Go to footer

Skip to content


INTRODUCTION TO ANARCHISM

No-particular-theme discussion board.

Moderators: Yarrow, Yuda, Canteloupe


INTRODUCTION TO ANARCHISM

Postby Jørgen V. » Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:01 pm

The Anarchist International Information Service, i.e. the official IFA/IAF/AI web-site, presents the following information:

First, there is an introduction defining anarchy vs state/government/authority/archy, secondly we are explaining the logical structure of anarchism and the basic concepts and principles, aslo with references to the other material on http://www.anarchy.no.

The words anarchy and anarchism are a bit problematic. Sorry to say, anglophone languages are very much twisted in an Orwellian "1984" "newspeak" way, to fool the people via the education to worship authority, compared to Nordic language, say,

A. Rules, rule = regler, regel (relatively fixed ways to settle things in an orderly way, i.e. regulations and regulatory means); but also

B. Rules, rule = hersking, hersker, herske (to be an arch/ruler, act as an arch, bestiality).

Thus in English/American the words 'archein (Greek) = herske (Nordic)' is translated to B. "rule" = to be an arch etc., but "rule" also is used as A. 'regel' = "rule" (i.e. rule(s) in the meaning of relatively fixed way(s) to settle things, disputes and conflicts in an orderly way, i.e. regulations and regulatory means = regel/regler). And thus, due to using one word to mean two very different things, i.e. A. and B, the anglophones are forced in an authoritarian way to think very much false and wrong about realities, with respect to anarchy, freedom and authority, that the Scandinavian people are not to the same extent. See the point! Anglophones are very much fooled by the authorities in this way, thus you probably cannot easily think free, but like a slave via psychological ruling, to think authority = ruler is necessary to keep order. In Norwegian a situation "an (without) arch(y)" "uten hersker" may very well considered to be with 'regler' because "hersker" = rules, and "regler" = rules, are quite different words. This is very difficult to understand with an anglophone basis.

C. Furthermore the Greek word "an" is not meaning "without" in general, but just as "an" in anaerobe and similar words, i.e. "an" means without what is mentioned in the suffix, but keeping what is essential in the matter, i.e. management in the meaning of coordination related to anarchy. Thus the whole thing gets often mixed up in the anglophone sphere, the language falsely forcing people to think that rule and rulers are necessary to settle things in an orderly way.

D. To fix this linguistical/language problem in a simple way, we mainly use the word "rules" in the meaning of one or more rules, i.e. regulations and regulatory means, case A, and the words "rule" and "ruling" in case B, unless something else is mentioned. Thus, we define anarchy in the following way:

E. The word anarchism origins from the word anarchy. The word "anarchy" origins from Greek. The original meaning, that everybody should stick to, is the following: The prefix "an" means " negation of" , as in anaerobe vs aerobe, anandrous vs -androus, anhydride vs hydride , etc; i.e . "an" means without what is mentioned in the suffix, but keeping what is essential in the matter. The suffix "archy" means "rule (not rules or law) , ruler, rulers, superior in contrast to subordinates, etc. ", from Greek "archein" , "to rule, to be first" ; and "archos" , "ruler" i.e. in a coercive , repressive, etc. manner, slavery and tyranny included. As mentioned "an" means without what is mentioned in the suffix, but keeping what is essential in the matter, i.e. in this case management in the meaning of coordination, but without ruling and rulers. The 'ruling' is not essential, but an evil alienation, i.e. bestiality. Bestiality is especially the hall-mark of systems with more than 666 per thousand (ca 67%) authoritarian degree, see Economical-Political Map . [The term “ca” is an abbreviation for the latin circa , which means about or approximately.] Thus " A narchy" doesn't mean " without coordination, management , administration , etc." . Anarchy is management, coordination and administration etc. without ruling and thus without rulers. NB! Remember D. Anarchy and anarchism also of course have and use regulations and regulatory means when necessary and optimal, i.e. significant selfregulation. That anarchy, means an-arch-y, i.e. management and coordination without ruler(s), not just "without rule", a vague term that superficially may be interpreted and manipulated in a lot of inconsistent ways, i.e. non-authoritarian as well as authoritarian, must never be forgotten. "An" means "without" as in an-aerobe, etc, "arch" means "superior" or "boss" broadly defined, and "y" in this connection stands for system, management, coordination, as in monarch-y, oligarch-y, etc. The "an" is connected to "arch", not "y". Thus (an-arch)-y means without arch, but not without system, management, coordination, it means (an-arch)-system, management, coordination. In short an-arch-y = (an = without arch = boss) y = management.

And thus anarchy means coordination, without rule from the bureaucracy broadly defined, the economical and/or political/administrative superiors in private and public sectors (in contrast to the people), down towards the bottom, i.e. in a coercive, repressive manner. b) and thus,"anarchy" is higher forms of economical and political/adminstrative democracy; 1. ideally, i.e. 100% anarchy; meaning 100% coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, horizontal organization, and co-operation without coercion, or 2. practically, significant i.e. more than 50% degree of anarchy, i.e. more horizontally than vertically organized, i.e. more influence on the societal management from the "bottom upwards", than from the bureaucracy, from "the top downwards to the bottom". The bureaucracy organized as a ruling management , i.e. significant downwards to the people and the grassroots - and not just an insignificant tendency in this direction, is also called authority or authorities, the State as a social concept or in a societal perspective - as well as government. Thus anarchy is a way of organizing society where there is management and coordination without ruling and rulers, tyranny and slavery, i.e. the tendencies towards State, authority, authorities, government, bureaucracy and similar are insignificant or zero. The opposite of anarchy is different types of archies, i.e. ruling and rulers, authority, authorities, State in a societal perspective, government - economical and/or political/administrative. Archies may be mainly monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy, ochlarchy (mob rule) and/or plutarchy.

F. Anarchism is political systems and organizations coordinated as anarchy in the above meaning and manner, but also the political tendency advocating anarchy understood this way, and the scientifical knowledge about anarchy and the ways to reduce non-anarchist tendencies. Briefly defined State in a broad societal meaning is systems with significantly large rank and/or income differences and inefficient, i.e. significantly vertically organized. Anarchies are systems with significantly small rank and income differences, plus efficiency, i.e. significantly horizontally organized.

G. More about what anarchy and anarchism and State/authority/government/archy mean

1. Anarchy and anarchism mean "system and management without ruler(s), i.e. co-operation without repression, tyranny and slavery".

Briefly defined anarchy and anarchism are coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, i.e. horizontal organization and co-operation without coercion. This means practically or ideally, i.e. ordinary vs perfect horizontal organization respectively. Thus, anarchy and anarchism mean real democracy, economical and political/administrative, in private and public sector. Thus, anarchy means coordination without government, in the meaning of different forms of vertically organized, i.e. chaotic included, economic and/or political-administrative relations among people, (and thus not without public sector). Coercion is defined in the following way: Coerce, from Latin coercere , to surround, from co = together and arcere = to confine. 1. to confine, restrain by force, to keep from acting by force, to repress. 2. to constrain, to compel, to effect by force, to enforce. Anarchist systems have ideally no coercion, practically, as little as possible coercion, taking into account the anarchist principles in general, human rights interpreted in a libertarian way included.

Anarchies are systems with significantly small rank and income differences, plus efficiency, i.e. significantly horizontally organized.

2. Briefly defined State/authority/government in a broad societal meaning is systems with significantly large rank and/or income differences and inefficient, i.e. significantly vertically organized.

