Do the nonwhites get to vote in your example? — boethius

Yes. This is a hypothetical to illustrate the point. Take the current population of the United States, which is about 3/4 white, and magically make the whole country a direct democracy, in the sense that every person gets one vote, and the country as a whole can get together and vote on whatever they want. If 51% of those people, all of them white, could decide that nonwhites should all be slaves again, then that is not anarchy. But that is direct democracy. So anarchy is not just the same thing as direct democracy, and direct democracy is not just a euphemism for anarchy, which is what you said that started this argument.

For most, perhaps all, "left" anarchists, the risk of centralized managerial structures is mitigated by local organization, not an even more centralized and non-democratically accountable power structure such as a supreme court or central bank. — boethius

That was the point I was making before about stakeholders. The reason why the above is not anarchy is because the whole population of the country aren't stakeholders in the freedom-from-slavery of every other person, so whether or not a given person is or isn't a slave isn't the kind of thing that's up for a national vote, and it doesn't matter if 51% of the country would (given the opportunity) vote that that person should be enslaved. Anarchy doesn't put that kind of thing to a vote in the first place.

(From an anarchic perspective) When a vote is absolutely necessary, a majority prevailing is better than any minority prevailing, but it's far more important to recognize who has any say over what in the first place, and even among people who all have a legitimate say in some matter, to avoid having to come down to a vote in the first place to decide which side has the bigger numbers and so wins over the other side, instead of finding a consensus that lets everybody win.

Yes, we agree we agree on the terminology.

People can definitely call themselves "right wing anarchists", but it simply leads to confusion to talk about people who do not call themselves anarchists, such US libertarians, as if they are a form of anarchism, whether viewed historically or theoretically.

I have nothing against it, we can also discuss right-wing "anarcho-capitalists", but it wasn't clear if you wanted to got that way or refer to US libertarians.

In the end, anarchists and socialists want the same thing, the disappearance of the state, at least it is not unreasonable to make that suggestion. Socialists also want substantive economic equality, not just equality of economic opportunity, and see that as a necessary condition for human freedom, and human freedom is the final goal. So let me start with this question: Do anarchists care about economic equality in that way, or do they see it as a peripheral issue? I'm genuinely curious, by the way, I'm not just looking for a fight — jkg20

I would tend to agree with the broad statement that anarchists and socialists want the same thing.

The major difference, both theoretically and in practice, is in relation to the state. Anarchists want to avoid all collaboration with the state, always be in a position of either resistance, subversion or then indifference but never collaboration. Anarchists do not trust the state, even if it looks ok for the time being under consideration, nor would they ever trust another anarchist to run the state.

I use the term "central managerial process" above as to avoid the term "central authority". If you don't have a central authority, it's no longer clear what property means.

Within this context, most of what we easily ascent to as property cannot exist without state power to back it up. If we are talking about these forms of power and what it defines as belonging to who (large proprietary tracks of land the community is excluded from and the owner can permanently degrade so as to reinvest in the next exploitative venture or then large corporations that run the state with other elites such as their shareholders) then economic equality is in a theoretical sense a peripheral issue to the structure of power issue that then creates its own idea of property.

This is where libertarians usually simply don't get what anarchists are talking about. If we view property as some sort of fundamental physical attribute to objects, or then vaguely understand the social nature of property but only consider the status quo of what property means today, and furthermore view all political points of view as built up through a relations to this concept of property, then different movements on the left can be rendered intelligible from this point of view as wanting some differing degree or type of "economic equality".

So, that is one way to take the question: deconstructing what "economic equality" even means.

However, taken as an issue of difference between "leftists" generally construed, then there is a lot of variation of opinion. For instance, a mainstream social democrat in Europe may simply not think much about the issue, just be concerned about fixing "unfairness" when they see it in a pragmatic way, but also be willing to permit themselves to radically curtail property rights whenever it seems necessary but while somehow denying they hold that theoretical power to redefine what property means even while they are doing it. Anarchists seeing these sorts of things (environmental laws, limitations of money in politics, progressive taxes etc.) they are smiling from the window.

