Back to Homepage ANARCHISM IS REAL DEMOCRACY
ANARCHISM IS LIBERAL SOCIAL DEMOCRACY
The anarchist (= liberal social-democratic) ideal - the long-term economic-political goal of the anarchists (the liberal social-democrats)!
AI-generated video about the 100% anarchist = real democratic, ideal. Click on: http://www.anarchy.no/anarchistideal.mp4
The anarchist ideal is generally a society organized as far as possible according to anarchist principles, as a guiding star for the economic-politicalThe anarchist ideal is generally a society organized as far as possible according to anarchist principles, as a guiding star for the economic-political management, etc. The principles for the anarchist ideal society are: 100% socialism and autonomy in the broadest sense, efficiency (Pareto-optimality, also with regard on environmental factors) and justice (the exchange criterion, that no one will exchange positions with anyone else, after all), minimal rank and salary differences - political/administrative and economic hierarchy, including freedom (without deprivation of others' freedom, slavery and tyranny), equality, solidarity; social justice including libertarian (freedomly) law (adopted directly by the people themselves or via delegates) and optimal order, rule of law and human rights, free contracts (not slave contracts), free initiatives, atheism (anarchism is a secular project, but implies full freedom of religion), antimilitarism (based on mutual disarmament and balance of forces), internationalism (not supranationalism, or nationalism), decentralism, self-government and federalism (not hierarchical, EU-like), self-management (autogestion) and libertarian communalism, i.e. decisions are mainly taken locally by the significantly and concretely affected - from anyone according to ability - to anyone according to need. This is the essence of "system and governance without a ruler" = an-arch-y. That is real democracy.
The usual left vs. the right dimension alone is completely insufficient to provide an adequate picture of the economic-political landscape. The two-dimensional economic-political map presented here gives an adequate picture of the economic-political landscape.
Freedom, i.e. the degree of freedom, is measured by the libertarian degree = 100% - the authoritarian degree. The libertarian degree = the degree of democracy. Freedom, i.e. freedom without harming others' freedom, not freedom at others expence, economically and/or political/administrative, in the widest sense! Real freedom = or > 50% libertarian & democratic, i.e. both economic and political/administrative in the widest sense = Anarchy and Anarchism. Real freedom = or > 50% socialism & autonomy broadly defined = Anarchy and Anarchism. Real democracy always includes green policy, i.e. significant. Real democracy means society should be managed and run from the bottom up, i.e. from the People – grassroots, and upwards, not from the top – down, i.e. significant. This is real federalism. This is freedom in societal perspective.
THE FIGHT AGAINST THE CLIMATE CRISIS – THE GREEN GLOBAL SPRING (GGS) – CONTINUES AT FULL SPEED, SEE: http://www.anarchy.no/green.html & http://www.anarchy.no/ggs1.html
"
*) The stars indicate the position of the Norwegian economical-political system after the revolutionary change in 1994/95.
Fig. 1. Picture of the Anarchist Economical-Political Map
A mathematical precisation of the map is presented at the Formula of anarchism .
For practical statistical methods of estimation of the authoritarian degree etc. see the chapter V.B.
NB! We usually have used " , ", the European standard instead of American/UK standard, i.e. " . " as decimal separator. The term "ca" is an abbreviation for the latin circa, which means about or approximately.
Et hvert skift i et økonomisk-politisk systems koordinater på ØP-kartet er per definisjon en revolusjon. Revolusjoner kan være av varierende størrelse, noen små, og av og til noe større. Revolusjon står i motsetning til reform, som er økonomisk-politiske endringer uten skift i system-koordinatene, dvs. endringer innenfor systemets rammer, uten å gå utover disse.
Et hvert skift i et økonomisk-politisk systems koordinater på ØP-kartet skjer nesten alltid ved en kontinuerlig prosess via infinitesimale skift i systemets koordinater, som integreres dynamisk over tid, til et signifikant samlet skift i systemkoordinatene, dvs. til en signifikant revolusjon. NB! En serie usignifikante revolusjoner kan altså resultere etter en tid, i en samlet signifikant revolusjon. Er revolusjonen en bevegelse nedover på ØP-kartet, kaller man den også en kontra-revolusjon.
Revolusjoner kan også skje ved diskontinuerlige, eventuelt store - skift i system-koordinatene, uten at vi skal gå videre inn på dette her, utover å bemerke at slike ofte går fryktelig gærent, oftest på grunn av mangel på relevante oppfølgende organisasjons-strukturer.
GGS, The Green Global Spring Revolution, bl.a. støttet av GAIAN Freedomly Zen-Buddhists, andre frihetlige, Greta Thunberg & Co og flere, satser ikke på denne gærne strategien. Men på opplegget nevnt under «NB!» over, som skulle bli en suksess, forutsatt trigging av tilstrekkelige folkemasser til støtte for opplegget (til GGS). Og det må det bli i tide til å avverge full blown climate-crisis, with Ragnarokk = FULLT HELVETE På GAIA, A.K.A. TELLUS OG JORDEN, OG KANSKJE MER. JHø.
Best regards and real democratic greetings from the networks of NøI-INDECO at www.indeco.no and IJOR/IIFOR at www.anarchy.no.
CONTENTS:
I. SUMMARY
II. THE ECONOMICAL-POLITICAL MAP
A. ANARCHY AND ANARCHISM DEFINED
B. THE MAP
III. ANARCHISM: IDEAL, PRINCIPLES &
PRACTICE
IV. ANARCHISM, STATE AND CAPITALISM
A. A COMMENT ON THE ECONOMIC-POLITICAL
MAP
B. AN AXIOMATIC APPROACH TO THE PRINCIPLES OF ANARCHY,
ANARCHISM AND SOCIAL SCIENCES IN GENERAL
V. NOTES
A. PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS
VS POSSESSION IN ANARCHIST LAW
B. NOTES ON MAPPING - COLORS, GRAPHICAL AND ALGEBRAIC NOTIONS - STATISTICS AND ESTIMATION METHODS - PRACTICE
C. ANARCHISM AND MODERN SCIENCE UPDATED - HISTORY OF THOUGHT - METHODOLOGY
D. MORE ABOUT THE CONCEPTS AND WORDS USED IN THIS CONTEXT
A. Rules, rule = regler, regel (relatively fixed ways to settle things in an orderly way, i.e. regulations and regulatory means); but also,
B. Rules, rule = hersking, hersker, herske (to be an arch/ruler, act as an arch, bestiality).
Thus in English/American the words 'archein (Greek) = herske (Nordic)' is translated to B. "rule" = to be an arch etc., but "rule" also is used as A. 'regel' = "rule" (i.e. rule(s) in the meaning of relatively fixed way(s) to settle things, disputes and conflicts in an orderly way, i.e. regulations and regulatory means = regel/regler). And thus, due to using one word to mean two very different things, i.e. A. and B, the anglophones are forced in an authoritarian way to think very much false and wrong about realities, with respect to anarchy, freedom and authority, that the Scandinavian people are not to the same extent. See the point! Anglophones are very much fooled by the authorities in this way, thus you probably cannot easily think free, but like a slave via psychological ruling, to think authority = ruler is necessary to keep order. In Norwegian a situation "an (without) arch(y)" "uten hersker" may very well considered to be with 'regler' because "hersker" = rules, and "regler" = rules, are quite different words. This is very difficult to understand with an anglophone basis.
C. Furthermore the Greek word "an" is not meaning "without" in general, but just as "an" in anaerobe and similar words, i.e. "an" means without what is mentioned in the suffix, but keeping what is essential in the matter, i.e. management in the meaning of coordination related to anarchy.
Thus the whole thing gets often mixed up in the anglophone sphere, the language falsely forcing people to think that rule and rulers are necessary to settle things in an orderly way.
D. To fix this linguistical/language problem in a simple way, we mainly use the word "rules" in the meaning of one or more rules in case A, and the words "rule" and "ruling" in case B, unless something else is mentioned. We will now present a brief definition of anarchy:
The word "anarchy" origins from Greek. The original meaning, that everybody should stick to, is the following: The prefix "an" means "negation of", as in anaerobe vs aerobe, anandrous vs -androus, anhydride vs hydride, etc; i.e. "an" means without what is mentioned in the suffix, but keeping what is essential in the matter. The suffix "archy" means "rule (not rules or law), ruler, rulers, superior in contrast to subordinates, etc.", from Greek "archein", "to rule, to be first"; and "archos", "ruler" i.e. in a coercive, repressive, etc. manner, slavery and tyranny included. As mentioned "an" means without what is mentioned in the suffix, but keeping what is essential in the matter, i.e. in this case management in the meaning of coordination, but without ruling. The 'ruling' is not essential, but an evil alienation, i.e. bestiality. Bestiality is especially the hall-mark of systems with more than 666 per thousand (ca 67%) authoritarian degree, see map above. [The term “ca” is an abbreviation for the latin circa, which means about or approximately.] Thus "Anarchy" doesn't mean "without coordination, management, administration, etc.". Anarchy is management, coordination and administration etc. without ruling and thus without rulers. NB! Remember D. Anarchy and anarchism also of course have and use regulations and regulatory means when necessary and optimal, i.e. significant selfregulation. That anarchy, means an-arch-y, i.e. management and coordination without ruler(s), not just "without rule", a vague term that superficially may be interpreted and manipulated in a lot of inconsistent ways, i.e. non-authoritarian as well as authoritarian, must never be forgotten. "An" means "without" as in an-aerobe, etc, "arch" means "ruler(s)" broadly defined, and "y" in this connection stands for system, management, coordination, as in monarch-y, oligarch-y, etc. The "an" is connected to "arch", not "y". Thus (an-arch)-y means without arch, but not without system, management, coordination, it means (an-arch)-system, management, coordination. In short an-arch-y = (an = without arch = ruler(s)) y = management.
Briefly defined anarchy and anarchism are coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, i.e. horizontal organization and co-operation without coercion. This means practically or ideally, i.e. ordinary vs perfect horizontal organization respectively. Thus, anarchy and anarchism mean real democracy, economical and political/administrative, in private and public sector. Real democracy a.k.a. liberal social-democracy broadly defined, is always including green. NB! Liberal social-democracy, remember Bakunin's Social-Democratic Alliance in the 1. International, must not be mixed up with marxist socialdemocracy, see EP-map above.
A bit simplified:
Society is private sector plus public sector, both significantly horizontally organized in anarchy.
* Real democracy means one vote per head, participatory, plus anarchist basic rights that secure that the majority cannot decide that the minority must slave for them one way or the other, or worse. Thus the case that the majority "two wolves" decide that the minority "lamb" should be dinner, or similar is avoided. The anarchist rights can be brought for the anarchist law and order system, in case of disputes.
In some cases, say, at which side on the road we should drive, right or left, simple majority > 50% is ok. In other cases general consent - a lot for, and no-one against, is necessary. In some cases 2/3 or 3/4 majority is ok.
General consent is many for and no one against. Via discussion, a consensus culture and negotations the anarchists try to achieve general consent, but this is not always possible. In case where a only a small minority is against, a resolution is decided by close to general consent. In other cases with different opinions regular voting may be the solution. Free fraction rights are directly applicable in all cases except for regulations and enforcement of the statutes. From a congress the following my be the case: The resolutions were decided with general consent or close to general consent.
As for private sector, based on markets, there is one dollar (or labor notes credit) one vote, and it is real democratic, anarchist, only if the income-distribution is significantly horizontally organized (and the economy is efficient). If the income-distribution is significantly hierarchical it is economical plutarchy, not anarchy/ism
As for public sector, it will be organized according to *.
Thus anarchy is real democracy, in both private and public sector. Marxism, fascism and liberalism are different forms of state/government/authority/archy. [Statesystems are typically authoritarian (> 50% authoritarian degree), atypically semilibertarian.]
And thus, anarchy means coordination without government, in the meaning of different forms of vertically organized, i.e. chaotic included, economic and/or political-administrative relations among people, (and thus not without public sector). Coercion is defined in the following way: Coerce, from Latin coercere , to surround, from co = together and arcere = to confine. 1. to confine, restrain by force, to keep from acting by force, to repress. 2. to constrain, to compel, to effect by force, to enforce. Anarchist systems have ideally no coercion, practically, as little as possible coercion, taking into account the anarchist principles in general, human rights interpreted in a libertarian way included. We need to distinguish aggressive coercion from defensive coercion.
A social, economic-political system with free and fair elections of mandated representatives or delegates, usually called democracy, may function more from the top downwards, significant vertically organized, centralist or the opposite, from the bottom upwards, significant horizontally organized, federalist, i.e. anarchy. Thus all anarchies are democracies but everything called democracy is not necessarily anarchist or anarchy. Many so called representative democracies may work more from the top downwards than the opposite, from the bottom upwards, and thus are not real democracies, anarchies, but archies. Thus anarchy is always democracy but not all democracies are anarchist, i.e. some democracies are archies, anarchy is as mentioned real democracy. Anarchy is just a minor part of, a subset of, the total amount of democracy, because not all democracies are anarchies, real democratic. A lot of conditions must usually be fulfilled to secure that a democracy is a real democracy, i.e. anarchy. A lot of people's organizations broadly defined, a free press, i.e. not the 4th power of the State, dialog and free, matter of fact, criticism, all organized significantly according to anarchist principles, are necessities. The existence of a sufficient amount of real alternatives, and a general balance of strength, significant stopping power in the meaning of domination, economical and political/administrative in public and private sectors, may also be mentioned.
Horizontal organization, a bottom up approach as opposed to a top down approach, economically and political/administrative, means organization without ruler(s) - arch(s), i. e. not without management, but 1. organization with significant small income and rank differences, 2. empowered workers with significant influence and freedom within a framework, and 3. real democratic control one way or the other. It is not a system where the management takes orders from the workers, unless the case with 100% flat organization. A horizontal organization has a degree of flatness, an anarchy degree, between 50 % and 100 %, the anarchist ideal. Workers mean the frontline in an organization.
A real scientifical, i.e. a non-dogmatic anarchist way of thinking, as opposed to populist/fascist and relativist, marxist dialectical and liberalist more or less metaphysical way of thinking, is another important thing. By real scientifical, we mean using the natural scientifical method broadly defined, thinking principally and that hypothesis may be rejected, also taking into account realistic future scenarios related to different alternatives and actions, costs and benefits. Thus thinking, say, if this and that are the conditions, and these are the alternative actions, what are the probable alternative outcomes, - and then decide what actions are best, real democratic i.e. what is in the interest of the less benefitial majority of the population, the people vs the authorities and upper classes. "Best arguments win" and to get "competence effectively and fair through in the system" are benchmarks in this context. An efficient and fair dialog in the public room, as indicated with free and matter of fact criticism, working horizontally and/or from the bottom, the people and grassroots - upwards - is a must. To criticize the present proposals and situations without having a clearly better realistic alternative, is quite useless. For higher degrees of anarchy, usually different forms of co-operatives and federalist direct democracy organized according to anarchist principles are important parts of the economic-political system.
The concepts and different perspectives of anarchism are defined in real terms with the Economic-Political map, the IFA-principles and human rights, the Oslo-Convention, etc., and as anarchy vs other -archies, - i.e.
In anarchism hierarchy is usually defined as
a) "the power or rule of a hierarch or hierarchs", in the meaning of economically and/or political/administrative rulers and ruling, i.e. economical and political/administrative hierarchy respectively - significant and/or
b) such rule by priests or other clergy, church government, or
c) the group of officials in such systems.
However the word hierarchy in the today also usual meaning of
d) "any group of persons or things arranged in order of rank, grade, class, etc." is also sometimes used, and
e) thus also hierarchy in the meaning of any tendency towards or of hierarchy defined as point a).
The negation of e) is 100% of anarchy, the anarchist ideal, and the negation of a) is significant anarchy, the anarchy degree > 50% .
1. The economical dimension - the percentage degree of socialism, i.e. the degree of economical freedom, solidarity and equality, etc. - in short economical democracy vs plutarchy, significant economical hierarchy (capitalism - theft, broadly defined). Democracy means, quite simplified, "one person - one vote", i.e. equal votes for all in the elections, also direct democracy. Markets however mean "one dollar (or other means of payment) - one vote". Thus markets are only economically democratic, i.e. not plutarchical, as far as money or other means of payment, among other things, the purchasing powers, are significant equally distributed according to anarchist principles. And thus, markets are probably only anarchistic, i.e. real democratic, if they are publicly regulated in a libertarian way, with free contracts - not slave contracts, etc. (See also point 3.)
2. The political/adminstrative dimension - the percentage degree of autonomy, i.e. the degree of political/administrative freedom, solidarity and equality, etc. in short political/administrative democracy vs vertically organized political/administrative systems, i.e. statism broadly defined, significant political/administrative hierarchy, monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy and/or ochlarchy (mob rule) included, in both public and private sector.
3. If a economical plutarchy, i.e. the relatively rich, take over significant political/administrative hierarchy in public and private sector, a political/adminstrative plutarchy is introduced. This is a form of populism/fascism. If significant political/administrative hierarchy, say, a military junta, take over significant economical hierarchy in public and private sector, another form of fascism/populism is established. Any combination of statism combined with plutarchy (capitalism) is a form of fascism. The statism may take the form of monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy and ochlarchy (mob rule, mafia, chaos, no human rights, no real law and order, real lawlessness, etc.) included, and principally also be based on political/administrative plutarchy, or combinations, in both public and private sector.
As mentioned, these concepts should be considered in real terms, not formal or symbolic terms. Anarchists are interested in what de facto and in reality, are going on in society, not formal or symbolic values, government, rule and hierarchies. Symbolic and formal things and positions are only interesting to the extent they influence realities.
The word libertarian(s) (libertaire, freiheitliches, frihetlig) is used synonymously with anarchy, anarchist(s) and anarchism, unless otherways defined.
Society is public sector plus private sector. This mix is a question of convenience (dependent on fulfilment of other principles, not one in in itself), and public sector should not be mixed up with the concept of government, i.e. vertically organized. Grassroots public service workers are not a part of the bureaucracy/government. The two sectors may be more or less horizontally vs vertically organized, i.e. relatively small vs large rank and/or income differences, etc.
With "society" we here usually mean a set and sum of social relationships among humans, meaning just a network of individuals and the relationships they generate. With "system" we usually mean society in this sense, plus the way to make decisions. These concepts include distribution of wealth, the accepted social norms, the structure of the political economy broadly defined, etc. This may be authoritarian, semilibertarian or libertarian, i.e. anarchist.
In short and a bit simplified: "Do not expect me to provide you with a system. My system is Progress, that is to say the need to work constantly toward discovering the unknown while the past is being exhausted." P. J. Proudhon wrote in a letter of December 1851. This does not mean anarchism is without system, it is a whole set of systems related to the economic-political map. Here the term "system" a bit simplified means just "the way things are decided", and thus practically certain a society must have a system or several systems, and a place on the economic-political map, EPM. This wide definition of systems includes chaotic systems, typically ochlarchy with rivaling polyarchy/oligarchy, and they are practically always connected to superiors and subordinates - significant, and are thus not anarchies. Narrowly defined, system includes order, and anarchy also have system in this sense. Related to the EPM the wide definition of system is relevant, and thus a chaotic system has a place on the map, although being without system narrowly defined.
This however means we, Proudhon, IIFOR and other anarchists, will 1. not provide you with a fixed, dogmatic system once and for all. 2. "Proudhon's system" at that time, as well as today's updated research front of anarchism, is a front of Progress: The research front, using the scientifical method of the natural sciences, is all of the time developing and improved as an accumulated capital of knowledge, consistent and with small -- and sometimes large -- breakthroughs and revolutions, in a progressive way.
Briefly defined State in a broad societal meaning is systems with significantly large rank and/or income differences and/or inefficient, i.e. significantly vertically organized. Anarchies are systems with significantly small rank and income differences, plus efficiency, i.e. significantly horizontally organized.
These brief definitions are simplifications. Seen not so simplified, a horizontal organization is not necessarily per definition efficient, but empirical research tell us it is practically always so. A vertical organization is not per definition inefficient, but empirical research tell us it is practically always so. Also, an inefficient organization is empirically practically always a significant vertical organization, a State in a broad societal meaning. This is the general cases, there are probably exceptions in special cases, but here we concentrate on the general cases, thus the brief simplified definitions.
The results of the economic-political systems of the anarchies Norway, the Swiss Confederation and Iceland confirm the basic libertarian hypothesis that a horizontal structure, i.e. a significant autonomous and socialist system, is efficient and fair. Empirical data of other systems confirm that a top heavy structure, capitalist (economical plutarchist) and/or statist, is unfair and/or inefficient.
There are as indicated above an economic dimension, i.e. income (remuneration),
and a noneconomic dimension, i.e. the political\administrative, constituting
rank.
Although income often follows rank, it is not necessarily so. A bit simplified economic-political systems may be based on:
1. Small income differences [=socialism] vs large [= capitalism]; and
2. Small rank differences [=autonomy] vs large [= statism].
Thus, there are four main forms of systems and 4x4 = 16 subsystems. Anarchists have discussed and suggested ideals and principles as a leading star (top of the Economic-Political map), and anarchism is economic political systems more socialist than capitalist, and more autonomous than statist, i.e. relatively small income and rank differences. A systems place on the map will depend on the definitions of socialism/capitalism and autonomy/statism. The Anarchist International (included IIFOR and IAT) has its own definitions, see below in chapter V. B, and the definitions are a bit more complicated than 1 and 2 above. The definitions can be discussed more, and AI is open for a debate on the definitions of socialism/capitalism and autonomy/statism. Feel free to use your own definitions of socialism/capitalism and autonomy/statism releated to the map.
The superiors in rank and/or income in private and public sectors are for simplicity called the bureaucracy. The people are the total population minus the bureaucracy. A bit simplified: The state, defined as a social concept, that's just the bureaucracy. However, the political/administrative state, i.e. the part of the bureaucracy with subordinates in rank in their occupation (in private and public sector). This is the typical concept of state in anarchist science, i.e. in the meaning of statism. Differences in rank constitute the degree of statism. In this case the economic dimension of the hierarchy is left to the concept of capitalism, i.e. economical plutarchy. To be more precise: If the bureaucracy is practically not (insignificant) rulers, i.e. we have a "bottom up" approach and the system is not a top heavy pyramid, we have Anarchy, and not State. That is anarchism with more than or equal to 50% anarchy-degree.
It is important to understand that the word state related to anarchism is used about two different concepts: 1. the state as a general social or societal organizational concept, i.e. significant economical and/or political administrative hierarchy, and 2. the state as a purely political/administrative concept, statism, i.e. significant political/administrative hierarchy. Both these concepts is relevant for private as well as public sector, activities, services and enterprises. Thus, principally, as indicated above, the concepts of state related to anarchism, must not be mixed up with the concept of State defined as 3. central/federal/confederal public sector, or 4. the whole country, nation, society or system. Anarchism and anarchists are principally opposed to, and want alternatives to the state in the meaning of 1. and 2., but not opposed to the State in the meaning of 3. and 4., and this must principally never be mixed up.
However the anarchist principle of decentralization indicates that the bulk of public activities should be related to the communes, not a central/federal/confederal body. But taking all anarchist principles into account it will in general not be optimal to only have communal public sector, i.e. no central/federal/confederal public organization. However the central/federal/confederal public enterprises and decision organs may very well be spread to local commmunes all over the countries, say, a confederal decision may be taken by referendum or general consent in all the communes, and not necessarily located to a delegated council in the capital city (perhaps a capital city is not even necessary.)
The State broadly defined as a societal concept. The State as a broad societal concept is archy, i.e. x-archy, where x can be anything but not 'an', that is top heavy political/adminstrative and/or economical societal pyramid. Statism is one dimsension of the State and economical plutarchy, i.e. capitalism, the other. The State may also be an ochlarchy, etc. The State = government = archy must not be mixed up with public sector and the central administration. The public sector and the central administration, often wrongly called state or government in Orwellian "1984" newspeak, if significantly horizontally organized, i.e. without top heavy pyramid, are anarchist. A well functioning public sector and central administration are necessary for anarchy and anarchim. The State may be present in several forms both in private and public sector. Anarchist are against the State in general, both in public and private sector.
Anarchism is one of four main quadrants of the economic-political map, and economically based on socialism, i.e. the negation of economical plutarchy (capitalism), and political/adminstratively based on autonomy, i.e. the negation of statism. Furthermore, the other 3 quadrants represent liberalism, based on economical plutarchy without statism, fascism based on economical plutarchy with statism, and marxism based on statism without economical plutarchy.
The map indicates the degree of democracy concerning both the economic and the political/administrative dimensions, taking into account the 16 subsections, i.e. sectors, of the main quadrants:
1. The anarchist ideal at the top of the map, with individualist anarchism to the right, collectivist anarchism to the left, and social-individualist anarchism, a.k.a. liberal social-democracy (narrowly defined), close to the middle of the map.
2. Marxist collectivism close to the anarchist left; marxist social democracy close to the middle, and the more statist and authoritarian socialist left and state communism (leninism) located at the left corner and down, close to fascism, respectively. A large part of marxist collectivism and a part of the social democratic sector, are semilibertarian, i.e. not significant authoritarian degree, but too statist to be anarchistic.
3. Left, right and ultra-fascism (nazism and other very chaotic tendencies) are found at the bottom of the map, with left and right populism above towards the middle. Nazism is is a system similar to Adolf Hitler's totalitarian "national-socialism", i.e. with racist tendencies, a form of ultra-fascism on the economic-political map.
4. Liberalism, i.e. conservatism and the extreme right are authoritarian; social liberalism is close to the middle of the map, and individualism is close to the right corner of the anarchist quadrant. A part of the social liberal sector, and a large part of individualism are semi-libertarian, i.e. not significant authoritarian degree, but too capitalistic to be anarchist. Arch-conservative liberalism is totaliarian, as well as the extreme right-liberalism.
The closer to the anarchist ideal, the more democratic is the economic-political system.
NB! A semilibertarian system is either 1. economically or 2. political/administrative authoritarian (buth not both), i.e. capitalist/economical plutarchy or statist respectively, significant, but in average, measured by the authoritarian degree, not significant authoritarian. Thus only anarchist (real democratic) systems are libertarian, i.e. not authoritarian in general: Libertarian both 1. economically and 2. political/administrative and 3. in average measured by the libertarian degree, significant. And thus either a system is anarchist (real democratic) and also libertarian, or authoritarian economically and/or political/administrative.
An extremist, person or organization, is the same as totalitarian on the EP-map, i.e. with more than 666 per thousand, or about 67%, authoritarian degree. Leftwing extremists or just left extremists to the left of the middle of the map, and rightwing extremists or just right extremists to the right of the middle.
The middlepoint of the map is defined as the turningpoint where the influence on the societal managment and coordination seen all in all, aggregated, shifts from a) more from the bottom, the people, and upwards - than from the top downwards to the bottom, i.e. fifty - fifty, economical and politica/administrative, to b) the opposite - more from the top - the authorities, towards the bottom - the grassroots, economical and/or political/administrative. In other words the middlepoint is a point of the map where the different forms of archies with respect to social organization turns over (revolts) to anarchy. Societies, organizations and social systems may shift coordinates related to the map in jumps, small jumps, steps or small steps. But any significant shift of coordinates is in reality a revolution, as reforms principally are just changes within a given system, i.e. with the same system-coordinates. A significant shift of system-coordinates may be soft as velvet, a velvet revolution, or more dramatic. Passing a border of the anarchist quadrant is in all cases a significant shift, and thus revolutionary, a small or big revolution.
Although theoretically and principally a certain and simple two-dimensional vector-figure may express a system's coordinates, described as a fixed, certain point on the map at a given time, practical mapping and data may be stocastical and influenced by the methods of aggregation. Thus a system's or society's coordinates on the map, may practically be noted just as a most likely figure and/or given by a confidence area that covers the real point on the map by some given probability. And thus, close to the borders of the anarchist quadrant, the real nature of the system, whether it is anarchist or not, may be discussed, and just a most likely, not certain, conclusion may be the result of an investigation, i.e. mapping of a social system. Similar problems of course may occur related to map in general.
The definition of the middlepoint is an independent axiom or assumption, related to the map, defining principally what is real democracy, i.e. identical to anarchy in an objectively way related to the de facto circulation of the influence on the management and coordination of a system or society from the people's perspective. It is however also possible to calibrate the map in more subjective ways. Say, a person 'allergic' to authority may subjectively think the above defined middle point has significant authoritarian degree, say, being fascist ("the Sex Pistols punk perspective"), and thus implicitely placing the fifty-fifty case in the fascis/populist quadrant on the map, setting a subjective higher standard for the definition of democracy. The opposite tendency, where an undemocratic system is thought of as real democratic, and thus in reality placing the fifty-fifty case definition above the middlepoint of the map, is also possible. The objective definition, based on the fifty-fifty influence case, is however also a politically based axiom, and thus in a way subjective or arbitrary or conventionally based, but not based on subjective impressions, it is a more politically neutral or balanced definition, related to the flow or circulation of the influence on the management from the people's perspective, whether this flow or circulation de facto mainly is in the favour of the people vs the authorities. Thus, it is objective in a neutral or matter of fact politically oriented way, related to the real meaning of the word democracy, not objective in a non-political way
Thus the E.P. map is seen in itself a more general theory, opening for subjective calibrations, than the map with the above mentioned objective calibration axiom or condition.
This opportunity opens for several interesting discussions and research. Say, if we ask the whole population, or the people (as opposed to the authorities), or the authorities, or other groups/strata, in a society, whether they think the society is real democratic defined in different ways, we may get subjective or intersubjective estimates of the position of the system, while the objective situation is something else. If we ask whether the system is socialist and autonomous, etc. we may get other estimates, a.s.o., and thus investigate how subjective impressions of the system differs from or are inconsistent with the objective situation, measured in a reasonable way, etc. Thus, using different calibrations of the map related to different investigations, we may analyse such things as alienated subjective misperceptions of the systems coordinates and place on the map more generally. We may also introduce some interesting questions about democracy and real democracy in general, say, if a majority of the population subjectively express that the system is real democratic, and objectively it is not, there is obvioulsy a problem.
Results indicating another other way around may also be problematic. If different groups or strata have different subjective opinions about the system coordinates, it may also rise a question related to how democratic the system is, etc. We will not discuss these problems on a full scale here, but they are very interesting, and should be investigated more. However the measurment of the objective situation, i.e. the real coordinates of the system, is probably the most important, similar to that the question about whether the earth is round or flat, must be analysed by objective investigations, and not by counting votes of what people believe. However since democracy is often about voting and subjectively based decisions, we get another dimension to this problem when discussing the coordinates of the map, and if the results from different types of investigations, subjective vs objective, related to statism, capitalism, democracy, etc are inconsistent and differing much, it may be a dilemma about the democracy and its functioning.
An example of such a dilemma is, say, if all of the people were like punks 'allergic' to authority, the system would be seen as fascist in the public room and via polls, in an intersubjective way, but perhaps be real democratic in an objective way, based on analysis of the de facto flows of influence on the societal management. The opposite situation may of course also occur and be an equally serious political dilemma. A realistic opinion about the system based on reasonable investigations of the de facto flows of influence may in the one hand be seen as preferable from anarchist point, but if the intersubjective opinion is a bit false compared to the objective investigation's results - in the "allergic punk" direction, this may give more motivation for the people to change the system in a progressive way towards more democracy. The authorities on the other hand may be interested in a false intersubjective opinion the other way around, to promote status quo, a.s.o..
In any case, a serious anarchist research institute must investigate and publish the most objective results available, although it may be problematic. Say, the political anarchist federations - as such - may be interested in a more "allergic punk" type intersubjective opinion among people. This is a dilemma with respect to objective anarchist research, because the objective results may be attacked by the political anarchist federations, and in fact often is so. However, the information of the anarchist federation would probably be more efficient if it was presented as scientific and objective in a credible way, signed by "objective" institutes, and thus not be exposed as propaganda. However if the IIFOR were exposed as giving a bias in the research in this directions, it will loose credibility, so they don't act that way. But the dilemma is quite clear, because a slightly bias in the "allergic punk" direction not discovered, would have worked in a more progressive way. Thus de facto the anarchist research may sometimes have a slightly reactionary effect on the political development, i.e. the objective truth may have a slight authoritarian tendency, at least in the short run.
However if matter of fact criticism is working, even a slight bias will probably be exposed, especially in the long run, and thus to secure sustainable credibility, the anarchist research must do and publish the most objective truth, regardless of any possible short term propaganda benefits for the political anarchist federations. Furthermore, to expose the truth and not the lies is in itself an important part of the concept of freedom, and as a basis for rational freedom of choice. Thus, the anarchist research should be as much as possible objective and not have a propagandistic bias in any direction. This is as indicated above the research policy of the IIFOR and the research results presented at AIIS, www.anarchy.no , i.e. it has a high research ethical standard. However political and praxeological debates, also based on subjective opinions, may of course have propagandistic and /or polemical and/or ironical tendencies, i.e. within the general framework of having a clear matter of fact point.The AIIS-editorial staff, and especially the research editors however always tries to keep up a scientifical, non-biased basis for the praxelogical research and political actions. The temptations of short term political benefits by biased propagandistic "research" is totally rejected.
The similar, but in a way opposite problem of research based on the authorities perspective, i.e. other institutes than anarchist, is of course even more of a dilemma from democratic perspective, especially since the authorities often control much of the research in society economically and/or political/administratively. The free, matter of fact, criticism, a.o.t. in the newsmedia, is a must in a democratic and anarchist society.
To understand the nature of economic-political systems, theoretical and empirical, the following is an important theorem:
(1) If a system moves rightwards from the upper, i.e. advanced, part of the social democrat sector, the system reaches the anarchist sector of social individualism.
(2) And if it moves sufficient further right, it reaches the social liberal sector.
(3) Thus, such an anarchist system is found in the middle between an advanced social democrat system and a social liberal.
Anarchism is typically found in the middle, and not, say far left or right. The above mentioned type of anarchy is not the ideal form with a degree of anarchy = 100%, at the top of the map. But still the degree is significant, i.e. it is anarchy.
As indicated above anarchy, anarchist and anarchism mean in short management/coordination without rule-r-s, tyranny and slavery, i.e. not without rules or law.
There is a travesty of 'anarchism' and 'anarch'y, i.e. authoritarian and not anarchist - created by authorities and authoritarians that will harm the anarchist movement, and support ruling and rulers, and their 'useful' idiots. This travesty is ochlarchy, ochlarchist and ochlarchists, broadly defined, i.e. mob rule and similar tendencies including terrorism, mafia and criminality, anti-archy, anti-government and similar activities and oclarchical actions, etc, - falsely called 'anarchy', 'anarchist', 'anarchism', 'anarchists' and similar. This travesty is a completely false approach and thus 100% not consistent or compatible with anarchy and anarchism in real terms in any form, and what is anarchist and thus anarchists. Persons, societies and situations compatible to - or acting according to this authoritarian travesty, including contradictive mixes of anarchist and such authoritarian ochlarchist tendencies, i.e. significant mixes of anarchist and the non-anarchistic, are chaotic, inconsistent, and thus authoritarian and neither valid anarchism nor anarchy, anarchist nor anarchists, etc.
It must be said load and clear that valid anarchism is, and has been ever since after Peter Kropotkin published "Modern Science and Anarchism" 1903-1913 and confirmed on later anarchist congresses, principally a consistent research front of libertarian research, based on the same methods as modern natural sciences, but not in itself a natural science, being social scientific with a praxeological approach. And thus economical, political and social research and ideas, even with just a little touch of marxian, hegelian or other dialectics and pseudoscience, liberalistical metaphysical tendencies, populist new age or other religious ideas, principally brake the methodological basis of anarchism, and thus must be rejected as not valid as anarchism and anarchist. It may of course sometimes be possible to reformulate non-anarchist ideas and make them compatible to the anarchist methodology and framework, but this is something else than including such ideas directly as a part of anarchism. Say, things and events that look dialectical in an hegelian or marxian way, may be investigated by the natural scientifical method, and be explained in an anarchistic way. This point of view implicates that all things and events principally have a logical, scientifical explanation, however perhaps not as easy explained as it may seem as first sight. This is discussed more in chapter V.B. in this file.
But concepts as "anarcho-marxism" and "anarcho-capitalism", are "anarchy"-statism and "anarchy"-plutarchy respectively, and thus not anarchy or anarchism in real terms, because these concepts are contradictive and thus not consistent. Thus, "anarcho-marxism" is marxism and not anarchism, and "anarcho-capitalism" is capitalism (typically liberalism) and not anarchism, if these concepts are not so chaotic that they are some kind of populism/fascism in real terms.
As the heavy pressure from a) media presenting ochlarchy, ochlarchs and ochlarchists broadly defined falsely as 'anarchy', 'anarchists', etc, acting like the 4th power of the State and not a free press, and b) authoritarian education in general, supporting the false travesty of 'anarchy', 'anarchism', 'anarchist' and 'anarchists', have c) a big learning and educating effect in a derogative sense from anarchist point of view, d) a lot of naive persons and/or ochlarchists and ochlarchs broadly defined, provokers included, acting according to the authoritarian travesty may be or are being called and/or call themselves 'anarchists', without being so at all.
De facto a) such ochlarchy, ochlarchs, ochlarchists, and similar i.e. significant autoritarian, - falsely posing or calling themselves, or being called so by others, - anarchy, anarchism, anarchists or anarchs, etc, b) have not at all and never - and will never - as long as they are acting in this way and regardless of what thay say or preach - be anarchists, anarchy, anarchism, anarchist, anarch and similar.
And thus, a) because of this heavy learning pressure towards adopting a social role and act according to the travesty of 'anarchy' and 'anarchists', including mixes of the travesty of 'anarchy', i.e. ochlarchy and anarchy & similar, from the media and authoritarian education in general, of course b) a lot of persons, since the foundation of the anarchist movement about 1850 related to some of Proudhon's works, have been ochlarchs and ochlarchists - and falsely calling themselves or being called anarchists, sometimes first being called 'anarchist' derogatively by authorities and media, and then adopting the label for different purposes - or similar c) have never been anarchists. Similar for situations, systems, organizations, and societies, called anarchy, anarchist or anarchism. Thus, the history of anarchism and the anarchist movement, written by the authorities, authoritarians and/or their 'useful' idiots, and even by some rather naive more or less (semi-)libertarian, have included some - or a lot of persons, ideas, organizations, factions, societies and systems in general, that have been ochlarchical and authoritarian, and never been anarchist, anarchy, anarchism or anarchists, i.e. having a significant degree of anarchy.
All this false history writing, reflecting the ochlarchy = 'anarchy' travesty game, have never been acknowledged by anarchists, i.e. having a significant degre of anarchy. Anarchists have never accepted to play the social (or rather antisocial) role according to the travesty of 'anarchy' = ochlarchy, although the pressure towards playing this role from media, acting like the 4th power of the State, and the authorities and authoritarians may be enormous. And anarchists of course have been ironically joking in this context. Persons that don't understand irony, deadly irony and the irony of fate included, can never understand anarchism.
Why this travesty of ochlarchy = 'anarchy' game from the authoritarians? You should perhaps have guessed already? The purpose is
a) to falsely legitimate and make the people want authority, archies, and the arch - and even more authority when the game is played hard -
b) throw shit on the idea of freedom, a free society, anarchy and real democracy in general, to
c) make authority and the State in societal perspective, archies i.e. monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy, and/or plutarchy - with ochlarchy broadly defined also including rivaling states within the state, i.e more or less chaos - and the more the more authoritarian - the more statism and capitalism, i.e. authority in general look like a necessity, also
d) falsely calling authority and the ruling ochlarchy and chaos - tyranny and slavery, = 'real freedom', ' libertarian', 'class-less' and similar (and thus implicitely falsely calling it anarchy, i.e. libertarian, to make people even more confused, and falsely legitimate authority), and
e) producing through the indoctrination via media and education in general of the travesty of 'anarchy' = ochlarchy, some ochlarchists and ochlarchs making even more ochlarchy and chaos, falsely calling it 'anarchy' and the ochlarchists 'anarchists', (implicitely calling for the opposite of anarchy, that is archies and strong rule, more authority) to
f) via this 'opposition's' ochlarchy broadly defined, falsely called 'anarchy' (in reality these ochlarchs and ochlarchists, falsely posing as anarchists are 'useful' idiots of the authorities, playing the authorities own game, or deliberately authoritarians, such as nazis, police, marxians and/or other provokers falsely posing as 'anarchists') keeping people even more afraid and impowerished (also many of the people then get wrongly angry at the anarchists, and they get heavy persecuted - also by the authorities - and thus be driven against own will to be the first in line in a front against the establishment - while authoritarian forces in opposition wanting to take over the power thus can stay away from the most dangerous frontline, and thus also get rid of most of the anarchist opposition), then organizing a call for the strong man, more authority - based on
g) the psychology that people afraid and feeling impowerished are acting similar to the small child calling for the 'strong man' i.e. mom or dad, to clean up the mess, etc., forgetting however that the authoritarian rulers are not the nice mum and dad, but rule by ochlarchy broadly defined - in a vicious circle...
Perhaps a 90-100% degree of anarchy, 'heaven on earth' as defined above is hard to achieve in a society or country, and is a long term project, although principally the calibration of the map around the middlepoint should be done in a way that close to 100% anarchy is a realistic possibility and not utopian - at least in the long run. But everybody should agree that societies that are real democratic, i.e. the influence on the societal managemet and coordination goes more from the bottom, the grassroots and the people upwards - than the other way around, more from the top, the authorities - downwards to the bottom, i.e. anarchist systems on a reasonable lower rate of anarchism, close to, but > 50% degree of anarchy, is relatively easy to achieve. This is most likely achieved already in Norway since 1994, i.e. a degree of anarchy about ca 53% is a realistic estimate, (ca54% at the moment) and perhaps also there is anarchy in some other highly developed countries or places around the world, and several countries are probably close to anarchy and may perhaps reach this high level of social development in a relatively few years time. Time will show - the opportunity knox, - but it may easily go the other way, towards more authority economical, and political/administrative, both here and there.
The possible influence of the relatively small anarchist movement, the Anarchist International world wide, and its actions and arguments - on the general development must of course not be exaggerated, but the anarchists may perhaps now and then give some contributions to the megatrends here and there in the world of today in the right direction. And of course the Anarchist International of today, as anarchists always have raised their voice in this context and done, says a load and clear NO to the false mix of authoritarian tendencies and 'anarchy', and exposes the authoritarians' game of ochlarchy = 'anarchy' and ochlarchists falsely posing as 'anarchists' in this context, seen historically, today, and in the future.
Anarchism and anarchy are socialism plus autonomy as defined above, see the economic-political map, a system significantly flat organized both economic and political/administrative, efficient and fair, without top heavy pyramid economically and/or political/administrative, based on significant statism and/or capitalism. The results of the economic-political systems of the anarchies Norway, the Swiss Confederation and Iceland confirm the basic libertarian hypothesis that a horizontal structure, i.e. a significant autonomous and socialist system, is efficient and fair. Empirical data of other systems confirm that a top heavy structure, capitalist (economical plutarchist) and/or statist, is unfair and/or inefficient.
A. ANARCHY AND ANARCHISM DEFINED
With "society" we here usually mean a set and sum of social relationships among humans, meaning just a network of individuals and the relationships they generate. With "system" we usually mean society in this sense, plus the way to make decisions. These concepts include distribution of wealth, the accepted social norms, the structure of the political economy broadly defined, etc. This may be authoritarian, semilibertarian or libertarian, i.e. anarchist. The word system origins from Greek, "systema" from "synistanai" to place together; "syn" with, together, and "histanai" to set, i.e. a set or arrangement of things so related or connected as to form a unity.
