Ask an Anarchist!

[Orcka]

Just as the title states, feel free to ask me about Libertarian Socialism (another way of stating "Anarchism"). I wish to clear up misconceptions about both the word and it's political meaning. So please, don't be shy, throw everything you got at me!

 

---------------------------{EDIT}---------------------------

 

I have decided to add a video that answers a lot of frequently asked questions about Anarchy, if you want to ask more specific questions, feel free to continue questioning me: 

 

[Kaguya]

How would you go about the whole no more governments thing (if that's actually a thing)? 

I assume we don't just drastically change from night to day, right?

[Orcka]

How would you go about the whole no more governments thing (if that's actually a thing)? 

I assume we don't just drastically change from night to day, right?

[Nashetania]

You're talking about social anarchism, not pure anarchism. Thus, the topic should be "Ask the social anarchist."

[Kaguya]

Are you referring to how Anarchists will "achieve" an anarchist society (aka revolutionary tactics), or how would a society without social hierarchies function (government is a form of social hierarchy btw)? 

[Orcka]

You're talking about social anarchism, not pure anarchism. Thus, the topic should be "Ask the social anarchist."

[Soulless Watcher]

How would a "Libertarian Socialistic" state deal with a large scale invasion by the foreign hordes?

[Fiddle]

What's your favorite pokemon?

[Deep Blue]

following fiddle's question I will ask, is there any anarchist pokemon ?

[Orcka]

Both, actually. 

[Orcka]

How would a "Libertarian Socialistic" state deal with a large scale invasion by the foreign hordes?

[Orcka]

What's your favorite pokemon?

[Soulless Watcher]

One of the best examples of Anarcho military development can be seen in the "Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine" or the "Black Army" for short. A democratized military development in Ukraine that helped fight off early fascist development during 1917-1921 and is considered one of the main reasons fascism didn't take a grip on far-eastern Europe. 

 

More info can be seen here:

 

https://libcom.org/history/1917-1921-the-ukrainian-makhnovist-movement

That is rather a small period of time, imagine that a "Libertarian Socialistic" State existed for... let us say a period of 50 years in a country somewhere in North America. It is a relatively stable place to live, in comparision to the rest of the world, so I imagine this hypothetical society would actively be against foreign wars that do not directly concern them. Now, let's say China (needing to expand its' influence to support it's growing population) or Russia (tired of being pushed around by NATO) decide to "bring civilization" to the so called "lawless state". How would the hypothetical state react to the invasion? Would there be a standing army and how would that work? If so how would they attain the tanks and fighter planes required to counter the invaders? Would they be manufactured localy or purchased from another country, how would that work? If there is no standing army how would one be organized and how would tactics be decided?

[Orcka]

That is rather a small period of time, imagine that a "Libertarian Socialistic" State existed for... let us say a period of 50 years in a country somewhere in North America. It is a relatively stable place to live, in comparision to the rest of the world, so I imagine this hypothetical society would actively be against foreign wars that do not directly concern them. Now, let's say China (needing to expand its' influence to support it's growing population) or Russia (tired of being pushed around by NATO) decide to "bring civilization" to the so called "lawless state". How would the hypothetical state react to the invasion? Would there be a standing army and how would that work? If so how would they attain the tanks and fighter planes required to counter the invaders? Would they be manufactured localy or purchased from another country, how would that work? If there is no standing army how would one be organized and how would tactics be decided?

[Soulless Watcher]

However, this is only part of the compilation, we must also gather resources. In an anarchist society, having the workers provide a portion of what they produce to what they believe is beneficial is absolutely paramount.

[Nashetania]

The term Anarchism has been historically used as a left wing political ideology. Only very recently has anarchy been skewed into the right wing by American Libertarians. This is called voluntarism, a term I believe you are familiar with (those "don't tread on me" flags are what I am talking about). 

 

The reason why it was used by left wingers is because socialism itself questions the idea of social hierarchies based on economical standings (the rich and the poor). Anarchism itself is the questioning of all social hierarchies, and if a justification cannot be given by this question, then we tend to reject the idea as void and unnecessary.  .

 

For example: In my opinion, I see Anarcho-Capitalism to be hypocritical, because you cannot have a capitalist economic system without having a vertical economic structure. 

 

In other words, socialism provides a non hierarchical economic system that perfectly links to the anarchist philosophy. 

 

Also, there are other forms of Anarchism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Anarcho-Primitivism, Anarcho-Capitalism, Anarcho-Feminism.

 

Primitives for example believe that the only way for social hierarchies to dissolve away, is by retracing ourselves back to the stone age. I personally don't agree with them, because they are basically saying "fuck you disabled people" and care little about technological progress and how it has helped the survival rate of humans.

 

There is no form of "pure anarchism" only political ideologies in which compete on what is the best way to achieve a society without social hierarchies. 

 

In the modern age, anarchism has been historically used mostly with socialism, simply because their ideologies link well with each other. On top of this, the first anarchists were socialist (the first documented anarchists that

is). 

