You are viewing bradhicks

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Anarchy

Brad @ Burning Man
How did I forget that anarchism is one of the ur-topics of the Internet? There are ur-topics, you know: subjects that all Internet conversation eventually devolves to. Libertarianism. Abortion. Gun control. The Christian Bible. Regulation of the Internet. A few others. And yeah, anarchism. And there I went and touched the third rail. Well, okay, in for a penny, in for a pound. If I'm going to get wet, I'm going to get good and soaking wet. Here is what strikes me as so repeatedly proven and so demonstrably true that, after about age 25 or so, if you continue to believe to the contrary it lowers my opinion of your intellect: anarchism is to political philosophy what Flat Earth is to geography, what young-Earth creationism is to biology, what communism is to economics. It's something that sounds very tempting when you're young, frustrated, and as ignorant as a cow. I forget who it was who said that anybody who's never had the urge to run out the guns and hoist the black flag has no soul, but that part is true. But let's dispose of the idea that it would actually work, shall we? Trivially easily.

If you were to somehow accumulate all of the wealth in the world and divide it evenly among everybody in the human race ... well, for one thing, most of us would starve, because the act of dividing up that wealth would almost certainly wreck an awful lot of our productive capacity. But even if you found some way to avoid that pitfall, let's face it: by the end of the first week, it would be distributed unevenly, if for no other reason than no cure has ever been found for the urge to gamble. Even if you managed to stifle short-term gambling and managed to educate people completely out of short-term stupidism first, by the end of the first year the amount of wealth people had would vary widely. Two farmers on side-by-side fields planting the same crops with the same equipment in roughly the same soil; one of them's going to have more luck than the other, with rainfall or pests or whatever, and he's going to harvest more crops. That's just as true in every other line of work. Attribute it to luck, attribute it to spirits, attribute it to God or the gods, but not everybody who does the same thing ends up with the same outcome.

So if you want egalitarianism, somebody's going to have to go around and tally up everything that everybody has every year (at least), divide by the number of people, and take away everything above that from the people who have it and give it to the people who have less than that. Now frankly, this is already the point in the conversation at which we've demonstrated that anarchism is deranged: once you have the mandatory power to compel taxation, it's a government, no matter what you call it. But there have always been a handful of anarchists who've insisted that if people weren't somehow traumatized by living under government or taught bad habits by a government, they'd never think to object to giving away all of their excess wealth. This has been tried. Over and over and over again. The net result is that everybody starves. Every time. You can not "educate" a human being to recognize an identical need in his neighbor as just as pressing a need as the same need when he feels it himself. You can not "educate" a human being to recognize that if he and his neighbor are working equally hard, he isn't working harder than that lazy bum over there. You don't have to be on the autism spectrum to fail to recognize other people's identical pain as being as intense as your own; on the contrary, it may actually be easier to teach this to those of us on the autism spectrum, because we rely on harder to spoof cues, like actual facts rather than emotional expressions. Every time "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" has been tried, the result has without exception been that people over-state their needs and under-estimate their own abilities, under-estimate everybody else's needs and over-state everybody else's abilities. No exception has ever been recorded, no matter what education (spiritual or practical) went into the population, however carefully selected, before the experiment has been begun.

But okay, let's assume that you have found some hitherto unknown way to do just that, to make everybody agree on what sharing fairly looks like. We are already deep into false-to-fact counterfactual territory here, but to humor the anarchists, let's keep going. After all, the experiment they want us all to undertake has been tried many times, some times have gotten farther than others. What happens next? Without exception in all of recorded history, someone concludes that if people would stop taking away his stuff every year, he could make even more stuff, and next year there'd be a lot more to share. He might even be right, up to a certain point. Or he could be kidding himself, which is going to be true more often. Either way, after a few years of resenting watching his stuff get carted away by the redistributors, it is as sure as the sun coming up in the morning going to occur to him that for less than what was taken from him, he could hire his own armed guards to turn back the redistributors. And now he's a warlord.

