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

[teuchter]

Yes, and (in some case seemingly wanton) misunderstandings about how most anarchists actually see this process are at the heart of quite a lot of the confusion. Asking "how would you do a transport megaproject" for example seems to consider it from a perspective where a scrappy bunch of random anarchos with no expertise are suddenly confronted with coordinating a major urban planning operation. Which ironically is what actually happens today via MPs with no expertise and corpo boards whose interest in social functionality is way down the list. If you look at the history of London transport "efficient" really isn't the word that comes to mind - and the Tube is broadly considered one of the best of its kind. The flattening of hierarchy doesn't mean the elimination of leadership or authority derived from expertise, it simply means the elimination of assumed control based on ownership.

No, the reason I don't think these kinds of projects could be realised under an anarchist setup, one where it's some kind of federation of local organisations, is nothing to do with "the elimination of leadership or authority derived from expertise".

It's to do with competing interests and larger scales. The oversight has to be provided by someone/something who is promoting the interests of the larger scale system, which will often be contrary to local interests. So they have to have some kind of authority to over-rule.

 

[A380]

Nah. There are loads of shades of grey. The existence of things like affordable housing, free healthcare, a benefits system, free education, pensions, etc, makes a huge difference to how you relate to your boss, whether they're private or public. The tyranny of the boss increases the less public provision there is, which makes the fall when you lose that job all the more vertiginous. A comparison across different countries in the world shows that. For example, Japanese workers routinely staying late at work do so because they fear losing their job, and they fear losing their job because so many benefits in Japan are workplace-dependent.

You just have to look at American people with chronic medical conditions ( or children with the same) who are genuinely locked into a job because they wouldn’t be able to get new health insurance for an existing condition.

 

[Rob Ray]

The existence of things like affordable housing, free healthcare, a benefits system, free education, pensions, etc, makes a huge difference to how you relate to your boss, whether they're private or public.

These aren't "shades of grey," let alone "control of the means of production," what you're describing is concessions by Capital which potentially dilute bosses' power to directly intimidate individuals while leaving the actual structures of control untouched. Specifically they're features of social democracy - and of course of Leninism, which simply introduced them while making it absolutely clear what happened to workers who stepped out of line.

 

[danny la rouge]

Yes, and (in some case seemingly wanton) misunderstandings about how most anarchists actually see this process are at the heart of quite a lot of the confusion. Asking "how would you do a transport megaproject" for example seems to consider it from a perspective where a scrappy bunch of random anarchos with no expertise are suddenly confronted with coordinating a major urban planning operation. Which ironically is what actually happens today via MPs with no expertise and corpo boards whose interest in social functionality is way down the list. If you look at the history of London transport "efficient" really isn't the word that comes to mind - and the Tube is broadly considered one of the best of its kind. The flattening of hierarchy doesn't mean the elimination of leadership or authority derived from expertise, it simply means the elimination of assumed control based on ownership.

On one recent occasion that this came up, littlebabyjesus asked me if I was willing to give up my car use. Now, I’m a blue badge holder but I would be very happy to give up my car use if the infrastructure of the city I live in was reimagined sufficiently to make that possible. As it is, as society is now configured, I do need my car in order to have anything approaching mobility and involvement in daily life. But that’s because Glasgow City Council, for all its talk of “20 minute neighbourhoods” nevertheless persists in allowing new drive through developments, like the recent Starbucks/Burgerking and whatever else at Thornwood, to the south of where I live, or the out of town shopping strip mall at Drumchapel, where the nearest B&Q is.

I’d love the M8 to be closed off and public parks appear in its stead, and the area in front of the Mitchell Library reclaimed for pedestrian use. For a free public transport network to include an extended Subway, reaching the East End and North.

But as it is, I live in an urban environment that is hard for many people to get around.

I’ve read a bit of literature about reimagining urban environments. But what I’d like to see is people with some expertise do proper studies and then properly consult and inform the public. What I don’t want to see is some clownish cartoon insurrecto who thinks a round black ball with a burning wick is a good emblem to win over public discourse given the job of designing the transport network, in a committee or any other way.

 

[A380]

No, the reason I don't think these kinds of projects could be realised under an anarchist setup, one where it's some kind of federation of local organisations, is nothing to do with "the elimination of leadership or authority derived from expertise".

It's to do with competing interests and larger scales. The oversight has to be provided by someone/something who is promoting the interests of the larger scale system, which will often be contrary to local interests. So they have to have some kind of authority to over-rule.

In any society that isn’t a post scarcity economy you need a way of taking macro decisions. The problem with ours (in the West) is that process is owned by a mix of capital and representative democracy with the line between them in flux. Many of the decision makers reaping huge rewards from their position.

But in the same way as you would listen to the expertise of boot makers when it comes to boots, there is no reason you couldn’t have people who’s training and professional development is about being experts at making macro decisions.

 

[Rob Ray]

You just have to look at American people with chronic medical conditions ( or children with the same) who are genuinely locked into a job because they wouldn’t be able to get new health insurance for an existing condition.

Yes, left to its own devices capitalism is indeed incapable of maintaining a mass healthcare system with universal coverage for the working class.

 

[A380]

Yes, left to its own devices capitalism is indeed incapable of maintaining a mass healthcare system with universal coverage for the working class.

