Well, thanks for going and reading an anarchist text.

Kropotkin also says literally "we want no government", so it is a point worth discussing, just not worth it with someone who hasn't read or even bothered to web searched any anarchists.

However, it's a fairly trivial detail, the word "government" is clearly used interchangeably with "the state" in such passages from anarchists from this period; and it seems to me, in particular Russian anarchists.

The meaning of "government" as is used today in philosophical discussion has become more abstract to refer to basically any collective decision making process whatsoever.

Bakunin clearly states anarchy is about "social organization from the bottom up" not "no organization whatsoever: might is right" as is using the word.

If you cite passages written 150 years ago, you need to check that they are using the word in the same way.

Moreover, Bakunin is writing in Russian, so there must be pause for thought of the impact of translation.

However, in this case, clearly government is not being used as an abstract term for collective decision making, but as an equivalent of "the state".

The fact the book your citing is literally has "statism" in the title, may also be a clue that he is referring to "government" in the form of a "state".

Kropotkin also uses the phrase in English writing (I believe), but whether this is an error on his part, again, clearly interchangeable with "the state", and goes to some length to explain that anarchism is not about people just doing what they want without rules, but collective decision making between equals (decision on things like rules). Kropotkin talks a lot about people holding congresses all the time to decide on this or that; so, with how the word "government" is used in philosophy today, we would say Kropotkin is describing "a form of government" and we might inquire further about it.

For what it’s worth I wasn’t trying to refute any argument you made, I was just trying to answer your question.

My question to you?

anarchism is not about people just doing what they want without rules, but collective decision making between equals. — boethius

Well, but then why not call it by its name and call it direct democracy instead of anarchy? In the 21st century we even have a realistic technological chance to make that happen. After all, there is power / might and decisions to be managed, as you are admitting. And what would then be a correct label for the current political organization of the world, if not 'Anarchy' (no-rule)? No-rule and collective decision making (I assume this includes collective enforcement of the rules) are not the same. So we need to call one anarchy and another direct democracy.

The question “Which anarchist proposes this formula?“.

Well, but then why not call it by its name and call it direct democracy instead of anarchy? — TheArchitectOfTheGods

Anarchy advocates direct-democracy, of one form or another, but is not reducible to direct democracy. There is more moral and political content to anarchy than simply how it is proposed decisions be made.

After all, there is power / might and decisions to be managed, as you are admitting. — TheArchitectOfTheGods

Yes, if anarchists get together and vote on some objective or some rule then they would presumably vote on how to implement that at the same time or then some later time. So, they would need the power to accomplish their goal, and we would hope their plan takes that into account.

However, this is not the same as a moral claim "might is right".

The difference between "state power" and an "anarchist collective power of political equals" is that state power (as it was seen in the 19th century, 20th century, and today) is coercive, whereas anarchist power is not coercive. It is the coercive nature of the state that anarchists have issue with, not any of it's legitimate functions. Statist argue that the legitimate functions of the state cannot be carried out without the coercive nature of the state, whereas anarchists argue there is another way to get things done.

And what would then be a correct label for the current political organization of the world, if not 'Anarchy' (no-rule)? No-rule and collective decision making (I assume this includes collective enforcement of the rules) are not the same. — TheArchitectOfTheGods

As points out, it is the propaganda of various states that has made the association of "anarchy" with either "chaos" or "no organization".

Political theorists usually refer to the international order between states today as "multi-polar", not anarchy.

There are political lessons to take from the international order, such as freely entered agreements that parties can freely exit (Brexit being a good example).

However, the issue of using the failure of states to competently organize to solve problems (as we see with Coronavirus, over fishing, global warming, soil depletion, famines, poverty, on-top of the preventable wars) anarchists would argue is a failure precisely due to the corrupt nature of the state. That states tend to be bad-faith actors when dealing with other states (acting precisely in the greedy and bad faith way statists argue individuals act without the state to coerce them into being productive!) and so problems don't get solved, anarchists would argue as further evidence states are fundamentally corrupt and incompetent. Anarchists would argue, when the same kind of structures (UN discussions, free-agreements, etc.) are built from the bottom up then you would see good-faith actors and problems actually solved.

The question “Which anarchist proposes this formula?“. — NOS4A2

Yes, so my question in the context of how was using "government", so answering my question would have required addressing the meaning of the word as relevant to my question and used by Bukanin, and not just the meaning in English in the 19th century but also in Russian.