But the real problem doesn't even get started until two people think of this. Because maybe he really was right; maybe he could produce a lot more, and he and his warriors live well, and maybe he even stays educated like the anarchists assure us he would and wants to share the same amount with the greater community that the redistributors were taking away from him before. It could happen. I know it could happen; it has happened before. What happens, though, the first time somebody else raises their own private army to guard their stuff? One of the two of them looks over at the other one's private army and goes, "oh, crap, if he wanted to, he could send them over to take away my stuff." So now he has to have a bigger army. Maybe he gets more productive. Probably he does. But the same logic that applied to the two farmers with side-by-side fields applies here: even if he and the other nearby warlord start with equal resources and equal skill, by sheer luck one of them is going to end up richer than the other one. Which means that he can afford the bigger army. So now what does the unlucky warlord do? Now it's a matter of life and death; screw egalitarianism, I've got to get a bigger army. So now by simple logic he has no choice but to go on a war of conquest against any non-warlords he can conquer, and redistribution now goes the other way now: from the poor to the rich, to fund an arms race. History does not yet record a single instance of this experiment being tried where, if it even made it this far, that isn't what happened.

And if we stopped there, the people with Social Dominance Orientation would be right. But they're not. Observe.

During the dark age that followed the crisis of 1200 BCE, modern-day Greece was settled by two different tribes, both of them people who'd deliberately left civilization with an intent to never be ruled again. Within a couple of generations, though, they were already up to their necks in tribal warlords, and most of the population was starving to fund armies to defend the rival warlords from each other. After one particularly ugly spasm of inter-tribal warfare, all of the tribal warlords in the area around Athens agreed to a negotiated settlement. They picked one guy with a reputation for being fair, and swore their most sacred oaths to obey whatever peace treaty he wrote. The man's name was Solon, and he went far, far beyond his mandate, deciding instead to solve the original problem of warlordism. He abused their oaths to make them agree to one more round of really aggressive confiscation and redistribution, in this case of the farmland, along with a total wiping clean of all recorded debt. He then set up several limits by which anybody who got anywhere near amassing enough wealth to be able to afford an army would have it taken away from him before it got that far; he could have more wealth than anybody less hard working and less lucky, right up to that point, but no farther. And he incorporated a set of political and religious monitoring and auditing systems whereby if anybody did try to keep enough wealth to be able to raise an army of his own, everybody else would know it ... and know to descend on him en masse and stop him.

Solon was not given a mandate to redistribute land and wealth as radically as he did. They were bound by their oaths to obey, but they weren't bound by oath not to punish him. Every single wealthy warlord spent money they were about to lose anyway, before the redistributors got there, to hire the best hired killers in the region to track down Solon and kill him. He barely escaped with his life, and fled into exile under an assumed name. But here's the funny thing: seven years later, those same rich people sent out embassies to the whole known world, begging for Solon to come home, because having seen how it worked out, they had to admit that he had been right. Divinely inspired Solon, they called him thereafter, for the next several hundred years. And divinely inspired he may well have been; he was displaying the clear mark of inspiration, someone operating far beyond their own known capabilities. But seven years into this system, the rich people of Athens realized that they had never been as afraid of their own poor people as they were of their fellow wealthy people; that they had squandered so much money on defending themselves from hypothetical or actual threats from their fellow wealthy people that they were living better, more comfortably without the money than they had been when they had it.

Look, one great constant throughout all of history is that rich people arise through inescapable laws of nature. And once they do, there is no way to make them share any of that with us. You will never come up with a system where the people who have more can't find some way to hire guards, bribe judges and priests, impress the public with their short-term generosity, and hire writers and poets and philosophers to convince everybody else that they the rich people are right to insist on keeping all of their stuff. If Plato and Socrates were alive today, they'd be working at the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, doing their flat level best for the same kinds of wealthy people who funded all of the philosophers except Diogenes the Cynic back in the day. (This of course makes Aristophanes the Michael Moore of ancient Athens. Don't think so? Read Clouds, a play that doesn't get staged nearly often enough if you ask me. The famous and hysterically funny debate between Good Logic and Bad Logic lacks only Powerpoint slides of being right out of Roger and Me.) But history has shown, and not just in ancient Athens, that if you persuade the rich that they are better off giving up an awful lot of the stuff they earn or make, as long as all of their fellow rich people have to do so too, then they're all better off, even if all you can appeal to is the logic of negotiated mutual arms reduction.

Think it wouldn't happen here? It has. And does so again every generation. I've already run too long, though. I have a specific example in mind; I'll give it to you tomorrow.