In short and a bit simplified: "Do not expect me to provide you with a system. My system is Progress, that is to say the need to work constantly toward discovering the unknown while the past is being exhausted." P. J. Proudhon wrote in a letter of December 1851. This does not mean anarchism is without system, it is a whole set of systems related to the economic-political map. Here the term "system" a bit simplified means just "the way things are decided", and thus practically certain a society must have a system or several systems, and a place on the economic-political map, EPM. This wide definition of systems includes chaotic systems, typically ochlarchy with rivaling polyarchy/oligarchy, and they are practically always connected to superiors and subordinates - significant, and are thus not anarchies. Narrowly defined, system includes order, and anarchy also have system in this sense. Related to the EPM the wide definition of system is relevant, and thus a chaotic system has a place on the map, although being without system narrowly defined. More information about anarchy vs chaos, see the Oslo Convention and search for anarchy vs chaos at Anarkidebatt .
This however means we, Proudhon, IIFOR and other anarchists, will 1. not provide you with a fixed, dogmatic system once and for all. 2. "Proudhon's system" at that time, as well as today's updated research front of anarchism, is a front of Progress: The research front, using the scientifical method of the natural sciences - the hypotehical deductive method, is all of the time developing and improved as an accumulated capital of knowledge, consistent and with small -- and sometimes large -- breakthroughs and revolutions, in a progressive way.
The word anarchism is a bit problematic. Sorry to say, anglophone languages are very much twisted in an Orwellian "1984" "newspeak" way, to fool the people via the education to worship authority, compared to Nordic language. Say, in American/English:
A. Rules, rule = regler, regel (relatively fixed ways to settle things in an orderly way, i.e. regulations and regulatory means); but also, --
B. Rules, rule = hersking, hersker, herske (to be an arch/ruler, act as an arch, bestiality).
"Bestiality", literally = 1. of a beast, or the class of beasts. 2. having the qualitises of a beast; brutal, brutish, coarse, vile, degraded, stupid, irrational, gross, brute, imbruted, sottish, stolid, swinish, unintellectual, unspiritual, lascivious, beastly, depraved, low, carnal, ignorant, etc., 3. disagreable or unpleasent, nasty, abominable, - should be interpreted in a very broad sense, not literally = 1. Thus to act as an arch (bestiality) also has psychological and organizational aspects. Bestiality is especially the hall-mark of systems with more than 666 per thousand (ca 67%) authoritarian degree, see map above.
Thus in English/American the words 'archein (Greek) = herske (Nordic)' is translated to B. "rule" = to be an arch etc., but "rule" also is used as A. 'regel' = "rule" (i.e. rule(s) in the meaning of relatively fixed way(s) to settle things, disputes and conflicts in an orderly way, i.e. regulations and regulatory means = regel/regler). And thus, due to using one word to mean two very different things, i.e. A. and B, the anglophones are forced in an authoritarian way to think very much false and wrong about realities, with respect to anarchy, freedom and authority, that the Scandinavian people are not to the same extent. See the point! Anglophones are very much fooled by the authorities in this way, thus you probably cannot easily think free, but like a slave via psychological ruling, to think authority = ruler is necessary to keep order. In Norwegian a situation "an (without) arch(y)" "uten hersker" may very well considered to be with 'regler' because "hersker" = rules, and "regler" = rules, are quite different words. This is very difficult to understand with an anglophone basis.
C. Furthermore the Greek word "an" is not meaning "without" in general, but just as "an" in anaerobe and similar words, i.e. "an" means without what is mentioned in the suffix, but keeping what is essential in the matter, i.e. management in the meaning of coordination related to anarchy, see below E.):
Perhaps the understanding of rule and "without rule", and anarchy is still a bit obscure and foggy to you? It is not easy to break the "1984" newspeak authoritarian tendency in a language and its impact on the thinking and human actions. Thus we will try to clearify this even a bit more:
D. To fix this linguistical problem in a simple way, we mainly use the word "rules" in the meaning of one or more rules in case A, and the word "rule" and "ruling" in case B, unless something else is mentioned.
OK! This is not a perfect solution, but it is perhaps the best way to deal with this American/English 'baboon babble', without introducing new words, that takes long time and big influence on the newsmedia and dictionary editors.... But anarchists have certainly more problems getting through with the message in USA and the anglophone world in general, than in Norway. In America the news on anarchy are not news, but authoritarian 'baboon babble'. Similar in the UK, Ireland, Australia, Canada, Mauritius, New Zealand, etc. Thus, the anglophone dictionaries etc should change a bit. Why not introduce the term "reagel" = "regel", adopted from Norwegian, and stop using the words "rule"and "ruling" in the "doublethinking" Orwellian "1984" "newspeak" way, but stick to the meaning of case B, and drop the meaning in case A? Time will show... But to do away with the authoritarian doublethinking newspeak "rule" = herske & "rule" = regel" problem in American and English lingo will probably not happen fast. However after this discussion of passing by the anglophone 'baboon babble' to explain what anarchy is, we may try a brief definition:
E. The word "anarchy" origins from Greek. The original meaning, that everybody should stick to, is the following: The prefix "an" means "negation of", as in anaerobe vs aerobe, anandrous vs -androus, anhydride vs hydride, etc; i.e. "an" means without what is mentioned in the suffix, but keeping what is essential in the matter. The suffix "archy" means "rule (not rules or law), ruler, rulers, superior in contrast to subordinates, etc.", from Greek "archein", "to rule, to be first"; and "archos", "ruler" i.e. in a coercive, repressive, etc. manner, slavery and tyranny included. As mentioned "an" means without what is mentioned in the suffix, but keeping what is essential in the matter, i.e. in this case management in the meaning of coordination, but without ruling. The 'ruling' is not essential, but an evil alienation, i.e. bestiality. Thus "Anarchy" doesn't mean "without coordination, management, administration, etc.". Anarchy is management, coordination and administration etc. without ruling and thus without rulers. NB! Remember D. Anarchy and anarchism of course have and use regulations and regulatory means when necessary and optimal, i.e. significant selfregulation.
A language that use the same word "rule" for the Norwegian "regel" as well as "herske", is so bad, autoritarian and Orwellian "1984" "newspeak and "doublethinking", that it hardly deserve the word language, but should rather be called the anglophone 'baboon babble', not possible to speak anything but indistintincly about anarchy, i.e. real democracry, coercing the people to worship authority, to think like and be slaves, and throw shit on freedom by psychological ruling. It would be interesting to investigate the authoritarian manipulations of the languages in different cultures and countries. Certainly Norwegian is more in favor of expressing anarchist thoughts than American and English. But Finnish and German is perhaps worse than the anglophone, and what about Arabian? Albanian? Somalian? etc.? Americans, and the people in general, cannot be free with such authoritarian Orwellian "1984" newspeak. Strangely, Orwell, who invented the "newspeak"-concept was not capable of seeing through and reveal the newspeak tendencies in the British language, and not even Noam Chomsky, who knows a lot about the "Manufacturing of Consent" in the USA, has mentioned the "doublethinking" use of the word "rule" in his works.
This indicate the enormous authoritarian power of manufacturing artificially the language into a tool of the rulers by creating falsified "1984" type dictionaries, as say, Webster, Funk & Wagnall, Cambridge, etc. of today. The IAT gives the editors in general a big brown card warning. Even the most radical social critics, as Orwell and Chomsky have not by themselves managed to discover this evil, coercive and repressive ruler vs slavery-tendency within their own language, and exposed this false double use of the word "rule", the most basic 'baboon babble' in the economical-political world. To say "anarchy" = management/coordination "without rule" in English, sounds idiotic or meaning ochlarchy (mob rule, lawlessness), however management "uten hersking" i.e. with "regler", makes good sense in Norwegian, meaning realdemocracy.
We will now give a more detailed definition of anarchy:
Thus "arch" and "archy" in real terms, mean something more or less undesirable for the people, in contrast to the authorities, i.e. something that we could manage very well without, and anarchy means systems, organizations and (societal) structure based on coordination, management etc. without these undesirable elements.
The suffix "archy" means "rule (not rules or law), ruler, rulers, superior in contrast to subordinates, etc.", from Greek "archein", "to rule, to be first"; and "archos", "ruler" i.e. in a coercive, repressive, etc. manner, slavery and tyranny included. As mentioned "an" means without what is mentioned in the suffix, but keeping what is essential in the matter, i.e. in this case management in the meaning of coordination, but without ruling -- to put it a bit simple: . The 'ruling' is not essential, but an evil alienation, i.e. bestiality. Thus "Anarchy" doesn't mean "without coordination, management, administration, etc.".
The words "doctrine" and "ideology" should as indicated above here be understood in a non-derogative way, i.e. anarchism is a set of scientific relations and testable hypothesis and principles, with a logical consistent taxonomy of concepts revealing realities, developed by the research methods of the modern natural sciences, i.e. inductive-deductive and hypothetical deductive method broadly defined. Inductive-deductive and logic-deductive reasoning within the framework of the hypothetical deductive method, testable hypothesis, is essential to real science. The words "doctrine" and "ideology" in this context, should not be interpreted as a dogmatic doctrine, a false non-scientific belief or unrealistic, utopian system, say, with inconsistencies, circle-definitions, non-testable hypothesis, obscure propheties or philosophy, dialectics and/or "new-age" ideas, or just optimistic propagandistic paroles without scientific and matter of fact content. Propaganda and polemics without matter of fact, solid background in scientifical analysis, is not anarchist. If such systems, doctrines or ideology should be presented as "anarchism", this should at once be rejected as non-anarchist. The scientifical basis of anarchism is further discussed in chapter V."NOTES" at the foot of this web-page. Without defined precisely in this way, i.e. as scientific, anarchism should not be called a doctrine, ideology or philosphy, because it may then be mixed up with a dogmatic doctrine, a false non-scientific belief or unrealistic, utopian system, say, with inconsistencies, circle-definitions, non-testable hypothesis, obscure propheties or philosophy, dialectics and/or "new-age" ideas, or just optimistic propagandistic paroles without scientifical and matter of fact content.
Briefly defined anarchy and anarchism are coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, i.e. horizontal organization and co-operation without coercion. This means practically or ideally, i.e. ordinary vs perfect horizontal organization respectively. Thus, anarchy and anarchism mean real democracy, economical and political/administrative, in private and public sector.
Coercion is defined in the following way: Coerce, from Latin coercere , to surround, from co = together and arcere = to confine. 1. to confine, restrain by force, to keep from acting by force, to repress. 2. to constrain, to compel, to effect by force, to enforce. Anarchist systems have ideally no coercion, practically, as little as possible coercion, taking into account the anarchist principles in general, human rights interpreted in a libertarian way included. Sometimes co-operation with practically no coercion implies use of violence to keep violent persons from acting by force, say, in self defense. Violence is however generally an evil, that should be used as little as possible. We need to distinguish aggressive coercion from defensive coercion.
Thus, an anarchist is also one that rejects economical and political/administrative exploitation and repression broadly defined, in public and private sector of the society.
Anarchy is real democracy
1. Anarchy and anarchism mean "system and management without ruler(s), i.e. co-operation without repression, tyranny and slavery".
Briefly defined anarchy and anarchism are coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, i.e. horizontal organization and co-operation without coercion. This means practically or ideally, i.e. ordinary vs perfect horizontal organization respectively. Thus, anarchy and anarchism mean real democracy, economical and political/administrative, in private and public sector.
Anarchies are systems with significantly small rank and income differences, plus efficiency, i.e. significantly horizontally organized.
2. Briefly defined State/authority/government in a broad societal meaning is systems with significantly large rank and/or income differences and/or inefficient, i.e. significantly vertically organized.
(This is opposed to Max Weber's definition. The crucial point is horizontal vs vertical organization, not whether there are one or several law and order agencies in a local area. The article "Anarchism vs "anarcho"-capitalist "law and order" by H. Fagerhus at the Anarchy debate shows clearly that "anarcho"-capitalist and similar "law and order" will function as a state as defined in 2. More about Max Weber's outdated definitions of state and anarchy, and the modern definitions, see Concepts - Begreper . )
We are for anarchy and anarchism as defined in 1, and against State/authority/government as defined in 2.
A bit simplified: Society is private sector plus public sector, both significantly horizontally organized in anarchy.
* Real democracy means one vote per head, participatory, plus anarchist basic rights that secure that the majority cannot decide that the minority must slave for them one way or the other, or worse. Thus the case that the majority "two wolves" decide that the minority "lamb" should be dinner, or similar is avoided. The anarchist rights can be brought for the anarchist law and order system, in case of disputes.
In some cases, say, at which side on the road we should drive, right or left, simple majority > 50% is ok. In other cases general consent - a lot for, and no-one against, is necessary. In some cases 2/3 or 3/4 majority is ok.
General consent is many for and no one against. Via discussion, a consensus culture and negotations the anarchists try to achieve general consent, but this is not always possible. In case where a only a small minority is against, a resolution is decided by close to general consent. In other cases with different opinions regular voting may be the solution. Free fraction rights are directly applicable in all cases except for regulations and enforcement of the statutes. From a congress the following my be the case: The resolutions were decided with general consent or close to general consent.
"Fri fraksjonsrett gjelder i alle spørsmål unntatt vedtektsendringer og håndhevning av vedtektene. Det vil si at flertallets synspunkt ikke er bindende for mindretallet, så langt det er praktisk mulig å la to syn operere side om side. Det kan tenkes saker hvor mindretallets syn av praktiske grunner ikke kan hevdes uten at det fører til handlingslammelse. Mindretallet får finne seg i passivitet i slike tilfeller." (Resolution adopted by i AI)
As for private sector, based on markets, there is one dollar (or labor notes credit) one vote, and it is real democratic, anarchist, only if the income-distribution is significantly horizontally organized (and the economy is efficient). If the income-distribution is significantly hierarchical it is economical plutarchy, not anarchy/ism
As for public sector, it will be organized according to *. Marxism, fascism and liberalism are different forms of state/government/authority/archy. A deeper analysis of real democracy vs pseudo- and semi-democracy and totalitarian regimes is found at Real democracy defined! - Real democracy definition and in chapter V.B. in this file.
Horizontal organization, a bottom up approach as opposed to a top down approach, economically and political/administrative, means organization without ruler(s) - arch(s), i. e. not without management, but 1. organization with significant small income and rank differences, 2. empowered workers with significant influence and freedom within a framework, and 3. real democratic control one way or the other. It is not a system where the management takes orders from the workers, unless the case with 100% flat organization. A horizontal organization has a degree of flatness, an anarchy degree, between 50 % and 100 %, the anarchist ideal. Workers mean the frontline in an organization.
By the act of voting, the people operate in a sovereign capacity, in the meaning of paramount, supreme self-management and self-administration, independent, autonomous, empowered, etc., at the moment of voting and with some consequences for a limited time. Elections are a necessary, but not sufficient condition of real democracy, see this file chapter V.B.. Elections of significant rulers are not real democracy.
Elected delegates and mandated persons that don't respond adequately and positively on direct actions by the people, seen as a class as opposed to the superiors in rank and/or income (if any), should of course not be re-elected, should not have been elected in the first place, and should be sacked, voted out, as soon as possible. Elected delegates and mandated persons should also approximately take into account direct actions by minorities among the people, a) approximately proportional to the weight behind an action, also taking into account libertarian human rights, in a way that the minorities' rights are secured, and b) also accounting for the principle "best argument wins", from both the people's and minorities' perspective.
The word anarchy as mentioned origins from greek. The prefix "an" means "negation of" as in anaerobe versus aerobe and "arch" means "superior, i.e. in contrast to subordinates", as in archbishop, archangel, archduke, arch villain, etc. Thus anarchy, anarchism, anarchist, a.s.o., mean coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates , i.e. horizontal organization and co-operation without coercion, ideally or practically. Anarchy, [an-arch]-y means [an = without, arch = ruler(s)]-y = system, management as in monarch-y.
Thus anarchy and anarchism mean "system and management without ruler(s), i.e. co-operation without repression, tyranny and slavery". That is economic and political/administrative, societal, management from the people, grassroots, and upwards - significantly, a bottom - up approach, act coordinate and on equal footing, significantly; without a top heavy pyramid in rank and/or income, i.e. without a top - down approach. In short, a system with relatively small rank and income differences, and efficient. A key-concept in this connection is 'coordination without repression'. This is the opposite of significant authoritarian tendencies, i.e. different types of superiors and subordinates, significant, a top - down approach, act as superior vs subordinate, significantly; in short a system with relatively large rank and/or income differences, and/or inefficient.
To put it simple, a top - down approach means i) more influence from the top downwards to the bottom, while a bottom - up approach is the opposite, ii) more influence from the people, grassroots, the bottom, and upwards, so iii) the top, the bureaucracy broadly defined, mainly, i.e. more than 50% = significant, is acting as servants of the people, and not the other way around, - accounting for what is really going on in the society. This means both economically and political/administrative. The situation ii) and iii), economical and political/administrative, means anarchism, anarchy and real democracy, as opposed to marxism, liberalism and fascism broadly defined.
***
A dialog on democracy
- We are not all equals when voting, the majority necessarily always becomes the master of the minority, regardless of how trivial the issue is.
I don't think so. As an example I mentioned 1: In some cases, say, at which side on the road we should drive, right or left, simple majority > 50% is ok . The minority that wanted to drive, say, at the left side is not slaves and the majority that decided to drive on the right side, is not masters. In general if the majority does not impose a slave contract on the minority, they are not masters, and the minority slaves.
- Do you believe that it is anarchistic to support taxation?
2. If by general consent - many for and no one against, it is decided to make a tax in the meaning of contribution to finance a public/collective good, this is 100% anarchist, and voluntarely.
3. For anarchies of low degree, say 55% degree of anarchism and 45% authoritarian degree, I think also other forms of taxation is possible, dependent on the situation.
- Perhaps you could give an example of an issue that would require a vote, wherein this flaw would not occur?
I have given examples that is clearly ca 100% anarchist in 1. and 2. above.
- I hate to pursue your example, as it is so very trivial, but could you answer the following. Say 60% vote to drive on the right (all Americans) and 40% vote to drive on the left (all Australians). All say "I will not drive on the X side of the road, none of us have learned to drive that way and we don't have to drive that way now. We will drive on whichever side we want. We Australians will not be slaves to the desires of the Americans, we have just as much a right to drive on the side of the road that we want." OK, how would you resolve the question? And don't give me a 40% anarchist and 60% authoritarian sort of answer, please give me a 100% anarchist answer, please.
First I must say that it is not an anarchist solution that each person can select to drive on the side they want to drive, and change it at random. According to Proudhon anarchy is order, and this is chaos/ochlarchy, and thus not anarchy. I think to achieve an orderly, anarchist, traffic, each country, autonomously, must choose by majority voting which side to drive on. This is not reasonable libertarian a communal or individual case. And this has very little to zero to do with masters and slaves. Thus if the majority of Australians vote for left drive, it is ok anarchist. If the majority of Americans vote for right drive, it is ok anarchist. If the left driving Australians travel to America, they must drive to the right. If the Americans go to Australia they must drive to the left. This is the ca 100% anarchist solution, to your questions. I don't think Americans shall vote with 60% over Austrialians 40% that the Australians should drive to the right. This goes against a country's autonomy. Autonomy is an anarchist principle.
- The key here is "many for and no one against" that means all not many are for it, and such a situation begs the question. If everyone wants it, the vote is irrelevant. But now for the more realistic situation. 70% vote to have universal taxation to pay for a collective good, but 30% say "absolutely not! We do not have to pay taxes, regardless of their use." Thus in your anarchist (100%) society must taxes then be voluntary? If not, I assure those 30% will definitely feel like are slaves to the majority! If yes, then this really isn't a vote, it is simply a survey on who wishes pay for something even if others don't participate. That is fine and would be within an anarchistic society.
Many for and nobody against is not exactly that all are for, is it? And even if all votes for a tax to finance a collective good, it is not the same as they all will pay when the bill arrives, trying to be "free" riders. Thus there must be sanctions against "free" riders, people that votes for the tax, and do not pay when the bill arrives. A system with a horizontally organized, real democratically managed, public sector, can secure that. And thus, the voting is not irrelevant.
In general if the majority does not impose a slave contract on the minority, they are not masters, and the minority slaves, with majority vote. If the minorities rights are secured so they get better off even if they are voted down, there is no slave contract, and the minorities are not slaves and the majority masters.
Repeating 3. For anarchies of low degree, say 55% degree of anarchism and 45% authoritarian degree, I think also other forms of taxation is possible, dependent on the situation.
- I have heard this from you a lot. Being just 30% authoritarian is the same saying "I am not a cheater, I only cheat 30% of the time."
I don't think the authoritarian degree is the same as percentage cheating. It is possible to be a bit authoritarian and be honest. In general a system with 50% or more anarchy degree, is significantly anarchist - i.e. anarchy (but not ideal anarchy = ca 100% anarchy degree).
- "If the minorities rights are secured so they get better off even if they are voted down, there is no slave contract, and the minorities are not slaves and the majority masters." Well thank you, I begin to understand your perception of anarchy . You believe that if everyone has some level of "rights" it is fine for the majority to determine how the whole population should live. Obviously, the right not to be taxed is not envisioned in your system. How do you propose that societies determine what those rights should be? Should it be by vote? Thus the majority should determine what rights you have and which you do not have? Let's hope the majority does not deny your right to be an anarchist, or perhaps that has already happened.
Of course the minorities could not be voted out on their rights to be anarchists. And the majority cannot determine how the whole population should live. I think the minorities' anarchist rights in a society close to the anarchist ideal, should be decided by general consent. Nobody knows in advance if they will be a minority or majority in different cases, and thus there is a strong incentive to give a minority great autonomy, and large anarchist rights in general. Furthermore if a minority think they are exposed to a slave contract via elections, they could go to the anarchist courts to settle things straight. The anarchist courts, by objective investigations, will help the minority to see if they are really better off, after the election or not. If the minority are not in reality better off, the anarchist courts will decide that the election is not valid, and other election alternatives, that secure the minorities right better, must be done. We also suggest
what is called "stereo-voting" where it is possible to put more weight on what you think is really important and less weight on other questions, i.e. to secure minorities' rights better.
The anarchist rights are rooted back to natural law, a.o.t. a libertarian interpretation of the UN Human rights, see Libertarian rights, and anarchist basic principles (for the anarchist ideal) in general, see What anarchists are for... for a brief introduction, and the Systems theory in general for a more deeper analysis. See also Updated ideas on anarchism and law and Real democracy defined! - Real democracy definition .
***
Direct action - definition
1. Direct action defined as an anarchist ideal principle.
At the second Nordic IFA/IAF congress in Oslo 1983, the following resolution was unanimously decided upon, regarding direct action as an anarchist ideal principle:
Direct action and indirect action. What is really that?
Direct action is the main strategy of anarchism.
An act is a direct action if:
- all persons who are direct, i.e. considerably and concretly affected by the matter (in question) decide on equal footing ;
- these persons themselves put the decisions into practice, and take the responsability of realizing the goal.
Both conditions must be satisfied. A direct action is therefore a direct democratic action. A direct action is then an action direct on the matter by those who are directly affected.
If the decisions are made by others than, or by only some of those who are directly affected by the matter in question, the action is not direct. All or most of those who are directly affected, will then be excluded from, or develop an indirect relation to the management of the action. That is a sort of indirect action.
If the matter in question is not approached directly, and the action is based on the purpose being realized by others than those who are are directly affected, the action is also indirect. In other words: if someone makes decisions which affect others direct and/or others than those affected are responible for realizing the purpose of the action, the action is indirect.
2. Direct action in practice.
a) If both conditions in 1. are based on general consent we have the ideal anarchist situation or close to, 90% - 100% flat organization. There are in practice many types of actions that are compatible with 1. If there is no general consent, Libertarian Human Rights for the minority must be secured, etc., i.e. being within the framework of Real Democracy , a bottom - up approach.
b) Direct action may also be used to stop repression and exploitation, i.e. against archs economically and/or political/administrative, a bottom - up approach. There are in practice many types of actions that are compatible with this.
c) In practice there exist degrees of direct vs indirect action, and an action must be significantly direct, i.e. equal to or more than 50% direct, to be accounted for as a direct action. Thus there must be a significant approximation to the ideal anarchist principle of direct action, see 1., otherways it is indirect action, i.e. significantly. As mentioned this means a bottom - up approach, influence from the people seen as class in contrast to superiors in rank and/or income - and upwards, significantly, and not the other way around, a top - down approach, significantly. Non-libertarian actions, say, ochlarchical, are clearly not direct actions, but a top - down approach..
d) A direct action may be non-violent or violent, but anarchists only accept defensive violence, proportionate in self defense. Other violent actions are ochlarchy and ochlarchist, and not anarchistic. See also Antimilitarism - an anarchist approach, IJA 2 (38) , for direct action in self-defense matters. Terrorism is never a direct action, it is clearly a top - down approach. But sabotage and even killing in pure self defense of aggressive, attacking murderer(s), alone or with allies, - if there is no other option - are direct action, a significant bottom - up approach. Terrorism is a form of ochlarchy, and as indicated very much a top - down approach, it is ultra-authoritarian and extremist, and not anarchist. Violence is an evil that should be used as little as possible.
e) Examples of non-violent direct actions are non-ochlarchical: e-mail campaigns, use of Websites, petitions and similar, also with lists of people signing up for the resolution, dialog, direct negotiation and arbitration, leaflets and books etc., stands, street demonstrations, rallies, co-operatives, self-employed and networks of self-employed, strikes - also general strike and workplace occupation strike, as long the strike does not go against life or health, boycott, sitins and blockades and sabotage in the meaning of working slow, referendum and direct democracy in general. See also point 2. a) and b).
Political or industrial direct actions are intended to have an immediate and noticeable effect that will influence a political administration or an employer. Anarchists' political/administrative and economic direct actions are actions for changing the societal organization in horizontal direction, and thus not violent attacks on persons and things, which are a top - down approach - economically and /or political/administrative [except in self-defense matters, see above].
This is the only strategy that works, there must be consistency between aims and means. The real aim is in general the consequences of the use of the means involved, not some ideological manifesto with good intentions, if any. Attacking persons and things will in general not change the societal organization in horizontal direction. In general, even if you kill the top boss, he or she will always be replaced by a new one on the top, perhaps even more authoritarian, and there is no shift of the societal organization in horizontal direction. Thus it is not anarchistic.
***
As indicated above anarchy, anarchist and anarchism mean in short management/coordination without rule-r-s, tyranny and slavery, i.e. not without rules or law. It must not be mixed up with anti-archy, or anti-government, the political tendency of, say, the Oklahoma-bomber Timothy McVeigh, i.e. terrorism and ochlarchy (mob rule). It is about organizing society in a more or less horizontally way, not killing people and/or destroy realcapital.
Another meaning of the term "arch" may also be mentioned, i.e. chief, of the first class, principal, as in "arch deed". This meaning of the word has less relevance to anarchy and anarchism as economical political concepts. Anarchists may of course do arch deeds, say, in science, sports etc., although the political work towards anarchy usually goes in small steps, step by step, without "arch deeds". Anarchists don't believe in miracles. Say, the term "propaganda by deed" means "guidence by example", a pedagocal principle, and has nothing to do with "arch deeds", especially not in a derogative meaning. But if someone will do a real arch deed for anarchy and anarchism, it would be nice. "Arch" in the rarely used meaning of "coy" or "shy", is also not relevant to anarchy and anarchism as political concepts. Furthermore "archi/arch" in the meaning of primitive, as traditionally used in biology, is used in general for a primitive type in a social context.
A significant primitivism is not considered anarchist. By "primitive" we don't mean "a simple life" if people prefere to live so for a while or all of the time, but rude, barbaric, "social-darwinistical", more or less rivaling tribes, making other people slave, one way or another, and/or living without birthcontrol, so death by starvation or hungerrelated illnesses rules the population, the marginal price on life is low, and thus everything evil and criminal, i.e. authoritarian, will typically happen. From the information on this Web-page, the IAT-Website IAT-APT and especially the APT-site, Anarchist press tribunal and the Oslo Convention, OC; plus "Antimilitarism and anarchist approach" IJA 2 (38), it follows logically that an archi-society, primitivism, is - or will end up in - ochlarchy, not anarchy. Primitivists are ochlarchists, not anarchists.
Arch may generally be used about "first class", as arch idiots, arch fools, etc. Of course anarchists should be pleased if (political/administrative and/or economical) "arch idiots" could learn to shut the mouth sometimes, and also the "ordinary idiots", but this use of the word has really nothing to do with anarchism and anarchy as political concepts broadly defined. It is connected to political/administrative and economical hierarchy, i.e. rank and income differences respectively and broadly defined, that "arch" is relevant for anarchy and anarchism.
The word "rule" sometimes is used in the meaning of "the best", "most eminent", etc. Say, in year 2001 a Canadian group wrote an e-mail to AIIS/IFA telling that the official web-site of the Anarchist International "rules":
"Your site absolutely
RULES. I am so glad that someone has taken the time to make
an excellent source on the structure and idealogy of anarchy
available tot he general public. For some reasons most
stuff found in public libraries is exceedinly negative. Thanks
again, and my collegues and I found your site to be a great
source for positive facts on anarchism.
Rock on
G.J, R.W and A.L"
This of course was just a nice greeting, and has no connection to rule or ruler in the meaning of economical and/or political/adminstrative repressive power or subordination.
Rule in the meaning prevail, as in "peace should rule", has not any connection to rule in the meaning rule over, to be an arch. In general the word rule has several meanings that have no connection to rule in the meaning rule over, to be an arch, and rule in these other meanings may of course also be used in an anarchist context, this is not contradictive, and should make no problem.
In the statement "Anarchy rules" the word "rules" means either "the best", "most eminent" or similar, or just that anarchy is the present system, anarchy prevails, thus the statement is not an oxymoron.
In the statement "Anarchy rules OK" the word "rules" just means that anarchy is the present system, anarchy prevails, and that it is an eminent or good system, thus the statement is not an oxymoron.
Furthermore "arch" in the meaning of a bow, an arc or an archway, also used in the word archer, origins back to French "arche", and Latin "arcus", and this has basically not anything to do with the consept of anarchy and anarchism, which origin from Greek. However, to bow for a tyrant, to be cowed or subdued, is not especially anarchist. Anarchist(s) should also be without arch in this meaning. This is however an accidental coincidence related to the words. Say, to build an arch, in the meaning of a bridge, say, for peace, may also be anarchistic, in this way anarchists may be with - and not without - arch. Thus, the latin word arch has only one interesting relation to anarchism and anarchy, i.e. in the meaning of "without to be subdued, cowed and/or bowed", and 'arch' in this case meaning also a subduing person or institution, one who tries significantly to cow and bow others, i.e. ruling or ruler in this way.
Above we have made a scientific analysis of the real and original meaning of the word or concept of anarchy, rooted bak to the Greek origin of the prefix "an" and the suffix "archy". This analysis is made also by referring to the different interpretations of "an" and "arch(y)" found in most English and American dictionaries, say, as Webster's, Funk & Wagnalls, etc.. Furthermore, we have done a synthesis or aggregation, based on the analysis, trying to find the "main stream" or typical interpretations of the prefix and the suffix, and used these interpretations to generate and deduct a logically consistent interpretation of the concept of "anarchy" and "anarchism". Thus we have abstracted what is most relevant.
When we go back to these dictionaries, and search for the words "anarchy" and "anarchism", we will however discover something else, that:
A."anarchy" is interpreted in a quite different and derogative way, as, say, 1. (the complete) abscense of law and government (mainly in the meaning of public sector), 2. lawless confusion, political disorder and violence, sometimes terrorism included, and 3. general disorder, disorder in any sphere of activity, 4."without a leader, chief or ruler", from Greek "anarchia", lack of ruler or government, from "anarchos", without head, chief or ruler; "an" priv., and "archos", ruler; 5. with syn. lawlessness, disorder, tumult, rebellion, riot, insubordination; and
B."anarchism" 1. the theory that all forms of goverment are incompatible with individual and social liberty and should be abolished; and 2. the methods, especially terroristic ones, of anarchists, 3. philosophic anarchism, the advocacy of voluntary co-operation and mutual aid as a substitute for coercive power of the state, 4. the theory that formal government of any kind is unnecessary and wrong in principle; the doctrine and practice of anarchists, and 5. anarchy, confusion, lawlessness.
C. In short, anarchy and anarchism are chaos.
This is quite the opposite of the logical consistent and scientific conclusion, deducted from the origins and original meanings of "an" and "archy" seen first apart and then together, as done above. It is a contradictive, inconsistent and thus chaotic, unlogical and non-scientific interpretation, compared to the analysis made above. It is based on the wrong conclusion or prejudice that the real alternative to repressive (and more or less chaotic) rule(r(s)) are chaos, disorder, terror, etc. Furthermore chaos and disorder are typically ochlarchy and polyarchy in conflict, rivaling "states within the state", i.e. definitively different forms of rule and rulers, and not "without rule" or "lack of rulers", so this travesty "concept" is also contradictive, and thus non-scientific and not valid. In more poetical terms we may say, "to be anarch or to be an arch, that is the question" ('arch' here in the meaning trying to rule, be a ruler, or be bowed - ruled, according to the above given definitions.)
This unlogical and chaotic interpretation, which is simply wrong, rooted back to ancient authoritarian Leninistoid philosophers in Greece and their followers, who did not put the meaning of the two parts of the word anarchy properly together, is just the authoritarian travesty of the real concept of anarchy and anarchism.
Furthermore, the travesties of anarchy and anarchism are not only promoted in standard dictionaries and by authoritarian professors and media broadly defined, they are also promoted by Lenin's "useful" idiots and similar, acting according to this travesty. As long as the authoritarian and contradictive travesty of anarchism is dominant in the media, there will probaly always be some confused persons that will act according to the travesty, using their own twisted "logic" to believe that the ideal, by some mystical marxist dialectical way, can be reached by making the opposite, i.e. chaos and terror. Such creators of chaos, ochlarchists, terrorists, etc. have however principally nothing to do with the anarchist movement, whatever they may call themselves, or be called by the authorities and media. If the authoritarian travesty had not been so dominant, one reason for ochlarchy and terrorism would have been abrogated. However we see no need to discuss this extreme travesty further here, it is just similar to Orwellian "1984" newspeak, with similar repressive consequences. Anarchism, anarchist(s) and anarchy are not chaos, ochlarchy, ochlarcists and/or terrorism/terrorists.
Instead of using this travesty of anarchy and anarchism; persons, organizations and media should stick to the logical consistent interpretations and concepts of anarchy and anarchism, based on the original, real, meaning of "an" and "archy", quoted above in this article.
There also exist dictionaries, lexica and media that don't promote the extreme travesties of anarchy and anarchism, as presented in the standard dictionaries of this age. There are different degrees of the travesty vis-à-vis the logical real term concept deducted above, presented in the media broadly defined. Say, a more middle point of view, i.e. only partly a travesty, is found in Donal Rutherford's Dictionary of Economics, published by Routledge, London 1992:
"Anarchism. The political doctrine which asserts that economic and social life should not be subject to any governmental control. (The term "government" is here not defined, thus it is not possible to say if it means "public sector" or "vertically organized", ed. note). The leading early exponents of this view were Pierre Proudhon (1809-65) and Mikhail Bakunin (1815-76). In practice, anarchism has been applied to industrial organization in the form of workers' syndicates but experiments of this nature in France and Spain in the early twentieth century were short lived. Although anarchists share with socialists a dislike of capitalism, with laissez-faire economists a mistrust of the state and with members of the cooperative movement a belief that firms should be managed by labor, they are more extreme, especially in wanting the abolition of private property and being prepared to risk the abandonement of systems of law and order." (However, the term "private property" vis-à-vis "lawful possession in an anarchist way", is not discussed. The anarchist concept of possession or property is not extreme in any way, and anarchism is higher forms of order and democracy, not "abandonement of systems of law and order". Perhaps Rutherford has mixed up government, i.e. vertically organized, with public sector?)
Rutherford is also referring to A. Ritter's "Anarchism: A theoretical Analysis", Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1980, a book discussing a quite ideal or perfect form of anarchy/anarchism as an aim, as a parallell to theoretical "perfect competition" models in market economics, without saying much on how to deal with "free rider" problems and other authoritarian tendencies, and the means to reach the aim in general, outside advocating "free criticism", related to Goodwin's pre-anarchist works. "Free, matter of fact, criticism", is of course basical to anarchy and anarchism, but only a necessary, not a sufficient condition for it. Furthermore George Orwell's highly relevant criticism of Goodwin's ideas on "free criticism" is not mentioned in Ritter's work. Free criticism must not be used in a repressive way, as the maoists' "take self criticism" (ta sjølkritikk) ochlarchy. People should be educated to have self dicipline and self criticism, not take self criticism or cadaver dicipline.
While the extreme forms of the travesties of anarchism and anarchy are typically found in the standard dictionaries, for the people broadly defined; the more expensive lexicas, mainly used by the upper classes, often are a bit more matter of fact. From time to time even anarchists have been asked to write about or define anarchy or anarchism. Kropotkin's old article about anarchism in Encyclopedia Britannica, and an article about anarchism in the Norwegian Socialist Left's, SV's, PAX lexicon, may be mentioned. However, when an anarchist, quite seldom, is asked to open the mouth to the general public, for a short presentation, it is easy to present the concepts of anarchy, anarchist and anarchism in a superficial, shallow, or too propagandistic way. Both Kropotkin's and the other mentioned article have a touch of this tendency.
If we look just at the Encyclopedia Britannica. article, Malatesta's criticism of Kropotkin, that he relied too much on "natural harmony", seems to be correct. However we know better, because Kropotkin (and several other prominent anarchists, in the famous "Manifesto of the 16") among other things, supported the allies in the First World War. Thus, seen all in all, Kropotkin didn't believe too much in natural harmony. Neither did Malatesta; although he criticized Kropotkin for the support for the allies, he later took a clear stand against pacifism as well as terrorism. By the way, Kropotkin also said a clear No! to terrorism, although some authoritarian writers say the opposite. Enough of this discussion!
The basic fact that anarchy, means an-arch-y, i.e. management and coordination without ruler(s), not just "without rule", a vague term that superficially may be interpreted and manipulated in a lot of inconsistent ways, i.e. non-authoritarian as well as authoritarian, must never be forgotten. Especially when talking to the public via mass media. "An" means "without" as in an-aerobe, etc, "arch" means "ruler(s)" broadly defined, and "y" in this connection stands for system, management, coordination, as in monarch-y, oligarch-y, etc. The "an" is connected to "arch", not "y". Thus (an-arch)-y means without arch, but not without system, management, coordination, it means (an-arch)-system, management, coordination. In short an-arch-y = (an = without arch = ruler(s)) y = management.
It must also be mentioned that the travesty of anarchy generally is more frequent and extreme than the travesty of anarchism. A reason for this, is that while anarchism in a way is the property or possession of the anarchists, and thus in real terms to some extent is "copyrighted material" or a "trade mark", the word "anarchy" is "free" for anybody to interpret in the most inconsistent and derogative ways, for authoritarian propaganda and indoctrination. It is also clear that anarchy is the aim of anarchism and the anarchist movement. It is in no way logical to divide between these two concepts, and say we are against anarchy (the travesty), but for anarchism. This is a hopeless bow for the tyranny of authoritarian propaganda. Thus, to do away with the travesty of anarchy, is equally important as to do away with the travesty of anarchism.
Furthermore, the word democracy must always be interpreted as coordination, managemement etc. by the people, to be a really consistent concept, i.e. not rule by the people or the people as rulers, which are inconsistent and non-scientific. What "group" or "mass" should "the people" possibly rule i.e. over, if they should still exist as the people (grassroots) , and not be a kind of upper class? To rule, as opposite to coordination and management etc., is always management from the top, downwards. Thus, obviously, logically, scientifically and consistent, this mentioned "group" or "mass" (or "amount" or "set") must always be the zero group and mass (or "amount" or "set"). The same goes for the concept of "peoples' power" and "workers' power", broadly defined. In this case power means domination (over), as opposed to (balanced) strength.
We have in here in chapter II. A. done a basic semantic (from Greek semantikos. significant meaning) analysis, about the meaning, especially meaning in language, of the words anarchy and anarchism, explaining the concepts by abstracting from the basic and original meaning of "an" and "archy" in a logical consistent way. This is however a rather Platonic approach, i.e. to grasp the idea from within the realm of ideas and linguistic symbols. We may call this an 'a priori' approach in Kantian terms, since we principally have not dealt with material experience in this discussion, although some words have historical counterparts, as say 'anarchon' vs 'archon', in the meaning of a magistrate in the old Greek society. To further investigate what anarchy and anarchism are really about, we shall discuss the concepts in a more materialistic context, i.e. explain the material counterpart of the ideas of anarchy and anarchism as opposed to different forms of archies. In Kantian terms this may be called an 'a posteriori', 'after experience', materialistic approach to the matter.
This corresponds to 1. the a priori approach of mathematics, starting with some 'undefined terms' and linguistical rules, and thus deducting, say, 2 + 2 = 4, i.e. in the pure Platonical world of abstract ideas, as, say, in the work Principa Mathematica of Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead (1910-13), and 2. the a posteriori approach, say, as outlined by John Stuart Mill and others, where the empirical working hypothesis 2 + 2 = 4? may be tested by putting two stones plus two more stones on a table, and counting that the result is 2 + 2 = 4 all of the time, because 3. a thing (in this case one stone) neither doubles itself by itself (2 +2 = 5) nor vanishes by itself (2 + 2= 3), and thus the hypothesis 2 + 2= 4 is confirmed in practice, empirically. In this a posteriory case however, 2 + 2= 4 is principally not equally certain as in the a priori formal case, because in other parts of the universe or later on (say next time the working hypothesis is tested/observed), however not very likely, the negation of 3) may perhaps and principally happen. We don't know if 3. always is valid absolutely and unconditionally certain. Perhaps, as Henrik Ibsen said, "2 + 2 = 5 on Jupiter?" or other places/time, say, in outer space? Perhaps not very likely, and if we have no information indicating that the conditions behind 3. is not fullfilled, it is no reason to think it is not valid. But principally, it cannot 100% be rejected.
But if (there is always an if) we know 3. is valid with 100% probability, i.e. statistically absolutely certain, by som given conditions, then we can be certain 2 + 2 = 4 empirically, in the real world, say, when putting two and two stones on a table.This is so because things may principally be determined randomly and/or have another, nonrandom cause. However we cannot in the empirical, practical world be 100% certain in this question.Irritating enough.
This corresponds perhaps to chaos respectively order in a way, and is rooted down to the principle of contradiction, a = a and everything is a or not a. This is the basic principle of scientific knowledge, the real meaning, and we know science works, not perfect, but it works. The alternative, based on contradictions, doesn't work scientifically and is meaningless, nonsense. A basic hypothesis is that contradictions cannot appear in the real world, only in the the world of ideas. Even in a digital virtual reality, an appearing contradiction is not really a contradiction but can be traced and explained logically in the primary digital code. Perhaps if we could observe something that looked like a contradiction related to the real world, i.e. if it was not an hallucination or virtual reality, it may perhaps be explained in a similar way, related to a random or non-random course, via changes in electrons, photons, and other basic physical elements, and their movement. An unknown force or several forces may also principally explain something looking like a contradiction.
