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.

Categories

+4 votes
Is it sensible for anarchists to advocate for local anarchist secessionist movements? Is anarchy everywhere or nowhere? The anarchist writer seaweed has put forth this notion of liberating local habitats  in some of his essays and it sounds rather compelling. But it would seem that many anarchists believe that this would only create a bubble that is perpetually on the defensive from its surrounding authoritarian foes.
by

6 Answers

0 votes
while i dont think that any anarchist would be opposed to small "anarchist" communities(i.e.- self-governed, non-heirarchal,etc), because it would be awesome, to put it simply. But the end goal, or "ultimate goal", is for economic and social emancipation to happen on a global scale. Will this ever happen? Probably not, but who knows?

Hopefully the liberated areas would serve as centers of resistance, sort of "bases" or HQ's for the revolutionaries, while still actively engaged in the process of liberating themselves and each other from the yoke of capitalism.
true freedom cant exist in a vacuum, in my opinion.
"Noone is free until we are all free" kind of thing you know?
by (140 points)
–1 vote
anarchy doesn't have to be global. in fact, i would argue that insisting that people all around the world be a certain way is part of the problem of where we are today.
in some abstract, after-the-meta-revolution scenario, it is just as possible that people will live in many small groups that determine for themselves how they want to live and get along with each other through trade and celebration, as that they will insist on raiding their neighbors and all will live in armed camps.
by (53.1k points)
edited by
0 votes
To put it simply, I believe that the means will define the limit of the end.  If I build a small, rural community with friends and family, then I have a small, rural community with friends and family.  If twenty such groups were to cooperate in settling the area within reasonable distances of one another, then an even larger area could operate in such a manner.  One can apply this to whatever situation they please.  An info-shop maintained only by an individual will probably circulate less material than one that has a dedicated group behind it to meet the demands of the shop's intention.

I also believe that basing my sense of personal well-being on how others ultimately choose to live their lives will leave me feeling unfulfilled.  Perhaps we should set goals for ourselves and not for others.  Perhaps we should regard them only insofar as they interfere with our own aspirations.  I think the state of the world might seem less entrapping.
by (950 points)
0 votes
It has to be global, but struggles will be determined by the local.  It is impossible to "bring" anarchism anywhere, but it is always possible to aid others in their liberation process.

Any "free territory" will be attacked, and it should never be the end goal to build a free territory in your locality.  Free territories can play an important role in a global liberation process, but this process could happen just as well without long standing free territories before the overthrow of all dominating structures.

If you ever do create a free territory, you become responsible for aiding liberatory movements around the globe in what ever way possible, even at the risk of your free territory.

Anything else would be escapism (I don't want to think about other peoples problems), jingoism (our freedom is more important that other peoples), or defeatism (no matter what we do other people won't be free, so we shouldn't even try).  Anarchists are fiercely opposed to these ways of thinking.

All of us or none, for real.
by (1.7k points)
Your version of anarchism sounds remarkably imperialistic in nature to me.  I understand you to mean that, if a society values power, it would likely take advantage of another when given an opportunity.

Let us form a simplified, hypothetical situation and suppose that an autonomous zone of some sort, A, develops next to a nation-state of some sort, B.  The possibility of B imposing itself upon the inhabitants of A concerns you.  As a preemptive solution to the issue you present, you recommend... what?  The people in B have born witness to the emergence of a more liberated space, yet they have not decided to make all of the same adjustments to their own interpretations of the world that those in A have.  They have weighed their options, and they have made a decision, if only the decision to not act.
If anyone in the supposedly-"liberated" space takes the burden upon themselves to "liberate" the consenting people of B, they would then have committed archism by imposing themselves upon others.  One must avoid objectifying others as victims and instead consider them subjects, lest one perpetuate paternalism.

Governance can take place only with consent.  Authority over oneself can extend to horizontal, egalitarian decision-making process within a group.  I feel that polarization will lead nowhere new.  Therefore, we must not pack "authority" into a box with "evil" scrawled on its side, but, instead, we must reject the validity any authority but our own when considering our own lives.  Further, one can only perpetuate this mentality by affording others the benefit of the doubt that they bear responsibility for and receive credit for their decisions.

By same the reasoning that I find myself liberated by, I can assert that paternalism decides what others truly need, whether they know it or not.  It attempts to assert its perspective as truth, and it speaks for those who have not even heard the question.  It imposes itself on others by objectifying their positions.  Not only does it decide the position of the statists, it also confines anarchism and, thus, anarchists to a singular position.  You have claimed authority where you have none.

Perhaps I could restate all of that a bit more concisely.  If we consider anarchism as philosophy, it simplifies to the axiom that authority begins with the simplest unit, the individual.  Anyone can practice anarchism by acting directly to achieve an end without regard for illegitimate authority.  One's ability to do so depends in no way upon the development of identical praxis by others.
That was the most nonsensical piece of garbage I have ever heard.  where to start...

