It isn't that it benefits people but it is like the popularity of Trump that it panders to the xenophobic types who think immigrants are ruining their 'Britishness'.

What you mentioned about the politicians pandering to the wealthy class rather than the people that voted them in I think also applies here.

Shame that no one else seems interested in this thread who also knows more about British politics than you or I!

This is probably more suited to politics and current affairs subforum than political philosophy as the content is more pop culture in substance.

Well to add a little to your knowledge there is another man named Nigel Farage, maybe you knew the name already, who is very pally with Donald Trump and was the one who championed the Brexit cause.

He has had various parties of his own, the most notable being the Brexit party until we voted to leave and now he is continuing similar xenophobic caused and is very appealing to that type of demographic. I think he does fancy himself as Britain's Donald Trump.

Yes that sounds like a good summation of the milieu in the states. I wonder how it contrasts with the UK.

I am not really sure how it works here if anyone else can chime in?

I don't know that things are so based on funding as the states or if so at least it is not as out in the open? Just guessing. All these alien terms like 'cpac' and 'caucuses' in the states and elon giving 250 million to the trump campaign.

Perhaps things just go under different names here in the uk.

I don't see why it necessarily has to be that though? What about the lead by example way of communes mentioned throughout this discussion?

Yes then one asks what difference are religious crusades from proletariat uprisings?

I suppose anarchism will also get down in the mud too? I seems they had a fair few bombings of choice adversaries to name but one instance.

unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. — Adolf Hitler

This is what I tried to tell boethius to perhaps allow his points to get across better but he dismissed it and continues with is disjointed ramblings. :) There is gold in the ramblings but they are not easy to pick through at all and the reader is left to sort the wheat from the chaff themselves. A task most would not wish to undertake.

But they conveniently leave out the various sins that allowed us to establish capitalism, or the sins that it perpetuates. — Moliere

Oh yes I forgot that that was discussed earlier, the idea of capitalism/christianity being just as bloody or perhaps far more merely through having been around longer, than the little blots on history communist regimes have done so far.

So can it be said the end jusifies the means and that all states have blood on their hands but communism at least aims for a better end goal? In this interpretation Stalin and Mao were heroes?

^^^^^

First off, the historical analysis is complex. It's a Western truism that all socialist and communist governing projects have completely failed.

However, without the Soviet Union, and perhaps without even Stalin, the situation could be a 1000 year Reich in Europe. At the same time, the intense price paid by the Soviet Union to defeat the Nazis may have been essentially a fatal blow, or significant contributing factor, resulting in its inevitable collapse. — boethius

Just looking back at this again and still trying to get a more clear picture of how the Maoist or Stalinist, or whichever other you wish to enter here, vision of communism differs from the original Marxist one, if it did.

In other words was their employment of it perverse or true to the letter of the original manifesto? If not what was different? So I am asking is it the implementation at fault in these case or is it a natural conclusion of communism on a larger scale? The detractors would surely want to claim the latter but I am trying to figure out if it is accurate or not.

Perhaps you could come back in to the fold as well @moliere?

Zizek was mentioned briefly by you earlier, what are your thoughts on him?

Since your mention I have been looking into him a little. I had seen the name around here and there but never had the motivation to seek him out previously.

This ties things back nicely to the fleshing out of the communist side and also relevant to the original question as it appears he opposes anachism.

There are endless additional meanings to words that have technical meanings in specific disciplines and tradecraft, colloquially referred to as technical jargon. — boethius

Indeed. Lots/most philosophers will take the general meaning of a word then run with it and just explain how they are going to be using it (hopefully).

Heidegger I recall did this a lot, using every day 'ready-to-hand' (one of his I remember) terms and uses them in idiosyncratic ways. Of course countless others but Heidegger is one I remember particularly.

It was remarked to me online, by a Libertarian crypto enthusiast, that communism is bad because you don't have a choice. Is that true? I don't remember the exact wording but it was along those lines.

