Are you an anarchist but not a member of an anarchist organisation?

[teuchter]

the Campaign For Better Transport actively includes them within its main future-visioning document.

By the way, this is what their document actually says - my bold:

Community transport
Community transport, in its various forms, is a significant provider of transport in rural
areas, either operating minibus services or volunteer car schemes. It is estimated that
over 600 organisations provide community transport across rural England, providing
eight million passenger journeys. These organisations employ about 2,000 staff and
use 48,000 volunteers.70
With detailed local market knowledge and enthusiasm to serve their communities,
community transport operators are well placed to provide the services that people
want. Equally, they may have lower operating costs and the ability to harness volunteers
(although this may be under threat from potential changes to the use of permits for
minibus operation put forward by the DfT).
With the decline of rural bus services, some have argued that community transport
could fill the gaps. However, community transport is not able to be self-sustaining in
rural areas and requires support. Many operators are relatively small and the sector
has little capacity to meet increased demands without investment. As such, community
transport providers often meet specific needs or serve particular groups in the
community, rather than offering a comprehensive public transport service. Therefore,
calls by the House of Commons Rural Communities, Environment, Food & Rural
Affairs Committee for “Defra to work with local authorities to ensure that alternative
community transport schemes are investigated to replace local bus services that are to
be withdrawn”71 seem rather unrealistic.
In Wales, the CTA’s State of the Sector report highlighted the pressures on community
transport through growth between 2010 and 2013, where the number of passenger
journeys increased from 1.2 million to two million and passenger miles from 4.3 million
to six million.72

 

[Rob Ray]

A volunteer service wasn't going to build Crossrail, though, was it?

The best that can be said for this line of argument is that indeed, an anarchist version of Crossrail would be harder to negotiate because you'd not have a government riding roughshod over the environment and the lives of millions of people ("a decent example of how big infrastructure projects should happen" is quite the claim given it's way over budget, deeply unpopular and half of it has already been ditched). But there's nothing stopping large-scale projects from being produced by an anarchist society, should one come into being. The fact you can't envision it speaks only to the extent of your own mental horizons.

 

[teuchter]

The best that can be said for this line of argument is that indeed, an anarchist version of Crossrail would be harder to negotiate because you'd not have a government riding roughshod over the environment and the lives of millions of people ("a decent example of how big infrastructure projects should happen" is quite the claim given it's way over budget, deeply unpopular and half of it has already been ditched). But there's nothing stopping large-scale projects from being produced by an anarchist society, should one come into being. The fact you can't envision it speaks only to the extent of your own mental horizons.

I think you've confused Crossrail with HS2.

 

[Rob Ray]

Do you really think there is no organisation and heirarchies in the lifeboat service?

No, which is why I said "while it's not specifically non-hierarchical."

By the way, this is what their document actually says - my bold:

And this is their bold:



They are of course an NGO that ultimately believes in public transport provision from the State, but they are clear that there are areas the State isn't covering and self-organised communities are, and they are in favour of supporting this.

 

[Rob Ray]

I think you've confused Crossrail with HS2.

Apologies yes I did, though it should also be noted that Crossrail was also way over budget and very late.

 

[Supine]

No, which is why I said "while it's not specifically non-hierarchical."

So your ok with hierarchy organisation always needs some kind of pyramid.

 

[A380]

They're not.

There you go. They are kind of the dictionary definition of socialism. Every time I think your grasp of basic theory is weak you demonstrate it’s actually worse than that.

 

[A380]

The lifeboat service isn't a transport system.

…

TBF it’s part of the infrastructure of the maritime transport system of both cargo and passengers.

 

[Rob Ray]

So your ok with hierarchy organisation always needs some kind of pyramid.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or is this actually your level?

 

[chilango]

What kind of transport are you talking about here?

Coaches, buses, minibuses, trucks, o CK up, taxis/collectivos, tuktuks, boats....

 

[chilango]

In other words, places with poor transport.

Nope. Poor places with transport.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Very good.

Now answer the questions actually put.

I'm genuinely interested. I suppose anarchism could work in a small commune, I'm interested in how it would work in a nation of sixty million people.