Where there is more well-informed debate, I would say the key dividing issue on the left is not in economic theory but rather the very practical issue of ruralism vs urbanism. The same principles in abstract agreement can lead to very different conception of society if you believe people should primarily live in a rural or urban setting. Anarchists are generally ruralists; sometimes an anarchist will become an urbanist, concluding that ruralism is an impossible dream, but then they usually have trouble squaring that with what anarchists usually want. However, the rural vs urban debate goes well beyond discussions of political organization in the abstract.

Ok, we agree this is an ahistorical thought experiment.

If 51% of those people, all of them white, could decide that nonwhites should all be slaves again, then that is not anarchy. — Pfhorrest

I've already dealt with this issue if you read my comments.

But to put it another way, how would you stop 51% of people voting on something, in this case who's going to be slaves, in an anarchist way? What would be an "anarchist structure of power" that prevents this happening, that is not the elite state power anarchists are all about not wanting?

While you think about that, the anarchist view of 51% of people voting for something terrible is that anarchists (presumably on the side of "let's not have slaves") failed to convince enough people, the people failed to be moral, and that terrible thing must be resisted (such as Nazi Germany, even assuming 51% really did vote for Hitler).

Now, if we had a democratic system that is "anarchist approved", if 51% of people voted for something terrible, then the anarchists communities who didn't want that would not participate in it's implementation, they may even feel compelled to go and liberate slaves in the communities implementing such a policy.

People voting for stupid, even evil, things is not a theoretical problem for anarchists, as anarchists do not view voting in itself as the political ideal and feel the need to defend what a majority decides on any given occasion. Doesn't mean there's a better way to avoid violence that doesn't include voting, doesn't mean voting needs to be re-thought in a non-majoritarian way, nor does it mean voting is guaranteed to prevent violence on every occasion.

In other words, "voting" in anarchism is a tool of collective decision making, but not the only tool (one must have some moral system to decide what to vote on in the first place) and neither do votes create moral authority; people who vote maintain as much moral agency before and after voting, and they may or may not feel like continuing to participate in the organization they've been voting in if they disagree with a given decision (a majority being mistaken, in the anarchists view, maybe morally tolerable or intolerable, depends). Anarchists do not view it as a moral duty to carry out the wishes of the majority, depends what those wishes are, but they don't have a better way of collective decision making (such as a politburo or unaccountable supreme court "making sure people don't go out of bounds").

Anarchists believe they have better ways to organize society on many other dimensions, economic and political, but these do not substitute for voting as such; rather, they make voting better and more effective.

Anarchists who decide collaboration with the majority is no longer morally tolerable, would still try to organize to decide what to do about it, and need to vote on, for instance, if assassinating someone is going to help and who to assassinate and how (and depending on when and where we're talking about, people will react to this "keeping things open" with "ahh, dangerous idiots!" or then "yes, yes, would be great if someone killed Hitler"); and, again, if an anarchist finds the majority of anarchists in this meeting's decision to not assassinate someone morally intolerable, they may reject this majority decision as well and go and make their own meeting with people who do agree.

This is why statists equate anarchism with chaos -- at no point do anarchists give up their moral autonomy and accept to serve the will of another person group, no matter how large, without being convinced its a good idea at every step; there is no theoretical clockwork mechanism of social stability and keeping still that statists crave. Statists will say "look, a majority of people have, at the least, acquiesced to state power, and so those anarchists are against democracy!" to which the anarchist's response (which is never allowed to be heard) is "well, first of all, just voting on something doesn't entail I should abandon my world view -- why would I? -- and second, acquiescence is not equal participation so the results are highly suspect.

Yes, we agree we agree on the terminology.

Now we are agreed how we are using the term "anarchist", I think I might need to be a little clearer about my use of the term "socialist". I do not mean to refer to the kind of socialist that is a member of an established political party, content with the existing mechanisms of the state, but who just sees the policies it enacts as in need of a tweak towards a little more redistribution of wealth. Nor do I mean the kind of socialist that simply wants to replace one kind of state with another, perhaps even more authoritarian one. I am talking about the kind of socialism that Marx and Engels propounded that sees the state as, in effect, an executive committee for the management of the affairs of the bourgeoisie, and the disappearance of which is a necessary step to reach the final goal of human freedom. People can have property under socialism and anarchism, that I understand, after all, who would want to share my toothbrush with me? So perhaps we need to distinguish also between what we might call personal property, on the one hand, and private property on the other. The distinction is a little difficult to define, particularly in boundary cases, but for a socialist the key idea would be that with the idea of private property comes the idea of private ownership of the means of production in a society, which includes arable land as much as it does nuclear power plants, and it is private ownership of those means of production that is anathematic to socialism. From what you say, private ownerhip of means of production is compatible with anarchism. However, since the so called left wing of any movement covers a much broader church than the right wing, I wonder if there is room within anarchism for the rejection of the principle of private property as well? Or is it on that specific point that you think we really boil down to the essential difference between socialism and all forms of anarchism?

