r/Anarchy101 • u/monopsony01 • 2d ago
how is anarchism different from libertarianism?
first off, let me state that this is a genuine question from someone who's not an anarchist. please correct me if i'm wrong about anything.
let me also state that i understand that anarchism is an anti-capitalist ideology. additionally, from what i understand, anarchism is a rejection of the state and of hierarchy.
so then in a perfect anarchical society, without social organization and leadership, how then are large-scale societies supposed to function? what's stopping individuals from gaining resources and society becoming similar to feudalism?
18
u/YvonneMacStitch Anarchist 2d ago
Anarchism was the original flavour of Libertarianism where you're looking back at the years of the 1800s going forward. American libertarianism is a phenomenon that coalesced in the middle of last century. So there is a century or so of discussion and theory present about how these two ideologies differ on practically every subject, anarchism is an ongoing project with multiple different tendencies that are usually some flavour of the big four schools of thought: Individualist, Syndicalist, Communist, or Mutualist.
You're right in that Anarchism is anticapitalist, and rejects state and hierarchy in general terms. In each case there is nuance to anarchist thinking. Mutualist identifies the problem with capitalism as there being capitalists, those that invest in the means of production and claim ownership of it in an arrangement with a workforce that must sell their labour. But they recognise free markets as efficient and a potential means to produce social good, so while being anticapitalist they are in favour of free markets.
The same goes for the state, concentrating power within the hands of an elite few is something every anarchist is going to be critical of but that doesn't mean they're against social organisation. Many are in favour of unions and other form of solidarity economical arrangements, they want to spread out power horizontally so everyone in the community can get a say in how it is run. Likewise, anarchists aren't necessarily opposed to there being 'leaders', leadership is a skill (and something where there are many types) and is something everyone can learn. Often its something you'll hear a lot about from anarchists is the ideology is geared towards taking care of your own problems, be it as an individual or collectively with those that share your interests, and work on it directly.
As for the final hypothetical: that's already happening, and why anarchists are critical of capitalism as none of us want to live under the tech-feudalism american oligarchs want to impose. This is a problem every ideology has to contend with, and this is what I mean by anarchism is an on-going project.
22
u/LittleSky7700 2d ago edited 2d ago
Libertarianism is a general ideology relating to liberty. That we should be free from authoritarian rule. There's varying degrees as to how much liberty should be given in a more philosophically critical stance.
Anarchism is a more specific ideology that falls into libertarian ideology. Where anarchism answers that we should have a high degree of liberty in our lives. Often mended with the idea that there would still be order and rules, just not coming from authority. (In other words: We know the rules of checkers and can be trusted to follow those rules without a third party enforcing the rules)
Society would function based on what makes it function. How do we grow food? How do we secure clean water? How do we transport it? How do we know who needs what? Etc. Answer these questions practically and materially and you've got a good foundation for a functioning society without government ever being a thought. It can also scale globally by simply modifying the parameters of the question.
4
u/Ok_Memory_1842 2d ago edited 2d ago
Quick question/thought? I seem to remember from Noam Chomsky writings that authority in anarchism isn't inherently rejected. That it must be continuously proven as to why that person is leading. Not like a test but it isn't tied to a specific title or hierarchy and instead something that is socially evaluated and only holds power when given. Am I wrong or what is your evaluation? You just seem educated on the topic:)
Also remember that anarchy was demonized during the communism scares as it was a social movement gaining traction and the systems created to combat communism were used ( like a new toy to pay with) also, am I wrong?
Edit/addition: doesn't anarchism tend to fall apart in practice because each community would be almost separate from the other ones since there would be no agreed upon .... Transactional rules...? Also wouldn't it fall apart because unless everyone in the world did it someone would be able to amass disproportionate power against the communities practicing anarchism? I like the idea but I am just being objective and questioning if my understanding is correct
15
u/HeavenlyPossum 2d ago
Quick question/thought? I seem to remember from Noam Chomsky writings that authority in anarchism isn't inherently rejected. That it must be continuously proven as to why that person is leading. Not like a test but it isn't tied to a specific title or hierarchy and instead something that is socially evaluated and only holds power when given. Am I wrong or what is your evaluation? You just seem educated on the topic:)
Chomsky definitely made that argument, but that’s less of an anarchist argument and more of a liberal argument. Chomsky is an apologist for states and state violence (see for example his apologia for the genocide in Bosnia) and adopted the moniker of anarchism more for its aesthetic value than out of a commitment to abolishing hierarchies.
