Comment on How would an anarchist society work?
Takapapatapaka@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 week ago
When we say “in charge”, it can mean two very different things : either in charge for anything (like a leader), either in charge of a specific thing (like a worker). Most anarchist theories aim at getting rid of the former, arguing that only the latter produces anything directly. So there would/could be people in charge, but for specific tasks : that could be handling a single repair, managing a field of crops, or organizing the shipment of food across a region (depending on the anarchist system, some may or may not make sense). Those people would be chosen by various systems, mostly direct “democracy”, where assemblies of most people mandates them. The main difference between mandating and voting is that mandating is limited to a predefined task to accomplish. Also, in most anarchist systems, it has to be short and/or revocable, though that could be applied to voting too. A common point is also federation : most system advocate for little communities where you can establish rules as close as possible to what people desire. And then those communities can federate together for purposes that require or work best at large scale. This principle of little communities getting together for bigger problems is what has been established in anarchist Ukraine and autonomous Chiapas, though in two different ways.
So, there is no necessary power vacuum, as in the lack of power does not imply chaos which would imply need for power.
Now, of course there is the risk of power-hungry people aiming at recreating power : but I’d say if you managed to get rid of a state, you have the militant basis and strength required to get rid of mafias or other states, right? And if need be, anarchist armies existed with anarchist principles : elected officers, self-discipline, etc.
ageedizzle@piefed.ca 1 week ago
This is a very interesting comment, thank you.
Thats really cool. Can you elaborate on this? I’ve never heard of anarchist Ukraine or the Chipas
Takapapatapaka@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 week ago
The idea is that once you’re organized in more or less little entities, you may still have the need for things your entity cannot provide (that’s one of the common first argument against anarchism) : tools, resources, craftsmanship, etc. To answer this, the most obvious solution is to federate with other close communities to share what’s needed : you get together (or send delegates) and establish what the needs are and what can be provided. The same principle can be replicated to those federation to create wide networks.
In Ukraine, which was very rural, they organized in little agricultural communes, as well as workers committees in factory and district assemblies for self governance. They then gathered in a common Congress to discuss matters for the whole region, to make propositions that were then discussed in the local councils. The anarchist army also played a big practical role, taking decisions for logistics in between Congresses, though they were not free to do what they wanted, and they tried to intervene in Congresses only as advisors. Their actual role is discussed, mainly by pro-state people claiming that they were the centralized entity that kept everything alive.
In Chiapas, i don’t know that much, but i believe they organize in villages, grouped in Communes, grouped in local governments (Caracoles if i’m not mistaken). Each level has some people elected to organize votes and debates with each assembly. The upper level need agreements of lower levels to apply things. Imagine if every town needed to vote for decisions applied to a region, and there was no mayors in the towns. Same thing here, there is an army alongside the movment, and it’s not 100% clear if they, as they claim, have no say in the political decisions, or if they unofficially have some form of governance. Though i have not seen much claims that they do such things, and it’s also one of the most devoted to peoole army that i know of.
To add a bit more context, there is an army in both cases because of the very violent context : nationalist and then bolchevik armies in Ukraine, state violence and cartels in Chiapas. Both are relatively short (few years for ukraine, few decades for Chiapas). And also, zapatistas in Chiapas reject the notion and term of anarchism, though they are relatively close in pure theory.
ageedizzle@piefed.ca 1 week ago
That’s interesting that they managed to have armies while doing that. How would that work? An army without top-down command seems unstable, it seems like they could easily seize control of the local communes if they wanted to
Takapapatapaka@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 week ago
Well, those armies are not 100% pure anarchist systems, and my phrasing was misleading if you understood that. They were conventional armies, with some anarchist principles included. Most notables principles i knew of were self-discipline (soldiers were expected to watch their behaviours and their officers/comrades too) and election of officers (so they could be revoked and changed when soldiers lost trust).
The efficiency of such armies is very discuted : ukrainian anarchist were quite effective against nationalist armies (a fight in which they were partly helped by bolcheviks armies), but were half-destroyed, half-integrated by the Red Army once Ukraine was freed. Other than that, the military activities of the EZLN show a relative efficiency, but they struggle to prevent cartel violence. And the efficiency of anarchist in Spanish resistance (1936) is quite disputed, some stalinists blaming them for the defeat in the civil war against fascism, while other blame the stalinists who ended up arresting/disbanding anarchists (anyway, the massive help from nazi Germany and fascist Italy and the lack of support from France/UK / weak support of USSR probably was one main reason).
On a purely speculative side, I personnaly feel much safe about armies with some anarchist principles not seizing control of local communities, since the soldiers would be encouraged to disband/oppose in those cases. The anarchist army in Ukraine, the Makhnovchtchina, was known for executing its soldiers caught looting or iniating pogroms. So it shows that those armies had the same problems than the others (giving power to people), but they also had some drastic approach about it (you have to fight abuse of power strictly). Clearly a rather bad thing overall, but a bit better than other armies to my eyes, especially at the time.