eMansipater and anarchism

[Anonymous]

I think I've finally figured out what's wrong here. It doesn't seem that FatherMcGruder respects property rights. That's quite unfortunate.

Why do anarchists drink herbal tea?

Because they don't believe in proper tea, heh.

[1714007215]

1714007215

[1714007215]

1714007215

[1714007215]

1714007215

[1714007215]

1714007215

[1714007215]

1714007215

[BitterTea]

I think I've finally figured out what's wrong here. It doesn't seem that FatherMcGruder respects property rights. That's quite unfortunate.

Yeah, I don't see how you can respect one kind of property rights ("personal" property), but not another ("capital" property). How do you draw that line? It's almost certain that more people could live in your home than currently does. Can you (McGruder) give an argument against this individual using your home that doesn't also fit for a landlord and his property?

[deadlizard]

I think I've finally figured out what's wrong here. It doesn't seem that FatherMcGruder respects property rights. That's quite unfortunate.

Why do anarchists drink herbal tea?

Because they don't believe in proper tea, heh.

iseewhatyoudidthar.jpg

I would say socialists or communists moreso than anarchists

[error]

I would say socialists or communists moreso than anarchists

The problem there is that the socialists and communists CALL themselves anarchists, and the press quotes it as if it were true. Remember, the people who subscribe to this philosophy have no qualms about throwing a bomb at you if you are making a "profit" at someone else's "expense" -- in their eyes.

[sortedmush]

I would say socialists or communists moreso than anarchists

The problem there is that the socialists and communists CALL themselves anarchists, and the press quotes it as if it were true. Remember, the people who subscribe to this philosophy have no qualms about throwing a bomb at you if you are making a "profit" at someone else's "expense" -- in their eyes.

I think it makes more sense for the anarcho-socialists and communists to call themselves Anhierarchists.

[LMGTFY]

I would say socialists or communists moreso than anarchists

The problem there is that the socialists and communists CALL themselves anarchists, and the press quotes it as if it were true. Remember, the people who subscribe to this philosophy have no qualms about throwing a bomb at you if you are making a "profit" at someone else's "expense" -- in their eyes.

I think it makes more sense for the anarcho-socialists and communists to call themselves Anhierarchists.

Why? Do you feel that it's possible to reject rulers but accept hierarchies? Do you have any particular hierarchies in mind that you consider tolerable, or is your concern with the collectivist anarchists' focus on hierarchies?

Regarding the bomb-throwing quip, error, that's seems to be a sweeping generalisation and I'd want to see some sort of evidence to support comments like that. With respect, it seems more rooted in late-19th century history and the caricature of the bomb-throwing, cape-wearing anarchist than any 20th or 21st century reality.

[sortedmush]

Why? Do you feel that it's possible to reject rulers but accept hierarchies? Do you have any particular hierarchies in mind that you consider tolerable, or is your concern with the collectivist anarchists' focus on hierarchies?

Regarding the bomb-throwing quip, error, that's seems to be a sweeping generalisation and I'd want to see some sort of evidence to support comments like that. With respect, it seems more rooted in late-19th century history and the caricature of the bomb-throwing, cape-wearing anarchist than any 20th or 21st century reality.

Because I think that hierarchies spontaneosly emerge when cooperation happens. I've been in a meeting with anarcho-socialists and communists and what happened blew me away, it was fantastic. Nobody interupts, everyone listens and the whole thing goes swimmingly. However, there was a hierarchical structure that spontaneously emerged, served it's purpose and disappeared. It happens when we communicate, I talk, you listen and vice versa. There is lasting power to be had in maintaining a hierarchy for longer than it's natural life. This is achieved with violence and I am opposed to this. Governments talk, people listen, it's unilateral and perpetual.

I don't personally believe the bomb throwing anarchist rhetoric. I've seen enough evidence of agents provocateur to know what's really going on.

[LMGTFY]

Why? Do you feel that it's possible to reject rulers but accept hierarchies? Do you have any particular hierarchies in mind that you consider tolerable, or is your concern with the collectivist anarchists' focus on hierarchies?

Regarding the bomb-throwing quip, error, that's seems to be a sweeping generalisation and I'd want to see some sort of evidence to support comments like that. With respect, it seems more rooted in late-19th century history and the caricature of the bomb-throwing, cape-wearing anarchist than any 20th or 21st century reality.