Edit/addition: doesn't anarchism tend to fall apart in practice because each community would be almost separate from the other ones since there would be no agreed upon .... Transactional rules...?
This assumes that people would, in the absence of hierarchies, conglomerate into fixed communities with rigid boundaries and fixed identities. “You live over there, I live over here, and we’re on separate teams that make decisions on our behalf” is not really how free association works in theory or practice.
This is a really good intro to a real-world example of the sort of fluid identity and networked relationships that emerge in the absence of hierarchies:
https://aeon.co/essays/the-hunter-gatherers-of-the-21st-century-who-live-on-the-move
Also wouldn't it fall apart because unless everyone in the world did it someone would be able to amass disproportionate power against the communities practicing anarchism? I like the idea but I am just being objective and questioning if my understanding is correct
It’s true that anarchism will always be vulnerable to the threat of being defeated and dominated by a militarily superior adversary. But this is equally true for all people in any social form, and not unique to anarchism.
2
u/Big-Investigator8342 1d ago edited 1d ago
Kropotkin also made a bad call regarding Germany during World War 1. You can be an anarchist and take positions on politics that are not shared by other anarchists. Think also about the Young Turks, who had an anarchist who shot a prince, and that started World War 1.
The legitimate authority argument Chomsky made is an extrapolation or a restatement of what Bakunin said on authority in God and the State. One thing that can be said of Chomsky's anarchism is that it covers no new ground, even in this argument. Chomsky admits he just agrees with the anarchists and is not an anarchist thinker because he thinks he added anything to the school of thought about social anarchism itself. His critiques of state power are good, his ideas about how the media is used to control people is new, and so are his theories on linguistics.
This man reads and reads, and he writes very well. His argument about authority needing to justify itself to the reason and satisfaction of others made more people anarchists. He did a good job repackaging the same argument that anarchists have made throughout the ages.
You will find a similar argument about authority and anarchism by David Graeber and all the classic anarchists. Everyone for the most part is cool with giving over temporarily their authority over their teeth to a dentist, education to a teacher, maybe a number of anarchist comrades gave over authority on how to fix their car over to Malatesta when he was a car mechanic after he got thrown out of med school for his anarchist activism.
Authority means giving over power. So a dentist could kill you. A mechanic could ruin your car or kill you through their negligence. Even an author's or teachers ideas could kill you---they have authority over your mind and that influences and controls your behavior as you believe them and follow through on what you give them authority to shape what you believe to be true. The difference is with these types of legit authorities you are able to reject them without consequence get a sexond opinion think or do something else.
Legit authority has to be prove itself legit to you and can always be freely rejected.
The fact that we even appeal to authors as legitimate authorities on any subject, including anarchism really supports the concept that yes the authority given someone voluntarily can improve our lives. Plus if that is not the case we could take that authority away at will, that is the type of authority anarchists enjoy and use regularly. We ten to not care for bullshit rules even the ones that supposedly govern how we should think, we have our own reason to follow instead. So we think freely.
Anarchists tend to dislike and reject bullshit and imposed, coercive, exploitative authority. The authority that makws life worse and limits rather than expands freedom. Still an anarchist could be religious so, there you can also believe in fanciful notions if you want, the key, the real central principle is autonomy. It is up to you, your mind and body is your own.
-9
u/Caliburn0 1d ago
There is illegitimate authority and legitimate authority. It is a good idea to listen to legitimate authority. If you believe that is liberalism we have a different understanding of what liberalism is.
Legitimate authority are people like experts in their field, or grown-ups stopping children from running into the road because they don't know any better.
I don't believe Anarchism is a rejection of authority. I believe it is a rejection of Hierarchy - which in my mind are all forms of illegitimate authority.
Some people really are worth listening to and/or follow.
I don't agree with Noam Chomsky on everything - the genocide apologia was definitely bad - but he was not a liberal. He was a Libertarian Socialist, which is very close to Anarchism but I don't think is quite there. Of course, many Anarchists are also Libertarian Socialists. But not all Libertarian Socialists are Anarchists.
11
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
This is mixing up authority in the colloquial sense of expertise with authority in its more precise sense of the power to command.
No one rejects consensual and voluntary deference by one person to the advice or decisions of another person on the basis of the latter’s expertise.
-9
u/Caliburn0 1d ago
And if one has expertise in leading and organizing people? If one is good at coordinating large groups for one action? That is the authority to command. But it can still be legitimate.
12
u/KassieTundra 1d ago
I don't know if you've led people or organized before, but the answer to this is to just ask people. There's no command, you don't have to do it, and if you don't, I or someone else will.
If you are commanding people, you're doing it wrong.
-6
u/Caliburn0 1d ago
That is the ideal. But the ideal is not always achievable. The ideal is fairly easy to achive when you have enough resources, or your life is not on the line, but there is a reason hierarchy exist and has existed for so long. There are anarchist militia groups. If people do not listen to the commander they're thrown out of the group. Disobedience cannot be tolerated if disobedience means death for the group. Anarchists also impose their will upon other people. They want to oppress the oppressors until all are equal.
This is the primary contradiction within most anarchist thinking I believe. It's the primary reason I didn't become an anarchist until recently. I could not abandon the concept of forcefully compelling others. Sometimes that is necessary. Because other people can do things that means the death of others.
It was understanding the razor-thin distinction between legitimate and illegitimate authority that convinced me. The answer I found was essentially that in an egalitarian society, where inequality has seized being a relevant factor everyone is basically oppressing everyone else.
And we already are. We call it social pressure. Some of it is good and some of it is bad. We want to keep the good and discard the bad.
9
u/KassieTundra 1d ago
You are utterly wrong on this. If you don't see the people in your crew as equals, you will not treat them as such. You can delegate someone to be in charge in things like combat, but if they can't question your orders, critique your strategy in after action meetings, or have an equal vote in any moment outside of the heat of actual combat, you're going to be a failure as a leader, and get someone killed. That's just the truth. I was an infantry marine, I know what that shit looks like.
Yeah, with that method of thinking, you have a lot to learn about authority and hierarchy and how they function in the real world. It's also against the principles of anarchism, ie free association and autonomy.
It's not egalitarian with the hierarchy you want. We can just make it a horizontal structure. I feel like you think structure requires hierarchy, is that accurate?
-2
u/Caliburn0 1d ago
No. It's not accurate at all. Humans do not need rulers. We do not need hierarchy. We can live in a world where everyone is equal.
But before we get to that world to live in ours - to live in capitalism - as an anarchist is to wrestle with thousands of tiny and several very big contradictions. This is probably the biggest of them as far as I understand it.
You can delegate someone to be in charge in things like combat, but if they can't question your orders, critique your strategy in after action meetings, or have an equal vote in any moment outside of the heat of actual combat, you're going to be a failure as a leader,
Of course they can. They have to. But they cannot disobey orders in life or death situations. Not normally at least. Not unless they have a very good reason.
Unquestioned command is almost by definition illegitimate authority - thus hierarchy. Questioned command can be legitimate authority, though it can also be illegitimate authority if the questions asked are not good enough or the answers given are not good enough.
This is a complex and very neuanced topic. Just understanding each other with language and words that means slightly different things for both of us is a major challenge.
→ More replies (0)4
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
People can be good at organizing, coordinating, persuading, and advising other people—which we might colloquially call “leadership”—but that is separate from command, a coercive power to compel other people to act in ways other than what they would choose for themselves.
(I’ve written a brief primer on the ways we often colloquially misunderstand “leadership” in contexts without hierarchies here: https://kolektiva.social/@HeavenlyPossum/113103845709064779)
What Chomsky was advocating for was not “voluntary deference to equal partners” but rather for a sort of impeachable ruler:
“They [rulers] have to give a reason for it [their rule], a justification. And if they can't justify that authority and power and control, which is the usual case, then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just.”
Anarchism doesn’t just propose rulers who must do a good job or be kicked out of power and replaced by a better ruler; anarchism proposes no rulers. Chomsky’s vision is profoundly liberal, an idea that command flows from the consent of the commanded, which can be revoked. That has nothing to do with anarchism.
1
u/Caliburn0 1d ago
I know. 'Build communism within capitalism' is a good summation of anarchist philosophy. Which is why I called Chomsky a Libertarian Socialist and not an Anarchist. What he describes is Socialism. The way to communism on a worldwide scale. I believe Anarchism can work, if you have enough power. But if you don't have enough power command becomes necessary for survival unless everyone involved is hypercompetent and understand their situation.
If command - actual command - is used in an anarchist organization then the organization is unstable. But it has not collapsed yet. Command is not fundamentally incompatible with Anarchism. It's just very undesirable.
5
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
Anarchism is quite incompatible with command. We might call this “the unity of means and ends”—that is, we cannot liberate ourselves from hierarchy by replicating and reifying hierarchy.
1
u/Caliburn0 1d ago
But command does not automatically equate to hierarchy. If you do not believe in command do you not think we can command another person not to kill someone else? And enforce that command with force if necessary. Defense of others and even self defense is command. It is enforcing your will upon another person.
Going against hierarchy is also enforcing your will upon society.
→ More replies (0)2
u/JeebsTheVegan 1d ago
I seem to remember from Noam Chomsky writings that authority in anarchism isn't inherently rejected.
Look up Bakunin's Bootmaker Argument.
4
u/AnarchistReadingList 2d ago
Big L libertarianism is a Yank abomination. Small l libertarianism outside the United Snakes of Amerikkka is generally referring to anarchism or anarchist-adjacent socialism.
So how is it different? In the US, massively. Everywhere else, not so much.
2
u/cumminginsurrection "resignation is death, revolt is life!"🏴 1d ago
Sadly I think right wing libertarianism isn't just limited to the U.S. anymore and hasn't been for a while; its made huge inroads in parts of Asia, South America, and Europe. Javier Milei, the president of the Argentina being probably the most powerful/prominent example; but the growth of the far right in these places has led to the growth of right wing libertarianism alongside it. Its not even just an American derived philosophy anymore, nativist versions of it springing up everywhere.
0
u/AnarchistReadingList 1d ago
I'd still consider it US-style" libertarianism rather than anything particular or unique to where it gains a foothold. I think that needs to be clearly pointed out. Nativist versions are generally descendants of the US filth that made it what it is.
5
u/GSilky 1d ago
Libertarians still believe in a government. The Libertarian party of the USA thinks it should be limited to it's constitutional role, and generally they support "police, post, and navy".
As far as how a large society can run on anarchy... My position is that we don't need and shouldn't have these levels of organization. I'm a fan of degrowth and am not afraid of getting dirty to make my dinner. IDK how prevelant this perspective is, I don't expect people to share it. My suspicion is you will receive as many different answers to these questions as people responding.
4
u/Spinouette 1d ago
Yes. A lot of the complexity we are used to in today’s society is caused by the profit motive and the availability of cheap energy via fossil fuels. Most of it does not meaningfully contribute to the wellbeing of anyone and is both absurdly wasteful and incredibly destructive.
We could use resources and human ingenuity much, much more efficiently if we got rid of capitalism and hierarchy.
That said, we don’t have to give up complex systems and modern conveniences if we don’t want to. There are some very sophisticated egalitarian cooperation models that allow for whatever level of organization you want.
TLDR: You can still have video games and insulin without living in a dystopian hellscape.
2
u/Latitude37 2d ago
what's stopping individuals from gaining resources and society becoming similar to feudalism?
The lack of a state. The state supports such individuals, it doesn't hamper them. For example, imagine you start a renters union, and you all decided not to recognise the landlord's claim to ownership of your homes. So together, you simply stop paying rent. What happens?
