The Conceptual Possibilities of Anarchy

[Paz]

I've been reading a few pages from "An Anarchist FAQ" http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html and would like to pose a few questions over the life of this post.

Let's begin by identifying a few definitions employed in the writing:

"[A]narchism is a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be that control by the state or a capitalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary." (A.1)

"Equality for anarchists means social equality, or, ..."equality of unequals"[.]...[A]n anarchist society recognises the differences in ability and need of individuals but does not allow these differences to be turned into power." (A.2.5)

"A hierarchy is a pyramidally-structured organisation composed of a series of grades, ranks, or offices of increasing power, prestige, and (usually) remuneration." (A.2.8 )

"Anarchists do not believe that everyone should be able to "do whatever they like," because some actions invariably involve the denial of the liberty of others.

For example, anarchists do not support the "freedom" to rape, to exploit, or to coerce others. Neither do we tolerate authority. On the contrary, since authority is a threat to liberty, equality, and solidarity (not to mention human dignity), anarchists recognise the need to resist and overthrow it. " (A.2.4)

"Control in a hierarchy is maintained by coercion, that is, by the threat of negative sanctions of one kind or another: physical, economic, psychological, social, etc. Such control, including the repression of dissent and rebellion, therefore necessitates centralisation: a set of power relations in which the greatest control is exercised by the few at the top (particularly the head of the organisation), while those in the middle ranks have much less control and the many at the bottom have virtually none. " (A.2.8 )


The first question that comes to mind is this:

An anarchist (who I call A) approaches another anarchist (who I call B) and informs B of the fact that she considers herself an anarchist, yet disagrees with the definitions outlined in this post. If B accepts these definitions while excluding other possible definitions, would B be engaged in the act of creating a hierarchy by grading A a non-anarchist through the act of failing to approve of A's claim to anarchy?

[|Y|]

No, because the result is disassociation. If the anarchist then wanted to continue associating with the non-anarchist, and weilded some kind of power over them, then I expect you'd have a problem. You have posited a scenario where one person has an opinion of another, it doesn't say anything about the power relationship between the two, imo.

[Paz]

No, because the result is disassociation. If the anarchist then wanted to continue associating with the non-anarchist, and weilded some kind of power over them, then I expect you'd have a problem. You have posited a scenario where one person has an opinion of another, it doesn't say anything about the power relationship between the two, imo.

Disassociation is a powerful act. Certainly ostracism is a form of negative social sanctions. Opinions are powerful. If B holds the opinion that A is a non-anarchist, then this most certainly is going to have an effect on A. B holds the power of accomplishing A's goal, namely being able to think that A is an anarchist. If B fails to approve of A's claim to anarchy, then A has so far failed to convince B, thereby failing to accomplish her goal, and therefore the power struggle continues.

[Zazaban]

Being an egoist, I don't necessarily agree with the definitions laid out by you, but the end society I desire would be very much similar, still anarcho-communist in fact, and the differences are mainly on emphasis. Individual freedom is more important to me than collective equality, but I believe that things like mutual aid and free association to still be vital, although I prefer the term 'union of egoists'.

However, I disagree with some of the definitions you give. Am I a 'non-anarchist' to you?

To answer you, I think the idea that simple disagreement creates hierarchy to be borderline insanity. There will never be a world where everyone is happy and friendly and always approving of each other's actions. To claim that not approving of something somebody creates hierarchy is very dangerous thinking, and borderlines on a totalitarian obsession with equality.

[|Y|]

Paz, as long as the disassociation does not result in most part to material resource sanctioning then the person in question would be fine. You cannot make an anarchist give a nazi fascist some food, though, so there are grey areas.

In the end Zazaban's response is probably most sensible.

[Paz]

Being an egoist, I don't necessarily agree with the definitions laid out by you, but the end society I desire would be very much similar, still anarcho-communist in fact, and the differences are mainly on emphasis. Individual freedom is more important to me than collective equality, but I believe that things like mutual aid and free association to still be vital, although I prefer the term 'union of egoists'.

The definitions I listed were found in "An Anarchist FAQ". Individual freedom is very important to me as well. Personally, I would have a hard time labelling myself an "anarcho-communist" in general, but I'm sure I could conceive of myself being in a situation wherein I could allow myself to be engaged in behavior that could be considered by many to be "anarcho-communistic".

However, I disagree with some of the definitions you give. Am I a 'non-anarchist' to you?

I have sufficient reasons to think that you are an anarchist.

To answer you, I think the idea that simple disagreement creates hierarchy to be borderline insanity. There will never be a world where everyone is happy and friendly and always approving of each other's actions. To claim that not approving of something somebody creates hierarchy is very dangerous thinking, and borderlines on a totalitarian obsession with equality.

I argue that I am able to think of "a world where everyone is happy and friendly and always approving of each other's actions." I can also argue that I can think that B would "be engaged in the act of creating a hierarchy by grading A a non-anarchist through the act of failing to approve of A's claim to anarchy". I think these are both conceptual possibilities.

Whether "not approving of something somebody creates hierarchy" is "very dangerous thinking" or not could depend upon what that "something" is. An example of this could be Winston Smith in 1984 not approving of two plus two equaling five. I could also think that this being "borderline on a totalitarian obsession with equality" is conditional. Then again, when I've engaged in thinking of what two plus two equals, I've always come to the conclusion that two plus two equals four. The equality of two plus two equaling four is something I've agreed with for as long as I've been able to think it. I can agree with the totality of two plus two equaling four. And since I've done so in every instance of making the inference and intend to do so until I die, you could think that I "borderline on a totalitarian obsession with equality" in this regard.