Anarchism in the cosmere

[animalia]

I just finished reading through this thread and I have a question about something that confused me. What does religion, or the lack thereof, have to do with anarchy?

[clowncarcrash]

On 3/15/2022 at 10:52 AM, animalia said:

I just finished reading through this thread and I have a question about something that confused me. What does religion, or the lack thereof, have to do with anarchy?

I've never studied anarchy in school but I'd imagine organized religion brings hierarchy and a set of dogma that could dominate society. I can't imagine if we have an anarchist character they'd gel with anyone who subscribed to Vorinisim. 

[Pathfinder]

On 3/15/2022 at 1:52 PM, animalia said:

I just finished reading through this thread and I have a question about something that confused me. What does religion, or the lack thereof, have to do with anarchy?

I will try relate what I believe the point oltux was trying to make. It's been awhile, so I apologize if i misrepresent in advance. Basically so long as there is a being that can point at you and you go "poof", then anarchism cannot exist because a power beyond you can make the rules and enforce them on you, regardless how you personally feel. As made clear earlier in the thread, I disagreed with this for the reasons I mentioned. 

[animalia]

Ok. New question/thing to point out. I am not sure if it’s overly relevant. But I do think the implications, if VERY minor are still worth pointing out. Humans fighting with each other dates back to prehistoric times. I am not saying that the idea that inequality exacerbates these fights is wrong. Or that you are misguided in trying to solve this problem. On the contrary. I think that this is something worth working for and if you can solve it it’s a good thing.
I am just saying that the idea of thinking  that getting rid of inequality in and of itself will get rid of fighting seems to be naive

And yet as I say this I cannot also help but laugh inwardly at myself as I acknowledge that there was a time where Democracy on a large scale was considered infeasible, and yet time and history has gone on to prove that wrong, so who knows. Perhaps you guys are on to the way of the future?

[clowncarcrash]

I think you’re asking about what justice would look like in anarchy. From what I gather looking at a preliminary google search, anarchy really emphasizes restorative justice. If there is antisocial behavior they look towards the system. 

I don’t think anarchy means no rules, its just means De-professionalized and de-centralized use of force and de-professionalized and de-centralized decision-making,

[Proletariat]

21 hours ago, animalia said:

Ok. New question/thing to point out. I am not sure if it’s overly relevant. But I do think the implications, if VERY minor are still worth pointing out. Humans fighting with each other dates back to prehistoric times. I am not saying that the idea that inequality exacerbates these fights is wrong. Or that you are misguided in trying to solve this problem. On the contrary. I think that this is something worth working for and if you can solve it it’s a good thing.
I am just saying that the idea of thinking  that getting rid of inequality in and of itself will get rid of fighting seems to be naive

And yet as I say this I cannot also help but laugh inwardly at myself as I acknowledge that there was a time where Democracy on a large scale was considered infeasible, and yet time and history has gone on to prove that wrong, so who knows. Perhaps you guys are on to the way of the future?

A key element of socialist thought (and most feminist thought also) is that people aren't automatically asshats based on a reading of class (and gender) in society. People are on balance not that bad, basically, and we shouldn't give into social darwinist ideas of us all being out to cull the weak or whatever. This doesn't mean it is a given that everything will be fabulous in a classless and stateless society, because there's lots of different models for what that looks like and pathways to get there. But this is why for the anarchist school of socialism the means is not separable from the ends - it's not enough to get rid of class rule because it really matters how you get there and the lessons that people broadly learn along the way.

Some of the examples that we can point to about anti-social behaviour being driven by class are in fact quite contemporary. Where I live there are almost no women in prison for violent offences - the absolute majority of women in prison haven't been charged with a crime but are on remand or couldn't pay a fine. The remainder are there mostly for drug related offences, or theft related to poverty, and most have experienced severe domestic violence. If we raised welfare payments to above the poverty line, and decriminalised drugs, then we'd essentially abolish women's prisons in my country simply with the kind of basic policies people associate with Greens parties and that's wild to think about given those kinds of simple reforms are well short of a revolution.

