Lets get iconoclastic

[Phox]

What things would look like in an Anarchist state depends, heavily, on how that came to be.  A revolution which tears down the government but does not tear down corporations seems highly unlikely to me, unless it is actually a corporate revolution as opposed to an Anarchist one.  I don't deny that people tend to form groups, and have a biological predisposition to look to Alphas for leadership.  That could make Anarchy impossible.  Corporate evil on the other hand is really no more an obstacle than governmental evil.  The human nature argument (that people have an inherent bad side  at least, not the arguement that people have a built in need to be told what to do) is an arguement against government.  If people are prone to evil giving them power over other people is the worst thing to do.

People naturally assume power over others. It doesn't have to be written into a Constitution to make it happen. In a strictly stateless society, there would still be assholes roaming the streets with teams of goons under their command, and those teams would grow, until they were a government. What's going to stop them? Other teams of goons, that's who. Not really a solution.

Government is not about giving people power. It is about regulating what the fuck they can do with their power.

This. There's not a whole lot that I can add to this, but people and government are a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" reciprical relationship. No goverment + Time = Lord of the Flies, Government + Time = 1984 or your government-caused apocalypse of choice, hence periodic switches in regime/power are necessary, but ultimately futile.

[BabylonHoruv]

I wouldn't say they are futile just because the new government will eventually also need to be replaced.

[Phox]

Humanity as a species will end someday, regardless of whether its through government, anarchy, or otherwise. I meant that the exercise of replacing governments would not ensure the survival of the species in any event, not that replacing the governments was futile because it would be necessary the next time. Sorry for the confusion there, should have made that clear. I'm still betting that humanity is the downfall of humanity, one way or another. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Corporations might not be able to behave as they do now in an Anarchist system. For example, today, a large farming company can pollute a river with hog/chicken feces, abuse their animals and ten years later still sell half a million eggs with salmonella to the country at large. That's because they can say to the government "Oh, so sorry! Please have some money!" and the government will go away.

In an anarchist society, it could go that way, or it could be that once the company polluted the river, the people in the area might have said "Clean it up, now, or else..." where "or else" might mean the end of that company's existence. When the local humans, rather than a far off government have direct influence in situations around them, things could be different.

Corporations today are protected by complex laws, laws that give them advantages, laws that limit their liability, laws that get the individual off even if they were personally culpable. Corporations are a fictional entity that gets the blame for what individuals do (Kinda like the government). In an anarchist society, individuals would be personally responsible. So rather than Joe's Chicken Farm getting sued, Joe would get sued... or alternatively get the crap kicked out of him. If corporations didn't have law and government to protect them, would they behave in the same way they do today? I dunno.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Corporations might not be able to behave as they do now in an Anarchist system. For example, today, a large farming company can pollute a river with hog/chicken feces, abuse their animals and ten years later still sell half a million eggs with salmonella to the country at large. That's because they can say to the government "Oh, so sorry! Please have some money!" and the government will go away.

In an anarchist society, it could go that way, or it could be that once the company polluted the river, the people in the area might have said "Clean it up, now, or else..." where "or else" might mean the end of that company's existence. When the local humans, rather than a far off government have direct influence in situations around them, things could be different.

Corporations today are protected by complex laws, laws that give them advantages, laws that limit their liability, laws that get the individual off even if they were personally culpable. Corporations are a fictional entity that gets the blame for what individuals do (Kinda like the government). In an anarchist society, individuals would be personally responsible. So rather than Joe's Chicken Farm getting sued, Joe would get sued... or alternatively get the crap kicked out of him. If corporations didn't have law and government to protect them, would they behave in the same way they do today? I dunno.

Joe couldn't get sued - there would be no courts to sue him in. Joe might face the wrath of people who get sick from his company's pollution; or, he might hire armed guards so his farm can do whatever the fuck he wants and nobody will be able to stop them. He might face a boycott in that case, assuming enough peasants were able to organize such a thing; or, he might be the only chicken farm around, which doesn't give people that much of a choice.

