Anarchism, Arguments For and Against

[Des-Bal]

Dodge as you like, but it doesn't make your case better, does it? Really, your entire position is predicated on a refusal to speak, which of course as a fellow adherent of the shapiro school of rhetoric I cannot argue with it. it is surely *logically* airtight, mostly for the lack of air.
I did? Well, I know I'm a broken record at this point, but you really should demonstrate such, instead of simply declaring "you're wrong". As an imminently logical fellow, like you, I can of course see the myriad of problems with such an approach.

It's not a dodge? I'm saying this isn't how conversations work. You don't point to someone and say "explain the history of thing."I deny you have any right to quiz me, I require you to lick my boots before I will grant you such a privilege. I am standing firmly in place saying fuck your premise.

You made a series of unsupported statements, I said no because they were unsupported you then requested I support the case your statements were unsupported. You haven't had a coherent argument in like two pages. The last actual point you tried to make is that probable nosepicker Malatesta was cool with describing things as anarchy when they're not which is not a point it's a factoid.

[Des-Bal]

What is a "state"? What is "statelessness"?

I will allow for this departure only if you swear obedience to me.

As an anarchist, the most compelling argument against it in my mind is the idea that it's fleeting. There isn't an amazing option to prevent that besides arming the people with recreational McNukes and instilling a deep, passionate hatred of authority in every single person, like to the point that even beneficial authority is seen with suspicion. Which it should be; governmental corruption and eventually abuse of the citizens is an inevitability, it's more of a question of how long, not if.

I will volunteer to hand out the nukes and instill the hatred.

[Kubra]

Dodge as you like, but it doesn't make your case better, does it? Really, your entire position is predicated on a refusal to speak, which of course as a fellow adherent of the shapiro school of rhetoric I cannot argue with it. it is surely *logically* airtight, mostly for the lack of air.
I did? Well, I know I'm a broken record at this point, but you really should demonstrate such, instead of simply declaring "you're wrong". As an imminently logical fellow, like you, I can of course see the myriad of problems with such an approach.

It's not a dodge? I'm saying this isn't how conversations work. You don't point to someone and say "explain the history of thing."I deny you have any right to quiz me, I require you to lick my boots before I will grant you such a privilege. I am standing firmly in place saying fuck your premise.

You made a series of unsupported statements, I said no because they were unsupported you then requested I support the case your statements were unsupported. You haven't had a coherent argument in like two pages. The last actual point you tried to make is that probable nosepicker Malatesta was cool with describing things as anarchy when they're not which is not a point it's a factoid.

"quiz" you? I merely want you to make an argument that at least *seems* to be rooted in a basic understanding of the subject-matter. I really don't see why this is so hard a thing to obtain, do you?
I mean, you're under no obligation to provide such, but it really doesn't help your case to not only be ignorant, but to apparently very *proudly* do so.
"Unsupported"? Buddy, "probable nosepicker" is a pretty unsupported phrase, and an egregious one at that. Anyone in *the know* about the whole anarchism schtick knows Malatesta, as he was kind of a big popularizer of the stuff during the heyday. Dude was pretty well involved with the struggles of the first international, and made multiple statements regarding the anarchist movement that might even have a passing support of what I assume as being your position, that being that anarchism isn't *really* anarchy.
And in any case, if my positions are unsupported, that really is very fertile ground for you to make a point of contention. Look at me, all I do is pick at your hilariously unsupported positions to a deafening silence, and it surely comes out quite good on my part that not only are you unable to answer, you're unable to even make an attempt.

[Des-Bal]

"quiz" you? I merely want you to make an argument that at least *seems* to be rooted in a basic understanding of the subject-matter. I really don't see why this is so hard a thing to obtain, do you?
I mean, you're under no obligation to provide such, but it really doesn't help your case to not only be ignorant, but to apparently very *proudly* do so.
"Unsupported"? Buddy, "probable nosepicker" is a pretty unsupported phrase, and an egregious one at that. Anyone in *the know* about the whole anarchism schtick knows Malatesta, as he was kind of a big popularizer of the stuff during the heyday. Dude was pretty well involved with the struggles of the first international, and made statements regarding that might even have a passing support of what I assume as being your position, that being that anarchism isn't *really* anarchy.
And in any case, if my positions are unsupported, that really is very fertile ground for you to make a point of contention. Look at me, all I do is pick at your hilariously unsupported positions to a deafening silence, and it surely comes out quite good on my part that not only are you unable to answer, you're unable to even make an attempt.

No actually you're not. You're not forming or refuting any line of argument you're asking me repeat the definitions of terms and histories of movements and refusing to subordinate yourself to me.