Again, such an issue of importance (in this case, recognizing the legitimacy, state or otherwise of homosexual relationships and ensuing social acceptance and normalization), is hailed as a "single-ticket" issue-which seems good and progressive, but really collaborates with larger systems of power-hence going unseen and ensuring the status quo (meaning nothing too radical) goes on. That is, bluntly speaking, the MO of most neo-liberal/centerists politics, bureaucratic acquiescence to soft issues. — Grre

Yes, I agree. I mentioned the "what does it look like when this doesn't happen" example of MLK to contrast with examples where these issues are clearly worked to maintain the status quo: create outrage about homosexual issues, abandon worker issues, fleece the workers and trade way protection of the black community franchise to "be tough on crime" to attract republican voters, declare victory. However, it gets messy when trying to disentangle the good-faith actors concerned about a legitimate single issue and the power structure that co-opts them; generally, they do not have the analytical capacity to understand what is going on, so can hardly be blamed for being used, though there are notable exceptions.

I'll try to collect my thoughts on what these identity politics things mean from an anarchist perspective. Feminism is definitely the most complicated.

I am more and more puzzled about what anarchism is supposed to be. That majorities can be gravely wrong is standard constitutional (aka liberal) democratic doctrine. The issue is how are we adjudicate tje claim of a minority that the majority is oppressive. The Supreme Court can be gravely wrong too (starting with Dred Scott). If all minorities are allowed a veto we have chaos. Incidentally, I would oppose a plurality vote for President to replace the Electoral College: in a polarized society, this would give an unnatural advantage to extremists. Our system of selecting Presidents needs to be reformed from ground up, starting with the primaries. And Abraham Lincoln, like Trump, was elected by an Electoral rather than a popular vote majority (and in both cases no one else had a popular vote majority either).

I'll try to collect my thoughts on what these identity politics things mean from an anarchist perspective. Feminism is definitely the most complicated.

I would argue that feminism is intrinsically implied in Anarchist principles-seeing as they seek to dissolve all power structures and return power to the autonomous individuals, this necessarily must include women and the sex class system. Emma Goldman, one of the founding writers and thinkers of modern Anarchism-was also one of the most radical feminist thinkers; highlighting that there can be no equality until women are freed from marriage, family, and the obligation to be reproductive chattel. Also it was Goldman (among others) that highlighted systems theory; she recognized that the sex industry, and subsequently the hated prostitute, were resultant of larger systems of oppression and exploitation.

Feminism appears complicated but it operates among the same lines as political ideologies, there is conservative (reactive) feminism that seems womens issues as "secretarian" and lesser to larger male/universal issues like war, the draft, ect. ect. First wave feminism got largely co opted by this line of thought. Liberal feminism is what is largely exposed mainstream, it acts the same as other Liberal ideologies, attempting to address one-ticket issues that ultimately end up changing very little and obscure the larger systemic causes...examples of this are the whole Trans+ pronoun debate that the regressive right gets so up and arms about (haha theres 80 genders wow omg these libtards!) but Liberal campaigns frame as individual "Free choice" and not the result of some larger deconstuction of gender ideals more radically (which is where the Trans+ movement began, as a fierce critique of the genre binary). Also lets not forget the ultimate co opting of previous (second and third wave) feminists attempts to critique beauty ideals and how those are used culturally to enslave women...Liberal campaigns have co opted this to be "look good for you" and equated (usually harmful) beauty practices with self care, self love, and independence, when really-as radical writers have shown, there can be no independence from the male gaze, you are not wearing makeup for "You" no matter how much you want to believe it. Hence once again Liberal ideology obscures larger systems-perhaps in more damaging ways than in economic or social policy...

I must say, I am really enjoying our discussion here.

