Anarchism vs. Communism: Ramo's Opportunity

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Boshko
There's che. I don't know what label he slaps on himself but he's definately plenty fond of Lenin.

Che would call what I described Stalinist, but I'm not much more fond of Lenin than I am of Stalin.

Originally posted by Boshko
That's not necessarily the difference. For another example, communists seem to care much more about income distribution (surplus value and all that), while anarchists seem to care much more about distribution of power. Communists don't seem to care as much about the workers having real power (Leninist talk of labor armies and suchlike) as long as the capitalists are getting smacked down.

I agree, but very few communists today argue for centralized decision making.

Originally posted by Boshko
The other main difference is that for communists, power is channelled through a central state, while for anarchists power is taken directly and on a more local level through cooperatives, local unions and what have you.

But do anarchists believe in any central coordination, or any power to a central govt?

[Ramo]

Well Kid, I'm not yet sure how exactly our views disagree (anarchism and communism have traditionally had a great deal of overlap) as I don't advocate absolute freedom either. In fact, I don't think such a thing exists since people are always constrained - even in the absence of human interaction (one may argue otherwise - that freedom is the freedom to make contracts, but then one falls into the depths of libertarian capitalist fallacy).

What I do believe is that freedom (I'm generalizing here, meaning freedom from a vast range of things including prisons, ignorance, starvation, disease, even things not generally associated with freedom like gravity) ought to be maximized. That's not really orthodox anarchism (I've noticed that classical political philosophers are generally pretty weak on the logical sides of their arguments), but I've never cared much for orthodoxy anyways. But anyways, back to this maximization; how one creates this metric for freedom is completely subjective of course, but I'd generally say that it's fairly standard at least among radicals.

Why do I believe this? Well, it's mostly based on personal motivation, I've done a lot of introspection, and I think that my primary motivation is freedom. It's also based on the observation that this is what other people are ultimately after as well. Obviously, this isn't as firm a belief I have as my personal feelings, but I think that there's evidence to suggest that this is true. If it weren't, of course, my philosophy would be totally unworkable, but I don't think that's the case. Which leads me to my next point.

The problem is creating this free society. There is a major historical trend I've noticed: political freedom (that is, freedom from the state, what I'd call "libertarianism") and an egalitarian economy (which is mitigated by economic democracy, worker control of the means of production, etc., what I'd call "socialism") are intrinsically linked and are mutally-reinforcing.

For, if the economy is inegalitarian but the state is libertarian, either the rich will subvert the libertarian state and get it to enforce these inequalities through breaking strikes, crushing unions, subsidizing big business, massive prisons, etc., or the poor will subvert the libertarian state by trying to bridge the inequality through welfare and the like. Both processes are clearly applicable to virtually any capitalist society (in the US for example, we have Taft-Hartley on one hand and social security on the other hand).

On the other hand, if the economy is egalitarian but the state is unlibertarian, the "red bureaucracy," to borrow Bakunin's phrase, will be able to subvert this egalitarianism and turning themselves into the economic elite. Likewise, this is demonstrated by virtually any communist society. Take Russia, for instance. After the revolution, there was a great deal of worker control of the means of production, but in the following years Lenin was able to systematically break any sort of worker autonomy and reduce them to state subservience. This is even common in social democratic societies, such as Mexico. After Cardenas passed his land reform program in the 30's, the following governments were able to destroy it through denying peasants loans and using their money to subsidize corporate agriculture as well as industry. After all, if the state grants the people equality, the state has been given implicit moral authority to take it away.

So, libertarian socialist (i.e. anarchist) societies don't have to worry about these sorts of instabilities. There aren't many examples I can point to regarding anarchist societies, but there are enough to make my point. The first obvious example would be the society of the hunter-gatherer. Typically, these societies were very libertarian and very egalitarian. Then you get various pre-industrial societies which include what one doesn't generally think of such as medieval Iceland and parts of the early US, to overtly anarchist socities like the Makhnovists of the Ukraine and the Zapatistas of the Yucatan penninsula. Libertarian and egalitarian in each case, though like the h-g's susceptible to instabilities due to technolgical changes. Finally, you've got an industrialized society, parts of Eastern and Southern Spain (particularly Barcelona) during the Spanish Civil War. This particular form of anarchism is the syndicalist variant, where trade unions were the basis for the revolution and the basis for the new society (unfortunately, this first modern experiment in anarchism was cut short due to Stalinist back-stabbing).