If there's anything I've learned from history, it's that when people have an opportunity to be awful, they will usually be even more awful than that.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Corporations might not be able to behave as they do now in an Anarchist system. For example, today, a large farming company can pollute a river with hog/chicken feces, abuse their animals and ten years later still sell half a million eggs with salmonella to the country at large. That's because they can say to the government "Oh, so sorry! Please have some money!" and the government will go away.

In an anarchist society, it could go that way, or it could be that once the company polluted the river, the people in the area might have said "Clean it up, now, or else..." where "or else" might mean the end of that company's existence. When the local humans, rather than a far off government have direct influence in situations around them, things could be different.

Corporations today are protected by complex laws, laws that give them advantages, laws that limit their liability, laws that get the individual off even if they were personally culpable. Corporations are a fictional entity that gets the blame for what individuals do (Kinda like the government). In an anarchist society, individuals would be personally responsible. So rather than Joe's Chicken Farm getting sued, Joe would get sued... or alternatively get the crap kicked out of him. If corporations didn't have law and government to protect them, would they behave in the same way they do today? I dunno.

Joe couldn't get sued - there would be no courts to sue him in. Joe might face the wrath of people who get sick from his company's pollution; or, he might hire armed guards so his farm can do whatever the fuck he wants and nobody will be able to stop them. He might face a boycott in that case, assuming enough peasants were able to organize such a thing; or, he might be the only chicken farm around, which doesn't give people that much of a choice.

If there's anything I've learned from history, it's that when people have an opportunity to be awful, they will usually be even more awful than that.

Why would there be no courts? Most anarchist systems involve some sort of system of redress... not a federal court with an appointed judge, but things like town councils etc would supposedly fill in the void. And certianly, the people may just burn down his chicken farm... or take the chickens and start a new farm and tell him to fuck right off.

I'm not saying its great, just saying the ground rules would change enough that its unlikely to be as directly predictable particularly in dealing with corporations.

Of course, many anarchists would argue against the whole concept of corporations to begin with.... focusing instead on individuals producing as individuals, but not as some kind of legal entity.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Town councils are great, but who's going to enforce their verdicts? Random volunteers? Who's going to make sure they don't overreact? Etc.

As for arguing against the concept of corporations, great. But they exist for a reason, and it isn't just as fictitious entities sanctioned by the State. People can maximize and multiply their income and productivity by cooperating and dividing responsibilities. How is an "individual producing as an individual" going to research, design, manufacture, and sell complex products like computers all by himself? It's senseless to think every function served in a process like that can be carried out by strictly separate contractors with no supervising authority - everything would take too long and it would all be incompatible. So if you want to go back to the 1200's when everything was handmade and there were only a limited number of possible products and services, sure, "individuals producing as individuals" might work. I don't really want to live in the Dark Ages, though.

A corporation - whether it is called that or not, whether it is a "legal" entity or not - will exist. In an anarchy, you only remove the fact that the Law serves as a proxy for many things that would be no less true (but a whole lot less civilized) without the State.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Town councils are great, but who's going to enforce their verdicts? Random volunteers? Who's going to make sure they don't overreact? Etc.

That would depend on the sort of anarchy. In some concepts it would be the people in general (Moon Is a Harsh Mistress style), in others it would be the people hired to go enforce the decision of the town council.

As for arguing against the concept of corporations, great. But they exist for a reason, and it isn't just as fictitious entities sanctioned by the State. People can maximize and multiply their income and productivity by cooperating and dividing responsibilities. How is an "individual producing as an individual" going to research, design, manufacture, and sell complex products like computers all by himself? It's senseless to think every function served in a process like that can be carried out by strictly separate contractors with no supervising authority - everything would take too long and it would all be incompatible. So if you want to go back to the 1200's when everything was handmade and there were only a limited number of possible products and services, sure, "individuals producing as individuals" might work. I don't really want to live in the Dark Ages, though.

A corporation - whether it is called that or not, whether it is a "legal" entity or not - will exist. In an anarchy, you only remove the fact that the Law serves as a proxy for many things that would be no less true (but a whole lot less civilized) without the State.

