r/DebateCommunism 18d ago

đŸ” Discussion Are communist opposed to hierarchies like anarchist are?

23 Upvotes

47 comments sorted by

32

u/ComradeCaniTerrae 18d ago edited 15d ago

We’re opposed to systems of oppression, but not all hierarchies are oppressive (arguably) and some are essential for a given system to function whether or not they are oppressive. Engel’s example of this is a ship captain. For a ship to function at sea there requires discipline and obedience. Hierarchy. Even the anarchist’s favorite horizontally democratic sea pirates had hierarchy. Ships kind of need it.

Even, as far as I have seen, hunter-gatherer band humans have hierarchy in all studied cases. Depends on how you define it, I guess. Obedience generally isn’t enforced with punishment in such societies (beyond shunning, which is quite powerful in tight-knit groups), but the elders tend to have more esteem, children are expected to obey them in certain instances, and respect them in genral--among other forms of traditional human hierarchy.

In the event of an industrialized society, hierarchy must be required to some extent to enforce labor discipline. Collaborative projects of great importance cannot be left to pure whimsy of the individual. Not showing up for work at the right time may have dire consequences in situations such as operating and maintaining a nuclear reactor (or imagine any other crucial or volatile infrastructure you like).

But aside from that kind of bare bones potentially necessary hierarchy, we’re not really fans. MLs are sort of a minarchist or council communist in their idealized final society. I would say it lines up with anarchism of most stripes, in that the ideals and principles are more or less the same--anarchists just tend to take them to absolute extremes and not like to compromise with reality much.

We're, imo, much more pragmatic in our approach and ideology--much more willing to work with material conditions as they exist towards the goal we want, realizing it is a process that occurs in both time and space and cannot happen overnight. You must transform the economic base and superstructure of an entire society--of the globe, perhaps--to reach actual communism.

Of our Anarchist comrades, I think the anarcho-syndicalists and the anarcho-communists and anarcha-feminists are the closest. I tend to find Anarchist traditions of thought to be overly individualist, and while they're materialist in many ways, they have specific ideals they will not compromise on whatsoever, and which they want reality to comport to without an...explainable material process of how to get there. My source: I was an anarchist for decades and I've read most the important theorists of the trends thus far mentioned (Rocker, Goldman, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Proudhon, etc.); and I’ve debated with many, many anarchists.

I still love my Anarchist comrades, but a lot of them loathe me for thinking a hierarchy can ever be anything less than intolerably oppressive. The Covid pandemic years disabused me of any delusions I had about anarchism ever possibly being practicable. Want to have a fun time? Ask an anarchist how quarantine during a deadly pandemic world work. The best answer you’re likely to get is “creative struggle”. At worst you’ll get outright statements of Social Darwinism. Whole lot of Anarchists were on that “My Body, My Choice” train regarding masks, social distancing, and vaccines during Covid. When asked, many told me it wasn't their problem if anyone around them or downstream died because they didn't mask, "bodily autonomy" was the cry of the day. Disgusting. Can a society of such people even function? I do not think so--not for long, before something has to give.

Historically, most anarchist societies, even ansynd and ancom experiments, have had very rigid hierarchy. Catalonia enforced both military conscription and labor discipline. Falling asleep on guard duty, in the revolutionary forces of anarchist Catalonia, was punishable by death. Not showing up for work repeatedly without cause was punishable as well. In Makhnovshchina military conscription was also enforced and the officer corps loyal to Makhno, his inner circle, were notorious for rape--their armies in general were notorious for plunder. For stealing from the peasant farmers and the city workers and for even joking about ever paying them back. Volin is the anarchist historian who documents this. Souchy for Catalonia. Catalonia had what they called "concentration camps" for captured fascist soldier POWs of Franco's forces, etc.--an unfortunate name, but by Souchy's account they were banal POW work camps where labor was expected of the inmates, but they did get to call their captors "Comrade Guard". So there's that, and apparently they were well treated--but it's still a prison. An anarchist prison. Essentially a gulag.

2

u/Grumpy-Max 18d ago

I agree with you that it depends on how one defines hierarchy though I think how you've described anarchist theory is inaccurate. Anarchist analysis of how power functions in a system is one of the biggest strengths of the philosophy in my opinion. The analysis doesn't try to reduce the complexity of a power structure to just modes of production or material conditions though both those elements are extremely important and are among Marx's many critical contributions to an analysis of power.

Both Marxist-Leninists and liberals (supporters of representative democracy) tend to resort to the pragmatic/extremist argument when discussing anarchism. "We're more realistic about means and methods, the anarchists are extremists who don't tend to ground their approach in reality." I'm sure it'll come as no surprise that I disagree. Both these arguments stem from a misunderstanding of how power functions in a social structure. ML's tend to argue they're more pragmatic because they're willing to seize the state (or crush the state and create a new one) and try to use it to leverage a more horizontal (classless) structure. Liberals argue it's more pragmatic to work toward reform within the current power structure. Anarchists are then extreme or radical because we're just not being realistic about how social change takes place. Both ML's and anarchists tend to reject reformist strategies alone as a means for change.  Additionally, anarchists tend to reject the notion that replacing a small group of people who have immense access to the power in a system with a different group of people who have immense access to power in a system (but these people will eventually give up their power voluntarily) will fundamentally change anything. Methods and means for realizing anarchist notions of how to organize ourselves have been used in multiple different iterations across the globe from early to modern history.

And I do agree with you that some anarchists can be uncompromising. This can be both a problem and a strength common to many on the left though adherence to dogma of any variety is a problem in my view. There are some things I believe should not be compromised. I would guess you would agree as well, we likely disagree in what those things are.