 

You could even argue, that anarchy was born out of of socialists that questioned the justification of the capitalist economical system. That i am sure you could agree is a very hierarchal based economic system. 

[Orcka]

There is thing as pure anarchism. Also, anarchism doesn't belong to either left nor right wing.

[Nashetania]

Yea, I told you before. Anarchism was never reached, because it's just dream. Why it's dream? Because it would simply not work.

 

You're full of text but zero of knowledge.

[Orcka]

Yea, I told you before. Anarchism was never reached, because it's just dream. Why it's dream? Because it would simply not work.

 

You're full of text but zero of knowledge.

[Nashetania]

If anarchism is not goal, neither is hierarchy or liberalism and so on....

[sanahtlig]

The concepts of libertarianism and socialism seem diametrically opposed to me.  While libertarianism values personal liberty, socialism values equality.  Equality does not arise naturally, rather it must be imposed via a social system.  The act of imposing that system will infringe on personal liberty.

 

As far as I'm concerned, anarchism is an extreme form of libertarianism: maximizing personal liberty at all costs.  Socialism is on the opposite side of the spectrum: ensuring equality via stringent government planning and oversight.

[Orcka]

It would be one thing if we are talking about food or clothes, but what about more complex supplies like rifles, fuel, or engines. A petroleum geologist may believe that a certain amount of crude oil is enough, but what about the oil refiner that converts the raw materials to useable products? The refiner requires various materials and different machines to make their products and lacking a single material or machine could cripple the whole process. He would be unable to produce the amount he deems logical and would be at the mercy of his suppliers. 

 

That banks alot on the belief that people will always abide by the majority vote. What if there were two military officers that had a massive following, but radically differing ideologies on what should be protected? Let's say a Saber type leader (willing to sacrifice lives for the greater good of the country) and a Doctor type leader (prioritizing the lives of the nation over tactical advantage), both could have a massive fanatical following and I doubt that one fraction would bend to the others will simply because they got slightly more numbers. 

 

That is a hundred percent true, the States seem to have trouble learning this in the Middle East.

 

What is stopping a corrupt millitary dictator from ordering a few men to "protect" the workers or for that matter "protect" a random group of relatives of the workers. You only need a single gun to hold a dozen people hostage. Ending a life is a relatively easy thing to do and while lacking some tools may even the odds between a soldier and a civilian there is still a massive gap in power. I suppose you could limit the amount of calories the soldier intakes to the absolute minimum so the workers could starve the soldier easier, but that would decrease the fighting force of the country drastically.

 

1.) Rifles are not at all hard to make, but perhaps I can understand your statement of fuel. BUT, you are assuming that without a large quantity of oil, it would be difficult to fight off an opposing threat, which is not true. Take the Vietcong for example, they had hardly any vehicles and still managed to defeat the US. Again, technology can only get you so far in war, you can be amazed how well individual can utilize their resources when they are forced to dig in and set up.

 

2.) I should of explained this earlier, but when Anarchists refer to "democratic" voting it usually is referring to what we call "flexible unanimous" voting. For example, lets say two opposing sides are 51% to 49% in terms of voting. The 51% will try to then compromise to the 49% to try to gain a higher percentage. If the 49% doesn't budge, the proposition is then ended and a new idea needs to be brought up to the table. The goal is to reach as close to unanimous as possible by compromising with all sides until they agree unanimously (99% is the preference since their are always trolls that propose flaming arguments). The reason why it is still considered "democratic" is because the proposition that the majority will follow is usually the proposition that becomes compromised and then agreed upon unanimously.  

 

3.) In order to hold the working class, what dictators do FIRST is significantly disarm the workers. THEN they control them with force by instigating military occupations in factories and such. In an Anarchist society, there is no state to enforce laws like gun control and the police force to keep an eye on the workers and imprison anyone who "breaks the law", and no such thing a "private property" to provoke the workers in exacting vandalism and creating another excuse to arrest them. Without these structures it is very difficult to control the working class. Plus you DON'T want to kill your workers unless it is absolutely necessary, you would want to subjugate them to the point where they cannot fight back, and even if they do they have a lot to loose from it. 

[Orcka]

The concepts of libertarianism and socialism seem diametrically opposed to me.  While libertarianism values personal liberty, socialism values equality.  Equality does not arise naturally, rather it must be imposed via a social system.  The act of imposing that system will infringe on personal liberty.

 

As far as I'm concerned, anarchism is an extreme form of libertarianism: maximizing personal liberty at all costs.  Socialism is on the opposite side of the spectrum: ensuring equality via stringent government planning and oversight.

[Orcka]

If anarchism is not goal, neither is hierarchy or liberalism and so on....

[sanahtlig]

On the topic of personal freedom vs. economic equality (socialism):

What about my freedom to collect (additional) compensation for supplying a product or service in response to market demand?  In other words, my freedom to engage in entrepreneurship, which in itself does not bring harm to others and in fact could be considered beneficial when considered in isolation?

 

the freedom to chose whatever job you wish to pursue without being infringed on what the market demands