Corporations and Cooperation are two different things. That is individuals can work together and produce without having a legal entity (see Linux, Apache and Bind, or see 'Farmer's Markets' etc etc) generally 'incorporation' has far more to do with legal protection that shared work. In some (but not all) systems of anarchy individual responsibility cannot be pushed off to something else. So 4000 people could be working together at a company producing widgets, but when its determined that Fred the procurer bought cheap ass paint with Lead in it... the Fred is gonna have some serious problems.

Again, not saying its better... just functionally different. I think.

[BabylonHoruv]

Corporations might not be able to behave as they do now in an Anarchist system. For example, today, a large farming company can pollute a river with hog/chicken feces, abuse their animals and ten years later still sell half a million eggs with salmonella to the country at large. That's because they can say to the government "Oh, so sorry! Please have some money!" and the government will go away.

In an anarchist society, it could go that way, or it could be that once the company polluted the river, the people in the area might have said "Clean it up, now, or else..." where "or else" might mean the end of that company's existence. When the local humans, rather than a far off government have direct influence in situations around them, things could be different.

Corporations today are protected by complex laws, laws that give them advantages, laws that limit their liability, laws that get the individual off even if they were personally culpable. Corporations are a fictional entity that gets the blame for what individuals do (Kinda like the government). In an anarchist society, individuals would be personally responsible. So rather than Joe's Chicken Farm getting sued, Joe would get sued... or alternatively get the crap kicked out of him. If corporations didn't have law and government to protect them, would they behave in the same way they do today? I dunno.

Joe couldn't get sued - there would be no courts to sue him in. Joe might face the wrath of people who get sick from his company's pollution; or, he might hire armed guards so his farm can do whatever the fuck he wants and nobody will be able to stop them. He might face a boycott in that case, assuming enough peasants were able to organize such a thing; or, he might be the only chicken farm around, which doesn't give people that much of a choice.

If there's anything I've learned from history, it's that when people have an opportunity to be awful, they will usually be even more awful than that.

Why would he have the only chicken farm around?  Chickens are easy to raise, and easy to get.  They are also not vital, if people can't have chicken they'll eat something else. 

Corporations serve one very simple purpose, to limit liability.  They allow people to invest money and risk only that investment, not any consequences of that investment.  It's a great mechanism for making rich people richer, it is also completely dependent on government to exist.

Joe is also going to have trouble operating his chicken farm in an unpleasant way if the locals are against him.  Without a government to protect him there are way too many ways they can interfere.  They can directly attack him, there armed guards help, they can block him from exporting, which is going to take more guards and the guards are going to have to be more willing to do violence.  They can infiltrate his guards and do some serious damage from inside, they can block his deliveries of chicken feed and chances are the chicken feed supplier (who hasn't been operating in an unpleasant way) is going to prefer selling his feed to someone else to having to deal with his shipments being blocked.  There's a lot more, and they don't have to succeed to kill off Joe's business, they just have to push his operating costs up to the point where he can't compete with a more ethically run chicken farm down the road.

[Doktor Howl]

This thread now makes me want to puke blood.

[Requia ☣]

Note to self, it is impossible to say anything, anything at all, relating to anarchy without this conversation coming back. 

[BabylonHoruv]

Note to self, it is impossible to say anything, anything at all, relating to anarchy without this conversation coming back. 

I think I may start a thread on Magiqual Anarchist Drugs and see what happens.

[Cain]

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/c4ss/~3/Xzxll9R_6wE/4710

The conventional wisdom already emerging on America's political Left is that the Tea Party movement "cost the Republican Party a Senate majority." That may or may not be true, but one thing we can be sure of: The Tea Party handed the GOP "establishment" two victories Tuesday night.

The first victory is obvious. Republicans now control the US House of Representatives and are in stronger position to filibuster Democrat proposals in the US Senate. They're in the best of all possible political positions. They can pass "smaller government" legislation in the House, knowing that it will never become law. If it doesn't die in the Senate, President Barack Obama will veto it. And when they pass the "bigger government" legislation that both parties really want in both bodies, they'll tout their "bipartisanship" to moderates and complain to conservatives that "we had to get something done that the President would sign; this was the best we could do."

