Anarchy: Official Definition

GuerrillaLorax · Aug 24, 2018

MeAgain said: ↑

All anarchys fail as someone or group always rises to fill the power vacuum and become the de facto government.
Click to expand...

No, the book Anarchy Works thoroughly refutes this.

MeAgain said: ↑

When the cars start burning and the guns come out and you realize there are no police or social systems to help you out.....then the fun begins.
Click to expand...

Again no, and some recent examples can also easily refute this. When the state abandons an area declaring a sacrifice zone, as it did after Hurricane Katrina and Maria, communities and anarchists come together during the power vacuum and experiment with new ways of life, while also rebuilding the lives devastated by the storms, undermining large relief organizations:

MeAgain · Aug 24, 2018

GuerrillaLorax said: ↑

No, the book Anarchy Works thoroughly refutes this.

Again no, and some recent examples can also easily refute this. When the state abandons an area declaring a sacrifice zone, as it did after Hurricane Katrina and Maria, communities and anarchists come together during the power vacuum and experiment with new ways of life, while also rebuilding the lives devastated by the storms, undermining large relief organizations:
Click to expand...

I don't have time to read the entire book, but I scanned through it.
First of all it seems you and I have a difference of opinion as to what anarchy is. I go by the dictionary definition:

an·ar·chy
ˈanərkē/
noun

a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
"he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy"
synonyms: lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil
"conditions are dangerously ripe for anarchy"

absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

Click to expand...

With anarchy there is no form of government, at all.
So I looked in the book for the section on decision making.
In the author's list of ways to make a decision, he includes consensus, that would be a democratic form of decision making, i.e. a Democracy. The decisions would be made in a meeting, or informally.

In certain contingencies, groups that are truly voluntary associations can still be empowering for their members when they use majority decision-making.
Click to expand...

Then he gives us an example wherein Koreans in 1929 formed "village councils, district councils, and area councils to deal with matters of cooperative agriculture, education, and finance,", i.e. a governmental structure. Not an anarchy.

In Spain in 1936 they formed labor unions, another form of government. "...peasants organized themselves according to principles of communism, collectivism, or mutualism according to their preferences and local conditions."
Anarcho-communism promotes direct democracy and workers councils, a form of government. Collectivism was a principle part of Marxist/Leninist theory and practice and relies heavily on Communism. Mutualism requires a central credit system based on "democratically organised workers' associations," according to its prime proponent Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. So there's that word democracy again.

And I stopped there.
My concept of an anarchy would not include any form of government, especially the forms proposed by Peter Gelderloos, the author of your book.
So we're talking about two different things.
I'm talking about anarchy: "a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority."
You're talking about different forms of order based upon various forms of non unconventional authority.

GuerrillaLorax · Aug 24, 2018

MeAgain said: ↑

I don't have time to read the entire book, but I scanned through it.
First of all it seems you and I have a difference of opinion as to what anarchy is. I go by the dictionary definition:
With anarchy there is no form of government, at all.
So I looked in the book for the section on decision making.
In the author's list of ways to make a decision, he includes consensus, that would be a democratic form of decision making, i.e. a Democracy. The decisions would be made in a meeting, or informally.
Then he gives us an example wherein Koreans in 1929 formed "village councils, district councils, and area councils to deal with matters of cooperative agriculture, education, and finance,", i.e. a governmental structure. Not an anarchy.

In Spain in 1936 they formed labor unions, another form of government. "...peasants organized themselves according to principles of communism, collectivism, or mutualism according to their preferences and local conditions."
Anarcho-communism promotes direct democracy and workers councils, a form of government. Collectivism was a principle part of Marxist/Leninist theory and practice and relies heavily on Communism. Mutualism requires a central credit system based on "democratically organised workers' associations," according to its prime proponent Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. So there's that word democracy again.

And I stopped there.
My concept of an anarchy would not include any form of government, especially the forms proposed by Peter Gelderloos, the author of your book.
So we're talking about two different things.
I'm talking about anarchy: "a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority."
You're talking about different forms of order based upon various forms of non unconventional authority.
Click to expand...