Thus, say, if, the theoretical possibility of a a real break of 3. over, should appear, it may perhaps have logical explanations, and thus not brake the contradiction principle after all. A hallucination, a thought or feeling, may be traced to and explained by bioelectrical events in some parts of the brain. Even so called chaos theory is really a form of order, based on mathematical fractal equations. And both random and nonrandom events may be expressed and described in a mathematical form, digital and/or other. However a mathematical model and its equations must never be thought of as the real world in itself, it is always, principally, existing in the world of ideas, on the paper, virtual reality. It may however correspond or correlate more or less exact to the real, material, world. For practical purposes a further discussion of these items should not be necessary. Thus, in chapter II.B. we will take on a more a posteriori position, i.e. case 2, and also based on 3. as well as assume that the contradiction principle is valid.
B. THE MAP
The model, i.e. the economical political map, is illustrated on fig. 1 above. Assuming two basic orthogonal dimensions, the political, i.e. statism vs. autonomism, and the economical, i.e. socialism vs. capitalism (economical plutarchy), we identify four main economic-political forms.
Each of the main economic-political forms, 1. anarchism, 2. marxism ((state-) communism, state socialism), 3. fascism and 4. liberalism, illustrated by the four quadrants on the map, are divided into four subsections (sectors) along the same dimensions.
"Socialism" and "autonomy" may be defined in different ways. Such definitions may be rooted back to equality, solidarity and freedom and other principles, along economic dimensions, and non-economical, i.e. political/administrative, broadly defined. The marxists put little weight on freedom, when discussing socialism, and the liberals put too little weight on equality and solidarity, when talking about autonomy. Thus, the libertarian consepts of socialism and autonomy, may differ a bit from the marxist and liberal definitions. Even within the libertarian movement there may be slightly different interpretations of autonomy and socialism. The map however is valid for different definitions of socialism vs capitalism, and autonomy vs statism. Thus, the map has a very general scientific validity. In this note on the economical political map, we will discuss the measurment of socialism and autonomy on broad basis.
In this context it must be mentioned that while
a) marxism typically is a quasi-religion/ideology and quasi-science which have one "devil", capitalism; per definition seen as the root of almost all social evils;
b) liberalism is an ideology, among other things, trying to explain large income-differences, plutarchy, as fairness, "free" markets as the "wholy spirit" ruling with an "invisible hand" to the benefit for all, and statism as a "devil"; (The "divine" connection is especially outspoken in, say, Portugal, with the well known "Commercial Bank of the Holy Spirit")
c) dogmatic "wannabe libertarian" or "autonomous" ideology has two "devils", capitalism and statism (more or less obscurely defined), which are seen as the roots of almost all social evils. In extreme form the"wannabe antistatist" will do away with the "state" wrongly meaning the public service of real law an order, to act criminally without sanctions, say do shoplifting of products, and thus make the producing workers broadly defined slave for them by not contribuing to their fair remuneration, i.e act like a small time plutarch, capitalistical, and rule by the"right" to the strongest, mob rule, i.e. ochlarchy, "mafiastate", including wrongly "wannabe anticapitalist" by destroying realcapital and other valuabale resources, and occupation of houses, etc. capitalistical, i.e. without having worked for the housing. All in all this means ochlarchy, the quite opposite of anarchy, as ochlarchy is essentially chaotic statist and capitalist, with polyarchy, oligarchy, plutarchy, rivaling "states within the state", mafia, i.e. authoritarian, and not libertarian. This tendency may be extreme. i.e. is a direct ideology of criminals. However sometimes this criminal element is less clear, especially in early stages of a "wannabe libertarian" movement, and the ideology is based on a more obscure antistate and anticapitalist idea, also sometimes including some idealistical dreams.
The moderate "wannabe" libertarianism is often combined with 1) a too optimistic view of man without "the two devils", being 2) very "anticapitalist", "antistatist" and/or "antiauthoritarian", i.e. rabid anti- but 3) only dreams for, say, "ideas" more or less about "an idle life with love, peace, wealth and freedom and everything for free". That is 4. with no real scientific, realistic, constructive organization theory of alternatives for life without statism and plutarchy, i.e. - just vague arch-optimistic utopian radicalist ideas, and 5) sometimes guru-hierarchical organizations, loose movements and/or blocs/blocks included, lead by symbolistical "tåkefyrster" , i.e. "fogarchs" with 6) more or less militant hate against the "two Satans" and destructive, also being 7) irrationally optimistic about own strength, totally underestimating the powers of the armed and other forces of their "devils" and 8) the problems with organization based on socialism and autonomy, sometimes trying to implement their "dreams" not by own work, but by occupations, theft, robbery, cheating on welfare, as "free riders", a.s.o., i.e. in reality capitalistic and/or statist, ochlarchy/terrorism included, on small or large scale; and 9) overestimating the possible popular support and participation for such a quasilibertarian and/or direct reactionary, unrealistic policy; etc.
"Tåkefyrster" , i.e. "fogarchs", that have vague, obscure ideas and unrealistical "workfree" dreams about the alternative future, often postponing it to a far future, and are great at uniting people against one or two "devils" of the establishment, say, doing "class war", but such movements in practice only are repeating plutarchy and/or statism, and thus may be semilibertarian or more or less authoritarian, - marxism, populism/fascism or liberalism, but not anarchistic.
At best such people are semilibertarian marxian to the left, individualistic liberalists to the right, or "populist light", at worst they are more than 67% authoritarian, dogmatic, intolerant, totalitarian, terroristic, fundamentalists, etc. In reality they are never located in the anarchist quadrant on the Economical-Political Map, despite of their (quasi-) libertarian rhetoric. A typical example is "van der Lubbe-ism", named after a marxist council communist utopian radicalist, probably burning down the parliament building in Berlin 1933, only serving authoritarian tendencies (nazism/fascism and marxist-leninism), and thus acting like a "useful" idiot of Lenin (and Hitler).
The marxist-lubbeism is not very far from the marxist-leninism of the German terrorist organization "Baader-Meinhof", RAF - Rote Armé Fraktion - Red Army Faction, - on the economical-political map, and both are far from anarchism on it. And RAF is not so far from the neonazis who again are not so far from the "libertarian" "Freihetliches" party of Jürg Haider in Austria. Say, a (former?) RAF-member in Germany joined the neonazis and supported the al-Qaeda terrorists, who attacked both Pentagon (symbol of the state) and World Trade Center (symbol of capitalism) in 2001. The American "FC55 -Unabomber" and his arch-primitivist followers are also in the same nest broadly defined, and they are not so far from the brown and blue "antigovernment" Oklahoma-bombers, and the extreme rightist "Olympiabomber".
All these political groups and tendencies are more than 67% authoritarian on the economical-political map, ideologically and/or in practice, spread not far from the bottom of the E.P. map from the left to the right respectively; Osama bin Laden's and "Doctor Dead" Ayman al-Zawahiri's, RAF, FC-55, Oklahoma and Olympia bombers' aims in ideological manifestos may be "anti-capitalist", "anti-imperialist", anti-globalisation" and/or "anti-state", "anti-archy", "anti-goverment" or "anti-authoritarian" with more or less "good intentions", but this is not relevant:
The real aim is generally the consequences of the means that are used, and nothing else, and "wannabe libertarians" never take that significant into account. That's why they are "wannabes" - and never libertarians, i.e. anarchists. Marx himself was also quite a quasiscientifical "fogarch" as well as his followers, postponing a "classless" (marxian) communist dream to a far future, and introducing strong rule and more or less one-party mafia-state, based on ochlarchy, rule by terror included. Other well known "fogarchs"and their movements are mentioned in chapter V at the foot of this web-page.
d) anarchism has no religion/ideology, and no devils, but look scientifically and critically on the matter and different cases, having the State in a societal context, i.e. capitalism and statism, as possible working hypothesis for evils in the society, but also look on other items, proportional to realities, trying to be as objective as possible (see discussion on objective below, search on "object" in this file). The most of the analysis is about realistic alternatives, a scientifical social organization theory for life without statism and plutarchy, - for autonomy and socialism, not rabid "anti-....", and with realistic strategies and tactics. Furthermore, anarchism take fully into account that the real aim is in general the consequences of the means that are used, and nothing else. (This point of view is further discussed in chapter V.)
Thus, the economical -political map is seen as a useful aggregated taxonomical tool for analysing important charachteristics and qualities of economical-political systems, i.e. societies, as well as economical and political programs and organizations, theories and practice, but it must not be used dogmatic, seen as accounting for all relevant societal things, per definition.
The EP-map may in a way be viewed as an economical-political parallell to national accounting and the consept of Gross National Product, GNP, etc., in economics; a very useful tool for analysis, but also with a lot of problems of principal, theoretical, practical and statistical nature. Some of these problems are discussed in chapter V and via links mentioned in this chapter.
1. The economical coordinate, the percentage degree of socialism, SOC, or capitalism, 100% - SOC, may depend about fifty-fifty on
a) the means of production and distribution being collectively (or more precise commonly or in common) vs privately owned*) and managed and
b) the degree of solidaric equality and freedom in economic terms;
or a similar interpretation of economical democracy vs plutarchy, significant economical hierarchy (capitalism - theft, broadly defined). Democracy means, quite simplified, "one person - one vote", i.e. equal votes for all in the elections. Markets however mean "one dollar - one vote". Thus markets are only economically democratic as far as money or other means of payment, among other things, the purchasing powers, are significant equally distributed according to anarchist principles. And thus, markets are probably only anarchistic, i.e. real democratic and non-plutarchical, if they are publicly regulated in a libertarian way, with free contracts - not slave contracts, etc. Ideally, anarchists want to use other means of payment than money, say, different forms of electronically accounted, convertible Work Credits (labor notes credtit), but money is of course a less evil than primitive exchange of goods and services, with no special means of payment at all. (See also point 3.)
2. The political coordinate, the percentage degree of statism, STA, or autonomism, 100% - STA, may depend on
a) the size of the state in meaning of government sector, local government and administrative bodies broadly defined included, and
b) its ramifications in establishments outside the state in the above sense;
or a similar interpretation of political/administrative democracy, or more generally, the degree of political/administrative freedom, solidarity and equality, etc. vs vertically organized political/administrative systems; The "government sector and its ramifications" means political/adminstratively vertically organized, and it is not always the same as "public sector". This means statism broadly defined, significant political/administrative hierarchy, monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy and/or ochlarchy (mob rule) included, in both public and private sector.
3. If an economical plutarchy, i.e. the relatively rich, take over significant political/administrative hierarchy in public and private sector, a political/administrative plutarchy is introduced. This is a form of populism/fascism. If significant political/administrative hierarchy, say, a military junta, take over significant economical hierarchy in public and private sector, another form of fascism/populism is established. Any combination of statism combined with plutarchy (capitalism) is a form of fascism. The statism may take the form of monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy and ochlarchy (mob rule, broadly defined including mafia, chaos, no human rights, no real law and order, real lawlessness, etc.) included, and principally also be based on political/administrative plutarchy, or combinations, in both public and private sector.
A social, economic-political system with free and fair elections of mandated representatives or delegates, usually called democracy, may function more from the top downwards, significant vertically organized, centralist or the opposite, from bottom upwards, significant horizontally organized, federalist, i.e. anarchy. Thus all anarchies are democracies but everything called democracy is not necessarily anarchist or anarchy. Many so called representative democracies may work more from the top downwards than the opposite, from the bottom upwards, and thus are not real democracies, anarchies, but archies. Thus anarchy is always democracy but not all democracies are anarchist, i.e. some democracies are archies, anarchy is as mentioned real democracy. Anarchy is just minor part of, a subset of, the total amount of democracy, because not all democracies are anarchies, real democratic. A lot of conditions must usually be fulfilled to secure that a democracy is a real democracy, i.e. anarchy. A lot of people's organizations broadly defined, a free press, i.e. not the 4th power of the State, dialog and free, matter of fact, criticism, all organized significantly according to anarchist principles, is a necessity. The existence of a sufficient amount of real alternatives, and a general balance of strength, significant stopping power in the meaning of domination, economical and political/administrative in public and private sectors, may also be mentioned.
A real scientific, i.e. a non-dogmatic anarchist way of thinking, as opposed to populist/fascist and relativist, marxist dialectical and liberalist more or less metaphysical way of thinking, is another important thing. By real scientifical, we mean using the natural scientifical method broadly defined, thinking principally and that hypothesis may be rejected, also taking into account realistic future scenarios related to different alternatives and actions, costs and benefits. Thus thinking, say, if this and that are the conditions, and these are the alternative actions, what are the probable alternative outcomes, - and then decide what actions are best, real democratic i.e. what is in the interest of the less benefitial majority of the population, the people vs the authorities and upper classes. "Best arguments win" and to get "competence effectively and fair through in the system" are benchmarks in this context. To critize the present proposals and situations without having a clearly better realistic alternative, is quite useless. For higher degrees of anarchy, usually different forms of co-operatives and federalist direct democracy organized according to anarchist principles are important parts of the economic-political system.
More precise definitions of the economical- and the political/administrative coordinates, interpreted in an essentially anarchist way, are found in Chapter IV. "Anarchism, State and Capitalism" below , and in the *) , i.e. chapter V. "Notes", at the foot of this web-page. For different interpretations of the concepts of socialism and autonomy, are however the following valid:
The map indicates the degree of democracy concerning both the economic and the political dimension, taking into account the 16 subsections, i.e. sectors, of the main quadrants. A bit simplified the 16 sectors may be explained in the following way:
1. The anarchist ideal at the top of the map, with individualist anarchism to the right, collectivist anarchism to the left, and social individualist anarchism close to the middle of the map.
2. Marxist semi-libertarian collectivism close to the anarchist left; social democracy close to the middle, and the more statist and authoritarian socialist left and state communism (leninism and similar) located at the left corner and down, close to fascism, respectively.
3. Left, right and ultra fascism (nazism and other very chaotic tendencies) are found at the bottom of the map, with( left, middle and right) populism above towards the middle.
4. Liberalism, i.e. conservatism and the extreme right are authoritarian; social liberalism is close to the middle of the map, and semi-libertarian individualism is close to the right corner of the anarchist quadrant.
The left-right dimension goes from 100% statism and socialism on the left wing, to 100% capitalism and autonomism on the right, associated with an ideal state-socialist planning system and a perfect competitive market system respectively. The progressive-reactionary dimension is orthogonal to the left-right dimension. This axis goes from 100% socialism and autonomism as the most progressive, to 100% capitalism and statism as the most reactionary.
Another important dimension is the libertarian-authoritarian, the 'altitude' of the map stated by the authoritarian degree, AUT%. Furthermore 100% - AUT% gives the libertarian or anarchist degree. The anarchist degree is only defined within the anarchist quadrant. Assuming that the degree of statism and capitalism contributes symmetrically to the authoritarian degree, this is indicated by the distance from the anarchist ideal, the top of the map. Thus, there exists an area on the economical-political map which is semi-libertarian, i.e. not authoritarian (authoritarian is more than 50% authoritarian degree), but not anarchistic. If the system has an authoritarian degree equal to or more than 50%, the system is either anarchist or semilibertarian to the right or left.
NB! A semilibertarian system is either 1. economically or 2. political/administrative authoritarian (buth not both), i.e. capitalist/economical plutarchy or statist respectively, significant, but in average, measured by the authoritarian degree, not significant authoritarian. Thus only anarchist (real democratic) systems are libertarian, i.e. not authoritarian in general: Libertarian both 1. economically and 2. political/administrative and 3. in average measured by the libertarian degree, significant. And thus either a system is anarchist (real democratic) and also libertarian, or authoritarian economically and/or political/administrative.
If the system is equal to, or more than 2/3, i.e. 66.6 666 666 666 ...% (ca 67%) authoritarian, it is called ultra-authoritarian, i.e. totalitarian, fundamentalistic and/or, primitive archi-society. These systems may also be called "hell on earth". All systems with less than 66.6... % authoritarian degree is called democratic, however only the anarchists systems are real democracies, i.e working more from the bottom upwards, than the other way around. The anarchist, real democratic 1/4 of the map, plus the semilibertarian systems to the left and right, have a total area of Pi/8 = ca 3,14/8 = ca 39%. The whole democratic area has Pi2/9 = ca 3.14x2/9 = 70% of the map. The totalitarian i.e. 2/3 or 66.6 etc % authoritarian, the systems with only 1/3 (33.3... %) libertaran or less tendencies, cover an area = 1 - Pi2/9 = ca 30% of the economical political map. The least authoritarian systems, i.e. with 1/3 ( ca 33,33 %) or less authoritarian degree are all found within the anarchist quadrant of the map, and cover an area of Pi/18 = ca 3.14/18 = ca 17 % of the map. Thus it is less systems that have under 1/3 (ca 33%) authoritarian tendencies, i.e. the most libertarian (17% of the map), than the most authoritarian, i.e. less than 1/3 libertarian tendencies (ca 30 % of the map). This indicates it may be much more easy to create hell than heaven on earth.
An extremist, person or organization, is the same as totalitarian on the EP-map, i.e. with more than 666 per thousand, or about 67%, authoritarian degree. Leftwing extremists or just left extremists to the left of the middle of the map, and rightwing extremists or just right extremists to the right of the middle.
We see on the EP-map that leftwing extremists are leftist ultra-fascists, most of left fascists, some leftist populists, a little more than half of the state-communists (leninists and maoists), and about 1/3 of left socialists. Rightwing extremists are rightist ultra-fascists, most of right fascists, some rightist populists, a little more than half of the conservative liberalists, and about 1/3 right liberalists. These figures refer to types of system, not number of persons. Anarchists are far from extremists, they are from the middlepoint and upwards on the map, not far left or far right, with 50% or less authoritarian degree. Extremists and totalitarians are practically certain either marxists, populists/fascists or liberalists, never anarchists.
Extremism typically also has social psychological roots. Keywords are mass hypnotic suggestion, totalitarian personality disorder, physical and psychical violence, a paranoid twisted travesty of reality, and ochlarchy (mob rule broadly defined) including criminality. Typically present is a form of charismatic leadership in the meaning a special quality of leadership that captures the popular imagination and inspires unswerving allegiance and devotion. Totalitarian personality disorder typically appears among both leadership and followers, rank and file, although sometimes in different forms. It may also appear at a single person or small sects, and in polyarchical networks. The main hallmark of totalitarian personality disorder is a significant will to cow, broadly defined, or support for such people or organizations. Typically is also complaining about hostility or mobbing, i.e. ochlarchy, when exposed to free, matter of fact criticism.
Political extremism is typically use of, or threat of use of, violence against persons and/or things, to achieve political aims. Political extremism is authoritarian, ochlarchist (ochlarchy = mob rule), the opposite of anarchist, according to the Oslo Convention. Persons doing political extremism are ochlarchists, the opposite of anarchists, and are thus expelled from the anarchist movement, regardless of what they may claim to be. Such ochlarchist infiltrators to the anarchist movement, get an expelling Brown Card from the International Anarchist Tribunal, for breaking the Oslo Convention. The only violence accepted by anarchists is violence, proportionate, in self defense, i.e. not political extremism. Anarchism is neither pacifism, nor political extremism, terrorism included. The anarchists condemn all forms of extremism.
Left and leftist and right and rightist are more relative concepts, and can be used in different contexts and connections, but standing alone leftist(s) typically means marxism from 50% - 100% left of the middlepoint of the EP map, and standing alone rightist(s) means liberalism from 50% to 100% to the right of the middlepoint, thus anarchism (and anarchists), which is between 50% to the left and 50% to the right of the middle on the EP map, is not at all left/leftist or right/rightist. Fascism are found downwards from the middlepoint of the EP map, and not far left or far right, but may typically be leftwing (left fascist) or rightwing extremism. The more unprecise term 'far right' for right fascism, in the meaning to the right and far from the middlepoint on the EP-map, may sometimes be used. Anarchism and anarchists are not extremism or extremists on the EP-map, and practically certain never in reality. However left and leftist(s) are not necessary extremists and ultra-authoritarian, they may be just authoritarian or even semi-democratic/semi-libertarian. Right and rightist(s) are not necessary extremists and ultra-authoritarian, they may be just authoritarian or even semi-democratic/semi-libertarian. Even if ochlarchical, left and leftist(s) and right and rightist(s) may in rare cases be just authoritarian and not ultra-authoritarian and extremists, but extremism and extremists are the typical cases.
1. A degree of anarchy = 100%, i.e. 100% socialism and autonomy, is mainly a theoretical concept, which probably practically never can be reached fully. The complete anarchist ideal is in a way similar to the horizon. When getting closer, another horizon appears. All things may be improved, also plans for the anarchist ideal. These new interpretations must however probably always be based on the IFA principles, i.e. the basic principles of the anarchist social ideal! The IFA principles, rooted back to the 1872 Conference of Saint-Imier in the Swiss Confederation and the decisions made at the Congress of Carrara in Italy, 1968, and adopted at the Congresses of IFA in Carrara 1978 and Oslo in Norway 1982, and later confirmed at the constitutional congress of the Anarchist International (AI), the International Anarchist Congress, i.e. the 5th Anarchist Biennial, arranged by the NAC/IFA/AI in Oslo medio December 1998 (the AI is a broader organization and network than the IFA anarchist federations of some countries in the South and North), are the following, 1-5:
2. French version: Ce sont les principes suivants: Negation de l'authorite et de tout pouvoir; Negation de la hierarchie; Negation des lois juridiques; Liberte, Egalite, Solidarite, Justice sociale, Contrat libre, Libre initiative, Atheisme, Antimilitarisme, Internationalisme, Decentralisme, Autonomie et federalisme, Autogestione et communisme libertaire. La negation de l'autorite et de tout pouvoir est le principe essentiel et le signe distinctif de l'anarchisme et du mouvement anarchiste. Tous les autres principes libertaires decoulent de cette negation de l'autorite et du pouvoir.
L'internationale des Federations Anarchistes (I.F.A.) est constitue par des Federations - une par pays. Ces Federations jouissent de pleine autonomie dans leurs structures et dans leur fonctionnement interieur, mais elles sont solidaires entre elles en vertu du pacte d'association commun, volontairement et librement accepte, qui constitue partie integrante de cette declaration de principe de l'anarchisme social. From the document "3eme Congres de l'IFA" edited by CRIFA, pp. 63-65.
3. English version: The basic principles of anarchism are: The negation of authority and all of its power, hierarchies and juridical laws. Freedom, equality, solidarity, social justice, free contract, free initiative, atheism, antimilitarism, internationalism, decentralism, autonomy and federalism, self management and 'comunismo libertario', i.e. not communism, but libertarian communalism - from each according to ability - to each according to needs. These concepts and principles should be considered all in all, not partially. In general the IFA principles should be interpreted consistent with the axiomatic principles (1) - (10) defining anarchy and anarchism in chapter IV.B. on this file.
Thus: Freedom, i.e. free people, freedom without damaging the freedom of other people. Federalism without autonomy is not anarchist. Social justice means a) anarchist law and court systems, compatible with the negation of hierarchy, etc., i.e. alternatives to authoritarian juridical laws; and b) antimilitarist corps broadly defined, sufficiently strong to keep order and keep up the balances of strength, as well as stop militarism, intra- and internationally. Generally speaking, antimilitarism is not pacifism...
4. Norwegian version: Det anarkistiske idealet - anarkistenes langsiktige økonomisk-politiske mål: Det anarkistiske idealet er generelt et samfunn såvidt mulig innrettet etter anarkistiske prinsipper, som en ledestjerne for den økonomisk-politiske styringen m.v.. Prinsippene for det anarkistiske idealsamfunnet er: 100% sosialisme og autonomi i vid forstand, effektivitet (Pareto-optimalitet, også med hensyn på miljøfaktorer) og rettferdighet (ombyttekriteriet, at ingen vil bytte posisjon med noen annen, når alt kommer til alt), minimale rangs- og lønnsforskjeller - politisk/administrativt og økonomisk hierarki, herunder frihet (uten andres frihets berøvelse, slaveri og tyranni), likhet, solidaritet; sosial justis inklusive libertær (frihetlig) lov (vedtatt direkte av folket selv eller via delegater) og optimal orden, rettssikkerhet og menneskerettigheter, frie kontrakter (ikke slavekontrakter), frie initiativer, ateisme (anarkismen er et sekulært prosjekt, men innebærer full religionsfrihet), antimilitarisme (basert på gjensidig nedrustning og styrkebalanse), internasjonalisme (ikke overnasjonalisme, eller nasjonalisme), desentralisme, selvstyre og føderalisme (ikke hierarkisk, EU-aktig), selvforvaltning (autogestion) og frihetlig kommunalisme, dvs. beslutninger tas i hovedsak lokalt av de vesentlig og konkret berørte - fra enhver etter evne - til enhver i følge behov. Et slikt samfunn er negasjonen av autoritet/regjering og all dens makt, hierarkier og juridiske lover. (The English and Norwegian versions were made by IIFOR in 1985 (preliminary versions), and used as study material, and later published on www.anarchy.no. They are both adopted by the later IFA-IAF and AI-IFA-IAF congresses in Oslo.)
5. These principles of social ideal anarchism constitute a leading star for anarchism in general, i.e. commune/communist, collectivist and individualist anarchism, as well as social individualist anarchism, practical social anarchy, anarchism and federalism included. To get a correct interpretation of the IFA-principles, the following should be taken into account: The Oslo-Convention, efficiency and fairness, anarchistically interpreted human rights and ethics and the economical political map, and anarchy vs other -archies. The anarchist ideal is defined by 100% socialism and autonomy, minimal income and rank differences, efficiency and fairness, consistent with the IFA- principles. When we sometimes use the words "no hierarchies" when describing the anarchist ideal, it is an approximation. The exact, practical, term is minimal hierarchies, economical and political/administrative, i.e. income- and rank-hierarchies, in an asymptotic approximation to zero hierarchies, when the society developes towards the 100% ideal, remember 1. There is more about the anarchist ideal, principles and practice in chapter III. The French, the English and the Norwegian versions complement one another and reflect some basic autonomy, and they should be interpreted consistently.
Other anarchist tendencies, eco-anarchism, anarcha-feminism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc., may bee seen as taking care of special forms of co-operations vs coercions, within the four general sectors of the anarchist quadrant on the economical political map. Say, anarchism without feminism, is only patriarchical half-anarchism, etc. However these special tendencies of anarchism should not be expanded towards general systems, because then they may be of a somewhat totalitarian nature, and thus not anarchist.
As an example, if the workers' federations shall run the whole economy and politics, as a public sector monopoly, the system will probably end up very similar to the Soviet Union, and will never achieve, say, efficiency and fairness. Say, when the union is "the boss", where shall a person in conflict with this management seek support. Another workers' federation against the anarcho-syndicalist perhaps? Thus "anarcho-syndicalism" interpreted as a totalitarian system, is not anarchist. However workers' federations managing several factories in private and public sectors, in an anarcho-syndicalist way, may well be anarchist. But not if they run all, or practically all, of the enterprises. If feminism is expanded too much, the system will be matriarchy, i.e. not anarchy. Too much green/eco-anarchism will probably end up in primitivism, archie-society, which is not anarchist. Thus, these anarchist tendencies should just be tendencies, and no more.
An example of an anarchist ideal society is suggested in IJ@ 2 (31):
"The Anarchist Federation of Norway - Anarkistføderasjonen i Norge, ... pointed to the distance between the present [Norwegian] society at ca 53% [ca 54% at the moment] degree of anarchy, and the 100% anarchist ideal, i.e. defined by 100% socialism and autonomy, minimal economical and political/administrative rank differences, efficiency and fairness, and the (other) anarchist principles, i.e. the IFA-principles, the Oslo convention and anarchist human rights, etc. They used the anarchist economical - political map to strategic positioning.
A vision of a society with, say,
a) a private sector with self employed on individual and co-operative basis in ideal horizontally organized networks economical and political/administrative, non-bureaucratic large worker and consumer co-operatives and anarcho-syndicalist managed factories, in production and distribution - individual and co-operative housing, and
b) a public sector based on ideal horizontally organized federalism, autonomy and direct democracy, on local and confederal plan - economically and political/administrative,..." [was introduced. This of course also include different forms of enterprises in public sector, say co-operatives, anarcho-syndicalistically managed firms, etc.]
Anarchism may be revolutionary or reformist. Social revolution means changes of economic and political-administrative, i.e. socio-economic, structures (including performance) in the society. Reform and reformism mean changes within given socio-economic structures. Thus, the term "structural reform", i.e. socio-economic, is a contradiction and should be avoided. Reforms cannot change a system's coordinates. The coordinates of the economic-political map are reflecting the socio-economic structure. Thus, a change of economic-political system, i.e. a significant change of the system's coordinates, is a revolutionary change. Revolutions should preferably be velvet revolutions. Social revolutions may be anarchist, marxist, fascist or liberal. The change from marxism to anarchism in Norway 1994 is an example of (a small) velvet anarchist revolution. There are more information about the concepts of revolution and reform below.
As mentioned above anarchy, anarchist and anarchism mean in short management/coordination without rule-r-s, tyranny and slavery, i.e. not without rules or law. It must not be mixed up with anti-archy, or anti-government, the political tendency of, say, the Oklahoma-bomber Timothy McVeigh, i.e. terrorism and ochlarchy (mob rule) and other authoritarian tendencies, i.e. archies. It is about organizing society in a more or less horizontally way, not mobbing or killing people and/or destroy realcapital.
Last but not least it may be mentioned that the formulas related to the economical political map as such - and statistically seen - are certain, not uncertain, relations, i.e. in meaning that there is no statistical deviation from the equations if the data is consistent. It is not a relation similar to Einstein's E = Mcc, that must be tested statistically to see if it is valid. Thus - a regression analysis with consistent data on the formulas of the map will always give 100% correlation and no deviation, similar to accounting by double entry if it is properly done.
If the correlation is not 100% exact, something is wrong with the data, not the equation and theory, i.e. the data is inconsistent. This is valid for all kinds of ecocirc relations (equations). In this context we may say that the formulas of the map (and other typical ecocirc) principally are a) synthetical - not analytical, i.e they say something about the real world, - b) they are by induction and generalization formulated from different ways of organizing society historically and contrafactual by realistic alternatives, i.e. posteriori - "after experience" - and not a priori and c) (statistically) certain or nonhypothetical (100% correlation with a consistent set of certain data) - and not hypothetical in the meaning of statistical testable i.e. (statistical) uncertain.
This does not mean that the equations related to the map are 100% unconditional and absolutely truths - they are not tautologies, they are build on some basic assumptions or axioms, say, a.o.t. with political implications (say, symmetrical dimensions), and as mentioned data consistency. If the data are uncertain, determined with a random error, still only consistent sets of data are relevant and such data will give 100% correlation by regression analysis, but the coordinates on the map may then still be uncertain, and we can give a most likely estimate and an area around this point as a two dimentional confidence area that will cover the system's coordinate with som given probablity (confidence level). NB! Hypothesis related to these relations are testable, see Chapter V.B., and thus compatible with the hypothetical deductive method.
If we use the Platonic, non-materialistic, framework mentioned above in chapter II A. instead, the equations related to the map and ecocirc may principally in general be considered as a priori, synthetic and (statistically) certain relations, given consistent data. This double way of interpretation of this type of equation in scientific theoretical perspective is due to the fact that ecocirc relations reflects human constructions and organization of a society, locally or on larger basis, that may principally be a) planned in advance based on a priori reasoning, and then constructed after the plan, by political and social "engeneering", through a constitution etc., or b) develope historically without planning in a more or less random or chaotic way, and then by studying the factual organizations, can induct and abstract via generalization the basic ecocirc relations by the way these human constructions works, the factual 'circular flows' and distribution of economical and political/administrative power, money and products, etc.
Anarchism and anarchy are socialism plus autonomy as defined above, see the economic-political map, a system significantly flat organized both economic and political/administrative, efficient and fair, without top heavy pyramid economically and/or political/administrative, based on significant statism and/or capitalism. The results of the economic-political systems of the anarchies Norway, the Swiss Confederation and Iceland confirm the basic libertarian hypothesis that a horizontal structure, i.e. a significant autonomous and socialist system, is efficient and fair. Empirical data of other systems confirm that a top heavy structure, capitalist (economical plutarchist) and/or statist, is unfair and/or inefficient.
I. Anarchist ideal and principles: The aim is more anarchist systems, i.e. a movement towards more human rights and the best of the ideals of the French revolution, fairness and efficiency, less rank and income differences. The word anarchy origins from greek. The prefix an means negation of, as in anaerobe vs aerobe; and arch means superior, i.e. in contrast to subordinates, as in archbishop. Anarchy, anarchism, anarchist, etc. are alternatives to, and the opposite of, different forms of superior and subordinate positions, non economic and economically: Political/administrative rank and economic/income hierarchies broadly defined and in real terms, i.e. respectively (1) statism and (2) capitalism.
* Thus: Anarchy, anarchism, anarchist a.s.o. mean coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, i.e. horizontal organization and co-operation without coercion, ideally or practically. The basic principles of anarchism are: The negation of authority and all of its power, hierarchies and juridical laws. Freedom, equality, solidarity, social justice, free contract, free initiative, atheism, antimilitarism, internationalism, decentralism, autonomy and federalism, self management and 'comunismo libertario', i.e. not communism, but libertarian communalism - from each according to ability - to each according to needs. These concepts and principles should be considered all in all, not partially. [ NB! In general these principles should be interpreted consistent with the axiomatic principles (1) - (10) defining anarchy and anarchism in chapter IV.B. on this file. There is more about the IFA-principles in French, English and Norwegian versions, for the anarchist ideal at the top of the economic-political map, see chapter II.B. point 1.-5. above.]
* Thus: Freedom, i.e. free people, freedom without damaging the freedom of other people. Federalism without autonomy is not anarchist. Social justice means a) anarchist law and court systems, compatible with the negation of hierarchy, etc., i.e. alternatives to authoritarian juridical laws; and b) antimilitarist corps broadly defined, sufficiently strong to keep order and keep up the balances of strength, as well as stop militarism, intra- and internationally. Generally speaking, antimilitarism is not pacifism... [We don't mean vigilantes, private army or police, but corps for a) civil anarchist law and order and b) defense of the country, as public sector goods, available for everybody on equal footing. Sufficient public service of policing to keep optimal law and order, but not a larger police corps, is important. Man is not like ants who cooperate socially, naturally and voluntarely without coercion automatically by themselves. Thus, doing away with the existing rule or tendencies of authority may easily result in ochlarchy, mob rule, and not anarchy, if not a firm horizontal social organization, ideally or practically is established with a sufficient police corps to create security and libertarian law and order and to do away with tendencies towards ochlarchy. Furthermore it must be mentioned that variation in the degree of "flatness" of organizations/federations of different purposes and aims may be optimal, say, a police or defense corps organization/federation may have a somewhat less degree of flatness than a study circle. ]
* These concepts and principles seen all in all, reflect different aspects of autonomy broadly defined, and socialism, as negations of statism and capitalism respectively. The basic social dimensions, (1) statism vs autonomy and (2) capitalism vs socialism, have many aspects. Different perspectives, the feminist, environmental, intergenerational, subordinate positions due to lack of structure or organization, people on their knees or flat on their face because of drugs, etc.; are included in the concepts of rank an income broadly defined. Religious and guru organizations are principally considered as special forms of (political)/administrative rank and economic hierarchies, i.e. mainly based on psychological power & ruling techniques, and non atheist ideology. By the way, atheism without solidarity and freedom is not anarchist...
* Anarchism is not, and should not, be expanded towards a totalitarian system. Other kinds of rankings and hierarchies, say, in sports, games, etc., are, as long as it is fair play, mainly not relevant from anarchist perspective. It would be relevant, say if the winnerteam of the curling leage automatically got seats in the parliament, but this is not the case. Scientific validity is not a political/administrative rank question, and authority must not be mixed up with competence. The use of the word 'authority' for competence should be avoided, as it is Orwelllian "1984" newspeak. This should not be forgotten in education & research, and economics & politics, broadly defined...
II. Practically speaking anarchy, anarchism, etc. are systems and human relations with relatively small economic and rank differences, i.e. more horizontally than vertically organized. However, the anarchist ideal at the top of the economic political map, i.e. with no such hierarchies at all, should not be forgotten as a leading star and standard for economic and political/administrative navigation. Say, two people stranded on an island, may co-operate without coercion to survive, i.e. anarchy, or act as superior vs subordinate, i.e. hierarchy and more or less chaos...
III. The geometry of economic political mapping. The EP map is illustrated on fig. 1. above. There are two basic dimensions for a system's coordinates:
(1) A system may be wholly [1 = 100%] autonomous, wholly statist, or somewhere between;
(2) A system may be wholly [1 = 100%] socialist, wholly capitalist, or somewhere between.
* The four corners: A wholly autonomous and socialist system is wholly anarchist, and located at the top of the map. A wholly statist and capitalist system is wholly authoritarian [fascist], i.e. located at the bottom of the map, where the authoritarian degree, the relative distance from the top of the map, is 100%. A wholly autonomous & capitalist system is located at the right corner [liberalism]. A wholly statist & socialist system is located at the left corner [marxism].
* The four edges: Wholly autonomous systems are located at the upper right edge, i.e. the autonomous edge. Wholly statist systems are located at the bottom left edge, i.e. the statist edge. Wholly socialist systems are located at the upper left edge, i.e. the socialist edge. Wholly capitalist systems are located at the bottom right edge, i.e. the capitalist edge. A wholly statist system is zero autonomous, and vice versa. A wholly capitalist system is zero socialist, and vice versa.
* The two borderlines and four quadrants: Half [1/2 = 50%] autonomous systems are located at the autonomous borderline, i.e. the parallel in the middle between the autonomous edge and the statist edge. All systems between the autonomous borderline and the autonomous edge are autonomous, i.e. significant degree of autonomy. Other systems are statist. Half [1/2 = 50%] socialist systems are located at the socialist borderline, i.e. the parallel in the middle between the socialist edge and the capitalist. Systems between the socialist borderline and the socialist edge are socialist, i.e. significant degree of autonomy. Other systems are capitalist. The two borderlines divide the map in four quadrants: (Top) Anarchism, i.e. socialism and autonomy; (Left) Marxism, i.e. socialism and statism; (Right) Liberalism, i.e. capitalism and autonomy; (Bottom) Fascism, i.e. capitalism and statism. The four quadrants are divided in four sectors each.
* Anarchy vs chaos: The basically authoritarian notion about "chaotic anarchy", is not valid. Anarchy is the highest form of social order, thus, "chaotic anarchy" is similar to "chaotic order" = "chaotic non-chaotic", i.e. a contradiction and meaningless. A system or society cannot at the same time be both anarchist and non-anarchist, i.e. chaotic. If a system is chaotic, it is not found in the anarchist quadrant on the EP map, but left, down or right. Anarchist policy is typically consistent, flexible, but not opportunistic, related to principles; while authoritarian policy typically is chaotic, opportunistic, conglomerate aggregates. Chaos is typically found at more than 67% authoritarian degree below zero, i.e. basically totalitarian systems. Don't forget the Oslo convention about anarchy vs chaos...
* The degree of anarchy is 100% minus the authoritarian degree, i.e. within the anarchist quadrant. Systems with authoritarian degree less than 50% outside the anarchist quadrant are semi libertarian, i.e. not significant authoritarian degree, but not anarchist. Thus, mixed concepts as anarcho- capitalism, -liberalism, -marxism, -populism, -statism, -chaos, -authoritarian, -totalitarian, etc. are all contradictions, inconsistent and meaningless. A system's coordinates cannot practically be located in two or more quadrants of the map at the same time. A system's coordinates reflect the system seen all in all, i.e. what is significant tendencies.
IV. A practical example: The history of modern Norway as an independent country, started with the breakaway revolution from the Union with Sweden, triggered by the 7.6.1905 declaration. The successful revolution of 1905 indicated a considerable autonomous shift, i.e. less statism. However, it took 89 years before the system, after a major set back in 1940-45, and later many years characterized by marxist state socialism, in 1994 became anarchist. 28.11.1994 the marxist PM & Co's effort to break the domestic megatrend towards anarchy, by establishing over national bureaucracy, was crushed by the EU-referendum. The Brussels-gang had to return, the Norwegian system made a revolutionary change, and passed the border to the anarchist quadrant on the EP map.
28.11.1995 marked one year of anarchy in Norway. The coordinates 55% socialism and 52% autonomy on the EP map, indicate the actual situation of the Norwegian economic political system after the EU referendum in 1994. The system is still more socialist than capitalist, and more autonomous than statist, although a bit distant from the ideal at the top of the map; see FB 4[24],1-4[25],1-2[26] and later issues, as well as at "AIIS and Anarchy in Norway" at the AIIS homepage on the WWW-Internet.
V. The middlepoint of the map is defined as the turningpoint where the influence on the societal managment and coordination seen all in all, aggregated, shifts from a) more from the bottom, the people, and upwards - than from the top downwards to the bottom, i.e. fifty - fifty, economical and politica/administrative, to b) the opposite - more from the top - the authorities, towards the bottom - the grassroots, economical and/or political/administrative. In other words the middlepoint is where the different forms of archies with respect to social organization turns over (revolts) to anarchy. Societies, organizations and social systems may shift coordinates related to the map in jumps, small jumps, steps or small steps. But any significant shift of coordinates is in reality a revolution, as reforms principally are just changes within a given system, i.e. with the same system-coordinates. A significant shift of system-coordinates may be soft as velvet, a velvet revolution, or more dramatic. Passing a border of the anarchist quadrant is in all cases a significant shift, and thus revolutionary, a small or big revolution.
Anarchism may be revolutionary or reformist. Social revolution means changes of economic and political-administrative, i.e. socio-economic, structures (including performance) in the society. Reform and reformism mean changes within given socio-economic structures. Thus, the term "structural reform", i.e. socio-economic, is a contradiction and should be avoided. Reforms cannot change a system's coordinates. The coordinates of the economic-political map are reflecting the socio-economic structure. Thus, a change of economic-political system, i.e. a significant change of the system's coordinates, is a revolutionary change. Revolutions should preferably be velvet revolutions. Social revolutions may be anarchist, marxist, fascist or liberal. The change from marxism to anarchism in Norway 1994 is an example of (a small) velvet anarchist revolution.
More about the concepts of revolution and reform, defined and analyzed:
If the system works significantly more from the bottom, grassroots - the people, and upwards, than from the top downwards, to the bottom, it is anarchism and anarchy. The grassroots - the people - is here defined as a class as opposed to the superiors economical and/or political/administrative, i.e. in income/remuneration and/or political/administrative rank. Anarchy and anarchism may happen just 1. a brief moment - a glimpse of anarchy, 2. in the short term, 3. medium term and 4. in the long term.
The fundamental parameters of a system, the coordinates on the economic-political map, are usually estimated as average, say, as moving averages, rather long term structural estimates, including the libertarian degree (= 100% - the authoritarian degree). Around the long term average structural estimates, there may be medium or short term dips or the opposite, a hike, without changing the fundamental rather long term average parameters.
Just a brief moment - a glimpse of anarchy, will in itself not change the long term structural average coordinates. There may however of course also be shift in the rather long term average structural estimates. A significant change of a system's coordinates on the economic-political map and in reality, is per definition a revolution or a revolutionary change, i.e. a real revolution. Nothing else is a societal, i.e. economic and/or political/administrative, real revolution, i.e. with substance, in short revolution. A revolution may be short lived or a lasting change of a system's coordinates on the economic-political map.
State/archy, seen as a societal concept, may be a form of marxism, populism/fascism or liberalism, see the economic-political map, click on: System theory, with the four main quadrants and the 16 sectors for different subsystems. Capitalism is economical plutarchy. A revolution may be in libertarian direction, in direction towards anarchy, but still the system may be a form of marxism, populism/fascism or liberalism. Via a series of revolutions in libertarian direction, the system may reach the anarchist quadrant of the economic-political map. This may take years, a long time, see System theory - Chapter V. B.! Revolutions increasing the authoritarian degree or the distance of a system vis-a-vis the anarchist quadrant of the map, are contra-revolutions.