The down side for Republicans is that Tuesday's election almost certainly presages a trip to the wilderness for them in 2012 — loss of their sparkling new House majority and re-election of Obama to the White House ... but that's okay. They're political Keynesians, focusing on the short term because in the long run they're all dead anyway.

The GOP's second victory is over the Tea Party itself.

As I write this, the Tea Party's success in Republican primaries this year appears appears to have blown GOP Senate pickups in Delaware, Colorado and Nevada, as well as costing it a seat it previously held in Alaska. And while the Tea Party candidate didn't win the US Senate primary in California, anti-Tea-Party backlash was part of what put Democrat Barbara Boxer over the top against Republican challenger Carly Fiorina.

There will be more Republicans in the Senate come January than there are now, but the new guys aren't the Tea Party's people. The "establishment" GOP leadership remains firmly in control of the Republican Senate caucus and of the party itself. That leadership began signaling last week, before the votes had even been cast and counted, that it intends to "govern toward the center, not the Right." The Tea Party wave has crested. It will break on the rocks of the 112th Congress.

To those who disagree when I say that nothing substantial has changed, I propose a test case to watch:

In January, Congress will vote on whether or not to raise the federal government's "debt ceiling" so that it can continue borrowing money and spending more than it's taking from tax revenues. I hope we can agree that "real change" implies, at a bare minimum, balancing the checkbook. I predict that we'll see no such change. After some theatrical bellyaching and grandstanding, they will indeed raise the "ceiling."

If you voted on Tuesday, you voted for continued operation of the state — and that's exactly what you're going to get. But let's learn a little something from it, shall we?

Debate over the meaning of "Left" and "Right" in a political context has raged for a couple of centuries now, but this campaign cycle has given me a new understanding of the terms that I'd like to share with you. Some think that "Left" means "bigger government" and Right means "smaller government." Others think that the "Left" values "change" while the Right values "tradition."

I propose that we look at politics as a bell curve.

On the far Left (market anarchism) and the far Right (anarcho-capitalism), appetite for political government trails off to zero (which is why "Left" and "Right" libertarians have so much in common).

As we move toward the political center, that appetite grows. The "Left" and "Right" disagree on ends, but closer to that center, both see government as an acceptable means to their desired ends. And the center is a corrupting influence. As you get closer to it, you grow less willing to give up the means and more willing to give up the ends.

The "Tea Party Right" is approximately analogous to the "Progressive Left." It's stranded in the no-man's land between principled edge and corrupt center. This would make both movements completely useless to anyone except that the center is so large that it generates its own sort of "gravity." From their positions within the center's gravity well, these movement lend mass and momentum, in the form of votes and activism, to the center itself.

The state is its own end. It cannot be used against itself. The Tea Party movement tried to create a new political world. It succeeded only in becoming another moon yoked in lifeless orbit around the old one

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Excellent Article Cain!

I also liked his further comments in the comment section on market anarchism as far Left and anarcho-capitalism as far Right. I'd never considered it this way before.

To my mind, "left" and "right" don't really reflect opinions of government per se, they reflect a worldview of how society is or ought to be. At both far ends of the spectrum, those who advocate particular cultural norms believe that freedom is the condition under which those norms may most effectively be achieved or at least pursued. Closer to the center, people who think "I really wish X" are more inclined to believe that a more powerful state could give them "X."

As far as "left market anarchism" versus "right anarcho-capitalism" is concerned, I don't have a tidy definition, but I'll offer some purely anecdotal claims:

- The right anarcho-capitalist is more likely to believe in God and to regard the church as an appropriate alternative to the state in setting cultural norms he'd like to live in; the left market anarchist is more likely to be an atheist. and to regard the church as a likely handmaiden of the state in setting cultural norms he'd prefer not to live in.

- The right anarcho-capitalist is more likely to consider "big business" a natural phenomenon of the market, and to predict that it — and possibly even in bigger form — would continue to exist in the absence of the state. The left market anarchist is more likely to consider "big business" an artificial distortion — produced or at least enabled by state privilege — and that in the absence of the state business would be smaller and/or less hierarchal in terms of ownership and control.