Seeing as you need an "official" definition here's one that doesn't hilariously add "chaos" and "mayhem" as synonyms, from Wikipedia:

Anarchy is the condition of a society, entity, group of people, or a single person that rejects hierarchy. The word originally meant leaderlessness, but in 1840 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon adopted the term in his treatise What Is Property? to refer to a new political philosophy: anarchism, which advocates stateless societies based on voluntary associations. In practical terms, anarchy can refer to the curtailment or abolition of traditional forms of government and institutions. It can also designate a nation that has no system of government or central rule. Anarchy is primarily advocated by anarchists, individuals who propose replacing government with voluntary institutions.
Click to expand...

There's also:

The word anarchy comes from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία (anarchia), which combines ἀ(a), "not, without" and ἀρχή (arkhi), "ruler, leader, authority." Thus, the term refers to a person or society "without rulers" or "without leaders".
Click to expand...

I don't view modern workers unions as anarchist either, but in Spain during a literal anarchist revolution they were anarchistic. Councils can also be anarchistic in that they both rely on voluntary association, and are not necessarily a decision making body. Since you're so interested in decision making processes I highly recommend From Democracy to Freedom, here's the pdf or an audio-zine.

neonspectraltoast · Aug 24, 2018

Pretty much all of our subcultures are anarchistic in structure, though. I'd go so far as to say anarchism has as much an impact on our everyday lives as capitalism. Under capitalism there are haves and have-nots, but there's really no heirarchy in a republic. I can follow anyone I want.

MeAgain · Aug 24, 2018

GuerrillaLorax said: ↑

Seeing as you need an "official" definition here's one that doesn't hilariously add "chaos" and "mayhem" as synonyms, from Wikipedia:
There's also:
I don't view modern workers unions as anarchist either, but in Spain during a literal anarchist revolution they were anarchistic. Councils can also be anarchistic in that they both rely on voluntary association, and are not necessarily a decision making body. Since you're so interested in decision making processes I highly recommend From Democracy to Freedom, here's the pdf or an audio-zine.
Click to expand...

Yes, well any time you have a hierarchy you have some form of leader or leaders, as hierarchies have low and high ends. Someone is above someone else. If there is no hierarchy what so ever, I would think that would be a perfect communistic society. Everyone is equal.
If you have a voluntary institution, it would seem to me it must have some form of hierarchy or it wouldn't be able to maintain an existence for very long.

wooleeheron · Aug 24, 2018

For me, anarchism either begins within your own heart or its just more of your personal bullshit. The world must want to live without governments before they can possibly last more than a few days without one.

McFuddy · Aug 26, 2018

I really don't think the condescension in this thread is necessary at all. The fuck.

GuerrillaLorax · Aug 26, 2018

Okiefreak said: ↑

Some anarchists, called "Social Anarchists", get around this by redefining anarchism as a highly decentralized political system based on consensus. (e.g., Murray Bookchin and associates at the Institute for Social Ecology: Janet Biehl, Cindy Minstein, Dan Chodorkoff call for municipal libertarianism.). The Rainbow Family of the Living Light draws on Native American traditions for its anarchist traditions. I've attended some of the Rainbow gatherings. Theoretically, the main decision making body is the Council, consisting of whoever shows up at a given time and operating on the basis of consensus. In practice, decisions are made by "focalizers"--volunteers who take charge to get things done, and typically have their own councils, to carry out specialized functions like operating kitchens, directing traffic and policing bus village, digging latrines, or staffing the infirmary. One of these focalizer subgroups, which tends to be first among equals, is the Shanti Sena Family, the volunteers who act as security for the gathering, handling disturbances as they see fit. They have their own councils to coordinate their efforts. Far from being "Whining, complaining middle class white kids", the Shanti Sena tend to be hardened Road Dogs, veterans who're had difficulty readjusting to civilian society, and old hippie refugees from the Haight. They tend to be from working class backgrounds and without college educations. Theoretically, everybody is Shanti Sena, but in practice, it's the same informal group who handle the function from year to year and deal with the federal authorities. There are also the Elders, experienced Rainbows who command personal authority by virtue of their experience and charisma. But who these are is somewhat subjective. One person's elder may be another person's nobody. As for rules, there is a saying "the only rule is there are no rules"; but that's misleading, because there are more informal norms than you can shake a stick at and they are enforced by informal social pressure. It may sound a bit chaotic, but it's been remarkably effective in coordinating up to 20,000 people non-violently for forty-six years, so that now their ways of doing things qualify as hippie institutions. Of course, the main thing we do is gather periodically, so it's not like running a state or local government.