2

u/ComradeCaniTerrae 18d ago

Both Marxist-Leninists and liberals (supporters of representative democracy) tend to resort to the pragmatic/extremist argument when discussing anarchism.

For a reason, yes.

6

u/ComradeCaniTerrae 18d ago edited 18d ago

Both ML's and anarchists tend to reject reformist strategies alone as a means for change.

For the benefit of others: It's because they do not work, nor have they ever worked, historically. They are concessions, eroded at the whims of the ruling class. A bone to placate the dog, taken away just as easily again once they are distracted. Real political power in society stems from economic power. It stems from wealth, it stems from control of how wealth is made. Those who control the means of production control the society. This ruling class makes the rules to suit their own class interests, which differ starkly from ours. Some bourgeoisie have a class stance that favors the proletariat, some proletariat have a class stance that favors the bourgeoisie, most petit-bourgeoisie have a stance that favors the bourgeoisie.

The reaction takes the form, in capitalist societies, of fascism. Fundamental reform of the class structure within these systems is impossible using their own internal rules and mechanisms. No system such as this, an organ of the bourgeoisie (as the state is in every capitalist society) will willingly design into itself the levers of its own destruction. The bourgeoisie will sooner break the rules they have set up, which never really applied to them anyway, and subvert the push towards socialism.

Additionally, anarchists tend to reject the notion that replacing a small group of people who have immense access to the power in a system with a different group of people who have immense access to power in a system (but these people will eventually give up their power voluntarily)

Yes, the anarchist caricature of Marxist-Leninist societies, the one based in propaganda that anarchists such as Emma Goldman, themselves, spread. I'm well aware, comrade. I was an ancom for decades. I know precisely what Anarchists think about Marxist-Leninists. Bolshevists. Etc.

In reality, Marxist-Leninist societies have tended to be highly participatory democracies with universal suffrage and distinct recognition and special autonomy for minority nations within the federated republics. It's also worth noting that the party IS the central organ of the state, that is true--but anyone may work towards joining the party (there may be criteria such as being active in your community). It's encouraged for one to join the party. To participate in party politics and discourse. To shape the future of the society. Moreover, countries like Vietnam have robust organs for citizens of every walk of life to participate in the management of the party and the shaping of policies that affect them personally.

5

u/ComradeCaniTerrae 18d ago edited 18d ago

Methods and means for realizing anarchist notions of how to organize ourselves have been used in multiple different iterations across the globe from early to modern history.

If you want to attribute that label to movements that would not have themselves, sure. I wouldn't. Just like the Neo-Zapitistas get roped into Anarchist arguments, but they themselves denounce the characterization that they are Anarchists. Because they're not. Nor do they have aspirations of being. Nor did Rojava.

This can be both a problem and a strength common to many on the left though adherence to dogma of any variety is a problem in my view.

Here we can agree, dogmatism is a problem in any tradition of political thought.

Let me ask you a series of thought exercises, if you will humor me, and walk you through my problems with anarchist theory in practice. Maybe you will agree with me, maybe not, either is fine:

A hot topic of debate some years back among Anarchists was homebrew medication. What are your opinions on this aspect of anarchism?

Show me your idea of an ideal, industrialized, populous anarchist society and how it deals with medication standards and quality control. I don't see how it can be done without an administrative organ of some type with some manner of enforcement power over unauthorized distributors. Even the best intentioned of homebrew chemist...do you trust them to maintain quality control, internally in an anarchist society? Any asshat who wants cooking up your heart meds? How about for industrial application steel that is required to be made in a particular fashion? How does the anarchist society plan and erect a 40 kilometer bridge? How do they source the steel if they do not make steel, how do they source the concrete if they do not make concrete, how do they organize a structurally sound plan and then execute said plan without some manner of labor discipline?

How does the anarchist nuclear reactor work? I'm seriously asking. Walk me through that in some detail. How does the anarchist ship work when spotting a rogue wave on the horizon? Do they host a committee on the appropriate action to take? Had they previously already appointed an acting captain to be removed at the whims of the crew, should a majority dissent? Because that's still hierarchy, if they can make unilateral choices in a moment and enforce discipline when those choices are disobeyed.

Like, what exactly do we mean by hierarchy? You didn't actually define your term.

Mine is fairly simple: Unilateral exercise of authority by one over another. Which in the case of the ship captain, is still unilateral in the moment. If they can enforce labor discipline on their ship, there’s a hierarchy. Even if they're empowered to do by consensus. Do you mean a systematized hierarchy? What criteria exactly, where do you draw the lines?

Ooo, walk me through anarchist ebola outbreak quarantine measures too. That's my favorite. Or covid. Or SARS. Or anything you like, any deadly pandemic. A real and frequent occurrence in our world that I once, during a deadly pandemic, had an anarchist I was debating with call a "hypothetical" they refused to entertain. Just...amazing.

Walk me through anarchist pandemic response. I can pretty well guarantee you'll end up in minarchist territory or social darwinist territory. There isn't much middle ground.

Let’s discuss HAZMAT handling and logistics of moving it across the world without any enforced safety standards or labor discipline. Just so, so, so many examples in modern society of reasons why anarchism, unless it wants to adopt a council communist style, cannot hope to work.

Someone sells ships a batch of drugs they cooked wrong and didn’t quality check and it kills a thousand pregnant women—how do you even find the maker? What if they used a pseudonym? What if they just change their name and begin using a pseudonym? What
safety would there be in such a drug market? Is there even a central database where one might identify suspects in such issues?

