To be fair though, your organization would have been even sillier if it had been organized along anarcho capitalist lines. Also, the fact that people are prepared to pay extra for a private service that they already get from the government (paid for by taxation) does not in itself show that the private sector outperforms the government (though they may do in some cases). To draw that conclusion you would have to work out how the government would perform if they had access to the extra resources going instead to the private sector, and also take into account the fact that people pay for private services mostly for themselves, while the government (in theory) tries to use their funds to benefit lots of people. I mean, yes, sure someone's private health treatment might be better than what they would get from the NHS, but they're probably paying more for it, and all the money they spend is going towards their personal treatment, rather than being put into a pool that's also used to fund healthcare for poor people. It doesn't tell you anything about who runs the most efficient hospitals. There's also a lot of evidence that significant central direction (though not full Stalinist command economy, obviously) is better for economic growth. See e.g. literally every economic development success story of the 20th century.plodder wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:15 amYou won't be offending me, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. But I did work in a small collective organisation for over a decade and it was hamstrung by Handforth Parish Council style decision making. It was, constantly, a very very silly place to work.
It was also, interestingly, directly competing with a local authority services (charging for a service that people were already paying for out of taxation) and it demonstrated that even if hamstrung by silliness the private sector can significantly outperform "centrally co-ordinated" services, even to the point where people will pay twice (see also: health insurance). It's still going almost 20 years after I left, and it's just as silly as ever.
Anarchism - does it lead to failed states
-
- Snowbonk
- Posts: 551
- Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:42 pm
Re: Anarchism - does it lead to failed states
Re: Anarchism - does it lead to failed states
Well, in our case, we had nothing like the resources available to the local authority. We had better ideas and gumption, which is all it takes to raise funds anyway. Ironically, the thing that stopped us expanding and becoming a major player was the silliness. If we had been more capitalist then the UK would be far better at the thing we were (and they still are) very good at.
Re: Anarchism - does it lead to failed states
I see silicon valley is missing from your listsecret squirrel wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:36 amSee e.g. literally every economic development success story of the 20th century.
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: Anarchism - does it lead to failed states
Millennie Al wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 12:46 amYes, It's total anarchy in here!Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:46 pmQuite a confused thread, with everybody seemingly operating to their own definition of anarchism.
For Kropotkin-style anarchy as mentioned in the OP we'll need mutually-agreed terms.
The discussion might become silly.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: Anarchism - does it lead to failed states
As for the titular question, I don't see how anarchism can lead to failed states because anarchism by definition doesn't involve states.
There are quite a lot of examples where failed states have led to organisation along anarchist lines to at least some extent, not always with the intention of replacing state apparatus altogether - see, for example, the covid mutual aid groups that sprung up to support people against the backdrop of the UK's failure to do anything useful.
What tends to happen is that the state sorts itself out eventually, and either people cede control or have it taken from them.
There are quite a lot of examples where failed states have led to organisation along anarchist lines to at least some extent, not always with the intention of replacing state apparatus altogether - see, for example, the covid mutual aid groups that sprung up to support people against the backdrop of the UK's failure to do anything useful.
What tends to happen is that the state sorts itself out eventually, and either people cede control or have it taken from them.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
-
- Snowbonk
- Posts: 551
- Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:42 pm
Re: Anarchism - does it lead to failed states
I'm talking about countries here. But since you brought it up, silicon valley benefited and continues to benefit massively from state funding of tech development, not to mention state provided education infrastructure. You almost could not have picked a worse example.plodder wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:18 amI see silicon valley is missing from your listsecret squirrel wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:36 amSee e.g. literally every economic development success story of the 20th century.
Re: Anarchism - does it lead to failed states
Um, silicon valley really, really isn't state controlled. They also operate in a place called "the world" where young people go to things called "schools", which are often (but not always) paid for in part through taxation - I'm not sure where else they'd get their staff from. I am not an anarcho-capitalist, but at least I understand the basics of why some people are.