And there is a consistent pattern that the kind of interpersonal violence that we take for granted - as well as the systems of state enforcement expected as a response - isn't automatic. First Nations peoples in classless societies are no monolith, but many participated in societies where the kind of conflict referenced simply didn't happen in a way that we see as given today. Not because of some noble spiritual thing (that kind of romantic notion can get a bit racist as if First Nations are pixies), but because private property was not enforced via class rules. This isn't to say things were perfect either, but the point is that our future isn't set in stone.

As far as your historical reference, it's worth noting that in readings of history Marxists and anarchists don't simply argue against capitalism but class rule which began from the point of agriculture and accumulation of goods which is around the time of the conflict you've cited. But I'm no archaeologist so I wouldn't want to venture in depth. 

If you want a guide on abolition of the prison system and how to deal with violence, this is a good text written by some left liberal lawyer types. It's by no means revolutionary, but does provoke thought if this is something you're interested in reflecting on https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/instead_of_prisons/

Edited March 18, 2022 by Proletariat

[NameIess]

The problem with anarchy is that the people who don't do anarchy will win against those who do. Take Roshar for example. If a group of Singers decided to throw off the oppressive rule of the Fused to live peacefully, they would be unable to do so unless they either ran away like the Listeners (a temporary solution at best) or had the military might to force everyone to leave them alone. How do they get a military like that? Well, they'd have to have a governing body with the power to make that army. And that army has to have food, and weapons, and training, and housing. In order to produce weapons and supplies more efficiently, you need roads and infrastructure. And to get infrastructure, you need to money. In order to get money, you need to give someone the authority to tax people. And in order to tax people fairly, you need...

So basically, unless you've got a weapon that can keep non-anarchists away from you, anarchy won't work. And the easiest way to get that weapon is normally to make a government. Now, Shards could change that. If you've got a Shard on your side, or some incredibly powerful magic user, you could hold off your enemies and live happily in anarchy. Until another shard shows up. Or the non-anarchists figure out how to counter your magic.

[animalia]

11 hours ago, clowncarcrash said:

I think you’re asking about what justice would look like in anarchy. From what I gather looking at a preliminary google search, anarchy really emphasizes restorative justice. If there is antisocial behavior they look towards the system. 

I don’t think anarchy means no rules, its just means De-professionalized and de-centralized use of force and de-professionalized and de-centralized decision-making,

Actually it was in response to a post made earlier in the thread. give me a bit. I will try to find it.

[animalia]

On 8/19/2021 at 2:31 AM, Proletariat said:

One of the fundamental principles of socialist thought is that people are generally cooperative and do not have a vested interest in cruelty toward one another when separated from hierarchical systems like capitalism (including state capitalism as implemented by Stalin). The idea is then to have a socially transformative that is ongoing in the dismantlement of that system, and that means the oppressed classes (workers, peasants, those completely excluded from the economy) overthrowing the ruling class as part of it.

I wasn't disagreeing that you could probably vastly reduce the amount of cruelty. Just that it seems unlikely that you could get rid of it all together.

Edit:

P.S.: Side note: I don't know if I subscribe to any ideology whatso ever. The closest thing I can think of is that I like to ask questions and go "What if?" Even if it's against the grain of the current discussion somewhat. HMM Maybe I have a mild Contrarian bent. But i like do do so more for the sake of promoting well thought out discussion rather then being contrarian in it's own sake.

P.P.S: Do you want me to see if I can come up with any of more of these potentially thought provoking questions?

Edited March 18, 2022 by animalia

[Proletariat]

13 hours ago, Nameless said:

The problem with anarchy is that the people who don't do anarchy will win against those who do. Take Roshar for example. If a group of Singers decided to throw off the oppressive rule of the Fused to live peacefully, they would be unable to do so unless they either ran away like the Listeners (a temporary solution at best) or had the military might to force everyone to leave them alone. How do they get a military like that? Well, they'd have to have a governing body with the power to make that army. And that army has to have food, and weapons, and training, and housing. In order to produce weapons and supplies more efficiently, you need roads and infrastructure. And to get infrastructure, you need to money. In order to get money, you need to give someone the authority to tax people. And in order to tax people fairly, you need...