Because I think that hierarchies spontaneosly emerge when cooperation happens. I've been in a meeting with anarcho-socialists and communists and what happened blew me away, it was fantastic. Nobody interupts, everyone listens and the whole thing goes swimmingly. However, there was a hierarchical structure that spontaneously emerged, served it's purpose and disappeared. It happens when we communicate, I talk, you listen and vice versa. There is lasting power to be had in maintaining a hierarchy for longer than it's natural life. This is achieved with violence and I am opposed to this. Governments talk, people listen, it's unilateral and perpetual.

I don't personally believe the bomb throwing anarchist rhetoric. I've seen enough evidence of agents provocateur to know what's really going on.

OK, good answer, but an "an-hierarchist" would want no hierarchies :-) The "hierarchies" I've seen emerge in collectivist anarchist settings tend to be voluntary and temporary (the temporary acceptance of someone to chair a meeting, for the duration of that meeting) and didn't suggest any power beyond that necessary - the chair of a meeting had to wait their place in turn to speak on a proposal, for example.

The bomb-throwing comment was addressed to error, but possibly deserves some clarity around it: I've also seen my fair share recently and as far back as the Miners' Strike in the UK, so while I'm aware of the huge amount of negative publicity some anarchist have had generated around them, I'm also sceptical when I hear claims of violence against living creatures. I'm well aware that some anarchists support property destruction, which doesn't fit with my more pacifist beliefs, but I'm very sceptical of the media presentation of anarchists as violent thugs attacking poor, un-armoured, defenceless state employees.

[sortedmush]

Why? Do you feel that it's possible to reject rulers but accept hierarchies? Do you have any particular hierarchies in mind that you consider tolerable, or is your concern with the collectivist anarchists' focus on hierarchies?

Regarding the bomb-throwing quip, error, that's seems to be a sweeping generalisation and I'd want to see some sort of evidence to support comments like that. With respect, it seems more rooted in late-19th century history and the caricature of the bomb-throwing, cape-wearing anarchist than any 20th or 21st century reality.

Because I think that hierarchies spontaneosly emerge when cooperation happens. I've been in a meeting with anarcho-socialists and communists and what happened blew me away, it was fantastic. Nobody interupts, everyone listens and the whole thing goes swimmingly. However, there was a hierarchical structure that spontaneously emerged, served it's purpose and disappeared. It happens when we communicate, I talk, you listen and vice versa. There is lasting power to be had in maintaining a hierarchy for longer than it's natural life. This is achieved with violence and I am opposed to this. Governments talk, people listen, it's unilateral and perpetual.

I don't personally believe the bomb throwing anarchist rhetoric. I've seen enough evidence of agents provocateur to know what's really going on.

OK, good answer, but an "an-hierarchist" would want no hierarchies :-) The "hierarchies" I've seen emerge in collectivist anarchist settings tend to be voluntary and temporary (the temporary acceptance of someone to chair a meeting, for the duration of that meeting) and didn't suggest any power beyond that necessary - the chair of a meeting had to wait their place in turn to speak on a proposal, for example.

The bomb-throwing comment was addressed to error, but possibly deserves some clarity around it: I've also seen my fair share recently and as far back as the Miners' Strike in the UK, so while I'm aware of the huge amount of negative publicity some anarchist have had generated around them, I'm also sceptical when I hear claims of violence against living creatures. I'm well aware that some anarchists support property destruction, which doesn't fit with my more pacifist beliefs, but I'm very sceptical of the media presentation of anarchists as violent thugs attacking poor, un-armoured, defenceless state employees.

Yes an anhierarchist would want no hierarchies at all, I bring the idea up to highlight what I see as an inconsistency. I feel that any prolonged hierarchy, such as those that exist in the workplace are valid and desirable so long as they meet a well defined need.

For example, maybe the valid and desirable duration a hierarchy is a "moment". That moment could be the duration of a meeting, or the duration of a period in time where a demand exists for a service. A perfect example of what I'm opposed to is what the record and film industries are doing. They served their purpose, met the needs of the market, but now technology has made their business models obsolete. The moment in time which the organisational hierarchy that emerged to meet the needs of artists and consumers in the way that the record and film industry did, is now over. Digital information is now almost entirely post-scarce. It's only because the cost of going around and persecuting people who share files is offloaded to the taxpayer can they continue to operate in their archaic fashion. I think that things of this nature are a big piece of the puzzle as to why we're so messed up at the moment.

That video in the link is amazing! Hadn't seen that one yet! Absolutely blatant!