(This is opposed to Max Weber's definition. The crucial point is horizontal vs vertical organization, not whether there are one or several law and order agencies in a local area.)

3. We are for anarchy and anarchism as defined in 1, and against State/authority/government as defined in 2.

A bit simplified: Society is private sector plus public sector, both significantly horizontally organized in anarchy.

4. Real democracy means one vote per head, participatory, plus anarchist basic rights that secure that the majority cannot decide that the minority must slave for them one way or the other, or worse. Thus the case that the majority "two wolves" decide that the minority "lamb" should be dinner, or similar is avoided. The anarchist rights can be brought for the anarchist law and order system, in case of disputes.

In some cases, say, at which side on the road we should drive, right or left, simple majority > 50% is ok. In other cases general consent - a lot for, and no-one against, is necessary. In some cases 2/3 or 3/4 majority is ok.

5. As for private sector, based on markets, there is one dollar (or labor notes credit) one vote, and it is real democratic, anarchist, only if the income-distribution is significantly horizontally organized (and the economy is efficient). If the income-distribution is significally hierarchical it is economical plutarchy, not anarchy/ism

6. As for public sector, it will be organized according to 4.

H. Say, two people stranded on an island may co-operate without coercion to survive, i.e. anarchy, or act as superior vs subordinates, i.e. hierarchy, government, and more or less chaos.

The concepts and different perspectives of anarchism are defined in real terms with

- the IFA-principles, the Economic-Political map, the Oslo-convention, efficiency and fairness, libertarian human rights, etc., and
- as anarchy vs other -archies ,

Secondly, there is a separate page of the Economical-Political Map, where anarchism is one of four main quadrants, and based on socialism, i.e. the negation of economical plutarchy (capitalism), and autonomy, i.e. the negation of statism. Furthermore, the other 3 quadrants represent liberalism, based on plutarchy without statism, fascism based on plutarchy with statism, and marxism based on statism without plutarchy. On this web-page the scientific method of anarchism, the hypothetical deductive method, is also discussed and explained, as well as the history of anarchist ideas, and the updated research front on anarchism. Some mathematical anarchism related to the EP-map, i.e. The formula of anarchism, is also presented at a page.

Third, The Oslo Convention and updated news from the APT-branch of the International Anarchist Tribunal are among the pages. Information about the international Anarcoop bookshop, Anarchist University studies, IFA-IAF-AI, and other news and comments, are available by e-mail to ifa@anarchy.no . The International Journal of Anarchism may also be mentioned.

Fourth, the anarchist velvet revolution in Norway 1994 and beyond, is presented as an example of practical anarchism. The information is also based on anarchist class analysis, particularly the experiences and lessons of the Commune de Paris, the Russian revolution and the Spanish revolution...

The following introduction to the logical structure of anarchism has eleven chapters:

I. Anarchy - the origin, anarchism defined and anarchist principles.
II. Anarchist concepts and principles considered all in all - different aspects of autonomy and socialism.
III.The geometry of anarchist economic-political mapping.
IV. 4 quadrants and 16 sectors.
V. The degree of democracy and the 16 sectors.
VI. Libertarian vs authoritarian and anarchy vs chaos.
VII. The left-right and the progressive-reactionary dimensions. Anarchism vs bureaucracy and state.
VIII. The theorem of anarchism as the progressive middle in politics; social individualist anarchism - also called the third alternative, road and social form.
IX. Common vs private property rights to the means of production.
X. Anarchy vs government, hierarchy and plutarchy.
XI. Practical anarchism: Spain 1936-39 and Norway 1994 and beyond.
INTRODUCTION TO ANARCHISM

THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF ANARCHISM

I. The word anarchy origins from greek. The prefix an means negation of, as in anaerobe vs aerobe; and arch means superior, i.e. in contrast to subordinates, as in archbishop (et. f. gr. archos, archein; eng. arch, be arch; nor. erke, herske).

- Thus: Anarchy, anarchism, anarchist, etc. are alternatives to, and the opposite of, different forms of superior and subordinate positions, non economic and economically: Political/administrative rank and economic/income hierarchies broadly defined and in real terms , i.e. respectively (1) statism and (2) capitalism.

- And thus: Anarchy, anarchism, anarchist a.s.o. mean coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, i.e. horizontal organization and co-operation without coercion. This means practically or ideally, i.e. ordinary vs perfect horizontal organization respectively.

- Thus: anarchy means without government, which is different forms of vertically organized, i.e. chaotic included, economic and/or political-administrative relations among people (and not always the same as public sector).

- And thus: The different perspectives of the concept of anarchy are defined

- as an updated social scientifical resesarch front based on the methodology of natural sciences, the hypothetical deductive method, as suggested by Pjotr Kropotkin in his book "Modern Science and Anarchism" (1903-13) and confirmed on later anarchist congresses.

- as anarchy vs other -archies,

.- with the IFA-principles, the Economic-Political map, the Oslo-convention, efficiency and fairness, anarchist human rights, etc.,

Furthermore, these concepts should be considered in real terms, not formal or symbolic terms. Anarchists are interested in what de facto and in reality, are going on in society, not formal or symbolic values, government, rule and hierarchies. Symbolic and formal things and positions are only interesting to the extent they influence realities.

In the book "Modern Science and Anarchism" (1903-13) a.o.t. Peter Kropotkin declares - and gives the reason why - anarchism is a sociological science broadly defined, including political economy, etc., and is defined as an updated research front of libertarian social scientifical research, using the methods of modern natural sciences, i.e. mathematical relations, statistics etc. Anarchism: "Its method of investigation is that of the exact natural sciences, by which every scientific conclusion must be verified... (using) ... the concrete language of natural sciences, -- so we proceed in dealing with the facts of social life... not by the dialectic method, but by the natural-scientific method, the method of induction and deduction... We had better give up using the sonorous words which only conceal the superficiality of our semi-learning. In their time the use of these words was, perhaps, unavoidable -- their application could never have been useful. No struggle can be successful if it is an unconscious one, and if it does not render itself a clear and concise account of its aim...

Perhaps we are wrong and they are right. But in order to ascertain who is right, it will not do either to quote this and that authority, to refer to Hegel's trilogy, or to argue by the "dialectic method." This question can be settled only by taking up the study of economic relations as facts of natural science. Whithout entering into further discussion of the principles of Anarchism and the Anarchist programme of action, enough has been said, I think, to show the place of Anarchism among the modern sociological sciences. Anarchism is an attempt to apply to the study of the human institutions the generalizations gained by means of the natural-scientific inductive method;and an attempt to foresee the future steps of mankind on the road to liberty, equality, and fraternity, with a view to realizing the greatest sum of happiness for every unit of human society. In Anarchism there is no room for those pseudo-scientific laws with which the German metaphysicians of the twenties and thirties had to consent themselves. Anarchism does not recognize any method other than the natural-scientific.

This method it applies to all the so-called humanitarian sciences, and, availing itself of this method as well as of all researches which have recently been called forth by it, Anarchism endeavors to reconstruct all the sciences dealing with man, and to revise every current idea of right, justice, etc., on the bases which have served for the revision of all natural sciences. Whether or not Anarchism is right in its conclusions, will be shown by a scientific criticism of its bases and by the practical life of the future. But in one thing it is absolutely right: in that it has included the study of social institutions in the sphere of natural-scientific investigations; has forever parted company with metaphysics; and makes use of the method by which modern natural science .... were developed. Owing to this, the very mistakes which Anarchism may have made in its researches can be detected the more readily. But its conclusions can be verified only by the same natural-scientific, inductive-deductive method by which every science and every scientific concept of the universe is created."