The joke is that pretty much everyone has picked their nose at somepoint in their life so any given person is a probable nosepicker and Malatesta's role as a "big popularizer of the stuff" is as relevant as the fact he probably picked his nose and his perspective is as important as the perspective of any other probable nosepicker. Bring him here and I'll tell him he's as wrong as you are. bet he doesn't come, I bet he pretends he's been dead for almost a hundred years because he's afraid of me.

[Kubra]

"quiz" you? I merely want you to make an argument that at least *seems* to be rooted in a basic understanding of the subject-matter. I really don't see why this is so hard a thing to obtain, do you?
I mean, you're under no obligation to provide such, but it really doesn't help your case to not only be ignorant, but to apparently very *proudly* do so.
"Unsupported"? Buddy, "probable nosepicker" is a pretty unsupported phrase, and an egregious one at that. Anyone in *the know* about the whole anarchism schtick knows Malatesta, as he was kind of a big popularizer of the stuff during the heyday. Dude was pretty well involved with the struggles of the first international, and made statements regarding that might even have a passing support of what I assume as being your position, that being that anarchism isn't *really* anarchy.
And in any case, if my positions are unsupported, that really is very fertile ground for you to make a point of contention. Look at me, all I do is pick at your hilariously unsupported positions to a deafening silence, and it surely comes out quite good on my part that not only are you unable to answer, you're unable to even make an attempt.

No actually you're not. You're not forming or refuting any line of argument you're asking me repeat the definitions of terms and histories of movements and refusing to subordinate yourself to me.

The joke is that pretty much everyone has picked their nose at somepoint in their life so any given person is a probable nosepicker and Malatesta's perspective is as important as the perspective of any other probable nosepicker. Bring him here and I'll tell him he's as wrong as you are. bet he doesn't come, I bet he pretends he's been dead for almost a hundred years because he's afraid of me.

Really, I would love to refute an argument, any argument. Really, it has been the only thing I have been angling for, an argument to really chew on.
You seem to be under the impression that you have made one. So, I'll simply ask: what is it? State it clearly and concisely, so we may have a discussion other than mutual ridicule for each others terribly undergraduate conditions.

[Des-Bal]

Really, I would love to refute an argument, any argument. Really, it has been the only thing I have been angling for, an argument to really chew on.
You seem to be under the impression that you have made one. So, I'll simply ask: what is it? State it clearly and concisely, so we may have a discussion other than mutual ridicule for each others terribly undergraduate conditions.

Heirarchy is natural, statelessness is untenable, and any system that can't operate on a large scale will be devoured by one that can

[Kubra]

Really, I would love to refute an argument, any argument. Really, it has been the only thing I have been angling for, an argument to really chew on.
You seem to be under the impression that you have made one. So, I'll simply ask: what is it? State it clearly and concisely, so we may have a discussion other than mutual ridicule for each others terribly undergraduate conditions.

Heirarchy is natural, statelessness is untenable, and any system that can't operate on a large scale will be devoured by one that can

And, as I have been alluding to, classical anarchism most certainly had hierarchies of sorts. Hell, the spanish anarchists had a guy sitting in a ministerial post overseeing prisons, albeit not of the clandestine and extrajudificial sort.

[Des-Bal]

And, as I have been alluding to, classical anarchism most certainly had hierarchies of sorts. Hell, the spanish anarchists had a guy sitting in a ministerial post overseeing prisons, albeit not of the clandestine and extrajudificial sort.

Anarchy is to be without government, to be without rule it's what the word means at it's roots. Government is not mined from the earth it does not fall from the sky it was invented by people and prior to it's invention the state of any particular region of the planet could be described as anarchy. Mix in whatever adulterants you like, bicker about whether or not private property should exist, grouse about the legitimacy of violence wherever you come down on any given issue the only anarchy is the absence of government. Spanish anarchists were an insurgency, they governed themselves and any kind of success would have seen them form a state.

[Kubra]

And, as I have been alluding to, classical anarchism most certainly had hierarchies of sorts. Hell, the spanish anarchists had a guy sitting in a ministerial post overseeing prisons, albeit not of the clandestine and extrajudificial sort.

Anarchy is to be without government, to be without rule it's what the word means at it's roots. Government is not mined from the earth it does not fall from the sky it was invented by people and prior to it's invention the state of any particular region of the planet could be described as anarchy. Mix in whatever adulterants you like, bicker about whether or not private property should exist, grouse about the legitimacy of violence wherever you come down on any given issue the only anarchy is the absence of government. Spanish anarchists were an insurgency, they governed themselves and any kind of success would have seen them form a state.

