I’m a bit late to this series, but am so intrigued and grateful! Have always had similar wondering about anarchy as a testable concept, and beyond hearing phrases like “mutually-beneficial assistance”, have lacked a clear vision I could refer to. Thanks for this!
It was really interesting to read along with your exchanges and reflections. It made me think about my own stories and noticed that I (almost) always tell them in a way where a society with equality and shared leadership can only exist without religion and capitalism. Just a thought.
How cool is that? Regardless of your thoughts on anarchism, it's intriguing that you wrote letters to an anarchist for a whole year to learn more about it and are now publishing those letters as a series! Very cool 😎
Anarchism for me doesn't make sense of a concrete end goal, but rather as a directional preference of resisting and destroying centralized power and seizing individual/family/decentralized power. Once the equilibrium is tolerable, you'd relinquish the preference.
George Washington said the best government was no government and believed in voluntary cooperation. Technically, he was an ansrchist. Education and self discipline was to make this possible. Yet they needed the post office, an institution…
Love that you’re doing this series. I may have recommended this before, but Michael Malice’s Anarchist Handbook, which is a collection of public domain anarchy essays of the past, is worth reading.
Ursula LeGuin’s book The Dispossessed is not really about anarchy imo. She uses the word but it’s not really anarchy. Though all her books are amazing.
I read The Dispossessed many years ago. It still sticks with me today, but more as a cautionary tale than a utopian one. The supposed anarcho-communist utopia seemed like a place where dreams went to die.
Nevertheless, I'm curious about this series, and will read it with interest. Some questions I hope that will get answered include:
1. How does an anarchy survive in the face of the intrinsic human desire for status?
2. Even in a system of voluntary association, associations will appear, and there will be a tendency for them to get larger, leading to a concentration of power. Is there a way to prevent this from undermining anarchy?
3. In an anarcho-communist society (the kind seemingly advocated in Peter Clayborne's "Anarchy"), how do they deal with the allocation of scarce resources? (eg. High powered telescopes for those interested in pursuing astronomy.)
this is super interesting. i've thought about this a lot too, and what i've always come back to (for myself) is that anarchism is primarily a set of ethics, and only a structural model when it agrees with those ethics. i think i might be an anarchist insofar as i fundamentally believe that we need to wipe the slate clean as often as possible: there shouldn't be any permanent ruling class, or any strict hierarchy that can be exploited. how often the slate gets wiped depends on needs and circumstances; i think anarchism should be able to tolerate *temporary* structures that are democratic, or maybe even occasionally authoritarian. there are some forms of crises (armed conflicts, resource shortages, natural disasters) that require decisive leadership without a bunch of procedural wheel-spinning. but as long as those structures are never permanent—as long as the anarchist light is always blinking red on the dashboard, saying THIS IS BAD—and people are willing and able to dissolve the leadership structure as soon as there's no longer an immediate need for it, i think it fits within the ethical philosophy of anarchism.
I definitely agree we need the ability to dissolve structures as well as add them. What that looks like in practice though is still difficult for me to grasp.
oh for sure. we live in a world made out of self-reinforcing systems that are designed to be permanent (even if they're actually very brittle) and it's practically impossible to imagine anything else replacing it. that's why i'm not a revolutionary anarchist: i don't think we get to a better future by pulling out the bottom block on the Jenga tower, and accepting whatever catastrophic consequences result in the name of establishing anarchism. but when these systems fail on their own, and we have to think about how to rebuild or replace them, anarchism gives us a framework for thinking about more socially sustainable possibilities.
looking forward to following along with the discussion!
JRR Tolkien described himself as an anarchist in a letter to his son. The Hobbits don't have any police, army or other structures of government in that sense they are anarchist. The hobbits can maintain their idyllic lifes because the rangers protect them.
This is going to be fascinating. My husband is an anarchist and I have always struggled with the question of how to achieve and sustain it. It seems like a rich set of ideals which are difficult to implement.
Not to be facetious, but this kind of project was done before, called the United States, where each state was built on the premise of being free and independent of an overarching government. And for a minute, it was pretty successful until it wasn't. But here we are, with WAY too much government in America. Taking notes from Javier Milei, the MAGA (Make Argentina Great Again) guy. His movement has been popularly dubbed as "political anarchist", "libertarian anarchist", or "anarcho-capitalist". By simply eliminating excessive members who made their living off other peoples taxes were cut from government. Imagine if we, in the United States, eliminated the Federal Government, Federal Reserve, FBI, CIA, IRS, and other parasites, in lieu of State Independence with minarchist.
I would say Anarchy doesn't necessitate a lack of structure. In my opinion, Rojava is a good example of the anarchist ideal in action and they certainly do have structures, it's just that they're designed differently.
I’m a bit late to this series, but am so intrigued and grateful! Have always had similar wondering about anarchy as a testable concept, and beyond hearing phrases like “mutually-beneficial assistance”, have lacked a clear vision I could refer to. Thanks for this!
Yay! So glad you're liking it!
It was really interesting to read along with your exchanges and reflections. It made me think about my own stories and noticed that I (almost) always tell them in a way where a society with equality and shared leadership can only exist without religion and capitalism. Just a thought.
How cool is that? Regardless of your thoughts on anarchism, it's intriguing that you wrote letters to an anarchist for a whole year to learn more about it and are now publishing those letters as a series! Very cool 😎
Anarchism for me doesn't make sense of a concrete end goal, but rather as a directional preference of resisting and destroying centralized power and seizing individual/family/decentralized power. Once the equilibrium is tolerable, you'd relinquish the preference.