0

u/Grumpy-Max 18d ago

I think your claim above about the inclusivity of ML governments may have some truth in some circumstances. There are also all kinds of examples to the contrary. And while you’re correct that Neo Zapatismo and democratic confederalism aren’t expressly anarchism, they’re both far closer to what many anarchists would consider an anarchist society than your example of what Vietnam is to a communist society. I understand the ML version of state progression toward communism includes a version of “socialism”. In practice that turns out to be state capitalism or a mashup of corporate and state capitalism. Regardless, it is decidedly not worker control of production and distribution, and frequently includes widespread repression.

And as to your thought experiments about medication or steel production, you’re talking about issues of administration and organization which social anarchists don’t typically have a problem with. Same goes with sourcing concrete or steel for a large construction project. I think you’re trying to make the claim that large scale projects or complicated logistics can only be accomplished by forcing people into partaking in a project instead of allowing projects to develop from the needs and will of the people that project would directly impact. If you’re as well-read and well-versed in anarchocommunist theory as you claim, I’m sure you’ve come across the various proposed systems that would be able to handle the complex scenarios you bring up. They’re similar to the systems that ML theorists have proposed once the state withers and a stateless, classless, moneyless society develops.

When I refer to hierarchy, I’m referring to hierarchical power structures. This includes capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy, and other structural hierarchies that are designed to keep power in the hands of a small number of people.

I think a pandemic response in an anarchist society would look like managing other types of crises in an anarchist society. Measures to combat the pandemic would be determined first by localized councils with input and advice from experts in that field.

2

u/ComradeCaniTerrae 17d ago edited 17d ago

I think your claim above about the inclusivity of ML governments may have some truth in some circumstances.

In most circumstances, throughout most of their history--with some exceptions. My SO's Roma family in the People's Republic of Bulgaria, for instance, were afforded the first opportunity in the existence of their people in Bulgaria, to receive education and hold political office. Segregation, discrimination, and racism were outlawed in virtually every ML state, and those laws were enforced and carried actual penalties. In many ways Marxism-Leninism was a massive and unequivocally positive force for liberation in the lives of billions of human beings.

And while you’re correct that Neo Zapatismo and democratic confederalism aren’t expressly anarchism, they’re both far closer to what many anarchists would consider an anarchist society than your example of what Vietnam is to a communist society.

You know, I would've made that argument five years ago--in fact, I did. I did make this exact same argument, almost verbatim, five years ago. I think it's pretty crap today, tbh. We can explore that if you want, I think it might be a touch subjective to get into--but Vietnam is exactly what Marxist-Leninists in 2024 expect it to be on its path towards socialism today. Neo-Zapitastas in the EZLN have written multiple long articles on how they do not want in any way to be conflated with Western, white Anarchists. How they are not the same, and indeed--Neo-Zapatistas are bound by none of the same issues I have with Western Anarchists.

Vietnam is bound by all of the issues you will have with me. So they're not great for me, honestly, critiquing anarchism--because they're not anarchists. Anarchists would wreck EZLN communities. Anarchists would think they were tyrannical. They're also a relatively small, relatively isolated, relatively homogenous Indigenous liberation movement. Primarily agrarian.

The material conditions are not replicable to white Americans or Europeans or most the world, nor have our comrades in the EZLN ever pretended they were. It's their ideology and their movement and they define it and it works for them--and they're not anarchist, and have no aspirations of ever being so.

Whereas Vietnam is ML and has every aspiration of proceeding towards communism, and has made far greater strides in that direction for, you know, hundreds of millions of formerly colonized peoples. Just in Vietnam. Billions, worldwide.

I’m sure you’ve come across the various proposed systems that would be able to handle the complex scenarios you bring up.

Oh, I am. There aren't--without betraying anarchism. I'm asking you to engage with the thought exercises, so I can demonstrate for you where they will invariably fail--with, for you, the upside that if you're right, you show me up as a chump and prove Anarchism works.

If you'd like to proceed, I would like to narrow the confines of the discussion down to what I consider the critical points, if you would humor me:

1) What is hierarchy?

2) When is it justified?

3) Describe a model in your head of a functioning Anarchist nuclear power reactor. How are shifts managed. Labor discipline. Can Jimmy and Mike fuck off to go fuck in the bathroom when they were supposed to be manning the control station? You tell me. Inspire me. Paint me a picture with your words, comrade. I used to do this kind of thing all the time as an Anarchist (I still do as an ML), I have faith in you! If you'd like me to answer it, it's pretty damn easy. We set up a council that creates an administrative organ that determines who is even allowed in to the nuclear program and can kick them out at will too, as well as discipline them for gross negligence--likely. That's a bare minimum requirement for the nuclear power plant to function, imo. What do you think? Would your Anarchist society do something similar? Or would it do something different? If it does something similar, is this hierarchy? Looks like hierarchy to me.

You seem like a reasonable anarchist, comrade. I imagine you must catch a lot of flak from your fellow anarchists, I did too. A reasonable anarchist is just a baby ML, as far as I'm concerned today.

The problem I am attempting to show you, laid bare, is that you will find it impossible to implement solutions to real world, common, everyday problems without ending up in the ballpark you accuse Marxism-Leninism of inhabiting. Anarchism, in practice, at scale and over time, must inevitably betray its own principles. The ansynd system is closest to functional. The ancom system does not function at all. The egoist anarchists don’t even have a system and are offended if you ask about one, and so on—until we get to the mutualists and ancaps who are problematic on their own obvious grounds.

The ideologies have contradictions internal to them that, once put into practice, expose themselves quite starkly. That’s why most anarchists avoid theoretical models of any detail. They’re difficult to build without betraying your own principles. What I came to realize is the principles are simply too rigid, and their foundation is wrong. Anarchism, per Bookchin, has always been an individualist tradition. Individualism, it turns out, is a fairly rotten and nonsensical philosophical branch—a modern liberal bourgeois capitalist manifestation. Anarchism’s roots in it are a large part of the problem with western anarchist traditions more broadly—and those influenced by western anarchist thought abroad.