I am wondering since communists think that the end justifies the means, of using the state as a stepping stone to communism, does that mean they would use any manner of coercion to seek that end?

I am thinking again of current regimes like china with control of the press as a prime example. That would be a 'tame' example with others being any individual's life can be sacrificed for 'the party'.

Is this a natural progression of communism or not necessarily? These are the reservations I began to have which led me in towards anarchism.

I have been thinking that while I was not politically aware over my life this does seem to get to the root of what I have always hated about society as I have known it during my lifetime.

I would get told that I was anti-social and things like that but it was rather that I felt that the empty consumerism that most of society revel in so joyously I found vile.

I always felt things like people getting giddy about buying new cars or going on package holidays or the creme de la creme, christmas just somehow made me balk and bristle.

The only way I could explain it before was the general distaste for consumerism but this thread has made me understand better what lies beneath.

Times when I have felt I had found my type of people is in counter cultures, perhaps another nod to small anarchist style communities, but sadly these seem to have been stamped out in direct correlation around the rise of social media. Any theories on this?

Why is it that society at large sees no problem with this vapid existence and on the treadmill of working to buy useless things that doesn't fulfill them long term, thinking that the antidote to their ills is just to get more money to buy the bigger thing, and on and on?

Why do most of society come to the defence of capitalism and say 'it isn't perfect but it is the best system we have' and just balk at any alternatives you might suggest as idealism at best or worse, dangerous and deviant?

During the time of much of the anarchist classical anarchist writings were produced from what I can read of the social milieu at the time things seemed a lot more unsettled so were people a lot more open to these different ways of living at those times? Sure anarchism/communism was hated too then but there seemed to also be a lot more fervent followers whereas today people, while not happy with their lot, and there is general malcontent, they would blame anything but capitalism for their grievances.

The state is almost sacrosanct and they will bicker back and forth about Left of Right under the current narrow band of politics they would dismiss anything more radical.

I am indeed, and would welcome the discussion continuing in the thread between you two, but I have higher priority questions which are currently taking precedence for me, as above.

The police stuff is an interesting side quest/plot. :)

You write pretty clearly when dismissing concerns about how just prison systems are, but then suddenly you have no idea what we're talking about when I point out your claim is essentially not worth responding to. And clearly you don't want to expand or support your claim, so seems you yourself agree that your claim is such vapid and empty propaganda that it's no worth responding to. — boethius

I too am interested to see if they are able to bring anything substantive to their claim.

If we then imagine many such communities developing and interacting with a devolved decision making structure that sorts out inter-community issues, even planetary issues, then the system can become quite large and sophisticated but maintain its communist nature. — boethius

To bring back an analogy this does strike me as sounding very similar to the open source idea of federation. With many jumping from X to Mastodon, apparently the Fediverse works very much how you just explained it, where there are smaller hubs of self-hosted servers with their own communities, which can also communicate with other hubs.

I am not really familiar with the meaning of the term federation; only from Star Trek but it seems something I should learn more about! I recall it being used in The Conquest of Bread in the first few pages.

it really almost happened with the fall of feudalism — boethius

That reminds me of another thought I had been having. In order to know thy enemy what is the history of capitalism and how did it avail over others that, as you mention above, could perhaps have come to be instead?

Did capitalism exist before the industrial revolution? I am getting through The Conquest of Bread and in that I recall them indicating that it did indeed spring from that. Isn't that a difference between the Communist and Libertarian views? that Communists peg it as a recent phenomena due to our stifling ourselves with concentrated power and not using the technology in the right way whereas Libertarians wish to view capitalism as an extension of the natural order of hierarchical man and evolution and thus just, as such.

seems we should make a thread dedicated specifically to police. — boethius

I don't object to it continuing in this thread? I was also finding it relevant and this thread has had its natural meanderings already and does not seem out of context.

However if you feel it would not get the attention it deserves in this one do not let me stop you making a dedicated one.

Something else I have been thinking about. If we were to engage in a thought experiment, how would social life look under an anarchist or communist society?