"Without government"? Maybe, maybe. But what is "government"?
There is a reason I asked you to understand within context, because it is very relevant to this case. In the 19th century to the early 20th, "the state" in left wing parlance was less its day to day functions (something we're all quite comfortable with as a definition as a result of one Herr Weber) and more just the dislikable parts about it, like police that beat you up for loitering. As such, anarchists we're generally at the time not opposed to forming organised means of expressing their politics, complete with folks in charge, ableit in ways quite distinctly different from their non-anarchist contemporaries, election of field officers being quite a big one.
And of course, in this particular example, the CNT-FAI sent their own folks to participate in governance in a really direct sense, at its peak having 5 members serving in ministerial posts. This of course did elicit some grumblings, but not nearly as much as one would expect if one takes a normative position to anarchism.
That aside, it's difficult to call the anarchists of spain an "insurgency" outside of perhaps the basque region as they had standing armies with ranks-of-sorts enganging the nationalists more or less conventionally, trench to trench. That just ain't insurgency, you feel?

[Comemierdas]

Anarchy is to be without government, to be without rule it's what the word means at it's roots. Government is not mined from the earth it does not fall from the sky it was invented by people and prior to it's invention the state of any particular region of the planet could be described as anarchy. Mix in whatever adulterants you like, bicker about whether or not private property should exist, grouse about the legitimacy of violence wherever you come down on any given issue the only anarchy is the absence of government. Spanish anarchists were an insurgency, they governed themselves and any kind of success would have seen them form a state.

"Without government"? Maybe, maybe. But what is "government"?
There is a reason I asked you to understand within context, because it is very relevant to this case. In the 19th century to the early 20th, "the state" in left wing parlance was less its day to day functions (something we're all quite comfortable with as a definition as a result of one Herr Weber) and more just the dislikable parts about it, like police that beat you up for loitering. As such, anarchists we're generally at the time not opposed to forming organised means of expressing their politics, complete with folks in charge, ableit in ways quite distinctly different from their non-anarchist contemporaries, election of field officers being quite a big one.
And of course, in this particular example, the CNT-FAI sent their own folks to participate in governance in a really direct sense, at its peak having 5 members serving in ministerial posts. This of course did elicit some grumblings, but not nearly as much as one would expect if one takes a normative position to anarchism.
That aside, it's difficult to call the anarchists of spain an "insurgency" outside of perhaps the basque region as they had standing armies with ranks-of-sorts enganging the nationalists more or less conventionally, trench to trench. That just ain't insurgency, you feel?

Just a few questions, if I may butt in>

- Would Anarchism by the historical definition you're mentioning not simply be called a civil rights movement nowadays? I mean, if the more oppressive means of a state is all you want to get rid of...

- Which definition by Weber are you referring to? It's not that I think you're mistaken, I just can't figure out what you mean right now.

- Just a general question: Do you think that Anarchism contradicts the existence of enduring, political institutions that imply hierarchies of some sort?

[Engadine Mcdonalds 1997]

My biggest question that never seems to get answered is what happens after a successful revolution? Wouldn't a successful revolution in a less industrialised nation/not in the imperial core just get stomped on immediately, especially if this hypothetical revolution had no outside support? What would stop it from just being a repeat of 1870's Spain, where each region was crushed by loyalist forces to the Spanish monarchy? Imagine trying to organise a modern army with such decentralisation, how would you manage logistics, army unit sizes, troop movements, chain of command, etc. because what you need to remember is that this isn't the 1930's anymore, you can't just grab a few dozen thousand men with guns and hope to actually achieve something more than a bandit zone. It honestly sounds like the biggest pipedream imaginable when it comes to politics

[Nevertopia]

My biggest question that never seems to get answered is what happens after a successful revolution? Wouldn't a successful revolution in a less industrialised nation/not in the imperial core just get stomped on immediately, especially if this hypothetical revolution had no outside support? What would stop it from just being a repeat of 1870's Spain, where each region was crushed by loyalist forces to the Spanish monarchy? Imagine trying to organise a modern army with such decentralisation, how would you manage logistics, army unit sizes, troop movements, chain of command, etc. because what you need to remember is that this isn't the 1930's anymore, you can't just grab a few dozen thousand men with guns and hope to actually achieve something more than a bandit zone. It honestly sounds like the biggest pipedream imaginable when it comes to politics

this is why you need supporters on the inside. You cant just overthrow your government and start from scratch. You need to have a governing body ready to replace the current government. A good example of this was the American Jan 6 coup attempt. While it still failed, that was due to the insider political supporters abandoning the rioters to save themselves from repercussions as it wasn't violent enough to kill off their political opposition. Should the rioters been able to kill off non-aligned politicians in office then the Republican party would've run unopposed and successfully have taken over America. Essentially you need to have your own government ready and waiting to replace the government you are overthrowing, either it be insider turncoats or military coup as you see from successful revolutions of the past.

And this is also reason to why an anarchist revolution would fail. Theres no structure or governing body to guide everyone in the same direction. Its a metaphorical bomb going off and dispersing in a single moment of opportunity and passion instead of a sustained system of change.