I was pointing out the ridiculous way it 'works' now. And wondering how you found it difficult to imagine it could work better in other ways.

 

[teuchter]

Nope. Poor places with transport.

Poor places with poor transport. Transport that could be a lot better if it were better organised, and not run on what in the end is a kind of free market basis.

 

[teuchter]

No, which is why I said "while it's not specifically non-hierarchical."


And this is their bold:

View attachment 358063

They are of course an NGO that ultimately believes in public transport provision from the State, but they are clear that there are areas the State isn't covering and self-organised communities are, and they are in favour of supporting this.

I don't disagree with them. Where state provision is inadequate, some gaps can be filled with these kinds of services. They are always local and at small scale though, and don't scale up in a way that a whole transport system can be organised that way. And with proper funding and more ambition the state could offer something better, like it does in many other countries.

 

[redsquirrel]

There you go. They are kind of the dictionary definition of socialism. Every time I think your grasp of basic theory is weak you demonstrate it’s actually worse than that.

You're talking about 'dictionary definitions' while deriding others grasp of theory.

Even if you do not agree, you must be aware that plenty of socialists distinguish between control of the MoP by the state from control of the MoP by the workers.
Considering the increasing symbiosis between state and capital it is pretty naive to see nationalisation/state control as necessarily socialist (LNER and Northern being prime examples - or are these examples of socialist policies too?).

State control can be means for increasing exploitation as much, if not more then, as a means for decreasing exploitation.

 

[SpookyFrank]

A volunteer service wasn't going to build Crossrail, though, was it?

And why should they? It was built for the benefit of property speculators, not the working class.

 

[SpookyFrank]

but how do you reasonably coordinate something like the building of a rail network without something like state structures? It would just be the strong fucking over the weak.

So, a bit like how infrastructure and planning currently work then. Only with the state in play, the 'strong' are armed and defended in a hundred ways against the usually far more numerous 'weak'. Would they even be strong without capital and the state?

 

[kabbes]

If we’re going to talk about corruption, we need to distinguish between the different types of corruption. There’s a researcher, Yuen Yuen Ang, who has done some interesting work on this. She did the Freakonomics podcast, which is worth a full listen:

Is the U.S. Really Less Corrupt Than China? - Freakonomics

Is the U.S. Really Less Corrupt Than China? - Freakonomics

freakonomics.com

Ang sums it up herself best, to be honest:

ANG: What I try to do is to avoid being ideological about it. The common definition of corruption is the abuse of public power for private gain, and that definition usually excludes legal forms of influence politics. My definition would be broader than that. I would say that whenever there is so much power that one is able to influence or dictate the rules of the games, you begin to have the potential for corruption. And that is a gray line. In the context of countries like the United States, advanced capitalist democracies, it’s really hard to pin down what are the boundaries of having excessive political influence

ANG: I propose a typology of four types of corruption divided along two dimensions. First, whether the corruption involves elites or non-elites. And second, whether the corruption involves theft or exchange. So this intersection creates, first of all, corruption with theft, which I divide into petty theft and grand theft. Petty theft would be like extortion — a police officer who just stops you and robs you of $200. Grand theft would be embezzlement. Nigeria would be a classic case, billions of dollars siphoned out of a country. And then I distinguish between two types of transactional corruption. The first is what I call speed money, which is bribes paid to low- or medium-level officials in order to overcome red tape or delays or harassment. And then I have a fourth category called access money, which is privileges paid to powerful officials, not because you want to overcome red tape, but because you want to buy special deals from them.

ANG: I use the analogy of drugs because we know that all drugs are harmful, but they harm in different ways. Petty theft and grand theft are like toxic drugs, where if you take this drug, it’s definitely going to damage your health, you get no benefit from it.

ANG: Speed money are like painkillers, so they help you to relieve a headache by overcoming red tape, but they don’t help you grow muscles fast. They don’t help you to grow your business. And access money are the steroids of capitalism, and steroids, we know, help you grow muscle fast. They help you perform superhuman feats. But they come with serious side effects that accumulate over time, and they only erupt in the event of a meltdown.

 

[Peter Painter]

Another transport system is possible.

A different transport system based upon the needs of the people and protecting the planet is entirely possible.

