The Anarchist Spectrum

[k-onmmunist]

The Anarchist Spectrum

It is quite depressing to realise the great split within anarchist thought that has raged since the 19th century, and has in fact kept the movement at a weak and nascent level. The main point of division for the anarchist movement is in economics, though that is not to downplay the importance of other debates within anarchism: methods for example (compare Emma Goldman’s ‘propaganda of the deed’ to Leo Tolstoi’s Christian pacifist anarchism). It is simply that this topic has kept the movement divided since very early in its modern life.

“Anarcho communism/syndicalism/capitalism/etc. would be worse than maintaining the state!” – such is a common complaint from both sides of anarchism. And most regrettably, this leads to economics taking over in importance from the actual belief in dissolution of the state. Anarcho-communism turns to statist and forced collectivisation, while anarcho-capitalism turns to the ‘libertarian’ movement and takes up a fight that resembles the plight of Sisyphus; they would roll the rock up a mountain only to have it fall back down to the bottom endlessly. There is no chance the libertarian movement can ever hope to achieve its aims: to do so, they would have to repeal a huge catalogue of statist laws and they will never, I repeat, never be in a position to rid themselves of all this while the state continues to exist. They represent a noble effort, but it is a futile one.

Therefore, a spectrum has now developed within anarchism over economics. While there are many movements in anarchism which cannot be put anywhere on this spectrum due to their social nature (i.e. anarcha-feminism, anarcho-primitivism and green anarchism, though the latter is somewhat linked to anarcho-syndicalism), the vast majority of anarchists take a strong view on the economic organisation of a stateless society.

Starting at the extreme ‘left’ of the movement, we have anarcho-communism, which essentially revolves around voluntary collectivisation. This model, advocated by theorists such as Bakunin, would ultimately end coercion and would instead assume that people would see the benefits of working together for a common goal, and would put the greed and exploitation they associate with capitalism behind them. Anarcho-syndicalism would be similar to this, but would take more of a worker-friendly approach, with unions being the core of society. These unions would provide education, would work to ensure good living and working conditions for the labouring and so on. This is the variation of anarchism which has come closest to success, especially in Spain during the civil war.

To the right of that would be mutualism and libertarian socialism, which seek to promote worker’s associations and worker’s democracy in large institutions, while they remain ambivalent towards capitalism being maintained at a local, community based level. The main proponents of this route of action would include Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Murray Bookchin and Noam Chomsky.

In the centre would be the indifferent anarchists (often described as ‘anarchists without adjectives’) who simply wish for the end of the state and take no real position on economics.

Finally, we move on to the right wing of anarchism with agorism (which promotes the end of the state through the development of a counter-economic state, such as a black market) and individualist anarchism. The latter can be considered both a left wing movement and a right wing one, for it advocates the labour theory of value: this went as far as the opening of ‘time stores’ and small anarcho-villages which used time-based currency. They also, however, advocated natural rights and other libertarian positions. The best examples of these would be Lysander Spooner, Josiah Warren, Henry David Thoreau and Herbert Spencer. There is some overlap here, as many individualist anarchists also claim Proudhon as one of their own, while Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker (who later on abandoned natural rights altogether and took up Stirnite egoism) can be considered left-anarchists to some extent.

Finally, there is anarcho-capitalism, which essentially took up where individualist anarchism had left off, dropped the labour theory of value and instead advocated marginal utility. Anarcho-capitalism is perhaps the branch of anarchism that focuses most on ‘organisation’ as it still advocates some form of governance through polycentric law. However, unlike in the present situation, if you don’t like a private court’s laws, you can simply switch to another which would ensure a free market in law and would, according to the capitalists, provide the best set of laws. The most famous proponents of this are Murray Rothbard and David Friedman. Although sometimes considered anarchists, Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian School are not inherently anarchist (the former was indeed a minarchist), and neither were Ayn Rand and her Objectivist followers, who were bitingly scathing about complete anarcho-capitalism.

Ultimately, there is no end in sight to the debate. While the left used to dominate anarchism, it now appears that with the growth of Austrian economics that the right wing of the movement is becoming more prominent. Only time will tell the ultimate conclusion.

--------------------

Feel free to comment guys. I look forward to your feedback, though please keep it constructive.

[k-onmmunist]

Anyone?

[Scam of God]

While I'm not quite so extreme as to declare myself an out-and-out anarchist, I do not think the economic differences along the spectrum are nearly so severe as those on the statist spectrum of thought. One can preserve a capitalist economic model while making it easier for the broad mass of society to own the means of production and enter into it, for instance - a focus on economics of scope, as opposed to one of scale, would greatly help here.

The anarchist movement ought to be broadly united around three principles: decentralization, devolution, and democratization. As long as these three hold, all larger divides will recede into the distance.