You've hit upon one of the many crises of todays politics, which I also see-leading to the political apathy the pervades many people, especially minorities and the working class, who arguably need to be involved the most.
The two party system itself is toxic to the entire concept of democracy, especially when the two parties are (despite what you have been lead to believe) historically quite similar in their policies in approaches...and more contemporarily, takes a one step forward one step backwards approach (hence why we are still hearing rulings attempting to unearth Roe v Wade-which was a good 40+ years ago, like move on already), its also why people become apathetic to the point that politics don't "do" anything and then "voting" doesn't do anything. In fact, many Anarchist thinkers have highlighted that-radical feminist anarchists like Goldman went against the conservative suffragists of the time to declare that a woman's vote would not change a woman's oppression (which is true, its more of a fake symbol then anything else. sex class remains as real as ever)-and Thoreau argued that voting was all a game, meant to distract from the real issues at hand (read Thoreaus essay"Civil Disobedience" theres free pdfs online if you search in Google). The electoral system, and what we have in Canada, a first-past-the-post system is not only unduly complex, but it is far from democratic. And having only two real "viable" choices is far from democratic or allowing for any real substantial change. In Canada we theoretically have a multi-party system (we usually have 4+ viable options), but seeing as the majority only really vote for the two biggest-the two/three/four others are discouraged because people have the misconception that voting for the others is "throwing away your vote", thus just like Thoreau believed, voting becomes a strategical game. Which it shouldn't be.

In the Biden v Trump election, many will try to vote Biden in a way that offsets Trump, but MAGA and the regressive right are too strong-if seen in the context of a two party system, Trump will win again. Also Biden is a disgrace in and of himself, and undoubtley many of the true Left will ignore the election entirely as a result. What the Left in America should do (and I don't mean those who are middling democrats, but real Left) is refuse the vote. Not, not show up on election day-but actively refuse their vote. I read somewhere that is an option in America, meant to safeguard the electoral process against the possibility of two unworthy candidates; which is what they are facing now.

I had a bit of trouble following this, but [/i]our[[/i] two party system is toxic. Pro-life Democrats, New Deal Republicans, Socialists, Greens, Libertarians, and many other groups are shut out of the discussion, while Democrats and Republicans go after each other with a fury disproportionate to their differences. I favor proportional representation in the House (and maybe in the Senate). Since only one person can be President, I favor proportional representation in the Electoral College or a popular vote with 51 % needed to win (which won't happen often). In the resulting run-off, it should be possible to elect a dark horse candiate who got few votes (or didn't even run). -- in the last election, someone other than Clinton or Trump._ There are people who specialize in constructing this sort of thing, when the principle is accepted.

In other words, "voting" in anarchism is a tool of collective decision making, but not the only tool (one must have some moral system to decide what to vote on in the first place) and neither do votes create moral authority — boethius

And that’s exactly what distinguishes it from being identical with democracy. Anarchy may sometimes use democratic methods, and when it does it uses direct democratic methods, but you said “direct democracy” was just a modern euphemism for anarchy, when it’s clear even you understand that that is not true.

I apologize if I made anything more unclear for you. However its good that we both can see how the two-party system is toxic.

In other words, "voting" in anarchism is a tool of collective decision making, but not the only tool (one must have some moral system to decide what to vote on in the first place) and neither do votes create moral authority — boethius

But if voting does not result in authority, then it's not collective decision making, either. If any actual compliance to the outcome of the vote is incidental rather than based on the actual voting process, one might as well dispense with the voting and just have a discussion.

one might as well dispense with the voting and just have a discussion — Echarmion

Exactly, this is why I was talking about consensus vs majority. Consensus means everyone gets to add their thoughts and everyone’s thoughts are fairly considered and a collaborative solution taking into account all sound arguments is worked out. If there is a failure to build consensus then maybe a majority vote is the next best option. But going straight to a majority vote is not the anarchic way.

I'm not disagreeing, but for the sake of discussion-since this seems to be a prominent point being discussed here. All decisions of an anarchist group could be consensual and unanimous-if there was a minority that strongly disagreed with a group decision then they would end their association with said group and voluntarily join a different group that better matched their ideas? By very definition Anarchist societies are based on voluntary free association. It may take discussion and compromise to reach certain decisions, but I don't feel like in any true Anarchist group there could be a majority over a minority...(tyranny of the majority) because that would apply a power imbalance.
Hence one can see the difficulties of imagining Anarchist societies on national or supranational scales-how could thousands, millions, or billions of people ever come to unanimous compromises on issues?