So basically, unless you've got a weapon that can keep non-anarchists away from you, anarchy won't work. And the easiest way to get that weapon is normally to make a government. Now, Shards could change that. If you've got a Shard on your side, or some incredibly powerful magic user, you could hold off your enemies and live happily in anarchy. Until another shard shows up. Or the non-anarchists figure out how to counter your magic.

There's nothing to say that anarchism is inherently peaceful in its revolutionary method. The Spanish revolution featured democratic militia as did the Ukrainians during the Russian revolution, and the decentralised and democratic militia in Kurdistan. Meanwhile some of the most centralised armies have actually failed (for e.g the US messed up Vietnam pretty bad, but did not 'win' in the sense you're measuring in these kinds of scenarios), because it's more about tactics, artillery etc. than about whether you have a centralised body for decision making. 

You also don't need money to make things - what you need is labour and commodities, as well as things needed to reproduce that labour force (healthcare, food, housing, schooling etc.). The rise of the market economy is reasonably recent and pegged to the current mode of production, and while these forms of labour reproduction have innovated since the industrial revolution people practiced them well before rise of currency and market economies. Moreover the motivation of avoiding genocide and enslavement in your scenario definitely seems enough that people would build a road if need be lol people don't just go into a coma without coins.

9 hours ago, animalia said:

I wasn't disagreeing that you could probably vastly reduce the amount of cruelty. Just that it seems unlikely that you could get rid of it all together.

Edit:

P.S.: Side note: I don't know if I subscribe to any ideology whatso ever. The closest thing I can think of is that I like to ask questions and go "What if?" Even if it's against the grain of the current discussion somewhat. HMM Maybe I have a mild Contrarian bent. But i like do do so more for the sake of promoting well thought out discussion rather then being contrarian in it's own sake.

P.P.S: Do you want me to see if I can come up with any of more of these potentially thought provoking questions?

I think that's a supposition, though.

There's something to cut against in that we often proclaim that people just are violent, just are going to do things etc. when there's actually not proof for this. Most violence can be connected directly or indirectly with oppression or exploitation. This is why I say it's not a given that everything is some fantasy if you get rid of these issues, but that it is possible and we should not accept the 'it seems unlikely' as a self-evident truth.

And I guess on being contrarianism it depends on the target, really. It's usually one person creating a lot of extra work for another person for entertainment's purposes rather than a mutual inquiry. Perhaps if you're of a mind to encourage inquiry it could be worth applying that devil advocacy and exploration to your own assumptions and research some of the things I pointed out too. Sharing is caring after all! 

[animalia]

9 hours ago, Proletariat said:

Perhaps if you're of a mind to encourage inquiry it could be worth applying that devil advocacy and exploration to your own assumptions and research some of the things I pointed out too. Sharing is caring after all! 

Actually I DO question my own assumptions. ALOT. To the point where I sometimes start going in circles and have tor reign myself in. I LIKE Questioning my own assumptions. My doing the same with others is basically a natural outgrowth of said tendency.

Edited March 19, 2022 by animalia

[NameIess]

10 hours ago, Proletariat said:

There's nothing to say that anarchism is inherently peaceful in its revolutionary method. The Spanish revolution featured democratic militia as did the Ukrainians during the Russian revolution, and the decentralised and democratic militia in Kurdistan. Meanwhile some of the most centralised armies have actually failed (for e.g the US messed up Vietnam pretty bad, but did not 'win' in the sense you're measuring in these kinds of scenarios), because it's more about tactics, artillery etc. than about whether you have a centralised body for decision making. 

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but none of those countries are anarchies. In order for a military to function, there has to be a clear chain of command. In the end, someone or someones have to make a plan, and they have to be able to get the soldiers to carry out that plan. So you need some people to be in charge of the army. And you need people to ensure the army gets supplied with food, weapons, wages etc. And to make sure the people in charge of that stuff are good at their jobs, you need some way to decide who gets those jobs. All of which is starting to sound like a government, yeah?