[MoonShadow]

Why? Do you feel that it's possible to reject rulers but accept hierarchies? Do you have any particular hierarchies in mind that you consider tolerable, or is your concern with the collectivist anarchists' focus on hierarchies?

Regarding the bomb-throwing quip, error, that's seems to be a sweeping generalisation and I'd want to see some sort of evidence to support comments like that. With respect, it seems more rooted in late-19th century history and the caricature of the bomb-throwing, cape-wearing anarchist than any 20th or 21st century reality.

Because I think that hierarchies spontaneosly emerge when cooperation happens. I've been in a meeting with anarcho-socialists and communists and what happened blew me away, it was fantastic. Nobody interupts, everyone listens and the whole thing goes swimmingly. However, there was a hierarchical structure that spontaneously emerged, served it's purpose and disappeared. It happens when we communicate, I talk, you listen and vice versa. There is lasting power to be had in maintaining a hierarchy for longer than it's natural life. This is achieved with violence and I am opposed to this. Governments talk, people listen, it's unilateral and perpetual.

I don't personally believe the bomb throwing anarchist rhetoric. I've seen enough evidence of agents provocateur to know what's really going on.

OK, good answer, but an "an-hierarchist" would want no hierarchies :-) The "hierarchies" I've seen emerge in collectivist anarchist settings tend to be voluntary and temporary (the temporary acceptance of someone to chair a meeting, for the duration of that meeting) and didn't suggest any power beyond that necessary - the chair of a meeting had to wait their place in turn to speak on a proposal, for example.

The bomb-throwing comment was addressed to error, but possibly deserves some clarity around it: I've also seen my fair share recently and as far back as the Miners' Strike in the UK, so while I'm aware of the huge amount of negative publicity some anarchist have had generated around them, I'm also sceptical when I hear claims of violence against living creatures. I'm well aware that some anarchists support property destruction, which doesn't fit with my more pacifist beliefs, but I'm very sceptical of the media presentation of anarchists as violent thugs attacking poor, un-armoured, defenceless state employees.

Yes an anhierarchist would want no hierarchies at all, I bring the idea up to highlight what I see as an inconsistency. I feel that any prolonged hierarchy, such as those that exist in the workplace are valid and desirable so long as they meet a well defined need.

For example, maybe the valid and desirable duration a hierarchy is a "moment". That moment could be the duration of a meeting, or the duration of a period in time where a demand exists for a service. A perfect example of what I'm opposed to is what the record and film industries are doing. They served their purpose, met the needs of the market, but now technology has made their business models obsolete. The moment in time which the organisational hierarchy that emerged to meet the needs of artists and consumers in the way that the record and film industry did, is now over. Digital information is now almost entirely post-scarce. It's only because the cost of going around and persecuting people who share files is offloaded to the taxpayer can they continue to operate in their archaic fashion. I think that things of this nature are a big piece of the puzzle as to why we're so messed up at the moment.

That video in the link is amazing! Hadn't seen that one yet! Absolutely blatant!

You are simply describing the Misesian concept of "emergent order".  Anarchist meetings aside, have you ever gone to a Meetup?  Who is in charge?  Usually the guy that pays for the hosting fee on Meetup.com, and only so far as that goes.  Once the meetup is up and going, there really isn't a 'leader'.  If there is a crowd getting onto a city bus, there is no leadership, but rare is the event where someone is cut or pushed to get onto the bus, and never is anyone left behind.  No government authority is necessary.

[sortedmush]

No government authority is necessary.

I agree .. was that not clear?

[MoonShadow]

No government authority is necessary.

I agree .. was that not clear?

That post wasn't really for your benefit.  I can already tell that you have spent time thinking about such things.

[sortedmush]

No government authority is necessary.

I agree .. was that not clear?

That post wasn't really for your benefit.  I can already tell that you have spent time thinking about such things.

  thanks

[em3rgentOrdr]

OK, good answer, but an "an-hierarchist" would want no hierarchies :-)

Yes!  There are anarchists, and then there are anheirarchists!

[em3rgentOrdr]

You are simply describing the Misesian concept of "emergent order".  Anarchist meetings aside, have you ever gone to a Meetup?  Who is in charge?  Usually the guy that pays for the hosting fee on Meetup.com, and only so far as that goes.  Once the meetup is up and going, there really isn't a 'leader'.  If there is a crowd getting onto a city bus, there is no leadership, but rare is the event where someone is cut or pushed to get onto the bus, and never is anyone left behind.  No government authority is necessary.

I wonder who's paying for the bitcoin.org hosting? 