George Washington said the best government was no government and believed in voluntary cooperation. Technically, he was an ansrchist. Education and self discipline was to make this possible. Yet they needed the post office, an institution…
That’s always what happens, isn’t it.
Love that you’re doing this series. I may have recommended this before, but Michael Malice’s Anarchist Handbook, which is a collection of public domain anarchy essays of the past, is worth reading.
Ursula LeGuin’s book The Dispossessed is not really about anarchy imo. She uses the word but it’s not really anarchy. Though all her books are amazing.
Are there better novels that illustrate the concept? One recommended Hobbiton.
Not that I know of. I’ve heard Heinlein’s the moon is a harsh mistress, but I haven’t read it yet or Hobbiton. Interested in reading both.
I was also thinking about re-reading Lord of the Rings though since apparently it’s very relevant to our new vice president’s world view.
Anarchy, unfortunately functions to the benefit off all participants only with a well educated, conscious and respectful populace ...
Humanity is still veeeery far from that ...
It's not a coincidence that we're permanently coerced by psychopathic narcissists everywhere ...
I read The Dispossessed many years ago. It still sticks with me today, but more as a cautionary tale than a utopian one. The supposed anarcho-communist utopia seemed like a place where dreams went to die.
Nevertheless, I'm curious about this series, and will read it with interest. Some questions I hope that will get answered include:
1. How does an anarchy survive in the face of the intrinsic human desire for status?
2. Even in a system of voluntary association, associations will appear, and there will be a tendency for them to get larger, leading to a concentration of power. Is there a way to prevent this from undermining anarchy?
3. In an anarcho-communist society (the kind seemingly advocated in Peter Clayborne's "Anarchy"), how do they deal with the allocation of scarce resources? (eg. High powered telescopes for those interested in pursuing astronomy.)
I have all of these same questions….
Agree strongly with the principles of anarchism. But this series sounds fascinating. Always keen for new ideas, and what others make of them
UNBELIEVABLE! I LOVE THIS!!! I'll be following your correspondence and hopefully be able to join in the live discussion. Thank you, Elle!
this is super interesting. i've thought about this a lot too, and what i've always come back to (for myself) is that anarchism is primarily a set of ethics, and only a structural model when it agrees with those ethics. i think i might be an anarchist insofar as i fundamentally believe that we need to wipe the slate clean as often as possible: there shouldn't be any permanent ruling class, or any strict hierarchy that can be exploited. how often the slate gets wiped depends on needs and circumstances; i think anarchism should be able to tolerate *temporary* structures that are democratic, or maybe even occasionally authoritarian. there are some forms of crises (armed conflicts, resource shortages, natural disasters) that require decisive leadership without a bunch of procedural wheel-spinning. but as long as those structures are never permanent—as long as the anarchist light is always blinking red on the dashboard, saying THIS IS BAD—and people are willing and able to dissolve the leadership structure as soon as there's no longer an immediate need for it, i think it fits within the ethical philosophy of anarchism.
I definitely agree we need the ability to dissolve structures as well as add them. What that looks like in practice though is still difficult for me to grasp.
oh for sure. we live in a world made out of self-reinforcing systems that are designed to be permanent (even if they're actually very brittle) and it's practically impossible to imagine anything else replacing it. that's why i'm not a revolutionary anarchist: i don't think we get to a better future by pulling out the bottom block on the Jenga tower, and accepting whatever catastrophic consequences result in the name of establishing anarchism. but when these systems fail on their own, and we have to think about how to rebuild or replace them, anarchism gives us a framework for thinking about more socially sustainable possibilities.
looking forward to following along with the discussion!
Well that is a brilliant way to put it and I very much agree with that take!
JRR Tolkien described himself as an anarchist in a letter to his son. The Hobbits don't have any police, army or other structures of government in that sense they are anarchist. The hobbits can maintain their idyllic lifes because the rangers protect them.
I love that! Hunting down that letter now….
This is going to be fascinating. My husband is an anarchist and I have always struggled with the question of how to achieve and sustain it. It seems like a rich set of ideals which are difficult to implement.
A rich set of ideals that are difficult to implement sounds about right ☺️
In The Dispossessed (I'll come along to re-read and discuss), the anarchists are left alone because of capitalism - free trade.
Amazing, I’m very excited to read it!
I also got other takeaways, but I'll save it for the reading 😁
Not to be facetious, but this kind of project was done before, called the United States, where each state was built on the premise of being free and independent of an overarching government. And for a minute, it was pretty successful until it wasn't. But here we are, with WAY too much government in America. Taking notes from Javier Milei, the MAGA (Make Argentina Great Again) guy. His movement has been popularly dubbed as "political anarchist", "libertarian anarchist", or "anarcho-capitalist". By simply eliminating excessive members who made their living off other peoples taxes were cut from government. Imagine if we, in the United States, eliminated the Federal Government, Federal Reserve, FBI, CIA, IRS, and other parasites, in lieu of State Independence with minarchist.
Oh totally, and I’m very into state statehood as a concept! I’ll be writing more about that in January!
Great topic by the way. Looking forward to reading more
I would say Anarchy doesn't necessitate a lack of structure. In my opinion, Rojava is a good example of the anarchist ideal in action and they certainly do have structures, it's just that they're designed differently.
This is a lot of what I learned during this series. I had no idea!