[Engadine Mcdonalds 1997]

My biggest question that never seems to get answered is what happens after a successful revolution? Wouldn't a successful revolution in a less industrialised nation/not in the imperial core just get stomped on immediately, especially if this hypothetical revolution had no outside support? What would stop it from just being a repeat of 1870's Spain, where each region was crushed by loyalist forces to the Spanish monarchy? Imagine trying to organise a modern army with such decentralisation, how would you manage logistics, army unit sizes, troop movements, chain of command, etc. because what you need to remember is that this isn't the 1930's anymore, you can't just grab a few dozen thousand men with guns and hope to actually achieve something more than a bandit zone. It honestly sounds like the biggest pipedream imaginable when it comes to politics

this is why you need supporters on the inside. You cant just overthrow your government and start from scratch. You need to have a governing body ready to replace the current government. A good example of this was the American Jan 6 coup attempt. While it still failed, that was due to the insider political supporters abandoning the rioters to save themselves from repercussions as it wasn't violent enough to kill off their political opposition. Should the rioters been able to kill off non-aligned politicians in office then the Republican party would've run unopposed and successfully have taken over America. Essentially you need to have your own government ready and waiting to replace the government you are overthrowing, either it be insider turncoats or military coup as you see from successful revolutions of the past.

And this is also reason to why an anarchist revolution would fail. Theres no structure or governing body to guide everyone in the same direction. Its a metaphorical bomb going off and dispersing in a single moment of opportunity and passion instead of a sustained system of change.

Whilst I appreciate the response, this isn't what I'm asking about (although it does highlight my 2nd biggest issue, so thank you). I'm more so asking what happens after a successful revolution occurs outside the Imperial core that had no international support, how would the communes defend themselves from the likes of Nato, let alone the United States in a region that isn't just mountains or dense jungles? It seems like it would just be a long (or short) campaign of dividing and conquering until you can install the previous regime again until said nation gets recognised by the UN again, then it would just be hunting down anarchists like in any other nation that has performed in history.

(again, I appreciate the response)

[Page]

The whole notion of anarchism "not working" is sus because who is to say that the status quo "works"? The millions in prison wouldn't say it works, the homeless wouldn't say it works, the people who toil the vast majority of their waking hours in shitty jobs just to scrape by and numb themselves with drugs because their souls have been sucked the fuck out of their bodies wouldn't say that any of this works.

Is anybody arguing the everybody's lives would be worse under anarchism? Are you not even cynically anticipating a few people who work the chaos to their advantage? Because if there would be such people, then your projected outcome is not different than the real world: a few win, most lose. There are no plausible worlds in which everybody wins and nobody gets fucked, so you at least have to offer a compelling argument that more people would be worse off under anarchism, which you haven't.

[Comemierdas]

The whole notion of anarchism "not working" is sus because who is to say that the status quo "works"? The millions in prison wouldn't say it works, the homeless wouldn't say it works, the people who toil the vast majority of their waking hours in shitty jobs just to scrape by and numb themselves with drugs because their souls have been sucked the fuck out of their bodies wouldn't say that any of this works.

Is anybody arguing the everybody's lives would be worse under anarchism? Are you not even cynically anticipating a few people who work the chaos to their advantage? Because if there would be such people, then your projected outcome is not different than the real world: a few win, most lose. There are no plausible worlds in which everybody wins and nobody gets fucked, so you at least have to offer a compelling argument that more people would be worse off under anarchism, which you haven't.

I think your relativism is missing the point. By my understanding what most people mean when they say that anarchism doesn't work is that it can't bring forth a stable system. An anarchy doesn't stay an anarchy for long, while democracies have good chances to survive as democracies, monarchies as monarchies, authocracies as authocracies etc.

If a system "works" for you or another person is a matter of perspective and personal preference, of course. Another way to judge a system would be the utilitarian way, i.e. ranking them by the greatest level of happiness on a societal level they are able to maintain.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

Is anybody arguing the everybody's lives would be worse under anarchism?

Yes.

With no method of punishment or rehabilitation you end up with murder and theft. With vigilantes you have even more killings. With no military you have countries invading your anarchist “utopia” from within and without. With no educational or science system you have no way of dispersing reliable knowledge to the people. With no infrastructure system you end up with shoddy, patchy infrastructure. I could go on.

There are disadvantaged people in an anarchist system. There are poor people in practically every system. What matters is what you do with those people. Without a government, there is no way to reliably support those people.

If you don’t like prisons, push for prison reform.

Yes, work sucks. If you have a practical solution, then actually explain it. Anarchism doesn’t magically make work better.