Comments

( 58 comments — Leave a comment )
anfalicious
Sep. 4th, 2007 07:54 am (UTC)
Interesting post, but you seemed to be talking about socialism, not anarchism. There is nothing within anarchism that demands sharing. There is nothing within anarchism that demands that everyone has equal wealth. Anarchism, as the name suggests, is about the lack of a government. Anarchism is generally a criticism of hierarchy and entrenched power, not of inequity in society (although it recognises that a lot of inequity is caused by hierarchical power). If there were a true anarchist society, if one man worked twice as hard as another, then no one would think it unproper for that man to have twice as much (take a look into anarchocapitalism for example). However, if the rich man attempted to bend the poor man to his will, then he would be in violation of anarchism.

Having said all that, I still think anarchism is a utopian pipe dream, but that doesn't make it irrelevent. Because it is a utopian pipe dream, it is helpful in pointing out problems within our current society, the main one, obviously, being the use of power, by those in power, to subjugate the oppressed.

I'm not sure where you were going with your Solon example... It seems in the first part of your post you're criticising socialism (which you had confused as anarchism), but then you give the Solon example which is a text book case of how and why socialism should work.
pope_guilty
Sep. 4th, 2007 10:21 am (UTC)
As an anarcho-communist, I'm entertained by the idea of redistribution as a function of anarchism. I don't want to redistribute wealth. I want to get people to stop fucking thinking that wealth is something that involves individuals rather than communities. The concepts of taxation and redistribution are completely incomprehensible in the world I want to create.
(no subject) - ratkrycek - Sep. 4th, 2007 03:02 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - kimchalister - Sep. 5th, 2007 04:07 am (UTC) - Expand
en_ki
Sep. 4th, 2007 06:29 pm (UTC)
Left-anarchism is what was advocated by the anarchists who actually accomplished anything.
(no subject) - discogravy - Sep. 5th, 2007 04:58 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - en_ki - Sep. 5th, 2007 12:48 pm (UTC) - Expand
bradhicks
Sep. 5th, 2007 05:06 am (UTC)
I don't see how you're comparing Solon's constitution of Athens to socialism, considering that it left all of the ownership of the means of production and all of the decisions regarding the operation of those means of production in private hands.
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - flewellyn - Sep. 5th, 2007 07:22 pm (UTC) - Expand
pope_guilty
Sep. 4th, 2007 10:23 am (UTC)
You believe that the wealthy will agree to give up a large portion of their wealth, and I'm the naive one?
pixxelpuss
Sep. 4th, 2007 06:15 pm (UTC)
Well, there are still relatively wealthy people who choose to live in relatively socialist countries or who are philanthropists. So, I'd say that for some wealthy people it is demonstrably true that they'll agree.
galbinus_caeli
Sep. 4th, 2007 11:58 am (UTC)
Anarcic systems can work if there is no scarcity in resources. Currently this is the realm of magic, but if you read the fiction of Ian M. Banks, you can see examples (fictional ones, of course. On fictional premises.)

Basically if there is no incentive to accumulate more than your neighbor, then it does not get accumulated.

In the US, you don't really hear of anyone accumlating, or denying access to, tap water. This resources is so widely available that it is just short of unmetered. No one who is not pathological would deny any other human access to as much tap water as that person could carry. No one who is not pathological stores vast amounts of tap water. In fact the entire bottled water industry is designed to create an artificial market on something that is practically identical to the product that people can get for all but free from anywhere they want.

If other products can become as ubiquitous as tap water, they will be treated similarly. (Yes, currently this is magic.)
gleef
Sep. 4th, 2007 03:45 pm (UTC)
Tap Water
In the US, you don't really hear of anyone accumlating, or denying access to, tap water.

Oh, it's coming. Look at Cochabamba, Bolivia and Kerala, India for examples of what corporations would like to be doing with our water supplies, and what it might take to stop them.
pixxelpuss
Sep. 4th, 2007 06:16 pm (UTC)
Re: Tap Water
good call.
ascian
Sep. 4th, 2007 03:54 pm (UTC)
No, not even with magic.
Even with magic and infinite resources, there will always be commodities. There is no world in which there is nothing finite, after all. As long as one thing can be judged better than an alternative, then there can be a superior class of that thing which is not in great supply.

Even with unlimited food/possessions for all, there would still be only so much beachfront property, for example. Does the magic make more of that? Fine. Only so many people can live next door to [Person of Note]. Or near the centre of a community. Hell, there's only so much public attention and approval to go around; how long before vast PR coalitions begin rallying the populace to their camps just to have their support?

