Anarchy, It doesn't sound like what I'm told.

[JCC]

It's Jillian's place to explain it eh, I'm really only his disciple.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Not to put him on the spot, or anything.... Now we're all expecting something.

[JCC]

He'll probably just PM Joker about it, I doubt it would sound much different to people who aren't really interested in anarchy.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Sounds much different from what? The standard ideas about anarchy?

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Well, we'll have to wait for him to get his sexy ass on here. Until then, I've got the day off of work, so I'm working on my story.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Sounds much different from what? The standard ideas about anarchy?

Well, that's the issue. There is no standard idea about anarchy, it's about as broad as an ideology can be.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

I gather. .........

[Godslayer Jillian]

Well, once JCC and I were talking. He's an anarchocommunist, I'm an anarchosyndicalist. He believes that resources should be allocated as decided by the local populace. I believe that resources should be allocated at will according to a federation of workers across the region.
Both are very very close, but it depends on who has the ultimate voice: the producers or the community.

But there's some limitations to those theories. Anarchosyndicalism ignores sociopolitical issues, because it's all about just giving the fruits of the labor to the producers, which is good, but that's not all that politics is. Anarchocommunism will always rely on democratic decision for the allocation for resources, but democracy can mean that in theory 49% of the people could end up dissatisfied.
So by tweaking with anarchist theory a little, we're trying to come up with a sister theory called Anarchofederalism. The word federalism is all about the balance of power between a higher authority and its smaller units. Following very strictly and very literally this need for a balance of power, every political action is as relevant as all others. The thoughts put into action of an ad hoc group that wants to, let's say, publish a newspaper, are just as relevant as the decisions of the community, and just as relevant as the interactions between regions and such. This is because regardless of how big or small the group is, it's acting on its own initiative, regardless of whether it's economic or social, or any other.
Why would that work? Because the federation units are not mutually exclusive. While in anarchosyndicalism you're a, let's say, blacksmith and have a voice as a blacksmith; with anarchofederalism you have the voice, concern, and social responsibility of each political issue that matters to you. Are you a family member? A member of a community? A musician? A welder? All these are social and political entities.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Well, once JCC and I were talking. He's an anarchocommunist, I'm an anarchosyndicalist. He believes that resources should be allocated as decided by the local populace. I believe that resources should be allocated at will according to a federation of workers across the region.
Both are very very close, but it depends on who has the ultimate voice: the producers or the community.

But there's some limitations to those theories. Anarchosyndicalism ignores sociopolitical issues, because it's all about just giving the fruits of the labor to the producers, which is good, but that's not all that politics is. Anarchocommunism will always rely on democratic decision for the allocation for resources, but democracy can mean that in theory 49% of the people could end up dissatisfied.
So by tweaking with anarchist theory a little, we're trying to come up with a sister theory called Anarchofederalism. The word federalism is all about the balance of power between a higher authority and its smaller units. Following very strictly and very literally this need for a balance of power, every political action is as relevant as all others. The thoughts put into action of an ad hoc group that wants to, let's say, publish a newspaper, are just as relevant as the decisions of the community, and just as relevant as the interactions between regions and such. This is because regardless of how big or small the group is, it's acting on its own initiative, regardless of whether it's economic or social, or any other.
Why would that work? Because the federation units are not mutually exclusive. While in anarchosyndicalism you're a, let's say, blacksmith and have a voice as a blacksmith; with anarchofederalism you have the voice, concern, and social responsibility of each political issue that matters to you. Are you a family member? A member of a community? A musician? A welder? All these are social and political entities.

So what you're saying is that issues can be decided on based on local consensus of people as individuals and in unions of producers? I like so far.

So if a decision had to be made that was regional, the committee of workers and producers would sit down with the committee of citizens and discuss things until an agreement is reached, and your roll on a committee would shift depending on your position in the issue? So a blacksmith would be on the production committee for blacksmith issues and on the community committee for issues such as food production?

[KontanKarite]

Sounds cool to me.

[Godslayer Jillian]

It was a shitty description, but yeah, it pretty much sums up in that roles are very flexible. This allows an inevitable overlap in all 'organizations' which doesn't allow many, if any, to be ignored, while it also makes them as acephallic as possible by blurring the concreteness of responsibilities.
This does not mean people are more irresponsible, but that it will be harder for anyone to assume that an action is 'especially theirs to fight for' and therefore that they are more deserving of being treated as a leader of sorts.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

It was a shitty description, but yeah, it pretty much sums up in that roles are very flexible. This allows an inevitable overlap in all 'organizations' which doesn't allow many, if any, to be ignored, while it also makes them as acephallic as possible by blurring the concreteness of responsibilities.
This does not mean people are more irresponsible, but that it will be harder for anyone to assume that an action is 'especially theirs to fight for' and therefore that they are more deserving of being treated as a leader of sorts.

So essentially it's a more organized form of Anarcho-Communism and a more flexible form of Anarcho-syndicalism?

[stolide]

Sounds cool.

[JCC]

I was thinking that the main four anarchists here should pool our ideas, use MSN or something (fight the system from the inside!) to solidify a real ideology rather than a few loose ideas and make something that's legitimate and can be acted upon. Then get to work on distributing leaflets and such.

[stolide]

I'm more of a libertarian myself, but if I could at least listen in on your discussions I would greatly enjoy that.