[Kubra]

"Without government"? Maybe, maybe. But what is "government"?
There is a reason I asked you to understand within context, because it is very relevant to this case. In the 19th century to the early 20th, "the state" in left wing parlance was less its day to day functions (something we're all quite comfortable with as a definition as a result of one Herr Weber) and more just the dislikable parts about it, like police that beat you up for loitering. As such, anarchists we're generally at the time not opposed to forming organised means of expressing their politics, complete with folks in charge, ableit in ways quite distinctly different from their non-anarchist contemporaries, election of field officers being quite a big one.
And of course, in this particular example, the CNT-FAI sent their own folks to participate in governance in a really direct sense, at its peak having 5 members serving in ministerial posts. This of course did elicit some grumblings, but not nearly as much as one would expect if one takes a normative position to anarchism.
That aside, it's difficult to call the anarchists of spain an "insurgency" outside of perhaps the basque region as they had standing armies with ranks-of-sorts enganging the nationalists more or less conventionally, trench to trench. That just ain't insurgency, you feel?

Just a few questions, if I may butt in>

- Would Anarchism by the historical definition you're mentioning not simply be called a civil rights movement nowadays? I mean, if the more oppressive means of a state is all you want to get rid of...

- Which definition by Weber are you referring to? It's not that I think you're mistaken, I just can't figure out what you mean right now.

- Just a general question: Do you think that Anarchism contradicts the existence of enduring, political institutions that imply hierarchies of some sort?

No, because the civil rights movement generally didn't involve seizing farmlands and factories from the rich. The oppressive functions of state (as it was within the lexicon of the left in general) also included, as it were, the perpetuation of particular forms of capitalism or capitalism in general, depending on who you asked. Anarchism was generally a class struggle thing, you know?
Oh, yeah, you know the one, the state being the organisation with the monopoly on the use of legitimate force. It's a politically neutral definition, which is why it's almost standard these days. What I'm getting at is that state and government tended to be interpreted differently in the 19th and early 20th century by different peoples of different political leanings, and one can easily look upon the classical anarchists as having, in fact, been in the business of constructing states and governments, albeit not by their reckoning at the time.
"Contradicts"? I don't know what you mean by that. It's not as if anarchists orgs didn't and don't have hierarchies, there's merely a difference in the rulesets in which these hierarchies are established.

[ARIS Aqeedah Quraniyoon]

Is anybody arguing the everybody's lives would be worse under anarchism?

Yes.

With no method of punishment or rehabilitation you end up with murder and theft. With vigilantes you have even more killings. With no military you have countries invading your anarchist “utopia” from within and without. With no educational or science system you have no way of dispersing reliable knowledge to the people. With no infrastructure system you end up with shoddy, patchy infrastructure. I could go on.

There are disadvantaged people in an anarchist system. There are poor people in practically every system. What matters is what you do with those people. Without a government, there is no way to reliably support those people.

If you don’t like prisons, push for prison reform.

Yes, work sucks. If you have a practical solution, then actually explain it. Anarchism doesn’t magically make work better.

Added to all this, I think the problem is that by its lack of theory, there's not a proper way to achieve it even, because to achieve it first of all there's a need to destroy the class system.
In the case of anarcho-communism & anarcho-collectivism, the ideal of non hierarchy would push for expropriation of the poor peasants when there are needs of unity with the workers. That is, isolating allies that are necessary to beat a bigger enemy in order to after that eliminate the property of the peasants as well.

On the other hand in the case of mutualism, the ideology of anarchism can turn into a set of cooperative society, in which there are small owners that ultimately reproduce again the market and capitalism through competition. And in the councils, even without bourgeoisie, the distribution of land and resources is a struggle of interests of the people in the cooperatives, because they're in competition with each other and it affects their well-being and different interests, atomized instead of united.

[Comemierdas]

Just a few questions, if I may butt in>

- Would Anarchism by the historical definition you're mentioning not simply be called a civil rights movement nowadays? I mean, if the more oppressive means of a state is all you want to get rid of...

- Which definition by Weber are you referring to? It's not that I think you're mistaken, I just can't figure out what you mean right now.

- Just a general question: Do you think that Anarchism contradicts the existence of enduring, political institutions that imply hierarchies of some sort?

No, because the civil rights movement generally didn't involve seizing farmlands and factories from the rich. The oppressive functions of state (as it was within the lexicon of the left in general) also included, as it were, the perpetuation of particular forms of capitalism or capitalism in general, depending on who you asked. Anarchism was generally a class struggle thing, you know?
Oh, yeah, you know the one, the state being the organisation with the monopoly on the use of legitimate force. It's a politically neutral definition, which is why it's almost standard these days. What I'm getting at is that state and government tended to be interpreted differently in the 19th and early 20th century by different peoples of different political leanings, and one can easily look upon the classical anarchists as having, in fact, been in the business of constructing states and governments, albeit not by their reckoning at the time.
"Contradicts"? I don't know what you mean by that. It's not as if anarchists orgs didn't and don't have hierarchies, there's merely a difference in the rulesets in which these hierarchies are established.