Yeah, I used to run an "anarcist" Meetup and was the leader (i.e. paid the fee)!   

[LMGTFY]

OK, good answer, but an "an-hierarchist" would want no hierarchies :-)

Yes!  There are anarchists, and then there are anheirarchists!

OK, to recap:

sortedmush argued it makes more sense for left-anarchists to call themselves "anhierarchists" (presumably denoting left-anarchists' opposition to hierarchy), but then argues that hierarchical structures emerge as left-anarchist organise, the debate serving to highlight (as sortedmush sees it) an inconsistency among left-anarchists.

sortedmush's analysis is fair enough - there may well be inconsistencies. I don't personally see it like that, as I don't regard the temporary election of a recallable chair to be the imposition of a ruler, but it's a reasonable argument all the same.

What I don't get is: what is the difference between opposition to rulers and opposition to hierarchies? sortedmush highlights an inconsistency, rather than demonstrating that left-anarchists are opposed to hierarchies (indeed, sortedmush suggests that left anarchists embrace hierarchy to a certain extent). Does any one genuinely believe that anarchists can be split into those who are opposed to rulers and those who are opposed to hierarchies? For that matter, does any one see a difference between opposition to rulers and opposition to hierarchies? Or is it more nuanced than that, an opposition to rulers accompanied (or not) by an opposition to all other forms of hierarchy?

Genuine question: this isn't something I've studied for nearly 25 years, but I found it fascinating when I did. I was lucky enough to study political science at a college where the lecturers bucked the then-trend for "compulsory" membership of the British Communist Party, and I was luckier still to have lecturers who were interested not just in anarchism but anarcho-capitalism. So I'm curious to see what people involved now believe.

[kiba]

It seems to me that the hierarcharies formed by anarcho-capitalists, or more accurately, voluntaryists are not alway "top-down". Rather, the voluntaryists are part of many hiearcharies at the same time fulfilling different functions.

Many of them are temporal in nature. Others may be stable throughout time.

[LMGTFY]

It seems to me that the hierarcharies formed by anarcho-capitalists, or more accurately, voluntaryists are not alway "top-down". Rather, the voluntaryists are part of many hiearcharies at the same time fulfilling different functions.

Many of them are temporal in nature. Others may be stable throughout time.

When I've been thinking of hierarchies, I've been assuming something like the Wikipedia definition, i.e. there are "top-down" relationships. I think I'm getting it now - when anarcho-capitalists or voluntaryists talk of hierarchies they're discussing what I think of as basic networks - undirected graphs as opposed to directed graphs?

[sortedmush]

What I don't get is: what is the difference between opposition to rulers and opposition to hierarchies? sortedmush highlights an inconsistency, rather than demonstrating that left-anarchists are opposed to hierarchies (indeed, sortedmush suggests that left anarchists embrace hierarchy to a certain extent). Does any one genuinely believe that anarchists can be split into those who are opposed to rulers and those who are opposed to hierarchies? For that matter, does any one see a difference between opposition to rulers and opposition to hierarchies? Or is it more nuanced than that, an opposition to rulers accompanied (or not) by an opposition to all other forms of hierarchy?

I can't say that I'm speaking for anarcho-capitalists as a whole, I think we're all battling with semantics in one way or another and these labels are a mixed blessing. When I say I'm opposed to rulers, I mean I'm opposed to the notion that we have somehow implicitly agreed to be subject to the will of others, or that we have any inherent duty to obey others. I have no problem with the emerging of hierarchical structures. I do have a problem with the initiation of violence to maintain structures that wouldn't exist where it not for the violence.

Hierarchy isn't a big deal to me. It's a tool, and I'm not going to tell people which tools they can and can't use. I'm just going to expose, ridicule, boycott and ostracise those who initiate violence.

It seems there's lot more of a difference between left and right anarchists than meets the eye.

I really don't get left anarchists opposition to hierarchy, mainly because of what I percieve as the inconsistency I outlined. I'd like to get a left anarchist's take on things, preferably in the form of a skype chat .. I do have a lot of questions.

[LMGTFY]

I really don't get left anarchists opposition to hierarchy, mainly because of what I percieve as the inconsistency I outlined. I'd like to get a left anarchist's take on things, preferably in the form of a skype chat .. I do have a lot of questions.

If you manage to do that could you, with their agreement, post a summary here? I'd be interested, too. My knowledge of anarchism is primarily left-oriented, but it's very out of date. I know the broad historical themes, but not the current debates.