My personal views are close to that form, that is syndicalism. I think it facilitates the emergence of a libertarian state (Kropotkin believed that the Russian Revolution ultimately failed because it wasn't syndicalist). I also disagree with many anarchists in that I don't have any inherent opposition to police and prisons. This view was formed when these institutions were far, far worse than they are in today's socities. However, I think that in the vast majority of cases, their use is abusive, and the problems they're trying to fix could be remedied through psychological counciling, better attempts at poverty reduction, and more freedom in their lives in general.

Well, I've blathered enough for now. I've got 2 tests to study for.

[Bosh]

Che would call what I described Stalinist, but I'm not much more fond of Lenin than I am of Stalin.

Good to hear it. I never could understand che's liking for Lenin, he seems relatively reasonable otherwise...

I agree, but very few communists today argue for centralized decision making.

I'm not too up on my Modern Communist Theory (every modern communist group I've run into has been pretty much sectarian loons who only care about badmouthing each other so I haven't taken too much interest) but would this mean Municipal Socialism, Federated Communes or what?

But do anarchists believe in any central coordination, or any power to a central govt?

There's a lot of different types of anarchists who believe a lot of different things. I'm a very moderate one (lots of anarchists would probably disown me) and I'm for a more gradual course in which you see how far the withering of the state can go (for example if workers owned companies or Unions were powerful and quasi-Anarchist you wouldn't need much of a Welfare State etc. etc. etc. etc.). I differ from Communists in thinking that once you've got a Communist system set up its going to be self-perpetuating and never wither (or revert to Capitalism) and differ from many Anarchists in thinking that going directly from current society to Anarchism is completely unworkable.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo
Well, I've blathered enough for now. I've got 2 tests to study for.

Woh! Sorry to call you out tonight.

Anyway, we seem to agree on much, and I really appreciate you taking the time to write such a terrific post.

[Bosh]

One more thing. The way I see things, "lets go in this general direction" is a much better way of looking at things than "lets go to this destination" so for any given current situation there's always a way to move things forward a bit, which is much better than mouthing about utopias.

What I do believe is that freedom (I'm generalizing here, meaning freedom from a vast range of things including prisons, ignorance, starvation, disease, even things not generally associated with freedom like gravity) ought to be maximized.

I'm mostly with Ramo here, but place a bit more emphasis on breaking down hierarchies and making power a bit more equal (which leads to move freedom).

There is a major historical trend I've noticed: political freedom (that is, freedom from the state, what I'd call "libertarianism") and an egalitarian economy (which is mitigated by economic democracy, worker control of the means of production, etc., what I'd call "socialism") are intrinsically linked and are mutally-reinforcing.

Exactly. I've started a few threads on this point over the years (and have yet to get a real responce from 'poly's Libertarians ).

There aren't many examples I can point to regarding anarchist societies, but there are enough to make my point.

Or too look at any agricultural society the bigger the Yeomanry (ie the bigger the economic equality) the more politically "libertarian" things generally were.

Basically I agree with 99% of what Ramo said, although he's a shade more radical than me.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Boshko
I'm not too up on my Modern Communist Theory (every modern communist group I've run into has been pretty much sectarian loons who only care about badmouthing each other so I haven't taken too much interest) but would this mean Municipal Socialism, Federated Communes or what?

I'm not part of a communist group or sect. In fact, I don't know what the terms Municipal Socialism and Federated Communes really mean. A federation of communes sounds like something I would support though, maybe even a confederation.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I'm not part of a communist group or sect. In fact, I don't know what the terms Municipat Socialism and Federated Communes really mean. A federation of communes sounds like something I would support though, maybe even a confederation.

Municipal Socialism is basically State Socialism where everything gets controlled on the Municipal rather than the National level.

Federated Communues is what one commie I knew in college liked. Basically you get small communistic mostly self-sufficient communities of 700ish and then loosely federate them but keep them basically independent.

