Linear
Collapse all
Expand all
Panarchy - A Critique (General)
We've touched on Panarchy a few times, and exchanged a few opinions on it. But I I tend to lose track of it amoung the rest of the main conversation, so I thought I would outline my main criticisms of the Panarchy concept here, and also what I like about it.
I think essnetial idea behind Panarchy is a strong one, namely, that overthrowing the current system, and forcing anarchy upon it, is not only distinctly unanarchistic in nature, but also pragmatically impossible. It would entail massive conflict destruction and upheavel, and this state would be almost permenent, since every generation would produce new opponents of anarchy, even in an anarchist society. This is a problem many movements fail to address. Once they have seized power, they forget that most of the people in their society don't really support the ideology, and that society corrupts and decays, becoming a shell of the previous dreams.
Panarchy answers this problem, with the simple dictum "To each their own"
However...
here are the issues I still have with Panarchy.
1) Changing People's Views
Panarchy rightly points out that forcing your political vision on
others in incompatible with Anarchism, but doesn't address the problem
that Panarchy, as a metapolitical system, would require the changing of
other's politics in and of itself.
Panarchy isn't a system where all people of all politics get along, it is a system where all people of panarchist
politics get along. For example, a panarchist-conservative may be able
to live in harmony with a panarchist-communist up the street. But your
standard conservative and communist do not, in fact, their philosophies
are inherently geared towards the destruction of the other. So Panarchy
requires everyone to adopt a new version of their old beliefs, and
cannot leave the old beliefs intact.
In order to create a society that used panarchism, you would first need to change everyone's beliefs, and so it seems to me that Panarchy fails to overcome its own diagnosis.
2) Territory
Like it or not, territory affects politics. Land controls your
ability to be fruitful, to be free, to have offspring, to produce
wealth.
A political system that tries to ignore territory is setting itself up
for trouble, because territory is an inherently political issue.
Fascists will always be interested in territorial control, for example,
because their philosophy is more than a social system, it contains
beliefs of nationalism,
a belief that a people should have their own land (look at Lebensraum
of the nazis, or any number of similar policies advocated by fascists
and nationalists). Their beliefs specifically advocate the aggressive
pursuit of the political entity's dominance and power, and this ties
its philosophy to physical territory.
Some land areas are more naturally impoverished than others, and failure to address this will lead to strong political currents within the panarchist society dominating the weaker ones
3) Community Relations
3.1 - Crime and punishment
In a panarchist society, each community has its own laws, but how
can these be applied when one community commits a "crime" against a
citizen from another community?
A social anarchist society might believe heavily in forgiveness, and
not accept the notion of crime, whilst a conservative one would believe
heavily in an eye-for-an-eye and "justice".
What happens if the anarchist wrongs the conservative?
The conservatives would never accept forgiveness, or risk having their
pride hurt, but the anarchists would unlikely give up one of their own
so that the community next-door can exact vengeance upon him.
Especially since non-territoriality would mean their are no
jurisdictions.
Such grievences, would eventually lead to conflict between factions
3.2 - Class War
Members of a Socialist faction would almost certainly support
minimum wages, but members of a Laissez-faire faction almost certainly
wouldn't. So what happens when members of the socialist faction find
themselves employed by a member of the laissez-faire?
Class-relations play a major role in politics, and it is often
impossible to only choose employment by someone that shares your
politics.
What one faction does, and how it behaves in society, will inevitably
have an affect upon the others,, meaning that only obeying laws within
your community becomes problematic. As many socialists have discovered,
Socialism is extremely difficult to practice, when put in direct
competition with capitalism.
4 - All or None
A problem I see with Panarchy, is that either everyone does it, or nobody can.
If the Fascists refuse to play along, it makes it impossible for
everyone else, as they function as a nation-state within the panarchist
society.
-----
Whilst I believe Anarchism has a lot it needs to learn from Panarchy, like the ability to coexist with peoples that share different ideologies for the purpose of our own survival, I think Panarchy as a model for society is pragmatically unworkable, and constitutes a mild contradiction in terms.
What are your thoughts?
Discuss,
---
"I support the separation of Humanity and the State"
Panarchy - A Critique
One thought is that I strongly applaud your post. It's a good basis for discussion.
In addition, suppose anarchy prevailed, that somehow current systems were not around any more. What would then be the situation? Suppose, unrealistically, that every anarchist wished to live in peace. But suppose also that they had heterogeneous beliefs about HOW they wanted to live. Some might have customs that others abhorred. Some might want consensus rules and some might want free food, etc. Then, the result of this is that they live their own ways (because they are peaceful). That result is panarchy. Panarchy is the logical end result of anarchy, admitting that not all anarchists have the same views on how to live.
Panarchy answers this problem, with the simple dictum "To each their own"However...
here are the issues I still have with Panarchy.
1) Changing People's Views
Panarchy rightly points out that forcing your political vision on others in incompatible with Anarchism, but doesn't address the problem that Panarchy, as a metapolitical system, would require the changing of other's politics in and of itself.
Anarchism has the same problem. The question is then: Is it easier to change people's political visions as anarchists are trying to do, or is it easier to reach an agreement with people that they can have whatever visions they want as long as they leave other people to their visions (as panarchists promote)?
I think the panarchist idea is better because people already live and let live in many facets of their lives. They already behave panarchistically regarding food, religion, child rearing, entertainment, work, location, dress, etc.
Largely so, but not without frictions. There are laws against going nude, so nudists have to find their own isolated locations. Porn bothers people so there are often red-light districts. People draw lines at speech that incites violence or destroys reputations.
But in the political arena, we have different political visions about what should be social and what should not as well as HOW to get these goods. We make them into monopoly for the whole society. One vision is imposed on all.
In the area of insurance, everyone has to be enrolled in one State-run social insurance and old age and health plan, say. But this is fascism. This is one vision imposed on all. This is what anarchists and panarchists are against. We are both working to end that. The question is HOW. I see no problem at all with both working in their own ways to end this fascism. I have no problem or issue at all with the strongest criticisms of this fascism.
By "this fascism" I mean not the social insurance, but the monopoly imposition of that social insurance. It seems obvious to me that anarchists would have succeeded if they are let out from under this monopoly, and that is what panarchy is about. Those who wish to remain with it can.
The idea is to separate territory from GOODS. The people who support the fascist one-size-for-all system are of two kinds: those who want a certain kind of goods for themselves and do not care about controlling what others consume, and those who want power over everyone. The first type can be reasoned with. If they have their goods, you can have yours. They do not need territory to get their goods. The second type, which is the territorial or core fascist, won't be reasoned with. There you need to use force.
Panarchy isn't a system where all people of all politics get along, it is a system where all people of panarchist politics get along. For example, a panarchist-conservative may be able to live in harmony with a panarchist-communist up the street. But your standard conservative and communist do not, in fact, their philosophies are inherently geared towards the destruction of the other. So Panarchy requires everyone to adopt a new version of their old beliefs, and cannot leave the old beliefs intact.
There are two types, and you just identified them. So I agree with your distinction. What you call the "standard conservative and communist" is what I called the "core fascist." There are people who value power over others for its own sake. They want territory and to rule others. They want the wealth that comes with that rule. These people are criminals and have a criminal mentality. There is no choice but for the remaining panarchistically-minded folks to band together and deal with these criminals somehow.
The remaining panarchistic folks include anyone of any persuasion, not just anarchists, who want only to live their own ways of life. The practical question, and I have no answer, is how many of these there are as compared with the core fascist or what you call standard conservative and communist types.
Anarchists can try to split off these panarchistic folks from the current body of people that includes both these folks and the core fascist folks. Right now, anarchists are trying to persuade ALL of these two groups. Panarchists are trying to split off those who are willing to live and let live.
To me that seems like a sensible strategy.
In order to create a society that used panarchism, you would first need to change everyone's beliefs, and so it seems to me that Panarchy fails to overcome its own diagnosis.
As I've been explaining, there is no requirement to change everyone's beliefs. It cannot be done. We have a chance to change enough beliefs of a critical mass so that the State is fractured and opens up to decentralization. I support Feela's emphasis on decentralization. I think that is a panarchistic strategy. I also support the anti-fascism expressed on this thread. I do not support, however, trying to take away from the main body of people their right to have their own "soft" States. These would be States where they impose taxes on themselves and then have the kinds of insurance and defense goods that they want, or other social regulations they want. A soft State is a State that has no aggressive or territorial ambitions. It may occupy some blocks of territory, however, if it acquires them in a legitimate way.
There is a very large overlap between anarchism and panarchism. Panarchism has that twist of tolerating the preferences of others as far as their having their own soft States, not core Fascist States. Anarchists and panarchists are both against the core Fascist setup.
2) Territory
Core fascists who insist on aggression have to be defended against in a
serious and determined way. These criminals are always with us, whether
there is anarchy or panarchy.
Panarchy does not ignore territory. The idea is to explain to those people who will listen that aggressive acquisition of territory is not necessary for them to achieve their aims. If it is a fascist society they want, they can have it. If fascists want their own land, they can have it -- but not illegally by trampling on others.
The core fascists who simply insist on aggression to get land or anything ele of value have to be fought tooth and nail. There is no choice.
