Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.


0 votes
How would you deal with immigration and emigration in a pre-revolutionary stage of the world, but post-revolutionary in one area? For your undestanding, I mean we had a revolution in a country-sized area, but we haven't achieved full anarchy in the world.

How would this be controlled? Wouldn't it?

Also, you can discuss here about immigration and emigration in a pre-revolutionary stage of all the world and a post-revolutionary stage of all the world (which I consider it wouldn't need control).
by (340 points)
people (and animals, air, water, dirt, you name it) move. sometimes a little, sometimes a lot, sometimes with conflict, sometimes without. if hierarchical, institutional, authoritarian structures began to break down more rapidly, i  imagine that movement would increase in some places and become more restricted in others. but i don't want to imagine how to "control" it.

immigration and emigration only make sense within the context of states, and national boundaries, borders, etc. so it doesn't interest me to think in those terms for some future version of the "world".

2 Answers

–5 votes
I wrestle with this question, too.  I've come to the conclusion that borders are important in my version of the ideal society to limit disruptive imports of both goods and people.  It is clear to me that free-trade and significant immigration of unskilled labor into Europe and the USA results in net positive human alienation: those on the inside see the value of their labor decreased, while the new arrivals hardly experience any real improvement in self-esteem.

I admit I don't see how "borders" can exist without a state. I can only imagine networks of well-established business relationships that are particularly dense at the very local level. It is conceivable that such a network can, at a certain size, be essentially autonomous. Webs of exclusive business relationships can be as impenetrable as any physical wall.

It is desireable that communities be relatively small and relatively stable. I would be interested in others' comments on this.
by (600 points)

i wonder how you all feel when giving or receiving?

especially in those instances not related to consumerism, holidays or other hierarchical functions (birthdays, christmas, graduations, etc.)....when you receive or give something, whether a material thing,  or energy/skills/effort.

do you feel differently as the giver or receiver? what makes you inclined to give or receive, without an occasion? do you feel a sense of obligation or debt when you receive? or that the other person owes you when you give? what other feelings or thoughts arise? how does it affect your relationship with the person? does it affect the likelihood of you receiving and giving with other people not involved in that particular gift? if you (or the other person) used money, do you feel or think differently about the gift than when not? do you consider offering or asking for help with something a gift (even things like asking for or offering a ride somewhere)? 

these questions (and others) feel relevant to me, more so than thinking in terms of economy, or in other ways more removed from my life. 

just some more food for thought and exploration.

ba@, that is a spectacularly useful question (or set of questions) imo. one that i think deserves its own discussion, perhaps a new question.
thanks, funky@. i'll work up a question.
Good points. I also find the term "gift economics" poorly suited to the concept that I would simply call Kantian commerce (ie exchange guided by the categorical imperative).

I feel so naive when you say "enamored" Funky@.  My whole framework is challenged... which is good. which is why I'm here. My desire to be good might not survive this discussion. I might just succumb wholly to my other side: deep cynicism, with nothing to balance it.
"My desire to be good might not survive this discussion"

here's hoping it doesn't!

cynicism seems a rather healthy approach to this world (though of course not the only one), and it has done pretty well by me. but it is merely a starting point. there are always going to be times when balancing one's cynicism with other filters is appropriate. confining oneself to a single way of being/relating seems rather limiting.
+3 votes
This is a weird question to me, from an anarchist standpoint. So, borders are not material things that exist in the world, but juridical concepts negotiated between nation-states. I'm not even sure that the ancient world, for example, talked about the somewhat different notions of "territory" and "influence" in those terms, but it is certain that without a government of some sort, borders can't really exist, though obviously the uncontrolled territory on a map could be so designated, creating a sort of negatively defined border around it, but in practice this is rarely the case, instead you see such places subsumed into the mantle of the internationally recognized, regional authority, whatever that may be.

Now, if you mean would putatively anarchist groups in a heterogenous political landscape patrol a "territory" in which they live and concern themselves with outsiders they encounter, then yes, probably. Like any other things involving anarchists, though, I imagine that every such culture will develop a unique approach to these issues suited to their specific situation.

Obviously good contemporary examples to look to for ways this might be approached are the Zapatistas and Rojavans. Both seem to have welcomed outsiders to visit, but have had different reservations about who could stay and for how long.

As to how? For starters, while the fully atomized individuals of capitalism can pretty much go anywhere they can speak the language and engage others in purely monetary relationships, in a non-capitalist community personal relationships are far more important (see Graeber's Debt: The First 5000 Years) and pose natural barriers to newcomers simply inserting themselves into the life of that region. This implies that each immigrant would need to individually negotiate their way into a community and begin building relationships from scratch. A moderate amount of charity on the part of the indigenous people would probably be necessary to get them started, which may place local hardship conditions as a limit on the viability of joining the group. I suspect the place to turn to for what all that might look like are personal accounts of American frontiersmen and escaped slaves who fully joined native communities.

Of course, putative immigrants could endeavor to simply move into the area and live independently, but this looks a lot more like a small scale invasion than immigration, and while not an automatically violent situation, probably resolves itself a lot more like a negotiation between two at-odds communities. Similarly, see the history of homesteaders on the American frontier for different ways this can shake out.
by (1.4k points)
Yes, the importance of relationships and trust would be a significant barrier to migration. Each community would have its own flavor of hospitality. You said what I was trying to say, only you said it better.

However, I'm not sure I really like what you and I see as the most likely anarchist response to this issue. At first glance it appears corruptible by prejudice ("your kind ain't welcome here.") We -- meaning relatively kind individuals -- would have to really work to try to support, sponsor and welcome at least some people of diverse backgrounds into our networks. To offset the possibly natural but self-destructive preference for familiarity in association.
I disagree with and reject all the ways you are talking about this.
I don't know how you could disagree with me while I agree with you. I guess your answer must be full of symbolism and metaphor I am just to simple to get. Please, don't bother descending to my level of comprehension to try to explain how your answer is different from mine. ;)
You don't agree with me, rather you do not disagree with my post.

To better understand my perspective on my answer, take your first comment and negatively apply it to my answer. Each time you use a noun, verb, or adjective I do not, imagine that I explicitly excluded it from my meaning.

Edit: Changed "intentionally" to "explicitly" in last sentence.
You can also add pronouns to that list: I definitely do not agree with your use of "we."
I completely agree with your answer to this question.  If you don't like that, too bad.
For you all things are but a mirror in which you see yourself.