I was thinking of valid implementations of anarchism in society. Anarchists do not believe in the power and authority in institutions, although we must respect that they do command a degree of power. We believe that the gun can kill, however we don’t believe that the gun is holy.
It’s a straightforward consequence that anarchism does not need any revolution, does not need any overthrow of power, for anarchism to thrive! Why would we overthrow a government and an economic system whose intrinsic value we reject anyway? An atheist does not need to fight to overthrow the “theist”, the religious establishment; in the same way anarchy does not need to overthrow the “arch”. We just have to work around it, undermine it and even supplement it generation by generation, until it’s something actually good for society. We recognize that the government and the economy is a benign growth, a force not to be reckoned with but a force that we must work around. We recognize that the hands of the economy and the government is not omnipotent and omniscient. There is a limit of this force, and that’s where anarchy lives. Beyond the power of government and economy, but within the reach of our collective powers.
Anarchy is now. We act not in opposition to the economy and to the government, but independent of the economy and the government. I say an “overlay network” mainly because I’m inspired by the work of people who developed the i2p project, an overlay network for the internet meant for protecting anonymity and privacy. They take the already existing infrastructure of the internet, one that does not value privacy and anonymity at all, and even profits from people’s intimate data, and makes something private and secure on top of that. (it’s also a good place to torrent stuff, check it out)
So, that’s what I think anarchy should be. An overlay network for the government and the economy. Something that takes the already built infrastructure of the government, and the already existing powers of the economy, and shapes it into freedom and equality for all.
We have no president, because all of us are the president. We do not kill because we have no need for violence to exact change. We rely on our collective powers, and we do not worship a centralized authority.
My thoughts for this were inspired by this YouTube video: How Companies Plan The Economy. About 20 minutes in he talks about Chile’s proposed government arount 1971 and 1973 called “Cybersyn.” Here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia:
“Project Cybersyn was a Chilean project from 1971 to 1973 during the presidency of Salvador Allende aimed at constructing a distributed decision support system to aid in the management of the national economy. The project consisted of four modules: an economic simulator, custom software to check factory performance, an operations room, and a national network of telex machines that were linked to one mainframe computer”
This is meant not to be a manifesto but as tinder for a more productive discussion in how we can actually bring about anarchism in today’s global world. The distributed power that the internet gives us is ripe for us to create this “distributed decision support system.”
What it do baby
It sounds like you’re flirting with “dual power strategy”. Would be worth looking into that more and seeing what ideas are already out there. Here’s a video that I just pulled up on the topic, seems like a decent introduction:
Its always fun to read other peoples vision of anarchy & anarchism, so thank you for that.
Personally I dont really like the metaphor of an overlay, because it implies to me that the underlying layers are not getting removed /changed fundamentally, because the overlay is dependent on the existence of the underlying layers or specific functions the underlying layers provide.
I think you need to clarify what you mean by “revolution” As I understand your text, you are speaking about subverting institutions to enforce self-management, and you reject insurrection.
This is a common mistake of what “revolution” usually means in socialist and anarchist text. There, the most common definition is a radical shift of how a social system work. For exemple, the insurrection of 1936 is not what lead to the Spanish Social Revolution. There is 40 years of popular education, strike, general strike before that lead to whole regions to be self-managed (like Aragon and Catalogna). The uprising is an answer to the fascist coup d’État. I suggest the reading of the mail Malatesta about the General strike in Italia that lead to the self-management of whole Northern Italia for one week.
However, a lot of experiences of subversion that succeed have experience strong reaction, and have to defend themselves. If you are interested in the subversion of institution through anarchist organization, I suggest to read about Anarcho-syndicalism and Libertarian municipalism
So, that’s what I think anarchy should be. An overlay network for the government and the economy. Something that takes the already built infrastructure of the government, and the already existing powers of the economy, and shapes it into freedom and equality for all.
So, not actual anarchy then. Just… Libertarianism?
Freedom and equality for all not sound like libertarianism to me tbh
And also, maybe i misspoke that we should “shape” the economy and the government. Rather, I think the economy and the government are the canvas upon which anarchy can be painted. The analogy is not perfect of course, but I argue that the concept of anarchy is a society without rulers. So, let’s make one, on top of and often times interacting with the already existing society we already have.
My knowledge of the isms are a bit rusty. Call libertarianism, call it anarchy, but whatever actual movement that would transpire in this spirit would end up looking like neither in the end. Reality need not respect ivory tower political ideology.
But to address your question, let’s include the definitions of the social movements you referenced
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as a core value. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, and minimize the state’s encroachment on and violations of individual liberties; emphasizing the rule of law, pluralism, cosmopolitanism, cooperation, civil and political rights, bodily autonomy, freedom of association, free trade, freedom of expression, freedom of choice, freedom of movement, individualism, and voluntary association. Libertarians are often skeptical of or opposed to authority, state power, warfare, militarism and nationalism, but some libertarians diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems.
Also, im aware that the working definitions of libertarianism has changed drastically since right wing ideologies in the USA had taken off. I might be wrong, but it is under my impression that they’re the “the free market is good, government intervention is bad crowd”
Here’s one for anarchy:
Anarchy is a form of society without rulers. It is primarily advocated by anarchists who propose replacing the state with a stateless society based on voluntary free association. These institutions or free associations are generally modeled to represent concepts such as community and economic self-reliance, interdependence, or individualism. In simple terms anarchy means ‘without rulers’ or ‘without authority’. As such, under anarchy there is no coercive rule by a single group or individual, rather instead by an individual upon themselves or by the people entirely.
Anarchy rejects both the intrinsic value of the economy and the government, while Libertarianism only rejects the government. I reject both, and believe that an overlay network is required in both institutions. So, it’s anarchy.
Also note that the two ideologies intersect somewhat.