Anything which is desirable and finite can be stockpiled, can be guarded, can be made the object of a war. Case in point; belief. Holy wars show that, failing all else, ad space in human skulls for this or that deity or ideology is puh-lenty for people to go to war over.

I submit that not only is it a problem which can't be solved with infinite resources, it's one which shouldn't. You can't cure a psychopath by taking away his gun, after all. Material things only exacerbate the issues at the heart of materialism. If we ever created a society enlightened enough to share infinite wealth, we'd have a society enlightened enough to share near-absolute poverty (which is much harder to share than merely absolute poverty).
galbinus_caeli
Sep. 4th, 2007 04:05 pm (UTC)
Re: No, not even with magic.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with this.

Yes, there will always be competition for vanity items, but if necessities and most desirables are equally available to all then it is much harder to get people fired up to go kill each other.

If every person in a society has these options:

1) Spend all day, every day, playing with their favorite toys. Xbox, TV, toy trains.

2) Spend all day, every day, in deep philosopical discussions with other like minded people.

3) Spend all day, every day, taking classes and learning new and exciting things.

4) Spend all day, every day, engaging in their favorite sports, be it golf, hockey, or gossip.

5) Spend all day, every day, stoned or drunk out of their skull.

6) Spend all day, every day, engaged in religious worship.

7) Dress up like a soldier and go kill the neighbors for preferring 5) over 3).

I suspect that you are going to have a very few people who are going to choose option 7). And most of the rest of the people will consider those people to be psychotic.

Beachfront property? I can build you all of it that you want if you let me have a little magic to build outerspace habitats like those in Banks' or Niven's fiction.

Living next to celebrities? Well, not a lot of people are going to be willing to kill for that privilege, and I bet the celebrities will not want them as neighbors.

Thinking beyond scarcity is difficult, but can be pretty amazing.
Re: No, not even with magic. - pixxelpuss - Sep. 4th, 2007 06:26 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: No, not even with magic. - galbinus_caeli - Sep. 4th, 2007 06:45 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: No, not even with magic. - beckyzoole - Sep. 4th, 2007 08:21 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: No, not even with magic. - flewellyn - Sep. 4th, 2007 09:07 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: No, not even with magic. - phierma - Sep. 5th, 2007 01:12 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: No, not even with magic. - beckyzoole - Sep. 5th, 2007 01:49 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: No, not even with magic. - kimchalister - Sep. 5th, 2007 04:17 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: No, not even with magic. - beckyzoole - Sep. 5th, 2007 06:28 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: No, not even with magic. - phierma - Sep. 5th, 2007 06:48 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: No, not even with magic. - hairyfigment - Sep. 5th, 2007 03:42 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: No, not even with magic. - beckyzoole - Sep. 5th, 2007 06:38 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: No, not even with magic. - phierma - Sep. 5th, 2007 07:41 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: No, not even with magic. - beckyzoole - Sep. 5th, 2007 07:55 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: No, not even with magic. - phierma - Sep. 6th, 2007 01:30 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: No, not even with magic. - beckyzoole - Sep. 6th, 2007 01:44 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: No, not even with magic. - phierma - Sep. 6th, 2007 08:03 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: No, not even with magic. - beckyzoole - Sep. 6th, 2007 03:28 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: No, not even with magic. - phierma - Sep. 6th, 2007 04:02 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: No, not even with magic. - beckyzoole - Sep. 6th, 2007 04:27 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: No, not even with magic. - phierma - Sep. 6th, 2007 06:17 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: No, not even with magic. - beckyzoole - Sep. 5th, 2007 08:08 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: No, not even with magic. - interactiveleaf - Sep. 6th, 2007 07:19 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: No, not even with magic. - beckyzoole - Sep. 6th, 2007 08:02 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: No, not even with magic. - hairyfigment - Sep. 5th, 2007 03:39 am (UTC) - Expand
bradhicks
Sep. 5th, 2007 05:05 am (UTC)
Funny you should pick tap water as your example, when North American private companies are fighting their hardest to control the drinking water supplies of several Latin American countries. See also "water monopoly empire."
(no subject) - galbinus_caeli - Sep. 5th, 2007 12:19 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - milambus - Sep. 5th, 2007 02:29 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - galbinus_caeli - Sep. 5th, 2007 02:42 pm (UTC) - Expand
fallen_x_ashes
Sep. 4th, 2007 02:23 pm (UTC)
And what about anarchoprimitivism? :-p
twopiearr
Sep. 4th, 2007 04:43 pm (UTC)
Irony [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-]:
1.debating the merits of anarchoprimitivism on the Internet.