But that transport system can never be achieved all the time that one of the most important factors is making profits.

It's also unlikely to be possible all the time the individual freedom of those wealthy enough to own, run and maintain a private vehicle is considered to be more important than the collective freedom of movement and the collective necessity of protecting our planet.

Yet in a society with a political system based upon mutual aid and co-operation such a transport system is easily imaginable. One that would be clean and free for all to use.

 

[ska invita]

The idea that 'the state' is all bad just doesn't stand up. It's something we need to be in constant negotiation with and that can be a fucksite better than it is right now, but how do you reasonably coordinate something like the building of a rail network without something like state structures? It would just be the strong fucking over the weak.

I agree with that...Foundational anarchists wrote about the state in an era when the state did little more than collect taxes and have the monopoly of violence. The modern state does a lot more publicly beneficial things since then <the result of a historic social victory.

Anarchisms relation to the state is one of the key stumbling blocks for me, one of the areas ive tried to read most on and never been fully satisfied. If you picture an anarcho-ideal direct-democratic, federal system with a 'national' centralised political decision making body with recallable delegates etc this isnt so different from a state in my view.

Having a good working definition of the word state is an important place to start in this conversation.

 

[brogdale]

I agree with that...Foundational anarchists wrote about the state in an era when the state did little more than collect taxes and have the monopoly of violence. The modern state does a lot more publicly beneficial things since then <the result of a historic social victory.

Anarchisms relation to the state is one of the key stumbling blocks for me, one of the areas ive tried to read most on and never been fully satisfied. If you picture an anarcho-ideal direct-democratic, federal system with a 'national' centralised political decision making body with recallable delegates etc this isnt so different from a state in my view.

Having a good working definition of the word state is an important place to start in this conversation.

I certainly see where you're coming from with this, but I really think it's also important to distinguish between the (welfare) state 1945-1976 and the increasingly neoliberal consolidator state that has followed. When capital's fear of system competition caused the state to offer concessions to labour I can see how arguments regarding the state as beneficial or benign might have had more merit . But with the state acting as it does now as a vehicle to transfer wealth regressively from taxes on earned income into unearned returns to capital, I think anarchistic interpretations will become increasingly appealing, particularly to younger people who's experience of the state is often as inquisitor, unsympathetic gatekeepers, revenue raisers and as a front for money lenders.

 

[danny la rouge]

There you go. They are kind of the dictionary definition of socialism. Every time I think your grasp of basic theory is weak you demonstrate it’s actually worse than that.

They’re not necessarily socialist. The post war welfare state was a result of the Beveridge report, written by a Liberal peer, and would have been implemented by whichever party had won the post war election. The post war consensus included all of those points raised by LBJ, and was supported by Tory and Labour governments alike for decades until diluted by neoliberalism, (itself in turn supported by Tory and Labour governments alike).

A “dictionary definition” of socialism relying on just those policies listed would not be a very good one.

 

[Storm Fox]

There seems to be a lot of talk about corruption and if corruption is an entity in itself. But it's not, it's people who are corrupt, dishonest and have a thirst for power. In kabbes's quotes from Ang above, if everyone were honest, there would be a problem, so whatever system you have there is going to be corruption. In addition, get someone with that mix who is charismatic and you have a real problem. See American Megachurches as an example. All are self-organised and voluntary.
Corrupt people are going still be there under any system. How do you deal with them?

How do you get people involved? A large percentage of the population cannot be bothered to vote, and a large number of the people who do vote for parties are self-serving. What happens to these people under anarchism? Do they not get an input into the system?

And with the Mega-church example, the right are better at self-organising than the left, and the left keeps splitting.

 

[ska invita]

I certainly see where you're coming from with this, but I really think it's also important to distinguish between the (welfare) state 1945-1976 and the increasingly neoliberal consolidator state that has followed. When capital's fear of system competition caused the state to offer concessions to labour I can see how arguments regarding the state as beneficial or benign might have had more merit .

Yeah no doubt, I'm not trying to airbrush out the shit things the state is capable of enacting, even in the years you mention, but in my mind the state isn't a force unto itself, its made up of people with a set of rules, ideologies and structures and it's these that need changing.

