Back to Homepage ANARCHISM IS REAL DEMOCRACY
ANARCHISM IS LIBERAL SOCIAL DEMOCRACY
"
*) The stars indicate the position of the Norwegian economical-political system after the revolutionary change in 1994/95.
Fig. 1. Picture of the Anarchist Economical-Political Map
A mathematical precisation of the map is presented at the Formula of anarchism .
For practical statistical methods of estimation of the authoritarian degree etc. see the chapter V.B.
NB! We usually have used " , ", the European standard instead of American/UK standard, i.e. " . " as decimal separator. The term "ca" is an abbreviation for the latin circa, which means about or approximately.
Et hvert skift i et økonomisk-politisk systems koordinater på ØP-kartet er per definisjon en revolusjon. Revolusjoner kan være av varierende størrelse, noen små, og av og til noe større. Revolusjon står i motsetning til reform, som er økonomisk-politiske endringer uten skift i system-koordinatene, dvs. endringer innenfor systemets rammer, uten å gå utover disse.
Et hvert skift i et økonomisk-politisk systems koordinater på ØP-kartet skjer nesten alltid ved en kontinuerlig prosess via infinitesimale skift i systemets koordinater, som integreres dynamisk over tid, til et signifikant samlet skift i systemkoordinatene, dvs. til en signifikant revolusjon. NB! En serie usignifikante revolusjoner kan altså resultere etter en tid, i en samlet signifikant revolusjon. Er revolusjonen en bevegelse nedover på ØP-kartet, kaller man den også en kontra-revolusjon.
Revolusjoner kan også skje ved diskontinuerlige, eventuelt store - skift i system-koordinatene, uten at vi skal gå videre inn på dette her, utover å bemerke at slike ofte går fryktelig gærent, oftest på grunn av mangel på relevante oppfølgende organisasjons-strukturer.
GGS, The Green Global Spring Revolution, bl.a. støttet av GAIAN Freedomly Zen-Buddhists, andre frihetlige, Greta Thunberg & Co og flere, satser ikke på denne gærne strategien. Men på opplegget nevnt under «NB!» over, som skulle bli en suksess, forutsatt trigging av tilstrekkelige folkemasser til støtte for opplegget (til GGS). Og det må det bli i tide til å avverge full blown climate-crisis, with Ragnarokk = FULLT HELVETE På GAIA, A.K.A. TELLUS OG JORDEN, OG KANSKJE MER. JHø.
Best regards and real democratic greetings from the networks of NøI-INDECO at www.indeco.no and IJOR/IIFOR at www.anarchy.no.
CONTENTS:
I. SUMMARY
II. THE ECONOMICAL-POLITICAL MAP
A. ANARCHY AND ANARCHISM DEFINED
B. THE MAP
III. ANARCHISM: IDEAL, PRINCIPLES &
PRACTICE
IV. ANARCHISM, STATE AND CAPITALISM
A. A COMMENT ON THE ECONOMIC-POLITICAL
MAP
B. AN AXIOMATIC APPROACH TO THE PRINCIPLES OF ANARCHY,
ANARCHISM AND SOCIAL SCIENCES IN GENERAL
V. NOTES
A. PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS
VS POSSESSION IN ANARCHIST LAW
B. NOTES ON MAPPING - COLORS, GRAPHICAL AND ALGEBRAIC NOTIONS - STATISTICS AND ESTIMATION METHODS - PRACTICE
C. ANARCHISM AND MODERN SCIENCE UPDATED - HISTORY OF THOUGHT - METHODOLOGY
D. MORE ABOUT THE CONCEPTS AND WORDS USED IN THIS CONTEXT
A. Rules, rule = regler, regel (relatively fixed ways to settle things in an orderly way, i.e. regulations and regulatory means); but also,
B. Rules, rule = hersking, hersker, herske (to be an arch/ruler, act as an arch, bestiality).
Thus in English/American the words 'archein (Greek) = herske (Nordic)' is translated to B. "rule" = to be an arch etc., but "rule" also is used as A. 'regel' = "rule" (i.e. rule(s) in the meaning of relatively fixed way(s) to settle things, disputes and conflicts in an orderly way, i.e. regulations and regulatory means = regel/regler). And thus, due to using one word to mean two very different things, i.e. A. and B, the anglophones are forced in an authoritarian way to think very much false and wrong about realities, with respect to anarchy, freedom and authority, that the Scandinavian people are not to the same extent. See the point! Anglophones are very much fooled by the authorities in this way, thus you probably cannot easily think free, but like a slave via psychological ruling, to think authority = ruler is necessary to keep order. In Norwegian a situation "an (without) arch(y)" "uten hersker" may very well considered to be with 'regler' because "hersker" = rules, and "regler" = rules, are quite different words. This is very difficult to understand with an anglophone basis.
C. Furthermore the Greek word "an" is not meaning "without" in general, but just as "an" in anaerobe and similar words, i.e. "an" means without what is mentioned in the suffix, but keeping what is essential in the matter, i.e. management in the meaning of coordination related to anarchy.
Thus the whole thing gets often mixed up in the anglophone sphere, the language falsely forcing people to think that rule and rulers are necessary to settle things in an orderly way.
D. To fix this linguistical/language problem in a simple way, we mainly use the word "rules" in the meaning of one or more rules in case A, and the words "rule" and "ruling" in case B, unless something else is mentioned. We will now present a brief definition of anarchy:
The word "anarchy" origins from Greek. The original meaning, that everybody should stick to, is the following: The prefix "an" means "negation of", as in anaerobe vs aerobe, anandrous vs -androus, anhydride vs hydride, etc; i.e. "an" means without what is mentioned in the suffix, but keeping what is essential in the matter. The suffix "archy" means "rule (not rules or law), ruler, rulers, superior in contrast to subordinates, etc.", from Greek "archein", "to rule, to be first"; and "archos", "ruler" i.e. in a coercive, repressive, etc. manner, slavery and tyranny included. As mentioned "an" means without what is mentioned in the suffix, but keeping what is essential in the matter, i.e. in this case management in the meaning of coordination, but without ruling. The 'ruling' is not essential, but an evil alienation, i.e. bestiality. Bestiality is especially the hall-mark of systems with more than 666 per thousand (ca 67%) authoritarian degree, see map above. [The term “ca” is an abbreviation for the latin circa, which means about or approximately.] Thus "Anarchy" doesn't mean "without coordination, management, administration, etc.". Anarchy is management, coordination and administration etc. without ruling and thus without rulers. NB! Remember D. Anarchy and anarchism also of course have and use regulations and regulatory means when necessary and optimal, i.e. significant selfregulation. That anarchy, means an-arch-y, i.e. management and coordination without ruler(s), not just "without rule", a vague term that superficially may be interpreted and manipulated in a lot of inconsistent ways, i.e. non-authoritarian as well as authoritarian, must never be forgotten. "An" means "without" as in an-aerobe, etc, "arch" means "ruler(s)" broadly defined, and "y" in this connection stands for system, management, coordination, as in monarch-y, oligarch-y, etc. The "an" is connected to "arch", not "y". Thus (an-arch)-y means without arch, but not without system, management, coordination, it means (an-arch)-system, management, coordination. In short an-arch-y = (an = without arch = ruler(s)) y = management.
Briefly defined anarchy and anarchism are coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, i.e. horizontal organization and co-operation without coercion. This means practically or ideally, i.e. ordinary vs perfect horizontal organization respectively. Thus, anarchy and anarchism mean real democracy, economical and political/administrative, in private and public sector. Real democracy a.k.a. liberal social-democracy broadly defined, is always including green. NB! Liberal social-democracy, remember Bakunin's Social-Democratic Alliance in the 1. International, must not be mixed up with marxist socialdemocracy, see EP-map above.
A bit simplified:
Society is private sector plus public sector, both significantly horizontally organized in anarchy.
* Real democracy means one vote per head, participatory, plus anarchist basic rights that secure that the majority cannot decide that the minority must slave for them one way or the other, or worse. Thus the case that the majority "two wolves" decide that the minority "lamb" should be dinner, or similar is avoided. The anarchist rights can be brought for the anarchist law and order system, in case of disputes.
In some cases, say, at which side on the road we should drive, right or left, simple majority > 50% is ok. In other cases general consent - a lot for, and no-one against, is necessary. In some cases 2/3 or 3/4 majority is ok.
General consent is many for and no one against. Via discussion, a consensus culture and negotations the anarchists try to achieve general consent, but this is not always possible. In case where a only a small minority is against, a resolution is decided by close to general consent. In other cases with different opinions regular voting may be the solution. Free fraction rights are directly applicable in all cases except for regulations and enforcement of the statutes. From a congress the following my be the case: The resolutions were decided with general consent or close to general consent.
As for private sector, based on markets, there is one dollar (or labor notes credit) one vote, and it is real democratic, anarchist, only if the income-distribution is significantly horizontally organized (and the economy is efficient). If the income-distribution is significantly hierarchical it is economical plutarchy, not anarchy/ism
As for public sector, it will be organized according to *.
Thus anarchy is real democracy, in both private and public sector. Marxism, fascism and liberalism are different forms of state/government/authority/archy. [Statesystems are typically authoritarian (> 50% authoritarian degree), atypically semilibertarian.]
And thus, anarchy means coordination without government, in the meaning of different forms of vertically organized, i.e. chaotic included, economic and/or political-administrative relations among people, (and thus not without public sector). Coercion is defined in the following way: Coerce, from Latin coercere , to surround, from co = together and arcere = to confine. 1. to confine, restrain by force, to keep from acting by force, to repress. 2. to constrain, to compel, to effect by force, to enforce. Anarchist systems have ideally no coercion, practically, as little as possible coercion, taking into account the anarchist principles in general, human rights interpreted in a libertarian way included. We need to distinguish aggressive coercion from defensive coercion.
A social, economic-political system with free and fair elections of mandated representatives or delegates, usually called democracy, may function more from the top downwards, significant vertically organized, centralist or the opposite, from the bottom upwards, significant horizontally organized, federalist, i.e. anarchy. Thus all anarchies are democracies but everything called democracy is not necessarily anarchist or anarchy. Many so called representative democracies may work more from the top downwards than the opposite, from the bottom upwards, and thus are not real democracies, anarchies, but archies. Thus anarchy is always democracy but not all democracies are anarchist, i.e. some democracies are archies, anarchy is as mentioned real democracy. Anarchy is just a minor part of, a subset of, the total amount of democracy, because not all democracies are anarchies, real democratic. A lot of conditions must usually be fulfilled to secure that a democracy is a real democracy, i.e. anarchy. A lot of people's organizations broadly defined, a free press, i.e. not the 4th power of the State, dialog and free, matter of fact, criticism, all organized significantly according to anarchist principles, are necessities. The existence of a sufficient amount of real alternatives, and a general balance of strength, significant stopping power in the meaning of domination, economical and political/administrative in public and private sectors, may also be mentioned.
Horizontal organization, a bottom up approach as opposed to a top down approach, economically and political/administrative, means organization without ruler(s) - arch(s), i. e. not without management, but 1. organization with significant small income and rank differences, 2. empowered workers with significant influence and freedom within a framework, and 3. real democratic control one way or the other. It is not a system where the management takes orders from the workers, unless the case with 100% flat organization. A horizontal organization has a degree of flatness, an anarchy degree, between 50 % and 100 %, the anarchist ideal. Workers mean the frontline in an organization.
A real scientifical, i.e. a non-dogmatic anarchist way of thinking, as opposed to populist/fascist and relativist, marxist dialectical and liberalist more or less metaphysical way of thinking, is another important thing. By real scientifical, we mean using the natural scientifical method broadly defined, thinking principally and that hypothesis may be rejected, also taking into account realistic future scenarios related to different alternatives and actions, costs and benefits. Thus thinking, say, if this and that are the conditions, and these are the alternative actions, what are the probable alternative outcomes, - and then decide what actions are best, real democratic i.e. what is in the interest of the less benefitial majority of the population, the people vs the authorities and upper classes. "Best arguments win" and to get "competence effectively and fair through in the system" are benchmarks in this context. An efficient and fair dialog in the public room, as indicated with free and matter of fact criticism, working horizontally and/or from the bottom, the people and grassroots - upwards - is a must. To criticize the present proposals and situations without having a clearly better realistic alternative, is quite useless. For higher degrees of anarchy, usually different forms of co-operatives and federalist direct democracy organized according to anarchist principles are important parts of the economic-political system.
The concepts and different perspectives of anarchism are defined in real terms with the Economic-Political map, the IFA-principles and human rights, the Oslo-Convention, etc., and as anarchy vs other -archies, - i.e.
In anarchism hierarchy is usually defined as
a) "the power or rule of a hierarch or hierarchs", in the meaning of economically and/or political/administrative rulers and ruling, i.e. economical and political/administrative hierarchy respectively - significant and/or
b) such rule by priests or other clergy, church government, or
c) the group of officials in such systems.
However the word hierarchy in the today also usual meaning of
d) "any group of persons or things arranged in order of rank, grade, class, etc." is also sometimes used, and
e) thus also hierarchy in the meaning of any tendency towards or of hierarchy defined as point a).
The negation of e) is 100% of anarchy, the anarchist ideal, and the negation of a) is significant anarchy, the anarchy degree > 50% .
1. The economical dimension - the percentage degree of socialism, i.e. the degree of economical freedom, solidarity and equality, etc. - in short economical democracy vs plutarchy, significant economical hierarchy (capitalism - theft, broadly defined). Democracy means, quite simplified, "one person - one vote", i.e. equal votes for all in the elections, also direct democracy. Markets however mean "one dollar (or other means of payment) - one vote". Thus markets are only economically democratic, i.e. not plutarchical, as far as money or other means of payment, among other things, the purchasing powers, are significant equally distributed according to anarchist principles. And thus, markets are probably only anarchistic, i.e. real democratic, if they are publicly regulated in a libertarian way, with free contracts - not slave contracts, etc. (See also point 3.)
2. The political/adminstrative dimension - the percentage degree of autonomy, i.e. the degree of political/administrative freedom, solidarity and equality, etc. in short political/administrative democracy vs vertically organized political/administrative systems, i.e. statism broadly defined, significant political/administrative hierarchy, monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy and/or ochlarchy (mob rule) included, in both public and private sector.
3. If a economical plutarchy, i.e. the relatively rich, take over significant political/administrative hierarchy in public and private sector, a political/adminstrative plutarchy is introduced. This is a form of populism/fascism. If significant political/administrative hierarchy, say, a military junta, take over significant economical hierarchy in public and private sector, another form of fascism/populism is established. Any combination of statism combined with plutarchy (capitalism) is a form of fascism. The statism may take the form of monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy and ochlarchy (mob rule, mafia, chaos, no human rights, no real law and order, real lawlessness, etc.) included, and principally also be based on political/administrative plutarchy, or combinations, in both public and private sector.
As mentioned, these concepts should be considered in real terms, not formal or symbolic terms. Anarchists are interested in what de facto and in reality, are going on in society, not formal or symbolic values, government, rule and hierarchies. Symbolic and formal things and positions are only interesting to the extent they influence realities.
The word libertarian(s) (libertaire, freiheitliches, frihetlig) is used synonymously with anarchy, anarchist(s) and anarchism, unless otherways defined.
Society is public sector plus private sector. This mix is a question of convenience (dependent on fulfilment of other principles, not one in in itself), and public sector should not be mixed up with the concept of government, i.e. vertically organized. Grassroots public service workers are not a part of the bureaucracy/government. The two sectors may be more or less horizontally vs vertically organized, i.e. relatively small vs large rank and/or income differences, etc.
With "society" we here usually mean a set and sum of social relationships among humans, meaning just a network of individuals and the relationships they generate. With "system" we usually mean society in this sense, plus the way to make decisions. These concepts include distribution of wealth, the accepted social norms, the structure of the political economy broadly defined, etc. This may be authoritarian, semilibertarian or libertarian, i.e. anarchist.
In short and a bit simplified: "Do not expect me to provide you with a system. My system is Progress, that is to say the need to work constantly toward discovering the unknown while the past is being exhausted." P. J. Proudhon wrote in a letter of December 1851. This does not mean anarchism is without system, it is a whole set of systems related to the economic-political map. Here the term "system" a bit simplified means just "the way things are decided", and thus practically certain a society must have a system or several systems, and a place on the economic-political map, EPM. This wide definition of systems includes chaotic systems, typically ochlarchy with rivaling polyarchy/oligarchy, and they are practically always connected to superiors and subordinates - significant, and are thus not anarchies. Narrowly defined, system includes order, and anarchy also have system in this sense. Related to the EPM the wide definition of system is relevant, and thus a chaotic system has a place on the map, although being without system narrowly defined.
This however means we, Proudhon, IIFOR and other anarchists, will 1. not provide you with a fixed, dogmatic system once and for all. 2. "Proudhon's system" at that time, as well as today's updated research front of anarchism, is a front of Progress: The research front, using the scientifical method of the natural sciences, is all of the time developing and improved as an accumulated capital of knowledge, consistent and with small -- and sometimes large -- breakthroughs and revolutions, in a progressive way.
Briefly defined State in a broad societal meaning is systems with significantly large rank and/or income differences and/or inefficient, i.e. significantly vertically organized. Anarchies are systems with significantly small rank and income differences, plus efficiency, i.e. significantly horizontally organized.
These brief definitions are simplifications. Seen not so simplified, a horizontal organization is not necessarily per definition efficient, but empirical research tell us it is practically always so. A vertical organization is not per definition inefficient, but empirical research tell us it is practically always so. Also, an inefficient organization is empirically practically always a significant vertical organization, a State in a broad societal meaning. This is the general cases, there are probably exceptions in special cases, but here we concentrate on the general cases, thus the brief simplified definitions.
The results of the economic-political systems of the anarchies Norway, the Swiss Confederation and Iceland confirm the basic libertarian hypothesis that a horizontal structure, i.e. a significant autonomous and socialist system, is efficient and fair. Empirical data of other systems confirm that a top heavy structure, capitalist (economical plutarchist) and/or statist, is unfair and/or inefficient.
There are as indicated above an economic dimension, i.e. income (remuneration),
and a noneconomic dimension, i.e. the political\administrative, constituting
rank.
Although income often follows rank, it is not necessarily so. A bit simplified economic-political systems may be based on:
1. Small income differences [=socialism] vs large [= capitalism]; and
2. Small rank differences [=autonomy] vs large [= statism].
Thus, there are four main forms of systems and 4x4 = 16 subsystems. Anarchists have discussed and suggested ideals and principles as a leading star (top of the Economic-Political map), and anarchism is economic political systems more socialist than capitalist, and more autonomous than statist, i.e. relatively small income and rank differences. A systems place on the map will depend on the definitions of socialism/capitalism and autonomy/statism. The Anarchist International (included IIFOR and IAT) has its own definitions, see below in chapter V. B, and the definitions are a bit more complicated than 1 and 2 above. The definitions can be discussed more, and AI is open for a debate on the definitions of socialism/capitalism and autonomy/statism. Feel free to use your own definitions of socialism/capitalism and autonomy/statism releated to the map.
The superiors in rank and/or income in private and public sectors are for simplicity called the bureaucracy. The people are the total population minus the bureaucracy. A bit simplified: The state, defined as a social concept, that's just the bureaucracy. However, the political/administrative state, i.e. the part of the bureaucracy with subordinates in rank in their occupation (in private and public sector). This is the typical concept of state in anarchist science, i.e. in the meaning of statism. Differences in rank constitute the degree of statism. In this case the economic dimension of the hierarchy is left to the concept of capitalism, i.e. economical plutarchy. To be more precise: If the bureaucracy is practically not (insignificant) rulers, i.e. we have a "bottom up" approach and the system is not a top heavy pyramid, we have Anarchy, and not State. That is anarchism with more than or equal to 50% anarchy-degree.
It is important to understand that the word state related to anarchism is used about two different concepts: 1. the state as a general social or societal organizational concept, i.e. significant economical and/or political administrative hierarchy, and 2. the state as a purely political/administrative concept, statism, i.e. significant political/administrative hierarchy. Both these concepts is relevant for private as well as public sector, activities, services and enterprises. Thus, principally, as indicated above, the concepts of state related to anarchism, must not be mixed up with the concept of State defined as 3. central/federal/confederal public sector, or 4. the whole country, nation, society or system. Anarchism and anarchists are principally opposed to, and want alternatives to the state in the meaning of 1. and 2., but not opposed to the State in the meaning of 3. and 4., and this must principally never be mixed up.
However the anarchist principle of decentralization indicates that the bulk of public activities should be related to the communes, not a central/federal/confederal body. But taking all anarchist principles into account it will in general not be optimal to only have communal public sector, i.e. no central/federal/confederal public organization. However the central/federal/confederal public enterprises and decision organs may very well be spread to local commmunes all over the countries, say, a confederal decision may be taken by referendum or general consent in all the communes, and not necessarily located to a delegated council in the capital city (perhaps a capital city is not even necessary.)
The State broadly defined as a societal concept. The State as a broad societal concept is archy, i.e. x-archy, where x can be anything but not 'an', that is top heavy political/adminstrative and/or economical societal pyramid. Statism is one dimsension of the State and economical plutarchy, i.e. capitalism, the other. The State may also be an ochlarchy, etc. The State = government = archy must not be mixed up with public sector and the central administration. The public sector and the central administration, often wrongly called state or government in Orwellian "1984" newspeak, if significantly horizontally organized, i.e. without top heavy pyramid, are anarchist. A well functioning public sector and central administration are necessary for anarchy and anarchim. The State may be present in several forms both in private and public sector. Anarchist are against the State in general, both in public and private sector.
Anarchism is one of four main quadrants of the economic-political map, and economically based on socialism, i.e. the negation of economical plutarchy (capitalism), and political/adminstratively based on autonomy, i.e. the negation of statism. Furthermore, the other 3 quadrants represent liberalism, based on economical plutarchy without statism, fascism based on economical plutarchy with statism, and marxism based on statism without economical plutarchy.
The map indicates the degree of democracy concerning both the economic and the political/administrative dimensions, taking into account the 16 subsections, i.e. sectors, of the main quadrants:
1. The anarchist ideal at the top of the map, with individualist anarchism to the right, collectivist anarchism to the left, and social-individualist anarchism, a.k.a. liberal social-democracy (narrowly defined), close to the middle of the map.
2. Marxist collectivism close to the anarchist left; marxist social democracy close to the middle, and the more statist and authoritarian socialist left and state communism (leninism) located at the left corner and down, close to fascism, respectively. A large part of marxist collectivism and a part of the social democratic sector, are semilibertarian, i.e. not significant authoritarian degree, but too statist to be anarchistic.
3. Left, right and ultra-fascism (nazism and other very chaotic tendencies) are found at the bottom of the map, with left and right populism above towards the middle. Nazism is is a system similar to Adolf Hitler's totalitarian "national-socialism", i.e. with racist tendencies, a form of ultra-fascism on the economic-political map.
4. Liberalism, i.e. conservatism and the extreme right are authoritarian; social liberalism is close to the middle of the map, and individualism is close to the right corner of the anarchist quadrant. A part of the social liberal sector, and a large part of individualism are semi-libertarian, i.e. not significant authoritarian degree, but too capitalistic to be anarchist. Arch-conservative liberalism is totaliarian, as well as the extreme right-liberalism.
The closer to the anarchist ideal, the more democratic is the economic-political system.
NB! A semilibertarian system is either 1. economically or 2. political/administrative authoritarian (buth not both), i.e. capitalist/economical plutarchy or statist respectively, significant, but in average, measured by the authoritarian degree, not significant authoritarian. Thus only anarchist (real democratic) systems are libertarian, i.e. not authoritarian