How many closet core fascists are there among the standard parties in any country? I do not know. If people are strongly nationalistic and then identify their sentiments with the State, then neither anarchists nor panarchists are going to make much headway.
The State has harnessed nationalistic sentiments to the detriment of liberty. Anarchists and panarchists should do everything possible to show people that they can have their nationalism without the monopoly State, and that the latter is holding them down. This is a very tough sell.
Some land areas are more naturally impoverished than others, and failure to address this will lead to strong political currents within the panarchist society dominating the weaker ones
Maybe so. Panarchy is not utopia.
3) Community Relations3.1 - Crime and punishment
In a panarchist society, each community has its own laws, but how can these be applied when one community commits a "crime" against a citizen from another community?
The same problem arises with anarchy.
Panarchists believe in rights. We have to distinguish criminal action from rightful action, or there is no basis for peace.
The way to handle infringements of this sort you bring up should be by peaceful means. There should be dispute resolution. If two communities cannot do that, the result will be fighting and the domination of one community by another. A State will arise. Indeed, you are giving the Hobbesian argument here that people are unable to handle their disputes without there being a strong-man sovereign to impose peace on them.
A social anarchist society might believe heavily in forgiveness, and not accept the notion of crime, whilst a conservative one would believe heavily in an eye-for-an-eye and "justice".
What happens if the anarchist wrongs the conservative?
Same as above. If there is no arbitration mechanisms for handling these frictions, then people are not fit to live in liberty. They then will gravitate toward a State because warfare will break out.
The history of mankind is not favorable toward anarchy or panarchy. There are lots of wars and aggressions, lots of feuds. And peace over substantial territory occurs when a single State arises that controls it all and imposes peace.
The conservatives would never accept forgiveness, or risk having their pride hurt, but the anarchists would unlikely give up one of their own so that the community next-door can exact vengeance upon him. Especially since non-territoriality would mean their are no jurisdictions.
Such grievences, would eventually lead to conflict between factions
Maybe so, and if that is how people's values are expressed, anarchy and panarchy are not going to happen.
I'm cutting off here.
Panarchy - A Critique
The problem with panarchy is it is has flawed view of humanity and seems to view individuals as floating atoms. It is very much within the liberal tradition. It forgets society and the large social, associational nature of free, order, personality etc etc
Panarchy - A Critique
this Panarchy idea requires we trust competing systems to limit themselves these are the exact types of institutions that historically have saught to increase their own scope of influence, every time, without fail
Panarchy - A Critique
this Panarchy idea requires we trust competing systems to limit themselves these are the exact types of institutions that historically have saught to increase their own scope of influence, every time, without fail
Not so. No trust involved.
Panarchy - A Critique
you've clearly proven my assumption wrong, awesome response Clarity....
you honestly believe competing governmental systems will agree
to limit their scope of influence to those who "opt-in" to their
particular system?
and there can be individuals that choose not to opt in to any? have you seen a Government anywhere that does this?
most "market" anarchists find fault in social anarchism due to the
False assumption that it does not allow the individual to "Opt-out".
your system will leave in place the institutions that develope in to
true tyranies, these institutions must be done away with completely or
they will do just that. just as the generalitat de catalunya did during
the spanish civil war. history my friend. it teaches us many lessons
that anarchists in the past did not have the luxury of understanding
with hindsight.
Panarchy - A Critique
The problem with panarchy is it is has flawed view of humanity and seems to view individuals as floating atoms. It is very much within the liberal tradition. It forgets society and the large social, associational nature of free, order, personality etc etc
You could not be more wrong.
Panarchy - A Critique
Not really. It ignores the need for stable social bonds and associations including local community and seems to believe that we are just floating atoms who can choose a completely different gov't than our neighbour or partner.
The idea that you could have a stable society this way is absurd.
Not really. It ignores the need for stable social bonds and associations including local community and seems to believe that we are just floating atoms who can choose a completely different gov't than our neighbour or partner.
The idea that you could have a stable society this way is absurd.
I'm not sure that you couldn't have a stable society based on a panarchic model, but it would, as I've argued before, almost certainly have to be a libertarian society first. I suspect that as a "free market in governments," it would break down fairly quickly, or reduce down to just a few choices, effectively just turning into a decentralized, libertarian society, with voluntary associations for various purposes, or the equivalent of reenactment or role-playing groups, being all that survive of the competing "governments." That sort of anarchism in governmentalist "drag" might well persist as a social site for various kinds of ritualized activity, with the "governments" competing as Fourier imagined the various series and associations would under harmony.
---
Shawn P. Wilbur
http://libertarian-labyrinth.blogspot.com
http://all-left.net
Panarchy - A Critique
I'm sure you are correct about that, if the models were libertarian and perhaps territorial then it might well be okay, although why you'd pursue it and not just a pluralist/associational kind of anarchism or ultra-minarchism is beyond me.
Panarchy - A Critique
Not really. It ignores the need for stable social bonds and associations including local community and seems to believe that we are just floating atoms who can choose a completely different gov't than our neighbour or partner.
The idea that you could have a stable society this way is absurd.
Prove it. Make an argument, not just a charge.
Again, you are wrong. It ignores nothing of the sort. You are making it up as fast as you go along.
I've heard you say this before when you want to criticize something with a cheap shot. You are a broken record with this critique.
Panarchy - A Critique
I'm not a panarchist. If claim it can create a stable society then it up to you to prove it.
It is pretty obvious that the idea that people in the same community and family and workplace can subscribe to such wildly different gov'ts and ways of thinking. It would challenge the very bonds of society itself.
Panarchy - A Critique
I'm not a panarchist. If claim it can create a stable society then it up to you to prove it.
It is pretty obvious that the idea that people in the same community and family and workplace can subscribe to such wildly different gov'ts and ways of thinking. It would challenge the very bonds of society itself.
What do you consider "society" to be?
Must your concept of society exist in anarchy?
What features make for a "stable" society? What defines "stable"?
And, are you then saying that to have society in anarchy, a large majority must have similar tastes and beliefs?
About what?
Panarchy - A Critique
I'm not a panarchist. If claim it can create a stable society then it up to you to prove it.
It is pretty obvious that the idea that people in the same community and family and workplace can subscribe to such wildly different gov'ts and ways of thinking. It would challenge the very bonds of society itself.
What do you consider "society" to be?Must your concept of society exist in anarchy?
What features make for a "stable" society? What defines "stable"?
And, are you then saying that to have society in anarchy, a large majority must have similar tastes and beliefs?
About what?
Society is simply the associations, institutions and social relationships which make up the social bonds of everyday life. Obviously these can take healthy forms and non-healthy forms.
I'd say that there has to be some unity so that the atmosphere is not so destructive as to make the position of many of these bonds extremely precarious. But diversity in associations and bonds is also necessary for a healthy society. It is a balancing act.
Panarchy - A Critique
I'm like a broken record because people keep putting out views of society, man and freedom as if the individual was a floating atom and that freedom wasn't to a large degree a social. As Horkeimer pointed
'individuality is impaired when each man decides to fend for himself. . . . The absolutely isolated individual has always been an illusion. The most esteemed personal qualities, such as independence, will to freedom, sympathy, and the sense of justice, are social as well as individual virtues. The fully developed individual is the consummation of a fully developed society.'
Or to quote Proudhon "multiply your associations and be free".
Not that I'm saying a degree of individual independence is not a good thing but to think freedom means autonomy is not a good way to conceptualise it.
How it is a "cheap shot" I don't know that implies I have some points to score by attacking panarchism, as if I have a grudge against it.
Panarchy - A Critique
I'm like a broken record because people keep putting out views of society, man and freedom as if the individual was a floating atom and that freedom wasn't to a large degree a social. As Horkeimer pointed
You seem to be reacting to my use of the term "freedom", as in freedom of association or freedom of religion. I'm not clear exactly why you view that use in a negative light. Freedom does not mean necessarily what you quote next. (1)It does not mean "fending for oneself." That phrase suggests a lack of association, when panarchy depends on an unhampered choice of association. (2) I do not want to see the person impaired in his capacity to realize himself by living and making his own decisions about the crucial aspects of his life. I don't think of people as "individuals", or abstract units, but as persons with minds and imaginations and emotions, with "soul" in the Black english sense. (3) Nowhere did I propose "absolutely isolated individuals." Your quote here, in the places mentioned, is not at all congruent with what I am expressing.
The part where he says that certain things are social as well as personal virtues -- that is hard for me to assess, not knowing exactly what he means. We certainly learn a very great deal in interaction with our families at first and then with friends and workmates and strangers. Is this what social and society mean to him and you? Or does it mean positions, roles, practices, customs, ranks, rewards, shared institutions, trust, common beliefs?
Why Horkheimer emphasizes a fully developed society -- well, I don't know. So I cannot assess that last sentence. And I also do not know what he means by that phrase, so I can't comment on that.
Let me keep matters very simple. I think that people can form and sustain their personal interations and groupings of a great variety of types while subscribing to governance in selected areas of goods of their choice. I think that they will sort out the requisite degree of territoriality that is necessary for that according to their own measures of value. If existing regions covered by States is that degree, then nothing will change. But the fact is that there are literally hundreds of separatist movements today, and beyond them there are latent separatist ideas. Hence, it looks like right now, many people are not content with the territories put together by States. Furthermore, historically there have often been much smaller units of governance. You yourself favor decentralism. So, what is the problem here? What is your concern with panarchy? I don't really understand. Your quote and comment on stable society is raising a straw man. You are talking past anything I have said.
'individuality is impaired when each man decides to fend for himself. . . . The absolutely isolated individual has always been an illusion. The most esteemed personal qualities, such as independence, will to freedom, sympathy, and the sense of justice, are social as well as individual virtues. The fully developed individual is the consummation of a fully developed society.'Or to quote Proudhon "multiply your associations and be free".
That is fine. I like that. Suppose I emphasixe the word AND. You can multiply your associations AND you can be free. He did not say multiply your associations TO be free.
Panarchy supports this multiplication of associations without restricting people to a territory.
Not that I'm saying a degree of individual independence is not a good thing but to think freedom means autonomy is not a good way to conceptualise it.
There you go. You imply that I am proposing "individual independence." I never said anything like that. This is your broken record. No matter what I say, you play back the same record.
If you can point out to me where I said that freedom means autonomy, please do. It will help me understand why you keep responding in this way.
How it is a "cheap shot" I don't know that implies I have some points to score by attacking panarchism, as if I have a grudge against it.
I withdraw that comment.
Panarchy - A Critique
You seem to be reacting to my use of the term "freedom", as in freedom of association or freedom of religion. I'm not clear exactly why you view that use in a negative light. Freedom does not mean necessarily what you quote next. (1)It does not mean "fending for oneself." That phrase suggests a lack of association, when panarchy depends on an unhampered choice of association.
I wasn't calling freedom that, I was suggesting panarchy treats it like that. Most of the liberal tradition except a few like Tocqueville and Lamennais treat it like that.
Panarchy seems to have this idea of freedom, it make associations a secondary thing that rational, atomistic individuals embark on when they feel like it. It does recognise that they are a large degree of freedom. There must be strong, pluralistic associations but there must be some unity and stability. By making atoms of man and thinking men can shop for gov't like they do shoes it neglects the crucial social aspect of freedom.
The part where he says that certain things are social as well as personal virtues -- that is hard for me to assess, not knowing exactly what he means. We certainly learn a very great deal in interaction with our families at first and then with friends and workmates and strangers. Is this what social and society mean to him and you? Or does it mean positions, roles, practices, customs, ranks, rewards, shared institutions, trust, common beliefs?
It means both. Personality, meaning, freedom and order are to a considerable degree socially determined, particularly within the many small social groups and associations like kinship, church, occupational associations, fraternal associations etc which make up everyday life in a healthy society. Man needs these bonds, you break them down too far(they can become oppressive of course, it is a balancing act.) and you make atoms of men and they must look elsewhere and often that means the state.
Let me keep matters very simple. I think that people can form and sustain their personal interations and groupings of a great variety of types while subscribing to governance in selected areas of goods of their choice. I think that they will sort out the requisite degree of territoriality that is necessary for that according to their own measures of value. If existing regions covered by States is that degree, then nothing will change. But the fact is that there are literally hundreds of separatist movements today, and beyond them there are latent separatist ideas. Hence, it looks like right now, many people are not content with the territories put together by States. Furthermore, historically there have often been much smaller units of governance. You yourself favor decentralism. So, what is the problem here? What is your concern with panarchy? I don't really understand. Your quote and comment on stable society is raising a straw man. You are talking past anything I have said.
Well aside(although in some ways the other gripe is built on this one.) from its liberal-individualist view of freedom as autonomy the main point is that, while I'm one of the biggest supporters of pluralistic small social groupings you will find, I think it takes it too far. There must be some unity, some community with its shared tradition and identity particularly in the smaller territories and regions where a lot of decentralised life would be carried out. Going too far in one direction is usually not a good idea.
I just can't imagine that going to a church where people are fascists, nazis, communists, democrats, greens, liberals, monarchists, liberatarians, egoists, individualist anarchists and social anarchists and then finding the same at work, your kinship groups, friends, local community, sporting clubs etc etc is going to be able to give just that degree of unity required to make the bonds of the ese multiple strong enough to form a real communitas communitatum.
That is fine. I like that. Suppose I emphasixe the word AND. You can multiply your associations AND you can be free. He did not say multiply your associations TO be free.
Well that is my quote from memory and he meant to be free. That was his whole point multiple association will create freedom, he is emphasising the social nature of a lot of freedom. Panarchy emphasises the right to association but it doesn't seem to recognise the social nature of freedom, it has the usual liberal "private" sphere idea of society where it doesn't really matter what goes on as there long as the liberal idea of coercion is minimised. But on the other hand it also manages to ignore the fact the some unity is needed for a stable and healthy society, it wouldn't be a society otherwise, it would just be floating atoms rationally trasnacting in irregular ways. But men don't float, they need social bonds and if they can't find healthy social bonds in these small groupings and associations they will look elsewhere and things like statism and evangelical religion are likely to attract them.
Panarchy supports this multiplication of associations without restricting people to a territory.
It doesn't really support it so much as doesn't restrict it directly. It has the liberal "private sphere" idea of society as I said.
Not that I'm saying a degree of individual independence is not a good thing but to think freedom means autonomy is not a good way to conceptualise it.
There you go. You imply that I am proposing "individual independence." I never said anything like that. This is your broken record. No matter what I say, you play back the same record.If you can point out to me where I said that freedom means autonomy, please do. It will help me understand why you keep responding in this way.
You imply it all the time. Most ancaps and American style libertarians do. I don't have a record of your past postings but I'm allowed to draw conclusions that are implied in your writing. Haven't you studied any literary criticism?
Panarchy - A Critique
You seem to be reacting to my use of the term "freedom", as in freedom of association or freedom of religion. I'm not clear exactly why you view that use in a negative light. Freedom does not mean necessarily what you quote next. (1)It does not mean "fending for oneself." That phrase suggests a lack of association, when panarchy depends on an unhampered choice of association.
I wasn't calling freedom that, I was suggesting panarchy treats it like that. Most of the liberal tradition except a few like Tocqueville and Lamennais treat it like that.
Paint panarchy any color you like. Who cares? You are still saying zip.
Panarchy seems to have this idea of freedom, it make associations a secondary thing that rational, atomistic individuals embark on when they feel like it. It does recognise that they are a large degree of freedom. There must be strong, pluralistic associations but there must be some unity and stability. By making atoms of man and thinking men can shop for gov't like they do shoes it neglects the crucial social aspect of freedom.
Where do you find this stuff written about panarchy? Let me know. Maybe I do not agree with it. Did that ever occur to you?
The part where he says that certain things are social as well as personal virtues -- that is hard for me to assess, not knowing exactly what he means. We certainly learn a very great deal in interaction with our families at first and then with friends and workmates and strangers. Is this what social and society mean to him and you? Or does it mean positions, roles, practices, customs, ranks, rewards, shared institutions, trust, common beliefs?
It means both. Personality, meaning, freedom and order are to a considerable degree socially determined, particularly within the many small social groups and associations like kinship, church, occupational associations, fraternal associations etc which make up everyday life in a healthy society. Man needs these bonds, you break them down too far(they can become oppressive of course, it is a balancing act.) and you make atoms of men and they must look elsewhere and often that means the state.
This has nothing to do with downing panarchy.
Let me keep matters very simple. I think that people can form and sustain their personal interations and groupings of a great variety of types while subscribing to governance in selected areas of goods of their choice. I think that they will sort out the requisite degree of territoriality that is necessary for that according to their own measures of value. If existing regions covered by States is that degree, then nothing will change. But the fact is that there are literally hundreds of separatist movements today, and beyond them there are latent separatist ideas. Hence, it looks like right now, many people are not content with the territories put together by States. Furthermore, historically there have often been much smaller units of governance. You yourself favor decentralism. So, what is the problem here? What is your concern with panarchy? I don't really understand. Your quote and comment on stable society is raising a straw man. You are talking past anything I have said.
Well aside(although in some ways the other gripe is built on this one.) from its liberal-individualist view of freedom as autonomy the main point is that, while I'm one of the biggest supporters of pluralistic small social groupings you will find, I think it takes it too far. There must be some unity, some community with its shared tradition and identity particularly in the smaller territories and regions where a lot of decentralised life would be carried out. Going too far in one direction is usually not a good idea.
Feela, if you want to discuss all of this, start a thread on it.
I just can't imagine that going to a church where people are fascists, nazis, communists, democrats, greens, liberals, monarchists, liberatarians, egoists, individualist anarchists and social anarchists and then finding the same at work, your kinship groups, friends, local community, sporting clubs etc etc is going to be able to give just that degree of unity required to make the bonds of the ese multiple strong enough to form a real communitas communitatum.
Your limited imagination is not the criterion of how people actually behave. It's what people value and do in their interactions that determine their well-being, and you and I cannot prejudge those sorts of things.
That is fine. I like that. Suppose I emphasixe the word AND. You can multiply your associations AND you can be free. He did not say multiply your associations TO be free.
Well that is my quote from memory and he meant to be free. That was his whole point multiple association will create freedom, he is emphasising the social nature of a lot of freedom. Panarchy emphasises the right to association but it
You could at least say what you mean. Where's your credibility when you misquote and then change up in midstream?