Reform is per definition changes within a given system, i.e. without a significant change of a system's coordinates on the economic-political map and in reality, and this means status quo and/or at best insignificant change of a system's coordinates. Usually a waste of time and fooling the people. However a series of incremental reforms, each with insignificant change of a system's coordinates, may add up to a revolutionary change over time, a significant change of a system's coordinates on the economic-political map and in reality, and thus in reality be a revolution. But this is not reform, but revolution, revolutionary policy, revolution in reforms' disguise.
In addition to 1. real revolution, in short revolution, 2. revolution as a glimpse, i.e. a symbolic revolution, and 3. embryo-revolution, that may result in a) an aborted revolution or b) delivery and birth of a real revolution, are relevant concepts. Point 2 and 3 and 3.a) are pseudo-revolutions, not real revolutions. Ad 2. and 3. (except a) and b)) the term half-revolution may perhaps be relevant. To explain this further we may look on the following examples from Tunisia and Egypt early in 2011:
When the dictators left, the Tunisians and Egyptians experienced a glimpse of real democracy i.e. anarchy and anarchism. But the dictators were replaced with autocratic interim governments mainly from the 'old guard' and there were no significant changes in these systems' coordinates on the economic-political map, and thus no real revolutions happened.
After the revolutionary glimpses, a glimpse of anarchy, i.e. symbolic revolutions, the systems in Tunisia and Egypt had embryo-revolutions. Late in Februray 2011 The Tunisian Jasmine revolution and the Egypthian Tahrir Square revolution are still ongoing, but they are only embryo-revolutions, not real revolutions, in short revolution. The present situation of continued revolt in Tunisia respectively Egypt is just embryo-revolution, it may result in a) an abortion, an aborted revolution, or b) a real revolution, i.e. with substance -- a significant change of a system's coordinates -- in short revolution. Delivery and birth of a real revolution, hopefully in libertarian direction, may still take some time, perhaps long time. And then there is the fight for keeping the revolution alive, and develope further...
Although theoretically and principally a certain and simple vector-figure may express a system's coordinates, described as a fixed point on the map at a given time, practical mapping and data may be stocastical and influenced by the methods of aggregation. Thus a system's or society's coordinates on the map, may practically be noted just as a most likely figure and/or given by a confidence area that covers the real point on the map by some given probability. And thus, close to the borders of the anarchist quadrant, the real nature of the system, whether it is anarchist or not, may be discussed, and just a most likely, not certain, conclusion may be the result of an investigation, i.e. mapping of a social system.
Conventionally we define systems with 50% autonomy and socialism as anarchist, i.e. the borders of the anarchist quadrant represent anarchist systems. The border between the marxist and fascist quadrant represents marxist systems and the border between the fascist and liberalist quadrant represents liberalist systems.
IV. ANARCHISM, STATE AND CAPITALISM
A. A COMMENT ON THE ECONOMIC-POLITICAL MAP
Society is public sector plus private sector. This mix is a question of convenience, i.e. it is not in itself a principally question, and public sector should not be mixed up with the concept of government, i.e. vertically organized. Grassroots public service workers are not a part of the bureaucracy/government. The two sectors may be more or less horizontally vs vertically organized, i.e. relatively small vs large rank and/or income differences. There are an economic dimension, i.e. income (remuneration), and a noneconomic dimension, constituting rank. Although income often follows rank, it is not necessarily so. Economic political systems may be based on:
1. Small income differences [= socialism] vs large [= capitalism]; and
2. Small rank differences [= autonomy] vs large [= statism].*)
Thus, there are four main forms of systems and 16 subsystems. Anarchists have discussed and suggested ideals and principles as a leading star (top of map), and anarchism is economic political systems more socialist than capitalist, and more autonomous than statist, i.e. relatively small income and rank differences.
The superiors in rank and/or income in private and public sectors are for simplicity called the bureaucracy. The people are the total population minus the bureaucracy. The tendency towards or of state, defined as a social concept, that's just the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy organized as a ruling management , i.e. significant downards to the people and the grassroots - and not just an insignificant tendency in this direction, is also called authority or authorities, the State as a social concept or in a societal perspective - as well as government. However, the tendency towards or of political/administrative state, i.e. the part of the bureaucracy with subordinates in rank in their occupation (in private and public sector). The political/administrative bureaucracy organized as a ruling management , i.e. significant downards to the people and the grassroots - and not just an insignificant tendency in this direction, is also called political/administrative authority or authorities, the State as a political/administrative concept - as well as political/administrative government.
This is the typical concept of state in anarchist science. Differences in rank constitute the degree of statism, see E. P. map. In this case the economic dimension of the hierarchy is left to the concept of capitalism (plutarchy). Furthermore, this anarchist concept of tendency towards or of state, the "ranks above the grassroots", i.e. the system with superior and subordinate positions, must not be mixed up with the nonscientific "1984-newspeak" concept, interpreted as: 1. the country as a whole, which usually is a much too wide concept, and 2. the often too narrow view of the state as the federal or central public administration. By the way, any land needs coordination on country level, in some cases... (This may be done direct democratical, say, by referendum, and/or by confederal councils based on delegates with different mandates.To be anarchist the system must all on all work with more influence from the bottom, the people, upwards, than from the top downwards, ideally a perfect horizontal organization, with everybody on equal footing.)
In anarchism hierarchy is usually defined as a) "the power or rule of a hierarch or hierarchs", in the meaning of economically or political/administrative rulers and ruling, i.e. economical and political/administrative hierarchy respectively, and/or b) such rule by priests or other clergy, church government, or c) the group of officials in such systems. However the word hierarchy in the today also usual meaning of d) "any group of persons or things arranged in order of rank, grade, class, etc." is also sometimes used, and e) thus also hierarchy in the meaning of any tendency towards or of hierarchy defined as point a). Thus "significant hierarchy" in the meaning of e) is equal to hierarchy in the meaning of a). Anarchy is the negation of a) and ideal 100% anarchy is the negation of e) economically and political/administrative.
1. The economical dimension of the hierarchy is left to the concept of capitalism (plutarchy). The economical coordinate, the percentage degree of socialism, i.e. the degree of economical freedom, solidarity and equality, etc. - in short economical democracy vs plutarchy, significant economical hierarchy (capitalism - theft, broadly defined). Democracy means, quite simplified, "one person - one vote", i.e. equal votes for all in the elections. Markets however mean "one dollar - one vote". Thus markets are only economically democratic and non-plutarchical as far as money or other means of payment, among other things, the purchasing powers, are significant equally distributed according to anarchist principles. And thus, markets are probably only anarchistic, i.e. real democratic, if they are publicly regulated in a libertarian way, with free contracts - not slave contracts, etc. (See also point 3.)
2. Differences in real rank constitute the degree of statism: The political/administrative coordinate, the percentage degree of autonomy, i.e. the degree of political/administrative freedom, solidarity and equality, etc. - in short political/administrative democracy vs vertically organized political/administrative systems, i.e. statism broadly defined, significant political/administrative hierarchy, monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy and/or ochlarchy (mob rule) included, in both public and private sector.
3. If a economical plutarchy, i.e. the relatively rich, take over significant political/administrative hierarchy in public and private sector, a political/adminstrative plutarchy is introduced. This is a form of populism/fascism. If significant political/administrative hierarchy, say, a military junta, take over significant economical hierarchy in public and private sector, another form of fascism/populism is established. Any combination of statism combined with plutarchy (capitalism) is a form of fascism. The statism may take the form of monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy and ochlarchy (mob rule, mafia, chaos, rivaling "states within the state", no human rights, no real law and order, real lawlessness, etc.) included, and principally also be based on political/administrative plutarchy, or combinations, in both public and private sector.
Thus, the system seen as a whole, both private and public sector included, may be more or less economical and political/administrative bureaucratic and hierarchical,.i.e the state as a social concept may be more or less big and/or top heavy, i.e. significant vis-à-vis the people - or not: If significant hierarchy - economically it means capitalism, economical plutarchy; and/or political/adminstrative it means statism, i.e. a political/adminstrative state. The state as a social concept is present if the degree of statism, political/adminstrative is above 50%, and/or the degree of economical plutarchy/capitalism is above 50%. Thus, if the state is present as a social consept, it is either political/administrative government/authority or economical government/authority, or both, which is populism/fascism.
A social, economic-political system with free and fair elections of mandated representatives or delegates, usually called democracy, may function more from the top downwards, significant vertically organized, centralist or the opposite, from bottom upwards, significant horizontally organized, federalist, i.e. anarchy. Thus all anarchies are democracies but everything called democracy is not necessarily anarchist or anarchy. Many so called representative democracies may work more from the top downwards than the opposite, from the bottom upwards, and thus are not real democracies, anarchies, but archies. Thus anarchy is always democracy but not all democracies are anarchist, i.e. some democracies are archies, anarchy is as mentioned real democracy. Anarchy is just minor part of, a subset of, the total amount of democracy, because not all democracies are anarchies, real democratic.
A lot of conditions must usually be fulfilled to secure that a democracy is a real democracy, i.e. anarchy. A lot of people's organizations broadly defined, a free press, i.e. not the 4th power of the State, dialog and free, matter of fact, criticism, all organized significantly according to anarchist principles, is a necessity. The existence of a sufficient amount of real alternatives, and a general balance of strength, significant stopping power in the meaning of domination, economical and political/administrative in public and private sectors, may also be mentioned.
A real scientific, i.e. a non-dogmatic anarchist way of thinking, as opposed to populist/fascist and relativist, marxist dialectical and liberalist more or less metaphysical way of thinking, is another important thing. By real scientifical, we mean using the natural scientifical method broadly defined, thinking principally and that hypothesis may be rejected, also taking into account realistic future scenarios related to different alternatives and actions, costs and benefits. Thus thinking, say, if this and that are the conditions, and these are the alternative actions, what are the probable alternative outcomes, - and then decide what actions are best, real democratic i.e. what is in the interest of the less benefitial majority of the population, the people vs the authorities and upper classes.
"Best arguments win" and to get "competence effectively and fair through in the system" are benchmarks in this context. To critize the present proposals and situations without having a clearly better realistic alternative, is quite useless. For higher degrees of anarchy, usually different forms of co-operatives and federalist direct democracy organized according to anarchist principles are important parts of the economic-political system.
The media discuss political mapping, but sometimes a bit confused, because of lack of logical, scientific structure. This may reflect a lack of structure in political science, due to an empirical, and sometimes party political, approach. Anarchist analysis and research are based on a nomothetical approach as conceptual framework, and thus a more logical structure, illustrated by the economic political map. To understand the nature of economic political systems, theoretical and empirical, the following is an important theorem:
(1) If a system moves rightwards from the upper, i.e. advanced, part of the social democrat sector, the system reaches the anarchist sector of social individualism.
(2) And if it moves sufficient further right, it reaches the social liberal sector.
(3) Thus, such an anarchist system is found in the middle between an advanced social democrat system and a social liberal.
Anarchism is typically found in the middle, and not, say far left or right. The above mentioned type of anarchy is not the ideal form with a degree of anarchy = 100%, at the top of the map. But still it is significant degree of anarchy.
To put it simple, anarchism is freedom without harming other peoples freedom, not freedom at others expense, economic and political broadly defined. This resolution should also be seen in the context of earlier AIT & ANORG-IFA material. A further movement upwards on the E.P. map, i.e.
1) even more socialism & autonomy, coordinate & self managed people, efficiency & fairness; and
2) less income & rank differences, subordinate & superior positions; is requested and strongly recommended.
B. An axiomatic approach to the principles of anarchy, anarchism and social sciences in general.
( 1 ) Anarchies vs archies. Societal, political-economical systems, including organizations and political tendencies; economical, political or politological, sociological and anthropological systems, may be anarchies or the negation of anarchy = archies. Thus the total amount of societal systems S = anarchy + archy <=> S = anarchies + archies. Anarchy = anarchism,with respect to societal systems broadly defined.
( 2 ) Archies may be expressed as x-archy, where x is one of a set of systems characteristics of archs, say, ( mon, olig, poly, plut, ochl, matri, patri, hier, etc; but not an) or a logical union of several x-es reflecting different forms of archy/archies as opposed to anarchy/anarchies, i.e. the negation of x-archy = archies.
( 3 ) Possibility of anarchy. It is assumed that these terms reflect concepts that may be defined in a way that anarchy is not impossible in reality, i.e. the amount of anarchies in real terms is greater than the empty set, zero. Anarchy is matter of degree = tendency. Anarchy, i.e. an anarchist social system, may have 100% or a significant degree of anarchy, i.e. less than 100%, but above a given significant level.
( 4 ) Significant anarchist tendency = anarchy. As anarchy is the negation of x-archy it may not have any amount, i.e. significant tendency towards or of, x-archy. Thus anarchy may have zero or insignificant tendency towards or of archies. The significant level is defined on aggregated dimensions.
( 5 ) Dimensions: a) There are an economic dimension and a non-economical dimension in societal, political-economical, system context: One aggregated economical, and one aggregated non-economical dimension, i.e. political/administrative rank broadly defined. Empirically this reflect economic remuneration and political/administrative rank of organizational social systems' maps broadly defined.
b) The economical dimension measures socialism vs capitalism, where the degree of capitalism is the tendency towards or of economical archies (x-archy) and the non-economical dimension is autonomy vs statism, where the degree of statism is the tendency towards or of political/administrative archies.
c) Along these two dimensions different forms of anarchy and archies (x-archy), are measured and mapped. The degree of socialism = 100% - degree of capitalism. The degree of autonomy = 100% - degree of statism. Socialism and autonomy are defined as insignificant degree of capitalism and statism respectively, and capitalism and statism is defined as significant degree of statism and capitalism respectively. Thus, socialism and autonomy are defined as significant degree of socialism and autonomy, and capitalism and statism are defined as insignificant degree of socialism and autonomy respectively .
( 6 ) Anarchism and other -isms. Anarchy is the negation of archies related to the economical and political/administrative dimensions, i.e. socialism and autonomy. Capitalism is economical plutarchy, including hierarchy and may be other x-archies broadly defined in an economical context. Statism is political/administrative monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy, ochlarchy (mob rule), the archies of rivaling states within the state, i.e. chaos; and the tyranny of structurelessness i.e. disorganization, and/or political plutarchy, and it may also include other archies, say, being matriarchy, if the main rulers are women. Furthermore
1. Statism without (economical) plutarchy/capitalism = marxism ((state-) communism, state-socialism);
2. statism plus (economical) plutarchy/capitalism = fascism (populism included);
3. socialism without statism = anarchy = anarchism;
4. (economical) plutarchy/capitalism without statism = liberalism.
Libertarian (in the meaning of 'libertaire' (french) or 'libertær' (nordic)), and real democracy (realdemocracy) are synonyms for anarchist, anarchy and anarchism. Anarchy and anarchism are sometimes called the third alternative, social form, or way. (This must not be mixed up with Tony Blair's non-anarchist "third way = neue mitte" of Gerard Schröder, or Adolf Hitler's "dritte reich".)
Archies (x-archy) are defined equal to authority and State/government in societal context. Thus authority and State/government in societal context are liberalism, fascism and marxism broadly defined. And thus anarchy and anarchism are systems without any authority and State/government, in societal context, i.e. economical and political/administrative, also called political broadly defined. These societal, political concepts of state/government and authority, must not be mixed up with statism and the authoritarian degree, as defined related to economical-political mapping. Furthermore insignificant tendency towards or of State/government is not State/government, and insignificant tendency towards or of authority is not authority, but anarchy and anarchism.
( 7 ) Significant level at 50%. Anarchy has less than 50% tendencies towards or of archies, x-archy, aggregated on the two relevant dimensions, on a scale from 0 => 100%. Thus more than 50 % tendencies towards or of archies, x-archy of relevant x-es, aggregated on the economic and/or the non-economic dimension, are not anarchist, not anarchy. Thus anarchy has 100-50% degree of socialism and 100-50% degree of autonomy, and archies have less of one or both, i.e. more than 50% degree of capitalism and/or statism.
( 8 ) Anarchy defined: Anarchy and anarchism mean system, coordination and management without ruling and rulers (not without rules). i.e. co-operation without repression, tyranny and slavery, and archies mean system, management and coordination with ruling and rulers, i.e. the negation of anarchy and anarchism. From greek 'an', as in anaerobe vs aerobe, i.e. keeping what is essential of the object, (in this case system, management, coordination) but without the special characteristic mentioned in the suffix, i.e. 'arch', ruling and ruler(s), from archos (ruler) and archein (ruling, being first).
( 9 ) Not totalitarian: The question of anarchism and anarchy vs archies is limited to the societal political-economical systems' management and coordination. What is interesting in anarchist perspective is whether or not the economical-political system has authority, i.e. ruling and rulers - or not, with respect to the societal managent and coordination. Other uses of the words anarchy vs x-archy and anarchies vs archies are principally irrelevant to anarchism, and should in general be avoided.
(10) Not valid concepts. Concepts as anarcho-archy = anarchy-x-archy in any form, meaning system, coordination and management "both with and without ruling and rulers" at the same time and place, are not allowed for, because such concepts are contradictive, and thus are nonsens and not logical and scientifical, because this is in reality not possible, and anarchism and anarchy are about realities. Thus anarcho-marxism, anarcho-capitalism = anarchy-plutarchy, anarcho-ochlarchy, anarcho-chaos, anarchy = chaos, anarchism = anarchy = minimal state or libertarian state, state in general, anarcho-statism, anarcho-authority, etc, are nonsense and not valid concepts, but confused Orwellian "1984" "newspeak" that is not anarchist, but authoritarian, i.e. chaotic, and should be avoided.
These axioms should be seen as fertile working hypothesis, not dogmas or absolutely truths. (IIFOR)
In addition to these axioms and most basic principles of social sciences, anarchy and anarchism and other -isms, other principles of policy defining authority more precise and concrete in a societal context, structural and functional included, must be introduced, and the significant level of anarchy degree vs archies must be calibrated for applied and practical research and analysis. This is discussed other places on this file, search for 'calibration' and 'principles'.
The means of production is a term which is difficult to clearly define. However, the basic concept is easy to understand. A simple definition: anything which through ownership or possession that generates ongoing income for the owner/possessor. The means of production are real capital, that includes: Factories broadly defined. Income-generating land and real estate. Transportation systems such as railways, trucking lines, commercial airlines, and shipping lines. Banks. Commercial and public enterprises.
Private property right to the means of production means exclusive rights to dominate others economically, a system with large income differences, based on privileges or so called free, capitalist markets, i.e. plutarchy, and thus not anarchy or anarchist. Common or collective property right to the means of production is the negation of this, i.e. a system with small income differences.
Thus, common property right to the means of production must not be mixed up with public sector, since it may include co-operatives, markets, private rightful possession, self employed and private sector enterprise in general, i.e. if regulated compatible with small income differences.
On the other hand, public sector may sometimes have a rich bureaucracy with exclusive rights as mentioned above, and thus be capitalist (public sector plutarchy).
A similar notion is valid for the degree of statism vs autonomy.
The most important is the overall economic political balances of strength, not the private vs public sector & plan vs market mix.
Property in the classical meaning, i.e. capitalist and/or statist, and thus related to large economic or political/administrative rank differences, is theft, i.e. not anarchist, and should be prohibited by law and abolished. To avoid getting mixed up with capitalism and statism, instead of the word property, anarchists mainly use the term possession, i.e. in the meaning of owned in a rightful, non-criminal, non-statist and non-capitalist way, and thus related to small economic and political/administrative rank differences.
Anarchies very briefly defined are systems with small rank and income differences, plus efficiency. Any ownership that is compatible with systems with small rank and income differences, plus efficiency, is possession. Possession may be individual or collective, private or public.1. Any ownership that results in large income differences is capitalist, economical plutarchy. 2. Any ownership that results in large rank differences is statist. 1. and 2. are property, i.e. theft, not possession. Here property is defined as a general broad societal concept. Property defined in this way is the ownership of the State defined as a broad societal concept.
Society is public sector plus private sector, both significantly horizontally organized in an anarchy. What is public? Latin, publicus, from populus, people. Public may a) be state/government or b) horizontally organized, without ruler(s) and ruled, i.e. for b): 1. It means of, belonging, concerning, or pertaining to the people of a community, as a whole, say, an anarchist commune as Kropotkin defined it. 2. open to common use; for the use or benefit of all, as a public park or public road, etc. 3. known by, or open to the knowledge of all or most of the people; as, "he/she will make this information public". Public is opposed to private. A market is here defined as a social arrangement that allows buyers and sellers to discover information and carry out a voluntary exchange of goods or services. The private sector is based on markets, plus of course family life. Where there are no markets and no family life, we have a public sector. Furthermore, the private sector must be horizontally organized to be anarchist. That is based on possession, not property, i.e. theft, based on free contracts, not slave contracts, in general be without authoritarian market failures. This indicates some market regulations, from within, selfregulation, decided by the people really concerned, and not imposed by a government, to do away with authoritarian market failures in general. Thus 100% unregulated markets are at odds with anarchism. A keyword in the organizing of an anarchist public sector is participatory democracy. Participatory democracy is per definition a collective decision making prosess, outside the market. The general idea, for society close to the anarchist ideal, is that the people really concerned of a case should be the ones that decide, in a horizontal way, alone in individual matters, two toghether in bilateral matters, three toghether in trilateral matters, etc. Thus freedom etc. have both individual and collective aspects.
The public sector, horizontally organized, in an anarchy of a very high degree, follows the pattern of communes, as explained by Kropotkin:" The "Commune" is no longer a territorial agglomeration; but...a synonym for the grouping of equals, knowing no borders, no walls. The social Commune... will cease to be clearly defined. Each group of the Commune will necessarily be attracted to similar groups of other Communes; they will group together, federate with each other, by bonds at least as solid as those tying them to their fellow townsmen; (they will) constitute a Commune of interests, of which members will be diseminated through a thousand cities and
villages. Each individual will find satisfaction of his needs only in grouping together with other individuals (that) have the same tastes and living in a hundred other Communes." [From "Words of a Rebel", quoted by P. Berman in "Quotations from the Anarchists", New York, 1972, p. 171.] Furthermore, especially valid for the horizontally organized public sector: "
In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions." [From "Anarchism", by Pjotr Kropotkin, The Encyclopaedia Britannica , 1910.]
Anarchist laws, according to the principles of social justice and the negation
of juridical laws, should be decided by the people, direct democratic or by
delegates, and compatible with anarchist principles in general, human
rights included, rooted back to natural law. Juridical laws mainly
mean decided by authorities, lawyers, the mob, etc., i.e. authoritarian laws.
As an example, most of the laws in Norway are non-authoritarian, there are however
also some authoritarian laws, because the degree of anarchy is only ca 53-54%,
i.e. significant anarchist, but not ideal. Thus, the law and court system of
anarchy is quite similar to other democratic law and court systems, only less
authoritarian, and more reflecting human rights (interpreted in an anarchist,
non-authoritarian way). The International Anarchist Tribunals of I.F.A./A.I.
are a special branch of anarchist law and court systems, see the IAT-APT .
The general idea is that anarchist laws should be decided from the bottom, the people, and upwards, not from the top downwards. That is law without State in the anarchist meaning. The people decide their own laws when the laws are decided. Thus it is selfmanagement. Of course the minorities rights must be respected in case of anarchist direct democracy, according to anarchist principles. Preferably decisions shold be made by general consent. In case where this is not possible the majority will decide, but they must compensate the minority in different ways to secure their rights. Economic compensation may sometimes be used. In anyway the majority will only be able to offer the minority a free contract, not a slave contract. Thus majority dictatorship will be avoided, as well as minority dictatorship, in an anarchist direct democracy.
The Anarchist International is following Benjamin Tucker on law and order: "Under Anarchism all rules and laws will be little more than suggestions for the guidance of juries, and all disputes, whether about land or anything else, will be submitted to juries which will judge not only the facts, but the law, the justice of laws, its applicability to the given circumstances, and the penalty or damage to be inflicted because of its infraction. What better safeguard against rigidity could there be than this? "Machinery for altering" the law, indeed! Under Anarchism the law will be so flexible that it will shape itself to every emergency and need no alteration. And it will then be regarded as just in proportion to this flexibility, instead of as now in proportion to its rigidity." Source: Property Under Anarchism. Excerpted from the book; Individual Liberty: Selections From the Writings of Benjamin R. Tucker. Vanguard Press, New York, 1926 Kraus Reprint Co., Millwood, NY, 1973. See Tucker's basic ideas and Antimilitarism - an anarchist approach for more information about anarchist law and order and antimilitarist corps.
We will end this chapter by briefly presenting Pierre Joseph Proudhon's own ideas on property (theft) and possession (anarchist form of ownership). Quoted from "What is Property?" by P.-J. Proudhon (1840):
"If I were asked to answer the following question: WHAT IS SLAVERY? and I should answer in one word, IT IS MURDER, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required to show that the power to take from a man his thought, his will, his personality, is a power of life and death; and that to enslave a man is to kill him. Why, then, to this other question: WHAT IS PROPERTY! may I not likewise answer, IT IS ROBBERY, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first?
There are different kinds of property: 1. Property pure and simple, the dominant and seigniorial power over a thing; or, as they term it, NAKED PROPERTY. 2. POSSESSION... The tenant, the farmer, the commandite', the usufructuary, are possessors; the owner who lets and lends for use, the heir who is to come into possession on the death of a usufructuary, are proprietors... This double definition of property -- domain and possession -- is of the highest importance; and it must be clearly understood, in order to comprehend what is to follow. This distinction between the jus in re and the jus ad rem is the basis of the famous distinction between possessoire and petitoire,-- actual categories of jurisprudence, the whole of which is included within their vast boundaries. Petitoire refers to every thing relating to property; possessoire to that relating to possession.
In writing this memoir against property, I bring against universal society an action petitoire: I prove that those who do not possess to-day are proprietors by the same title as those who do possess; but, instead of inferring therefrom that property should be shared by all, I demand, in the name of general security, its entire abolition. If I fail to win my case, there is nothing left for us (the proletarian class and myself) but to cut our throats: ... But property, in its derivative sense, and by the definitions of law, is a right outside of society; for it is clear that, if the wealth of each was social wealth, the conditions would be equal for all, and it would be a contradiction to say: PROPERTY IS A MAN'S RIGHT TO DISPOSE AT WILL OF SOCIAL PROPERTY. Then if we are associated for the sake of liberty, equality, and security, we are not associated for the sake of property; then if property is a NATURAL right, this natural right is not SOCIAL, but ANTI-SOCIAL.
Property and society are utterly irreconcilable institutions. It is as impossible to associate two proprietors as to join two magnets by their opposite poles. Either society must perish, or it must destroy property. To tell a poor man that he HAS property because he HAS arms and legs, -- that the hunger from which he suffers, and his power to sleep in the open air are his property, - is to play upon words, and to add insult to injury. The proprietor, producing neither by his own labor nor by his implement, and receiving products in exchange for nothing, is either a parasite or a thief.
1. The republican constitution of 1793, which defined property as "the right to enjoy the fruit of one's labor," was grossly mistaken. It should have said, "Property is the right to enjoy and dispose at will of another's goods, -- the fruit of another's industry and labor."2. Every possessor of lands, houses, furniture, machinery, tools, money, &c., who lends a thing for a price exceeding the cost of repairs (the repairs being charged to the lender, and representing products which he exchanges for other products), is guilty of swindling and extortion. In short, all rent received (nominally as damages, but really as payment for a loan) is an act of property,--a robbery. 3. Since property is the grand cause of privilege and despotism, the form of the republican oath should be changed. Instead of, "I swear hatred to royalty," henceforth the new member of a secret society should say, "I swear hatred to property."
By this principle, the man who takes possession of a field, and says, "This field is mine," will not be unjust so long as every one else has an equal right of possession; nor will he be unjust, if, wishing to change his location, he exchanges this field for an equivalent. But if, putting another in his place, he says to him, "Work for me while I rest," he then becomes unjust, unassociated, UNEQUAL. He is a proprietor. Reciprocally, the sluggard, or the rake, who, without performing any social task, enjoys like others -- and often more than others -- the products of society, should be proceeded against as a thief and a parasite. We owe it to ourselves to give him nothing; but, since he must live, to put him under supervision, and compel him to labor.
(With "sluggard or the rake" Proudhon probably means a capitalist/economical plutarchist, who lives entirely on the work of others. Furthermore Proudhon has also said "Property is liberty", but it is clear that he then mostly meant possession, not private property, ed. note]
B. NOTES ON MAPPING - COLORS, GRAPHICAL AND ALGEBRAIC NOTIONS - STATISTICS AND ESTIMATION METHODS - PRACTICE
REAL DEMOCRACY IS ANARCHY & ANARCHISM! ANARCHY & ANARCHISM ARE REAL DEMOCRACY! REAL DEMOCRACY IS ALWAYS INCLUDING GREEN! ANARCHY.NO IS ALL ABOUT DEMOCRACY
Anarchism means without government (in the meaning of vertically organized, economic and/or political/administrative), which is anything that is not anarchy related to the economic political map, i.e. marxism, liberalism or fascism, chaos included. Anarchist systems of social organization are found in the main quadrant of anarchism on the map, and different forms of government (arch-) systems are located in the main quadrants of marxism, fascism or liberalism.
Anarchist systems may be more or less close to the anarchist ideal at the top of the map, i.e. without government at 100% or somewhat less degree of anarchy, i.e. within the anarchist quadrant. Furthermore, it reflects being without hierarchy in the meaning of large rank and/or income differences, practically or ideally, i.e. ordinary vs perfect horizontal organization respectively.
Anarchy is coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, i.e. horizontal organization and co-operation without coercion. This means practically or ideally, i.e. ordinary vs perfect horizontal organization respectively. Thus, anarchy means without government, which is different forms of vertically organized, i.e. chaotic included, economic and/or political-administrative relations among people (and not always the same as public sector. A significantly horizontally organized public sector may be necessary to achieve ca 100% anarchy. The private vs public sector mix should be decided according to implementation of anarchist principles and is in itself not a principally question. Say, some collectivistical anarchosyndicalists have a working hyphotesis about close to 100% public sector, while some individualistic anarchists have hypothesis about close to 100% private sector. The most of the anarchists operate with middle solutions, but of course not significantly vertically organized.)
Horizontal organization, a bottom up approach as opposed to a top down approach, economically and political/administrative, means organization without ruler(s) - arch(s), i. e. not without management, but 1. organization with significant small income and rank differences, 2. empowered workers with significant influence and freedom within a framework, and 3. real democratic control one way or the other. It is not a system where the management takes orders from the workers, unless the case with 100% flat organization. A horizontal organization has a degree of flatness, an anarchy degree, between 50 % and 100 %, the anarchist ideal. Workers mean the frontline in an organization.
The concepts and different perspectives of anarchism are defined in real terms with
- the IFA-principles, the Economic-Political map, the Oslo-convention,
etc., and
- as anarchy vs other -archies , - i.e.
1. The economical coordinate, the percentage degree of socialism, i.e. the degree of economical freedom, solidarity and equality, etc. - in short economical democracy vs plutarchy, significant economical hierarchy (capitalism - theft, broadly defined). Democracy means, quite simplified, "one person - one vote", i.e. equal votes for all in the elections. Markets however mean "one dollar - one vote". Thus markets are only economically democratic as far as money or other means of payment, among other things, the purchasing powers, are significant equally distributed according to anarchist principles. And thus, markets are probably only anarchistic, i.e. real democratic, if they are publicly regulated in a libertarian way, with free contracts - not slave contracts, etc. (See also point 3.)
2. The political coordinate, the percentage degree of autonomy, i.e. the degree of political/administrative freedom, solidarity and equality, etc. in short political/administrative democracy vs vertically organized political/administrative systems, i.e. statism broadly defined, significant political/administrative hierarchy, monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy and ochlarchy (mob rule broadly defined) included, in both public and private sector.
3. If a significant economical plutarchy, i.e. the relatively rich, take over significant political/administrative hierarchy in public and private sector, a political/adminstrative plutarchy is introduced. This is a form of populism/fascism. If significant political/administrative hierarchy, say, a military junta, take over significant economical hierarchy in public and private sector, another form of fascism/populism is established. Any combination of statism combined with plutarchy (capitalism) is a form of fascism. The statism may take the form of monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy and ochlarchy (mob rule, mafia, chaos, no human rights, no real law and order, real lawlessness, etc.) included, and principally also be based on political/administrative plutarchy, or combinations, in both public and private sector.
If a fascist system a) is totalitarian, i.e. with more than 66,7% authoritarian degree, and b) for propaganda or other reasons called "socialist", but in reality is capitalist/economical plutarchist as all fascist systems are, c) the system is a form of national "socialism", i.e. nazism and nazi. Such a nazi system may be right or left fascist - or ultra-fascist, as the systems of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco. Left fascist or right fascist nazi-systems are almost always totalitarian, although they may have pseudo-democratic parliamentary elections, i.e. elections of very significant archs/rulers and the systems being very far from real democracy, but they may be less authoritarian than ultra-fascist systems as Hitler's, Mussolini's and Franco's. All ultra-fascist systems are totalitarian.
The different systems on the map may be associated with different colors and flags/banners. The colors or flags/banners associated to the map may be a useful pedagogical tool, but of course are symbols that are less important than statistical and mathematical analysis, scientifically seen. And the use of colors/flags in mapping of political tendencies should not be expanded to a totalitarian quasicultural system of symbolism, used to uniform clothing, fashion, housing, etc., say, such as black or black/red outfit and gear are seen as particularly anarchist a.s.o..
Fascism may take on different forms dependent on the authoritarian degree, populism included, i.e. dark brown, brown and light brown systems respectively. To the left of the middle within the fascist quadrant a slight tendency or dash of red, to the right of the middle a slight tendency or dash of blue, may be accounted for. Brown-striped similar to light brown tendencies has been used. In Norwegian we often use the term brun (brown) møkk, “Møkk” means, “excrements” “shit”, “shit-bag” "muck" and/or ochlarch/ist. "Rødbrun, bare brun og blåbrun " is used. The terms mean red-brown, = ultra-authoritarian marxists, bare brun (only brown) = ultra-authoritarian fascists, and blåbrun, blue-brown = ultra-authoritarian arch-conservative liberalists, all of them brown shit/muck of different shades. Mørkebrun møkk, dark-brown shit/muck, are used for ultra-fascists, that have more than 75 % authoritarian degree.
Usually colors are, in addition to the brown for authoritarian; red for socialism or leftism and blue for liberalism, capitalism or rightism, plus dashes of black for libertarian. Dashes of green for environmental management may be accounted for. If about optimal, this policy is progressive, say, i.e. a red & black policy with green added, but environmental policy may also be exaggerated and/or combined with authoritarian tendencies, and be brown & green, etc. In a similar way pink for feminism may be used, combined with black/red for anarchofeminism, and the opposite, with more or less brown, in case of matriarchy, authoritarian feminism. A green color may also be used for kids, as opposed to the grown up people. The anarchist youths also use the special "a in circle" logo with a black flag, as opposed to the usual black and red flag of grown up anarchists.
It must be mentioned that also some marxists, marxist syndicalists included, may use a black & red flag, to pose as libertarian to cover up for marxist authoritarian tendencies and provoke. Say, the marxist Sandinists in Nicaragua use a black and red flag, but not the same as anarchists. Nazigroups posing as anarchists have used the swastika in combination with red & black flag to make chaos and provoke.
Further to the left outside the fascist quadrant, with more than 67% authoritarian degree on the map, we have still very much statism, that may take on different forms, but without plutarchy. These systems are red and brown. To the right with more than 67% authoritarian degree, we have plutarchist/capitalist systems, without signifcant statism, but very authoritarian forms of economical plutarchy, i.e. blue and brown systems. Ultra-fascism on the EP-map, may be called just brown or dark brown. As indicated above, ultra-authoritarian people is often called brown shit or shit-bags and/or ochlarch/ists, to the left with red tendency added, and to the right, blue added. There are ultra-authoritarian ochlarchist marxists, fascists and arch-conservative liberalists, all of which tend to develop into ultra-fascism. i.e. sometimes even into killer ochlarchs.
Light brown and brown tendencies with red to the left and blue to the right are found between 50% authoritarian degree and 67%. They are typically parliamentary, indirect democratic systems, with more influence from the top downwards, than from the bottom upwards, i.e. not real democracy/anarchist, and have a significant authoritarian degree, but not totalitarian. More than 67% authoritarian degree, totalitarian, means a dark brown system, with a dash of red to the left of the middle, and a dash of blue to the right of the middle. Close to the middleof the map, the colors are more pale/light. Regarding fascist systems, a dash of red to the left and a dash of blue to the right may be omitted, and with more than 67% authoritarian degree we thus can use just dark brown for simplicity.
As all fascist systems, including populist, are capitalist - economical plutarchist - significant, they also may have a dash of blue for capitalist. A left-populist system close to the middle of the economic-political map is thus light brown, with a dash of red and blue. For simplification just light brown and blue - or light brown and red - may be used for such left-populist systems, dependent on the situation. A left-populist system close to the totalitarian but with less than 66,7% authoritarian degree is similar regarding colors, but with brown, not light brown as the main color. A right-populist system, close to the middle of the map, is light brown and with a dash of blue, and never with a dash of red. Similar for a right-populist system close to the totalitarian, and with less than 66,7% authoritarian degree, but with brown, not light brown as the main color.
With less than 50% authoritarian degree, outside the anarchist quadrant, we find semilibertarian, also called semidemocratic, systems, to the left, i.e. red without brown, and to the right, blue without brown, and more pale/light towards the middle. Close to the anarchist border violet may be used for semilibertarian plutarchy/capitalism, and purple may be used for semilibertarian marxism. The anarchist systems are associated with red & black and black flags and banners, and green has been added in an environmental context, and pink for feminism. A red background with black stars, or black background with red stars, has also been used. The black star is the official symbol of the International Anarchist Tribunal. Alone, or together with a red shadow, it means anarchism.
These are today the main uses of colors a.s.o. related to the economical-political map and are decided by general consent by the Anarchist International and IIFOR at several International Congresses.
(In addition to this yellow has sometimes been used politically as symbol for treason, an authoritarian tendency, used as swearword for people/organizations/systems turning to be more than 67% authoritarian , or turning from socialism to capitalism. This may be taken into account on the map, say, as yellow stripes, together with the relevant basic colors mentioned above. Yellow has also been used for "pest and plague", and could thus also be used to indicate ochlarchical tendencies. Furthermore yellow has been used to indicate rule by priests, hierarchy in the original meaning. Rainbow flags have been used by different groups, sometimes as symbol for pluralism and colorful fellowship. This may be combined with the basic colors if relevant. Other colors and symbols may of course also be introduced as stripes or other signs in special cases, but generally speaking the basic colors mentioned above are what is going to be used without further explanation at the AIIS web-pages.
To have a consistent and firm use of the colors, may as indicated above be a useful tool, pedagogically and didactically. Although principally other colors may be used, the mentioned colors and use have a historical context. The practice mentioned above also rejects the use of black as color for unlawful, criminal and fascist tendencies, which is inconsistent with the above approach, and only make confusion. Inconsistencies are not pedagogical and scientifical, and should be avoided. Say, "black" market for criminal business should not be used, but "brown & blue plus yellow" for illegal capitalist markets, and "brown & red plus yellow" for corruption in marxist regimes, or just brown markets instead.
These choices of colors are as mentioned related to historical practice. To put something more into it, say, red for blood, black for earth, brown for dirt, blue for sky, etc, or more metaphorical; red for freedom, black for sorrow or land, etc. is not relevant in this context, as the colors here are used in a nomothetical perspective, and it is thus not very interesting to try to trace the historical origins, if any particular reasons exists for the choices of color at all. Perhaps these origins are quite random, more or less a function of what is already "occupied", and a need to find something else, not to be mixed up with other political tendencies or other problems.)
Anarchy and anarchism mean real democracy, economical and political/administrative, in private and public sector, i.e. all in all more influence from the people - the bottom - upwards, than from the top, downwards. The economic and the political/administrative coordinates should ideally be estimated in the best way, reflecting all relevant facts, aggregated in the most relevant way:
1. An estimate of economic democracy vs capitalism (economical plutarchy), and
2. political/administrative democracy vs statism.
The degree of anarchy is indicated by the formula of anarchism, see homepage or click on formula . There are several formulas at the mentioned web-page, but it is in reality just several ways to express the same mathematical relation between anarchy = real democracy, the libertarian, socialism and autonomy, and the consistent negation; authority, statism and capitalism. Because the degree of anarchy is only defined within the anarchist quadrant on the map, we logically get several interpretations of the same mathematical relation.The map may be seen as a graphic representation of the formulas, or the formulas, as a mathematical representation of the map. Thus, to think that the map is valid, but not the formulas, or vice versa, is absurd. Both are equally valid!
You can't have one without the other, in the sense that the same equations are expressed in graphical and algebraic 'language' respectively. It must always be possible to say something reasonable about how authoritarian a society or system is, and if it has significant anarchist degree or not. But of course, due to possible different interpretations of the concepts of socialism and autonomy, and calibrations of the map, the coordinates of a system will be a bit uncertain, and may be discussed. This discussion however, to be so scientifical and objective as possible, should probably always be done within the framework of the economical-political map. The calibration of the map should principally not be done by using subjective feelings about how authoritarian systems may be felt, in the sense that the map is mainly designed to be used in an objective way.
A) The middle point of the map should be calibrated according to the general idea that it indicates where systems moving upwards "tip over" from i) more influence from the top downwards to the bottom, - to the opposite, ii) more influence from the people, grassroots, the bottom, and upwards, so iii) the top, the bureaucracy broadly defined, mainly, i.e. more than 50% = significant, is acting as servants of the people, and not the other way around, - accounting for what is really going on in the society. This means both economically and political/administrative. The "tip over" is also a qualitative shift, indicating that a system moves into the anarchist quadrant of the map, and thus is not marxism, fascism or liberalism.
B) This middle-point of the map also has 50% degree of socialism and 50% degree of autonomy, so this is the same as A). This means a dynamic, rather than static, approach, see the operational definitions of socialism and autonomy below.
Principally, this is not problematic to map, economically and political/administrative, but it may of course involve a lot of practical questions to solve, similar to the problems with national accounting in macro-economics. A special problem is connected to "objective" indicated as "intersubjectivity" in this matter, search in this file for these words to see what are meant. Other calibrations, more subjective, are also possible. This is discussed more other places in this file, search for "calib" to see the results.
It is also possible to add more dimensions to the map. Say, a separate cultural dimension has been discussed on international congresses and seminars. However, so far the conclusion is, that it is better to aggregate the cultural, as well as the environmental, juridical, diplomatic, military, etc, dimensions into the economical and political/administrative dimensions broadly defined, rather than try to see them as separate dimensions in libertarian vs authoritarian perspective. Thus a libertarian culture is a culture of small rank and income differences, etc., i.e. organized broadly defined according to anarchist principles.
And thus, a libertarian culture is a culture reflecting libertarian values and principles, not a particular lifestyle and taste for food, music, clothing, housing, symbolism, etc, say, what is "in" and what is "out". Thus, a libertarian culture may principally be multi- towards mono-cultural, but not authoritarian and intolerant in practice, organizationally, broadly defined. Tolerance should of course not be mixed ip with pluralist-extremisme, i.e. accepting more than 67% authoritarian, totalitarian practice, in the name of cultural pluralism. The freedom of speech must however of course be close to 100%. It is deeds, not words, that determine what are extremistic authoritarian practices in a social organizational context. Authoritarian propaganda, say, contradictive mixes of anarchy and chaos/ochlarchy, must however be criticized in a relevant, matter of fact, way, as, say, by the use of Anarchist Press Tribunals.
