists defeated on several occasions armies up to 30 times their size, and had great morale. The army was organised according to three main principles:

Voluntary enlistment meant that the army was composed only of revolutionary fighters who entered it of their own free will.

The electoral principle meant that the commanders of all units of the army, including the staff, as well as all the men who held other positions in the army, were either elected or accepted by the insurgents of the unit in question or by the whole army.

Self-discipline meant that all the rules of discipline were drawn up by commissions of insurgents, then approved by general assemblies of the various units; once approved, they were rigorously observed on the individual responsibility of each insurgent and each commander."

[/QUOTE] Shinmin Anarchy:

The apex of Korean anarchism came in late 1929 outside the actual borders of the country, in Manchuria. Over two million Korean immigrants lived within Manchuria at the time when the Korean Anarchist Communist Federation (KACF) declared the Shinmin province autonomous and under the administration of the Korean People’s Association. The decentralized, federative structure the association adopted consisted of village councils, district councils and area councils, all of which operated in a cooperative manner to deal with agriculture, education, finance and other vital issues. KACF sections in China, Korea, Japan and elsewhere devoted all their energies towards the success of the Shinmin Rebellion, most of them actually relocating there. Dealing simultaneously with Stalinist Russia’s attempts to overthrow the Shinmin autonomous region and Japan’s imperialist attempts to claim the region for itself, the Korean anarchists had been crushed by 1931.

Curiously, all of these anarchies were destroyed through war, besides the Whiteway Colony, which still exists.

 

[Fluffy]

I had no idea there were so many, relatively recent anarchies that were also fairly successful. I had always thought that the most effective way of carrying out a socialist revolution would require some form of central governing body but perhaps this is unnecessary.

It is unfortunate that there is no large scale example of such a society to see whether the kind of corruption which creeps into other governing systems, would be able to penetrate the supposedly corruption inpenetrable ideas of anarchy.

 

[Druidus]

It is unfortunate that there is no large scale example of such a society to see whether the kind of corruption which creeps into other governing systems, would be able to penetrate the supposedly corruption inpenetrable ideas of anarchy.

While anarchy is in no way immune to corruption, IMO, it would be more resistant to it than most governments.

I agree, a large scale test would be nice.

 

[Fluffy]

While anarchy is in no way immune to corruption, IMO, it would be more resistant to it than most governments.

I agree with this sentiment. Do you think that it would be harder for an anarchy to recover from corruption than a more centralised power since at least a nice revolution gets rid of a corrupt government but no such thing can happen in an anarchy without removing its anarchy status, if you see what I mean.

I agree, a large scale test would be nice.

I fear that the only reliable test would be a worldwide one otherwise you'd get many of the problems which socialist countries got, not because their ideals were flawed, but simply because they existed in a capitalist world. Definitely a long time in the coming if it ever does happen.

 

[AtheistAJ]

If humans would only help each other for sake of human evolution and productivity and care about themselves as much as others, that would be a perfect society. However that's not what we're like now. Maybe with higher intelligence we will evolve thusly.

 

[Yerda]

...baby, I'm an anarchist, you're a spineless liberal....

The real problem with anarchism as with all forms of socialism is that the national militias owned by the elite can crush them quite easily. I prefer anarchism, but I'm nowhere near convinced that it's feasible. The reactionares own everything.