This basic principle of Anarchism, per definition or seen as a methodological working hypothesis, is still valid and confirmed on all later anarchist congresses discussing this question in a scientifical, matter of fact, way. This libertarian, scientifical, way of thinking and research, praxeology i.e. human action research included, is the way to settle disputes, make action programs based on the anarchist principles in general, and develope anarchism further, - it is the basic methodological framework of anarchism and the Anarchist International. The other basic principles of anarchism are presented and discussed at (Click on) Economical-Political Map and via links of this web-site.

The most basic principles related directly to Kropotkin's definition of anarchy, anarchism and social sciences in general, as an updated research front, are the following:

( 1 ) Anarchies vs archies. Societal, political-economical systems, including organizations and political tendencies; economical, political or politological, sociological and anthropological systems, may be anarchies or the negation of anarchy = archies. Thus the total amount of societal systems S = anarchy + archy <=> S = anarchies + archies. Anarchy = anarchism, with respect to societal systems broadly defined.

( 2 ) Archies may be expressed as x-archy, where x is one of a set of systems characteristics of archs, say, ( mon, olig, poly, plut, ochl, matri, patri, hier, etc; but not an) or a logical union of several x-es reflecting different forms of archy/archies as opposed to anarchy/anarchies, i.e. the negation of x-archy = archies.

( 3 ) Possibility of anarchy. It is assumed that these terms reflect concepts that may be defined in a way that anarchy is not impossible in reality, i.e. the amount of anarchies in real terms is greater than the empty set, zero. Anarchy is matter of degree = tendency. Anarchy, i.e. an anarchist social system, may have 100% or a significant degree of anarchy, i.e. less than 100%, but above a given significant level.

( 4 ) Significant anarchist tendency = anarchy. As anarchy is the negation of x-archy it may not have any amount, i.e. significant tendency towards or of x-archy. Thus anarchy may have zero or insignificant tendency towards or of archies. The significant level is defined on aggregated dimensions.

( 5 ) Dimensions: a) There are an economic dimension and a non-economical dimension in societal, political-economical, system context: One aggregated economical, and one aggregated non-economical dimension, i.e. political/administrative rank broadly defined. Empirically this reflect economic remuneration and political/administrative rank of organizational social systems' maps broadly defined. b) The economical dimension measures socialism vs capitalism, where the degree of capitalism is the tendency towards or of economical archies (x-archy) and the non-economical dimension is autonomy vs statism, where the degree of statism is the tendency towards or of political/administrative archies. c) Along these two dimensions different forms of anarchy and archies (x-archy), are measured and mapped. The degree of socialism = 100% - degree of capitalism. The degree of autonomy = 100% - degree of statism. Socialism and autonomy are defined as insignificant degree of capitalism and statism respectively, and capitalism and statism is defined as significant degree of statism and capitalism respectively. Thus, socialism and autonomy are defined as significant degree of socialism and autonomy, and capitalism and statism are defined as insignificant degree of socialism and autonomy respectively .

( 6 ) Anarchism and other -isms. Anarchy is the negation of archies related to the economical and political/administrative dimensions, i.e. socialism and autonomy. Capitalism is economical plutarchy, including hierarchy and may be other x-archies broadly defined in an economical context. Statism is political/administrative monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy, ochlarchy (mob rule), the archies of rivaling states within the state, i.e. chaos; and the tyranny of structurelessness i.e. disorganization, and/or political plutarchy, and it may also include other archies, say, being matriarchy, if the main rulers are women. Furthermore

1. Statism without (economical) plutarchy/capitalism = marxism ((state-) communism, state-socialism);

2. statism plus (economical) plutarchy/capitalism = fascism (populism included);

3. socialism without statism = anarchy = anarchism;

4. (economical) plutarchy/capitalism without statism = liberalism.

Libertarian (in the meaning of 'libertaire' (french) or 'libertær' (nordic)), and real democracy (realdemocracy) are synonyms for anarchist, anarchy and anarchism. Anarchy and anarchism are sometimes called the third alternative, social form, or way. (This must not be mixed up with Tony Blair's non-anarchist "third way = neue mitte" of Gerard Schröder, or Adolf Hitler's "dritte reich".)

Archies (x-archy) are defined equal to authority and State/government in societal context. Thus authority and State/government in societal context are liberalism, fascism and marxism broadly defined. And thus anarchy and anarchism are systems without any authority and State/government, in societal context, i.e. economical and political/administrative, also called political broadly defined. These societal, political concepts of state/government and authority, must not be mixed up with statism and the authoritarian degree, as defined related to economical-political mapping. Furthermore insignificant tendency towards or of State/government is not State/government, and insignificant tendency towards or of authority is not authority, but anarchy and anarchism.

( 7 ) Significant level at 50%. Anarchy has less than 50% tendencies towards or of archies, x-archy, aggregated on the two relevant dimensions, on a scale from 0 => 100%. Thus more than 50 % tendencies towards or of archies, x-archy of relevant x-es, aggregated on the economic and/or the non-economic dimension, are not anarchist, not anarchy. Thus anarchy has 100-50% degree of socialism and 100-50% degree of autonomy, and archies have less of one or both, i.e. more than 50% degree of capitalism and/or statism.

( 8 ) Anarchy defined: Anarchy and anarchism mean system, coordination and management without ruling and rulers (not without rules). i.e. co-operation without repression, tyranny and slavery, and archies mean system, management and coordination with ruling and rulers, i.e. the negation of anarchy and anarchism. From greek 'an', as in anaerobe vs aerobe, i.e. keeping what is essential of the object, (in this case system, management, coordination) but without the special characteristic mentioned in the suffix, i.e. 'arch', ruling and ruler(s), from archos (ruler) and archein (ruling, being first).

( 9 ) Not totalitarian: The question of anarchism and anarchy vs archies is limited to the societal political-economical systems' management and coordination. What is interesting in anarchist perspective is whether or not the economical-political system has authority, i.e. ruling and rulers - or not, with respect to the societal managent and coordination. Other uses of the words anarchy vs x-archy and anarchies vs archies are principally irrelevant to anarchism, and should in general be avoided.

(10) Not valid concepts. Concepts as anarcho-archy = anarchy-x-archy in any form, meaning system, coordination and management "both with and without ruling and rulers" at the same time and place, are not allowed for, because such concepts are contradictive, and thus are nonsens and not logical and scientifical, because this is in reality not possible, and anarchism and anarchy is about realities. Thus anarcho-marxism, anarcho-capitalism = anarchy-plutarchy, anarcho-ochlarchy, anarcho-chaos, anarchy = chaos, anarchism = anarchy = minimal state or libertarian state, state in general, anarcho-statism, anarcho-authority, etc, are nonsens and not valid concepts, but confused Orwellian "1984" "newspeak" that is not anarchist, but authoritarian, i.e. chaotic, and should be avoided.

In addition to these axioms and most basic principles of social sciences, anarchy and anarchism and other -isms, other principles of policy defining authority more precise and concrete in a societal context, structural and functional, performance included, must be introduced, and the significant level of anarchy vs archies must be calibrated for applied and practical research and analysis. This is a.o.t. discussed on the file (click on:) Economical-Political Map , search for 'calibration' and 'principles'.