-
- Snowbonk
- Posts: 551
- Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:42 pm
Re: Anarchism - does it lead to failed states
plodder wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 11:21 amUm, silicon valley really, really isn't state controlled. They also operate in a place called "the world" where young people go to things called "schools", which are often (but not always) paid for in part through taxation - I'm not sure where else they'd get their staff from. I am not an anarcho-capitalist, but at least I understand the basics of why some people are.
secret squirrel wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:42 am... silicon valley benefited and continues to benefit massively from state funding of tech development, not to mention state provided education infrastructure. You almost could not have picked a worse example.
Re: Anarchism - does it lead to failed states
Ah. You think silicon valley is a bad example of capitalism because it exploits whatever opportunities it can, and the state is so in thrall to their success they throw loads of tax dollars at it?
-
- Snowbonk
- Posts: 551
- Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:42 pm
Re: Anarchism - does it lead to failed states
Silicon valley is a bad example of an economic success story free of government direction, because the state directed and funded all the foundational research that made it possible, and continues to shape development by targeted funding.
Kind of starting to worry you're not very sharp here mate.
Re: Anarchism - does it lead to failed states
Show me the "significant central direction (though not full Stalinist command economy, obviously)" in place there, then.secret squirrel wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 11:33 amSilicon valley is a bad example of an economic success story free of government direction, because the state directed and funded all the foundational research that made it possible, and continues to shape development by targeted funding.
Kind of starting to worry you're not very sharp here mate.
Re: Anarchism - does it lead to failed states
What an extraordinary claim.lpm wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:18 pmThe existence of crime, criminals and riots is not an argument against my point.
We all know shoplifting exists and hence CCTV cameras and store detectives are needed. But I'm not going to start shoplifting if those cameras and guards disappear, nor would anyone else here. Like everyone else I believe in laws including those that aren't enforced. A small minority would take advantage of the opportunity, obviously. But rioters believe in the law, see it cannot be enforced and seize the opportunity. They don't reject the structure, they exploit the weaknesses.
Ultimately the riots you mention in London and Montreal have had zero impact. The rule of law is still in place, I can visit London and not be the victim of crime, the people of Montreal exert their property and other rights. Obviously the rule of law is always temporarily falling apart - every night in some city centre pub - but returns within minutes. It's incredibly robust in most of the world. A tiny police force and trivial state violence is sufficient to maintain stability that lasts centuries.
Re: Anarchism - does it lead to failed states
Parking rules are usually strictly enforced precisely because they command relatively little respect from those they apply to though. I bet you have less chance of getting nicked for shoplifting or burglary than of getting ticketed for parking on a double yellow, but I bet none of the good St Albanians quoted would dream of going out thieving of an evening.
Move-a… side, and let the mango through… let the mango through
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: Anarchism - does it lead to failed states
Crystal healing and judicial executions, name a more iconic duo.The owner of a crystal healing shop, Philip Permutt, says the cars block the pavement on both sides of his store, stop ping people from coming inside. "Someone at the council should be shot," he said yesterday. "It's a joke."
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: Anarchism - does it lead to failed states
we have a rare opportunity for an experiment. we could all go to St Albans and park badly, and see what happens.
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7144
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: Anarchism - does it lead to failed states
Just going back to this. According to UK official statistics.lpm wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:01 pmNearly all people go to prison willingly - they obey the prison officer. A few are violent. Even criminals believe in the power of the law - they mostly claim to be innocent, they rarely claim the court has no jurisdiction over them.
In England we're several centuries beyond "The law only works because the state has a monopoly on violence". The law works because it's the law. Same way money works because it's money. I don't believe these shared abstract beliefs will disappear given how deep routed they are in our society.
None of this is to say there aren't shoplifters, Covid rule breakers and violent criminals. But only a handful of these lawbreakers come up with fantasy arguments about being freeman of the land and the like.
In the year ending 31 March 2020 UK police officers reported the use force in 492 000 incidents. Among those incidents they reported:
Physical restraint was used 452 000 times
Other 'unarmed skills' such as pressure point or joint locks were used 164 000 times.
Firearms were used 4 800 times (in the vast majority of incidents they weren't fired).
Tasers were used 33 000 times (in the great majority they were not discharged).
Batons, irritant spray, shields etc 32 000 times
Other tactics (such as the use of dogs) were used 30 000 times
[Some tactics may be used more than once in an incident]
Certainly, most people will peaceably follow the law when told to. But the police are still using force over a thousand times a day. And this is just the number of incidents they reported.