With the hideous conspicuous consumption and 'vip culture' of today being seen as the pinnacle of success in this capitalist society it is just a reflection of the indoctrinated hierarchies of capitalism isn't it? Also with social media, everything is a popularity contest and how people feel about themselves is determined by how much they are above others.

People's self esteem rests mostly on how much 'stuff' either material or in status they can accumulate and hoard and show off which is just a mirror image of the capitalist foundations of society.

So how might communist or anarchist social play look in comparison?

I am just starting to read the anarchist faq. Is this the same one as the one you linked earlier but with a different url?

While both anarchism's and communism's relationship with one another have been described as cordial so far and even cooperative bedfellows this writer's negative view of communism immediately jumps out at me:

The positive core of anarchism can even be seen in the anarchist critique of such flawed solutions to the social question as Marxism and right-wing "libertarianism"

Wow don't waste any more time indulging them. Hindu, is like Jordan Peterson. Wants to argue semantics because they don't have the chops to actually add anything to the discussion and endlessly try and trip up the interlocutor with what they think are 'gotchas' and claim some victory.

I made a similar comment earlier but edited out as I thought it a little strong but have no such compunctions after all that chicanery above.

Been quite clear through this thread those who want to have a discussion in earnest and those who just want to throw in their bad faith 2c.

by a campaign of random assassination — boethius

Ok so it is not totally unfounded that anarchists have at some points in time sown discord in society. The mainstream view is not a total fabrication then. :sweat: Sure it is propagandized and the good point was made Christianity, the forerunner of capitalism, has far more blood on its hands than any other.

Come to think of it, how is capitalism tied to Christianity, when it can also be said, as you noted earlier, that plenty of communistic type of offshoots also arose out of it? Or is it just incidental in either case that Christianity was the dominant force?

It's also not clear how this relates to differences in anarchism and socialism, as both, generally speaking, want shared resources over the whole of humanity. — boethius

Yes I don't know why this getting hung up on the semantics of an analogy, which is, as is commonly understood of the term, not the thing in itself.

I point back to the map is not the territory as discussed earlier.

However, on the topic of the two strategies, there is a strategically compatible version between the forms of anarchism and socialism / marxism you describe.

Both groups want to push on the doors of power in order to effect deep social change that despite different emphasis and other differences there can be fundamental agreement, such as effective equality in decision making, abolition / curtailing the impacts of the current system of private property, and devolution. Maybe differences in preferred policy, but agreement on the foundational goals. — boethius

I am glad the conversation has naturally come back to the comparing of the two as the communism part, queried in the OP, had fallen behind. I take responsibility for that though as I expressed increased interest in the anarchism due to my relative lack of understanding of that.

I would now be interested in looking at the nuances of communism again.

Going back to the attempts of communism that have already gone before vein, how would you explain the seeming success of small scale communes of the 60s and 70s hippy movement, as well as your various examples going further back, mostly in the religious context, comparing those to the 'famous disasters' of china and russia et al that capitalist detractors are always so quick to jump to as being the only logical conclusion of communism.

I have seen it claimed many times that those hippy communes were 'based on communist values' but I am not sure how except general shared responsibility of labour and everyday concerns. Isn't that just how smallish units would work anyway, like a family? What makes them specifically 'communist inspired'?

Why did those small sects seem to putter along without much incident while the big state wide endeavours leave huge blots on human history? Is it just a matter of scale or other factors? I would like to explore this, as to why the big attempts have had, invariably, to my knowledge, big failures and what led that to happen? How to refute the claim that 'communism doesn't work just look at these examples'?

How could it work on a large nation/world scale, and what would be different if attempted again on that level to avoid the mistakes of the past?

Ok your explanation of pre industrial/pre policing makes it make more sense. Does that mean that the watchmen style of dispute settlement, being community driven, was more along the anarchist model?

Hello again.

I came across the website redpepper.org.uk today which seems heavily anarchism inspired.