I'm not saying its impossible, I'm just saying that this is one of the main aspects of Anarchism, in my opinion even more than the issue of "everyone will be greedy!", that takes some real consideration when attempting to apply it in a practical way.

However, if examined on a micro level, say in small groups-I believe we see varying levels of Anarchist organization in friendship and colleague group associations-arguably the healthiest of which...even in larger family units (although nuclear families, as per the radical feminist line, are inherently oppressive in their own way-i'm not denying this). In healthy friendship groups (or perhaps adult family groups like siblings/older parents/cousins/uncles-children are their own subclass so cannot be seen as equals) everyone voluntarily chooses to associate with each other-they are not dependent or forced to. At any time you can freely choose to leave friendships and their attending groups, and many people obviously do many times throughout their lives...usually when their are disagreements often in majority/minority style-people take sides, and sometimes the group even splits into smaller groups ect. This is all a natural (although painful) at times process, that ultimately, leads to 'better' or at least, more fitting future friendships and groups. The fact that people outgrow people with changes in life and circumstances is indisputable. All of this is a very organic process, and at all times the individual, though seeing themselves as part of the collective group, and doing their "part" for the group (ie. picking up group members, hosting dinner parties w/e) remains individual and autonomous, they do not subvert their identities in any meaningful way (vs. in more collectivist political theories like communism/socialism, the individual is expected to subvert their identity for the good of the group). I think we see the very real actualizing of Anarchist organization in these kinds of healthy friendship groups, which are basically defined as a group of individuals voluntarily associating with each other-there are certainly differences amongst those in the groups, but these differences are resolved through compromise, consensus, and mutual respect and care for members. Arguably, these types of group organizations are the most sought after-explaining why shows featuring them such as Friends, The Big Bang Theory, Modern Family ect. became such popular hits (among many other books, movies, and other mediums), also perhaps why people work so hard to form them, and generally, if the group is healthy...enjoy their time in them. In no way are these groups necessarily permanent, that would imply that they are no longer voluntarily-and they do end, or inequalities and power imbalances do happen leading to as I already said, a breaking down of the group. But the individual remains autonomous, and when they leave, they then seek out another group that better fits their needs/interests/beliefs ect. Hence voluntary free asscociation-the Anarchist social organization, and one I feel is a very fundamental and healthy
human social pattern.

I tried reading the wiki entry on anarchism but it's impossible: anarchism lacks a proper definition, and it has evolved in some many directions that some of the ideas that are now associated with it contradict each other. One big confusing tangled web of ideas it is.

However, you've clearly expressed what it is about anarchism that concerns you - chaos as an inevitable consequence and with that you probably want to discredit anarchism.

Prima facie, anarchism seems to be in deep trouble for chaos does follow the removal of authority put in place (by the state) to check people and the fact this is a well-documented consequence of missing authority goes to show that, contrary to what anarchism claims, people are incapable of living in a non-coercive setting.

However, if you take a close look at this chaos-authority connection, you'll find that society has problems that make it, and keep it in a, volatile, near-chaotic, state that erupts into pandemonium the moment authority goes missing e.g. socioeconomic inequalities. While I won't claim that these problems are a direct consequence of authority, I would like to remind you that solving them would sever the chaos-authority connection - no longer would it be true that an absence of authority inevitably leads to chaos. This means that for anarchism to be practical all we need to do is solve the problems of society that keep it always on the verge of chaos, the only thing keeping the peace being an authority. Easier said than done, methinks.

The small communities that Anarchism supports are a good thing. (I agree that the nuclear family is not ideal, thoiugh not I think for feminist reasons; I benefitted greatly from grandparents and aunts in my upbringing.) But they split when they cannot agree. And without a state, their fights can get bloody; there are disputes about church property, which the legal system-- though chary about taking sides on theological issues -- must somehow resolve. But anything but a liberal state wll squash religious minorities. We have seen how quick even a nominally liberal state is to declare churches, but not liquor stores and gun shops, 'inessential.' Hence we return to the liberalism from which we began, and in fact require a more robust form than we now have.