I don't much care for either.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Boshko

Municipal Socialism is basically State Socialism where everything gets controlled on the Municipal rather than the National level.

Federated Communues is what one commie I knew in college liked. Basically you get small communistic mostly self-sufficient communities of 700ish and then loosely federate them but keep them basically independent.

I don't much care for either.

I'm more concerned with power being distributed efficiently within the autonomous communes than the commune size.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious


But do anarchists believe in any central coordination, or any power to a central govt?

Have you ever read 'The Dispossessed' by Ursula K. Le Guin?

It's a stimulating analysis of the way an avowedly anarchist society could start to stagnate.

The problem with any centralization of power is that power tends to inhere towards a centre anyway, and that once you start to centralize power, you make the creation of a power elite, or group of powerful individuals almost inevitable, even when there aren't dedicated power structures already in existence.

Even if there were simply a distributive or coordinating committee, the fact that they would have the power to control who gets what, could lead to the pursuit of power for its own sake.

Eternal vigilance is even more necessary for an ideal anarchist society to flourish.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by molly bloom
The problem with any centralization of power is that power tends to inhere towards a centre anyway, and that once you start to centralize power, you make the creation of a power elite, or group of powerful individuals almost inevitable, even when there aren't dedicated power structures already in existence.

True, assuming that we agree that some central power is needed. How do we prevent it from taking power that would lead to tyranny? Vigilance is a good answer, but I think we need a good structure also. Would a traditional system of checks and balances work?

Originally posted by molly bloom
Even if there were simply a distributive or coordinating committee, the fact that they would have the power to control who gets what, could lead to the pursuit of power for its own sake.

Certainly there will be those who will see govt as a way to seize power but do you think that a more democratic society would prevent such a thing of contribute to its likelihood?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious

True, assuming that we agree that some central power is needed. How do we prevent it from taking power that would lead to tyranny? Vigilance is a good answer, but I think we need a good structure also. Would a traditional system of checks and balances work?

Certainly there will be those who will see govt as a way to seize power but do you think that a more democratic society would prevent such a thing of contribute to its likelihood?

It's a very good question- one which Le Guin addresses in her book. Creeping centralization has led to the establishment of a kind of under the counter orthodoxy, a power elite created almost by accident or stealth.

I think the main problem that such an ideal society faces is human nature, and unlearning traits. We've all met people who we might consider natural born leaders, even those whose capabilities don't match their responsibilities, but who have come to enjoy power for its own sake. I always think of Margaret Thatcher's last term in office as a a good indicator of a case where someone has fallen in love with the trappings of power to the extent that she was blind to voices of criticism and dissent, even from within her own party (or perhaps especially within her own party).

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Capitalism is brilliant because it is a self-organizing system that is fundamentally meritocratic

There's nothing in capitalism that makes it meritocratic.

[monkspider]

I'm an anarcho-Communist type, FWIW.

[Bosh]

I'm more concerned with power being distributed efficiently within the autonomous communes than the commune size.

What do you mean by "efficienty"?
And I don't see the point of communes really, I'd rather have a whole lot of different administrative structures (ie work, housing, banking, sports league, whatever) than having everything tied up in one structure, more potential of abuse of power that way.

Have you ever read 'The Dispossessed' by Ursula K. Le Guin?

One of my favorite books, I've got it siting on my bookshelf right next to me atm.

It's a stimulating analysis of the way an avowedly anarchist society could start to stagnate.

Exactly, anarchism with a realistic human face in which things sometimes go wrong. But still I'd take Anarres over just about any other society I could think of (which the exception of the problem of the lack of luxuries that I'm used to). The basic message that I got out of it was, "here's a really realistic anarchist society and the only that's fundamentally wrong with it is that it isn't anarchistic enough."

Eternal vigilance is even more necessary for an ideal anarchist society to flourish.

That and a the proper social framework.

Would a traditional system of checks and balances work?

You'd need a long long process of trial and error to get things right.

Certainly there will be those who will see govt as a way to seize power but do you think that a more democratic society would prevent such a thing of contribute to its likelihood?

Hopefully they'll realize that its more fun to just stay home and play CIV XXX

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


There's nothing in capitalism that makes it meritocratic.

People pay more for more valuable labor. That and patent laws.