There have been some relatively effective efforts at running actual societies according to anarchist principles. https://listverse.com/2016/06/29/10-instances-of-anarchist-societies-that-actually-worked/ An Anarchist FAQ – A.5 What are some examples of “Anarchy in Action”? Most of these have not endured, either because of hostile action from hierachical states or internal dissension. Hunter-gatherer societies are typically "acephalous"--esentially anarchistic. Historically, he Dinka and Nuer of Southern Sudan, the Igbo of eastern Nigeria and some of the plains Indian tribes, like the Blackfoot, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Crow, Pawnee, etc., would meet that description, rules being enforced by men's societies as the occasion demanded.
There are also modern-day anarchists, whom Bookchin charcterizes as "lifestyle anarchists" or "Post Left: or individualist anarchits, such as Hakim Bey and Bob Black.. These folks, in the tradition of the nineteenth century egoist Max Stirner, simply refuse to submit to rules, authority or hierarchy. Often lumped together with these are the primitivist anarchsit like John Zerzan and David Watson, who think society went wrong when it abandoned hunting and gathering for agriculture. I think Antifa draws mainly from this militant Post-left faction of anarchists, particularly the ones based in Eugene, Portland and Seattle, as well as from Marxists like Yvette
Felarca's BAMN.

For an explanation and defense of anarchy, see https://anarchyinaction.or/index.php?title=Anarchy_Works
Personally, I'm skeptical about its feasibility for large-scale societies.
Click to expand...

This is a great contribution! It's important to reflect on modern anarchist societies and not just historical ones like the Paris Commune. Like Rojava mentioned in your link and also the Zapatista controlled Chiapas. Although these two are not anarchist in their entirety, they are built along anarchist principles and many influencial participants are anarchists.

Other modern anarchist communities and autonomous zones are La Zad, Exarchia, Unist'ot'en, Three Sisters and many other permanent anti-industrialization zones. I agree that small villages can be anarchistic easier than vast societies, but maybe it's better for the earth for us to live in villages anyway. But a zine I don't necessarily agree with, attempting to cover large anarchist societies in response to climate catastrophe, is Welcome to the Future.

MeAgain said: ↑

Yes, well any time you have a hierarchy you have some form of leader or leaders, as hierarchies have low and high ends. Someone is above someone else. If there is no hierarchy what so ever, I would think that would be a perfect communistic society. Everyone is equal.
If you have a voluntary institution, it would seem to me it must have some form of hierarchy or it wouldn't be able to maintain an existence for very long.
Click to expand...

In anarchist organizations there is no hierarchy. Technically I agree with you as I see anarcho-syndicalism as a flawed idea, especially in today's world, and could easily be made authoritarian. But I wouldn't say anarchists who prefer this old tendancy aren't anarchist. Historical and modern examples of voluntary revolutionary institutions lasting are abundant.

Also for you and basically anyone else stuck in capitalism with not much time to sit and read, I tried to add as many audio links as I could.

6-eyed shaman · Nov 4, 2018

The word Anarchy has been (mis)appropriated by the far left.

Anarcho-communism is a paradox. You cannot implement marxist or keyensian system without the forceful hand of government. Whereas the definition of anarchy is a system without a government.

Irminsul · Nov 4, 2018

I see.

GuerrillaLorax · Nov 4, 2018

What a great insight. When did this thread become about Marxism?

Log in or Sign up

Anarchy: Official Definition

GuerrillaLorax along the peripheries of civilization

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

GuerrillaLorax along the peripheries of civilization

neonspectraltoast Visitor

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

wooleeheron Brain Damaged Lifetime Supporter

McFuddy Visitor

GuerrillaLorax along the peripheries of civilization

6-eyed shaman Sock-eye salmon

Irminsul Valkyrie

GuerrillaLorax along the peripheries of civilization

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Anarchy: Official Definition

GuerrillaLorax along the peripheries of civilization

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

GuerrillaLorax along the peripheries of civilization

neonspectraltoast Visitor

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

wooleeheron Brain Damaged Lifetime Supporter

McFuddy Visitor

GuerrillaLorax along the peripheries of civilization

6-eyed shaman Sock-eye salmon

Irminsul Valkyrie

GuerrillaLorax along the peripheries of civilization

Share This Page

Useful Searches