Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Anarchism?

CJKAllstar
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 2:44:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
After what seems like a centuries-long hiatus on DDO, I'm back but I'm sure no one cares, but I'm reading works by Noam Chomsky now and have really pressing questions on anarchism.

So the idea is that various organisations and groups are delegated democratically by the people and no one else to sort out various issues, and a government, some sort of overbearing figure is irrelevant and counters our free will. This makes sense, and Noam Chomsky makes it clear than anarcho-syndicalism is the only way anarchism can work, and I understand why. Any delegated responsibility under a system where there isn't mutual cooperation effectively becomes authority.

But...even with mutual cooperation, surely you are still creating authority figures? Unless you have a system of no law, then having any sort of reprimand for not obeying certain delegated guilds effectively means that you are giving up free will for them, and people still must follow various rules and restrictions.

But if you have no rules, then mutualistic cooperation cannot happen if people don't agree to certain standards. The only explanation I can see for this is that this is actually a good thing, as it means that anarcho-syndicalist is very democratic, and that's what Chomsky says, as you delegate responsibility based on the whims of the people.

But then if this is true, surely Chomsky as an academic knows that this can only happen if there is a consensus for syndicalism? If people agree in some common purpose, and I like Chomsky a lot as an academic, but this is a very utopian idea. This can't be taken seriously can it? So why then is Chomsky propagating it? Am I missing something?

So basically I'm asking for some clarification on all the issues I've raised above. Where I'm wrong, where I'm right and what I'm missing. Danke Schon.
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 3:57:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 2:44:22 PM, CJKAllstar wrote:
After what seems like a centuries-long hiatus on DDO, I'm back but I'm sure no one cares, but I'm reading works by Noam Chomsky now and have really pressing questions on anarchism.

So the idea is that various organisations and groups are delegated democratically by the people and no one else to sort out various issues, and a government, some sort of overbearing figure is irrelevant and counters our free will. This makes sense, and Noam Chomsky makes it clear than anarcho-syndicalism is the only way anarchism can work, and I understand why. Any delegated responsibility under a system where there isn't mutual cooperation effectively becomes authority.

But...even with mutual cooperation, surely you are still creating authority figures? Unless you have a system of no law, then having any sort of reprimand for not obeying certain delegated guilds effectively means that you are giving up free will for them, and people still must follow various rules and restrictions.

But if you have no rules, then mutualistic cooperation cannot happen if people don't agree to certain standards. The only explanation I can see for this is that this is actually a good thing, as it means that anarcho-syndicalist is very democratic, and that's what Chomsky says, as you delegate responsibility based on the whims of the people.

But then if this is true, surely Chomsky as an academic knows that this can only happen if there is a consensus for syndicalism? If people agree in some common purpose, and I like Chomsky a lot as an academic, but this is a very utopian idea. This can't be taken seriously can it? So why then is Chomsky propagating it? Am I missing something?

So basically I'm asking for some clarification on all the issues I've raised above. Where I'm wrong, where I'm right and what I'm missing. Danke Schon.

People only accept authority in anarchy if it's not forced on them. Anarchy requires full voluntary participation to work; if one enforces will on another, the system is not anarchy.

Chomsky knows very well what he is suggesting. He knows that there has to be a consensus for anything within anarchy. You're certainly right that it is utopian.

At least, to the best of my knowledge, Chomsky knows this. Any sort of anarchy is a political ideal- an end, rather than a means to an end. It can be taken seriously as an ideal... I personally don't consider "anarcho"- capitalism anarchy due to the coercion behind property rights.

You hit the nail on the head, as far as I'm concerned. Good to have ya back!
You can call me Mark if you like.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 4:00:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 3:57:18 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/20/2015 2:44:22 PM, CJKAllstar wrote:
After what seems like a centuries-long hiatus on DDO, I'm back but I'm sure no one cares, but I'm reading works by Noam Chomsky now and have really pressing questions on anarchism.

So the idea is that various organisations and groups are delegated democratically by the people and no one else to sort out various issues, and a government, some sort of overbearing figure is irrelevant and counters our free will. This makes sense, and Noam Chomsky makes it clear than anarcho-syndicalism is the only way anarchism can work, and I understand why. Any delegated responsibility under a system where there isn't mutual cooperation effectively becomes authority.

But...even with mutual cooperation, surely you are still creating authority figures? Unless you have a system of no law, then having any sort of reprimand for not obeying certain delegated guilds effectively means that you are giving up free will for them, and people still must follow various rules and restrictions.

But if you have no rules, then mutualistic cooperation cannot happen if people don't agree to certain standards. The only explanation I can see for this is that this is actually a good thing, as it means that anarcho-syndicalist is very democratic, and that's what Chomsky says, as you delegate responsibility based on the whims of the people.

But then if this is true, surely Chomsky as an academic knows that this can only happen if there is a consensus for syndicalism? If people agree in some common purpose, and I like Chomsky a lot as an academic, but this is a very utopian idea. This can't be taken seriously can it? So why then is Chomsky propagating it? Am I missing something?

So basically I'm asking for some clarification on all the issues I've raised above. Where I'm wrong, where I'm right and what I'm missing. Danke Schon.

People only accept authority in anarchy if it's not forced on them. Anarchy requires full voluntary participation to work; if one enforces will on another, the system is not anarchy.

Chomsky knows very well what he is suggesting. He knows that there has to be a consensus for anything within anarchy. You're certainly right that it is utopian.