Just to avoid talking at cross purposes here: My doubts concerning the very possibility of anarchist states or social order are of a pincipal nature. I'm not talking about historical cases, since Barcelona during the Civil War is the only one I vaguely remember anyway. It didn't last long and couldn't really prove anything. However, I think that the very idea doesn't work. In the end you have to decide who makes the rules, who enforces them and what the consequences are in case of deliquency. If you shape enduring institutions of any kind to do deal with these very necessities of social organisation, you might end up in some kind of democratic or authoritarian system, but it won't be anarchistic. This is simply because enduring institutions that make and/or enforce the rules are exactly what archía means. On the contrary, the kind of rather fluid social order conceived by anarchists will either dissolve into smaller, more stable units or change into a state of stricter order with more stable, enduring institutions. Anarchies will stop being anarchies pretty quickly. If I'm wrong, please tell me more concretely how the system works so that the problem I mentioned can be avoided.

[Krasny-Volny]

The inherent problem I see is the abolition of most forms of social and political hierarchy. There will always be hierarchies, either informal or formal. If the existing one is destroyed, a new one will eventually arise.

The Bolsheviks learned this the hard way when they initially tried to form the Red Army with no ranks, having destroyed or driven out the old Russian military officer corps. Eventually they realize to defend their own system from external aggression or internal treachery they needed more than just unruly, leaderless self defense militias, but a standing organization with a traditional military hierarchy. Individual Red Army units were already appointing informal ranks long before this became approved by the political bigwigs.

[Kubra]

No, because the civil rights movement generally didn't involve seizing farmlands and factories from the rich. The oppressive functions of state (as it was within the lexicon of the left in general) also included, as it were, the perpetuation of particular forms of capitalism or capitalism in general, depending on who you asked. Anarchism was generally a class struggle thing, you know?
Oh, yeah, you know the one, the state being the organisation with the monopoly on the use of legitimate force. It's a politically neutral definition, which is why it's almost standard these days. What I'm getting at is that state and government tended to be interpreted differently in the 19th and early 20th century by different peoples of different political leanings, and one can easily look upon the classical anarchists as having, in fact, been in the business of constructing states and governments, albeit not by their reckoning at the time.
"Contradicts"? I don't know what you mean by that. It's not as if anarchists orgs didn't and don't have hierarchies, there's merely a difference in the rulesets in which these hierarchies are established.

Just to avoid talking at cross purposes here: My doubts concerning the very possibility of anarchist states or social order are of a pincipal nature. I'm not talking about historical cases, since Barcelona during the Civil War is the only one I vaguely remember anyway. It didn't last long and couldn't really prove anything. However, I think that the very idea doesn't work. In the end you have to decide who makes the rules, who enforces them and what the consequences are in case of deliquency. If you shape enduring institutions of any kind to do deal with these very necessities of social organisation, you might end up in some kind of democratic or authoritarian system, but it won't be anarchistic. This is simply because enduring institutions that make and/or enforce the rules are exactly what archía means. On the contrary, the kind of rather fluid social order conceived by anarchists will either dissolve into smaller, more stable units or change into a state of stricter order with more stable, enduring institutions. Anarchies will stop being anarchies pretty quickly. If I'm wrong, please tell me more concretely how the system works so that the problem I mentioned can be avoided.

because as I have been trying to illustrate, anarchism generally involves rule-making (no private property is kind of a pretty big rule innit) and institutions In which rule-making occurs. It's not a fundamental break with such a thing, merely a reorganisation of it. He'll, if anything a very novel criticism of anarchism would be that it would result not in less rules but in more rules, and rules-regimen's tneselves being overly confusing, as folks figure out which rules do and don't apply to them and in what situations. In any case, as I have said earlier, rewatch the Monty python sketch and you'll have a pretty simple and hilariously accurate picture of anarchist organisational practices.
The ol' "anarchy or not" argument is a linguistic one, of trying to force one way of speaking on onto others. In those case it is doing so to historical sources, what with the anarchist movement more or less collapsing in its entirety after 1938, and that's a big no-no. Such a thing is also pointless because it does not say anything substantial about those old folks and their political aspirations, and gives no real insights into their actual desires.

[Comemierdas]

Just to avoid talking at cross purposes here: My doubts concerning the very possibility of anarchist states or social order are of a pincipal nature. I'm not talking about historical cases, since Barcelona during the Civil War is the only one I vaguely remember anyway. It didn't last long and couldn't really prove anything. However, I think that the very idea doesn't work. In the end you have to decide who makes the rules, who enforces them and what the consequences are in case of deliquency. If you shape enduring institutions of any kind to do deal with these very necessities of social organisation, you might end up in some kind of democratic or authoritarian system, but it won't be anarchistic. This is simply because enduring institutions that make and/or enforce the rules are exactly what archía means. On the contrary, the kind of rather fluid social order conceived by anarchists will either dissolve into smaller, more stable units or change into a state of stricter order with more stable, enduring institutions. Anarchies will stop being anarchies pretty quickly. If I'm wrong, please tell me more concretely how the system works so that the problem I mentioned can be avoided.