1. The economical dimension - the percentage degree of socialism, i.e. the degree of economical freedom, solidarity and equality, etc. - in short economical democracy vs plutarchy, significant economical hierarchy (capitalism - theft, broadly defined). Democracy means, quite simplified, "one person - one vote", i.e. equal votes for all in the elections, also direct democracy. Markets however mean "one dollar (or other means of payment) - one vote". Thus markets are only economically democratic, i.e. not plutarchical, as far as money or other means of payment, among other things, the purchasing powers, are significant equally distributed according to anarchist principles. And thus, markets are probably only anarchistical, i.e. real democratic, if they are publicly regulated in a libertarian way, with free contracts - not slave contracts, etc. (See also point 3.)

2. The political/adminstrative dimension - the percentage degree of autonomy, i.e. the degree of political/administrative freedom, solidarity and equality, etc. in short political/administrative democracy vs vertically organized political/administrative systems, i.e. statism broadly defined, significant political/administrative hierarchy , monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy and/or ochlarchy (mob rule) included, in both public and private sector.

3. If a economical plutarchy, i.e. the relatively rich, take over significant political/administrative hierarchy in public and private sector, a political/adminstrative plutarchy is introduced. This is a form of populism/fascism. If significant political/administrative hierarchy, say, a military junta, take over significant economical hierarchy in public and private sector, another form of fascism/populism is established. Any combination of statism combined with plutarchy (capitalism) is a form of fascism. The statism may take the form of monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy and ochlarchy (mob rule, mafia, chaos, no human rights, no real law and order, real lawlessness, etc.) included, and principally also be based on political/administrative plutarchy, or combinations, in both public and private sector.

4. The IFA-principles, the Economic-Political map, the Oslo-convention, efficiency and fairness, anarchist human rights, etc.,

The basic principles of anarchism are: The negation of authority and all of its power, hierarchies and juridical laws. Freedom, equality, solidarity, social justice, free contract, free initiative, atheism, antimilitarism, internationalism, decentralism, autonomy and federalism, self management and libertarian communalism - from each according to ability - to each according to needs. The aim is more anarchist systems, i.e. a movement towards more human rights and the best of the ideals of the French revolution, fairness and efficiency, less rank and income differences. These concepts and principles should be considered all in all, not partially, and reflect anarchist constitution .

II.They reflect different aspects of autonomy broadly defined, and socialism, as negations of statism and capitalism respectively. The basic social dimensions, (1) statism vs autonomy and (2) capitalism vs socialism, have many aspects. Different perspectives, the feminist, environmental, intergenerational, subordinate positions due to lack of structure or organization, people on their knees or flat on their face because of drugs, etc.; are included in the concepts of rank an income broadly defined.

Thus: Freedom, i.e. free people, freedom without damaging the freedom of other people, i.e not to be a slave, and not to make others slave for you, but live by own work. Federalism without autonomy is not anarchist. Social justice means a) anarchist law and court systems, compatible with the negation of hierarchy, etc., i.e. alternatives to authoritarian juridical laws; and b) antimilitarist corps broadly defined, sufficiently strong to keep order and keep up the balances of strength, as well as stop militarism, intra- and internationally. Generally speaking, antimilitarism is not pacifism...

Religious and guru organizations are principally considered as special forms of (political)/administrative rank and economic hierarchies, i.e. mainly based on psychological power & ruling techniques, and non atheist ideology. Anarchism is not, and should not, be expanded towards a totalitarian system. Other kinds of hierarchies, say, in sports, games, etc., are, as long as it is fair play, mainly not relevant from anarchist perspective. Scientific validity is not a political/administrative rank question, and authority must not be mixed up with competence. This should not be forgotten in education & research, and economics & politics, broadly defined.

Practically speaking anarchy, anarchism, etc. are systems and human relations with relatively small economic and rank differences, i.e. more horizontally than vertically organized. However, the anarchist ideal at the top of the economic political map, i.e. with no such hierarchies at all, should not be forgotten as a leading star and standard for economic and political/administrative navigation. Say, two people stranded on an island, may co-operate without coercion to survive, i.e. anarchy, or act as superior vs subordinate, i.e. hierarchy and more or less chaos... To be anarch, or to be an arch, that is the question... "An arch" in this context may be interpreted as both a ruler or to be ruled, bow, i.e. an arch in the Latin meaning. Elsewhere we stick to the Greek version.

III. The geometry of economic political mapping, i.e. the EP-map, is illustrated on fig.1 (click on EP-map). Assuming two basic orthogonal dimensions, the political, i.e. statism vs autonomism, and the economical, i.e. socialism vs capitalism, we identify four main economic-political forms. Thus, there are two basic dimensions for a system's coordinates:

(1) A system may be wholly [1 = 100%]autonomous, wholly statist, or somewhere between;

(2) A system may be wholly [1 = 100%] socialist, wholly capitalist, or somewhere between.

The four corners: A wholly autonomous and socialist systemis wholly anarchist, and located at the top of the map. A wholly statist and capitalist system is wholly authoritarian [fascist], i.e. located at the bottom of the map, where the authoritarian degree, the relative distance from the top of the map, is 100%.

A wholly autonomous & capitalist system is located at the right corner [liberalism]. A wholly statist & socialist system is located at the left corner [marxism]. The four edges: Wholly autonomous systems are located at the upper right edge, i.e. the autonomous edge. Wholly statist systems are located at the bottom left edge, i.e. the statist edge. Wholly socialist systems are located at the upper left edge, i.e. the socialist edge. Wholly capitalist systems are located at the bottom right edge, i.e. the capitalist edge. A wholly statist system is zero autonomous, and vice versa. A wholly capitalist system is zero socialist, and vice versa.

IV. The two borderlines and four quadrants: Half [1/2 = 50%] autonomous systems are located at the autonomous borderline, i.e. the parallel in the middle between the autonomous edge and the statist edge. All systems between the autonomous borderline and the autonomous edge are autonomous, i.e. significant. Other systems are statist. Half [1/2 = 50%] socialist systems are located at the socialist borderline, i.e. the parallel in the middle between the socialist edge and the capitalist. Systems between the socialist borderline and the socialist edge are socialist, i.e. significant. Other systems are capitalist.

The two borderlines divide the map in four quadrants:
(Top) Anarchism, i.e. socialism and autonomy;
(Left) Marxism, i.e. socialism and statism;
(Right) Liberalism, i.e. capitalism and autonomy;
(Bottom) Fascism, i.e. capitalism and statism.

The four quadrants are divided in four sectors each, i.e. each of the main economic-political forms, 1. anarchism, 2. marxism, 3. fascism and 4. liberalism, illustrated by the four quadrants on the map, are divided into four subsections, called sectors, along the same dimensions.

V. The map indicates the degree of democracy concerning both the economic and the political/administrative dimension, taking into account the 16 subsections of the four main quadrants:

1. The anarchist ideal at the top of the map, with individualist anarchism to the right, collectivist anarchism to the left, and social individualist anarchism close to the middle of the map.

2. Marxist semi-libertarian collectivism close to the anarchist left; social democracy close to the middle, and the more statist, authoritarian and chaotic left-socialism and leninism (State communism) on the left and down.