10 hours ago, Proletariat said:

You also don't need money to make things - what you need is labour and commodities, as well as things needed to reproduce that labour force (healthcare, food, housing, schooling etc.). The rise of the market economy is reasonably recent and pegged to the current mode of production, and while these forms of labour reproduction have innovated since the industrial revolution people practiced them well before rise of currency and market economies. Moreover the motivation of avoiding genocide and enslavement in your scenario definitely seems enough that people would build a road if need be lol people don't just go into a coma without coins.

It is true that you don't need money, but you do need to compensate your soldiers and workers somehow in order to have a stable military. Maybe in the case of a group of Singers who broke off you might not need to worry about that immediately, since the alternative to fighting the Fused is dying or being enslaved, but in the long run that doesn't work. If they just have to fight/work without any compensation, they'll eventually start to wonder if their lives weren't better under the Fused, or if the humans would take them in.

My main point is that the reason we have governments is that governments beat anarchies. Pure anarchy won't work large-scale, because other countries that aren't anarchies will invade. If an anarchy gets an army to protect themselves, that army must be organized in order to be effective.

[animalia]

1 hour ago, Nameless said:

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but none of those countries are anarchies. In order for a military to function, there has to be a clear chain of command. In the end, someone or someones have to make a plan, and they have to be able to get the soldiers to carry out that plan. So you need some people to be in charge of the army. And you need people to ensure the army gets supplied with food, weapons, wages etc. And to make sure the people in charge of that stuff are good at their jobs, you need some way to decide who gets those jobs. All of which is starting to sound like a government, yeah?

It is true that you don't need money, but you do need to compensate your soldiers and workers somehow in order to have a stable military. Maybe in the case of a group of Singers who broke off you might not need to worry about that immediately, since the alternative to fighting the Fused is dying or being enslaved, but in the long run that doesn't work. If they just have to fight/work without any compensation, they'll eventually start to wonder if their lives weren't better under the Fused, or if the humans would take them in.

My main point is that the reason we have governments is that governments beat anarchies. Pure anarchy won't work large-scale, because other countries that aren't anarchies will invade. If an anarchy gets an army to protect themselves, that army must be organized in order to be effective.

Isn’t that kinda the Paradox the Greeks found themselves in when they faced the Persians? Not saying that the Greeks werre anarchists in the modern sense of the word. But they WERE fiercely independent to a degree that would put even the most modern day states rights or individual rights advocates to shame. 
 

The fact that managed to come together in the face of Persia is… well History speaks for itself. 

[Lunu’anaki]

5 hours ago, Nameless said:

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but none of those countries are anarchies. In order for a military to function, there has to be a clear chain of command. In the end, someone or someones have to make a plan, and they have to be able to get the soldiers to carry out that plan. So you need some people to be in charge of the army. And you need people to ensure the army gets supplied with food, weapons, wages etc. And to make sure the people in charge of that stuff are good at their jobs, you need some way to decide who gets those jobs. All of which is starting to sound like a government, yeah?

Anarchist armies have existed numerous times throughout history, George Orwell served in one in Spain and has written about how the army was managed, if you'd like an in depth look. 

To make a long story short: the same way that anarchist governance can work, through a communal effort, built off of voluntary mutual aid, so too can a military organization be governed. 

Most of the things you mentioned do not actually require a hierarchical structure to be managed... and for those that do (military command, for instance) they are considered to be justifiable hierarchies and are typically always organized in a way so that any "leader" can always be ousted from their position at any time.

5 hours ago, Nameless said:

My main point is that the reason we have governments is that governments beat anarchies. Pure anarchy won't work large-scale, because other countries that aren't anarchies will invade. If an anarchy gets an army to protect themselves, that army must be organized in order to be effective.

I do agree with you here. Having no centralized form of organization when going up against a larger group has its drawbacks, and those drawbacks tend to lead to the centrally organized power slowly taking territory and absorbing the population under their statehood. This is why if a functional anarchist society were to exist in the Cosmere (or anywhere else for that matter) it would need to be outside of the sphere of influence of larger powers; or have overwhelming support from the majority of people in it's region/sphere of influence.

When you think about it... that's kind of true for any form of society though... going up against a larger power will almost always end with the larger power absorbing you in some capacity.