because as I have been trying to illustrate, anarchism generally involves rule-making (no private property is kind of a pretty big rule innit) and institutions In which rule-making occurs. It's not a fundamental break with such a thing, merely a reorganisation of it. He'll, if anything a very novel criticism of anarchism would be that it would result not in less rules but in more rules, and rules-regimen's tneselves being overly confusing, as folks figure out which rules do and don't apply to them and in what situations. In any case, as I have said earlier, rewatch the Monty python sketch and you'll have a pretty simple and hilariously accurate picture of anarchist organisational practices.
The ol' "anarchy or not" argument is a linguistic one, of trying to force one way of speaking on onto others. In those case it is doing so to historical sources, what with the anarchist movement more or less collapsing in its entirety after 1938, and that's a big no-no. Such a thing is also pointless because it does not say anything substantial about those old folks and their political aspirations, and gives no real insights into their actual desires.

Well, it strikes me that an anarchy would get quite complicated and dysfunctional pretty quickly. However I think it's always good to discuss on the basis of clear concepts. If we discuss whether an anarchy can work or not, we should make sure that we're talking about the same thing. I don't think this is merely a linguistic question. Nobody should impose biased definitions on others to "win" an argument, but that doesn't mean thst xou shouldn't or can't agree on basic concepts in a fair and open-minded way.
As for Barcelona, well, like I said before, I don't think the case proves anything for neither position.

[Kubra]

because as I have been trying to illustrate, anarchism generally involves rule-making (no private property is kind of a pretty big rule innit) and institutions In which rule-making occurs. It's not a fundamental break with such a thing, merely a reorganisation of it. He'll, if anything a very novel criticism of anarchism would be that it would result not in less rules but in more rules, and rules-regimen's tneselves being overly confusing, as folks figure out which rules do and don't apply to them and in what situations. In any case, as I have said earlier, rewatch the Monty python sketch and you'll have a pretty simple and hilariously accurate picture of anarchist organisational practices.
The ol' "anarchy or not" argument is a linguistic one, of trying to force one way of speaking on onto others. In those case it is doing so to historical sources, what with the anarchist movement more or less collapsing in its entirety after 1938, and that's a big no-no. Such a thing is also pointless because it does not say anything substantial about those old folks and their political aspirations, and gives no real insights into their actual desires.

Well, it strikes me that an anarchy would get quite complicated and dysfunctional pretty quickly. However I think it's always good to discuss on the basis of clear concepts. If we discuss whether an anarchy can work or not, we should make sure that we're talking about the same thing. I don't think this is merely a linguistic question. Nobody should impose biased definitions on others to "win" an argument, but that doesn't mean thst xou shouldn't or can't agree on basic concepts in a fair and open-minded way.
As for Barcelona, well, like I said before, I don't think the case proves anything for neither position.

Oh yeah, that's indeed a possibility and a difficult one to actually argue against. All one can say is that ideally it works itself out in its becoming: a lot of plans have existed towards this thing called representative democracy within the minds of theorists, but what actually comes into being is subject to practical necessity and the input of regular non-academic folk. Rousseau inspires the enlightenment, but no one seriously tries to model a government *entirely* on his political principles, you feel? Perhaps, were anarchism to someone see a great resurgence and actually hold territory, we would find it difficult as ill-informed non-participants to distinguish it from regular ol' representative democracy familiar to us.
Certainly, clarity of terms and concepts is a necessity, and that is of course a difficulty when we discuss a lot of things prior to mass media. You know, if you and I want to know a word it really is a natural thing to just type it into google. Folks before us would have to pay for dictionaries for that sort of thing, and those dictionaries could vary in how they defined terms. Beyond that, you've got everyone and their mums coming up with unique interpretations of the same thing. I mean, if someone ever talks about a "state of nature", you pretty much have to ask them whose concept of a state of nature they're referring to. That is, of course, why it's necessary to look directly at what one wishes to speak of with a sympathetic eye, if only to make ones later criticisms more informed. I ain't against criticising anarchism, I ain't an anarchist and I've got several.
The spanish example tends to be used a lot, since it was the only time anarchists held territory and had to administer it (with caveats, largely to the tune of Makhno not counting), and is illustrative in terms of concrete, actual policy. Anarchists did what they expected to do, good and bad, except for of course losing the war.