3. Liberalism, i.e. social liberalism is close to the middle of the map, and semilibertarian individualism is close to the right corner of the anarchist quadrant. Conservatism, i.e. not social or liberal, and the extreme right are authoritarian and more or less chaotic.

4. Left, right and ultra fascism (nazism and other very chaotic tendencies) are found at the bottom of the map, with populism close to the middle. The populist sector (as the others) may be divided in a left , general, and right tendency.

VI. Another important dimension is the libertarian vs authoritarian, the 'altitude' of the map stated by the authoritarian degree, AUT%. Furthermore 100% - AUT% gives the libertarian or anarchist degree. Assuming that the degree of statism and capitalism contributes symmetrically to the authoritarian degree, the contour intervals are indicated by the distance from the anarchist ideal, the top of the map. The semi-libertarian and libertarian area of the map, are above the circle segment of 50% authoritarian degree. The area below 50% authoritarian degree is significantly authoritarian.

Anarchy is the highest form of social order, thus the erroneous statement "chaotic anarchy" is similar to "chaotic order" = "chaotic non-chaotic", i.e. a contradiction and meaningless. A system or society cannot at the same time be both anarchist and non-anarchist, i.e. chaotic. If a system is chaotic, it is not found in the anarchist quadrant on the EP map, but left, down or right. Anarchist policy is typically consistent, flexible, but not opportunistic, related to principles; while authoritarian policy typically is chaotic, opportunistic, conglomerate aggregates. Economic-political power corrupts, and total power corrupts absolutly. Conflicts among "states within the state", and olig- and other archical corruption, repression, coercion and other chaotic behavior, i.e. mutually included, are well known. Chaos is typically found at more than 67% authoritarian degree below zero, i.e. basically totalitarian systems. Don't forget the Oslo convention about anarchy vs chaos.

The degree of anarchy is 100% minus the authoritarian degree, i.e. within the anarchist quadrant. Systems with authoritarian degree less than 50% outside the anarchist quadrant are semi-libertarian, i.e. not significant authoritarian, but not anarchist. Thus, mixed concepts as anarcho- capitalism, liberalism, marxism, populism, statism, chaos, authoritarian, totalitarian, etc. are all contradictions, inconsistent and meaningless. A system's coordinates cannot practically be located in two or more quadrants of the map at the same time. A system's coordinates reflect the system seen all in all, i.e. what is significant.

An example of a chaotic, and thus not valid proposed "definition" of anarchy, is the following: "Anarchy means without ruler or any form of centralized, coercive government." In real terms this definition excludes monarchy, but does not rule out decentralized forms of plutarchy (capitalism), oligarchy (majority or minority dictatorship), hierarchy (significant rank or economic differences, or government by guru/priests), polyarchy (government by many persons, of whatever order or class; opposed to monarchy) and ochlarchy (mob rule) from the concept of anarchy, and thus is contradictive. A definition of anarchy which does not exclude plutarchy, hierarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy and ochlarchy in a proper way, is of course not valid, and thus wrong similar to Orwellian "1984-newspeak" or a definition of 2+2 = 3 or 4 or 5, which does contradict reality for all known things as we know them, because no thing doubles itself or disappears by itself arbitrary at the same moment, in reality. And thus 2+2=4, and nothing else. 2+2=3 or 2+2=5 is wrong. Magic and contradictions are fraud or virtual reality, not reality, as far as we know it today. By the way, so called chaos-theory is wrongly called so, because it is not really chaotic and contradictive, but express a form of natural order and is quite simple to explain mathematically... although somewhat more complicated than the formula of anarchy.

VII. The left-right dimension of the economic-political map goes from 100% statism and socialism on the left wing, to 100% capitalism and autonomism on the right. The extreme left and right sectors (subsystems) are usually associated with a typical ideal state-socialist planning system (brown&red statism) and a typical perfect competitive market system (autonomous plutarchy, blue&brown capitalism) respectively. The progressive-reactionary dimension is orthogonal to the left-right dimension. This axis goes from 100% socialism and autonomism as the most progressive, to 100% capitalism and statism as the most reactionary.

Society is public sector plus private sector. This mix is a question of convenience, and public sector should not be mixed up with the concept of government, i.e. vertically organized. Grassroots public service workers are not a part of the bureaucracy/government. The two sectors may be more or less horizontally vs vertically organized, i.e. relatively small vs large rank and/or income differences. There are an economic dimension, i.e. income (remuneration), and a non economic dimension, constituting rank. Although income often follows rank, it is not necessarily so. Economic political systems may be based on:

1. Small income differences [= socialism] vs large [= capitalism]; and

2. Small rank differences [=autonomy] vs large [= statism].

Thus, there are four main forms of systems and 16 subsystems.

Anarchists have discussed and suggested ideals and principles as a leading star (top of map), and anarchism is economic-political systems more socialist than capitalist, and more autonomous than statist, i.e. relatively small income and rank differences. The superiors in rank and/or income in private and public sectors are for simplicity called the bureaucracy. The people are the total population minus the bureaucracy.

The state, defined as a social concept, that's just the bureaucracy. However, the political/administrative state, i.e. the part of the bureaucracy with subordinates in rank in their occupation (in private and public sector). This is the typical concept of state in anarchist science. Differences in rank constitute the degree of statism, see EP map. In this case the economic dimension of the hierarchy is left to the concept of capitalism. Furthermore, this anarchist concept of state, the "ranks above the grassroots", i.e. the system with superior and subordinate positions, must not be mixed up with the nonscientific "1984-newspeak" concept, interpreted as both: 1. the country as a whole, which usually is a much too wide concept, and 2. the often too narrow view of the state as the federal or central public administration. By the way, any land needs coordination on country level, in some cases, say, by referendum.

VIII. The media discuss political mapping, but sometimes a bit confused, because of lack of logical, scientific structure. This may reflect a lack of structure in political science, due to an empirical, and sometimes party political, approach. Anarchist analysis and research are based on a nomothetical approach as conceptual framework, and thus a more logical structure, illustrated by the economic political map.

To understand the nature of economic political systems, theoretical and empirical, the following is an important theorem:

(1) If a system moves rightwards from the upper, i.e. advanced, part of the socialdemocrat sector, the system reaches the anarchist sector of social individualism.
(2) And if it moves sufficient further right, it reaches the social liberal sector.

(3) Thus, such an anarchist system is found in the middle between an advanced social democrat system and an advanced social liberal.

Anarchism is typically found in the middle, and not, say far left or right. The above mentioned type of anarchy is not the ideal form with a degree of anarchy = 100%, at the top of the map. But still it is significant. To put it simple, anarchism is freedom without harming other peoples freedom, not freedom at others expense, economic and political broadly defined.

This resolution should also be seen in the context of earlier AIT & ANORG-IFA material. A further movement upwards on the EP map, i.e. 1) even more socialism & autonomy, coordinate & self managed people, efficiency & fairness; and 2) less income & rank differences, subordinate & superior positions; is requested and strongly recommended.

IX. The idea of socialism vs capitalism as "common vs private property right to the means of production" must not be superficially interpreted. Private property right to the means of production means exclusive rights to dominate others economically, a system with large income differences, based on privileges or so called free, capitalist markets, i.e. plutarchy, and thus not anarchy or anarchist. Common or collective property right to the means of production is the negation of this, i.e. a system with small income differences.