It’s a fail state from the setup. Thats what I’m arguing. I mean it with zero animosity or personal hubris or slight against you. I simply think I discovered (late to the party, I might add) the contradictions in anarchism that render it quite wholly ineffectual. Many MLs I’ve met began as anarchists. A lot of us do, it’s the most palatable socialist tradition if one is raised hearing propaganda about the MLs.

-1

u/Grumpy-Max 17d ago

We’re moving in multiple different directions here so I’ll try to address the different threads. I’m glad the material conditions have improved for so many people across the globe, I really am. Those improvements are largely attributable to capitalism though, not societies where workers, people in general, control the means of production and distribution. That’s one of the disconnects here, Marxist-Leninism is a means to usher in state capitalism, which usually seems to eventually transition to a mix of state and corporate capitalism. Capitalism has improved the lives of people across the globe for a few hundred years, it was happening before Marx and Lenin. It’s also what’s lead to the modern nightmare we’re all living in, including the people in Vietnam. I find Marx to be somewhat of a tragic figure because I really believe he had revolutionary intent to fundamentally change peoples lives in a libertory way. And that’s not to say his ideas haven’t been influential to truly help people, I think they have. His ideas have also been used in ways that are very much counter-revolutionary. I suppose predictions hold little sway. That being said, I would guess that you predict a country like Vietnam to gradually dismantle their capitalist apparatus while the ruling class dissolves itself. I wish that could be the case, but sadly my prediction differs. The concentration of power incentivizes the concentration of power. Moreover, you imply that the only way the people of Bulgaria or Vietnam could possibly have had this much of an increase to their quality of life is through ML means. As was already mentioned, we know that’s not the case. People’s lives have improved through corporate capitalism but also through directly utilizing bottom-up, horizontal power structures of administration and organization, less common in the modern era but very common across history.

And yes, I would include the Neo Zapatismo movement as an example of this. That being said, I didn’t initially bring them into the discussion, you did. No, I don’t consider them anarchists and I completely understand why they want to distance themselves from anarchism and communism. They are in a region that is autonomously determining what makes the most sense for them given their circumstances. Some anarchists have tried to come down on them for outlawing alcohol, for example. They’ve already said they don’t give a shit what people outside their locality say about how they choose to manage themselves and I completely understand that sentiment. The determination about alcohol makes sense given their struggles. And moreover, that’s up to them, not me.

I’ve already given you my definition of hierarchy, I think yours has more to do with power. When you’re talking about authority (please don’t tell me you’re going to bring Engels into this) you’re talking about power over someone else. Those kinds of interpersonal dynamics will always be with us. There will always be pushes for some people to try to exert their power over others, whether that’s in a capitalist, communist, or anarchist system. Anarchist systems aren’t utopias, they simply incentivize people to be in power with each other instead of exert power over each other.

And I don’t need to try to lay out how a nuclear power reactor will work. I’m not a nuclear engineer and wouldn’t pretend to understand the complexity there. I don’t need to be an expert in every environmental structure in society in order to advocate for a method of organization any more than you do. What I can say is that with a change to a decentralized, horizontally structured society, you’ll inevitably see a change to that society’s infrastructure. The infrastructure will also become more decentralized. Prefiguration would have to continue even after a revolution as the physical structures of society themselves transitioned. And I don’t carry the burden of having to come up with all the solutions. I would be coming up with solutions in concerted effort and struggle with those around me. I’m not against envisioning a prefigurative transition. In fact, I think it would be necessary. I reject the notion that this transition has to be lead by an authoritarian vanguard. In fact, it shouldn’t be difficult to see that installing a system so similar to the one that was just overthrown is no way to move forward.

Your nuclear power plant example implies to me that you’re trying to make the point that coercion is necessary to get people to cooperate. This is more an appeal to a specific view of human nature than a critique of organization or administration.

And no, I don’t get much flack at all from the anarchists I know. I get far more flack from MLs and liberals than I do from anarchists. I’m sorry the anarchist circles you seemed to travel in instilled that view of anarchists for you. My experience has been quite different. It’s largely been the MLs and liberals I interact with that spew vitriol, both online and in person. Of course, interactions online tend to skew that way, unfortunately. For the most part, the anarchists in my life are reasonable, intelligent, and genuine people. I wish that could’ve been your experience as well.

And as to the notion that the roots of anarchism are individualist, it again is unfortunate that that’s been your experience with the theory and practice. If you’re referencing thinkers like Sterner, I can see how you would come to that conclusion. Alternatively, anarchist theorists for the last 150 years have been imploring people to understand anarchism as freedom, equality, and solidarity; not as separate ideas, but as ideas that only work when combined. The critique of social anarchism has frequently been that the individual is lost, not that it’s too individualist. To lump all anarchism into individualist anarchism is a gross mischaracterization.

You say the theoretical models of anarchism are difficult to build without betraying our own principles. Yes, that’s very true
 and still we can do hard things. For me, anarchism is a theory of skeptical optimism. Bookchin also said, “If we do not do the impossible, we shall be faced with the unthinkable.”

1

u/ComradeCaniTerrae 15d ago edited 15d ago

In order to cut to the chase, I'll focus on the pertinent bits.

And I don’t carry the burden of having to come up with all the solutions. I would be coming up with solutions in concerted effort and struggle with those around me.

I called it when we began, it's a trope that Anarchists often refuse to answer questions about material concerns that real societies have to deal with in any specific detail:

The pure (libertarian) socialists' ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.

  • Michael Parenti, "Blackshirts and Reds"

That is the common Marxist-Leninist, critique, yes. It's common for a reason.