[Comemierdas]

Oh yeah, that's indeed a possibility and a difficult one to actually argue against. All one can say is that ideally it works itself out in its becoming: a lot of plans have existed towards this thing called representative democracy within the minds of theorists, but what actually comes into being is subject to practical necessity and the input of regular non-academic folk. Rousseau inspires the enlightenment, but no one seriously tries to model a government *entirely* on his political principles, you feel? Perhaps, were anarchism to someone see a great resurgence and actually hold territory, we would find it difficult as ill-informed non-participants to distinguish it from regular ol' representative democracy familiar to us.
Certainly, clarity of terms and concepts is a necessity, and that is of course a difficulty when we discuss a lot of things prior to mass media. You know, if you and I want to know a word it really is a natural thing to just type it into google. Folks before us would have to pay for dictionaries for that sort of thing, and those dictionaries could vary in how they defined terms. Beyond that, you've got everyone and their mums coming up with unique interpretations of the same thing. I mean, if someone ever talks about a "state of nature", you pretty much have to ask them whose concept of a state of nature they're referring to. That is, of course, why it's necessary to look directly at what one wishes to speak of with a sympathetic eye, if only to make ones later criticisms more informed. I ain't against criticising anarchism, I ain't an anarchist and I've got several.
The spanish example tends to be used a lot, since it was the only time anarchists held territory and had to administer it (with caveats, largely to the tune of Makhno not counting), and is illustrative in terms of concrete, actual policy. Anarchists did what they expected to do, good and bad, except for of course losing the war.

Thanks, I think now I'm understanding a little better where you're coming from. I also think it would certainly look like a representative democracy and I wonder if anything else was even possible on a larger scale, given the sheer complexity of organizing a ballot in a society that's bigger than a small village. That is, I think it would actually turn out to be one and maybe that's a point where we disagree. As for the "state of nature", there is only one thing I know of that could serve as a sound basis to even start the discussion and that's cultural universals. There are quite many and they might give us a hint to what kind of problems human societies naturally face and how much working solutions can or can't vary. I think some cultural universals point towards anarchies being a rather difficult political system to establish. But maybe history surprises us one day.

[Kubra]

Oh yeah, that's indeed a possibility and a difficult one to actually argue against. All one can say is that ideally it works itself out in its becoming: a lot of plans have existed towards this thing called representative democracy within the minds of theorists, but what actually comes into being is subject to practical necessity and the input of regular non-academic folk. Rousseau inspires the enlightenment, but no one seriously tries to model a government *entirely* on his political principles, you feel? Perhaps, were anarchism to someone see a great resurgence and actually hold territory, we would find it difficult as ill-informed non-participants to distinguish it from regular ol' representative democracy familiar to us.
Certainly, clarity of terms and concepts is a necessity, and that is of course a difficulty when we discuss a lot of things prior to mass media. You know, if you and I want to know a word it really is a natural thing to just type it into google. Folks before us would have to pay for dictionaries for that sort of thing, and those dictionaries could vary in how they defined terms. Beyond that, you've got everyone and their mums coming up with unique interpretations of the same thing. I mean, if someone ever talks about a "state of nature", you pretty much have to ask them whose concept of a state of nature they're referring to. That is, of course, why it's necessary to look directly at what one wishes to speak of with a sympathetic eye, if only to make ones later criticisms more informed. I ain't against criticising anarchism, I ain't an anarchist and I've got several.
The spanish example tends to be used a lot, since it was the only time anarchists held territory and had to administer it (with caveats, largely to the tune of Makhno not counting), and is illustrative in terms of concrete, actual policy. Anarchists did what they expected to do, good and bad, except for of course losing the war.

Thanks, I think now I'm understanding a little better where you're coming from. I also think it would certainly look like a representative democracy and I wonder if anything else was even possible on a larger scale, given the sheer complexity of organizing a ballot in a society that's bigger than a small village. That is, I think it would actually turn out to be one and maybe that's a point where we disagree. As for the "state of nature", there is only one thing I know of that could serve as a sound basis to even start the discussion and that's cultural universals. There are quite many and they might give us a hint to what kind of problems human societies naturally face and how much working solutions can or can't vary. I think some cultural universals point towards anarchies being a rather difficult political system to establish. But maybe history surprises us one day.

And to that point, anarchist orgs are/were generally not against some degree of delegation, only that the terms of delegation were different. You know, election by a narrower electorate (thus more total represenatives), two-thirds majorities and consensus, subjecting them to instant recall, that sort of thing.
"state of nature" was just an example of a concept in which there are quite a few prominent ways of speaking of it under the same term, I didn't mean it as something particularly relevant here by itself.
Honestly man, if you wanna make a difficult to approach argument to whatever anarchists are left, just tell em sometimes folks just wanna fuck off from work when their hours are up, not have a bunch of meetings and assemblies tacked on. The few anarchist orgs with local memberships above a dozen already struggle to remain quorate for every meeting, and the usual SOP is just to go on without em.

If you're interested, Malatesta (a very prominent figure in the first international) wrote a very entertaining and accessible primer on the subject
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library ... t-the-cafe
And of course it should also clarify ones criticisms of anarchism, since the anarchist interlocutor is frankly an evasive little shit who is trying to say a lot while answering as little as possible.