It has given me some more fuel to add to the discussion.

Part way through this article: https://www.redpepper.org.uk/law-police-justice/civil-liberties/the-police-are-not-here-to-protect-you/

The reality is that the police exist primarily as a system for managing and even producing inequality by suppressing social movements and tightly managing the behaviors of poor and non-white people: those on the losing end of economic and political arrangements.

Bayley argues that policing emerged as new political and economic formations developed, producing social upheavals that could no longer be managed by existing private, communal and informal processes. This can be seen in the earliest origins of policing, which were tied to three basic social arrangements of inequality in the eighteenth century: slavery, colonialism, and the control of a new industrial working class. This created what Allan Silver calls a ‘policed society’, in which state power was significantly expanded in the face of social upheavals and demands for justice.

An interesting claim is made that the main purpose of the police, despite what propaganda may say to the contrary that they are there to protect the general public, is to suppress social movements and the tool of the elites to keep power. I am not sure I am buying their premise police only came about at the time of colonialism? Policing has existed in some form or another as long as humans have gathered I would imagine?

With the first sentence in mind this means that the police are in direct opposition to the anarchist idea of overthrowing authority then aren't they? I always found it pretty childish how masked up people would attack police 'just because' but this does offer a new dimension to it.

I do still think most rabble rousers are doing it mindlessly though when they say "f*ck the cops" and such and throw bottles at them.

Useful if starting a commune, which I may want to do.

Well I am not saying "I only want to do x that will get me y" that sounds too capitalistic! It is just depressing to think it is all a pipe dream. Like ogling over someone your heart desires but is unattainable, better to squash those desires. :)

You are right that just discussing things like this with like minds is reward in itself.

I had certainly enjoyed learning in this thread.

Thanks. After we covered the bases with this thread my motivation for it was suddenly sapped out as I thought how futile it is since we are still stuck in a capitalist system aren't we?

It just hit me that it felt like 'mental masturbation' to theorize over things that are never likely to be realized.

really best remove oneself from public life altogether — boethius

Yes but do you suggest becoming a hermit like a Buddhist monk living in a cave?

The rest of the world will still be capitalistic so will have to navigate it to a certain degree.

That is why I was asking about seeking out other 'real' anarchists but things do not look hopeful on that front.

One might end up a 20 year anarchist posting rambling megaposts on an obscure philosophy forum. I jest. :)

It might not have to be a case of finding those who have fully adopted the True Way but those open minded enough to be persuaded to do so.

Which subgroup are you referring to? This forum, or the far left in general or anarchists? Unclear. :)

I don't think anyone on the Left generally disagrees that they are noble causes on paper.

The problem is they get hijacked like other noble causes so that it is no longer about x minority getting on equal footing but instead how much attention can I get using this cause so I can look good/virtuous.

Typical example is how politicians will take up a cause only when it will further their career or improve their image and obviously don't care about what they are giving lip service too.

I haven't read it all yet but from the titles it looks to be covered in the link above. Big quote dump but the titles all seemed relevant. Still yet to read myself! just placing here for reference.

What An Anarchist Society Would Look Like

There have been many different visions of what an anarchist society would look like. Any vision that abolishes the things anarchists are opposed to and is consistent with the earlier stated principles of anarchism is compatible with anarchy. There are, however, many institutions that have been proposed by anarchists to run a non-hierarchical society. Most of these are not based on idle speculation but by looking at how actually existing anarchist societies have worked. Some of them are:

Popular Assemblies

Also called general assemblies or mass assemblies. In any organization people can come together to meet and discuss whatever common problems or activities they face. At these assemblies everyone should have an equal opportunity to participate in both the discussion/debate and the final decisions. These can be formed in workplaces where they would take over the running of all workplaces. Worker assemblies would then meet regularly to plan production, divvy up the tasks that need to be accomplished, etc. They can be formed in each neighborhood in order to deal with whatever particular issues confront that neighborhood and organize to deal with them. These are based on free association so whenever a group of people wants to get together to accomplish some goal they can simply form a general assembly to organize it. Free association also means that no one would have to participate in an assembly if they did not want to. Such assemblies can be formed to organize around anything — not only around workplace and neighborhood issues but potentially also universities, clubs, space exploration, etc. Worker assemblies, neighborhood assemblies, university assemblies, community assemblies and the like can all be formed to run society without hierarchy, based on self-management.