So, I am an anarchist. I think all states and institutions are a joke, and they should be rejected. But they won't. Moreover, I don't think people can live together peacefully with or without a government. Sort of a cynical type of anarchism, but that's what it is.

But if voting does not result in authority, then it's not collective decision making, either. — Echarmion

I used the term "moral authority", because I was talking about moral authority.

The outcome of a voting process does not create new moral imperatives.

If any actual compliance to the outcome of the vote is incidental rather than based on the actual voting process, one might as well dispense with the voting and just have a discussion. — Echarmion

Therefore, this does not follow from what I have wrote.

And that’s exactly what distinguishes it from being identical with democracy. Anarchy may sometimes use democratic methods, and when it does it uses direct democratic methods, but you said “direct democracy” was just a modern euphemism for anarchy, when it’s clear even you understand that that is not true. — Pfhorrest

Anarchism is not distinguishable from democracy in the abstract sense of "people power". In this sense, anarchism is simply standard democratic argument with some additional "decision efficiency arguments" as well as some economic argument representing what people may find works best in using their power.

Anarchism criticizes "representational democracy" as too easily a form of not-democracy: controlled by the rich resulting in what amounts to an aristocracy that merely calls itself a democracy.

However, anarchists do not view the basic principles of democracy, for instance that would be typically advanced to justify the US constitution, as erroneous, but rather the criticism is that those principles are not realized in practice and are not elaborated to a reasonable conclusion.

I would argue that feminism is intrinsically implied in Anarchist principles-seeing as they seek to dissolve all power structures and return power to the autonomous individuals, this necessarily must include women and the sex class system. Emma Goldman, one of the founding writers and thinkers of modern Anarchism-was also one of the most radical feminist thinkers; highlighting that there can be no equality until women are freed from marriage, family, and the obligation to be reproductive chattel. Also it was Goldman (among others) that highlighted systems theory; she recognized that the sex industry, and subsequently the hated prostitute, were resultant of larger systems of oppression and exploitation. — Grre

Yes, I definitely agree with these statements.

Feminism appears complicated but it operates among the same lines as political ideologies, — Grre

Yes, I did not mean to imply the basic political argument is complicated. If people are equally free and exercising their moral autonomy as equal participants in the political process, so too women, clearly.

Rather, what I was referring to as complicated is the history of feminism understood as identity politics, the episodes of being co-opted and subverted wherever possible by the power structure, as you immediately get to, so I think we're on the same page.

Feminism appears complicated but it operates among the same lines as political ideologies, there is conservative (reactive) feminism that seems womens issues as "secretarian" and lesser to larger male/universal issues like war, the draft, ect. ect. First wave feminism got largely co opted by this line of thought. — Grre

I'm not certain I agree, but it's useful to clarify meanings of "feminism", and for my purposes, what it means for a movement to be "co-opted".

For instance, it is not necessarily the case that anyone who actually starts a social movement that gains momentum is themselves co-opted; indeed, this is rarely the case. Rather, what is being co-opted is the representation of the movement in the press and popular culture; these milieu being controlled by elite power structures anyway, it is not surprising that they can be made to say anything at all. It is the popular conception of the movement, usually a dissident view that effectively overcomes suppression and is suddenly a "issue", that slowly or quickly is transformed into something that is no longer disruptive but in fact supportive of the power structure. This process is with or without whoever started things off; indeed, people who "start" things are often unwavering radicals.

So, what makes analyzing identity based political movement complicated,firstly (precisely because it is so easily co-opted) is that the power structure gets pick and choose who to promote as authentically representing that identity; unsurprisingly, they choose to promote people that are not threatening in anyway to the power structure (are useful idiots or are aware of their part in the con).

Were "first wave feminists" co-opted? or were entirely new people branded "feminist" essentially fabricated by the media to represent first wave feminists and replace them in the general consciousness. We cannot assume anything simply because the word "feminism" pops up at different time and is assigned to different things.

A second important consideration is that people "in the movement" at any given time may not really know what it's about in any argumentative sense. Obviously, these are the marks of those doing the co-opting, but they also can create confusions entirely spontaneously all on their own.