- The right anarcho-capitalist is also more likely to consider certain existing property relations — the two that come to mind are "intellectual property" and tenure in land — to be natural phenomena that would continue to exist in a stateless society in pretty much the same form they do now. The left market anarchist is more likely to consider these property relations to be artifacts of statism which either should be smashed, or would wither away, with the state.

[Cain]

I'd never heard about religion being linked to right-anarchism before that, I must admit.  My experience from talking with most libertarians and anarchists meant I normally pegged them as atheists (I know there is Christian anarchist tradition, Tolstoy etc, but they're usually not online or involved in the debates).

Anyway, continuing on the election theme

http://crookedtimber.org/2010/11/01/on-not-being-obliged-to-vote-democrat/

As the US goes to the polls, there is not exactly a shortage of commentary telling people how important it is that they vote, and so it's been almost traditional (by which I mean, I did it at least once) for me to provide a small voice for the forces of apathy. This year, though, I want to address a particular and in my view rather pernicious species of electoral wowserism – the belief on the part of the Democratic Party that it has something approaching property rights over the vote of anyone to the left of, say, the New York Times opinion page.

The argument I want to establish here is that the decision about whether or not to vote Demcrat (versus the alternative of abstaining or voting for a minor party) is a serious one, which is up to the conscience of the individual voter to make, and which deserves respect from other people whether they agree with it or not. Obviously in making that argument, I'm going to have to venture into a number of unpalatable home truths about the Democrats as they are currently organised (abstract: ineffectual, cowardly, surprisingly warlike, soft-right, generally an obstacle to the development of social democratic politics), but let's get this clear right up front – voting Democrat might often be the right thing to do in any given case, depending on local conditions; it might even usually be the right thing to do. What I'm not going to accept, however, is that it is always or definitionally the right thing to do.

Given that, it's also the case that (because what we're talking about here is largely the electoral politics of a protest vote), a mid term election in which control of the Senate ("Control" having an unusual and specialised meaning here – the Democrats have after all had "control" of the Senate for quite some time, and even enjoyed a "filibuster proof majority" for about a year, and see how much good this did them ) is unlikely to change is about the lowest-stakes environment there could be. Barack Obama, the popular and world-historical leader will not be standing; the somewhat less attractive Democratic slate will in general consist of "a bunch of old white guys, most of them rather rightwing". Not only is it highly unlikely, for paradox-of-voting reasons, that yours will be the crucial vote, but even if it is, it will have elected a candidate who is then highly unlikely to be the crucial vote on any proposal of interest, and who cannot even be relied upon to vote the right way if he is. So given the generally lower level of stakes, an election like this one is likely to be a happy hunting ground for protest votes. And so this is a serious business – I really do think that more likely than not, most CT readers with a vote to waste should be giving serious consideration to wasting it. On with the show ...

The Bait and Switch

The key point I want to make here is that when major party activists put the guilt-trip on supporters significantly to their left, they engage in what looks like very fallacious reasoning. The point is that a voter considering a protest vote against the Dems from the left has three options on election day:

First, stay at home
Second, vote for their minor party or abstain
Third, vote Democrat

And the thing is that the major party activist has to steer them between the Scylla and Charybdis of the first two choices, both of which might superficially look more attractive than voting for a candidate you don't support. To do so, they need to make two contradictory arguments.

Obviously the problem to overcome in getting you to drag your ass (note American spelling) down to the polling station is the Paradox of Voting. Which isn't really a paradox; it could more accurately be titled "The Actual Extremely Low Expected Value Of Voting". This requires an appeal to your civic sense of duty; remember Martin Luther King, etc. In other words, they need you to see it as your duty to society to vote, or alternatively to see your vote as an important form of political expression.