anfalicious
Sep. 4th, 2007 10:46 pm (UTC)
Why is that ironic? As a non-hierarchical, distributed system, I would imagine the internet is the perfect medium.
pope_guilty
Sep. 4th, 2007 06:20 pm (UTC)
Idiots and children whose desired world involves the death of the vast majority of human beings. They spit on the tradition of anarchism and call themselves anarchists.
dsgood
Sep. 4th, 2007 07:18 pm (UTC)
"I forget who it was who said that anybody who's never had the urge to run out the guns and hoist the black flag has no soul...." H.L. Mencken said something of the kind -- but he was talking about the pirate flag, not the anarchist flag.

On anarchism: A fair number of anarchist setups look to me like governments. Look up Fourieran phalanxes, for example. Or see Le Guin's The Dispossessed.

Subtypes of anarchism include: anarcho-communism/anarcho-socialism (what Marx called "utopian socialism" as contrasted with his eminently practical recipe for abolishing government in stages.) Individualist anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism, which is basically libertarianism without the minimal state.

In science fiction, there's the anarchism which is a side-effect of telepathy; when everyone fully understands everyone else, we will all love and respect each other.
anfalicious
Sep. 4th, 2007 10:47 pm (UTC)
Got a reference for that last one? It's something I'm interested in and would be keen to read what other people have written.
(no subject) - hairyfigment - Sep. 5th, 2007 02:52 am (UTC) - Expand
hairyfigment
Sep. 5th, 2007 02:59 am (UTC)
an-arrgh-chy
I assume you've seen this? Doesn't quite fit the topic here, but it certainly seems interesting.
flewellyn
Sep. 4th, 2007 09:08 pm (UTC)
Most excellently done.
amberite
Sep. 5th, 2007 09:58 am (UTC)
Anarchism is to rules as monotheism is to morals.

Rules do not require the existence of a government any more than moralities require the existence of a sole god.
amberite
Sep. 5th, 2007 10:29 am (UTC)
uhh, durrr.
What I meant was "government is to rules..."

And as I checked on this, I also realized a more effective way to state the latter half, which is "central-authority-based-religion" re: morals.
(Anonymous)
Sep. 5th, 2007 11:52 am (UTC)
anarchism
Anarchism is a means of human social organization. It's not an economic system and doesn't say anything about the redistribution of wealth. I suppose you could have any sort of economic system you want within an anarchistic community. Anarchism is essentially the same thing as grass roots democracy.

It also doesn't mean you won't have rules. Anarchistic communities can democratically decide what rules and regulations they'll have.

I do believe, however, there are some inherent flaws in attempting to have pure capitalism,specifically growth capitalism, within anarchistic system, since under such a system, no person would have the means to coerce others.

There are numerous examples in history of successful, anarchistic communities. People that lived in cooperative villages and that lived in harmony with the land. But in today's society, I think it's only possible for anarchistic organizations to exist on a small, local level. As it should be, regardless.

A cooperative is a good example of an anarchistic organization that uses a socialistic economic model. You have democratic decision making and everyone shares in the wealth. So it an energy cooperative. There are companies, as well.

The best overall solution is grass roots democracy within a bioregional framework, where there is a mixture of simple, locally owned capitalistic enterprises (a bakery, neighborhood grocer, dentist, etc.) mixed with cooperatives. Economic growth is bound by biological and geophysical reality, and people live in balance with the ecosystem.

Regards,

Jack Burns
interactiveleaf
Sep. 6th, 2007 07:07 pm (UTC)
I have never yet heard a definition of "living wage" that made sense to me.
(Anonymous)
Nov. 5th, 2007 12:52 am (UTC)
As has been mentioned here, anarchism is a theory of government, not economics. Anarchist communities can be created in small population groups of like-minded believers in individual-self-rule. The economics of the group could easily be handled by a kind of "green" capitalism, in which the costs to the commons is understand as an underlying precept. No one owns the common resources of our natural environment. Any use of such resources must be judicious, with a mind to renewability. These are not laws of government, but of enlightened self-interest which can be agreed upon by those who chose to interact for common benefit. This is not at all about redistribution, or distribution of resources. It is about the people who have the projects, do the work, use what they need, and give back what they take. More an ecosystem than a political one.
( 58 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

November 2012
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner