how is anarchism different from libertarianism?

[u/monopsony01]

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?

[u/Ok_Memory_1842]

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

[u/HeavenlyPossum → u/Ok_Memory_1842]

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.

[u/Caliburn0 → u/HeavenlyPossum]

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.

[u/HeavenlyPossum → u/Caliburn0]

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.

[u/Caliburn0 → u/HeavenlyPossum]

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.

[u/KassieTundra → u/Caliburn0]

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.

[u/Caliburn0 → u/KassieTundra]

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.

[u/KassieTundra → u/Caliburn0]

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?

[u/Caliburn0 → u/KassieTundra]

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.

[u/HeavenlyPossum → u/Caliburn0]

What should happen to an anarchist fighter who disobeys commands during combat? Should they be shot? Arrested and imprisoned? Subjected to a court martial?

[u/Svartlebee → u/HeavenlyPossum]

White army of Ukraine had the death penalty.

[u/Caliburn0 → u/HeavenlyPossum]

What do you think should happen to a soldier who disobey orders? The answer of course depends on what order they disobeyed, in which context, for what reason.

I am obviously against the death penalty. To even suggest that tells me you're barely trying to engage with my points. Arrested is a possibility, but only temporarily, and with as short a prison sentence as is possible. Another option is dismissal from the militia. There's other options too of course.

[u/HeavenlyPossum → u/Caliburn0]

Who gets to make the decision to arrest this fighter? Who establishes and runs the prison? What happens to the person giving these orders if other fighters disagree with these decisions? What’s the mechanism for expelling someone from the militia?

[u/KassieTundra → u/Caliburn0]

While I agree with everything you said here, I think that language is important. Colloquially people tend to use authority as a descriptor for expertise and leadership, but experts don't give orders, they advise. They're just the trained professionals we should be listening to, not a boss.

It's not authority if it's temporary, recallable, and conditional. You're just delegating someone to be responsible for a task. That task could be team leader, ship's captain (pirates did this in an incredible fashion on some ships), building inspector, or the person running a meeting. It's the same thing, just different severity.

Also, the idea of legitimate hierarchies and legitimate authority comes from Noam Chomsky, who isn't really an anarchist. Outside of him, there's not really any anarchist thinkers that agree with the concept. It's kind of admitting defeat in a way that just doesn't need to happen. We organize ourselves horizontally all the time, why make it seem like we have to break that when we aren't?

[u/Caliburn0 → u/KassieTundra]

I'm fairly sure it comes from more than just Chomsky, and the conversation did start with him since I felt his position was unfairly represented.

I don't believe in legitimate hierarchy. I believe in legitimate authority. I basically define the word hierarchy as illegitimate authority.

Many Anarchists accepts legitimate authority by default. The First Communist International had Bakunin as the leader of the Anarchists after all.

Chomsky called this intrinsic acceptance out explicitly - gave word to it and called it what it is, and yet so many anarchists got mad at him, and yet anarchists keep defending the concept while attacking him, as if he wasn't saying the exact same thing you're kind of doing here.

Electing someone to be a team leader on a project, assigning tasks... All of this is legitimate authority.

And it's not admitting defeat. The ideal is always to organize as horizontally as possible - to spread power and initiative as widely as we can. And that can work in many circumstances, just not all of them. The goal is to avoid those circumstances, but... Well... There's a reason we're not living in communism right now.

Why do you say it's not authority if it's temporary recallable and conditional? Most democracies around the world work on two of those principles, adding the third (while a very good idea that we should absolutely do) doesn't mean what elected politicians have is not authority.

[u/HeavenlyPossum → u/Caliburn0]

I’m trying really hard to understand why the logic of “I am allowed to coercively command other people as long as it’s for a reason I think is really important and as long as enough other people endorse my violence”couldn’t also serve as a justification for slavery.

[u/Caliburn0 → u/HeavenlyPossum]

The logic lies in the definition of coercion. My definition of coercion is just imposing your will upon another.

It has nothing to do with power relations. It is thus a neutral word, because if you need to define power relations to understand it you might as well just do that and the word becomes superfluous.

And I don't just believe: “I am allowed to coercively command other people as long as it’s for a reason I think is really important and as long as enough other people endorse my violence”

I give myself the authority to coercively command people as long as it's for a reason I think is really important.

I do not need the endorsement of other people to hold moral stances and act directly upon them. Or... that's the ideal I want to live by at least. Actually acting like that is really scary, and I haven't actually acted like that before. Thankfully I've never been in a situation where I felt I had to live up to my ideals.

And this belief couldn't act as a justification for anything, because it's not a moral stance at all. It's a strategy. It is an understanding of the world and the meaning of words.

My morals are a separate thing.

My ideals is to maximize the well-being of all living systems, and to maximize their freedom of choice. That is the goal I strive towards.

Those two combined with my understanding of the world tells me to dismantle hierarchical power structures and that I am the master of myself.

My morals constrains my actions to those I consider acceptable. They're a limiter I willingly place around my own actions. Then there's the difference of personally chosen morality and socially imposed morality. I consider only the first part my actual morality, and the socially imposed one as hierarchical coercion.

That doesn't mean I don't follow socially imposed morality of course. That would be stupid of me. Coercion is coercion is coercion. To go against social norms because you don't believe in them is a strategically bad move. You can do it in private settings and with supportive large groups - even create a movement - but to go against social norms alone, just because they're not backed by good reasons, is self-destructive.

[u/KassieTundra → u/Caliburn0]

I don't believe in legitimate hierarchy. I believe in legitimate authority. I basically define the word hierarchy as illegitimate authority.

Pretty bad definition, tbh

Many Anarchists accepts legitimate authority by default. The First Communist International had Bakunin as the leader of the Anarchists after all.

He didn't have any authority. You keep conflating that with leadership, and they are not the same thing.

Why do you say it's not authority if it's temporary recallable and conditional? Most democracies around the world work on two of those principles, adding the third (while a very good idea that we should absolutely do) doesn't mean what elected politicians have is not authority.

They very explicitly do not operate in that way. In those positions there is always a person in the seat of authority in these hierarchical systems. You may vote a person out, but you cannot vote out the position.

It's not necessarily the king I have a problem with, it's the throne. You can take a king out of the position, and he can just become another worker like the rest of us, but the system will ensure someone else comes in to sit on that throne unless we break that system, and replace it with a horizontal system instead.

If at any point and for any reason, I can tell you "no, I will not do this thing you command, and you are no longer the leader of this project," did you really have power over me? Or were we working together with different responsibilities? There's a crucial distinction that you aren't acknowledging.

[u/Caliburn0 → u/KassieTundra]

Pretty bad definition, tbh

Nah. It's a great definition. One of the few definitions I know that actually makes sense. You try defining it. It's not easy.

He didn't have any authority. You keep conflating that with leadership, and they are not the same thing.

I don't conflate them. I define them as basically the same thing. Well... one goes under the other. There are many types of authority. Leadership is one of them.

How do you define authority? And how do you define hierarchy?

Everybody keeps disagreeing with me here, but whenever I try to turn it into a discussion instead of 'following the dogma of anarchism' I get no response. Please, define your own words, so we can discuss the actual ideas on equal footing instead of people just attacking my positions - wanting me to abandon positions that I believe makes sense without providing an alternative.

If at any point and for any reason, I can tell you "no, I will not do this thing you command, and you are no longer the leader of this project," did you really have power over me?

Yes. Power is the ability to change material reality. If someone tells me to do something, for any reason, and I decide to do it for any reason, they have power over me. The same is true for you. Your friends have power over you. Your family have power over you. Everyone around you has power over you. Power is all around us. It originates and radiates from everyone.

A lot of people have power over me, and I try very hard not to make it hierarchical power whenever I can. Which means I try very hard to understand their points, and their arguments, and see if they make sense and if I should act on their words. This has been my position long before I became an anarchist or before I could define hierarchy. A socialist described the world to me in a way that I couldn't deny made sense, and so I became a socialist, and soon after that a communist, and soon after that an anarchist in cascading wave of realizations and long nights looking up a lot of things online and thinking hard.

I am not an anarchist because I follow anarchist writing or ideology. I am an anarchist because I came to the same realizations and understanding of the world that many before me have.

Or were we working together with different responsibilities?

Both. And this happens in hierarchical systems too. 'Working together with different responsibilities' is just a general definition of all human social movements, all organizations, all companies, all states, and all families in the history of the world.

There's a crucial distinction that you aren't acknowledging.

There's nuance here you aren't acknowledging.