Liberal feminism is what is largely exposed mainstream, it acts the same as other Liberal ideologies, attempting to address one-ticket issues that ultimately end up changing very little and obscure the larger systemic causes...examples of this are the whole Trans+ pronoun debate that the regressive right gets so up and arms about (haha theres 80 genders wow omg these libtards!) but Liberal campaigns frame as individual "Free choice" and not the result of some larger deconstuction of gender ideals more radically (which is where the Trans+ movement began, as a fierce critique of the genre binary). — Grre

So yes, in the context of what I wrote above, what I would maybe change is that "Liberal feminism" is what's allowed to broadcast on mainstream television.

Also lets not forget the ultimate co opting of previous (second and third wave) feminists attempts to critique beauty ideals and how those are used culturally to enslave women...Liberal campaigns have co opted this to be "look good for you" and equated (usually harmful) beauty practices with self care, self love, and independence, when really-as radical writers have shown, there can be no independence from the male gaze, you are not wearing makeup for "You" no matter how much you want to believe it. Hence once again Liberal ideology obscures larger systems-perhaps in more damaging ways than in economic or social policy... — Grre

I like to call this "commercial feminism" and it represents the vast majority of intellectual content about feminism most women actually encounter. Indeed, co-opting a social movement to sell something (cigarettes) started with feminism.

However, not only is the exact mechanism of co-opting complicated, both in abstract description and as they play out historically, but simply the presence of co-opting is not enough to conclude things are "counter-productive". The co-opting can be viewed also from the angle of "comes with the territory and is simply part of the battle", that power structures have so much influence on representation of movements (which then affect those movements, producing even more acceptable representations) and that this is a formidable weapon simply means it must be dealt with as best as possible, just as moving production oversees is a formidable weapon against the union movement. So to get into all the details to try to first define what we mean by "feminism" for the purposes of then arguing "feminism has this or that" is a very long task.

What I think is interesting for this thread is the general anarchist view that identity politics has the uncanny tendency of being always a fight for a place within the state; indeed, often identity groups try to emphasize how obedient they are for supporting their case that the state should grant them more comparable conditions of wage slavery as it grants other groups.

Definitely lot's of things worth discussing.

I am more and more puzzled about what anarchism is supposed to be. — Phil Devine

Which anarchists have you read? Maybe we can help with better understanding them.

I used the term "moral authority", because I was talking about moral authority.

The outcome of a voting process does not create new moral imperatives. — boethius

Fair enough. Does it create any other authority/ imperatives then?

Fair enough. Does it create any other authority/ imperatives then? — Echarmion

Voting creates no imperatives.

As for authority, voting for anarchists does not create authority in the statist sense of people with essentially all the power.

Being a political equal means there is no authority in the sense we usually understand it.

Genuine democracy for anarchists means that a deliberative body never hands over all the power to some small executive team that then run everything.

Certainly anarchist's also need to elect people for specialized tasks, but they retain the ability to recall them at any moment so the authority did not move away from the members in a practical sense. If such a manager "went rogue" anarchists would be organized in such a way as to immediately take their power away in a practical sense of whatever resources this person was using.

The authority remains in the voting itself, and no new authority is created through voting; the people concerned could at any moment do something else.

Things get implemented because the people who vote for it see to it that it gets implemented, which, yes, may require violence. Anarchists maintain that deliberation and decisions between political equals does not give rise to such divisive differences as to lead to many occasions of violence; however, anarchists propose no system that would "force people to not be violent", things can, in principle, get out of hand at any moment (just as with any social system; other social systems merely claim it is otherwise; such as representing an order created and maintained by god, or simply claiming that a institutions with the most force, for now, collaborating are therefore unassailable, and so cannot be undermined and changed or even turned against each other -- that monopoly is absolute and forever and there is no epistemological alternative to submission).

This is why I mention in a previous comment anarchism is easiest in a rural context.

Replying to the original poster, Seri. In reply to your questions regarding crime, to anyone interested in the concept of anarchy it is worthwhile to read some background on the concept of the social contract. The reason to have government is to create a monopoly on power, in order to be able to enforce the laws. You can also observe the effects of an anarchical system in the current world order. There is no global monopoly on power, so the countries in relation to each other live in a global state of anarchy (mitigated by contracts between the countries such as the WTO, UN etc., which constitute international law. But there is no power monopoly to enforce these contracts if conflicts arise, that is the crucial difference) That means in the global anarchy might is very much right. Whoever has relatively more power, can enforce it unto others. I hope this reply is useful to your original questions. All the best.