[JCC]

If we finished some leaflets we'd probably send the PDF to anyone who asked or something.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Sounds good. I'm in mate. The only thing that concerns me is that I'm fearful that the organizations of particular trades might gain power, so I want to make sure there is a check-and-balance there.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Anarchism is the ultimate checks-and-balance, but I won't explain it now; too much talk about anarchism, it's becoming too one-dimensional.

JCC, man, you're too idealist! And for me to say that is big. We're four people, and I've only read Bakunin, Goldman, Proudhon, Kropotkin, Chomsky, and CrimethInc.
The whole anarchofederalism thing won't actually be a legitimate theory until I finish it as my philosophy thesis. It's not like we can chat for a week and change our communities within the month.

[PortraitOfSanity]

When the revolution comes:


I have an AK to sell you.

[Drake Dun]

http://brokenwing.bondforge.com/color_coordinated.jpg

The revolution will be color coordinated.

[JCC]

Jillian: it's not about what you've read, man. I'm not that well-versed in Anarchism at all. As for changing our communities, baby steps. Sitting back and doing nothing is a pile of shit.

[Tam Li Hua]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

There's a difference between wanting and needing, though. At first you say, it 'sort of is'. Conforming to the modern system isn't required for survival. It's simply optimal, and can supply us with beautiful excess.

I know this is late, but better late than never, right?

Yes, there's a difference between want and need, but when we speak of need, are we speaking merely of physical need, or of emotional and mental need as well?

For instance, a person can be perfectly healthy physically, but still be terribly in need of others emotionally.

[Raptor]

I might as well ask questions as this thread is around. How do logistics work?

For example, a well developed nation becomes anarchist, it's got lots of cities and all of the infrastructure that goes with that. So now theres no government.

Who runs the power stations? Do they get paid for that service? And how would 'pay' work? A currency or trade, but in either case it would have to be decided how much a service or good is worth? Or do they just charge what they want and the price gets balanced out by the fact people won't pay if it's too high. How do they pay for fuel for the power station if it's from another community? And a fire service, while a joint effort by the general population might be fine to fight a small house fire in a village, a city would need a trained team to deal with large or more exotic fires, do those guys get compensated for the training time? That was a lot of questions, and it was more to give you an idea of what I'm asking, as I think the answer to logistics will cover many of those specific points at once.

Essentially, do jobs and the like work in an anarchist society in the same way they do under governments? If it's a choice by everyone then they would have to vote on each issue? Is that really feasible in a city (considering the amount of infrastructure, and the amount of time organising it all when everyone has to decide as a group would take), or does anarchy involve splitting into smaller communities?

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Who runs the power stations?

Whoever in the community chooses to do that specific job. It would be a large group of people though, so as to ensure that hours are fairly minimal and productivity is optimized.

Originally Posted by Raptor

Do they get paid for that service?

As much as everyone else does.

Originally Posted by Raptor

And how would 'pay' work?

Equal allocation of resources within the community, where the community as a whole decides how much people need and what items. Pay doesn't change, because that breeds inequality.

Originally Posted by Raptor

A currency or trade, but in either case it would have to be decided how much a service or good is worth? Or do they just charge what they want and the price gets balanced out by the fact people won't pay if it's too high.

This is Anarcho-capitalism you're talking about. Anarcho-capitalism is a crock of shit and is generally shunned. Anarchism tends to not have capitalism.

Originally Posted by Raptor

How do they pay for fuel for the power station if it's from another community?

Syndication. It wouldn't 'cost' per se, there's two answers to this:

1. A community gives from the goodness of its heart. Possible, unlikely.
2. You trade, give them something they need in return.

Originally Posted by Raptor

And a fire service, while a joint effort by the general population might be fine to fight a small house fire in a village, a city would need a trained team to deal with large or more exotic fires, do those guys get compensated for the training time?

The education systems in Anarchism depend solely on the communities and their decisions, however I would say that if taught properly, training time really shouldn't be that long and everyone should be encouraged to train in as many subjects as possible. Create jacks-of-all-trades before branching into specialism and you cut the training times of every job. Communities would ideally be in tandem with each other, so the fire services from each community would form a greater one for a fire of epic proportions, common good and all that.

Originally Posted by Raptor

Essentially, do jobs and the like work in an anarchist society in the same way they do under governments?

No. Anarchism, to me, entails that workers control production. So it's as different as you can get, really, since there is no dictatorship in production.

Originally Posted by Raptor

If it's a choice by everyone then they would have to vote on each issue?

Yup. True democracy.

Originally Posted by Raptor

Is that really feasible in a city (considering the amount of infrastructure, and the amount of time organising it all when everyone has to decide as a group would take), or does anarchy involve splitting into smaller communities?

Communities should be as small as possible. In a community of three, one person may walk away disappointed if there really is no happy medium. The further up you get in terms of population, the more people end up disappointed.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by JCC

Communities should be as small as possible. In a community of three, one person may walk away disappointed if there really is no happy medium. The further up you get in terms of population, the more people end up disappointed.

This, to others, is not to say that the ideal community is three people.


I don't want a shit-ton of threads responding with, "OMGZ 3 PPL COMUNITEEES? SRSLY? LOLZZ!!!1!1!!1"