Anarchial Anarchists - Civil War in Anarchia
maineshark just said something so marvelous in its sheer ignorance of reality that I felt it deserved its own posting:
You've highlighted one of the key reasons why anarchy will always win, in the end: Statists are divided into various factions, and will fight each other as much (or more) than they will fight "us."
The myriad factions with Statism all have their petty little grudges against each other, and will spend most of their energy settling those disputes.
Now, I'm not an expert on the history and philosophy of Anarchism, but from a casual recollection of history I remember at least THREE main strains of "Anarchism," at least two of which are still popular today in what passes for an anarchist community in modern America.
(1) Anarcho-Capitalism
Down with the State, up with private ownership! When the State withers away individuals may enjoy their property all the better, since all will have the right to protect their own property by force, and people are better motivated to protect their own property than they are to steal someone else's. This is the "anarchy" that postulates Protective Associations to take the place of State law enforcement to deal with bandits, gangs and pirates. This seems to be maineshark's flavor of "Anarchy."
(2) Anarcho-Socialism
Down with the State, for Property is Theft! When the State withers away its oppressive police will no longer be able to protect large concentrations of wealth, consequently equality will ensue as no one can have more than his fair share of property. With the institution of Property defunct, all men will labor as brothers, giving to each according to his need, and from each according to his ability. This is the version of Socialism that Marx derided as "unscientific," and of Anarchy preached most prominently by Peter Kropotkin.
(3) Anarcho-Syndicalism
Down with the State, up with the Guilds! When the State withers away its beneficent functions will be taken over by various unions, craft guilds and professional associations. These organizations will fight crime -- including the form of crime called "capitalism" -- and ensure that each laborer receives the full product of his work. This was the form of anarchism that was most popular in the Interwar Era of the 20th century, and was popularized by Ursula K. LeGuin in her novel The Dispossessed, under the name of "Odonism."
These are the three I'm most familiar with -- I'm sure a student of the political history of Anarchism could come up with many more major and minor divisions.
Now, I notice that maineshark has, in most of his posts, made the assumption that the majority or at least a large plurality of the population of the failed State that becomes Anarchia is composed of "anarchists." Well and good; there must be some reason that it didn't rather quickly reorganize into States of more conventional varieties. But one big assumption that maineshark is making is that there is only ONE KIND OF "ANARCHIST", which even a cursory examination of the history of the philosophy shows not to be true.
What happens when these anarchies collide? What happens when the Protective Associations of the anarcho-capitalists collide with the People's Assemblies of the anarcho-socialists and these in turn dispute with the Guilds of the anarcho-syndicalists? In an organized State some compromise might be effected through negotiation, but in Anarchia there are too many independent little groups within each flavor of anarchy for each super-group to negotiate with the others.
And what's worse, there are many possible separate versions of each kind of Anarchy. Just to take Anarcho-Capitalism, what happens when the Pan-Territorial Protective Association of Truckers finds itself operating within the Territorial Protective Association of Bigtown, which claims exclusivity over its domain? What happens when Independent Protective Association Alpha, which doesn't like to work through Arbitration Agencies, meets the Cooperative Protective Assocation of Betaburg, which insists on working through such Agencies to resolve disputes?
In other words, maineshark's Anarchia needs not merely at least a large plurality of Anarchists, but that plurality must practice the same kind of Anarchy. And what is worse, they must agree upon the principles within that kind to follow.
And when they disagree -- as they surely will -- there is no overarching State or even Arbitration Agency (since the very existence of Arbitration Agencies will be one of the points of contention) to mediate between them. It will be resolvable only by civil war.
You've highlighted one of the key reasons why anarchy will always win, in the end: Statists are divided into various factions, and will fight each other as much (or more) than they will fight "us."
The myriad factions with Statism all have their petty little grudges against each other, and will spend most of their energy settling those disputes.
Now, I'm not an expert on the history and philosophy of Anarchism, but from a casual recollection of history I remember at least THREE main strains of "Anarchism," at least two of which are still popular today in what passes for an anarchist community in modern America.
(1) Anarcho-Capitalism
Down with the State, up with private ownership! When the State withers away individuals may enjoy their property all the better, since all will have the right to protect their own property by force, and people are better motivated to protect their own property than they are to steal someone else's. This is the "anarchy" that postulates Protective Associations to take the place of State law enforcement to deal with bandits, gangs and pirates. This seems to be maineshark's flavor of "Anarchy."
(2) Anarcho-Socialism
Down with the State, for Property is Theft! When the State withers away its oppressive police will no longer be able to protect large concentrations of wealth, consequently equality will ensue as no one can have more than his fair share of property. With the institution of Property defunct, all men will labor as brothers, giving to each according to his need, and from each according to his ability. This is the version of Socialism that Marx derided as "unscientific," and of Anarchy preached most prominently by Peter Kropotkin.
(3) Anarcho-Syndicalism
Down with the State, up with the Guilds! When the State withers away its beneficent functions will be taken over by various unions, craft guilds and professional associations. These organizations will fight crime -- including the form of crime called "capitalism" -- and ensure that each laborer receives the full product of his work. This was the form of anarchism that was most popular in the Interwar Era of the 20th century, and was popularized by Ursula K. LeGuin in her novel The Dispossessed, under the name of "Odonism."
These are the three I'm most familiar with -- I'm sure a student of the political history of Anarchism could come up with many more major and minor divisions.
Now, I notice that maineshark has, in most of his posts, made the assumption that the majority or at least a large plurality of the population of the failed State that becomes Anarchia is composed of "anarchists." Well and good; there must be some reason that it didn't rather quickly reorganize into States of more conventional varieties. But one big assumption that maineshark is making is that there is only ONE KIND OF "ANARCHIST", which even a cursory examination of the history of the philosophy shows not to be true.
What happens when these anarchies collide? What happens when the Protective Associations of the anarcho-capitalists collide with the People's Assemblies of the anarcho-socialists and these in turn dispute with the Guilds of the anarcho-syndicalists? In an organized State some compromise might be effected through negotiation, but in Anarchia there are too many independent little groups within each flavor of anarchy for each super-group to negotiate with the others.
And what's worse, there are many possible separate versions of each kind of Anarchy. Just to take Anarcho-Capitalism, what happens when the Pan-Territorial Protective Association of Truckers finds itself operating within the Territorial Protective Association of Bigtown, which claims exclusivity over its domain? What happens when Independent Protective Association Alpha, which doesn't like to work through Arbitration Agencies, meets the Cooperative Protective Assocation of Betaburg, which insists on working through such Agencies to resolve disputes?
In other words, maineshark's Anarchia needs not merely at least a large plurality of Anarchists, but that plurality must practice the same kind of Anarchy. And what is worse, they must agree upon the principles within that kind to follow.
And when they disagree -- as they surely will -- there is no overarching State or even Arbitration Agency (since the very existence of Arbitration Agencies will be one of the points of contention) to mediate between them. It will be resolvable only by civil war.