[jahaja]

I do sympathise with the author and I think that on the countrary, if people were more involved in their society, which is a major part of anarchism and the decentralisation it promotes, such people would have a much harder time aquiring such power than today. Today, those kind of people have whole instutions adjusted to such aims, the government and capitalism.

Thus, the aim is to build a society that people want to defend by themselves, not just a paid subgroup - e.g the police or military.

Regarding fairness and equality there's a lot of things that anarchism promotes, here's a few controversial:

* Socialism

* Decentralisation and organisation from the bottom up.

* Abolishment of the ownership of land and private property.

And no, the last point does not mean that someone will steal your toothbrush, rather that someone should not be able to amass the tools of explotation, such as more industry/machines than one can use by oneselve or acquire land that one cannot possibly culativate by their own.

[ahultgren]

It's obvious that this ideal society of yours is modelled for a rather small group. Complete lack of delegation can't possibly scale very far at all. But to me it seems a society has to grow and specialize to become more effective. If for not other reason than because there will be competition from external groups.

If you have two or more of these decentralized groups, how would conflicts be handled between them? If two or more wants to trade or create an alliance, some kind of organizing unit has to formed to ensure all parties play by the rules. Voila, a government.

I assume you're not advocating for going back to some tribal farming-style society? If so, can you explain how the anarchist society you're proposing would perform more complex tasks such as trade, or just large-scale manufacturing, without a government?

[jahaja]

> It's obvious that this ideal society of yours is modelled for a rather small group.

Why is that?

> Complete lack of delegation can't possibly scale very far at all. I have not said anything about a complete lack of delegation. I think representation voted from the bottom up is a rational way of representing a group of people. However, this kind of representation differ much from one would call representation today, eg:

* The members of an organisation (e.g a workplace or a community) would either vote for someone to be a representative or that status would be rotated among the members.

* A representative's task would be to forward the issues or votes that the members have voted on.

* A representative's status would be revocable at any time.

* Being a representative would not in anyway be a full-time occupation, rather a very limited part.

> But to me it seems a society has to grow and specialize to become more effective. If for not other reason than because there will be competition from external groups.

I'm not sure I follow here, what do you mean by the need to become more effective. To what end?

> If you have two or more of these decentralized groups, how would conflicts be handled between them? If two or more wants to trade or create an alliance, some kind of organizing unit has to formed to ensure all parties play by the rules. Voila, a government.

I have no reason to belive people can't organise rationally without a government, rather the opposite. A highly organised society - from the bottom up - is not a government. Additionally, I don't think one can argue in favour of government in the realm of conflict handling as governments have quite a poor track record regarding this.

> I assume you're not advocating for going back to some tribal farming-style society? If so, can you explain how the anarchist society you're proposing would perform more complex tasks such as trade, or just large-scale manufacturing, without a government?

That's correct. I'm not advocating for a "back-to-the-roots" society. Naturally the exchange of goods in one way or another will occur, however I would like to emphasize that large-scale manufacturing per se, and perhaps the concept of perpetual growth, is no goal of an anarchist society compared to todays growth-based economy. Basically, if there's a need for large scale industries, it would be organised, otherwise not.

This is a very broad and complex subject, and many people (and various anarchist writings) is better than me to answer this, but maybe you could be a bit more specific in your questions to make them more answerable?

[ahultgren]

I'm sorry if I was a bit unspecific. I haven't really formed a clear opinion yet so it's hard to articulate what I don't understand. Also that was written while I shoveled down my lunch.

About the obvious small group thing, it thought the following quotes:

> "if people were more involved in their society" > "the aim is to build a society that people want to defend by themselves"

meant that you'd prefer that people get involved directly rather than elect people to "defend" or rule their society for them. It seems I misunderstood that part though.

However now I'm now confused by you clarification. If there's any kind of voting and representation, no matter how revocable, isn't that a form of government? If these persons are elected by the majority (I don't see any other option) they will sooner or later make choices for you? I was under the impression that anarchism is about getting rid of any kind of government?

in most governments today representatives' statuses can be revoked. It might be more or less difficult and opaque - I'm the first one to admit that most current governments are broken - but that does not necessary mean that governments are inherently bad.

---

My thoughts about efficiency and organization was based on the assumption that large scale organization can't happen without a governing body. I realize now that might be were my major misassumption and possible our disagreement lies. You say that

> A highly organised society - from the bottom up - is not a government

I would argue that in any highly organized society the top unit is the government. Assuming of course that the top unit has some actual increase responsibility and/or accountability compared to the rest of the organization (otherwise they're not really on the top).

I'd also argue that all governments was at one point formed from the bottom up. I'm not sure if it's very productive to reason this way though, but governments are not a separate unit from the rest of human society. They are created by humans and are upheld because most people agree enough to not try to abolish them.

A counter-argument here might be that people are sheep and irrational and that the governments have evolved into something so complicated and convoluted that they're not able to change to the people's will anymore, but I don't see how that changes anything. If the current governments occurred as a result of earlier (eventually) anarchisticish societies, what will prevent them from regressing?

[jahaja]

> However now I'm now confused by you clarification. If there's any kind of voting and representation, no matter how revocable, isn't that a form of government?

No, just as any kind of organisation would not be called a government, the kind of organisation I promote wouldn't be. For example, you wouldn't call your local union or workplace a government.

Let's not pretend that current representatives are revocable, it not in the hands of the voters. For another society, it wouldn't even be a part time occupation for a worker among other workers.

Anyways, I would like to hear why authority needs to exist, rather than explain why it doesn't.

[Nursie]

>>if people were more involved in their society

I think I see the flaw in your plan...

Most folks would rather delegate AFAICT.

[aaronem]

They would indeed rather delegate governance, and for the best of reasons; the more effort an individual is required to expend on governing, the less she has available to pursue her own talents and interests.

As for the respondents suggesting the answer is, in paraphrase, to "make governance interesting again" -- I would suggest they may wish to think twice about that superficially appealing suggestion. The process of governance was "interesting" in 1950s China, in 1930s Germany, 1920s Russia, the United States around 1925-1945; while conditions were vastly different in each case, of course, there is a strong common thread, and it is simply this: the process of governance is interesting only when times are not good; indeed, the worse things are, the more interesting the task of running the show tends to be. The argument eventually reduces to a suggestion that it would be nice to have a disaster or two around the place, in order to liven things up for everyone. Which it would, no doubt! But I submit such excitement is hardly worth the cost.

[unicornporn]

And that might be because politics seem distant, irrelevant, unalterable and (maybe as a result of this) plain boring. If politics and power became more decentralized, perhaps it would become more relevant and engaging to people.

[sliverstorm]

Or maybe it could just be that we've had a taste of politics in our private lives, and decided we would much rather spend our time coding.

[jahaja]

I believe that if people feel they can make a difference, people will get involved. If generally people can't make a difference, like today, people get apathetic.

[Nursie]

I agree more might get involved but I'm less than convinced it would be enough to stave off the accumulation of power by warlords etc, and the eventual degeneration to a neo-feudal society.

But it's all just opinion at this end of the debate.

[jahaja]

A decentralised society doesn't mean an unorganised society though.