However, once your ass is duly dragged and you're in the voting booth, the last thing they want you to do is your civic duty (which would be to vote for the candidate you think is the best; that's how voting systems work, strategic or tactical behaviour is a pathology of a badly designed system) or political expression (which also wouldn't have you voting for their guy). Once you're there, they want to argue in purely instrumental terms – you have to vote for the Democrats because if you vote for your minority party, you have no chance at all of being the marginal voter.

It looks inconsistent, because it is. Particularly in a midterm election, when you have a very small chance of being the deciding vote for a Congressman who in turn has a very small chance of being the deciding vote on an issue of importance (and given that this is the Democrats we are talking about, you have to take into account votes of importance where your congressman is the swing vote for the wrong side), the expected value of your vote is very small indeed, and the costs of it are the psychological toll on your own morale, plus the opportunity cost of whatever else you might have done with the time.

The mistake here is in treating a descriptive model (the spatial competition framework underlying the median voter theorem) as a normative one. It's a model which is meant to predict which ice cream cart you choose out of two, not one that's meant to persuade you to buy an ice cream if you don't want one. There is no such political or obligation; I know that there are some souls in the grip of the model who probably would vote for a policy of exterminating X puppies over a policy of exterminating X+1, but it seems pretty clear that there is some point at which it becomes obvious that a morally and politically valid response is simply to declare that the fundamental basis of the implied contract has broken down, and that it's a reasonable choice to simply refuse to participate further. (Simple proof by reductio ad absurdum: if this wasn't the case, then the government of Myanmar could sponsor a local branch of the Khmer Rouge to stand against them on a Year Zero ticket, thereby obliging Aung San Suu Kyi to vote for them).

Put simply, however much worse the Republicans are than the Democrats, this isn't a reason for voting Democrat unless you have good reason to believe that your vote will make a difference. Which the Paradox of Voting shows that it generally won't, and therefore a decision to vote Democrat ought to be justified with positive reasons why it's a good thing to be identified with.

So what's the alternative?

Basically, non-electoral politics. For someone whose politics are to the left of the mainstream of the Democratic Party, time and effort spent on getting Democratic candidates elected has to compete against the opportunity cost, which is usually a single-issue group of some kind. And in this competition, the Democratic Party has two big handicaps. First, on an awful lot of key issues for people on the left (gay marriage, environmental regulation, redistributive taxation), its policies aren't very left wing. And second, whatever its policy agenda it has next to no party discipline and very little in the way of efficient organisation for achieving its goals. Unless the issue closest to your heart is "more money and job security for incumbent Democratic politicians", it is not all that likely that the Democratic Party is the best vehicle for its pursuit. I think that the case for spending time and money on supporting the campaigns of Democrat candidates (unless you actually like their politics) is very hard to make when one considers the opportunity cost.

But is there an argument in favour of withholding one's vote for the Democrats on specifically progressive grounds? Well maybe. The direct opportunity cost of doing so is much lower than the opportunity cost of spending time, money and mental energy on campaigning for an unattractive candidate. The only benefit of specifically refusing to vote Democrat on political grounds is a quite nebulous strategic one – that a large part of the problem with respect to the current situation of the Democrats is that they take lots of their voters for granted, and that as a result they represent the interests of a set of people really quite unlike their typical supporter. This is probably true, but it seems to me that there's only a very unclear and twisty path between this fact and any strategy of moving the party to the left in order to pick up the Daily Kos vote. There are so many slips twixt that cup and lip that there probably wouldn't be any tea left at all.

But ... although the expected strategic value of withholding one's vote from the Democrats is pretty close to zero, so is the expected value of voting for them. Although party promotional material always wants to turn every election into a direct plebiscite on the next Supreme Court Justice, with Dick Cheney standing against the late Fred Rogers, actually it isn't. And since the entire case for persuading you to use your vote for a party you don't support is a strategic one, it's hardly possible to then claim it illegitimate to bring other possible strategies to bear. The strategy "always vote for the Democratic candidate, no matter what" is a corner strategy with no sensitivity to conditions – it's very unlikely to be correct in all possible cases.

This is a grown-up calculation for everyone to make independently. Good luck to all our readers and however you choose to use your vote, use it. For values of "use it" which include the making of a conscious choice not to do so.