"Governance can take place only with consent."
are you fucking kidding me?  I never consented to be governed.  Governance is an imposition, an abusive infringement upon the liberty of myself and others.  Even as I struggle against my conditions I am still restricted by them.  I cannot just 'disregard' illegitimate authority, because when I do they descend upon me with a flurry of violence, beat me, taser me, and lock me in a cage.
Are we living in the same world here?

Anarchism isn't just a philosophy, it is an analysis of power and a firm stance against domination.  And anarchist take it one step further by saying that nice thoughts are meaningless without action.  It is not enough to be 'correct,' we must put our ideas into practice.  This means an unending war against all forms of domination and oppression, till victory or death.

Your hypothetical is ridiculous because your premise is that those living under dominating structures in "nation B" enjoy their conditions and have freely chosen them.  You don't pay much attention to global politics, do you?  The entire world is up in flames right now because people are struggling against their oppressors.  If there was a liberated territory, it would not be hard for them to connect with anarchist and libertarian forces all over the world and aid them in their struggles.

You approach this entire situation without a class analysis.
"if a society values power..."
How the fuck do you just homogenize an entire society?  Do you not understand that within that society there are very powerful people and people with almost no power at all?

I never suggested "liberating" someone else.  In fact, I remember pretty specifically saying, "It is impossible to "bring" anarchism anywhere, but it is always possible to aid others in their liberation process."

Did you read my comment before writing this filth?

I fail to see how  "aiding liberatory movements around the globe," is imperialist.  Imperialism is the dominance of one nation over another, so if a free territory gives aid to people in a nation who are seeking to destroy that nation, that is not imperialism.  I think the correct name for it would be global solidarity, or mutual aid.

As for your philosophical perspective on 'what authority is,' you're on your own with that one.  I reject the idea that people express authority over themselves.  This was of thinking is a naturalization of existing power structure through attempting to see them where they don't exist.  It is reminiscent of some fucked up philosophy from Descartes about how the mind is a master and the body is a slave.  Why do we need to conceptualize our internal processes through metaphors of domination?

Anyone who claims to be "liberated" is full of shit.  That is some individualistic, self-righteous crap.  No one is free while others are oppressed.  If you are living under capitalism and the state, you are not 'liberated.'  I don't understand how that makes a damn bit of sense to you.

I don't even understand how you claim to be an anarchist when you don't see yourself as being at war with the forces of domination.  (or at least in conflict with them?)

To summarize:
Your understanding of anarchism is terrible
Your analysis of the global situation is terrible
Your philosophy is disgusting
and you did an awful job of critiquing my answer.
"It is impossible to "bring" anarchism anywhere,..."
Yes, you did say that.  Perhaps, then, I could have opted for a better term than "imperialism."  I still perceive a certain form of paternalism in the notion that a movement must take place on a global level if it takes place at all and that it invariably presents the most desirable situation for all individuals.  My concern over this regards the social structures that I would expect to emerge from the praxis of such thinking.

I do not consider myself infallible, and I will waste no time in expressing my own misgivings over certain shortcomings of my own thoughts.
For instance, urban, even suburban, population densities would result in mass starvation without external supplies of food and water, a means of transporting such necessities, and the physical energy to make it all happen in the form of farmers, fuel, etc.  Such a system cannot last indefinitely, and its participants depend on a certain level of destruction, both local and foreign, to survive.  Do we burn the fueling stations on the grounds that they enable the whole mess to take place, or do we create a dialogue to determine how people can rethink their needs, such as whether or not the benefits of living in cities justify the costs, and act in such a way that follows our conclusions?  Do we occupy a congressional meeting on food security, or do we subtly reappropriate land and space to begin growing food that will feed everyone?  I certainly agree that exclusion and the concept of property present some very great challenges, to the point that I occasionally feel quite despondent when I try to conceptualize the allocation of the means of production.  In this way, I feel that ends can justify means in many contexts.  Since I cannot effectively reconcile this with my previous illustration of A and B, I suppose I should have held my tongue more.  In lieu of tossing about my own perspective, I could have asked more questions.  

While acknowledging my own compromised position, I still think that we each lost a bit in translation, so I would like to offer a more specific definition of my terms.
When I wrote of society and power, class distinctions seemed implicit to me.  I meant that if a society elevates certain individuals over others, then it does not seem implausible that those individuals would attempt to further assert themselves using the power granted to them by (some) people.  I believe that power develops from the ground up.  The fact that you or I do not support a certain authority does not mean that others do not; I mean that someone must enable others into positions of power.  In instances that the power derived from such support attempts to exert itself over others, I feel that solidarity certainly has its place.  In truth, I again find myself in a peculiar position.  How do we determine what we mean by supporting power?  Can we operate to undermine it without actually making some concessions due to circumstances generated before our births?  Should we try in vain to abolish all institution at once (starve,) or should we first effect the changes to which we already have the means and proceed from there?  I do not see this as compromise, for we did not ask for such a world when born.  I infer from your answer that you would readily agree that recreating the ways we organize ourselves will take a great deal of time.  I also infer from the line, "If there was a liberated territory, it would not be hard for them to connect with anarchist and libertarian forces all over the world and aid them in their struggles."  that you would also agree that we must make certain concessions to the existence of a system if we expect to operate on a scale involving global communications and travel, assuming that you intend to move "libertarian forces" from one front of your movement to another, which demands some means of supporting the movements and efforts of such people.  