[k-onmmunist]

While I'm not quite so extreme as to declare myself an out-and-out anarchist, I do not think the economic differences along the spectrum are nearly so severe as those on the statist spectrum of thought. One can preserve a capitalist economic model while making it easier for the broad mass of society to own the means of production and enter into it, for instance - a focus on economics of scope, as opposed to one of scale, would greatly help here.

The anarchist movement ought to be broadly united around three principles: decentralization, devolution, and democratization. As long as these three hold, all larger divides will recede into the distance.

I more or less agree with what you say; for example mutualism, while relatively anti-capitalist is still pro-free market if you see what I mean. The focus needs first to be on ending the government and it's role in the economy. After that, it will be a simple matter of determining the best method of organisation. Or a mix of them.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I still don't understand why libertarians bother arguing from a philosophical standpoint. Honestly, no one cares. Libertarians need to come from a populist standpoint, rallying the passions of the people. If they do that, they will succeed. After all, leading a popular movement against TNCs and the State shouldn't be too hard.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Yes, I know my post had little to do with the intent of the thread.

[Scam of God]

While I'm not quite so extreme as to declare myself an out-and-out anarchist, I do not think the economic differences along the spectrum are nearly so severe as those on the statist spectrum of thought. One can preserve a capitalist economic model while making it easier for the broad mass of society to own the means of production and enter into it, for instance - a focus on economics of scope, as opposed to one of scale, would greatly help here.

The anarchist movement ought to be broadly united around three principles: decentralization, devolution, and democratization. As long as these three hold, all larger divides will recede into the distance.

I more or less agree with what you say; for example mutualism, while relatively anti-capitalist is still pro-free market if you see what I mean. The focus needs first to be on ending the government and it's role in the economy. After that, it will be a simple matter of determining the best method of organisation. Or a mix of them.

I should think the sheer act of mitigating or totally eliminating the State would, in itself, have the effect of making our economy far more egalitarian than it is at the present time. To present but one of my favorite examples: without the Federal government to fund interstate commerce through the highway system, and therewith the automotive industry, then the business would have to look for alternatives which are both safer and more environmentally sound, as the State would no longer be propping it up in its present form.

[k-onmmunist]

I still don't understand why libertarians bother arguing from a philosophical standpoint. Honestly, no one cares. Libertarians need to come from a populist standpoint, rallying the passions of the people. If they do that, they will succeed. After all, leading a popular movement against TNCs and the State shouldn't be too hard.

Because, unlike most statists, we have actual intellectual grounds for believing what we do. We are far too honest to simply say what people want to hear; we tell people what they might not agree with and what they might find repulsive even, but which we are committed to.

[k-onmmunist]

While I'm not quite so extreme as to declare myself an out-and-out anarchist, I do not think the economic differences along the spectrum are nearly so severe as those on the statist spectrum of thought. One can preserve a capitalist economic model while making it easier for the broad mass of society to own the means of production and enter into it, for instance - a focus on economics of scope, as opposed to one of scale, would greatly help here.

The anarchist movement ought to be broadly united around three principles: decentralization, devolution, and democratization. As long as these three hold, all larger divides will recede into the distance.

I more or less agree with what you say; for example mutualism, while relatively anti-capitalist is still pro-free market if you see what I mean. The focus needs first to be on ending the government and it's role in the economy. After that, it will be a simple matter of determining the best method of organisation. Or a mix of them.

I should think the sheer act of mitigating or totally eliminating the State would, in itself, have the effect of making our economy far more egalitarian than it is at the present time. To present but one of my favorite examples: without the Federal government to fund interstate commerce through the highway system, and therewith the automotive industry, then the business would have to look for alternatives which are both safer and more environmentally sound, as the State would no longer be propping it up in its present form.

This is a large part of why it irritates me when anarcho-communists/collectivists/syndicalists spend all their time criticising capitalism and not STATE capitalism. For, without the state to hold it up, capitalism would have to be far more communal and socially friendly. If you kill the state, you also kill many of the downsides of capitalism.

[Scam of God]

While I'm not quite so extreme as to declare myself an out-and-out anarchist, I do not think the economic differences along the spectrum are nearly so severe as those on the statist spectrum of thought. One can preserve a capitalist economic model while making it easier for the broad mass of society to own the means of production and enter into it, for instance - a focus on economics of scope, as opposed to one of scale, would greatly help here.

The anarchist movement ought to be broadly united around three principles: decentralization, devolution, and democratization. As long as these three hold, all larger divides will recede into the distance.

I more or less agree with what you say; for example mutualism, while relatively anti-capitalist is still pro-free market if you see what I mean. The focus needs first to be on ending the government and it's role in the economy. After that, it will be a simple matter of determining the best method of organisation. Or a mix of them.