If you're down on men as atoms, be my guest. Ramble on indefinitely about it. It's got nothing to do with panarchy.
Panarchy supports this multiplication of associations without restricting people to a territory.
It doesn't really support it so much as doesn't restrict it directly. It has the liberal "private sphere" idea of society as I said.
Bullshit.
Not that I'm saying a degree of individual independence is not a good thing but to think freedom means autonomy is not a good way to conceptualise it.
There you go. You imply that I am proposing "individual independence." I never said anything like that. This is your broken record. No matter what I say, you play back the same record.If you can point out to me where I said that freedom means autonomy, please do. It will help me understand why you keep responding in this way.
You imply it all the time. Most ancaps and American style libertarians do. I don't have a record of your past postings but I'm allowed to draw conclusions that are implied in your writing. Haven't you studied any literary criticism?
Baloney. Total baloney.
Go start a thread and put all your thoughts about society and individualism in there. And then maybe I'll converse about them if I feel like it.
Panarchy - A Critique
I notice how you did not actually respond the criticisms. They are common criticisms of rightwing libertarianism, and ancapism and can easily be applied to panarchism. If you can't deal with them, that is your problem. DOn't sulk about it though.
Panarchy - A Critique
I notice how you did not actually respond the criticisms. They are common criticisms of rightwing libertarianism, and ancapism and can easily be applied to panarchism. If you can't deal with them, that is your problem. DOn't sulk about it though.
I read a lot of stuff having to do with individualism and society. Panarchy believes in rights of persons and also supports all sorts of social groups. There is no issue there as far as I can see.
Rightwing libertarianism and ancapism are not what panarchy is about.
It seems to me that there are a number of places in which anarchism and panarchism overlap and a number of places where they do not overlap. There are some differences that could be important. There may be weaknesses and both clusters of ideas and strengths. I'm not married to either one. The idea is to explore them. That's my idea, anyway.
In that exploration, it occurs to me that the State is territorial. That's part of how it works, by ruling over territory and everyone in it. There are hundreds of separatist movements. They are not anarchist, however. They want their own separate territories. Now, Georgia broke from Russia, but then when two of its southern regions want to break off, Georgia has a problem. The idea of a State having territory is not really broken. Georgia is inconsistent. The same thing happened in the U.S. The South was a very different society. There was no question it could have gone off on its own. The North didn't let it. We see this all over the world.
It seems to me a worthwhile thing to promote the idea that territorialism is a real big problem and that it lowers social welfare. Now, I thought Labyrinth had summarized some of the essentials in the anarchist tradition real well when he spoke of liberty, equality, fraternity, justice. We've got peoples who feel fraternity, albeit a national fraternity, not a human race fraternity. They'd be happier separating from a State. There's some congruence there with the anarchist idea and some with the panarchist idea. Imperfect overlap, but some. Half a loaf is better than none. If we could get across the idea that ANY degree of territorialism that forces everyone in it to bow to a single governance organization lowers social welfare, what's wrong with that?
People associate territory with monopoly governance. That's the idea that reduces social welfare.
If I want the whole loaf, not half, I'll just preach to follow the teachings of Jesus. If people did that, that will improve social welfare and encompass a lot of what anarchism and panarchy are after.
Panarchy - A Critique
I notice how you did not actually respond the criticisms. They are common criticisms of rightwing libertarianism, and ancapism and can easily be applied to panarchism. If you can't deal with them, that is your problem. DOn't sulk about it though.
I read a lot of stuff having to do with individualism and society. Panarchy believes in rights of persons and also supports all sorts of social groups. There is no issue there as far as I can see.Rightwing libertarianism and ancapism are not what panarchy is about.
It seems to me that there are a number of places in which anarchism and panarchism overlap and a number of places where they do not overlap. There are some differences that could be important. There may be weaknesses and both clusters of ideas and strengths. I'm not married to either one. The idea is to explore them. That's my idea, anyway.
In that exploration, it occurs to me that the State is territorial. That's part of how it works, by ruling over territory and everyone in it. There are hundreds of separatist movements. They are not anarchist, however. They want their own separate territories. Now, Georgia broke from Russia, but then when two of its southern regions want to break off, Georgia has a problem. The idea of a State having territory is not really broken. Georgia is inconsistent. The same thing happened in the U.S. The South was a very different society. There was no question it could have gone off on its own. The North didn't let it. We see this all over the world.
It seems to me a worthwhile thing to promote the idea that territorialism is a real big problem and that it lowers social welfare. Now, I thought Labyrinth had summarized some of the essentials in the anarchist tradition real well when he spoke of liberty, equality, fraternity, justice. We've got peoples who feel fraternity, albeit a national fraternity, not a human race fraternity. They'd be happier separating from a State. There's some congruence there with the anarchist idea and some with the panarchist idea. Imperfect overlap, but some. Half a loaf is better than none. If we could get across the idea that ANY degree of territorialism that forces everyone in it to bow to a single governance organization lowers social welfare, what's wrong with that?
People associate territory with monopoly governance. That's the idea that reduces social welfare.
If I want the whole loaf, not half, I'll just preach to follow the teachings of Jesus. If people did that, that will improve social welfare and encompass a lot of what anarchism and panarchy are after.
Well territory or location is important for some social associations as
well such as local community, and to a lesser extent actually most
social groupings in a more decentralised society, without which it is
hard to see there being a healthy, decentralised society.
Just because the state claims territory doesn't mean that the idea of location should be completely disregarded. It is at the heart of decentralisation for a start.
Panarchy - A Critique
Well territory or location is important for some social associations as well such as local community, and to a lesser extent actually most social groupings in a more decentralised society, without which it is hard to see there being a healthy, decentralised society.Just because the state claims territory doesn't mean that the idea of location should be completely disregarded. It is at the heart of decentralisation for a start.
I'm glad you made these statements because I can clear up what panarchy says and does not say.
1. It does not claim that territory is unimportant for some social associations as you are saying. Not at all. If it is important to have an acreage that is adjoining and bordered in some way or ways, with arrangements made with others for traverse or whatever, then people can arrange that surely without the necessity of a State claiming a monopoly over that acreage on no basis that people find acceptable.
It does not claim that location is unimportant either for some social associations.
Panarchy certainly makes no claim, as you have misstated it, that the idea of location should be completely disregarded.
Indeed, panarchy supports decentralization, and I specifically noted this earlier and mentioned that it supports Feela's emphasis on decentralization.
Panarchy does not claim that contiguous land parcels are either unimportant or impossible or wrong or anything of the sort. A group or association is quite free to put together a parcel.
Panarchy only says that the State's rule over territory and people therein has no basis in rights and justice. Whatever people want from a State can be gotten without forcing everyone on a given piece of territory to obey the State's monopoly commands.
Panarchy - A Critique
Well territory or location is important for some social associations as well such as local community, and to a lesser extent actually most social groupings in a more decentralised society, without which it is hard to see there being a healthy, decentralised society.Just because the state claims territory doesn't mean that the idea of location should be completely disregarded. It is at the heart of decentralisation for a start.
I'm glad you made these statements because I can clear up what panarchy says and does not say.1. It does not claim that territory is unimportant for some social associations as you are saying. Not at all. If it is important to have an acreage that is adjoining and bordered in some way or ways, with arrangements made with others for traverse or whatever, then people can arrange that surely without the necessity of a State claiming a monopoly over that acreage on no basis that people find acceptable.
It does not claim that location is unimportant either for some social associations.
Panarchy certainly makes no claim, as you have misstated it, that the idea of location should be completely disregarded.
Indeed, panarchy supports decentralization, and I specifically noted this earlier and mentioned that it supports Feela's emphasis on decentralization.
Panarchy does not claim that contiguous land parcels are either unimportant or impossible or wrong or anything of the sort. A group or association is quite free to put together a parcel.
Panarchy only says that the State's rule over territory and people therein has no basis in rights and justice. Whatever people want from a State can be gotten without forcing everyone on a given piece of territory to obey the State's monopoly commands.
As far I know panarchism is about people within even the confines of narrow social groupings having fastly different state arrangements. I think that is unlikely to produce a stable society, that is my main critique. I can't imagine that small associations could work on that basis, you'll find few greater believers in real pluralism(not atomism.) and diversity, but there still must be some unity in society. That is my criticism of panarchy and I agree with Labyrinth that is could work on a narrower basis with differences in the gov't arrangements within relatively local and regional society not being too vast and perhaps a few different "competiting" libertarian structures.
Panarchy - A Critique
As far I know panarchism is about people within even the confines of narrow social groupings having fastly different state arrangements. I think that is unlikely to produce a stable society, that is my main critique. I can't imagine that small associations could work on that basis, you'll find few greater believers in real pluralism(not atomism.) and diversity, but there still must be some unity in society. That is my criticism of panarchy and I agree with Labyrinth that is could work on a narrower basis with differences in the gov't arrangements within relatively local and regional society not being too vast and perhaps a few different "competiting" libertarian structures.
The thing here that needs clarification is "different state arrangements." Imagine a congregation at a church, which is a stable social grouping. How different are the financial arrangements that those members have for INSURANCE? I'd guess they are VERY different. Some might have very little, some a lot. Some may have business interruption insurance, others not. Some may have life insurance, some not. Etc. Etc.
What do states do? A great amount of what they do is a kind of pseudo-insurance. They tax and then provide various goodies in the form of insurance of various kinds. If the members of the church choose their own "states" as organizations that provide insurance, there is no source of instability in that. And if they want to form groups and have group insurance, they do that.
There is no atomism in any of this. There is a greater scope for personal choice, but that is to the good. That enhances social welfare.
What else do states do that can be regarded as a "good"? They provide wealth transfers to the needy. Again, there is no reason why different members of a given social grouping, cannot have different arrangements they make for such wealth transfers.
What else? Defense? Justice system? If anarchism allows these to be removed from the state's purview, then so does panarchy. The issue then is a very speculative one, which is how people will arrange these matters. How will they obtain these goods?
I can imagine all sorts of stable social groupings in which the members have chosen different arrangements for policing and dispute resolution. I can imagine the same for defense.
----------------------------------------
The issue that bothers you the most is "unity" in society. I agree fully that there cannot be a society without some things that people adhere to in common. What are those possible uniting things? I'll list a few:
ethics -- such as treating other people fairly
language
trust
currency
norms of reciprocal behavior
cooperative relationships
ways of working and working together
expectations of behvior
social graces
informal ways of resolving conflict
how emotions are displayed or not
courtship and marriage rituals
attitudes toward a host of things: like hierarchy, equality, harmony,
self-assertion, submission to authority, risk, masculinity, femininity,
knowledge, skills
hospitality
xenophobia
dress
education
religion
This is a long list and it is incomplete. People unite socially on MANY possible grounds.
How many of these require or need territoriality? How many can co-exist?
Panarchy nowhere says or implies that stable social groupings will not or cannot occur along any one or more of these many dimensions.
I don't know where you got such an idea.
If people need to control a given region or territory in order to realize their social values, if they value those values to that degree, then they will go ahead and create such territories. Of course, values change all the time, including all those cultural and other values listed above.
I'm not sure what Labyrinth, for whom you speak here, or you are conceiving about panarchy that leads you to the concerns that you have.
You seem to be saying that some sort of unified State is needed if there is to be a society.
Panarchy - A Critique
The thing here that needs clarification is "different state arrangements." Imagine a congregation at a church, which is a stable social grouping. How different are the financial arrangements that those members have for INSURANCE? I'd guess they are VERY different. Some might have very little, some a lot. Some may have business interruption insurance, others not. Some may have life insurance, some not. Etc. Etc.What do states do? A great amount of what they do is a kind of pseudo-insurance. They tax and then provide various goodies in the form of insurance of various kinds. If the members of the church choose their own "states" as organizations that provide insurance, there is no source of instability in that. And if they want to form groups and have group insurance, they do that.
There is no atomism in any of this. There is a greater scope for personal choice, but that is to the good. That enhances social welfare.
What else do states do that can be regarded as a "good"? They provide wealth transfers to the needy. Again, there is no reason why different members of a given social grouping, cannot have different arrangements they make for such wealth transfers.
What else? Defense? Justice system? If anarchism allows these to be removed from the state's purview, then so does panarchy. The issue then is a very speculative one, which is how people will arrange these matters. How will they obtain these goods?
I can imagine all sorts of stable social groupings in which the members have chosen different arrangements for policing and dispute resolution. I can imagine the same for defense.
This is exactly what I'm talking about, this is completely atomism. It treats gov't and social structures like shopping. States and social structures shape the lives, indentities and meanings of people, people shaped by fascist and anarchism social structures, roles and meanings are going to be very different and not likely to be able to form close social bonds on any scale. You add all the other concievable social structures with their identities and meanings and you will have anarchy in the negative sens of a complete lack of a stable society.
----------------------------------------The issue that bothers you the most is "unity" in society. I agree fully that there cannot be a society without some things that people adhere to in common. What are those possible uniting things? I'll list a few:
ethics -- such as treating other people fairly
language
trust
currency
norms of reciprocal behavior
cooperative relationships
ways of working and working together
expectations of behvior
social graces
informal ways of resolving conflict
how emotions are displayed or not
courtship and marriage rituals
attitudes toward a host of things: like hierarchy, equality, harmony, self-assertion, submission to authority, risk, masculinity, femininity, knowledge, skills
hospitality
xenophobia
dress
education
religionThis is a long list and it is incomplete. People unite socially on MANY possible grounds.
The most important thing for any association is function, without which is tends to decline. The function of militias or states would give them life but then the ideologies, roles, meanings, identities they put out would have a great effect on their members. If the meanings of two or more such associations are very conflicting and its members come into contact with each other regularly it is going to cause great tension.
How many of these require or need territoriality? How many can co-exist?Panarchy nowhere says or implies that stable social groupings will not or cannot occur along any one or more of these many dimensions.
I don't know where you got such an idea.
If people need to control a given region or territory in order to realize their social values, if they value those values to that degree, then they will go ahead and create such territories. Of course, values change all the time, including all those cultural and other values listed above.
I'm not sure what Labyrinth, for whom you speak here, or you are conceiving about panarchy that leads you to the concerns that you have.
You seem to be saying that some sort of unified State is needed if there is to be a society.
No I'm saying their needs to be some sort of unity in society. It is
because I understand that society and social relationships exist and
they exert great influence on the very personalities and identities of
individuals and I understand that people tend to exist and participate
in social structures within a given area, particularly in a
decentralised society.
Panarchy - A Critique
I can imagine all sorts of stable social groupings in which the members have chosen different arrangements for policing and dispute resolution. I can imagine the same for defense.
This is exactly what I'm talking about, this is completely atomism. It treats gov't and social structures like shopping. States and social structures shape the lives, indentities and meanings of people, people shaped by fascist and anarchism social structures, roles and meanings are going to be very different and not likely to be able to form close social bonds on any scale. You add all the other concievable social structures with their identities and meanings and you will have anarchy in the negative sens of a complete lack of a stable society.
This is not "complete atomism" by any means. Policing and dispute resolution are but two goods. I provided a long list of items around which groups can coalesce exclusive of these two items.
And furthermore, there is nothing negative about people choosing defense and dispute resolution. And further, this says nothing about HOW they choose. They can make joint decisions about things all day long!
Don't get hung up on atomism vs. society. It's really a false dichotomy. People necessarily make every choice they do freely and as one person. But that does not mean that they do not coordinate with others or that they are not influenced by others. Both occur simultaneously.
You are making these two items into opposite poles, and it is wrong conceptually to do that. I suspect you are thinking in this incorrect way because you harbor an antagonism toward atomism or some thinkers who emphasize the person's choice and neglect the social interactions. I'm not one of those people.
----------------------------------------
The most important thing for any association is function, without which is tends to decline. The function of militias or states would give them life but then the ideologies, roles, meanings, identities they put out would have a great effect on their members. If the meanings of two or more such associations are very conflicting and its members come into contact with each other regularly it is going to cause great tension.
Let me put your general words into some specifics. You are basically saying people hate each other's guts at a number of levels and won't get along. An American will hate some guy who wears a turban. A middle-class guy will hate some guy with tattoos and earrings. A black guy will despise an Indian's way of talking. Everyone will despite the Jew dressed up in black with long hair.
What's the point? Panarchy is not utopia. Neither is anarchy. The world is a very imperfect place, I grant you.
I concede fully that people form all sorts of hatreds, suspicions, dislikes, animosities, and all the rest based on all sorts of things that mean something to them but which you and I cannot fathom.
You seem to be saying that some sort of unified State is needed if there is to be a society.
No I'm saying their needs to be some sort of unity in society. It is because I understand that society and social relationships exist and they exert great influence on the very personalities and identities of individuals and I understand that people tend to exist and participate in social structures within a given area, particularly in a decentralised society.
I understand the same thing as you do. But I think I see society more deeply than you do, because I am the one in this conversation who has provided a listing of many items that actually form the bases of societies. They do not require a State's territoriality to exist.
People will come together and make groupings and dissolve them in ways that mirror a large number of costs and benefits that they obtain from such groupings. This will occur in ways that no person can account for. We do not have the tools or understanding to predict how or what these groupings will be or how they may change over time.
Even after we observe some groupings, we are not sure why they form or what factors influenced their formation. The science of societies is not that advanced.
There is no question that people exist in social structures that influence them and vice versa. There is no question that some of this structure occurs in regions, but these structures also occur across regions, often worldwide because we are all human beings and have certain things in common so that a common undertanding is not all that difficult to reach. These structures are also changeable and fluid in unaccountable ways.
Panarchy is not something that neglects any of that. It does not propose that people must live together who have social frictions. It is saying that States based on territoriality are oppressive by their nature. They are forcing social structures on many people who do not want them and could live peacefully with other people without them.
Panarchy - A Critique
This is not "complete atomism" by any means. Policing and dispute resolution are but two goods. I provided a long list of items around which groups can coalesce exclusive of these two items.
And furthermore, there is nothing negative about people choosing defense and dispute resolution. And further, this says nothing about HOW they choose. They can make joint decisions about things all day long!
You are reducing social structures to the level of shopping, that is certainly atomism.
You may reduce gov't to policing and dispute resolution but do fascists, nationalists, liberals, conservatives, socialists etc?
Don't get hung up on atomism vs. society. It's really a false dichotomy. People necessarily make every choice they do freely and as one person. But that does not mean that they do not coordinate with others or that they are not influenced by others. Both occur simultaneously.You are making these two items into opposite poles, and it is wrong conceptually to do that. I suspect you are thinking in this incorrect way because you harbor an antagonism toward atomism or some thinkers who emphasize the person's choice and neglect the social interactions. I'm not one of those people.
Individuals certainly can transform social structures but to reduce institutions just to the rational choices of mostly autonomous and rational actors is atomism. There is no false dichotomy.
Let me put your general words into some specifics. You are basically saying people hate each other's guts at a number of levels and won't get along. An American will hate some guy who wears a turban. A middle-class guy will hate some guy with tattoos and earrings. A black guy will despise an Indian's way of talking. Everyone will despite the Jew dressed up in black with long hair.What's the point? Panarchy is not utopia. Neither is anarchy. The world is a very imperfect place, I grant you.
I concede fully that people form all sorts of hatreds, suspicions, dislikes, animosities, and all the rest based on all sorts of things that mean something to them but which you and I cannot fathom.
Indeed, I was more talking about ideas of gov't but it can work on other levels. Usually they're needs to be a degree of unity. It is well known that there is a lot of tension in multicultural societies generally due to the great conflicts of culture, identity and meaning in such confined social spaces.
I understand the same thing as you do. But I think I see society more deeply than you do, because I am the one in this conversation who has provided a listing of many items that actually form the bases of societies. They do not require a State's territoriality to exist.
Well that reason for thinking more deeply is laughable mate, it was only a list and it wasn't that important it neglected the most important fact of function.
And yes generally a lot of associations and functions require some sort of territory or location.
People will come together and make groupings and dissolve them in ways that mirror a large number of costs and benefits that they obtain from such groupings. This will occur in ways that no person can account for. We do not have the tools or understanding to predict how or what these groupings will be or how they may change over time.
This is atomism here, you are reducing soical organisations to the rational cost-benefit analysis of rational, autonomous individuals. This cannot be done. These organisations shape individuals and their identities, interests etc and hence the very costs and benefits they derive from them.
There is no question that people exist in social structures that influence them and vice versa. There is no question that some of this structure occurs in regions, but these structures also occur across regions, often worldwide because we are all human beings and have certain things in common so that a common undertanding is not all that difficult to reach. These structures are also changeable and fluid in unaccountable ways.
They certainly are changable and even sometimes fluid, I don't disagree. However those structures which occur acorss great distances and even globally are dubious for a decentralists and libertarians. They tend to break down other local structures, have unaccountable power at the centre, remove a lot of control, both objectively and subjectively, from the individual over spheres of his life and the bonds of the organisation tend to become abstract and far-off which is rarely a good thing. That is not to mention the usual inefficiency of function of such organisation.
Panarchy is not something that neglects any of that. It does not propose that people must live together who have social frictions. It is saying that States based on territoriality are oppressive by their nature. They are forcing social structures on many people who do not want them and could live peacefully with other people without them.
You seem to be neglecting some of it and putting out fallacious ideas of social atomism.
Panarchy - A Critique
You are reducing social structures to the level of shopping, that is certainly atomism.
It's too bad that my views come across to you in that way. I'd say you are carrying a parody or a caricature of my views in your mind. Our communication is certainly deficient here. To help remedy that, I started a new thread.
However, I will try to clarify here by saying categorically that human beings do not shop for social structures in the sense that they go to a supermarket and choose the fruit they prefer that day. They do not look at a variety of choices with prices and then, as atoms or individuals, select. And society then does not arise as a potluck dinner to which they bring their choices. Society is not a consequence of a process of choice like that. I reject that cartoon the same way that you reject it. I reject atomism if this what atomism means to you. We have no disagreement on this subject.
I do not understand how a society arises. I have no sophisticated or general model of that process. Do you?
I have a partial or several partial concepts. I have enough that I
think people can have societies without States. If there are no States,
then the territorial aspect of States goes away. Then if people need
territory as an essential aspect of societies, they will go for it, I
am sure. But how much they may or may not need that -- the actual
geographical extent of it -- is not something I have a firm idea about.
You may reduce gov't to policing and dispute resolution but do fascists, nationalists, liberals, conservatives, socialists etc?
We again have no disagreement, but you possess a caricature of my views and you have expressed it here.
I do not reduce government to policing and dispute resolution. I usually speak of governance, to distinguish the case when government as we know it -- as a political entity -- is absent. We then have society and society needs social governance. And that governance may cover a lot of ground, well beyond policing and dispute resolution. So we have no disagreement on that score.
Individuals certainly can transform social structures but to reduce institutions just to the rational choices of mostly autonomous and rational actors is atomism. There is no false dichotomy.
Again, we have no disgreement. I agree that persons can and do transform social structures. I also believe in the reverse: society affects persons in countless ways.
I agree that institutions are not the product of autonomous choices. In other words, an organization is not a potluck dinner. This does not imply that the dinner appears out of nowhere without human beings being involved in ways that somehow produce a socially acceptable outcome.
It is very strange that you think my views differ so much from yours, when we have no disagreement at all so far in this post. I think my communications must somehow be defective. I think the problem arises when I try to analyze the social. My method bothers you perhaps, and you draw the inference that the method reflects my beliefs. The situation is like this. A chemical reaction may be very complex and I may believe and even know that it is complex. But my method of study is to take one part of it first and try to understand that part and then later take another. There are many alternative methods of study, and one's beliefs about the overall system are not necessarily reflected in how one goes about studying it. Hubble related the redshift to the distance of galaxies. Einstein had then to abandon his model of a static (not expanding) universe. But the universe is a lot more complex than either Einstein or Hubble imagined.
Indeed, I was more talking about ideas of gov't but it can work on other levels. Usually they're needs to be a degree of unity. It is well known that there is a lot of tension in multicultural societies generally due to the great conflicts of culture, identity and meaning in such confined social spaces.
I agree. There is tension. I don't know how much tension. I'm interested in the fact that people overcome these tensions in order to get along for other purposes. The melting pot does not melt, at least right away, here in America. And yet it melts enough that people live and work together. I could walk the streets of many cities and see enormous disparity in the cultures of people. Like Toronto or London. There seems to be a degree of workable peace there. If we take away the State, what will happen?
Well that reason for thinking more deeply is laughable mate, it was only a list and it wasn't that important it neglected the most important fact of function.
I wanted to jibe you, mate. That is all.
A piece of list is better than none. How about you supply the functions? I don't want to write a book here.
People will come together and make groupings and dissolve them in ways that mirror a large number of costs and benefits that they obtain from such groupings. This will occur in ways that no person can account for. We do not have the tools or understanding to predict how or what these groupings will be or how they may change over time.
This is atomism here, you are reducing soical organisations to the rational cost-benefit analysis of rational, autonomous individuals. This cannot be done. These organisations shape individuals and their identities, interests etc and hence the very costs and benefits they derive from them.
My communication must be simply awful for you to think I am advocating atomism! I happen to agree with you. Organizations do shape people, and vice versa.
Causation is bi-directional and simultaneous between people and organizations.
When I wrote that we cannot account for the net outcomes, it is a statement that we do not understand this complex bi-directional system. I said explicitly we can't predict the outcomes over time. I did not say that we could predict them by looking solely at individual decisions as to what fruit or dish to bring to the potluck dinner. Here we have agreement, and yet you are giving me feedback of my thoughts that are the opposite of my thoughts.
This statement is a statement about people jointly coming together and jointly forming groups that somehow take costs and benefits into account. It is the opposite of atomism, and yet you seem to think otherwise. This shows the great difficulty in human communications. How easy it is to fail to understand the other person and misjudge him or her. No wonder that Jesus said judge not tht ye be not judged. I certainly do not live up to that, but I'm beginning to realize its meaning.
They certainly are changable and even sometimes fluid, I don't disagree. However those structures which occur acorss great distances and even globally are dubious for a decentralists and libertarians. They tend to break down other local structures, have unaccountable power at the centre, remove a lot of control, both objectively and subjectively, from the individual over spheres of his life and the bonds of the organisation tend to become abstract and far-off which is rarely a good thing. That is not to mention the usual inefficiency of function of such organisation.
I'd be interested to hear you expand on what you say here and provide some examples.
Panarchy is not something that neglects any of that. It does not propose that people must live together who have social frictions. It is saying that States based on territoriality are oppressive by their nature. They are forcing social structures on many people who do not want them and could live peacefully with other people without them.
You seem to be neglecting some of it and putting out fallacious ideas of social atomism.
"Seem" is the operative word here. If this post does not remove the notion that I am a believer in these "fallacious ideas of social atomism," I will have to take a vow of silence or something. I am about as social as anyone comes. I cannot live and grow without social interaction. I thrive on it. I think very often about all those people in my past who have affected me. Many, many of them. I think a great deal about what they have given me freely from the goodness of their hearts, and I do not refer to wealth or items, but to intangibles. I wish I could see them again and tell them. Many are long gone or live in places unknown.
Again, what may bother you is method. To analyze a complex system, we may be coming at it in different ways. I am tolerant of any method that works and provides a degree of truth, even though I am aware it has defects. I see no point in warring over methods per se. I am aware that some great minds insist that some methods are so bad that the results they produce will be misleading. I do not accept that line of thought. I am more tolerant of methodologies that seem to conflict. That is because I think the truth is such an elusive thing and yet a thing worth striving for.