By the use of "liberated," at least in the context of my own mental health that you have found issue with, I refer only to the recognition of myself and others as subjects deserving of agency over our own lives and only over the lives of one another with consent.  Thus, it follows that we should act in a manner that meets our needs, which we can hardly do without a strong evaluation of the nature of our needs.  Here, I find it worth noting that, by, "we," I refer only to individuals that might follow such a line of reasoning, even if they do so only for the sake of this argument.  I feel that my definition of "liberated" diverges from yours in that I consider acting to develop change without relying on statist institution liberating.  I think that our independence exists, and that we must resist those who impose upon it.  I say this not because I find your definition any less valid than mine, but because I wish clarify what I meant previously.

I perceive a great ambiguity in the way most define "direct action."   I feel that many radicals fetishize conflict to the point of valuing it over the resolution of conflict.  The reclamation of space seems to occur most frequently to challenge false claims of authority; instead of simply occupying spaces, we can further repurpose them.  I could elaborate, but I share this with you to explain that I extended this concern of my own to your argument to the result, I must admit, of diverging a ways from the original subject.  I intended to explore the idea of rethinking the ways in which we consider authority instead of damning any of its forms dogmatically; practically speaking, I think that we might accomplish more by staying focused on the changes we want for ourselves and dealing with unrequited power dynamics when they arise.
–1 vote
There are several examples of anarchist societies, and their size can vary from one little commune - to very large territory (I mean Free Territory, you may know it as "Makhnovshina") - I don't know larger anarchist society. So, anarchy can be local or global.
But, we must never forget that our goal won't be achieved, until there is at least one oppressed human on the Earth. Creation of one little commune doesn't mean that anarchist's have won their war.
by (200 points)
0 votes
The international relations theories of Pierre Joseph Proudhon has received some attention because of its advocacy of a anarchic peaceful world based on world federation.

Check this reading list in which Proudhon features prominently because of this:

http://anarchist-studies-network.org.uk/ReadingLists_InternationalRelations

The abstract of a text based on this says the following:

"The International Political Theory of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: A World Without Sovereign"s by Alex Prichard http://lse.academia.edu/AlexPrichard/Books/298756/The_International_Political_Theory_of_Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon_A_World_Without_Sovereigns

"Despite being centrally concerned with the concept of anarchy, the discipline of IR has traditionally eschewed the anarchists and their writings on this concept. Where IR theorists see anarchy as a beast to be tamed, anarchists have seen anarchy as emancipatory. This work goes back to the origins of anarchism and international relations to help us rethink the concept of anarchy and its potential for contemporary IR. The book provides the first contextualist account of Proudhon's international political theory. Having penned six works on the subject of international relations, at a time when it became possible to define them as such for the first time, and from a unique anarchist perspective, this work is a lost treasure in the history of writing on world politics as well as a mine of valuable insights into our contemporary predicament. I contextualise Proudhon's writings in relation to the 19th century European balance of power, the dominance of providentialist and statist political philosophy and in the context of Proudhon's own theory of justice. By so doing I will show that it is possible to rethink anarchy and break the spell cast by the contemporary 'anarchy problematique' in IR."


Here´s a text by the same author on this subject available to be read online:

"Rethinking Anarchy and the State in
IR Theory: The Contributions of
Classical Anarchism*
Alex Prichard

"My intervention is based on a
reading of the work of the nineteenth-century anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Proudhon argued
that the state is a group that, like all other social groups, is emergent from and irreducible to the
historically and culturally distinct groupings of the individuals of which they are comprised. Indeed,
(global) society is comprised of multiple groups, and individuals who are simultaneously members of
many groups at the same time. The structures which bind groups together – or keep them apart – are
historically specific, mutable but relatively enduring. The ontological consequences for a theory of
anarchy and world politics are clear: if states are but one, relatively small if disproportionately
powerful group among many and inter-state anarchy is a form of inter-group relations replicated at all
social levels, the anarchy problematique is constitutive of politics as such. Anarchism is not the
political ideology of disorder, but of autonomy – the autonomy of groups and individuals – and a
framework for understanding how groups and individuals can relate without the need for states."

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/spais/research/workingpapers/wpspaisfiles/prichard0310.pdf
by (3.3k points)
edited by
"Society" already exists "in anarchy." "The government," "the state," whatever you want to call it, is simply a group of people who are perceived to have "authority" over others, and do violence in accordance with this belief.
...