And I don’t need to try to lay out how a nuclear power reactor will work. I’m not a nuclear engineer and wouldn’t pretend to understand the complexity there.

Comrade, I am not asking you to engage in structural engineering or nuclear physics--I'm asking you to answer how labor discipline would be implemented in situations where it is required for a system to function.

Can Homer and Lenny go fuck behind the cooling tower when they were supposed to be manning their reactor-critical stations? Why or why not? If they can, you’re going to have a nuclear reactor meltdown. If they can't, how will this be enforced? By what organs do you imagine the society will enact labor discipline, and how will those organs be structured.

I'm asking you to play model builder and try to flesh out your theory into practice and answer basic questions about how anarchist society would function, with the fun part being that I've already studied this for decades and it doesn't—the closest state in which it comes to “functional” resembles ML societies, and our theory is far better fleshed out for actually running them. It’s not a haphazard improvisation bastardizing its own core principles to function, but is wholly capable of adapting to any changing material circumstance.

Feel free to prove me wrong. Show me how labor discipline works in anarchist society or why it wouldn’t be necessary by explaining the anarchist nuclear power reactor’s labor discipline, if you please.

This is precisely what disillusioned me with anarchism after decades of trying to build workable models in a tradition stagnant from a century of failure. I talked to my fellow anarchists about pandemic response and epidemiology. Consequently, I almost lost my faith in humanity for a time.

And as to the notion that the roots of anarchism are individualist, it again is unfortunate that that’s been your experience with the theory and practice. If you’re referencing thinkers like Sterner, I can see how you would come to that conclusion. Alternatively, anarchist theorists for the last 150 years have been imploring people to understand anarchism as freedom, equality, and solidarity; not as separate ideas, but as ideas that only work when combined. The critique of social anarchism has frequently been that the individual is lost, not that it’s too individualist. To lump all anarchism into individualist anarchism is a gross mischaracterization.

Murray Bookchin was one of the greatest anarchist theorists of the last century and he came to the exact same conclusion as I've laid out here before denouncing anarchism as a failure of a movement fit only for juvenile antics.

From ancoms to mutualists, it's individualist. The priority is placed on one's own bodily autonomy and individual inviolability--liberal concepts that--taken to anything near the extreme your average anarchist desires--render society dysfunctional. If you want proof of that, look at Anarchists during the pandemic. Social darwinism reigned supreme--but if you take objection to that, please, tell me how Anarchist societies would, feasibly, in any way manage pandemic response beyond "creative struggle". Have fun, the answer to this question broke me:

They can't, they won't, and they will let their most vulnerable die while they rationalize how great it is that they are dying. I witnessed it happen in real time. You think I’m wrong? Show me how.

“For the most part anarchists in my life are reasonable, intelligent, genuine people”. I believe you, and I’m happy for you, comrade. Reasonable, intelligent, genuine idealists with no means of actually achieving their revolution—or even achieving a consensus on a theoretical position.

I’ve found the opposite, online anarchism is a cesspool, and the best of the offline western anarchist community are still social-chauvinists with a reactionary petit-bourgeois stance on many issues.

Ask any anarchist about Xinjiang to hear a litany of CIA talking points regurgitated at you ad nauseam.

P. S. Gonna put aside the question of socialism in AES, it’s very nuanced and deserves its own separate discussion—for the purposes of making my stance clear, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is socialist in every meaningful sense of the word; as is the People’s Republic of China, the Lao Democratic People’s Republic, and the Republic of Cuba. A distinct difference between anarchism and Marxism-Leninism is our dialectical materialist approach. It’s why our theory has far more explanatory power and has proven itself far more robust in practice. We don’t seek to achieve anarchism, we seek to build communism. As a dialectical process taking place in both space and time and through accounting for the real world as it stands today and with recognition of its history so we can hope to shape its future.

You’d be surprised how rare this approach is in any of the social sciences—acknowledging material reality and that humans are wholly a part of it, and in no way above it.

1

u/Grumpy-Max 15d ago

Dang, you really like this nuclear power reactor. OK, for your benefit, I decided to take a quick look into it. I’ve already mentioned how decentralization of civic and political life will include decentralization of social infrastructure. Instead of massive, centralized nuclear reactors it’s easy to envision a system of small modular reactors that won’t melt down. “Each module is so small that the surface area is much larger compared to the volume than that ratio is in a traditional nuclear reactor. That design ensures heat can be siphoned off easily, and a meltdown is next to impossible.”(https://www.earth.com/news/nuscale-power-designs-nuclear-reactor/) So if Homer and Lenny wanna fuck behind a cooling tower during work, I personally think it’s not the best idea but it won’t cause a meltdown. While your specific example of how to handle work discipline is relatively simple to remedy, that’s not actually the point. We can still humor your original intent of asking how to instill discipline when the outcome could be a catastrophe. Again, I’ve already mentioned that this isn’t just a question of organizational structure, it’s a question of how one views human nature. You’re implying by your question that you believe people are unable to understand the gravity of their position and therefore must be coerced into doing the right thing. I disagree. When the perverse incentives that arise due to the profit motive are removed from the picture, work becomes a very different endeavor. In an anarchist society, Homer and Lenny aren’t working in that nuclear reactor because it’s a way to make a living. The coercive incentive to make a living through work, depending on the system implemented, would either be greatly diminished or eliminated. Homer and Lenny would be at that nuclear plant because that’s the work they actually want to do.

Also, if Homer and Lenny want to fuck behind a cooling tower and are willing to accept the possibility that, inso doing, they may die a horrible agonizing death in a nuclear meltdown, then Homer and Lenny gonna fuck. That’s not a problem with anarchism. The threat of losing their jobs or going to jail as a coercive way of keeping those horny fucks at their desks pales in comparison to getting Chernobyled. Neither state capitalism nor corporate capitalism is gonna help there either.