Councils

The different assemblies can coordinate their activities through the use of a council system. This is done by each assembly assigning a contact person(s) (sometimes called a spoke or delegate) to meet with other contact people from other assemblies which they want to coordinate things with. The meeting of contact people is called a council or spokescouncil. Position of contact person should rotate frequently. Each contact person is mandated, meaning that they are instructed by the assembly that they come from on how to deal with any issue. The contact people would be given binding instructions, committing them to a framework of policies, developed by their assembly, within which they would have to act. If at any time they violate their mandate their assembly would instantly recall them and their decisions revoked. Decision making power stays in the assemblies; contact people simply convey and implement those positions. Contact people do not have any authority or special privileges. Councils are organized from the bottom up, with control staying in the assemblies. They are not hierarchical organizations but simply coordinate the activities of the assemblies without authority. Instead of hierarchy there are decentralized confederations and networks. This differs from representative institutions in that decision making power stays in the assemblies whereas representatives can make whatever decisions they want and have authority over others. These councils can be formed to coordinate the activities of assemblies on whatever level needed. Worker councils can coordinate the activities of the worker assemblies; neighborhood councils can coordinate the activities of different neighborhood assemblies, etc. They can also do this on a regional scale — forming regional worker councils, etc — and those regional confederations can use the same method to coordinate with each other. In all cases decision making power stays with the assemblies upon which the councils are based — the assemblies would be the core of any organization.

Decision Making Processes

Any decision making process in which everyone has control over their own life and all members have an equal say, rather than dividing people into order givers and order takers, is theoretically compatible with anarchism. Although there are many different ways in which this can be done, there are two main methods of non-hierarchical decision making which are advocated by most anarchists:

Consensus

In consensus everyone in the group must agree to a decision before it can be put into action. All contributions are valued and participation is encouraged. Any member can block consensus, stopping a decision they strongly object to. Members may also “stand aside,” allowing a decision they do not like to be made without blocking or supporting it.

Direct Democracy

Decisions would be made by directly voting on the options — the option with a majority of votes is implemented. Anarchists who advocate direct democracy do not believe in a mechanical process whereby the majority just votes away the minority and ignores them. It is intended to be a dynamic discussion process where different people listen to each other and exchange ideas. Direct Democracy is combined with free association as well — meaning that anyone who is out-voted does not absolutely have to abide by the decision. They can simply leave the group.

These decision making processes would be used in the popular assemblies, councils, etc. There are many variations on them and it is also possible to synthesize consensus and direct democracy. Some groups could use direct democracy but require the majority be of a certain size (such as 2/3rds or 3/4ths) instead of a simple majority. Another variation is to attempt to achieve the largest majority possible.

Sure on reflection I was being overly sensitive mainly due to the earlier priming seeing a whole front page almost devoted to stuff like that earlier on another anarchist website.

The issue I was having was not the subject matter itself but rather hogging the limelight for such things at the expense of core concepts, which I admit is not the case here from the looks of things. So a false positive on my part there.

As my edit above, there is a lot of good meat and potatoes explanations.

Ok I was reading the anarchist library and things were looking good then soon hit upon the identity politics again:

What Anarchists Oppose

Heterosexism

Heterosexism is a natural outcome of the form of patriarchy that exists in the west and many other parts of the world. Gender in most modern patriarchical societies is constructed so that heterosexual behavior is the norm. Homosexuals deviate from how men and women are expected to behave and so are subjected to various forms of coercion as a result. There is thus a hierarchy between hetero and homosexuals. Anarchists are opposed to any sort of oppression on the basis of one’s sexuality.