For me Anarchism is the ultimate critique of power and an approach to politics that tries to stop abuse of, and redistribute all power in society and human interactions. To that extent im 100% on board and an anarchist.

Where I think I diverge is from some of the practical end-point visions anarchists have about what that society would like, and that end point isn't just an irrelevant theoretical speculation because from there come steps as to What To Do and How To Get There...... which to bring it back to the OP I dont think I agree on/am convinced by with (most? all?) anarchist organisations beyond more subtle non-revolutionary attempts to build autonomy. But when it gets to the bigger scale questions, if I'm not convinced I can't see how I could be a "member".

From what I can tell there's only two options regarding the state: 'seize' control of the state or create an alternate power base to it. I dont think these are mutually exclusive - in fact I think both have to happen.

For me seizing control of the state has to be via democratic means. That means interacting with the state and parliamentary politics with all its realpolitik contradictions and limitations.
Cultures of autonomy and accountability can and have to be built at other levels within the superstructure/society. In my mind this pincer movement would transform society and the nature of the state over time.
<<<That's basically my political philosophy, and as yet, rightly or wrongly, because of that I've not found an anarchist organisation which I feel comfortable to join to aid that.

 

[danny la rouge]

Why should people “be bothered” to vote under the current system? I’m a habitual non voter. It’s not because I am not interested in being involved in decision making. It’s precisely because voting is not involvement in decision making.

There were posters in Scotland encouraging voting a few years back saying something along the lines of “if you care about education, the health service, the social services, housing, then use your vote”. None of the parties were offering anything very different any of those. The ouster actually undermined the point it was trying to make.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Apologies yes I did, though it should also be noted that Crossrail was also way over budget and very late.

As were the Edinburgh trams.

In a city like London (or indeed Edinburgh) the plan is great until you open the ground, then you discover all the undocumented infrastructure.

 

[Sue]

Why should people “be bothered” to vote under the current system? I’m a habitual non voter. It’s not because I am not interested in being involved in decision making. It’s precisely because voting is not involvement in decision making.

Just to add that if the system/political party policies are so shit that people don't want to vote, those are the things that need to change rather than blaming voters.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Yeah no doubt, I'm not trying to airbrush out the shit things the state is capable of enacting, even in the years you mention, but in my mind the state isn't a force unto itself, its made up of people with a set of rules, ideologies and structures and it's these that need changing.

For me Anarchism is the ultimate critique of power and an approach to politics that tries to stop abuse of, and redistribute all power in society and human interactions. To that extent im 100% on board and an anarchist.

Where I think I diverge is from some of the practical end-point visions anarchists have about what that society would like, and that end point isn't just an irrelevant theoretical speculation because from there come steps as to What To Do and How To Get There...... which to bring it back to the OP I dont think I agree on/am convinced by with (most? all?) anarchist organisations beyond more subtle non-revolutionary attempts to build autonomy. But when it gets to the bigger scale questions, if I'm not convinced I can't see how I could be a "member".

From what I can tell there's only two options regarding the state: 'seize' control of the state or create an alternate power base to it. I dont think these are mutually exclusive - in fact I think both have to happen.

For me seizing control of the state has to be via democratic means. That means interacting with the state and parliamentary politics with all its realpolitik contradictions and limitations.
Cultures of autonomy and accountability can and have to be built at other levels within the superstructure/society. In my mind this pincer movement would transform society and the nature of the state over time.
<<<That's basically my political philosophy, and as yet, rightly or wrongly, because of that I've not found an anarchist organisation which I feel comfortable to join to aid that.

Seizing control of the state through democratic means sounds all well and good, but there is no shortage of examples where those opposed to change resist with violence and stop any such transfer of power.

 

[teuchter]

Just to add that if the system/political party policies are so shit that people don't want to vote, those are the things that need to change rather than blaming voters.

It's not necessarily "blaming" anyone, it's just an observation about what many people are (or rather aren't) interested in. Even more people are disinterested in what anarchists have got to say.

 

[brogdale]

It's not necessarily "blaming" anyone, it's just an observation about what many people are (or rather aren't) interested in. Even more people are disinterested in what anarchists have got to say.

disinterested or uninterested?

And what possible metric would you be applying there?