At least, to the best of my knowledge, Chomsky knows this. Any sort of anarchy is a political ideal- an end, rather than a means to an end. It can be taken seriously as an ideal... I personally don't consider "anarcho"- capitalism anarchy due to the coercion behind property rights.

You hit the nail on the head, as far as I'm concerned. Good to have ya back!

I'm pretty sure Peter Kropotkin confirms your suspicions in his "Essay on the Soviet Government".
You can call me Mark if you like.
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 7:41:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 2:44:22 PM, CJKAllstar wrote:
After what seems like a centuries-long hiatus on DDO, I'm back but I'm sure no one cares, but I'm reading works by Noam Chomsky now and have really pressing questions on anarchism.

Welcome back!


So the idea is that various organisations and groups are delegated democratically by the people and no one else to sort out various issues, and a government, some sort of overbearing figure is irrelevant and counters our free will. This makes sense, and Noam Chomsky makes it clear than anarcho-syndicalism is the only way anarchism can work, and I understand why. Any delegated responsibility under a system where there isn't mutual cooperation effectively becomes authority.

But...even with mutual cooperation, surely you are still creating authority figures? Unless you have a system of no law, then having any sort of reprimand for not obeying certain delegated guilds effectively means that you are giving up free will for them, and people still must follow various rules and restrictions.

The problem isn't really authority itself, the problem is more the legitimacy of that authority. Anarchists see institutions like the state and capitalism as being illegitimate as they can only justify their authority by exercising force and coercion upon those that the institution rules over. However, this isn't the case with other forms of authority, such as authority within a certain subject; e.g. a doctor. Bakunin sums this up much better than I can in his 'God and the State':

"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure."


But if you have no rules, then mutualistic cooperation cannot happen if people don't agree to certain standards. The only explanation I can see for this is that this is actually a good thing, as it means that anarcho-syndicalist is very democratic, and that's what Chomsky says, as you delegate responsibility based on the whims of the people.

But then if this is true, surely Chomsky as an academic knows that this can only happen if there is a consensus for syndicalism? If people agree in some common purpose, and I like Chomsky a lot as an academic, but this is a very utopian idea. This can't be taken seriously can it? So why then is Chomsky propagating it? Am I missing something?

For a consensus to pass it doesn't have to look the same way as when it was first imagined. Any motion or resolution that is subject to voting could be edited in order to create a compromise that benefits everyone. For instance, Person A proposes that resources should be utilized towards creating more production facilities, whereas Person B wants resources to be contributed towards food production. This can be solved by having the members of the community engage in dialogue about each proposals supposed benefits and flaws, then reaching a compromise whereby X resources go towards production facilities, and Y resources go towards the production of food. Thus, everyone's needs are (somewhat) met.

Also, you could just give up on the idea of consensus entirely. Instead you just implement directly democratic decision-making which, at least to anarchists, is much better than our current society. We see society today as being one where 1% of the population makes the decisions for the other 99%, whereas the worst case scenario in direct democracy is having 51% of the population make the decisions for the other 49% (or it could be even better, if decisions are limited to only being made through a super-majority).


So basically I'm asking for some clarification on all the issues I've raised above. Where I'm wrong, where I'm right and what I'm missing. Danke Schon.

Hope I was able to clear up some of your questions.
CJKAllstar
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 11:04:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Thanks a bunch for the answers. I couldn't have got better answers and now I completely understand. I can't say that I'm not seduced by the idea...
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 11:05:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 2:44:22 PM, CJKAllstar wrote:
After what seems like a centuries-long hiatus on DDO, I'm back but I'm sure no one cares, but I'm reading works by Noam Chomsky now and have really pressing questions on anarchism.

So the idea is that various organisations and groups are delegated democratically by the people and no one else to sort out various issues, and a government, some sort of overbearing figure is irrelevant and counters our free will. This makes sense, and Noam Chomsky makes it clear than anarcho-syndicalism is the only way anarchism can work, and I understand why. Any delegated responsibility under a system where there isn't mutual cooperation effectively becomes authority.

But...even with mutual cooperation, surely you are still creating authority figures? Unless you have a system of no law, then having any sort of reprimand for not obeying certain delegated guilds effectively means that you are giving up free will for them, and people still must follow various rules and restrictions.

But if you have no rules, then mutualistic cooperation cannot happen if people don't agree to certain standards. The only explanation I can see for this is that this is actually a good thing, as it means that anarcho-syndicalist is very democratic, and that's what Chomsky says, as you delegate responsibility based on the whims of the people.

But then if this is true, surely Chomsky as an academic knows that this can only happen if there is a consensus for syndicalism? If people agree in some common purpose, and I like Chomsky a lot as an academic, but this is a very utopian idea. This can't be taken seriously can it? So why then is Chomsky propagating it? Am I missing something?

So basically I'm asking for some clarification on all the issues I've raised above. Where I'm wrong, where I'm right and what I'm missing. Danke Schon.

As an anarchist myself, I just focus on living my life for my well being and doing what I want as a human individual. Anarchy is individualism in my view. It creates uniqueness. When it comes to religions like Islam and certain families, we are usually forced to conform and appear like the person instead of trying to be individual. I personally think the best anarchist society that can survive is Christiania in Copenhagen, Denmark. And I think there's a dangerous type of anarchist place called Slab City in California where it's basically a bunch of freaks in an RV camp in California. I'll leave you links to both of these places.