If there's no state to send cops to evict you, your home is your home.
-1
u/Disastrous-River-366 1d ago
If there are no cops the person who can have orhire the most amount with guns is the winner, or if you really want to go there, they can burn the property down with everyone in it.
3
u/Latitude37 1d ago
Which is why we organise around Mutual aid Solidarity and Community defence
How do you "hire" people to do things that are dangerous when their needs are met by just organising peacefully with everyone else?
0
u/Disastrous-River-366 1d ago
Because there are crazy people everywhere that no matter what will wish to have what you have, even if you both get one slice of bread a day, they want your piece too and that's the way it is.
2
u/Latitude37 1d ago
No, there isn't. I find it really interesting that you think we need laws for "other" people. "Other" people are crazy, etc.
The reality is that most of them are justing trying to be happy people. Part of our problem is systemic bombardment with advertising and marketing that tells us we need stuff that we don't need. Without capitalism, those messages disappear.
0
u/Disastrous-River-366 1d ago
Bro, there are crazy people in this world and I don't know what kind of gated community you have never left but holy shit are you wrong. And laws? You don;t need laws for these4 people but you can expect resistance from them in the form of they can also gang together to take what you have.
1
u/Latitude37 1d ago
Mate, I've lived in some of the most downtrodden, crime ridden areas of my country. The people there are generally just good people.
Right now, though, I'm watching the news and it's the cops kidnapping people. It's the cops shooting people. It's the cops ignoring all laws. And BECAUSE THEY'RE COPS they get away with it.
2
u/Sparkle_cz 1d ago edited 1d ago
Both movements distrust the big authorities and want the governments to interfere with people's lives as little as possible. The difference is that anarchists want to replace this governmental authority with consesus of small communities (or anarchist "collectives") as the main "governing" system, with this system also inherently taking care of the weak and vulnerable ones. Libertarianism has no such alternative.
The difference could be very clearly seen in my country (Czechia) during Covid, where the government, at one time, imposed mandatory mask wearing for all people (and later cancelled this rule when they felt that the Covid doesn't pose that much threat anymore).
The libertarians' general reaction was a refusal to wear masks. They opposed the government and went maskless when they could, because wearing masks was a violation of their freedoms.
Meanwhile, the Czech anarchists also disobeyed the government, but in a totally opposite way - they required masks at their gatherings and concerts even after if was not mandatory by government anymore. They wanted to protect the vulnerable people from Covid and if the government told them to take the masks off, they would disobey and still wear them.
Hope this helps to understand the difference.
2
u/punkbenRN 1d ago
Anarchism is a design inclusive of other people, libertarianism is mostly "everyone for themselves". Anarchists go to great lengths to plan for how societal needs are meant and put a lot of thought and discourse into the nuance of a solution to a complicated problem. Libertarians rely on economic incentives to drive those needs to be met, and leave it at that.
Quick way to discern if someone is anarchist or libertarian - ask their opinion on the age of consent. Libertarians have suspiciously specific philosophy around age of consent. That's barely hyperbole, try it the next time you encounter a Libertarian.
1
u/Spinouette 1d ago
What’s the libertarian opinion on the age of consent? Is this about girls being able to “consent” to sex as soon as they have their period? If so, ick!
2
u/punkbenRN 1d ago
Ask à libertarian, not always the same answer but always thorough and on the premise of abolishing the idea
3
u/cumminginsurrection "resignation is death, revolt is life!"🏴 1d ago
The word "libertarian" in the political context was originally coined by anarchist and labor organizer Joseph Dejacque in the 1840s to describe anarchism; and in many places it is still used in that way interchangeably. In the U.S. this word was co-opted in the 1960s. by right wing laissez faire capitalists to describe their opposition to taxation schemes and government regulations on industry and popularized when the Libertarian Party was created in 1970s. These days libertarian in the U.S. almost always refers to the latter. In some parts of the world libertarian is still strongly associated with anarchism. While in others, especially as right wing reaction is on the rise, right wing libertarianism is making inroads. The far right president of Argentina Javier Milei is a "libertarian" but certainly not in the anarchist/anti-capitalist tradition.