Of course we have paintings, songs, poems, literature, plays and movies with more or less directly anarchist political content, say, in some of Henrik Ibsen's, Arne Garborg's, Piet Hein's and Jens Bjørneboe's works, movies and TV-programs from, say, "Sacco and Vanzetti" to the "manufacturing of consent" (Chomsky) , the satirical anarcho-punk rock-opera of the FABS - "The Ballade of Exterazy Grax", a.s.o. But a libertarian culture should never be defined as narrow as that, i.e. limited to anarchist politics directly. The Soviet repressive "social-realism", and the Chinese-Maoist ochlarchical "culture revolution" in art and culture broadly definded, remind us that such a narrow "political_correct" quasi-libertarian culture concept is authoritarian, not anarchist.
The cultural life should clearly be artistically free, within the broad framework of close to 100% freedom of expression, altough avoiding totalitarian practice, i.e. with more than 67% authoritarian degree. Thus, say, although the punk-band "Sex Pistols" in their song "Anarchy in the UK" just promoted the authoritarian travesty of "anarchy" and "anarchism", better (read: worse) than any authority could have done, and thus fooling a lot of youths of what anarchy and anarchism really are about, the International Anarchist Tribunal has never given the Sex Pistols a Brown Card. However the "useful" idiots of Lenin and other authorities, that take the chaotic "program" of the "Sex Pistols" literally as a framework for political action , both deserve and have got Brown Cards from the tribunal.
Mathematically a multi- or n-dimensional perspective on the formula of anarchism is not a big problem, but the graphical mapping cannot have more than 3-dimensions. Both the principle of Occham's razor, and the essential idea of two main tendencies of socialism as well as capitalism, i.e. the statist and the autonomous types, suggest that two dimensions are the most scientifically correct. Thus, remembering that a multi-dimensional theory is possible, and not principally rejected, we will so far stick to the basically two-dimensional approach of the E.P. map, but be open for use of more dimensions in special cases.
The map mathematically expressed, i.e. the formulas of the map and its areas, including inequalities, equations and definition intervalls and areas, is a kind of ecocirc and ecocircical relations, as defined by Ragnar Frisch in his econometrical research broadly defined. Thus, they are a kind of accounting formulas and equipped with a fully consistent set of relevant data they will always, if tested statistically, say, by regression analysis, give 100% correlation. Thus, seen purely statistical, they are 100% certain, and thus more certain than, say, Einsteins well known e = Mcc. If not 100% correlation occurs by a properly calculated regression analysis, there is some fault in the data, inconsistencies, and not faults in the relations. The relations are based on political assumptions, however in a kind of objective and symmetrical or balanced way, not just subjective meanings about the system. Thus, the mapping of a system's coordinates on the Economical-political map, and movements over time, it is principally a mapping of objective, measurable characteristics of the the flows and circulations of influence on the management and coordination from the people's perspective, or similar.
The formula of anarchism is an ecocirc relation similar to the basic ecocirc relation R = C + I + A - B in national accounting where A export; B import; C consumption, i.e. public + private; I net real investment, i.e. public + private; (C+I+A-B) total demand, i.e. nominally; R = total supply R, net national product, i.e. nominally.
The formula of anarchism is also scientifically related to indexes as the UN's Human development index, see HDI etc and the index of "economic freedom", see Heritage's economic freedom index . The formula of anarchism is an ecocirc relation, but also an index of libertarian degree.
Ecocirc relations are practically always valid, i.e. as mentioned if you test them with a consistent, certain, set of data the correlation is 100%. Try and see that it is true. If there is uncertainty in the data, you may make a point estimate and a confidence interval, or give an approximate point estimate, as the empirical results based on the formula of anarchism at ranking of countries according to libertarian degree and the Anarchy debate.
That the formula of anarchism is practically always valid does not mean that this theory is not testable. It is of course testable, and thus compatible with the hypothetical deductive method. Say, you can have an hypothesis that the libertarian degree of USA is 60% in 2003, and if you use the formula with estimations of the degree of socialism and autonomy in USA according to statistical data from 2003, you will find that the degree of socialism is about 24,5% and the degree of autonomy is about 69,8% and thus the libertarian degree according to the formula of anarchism is about 42,5% and thus not 60%. The hypothesis about 60% libertarian degree is thus rejected.
1. By using mathematical set theory, mathematical relations, equations, identities and inequalities, and mathematical logics and deduction, the whole theory of the EP-map may be expressed as a mathematical general framework and accounting system for research, discussion and mapping of the coordinates of a system with respect to the given dimensions, socialism, autonomy, capitalism, statism, totalitarian, democracy, real democracy, anarchy, anarchism, liberalism, fascism, marxism, authority, state, people, authoritarian, semi-democratic, semi-libertarian, libertarian, parliamentary, etc., influence and decision prosesses and its flows and circulation between the members of society, these concepts seen nomothetically and universal.
NB! A semi-demoratic & semi-libertarian system is either 1. economically or 2. political/administrative authoritarian (buth not both), i.e. capitalist/economical plutarchy or statist respectively, significant, but in average, measured by the authoritarian degree, not significant authoritarian. Thus only anarchist (real democratic) systems are libertarian, i.e. not authoritarian in general: Libertarian both 1. economically and 2. political/administrative and 3. in average measured by the libertarian degree = degree of democracy, significant. And thus either a system is anarchist (real democratic) and also libertarian, or authoritarian economically and/or political/administrative.
The concept of influence may be defined and measured in different ways, and is probably correlated with they who take the decisions in different matters, but sometimes other persons have influence on the ones taking the decisions, although not taking these decisions themselves, say, by different forms of direct actions making an influence on the ones in charge in the matter. Thus, to map the circulation of influence in a very detailed way, may principally demand a lot of research, similar to, say, national economic accounting, measuring the Gross National Product and similar. However a more general overview of a systems coordinates may be relatively easy to achieve, say, a) in a way similar to the United Nations human development index, HDI, or b) based on a survey of different groups and persons opinions of the coordinates of systems, investigated in different ways within the framework of the map, via the exact formulas, or an approximation. As in any econometrical investigation, "garbage in means garbage out", or as Henrik Ibsen said "Når utgangspunktet er som galest, blir tit resultatet originalest", meaning wrong data may give strange results with respect to systems' coordinates on the map.
The basic principle of calibration, also called standard calibration of the Economical Poitical map, is as indicated above a) that fifty-fifty influence by the people vs the authorites, i.e. bureaucracy, on the relevant economical matters defines 50% socialism = 50 % capitalism, and b) that fifty-fifty influence by the people vs the authorites, i.e. bureaucracy, on the relevant political/administrative matters defines 50% autonomy = 50 % statism. And thus the middle point of the Economical Political map, i.e. both 50% socialism, capitalism, autonomy and statism, means fifty-fifty influence by the people vs the authorities both on the economical and the political/administrative dimensions and relevant matters. In practice several factors may be taken into account when calibrating the model in a standard way, say, the political sectors and other areas specified on the map, and different indicators related to political/administrative rank and economical income-differences (principally the utility or welfare) and other anarchist principles defining the aggregated two basic dimensions on the Economical Political map.
It is also possible to use other, i.e. not standard calibrations of the Economical Political map, by different transformation functions, similar to measuring temperature by using either Fahrenheit or Celsius or Kelvin degrees, the transformation functions being mathematical relations to transfer data of other calibrations back to the standard calibration, in a similar way as Fahrenheit or Celsius degrees may be transformed to Kelvin degrees as a standard. Say, the middlepoint of the Economical Political map, i.e. 50% socialism, capitalism, autonomy and statism, may thus be defined as a) less than fifty percent influence by the people vs the authorities on the economical and political/administrative matters, or b) more than fifty percent influence by the people vs the authorities on the economical and political/administrative matters, in a symmetrical way, or not. Say, if the people are"allergic" to authority, they may subjectively mean calibration b) is defining the middle point, i.e. 50% socialism, capitalism, autonomy and statism. If the people are very positive to authority, they may subjectively mean calibration a) is defining the middle point, i.e 50% socialism, capitalism, autonomy and statism. Thus, say, if people in general become more "allergic" to authority over time, the case b) is increasing, even if the system based on standard calibration (or another fixed calibration) objectively becomes more anarchist, they may still, falsely, say the system becomes more authoritarian.
On the other hand, authorities, say, by Orwellian "1984" newspeak, authoritarian indoctrinating people with ideas of type a) increasingly, may manufacture a consent, as Noam Chomsky says, that the system is libertarian, and even more and more anarchist over time, even if it is objectively being more and more authoritarian, if using the standard calibration and objectively analysing the real influence ecocirc. In general such tendencies must be stopped, if any, by more objective research about the influence of the people on the societal management and coordination, production and distribution, and, free, matter of fact, criticism and dialog about the estimates of the coordinates of the systems and this research and methods in general.
If this is not done in an efficient way, anarchism and analysis using the Economical Political map, may develope into a false, pseudoscientific accounting of the coordinates of the system and society, a tool in the hands of authority to rule the people, where authoritarian ruling is hidden behind libertarian rhetorics and false figures showing a high degree of anarchy, but in reality if using the standard calibration on objective data the coordinates are going downwards on the map towards dictature and fundamentalist chaotic ruling. Thus, such false use of the Economical Political map will be a kind of Orwellian "1984" double thinking, a political, authoriarian pseudoscientifical enronism.
Opposition groups, say, trying to make a coup d'etat, may use the opposite form of false use of the map, trying to fool people to think that a real libertarian system is authoritarian and chaotic, to get backing for establishing themselves as a new authority.
In general research to reveal such authoritarian pseudoscientical use of the Economical Political map, to make false estimates of the coordinates of the political economical system, is by mapping the changes in the transformation functions used to change the calibration, and transform the false, biased estimates back to standard calibration, in a similar way as real economical figures is estimated by deflating nominal data by the inflation rate.
In 2007 some people mean the Norwegian system seen all in all objectively has been more anarchist than ca 53% since 1994/95, and ca 54% since medio 2002, and has a more increasing degree of anarchy over time, indicating ca 55%-56% anarchy may be the case now. IIFOR estimates about 53% anarchy since 1994/95 and 54% since medio 2002, are however most realistic, based on UN and other statistics, see footnotes at ranking of countries according to libertarian degree. A few say the economical political system of Norway is less anarchist, if not authoritarian, and getting worse, i.e. more authoritarian over time.
Most anarchists however mean these negative persons are quite 'allergic' to authority, and thus not reliable in an objective way using the standard calibration for analysis. The practical applied implementation of the standard calibration, selecting indicators and aggregation methods etc, may be done in several different ways, say, similar to the discussion of the measurement of the UN human developement index, HDI. Thus, there will probably always be some methodological uncertainty, although not being biased, in addition to possible uncertainty in statistical data, and thus the estimates of the coordinates of an Economic Political system may in general be relatively uncertain figures. This uncertainty however does not make such investigations less interesting. It only indicates the results could be discussed more.
It is also principally possible to use the framework on nonhuman, animal life, especially social animals, as apes and ants, and thus it is clear that the map does not take a stand vis-a-vis whether the invididuals are lead or decide actions by instincts, predermined, or more or less based on free will and/or choice, determined or random, or a relevant mix. Thus the framework is general, principal and universal, and may also be used on more or less social lifeforms in outer space, in case they exist. This also indicates that the degree of democracy may have different interpretations or meaning with respect to freedom in a more philosophical perspective.
Usually in the investigations of a societal system's coordinates on the economical political map, we don't discuss philosophical questions related to societal management explicitely. Persons believing that materialistical dialectical forces, astrology, Adam Smith's "invisible hand", gods or devils etc. have influence on the system, must themselves take into account how such things may affect coordinates of the societal system, in case they think such things are relevant. In general believing in predeterminism and similar ideas will probably reduce the degree of real democracy and the libertarian seen subjectively, i.e. indicating an opinion about less real influence on the societal management and coordination by the people.
But if the influence of such forces, if any, are equally distributed on all persons, the coordinates on the economic political system will probably not be affected. These questions are discussed somewhat in the philosophical introduction in next chapter, but is of little to no interest for practical mapping of the economical-political systems of human societies, and is thus omitted here. While non-human, social animals have a genetically very fixed economical-political system, and cannot change the system's coordinates by themselves, humans change their systems' coordinates by own actions.
Thus, historically and today the human societies of the different countries on earth have different authoritarian degree, some are more democratic and egalitarian, and some are more authoritarian or totalitarian. The analyses of economical-political systems' coordinates are just a scientifical way of estimating the degree of the authoritarian vs the democratic, socialism and autonomy, etc., within the framework of the Economical-Political map. Thus, we just take into account that humans have more freedom of choice and is not predetermined in the same strict way as apes and ants, with respect to political economical systems, i.e. the human societal systems may be changed by the humans' political/administrative and economical actions, and is not genetically predetermined as, say, the societies of baboons, the seemingly more libertarian treeapes, or ants and bees. Humans may change their economical-political systems' coordinates by their own actions, say, towards less vs more authoritarian degree, while even the societal systems of advanced apes as baboons and the seemingly more libertarian treeapes only are dependent on physical environment and genetical factors, and be changed only over very long time via mutations and natural selection, in a natural biotop. The development of humans and human societies may be seen as determined, a.o.t. by humans' free choice, but not predetermined, ruled by destiny.
Of course analogies from nonhuman animal life, in a social darwinistical "mutual fight, and survival of the fittest" way, or the opposite "mutual aid and co-operation" and best survival this way, analogy, have no significant scientifical value in human society, and must thus be avoided, and rejected as pseudoscience. It must also be mentioned that Kropotkin's principle of using the scientifical method of the natural sciences in social research implicates that such analogies must be avoided, and thus Kropotkin's works on mutual aid in nature, must of course not be interpreted analogical as 'natural' for the human society. The purpose of the investigations of "mutual aid" by Kropotkin was a.o.t. to cut the biased basis for social darwinistical analogies falsely used in social sciences and politics, by pointing out that mutual aid was also an important tendency in nature. But by stating the principle of using the general methods of modern natural sciences in social sciences and anarchism as well as politics, Kropotkin principally also rejected to use any analogies from natural sciences in general, including analogies based on mutual aid. Analogies and metaphores may inspirit towards new working hypothesis in social sciences, but standing alone and as such have no scientifical value.
Any economical-political, i.e. producing and/or distributing - system is assumed axiomatically to have one and only one coordinate on the map, principally noted as a fixed, certain, definite point, in the basic form represented as a two dimensional vector, that may move around over time, in jumps or small steps, including principally the possibility of infinitesimal small steps, i.e. continuously. This is seen principally, theoretically and practically in fiction, virtual reality, political programs, etc. and the systems of the real, material world. This statement expresses the existence of a system's coordinates as a fixed, certain point on the economical-political map.
2. The next step is practical mapping, econometrical (or similar called sociometrical or politometrical) research, i.e. trying to locate the coordinates of a given society or system in space and time on the EP-map. This will basically A. depend on the system's own characteristics and B. on the calibration of the map. Thus, we may use a) the fifty-fifty influence from the people upwards vs the authorities downwards definition of the midde point of the map, or b) another principal calibration of the middle point. The functions of deviations from the middlepoint related to the percentage scale must also principally be defined. Important indicators as rank and income differences may be very big, say, when one unit has all income or power, and the others none, and this must be taken into account when calibrating the map and defining ca 100% authoritarian degree. For practical analysis it is usually not necessary to define the corners of the map exact, as no system will be so extreme. The relevant points or area around the middlepoint must however be calibrated.
Then next, we may choose an objective approach trying to map i) the physical flows and circulation of the influence on the economical and political/administrative system from the people vs authorities perspective, or ii) map persons and/or groups impression, meaning of this matter, i.e. practically by some methods of interview. A combination of i) and ii) is also possible, and also both a) and b) may be used in a comparative analysis.
3. The result/aim of the econometrical research is principally to get a statistical estimate of the coordinates of the system, i.e. we must estimate I) the economical coordinate, and II) the political/administrative, combined with relevant assumptions with respect to A and B; a) or b); and i) or ii) (or as metioned a combination). This investigation may take the form of and iteration prosess first finding out whether the system has significant socialist degree (> 50%) or not, respectively autonomy degree (> 50%) or not, and thus estimate what main quadrant of the four that are covering the coordinates of the system, certain or probably, and then in a similar way estimate the right sector of the four within the estimated quadrant covering the system, and continue in similar way for smaller areas, until the ca coordinates of the system are located. The iterations prosess may start on relatively crude and few but highly relevant data, and then more detailed and broader based data may be introduced during the further iteration prosess.
Another way is to make one aggregated percentage index for the economic coordinate and one for the politica/adminstrative, based on one or more indicators for each main index - weighted together in a relevant way. In the selection and construction of the indicators and weights, the reliability and validity of the different variables and statistical data must be accounted for, the mathematical form of the indicators, and the aggregation method in general are keywords with respect to optimal measurement. Principally a rather general model of the political and economical system may be used as basis for selecting the optimal indicators etc. either of the behavioral type, or just based on the relevant characteristics of performance, sheding light on the socialism and autonomy degree.
4. This framework may be combined with the mentioned iteration prosess or used to estimate the coordinates directly as a certain or probable figure or as a confidence area covering the real figure with a given probability, based on relevant statistical data, dependent on whether the statistical data used in the indicators and weights are stocastical (uncertain) or certain. The indicators may be qualitative ( = 0 or 1) or quantitative, i.e. ordinally ranked or cardinally measures. As researchers are often left to use the 'best among the bad lot' of data, and not the optimal data from scientifical point of view, the investigation of the coordinates related to a system may be a complicated puzzle, where different methods, including also a 'detective type' framework, a.o.t. using the elemination method, may be the case. A general discussion of the scientifical methodology of anarchism and libertarian research is found in the next chapter:
There is as mentioned above a travesty of 'anarchism' and 'anarch'y, i.e. authoritarian and not anarchist - created by authorities and authoritarians that will harm the anarchist movement, and support ruling and rulers, and their 'useful' idiots. This travesty is ochlarchy, ochlarchist and ochlarchists, broadly defined, i.e. mob rule and similar tendencies including terrorism, mafia and criminality, anti-archy, anti-government and similar activities and oclarchical actions, etc, - falsely called 'anarchy', 'anarchist', 'anarchism', 'anarchists' and similar. This travesty is a completely false approach and thus 100% not consistent or compatible with anarchy and anarchism in real terms in any form, and what is anarchist and thus anarchists. Persons, societies and situations compatible to - or acting according to this authoritarian travesty, including contradictive mixes of anarchist and such authoritarian ochlarchist tendencies, i.e. significant mixes of anarchist and the non-anarchistic, are chaotic, inconsistent, and thus authoritarian and neither valid anarchism nor anarchy, anarchist nor anarchists, etc. Data related to the travesty contribute principally to the authoritarian degree as an authoritarian tendency, and thus of course not libertarian.
It must be said load and clear that valid anarchism is, and has been ever since after Peter Kropotkin published "Modern Science and Anarchism" 1903-1913 and confirmed on later anarchist congresses, principally a consistent research front of libertarian research, based on the same methods as modern natural sciences (the hypothetical deductive method), but not in itself a natural science, being social scientifical with a praxeological approach. And thus economical, political and social research and ideas, even with just a little touch of marxian, hegelian or other dialectics and pseudoscience, liberalistical metaphysical tendencies, populist new age or other religious ideas, principally brake the methodological basis of anarchism, and thus must be rejected as not valid as anarchism and anarchist.
It may of course sometimes be possible to reformulate non-anarchist ideas and make them compatible to the anarchist methodology and framework, but this is something else than including such ideas directly as a part of anarchism. Say, things and events that look dialectical in an hegelian or marxian way, may be investigated by the natural scientifical method and be explained in an anarchistic way, according to the method of modern natural science (the hypothetical deductive method). This point of view implicates that all things and events principally have a logical, scientifical explanation, however perhaps not as easy explained as it may seem at first sight. This will be discussed more in the next chapter, in the philosophical introduction. Some philosophical points of view may have an influence on the measurment of the authoritarian degree, i.e. via more or less freedom of thought, will and choice.
And as mentioned concepts as "anarcho-marxism" and "anarcho-capitalism", are "anarchy"-statism/archy and "anarchy"-plutarchy respectively, oxymorons, and thus not anarchy or anarchism in real terms, because these concepts are contradictive and thus not consistent. Thus, "anarcho-marxism" is marxism and not anarchism, and "anarcho-capitalism" is capitalism (typically an extreme form of liberalism) and not anarchism, if these concepts are not so chaotic that they are some kind of populism/fascism in real terms. Such tendencies must then be counted for as not-anarchist tendencies in mapping of a system.
Political-econometric, i.e. practical and statistical esimation of the degree of democracy = libertarian degree, etc.
Some basic information about this political-econometric research is mentioned at the top (introduction) to this web-page and at the introduction this chapter, and we will not repeat that here.
The formula of anarchism is as indicated above just a mathematical precisation of the economical-political map at Economic-political systems. The estimates of the degree of anarchism, or more general the libertarian degree = the degree of democracy, are calculated by the formula of anarchism at formula on basis of estimates of the degree of socialism and the degree of autonomy. NB! The degree of economical democracy = the degree of socialism, and the degree of political/administrative democracy = the degree of autonomy. The degree of socialism and the degree of autonomy may be measured in several practical ways. One is just to ask people what they think about the matter for a given country.
Another more objective way of practical measuring is the following: The degree of socialism, the economic influence by the People, is dependent on income-differences, (say, measured by the Gini-index - indicating economic equality & fairness), and economic efficiency & freedom, (say, measured by GDP per capita). In a similar way, the degree of autonomy, the political/administrative influence by the People, is dependent on the rank-differences, see anarchist class analysis and the RDI, life expectancy at birth (years - there is no autonomy without life!) and adult literacy rate, see ranking of countries according to libertarian degree. The estimates of the libertarian degree = the degree of democracy, at this file (ranking) are done via the more objective way/method. We know that these statistical indicators are not perfect measures of freedom, equality etc. i.e. influence by the People, measuring autonomy and socialism, but they are the best of the bad lot using public statistics, which we must do as IIFOR has not financial resources to collect own statistics.
Socialism means high efficiency & freedom (say, high GDP per capita) and economic equality & fairness (low gini-index - flat income-pyramid), capitalism the opposite, i.e. significant economic inequality, top heavy remuneration pyramid - large gini-index - and/or low efficiency (low GDP per capita), lack of economic freedom. Similar with the degree of autonomy vs statism.
It is clear that these operational definitions of socialism and autonomy have a dynamic and not static approach, some things may practically take long time. Say, to achieve high efficiency (measured by GDP per capita), large real-investments I = dK/dt , where K is real-capital and t is time, over some time may be necessary, and/or technological development, both may practically take long time. It may thus be practically impossible to move an ultra-authoritarian system over to anarchy on the map within a short periode of time. And say, a primitive society (archi-society) with low efficiency is not anarchist, even if the gini-index is close to 0, i.e. it lacks economic freedom. Similar with the degree of autonomy.
Regarding direct democracy vs parliamentarian democracy on the EP-map, 1. direct democracy for autonomy may be based on referenda and/or significantly flat organized delegated democracy, etc., and 2. equivalent for direct economic democracy regarding socialism, all in all 3. with less than 43,75 % authoritarian degree. This limit is choosen related to a balanced division of the respective areas on the EP-map.
Some concepts related to the EP-map:
a) Autonomy = Significant political/administrative freedom and significant political/administrative self-management and self-administration plus grassroots influence on de facto policy. Significant horizontal political/administrative organization - real political/administrative democracy. A political/administrative "bottom up" approach. Significant political/administrative efficiency and fairness. The opposite of statism.
b) Socialism = significant economic freedom, equality and real economic democracy. Significant flat, horizontal economic organization. An economic "bottom up" approach. Significant economic efficiency and fairness. The opposite of capitalism.
c) Capitalism = significant economical plutarchy, i.e. rule by the rich - the rich are rulers, economical hierarchy and/or lack of economic freedom. Top heavy economic pyramid - lack of economic efficiency and/or fairness. An economic "top down" approach. The opposite of socialism.
d) Statism = significant political/administrative hierarchy, top heavy political/administrative pyramid. A political/administrative "top down" approach - lack of political/administrative efficiency and/or fairness. The opposite of autonomy.
An economic-political system has both environmental/green as well as market goods and services. Efficiency and fairness etc. include environmental/green aspects and are defined from the people's perspective, not the perspective of the rulers or more general the superiors economic and/or political/adminstrative. The people here seen as a class as opposed to the superiors in rank and/or income, i.e. political/administrative and/or economically.
Anarchism and anarchy are socialism plus autonomy as defined above, see the economic-political map, a system significantly flat organized both economic and political/administrative, efficient and fair, without top heavy pyramid economically and/or political/administrative, based on significant statism and/or capitalism. The results of the economic-political systems of the anarchies Norway, the Swiss Confederation and Iceland confirm the basic libertarian hypothesis that a horizontal structure, i.e. a significant autonomous and socialist system, is efficient and fair. Empirical data of other systems confirm that a top heavy structure, capitalist (economical plutarchist) and/or statist, is unfair and/or inefficient.
Digression: A discussion of the concepts of revolution and reform in relation to change of coordinates on the economic-political map, are found in Chapter III. ANARCHISM: IDEAL, PRINCIPLES & PRACTICE above in this file.
In Norway we have also used surveys with interviews, and these estimates confirm the investigations based on the more objective method. In both types of investigations a best operational approximation based a.o.t. on A) and B) above is valid. It must however be mentioned that these operational statistical measurments of the libertarian degree are only accounting for the most basic important indicators related to anarchism, an approximation, there are some more aspects of anarchism, see the other chapters on this file and AIIS in general. If these other aspects are significant, they will be taken into account accessorially in the estimation. NB! The authoritarian vs libertarian vs authoritarian degree can also be estimated directly by analyzing the decision structure of - and de facto influence by the People - in this connection, especially in small organizations or partial approaches, i.e. a micro-democracy approach. Remember in this connection: The degree of democracy = influence on the societal decisions by the People = the Bottom of the social pyramid, mainly taken by the Bureaucracy, the Top of the social pyramid, measured relatively as a percent degree between 0 % and 100 %, that is a precise measure on how much the People govern = democracy, i.e. the degree of it. And the democray degree = libertarian degree = 100% - the authoritarian degree. See also Class analysis about measurment of influence on societal decisions, i.e. the degree of democracy = libertarian degree.The estimates are accounting for economic and political/administrative freedom, solidarity, and equality etc. also democracy vs. totalitarian systems, that may be dictatorship, heavy ochlarchy, rivaling polyarchy or extreme capitalist (economical plutarchist) liberalism, extremist systems in general, in a practical way. The gini -index measures how top heavy the income hierarchy is. If one has all of the income the index is 100. This is the most top heavy income hierarchy. If everybody has the same income, no hierarchy - the distribution is flat - the index is zero. As a rule of the thumb a gini-index less than 35 indicates socialism, and an index more than 35 indicates capitalism - economical plutarchy.
This is only a rule of the thumb, the concept of socialism also includes efficiency & economic freedom. Thus a system with high efficiency & economic freedom, indicated by a large GDP per capita, and a gini-index at 30 may be more socialist than a system with low GDP per capita and a gini -index at 25. Socialism means a lot of wealth plus a reasonable flat distribution of income. The libertarian degree is as mentioned dependent on the degree of socialism and the degree of autonomy, see the Formula of anarchism. The ranking and point estimates at ranking of countries according to libertarian degree are made by IIFOR, see the AI-research insitute. IIFOR has published point estimates of the libertarian = democracy degree for all of the countries mentioned in the HDI -statistics of the UN, also the countries without HDI rank.
NB! There are all in all 193 countries in the UN's HDI statistics of 2005 (with most data from 2003), 177 countries with HDI-rank and 16 without HDI-rank. In the ranking according to libertarian degree by IIFOR, countries with about the same libertarian degree have the same rank and because several countries share the same number in the ranking, the 193 countries are ranked from 1 - 186 according to libertarian degree. Norway is no 1, with highest libertarian/anarchy degree, ca 54%, and Somalia has rank no 186, with the lowest libertarian degree registered, ca 20%, 'ca' means 'about'. NB! Thus it is correct to say that a) 'Somalia is ranked as no 186 of a ranking of 1 - 186 according to libertarian degree of 193 countries (in the world)', or 'Somalia is ranked as no 186 of the ranking of countries according to libertarian degree in the world' or 'Somalia is ranked as no 186 on the world ranking of countries according to libertarian degree' or similar , but not correct to say b) that 'Somalia is ranked as no 186 of 193 countries according to libertarian degree', and c) similar to a) and b) are valid for other countries on the ranking. The estimates of the libertarian degree for countries ranked from 101-186 are between ca 29%-20%. The ranking of countries from 101-186 is very uncertain. Also the estimates for the 100 most libertarian countries are a bit uncertain.
Countries with less than 33,33 % libertarian degree, i.e. more than 666 per thousand authoritarian degree are totalitarian, that may be dictatorships, heavy ochlarchies (ochlarchy = mob rule broadly defined), say, with rivaling polyarchy or oligarchy, or have a very low degree of autonomy and/or socialism in general, i.e. being extremist systems. Systems with equal to or more than ca 67% authoritarian degree, are significantly totalitarian. But systems with just a little more than 67% authoritarian degree are far from 100%, absolutely, totalitarian, i.e. with 100% authoritarian degree. They have however a strong, significant totalitarian tendency, but the libertarian degree is from 33,33% and a bit less, and they are far from so totalitarian as Hitler's nazi Germany, Mussolin's fascist system in Italy or Stalin's communist system in SSSR, and thus are also very far from the absolutely totalitarian.
The countries ranked from no 65-186 according to libertarian degree, have less than 33,33 % libertarian degree, and are thus very authoritarian, i.e. totalitarian. Many of them have elections, often formally parliamentary elections, but they are democracies in the name only, not in reality. Election of very significant rulers does not mean they are real democracies or semi-democracies, and these countries have in reality either very significant economic repression or political/administrative repression, or both. Election of very significant rulers, i.e. within the framework of a very top heavy societal pyramid in rank and/or income, means a totalitarian regime, not real democracy or parliamentarian semi-democracy. These systems are not found within the parliamentary section of the economic-political map, i.e. they are not real parliamentary systems.
In general, elections are necessary for democracy, both semi- and real-democracy, but not a sufficient condition. Elections may end in tears, not to mention grand larceny, murder and even genocide. Elections alone do not amount to a democracy, in the meaning of being within the parliamentary zone of the economic-political map, or even more libertarian. Without institutions that promote accountability, etc., they are too easily exploited by cynical, greedy elites/archs. Real democracy and non-totalitarian system in general include a significant amount of "checks and balances", "checks" include free critical investigations and research where the results are publicly available, and "balances" include balance of strength in societal perspective, and institutions promoting the "checks and balances". More information about democratic institutions broadly defined, see Real democracy - definition.
Unfortunately, the "kumbaya" politics of the 1990s held that voting was an end in itself. Western institutions became involved in an electoral circus which often absorbed huge sums. Self-selecting election "monitors" from America and Europe would travel to Armenia one week and the Ivory Coast the next to pass judgment on the validity of the process. By contrast, there was little or no investment in dealing with the consequences of the elections or building the institutions essential to ensuring that the resulting government did not abuse its power. In the former Yugoslavia, unscrupulous populists exploited the plebiscitary democracy in 1990 and 1991 to rip the place apart. Similar happened, and is happening, in many poor countries in Africa and other places.
Elections are necessary for real democracy but not a sufficient condition. Elections alone do not amount to a real democracy. Real democracy includes institutions that promote accountability, etc., in a very significant way. Real democracy includes a very significant amount of both transparency and "checks and balances", "checks" include free critical investigations and research where the results are publicly available, and "balances" include balance of strength in societal perspective, and institutions promoting the "checks and balances" in a very signifcant way.
A social, economic-political system with free and fair elections of mandated representatives or delegates, usually called democracy, may function more from the top downwards, significant vertically organized, centralist or the opposite, from the bottom upwards, significant horizontally organized, federalist, i.e. anarchy. Thus all anarchies are democracies but everything called democracy is not necessarily anarchist or anarchy. Many so called representative democracies may work more from the top downwards than the opposite, from the bottom upwards, and thus are not real democracies, anarchies, but archies.
Thus anarchy is always democracy but not all democracies are anarchist, i.e. some democracies are archies, anarchy is as mentioned real democracy. Anarchy is just a minor part of, a subset of, the total amount of democracy, because not all democracies are anarchies, real democratic. A lot of conditions must usually be fulfilled to secure that a democracy is a real democracy, i.e. anarchy. A lot of people's organizations broadly defined, including strong labor confederations, co-operatives and green, ecological federations; a free press, i.e. not the 4th power of the State; dialog and free, matter of fact, criticism; all organized significantly according to anarchist principles, are necessities. The existence of a sufficient amount of real alternatives, and a general balance of strength, significant stopping power in the meaning of domination, economical and political/administrative in public and private sectors, may also be mentioned.
A real scientifical, i.e. a non-dogmatic anarchist way of thinking, as opposed to populist/fascist and relativist, marxist dialectical and liberalist more or less metaphysical way of thinking, is another important thing. By real scientifical, we mean using the natural scientifical method broadly defined, the hypothetical deductive method, thinking principally and that hypothesis may be rejected, also taking into account realistic future scenarios related to different alternatives and actions, costs and benefits. Thus thinking, say, if this and that are the conditions, and these are the alternative actions, what are the probable alternative outcomes, - and then decide what actions are best, real democratic i.e. what is in the interest of the less benefitial majority of the population, the people vs the authorities and upper classes.
"Best arguments win" and to get "competence effectively and fair through in the system" are benchmarks in this context. An efficient and fair dialog in the public room, as indicated with free and matter of fact criticism, working horizontally and/or from the bottom, the people and grassroots - upwards - is a must. To criticize the present proposals and situations without having a clearly better realistic alternative, is quite useless. For higher degrees of anarchy, usually different forms of co-operatives and federalist direct democracy organized according to anarchist principles are important parts of the economic-political system.
On the other end of the ranking we have three anarchies of low degree, no 1 Norway with ca 54% anarchy degree, no 2 Switzerland with ca 53% degree of anarchy and no 3, Iceland with ca 52% degree of anarchy. These societies are real democratic, the systems work significantly more from the bottom, grassroots, and upwards, than from the top downwards to the bottom. Thus it is anarchism. Anarchies have more than 50% anarchy degree, i.e. significant.
The countries in the middle, ranked from 4-64 according to libertarian degree, are semi-democratic, the systems work more from the top downwards to the bottom, than from the bottom, grassroots, and upwards, but they are not totalitarian. They have a libertarian degree between ca 49,99% and 33,33%. These countries mostly are parliamentarian democracies. Election of significant rulers does not mean real democracy. Election of significant, but not very significant, rulers, i.e. within the framework of a top heavy, but not very top heavy, societal pyramid in rank and/or income, means a semi-democratic, usually parliamentary, regime, not real democracy.
Thus the number of democratic countries, included real democracies and semi-democratic parliamentary democracies and similar, i.e. countries with less than 66,67% authoritarian degree, is about 64 (a few countries share the same rank, libertarian degree), according to IIFOR's investigations. 'WikiAnswers' answers the question "What are the present number of democratic countries in the world - 2009?" with "Approximately 50-60 countries." Thus 'WikiAnswers' is approximately in line with IIFOR's investigations. "Freedom House" operates with about 120 "electoral democracies", or close to 2/3 of the countries in the world. It is clear from the above reasoning that this is a too optimistic view, with too low standards for democracy. Another democracy index is made by "The Economist Intelligence Unit". The countries are categorized into full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes and authoritarian regimes. In the 2010 report from EIU only 53 countries were listed as authoritarian, a too optimistic point of view.
Many countries with so called "electoral democracy" are in reality totalitarian and non-democratic, with more than 66,67% authoritarian degree, compared with normal standards of democracy. According to IIFOR about 1/3 of the countries in the world are democratic, i.e. with less the 66,67% authoritarian degree, about 2/3 are totalitarian and not democratic, despite some of them holding elections. As mentioned elections of very significant rulers are not democracy, not real democracy and not parliamentary semi-democracy, but totalitarian - significant. It is false to state that about 2/3 of the countries in the world are democratic, i.e. inflating the democracy concept; only about 1/3 of the countries in the world are in reality democratic, and only about 1,5 % real democracies, i.e. anarchies. Furthermore these approximate figures are long term structural estimates, it will often take very long time to achieve significant changes. The fight for anarchy world wide is in generel a long term fight, although sometimes a change of a system's coordinates may happen rapidly in a country.
Election and shift of the political color of the cabinet, will usually not mean a system's shift of sector on the economic-political map, but may indicate minor movements of the system's coordinates. The system's coordinates is dependent of the whole system, and usually not influenced very much of the political color of the cabinet, because the economic-political system is much more than the cabinet. However the political color of a cabinet, or more precise its coordinates on the map, may indicate a pull of the whole system in a certain direction, so in the long run the whole system may get the same coordinates as the cabinet, if it prevails and lasts for along time.
The empirical investigations of IIFOR presented at Ranking of countries according to libertarian degree, and more, are based on the UN-HDI-statistics, OECD statistics, EUROSTAT, statistics from the Statistisk Sentralbyrå in Norway, and several other sources. In the column for the libertarian degree we have used “,”, the European standard instead of American/UK standard, i.e. “.” as decimal separator. The term “ca” is an abbreviation for the latin circa, which means about or approximately. Some more detailed research results are presented at the Anarchy debate for discussion.
In chapter V.A. we concluded that anarchies very briefly defined are systems with small rank and income differences, plus efficiency. Any ownership that is compatible with systems with small rank and income differences, plus efficiency, is possession. Possession may be individual or collective, private or public.1. Any ownership that results in large income differences is capitalist, economical plutarchy. 2. Any ownership that results in large rank differences is statist. 1. and 2. are property, i.e. theft, not possession. Here property is defined as a general broad societal concept. Property defined in this way is the ownership of the State defined as a broad societal concept. Optimal order is a condition for high efficiency.
As a rule of the thumb, operationally, we define a society with a gini-index below 35, as socialist and with possession, if it has autonomy i.e. significant (however as mentioned also efficiency, measured, say, by GDP per capita, is a part of the operational measure of socialism), and societies with a gini-index with 35 or above as capitalist/economical plutarchy, and with property. Also significant statist societies have property, not possession. From these concepts, operationally defined, combined with statistics/econometric research based on the ranking of countries according to libertarian = democracy degree, it is clear that Norway, Switzerland and Iceland are based on possession, i.e. significant, while all other countries are based on property, i.e. significant - either statist or capitalist, or both.
What IIFOR investigates are coordinates on the economic-political map, see economic-political systems, and the authoritarian degree (distance from the top of the map for a system) for economic-political systems, and the libertarian/anarchist degree, i.e. 100% - the authoritarian degree. If IIFOR has sufficient relevant data for a country, political party or person (about the persons political view broadly defined, sometimes including how he/she acts, say, authoritarian vs libertarian tendencies), IIFOR can estimate the degree of capitalism and statism (or 100% - these degrees, i.e. the degree of socialism and autonomy), and the authoritarian degree (or the libertarian/anarchist degree), using the formulas at the Formulas of anarchism. IIFOR is interested in the real thing, not formal attributes.
IIFOR's survey of the libertarian/anarchist degree of a person, based on a questionnaire, is found at Questionnaire of libertarian degree.
The democracy/libertarian degree is, a bit simplified, an indicator of the economic-political production and distribution system's ability to satisfy the needs of the people, grassroots = The degree of democracy = influence on the societal decisions by the People = the Bottom of the social pyramid, mainly taken by the Bureaucracy (authorities) the Top of the social pyramid, measured relatively as a percent degree between 0 % and 100 %, that is a precise measure on how much the People govern = democracy, i.e. the degree of it.
100% democracy/libertarian/anarchist degree means the highest possible satisfaction of the people's needs = Full democracy, means 100% influence by the People on the societal decisions, while 0% libertarian degree means starving to death and worse. Per 2010 Norway has the highest libertarian/anarchist degree at ca 54%, while in the other end we have Somalia with ca 20% libertarian degree. Hitler's nazi Germany is estimated to less than 10% libertarian degree, but not zero. Even worse systems are thinkable. The worst realistic thinkable absolute hell on earth society has 0% libertarian degree = 0% degree of democracy, 100% authoritarian degree - i.e. the influence by the People on the societal decisions, mainly taken by the top = zero, .
Anarchist policy, strategy & tactic and investigations of the libertarian degree = the degree of democracy
IIFOR has as mentioned above ranked most countries in the world according to libertarian degree = the degree of democracy, based on long term average structural estimates for the coordinates on the economic-political map, see System theory and economic-political map, and also published factual estimates of the libertarian degrees, see Ranking. Both domestic and international factors are considered. Around these long term structural estimates there may be short term dips and hikes in the libertarian degree. 100 % - the libertarian degree = the authoritarian degree. The authoritarian degree is an indicator of how dangerous, i.e. repressive economical and/or political/administrative, a government - or more general - an economic-political system is, from the people's perspective, see Class analysis. Systems with more than about 67% authoritarian degree, 666 per thousand, i.e. less than about 33,3% libertarian degree, are totalitarian and thus very repressive, dangerous, systems/regimes, see, System theory and economic-political map. As power corrupts, and the more -- the more power, in general totalitarian systems have a lot of and severe ochlarchy.
Norway is today the most democratic/libertarian/anarchist country (rank no 1 - 54% democracy/libertarian/anarchy degree) and Somalia is the most authoritarian (rank no 186 - 20 % democracy/libertarian degree), with, say, Libya ranked as no 68 (ca 32,5% libertarian degree) as a long term structural average, based on historical data, and thus both Somalia and Libya are totalitarian, and they have also fascist regimes. As an example, with the genocide and heavy repression against the people in Libya early in 2011, there is a significant dip in the democracy/ libertarian degree, very likely down to under 20 %. Thus early in 2011 Libya had most likely the most dangerous and repressive system in the world, vis-a-vis the people.
The Anarchist International AI/IFA's main policy, a bit simplified, is in general to increase the libertarian = democracy degrees of countries, i.e. their economic-political systems, as much as much as possible, in the world in a dynamic perspective. Sometimes this implies a struggle to prevent a decline in the libertarian degree as much as possible, namely when other factors pull in the negative direction. AI/IFA puts some extra weight at a) the 3 anarchies of today, i.e. Norway, The Swiss Confederation and Iceland, and policy towards higher anarchy/libertarian degree in these countries, as they are only anarchies of rather low degree, b) to get more countries to be anarchies, e.g. of them relatively near anarchy today, c) and to improve the situations and hike the libertarian degrees in the most authoritarian - least libertarian countries. Early in 2011 a.o.t. Libya! In all cases AI/IFA concentrates on situations with significant momentum, e.g. popular revolt and more or less revolutions, in libertarian direction. Say, early in 2011, AI/IFA concentrated about the situations in North Africa and the Middle East, i.e. historical uprisings by the people. Anarchys is real democracy, documented at Real democracy defined, i.e. including human rights, see Anarchism and human rights.
Fellows! The people, seen as a class in contrast to the superiors economically and/or political administrative, i.e. in income and/or rank. The present and future are in our hands! Contact AI - Click here and join the AI/IFA-network today! Be a networkmember/subscriber to the IJ@/AI/IFA-newsletters - Click here, and use the subscription link at the bottom of the page! Feel free to forward this information to your own network, and/or link up the Websites of AI/IFA at your blog or homepage. Join in the struggle for and towards anarchy and anarchism, i.e. for more socialism and autonomy; against economical plutarchy - that is capitalism; and against statism -- locally, domestic, regionally and world wide... Of course a struggle without ochlarchy (mob rule broadly defined), the opposite of anarchist, anarchy and anarchism!!! A struggle for anarchy and anarchism as opposed to all forms of marxism (state-socialism), liberalism and fascism, including populism. A struggle for a movement of the societal, i.e. economical and political/administrative, systems -- in libertarian direction, less authoritarian degree... AI/IFA and its sections always work and demonstrate with dignity, use real matter of fact arguments and add weight behind via direct actions, mass actions, and via elections. More information is available via Contact AI - Click here!.
The investigations of the libertarian degrees and authoritarian degrees, and in general systems' movements on the economic-political map, are a strategical basis for The Anarchist International AI/IFA's main policy and practice, and libertarian strategy & tactics and human actions, praxeology, in general. The libertarian degree = the degree of democracy.
C. ANARCHISM AND MODERN SCIENCE UPDATED - HISTORY OF THOUGHT - METHODOLOGY
As mentioned in chapter V. B. it is principally also possible to use the framework of the economical political map, i.e. say, estimate the authoritarian degree of societies of nonhuman, animal life, especially social animals, as apes and ants, and thus it is clear that the map does not take a stand vis-a-vis whether the invididuals are lead or decide actions by instincts, predermined, or more or less based on free will and/or choice, determined or random, or a relevant mix. Thus the framework is general, principal and universal, and may principally also be used on more or less social lifeforms in outer space, in case they exist.
This also indicates that the degree of democracy may have different interpretations or meaning with respect to freedom in a more philosophical perspective. Say, a democratic system may be simulated on a computer as a game at certain coordinates on the EP- map, but the program simulating the democracy and the animated people exposed on the datascreen of course have no freedom of choice or other freedom at all, but are 100% predeterminded by the computer/program and the player(s) and perhaps some more or less random data errors. Ants may have complicated behavioral patterns and perhaps act on signals ('commands') from other ants in relevant matters, but act ca 100% on instinct, and have ca no freedom of choice, neither as 'commander' nor 'soldier'. In special cases this may also lead to war between different societies of ants, so it is not perfect harmony, but the war happens automatically - on instinct, not by choice in a free way.
Cows, wolves and similar social animals may seemingly have both authority, 'authorities' and 'people', leaders and followers, and sometimes social conflict, but obviously very limited freedom of choice, and mostly a predetermined pattern of decisions. Apes have different forms of social patterns, some, say baboons, seemingly have a rather authoritarian system, some (some kinds of treeapes) seemingly a more democratic or anarchist, but freedom of choice is probably very limited, and movements of the system's coordinates over time will anyway only variate moderately around the naturally predetermined average level, randomly or determined by weather, biotopical and ecological conditions. Tendencial and significant changes of the coordinates of the system may only happen as a genetical change over long time. A seemingly democratic system, based on much mutual aid, at first sight - will of course get an increased authoritarian degree if we account for lack of freedom of choice, measured by inflexibility in stimulus response patterns, as a part of the authoritarian degree, and not only look at the directly visible outer signs and tendencies of repression, physically, i.e. "economically" and/or by "political/administrative rank"
In this case, if accounting for freedom of choice, the seemingly perhaps relatively little authoritarian society of ants at first sight, may then be accounted for as having significant more authoritarian degree when the fixed 'bureaucratical A4 scheme' genetical patterns with lack of freedom of choice are accounted for as authoritarian. The lack of freedom, the "bureaucratic A4 scheme" nature of the societies of ants, may be exposed for instance when introducing a different, less friendly, ecology/biotop, because then they are not able to adjust to the new environment, but act similar as before, and then exposing inefficiency vis-a-vis the new situation, and thus it is not libertarian. It must also be mentioned that the name 'queen' related to the reproduction unit in the bee-society is misleading, because she has no significant command over the workers and thus is not a monarch in real terms.
Although the social nonhuman animals certainly have a production and distribution system and sometimes rank and food (real income) differences, indicating economical and political/administrative hierarchy, the freedom of choice is so small that the relevance of measuring the authoritarian degree may be questioned. But principally the coordinates of such systems and the authoritarian degree may be measured, technically seen. The results will however be less libertarian when accounting for genetically determined "bureaucratic A4 schemes" reducing freedom, and not only do a superficial analysis of behavior patterns in a relatively optimal biotopical and ecological environment. Anyway, analogies to human societies - and the other way around, are in general non-scientifical, and must be avoided as false in scientifical perspective. Humans are neither apes nor ants, although very seemingly a kind of social animal, i.e. but not necessarily a beast. We will discuss this a bit more below in this chapter.
Of course analogies from nonhuman animal life, in a social darwinistical "mutual fight, and survival of the fittest" way, or the opposite "mutual aid and co-operation" analogy, have no significant scientifical value in human society, and must thus be avoided, and rejected as pseudoscience. It must also be mentioned that Kropotkin's principle of using the scientifical method of the natural sciences in social research implicates that such analogies must be avoided, and thus Kropotkin's works on mutual aid in nature, must of course not be interpreted analogical as 'natural' for the human society. The purpose of the investigations of "mutual aid" by Kropotkin was a.o.t. to cut the biased basis for social darwinistical analogies falsely used in social sciences and politics, by pointing out that mutual aid was also an important tendency in nature. But by stating the principle of using the general methods of modern natural sciences in social sciences and anarchism as well as politics, Kropotkin principally also rejected to use any analogies from natural sciences in general, including analogies based on mutual aid. Analogies and metaphores may inspirit towards new working hypothesis in social sciences, and have a pedagogical approach, but standing alone and as such have no scientifical value.
However, according to the evolutionary more or less darwinistical theory, humans of course are highly genetically related to the apes and other advanced mammals. But the difference is also quite large. From a common anchestor probably several missing links of advanced prehuman apes and prehistorical primitive humans have occured. But because we find little traces of these human like beings, primates, they may probably had a sad destiny. Cannibalism, slavery, fights on life vs death to gain power to rule economically and political/admnistrative broadly defined, cruelty, bestiality, you name it - the prehistory of humans probably have got it. Only fantasy set limits to authoritarian evil... Archi-societies was probably mostly hell, and thus far from anarchies. We however also know from relatively modern history of humans living on small islands in rather optimal biotops and relatively far from dangerous enemies sometimes have developed somewhat libertarian types of societies.Were our anchestors more like a baboon, or even more authoritarian, or mainly related to the seemingly less authoritarian treeape? Perhaps, and most likely, the modern human, being yellow, black, brown, red or white of skin-color, or a mix, has both genetical ability to act culturally, socially i.e. political/administrative and economically broadly defined, more like authoritarian baboons or worse, or more like relatively libertarian treeapes, dependent on education, language and communication, organization, defense and other relevant conditions.
Thus the economical political systems map has probably a genetical root, i.e. it is possible to grasp it for the human brain and mentally, and see and or/investigate a lot - if not all - possible alternatives, theoretically and practically, do research and and discuss it in different ways, if this is not obscured by authoritarian Orwellian "1984" type manipulations of the language in the direction "baboon babble", repression of this research and spreading of it by Chomskyite "manufacturing of consent" or other ways, and repression of practical applications, etc. Perhaps the primitive "baboon" in us, related to some of the genetical construction of the brain, may also sometimes set some limits for libertarian thoughts, but these borders may be bypassed, and the other possibility of the genetical construction, the "tree ape" in us, combined with the more free will and logical, intelligent and thinking conscious of the "I" or "ego" personality of the modern human being, may reach a sufficient level of libertarian, realdemocratic, thoughts and ideas, to be able to create, under reasonable other conditions, societies of high standards and degree of anarchy.
However a retardation to a) "baboon babble" language and baboon like culture, organization and society, or b) even worse, a somewhat similar type of system combined with much authoritarian evils, i.e. "the beast" in us or at least some of mankind, limited only by fantasy, archi-society plus extreme sadistical evil, more than 666 per thousand authoritarian degree, and even more authoritarian, is, c) sorry to say, also very much a possibility. The humans history demonstrates this. The "baboon" in us, or even worse, the "beast", may sometimes be a strong mental creature, and make room, under certain conditions, for authoritarian and ultra-authoritarian hell societies, i.e. if the opportunity knocks. This is what must be avoided, and the libertarian side of the human beings be developed via education, culture and organization. It is however not possible to achieve this, i.e. the less authoritarian and more and more anarchy, just by mental human development and "newthinking" towards a more libertarian moral etc, culture, by a "new religion" playing on "divine" or secular strings, believing in gods or devils, the coming of a divine, or other libertarian supermen, the "good in mankind or man", etc. but only if such things are combined with a sufficiently strong armed defense, i.e. above all what is necessary.
Troughout time, all the "missing links" between the apelike anchestor, later apemen and later modern human beings, are 100% destroyed and probably often killed, often being slaves first, and perhaps later also often eaten. The only primates that have survived are some apes, and the modern humans, i.e. about equally intelligent averagely but of different skin-color and some genetically minor differences on the outside, but very much alike inside. No-one else among the apemen has survived.What we know from archeology, prehistorical and historical research are that a) relatively libertarian cultures and societies have developed sometimes, after doing away with less competitive humanoid primates, or inventing new food-productive technology, or travelling to and settling on a small, naturally protected island, or similar, but b) more "baboon-like", "dog-like", "beast-like", aggressive mutants, random or socially determined breed of authoritarian types of personality, culture or belief, and/or more authoritarian cultures based on authoritarian education, indoctrination and organization, have always appeared on the scene. Sometimes the more authoritarians have probably managed to do away with a lot, or some part of, (if not all) of the relatively libertarian tendencies or societies.
But all in all, human societies of earth today are perhaps averagely less of an authoritarian hell, and more democratic, than before. Some are even anarchist or close to. However historically relatively new ultra-authoritarian regimes, say, Hitler and Mussolini (fascism) , Stalin, Pol-Pot (marxism), The British empire's horrible doings, and later the slaughter of the Indians in USA (liberalism), and similar, are proof that things may easily and very much go out of hand, and the "baboon & beast" society or tendency may easily return, on large scale.
As mentioned, of course analogies from nonhuman animal life, in a social darwinistical "mutual fight, and survival of the fittest" way, or the opposite "mutual aid and co-operation" and best survival this way, analogy, have no significant scientifical value in human society, and must thus be avoided, and rejected as pseudoscience. It must also be mentioned that Kropotkin's principle of using the scientifical method of the natural sciences (the hypothetical deductive method) in social research implicates that such analogies must be avoided, and thus Kropotkin's works on mutual aid in nature, must of course not be interpreted analogical as 'natural' for the human society. The purpose of the investigations of "mutual aid" by Kropotkin was a.o.t. to cut the biased basis for social darwinistical analogies falsely used in social sciences and politics, by pointing out that mutual aid was also an important tendency in nature. But by stating the principle of using the general methods of modern natural sciences in social sciences and anarchism as well as politics, Kropotkin principally also rejected to use any analogies from natural sciences in general, including analogies based on mutual aid. Analogies and metaphores may inspirit towards new working hypothesis in social sciences, but standing alone and as such have no scientifical value.
And as mentioned concepts as "anarcho-marxism" and "anarcho-capitalism", are "anarchy"-statism and "anarchy"-plutarchy respectively, and thus not anarchy or anarchism in real terms, because these concepts are contradictive and thus not consistent. Thus, "anarcho-marxism" is marxism and not anarchism, and "anarcho-capitalism" is capitalism (typically liberalism) and not anarchism, if these concepts are not so chaotic that they are some kind of populism/fascism in real terms. Such tendencies must then be counted for as not-anarchist tendencies related to mapping of systems, including discussing the models and political tendencies of political economy and its different researchers and spokesmen.
1. A brief history of thought based on the economical-political map
Historically different writers, philosophers and researchers, may also be placed on the map. Say, to the far left on the map we have marxist theorists as Rosa Luxembourg, Gramski and Herbert Marcuse. Not so far left and closer to anarchism, but not anarchist, we have Cohn-Bendit, Pannekoek, the Norwegian Rune Slagstad, and some revolutionary syndicalists, i.e. "children of Marx", some of them more or less semilibertarian (but not anarchist). At the center it is social-democracy, associated to Bernstein's revisionism, and to the left and down we have the Leninists, i.e. Trotsky, Stalin, Baader-Meinhof, Castro, Mao, Pol-Pot, a.s.o. All of these are followers of Karl Marx. However we use "marxism" as a general concept for statism-socialism and thus also, say, Blanqui may be said to be leninist or leninistoid, placed in the state-communist sector of the marxist quadrant on the map. Even some ancient Greek philosophers may be accounted for as leninists or leninistoid.
Anarchism, theory and practice, is based on the non-dogmatic, non-dialectical, scientifical method suggested in Peter Kropotkin's "Modern Science and anarchism" (1903-13), i.e. the hypothetical deductive method. Marxism in all forms, i.e. based on the materialist dialectical framework, is in general not compatible with the hypothetical deductive method, and is thus non-scientific and pseudo-science. All the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao, as well as Bernstein and Pannekoek, etc, are non-scientific and pseudo-science. Also the works of the "New Left", including "Cohn Bendit et autres gauchistes", also called "the children of Marx", are marxist, marxism, and non-scientific and pseudo-science. Also the left-Hegelian dialectical ideas of, say, Bakunin and Max Stirner, and later Daniel Guerin, Sam Dolgoff and Murray Bookchin, must principally be rejected as pseudo-science, similar to Marx and his followers' ideology. However their non-dialectical ideas are in general anarchist. Also central theorems in marxist economics are not compatible with the hypothetical deductive method, and thus are pseudo-science.
The anarchists are found not so far left and more upwards on the
map. The anarchists relatively most to the left are, say, Noam
Chomsky, Michael Bakunin and some anarcho-syndicalists, as Diego Abad de Santillán (Sinesio García Fernández),
i.e. collectivist anarchism. Upwards on the top of the map we
have commune and communist anarchism, associated to Pjotr/Peter
Kropotkin/Krapotkin, Errico Malatesta, Emma Goldman, etc.
Relatively to the right, but not far right, are individualist
anarchists, as Benjamin Tucker and individualist mutualists.
Close to the middle of the map we have social (individualist)
anarchism,. with main stream Proudhon, a.s.o. Proudhon had a
"left side" developed further by Bakunin, and a "right
side" giving arguments to the more clearly individualist
anarchists, but he is mainly a theorist of the progressive middle.
Some of them were social scientists, as Kropotkin and Proudhon,
some more philosophers as Bakunin, and others more research
journalists and essayists, as Malatesta, Tucker and Emma Goldman.
Anyway, they were all children of their time,
and quoting them to much in analysis of today's problems, results
in "anarchistology", similar to
marxism (typically Lenin said that, Engels said this a.s.o., i.e.
different types of hermeneutical analysis), and
that is not anarchism. Such "anarchistology
analysis" may be twisted in any direction by the author, and
have usually neither relevance to the problem nor to anarchism.
"Anarchistology" is especially a problem when people take polemical headlines and slogans pushing things to extremes for propagandistic pedagogical and/or rhetorical reasons out of context, not referring the matter of fact reasoning behind the headlines/slogans, the precise definitions of concepts, the logical relations and conditions, etc. As anarchists now and then use polemical and quite exaggerating statements for pedagogical etc. reasons, to get attention, an hermeneutical analysis may be quite misleading. And principally such hermeneutical analysis of historically given slogans and headlines, sometimes presented as "tradition", is clearly against the basic scientifical methods of anarchism, and thus not anarchist at all. In anarchism there exist no relevant "tradition" for hermeneutical "analysis", just a research front of so far not rejected working hypothesis and theories. In chapter V.C.3. below we will discuss the scientifical basis and methods of anarchism more.
Similar to Marx as the "father" of marxism, Proudhon is the "father" of anarchism. We can however trace similar thoughts back throughout history, although usually more vague and/or propagandistic, without real scientifical character. In all these preanarchist thinkers, Goodwin, Stirner, and further back to the Greek "Stoic" school, Zen-Buddhism etc. works, there are serious faults, inconsistencies, "guru-authoritarian tendencies", dialectical pseudo-scientifical way of thinking, vague and obscure expressions (fogarchical), etc. that are rejected by later anarchist research. However there are also sound elements, that constitute working hypothesis that is still valid in anarchist reserach, however often modified a bit and defined more precisely. It must also be mentioned that the left-Hegelian dialectical tendencies in some of Bakunins, Max Stirners, and, say, later Daniel Guerin, Sam Dolgoff and Murray Bookchin's works are pseudoscientifical and must principally be rejected, and thus not accounted for as valid parts of anarchist research.
With this in mind, it may be refreshing and inspiriting to read these old works, also to get ideas to new working hypothesis in anarchist research, but they should in general not be interpreted literally or dogmatic. A main problem with some, not all, of these ancient more or less libertarian philosphers is that they not always keep to the basic scientifical notions that 1. for everything A = A and 2. everything is either A or not A, which is practically always valid in reality. Thoughts and dreams may be inconsistent and contradictive, breaking 1 and 2, but material realities probably always not. Although such obscure statements, breaking 1. and/or 2. may have poetical or ironical value, and sometimes inspirit to further thinking towards new working hypothesis, they are in itself not a part of anarchism, which is scientifical, and they are also basically chaothic, and thus basically authoritarian, if used literally as political/adminstrative and/or economical statements and "principles". However, as indicated, such unscientifical statements should perhaps not be interpreted in a political economy and social organization context at all, but seen just as cultural, outside the political sphere broadly defined. But such statements may as indicated above, inspirit us to new scientifical thinking.
Remember anarchism is not totalitarian. If interpreted totalitarian, it is no more anarchism. Everythings is not politics, even broadly defined, and thus some poetry and other cultural expressions etc. may be outside the framework of anarchism, although very well interesting for anarchists to read. The knowledge of authoritarian ideas, as well as libertarian, and non-political ideas, in general, is of course necessary to achieve a cultural high level, compatible with anarchism. Just to read anarchist books, makes no good anarchist! However not to know anarchism, the anarchist research front, i.e. what is still valid and not rejected of anarchist working hypothesis and theories, is not anarchist either. And some poetical and typically cultural statements, may very well be a part of anarchism or compatible with it, say, some of Orwell's and Ibsens's poetical expressions, and Piet Heins famous notion on humor and jokes, etc. However the hermeneutical statement that "(sun)light is both shadow and light" taken literally, is not scientifical, clearly breaking 2. mentioned above, and thus not anarchist, although it may possibly remind us via associations in a vague way that there are degrees of anarchy vs authority.
Similar metaphores, etc. in Zen Buddhism and Greek philosophy etc., as well as modernistic and so called post-modernistic poetry and stunt comedy, are not anarchist either, although sometimes it may be nice and/or get the mind to work in a positive way. A narrow minded anarchist, just interested in politics and anarchism is dull and probably not a good anarchist either, but that does not mean that hermeneutical metaphores and similar are a part of anarchism. As mentioned above, everything interesting in society and life, the nature, planets, outer space, mountains, animals, plants, forests and the oceans, environment, culture, music, sports, art, etc. are not political; - politics are not, even broadly defined, everything, and especially not anarchism, that is only one of four equally sized parts on the economical-political map. To put the label "anarchist" on almost anything trendy, new and opposed to the old or established things/ideas, without significant political relevance, is not anarchist.
And if significant of political interest, new things/ideas may as well be authoritarian. Authoritarian and non-anarchist tendencies, as well as anarchist, may put on new clothing and hats, "old wine in new bottles". But if political, new things/ideas will practically always be located to one of the four quadrants on the economical-political map, and not be something real new and exciting. And, sorry to say, it will probably never come something new and exciting, breaking "the walls" of the Economical-Political Map. The E.P.-map, with the four quadrants, the 16 sectors and more, or a quite similar model for economical-political systems broadly defined, (details may be optional) - is among the most solid blocks of knowledge in social science today, and probably also in the future as long as mankind exists.
The science of political economy and social organization
research is problably, practically almost certain,
come to the point of now return in this context.
People waiting for a new guru that has seen the "great light",
" the third way", etc. outside the
map, are probably, practically certain, waiting in vain. They are
probably nothing but ignorant fools, and/or perhaps "useful"
idiots of Lenin/Hitler. To not at all be interested in politics
must also be rejected. The old Greeks called such persons for
idiots, which is still probably a valid label. People of today,
and in the future, should almost certain, choose between the four
quadrants on the economical political map, and what is their
ideal, and work for it more or less all of the time, although of
course not forget the other aspects of life.
To the right on the E.P.-map, close to the
middle, we have John Stuart Mill and social liberalism, while
Edmund Burke is a conservative liberalist, etc., i.e. the
followers of Adam Smith, the "father" of
liberalism, ideologically mainly located above the
center of the liberalistic quadrant of the E.P.map. A modern
advocate of mainly semilibertarian plutarchy/liberalism,
rightwards and a bit upwards on the map, is Robert Nozick. See Nozick - a semilibertarian right thinker
. Nozick's theory advocates a large degree of autonomy, but
allows for slave contracts, i.e. economical plutarchy, that
contradicts anarchy. A somewhat related thinker, Murray N. Rothbard, is called a theorist
of "anarcho-capitalism", i.e. however probably meaning
"anarchy-plutarchy" and thus a contradictive and non-scientifical
concept. Thus, most likely Rothbard is also a semilibertarian
liberalist, and perhaps more to the right than Nozick. There have
sometimes been a tendency among conservative liberalists to
interprete the works of Mill, Smith, Nozick and even Rothbard in
a conservative way, not taking fully into account their social-liberal
and individualist ideas. Others have interpreted them as moderate
libertarian socialists and even socialdemocrats. As far as we
know today, neither of these interpretations are valid.
The fascist quadrant, light brown populism included, have a lot of rather different spokesmen. Mussolini's fascists adopted the later works of the earlier marxist and welfare theorist Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), famous for his welfare theoretical "Pareto-optimum" from his early works, but also well known for his contempt for democracy, living in the Swiss Confederation when Mussolini started the fascist movement and to his death in 1923. The fascists declared Pareto the founder of their ideology. The anti-intellectual and chaotic works of Adolf Hitler, say, "Mein Kampf", is however more typical to the most authoritarian forms of fascism/nazism. Pareto-optimum is a general principle, a criteria of efficiency, widely accepted by social scientists, and also in anarchist economics and social science in general, and as such is not authoritarian. This principle may be used in an authoritarian and a libertarian context, and it is of course used in a libertarian way in anarchist science and politics, i.e. related to systems within the anarchist quadrant of the economical political map. Among the more authoritarian populists, Juan Peron from Argentina is a historical icon. Among the most authoritarian left populists, the terroristical Sergej Nechaev, who tried to play some tricks and intrigues on Michael Bakunin, but was rejected and denounced, may be mentioned as a horrible type. The Norwegian Carl. I. Hagen is mainly a right populist, but may opportunistically play liberalistical vs left populist sometimes, also with some false libertarian rhetoric.
In the light brown part of the populist sector many "gurus" with totalitarian quasiscientifical models, with dogmatical and somewhat authoritarian political tendencies and obscure, religious ideas are found. Some of them have also had close to (but not significant degree of the) libertarian ideas, - which is possible because the anarchist quadrant and the populist sector meet in the middle-point of the E.P.map. Rudolf Steiner with his totalitarian metaphysical, spiritual "science" based on astrology and advanced spiritism, etc. and a quasidemocratic, guru hierarchist, syndicalist type organization theory, called "three-branching" (tregreningen), "biodynamical agriculture" with some of it close to green-ecological tendencies, and "guru-schools" (Waldorf schools) with some close to libertarian tendencies, - the whole system called "anthroposophy", is one of them. Although all in all having significant authoritarian degree, some of these basically non-scientifical but somewhat close to libertarian ideas, have inspirited some anarchists, but of course then reformulating the ideas to testable hypothesis, for anarchist research. However, the metaphysical, astrological and guru elements have been rejected by the anarchists. Some of the "populist light" followers of Steiner in Scandinavia, in the latest part of the 1970s and early 1980s, tried to promote the populist syndicalism, as well as some other ideas of Steiner as "spiritual anarchism", but that was clearly rejected by the Anarchist Federation, and soon put to an end. Steiner himself for a short while in his younger days indirectly agreed on the label "individualist anarchist" in a vague way, however misunderstanding what anarchism is, and when he found out what anarchism really is, he rejected the idea and to be anarchist.
Another of these gurus is Bertram Dybwad Brochmann, in his early days a young/youth socialist, member of the Norwegian NUF (Youth Socialist Federation), and also hired as a spokesman for NSF, the Norwegian Syndicalist Federation of AIT/IAA/IWA, at some syndicalist events (although never being a member of NSF), and a writer on sociological items in the syndicalist newspaper "Alarm". He declared however later that he was not an anarchist or syndicalist. His "Totalitetsøkonomi" (totality-economy), was however not significant libertarian, but had a somewhat totalitarian tendency of religious - christian - hierarchy, although focusing on the real economy in a system based on single entry book-keeping. His followers suggest B.D.B. inspired the later economical Nobel Prize winner Ragnar Frisch to the work on "økosirk" models (economical circulation models, ecocirc), but Frisch used book-keeping by double entry in his system. The ecocirc is later further developed in anarchist economics of today, introducing system costs = bureaucracy costs, environmental factors and political systems elements, say, the democratic people's perspective as opposed to national(ist) and the authorities, upper class perspective, - more clearly than in Frisch's original works. However from B.D.B. Frisch perhaps adopted the concepts of money/fiction economy vs real economy.
In the 1930s Frisch also worked in co-operation with, among others, the movement of B.D.B - mainly in Bergen, with a planned direct exchange economy based on "varebyttesentraler", "goods-exchange-centrals", inspired from the Swiss Confederation, based on advanced accounting, mutual aid and without money, related a bit to some of Kropotkins ideas. Although used a bit in the Swiss Confederation at that time, these attempts didn't work very well in practice in Norway, and this theory is today mainly rejected by anarchist economists. Principally it may work with a limited number necessity goods, but not in a modern society with a lot of goods and services of all kinds and quality characteristics. Similar ideas had a short rebirth later during the economical depression in Norway after 1987, and also practiced on a small scale, but they mainly disappeared when the depression was over. This planned exchange economy must not be mixed up with primitive forms of barter markets, say used in Argentina 2002.
The most anarchistic parts of the original ecocirc ideas of Frisch, i.e. system costs - about the same as bureaucracy costs in modern anarchist economics, were later ommited under pressure from governmental tendencies, and a model where the political/adminstrative bureaucracy in public sector, i.e. their remuneration, is accounted for as valuable output and consumption in stead of input costs, as in private sector accounting, was introduced. The political economical reactionary tendencies vis-à-vis efficiency and fairness for the people, from these bureaucratical tricks, should be clear to everybody not working in the public sector bureaucracy broadly defined. Much of the ecocirc theories were however not affected by this, and thus is still valid in anarchist economics of today. And the system costs are as mentioned taken care of and renamed as bureaucracy costs in modern anarchist economics .
The introduction of bureaucracy economics, cutting out the anarchist point of view, in the ecosirc system, happened among other things because in his earlier days Ragnar Frisch was not very much a man that "stood on the barricades" to fight.
Frisch continued as a professor at Universitas Osloensis. Frisch also had some authoritarian or semilibertarian socialist ideas at that time, and he ran the Institute of Social Economics at the University in a bit authoritarian style, however this probably not the significant. At that time Frisch had a bit dogmatic and authoritarian belief in the ecocirc system, rooted back to works about the 1930s, but first published in 1942 "Noen innføringsmerknader om økosirk-systemet (Det økonomiske sirkulasjonssystemet) S.S.S.S. - TRYKK - Skrivemaskinstua - Oslo Oktober 1942, - sometimes stating it was "absolutely certain relations", "absolutt sikre sammenhenger" a.s.o, forgetting in this case the scientifical methodology of anarchist economics clearified by Kropotkin:
"The scientific method (the method of natural scientific induction) being utterly unknown to them, they fail to give themselves any definite account of what constitutes "a law of nature," although they delight in using the term. They do not know - or if they know they continually forget - that every law of nature has a conditional character. It is always expressed thus: "If certain conditions in nature meet, certain things will happen." "If one line intersects another, forming right angles on both sides of it, the consequences will be these or those." If two bodies are acted upon by such movements only as exist in interstellar space, and there is no third body within measurable distance of them, then their centres of gravity will approach each other at a certain speed (the law of gravitation)." And so on.
In every case there is an "if" - a condition.... Whether or not Anarchism is right in its conclusions, will be shown by a scientific criticism of its bases and by the practical life of the future. But in one thing it is absolutely right: in that it has included the study of social institutions in the sphere of natural-scientific investigations; has forever parted company with metaphysics; and makes use of the method by which modern natural science and modern material philosophy were developed. Owing to this, the very mistakes which Anarchism may have made in its researches can be detected the more readily. But its conclusions can be verified only by the same natural-scientific, inductive-deductive method [i.e. the hypothetical deductive method, ed. note] by which every science and every scientific concept of the universe is created. " (Modern Science and Anarchism (1903)). [bold letters sat by ed. A summary of the "highlights" on the method expressed by Kropotkin is quoted in Anarchism and modern science ]
It must here be mentioned that Kropotkin also accounted for a priori sciences as mathematics and mathematical logic as "method of natural sciences", i.e. if the Platonic, non-materialistic point of view is used as framework. This is important because economics have both 1. a priori type ecocirc relations (within the Platonic approach) and 2. equations similar to in physics, meteorology and engineering, i.e. statistically hypothetical and unless special cases without deviation and with uncertainty. The a priori conditions reflect the construction of human institutions and organizations a.s.o. historically, today and possibly of new constructions in the future, i.e. in advance - similar to a planned perspective. The similar a posteriori approach is based on experience. However none of these are unconditional and absolutely true, not even the a priori ones. Thus, when Frisch called the a priori (or a posteriori) type ecocirc relations for "absolute certain" he was on thin ice.
But Trygve Haavelmo, another libertarian socialist economist and later Nobel prize winner, put Ragnar at place, in a famous memo published by the Institute, restating the basic principles on economical methodology, and demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that the ecocirc relations were only practically always valid, not unconditionally and absolutely true, among other things dependent on the conditional principles of book-keeping by double entry. Thus, also Trygve Haavelmo contributed a.o.t. in an important way to anarchist political economy, by reminding Frisch on what he should have remembered. Haavelmo's criticism of Pareto's pyramidical "law" of income and related topics may be mentioned as well. Frisch also used the ecocirc models as basis for a planned socialist economical demand management, as an alternative to the liberalistical method of John M. Keynes. This approach is further developed in modern anarchist political economy, see General theory of anarchist economics .
In his older days R. Frisch more and more left these authoritarian tendencies, and also "went on the barricades", sometimes acting quite like a youth socialist and anarchosyndicalist "teenager". This tendency was among other things seen in an article in November 1953 in "Arbeiderbladet" declaring "Overklassementaliteten lever", "The upper class mentality is alive", warning about the working class youths should "fall a sleep... and lose their spirit to struggle". He also protested heavily against the EEC/EU, which he called the "UNENLIGHTENED PLUTARCHY", "Det uopplyste pengevelde", in an article in the internationally respected scientifical journal "Sosialøkonomen" (Frisch, Ragnar (1961). Det uopplyste pengevelde, Sosialøkonomen: 7/61), "The Social Economist", the organ of the Norwegian Association of Economists. (Today the name has changed, the "social" part is ommited) Frisch saw his later fellow Nobel Prize winner Jan Tindbergen from the Netherlands, who was very much yes to EEC/EU, as a naive bureaucrat who couldn't see the dangers of the coming Union. In 1962 he wrote another important article in "Dagbladet", called "Socially orientated or high finance orientated economic planning" (Samfunnsorientert eller storfinansorientert planøkonomi), clearly rejecting the EU-type plutarchy-statism bureaucracy economics, and putting up a rather libertarian socialist alternative called "social-plan-wealth". Several other articles on economic democracy, freedom-planning, co-operatives (mutualism) etc. are rather well known in the Nordic countries.
He also became very much interested in Icelandic small scale societal political economy, etc., taking more and more a libertarian socialist point of view, and always defending the "little man", i.e. the people's, perspective. In Mars1971 he wrote a note called "Life is service" declaring that all of his efforts were done with the purpose to help the little man in the society. Frisch was politically quite radical and of course all of the time a democrat. However, the other political efforts of Frisch, mainly based on the ecocirc system and ideas related to the planned exchange economy "varebyttesentraler" (goods-exchange-centrals) didn't break through in the main political system. Say, the "goods-exchange-centrals" was once put up by Ole Colbjørnsen in the Labor Party's economical crisis program in the 1930's, but it was rejected by "Den pengetekniske komite", a monetarist committe, with Gunnar Jahn as chairman, calling it an "inadvertence".
That Frisch also shocked the liberalistic and marxist economists, say, as Preben Munthe and Leif Johansen respectively, with his a bit polemical style, should be of no surprise. Frisch had nothing but contempt for the liberalistic market ideology of Egil Bakke, Preben Munthe, etc., and the dictatorial state communist plan ideology of Leif Johansen and others, and he was not afraid of showing it, although of course respecting everybody as fellow scientists and economists. However it is in the anarchist tradition to stress matter of fact reasoning with a touch of non-bureaucratical polemic now and then, and, say Preben Munthe, should perhaps not have been so occupied by the polemic, but looked more on the arguments. The famous, and short, article about EU/EEC as the "UNENLIGHTENED PLUTARCHY" is a central contribution to anarchistic ideas from Norwegian libertarian economists. It must also be mentioned that everytime Frisch tried to put up anarchistic ideas, he was met by a storm of protests from plutarchical and marxistical economists, say, Hoff, Bakke, Munthe, Keilhau, L. Johansen, O. Colbjørnsen and others. Frisch was accused for being polemical, but some of the opponents were even more polemical, and not always based on matter of fact mathematical analysis, as Frisch.
When we in 2002 have seen Berlusconian plutarchist political economy in Italy and Enron plutarchical political economy in the USA, and not to mention the plutarchist and statist bureaucratic - "statism without plan and capitalism without markets" chaotical, authoritarian economic-political "system" in Argentina, it is clear that the term UNENLIGHTENED PLUTARCHY, "Det uopplyste pengevelde", not only is a polemical expression, but has a real scientifical meaning, pointing directly to what is in reality going on here and there, and not only exaggerating something for pedagogical reasons.
As indicated above, Ragnar Frisch developed slowly into a libertarian socialist - quite anarchistic, but B.D. Brochmann developed from a relatively libertarian youth socialist and spokesman for the syndicalists into being a populist. B.D.B founded the "Samfundspartiet" (Society Party), and was elected to the Norwegian Storting, mandated from Bergen in 1933. However the lack of real scientifical methods, and a mix with religious beliefs, a guru-approach etc. contributed to put the B.D.B. movement in the light populist sector, although similar to Marx, he had some vague and a bit libertarian ideas as an ideal for the society in the future, but mixed up with the authoritarian tendencies. B.D.B. was however clearly less authoritarian than main stream marxism.
A radiospeech in 1940 hold by B.D.B., pacifistically indicating in a vague way de facto submitting to Hitler and asking people to "put down arms", made him arrested for treason after the war, convicted 1947, and for a few years put in jail. A semilibertarian marxist and human rights activist, Johan Vogt, also working at Frisch's institute, who earlier was an authoritarian marxist, wrote a nice note on B.D.B.'s economics to his defense, but he was as mentioned convicted anyway, although he several years had worked against the nazis, but in a very naive way. After being to prison, B.D.B. retired from politics and worked as a farmer. Perhaps he understood the basic populist faults of his ideas, that his followers the "Brochmannianerne" not yet have discovered? His followers are still around in Norway. A few of them tried to promote his "populist light" ideas as "christian anarchism" in the latest part of the 1970s and early 1980s, but this authoritarian mix of ideas was clearly rejected by the Anarchist Federation and soon put to an end.
Johan Vogt also worked with a variant of the ecocirc system from a marxist point of view, but as explained by later anarchist economists, (see General theory ) this is just an unrealistic special case. In the early 1970s Johan Vogt co-operated for a while with an anarchist economist, T. Sabatini - that later contributed to establish the IIFOR. The co-operation between Vogt and Sabatini was among other things with papers on environmental economics, and the political economy of freedom. Also the anarchist economist Trygve Haavelmo was involved in this co-operation. These works were also related to an early work mainly about remuneration systems related to anarchism, i.e. efficient and fair remuneration/wage systems of anarchism = Real Democracy, called Neo-Liberalistisk Teori, by T. Sabatini. This original paper was stolen by the Norwegian E-tjeneste or Secret Police on the tram-car en route to UiO at Ullevål, but later partly reconstructed by T. Sabatini in another shorter paper, titled Neo-Liberalism.
Another anarchist economist was Leif Holbæk-Hanssen at the NHH in Bergen. He promoted ideas about what he called "enlightened anarchy" (opplyst anarki), and also declared he was "some anarchist" (litt av en anarkist). He also worked with and was a good friend of T. Sabatini from late in the 1970s until he died in 1991. Called "Holbæk" among anarchists and fellows, he himself declared in the middle of the 1980s that he never mixed his religion, anthroposophy, with research broadly defined, practical and theoretical. This practically certain truth is clearly opposed to some Norwegian anthroposophists, that after "Holbæk" died falsely have postulated the opposite. He was clearly against mixing anthroposophy, i.e. religion, with research. Unlike most anarchists in Norway, "Holbæk" was not interested in party-politics, and did not vote in parliament and local elections, at least not in his last 25 years, as far as IIFOR knows. He declared that research on a topic never should be finished, always open for new investigations, hypothesis and results, a point of view also held by IIFOR, AIUF/AU, PGU and AI/IFA(-VA). This is opposed to Rudolf Steiners pseudo-scientific in practice dogmatic so called "spiritual science" (åndsvitenskap), i.e. the anthroposophy.
The main works of Frisch and Haavelmo, outside the ecocirc models, were development of the scientifical methods of economics broadly defined, i.e. econometrics, the use of mathematical and statistical methods in the field of economics to verify vs reject hypothesis and develop economic theories. The field of econometrics is concerned with estimating economic relations and testing whether postulated relations conform fully with reality. Their aim was to lend economic theory mathematical stringency, and to render it in a form that permits empirical quantification and a statistical testing of hypotheses. One essential object was to get away from the vague, more "literary" type of economics.While Kropotkin laid down the basic principles of the methodology in anarchist politial economy broadly defined, Frisch and Haavelmo contributed with practical methods for empirical and theorethical research based on these principles. This development of political economy, called social economics by Frisch, may well be called the Frisch-Kropotkinian revolution in social sciences.
The famous article by Ragnar Frisch on the unenlightened plutarchy, with comments from IIFOR, is found at Web: Frisch' basic ideas.. In a footnote to this article unenlightened plutarchy, plutarchy in general and plutocracy is discussed, concluding that in practice "enlightened plutarchy" does not exist, although there may be more or less of the unenlightened tendency.Ragnar Anton Kittil Frisch (1895-1973) passed his Ph. D. on a mathematical statistical subject in the Oslo University in 1926 and got the Nobel Prize 1969 "for having developed and applied dynamic models for the analysis of economic processes". Trygve Haavelmo (1911-1999) got the Nobel Prize 1989 "for his clearification of the probability theory foundations of econometrics and his analyses of simultaneous economic structures". Thus, they didn't get their Nobel Prizes for their most clearly anarchist economical research, but the most politically neutral, that very well also can be used for reactionary, bureaucratical purposes. This is no surprise to anarchists, say, Henrik Ibsen, at least for some years anarchist, never got a Nobel Prize, but the reactionary and nazi Knut Hamsun got it. Frisch is said to be before his time in the building of mathematical models, and he has many successors.
The same is true of his contribution to methods for the statistical testing of hypotheses. However Kropotkin stated the principal methodology already in 1903-13, so Frisch was not "first pilot". Today's econometrics have at least partly developed a bit into "econometricology", i.e. statistiscal methods without real economical content, and thus a form of quasiscience. This tendency has however been clearly rejected in modern anarchist political economy, that sticks to the basic, practically always valid relations, advanced ecocirc and similar equations. Furthermore, as indicated above, the early, progressive ecocirc theories of Frisch, including bureaucracy/systems costs, are further developed in modern anarchist economics, while the reactionary bureaucratical national accounting tendency, is rejected
Some economical history-writers, say, Tore J. Hanisch talks about the so called Oslo-school of economics, a quite misleading concept. Meaning "school" as a special political economy tendency on the Economical Political map, this must be rejected. This is so because the students of Frisch were spread all over the Economical-Political map, and Frisch himself moved from a bit authoritarian to libertarian socialism.
Frisch had used Trygve Haavelmo to carry the bags for the Frisch family during a trip to USA, and Haavelmo disliked this authoritarian tendency, and was in some ways rather fed up with Frisch, but he was never the less mainly a supporter of the libertarian third alternative. Gunnar Bøe, first working with the Labor Party, but leaving it in protest in the early 1960's, and later working as a professor in political economy at the technical university in Trondheim, NTH/NTNU, was also among the prominent third alternative libertarians, hinting to Kropotkinian ideas in some of his works, and presenting a general framwork for economical-political systems compatible with the Economical Political map, say, in chapter I, of the compendium "Samfunnsøkonomi"/"Political economy" (1976). But neither Haavelmo, nor Bøe and the other third alternative libertarians in the environment of social political economists in Norway were fiercly on the 'barricadas' in the public room as Ragnar Frisch, - they were mainly more of the quiet types, less openly and visible, active politically engaged in the 1945-60s. But the third alternative, and anarchist tendencies in general were all of the time present in the social scientifical, labor and people's movements and organizations, sometimes with more influence, some times with less, but the social democratic marxian tendency was clearly the strongest from 1945-1994, both as a political tendency and with respect to the Norwegian economical political system.
Odd Aukrust was for a time nazi-economist, later marxian socialdemocrat, Peter Jacob Bjerve also a very much state-socialist socialdemocrat, Leif Johansen was a Soviet type marxist-leninist, Preben Munthe mainly liberalistical, but in his older days also discussing publicly populists vs more or less original "third way" economists in a historical perspective, mentioning Proudhon, the American Henry George, the Germans Franz Oppenheimer and other ones with kibbutz and co-operative ideas, say, Silvio Gesell, that Johan Vogt was very much interested in especially before he became a marxian, Ragnar Frisch, etc. in his book "Populister og originale økonomer" (1999). Kåre Willoch liberal conservative, and in his older days moving leftwards to a kind of left populism, Carl E. Schulz Albania type maoist marxist-leninist, Per Kleppe socialdemocrat, Hilde Bojer, the sister of the green anarchist (at least for a quite long time) J. Bojer Vindheim - socialist leftist, some others semilibertarian or libertarian, etc. It may be mentioned that especially the most of the marxian socialdemocrats were strongly opposed to the libertarian third alternative ideas of Ragnar Frisch, and quickly ruled out, say, the organizational = systems costs, in the Frisch-Kroptkinian accounting and ecocirc system, to falsely make the bureaucrats and the systems' errors count as positive factors, or not accounted properly for, in the national accounting. However this discussion still continues in the environment of political economists and sociologists broadly defined, in Norway as well as internationally.
Strictly looking at the basic ecocirc and taxonomical relations, etc. there exist no separate "schools" in (anarchist) political economy and social organizations' research at all, just special cases of the same "mother model", see General theory of anarchist economics . Keynesianism, monetarism, neoclassical theory etc.and the different political tendencies may be seen as special cases of this general model, and thus not separate schools. In this perspective the name "Oslo school" is of course irrelevant because "schools" in general are not relevant within modern political economy.
Since economics historically not always have been 100% scientifical, but sometimes included quasiscientifical relations, we may perhaps talk of "schools" in political economy historically in an idiographical and hermeneutical perspective. But this is not relevant using the updated "mother model" as framework, i.e. a nomothetical perspective - and this perspective on history must be taken into account within this general framework. This is further explained in the chapter on methodology below. However there are probably no such quasiscientifical relations especially related to political economists in Oslo. Thus the term "Oslo school" is not relevant in this context either.
Kropotkin was for a short time in Oslo, visiting Norway two times, meeting prominent Norwegians according to a.o.t. newspaper-reports, and Frisch was mainly working there later, but this does not mean that the Frisch-Kropotkinian social science revolution is something special or typical for Oslo - it is international. And this revolution stagnated in the 1970s and a new revolution in anarchist political economy broadly defined was introduced in the early 1990s, mainly by IIFOR, taking into account new ecocirc, sociology, politology, social and industrial organization research, anarchist class analysis, ICT-models based on spread-sheets and similar, scenarioanalysis and simulation-models, a.s.o. in a generalistic social science approach. This revolution is a follower of the Frisch-Kropotkinian revolution, and may just be called (the breakthrough of) the general theory of anarchist political economy and social organization research. This model is as mentioned general, not a special "school", and although it is mainly "made in Oslo", it was early published in International Journal of Organization Research, and presented internationally at several conferences and other journals/books, and thus should not be seen as a national or Oslo project.
The list of populist light brown gurus all over the world is quite long, and also the list of utopian radicalist gurus in the marxist, socialist quadrant on the map, and also chaotical mixes of these tendencies exist. Erik Damman with FIVH, "Future in our hands", an organization in Norway and internationally, say England, is one of them, sometimes a bit populist and "new age", but other times more or less semilibertarian marxistical, all in all a bit authoritarian or semilibertarian marxist type of policy, certainly not more than 67% authoritarian degree, but although FIVH was called " a blood-red anarchist organization" by the neonazi Erich Blücher of the "Norwegian Front" (Norsk Front), who later fled Norway to live in Sweden, and sometimes a bit anarchist rhetoric, Damman and FIVH have never been anarchist. The movement is ideologically quite a bit chaotic and guru-hierarchical, and in practice too much libertinian (i.e. not libertarian) partying with whisky, beer and wine and smoking, mixed with vegetarian and not always healthy "health food" etc., with relatively large bureaucracy costs, partly financed by the State, mainly at the secretariate in Oslo. However some anarchists have been working with the FIVH, on progressive political and economical special projects, also trying to turn the movement a bit in anarchist direction, but so far have not succeded to make the movement anarchist. In general to much "new age" populist and dialectical marxist ideas, and tendencies of fanatism and dogmatism, non-scientifical ways of thinking, which is hard to do away with with free, matter of fact criticism.
The same goes for Steiner's and Brochmann's followers and other "wannabe libertarians", etc, all over the world, none of them anarchist, but with main tendency clearly outside the anarchist quadrant, and spread all over the E.P. map outside this quadrant, dependent on how authoritarian, fanatical, totalitarian and/or terroristical, leftist or rightist, such movements mainly - and in reality - are. Well known typical "fogarchs" of variating authoritarian degree are, in addition to Marx, Lysenko (who also misused Kropotkin, by not using his method, but wrongly sticking to one of Kropotkin's few later rejected working hypothesis), Damman, Steiner, Brochmann and several fascists and liberalistical "gurus" of politics and business, are, say, Nostradamus (1503-1566), Arthur Canon Doyle (1859-1930) - the spiritist, Aleister Crowly (1875-1947), another spiritist known as "the most evil man in the world" and "the animal 666", well a bit exaggerated; Guiodo von List, Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels and the "ariosophy", a bit similar to nazistical race-theories, James 1st, the writer of "Daemonologie, in forme of a dialogue" (1597), also known as "king in fogland"; Joseph Smith (1805-1844), the authoritarian prophet of the mormons, L. Ron Hubbard, the authoritarian "scientolog" leader, Elena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1891) and her "Isis Unvailed" (1877), the Russian theosophist, etc.; not to mention the greatest "fogarchs" of them all, Jesus Maryson, Muhammed, Buddha, etc.
We don't necessary mean that all these non-anarchist fogarchical types were all among the bad guys, but they were not significant scientifical in an anarchist way, they were metaphorical and mixing up mythology and facts in a non-libertarian, more or less irrational mental fog, standing up as authorities and archs, rulers in fog-land, - and thus not anarchist. But let us leave all these populist, marxian and liberalist thinkers, and once more take a look at the libertarian third alternative as Ragnar Frisch called it:
Last, but not least in this short note on the history of thought relating to the economical-political map, it must be mentioned that the words socialdemocrat and liberal also have been used on economical-political tendencies outside the usual meaning of today, i.e. as marxian and liberalist tendencies respectively. Libertarian socialdemocratic and liberal tendencies are also known historically, mainly referring to federalist-decentralized as opposed to statist-centralized systems close to the more advanced part of the marxian and liberalistical quadrants respectively, i.e. as a third alternative in the center above the middlepoint of the Economical-Political Map - social or social- inividualist/federalist anarchist systems and political tendencies.
Say, Bakunin founded a "socialdemocratic alliance" related to the First International, and some libertarian writers, as an example Bertrand Russel, who had a significant libertarian tendency at least in his younger days, i.e. between 1910 and 1950, is also often labeled as liberal. Libertarian socialdemocrats and liberals may also be relevant political tendencies of today, related to the third alternative, way or societal form in the center of politics above the middlepoint of the map. These libertarian, moderate anarchist tendencies of socialdemocracy and the liberal, must of course not be mixed up with the usual marxian and liberalistical political tendencies of the same names. When talking about the socialdemocratic and liberal political tendencies, without adding the word libertarian, usually the marxian respectively liberalistical tendencies are meant.
2. Use of the map for different forms of analysis - Anarchism: In the middle and a bit left but not leftism and a bit right, but not rightist
The Economical Political Map may also be used to explain Kropotkin's a bit misunderstood and too simplified hypothesis that anarchism is a party to the left, say in the article "Anarchism" in Encyclopædia Britannica 1910.
"As to their economical conceptions, the anarchists, in common with all socialists (i.e. the socialist section on the EP map, facing/opposed to capitalism), of whom they constitute the left wing (see explanation below), maintain that the ... capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility...[an]... obstacle which prevents the successes of modern technics from being brought into the service of all, so as to produce general well-being... But they point out also that the state was, and continues to be, the chief instrument for permitting the few to monopolize the land, and the capitalists [i.e. the all in all the economical plutarchs] to appropriate for themselves a quite disproportionate share of the yearly accumulated surplus [say, Gross National Product, GDP, environmental factors included, measured as benefit minus cost] of production. Consequently, while combating the present monopolization of land, and capitalism altogether, the anarchists combat with the same energy the state... Not this or that special form, but the state altogether, whether it be a monarchy or even a republic governed by means of the referendum.[NB! In some cases referendum used according to anarchist principles may be relevant]."
Thus, if you stand in the center of the Economical-political map (see map) with the nose fronting capitalism, you have anarchism on the left hand and marxism on the right of the socialist part of the map. In this his way anarchism constitute "the left wing" of socialists, as Kropotkin mentions, but anarchism is not far left on the economical-political map as it is usually drawn, standing on the ultrafascist corner, with the anarchist-communist ideal at the top, in the middle of the map. Anarchism is found from 25%-75%, i.e. in the middle on the left vs right axis on the EP-map, measured on a a scale from zero towards 100% leftism.
The hard criticism of Leninism by Kropotkin after the "Soviet" revolution clearly indicates he thinks marxism is reactionary, in a way to the "right", while anarchism is in a way to the "left". Kropotkins hard and still valid criticism of a) marxist economics, especially the labor theory of value, and the value added theory, which he clearly rejected with valid arguments, and b) the historical and other dialectics, which he also rejected as a non-scientific "method", in his book "Anarchism and modern science", also called "Modern science and anarchism", the unabridged full version, with preface written in Brighton 1913, must also be taken into account in this connection.
A basic principle of anarchism declared by Pjotr Kropotkin in "Modern
science and Anarchism" 1903, and still valid anarchism, is the following:
"Anarchism is an attempt to apply to the study of the human institutions
the generalizations gained by means of the natural-scientific inductive method;
and an attempt to foresee the future steps of mankind on the road to liberty,
equality, and fraternity, with a view to realizing the greatest sum of happiness
for every unit of human society. This method it applies to all the so-called
humanitarian sciences, and, availing itself of this method as well as of all
researches which have recently been called forth by it... Anarchism endeavors
to reconstruct all the sciences dealing with man, and to revise every current
idea of right, justice, etc., on the bases [= metodhology] which have served
for the revision of all natural sciences. Whether or not Anarchism is right
in its conclusions, will be shown by a scientific criticism of its bases [i.e.
the anarchist principles in general, the basic libertarian working hypothesis
and theories udated] and by the practical life... But in one thing it is absolutely
right: in that it has included the study of social institutions in the sphere
of natural-scientific investigations; and makes use of the method by which modern
natural science ... were developed.
Owing to this, the very mistakes which Anarchism may have made in its researches can be detected the more readily. But its conclusions can be verified only by the same natural-scientific, inductive-deductive method by which every science and every scientific concept of the universe is created. Anarchism does not recognize any method other than the natural-scientific. No struggle can be successful if it is an unconscious one, and if it does not render itself a clear and concise account of its aim... [The method is a part of Anarchism]: Perhaps we are wrong and they are right. But in order to ascertain who is right, it will not do either to quote this and that authority, to refer to Hegel's trilogy, or to argue by the "dialectic method." This question can be settled only by taking up the study of economic relations as facts of natural science. Whithout entering into further discussion of the principles of Anarchism and the Anarchist programme of action [called Anarchist praxeologi, human action research, today], enough has been said, I think, to show the place of Anarchism among the modern sociological sciences." [Thus Anarchism is a modern sociological science broadly defined, including political economy etc, based on the methodology of modern natural sciences, not allowing for any form of dialectics of Hegelian type based on the formulæ thesis - antithesis - synthesis and other forms of pseudoscience. Inductive-deductive and logic-deductive reasoning within the framework of the hypothetical deductive method, testable hypothesis, is essential to real science.]
A similar point of view was used by several other anarchists later on, that declared "the fight against fascism begins with the fight against bolshevism", a word of wisdom often connected to Otto Rühle, in is early days he was a council commie, but later on changed is policy into a form of anarchism, related to anarchosyndicalism. Today this is a rather general policy of anarchism. The concept "Bolshevism" means marxism in general, and especially council communism, i.e. marxist-lubbeism, marxist-ochlarchism, Pannekoekism, "anarchist" or "libertarian" (read: pseudo or semi-libertarian) communism, "platformism", and similar other forms, of (marxian) collectivism or leftism, Luxembourgism, plus leninism, stalinism, titoism, trotskyism and maoism, broadly defined.
While anarcho-communism is a) based on utilitarian and humanist principles, cost vs benefit analysis, accounting etc. and as Kropotkin mentioned mainly against "a republic governed by means of the referendum", i.e as a principle, the marxian council communism and collectivism are principally based on referendum, in "workers' councils" on different leves of organization. Everyone that have been at a maoist, trotskyite, platformist and/or lubbeist "allmøtediktatur", workers' council "direct democracy" (read: dictatorship based on ochlarchy) know that this is not anarchism or anarchy, and ususally not even semilibertarian, but clearly authoritarian. The utopian, unrealistic character of council commie referendum or consent based unionism in a modern society, should be clear to all, it may perhaps have functioned well locally in a Russian "Mir" agricultural co-operative small town with a few products and mainly autarki in the old days, however the total amount of cases and different ways of production and products in a modern society will make the system's cost, measured, say, in time used of discussion and deciding, be enormous, the system being very inefficent and unfair, and soon make way for party dictatorship.
Thus, platformists and council commies and similar, if not directly troytskyite, maoist or leftist etc. provokers, are just the "useful" idiots of Lenin and authoritarians in general. The anarchists must of course as much as possible stop the platformist and other council commie and marxist-lubbeist infiltration, ochlarchy and false posing as 'anarchist' in general. We repeat, platformism and council commie "anarchism" is not anarchism or anarchist, have never been anarchy, anarchist, anarchists and/or anarchism, and will never be.
Council communism, platformism included, in its more radical utopian lubbeist variants, sometimes falsely posing as "anarchist" communism, i.e. "Children of Marx" and "socialist infantile disorder", as Lenin called it, functioning and/or directly being frontorganizations of trotskyite, maoist, and leftist marxism, have nothing to do with anarchism and anarchy, the "children of Marx" always acting as an authoritarian travesty of anarchy, throwing shit on the idea of anarchy, anarchism and freedom in general, and functioning reactionary. The fight against fascism starts with the fight against bolshevism, especially council commies and platformists and their lubbeist ochlarchy, falsely posing as anarchy, anarchists, anarchism.
These points of view may thus be considered as special forms of use of the map, and not as arguments against it. The factual situation, that anarchism goes gliding from semilibertarian marxism on the left, sometimes wrongly called "anarchomarxism", via the middle of the map, over to semilibertarian liberalism, wrongly called "anarchocapitalism", on the right, also is a good argument for the way the map is put, i.e. standing on the ultrafascist extreme corner. Both "anarchomarxism", i.e. "anarcho-statism" [= anarchy-archies], and "anarchocapitalism", i.e. "anarchoplutarchy" are however not valid concepts, but contradictional and not scientifical, and thus should not be used. These "concepts" are not anarchist or anarchism, but strictly marxism and liberalism respectively, in a state of confusion. The collectivist "anarchomarxism" is too statist to be anarchist, i.e. it is based on statism. The "anarchocapitalism" is too capitalistic to be anarchist, i.e. it is plutarchist.
Also Kropotkin's antimilitarist and non-pacifist support for the allies in the 1st World War, together with several other prominent anarchists, in the famous "Manifesto of the 16", is probably a logical deduction of his consistent, scientifically based, general anarchist ideas. Thus, opportunistic to take a pasifist stand in this case, as, say, Malatesta did, but in general accept Kropotkins anarchist ideas, is probably inconsistent, and thus not a valid argument. Kropotkins hard criticism of neoclassical and classical liberalistic political economy, is still worth while reading. The devolopment of Kropotkin's ideas from the first issue of "Modern science and anarchism" (1903), probably his most important work, to the final edition 1913, with modification of earlier hypothesis, is also interesting. However some modifications implies an improvement seen in perspective, others not.
It is clear from these arguments that anarchism is not leftism, or to the left on the economical-political map, or a part of the left side in politics, in the meaning relatively close to the left corner of the economical-political map. There exists a libertarian, i.e. anarchist, left, but it is not far left on the economical-political map. No anarchism is found more than half way (>50%) to the left on the map, i.e. of the distance from the middlepoint towards the left corner of the map, i.e. leftist. It is also clear that anarchism is not rightist. There exists a libertarian, i.e. anarchist right, but it is not far right on the map. No anarchism is found more than half way (>50%) to the right on the map, i.e. of the distance from the middlepoint towards the right corner of the map, i.e. rightist. To say that anarchism is far left or far right, leftist or rightist, is due to misunderstandings of realities and a scientifical point of view, as far as the arguments above are valid. And these arguments are difficult to reject, many have tried to test and reject them, using different alternatives in a consistent way, but it didn't work out. All alternatives so far have been rejected due to inconsistencies, Occhams razor, being explained better as special cases by use of the map, than separate alternative theories, or rejected by other arguments. The conclusion is: Anarchism may be to the left but not be leftism, as well as be to the right, but not being rightist. In the following we shall take a more principal, and not so much historical perspective, on the methodology of anarchism.
3. The scientifical basis of anarchism - methodology
Before this part should be read, the above chapters 1 and 2, should be read, to get a better understanding. Kropotkin's point of view, that anarchist science is based on the same methods as the natural sciences materialistic inductive-deductive adaptions of generalisations, including the use of testable hypothesis in an hypothetical-deductive framework, and mathematical relations, scepticism, free matter of fact criticism, and consistent accumulation and updating of knowledge, is still valid. Kropotkin's main statements about - and arguments for - this methodology in "Modern Science and Anarchism", issued preliminary in 1903 and new versions in 1913, the book sometimes alternatively called "Anarchism and modern science" (say, in the Swedish edition in 1914 a.l.), is still working, although in some details modified a bit, due to rejection using this method in a critical way later on. A summary of the method declared by Kropotkin in this book is quoted at Anarchism and modern science .
Thus, valid anarchism is consistent accumulated knowledge based on rejection of working hypothesis that failed, and accounting for summa hypothesis confirmed so far, i.e. what is still valid, and all of the time introducing new working hypothesis for testing, etc. in a research spiral, steadily increasing the total capital of valid knowledge, to use for more and more optimal planning and actions. Thus, the tendency is increasingly better approximations to reality, as Kropotkin stated. It is possible to take a wrong step for a while, but it will probably soon be rejected by facts, and corrected. This scientifical method is principally opposed to the hermeneutical framework broadly defined, i.e. dialectical, metaphysical, "divine origin", dogmatism, metaphors and interpretation of old prophets, gurus, and their writings, "common sence", etc. "Common sence" may often be a good thing, but history of science demonstrates that it is not always working well in scientifical perspective. Often science breaks through "common sence". Say, the concept of a flat earth in the center of the univers, absolutely defined, was common sence not so far ago.
This method is also nomothetical, seeking general principles and relations, in contrast to idiographical empirism, concentrating on singel cases, without using the general accumulated and updated theory as framework. Thus, history and praxeology (the theory of human action in general) in anarchist science are analysed and understood with use of the updated general framework, i.e. seen in the context of the great lines in history and theory, not analysed as isolated individual events. The term praxeology was probably first used in 1890 by Espinas, but the theory was introduced as a more general framework by Ludwig von Mises, a more or less semilibertarian liberalist. He however, like Frisch for a while, did the authoritarian error to think his a priori relations were absolutely certain dogmas. They are in fact based on politically questionable assumptions. It must here be mentioned, as indicated above, that not all relevant economic relations are statistically testable in a meaningful way. The practically always valid ecocirc relations may be based on a priori conditions in a way that if "tested" statistiscally with consistent data, say, by regression analysis, are always 100% proof, similar to pure logic deductive mathematics. However they are not unconditionally and absolutely certain anyway, because they may be based on more or less realistic assumptions, in the meaining of revealing more or less interesting things in a political economy and social organization context.
This is a bit parallell to the discussion in mathematics about Euclidian vs Bolyai/Lobatsjevskij's and Riemann's geometry, related to different interpretations of the parallell principle or axiom. Riemann made them all special cases of a more general theory in his work "Über die Hypotesen, welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen" (1854). In political economy however the differences are partly political. In the general theory of anarchist economics, the different models, Monetarist, Keynesian, neo-classical, Marxian, Austrian, etc. are seen as special cases of the same general theory of anarchist economics, i.e. also explaining other types of systems, marxist, liberalistic and populist/fascist. Outside the ecocirc type relations, that are practically always valid, there are other relations that are of the same type as in physics and biology, and some are about as uncertain as the ones used in meteorology. These other relations are meaningful to test by statistical methods, say, with regression analysis or other statistical means.
To understand social science, and political economy in general, it is necessary to understand the differences between these types of relations, a) the taxonomical ecocirc type of different political tendencies, i.e. practically always valid and not meaningful to test statistically, similar to the pure matematical synthetical relations, and b) the other relations, i.e. meaningful to test statistically, and principally not practically certain, as say Einsteins E = Mcc <=> E/c = cM, where E = energy, "work" and M = mass, "real capital", and c = speed of light in vacum, "cosmic interest rate" interpreted as an eternal cosmic constant in space and time. Thus cM the "revenue" is exchanged to energy , i.e. "work" per c (the "interest rate" = speed of light = ca 299 792,5 km/s). A very strange "exchange relation" between energy and matter, i.e. "work" and "realcapital" in the universe. It should be rather likely that c is not a constant over time and space, as W. McCracken suggests, opposing Einstein, but probably variating a lot. Thus it may happen that c falls, and thus there sometimes will be less energy related to the mass in the universe, and sometimes more, if c hikes. In the "worst case scenario" c becomes 0 and there will only be just dead matter, no energy at that time and place in the universe, and of course no moving light. It will all be frozen matter, without any energy.
The IIFOR has in 2002 received an interesting preliminary working paper from the eco-cosmolog W. McCracken, giving the interesting eco-cosmological interpretation of E = Mcc mentioned above. This however is not an ecocirc relation, but a meaningful statistical testable hyphothesis, a relation of type b). However as McCracken points out, the special form of the relation is based on underlying assumptions on how the smallest physical and chemical particles and waves work together, and is probably not stable over cosmic place and time, say, probably not valid in giant exploding "big bangs" and imploding enormous "black holes" (if any) and perhaps not relatively short after such events. The cosmology will be quite different if it is assumed that, say, c has fallen over time since the possible last "big bang" in our part of the universe, or variates over time and space in conjunctural type cosmic waves. Another interesting hypothesis that the "red shifting" (Doppler-effect) and seemingly accelerating expansion of the visible universe seen from Tellus (earth) today, may be due to an enormous gravitational force field outside our visible universe, pulling it outwards, and not thus not a "big bang", just ca 10 - 15 000 000 000 years ago (12 000 000 000 has been a usual), as many astronomers think today. Perhaps there are enormous cosmical conjunctures or "tide waves" in space and time, and that the universe is eternally old or at least , say, old > 10 - 15 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 years.
Here we will just point to the possibilities. We will however follow McCracken's and other eco-cosmologs' work with interest in the future. They are probably really into something big. If we could change "c" locally it would be very interesting for human welfare in the real long run, i.e. the billions of years perspective. It also has interesting perspectives for possibly other lifeforms in outer space and travelling in space and time, although IIFOR strongly rejects the so called UFO research of today, that is clearly not scientifical, but pseudo-science, having almost all well known faults of quasi-science with respect to method and critical use of it. By the way, as McCracken points out E = Mcc means E, energy, "work" is direct proportional to M, mass, "realcapital" , with the factor cc = 299 792, 5 x 299 792,5 = 89 875 543 000,0 = ca 90 billions (milliarder) related to km, seconds and the relevant measures of energy and matter. Why E = ca M90b = M(89 875 543 000) , i.e. proportionally with that special factor, always in vacum, at least in our part of the univers at our time, seem from our place, Einstein and his followers really has no good explanation for. And the anarchists as well as other people are very eager to know why it is so, because when we know why, it will probably be possible to find a method to change it, and make more efficient engines for travel in space, and for producing energy on earth.
(We have later received a message from W. McCracken that he 1. in his preliminary discussion paper referred above was using a term of the type "E/c = cM, ecocirc", the use of "...." indicating it was not really an ecocirc relation, but statistically testable, and thus 2. should not be treated as an a priori syntethic relation, i.e. ecocirc, but as a non-apriori statistically testable hypothesis, and that is just why he 3. was discussing the conditions behind the relation, i.e. it should not be taken as a dogma, the special proportionality between energy and matter, ca E = M90b, in vacum. 4. And thus, like any other sicentist, even Einstein is probably not telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this matter, but only reflecting the conditions in our part of the universe in our time, and that we should not dogmatic do "eternally" generalizations. Well, then the misunderstandings is done with, and we can all continue with further research. We thank McCracken for his clearifying message.)
Neither of the relations of type a) and b) is unconditional and absolute truths. It is possible to put up (thinkable or real) alternatives, situations where such principles or axioms are not fulfilled, without being contradictional. Thus scientifical, consistent alternatives principally exist. Say, the relation 2 + 2 = 4 is true because of the axiom that no thing doubles itself or disappears by itself, which is practically always true, i.e. an ecocirc type relation. A more chaotic world where the opposite may happen, and, say, mass is not constant under certain conditions, is however thinkable. If mass is not constant, putting two things on the table may result in just one thing (the other disappears suddenly by itself) or three things on the table (one of the things doubles by itself). However in our part of the universe today, such things do not happen, practically certain, so 2 + 2 = 4 is practically always valid in this context. Thus both relations of type a) and b) are synthetic relations, say something about realities, they are not just analytical. An analytical relation, per definition, always make a logical or mathematical contradiction if you put up an alternative, it is based on principles of construction of a logical language and symbols, and principally don't deal with realities.
Thus analytical concepts and formulas are relations in the Platonic world of ideas, symbols and expressing a consistent way of thinking, without aspiration to say something directly about realities. They deal principally with formalities, not realities. Although they are not based on axioms, conditions and assumptions about realities, they are not unconditional, but state the basic axioms and relations of reason and thinking. A = A and "everything is either A or not A", is the two basic analytical axioms and relations. The opposite implicates chaos and contradictions, non-scientifical foggy metaphores, pseudo-understanding. Logical tautologies (valid) and contradictions (not valid) are among the analytical relations. These axioms and relations express the fundaments for reason, the scientifical way of thinking, i.e. the basis for real human knowledge, civilisation, as opposed to foggy metaphores, dialectical and "magical" formulæ, all kinds of primitive, unclear expressions, eventually the primitive roar, scream or cry, and talking with the fists, similar to animals, apes included. Thus, it is the ultimate language that make us real humans, different from the primitive and animals. This is of course also the fundament for anarchist science, anarchists are not "primitivists in the way of thinking" as, say marxists, with their dialectical formulæ.
Thus the method of modern natural (including social) science includes:
1. analytical practically always certain relations, saying something on, or defining a) the logic and the scientific way of thinking and b) what is not,
2. the synthetic practically certain taxonomical ecocirc type relations, that are based on conditions, axioms and assumptioms about realities, may be a priori based logic deductive relations, in social science often dependent on political conditions and assumptions, and thus may be anarchist, marxist, liberalist or populist/fascist, these concepts seen nomothetically and not historical idiographical, but these relations are not meaningful testable statistically, and
3. synthetic more or less uncertain relations, say, of the type a) Einstein's E = Mcc, and similar rather certain relations, but meaningful to test statistically, and not thus exact and often a priori based as the ecocirc type; b) the ca proportional relation between food production/consumption and size of the population on earth and similar, i.e. relatively certain as a rule of the thumb, and c) meteorological relations that are very uncertain, and similar, including politics, where results may be more or less influenced by human action, praxeology. Here of course politics are very much dependent on human action , but the climate and weather are perhaps only marginally influenced by pollution and other man-made problems, however there is a possible connection.
4. In addition to 1, 2 and 3, science operates with conventionally decided relations and definitions of standards on measurement, say, the choice between miles and km, liter vs gallons, etc. These conventional relations on calibration and measurment make the links between theory and practical research, but should principally not have influence on the research results and methods. There may however occur errors like measuring input with output, and not hitting the principal target of the measure very well. In social sciences these conventionally decided definitions may be influenced by political tendencies and thus are not trivial. The discussion on intersubjective vs objective on this web-page shows that this is not a trivial questions.
As political actions in anarchism are principally based on the scientifical method, since the Kropotkinian methodolgy is accepted with general consent as well as on several congresses world wide and historically, and the alternative is politics based on pseudoscience and /or ignorance, ochlarchy or majority or minority dicatorship, or consensus based on false conditions, that must be rejected; - everybody that will participate in the decision prosess in anarchist context MUST learn the basic principle of the anarchist, scientifical way of thinking, always think in rejectable working hypothesis perspective and not dogmatic, taking into account the basic practically certain ecocirc relations, realistic scenarios, being matter of fact and critical to own and other's proposals for action, always do dialog in this perspective, and give feedback to further research according to abilities. Any tendency of non-scientifical, dialectical and other foggy way of thinking must be rejected by all anarchists. Thus scientifically based investigations, also based on anarchist principles, ecocirc and other relations, in a consistent way, to achieve the best argument or working hypothesis among the best, i.e. the basis for anarchist decision making, and unless special cases, not voting and minority or majority decisions/dictatorship, but to put it simple: "Best argument wins". This of course is not only a question of finding the solution, planning, but also the implementing of it, i.e. the praxeological element broadly defined.
That's why, say, the second Anarchist Biennial 1992 in Oslo did not vote over the resolution at anarchist economics , but discussed the evidence, assumptions and the deductions in a scientifical way, and when finding nothing to reject, accepted it. It may be said that it was unanimously decided upon or decided by general consent, which is also true, but this is really irrelevant and not necessary. To vote over wether "the earth is flat or round" is neither relevant nor necessary. The better investigated a question is in anarchist context, the less reason to vote, as a general rule of the thumb in this context. That we make voting usually not necessary, does of course not mean that the decisions are non-political and neutral. In the investigations we use the people's perspective, and what is in the interest of the poorest and most impowerished majority of the population in a country, the repressed in other ways, etc., not the national(ist) "we are all in the same boat" perspective or the authorities, the upper classes perspective.
We investigate scientifically what is in the interest of the people, the poorest and repressed majority of the population, and thus what is democratically interesting, also using anarchist principles in general, and find the best way ahead on different items, the best argument, that wins in the decision prosess, the solution based on competence; then we implement it, and thats the way anarchists do it (or should do it). Then we use the new experience as feedback for new research and decisions and actions within the same framework, and a research and praxeological circle, theory and practice, always learning from faults and success, to increasingly higher levels of understanding and to the benefit of the people, i.e. all the individuals involved, seen in the relevant context, as say, summarized at the www.anarchy.no , etc., i.e. new updates of the anarchist research front, i.e. valid anarchism, and so on .....
This, the anarchist way of decision making, planning and research, is the direct opposite to marxism, i.e. bureaucratically and/or based on workers councils voting over scientifical results, trying to decide scientifical questions administratively and political. Lysenko-ism, "official history-writing" with people disappearing on pictures and facts denied, etc. are typical examples. The fascists and especially the nazis are not better, using Göbbels infamous statement "If you repeat a lie enough, it becomes the truth", and "reforming" history, say with denial of holocaust, etc.. There are non-scientifical tendencies also in liberalistic and pseudo-anarchistic history-writing, say, as investigated by Noam Chomsky in his works on "Manufacturing consent." It must however be mentioned that even Chomsky is sometimes participating in the false "manufacturing of consent", or the alienation system (search for it it in this file for definition) in general, say, by acting more or less as a "fogarch" and guru at the World Social Forum 2002, see World Social Forum , and seen in the general context at IJA 4 (31) i.e. the International Conference on Terrorism and the Anarchist Press Tribunal, and at the International Anarchist Tribunal in general.
There are by all means also a "manufacturing of consent" with respect to the marxian leftist "political correctness". It must be pointed out clear and loud that Noam Chomsky today often acts as a"useful" idiot of the marxian left on the economical political map, quoted and reprinted often as a "withness of truth", say in the trotskyite and maoist newspaper "Klassekampen" in Norway, similar papers world wide, and at a lot of mainly marxist mailing lists on Internet. We must say, "leider", dear Noam - you act a bit naive sometimes: "Do you hear over there in America, Noam C.??!!! (It is meant mainly as a rhetorical question, but perhaps he is getting a bit deaf in his old days? Who knows? - Time will show...)
However Noam Chomsky's basic point of view, that anarchism is rational libertarian socialism, stated, say, in the two TV-programs on "Manufacturing Concent" dedicated to a.o.t. the people of East Timor (IIFOR has a copy of them recorded from NRK), and thus principally rejecting marxian dialectical and other forms of irrational, pseudo-scientifical theory and practice, and standing firm on the scientifical method introduced to anarchism by Kropotkin, is of course still valid. In the programs Chomsky is pointing to Rosa Luxembourg as a less authoritarian marxian than the leninists, and that is probably right. But this must not be interpreted wrongly as Chomsky is accounting Rosa Luxembourg as anarchist, which in any case is totally wrong.
Rosa Luxembourg is a leftist marxian, with party political, council communist ideas, relatively far from the anarchist quadrant on the economical political map. Rosa Luxembourg herself already in 1906 took a clear stand against anarchism, and never changed this opinion later on. Other marxian council communists as, say, Anton Pannekoek is probably a bit closer to anarchism, but not anarchist. Council communism, all of it -- marxist-lubbeism and Soviet communism, etc., included, is in no way anarchism or anarchist. To the left within the anarchist quadrant we find anarchist collectivism, anarcho-collectivism and, say, anarchosyndicalism, not council communism, i.e. marxian or marxistoid, clearly within the marxist quadrant on the economical political map broadly defined, and thus not anarchist or anarchism.
Not everybody can directly develope new practically always valid ecocirc, other relations and realistic scenarios, and be anarchist scientists, but everybody can think scientifically, and contribute by matter of fact criticism, and do dialog, on the research results and actions, to improve both, more and more.
One important part of anarchist research is consistency analysis, among other things checking for and ruling out unrealistical optimistical political dreams and inconsistencies, in Norwegian often called "overbudspolitikk" (overbid pseudopolicy) and "stå på krava aksjoner" (unrealistical diseconomical actions). In this context use of relevant ecocirc may be useful. Another very important part of anarchist research is the general theory of revealed preference in social science. This theory is build upon the basic assumption that humans acts more or less with purpose, not as ants, and thus the real preferences or aims of the individual (or aggregated for a group), can be revealed by the performance, behavior, the way they act, as opposed to what they may say or tell in programs etc, that may be influenced by propagandistical bluff broadly defined. As humans are not perfectly rational, there may be more or less random things affecting behavior in addition to the purpose, the preferences.
But throughout a series of observations of the unit, i.e. the research object, we may principally make an estimate of the general tendency of the behavior, and more or less rule out the random elements, and by the general theories of human behavior as more or less an optimalization of preferences using different activities and actions vis-à-vis given constraints, i.e. acting with purpose, also estimate the implicit, aims or values (i.e., say, marginal utility, welfare, satisfaction of needs, or preferences) behind the behavior, i.e. reveale the real preferences behind the actions taken. As people often may have advantages of systemathically not stating their real purposes and aims, say, to get support from others, especially authorities and bureaucrats broadly defined, small or big, or people aspirating to be so, i.e. say, persons that want to make other people slave for them, economically and/or political/administrative, - this general theory is very important to reveale the real preferences and thus expose what is really going on, and what they are up to, and thus make it more possible to put the authorities/bureaucrats at place, or make them non-authorities.
The bureaucrats and authorities, socio- and psychopats, fogarchs, - included, and their groups, organizations and systems, formal or informal, small or big, criminal or not, usually simply hate this theory and the use of it, and often do a lot to stop such research, revealing journalism included, by cutting fonds, budgets, closing data supplies, abuse, ochlarchy, sometimes by secret police, "legal" action, sacking people, closing doors and institutions, cencoring, and direct physical violence, sometimes jailing or make people "disappear" (killing) people. However such research must go on anyway, because it is an important tool for creating (more) anarchy; equality, solidarity, equality etc, sometimes alone, published via the media, and sometimes as background for legal and other actions. In Norway, and many other countries, the revealed preferance research and results are protected formally by the constitution, stating "frimodige ytringer mot statsstyrelsen er tillatt", i.e. free criticism of the authorities, the government in social perspective, is allowed. However constitution is one thing - practice may be something else. Often people and institutions normally positive to research, get "coold feet" and back out, when they find out what kind of research is going on, not willing to risk the neck. Of the total fonds and budgets for research and critical journalism, not so much is used on analysis within the framework of the theory of revealed preferences broadly defined, even in the Anarchy of Norway. It could very well be more, in Norway as well as world wide.
The nomothetical approach makes it possible to draw on the whole lot of historical facts revealed by updated methods to test and reject hypothesis, and learn from history at large, for improved actions. Kropotkin stated that use of this scientifical method will ensure that mistakes done by the anarchists related to their conclusions, easily may be detected, and corrected. No wonder IIFOR and other real anarchist research institutes stick to the same scientifical methods as Kropotkin, and rejects all forms of dialectics, marxist included, and also methaphysical and other non-testable theories, all forms of "anarchistology" and "anarchosophy" included. Absolutely and unconditionally knowledge, i.e. the Truth, with big T, cannot be revealed and proved by real scientifical methods, however practically always valid relations, and thus good approximations to reality, may sometimes be found, and such relations, mathematically and graphically formulated, are the fundaments of anarchism and a main aim of anarchist research. Anarchism has no religion/ideology, and no "devils", but look scientifically and critically on the matter and different cases, having plutarchy and statism as possible working hypothesis for problems in the society, but also look on other items, proportional to realities, trying to be as objective as possible. The most of the analysis is about realistic alternatives, a scientifical social organization theory for life without statism and plutarchy..
That some of Kropotkin's own conclusions and hypothesis on a few details, say, ...
a) in biology (an openess towards Lamarckism, which later is rejected by other researchers. Kropotkin's viewpoint of mutual aid as one of the major tendencies in biological evolution is however still valid), and
b) in law (a tendency to avoid written laws; say, "... Anarchism - which aspires to Justice (a term synonymous with equality) more than any other lawgiver in the world - has..." rejected it (Kropotkin 1903). Kropotkins view in this matter is not 100% clear, but his main working hypothesis at that time clearly was a tendency towards natural law, customary law and (unwritten) common law, although written laws seem all in all not to be absolutely rejected by Kropotkin. This is so because he in the same chapter in the book where he is mainly rejecting written laws, he himself also declares the following written law: "Do not to others what you would not have done to yourself." (In Swedish the 1913/14 edition this is changed towards the similar biblical notion, however both are valid ethical laws of today and should be fulfilled). Thus in practice he uses written laws. As contradictions is not allowed according to Kropotkin's methodology, practice shows that his hypothesis about rejecting written laws, as a general always valid rule, must be rejected. Probably he in this case is also discussing the anarchist ideal, i.e. 100% anarchy, that is merely a theoretical concept that we only may asymptotically approximately achieve. For less ideal anarchist situations more written laws should probably be optimal. Anyway the opposite, only unwritten law will reduce the courts' quality and security and right-security, and probably open for ochlarchy, i.e. contradict real, libertarian law and optimal order and the principle of social justice, and thus must be rejected. Furthermore customary laws may sometimes be quite reactionary and difficult to renew in a progressive, libertarian way. In general the principles of anarchism should be more basic than customary law.
Thus, when Kropotkin in some of his works is very much against the laws, this is mainly referring to authoritarian juridical laws, especially the very authoritarian laws of those days authorities, serving mainly the upper classes and working against the people. He is not against laws in general, declaring load and clear that anarchism is a lawgiver, as stated above. Kropotkin also had probably a slight tendency to underestimate "free rider" problems, criminality, ochlarchy and chaos, and thus being a bit like a quasi-revolutionistic fog-arch (although not as much as Marx), which is clearly authoritarian. However a probably more than optimal number of written laws in many countries, should also be taken into account, in this perspective. This indicates too much bureaucracy costs and should be avoided. People must learn to solve conflicts peacefully without legal quibbling and calling on police for everything, i.e. as a part of the education broadly defined.
To have a good and libertarian moral in society, mostly based on unwritten common law and culture, generally accepted and working in society, and relatively few written laws, is of course an ideal of anarchism, including real law and order and human rights. A basically immoral, ochlarchical, authoritarian society, with no real culture based on efficiency and fairness and working libertarian unwritten common laws, due to lack of education broadly defined, combined with a lot of juridical, written laws and a police state, plus an "inform against" habit, is far from ideal. The anarchist theory of "optimal indoctrination", i.e. not meant in a derogative or authoritarian way, but just "in-learning" on equal footing, non-ochlarchical, in a libertarian way - of a sufficient amount of libertarian ethics and human rights through education broadly defined, private via the family, and public via day care centers and schools, and participation in relevant other organizations and via media, is a must in an anarchist society. A keyword in this education is large freedom of choice for the children, but with rational and relatively firm borders set according to anarchist priniciples in general. No education means "children power", and that is not anarchist. Parents must probably be educated to this task. No ethical education to produce moral, is no good education. The anarchist theory of "optimal indoctrination" was first formulated by the Culture Syndicate in Norway in the early 1970s. Although of course not meant in a derogative or authoritarian way, the term "indoctrination" indicates a libertarian, but firm in-learning of the basic principles and borders, not to take freedoms at others expense, making other people slave for you one way or the other, but also not accept to slave the other way around, say accepting slave-contracts. In moral and ethical education, consistency is a must, not dialictical, contradictive, Orwellian "1984" double-thinking. The liberation of grown up people must principally be based on own work, not others.
The opposite: Strong rule in education, and especially with chaotic tendencies according to the rule of the ruler(s): §1 The parents are always right. §2 If this is not the case §1 at once rules, - sometimes allowing x and otherways not x, and ruling by violence and fear, imposing slavery and hierarchy, the right to the strongest, economical and non-economical, is making an authoritarian, cynical, criminal and psychopatic personality, i.e. fascistoid. This must be avoided.
Kropotkin mainly leaves the research and founding of optimal anarchist law and court systems to the future: "... We may analyze the extent to which the idea of Justice implies that of Equailty. The question is an important one, because only those who regard others as their equals can accept the rule, "Do not to others what you would not have done to yourself." The landlord and the slave-owner, who did not look upon "the serf" and the negro as their equals, did not recognize the "categorical imperative" and the "universal law" as applicable to these unhappy members of the human family. And then, if this observation of ours be correct, we shall wee whether it is at all possible to inculcate morality while teaching the doctrine of inequality.... We shall finally analyze ... the facts of self-sacrifice. And then we shall consider what has promoted the development in man of moral feelings - first, of those which are intimately connected with the idea of equality, and then of the others; and after this consideration we should be able to deduce from our study exactly what social conditions and what institutions promise the best results for the future ... now we are able to approach the study of burning social questions in exactly the same manner as the gardener and the physiologist take up the study of the conditions most favorable for the growth of a plant - let us do so!") and
c) in economics "first consumption" - "production on the other hand", (1903) a bit strange division that if taken literally may contribute to reduce real capital, goods in stock, or export surplus, in a disoptimal way; remember (consumption = production - real investment - exportsurplus), so consumption without production strictly means negative realinvestment and/or exportsurplus, i.e. a foregn trade deficit. Obviously this cannot go on for long, especially if the system shall be relatively efficient and fair, including ca full employment at an optimal level. While it is going on, since it is work free consumption/income/profit, it may be seen as looting the future and/or foreigners. The "first consumption" - "production on the other hand" point of view is however modified a bit in the 1913 edition of "Modern Science and Anarchism", where consumption is closer connected to production. Kropotkin's partly rejection of Proudhon's "labor pollets" (labor notes credit) , and implicitely also "time store" ideas, which is quite logical taking into account his valid rejection of the labor theory of value and the value added theory, but without really suggesting any better means of payment to allocate scarce resources, goods and services, in an efficient and fair way, indicates another weakness in his system.
Kropotkin indicated a system of accounting, plans and exchange without money, which is also found in Ragnar Frisch's work on a planned direct exchange economy, "varebyttesentraler" - "goods-exchange-centrals", which today is mainly rejected in anarchist economics as being too bureaucratic, inefficient and probably unfair in a modern society with a lot of goods and services of different kinds and quality characteristics broadly defined. The means of payment problem, i.e. to achieve efficient and fair transactions, i.e. also minimalizing transactions costs broadly defined, is however principally solved now, with, say, electronical accounting and convertible labor credits (labor notes credit), by other anarchist researchers. (These labor credits are however not based on the bureaucratic rule "worktime for worktime exchange" of the "time store" idea, which is rejected because the labor theory of value is usually not valid. However if the population is approximately optimal in all societies in a country, and free contracts (i.e. not slave-contracts), etc. are in use, the system will end up with small rank and income differences, and thus approximately have one to one remuneration per work-hour, although this is rejected as a rule in itself, introduced as a bureaucratical tie on transactions.)
Not taken literally, Kropotkins "first ...on the other hand" hypothesis in this matter may just indicate that demand-management determines production via the anarchist economic law of employment, which is practically always valid. This was indicated already by Frisch (and Haavelmo), and more fully developed by later anarchist economists, but without the "varebyttesentraler" approach) ;
d) a slight tendency towards "anarchosophy", i.e. to not divide properly between anarchist science and anarchist politics, and thinking of the whole system as "scientifical". Such "scientosophy", sometimes also including tendencies of predeterministic "fate and destiny" - thinking, must principally be rejected, mainly because it is a form of totalitarianism, similar to marxism. However it is probably not in Kropotkin's spirit to interprete his contribution to anarchist science in a totalitarian direction, although he is a bit unclear on this item. We must of course admit that theoretically all events in society (and in general) may principally have a scientifical explanation, also political events. But this is not the same as to say that politics is identical to science, although politics always should take into account the results of scientifical research in a relevant way. Marxist "scientifical socialism" is a terrible example of how wrong it may go if anarchist science wrongly turns into "anarchosophy". Trofim Lysenko's quasibiology and the labor theory of value used in economical planning are just the top of the iceberg. A deterministic system is not the same as a predeterministic system based on "fate and destiny". People have a choice to act with purpose, optimize under socially and naturally given constraints, and to some extent they may define the purposes themselves. This praxeological approach was mainly introduced by L. v. Mises, however in a bit dogmatic manner, that are rejected today. There is also a slight chaotical contradictive tendency, in a few statements in the book. Kropotkin is not sticking 100% to the Proudhonian view that the anarchst ideal includes order. These few statements is today rejected by using the scientifical method. Such statements are omitted in the summary on the method at Anarchism and modern science .
Furthermore Kropotkin's slight tendency towards analogies from mechanical physics (Newton, Laplace) and machines, and/or biology, a bit similar to typical neoclassical economic theory, as a "world view" including social science, is today rejected by anarchist research. Mechanical and biological analogies are principally not scientifical, and should be avoided. Also non-anarchist so called "general systems theory" is based on analogies to biological and mechanical systems, and is rejected as non-scientifical by anarchism. The social, i.e. the economical-political, systems broadly defined; institutions, means of payment, structure and human relations, i.e. at least the man made parts of it, is principally no mystery to understand and map with approximately practical certainty, and the search for the basic relations must be found by direct research on such structures and relations, as they are, have been - or may be - constructed, and not by using mechanical or biological analogies. The origin of the social systems is not a basical mystery, as the natural science's fundamental questions of the origins of space, matter, forces and time, and the so far not exactly explained development from dead matter to life. Humans may do exactly what they want, creating new institutions, structures and relations, within the framework of the basical practically always valid relations, direct related to basic characteristics of the human constructions of society, the social, i.e. the economics and the political/administrative broadly defined, in private and public sectors. A combination of practically always valid basical social scientific relations, combined with scenario-analysis and simulation-models, is a useful tool in the investigations and for planning and action purposes, strategical as well as tactical.
e) a slight tendency to not divide clearly between normative (welfare theory) and principally descriptive relations and variables, clearify value judgements and principles from the rest of the relations, and analyse what is the impact of different value judgments on the conclusions, -
f) a tendency of advocating small scale firms, i.e. in "Fields, factories and workshops", in contrast to Proudhon, who advocated use of the collective force of industrial federations in production, i.e. large scale benefits. This tendency of Kropotkin is however not based on "Small is beautiful" as a principle, but what he believed was most valuable in a societal context, using statistics as background for the hypothesis. The decisions about small vs large scale production must of course be decided according to what is most valuable in a societal context, benefits - costs related to efficiency and fairness, also taking into account environmental factors, and not in advance, dogmatically. Sometimes small scale is optimal, sometimes not.
... today are mainly - or partly - rejected as being wrong or not sufficient, - do not reject his main works and conclusions. A lot of Kroptkins and also Proudhons works are part of the updated research front on anarchism, however as indicated, far from all. These rejections and additions have been done by using Kropotkin's own scientifical principles for anarchist investigations, the same methods as of the natural sciences, and thus must be considered as a victory for Kropotkin's main ideas on anarchism, and not a rejection of them. Kroptkin's broad based social scientific approach, with political economy broadly defined including law, economics, sociology, politology, social-anthropology, -psychology, -medicin, -ecology and -geography, as well as praxeology as a generalistic organizational theory, seen all in all, analysed by the methods of natural sciences, is still valid. This of course also implies use of the basic help sciences, mathematics, logic, statistics and information theory, broadly defined, as well as knowledge of the different basic natural sciences and pragmata. Anarchist science is also mainly theoretical knowledge, "the recipe", as seen apart from pure pragmata, "the cooking", although praxeology (the theory of human action in general) implies implemention of theory to practice, from words to deeds, strategically, and also tactical questions.
If we shall divide between "goats" and "sheep", using Joseph A. Schumpeter's (1883-1950) notions for separating the researchers in the development of anarchist science before the second world war, Prodhoun and Kropotkin are clearly the "goats" and Bakunin and later Santillan a bit to the left, and Tucker a bit to the right, are more of being "sheep", although in many ways still valid. The other theorists of anarchism of those days are probably even more of being "sheep" in scientifical context, although several have done small contributions that still may be valid. Foxes, i.e. broad based generalists, and hedgehogs, i.e. more one track minded, are also used to characterize researchers (Isaiah Berlin). Proudhon and Kropotkin are clearly foxes. IIFOR also try to use a fox perspective in the research. The knowlegde that the accumulated capital of still valid hypothesis and theories will probably change in a dynamic perspective, i.e. some of the theories are probably always candidates for rejection, must be taken into account in planning and action perspective. Blind belief in the existing theories may result in errors, but of course we must take the so far valid theories into account, however never forget that they are not verified as absolutely and unconditionally truths. When conditions for some reason may be changed, or new or better data and/or formulation of models taken into account, some of the theories will perhaps not be valid any more. To try to identify possible week points is a part of the research, applying systematical doubt and having scientifical scent.
A competent anarchist research is a necessity for anarchism, however this competence must not be used to establish authority, i.e. an authoritarian tendency, rule by more or less quasiscientifical priests, and authorities, i.e. a form of hierarchy, - prestige not really based on competence. Malatesta critized Kropotkin's position for such tendencies, some of the criticism was probably valid, and some not. Malatestas matter of fact criticism of his friend Kropotkin's theories for being to optimististic vis-à-vis praxeology and implementation, is still valid, and taken into account in anarchism updated. Malatesta built much on Kropotkin in general, but he introduced one important still valid idea, although more precisely investigated, today: That the consept of State in anarchist science is a social organizational theoretical and practical consept, including a political/administrative dimension, statism broadly defined, and an economic dimension, capitalism i.e. economical plutarchy, broadly defined, and that anarchy and anarchism are principally neither opposed to the State as a central/confederal or federal administration, nor government or State in the meaning of public sector services.
Thus, anarchism is about the "State is us, i.e. the people, anarchists, you and me included, on equal footing, as opposed to "the State is ME - I" as indicated by a French king, but also valid for a marxist or populist/fascist party (or parties), and/or a plutarchical rule, including liberalism. Thus anarchism is principally not against government wrongly enterpreted as public service workers or the central/confederal or federal administration/management of a country, wrongly interpreted as the State. In fact anarchism can have a quite large public sector and confederal/central administration, but not authoritarian organization, mismanagement, included. Thus, although not being a great scientist as Kropotkin, but more of a journalist and essayist, Malatesta's small, but important contribution to anarchist science, say, in his little essay "Anarchy", must not be forgotten, as it indicates a major breakthrough in anarchist research, and turned it clearer into a basically broad based social organizational theory. Malatesta was strongly warning about using the word State in anarchist context, because it could so easily be misunderstood. Thus, without the precise definition, the word State, or anti-state, should not be used in anarchist context. In headlines, politics, demonstrations and polemical context, where precisations are not possible, the terms "state" or "anti-state" should in general be avoided. Malatesta's notes on libertarian organization, quoted from "Anarchy", is presented, commented and updated at Malatesta on organization etc. .
Most of the other works of Malatesta are however less important, also including later rejected, and thus not valid working hypothesis. Much of Malatesta's writings may be seen as practical applications of Kropotkin's works. Neither Kropotkin nor Malatesta should in any way be treated as gurus, not to mention Bakunin and Proudhon. And the pre-anarchists' works are more or less directly naive, seen in social science perspective, although some parts of these works may still be interesting for valid working hypothesis. It must also be mentioned that Kropotkin was in several works analysing scenaria of a future ideal anarchist society where labor productivity was developed to a very high standard. Malatesta, in his works with the more practical approach, clearly stated that the ideal forms of anarchism where a thing for the distant future, and thus indicating that only degrees of anarchy and approximations towards the ideal were possible in the near future.
As indicated above anarchism is scientifical in the meaning of an updated
consistent research front of by now not rejected libertarian hypothesis and
theories. But it is not scientifical in the mening of predeterministic as, say,
astronomy; anarchism also has a practical political perspective. The practical
political part is not a science in itself, predeterministic, but praxeological,
planned human actions, based on the science of anarchism, i.e.
the scientifical, nomothetical part of it. Thus anarchism is also libertarian
and autonomous socialistical planned economy. These planned actions
should follow from free research, taking the people's perspective as opposed
to the national or authorities' perspective, and based on the non-dogmatic,
non-dialectical, scientifical method suggested in Peter Kropotkin's "Modern
Science and anarchism" (1903-13). Thus, as mentioned, also the left-Hegelian
dialectical ideas of, say, Bakunin and Max Stirner, and later Daniel
Guerin, Sam Dolgoff and Murray Bookchin, etc., must principally be rejected
as pseudoscience, similar to Marx and his followers' ideology.
We must not forget that non-anarchist research is based on "the Church of Reason", which like all institutions of the System (with big S, for authoritieS), is based not on individual strength, but upon individual weakness. (As opposed to an anarchist system based on competent, strong, individuals). What's really demanded in "the Church of Reason" is not ability, but inability. A TRULY ABLE PERSON IS A THREAT. - Although IIFOR in co-operation with The International Anarchist University Federation etc. has a few good relations, say, to Universitas Osloensis and other research and education institutions in Norway and internationally, the main tendencies of these institutions are to be "Churches of Reason", the social sciences influenced by marxist, liberalist and/or populist/fascist ideology, and not very much searching for the truth for the benefit of mankind and the people in contrast to the authorities, i.e. anarchist research. And IIFOR is very well aware that it may develope to a "Church of reason", and be authoritarian despite of the outspoken anarchist profile, if not such tendencies are put at place all of the time. In this critical work, also you, yes YOU, may contribute by commenring this summary of the updated research front of anarchism. To create new working hypothesis, and social scientifical equations, not everybody can participate very much, but almost everybody not being morons, can help with the criticism and feedback, rejection of not yet revealed, but wrong, working hypothesis!. You, yes YOU, are hereby invited: Just create "hell of a criticism" for IIFOR and other anarchist research, but of course matter of fact.
It must also be mentioned that anarchism represents a lot of different types of systems withing the anarchist quadrant on the economical-political map, all of them consistent and principally realistic, many of them may be based on several different forms of anarchism in different fields of society, regions, industries, firms and housing, and also mixes with other forms of organizations, if the main tendency for the system seen all in all, i.e. what is significant, is anarchist. Although pluralism is not a basic anarchist principle, it may be useful to fulfill the basic principles, however pluralist-extremism is probably not a good idea. We have mentioned Proudhon and Kropotkin as major contributors to the updated research front of anarchist science, although, as mentioned, some of their hypothesis and theories are rejected. We have also mentioned other, however less important contributors, of still valid knowledge on particular points, before the second world war. Some of the later research, that is a part of the updated research front of anarchism, is mentioned in "A short note on the general theory of anarchist economics", at General theory and "Class analysis" at economic-political sociology (English summary and Norwegian text plus mathematical formulas).
Further, it must be mentioned that although the basic methodology introduced to anarchism in a precise way for the first time by Peter Kropotkin was accepted with general concent among anarchists and for anarchist research, and kept updated by the anarchist scientists of today, - not all writers on anarchism are familiar with using this method and use it, and thus there are a lot of notes on anarchism, say, on the Internet, that is not properly done in a scientifical context, and thus in general should not be taken seriously as contemporary valid anarchism. These at best quasianarchistal notes and books may have tendencies of non-anarchist research as mentioned above, i.e. hermeneutical interpretations, dialectical ideas in different forms, marxist or idealistic hegelian, metaphysical teleological tendencies, "new-age" ideas, predeterminism, idiographical empirism, party-political approaches, logical faults, say, circle "evidence" and concepts, inconsistencies, etc. falling in statistical and socio/econometrical traps, being vague or polemical without matter of fact content, tendencies if "anarchistology" and/or "anarchosophy", etc. "You name it - Internet's got it." - all kinds of wrong and not valid ideas about anarchism.
The warning on the anarchist search engine powered by GOOGLE at AIIS index page and at anarchist links should always be taken into account.... Even the anarchism on the AIIS web-site may, although it is based on anarchist science, have faults on details, because no thing is 100% absolutely and unconditionally truth with big T, in a scientifical context. Free, matter of fact criticism, is very welcome. Nothing is more entertaining to an anarchist researcher than to see one of the relations, or conclusions, especially one he or she dislikes, be rejected in a scientifically valid way... Also the voice of inexperts must be heard, and may contribute with inspiriting feedback. For development of new testable hypothesis, that may contradict old hypothesis, and make scientifical progress, using the hypothetical deductive method broadly defined, we mainly agree with Paul Feuerabend, the philosoph's working hypothesis that: "Science is an essential anarchic enterprise, theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its (authoritarian) law - and - order alternatives."
In search for new testable hypothesis to investigate by hypothetical deductive method. "... the only principle that does not limit progress is: anything goes". He argues that the only feasible of scientific success are historical explanations and that anarchism must now replace rationalism (in the meaning of the "Churches of Reason", i.e. really not very rational, especially in a humanist and libertarian perspective) in the theory of knowledge. Doing away with rationalism his however not the same as doing away with reason. Anarchism is build on reason, both "brains and hearts" in "balanced federation", i.e. rational planning based on libertarian ethics, not "Churches of Reason". And in finding new solutions for tomorrow and the future we are principally not determined by history and the past more than a man or woman with total amnesia, i.e. loss of memory, - tabula rasa.
These historical explanations, as Feuerabend is discussing, say, to learn from the possible mistakes of anarchists and anarchism in the past, should however probably be established by using scientifical methods, the hypothetical deductive logical concept etc. i.e. the methods of modern natural sciences, and not by populism or relativism and similar non-scientifical methods, as Feuerabend is quite clear on in the third edition of his main work "Against Method", published by Verso 1993, first published by New Left Books1975. "Against method" is a polemical title that should not be taken literally, - the book is full of method, and the analysis is mainly compatible with use of a logical, hypothetical deductive framework.
Thus, anarchist science, included methodology, rooted back to Kropotkin, and discussed by Feuerabend etc, is not without real law and order, i.e. logical scientific methods, consistency, etc., but without authoritarian "law and order", i.e. dialectical "rules", new-age "rules", etc. and bureaucratical ties on the research. In short, the research must be free. Thus, although working close with the Anarchist International University Federation, AIUF, and other organizations of the Anarchist International, IIFOR is a fully autonomous instititution, not directed by any economical and/or political/adminstrative rule from outside. Feuerabend is however more of a philosopher than an anarchist scientist, and thus, similar to Robert Nozick, points to possibilities more than scientifical practically always valid relations, or close approximations to reality. His general working hypothesis about scientific revolutions seems most valid for natural sciences, dealing with the fundamental mysteries of space, time, forces and life, and perhaps not so valid for the social sciences dealing with non-mysterious things as human constructions, inventions and institutions - social organization, broadly defined. When Feuerabend warns about generalisations when discussing scientifical methodology, this should probably also be valid for his own generalizations.
This means not that we reject Feuerabend's working hypothesis for social sciences, but some precisation may be necessary: Anarchist science includes a real scientific basic method, the logical, hypothetical deductive framework broadly defined - similar to the methods used in natural sciences, mathematics included - not used in an analogical way, but used in a freedomly way. It rejects methodological chaos, ochlarchical and non-scientifical methods, "anarchistology" and/or "anarchosophy", "lifestyleism , symbolism and fasion", etc. Here the concept of freedomly includes not only induction with generalization from historical events and empirical data, but also analysis of realistic alternatives that may be created in the future, based on realistic estimations of possible future conditions. Thus it is not positivism, just analysing what is historically positively given. The positivist approach will usually mean status quo, or a reactionary, authoritarian, point of view. The terms authoritarian, libertarian, reactionary and progressive are concepts related to the economic-political map with a clear scientific meaning, and are not normative but descriptive.
The reactionary vs progressive axis is the one going from the bottom to the top of the map. Anarchist science, as opposed to positivist social scence, uses new fertile concepts and also includes realistically orientated contrafactual analysis, and research into realistic future scenarios, i.e. based on the basic scientifical knowlege of today, not unrealistic, obscure fantasies, and utopies. This defines briefly anarchist social science as opposed to positivism, but there is more to the concept of anarchist social science. And thus, unless it may be argumented strongly that future may bring conditions other than what is assumed for the practically always valid ecocirc and taxonomical relations of anarchist science, such investigations on the future, scenario-analysis and simulations, etc. must take into account the relevant practically always valid relations (ecocirc), or be rejected as probably unrealistical utopies.
Anarchism is real scientific and realistic, not optimistical, utopian semilibertarian or authoritarian radicalist marxism or liberalism, to the left and right on the economical-political map respectively, and certainly not populism, or other authoritarian systems. Society, the basis for social sciences, is not nature, or naturally given, but a.o.t. about concepts, theories and practice that can be changed by humans. The anarchist science developes concepts and theories that make it possible and more easy to make progressive changes, changes towards higher libertarian degree in society, but within the framework of the hypothetical deductive method.
The main scientific (and anarchist) criticism of positivism in social sciences is related to self-fulfilling hypothesis, predictions, forecasts and prophesies. Self-fulfilling hypothesis, predictions, forecasts and prophesies appear a.o.t due to an initially provisionary statement that guides a scientist's effort to observe, to set up experiments and to collect data, all of which are more likely to lend support to rather than reject the statement, thereby making it more true than it would have been had that effort not been so guided. Self-fulfilling hypotheses are known in the social sciences, but are difficult to identify since the hypothesis' control of the observer's actions is largely unconscious and often denied. Self-fulfilling prophesy is a forecast or prediction which, by the very fact that it is stated, has the effect of bringing about what it claims and thereby making it more "true" than it would have been without publication. The implicit self-reference includes the acts of individuals who believe in the truth of the prophesy and are capable of either influencing or interpreting the course of events in the prophecy's domain.
The self-referential loop is rarely cognized by the believer. Besides many religious examples, such as miraculous healings, many phenomena, such as ethnic prejudices, teacher's evaluation of student's capabilities, political polls, economic forecasts, etc. may largely be self-fulfilling in this sense. In general using only the historically positively given, i.e. per definition positivism, the way we define it, may very well end up in reactionary, authoritarian, hypothesis and conclusions, via tendencies of self-fulfilling hypothesis, predictions, forecasts and prophesies, because most of the historically positively given are authoritarian and reactionary or status quo. A bit simplified: If you put authoritarian, reactionary or status quo in, you get the same out. "Garbage in - garbage out". Society and history has a tendency to repeat itself, if not something new is added. But of course we are in general very much for free research, and open discussion of results, etc. This includes also positivist research. In case theories will contribute to reactionary or authoritarian tendencies or status quo, we will of course work against such consequences, but not stop the research.
Some theorists operate with only two types of science, normative and positive, based on the hypothetical deductive method. Within this framework anarchist science is a form of postivism. However this dichotomy is false. Within the framework of the hypothetical deductive method there are a) positivism the way anarchist define this concept, and b) a third way, that is not postivism. This third way is anarchist science. There are however some common elements of positivist social science and anarchist social science - the third way.
Furthermore, although a) the anarchist system theory of social organizations is scientifical and objective (intersubjective) in the meaning of testable in different ways, and thus principally b) anybody can verify or reject the hypothesis, check for inconsistencies and realism, etc., the model clearly is c) stating the fact that social sciences are in general political, not neutral and objective in a non-political sense. All social sciences about a system are either anarchist, marxist, liberalist or fascist, using these words for general concepts and systems, not just connected to a certain historical periode. Some relations are so general that they may be a part of several types of political systems, say, the Pareto-optimum in welfare theory, and some basic ecocirc relations in economics. However the Pareto-optimum must be combined with the fairness criterion, "the interchange of positions" principle, or similar, to be anarchist. Similar the ecocirc accounting relations must not be accounting for bureaucracy as output, but as costs, to be anarchist, etc. Although, as indicated, some generally formulated relations may be valid for several types of systems, a more precise and deeper going analysis gives probably inevitably some political touch in the relations.
A special problem is related to "objective" indicated as "intersubjective": Say, anarchy briefly means the influence on the societal management goes more from the bottom - the people, than from the top - the bureaucracy broadly defined, thus anarchy is real democracry related to the middle-point of the economical-political map and above. However in all societies calling itself democracy, the top will probably say it is so, wether it is - or not, and the people probably at large also say so, because they have learned it at schools or told so by other means, wether it is so, or not. Thus, through a poll, a majority, if not everybody, may say it is real democracy, and thus anarchy according to the scientifical definition, although the system in reality may be far from it. Furthermore, if they are not scientifically educated about anarchism, and wrongly think anarchy is chaos and similar, they will at large, if not all, say it is not anarchy, even if it is real democracy - or not.
Thus, 1. today (year 2002 + some more) people living in a society calling itself democracy are probably in this matter living in an Orwellian "1984" type "newspeak" society, where anarchy = real democracy is wrongly called chaos and similar. 2. If you, after have read this i.e. all of www.anarchy.no , use your own brain at best and ask yourself honestly and matter of fact critically: "Am I living in a real democracy?" and the answer is 3. "YES, MOST LIKELY!", then you are probably living in an anarchy, i.e. the society you are thinking of has a form of anarchism as system, in real terms. If your answer is 4. "probably no", you are most likely not living in an anarchy, and thus not in a democracy, i.e. real democracy - either. 5. "Leider" as the Germans say, you are probably not living in a real democracy, and thus not in an anarchy either, if you are quite honest about it and critical in a scientifical manner, i.e. matter of fact. This is so a.o.t. because there is a reason why you are probably living in an Orwellian "1984" type "newspeak" society in this matter. You may think for yourself what this is all about, and it may help the thinking to read www.anarchy.no once more. In the following we will use "anarchy" for the chaotic-ochlarchical travesty of anarchy, including unrealistic dreams of freedom and wealth without work (for all), and anarchy for real democracy, order included, as defined and analysed other places on AIIS www.anarchy.no .
The following is probably a valid working hypothesis in many cases:
1. By making lies with authority the bureaucracy, the upper classes, saying real democracy, freedom, solidarity and equality, etc., i.e. in reality anarchy and anarchism, are also chaos = "anarchy" etc., very few (i.e. the real anarchists) except more or less leftist "crackpot"s (more general wannabe libertarians of all kinds, see definition above, say, search for it in this file) will ask for "anarchy" or anarchy using the same word, but meaning different things, especially when
2. the same authority also lies very convincing about a de facto rule from the top, also is real-democracy, wrongly saying the influence on the societal management "really" is working from the bottom, the people, upwards, and not from the top, downwards.
3. And when the wannabe libertarian "crackpot"s then of course try to make chaos and "anarchy" etc. having the crazy belief that this will make real democracy, freedom, solidarity and equality etc. i.e. anarchy;
4. everybody wrongly can "verify" that the alternative to the existing authoritarian system is chaos = "anarchy", etc, i.e.
5. wrongly believe no real better alternative exists.
6. When more or less (semi-)libertarian "crackpot"s (as Nozick) to the right say freedom includes slave-contracts, the "1984 newspeak" manipulation is even more complete.
That's the way the alienation system works, contributing to keep the authoritarian system going on repeatedly. However this authoritarian circle is not equally strong all over in place and time in human history and today. Sometimes real anarchist ideas have support from the people, and have a breakthrough in the system, one way or the other, and thus the authoritarian degree may variate a lot from place to place and historically. We have used the term "crackpot" instead of crackpot. This indicates they may be "rational" in acting in their own shortsighted egoistical interest, trying to make other people slave for them one way or the other, and try legitimate this by falsely defining it as "freedom". That is however not freedom based on own work, but on others expense, i.e. freedom for one creating slavery for another, i.e. not anarchist, but wannabe libertarian and other authoritarian tendencies..
IIFOR has made an "In Memorian" note on Nozick, and that is mostly for his partly honesty, i.e to call a slave contract a slave-contract, and thus implicitely not a free contract, as the upper classes usually do, telling lies. The upper classes usually lies consistent, and then the lies are not so easy to discover. Consistency is only a necessary condition for being scientifical and revealing the truth, not a sufficient condition. Big liers try to be consistent. When inconsistency is discovered, the game of lies is usually over. Nozick is partly honest, calling slave contract a slave-contract. But at the same time say that freedom includes slave contracts, really makes him a "crackpot" anyway, but a rather honest one, and that contributes to make him an interesting thinker: Bad liers are not very good at covering up for crimes, so when Nozick is partly honest, then to roll up the whole fraud is a piece of cake. He reveals the Orwellian "1984" dialectical double-thinking and "newspeak" and demonstrates the built in contradiction, and thus everybody easy can see the madness. That didn't make him popular in conservative circles. But how a university professor can be seen as a great and honored thinker with such "crackpot" contradictions in the research, is really something to wonder about.
Perhaps this has something to do with the development of new research, also related to Feuerabends theory of the development of scientifical knowledge:
a. Any scientifical system must ideally be consistent, because inconsistensies contradict reality as far as we know it today, and thus is not acceptable from scientifical point of view.
b. On the other hand we know that the consistent research front moves over time, tendencially towards better approximations to reality. We know the knowledge to day probably on some places must be wrong, in the meaning that better explanations and formulas probably will come in the future. This is what we have experienced historically, the world is no longer believed to be flat, etc., and this will probably happen also in the future. Even if it not happens, the possibility that something is wrong will be there, because scientifical reasoning cannot prove any working hypothesis 100%, only reject it if it is wrong.
c. The consequence of these two conditions is however that todays consistent reasearch front, on some places must be a lie, relatively or absolute. Thus scientists are practically always preaching and believing in a consistent lie system. More or less!
They are at least a bit, more or less, consistent liers even if they don't believe so themselves and perhaps few others. But to be 100% honest, all scientists should realise that they are liers, perhaps not as much as others, but still a bit liers.
d. However not to be scientifical, not using the inductive-deductive, logic deductive and hypothetical deductive method, almost certain creates bigger lies, including non-testable hypothesis, circle definitions, self-fulfilling prophesies, tautologies, inconsistencies, fog and vagueness, etc. i.e in general pseudoscience. Inductive-deductive and logic-deductive reasoning within the framework of the hypothetical deductive method, testable hypothesis, is essential to real science.
f. Thus there is no acceptable alternative to the scientifical method suggested by Kropotkin and others, and we must understand that even science, i.e. not pseudoscience, is (a more or less) consistent belief, in the meaning of rational scientifical knowledge, a general model of realities, and not the realities and realistic alternatives in itself, and it will practically always partially be a lie, have som inaccuracies. Thus, the research front is in a way a belief, but not similar to irrational or speculative, religious belief, based on fomulæ, a.s.o, it is based on tested and still not rejected hypothesis in different ways, logically, statistical, political implications in the people vs authorities perspective, the Orwellian "1984" newspeak perspective of hidden contradictions and manipulations in the conceptual framwork, etc.
The aim of real science is to reveal the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but both history and critical reasoning demonstrate this is not the fact. Even if precisely and mathematically formulated, there are always some outspoken and non-outspoken, implicit conditions, that are not totally realistic in general and/or "selfevident". As mentioned, in social sciences, most conditions also have a political tendency. Most "selfevident" synthetic axioms, as opposed to analytical, are however perhaps not as self-evident as they seem. Some philosphical question are however absolute certain, as the question of existence, I think thus I am is one. We may not be the one we think, but existence on some level for a conciousness that thinks is a practically certain truth. There may be a demon that fools us into thinking we are a person, but that does not rule out the fact that you exist if you can read this. For scientific questions only practical certainty is possible, this is an absolute truth. A demon with powers above some level may change the laws of cosmos, but not very likely.
Thus, any science is summa (Lies %) plus (Truth%) = 100%, and the (Lies %) will practically certain never be zero. Perhaps we could use a less derogative word than 'lie', say 'inaccuracies', to be nice to science and scientists, but the real meaning is about the same, i.e. there is always "something more or less wrong that is not right", deliberately made so by pseudoresearchers, ideologs, or not, i.e. by real researchers.The IIFOR always try to be real researchers in this way, not doing inaccuracies deliberately, avoiding a bias. In the social sciences the (lies %) may be really high, because the authorities of the authoritarian systems, left, right and down on the economical- political map, are also moe or less authorities over the research, i.e. the researchers are usually either on the payroll of authorities or are directly political/administratively ruled by state, and the authorities may have a tendency of mixing the authoritarian with freedom, saying the authoritarian is freedom, and/or similar Orwellian "1984" newspeak.
And most of the social scientists join in this false song deliberately or by accident. The purpose of research is thus to lie (make inaccuracies) as little as possible, i.e. the same as maximizing the truth. But it will probably never be 100% truth. Research is never 100% proof. Today, especially some neoclassical economists are very impressed by the Walras-model, because it is consistent. But it is covering over the fact that "free" market contracts may often be slave-contracts, and thus the contradiction of freedom = slavery. That is a serious lie. Never forget this fact.
The "Church of reason" often try to deny the above stated fact in practice, and try to pose as the producers of absolute truth, not admitting that the whole system also includes partial lies, say, hidden contradictions due to Orwellian "1984 newspeak" concepts, badly formulated relations, "selfevident" axioms that are not selfevident, mixing up taxonomical relations as ecocirc, with ordinary, statistically testable hypothesis, mixing up synthetic and analytic relations and axioms, lack of data, positivism, i.e. keeping just to the positively given, not taking into account realistic (contrafactual, but realistic and thus possible) alternatives, etc., dialectical and other pseudo-scientifical formulæ, a.s.o.. A contradiction in science must not be mixed up with the "build in contradiction in all things" as the dialectical formulæ of Hegel and Marx's quasiscience suggests. Although we here discuss contradictions, this must not be seen as we are doing a form of marxism or dialictic thinking, because we are not. A logical contradiction has nothing to do with the pseudoscientifical formulæ "thesis - antithesis - synthesis". Mathematical and logical formulas, must not be mixed up with pseudoscientifical formulæ, including Hegelian and Marxist dialectical "reasoning", such as the "thesis - antithesis - synthesis", "magical spells" and prayers, etc.
However the scientifical way of thinking is, or should be, a firm fight to reveal these lies, so the lies over time become as less as possible. The scientifical prosess of breaking through the old consistent research front and establishing a new, i.e. a scientifical revolution, often starts with an honest discovery that creates inconsistency in the scientifical system, i.e. the research front. An example of that is Nozick pointing clearly to the fact that "free"-market contracts may createor be slave-contracts, and calling it that, and thus coming up with the contradiction that a "free"-contract = slave contract, i.e. freedom = slavery, i.e. Orwellian "1984 newspeak", that is not scientifical because it cover up realities in a foggy way, and do not reveal realities, and is inconsistent. Inconsistent concepts are contradictions, and thus not acceptable from scientifical perspective. When first this contradiction is revealed, it is as indicated above, easy to improve the model, taking into account a) free contracts, i.e not slave-contracts, and b) slave-contracts, relatively or more absolute, as two types of ("free") market contracts, and not defining all ("free") market-contracts as free for the people. This means a ("free") market contract, even in a neoclassical perfect competitive market system, may be a slave contract, and thus not free, i.e. "free markets" are not always free from the people's perspective.. Thus Nozick's contribution is scientifically valuable although he ended up like a "crackpot" with contradictions in his "system", and thus something more had to be done to establish a new research front. Nozick's attempt to "save" the liberalistic system, after having implicitely revealed its basic contradiction, and still "prove" that it was a free, fair, just and efficient system, is however mostly pathetic. To try to hide real contradictions by ideological and philosphical tricks, as Nozick does in this case, is not scientifical, but pseudoscience. Now, back to point 1-5 above.
Most societies of today officially calling themselves "democracy" are probably, sorry to say, not real democracies, i.e. anarchies, in practice anarchism. The authorities, their schools and media are often telling lies to the people in this and similar matters. Guess why!? In case 4, go to
5. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? We will leave that mostly to yourself, but you should probably subscribe to IJ@, - Click on: IJA-updates - Subscribe .
6. You may possibly answer "I don't know" to the question mentioned under point 2. In case, go to point 5. and/or try to be more honest and matter of fact critical, ask IIFOR for help, at the AI-research institute or do more investigations on your own until you can make up your mind. Wether a society is real democratic or not, is a crucial political, scientific and philosophical question, that should never be unanswered. You may also discuss with others, to find out. There may be different opinions, even if answered honestly and seen critical, matter of fact, after investigations.
7. Perhaps you don't care? Then you probably are an idiot in the original Greek meaning of the word, and even an "useful" one of Lenin and other authorities, and you should really think twice!
8. Perhaps you care, but give up... As history demonstrate different systems, with different authoritarian degree, and this is connected to the people's societal activities broadly defineds, it is no reason to give in. By individual and co-operative actions, we may change the system in direction more efficiency and fairness and the other anarchist principles, and thus create more anarchy and anarchism, a less authoritarian system.
Thus if "intersubjectivity" is interpreted as measured by a poll or similar, in general by asking people and researchers, or by voting for or against, the truth may rarely be revealed in this matter. That's why anarchist research don't believe to much in polls and general opinions, but stick to other measures, as the theory of revealed preferances through deeds and doings, democratic ecocirc, and factual-scientifical investigations in general, instead of only measuring what people say when asked in different ways. If we should only use polls and rely on what a majority says as almost objective, probably most, if not all, societies officially naming themselves "democracy", would be registrated as real democracy, and thus real anarchy and anarchism, although probably relatively few really be so. Thus, to investigate objectively about anarchy and anarchism, and the way to get a higher degree of anarchy, and/or less authoritarian tendencies, we cannot rely too much on polls and similar.
But the general theory of anarchist political economy and sociology broadly defined, because it is based on revealing the truth from the interest of the people perspective, i.e. the poorest and less powerful majority perspective, in contrast to the bureaucracy minority, may be seen as mainly objective, also treating the other systems as special cases of a more general theory, and thus anarchist research is probably the most objective of social sciences.Most people will agree to it, when understood, although not always the authorities. They will probably often do anything to discredit the anarchist research, unless they are, or turn out to act like - real democrats, acting compatible with anarchism, one way or the other. An open society, based on free - matter of fact - criticism a.o.t., may help in this matter. Strong labor unions, and people's organizations in general, and a relatively strong and competent anarchist/libertarian movement, highly educated people, a real scientifical way of thinking as mentioned above, a free press vs 4th power of the state, etc. all contribute in the right direction, towards anarchy, i.e. real democracy, more and more.
Thus, seen all in all, social sciences is mainly political, and not objective in a politically neutral sense, but it may be objective in revealing facts from the people's perspective, not covering up for unpleasent truths from authorities perspective. Although a researcher not necessarily must choose between systems and quadrants on the map, and work politically for one tendency, the systems they study is inevitable political, either anarchist, marxist, fascist or liberalist, generally and broadly defined. And in all cases a researcher true to the scientifical method must not propagandistical compromise the method in any way. It is however possible to work politically for anarchism, and still be a good anarchist researcher, not compromising the method, anarchism and anarchist research. All anarchists should principally work that way, both be scientifical and political anarchists, as far as resources are available.
Everybody can contribute with something to the anarchist research. Even the smallest hint may be useful. What's wrong with the "Church of reason" in contrast to anarchist research in social sciences, is the lack of input of really new and interesting working hypothesis, the constructive creativity, new thinking in general. They are mostly occupied with what Ragnar Frisch called "lommerusk-forskning", i.e "pocket fluff research", and they are on the payroll of the plutarchy and/or the State and afraid of loosing their income and privilegies, so they crawl around using the authorities' perspective, not the people's perspective. Even when they discover the truth, opposed to the bureaucracy, they usually say it with lowest possible voice or keep totally quiet about it, afraid to risk their necks. Most of the budgets are directly connected to projects serving the bureaucracy, and very little for free research.
Even if in a free position, projects in the people's perspective are usually avoided, because very few will risk the neck on counter-bureaucratic projects. They may critize the state, but serve the plutarchy, or critize the plutarchy but serve the state, but rarely take the people's perspective. The people have little money for research.So real anarchist research have practically always hard times. Besides several guru and wannabe libertarian fogarchs, try to get a scientifical image by making up false research institutes. Say, search for "anarchism", "libertarian", "anarchist", "anarchos", etc and "institute", "centre/center" or "research" on Internet, and you will see several of these quasi-scientifical institutes, not based on the natural scientifical method introduced by Kropotkin to the anarchist movement, but dialectical, "new age", etc. everything that is not anarchist, but populist, marxist or liberalist. There are however also more serious anarchist research institutes broadly defined with web-pages on Internet. IIFOR at AIIS is however probably the most advanced, and consistent, so far.
And anarchist historical science and research must principally take into account the research front of updated valid anarchist system theory, etc, drawing the great lines in history, not be ideographical and hermeneutical. The updated einsteinian physics was of course more valid also in the newtonian age, than newtonian physics, although not discovered at that time. Similar in anarchist sciences, hypothesis rejected today was not really valid before, although wrongly considered valid so far, long time ago. When analysing history in an anarchist scientifical context, the retrospective approach should be based on today's updated research front, using today's general concepts and relations, not just reflecting passively what was (sometimes wrongly) considered valid as anarchism long time ago.
Primary historical data on realities may be more or less factual, and should of course be accounted for as they best are revealed by updated methods about what really happened, i.e. sheding light on factum. However the symbols/words, concepts, fictions, what was once called anarchism by people called anarchist by themselves or others a long time ago, are not necessary anarchism as far as we know it today. The world was not flat, hundreds of years ago, although many believed so, also the "Churches of Reason" of that time. Earlier faults in libertarian's beliefs were not really valid anarchism historically, just faults, not anarchism. As indicated above - what we today know about anarchism must be taken into account when writing history, say, to tell what was anarchism and what was not, in a historical perspective.
Especially hermeneutical "analysis" of short slogans and headlines of earlier anarchist's thoughts put up to make attention, interpreted in "a free" way, are in general not valid anarchism, as indicated above. This is similar to "free fantasy" interpretations of headlines in newspapers, without taking into account the content of the articles. The "quality" of such forms of hermeneutical "history"-writing should be clear to everybody without much more explanation. A "traditionalist" hermeneutical quasianarchism based on slogans and headlines, conserving old times faults and repeating it, has nothing to do with anarchism. Furthermore, as long as the authoritarian travesties of anarchy and anarchism exist, an "analysis" collecting this and that with the words anarchy and anarchism on Internet or other media, is of very little interest in sheding light on anarchy and anarchism. It may however give an impression of the amount of travesties, and thus give one among many indications of the authoritarian degree.
D. MORE ABOUT THE CONCEPTS AND WORDS USED IN THIS CONTEXT
As indicated above, the system theory of anarchist political economy and social organization research and the economic-political map, presented here at map and mathematically at formula of anarchism should also bee seen in the context of the economic-political sociology and industrial organization research at class analysis and the RDI and the general theory of anarchist economics at economicsl , as well as the praxeological research referred in International Journal of Organization Research, see IIFOR , Folkebladet - Anarkistorganet and the most of the rest of the AIIS/AI files. And this is just a summary of the research at the International Institute for Organization Research at web IIFOR .
These pages have several words that are well known to highly educated people. However people at large are educated, but not highly. If you want to see the definition of a word or phrase used in this context, try first to search in the mentioned html-files. Secondly, if you want more information, try the anarchist search engine powered by Google at the AIIS index page . Third, if you have problems with understanding words that are not defined at the AIIS web-pages, try , say (Click on), Cambridge dictionary .
If you, after doing the best to understand, still have problems learning the material, click on AIUF for help. If you are interested in a basic course on anarchism in general, this may be arranged by the Anarchist International University Federation, via the same link If you have questions about the research and/or want more results, click on IIFOR . Anarchism is a.o.t. based on dialog, and free - matter of fact - criticism. To achieve this, it is necessary to understand what it is all about. A minimum basic knowledge to be taken seriously in a debate on anarchy, anarchist(s) and anarchism is probably the material at the above mentioned links, i.e. a brief summary of the updated research front on anarchism. In a matter of fact dialog with AIUF, IIFOR and/or other relevant organizations of the Anarchist International, you may also contribute to change the anarchist research front a bit, and thus also interactively change the stuff you are learning.
"Do not expect me to provide you with a system. My system is Progress, that is to say the need to work constantly toward discovering the unknown while the past is being exhausted." P. J.Proudhon wrote in a letter of December 1851. This does not mean anarchism is without system, it is a whole set of systems related to the economical political map and the updated research front of anarchism. It means we, Proudhon, IIFOR and other anarchists, will 1. not provide you with a fixed, dogmatic system once and for all. 2 You are invited to improve the research front of anarchist systems while learning. 3. "Proudhon's system" at that time, as well as today's updated research front of anarchism is a front of Progress: The research front, using the scientifical method of the natural sciences, the hypothetical deductive method, see scientific method , is all of the time developing and improved as an accumulated capital of knowledge, consistent and with small -- and sometimes large -- breakthroughs and revolutions, in a progressive way. Join in to improve the research front while learning and send a comment to IIFOR, click on the link to IIFOR above and use the e-mailform at the IIFOR's homepage.
The absolute truth is not existing, science is always about
approximations, using fertile concepts to form working hypothesis that
may be rejected or confirmed facing the facts. But the absolute truth we
never can reveale. Some relations such as ecocirc (search the net and above in this file) are however practically always valid, but they are not absolute truths. The same
goes for praxeology, it is not about absolutely truth. Only tautologies are absolutely truth, they may be useful in scientific research as a helping tool to form testable hypothesis, but in itself they are not
scientifical truth. As mentioned, the absolute truth is not existing, science is always about approximations.
This is a methodological hypothesis, not a dogma, and thus we cannot know for sure if it is an absolute truth or just very, very likely. Absolute truth may exist, but the problem is that we cannot by the scientifical method reveal with absolute certainty that the absolute truth is revealed. But we can say that the hypothesis "absolute truth is not existing" is practically always valid. This is how far science goes. Thus it is no contradiction involved.
As mentioned, there is no contradiction involved here. Feel free to prove that the absolute truth exists and suggest a scientifically valid method to reveal it 100%. Good luck - it is practically impossible, but we will not rule out the possibility 100% flat in advance. Nobody has however found such a method, only coming up with dogmas that is easy to argue against, as not scientifical truth ...
All of the research at www.anarchy.no is about working hypothesis and hints about anarchism and other -isms etc., some relations are practically always valid, but none is absolutely certain relations, i.e. dogmas. That is what anarchist research is all about...
The www.anarchy.no has several statements using the words "must", "absolute" etc. literally taken indicating absolute truths. This is however only pedagogical simplifications, stressing important points, and should not be taken literally. This is all about practically always valid relations, not absolute truths. And thus, correctly interpreted, there are no contradictions on the www.anarchy.no. Initially we have given introductory attempts of concepts, pedagical simplifications, to give the reader a direction and some hints, throughout the following chapters the research is more and more advanced, and the most advanced research and operational econometric/sociometric concepts are found in the chapters V. B. C. and D.
Anarchist greetings from the research team of IIFOR