I don't think you would read that in any of the canon texts. :lol:

Skipping over those obvious crowbarred in amendments there it does seem a lot of questions I have made above are answered there.

that list on Reddit — Jamal

What 'that list' are you referring to here? but yes I was meaning actual real life organizations that call themselves anarchists.

Yeah, think of it like a municipality -- but rather than voting on representatives to vote for what to do everyone represents themselves and can speak on what to do. I've heard this described as the "spokes and wheel" model of organization: where working groups are organized in accord with a central working group which deals with communications between working groups.

Or, if you'd like, think of it as a team at your workplace -- but rather than having a boss all the workers set the rules for the workplace. This would be a workers collective. — Moliere

Coming back to this I was on the phone with my mother today trying to explain some of what had been discussed here and when the question came from her, when I told her it is not just no laws and survival of the fittest style dog eat dog, of how are rules formed and such and such. I tried to explain this about local government but then she said "well we have that already" at which point I didn't really know what else to say as I thought the same.

So what is the difference then of current municipalities as you mention and the anarchist way? Also if there are no higher ups elected then how do the different small conglomerations communicate with each other if there is no spokesperson acting on there behalf.

She made the example of how in the current government you have a local councilor which you can go to if you have issues within their ward then they can then take it to the parliament to be heard by the other cronies there.

So how would that work in anarchy if hierarchies are not allowed and everyone has as much as a say as everyone else?

Would there be no central government at all then? It has been stated earlier, and I read it in The Conquest of Bread yesterday, that there would still be federation between these small groups. As such how would that happen?

Interesting to read that some that are not the usual righties have also critiqued it. I know that Sam Harris has also done so.

With the way any kind of critique of wokeism is immediately lambasted by the contemporary left as fascist or similar it does make one wonder if is a manufactured 'controlled opposition' ploy by the capitalists.

The endless cancel culture have made the Left impotent. Having lost its teeth it is no longer a threat to the establishment.

I feel such views would be very unpopular if voiced in public Left circles. Are there any bulwarks on the contemporary Left that are seeing through this?

too much virtue signalling — boethius

I was just looking up local anarchist forums and the front page of the first one I click is full of trans and queer activism stuff. Certainly nothing, apart from having anachist in the name, would indicate it had anything to do with the kinds of topics which have been discussing in this thread.

Identity politics appears to have polluted all these so called far left movements.

Is it not a product of capitalist thinking? I am reminded of the old term of spiritual materialism for religious epithets. This could be called identity materialism and a by product of the rot of capitalism.

The far left member on the contrary should not have an identity and subvert themselves and their energies to the greater cause of the Party. Maybe I am swinging back to communist. :)

Good :)

I was able to digest a lot more of that.

Btw it reminded me of another thought I had been having. How did anarchy get related to the destroy everything rebellion for rebellion's sake punk style that most of society thinks of when they think of anarchy?

It has become synonymous with rioting and ransacking and general disorder as a way of life.

I see perhaps, maybe, that is a part of it to get rid of the current state, but marxism talks about revolution of that kind equally/even more doesn't it so why has that not become the 'poster boy' for destruction but anarchy has? It seems that anarchy has as much post-state toppling discourse on how to manage society thereafter as marxism.

Anarchy is generally thought of like mad max. Also the word itself is used for general wild behavior if someone says "It was anarchy!"

Sure it is just an example for illustration but most of those issues are because they are still operating in a capitalist system. Not saying that grocery co-ops want to be full anarchist but I think a lot of those who live in housing co-ops would be happy to do so. :)

↪unimportant
Trade unions organize the workers at a place not owned by the workers, whereas a workers collective owns the place and runs it in accord with whatever decision-making process they set up. — Moliere

Like housing co-operatives then that are quite popular among the hippy folks? I knew some people in one and sounds just like how they explained it; if not outright owning the house, holding shares in it.