Edited March 19, 2022 by Lunu’anaki

[Frustration]

5 hours ago, animalia said:

Isn’t that kinda the Paradox the Greeks found themselves in when they faced the Persians? Not saying that the Greeks werre anarchists in the modern sense of the word. But they WERE fiercely independent to a degree that would put even the most modern day states rights or individual rights advocates to shame. 

No, they really would not.

On a state side each city was it's own country, so there wasn't a state/federal split we see today.

And on the individual side: Sparta was a totalitarian state, Athens allowed you to be tried and executed for speaking, also you could be voted into exile for ten years, etc.

[animalia]

29 minutes ago, Frustration said:

No, they really would not.

On a state side each city was it's own country, so there wasn't a state/federal split we see today.

And on the individual side: Sparta was a totalitarian state, Athens allowed you to be tried and executed for speaking, also you could be voted into exile for ten years, etc.

All I meant was to draw a comparison with the whole "Struggle to unite against a larger threatening faction" thing. I thought that was clear. I apologize if it was not.

Edited March 19, 2022 by animalia

[Proletariat]

20 hours ago, Nameless said:

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but none of those countries are anarchies. In order for a military to function, there has to be a clear chain of command. In the end, someone or someones have to make a plan, and they have to be able to get the soldiers to carry out that plan. So you need some people to be in charge of the army. And you need people to ensure the army gets supplied with food, weapons, wages etc. And to make sure the people in charge of that stuff are good at their jobs, you need some way to decide who gets those jobs. All of which is starting to sound like a government, yeah?

It is true that you don't need money, but you do need to compensate your soldiers and workers somehow in order to have a stable military. Maybe in the case of a group of Singers who broke off you might not need to worry about that immediately, since the alternative to fighting the Fused is dying or being enslaved, but in the long run that doesn't work. If they just have to fight/work without any compensation, they'll eventually start to wonder if their lives weren't better under the Fused, or if the humans would take them in.

My main point is that the reason we have governments is that governments beat anarchies. Pure anarchy won't work large-scale, because other countries that aren't anarchies will invade. If an anarchy gets an army to protect themselves, that army must be organized in order to be effective.

I think it's worth fleshing out that anarchism and Marxism are competing ideas about how you come to communism - a specific kind of classless society - and that the intention is not to create 'anarchies' and no anarchist would ever describe a regime as an anarchy. I wouldn't define any of those countries as 'anarchies' even in the cases of zones like Spanish Catalonia being run completely along anarchist lines, but I would say that the very strict method of command that you suggest wasn't available and things were fine as a result.

In the example of Spain, the revolution generally failed, to be honest, because there were anarchists who sold out the CNT and tried to bring in a coalition with the Stalinists who then got a huge number of anarchists killed, but if the anarchist forces had maintained their offensive we probably wouldn't have seen Franco come to power. That was a political and strategic problem, rather than one to do with them being overly democratic. Whereas in the Ukraine the most effectives militia in the fight against the White movement were linked to anarchists who were elected to the military leadership and were recallable. Anarchists don't advocate disorganisation or just doing things randomly - it's doing things in a clearly democratic and participatory way as opposed in a centralised way. Lots of rules. No validation of unjust authority.

But to return to fleshing out the question of communism and what this means in anarchist theory - the literature is also very clear that it cannot happen in isolation. The push for communism needs to come out a general working class push on an international basis because yes there will be invasion, and the strictness of a command structure will not save you. It did not save the Stalinists in Russia. It did not save the parliamentary socialists in Chile. It's only working class power on a mass scale that can do that, and if you don't have a solid base of support then you will lose. 

Which is where we come to the money and compensation point you've raised, and I think it's important to address an unquestioned assumption here. Compensation - in this vision money - is for things. Money is literally digits of debt between different online bank accounts that we all agree we owe each other to some extent or another as a way to organise trade. I do not pay for healthcare or water or education because that's covered here, and it's simply due to the historical role that agricultural capitalists play that food is marketised for example despite being vital for maintenance of labour force. Things like food, or clothing, or a vaccination are not made of money, and we don't need to have a world built on paying people to have good and pleasant living conditions. We need money now because we're in a capitalist society, and we can't ignore that reality, but it's not some divine requirement for our function as people.

Edited March 20, 2022 by Proletariat