Panarchy - A Critique
De Puydt is in the liberal tradition just as you say, Feela. He endorses rights. He says things like this:
"My panacea, if you will allow this term, is simply free competition in the business of government. Everyone has the right to look after his own welfare as he sees it and to obtain security under his own conditions. On the other hand, this means progress through contest between governments forced to compete for followers. True worldwide liberty is that which is not forced upon anyone, being to each just what he wants of it; it neither suppresses nor deceives, and is always subject to a right of appeal. To bring about such a liberty, there would be no need to give up either national traditions or family ties, no need to learn to think in a new language, no need at all to cross rivers or seas, carrying the bones of one's ancestors."
This is what you call atomism -- right there where he endorses each person looking after his own welfare as he sees it and obtaining security under his own conditions, as he says it. No need for government force. Then at the end, moving away from this perspective to a more social one, he says there is no need to give up several social things like family, traditions, and language.
Now, what is your critique?
It starts here:
"The problem with panarchy is it is has flawed view of humanity and seems to view individuals as floating atoms. It is very much within the liberal tradition. It forgets society and the large social, associational nature of free, order, personality"
This, so far, is not a telling criticism. DePuydt nowhere views people as atoms floating by themselves. To speak of having liberty and looking after one's own does not exclude bonding with others and being influenced strongly by them. Free association does not mean free from the social interactions that necessarily are a focal point of life. It means free from government's uncalled for force and the initiation of force by others. It leaves open the richness of life. There is no forgetting of society in this passage, as he comes back to that at the end.
At the end of your sentence, you briefly mention your view of freedom, and that is not DePuydt's concept. You allude to the "associational" nature of freedom. This is why you reject atomism, as you call it, or freedom viewed as a right to choose. You view freedom differently, as arriving via a social process of association.
You need to explain this further for me. I'd like to hear more. One allusion is not enough either to trash the idea of freedom as choice or raise up the idea of freedom as association.
Panarchy - A Critique
Your next post said this:
"It ignores the need for stable social bonds and associations including local community and seems to believe that we are just floating atoms who can choose a completely different gov't than our neighbour or partner."
You repeated the same statement of criticism without providing further explanation of the concept. The criticism is, so far, not in depth enough, although you might make it so by fleshing it out, and I'd like to hear that.
But, again, panarchy does not ignore the need for stable social bonds and associations or ignore local community. Having the liberty to choose government in fact amplifies the possibilities for many people to have the social bonds and associations and local communities that they want and need.
I can only agree with you that people need and want these bonds and ties. Panarchy is about freeing them from the State so that they may better achieve what they want. It is a very simple but radical divorce from the political. It sees the political as the enemy of the social. It wants the social to be set free. You may not like its emphasis. It emphasizes the divorce in terms of rights and liberty. It does not speak like a sociologist but like an economist. It uses the language of laissez faire laisser passer, and that is not your cup of tea. But that use of terms and approach does not imply that it is against society and in support of atomism. Nothing of the sort. The language is compatible with all sorts of social bonds. The concept of panarchy strongly supports social bonds that enhance social welfare by removing an antagonist, which is the State.
DePuydt has no detailed social theory. That is so. His manuscript (1860) focuses on planting a seed, an idea or re-arranging political systems so as to improve human welfare. It's about politics, not society. It's nowhere near being a complete theory of life with competing governments. It's oversimplified. It's idealistic. He's introducing a new idea, and that is all his object is. He says things and proposes things that you and I may laugh at and discard.
His central idea: "Does anybody want to carry out a political schism? He should be able to do so but on one condition, namely, that he will do it within his own group, affecting neither the rights nor the creed of others. To achieve this, it is absolutely not necessary to subdivide the territory of the State into so many parts as there are known and approved forms of government."
Clearly, very clearly, DePuydt is the very beginning of a paradigm. It needs a lot of fleshing out. In 1909, Nettlau writes:
"One will feel closer to his [DePuydt's] idea if one replaces in one' s mind the word "government", which he always uses, by "social organization," especially since he himself proclaims the coexistence of all governmental forms up to and including "even the AN-ARCHY of Mr. Proudhon", each form for those who are really interested in it."
We start to see further thought, and the step here is to understand what I have called governance or social governance as essential. Nettlau realizes that DePuydt's "government" can be taken as "social organization." The paradigm of panarchy gains by this deepening of its basic concept.
Nettlau said little more, however. John Zube, who is the foremost panarchist of our day, writes a note on Nettlau:
"De Puydt's proposal, as a core requirement for a consistent anarchism, supplemented by essential conditions, forms the foundation of the autonomous protective and social communities described in Solneman's 1977 "The Manifesto of Peace and Freedom."
The relationship of panarchy to anarchy and to social communities is apparent to Zube. Zube's fuller views are here: http://www.panarchy.org/zube/toanarchists.1986.html
Panarchy - A Critique
Your next post took a different tack:
"I'm not a panarchist. If claim it can create a stable society then it up to you to prove it. It is pretty obvious that the idea that people in the same community and family and workplace can subscribe to such wildly different gov'ts and ways of thinking. It would challenge the very bonds of society itself."
I remind you that if the government chosen becomes wildly different enough, then people will choose segregation into communities that are in the same regions we now call States. There is room for all.
Anarchists now seek to convert everyone to the same non-statist governance in all respect, but that goes against the basic principle of anarchists which is liberty. Someone truly free may wish to join with others in bonds of association that yet others may regard as unfree. Is the anarchist to decide the matter, or are people themselves to decide this? Isn't the idea of Voluntary Association an essential anarchist idea?
I will quote Zube: http://www.panarchy.org/zube/toanarchists.1986.html
"Luckily, for the chances to realize this kind of voluntaristic anarchism, embracing anarchism for volunteers and archism for volunteers, peacefully coexisting, exterritorially, at the same time and in the same territory, we do already, in many, mostly MINOR ways, but that are HIGH in the value scale of the average person, live in an age of freedom of action, of independence from customs, rituals and traditions of others.
This expresses itself e.g. in different choices of professions, of crafts and hobby activities, in various schools and practices of music, painting, fashion, architecture, plays, sports, dancing, diets, games religions practices, memberships in various associations and clubs etc. etc. In all these spheres we have already largely become panarchistic anarchists.
To that extent the desired revolution or fundamental reform is already 90% ACHIEVED and this with the consent of most conservatives and radicals."
And then he adds:
"Nevertheless, most of us have so far failed to GENERALIZE AND INSTITUTIONALIZE that kind of tolerance, experimentation and practised diversity. We have failed to extend it into the most important and large spheres, especially those of politics and economics. However, panarchists, as opposed to anarchists, did just that. Starting from the basic premises of the classical anarchists, they want to apply voluntarism, contracts, tolerance, diversity, in these spheres, too, quite independent of the territorial location of individuals and groups and of the dissenting views of other and larger minority groups and even of majority groups living around and between them, independent of the current territorial constitutions, institutions, laws and jurisdictions, customs and practices."
Zube quotes many classical anarchists to show that panarchy is consistent with anarchy's basic principles.
Panarchy - A Critique
The key matter is this: What is freedom?
That is where the Horkheimer quote comes in, and your statement after it:
"Not that I'm saying a degree of individual independence is not a good thing but to think freedom means autonomy is not a good way to conceptualise it."
The person's independence has to be of 100% degree, not simply "a degree". But that does not mean atomism or lack of social bonds and associations. The very opposite. Independence is the precondition for attaining the desired society without having the force of State restrict the person.
And independence does not then mean that we each shop for our society as you describe atomism. That is a cartoon version of reality.
We arrive at the society of our choice in the same invisible and unaccountable way that we arrive at social structures today. The details are not open to our clear delineation in many cases. In some cases, they are open to view. Anyone can start a society and seek memberships in it. That way is an open way. But in other cases, a society may evolve by a more spontaneous and hidden process. Persons make their choices while simultaneously being influenced by many variables around them.
Autonomy is taken in the dictionary as a synonym for freedom. The meaning given is control over one's own actions and another meaning is the right of groups to self-government. Freedom/autonomy are both essential anarchist ideals.
In the sociology that you are emphasizing, the idea is to go behind that control over one's own actions and look at the community influence. It is to understand that the valuation of that control and its meaning are themselves socially-influenced. What freedom means to people is not merely the fact of it or having that control. It has meaning in a social context.
This may all be so. I have no problem with those ideas. But neither does panarchy. It just seems to me that we can work ourselves into an impossible chicken-egg situation here.
Emma Goldman wrote: "...each and every individual has the unquestionable and unabridgeable right of free and voluntary association with other equally sovereign individuals for economic, political, social and all other purposes,..." Malatesta wrote: "If we, in any way, dominate the lives of others and prevent them from doing what they wish to do, then for all practical purposes, we cease to be anarchists."
They are not talking about social influence and the realization of freedom as a value via that association. They are talking about RIGHTS and DOMINATION. They draw a line and the line is at political issues. That is also what panarchy is doing. They are not sociologists analyzing what happens within society when everyone has those rights. For there will still be these interactions in which society-person influence each other. There is an old Chinese saying: Society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it.
The scope of freedom being discussed by Goldman and Malatesta is a different scope than you are raising. You are going beyond the line of political into the social, and there is no need for that insofar as anarchism is concerned. "Anarchism, as I see it, admits of any kind of organization, so long as membership is not compulsory." - Joseph A. Labadie.
Panarchy - A Critique
Here you say:
"As far I know panarchism is about people within even the confines of narrow social groupings having fastly different state arrangements. I think that is unlikely to produce a stable society, that is my main critique. I can't imagine that small associations could work on that basis, you'll find few greater believers in real pluralism(not atomism.) and diversity, but there still must be some unity in society."
You can have multi-governments all segregated into various localities in panarchy. That may arise.
The societies that you imagine may be co-existent with such local governments. They would be stable. There need not be a mass society.
On the other hand, there can be lots of pluralism within various organizations.
There are many societies possible on many bases, territorial and non-territorial. Panarchism is not about people in narrow social groupings necessarily having vastly different state arrangements. That's a misconception.
Panarchy - A Critique
One nore thing occurs to me. There has been talk on this thread of "wildly" different governments, and of the disparities between various groups.
On the internet where tiny, tiny groups of ideologues argue, these differences loom large. In real life, where people are not so ideologically minded, these differences are not as great.
The emphasis by Feela on "society" is also overdone, as if there is some important element of our lives that will drop entirely from view if we think of things non-territorially as panarchy does. The false caricature of panarchy as thinking of people as atoms adds to this false picture of reality.
In real life, this thread has not brought out that there are all sorts of associations that cut right across various societal and cultural mores.
Choose any profession you like, from baby doctors to mechanical engineers to computer programmers to physicists. There are large numbers of them, and they often have international conferences and international means of communications. Doctors in Bombay find common ground with doctors anywhere, and share information about different practices and findings.
People have a lot in common. Mothers have common experiences with other mothers that help overcome cultural, racial, and religious differences.
Businesses today operate in all sorts of international ways, and they don't have to be big businesses to do that. There is international repartee.
There are all sorts of non-state international organizations.
There is a large amount of international travel.
There are international art fairs. Musicians travel far and wide. Culture crosses nationl boundaries all the time.
Society is becoming international simply because people live everywhere and we benefit from talking with all kinds of people. The internet does this. On this forum, we have a disparate group conversing.
The bottom line is that some of the criticisms of panarchy here distort not only what panarchy means but also reality itself by blowing up certain concerns and neglecting the reality around us.
Panarchy - A Critique
It's too bad that my views come across to you in that way. I'd say you are carrying a parody or a caricature of my views in your mind. Our communication is certainly deficient here. To help remedy that, I started a new thread.
Okay, I see it. We'll discuss this there rather than repeating ourselves here.
Can I ask you to not write as much. I really have not the inclination or time to write what amounts almost to essays.
Panarchy - A Critique--Where's the new thread?
by spanarchist 
, Sunday, December 14, 2008, 20:20 @ Feela
Hey, I read and printed out the conversation so far, and am planning on responding with my own input, but I came here by fluke, while researching visionary ideas, and so don't have a clue where the new thread is...Can anyone provide a link in this thread? (The search engine was no help, so far)
Lots of clear thought here, so far, and I'm glad i found this!
Panarchy - A Critique
You could at least say what you mean. Where's your credibility when you misquote and then change up in midstream?
It wasn't a misquote, that is the translation. You simply twisted it. In the context and in common sense that is clearly what he meant.
Panarchy - A Critique
You could at least say what you mean. Where's your credibility when you misquote and then change up in midstream?
It wasn't a misquote, that is the translation. You simply twisted it. In the context and in common sense that is clearly what he meant.
I do not really know what he meant. I'd have to read the whole passage or chapter.
The point is this. Whatever he meant, what is YOUR idea and how does it impinge on anarchy and panarchy?
The problem with panarchy is it is has flawed view of humanity and seems to view individuals as floating atoms. It is very much within the liberal tradition. It forgets society and the large social, associational nature of free, order, personality etc etc
Alternately, you might say that panarchy assumes too much in the way of shared values, that there is an unwarranted optimism about the possibilities of maintaining a free market society, or an assumption of a basic shared libertarianism.
You could compare panarchy to Fourier's descriptions of harmonian society, which calls for competing social forms and local political units, but which foregrounds the degree to which all the diversity and competition is part and parcel of society working out its conflicts. What seems to be necessary is for everyone in a panarchy to be a "panarchian" (or anarchist, or federalist, or harmonist) first, and then play whatever roles enhance their political pleasure.
---
Shawn P. Wilbur
http://libertarian-labyrinth.blogspot.com
http://all-left.net
Panarchy - A Critique
2) Territory
Like it or not, territory affects politics. Land controls your ability to be fruitful, to be free, to have offspring, to produce wealth.
A political system that tries to ignore territory is setting itself up for trouble, because territory is an inherently political issue.
Fascists will always be interested in territorial control, for example, because their philosophy is more than a social system, it contains beliefs of nationalism, a belief that a people should have their own land (look at Lebensraum of the nazis, or any number of similar policies advocated by fascists and nationalists). Their beliefs specifically advocate the aggressive pursuit of the political entity's dominance and power, and this ties its philosophy to physical territory.
I think you are correct about fascism. This piece looks quite balanced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
In two places, it speaks of expansion as a core tenet of fascist ideology.
Mussolini went into Ethiopia. Hitler of course went all sorts of places. Franco differed:
"Notably, however, he did not foster a culture of militarism and expansion. Spain was for Spaniards, Franco thought, and while autarky was advocated, there was no particularly good or practical reason to conquer neighboring countries."
On balance, fascism being so nationalistic and with a tendency to expand, it is a deadly enemy of both anarchism and panarchism.
Where does that leave panarchy? In no different position than anarchy, it seems to me. Both will have no choice but to battle against what I call core fascists, which means nationalistic and expansionist (and more) fascists and the ideology of fascism.
In fact, it is a plus for panarchy that it advocates non-territorialism. That directly confronts both nationalism and expansionism and thus fascism.
Panarchy is activist against fascism. It is not activist against social welfare programs if people arrange such things for themselves because those are not territorial. There are many anarchists who want all sorts of things for their preferred societies, ranging from no drug use, to vegetarianism, to civil defense, to animal rights, to occupancy and use of land, etc. Panarchy embraces all of these possibilities while championing no one of them.
Maybe panarchy helps clarify that all sorts of groups, including those who want soft states, can unite against the fascist ideology. Maybe.
Panarchy - A Critique
by Adam Knott , Tuesday, October 14, 2008, 13:47 @ Lostsocks
Hi Lostsocks. (is that name of American Indian derivation?)
Here are some answers about Panarchism, at least as I understand it.
1. Changing People's Views.
Panarchy does not assume that all people will get along. I assume that if some people succeed in opting out of current political constraints, others won't like that, and may well try to stop it. Thus, panarchy does not require everyone to adopt a different belief. When free people used to visit the Soviet Union, I assume Soviet leaders would have preferred, if practical, to enslave them. But it wasn't practical. Thus, they held political beliefs consistent with, and actually practiced, a form of slavery, while at the same time, free people (relatively) intermingled with them and their captive citizens.
Panarchy is the same principle, with the current welfare state as Soviet Union, and others (whoever they may be) as the free citizen.
2. Territory.
Panarchy need not be interpreted as a demand or ideal that those who currently control various territories, immediately relinquish such control. Rather, it is the principle that the rules one lives under are not tied to the territory he lives in.
Similarly, panarchy need not be interpreted as a demand or ideal that all the territorial laws one is subject to, be immediately abolished, or citizens immediately be freed from all laws.
Currently, the law identifies each individual before deciding whether to allow him to do specific things. Once identified as a member of a specific political group, then you are allowed by right to own and operate a casino, or not, (Native Americans), or visit and exit the Soviet Union freely (see previous example)
People may take their political rights with them through various territories, and may even live in the same territory, with different political rights.
Panarchy may be interpreted as an expansion, rather than a contraction and abolition, of this idea.
As panarchistic ideas expand, and as people begin to attain some degree of individual liberty, political problems which seemed difficult or impossible last year, may seem less difficult or not impossible this year...
3.2 Class War.
"What happens when members of the socialist faction find themselves employed by a member of the laissez-faire?"
Lostsocks, as Jesse Jackson would say: "You're better than that!!"
"Find themselves" ?
I think this is libertarianism 101. Do we really have to go into all this?
3.1
How can different laws be applied to different people, in principle?
Why aren't policemen, firemen, and ambulance drivers arrested for driving over the speed limit ? Answer: the law identifies them as someone rightfully allowed to do that particular thing, at the same time that others are not allowed to.
What does this mean? It means that the principle of non-uniformity of laws is already in existence, and is practical. How to expand that further, and apply it to other areas, is a practical matter. But it can be done, as this example, and many many other examples (which the reader may reflect upon) will show.
Conclusion:
Panarchy is the growing realization that for libertarianism to be consistent, the idea of geographical rule has to be called into question.
Panarchy need not be a "system" imposed by any particular group, person, or theorist, on to other people. Actually, various forms of panarchy already exist. Panarchy is the idea of extending the forms of panarchy that already exist to include the political and economic realms of human activity, not merely the social sphere.
Adam Knott