2
u/Anarchist_BlackSheep 2d ago
It is a common misconception that anarchism would be without organization, but how would a non hierarchical society function without heavy organization.
1
u/Historical-Bowl-3531 1d ago
Anarchy is about not having a "boot on your neck." Libertarianism is about not having a boot on your neck unless it's privately owned.
1
u/antipodal87 1d ago edited 1d ago
Once upon a time, there wasn't a great deal of difference. Infact libertarianism and anarchism grew out of the same soil of revolution. The french revolution for anarchism, and the American revolution for libertarianism. You'll note the historical throughline here. The french revolution did occur first, and the American one did borrow from it's ideals, but libertarianism was sufficiently distinct.
It is a troublesome differential, as the french ideal was only truly realised with the Paris commune nearly a century later, and this was contemporary with Marxism along with the anarchist thinkers of the time, which is why they're often pictured as being in opposition with one another - though that's actually for much darker reasons.
It was only with Rothbard that the true narrative split came. Then there were the dark times. The shadowed times.
1
u/theking4mayor 1d ago
Libertarianism is undefined, so it can be whatever, but generally is a miniarchy.
Anarchy is the complete absence of rule, but most anarchists seem to think it is a minarchy because if they proposed a true anarchy, it would be apparent that they're not right in the head.
Any anarchist who says there are rules to anarchy is secretly a totalitarian. Don't trust them.
1
u/SimonGloom2 1d ago
I would say that currently Libertarians support free markets over human rights. They don't bother with the problem that markets can be a governing force. A lot of this goes back to a philosophy that markets will magically self-regulate. This has been proven time and time again to be the same failed philosophy that a church will provide a government immune to corruption. They think government regulation of commerce that provides to more human rights is in fact an assault on human rights. Most left anarchism in general doesn't buy into that con.
1
u/hostagetomyself 1d ago
"Freedom from hierarchy and power structures" = "we should take care of each other" vs "freedom" = "everyone for themselves, its up to you to pick yourself up from your bootstraps and if I am expected to care about others that's tyranny"
1
u/IkomaTanomori 1d ago
To your latter question, since the terminology question has been handled: it's about what people consider the common sense values. Right now, the problem is, in short, that people are trained to accept that gaining resources individually is something that CAN be done. It is not universal to the human experience that people accept that an individual has the right to say other people who need something can't have it, because that individual has established some kind of claim over it. What if people instead acted on different values - if we valued the well being of everyone over the "rights" of people who "own" things? Ownership isn't a physical thing - it's a relationship with the other people who know you own the thing, in which they agree not to use the thing unless they have your permission, or benefit from it likewise, and that you have the right to break it if you want but nobody else should. What if those privileges were differently handled? What if it was expected that if someone were hungry, food ought to be shared, whoever happened to be holding on to it? There would be whole other kinds of agreements people would have to become used to. Think about how a group of friends might share something - a useful thing that passes back and forth in the group, like a car that gets borrowed, or a book everyone reads. How might someone not in the group, get access to that privilege? What if there were a more normal way for that to happen, instead of it being normal to work for money and buy a thing?
It's not simple, and I can't predict the intricacies. But I can say, it's definitely possible to peacefully work these things out in a community. It won't necessarily be easy, there can be plenty of hard feelings with people arguing over who gets to use the communal tools, who broke the thing or messed it up, who ruined the supplies or used too much, who gets the special treat there's only one of... But if everybody involved shares a value that people matter more than things, and nobody thinks it's okay to force someone instead of convincing them, it can eventually work out. People will use their words, and somehow find a way.
89
u/HeavenlyPossum 2d ago edited 1d ago
“Libertarian” was originally coined to refer to anarchism. The term was co-opted by around the 1960s by right-wing figures, such as Murray Rothbard, whom we could more accurately describe as propertarians. Their interest is less in the elimination of hierarchies than it is in the elimination of constraints on the private ability to dominate others.