I should think the sheer act of mitigating or totally eliminating the State would, in itself, have the effect of making our economy far more egalitarian than it is at the present time. To present but one of my favorite examples: without the Federal government to fund interstate commerce through the highway system, and therewith the automotive industry, then the business would have to look for alternatives which are both safer and more environmentally sound, as the State would no longer be propping it up in its present form.

This is a large part of why it irritates me when anarcho-communists/collectivists/syndicalists spend all their time criticising capitalism and not STATE capitalism. For, without the state to hold it up, capitalism would have to be far more communal and socially friendly. If you kill the state, you also kill many of the downsides of capitalism.

You'll get no argument out of me here. Which is, I think, why any hypothetical minarchist society would have to begin by targeting specifically those State interferences which are, or can be considered, reactionary: end military and socially-adverse spending first, and then move on to other areas of concern. I think, for instance, that we shouldn't totally eliminate Federal regulation of production until alternative means of production, such as local and national co-operatives, are totally competitive in an even market.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I still don't understand why libertarians bother arguing from a philosophical standpoint. Honestly, no one cares. Libertarians need to come from a populist standpoint, rallying the passions of the people. If they do that, they will succeed. After all, leading a popular movement against TNCs and the State shouldn't be too hard.

Because, unlike most statists, we have actual intellectual grounds for believing what we do. We are far too honest to simply say what people want to hear; we tell people what they might not agree with and what they might find repulsive even, but which we are committed to.

Is consistently losing to Statists worth it, then?

[Scam of God]

I still don't understand why libertarians bother arguing from a philosophical standpoint. Honestly, no one cares. Libertarians need to come from a populist standpoint, rallying the passions of the people. If they do that, they will succeed. After all, leading a popular movement against TNCs and the State shouldn't be too hard.

Because, unlike most statists, we have actual intellectual grounds for believing what we do. We are far too honest to simply say what people want to hear; we tell people what they might not agree with and what they might find repulsive even, but which we are committed to.

Is consistently losing to Statists worth it, then?

The goal ought to be to convert those elements of the establishment which are friendly to our ends over to our means. I think, for instance, that a typical Naderite voter, and those sympathetic to his positions, could easily be one over to our side if we focus on the right issues.

[k-onmmunist]

I still don't understand why libertarians bother arguing from a philosophical standpoint. Honestly, no one cares. Libertarians need to come from a populist standpoint, rallying the passions of the people. If they do that, they will succeed. After all, leading a popular movement against TNCs and the State shouldn't be too hard.

Because, unlike most statists, we have actual intellectual grounds for believing what we do. We are far too honest to simply say what people want to hear; we tell people what they might not agree with and what they might find repulsive even, but which we are committed to.

Is consistently losing to Statists worth it, then?

Principle must come before pragmatism I'm afraid. There can be no reform of the current system; it is just as watering a dead plant is completely useless an endeavour. As long as the state continues to exist, there shall never be true freedom.

[Scam of God]

I still don't understand why libertarians bother arguing from a philosophical standpoint. Honestly, no one cares. Libertarians need to come from a populist standpoint, rallying the passions of the people. If they do that, they will succeed. After all, leading a popular movement against TNCs and the State shouldn't be too hard.

Because, unlike most statists, we have actual intellectual grounds for believing what we do. We are far too honest to simply say what people want to hear; we tell people what they might not agree with and what they might find repulsive even, but which we are committed to.

Is consistently losing to Statists worth it, then?

Principle must come before pragmatism I'm afraid. There can be no reform of the current system; it is just as watering a dead plant is completely useless an endeavour. As long as the state continues to exist, there shall never be true freedom.

Baby-steps. One of the reasons I'm so in favor of, for instance, developing desktop manufacturing technology to its fullest potential, and getting it down to the price of a PC during that boom, is because it has the possibility of rendering welfare irrelevant - if you can produce things for sale out of your own home, you have no need to be a welfare recipient even if you have a valid reason for it.

[jokerman]

I'm no anarchist, but I do read Noam Chomsky, and this discussion reminded me of a passage which I will quote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     While I, like Einzige, wouldn't call myself an anarchist, I've always thought that it is foolish for anarchist sects to oppose each other, since the underlying thread of all anarchist strains is the idea that a society free from the coercion of mandatory government is ideal. It would make sense for all anarchists to work together to achieve a volunteer society, then split & go their separate ways. The anarcho-communists would form communist communities, the anarcho-capitalists would for capitalist communities, the anarcho-primitivists would form hunter-gatherer communities, so on & so forth.

     That aside, while anarcho-capitalism is identified here as the right-wing form of anarchism, Rothbard identified it as the centrist form of libertarianism. It might be interesting to observe that anarchism is, in all its forms, an ideology that spans the left-wing of the spectrum, from the far-left to the center. One might also wish to observe the large amount of exposure that anarcho-communists have compared to anarcho-monarchists.