As mentioned, it only takes a small fraction of society to have a very severe effect upon public safety.
Re: Anarchism - does it lead to failed states
Don't forget that the US also managed to cost more in taxes and compulsory spending even before the ACA.Martin Y wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:01 pmCertainly there are but health insurance under the British model appears to cost an awful lot less than under the American model. Maybe they're not representative of whatever system libertarians want to try, IDK, but the difference in approach and cost is stark.
Twitter links to an OECD graph
https://t.co/zwDK39cR61?amp=1
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
Re: Anarchism - does it lead to failed states
Or if you're interested in the fact that a substantial minority of people will commit extremely serious crimes if there's no enforcement of the law, well, there's an entire thread for that.Sciolus wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:45 pmWhat an extraordinary claim.lpm wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:18 pmThe existence of crime, criminals and riots is not an argument against my point.
We all know shoplifting exists and hence CCTV cameras and store detectives are needed. But I'm not going to start shoplifting if those cameras and guards disappear, nor would anyone else here. Like everyone else I believe in laws including those that aren't enforced. A small minority would take advantage of the opportunity, obviously. But rioters believe in the law, see it cannot be enforced and seize the opportunity. They don't reject the structure, they exploit the weaknesses.
Ultimately the riots you mention in London and Montreal have had zero impact. The rule of law is still in place, I can visit London and not be the victim of crime, the people of Montreal exert their property and other rights. Obviously the rule of law is always temporarily falling apart - every night in some city centre pub - but returns within minutes. It's incredibly robust in most of the world. A tiny police force and trivial state violence is sufficient to maintain stability that lasts centuries.
Re: Anarchism - does it lead to failed states
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.
Fintan O'Toole
Fintan O'Toole
Re: Anarchism - does it lead to failed states
My answer to these would be the underlying problem is lack of belief in the law. Sometimes what the law says and what society believes becomes misaligned - driving at 80 on the motorway, smoking pot. Unfortunately it's not just a minority of men who believe the law is wrong on sexual assault, and believe harassment and sexual assault is not only normal but the correct behaviour of a hot blooded alpha male. When Hollywood movies constantly repeat the trope that women are won over by stalking and harassing, it's hardly surprising the majority thinks this is both legal and expected. Add to that a p.rnography industry that constantly normalises rape, assault and harassment, either genuine or acted out. Add to that the slow changes over generations, where sons grew up seeing their father control their mother.Sciolus wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 7:30 amOr if you're interested in the fact that a substantial minority of people will commit extremely serious crimes if there's no enforcement of the law, well, there's an entire thread for that.Sciolus wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:45 pmWhat an extraordinary claim.lpm wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:18 pmThe existence of crime, criminals and riots is not an argument against my point.
We all know shoplifting exists and hence CCTV cameras and store detectives are needed. But I'm not going to start shoplifting if those cameras and guards disappear, nor would anyone else here. Like everyone else I believe in laws including those that aren't enforced. A small minority would take advantage of the opportunity, obviously. But rioters believe in the law, see it cannot be enforced and seize the opportunity. They don't reject the structure, they exploit the weaknesses.
Ultimately the riots you mention in London and Montreal have had zero impact. The rule of law is still in place, I can visit London and not be the victim of crime, the people of Montreal exert their property and other rights. Obviously the rule of law is always temporarily falling apart - every night in some city centre pub - but returns within minutes. It's incredibly robust in most of the world. A tiny police force and trivial state violence is sufficient to maintain stability that lasts centuries.
It works both ways - a government making something illegal, smacking children say, does not instantly change the real world and smacking continues. But effectively losing illegality, not enforcing shoplifting say, also doesn't change the real world and we don't all start shoplifting.
But my optimism comes from comparing today's acceptance of law with that of 50, 100 or 200 years ago. A thing that was legal such as drink driving can become an unacceptable crime within mere decades.
Awarded gold star 4 November 2021
Re: Anarchism - does it lead to failed states
I already tried that, inadvertently, about 8 years ago. On one of only a handful of occasions I went to St Albans, I paid the fee in a pay-and-display car park, but got a parking ticket for being badly parked. I rarely get parking tickets, so the memory stands out.