Thus, common property right to the means of production must not be mixed up with public sector, since it may include cooperatives, markets, private possession, self employed and private sector enterprise in general, i.e. if regulated compatible with small income differences. On the other hand, public sector may sometimes have a rich bureaucracy with exclusive rights as mentioned above, and thus be capitalist. A similar notion is valid for the degree of statism vs autonomy. The most important is the over all economic political balances of strength, not the private vs public sector & plan vs market mix.

X. Anarchy means without government, which is anything that is not anarchy related to the economic political map, i.e. marxism, liberalism or fascism: Different forms of vertically organized, i.e. chaotic included, economic and/or political-administrative relations among people. Anarchist systems and human relations are found in the main quadrant of anarchism on the map, and different forms of government systems are located in the main quadrants of marxism, fascism or liberalism.

Anarchist systems may be more or less close to the anarchist ideal at the top of the map, i.e. without government at 100% or somewhat less degree of anarchy, i.e. within the anarchist quadrant. Furthermore, it reflects being without hierarchy in the meaning of large rank and/or income differences, practically or ideally, i.e. ordinary vs perfect horizontal organization respectively.

The economic and the political/administrative coordinate should ideally be estimated in the best way, reflecting all relevant facts, aggregated in the most relevant way: 1. An estimate of economic democracy vs capitalism (economical plutarchy), and 2. political/administrative democracy vs statism.

XI. Practical examples of anarchist societies:

As examples of relatively anarchist societies on a larger scale, the situation in a part of Spain during the civil war 1936-39 (anarcho-syndicalism, collectivist anarchism), and in Norway after 1994 (social individualist anarchism, the third alternative and social form), may be mentioned. Here we will concentrate on the modern times in stead of worshipping the past. The history of the Anarchy of Norway with updated news and comments is presented at (click): Anarchism in Norway .
Jørgen V.
 


Re: INTRODUCTION TO ANARCHISM

Postby Zazaban » Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:11 pm

You're full of shit.
"I am but too conscious of the fact that we are born in an age when only the dull are treated seriously, and I live in terror of not being misunderstood."
~ Oscar Wilde
"Greed in its fullest sense is the only possible basis of communist society."
~ The Right to Be Greedy
User avatar
Zazaban
Zen Master
 
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 6:00 pm


Re: INTRODUCTION TO ANARCHISM

Postby Jørgen V. » Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:18 pm

Zazaban wrote:You're full of shit.

Hello Zazaban. I see you have brought your ochlarchist behavior here too. Incentives such as 'full of shit' are not sound, matter of fact arguments. Try to be more matter of fact.
Jørgen V.
 


Re: INTRODUCTION TO ANARCHISM

Postby Jørgen V. » Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:40 am

The Formula of Anarchism

(1) DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))2+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))2]/2) 1/2]%

This is the general Formula of Anarchism related to the Economic-Political map. The degree of anarchy*) is defined for the Quadrant of Anarchism on the EP-map. In general the libertarian degree is used, i.e. also valid outside the anarchist quadrant **):

(2) LIBERTARIAN DEGREE = 100[1-([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))2+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))2]/2) 1/2]%

In general, for the whole map ***), the authoritarian degree is used, i.e. 100% minus the libertarian degree.

AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = 100% - 100[1-([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))2+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))2]/2) 1/2]% <=>

AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = 100[ 1 - [1-([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))2+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))2]/2) 1/2]]% <=>

(3) AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = 100[([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))2+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))2]/2) 1/2]%

(4) The degree of autonomy is 100% - the degree of statism and the degree of socialism is 100% - the degree of capitalism

From (3) and (4) we get:

(5) AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = 100[([(STATISM%/100)2+(CAPITALISM%/100)2]/2) 1/2]%

If the authoritarian degree is not significant, i.e. less than 50%, outside the anarchist quadrant, the term semilibertarian system is used.

Systems within the anarchist quadrant have the degree of both autonomy and socialism > 50%, the liberalist quadrant autonomy and capitalism > 50%, the marxist statism and socialism > 50% and the fascist statism and capitalism > 50% .

If the degree of capitalism is significant, > 50%, the system is economical plutarchy.

The degree of statism is connected to political/administrative hierarchy, that may be real monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy, ochlarchy, and/or political/administrative plutarchy, i.e. if the degree of statism is significant, > 50%.

Very significant capitalism and/or statism also include the archies of rivaling "states within the state" (chaos), the tyranny of structurelessness (disorganization) and ochlarchy broadly defined.

If a system has insignificant degree of statism and capitalism, both < 50%, i.e. the degree of both autonomy and socialism are significant > 50%, and the system is anarchy and anarchism.

The area of the map, i.e. 100%, is divided of course with 25% for each of the main quadrants, marxism, anarchism, liberalism, and fascism. Furthermore the area of the systems with the least 1/3 authoritarian degree is Pi(100/18) = ca 17.4 % at the top of the map.

The anarchist and semilibertarian systems to the left and right, i.e. from above the middlepoint and less than 50% authoritarian degree cover an area of Pi(100/8) = ca 39,25 %. The democratic systems all in all, i.e. less than ca 67% authoritarian degree, cover an area of Pi(200/9) = ca 69.78 %. Of this the area between about 43,75 % and 66,67 % authoritarian degree is significant parliamentarian democracy, and the area with less than 43,75% authoritarian degree is significant direct democracy. The democracy, parliamentarian or direct, may be real, i.e. libertarian and anarchist - within the anarchist quadrant of the economical political map, or not, i.e. semilibertarian or authoritarian semi- or pseudo-democracy - outside the anarchist quadrant.

Thus the ultra-authoritarian, totalitarian systems, with more than ca 67% (i.e. 66.6 666... %) authoritarian degree cover 100 - Pi(200/9) = ca 30.22 %. Thus, the systems with more than 666 per thousand authoritarian degree have a lot more room, ca 30% of the map, than the most anarchist systems with ca 17 % of the area. This may indicate it is much more easy to create hell than heaven on earth.

Graphical representations of the formulas are found at, click on: http://www.anarchy.no/anarcho4.html and http://www.anarchy.no/a_e_p_m.html

As anarchy and anarchism are equal to real democracy we may also write the formulas in the following way:

REALDEMOCRACY

A brief note on the political ecocirc equations between the degree of realdemocracy, socialism vs capitalism and statism vs autonomy, say, to get more logical answers in IIFOR's investigations about democracy.

(1) DEGREE OF REALDEMOCRACY = 100[1-([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))2+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))2]/2) 1/2]%

This is the general Formula of realdemocracy. The degree of realdemocracy is defined for significant societal democracy, i.e. both more than a) 50% economical democracy, socialism, on a scale from 0% to 100%, i.e. significant socialism, and b) 50% political/administrative democracy, autonomy, on a scale from 0% to 100%, i.e. significant autonomy.

All realdemocratic systems are found within the Quadrant of realdemocracy defined by [ 50% to 100% AUTONOMY; 50% to 100% SOCIALISM].

In general the libertarian degree is used, i.e. also valid outside the realdemocratic quadrant:

(2) LIBERTARIAN DEGREE = 100[1-([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))2+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))2]/2) 1/2]%

In general, for the whole map, the authoritarian degree is used, i.e. 100% minus the libertarian degree.

AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = 100% - 100[1-([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))2+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))2]/2) 1/2]% <=>

AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = 100[ 1 - [1-([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))2+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))2]/2) 1/2]]% <=>

(3) AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = 100[([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))2+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))2]/2) 1/2]%

(4) The degree of autonomy is 100% - the degree of statism and the degree of socialism is 100% - the degree of capitalism

From (3) and (4) we get:

(5) AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = 100[([(STATISM%/100)2+(CAPITALISM%/100)2]/2) 1/2]%

If the authoritarian degree is not significant, i.e. less than 50%, outside the realdemocratic quadrant, the term semilibertarian system is used.

Systems within the realdemocratic quadrant have as mentioned the degree of both autonomy and socialism > 50%. Similar the systems within the liberalist quadrant have the degree of both autonomy and capitalism > 50%, the marxist quadrant statism and socialism > 50% and the fascist quadrant statism and capitalism > 50%.

If the degree of capitalism is significant, > 50%, the system is economical plutarchy.

The degree of statism is connected to political/administrative hierarchy, that may be real monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy, ochlarchy, and/or political/administrative plutarchy, i.e. if the degree of statism is significant, > 50%.

Very significant capitalism and/or statism also include the archies of rivaling "states within the state" (chaos), the tyranny of structurelessness (disorganization) and ochlarchy broadly defined.

If a system has insignificant degree of statism and capitalism, both < 50%, i.e. the degree of both autonomy and socialism are significant > 50%, and the system is realdemocracy.

The four quadrants all together define a large quadrant, called the economical political systems' world map, accounting for all possible societal systems.The area of the Economical Political map, i.e. 100%, is divided of course with 25% for each of the main quadrants, marxism, realdemocracy, liberalism, and fascism. Furthermore the area of the systems with the least 1/3 authoritarian degree is Pi(100/18) = ca 17.4 % at the top of the map.

The realdemocratic, also called libertarian systems, and the semilibertarian systems to the left and right, i.e. from above the middlepoint of the Economical Political map defined as both 50% autonomy, statism, socialism and capitalism and less than 50% authoritarian degree, cover an area of Pi(100/8) = ca 39,25 %. The democratic systems all in all, i.e. less than ca 67% authoritarian degree, cover an area of Pi(200/9) = ca 69.78 %. Of this the area between about 43,75 % and 66,67 % authoritarian degree is significant parliamentarian democracy, and the area with less than 43,75% authoritarian degree is significant direct democracy. The democracy, parliamentarian or direct, may be real, i.e. libertarian and realdemocratic - within the realdemocratic quadrant of the economical political map, or not, i.e. semilibertarian or authoritarian semi- or pseudo-democracy - outside the realdemocratic quadrant.

Thus the ultra-authoritarian, totalitarian systems, with more than ca 666 per thousand = ca 67% (i.e. 66.6 666... %) authoritarian degree cover 100 - Pi(200/9) = ca 30.22 %. Thus, the systems with more than 666 per thousand authoritarian degree have a lot more room, ca 30% of the map, than the most realdemocratic systems with ca 17 % of the area. This may indicate it is much more easy to create hell than heaven on earth.

The realdemocratic, libertarian systems are sometimes referred to as the third alternative, mentioned by Ragnar Frisch in several articles. As the word pseudo-democracy is a bit derogative, the more neutral word semi-democracy may sometimes be used as a synonym. However as pseudo-democracy is not real-democracy, the word pseudo-democracy is probably quite correct.

Practical examples:

The Norwegian system's estimated coordinates after the EU-referendum in 1994 and in the following years were ca 55% socialism and ca 52% autonomy, i.e. significant within the Quadrant of Anarchism. Thus, the degree of anarchy is defined, we use the formula (1), and it is calculated in the following way:

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([(1-(52 %/100))2+(1-(55%/100)) 2]/2)1/2]%

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([(1-0.52)2+(1-0.55) 2]/2)1/2]%

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([(0.48)2+(0.45)2]/2)1/2]%

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([0.2304+0.2025]/2)1/2]%

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-(0.21645)1/2]%

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-0.465241872] = 100[0.534758127] = ca 53%

Thus, as mentioned, the degree of anarchy for the Norwegian system in 1994/95 was about 53%. This is significant anarchist, however far from the ideal ca 100% anarchy at the top of the EP-map. The form of horizontal organization is ordinary, not perfect, i.e. not completely, but practically without superiors and subordinates. Thus, there are tendencies of economic and political/administrative subordinate and superior positions, i.e. a bureaucratic, authoritarian tendency, however not significant. The authoritarian degree was about 47%.

The coordinates of the Norwegian economical political system anno 2002 were ca 54,7% socialism and ca 53,5% autonomy, i.e. also significant within the Quadrant of Anarchism. Thus, the degree of anarchy is defined, we use the formula (1), and it is calculated in the following way:

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([ (1-(53,5/100))2 + (1-(54,7/100))2]/2)1/2]%

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([(0,465)2+ (0.453)2]/2)1/2 ]% =

DEGREE OF ANARCHY =100[1-([0,216225 + 0.205209]/2)1/2 ]% =

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([0,421434]/2)1/2]%

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-(0,210717)1/2 ]% =

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1 - 0.4590392] = 100[0,540960786] = ca 54 %

The authoritarian degree was 100% - ca 54% = ca 46%

In 2007, after a slight center left shift of the system since 2005, the coordinates were ca 55% socialism and ca 53,2% autonomy. Thus the degree of anarchy is still defined, we use the formula (1), and it is calculated in the following way:

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([ (1-(53,2/100))2 + (1-(55/100))2]/2)1/2]%

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([(0,468)2+ (0.45)2]/2)1/2 ]% =

DEGREE OF ANARCHY =100[1-([0,219024 + 0.2025]/2)1/2 ]% =

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([0,421524]/2)1/2]%

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-(0,210762)1/2 ]% =

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1 - 0.459088226] = 100[0,540911773] = ca 54 %

The authoritarian degree is 100% - ca 54% = ca 46%.

*) The absolutist trap. About degrees of anarchism/anarchy and classical anarchists: Some people mean that anarchy must be absolute, 100%, or it is not anarchy at all. This absolutistic approach goes very much against the classical anarchists that write about mixed economical-political systems, and degrees of anarchy/anarchism. This approach is called the absolutist trap, because it exludes anarchies of low degree, holding that the term anarchy should only be used for the anarchist ideal with no coercion and no authoritarian tendencies at all. In fact the classical anarchists mean 100% ideal anarchy/anarchism is quite unrealistic, and thus absolutists are utopian, unrealistic dreamers, and not anarchists. Anarchism is above all a realistic concept. Realistically seen the anarchist ideal, 100% degree of anarchy, can only be seen as a very long term aim, that can be reached only asymptotically as times go by, not today or in the short run. Thus the classical anarchists are fully in line with the Anarchist International and IIFOR, The International Institute for Organization Research, http://www.anarchy.no/iifor.html , that operate with degrees of anarchism, see also "The economical-political map" at http://www.anarchy.no/a_e_p_m.html . It must be mentioned that the quadrant of anarchism on the map stretches itself from the ideal at 100% anarchy degree all the way down to the middle-point of the map, with degree of anarchism at 50% and authoritarian degree at 50%, i.e. anarchies of low degree. The authoritarian tendencies of anarchies of low degree, from 40% to 50% authoritarian degree (and thus 50% to 60% anarchy degree) also include some coercive tendencies, but not significant. What if a society is 1 % from the anarchist ideal, i.e. 99% degree of anarchy? The absolutist would call it archy/government/state/authoritarian, anarchists however correctly call it anarchy with 1% authoritarian degree, i.e. insignificant. A society with 1% authoritarian degree, has a small tendency towards government, but it has in reality no government. In general societies with just an insignificant tendency towards government, are not governmental/state societies, but anarchies, of different degrees. Quoting Proudhon, Kropotkin, Malatesta and Bjørneboe on degrees of anarchy/anarchism:

"[Anarchy] ... the ideal of human government... centuries will pass before that ideal is attained, but our law is to go in that direction, to grow unceasingly nearer to that end, and thus I would uphold the principle of federation. [2] ...it is unlikely that all traces of government or authority will disappear... [3] By the word [anarchy] I wanted to indicate the extreme limit of political progress. Anarchy is... a form of government or constitution in which public and private consciousness, formed through the development of science and law, is alone sufficient to maintain order and guarantee all liberties... The institutions of the police, preventative and repressive methods officialdom, taxation etc., are reduced to a minimum... monarchy and intensive centralization disappear, to be replaced by federal institutions and a pattern of life based upon the commune. [4] Since the two principles, Authority and Liberty, which underlie all forms organized society, are on the one hand contrary to each other, in a perpetual state of conflict, and on the other can neither eliminate each other nor be resolved, some kind of compromise between the two is necessary. Whatever the system favored, whether it be monarchical, democratic, communist or anarchist, its length of life will depend to the extent to which it has taken the contrary principle into account. [5] ...that monarchy and democracy, communism and anarchy, all of them unable to realize themselves in the purity of their concepts, are obliged to complement one another by mutual borrowings. There is surely something here to dampen the intolerance of fanatics who cannot listen to a contrary opinion... They should learn, then, poor wretches, that they are themselves necessarily disloyal to their principles, that their political creeds are tissues of inconsistencies... contradiction lies at the root of all programs. [6] ...writers have mistakenly introduced a political assumption as false as it is dangerous, in failing to distinguish practice from theory, the real, from the ideal... every real government is necessarily mixed... [7] ...few people defend the present state of affairs, but the distaste for utopias is no less widespread. [8] The people indeed are not at all utopian... they have no faith in the absolute and they reject every apriori system... [9]" By Pierre Joseph Proudhon: 2. Woodcock, George. P.J. Proudhon , p. 249; 3. Selected Writings p. 105 ; 4. Ibid 92; 5. Ibid 103; 6. The Federal Principle, p. 21; 7. Ibid 21; 8. op cit 56 ; 9. General Idea of Revolution in the 19th Century , Freedom, 1927, p. 76. From http://www.anarchy.no/proudhon.html
Jørgen V.
 


Re: INTRODUCTION TO ANARCHISM

Postby A. Quist » Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:59 pm

A correction. The formula of anarchism at http://www.anarchy.no/formula.html is not quite correctly presented above. It is the square of (1-(AUTONOMY%/100)), etc, not multiplied by 2, as above. The correct formula, with squares, is presented at http://www.anarchy.no/formula.html .

Furthermore an invective as "shit" is not a sound, anarchist, scientific, matter of fact argument Zazaban. Try to be more matter of fact....
A. Quist
 


Re: INTRODUCTION TO ANARCHISM

Postby A. Quist » Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:17 am

The quotes of Kropotkin, Malatesta and Bjørneboe regarding the absolutist trap and degrees of anarchism are the following:

"In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions. They would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international... From "Anarchism", by Pjotr Kropotkin , The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910. http://www.anarchy.no/kropot2.html .

"Anarchy, in common with socialism (in general) , has as its basis, its point of departure, its essential environment, equality of conditions; its beacon is solidarity and freedom is its method. It is not perfection, it is not the absolute ideal (i.e. not 100% degree of anarchy, but > 50%) which like the horizon recedes as fast as we approach it; but it is the way open to all progress and all improvements for the benefit of everybody." From "Anarchy" by Errico Malatesta. http://www.anarchy.no/malat1.html . The IIFOR and AI take into account the horizon-principle of Malatesta and thus use the term ca (about) 100% degree of anarchy for the anarchist ideal.

About Jens Bjørneboe on degrees of anarchism/anarchy: "But he reminded that there are degrees of anarchism and anarchy..." http://www.anarchy.no/a_nor.html . "Et samfunn er et sundt samfunn bare i den grad det viser anarkistiske trekk... intet ser ut til å bli fullkommment i denne vår beste av alle verdener. Det vil dreie seg om grader av ufullkommehet, om grader av fullkommenhet. Og heller ikke når det gjelder anarkismen, tror jeg på det fullkomne. Det er helt sikkert at anarkismen i dag bare kan eksistere som et innslag, så å si som adjektiv, - det vil dreie seg om mere eller mindre sterke innslag av anarkisme, om mer eller mindre grader av virkelig demokrati. Jeg tror altså ikke på det absolutte, på ingen måte et "enten-eller", men bare på et både-og, bare på grader." Fra Anarkismen ... idag. Innledning til diskusjon i Studentersamfundet i Oslo, sept, 1971. Published in the essay collection; Jens Bjørneboe "Politi og anarki". PAX forlag ISSBN 82-530-0490-7, 1972. Also in "Bjørneboes Anarkisme" NAU 1981. English translation: A society is a sound society only to the extent it shows anarchist tendencies ... nothing seems to be perfect in this the best of all worlds. It will be degrees of perfection, degrees of imperfection. And also about anarchism, I don't believe in the perfect. It is quite sure that anarchism today only can exist as a tendency, so to say an adjective, - it will be more or less strong tendencies of anarchism, about more or less degrees of real democray. I belive thus not in the absolute, in no way on an "either-or", but only in a both-and, and only in degrees." From "Anarchism... Today". Introduction to debate in the Student society of Oslo, 1971. Published in the essay collection; Jens Bjørneboe "Police and Anarchy". PAX forlag ISSBN 82-530-0490-7,1972. Also in "Bjørneboe's Anarchism" NAU (Norwegian Anarchist Elucidations) 1981.

A brief definition of anarchy and anarchism that take into account anarchies of low degree, medium and high degree up to ca 100% degree of anarchism, the anarchist ideal, is the following:

If a system works significantly more from the bottom, grassroots, and upwards, than from the top downwards, to the bottom, it is anarchy, from 50% anarchy degree and upwards. That is significantly horizontally organized. Anarchies of low degree, from 50% to 60% anarchy degree, and 40% to 50% authoritarian degree, also have some minor coercion among the authoritarian tendencies.

1. Anarchy and anarchism mean "system and management without ruler(s), i.e. co-operation without repression, tyranny and slavery".

Briefly defined anarchy and anarchism are coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, i.e. horizontal organization and co-operation without coercion. This means practically or ideally, i.e. ordinary vs perfect horizontal organization respectively. Thus, anarchy and anarchism mean real democracy, economical and political/administrative, in private and public sector.

Anarchies are systems with significantly small rank and income differences, plus efficiency, i.e. significantly horizontally organized.

2. Briefly defined State/authority/government in a broad societal meaning is systems with significantly large rank and/or income differences and inefficient, i.e. significantly vertically organized.

(This is opposed to Max Weber's definition. The crucial point is horizontal vs vertical organization, not whether there are one or several law and order agencies in a local area. )

We (AI and IIFOR) are for anarchy and anarchism as defined in 1, and against State/authority/government as defined in 2. And the larger the degree of anarchism - the better.
A. Quist
 


Return to Board index

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests