Real democracy - definition

Introduction

Real democracy is anarchy and anarchism. Anarchy and anarchism mean "system and management without ruler(s), i.e. co-operation without repression, tyranny and slavery". The words anarchy and anarchism are 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,

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 ", 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 . [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.

And thus anarchy means a) coordination, without rule from the bureaucracy broadly defined, the economical and/or political/administrative superiors in private and public sectors (in contrast to the people), downwards to the bottom, i.e. in a_coercive_manner. b) Thus, anarchy is higher forms of economical and political/administrative democracy; 1. ideally, i.e. 100% anarchy; meaning 100% coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, horizontal organization, and co-operation without coercion, or 2. practically, significant i.e. more than 50% degree of anarchy, i.e. more horizontally than vertically organized, i.e. more influence on the societal management  from the "bottom upwards", than from the bureaucracy,  from "the top downwards to the bottom".

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. Thus anarchy is a way of organizing society where there is management and coordination without ruling and rulers, tyranny and slavery, i.e. the tendencies towards State, authority, authorities, government, bureaucracy and similar are insignificant or zero. The opposite of anarchy is different types of archies, i.e. ruling and rulers, authority, authorities, State in a societal perspective, government - economical and/or political/administrative. Archies may be mainly monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy, ochlarchy (mob rule) and/or plutarchy.

Thus, the State, administration of State, government, authority/ies, a.s.o. must not be mixed up with public sector, services and utilities, central/confederal/federal or municipal included, 'res publica', as the negation of the private sector and sphere, because State, goverment etc. in this context are about special forms of organization (or disorganization), i.e. all systems where the influence on the societal management and coordination goes mainly from the top towards the bottom, slavery and tyranny - chaotic included. Thus public sector, services and utilities, central/confederal/federal or municipal included, organized significant horizontally, are anarchist - and thus not the State, authority/ies etc. or a part of it. The concept of 'central' is here referring mainly to general matters, things concerning the whole country or all of the citizens, and must not be mixed up with centralist, centralism or centralization, the negation of decentralist, decentralism and decentralization.

Anarchism is political systems and organizations coordinated as  anarchy in the above meaning and manner, but also the political tendency advocating anarchy understood this way, and the scientific knowledge about anarchy and the ways to reduce non-anarchist tendencies.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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 an 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 mean a set and sum of social relationships among humans, meaning just a network of individuals and the relationships they generate. With "system" we mean society, 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 or libertarian, i.e. anarchist.

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. 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.

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, including central administration, 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 country, 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 dimension 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 close to the middle of the map.

2. Marxist collectivism close to the anarchist left; 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.

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.

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.

As explained in chapter V.B. of System theory , the coordinates of the map, socialism vs capitalism and autonomy vs statism, operationally defined have a dynamic - not static - approach, i.e. some things may take long time, and it may thus be practically impossible to move an ultra-authoritarian system over to anarchy on the map within a short periode of time.

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 systems 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 liberalist sector.

(3) Thus, such an anarchist system is found in the middle between an advanced social democrat system and a social liberalist.

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 the Systems theory .

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.

Real democracy is anarchy and anarchism - Anarchism and anarchy are real democracy

As mentioned, real democracy, i.e. real-democracy and realdemocracy, is anarchy and anarchism, and anarchism and anarchy are real democracy, i.e. real-democracy and realdemocracy.

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.

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 i.e. at best pseudo-democracy or semi-democracy, at worst totalitarian and extremism with more than 66,7 % authoritarian degree.

There are two ways of making the system less authoritarian,

1. To change the hierarchy economical and/or political/administrative, in horizontal direction.

2. To change the relations between the persons within a given hierarchy, in horizontal direction, i.e. less authoritarian.

The struggle to achieve 1. and 2. is anarchist class struggle. Real class struggle is non-ochlarchical (ochlarchy = mob rule broadly defined). It may take the form of direct actions: strikes, also general strike and workplace occupation strike, direct dialog, negotiations and arbitration, sit-ins, demonstrations, press releases, referendum and direct democracy in general, etc. and indirect actions (e.g. voting in elections of mandated persons, general and local, etc.) as part of larger campaigns. 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 System theory - 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.

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 "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.

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. See also System theory - especially chapter V.B. for more information.

The anarchist ideal has 100% horizontal organization, i.e. 100% socialism and autonomy, no hierarchy, and no authoritarian relations between people/persons, and no authorities political/administrative and economically, and no disorganization, chaotical tendencies. Thus, there is 100% anarchy, optimal order included.

Anarchy is in reality and objectively seen a system significantly without archs, ochlarchs/ochlarchists included, i.e. a system with relatively small rank and income differences, orderly (optimal order, and not chaos) and efficient, also environmentally. Anarchy is real democracy - from the people and upwards, significantly. Anarchists are real democrats. The people, seen as a class, are the grassroots in contrast to the superiors in rank and/or income, the pyramid that in reality is the state/government, if significant i.e. top heavy, and it is probably always inefficent. Anarchism and anarchist strategy are to change the societal organization in horizontal direction, as members of the people, not attacking persons or things... More and more... Until complete horizontal organization is achieved, as an ultimate aim.

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, without a top heavy pyramid in rank and/or income, i.e. without a top - down approach, without ochlarchy/ochlarchists/ochlarchs [ochlarchy = mob rule broadly defined] and other archs, significantly.

Anarchism means anarchist, i.e. non-authoritarian, non-ochlarchical means and methods, as well as anarchist ends and aims. There must be consistency between means and ends. This is the only strategy that works. The real aim is in general the consequences of the use of the means involved, not some ideological manifesto with good intentions, if any. The only violence anarchists accept is violence, proportionate, in self defense, i.e. not ochlarchist or other authoritarian actions.

Anarchist actions are actions consistent with the here mentioned framework, i.e. non-authoritarian and non-ochlarchical, and not marxist, liberalist or populist/fascist, and nothing else. It may be direct actions, the main anarchist strategy, or indirect actions i.e. within this framework, the framework of real democracy broadly defined - included a bottom - up approach. This also means the actions should in general be compatible with real democracy. 'Compatible' broadly defined may be a somewhat wider concept than 'framework' more narrowly defined, and in this case it may be correct to say 'within the framework and/or compatible' with real democracy regarding anarchist actions. This is not only relevant within real democratic systems, anarchies, but also in the fight for increased - or keeping up the - libertarian degree of countries in general - world wide, and thus also in non-anarchist and more autoritarian countries. As mentioned anarchism and anarchist strategy are to change the societal organization in horizontal direction, as members of the people, not attacking persons or things, i.e. non-authoritarian actions.

The difference between ochlarchs/ochlarchists and anarchists is per definition dependent on what you do, not what you say you are or flag! To mix up opposites as a) anarchy and ochlarchy and b) anarchists with ochlarchists/ochlarchs, as outdated dictionaries and media often do, is equally authoritarian as mixing up opposites as peace and war, as Big Brother did in Orwell's "1984" newspeak. It should be stopped, and anarchists do actions to stop this.

Chaos, disorder, mob rule (narrowly defined), lawlessness, the law of the jungle, criminality, riots, vandalism, arson, theft, corruption, drugs, mafia, terrorism, autocratic rule, the right to the strongest, antisocial tyrannic behavior, etc. i.e. different types of superiors and subordinates, a top - down approach. The Greek rooted word for mob rule is ochlarchy. Ochlarchy is also used as a common word for all the authoritarian evils mentioned above i.e. mob rule broadly defined. People doing ochlarchy, i.e. ochlarchists/ochlarchs, are clearly authoritarian. They may be liberalists, fascists or marxists, practically certain not anarchists. If anti-capitalist, they are authoritarian socialists, i.e. marxists - leftwingers, not anarchists, although they may falsely try to pose as such or wrongly be called so by the media and others. The media and others should call such ochlarchists marxists, leftwingers, because that is what they are, and not anarchists! Anarchists are in the middle and upwards on the economic-political map, not leftwingers or rightwingers. And anarchy and ochlarchy are opposites, a more or less democracy with a significant ochlarchy tendency is not an Anarchy.

For more information relevant in this context see "Anarchists against ochlarchy (mob rule) and ochlarchist infiltration" IJA 1 (33) , "Anarchy vs ochlarchy (mob rule) and anarchists vs ochlarchists" IJA 1(36) , and about anarchy vs chaos, see the Oslo Convention and search for 'anarchy vs chaos' at Anarkidebatt. See also the International Anarchist Tribunal - the Anarchist Press Tribunal - Nordic branch and International branch. More information of real democracy, i.e. horizontal organization - significant, see (click on) Industrial organization and class analysis, Horizontal organization - a brief survey and search for 'Management and managers vs ruling and rulers' at Anarkidebatt.

Real democracy, i.e. anarchy, also includes a significant green tendency, see (click on) GAIA and the GGS and links in the text of this document. Real democracy, i.e. anarchy, also includes a significantly green & democratic (Bottom - Up) political economy broadly defined, see (click on) The World Economic Council & Cogrips-policy i.e. bottom - up with links. Cogrips-economics is both green and democratic. See also GGS - bottom -up climate-actions. Real Democracy and other non-totalitarian democracy (e.g. parliamentary semi-democracy) require significantly both 1. free and fair multi-party elections, and 2. accountability and sufficient of "checks and balances".

Elections and "checks and balances". In general, (multi-party) 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. First there must be clearly democratic, non-totalitarian parties, preferably with real democracy, i.e. anarchy, on the agenda. And without institutions that promote accountability, etc., they (multi-party electoral systems with significantly free elections) are too easily exploited by cynical, greedy ultra-authoritarian elites/archs, i.e. the bureaucracy (upper class). Real democracy and non-totalitarian (democratic) system in general include a significant amount of "checks and balances", i.e. 1. "checks", include free critical investigations and research where the results are publicly available, via education and the media etc., i.e. sufficient measures to prevent and counteract ultra-authoritarian propaganda, present and historic, manufacturing consent of the ultra-authoritarian; 2. "balances", include balance of strength, significantly without domination and power-concentration - in societal perspective broadly defined, and 3. institutions promoting and securing the "checks and balances". In general "checks and balances" are various procedures set in place to reduce mistakes, prevent improper behavior (ochlarchy - mob rule broadly defined), and/or decrease the risk of centralization of power, economically and/or political/administrative. "Checks and balances" ensure that no one person or department/party has absolute control over decisions. The term is most commonly used in the context of public central administration, but is also used in business and management in general. The term "checks and balances" is rooted back to USA (the Constitution), that has a system only with rather limited "checks and balances", not ruling out severe unenlightened plutarchy in the country.

NB! Free and fair elections, but lacking accountability and sufficient "checks and balances" mean multi-party elections with "flawed democracy", i.e. totalitarian and ultra-authoritarian. Multi-party free and fair elections including sufficient "checks and balances", means non-totalitarian democracy. This may be 1. semi-democracy, i.e. less than 67 % authoritarian degree, but not real democracy, or 2. real-democracy, i.e. anarchy, with equal to or more than 50% anarchy-degree. Real-democracy, i.e. anarchy, may be mainly parliamentarian and of low degree of anarchy, or mainly direct democratic and of high degree of anarchy, towards the anarchist ideal (90 % and higher degree of anarchy). A development from 1. ultra-authoritarian & totalitarian "flawed democracy", to 2. non-totalitarian, but still more or less - but significantly authoritarian - semi-democracy, to 3. real democracy, i.e. anarchy, of low degree, to 4. real democracy, i.e. anarchy of high degree, to 5. real democracy close to the anarchist ideal; requires real revolutions, usually several real revolutions. Popular uprisings, revolts, in democratic direction, may develop to embryo-revolutions, i.e. with a small but not significant change upwards in the libertarian degree (libertarian degree = 100 % - the authoritarian degree), but only rarely develops to real revolutions, i.e. with a significant shift upwards in the libertarian degree, usually necessary to achieve a shift in type of democracy, from "flawed", towards semi-democracy and further to real-democracy of low anarchy-degree, towards higher.

More about "flawed democracies". Flawed "democracies" are nations where elections are somewhat fair and free and basic civil liberties are more or less honored, but have severe authoritarian issues (e.g. media freedom infringement). These nations have significant faults in other democratic aspects, including under-developed political culture, low levels of participation in politics, and issues in the functioning of societal management. Flawed "democracy" is mainly an illiberal "democracy", also called a partial "democracy", low intensity "democracy", empty "democracy" or a "hybrid regime". A flawed "democracy" is as mentioned ultra-authoritarian and totalitarian, and must not be mixed up with semi-democracy and semi-democratic, that are non-totalitarian and authoritarian, but not ultra-authoritarian. A flawed "democracy" is a governing system in which although multi-party elections take place, citizens are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who exercise real power because of lack of civil liberties, etc.; thus it is not an "open society". This may be because a constitution limiting government powers exists, but those in power ignore its liberties, or because an adequate legal constitutional framework of liberties does not exist. But as indicated above, the main reason for a flawed "democracy" is lack of accountability and sufficient "checks and balances". Especially to establish sufficient "checks", i.e. mainly measures to prevent and counteract ultra-authoritarian propaganda, present and historic, manufacturing consent of the ultra-authoritarian, - which is quite necessary to achieve non-totalitarian democracy, may be very difficult, especially in developing countries in the Third World. Often the adult literacy rate is low, and illiterates are easy to manipulate by authoritarian propaganda, a.o.t. from counter-revolutionaries, say, to falsely believe in "strong men" and elect such. Often all significant parties in a multi-party election are ultra-authoritarian, and if elected, will contribute to a totalitarian system, i.e. in practice and de fact the elections are between only ultra-authoritarian rulers (archs) with their ultra-authoritarian parties – and thus non-totalitarian democracy will not be achieved.

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, real democratic, basic principles (for the anarchist ideal) in general, see below, and 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.

An axiomatic approach to the principles of real democracy, i.e. anarchy and anarchism

( 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 on the System Theory, search for 'calibration' and 'principles'.

Approximation to 100% real democracy - Principles for the real democratic ideal

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 at Systems theory 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 credit), 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" , and in the chapter V. "Notes", at the Systems theory . 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... %) libertarian 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% [66,67%], 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.

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 the chapter "An axiomatic approach to the principles of real democracy, i.e. anarchy and anarchism" 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 at Systems theory . 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 systems 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.

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.

*) See next chapter for a precisation of the concept of "privately owned".

Real democracy and private property rights vs possession in anarchist law

The idea of socialism vs capitalism as "common vs private property right to the means of production" must not be superficially interpreted:

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.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:"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]

Real democracy and the Oslo Convention

1. Authoritarians notoriously mix up anarchy, anarchist and anarchism with authoritarian tendencies: Chaos, disorder, mob rule*, lawlessness, the law of the jungle, criminality, riots, theft, corruption, drugs, mafia, terrorism, autocratic rule, the right to the strongest, antisocial tyrannical behavior, etc. i.e. different types of superiors and subordinates.

2. The word anarchy 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. This is the opposite of the above mentioned authoritarian tendencies, i.e. different types of superiors and subordinates.

3. The above mentioned mixtures of anarchist and authoritarian tendencies are principal contradictions similar to the Newspeak slogan "peace is war" in Orwell's "1984", and have correspondent repressive functions. Anarchists won't have any of that! For obvious reasons significant mixtures of anarchist and authoritarian tendencies should be denounced, i.e. as a general anarchist opinion, now and in the future. These actions may be taken on individual, municipal or international level, dependent on the situation.

The media may act a) as a free press or b) as The 4th power of the state, i.e. generally give a negative and wrong description of anarchy and anarchism, mixing up authoritarian and anarchist ideas and roles. "The Bureaucracy" as a class concept is all superiors, i.e. criminal or not, in private and public sectors. "The People" are "The Total Population" minus "The Bureaucracy".

The part of the people generally following and supporting The Bureaucracy, that is the ramifications of The Bureaucracy. We think a good reporter cannot be a part of The Bureaucracy or its ramifications. Reporters, spokesmen and others, breaking the Oslo convention severely, or several times, will receive the BROWN CARD** as a symbol of free criticism. Authoritarian journalism and similar must be criticized in a relevant way!

*) The Greek rooted word for mob rule is ochlarchy. Ochlarchy broadly defined may also be used as a common word for all the authoritarian evils mentioned in part 1. above, i.e. in general lack of security and law and order in a society as a public sector service. This is ochlarchy, the opposite of anarchy, i.e. based on libertarian law and order and security as public sector services, according to the anarchist (IFA) principle of social justice. The ones doing ochlarchy broadly defined are called ochlarchists, i.e. the opposite of anarchists. Sufficient public service of policing is important. Man is not like ants who cooperate socially, naturally and voluntarely without coercion/repression 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.

See Systems Theory and search for the keywords "law" and "corps". 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 defence corps organization/federation may have a somewhat less degree of flatness than a study circle. And the police corps shall of course be well educated in libertarian human rights and policing and be democratically regulated and controlled, and bully types, corrupt and other "brown", ochlarchical elements should be expelled mainly during the education prosess and thus stopped from participating in the police corps. Regarding law and order a combination of private security firms and a horizontally organized public sector with anarchist courts on local, regional and confederal level, it is the best solution.

Some law and order services are collective or semicollective and they will most efficiently be handled by a horizontally organized public sector. Competing court services sold for means of payment will be significantly corrupt and not making equality before the law. It will be "law and order" for the relatively rich, they will have it their way, and no real law and order for the relatively poor. The definition of theft is when you get something for nothing (and it is not a gift). Free goods and services, say air, are gifts from nature.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 Anarchist Tribunal.

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.

Financing the public sector - social subscription vs taxes: We are here first discussing the anarchist ideal. If the people, say in a commune, decide with general consent a social subscription to finance a horizontally organized public sector, then it is 100% voluntarely. Thus there is no taxation involved. General consent is that a lot are for, and no one is against. In an anarchy of a high degree all the members of the society are anarchists and they have developed a consensus culture based on negotiations and a will to come to an agreement. In the case where there is no general consent, the majority may decide a social subscription for their part only to finance the public sector. The minority must then as far as possible be denied the public goods and services. In case where this is not possible, the question of "free riders" appear. In some cases "free riding" may bee seen as theft (theft= you get something for nothing, and it is not a gift), in other cases as a gift. Thus there may be different solutions to the "free rider" problem. In less ideal anarchism there may be degrees of social subscription vs taxes.

The anarchists are in these cases for as little as possible coercion. The AI and IAT have never expressed that an anarchist society of high degree of anarchy, should be organized in one way, or one homogenous system. The general idea 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., local matters decided locally, regional matters regionally, and general cases for a whole society (say a country) decided by all members of society together (preferably with general consent, based on a consensus-culture, with negotiations etc).

Thus individually, locally and regionally, there may be several different systems within the framework of horizontal organizations, but for the general cases for a whole society, there may be only one system at a time, as far as the AI and IAT can see today. This general organization may of course change over time, because horizontal organization always may be improved, different working hypothesis may be put in place and rejected if it doesn't work. etc. But there must be ways to decide in general matters in an orderly anarchist way, or else it will be chaotic and ochlarchy. This could be investigated more.

There may be several ways to make general decisions, that is reasonable horizontal. These several competing systems may be investigated in advance, so there is a large menu to choose from in an anarchist society of high degree, close to the anarchist ideal at the top of the economical-political map.

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. Anarchy and anarchism mean "system and management without ruler(s), i.e. co-operation without repression, tyranny and slavery". In short an-arch-y = [(an = without - arch = ruler(s)) - y = system (included optimal order and law) and management, as, say, in monarch-y]. Anarchy and anarchism are efficient and fair system and management without top heavy societal pyramid economical and/or political/administrative - in income and/or rank, i.e. significant horizontal organization. Thus, anarchy and anarchism mean real democracy, economical and political/administrative, in private and public sector.

**) Ochlarchists, i.e. people and organizations/groups infiltrating the anarchistmovement and posing as anarchists and doing ochlarchy (mob rule broadly defined), getting the BROWN CARD, are expelled from the anarchist movement. Thus, receiving the BROWN CARD in this case means expulsion from the anarchist movement. Other ochlarchists may also get the BROWN CARD, but they are of course not expelled from the anarchist movement because they did not pose as anarchists anyway.

For more information about anarchists vs ochlarchists, see IJA 136 and IJA 133 . For more information about anarchy vs chaos, search for anarchy vs chaos at Anarkidebatt . See also the APT-files at the IAT website Anarchist Tribunal .

Real democracy and "free riders"

"Getting something for nothing" is a problematic case in anarchism, as there is in general "no such thing as a free lunch". Sorry to say, one of the basic human motives is probably the desire "to get something for nothing". Theft for example, is a way to "get something for nothing," and is the paradigm case of an illegitimate act from the anarchist perspective. However, there are other possible scenarios in which depictions of this phrase are probably not incompatible with anarchism. To condemn any attempt to get something for nothing is thus to overgeneralize. 

Solidarity is one case in point. The recipient of voluntary welfare does nothing improper, whatsoever. A person may be down on his luck, or simply forgot his wallet, or was the victim of a mugging. He asks a passerby for a buck for carfare, or for a cup of coffee, or for some change with which to make a phone call, and receives it. He thereby got "something for nothing," but probably offends no anarchist law which should remain on the books.

Even the victim of a crime gets "something": e.g., the satisfaction that the robber took no more than he did, or refrained from murdering him. Or take another case: I am holding a $100 bill in my hand, and the wind takes it off, to who knows where. Surely, I gain nothing from this occurrence; but if it floats into someone else's possession, he gains something for nothing, but it need not be according to a base human motivation, or be seen as similar to theft.

The critics of obtaining something for nothing also overlook the concept of consumer and producer surplus. Say, the grocer has hundreds of oranges on hand. If he does not sell them soon, they will rot, and then it would cost him money (in addition to the purchase price) to dispose of them. So the grocer sells a few of them to me. He may get something for nothing, i.e. if they else would rotten. Although I pay a few pennies, I would perhaps have been willing to pay a dollar for these oranges had I been asked to do so. The difference to me between what I would have been willing to pay (the greater value) and what I actually did pay (the lesser value) is my consumer surplus. No one else can probably know this amount exactly, but for me it is in effect found money. Or, in other words, I just got something for nothing in terms of consumer surplus as did the grocer in terms of producer or seller surplus.

A concept often seen by mainstream economists in a derogative way is that of the "free rider" (meaning "gratispassasjer" in Norwegian). Anyone who gets a value for which he does not pay (another version of "getting something for nothing") is in general seen as evidence of economic inefficiency, a so called "market failure" or "environmental externality." This may also be unfair.

The typical example of this is when a person benefits from the fact that his neighbor washes his car, or trims his lawn, or keeps his house in good repair. These actions tend to maintain or upgrade the real estate values of the first homeowner's property, and presumably increase his enjoyment of his holdings because the view improves.

Why is this so bad? Perhaps for one of two reasons. We can become enraged at the free rider because he is getting something for nothing. Alternatively, the good neighbor is not doing enough to beautify his own premises, and is thus "cheating" the free rider out of even greater benefits.

Whether blaming the recipient of the positive externality for being an ingrate, or the donor for not doing enough for the former, one thing is clear: Public or collective decision should probably step in, for without this the neighborhood will not be welfareoptimal, i.e. maximal benefit minus costs.

In this, and similar, cases, collective decision and action is probably a good thing, if the regulations and regulatory means are working in a libertarian way. However any argument proclaiming the right and goodness of, say, three neighbors, who yearn to form a string quartet, forcing a forth neighbor at bayonet point to learn and play the viola, is hardly deserving of sober comment. This, and similar cases, are clearly authoritarian, and not efficient and fair, i.e. anarchist and real democracy.

If people are nice to one another, if they smile at each other, well and good. If we appreciate what Einstein, Mozart and Kropotkin have given us, if we are "free riders" on them, again well and good. We are all the beneficiaries of those who came before us. This is part and parcel of civilized living, and is no cause for alarm. However squatting is something else. This may very often be seen as similar to having a free lunch and let others pay the bill, i.e. slave for the squatter one way or the other. Squatting and the squatter movement are typically 1. communism with kleptarchy , or 2. communist kleptarchy (both 1. and 2. significant ochlarchy ), i.e. in both cases 1. and 2. significant authoritarian, and thus not anarchy, anarchist and anarchism. And pacifism - this is perhaps a luxury that an anarchist society probably should accept if very few are pacifists, but if this authoritarian tendency is increasing too much, it is quite certain not acceptable.

The formulas of anarchy and anarchism, i.e. real democracy

(1) DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))²+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))²]/2) ^1/2]%

This is the general Formula of Anarchism related to the Economic-Political map. The degree of anarchy*) is defined for the Quadrant of Anarchism on the EP-map. In general the libertarian degree is used, i.e. also valid outside the anarchist quadrant **):

(2) LIBERTARIAN DEGREE = 100[1-([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))²+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))²]/2) ^1/2]%

In general, for the whole map ***), the authoritarian degree is used, i.e. 100% minus the libertarian degree.

AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = 100% - 100[1-([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))²+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))²]/2) ^1/2]% <=>

AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = 100[ 1 - [1-([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))²+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))²]/2) ^1/2]]% <=>

(3) AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = 100[([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))²+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))²]/2) ^1/2]%

(4) The degree of autonomy is 100% - the degree of statism and the degree of socialism is 100% - the degree of capitalism

From (3) and (4) we get:

(5) AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = 100[([(STATISM%/100)²+(CAPITALISM%/100)²]/2) ^1/2]%

If the authoritarian degree is not significant, i.e. less than 50%, outside the anarchist quadrant, the term semilibertarian system is used.

Systems within the anarchist quadrant have the degree of both autonomy and socialism > 50%, the liberalist quadrant autonomy and capitalism > 50%, the marxist statism and socialism > 50% and the fascist statism and capitalism > 50% .

If the degree of capitalism is significant, > 50%, the system is economical plutarchy.

The degree of statism is connected to political/administrative hierarchy, that may be real monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy, ochlarchy, and/or political/administrative plutarchy, i.e. if the degree of statism is significant, > 50%.

Very significant capitalism and/or statism also include the archies of rivaling "states within the state" (chaos), the tyranny of structurelessness (disorganization) and ochlarchy broadly defined.

If a system has insignificant degree of statism and capitalism, both < 50%, i.e. the degree of both autonomy and socialism are significant > 50%, and the system is anarchy and anarchism.

The area of the map, i.e. 100%, is divided of course with 25% for each of the main quadrants, marxism, anarchism, liberalism, and fascism. Furthermore the area of the systems with the least 1/3 authoritarian degree is Pi(100/18) = ca 17.4 % at the top of the map.

The anarchist and semilibertarian systems to the left and right, i.e. from above the middlepoint and less than 50% authoritarian degree cover an area of Pi(100/8) = ca 39,25 %. The democratic systems all in all, i.e. less than ca 67% authoritarian degree, cover an area of Pi(200/9) = ca 69.78 %. Of this the area between about 43,75 % and 66,67 % authoritarian degree is significant parliamentarian democracy, and the area with less than 43,75% authoritarian degree is significant direct democracy. The democracy, parliamentarian or direct, may be real, i.e. libertarian and anarchist - within the anarchist quadrant of the economical political map, or not, i.e. semilibertarian, also called semi-democratic, or authoritarian semi- or pseudo-democracy - outside the anarchist quadrant.

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.

And thus the ultra-authoritarian, totalitarian systems, with more than ca 67% (i.e. 66.6 666... %) authoritarian degree cover 100 - Pi(200/9) = ca 30.22 %. Thus, the systems with more than 666 per thousand authoritarian degree have a lot more room, ca 30% of the map, than the most anarchist systems with ca 17 % of the area. This may indicate it is much more easy to create hell than heaven on earth.

The significant direct democratic systems including semilibertarian cover about 30 % of the total area. The totalitarian systems at the bottom of the map also cover about 30 % of the area. The parliamentarian systems all in all cover about 40 % of the area, of which about 30 % are authoritarian systems and about 10 % are semilibertarian or anarchist systems, i.e. with average authoritarian degree < or = 50 %.

Graphical representations of the formulas are found at the top of this document and - with further explanation - at: The four main tendencies of real democracy, i.e. anarchy and anarchism and the System theory .

As anarchy and anarchism are equal to real democracy we may also write the formulas in the following way:

The formulas of real democracy

A brief note on the political ecocirc equations between the degree of realdemocracy, socialism vs capitalism and statism vs autonomy, say, to get more logical answers in IIFOR's investigations about democracy.

(1) DEGREE OF REALDEMOCRACY = 100[1-([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))²+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))²]/2) ^1/2]%

This is the general Formula of realdemocracy. The degree of realdemocracy is defined for significant societal democracy, i.e. both more than a) 50% economical democracy, socialism, on a scale from 0% to 100%, i.e. significant socialism, and b) 50% political/administrative democracy, autonomy, on a scale from 0% to 100%, i.e. significant autonomy.

All realdemocratic systems are found within the Quadrant of realdemocracy defined by [ 50% to 100% AUTONOMY; 50% to 100% SOCIALISM].

In general the libertarian degree is used, i.e. also valid outside the realdemocratic quadrant:

(2) LIBERTARIAN DEGREE = 100[1-([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))²+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))²]/2) ^1/2]%

In general, for the whole map, the authoritarian degree is used, i.e. 100% minus the libertarian degree.

AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = 100% - 100[1-([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))²+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))²]/2) ^1/2]% <=>

AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = 100[ 1 - [1-([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))²+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))²]/2) ^1/2]]% <=>

(3) AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = 100[([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))²+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))²]/2) ^1/2]%

(4) The degree of autonomy is 100% - the degree of statism and the degree of socialism is 100% - the degree of capitalism

From (3) and (4) we get:

(5) AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = 100[([(STATISM%/100)²+(CAPITALISM%/100)²]/2) ^1/2]%

If the authoritarian degree is not significant, i.e. less than 50%, outside the realdemocratic quadrant, the term semilibertarian system is used.

Systems within the realdemocratic quadrant have as mentioned the degree of both autonomy and socialism > 50%. Similar the systems within the liberalist quadrant have the degree of both autonomy and capitalism > 50%, the marxist quadrant statism and socialism > 50% and the fascist quadrant statism and capitalism > 50%.

If the degree of capitalism is significant, > 50%, the system is economical plutarchy.

The degree of statism is connected to political/administrative hierarchy, that may be real monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy, ochlarchy, and/or political/administrative plutarchy, i.e. if the degree of statism is significant, > 50%.

Very significant capitalism and/or statism also include the archies of rivaling "states within the state" (chaos), the tyranny of structurelessness (disorganization) and ochlarchy broadly defined.

If a system has insignificant degree of statism and capitalism, both < 50%, i.e. the degree of both autonomy and socialism are significant > 50%, and the system is realdemocracy.

The four quadrants all together define a large quadrant, called the economical political systems' world map, accounting for all possible societal systems.The area of the Economical Political map, i.e. 100%, is divided of course with 25% for each of the main quadrants, marxism, realdemocracy, liberalism, and fascism. Furthermore the area of the systems with the least 1/3 authoritarian degree is Pi(100/18) = ca 17.4 % at the top of the map.

The realdemocratic, also called libertarian systems, and the semilibertarian systems to the left and right, i.e. from above the middlepoint of the Economical Political map defined as both 50% autonomy, statism, socialism and capitalism and less than 50% authoritarian degree, cover an area of Pi(100/8) = ca 39,25 %.

The democratic systems all in all, i.e. less than ca 67% authoritarian degree, cover an area of Pi(200/9) = ca 69.78 %. Of this the area between about 43,75 % and 66,67 % authoritarian degree is significant parliamentarian democracy, and the area with less than 43,75% authoritarian degree is significant direct democracy. The democracy, parliamentarian or direct, may be real, i.e. libertarian and realdemocratic - within the realdemocratic quadrant of the economical political map, or not, i.e. semilibertarian, also called semi-democratic, or authoritarian semi- or pseudo-democracy - outside the realdemocratic quadrant.

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 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 real democratic and also libertarian, or authoritarian economically and/or political/administrative.

And thus the ultra-authoritarian, totalitarian systems, with more than ca 666 per thousand = ca 67% (i.e. 66.6 666... %) authoritarian degree cover 100 - Pi(200/9) = ca 30.22 %. Thus, the systems with more than 666 per thousand authoritarian degree have a lot more room, ca 30% of the map, than the most realdemocratic systems with ca 17 % of the area. This may indicate it is much more easy to create hell than heaven on earth.

The significant direct democratic systems including semilibertarian cover about 30 % of the total area. The totalitarian systems at the bottom of the map also cover about 30 % of the area. The parliamentarian systems all in all cover about 40 % of the area, of which about 30 % are authoritarian systems and about 10 % are semilibertarian or realdemocratic systems, i.e. with average authoritarian degree < or = 50 %.

The realdemocratic, libertarian systems are sometimes referred to as the third alternative, mentioned by Ragnar Frisch in several articles. As the word pseudo-democracy is a bit derogative, the more neutral word semi-democracy may sometimes be used as a synonym. However as pseudo-democracy is not real-democracy, the word pseudo-democracy is probably quite correct.

Practical examples:

The Norwegian system's estimated coordinates after the EU-referendum in 1994 and in the following years were ca 55% socialism and ca 52% autonomy, i.e. significant within the Quadrant of Anarchism. Thus, the degree of anarchy is defined, we use the formula (1), and it is calculated in the following way:

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([(1-(52 %/100))²+(1-(55%/100)) ²]/2)^1/2]%

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([(1-0.52)²+(1-0.55) ²]/2)^1/2]%

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([(0.48)²+(0.45)²]/2)^1/2]%

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([0.2304+0.2025]/2)^1/2]%

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-(0.21645)^1/2]%

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-0.465241872] = 100[0.534758127] = ca 53%

Thus, as mentioned, the degree of anarchy for the Norwegian system in 1994/95 was about 53%. This is significant anarchist, however far from the ideal ca 100% anarchy at the top of the EP-map. The form of horizontal organization is ordinary, not perfect, i.e. not completely, but practically without superiors and subordinates. Thus, there are tendencies of economic and political/administrative subordinate and superior positions, i.e. a bureaucratic, authoritarian tendency, however not significant. The authoritarian degree was about 47%.

The coordinates of the Norwegian economical political system anno 2002 were ca 54,7% socialism and ca 53,5% autonomy, i.e. also significant within the Quadrant of Anarchism. Thus, the degree of anarchy is defined, we use the formula (1), and it is calculated in the following way:

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([ (1-(53,5/100))² + (1-(54,7/100))²]/2)^1/2]%

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([(0,465)²+ (0.453)²]/2)^1/2 ]% = 

DEGREE OF ANARCHY =100[1-([0,216225 + 0.205209]/2)^1/2 ]% =  

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([0,421434]/2)^1/2]%

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-(0,210717)^1/2 ]% =  

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1 - 0.4590392] = 100[0,540960786] =  ca 54 %

The authoritarian degree was 100% - ca 54% = ca 46%

In 2007, after a slight center left shift of the system since 2005, the coordinates were ca 55% socialism and ca 53,2% autonomy. Thus the degree of anarchy is still defined, we use the formula (1), and it is calculated in the following way:

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([ (1-(53,2/100))² + (1-(55/100))²]/2)^1/2]%

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([(0,468)²+ (0.45)²]/2)^1/2 ]% = 

DEGREE OF ANARCHY =100[1-([0,219024 + 0.2025]/2)^1/2 ]% =  

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([0,421524]/2)^1/2]%

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-(0,210762)^1/2 ]% =  

DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1 - 0.459088226] = 100[0,540911773] =  ca 54 %

The authoritarian degree is 100% - ca 54% = ca 46%.

Also the Swiss Confederation and Iceland are real democracies, anarchies, but no other countries in the world today.
More information about the real democracies Norway, Switzerland and Iceland, see Norway and Switzerland: Real democracies and Real democracy in Iceland .

*) The absolutist trap. About degrees of anarchism/anarchy and classical anarchists: Some people mean that anarchy must be absolute, 100%, or it is not anarchy at all. This absolutistic approach goes very much against the classical anarchists that write about mixed economical-political systems, and degrees of anarchy/anarchism. This approach is called the absolutist trap, because it exludes anarchies of low degree, holding that the term anarchy should only be used for the anarchist ideal with no coercion and no authoritarian tendencies at all. In fact the classical anarchists mean 100% ideal anarchy/anarchism is quite unrealistic, and thus absolutists are utopian, unrealistic dreamers, and not anarchists. Anarchism is above all a realistic concept. Realistically seen the anarchist ideal, 100% degree of anarchy, can only be seen as a very long term aim, that can be reached only asymptotically as times go by, not today or in the short run.

Thus the classical anarchists are fully in line with the Anarchist International and The International Institute for Organization Research, IIFOR , that operate with degrees of anarchism, see also "The economical-political map" above and at the System theory . It must be mentioned that the quadrant of anarchism on the map stretches itself from the ideal at 100% anarchy degree all the way down to the middle-point of the map, with degree of anarchism at 50% and authoritarian degree at 50%, i.e. anarchies of low degree. The authoritarian tendencies of anarchies of low degree, from 40% to 50% authoritarian degree (and thus 50% to 60% anarchy degree) also include some coercive tendencies, but not significant.

What if a society is 1 % from the anarchist ideal, i.e. 99% degree of anarchy? The absolutist would call it archy/government/state/authoritarian, anarchists however correctly call it anarchy with 1% authoritarian degree, i.e. insignificant. A society with 1% authoritarian degree, has a small tendency towards government, but it has in reality no government. In general societies with just an insignificant tendency towards government, are not governmental/state societies, but anarchies, of different degrees. Quoting Proudhon, Kropotkin, Malatesta and Bjørneboe on degrees of anarchy/anarchism:

"[Anarchy] ... the ideal of human government... centuries will pass before that ideal is attained, but our law is to go in that direction, to grow unceasingly nearer to that end, and thus I would uphold the principle of federation. [2] ...it is unlikely that all traces of government or authority will disappear... [3] By the word [anarchy] I wanted to indicate the extreme limit of political progress. Anarchy is... a form of government or constitution in which public and private consciousness, formed through the development of science and law, is alone sufficient to maintain order and guarantee all liberties...

The institutions of the police, preventative and repressive methods officialdom, taxation etc., are reduced to a minimum... monarchy and intensive centralization disappear, to be replaced by federal institutions and a pattern of life based upon the commune. [4] Since the two principles, Authority and Liberty, which underlie all forms organized society, are on the one hand contrary to each other, in a perpetual state of conflict, and on the other can neither eliminate each other nor be resolved, some kind of compromise between the two is necessary. Whatever the system favored, whether it be monarchical, democratic, communist or anarchist, its length of life will depend to the extent to which it has taken the contrary principle into account. [5] ...that monarchy and democracy, communism and anarchy, all of them unable to realize themselves in the purity of their concepts, are obliged to complement one another by mutual borrowings.

There is surely something here to dampen the intolerance of fanatics who cannot listen to a contrary opinion... They should learn, then, poor wretches, that they are themselves necessarily disloyal to their principles, that their political creeds are tissues of inconsistencies... contradiction lies at the root of all programs. [6] ...writers have mistakenly introduced a political assumption as false as it is dangerous, in failing to distinguish practice from theory, the real, from the ideal... every real government is necessarily mixed... [7] ...few people defend the present state of affairs, but the distaste for utopias is no less widespread. [8] The people indeed are not at all utopian... they have no faith in the absolute and they reject every apriori system... [9]"

By Pierre Joseph Proudhon: 2. Woodcock, George. P.J. Proudhon , p. 249; 3. Selected Writings p. 105 ; 4. Ibid 92; 5. Ibid 103; 6. The Federal Principle, p. 21; 7. Ibid 21; 8. op cit 56 ; 9. General Idea of Revolution in the 19th Century , Freedom, 1927, p. 76. From Basic ideas of Proudhon

"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. They would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international... From "Anarchism", by Pjotr Kropotkin , The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910. "Anarchism" by Kropotkin .

"Anarchy, in common with socialism (in general) , has as its basis, its point of departure, its essential environment, equality of conditions; its beacon is solidarity and freedom is its method. It is not perfection, it is not the absolute ideal (i.e. not 100% degree of anarchy, but > 50%) which like the horizon recedes as fast as we approach it; but it is the way open to all progress and all improvements for the benefit of everybody." From "Anarchy" by Errico Malatesta. Basic ideas of Malatesta . The IIFOR and AI take into account the horizon-principle of Malatesta and thus use the term ca (about) 100% degree of anarchy for the anarchist ideal.

About Jens Bjørneboe on degrees of anarchism/anarchy: "But he reminded that there are degrees of anarchism and anarchy...", see Anarchy in Norway . "Et samfunn er et sundt samfunn bare i den grad det viser anarkistiske trekk... intet ser ut til å bli fullkommment i denne vår beste av alle verdener. Det vil dreie seg om grader av ufullkommehet, om grader av fullkommenhet. Og heller ikke når det gjelder anarkismen, tror jeg på det fullkomne. Det er helt sikkert at anarkismen i dag bare kan eksistere som et innslag, så å si som adjektiv, - det vil dreie seg om mere eller mindre sterke innslag av anarkisme, om mer eller mindre grader av virkelig demokrati.

Jeg tror altså ikke på det absolutte, på ingen måte et "enten-eller", men bare på et både-og, bare på grader." Fra Anarkismen ... idag. Innledning til diskusjon i Studentersamfundet i Oslo, sept, 1971. Published in the essay collection; Jens Bjørneboe "Politi og anarki". PAX forlag ISBN 82-530-0490-7, 1972. Also in "Bjørneboes Anarkisme" NAU 1981.

English translation: A society is a sound society only to the extent it shows anarchist tendencies ... nothing seems to be perfect in this the best of all worlds. It will be degrees of perfection, degrees of imperfection. And also about anarchism, I don't believe in the perfect. It is quite sure that anarchism today only can exist as a tendency, so to say an adjective, - it will be more or less strong tendencies of anarchism, about more or less degrees of real democray. I belive thus not in the absolute, in no way on an "either-or", but only in a both-and, and only in degrees."

From "Anarchism... Today". Introduction to debate in the Student society of Oslo, 1971. Published in the essay collection; Jens Bjørneboe "Police and Anarchy". PAX forlag ISBN 82-530-0490-7,1972. Also in "Bjørneboe's Anarchism" NAU (Norwegian Anarchist Elucidations) 1981.

A brief definition of anarchy and anarchism that take into account anarchies of low degree, medium and high degree up to ca 100% degree of anarchism, the anarchist ideal, is the following:

If a system works significantly more from the bottom, grassroots, and upwards, than from the top downwards, to the bottom, it is anarchy, from 50% anarchy degree and upwards. That is significantly horizontally organized. Anarchies of low degree, from 50% to 60% anarchy degree, and 40% to 50% authoritarian degree, also have some minor coercion among the authoritarian tendencies.

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. )

We (AI and IIFOR) are for anarchy and anarchism as defined in 1, and against State/authority/government as defined in 2. And the larger the degree of anarchism - the better.

**) The formula is just a mathematical precisation of the economical-political map above and at the Systems theory . 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 is dependent on income-differences, (say, measured by the gini-index), and efficiency, (say, measured by GDP per capita). The degree of autonomy is dependent on the rank-differences, see Class analysis , life expectancy at birth (years) and adult literacy rate, see Ranking. The estimates of the libertarian degree at this file are done via the more objective way/method. More detailed research results for several countries are presented at Anarchy Debate .

***) The origins of the Economic-Political Map (EPM) of AI/IIFOR: The historical roots of the EPM are 1. the split of social systems in socialism vs capitalism in the early 1800s; 2. the split in the 1st International, i.e. the IWMA - International Workingmen's Association, between statist (Marx and marxism) and autonomous/libertarian socialism (Bakunin and anarchism) in 1872, and 3. the split in the capitalist camp between liberalism (autonomous capitalism) and statist (fascism including populism) capitalism in the early 1900s. Thus the EPM is based on historical realities, and is more of a simple description of facts regarding social systems than an original invention or research. Thus, nobody can really be credited for the original idea.

Various attempts to describe politics in more than one dimension have been going on since the 1940s. The pioneers were Hans Eysenck and the Frankfurt School, whose work precedes the slightly different maps used today by almost half a century. Ragnar Frisch, a social-individualist anarchist and Nobel Prize winner in economics operates with four alternative types of economic-political systems in The Unenlightened Plutarchy (1961), see Basic ideas of Frisch, and thus makes use of a preliminary version of the economical-political map above and at the Systems theory, but not as exact and with formulas, which is the original work of the researchers of the Anarchist International (IAF/IFA/AI), published first in IJA/FB no 2 1982.

The economical-political map above and at the Systems theory was first published in International Journal of Anarchism/Folkebladet no 2 - 1982. Later it was presented at The international anarchist conference, i.e. gathering, in Venice September 1984, and more precise in Italian: Settembre 1984, incontro internazionale anarchico Venezia '84 e convegno di studi «Tendenze autoritarie e tensioni libertarie nelle società contemporanee», arranged by "Centro Studi Libertari" of Milano. At this conference it was also an interesting discussion between a Norwegian delegate and Murray Bookchin, now recorded in the IIFOR archives.

Later some more of the research results were presented at a similar international conference in Portugal 1987, "TECNOLOGIA E LIBERDADE", published 1988 in a book with the same title, edited by "CIRCULO DE ESTUDOS NENO VASCO" named after the Portuguese anarchist and journalist Gregório Nazianzeno Moreira de Queirós e Vasconcelos, by Editoria Sementeira. See IIFOR . Some of the updated results are presented at the www.anarchy.no , mainly at Ranking .

At the conference in Portugal, mainly the delegation from Norway and the Italian delegation, decided to work for a more firm international anarchist research organization, known as the FICEDL. IIFOR and NAC joined the FICEDL, as the Northern sections. See FICEDL .

The formulas of anarchism and real democarcy as presented above was first published on Internet in 1996, on www.anarchy.no. Preliminary versions of the economical-political map, and formulas and statistics related to this map, have been in use since 1978, see ANORG's Medlemsblad, no 1 and 5 1978.

Back to Homepage

Links