In addition, the incentive to preserve jobs by resisting automation would be viewed in a very different light. When your livelihood isn’t tied to your job, it makes much more sense to automate the most dangerous jobs without the worry that you’re harming people’s ability to feed themselves. I’m not necessarily saying Homer and Lenny’s jobs would be replaced by automation (some dangerous jobs will still need a human touch), just that some jobs that are viewed as undesirable will no longer have to be preserved in order to maintain a connection to a worker’s need to survive.

And this is the problem with this line of questioning. You’re thinking like a capitalist. You’re asking, how would you as an anarchist organize a capitalist society? That’s the wrong question to ask. My question to you is are you really advocating for communism? You seem quite enamored with the advances of state capitalism and what it’s done for people. You seem to be thinking in terms of how capitalist systems should be organized, then using those answers to try to show how anarchism (and communism to boot) wouldn’t work. Is communism really your end goal?

As for Bookchin, I accept his findings even though I don’t agree with all of them. I also find a lot of value in the models that he created after coming to his conclusions. I think he’s contributed a lot to modern leftist thought. But individualist anarchism as a branch I personally do not adhere to. While individualist anarchism values the unique and ownness, social anarchism (as already mentioned) values equality, freedom, and solidarity; values that can only work in conjunction with each other. You can’t have real, effective freedom and equality without solidarity with each other. Again, it’s reductive to try to squeeze all of anarchism into individualist anarchism and then argue that anarchism is too individualist. That avoids engaging with the theory on its face.

You keep bringing up your experience during the pandemic. I’m not quite sure how to address this one, because again that wasn’t my experience at all. I’m not saying that wasn’t yours or that you’re making it up. I’m saying that I’m an anarchist and I masked during the pandemic. All the anarchists I personally know masked during the pandemic. I occasionally still mask up today. In fact, I was recently at a meeting of about 50 people, and a third of the people in that room were self-described anarchists. All but one of the people who identified as anarchist in that room were masked as well. Your anecdotal experience with that is different than my anecdotal experience. Starting to see a trend here. I’m starting to think you were hanging out with the wrong anarchists, and I feel no need to defend their actions.

And we can talk about state capitalism as it relates to diamat if you want. I don’t think it’s going to help much given the current conversation though.

1

u/Johnfromsales 18d ago

How does Engel’s analogy of a ship captain differ from that of a business? Do businesses not need discipline and obedience? Aren’t the sailors fully capable of running a ship themselves?

6

u/ComradeCaniTerrae 18d ago edited 18d ago

Labor discipline is a thing Marxists embrace, yes.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

The difference is the managers are the same economic class as you and elected by you (or promoted by the party for their hard work and merit). But yes, like, labor discipline and centralized planning are hallmarks of ML society. Maybe one day robots do all the socially necessary labor and the central planning is scheduled by computers—but in the here and now humans gotta work to keep society running. And some shit gotta run on a smooth schedule. Logistics doesn’t happen by magic. Planning will likely always be required for large industrialized societies. Which we are in favor of.

The sailors DO run the ship, and yet central executive authority is necessary—at the very minimum—in times of crisis or combat. There cannot be confusion about who does what or when in some settings. A nuclear reactor is another fine example.

Not showing up to man your station in either case (or dipping out without notice for any reason) can be catastrophic for the entire crew. Ships require discipline to function. Many systems do.

7

u/Qlanth 18d ago

Hierarchies are not inherently bad. They help keep us organized. Engels used the example of a ship on the ocean. Theere is a hierarchy and authority there, but without it the ships crew are harder to keep organized and the people on the ship become imperiled.

We need some kinds of hierarchy. We need some kinds of authority. It's part of staying organized.

With that said, hierarchy should always be changeable and accountable. Mutiny is a kind of democracy - when we feel its time to change the hierarchy then it's time to change it.

1

u/C_Plot 18d ago edited 18d ago

I would add to your on-the-mark comment by adding that the hierarchy (if that is what we call it), in Marxist socialism/communism, is solely in the service of ending oppression and dominance.

The material (positive) entry point for socialist science is that we, collectively, all of us, as conscious minds, confront the material totality (even as our consciousness is an emergent property of that material totality). The normative entry-point is an agapē golden rule morality informed social Justice that guides the demos: the People. In this inherent material condition, that necessary collective is inherently foisted upon us: which necessary collective is called “the polis”. We can easily and without controversy (if we’re adhering to a golden rule moral postulate entry point) assign authority over the natural resource of each body to the conscious mind that body hosts. Each sovereign conscious mind then exercises full authority the bodily domain.

However, that then leaves an immeasurably enormous set of other natural and other resources comprising our common resources as a separate domain that also requires stewardship. We all, as the polis principal, require a faithful agent to steward, administer, and act as the proprietor for our common resources (common wealth, a.k.a. common assets, and other common concerns, a.k.a. common liabilities). The socialist solution to this origin material condition, that we as a polis necessarily confront, is to assign authority over the common resources to a fiduciary agent (what Kautsky dubbed the “communist Commonwealth”) to wield in a strictly limited manner, solely to secure the equal imprescriptible rights of all and to maximize the general, common, and mutual welfare of the polis.

These material conditions and the golden rule morality postulate comprise the political scientific conditions and entry points from which political science—a.k.a. the science of socialism—proceeds. The so-called social contract is whatever social arrangement forms from these a priori preceding material conditions. In that sense, there’s no way to avoid a social contract as so many bourgeois vukgaris insist. What they mean by rejecting the social contract is fully surrendering to the present tyrannically imposed terms so that they do not need to engage jn eternal vigilance.

This science of socialism is what leads Engels, paraphrasing Saint-Simon, to say:

The government of [dominance over] persons [in each their personal sphere] is replaced by the administration of things [things as in our common resources] and the direction of the [collective and common] processes of production.

Class antagonistic social formations instead accede to absolutist or near absolutist authority over common resources, in a ruling class, without any strict limits imposed upon that ruling class, (no limit to secure rights and maximize the general welfare). The subterfuge the capitalist ruling class propagates is the mendacious ideology that to demand a faithful agent communist/socialist Commonwealth is to impose tyranny and dominance (rather than in truth, to end tyranny and dominance).

The faithful Commonwealth might draw upon proven governmental institutions, such as mutual contracts, usufruct of real property, tenure in fixed improvements to real property, trespass and right to roam, personal property, civil remedies, as well as civil and criminal punishments, proportionate defense, and so forth—to faithfully stewed, administer, and act as proprietor over our common resources (the common resources of the polis) so as to secure the equal imprescriptible rights of all and to maximize the general welfare of the polis. These institutions expand the personal private sphere beyond merely our bodies (as we enjoy usufruct of real property and personal property possessions) and thus provide material conditions for our own independent utility maximization as a complete to the faithful Commonwealth agent maximize the general welfare in our public affairs (res publica).

The polis thus holds the original authority (sovereignty) over these common resources but delegates its authority to the faithful agent—the communist/socialist Commonwealth—to wield that delegated authority (a.k.a. polis power or more vulgarly called “police power”) on behalf of the polis. The authority over our individual bodily sphere remains with each of us (augmented by our communist usufruct and other communist property).

Our collective sovereignty remains with the polis. However, as a practical matter, we exercise that collective sovereignty by delegating proxy authority (not the originating authority called sovereignty) to the polis (it is not that “governments are instituted among men” in the passive voice, but the active and more precise voice that “the sovereign polis, universal collective of all persons, institutes a government—a socialist/communist Commonwealth—to secure our rights, including our rights beyond the narrow horizon of bourgeois rights, to maximize the general welfare of the polis as our right”; the passive focus lulls us into complacency, when only active eternal vigilance can ensure a faithfulness agent to the polis principal).

If there is any hierarchy at all in this, it is the hierarchy of the polis principal over the Commonwealth agent that must serve faithfully the polis. Just as the work of God must he done by disciples, the work of a faithful Commonwealth must he done by faithful politicians and civil servants. They are a part of this hierarchy, and eternal vigilance is indispensable from the members of polis to maintain a Commonwealth agent as faithful to the polis, as well as to ensure the civil servants and politicians (of our polis power agent) likewise always act as polis fiduciaries.

Polis (where all sovereignty resides)

=> Fiduciary Commonwealth

=> Civil Servants and polit-itians

=> institutions defining and demanding an absolute inertial frame for golden rule morality informed Justice mediating and moderating the material and spiritual conflicts between persons

If that is a hierarchy at all, it is a hierarchy intended solely to entirely end domination oppression, repression, and suppression. Socialism/communism entertains no other formal hierarchies (anyone is enabled to submit themselves freely to another, but a socialist social formation will provide no conditions of existence to favor, impose, or coerce such “free” submission).

The complete absence of the socialist/communist fiduciary Commonwealth agent—or the presence of a socialist/communist Commonwealth agent with declining faithfulness to the polis—leads inexorably to a domineering hierarchy and a reemergence of rampant class and factional antagonisms: a reemergence of the war of all against all.

đŸ”„

1

u/C_Plot 18d ago

I should add a bit more to round out my response to the OP and your comment.

The ship captain, on a communist vessel (as with the chief administrator of a commercial communist enterprise), wields an authority entirely in submission to the sovereign the sovereign authority of the polis comprised of the passengers and crew of the ship (or the workers of the collective commercial coöperative enterprise).

As Earth bound persons we unavoidable form a polis comprised of all persons on the Earth: the cosmopolis (cosmo-polis). However we also comprise various sub-poliis entities as we, through free association, form households, communes/communities, commercial enterprises, commercial enterprise franchises or combines, municipalities, metropolises (metro-polis-es), continental and other “nation-states”, and so forth.

Each hierarchical level defines a polis, hierarchically arranged geographically or logically. That is a hierarchy completely different than the domineering hierarchies such as the feudal hierarchies (King, Duke,
) In the cosmopolitan communist Global Commonwealth, the faithful service goes from Globe on down to commune and individual, whether in a role freely associating, or alone. The power or authority delegated is from the bottom up, from polis formed of the universal collection of all individuals, and can he revoked and regranted at any time (“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”).

3

u/HintOfAnaesthesia 18d ago edited 18d ago

They oppose some hierarchies, not others.

The trouble with basing analysis on hierarchy is that it is essentially the outward form of a relationship. The authority of one individual, group, org, etc over another is always a product of social conditions. Power is the outcome of countless social relations, that always act upon both subjects; can't really explain this with hierarchy all the way down, you need to think about how affairs are actually reproduced. This is why even organisations that are specifically constructed to be non-hierarchical nonetheless reproduce informal hierarchies in practice.

Marxists in particular are more concerned with the structures that give rise to hierarchies than the hierarchies in themselves.

1

u/Next_Ad_2339 18d ago

Yes and no.

Some are not, they belive in a party democratic centralism.

Some are but they oppose party centralism and are more open to union hierarchy.

1

u/Neco-Arc-Chaos 18d ago

In favour of reduced hierarchy compared to capitalist systems. Hierarchy is necessary to some degree to maintain organization and productivity, until we can reach a point where hierarchy can be eliminated.

1

u/Girombola 18d ago

All long answers. Communists opose hierarchies like they exist today. But not all. Like in socialism still would have hierarchies and it is ok, as long they are pro people and follow the benefit of all. Anarchists do not accept any kind of hierachies, not even in socialism. They believe in a change from the actual state to communism, with no between.

1

u/kgbking 18d ago edited 18d ago

I am pro hierarchy and dictatorship, but only at the beginning.

After a successful revolution, we need, on the one hand, a Vanguard dictatorship and, on the other, compulsory re-education camps for the masses. However, this would only be for the first few years.

After the period of forced re-education, we can start to slowly dismantle the Vanguard dictatorship. Everyone will have their set place in society and things should run smoothly. Through the initial dictatorship and re-education period, we can achieve the subsequent melting away of the state.

2

u/Perfect-Highway-6818 18d ago

You said only the first few years, has any socialist country ever dismantled its vanguard dictatorship?

1

u/kgbking 18d ago

It can really depend on your perspective. If these socialist countries end up existing for thousands of years, then 80 years of a vanguard dictatorship is really a mere drop in a bucket compared to the long history of that country.

Furthermore, if the socialist country still requires a vanguard dictatorship after multiple decades, then something has gone wrong with their re-education program. To fix this, they need to double down on the intensity of the compulsory re-education of the masses.

1

u/Grumpy-Max 17d ago

You didn't answer the OP's actual question, you answered a different question.

1

u/kgbking 17d ago

Oops, I was just trying to help OP understand hierarchies within socialism

2

u/Grumpy-Max 17d ago

I see. Well, as far as I know, no socialist country has ever dismantled its vanguard dictatorship.

1

u/lombwolf 9d ago

Big difference between hierarchies and structures. There are class, gender, racial, sexual, etc hierarchies under capitalism. I believe that all hierarchies should cease to exist, but a genuinely democratic workers state is not a hierarchy unless it becomes corrupted which has often been the case in many past socialist experiments.

But the absence of any leadership at all typically does not end well because without authority individuals with bad intentions can infiltrate and threaten the gains made by the proletariat in a revolution.

1

u/Vermicelli14 18d ago

No. All Actually Existing Socialism was hierarchical, both in state power and in social structures such as patriarchy.

6

u/Ebbelwoy 18d ago

Because they didn't achieve Communism which by definition would have been classless

4

u/Grumpy-Max 18d ago

A classless society could still be hierarchical eg patriarchal.

5

u/Complete-Plankton943 18d ago

The material conditions that give rise to patriarchy would be abolished under communism.

2

u/Grumpy-Max 18d ago

I agree that material conditions are important, I disagree that material conditions dictate all power relations in a system.

1

u/ScoutTheRabbit 18d ago

Can you expand on this? Patriarchy isn't specific to capitalism and Alexandria Kollontai has many writings on how she was frustrated by how persistent the gender hierarchy was in the USSR despite changing policies. It's hard to understand what material conditions communism would inherently change that eliminates patriarchy without there having to be concerted, careful effort on the part of the party to address it.

1

u/Celestialfridge 18d ago

Yes, although I think many socialists can see the benefits in utilising what already exists to achieve socialism but once that is done the need for it is gone and it is dissolved.

1

u/HarmenTheGreat 18d ago

Not as a means to an end. Hierarchy is nothing inherent, it really depends on the context

-1

u/C_Plot 18d ago

Yes.

0

u/Phantombiceps 18d ago

Neither anarchists nor communists were opposed to hierarchies. They were opposed to the combination of, and institutionalization of economic and political hierarchies. This is actually a common traditional or conservative position in many cultures.

0

u/Ebbelwoy 18d ago

From my understanding Anarchists are ultimately Communists but they aren't aren't socialists

0

u/99ShahedOfBakuOfNine 18d ago

Have you already ask r/Anarchism, r/Anarchy101 and, not the worst r/anarchocommunism ?

1

u/Perfect-Highway-6818 18d ago

My question wasn’t about anarchism it was about communism. I already know they are against hierarchy

0

u/99ShahedOfBakuOfNine 17d ago

I asked because, like everything in anarchism, there is multiple points of views, even about hierarchies- it's definitly a question you should ask to AnComs btw.

-8

u/TheWikstrom 18d ago

Some are (like council coms), but most want to establish a worldwide network of dictatorships (that they euphemistically call "worker's states") before they abolish class society (which they won't because power justifies itself)

2

u/ComradeCaniTerrae 18d ago edited 18d ago

You need some kind of administrative organs at bare minimum, you need standards on medicines, on engineering, on gauges for rail and size of roads, you need a lot of administrative infrastructure for an industrialized modern society.

The only way you're getting to "anarchism" in reality is to go anprim, but even then hunter-gatherer societies have hierarchy. Human groups have hierarchy, generally. In most circumstances, depending on how you define the term.

Many anarchists will tell you that the parental-child relationship is an unjust hierarchy. While I agree the nuclear family is problematic and that a community should be integral to the raising of a child, that (Anarchist) shit is insane--that's literally that no bedtime anarkiddie bullshit. But it's a quite popular position: "Parents are cops." Children require guidance in life to grow up, part of that is discipline on occasion. Is that a hierarchy to you?

You can make the democracy as horizontal as possible and remove as many systems of oppression as can be named and you can make a totally inclusive consensus mechanism that doesn't dominate the minority and you can do all these things, and you will still have forms of hierarchy in society--depending on how you define it.

How do you define it?

1

u/TheWikstrom 18d ago

Can you elaborate on what you mean by administration here? I've actually got a degree in process engineering and that sort of stuff is deeply fascinating to me

-4

u/SensualOcelot Non-Bolshevik Maoist 18d ago

To quote DMX— “smart niggas get niggas killed for real”.

It’s best if nobody knows who gives the orders.