The reason to have government is to create a monopoly on power, in order to be able to enforce the laws. — TheArchitectOfTheGods

Anarchist organization would also have just as much tendency towards a de facto monopoly of force as any other. What anarchists want to avoid is a central monopoly of power that can simply ignore the wishes of it's constituent members and communities.

Anarchist communities also enforce their laws. The anarchist contention is that the more people do not effectively participate in making those laws, the worse those laws are and the less reason people have for following them, increasing crime; in other words, the incompetence and inefficiency of the state breeds the problem of rampant crime that the state then claims it's necessary to solve.

You can also observe the effects of an anarchical system in the current world order. — TheArchitectOfTheGods

Anarchy doesn't want states, so to claim that interactions of states in absence of even more extreme concentration of power is somehow analogous to interactions between individuals is disingenuous at best and simply foolish at worst.

Anarchy doesn't want states, so to claim that interactions of states in absence of even more extreme concentration of power is somehow analogous to interactions between individuals is disingenuous at best and simply foolish at worst. — boethius

Global anarchy is exactly that, ~200 cavemen with clubs of different sizes. The small depending on the goodwill of the big. Sad but true. So I really cannot understand anyone arguing for anarchy, we have it already! Anarchy = no government. And it means the possibility of war and hostilities, a dog eat dog planet (or cave). Whether it is 200 people or 200 states, this analogy holds absolutely true and is permissible.

As a Government needs to shut down sometimes we need to anarchy, who best speaks for us?
-philosophy a kind of parenthood, is best suited for judging the political system and ideology as bad.

Anarchy = no government. — TheArchitectOfTheGods

Which anarchist proposes this formula?

@TheArchitectOfTheGods

Whether it is 200 people or 200 states, this analogy holds absolutely true and is permissible.

Philosophy rarely says anything is absolutely anything, let alone such as assumption of that. Are you an expert in sociology, anthropology, or history then? Do you actually have evidence of this "absolute" truth you are so claiming? I think you are purposefully misunderstanding @boethius - Anarchism wants to prevent the 'might' of anyone. While you could claim that sometimes brute strength overcomes the weaker in situations where power is not centralized (and that certainly has been an argument, although usually a weak one, against Anarchism-ie. the consequences of creating such a power vacuum) these are not in line with Anarchism principles that are the topic of this discussion. Anarchy is not about no government, but a collective (government) based on free association. While the current global political situation may indeed be seen as totalitarian, chaotic, and imbalanced, this by no means can be equated to Anarchism as a political system...I'm not sure if this is an ignorant mistake of yours, to confuse "anarchy" as an adverb to describe chaos and disorder (which is actually the work of 200+ years of political propaganda and has nothing to do with the true Greek etymology of the word) with the detailed summaries of Anarchism many have outlined here-or if it is purposeful to try to bluntly push your opinion on the topic which completely contradicts history, and 200+ years of thinkers on the subject.

Which anarchist proposes this formula?

Didn't Bakunin propose it?

We, the revolutionary anarchists, are the advocates of education for all the people, of the emancipation and the widest possible expansion of social life. Therefore we are the enemies of the State and all forms of the statist principle. In opposition to the metaphysicians, the positivists, and all the worshippers of science, we declare that natural and social life always comes before theory, which is only one of its manifestations but never its creator. From out of its own inexhaustible depths, society develops through a series of events, but not by thought alone. Theory is always created by life, but never creates it; like mile-posts and road signs, it only indicates the direction and the different stages of life’s independent and unique development.

In accordance with this belief, we neither intend nor desire to thrust upon our own or any other people any scheme of social organization taken from books or concocted by ourselves. We are convinced that the masses of the people carry in themselves, in their instincts (more or less developed by history), in their daily necessities, and. in their conscious or unconscious aspirations, all the elements of the future social organization. We seek this ideal in the people themselves. Every state power, every government, by its very nature places itself outside and over the people and inevitably subordinates them to an organization and to aims which are foreign to and opposed to the real needs and aspirations of the people. We declare ourselves the enemies of every government and every state power, and of governmental organization in general. We think that people can be free and happy only when organized from the bottom up in completely free and independent associations, without governmental paternalism though not without the influence of a variety of free individuals and parties.

Statism and Anarchy