Re: Anarchism - does it lead to failed states
Are you blaming that ticket on a fit of anarchism?
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: Anarchism - does it lead to failed states
For anyone interested in discussing anarchism, rather than the libertarianism / laissez-faire capitalism currently dominating the thread, there's a good piece here on FiveBooks - the basic premise is to get some kind of "expert" to discuss five important books on their chosen topic.
In this piece, Ruth Kinna (professor of Political Theory at Loughborough University) gives a nice - and by no means uncritical - overview of the history and breadth of anarchist thought, and how it overlaps with socialism, labour movements, feminist movements and various revolutions.
The important distinction between anarchism and what people are discussing here is that it's based on voluntary cooperation between groups:
In this piece, Ruth Kinna (professor of Political Theory at Loughborough University) gives a nice - and by no means uncritical - overview of the history and breadth of anarchist thought, and how it overlaps with socialism, labour movements, feminist movements and various revolutions.
The important distinction between anarchism and what people are discussing here is that it's based on voluntary cooperation between groups:
Anarchists start from a very different foundation: that we naturally cooperate. It may be in a very sociable way, in the sense that we have friendly relations, or it might mean in a thinner way, that we can cooperate despite our anxieties, antagonisms, and conflicts. And anarchists think that it is through this cooperation that we will build our institutions.
It’s very difficult for political theorists to think about anarchism in any other way than negative, because it seems to contradict everything that politics is based on: the idea that we need a constructed and defined order, and that we can’t coordinate our actions unless somebody helps us do it. Anarchists come along with the idea that anarchy is order, and what exists is disorder. That frightens people.
She also makes the worthwhile point that a lot of social progress and dismantling of authoritarianism has come from anarchistic movements, even if they didn't ultimately result in anarchism:Free agreement is what defines your politics, and it’s linked theoretically to ideas of fluidity and flux. In anarchy there’s no such thing as a final accord, or a set of rules against which we judge everything else. It’s a process we enter into. That’s the starting point. He [Kropotkin] then explains that this idea has been around forever: we can see it in the Greeks, in ancient Chinese thought, it’s everywhere. It was crystallised in the modern day through the organisation of the First International. From the 1860s onwards, we see a political movement we can call anarchist, which is taking this timeless idea of fluidity, flux and free agreement, and putting it within the particular context of the struggle of workers against exploiters. He also talks about masters and slaves, and domination.
In this sense he says that you can put anarchism on the left of socialism, because anarchists are not people who simply want to take control of the government and use its instruments in order to bring about equality; they want to completely abolish this system that imposes sets of rules and regulations that you must always judge your practice against. That’s why it’s on the left.
For instance, trade unions and other workers' and residents' associations were instrumental in bringing about the 1974 Carnation Revolution in Portugal. It's sometimes painted as a military coup, but was really more of a strike by junior officers against the senior military officials propping up the authoritarian dictatorship. Voluntary associations of the masses cooperated throughout a period of turbulent restructuring, and two years later free elections were held. The Estado Novo was a failed state, whereas anarchist movements helped bring the modern democracy of Portugal into being.If you read this book, you’ll get a much better idea of how small groups, and sometimes handfuls of individuals, actually built significant movements in areas where perhaps people don’t normally think that anarchism had any presence. Argentina, Cuba, China, Egypt, South Africa, are all mentioned and studied. This is a network of labour movements that were feeding from common ideas, and organising in local contexts to fight local struggles in particular ways. In this way it’s possible to see anarchism as a much more significant force for change than is typical in Europe today.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
-
- Snowbonk
- Posts: 551
- Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:42 pm
Re: Anarchism - does it lead to failed states
Thanks for the link.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 3:19 pmFor anyone interested in discussing anarchism, rather than the libertarianism / laissez-faire capitalism currently dominating the thread, there's a good piece here on FiveBooks - the basic premise is to get some kind of "expert" to discuss five important books on their chosen topic...
Re: Anarchism - does it lead to failed states
Many thanks also. I was acquainted with Ruth Kinna as a student, many years ago.