It wouldn’t be incapable of it if there were returns to be made for owners. But because the benefits are external there aren’t. So it isn’t.

 

[Rob Ray]

It's to do with competing interests and larger scales. The oversight has to be provided by someone/something who is promoting the interests of the larger scale system, which will often be contrary to local interests. So they have to have some kind of authority to over-rule.

Because there's no possible way in which a federated organisation that doesn't feature a single controlling authority could come to a conclusion which doesn't please everyone.

 

[Rob Ray]

.

 

[Red Cat]

For libertarian socialists it is, in fact it's largely the point. Either you're free and an equal part of controlling your community and projects or you ain't, working under the unelected hand of a boss who can strip you of your means of survival if you get on their bad side is no more "controlling the means of production" if you do it for the civil service than if you do it for a private firm, except in the most abstracted and useless of ways.

Theoretically I think you end up trapped because yes, logically its one or the other. It doesn't fit though with subjective experiences of shades of grey.

 

[A380]

.

Good point.

 

[brogdale]

Have to say I'm finding the discussion in this thread very interesting; one of the highlights of the Christian festive period for me.

 

[kabbes]

Recently, I’ve found myself wondering if these debates are hamstrung by a focus on individual and collective agency. We always end up talking about what system we would like to have. That then leads to the question of which system would work best. But I think there are fundamental questions that exist outside agency that are taken for granted in that debate. Higher-order questions.

Like, how does the nature of the system exist to perpetuate itself outside of agentic preference? (Ie, how do the power relations immanent in the social relations of its social order act to reproduce themselves?). Which leads to asking: Work best for what purpose? Working best to ensure the stability of the system is not the same as working best to produce high contentment.

Any social system that doesn’t have its own reproduction built into its power relations will be unstable and it will fall. It doesn’t matter what its benefits are or how many it helps — it won’t last. So before I engage with a theoretical construct, that’s my first thing I want to know.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You just have to look at American people with chronic medical conditions ( or children with the same) who are genuinely locked into a job because they wouldn’t be able to get new health insurance for an existing condition.

A concrete example of one of the consequences of the commodification of health care, and by contrast, an illustration of how health care here in the UK has, in a very real, concrete sense, been decommodified. It is no longer something to be bought and sold, for which a price needs to be negotiated.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Anyhow, this isn't the What is Socialism, or How Would Anarchism Work thread is it? Seems to me its been massively derailed.

 

[kabbes]

Anyhow, this isn't the What is Socialism, or How Would Anarchism Work thread is it? Seems to me its been massively derailed.

It’s asking why people aren’t members of anarchist organisations. It probably makes sense to listen to their answers.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

It’s asking why people aren’t members of anarchist organisations. It probably makes sense to listen to their answers.

Fair enough

 

[danny la rouge]

It’s asking why people aren’t members of anarchist organisations. It probably makes sense to listen to their answers.

Well, it’s asking anarchists who aren’t members of anarchist organisations why they aren’t.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

I remember a comrade saying how , if it was necessary for there to be some degree of hierarchy or 'executive power' with something (such as a transport system) then as long as its mandated/voted for by the community then thats fine. Wouldn't have to be a state either. And I don't completely dismiss federation. Having said that theres probably people who know more about it than me.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Well, it’s asking anarchists who aren’t members of anarchist organisations why they aren’t.

Thats a fair point.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Well, it’s asking anarchists who aren’t members of anarchist organisations why they aren’t.

Shame. A thread full of people saying “I’m not a member of an anarchist organisation because I’m not an anarchist” would potentially be very interesting and fruitful.

 

[danny la rouge]

Shame. A thread full of people saying “I’m not a member of an anarchist organisation because I’m not an anarchist” would potentially be very interesting and fruitful.

Then you’re in for a treat!

 

[Rob Ray]

Well, it’s asking anarchists who aren’t members of anarchist organisations why they aren’t.

Tbh I was wondering about that question, because my answer is different depending on whether it's local or national. I'm a member of Freedom Press (pretty much a local group albeit with a national-facing remit) because it has a practical application, and I'm a (semi-lapsed) member of SolFed but have strong criticisms of the current crop of federal anarchist groups.

 

[danny la rouge]

I should perhaps say I’m now part of a different anarchist organisation to the one I was in when I started this thread.

 

[danny la rouge]

Tbh I was wondering about that question, because my answer is different depending on whether it's local or national. I'm a member of Freedom Press because it has a practical application, and I'm a member of SolFed but have strong criticisms of the current crop of federal anarchist groups.

Aye, I think I was trying to avoid using the word national.

 

[danny la rouge]

have strong criticisms of the current crop of federal anarchist groups

Are they criticisms you’d care to share with the thread? I’m not suggesting it’s obligatory, just since you raise it.

 

[A380]

"I’m not a member of an anarchist organisation because I’m not an anarchist."

 

[danny la rouge]

"I’m not a member of an anarchist organisation because I’m not an anarchist."

Just out of interest, how are you defining being an anarchist?

 

[A380]

Just out of interest, how are you defining being an anarchist?

Eight legs, catches prey in silk webs. Obvs.

 

[danny la rouge]

Eight legs, catches prey in silk webs. Obvs.

And a beak for eating honey.