I am talking about the kind of socialism that Marx and Engels propounded that sees the state as, in effect, an executive committee for the management of the affairs of the bourgeoisie, and the disappearance of which is a necessary step to reach the final goal of human freedom. — jkg20

Anarchists generally differentiate themselves with any self-described "Marxist communist", most vehemently on the statist compatibility. All historical anarchists I'm aware of reject capturing the state to build the new society (Soviet Union confirms this criticism for Anarchists), and a key them in anarchism is the "evolutionary" principle of needing to work with people as they are and change institutions as they are towards an anarchist direction (the Welfare states of Switzerland, Scandinavia, Canada, etc. being an anarchist achievement, just not solely due to anarchists who view it as only one step and want to go further).

I'm not aware of any anarchists school that agreed with the idea a "strong state is needed to protect the revolution". Though of course what Marx himself would think of this theory is highly debatable.

What's a more clear difference with Marx himself, is that anarchists were more skeptical of revolutionary theory, historical materialism, historical dialectic.

Revolutionary anarchists seem in complete agreement with revolutionary Marxists (take down the state and large private property holdings), but precisely because the revolution is not some historical guarantee it will only happen if revolutionary acts are undertaken to make it happen.

Anarchists also tend to criticize the Marxist wing of socialism as too abstract for normal people. Anarchists want to get to a society where everyone is politically equal and no one coerced and exploited, but also want to help people as best they can along the way due to this same concern. For instance, Russel's main critique of Marx was not on any particular logical point, but rather that Marx's motivation was too much hatred for the bourgeoisie and not enough "positive emotion", which is why Russel identifies with anarchism, which brings this positivity (about human nature, about a moral foundation for society).

So, although these key differences aren't on economic questions, it does I think point to the "difference in style" usually found between historical anarchism and Marxist-communism.

People can have property under socialism and anarchism, that I understand, after all, who would want to share my toothbrush with me? So perhaps we need to distinguish also between what we might call personal property, on the one hand, and private property on the other. — jkg20

Yes, this is where there would be agreement what Marx got very right. The key focus being "means of production". If I have a thing that gets produced, it's not a problem that it remains mine if society owns the means of producing that thing and can ensure other get one too.

The most critical means of production is of course land and resources.

The distinction is a little difficult to define, particularly in boundary cases, but for a socialist the key idea would be that with the idea of private property comes the idea of private ownership of the means of production in a society, which includes arable land as much as it does nuclear power plants, and it is private ownership of those means of production that is anathematic to socialism. — jkg20

Yes, anarchists are much more open to markets than Marxist-communists. Marxists-communists, certainly in the Lennon-Stalin direction, believed the the bourgeoisie would basically pop out of any market relations whatsoever.

Anarchists have usually a more positive view of human nature and tend to believe that free political equals could manage a market responsibly; though usually as a step towards a local sharing economy type situation as we learn to do more and more things without markets (and as society simply gets wealthier, and good things accumulate). Marxist-communists would tend to argue that such a step would not go anywhere and just get rolled backwards (the accumulation tendency of private capital would overwhelm regulation).

From what you say, private ownerhip of means of production is compatible with anarchism. — jkg20

It's compatible in the sense that politically equal people may choose such an arrangement for a wide range of things.

Anarchists would argue equal people wouldn't choose to do so for anything important (health-care, education, etc.) and would eventually lose more and more market relations in favour of community relations.

However, since the so called left wing of any movement covers a much broader church than the right wing, I wonder if there is room within anarchism for the rejection of the principle of private property as well? Or is it on that specific point that you think we really boil down to the essential difference between socialism and all forms of anarchism? — jkg20

Do you mean rejection of "personal property"?

But definitely many anarchists, especially early anarchists, had a vision of taking down the state, abolishing all property and then everyone suddenly just accessing what they need when they need it.

Anarchists can also be essentially in line with the socialists in this regard, just have differences such as the why, how and skeptical of historical-materialism as determined without human individual agency.

Marx saw this naivety of the socialists before him and solved it by simply stating capitalism will solve all the problems of production first, and only then workers can unite to take over.

However, anarchists also started to try to solve this economic problem without needing capitalists (anarchists usually view the entire capitalist enterprise as a fundamental mistake that hurled humanity towards the abyss), and so some anarchists view communal living as immediately practical whereas others are open to markets regulated in the right way (after taking over all privately owned land and monopolies) -- it's usually this question that produces the large variations in anarchist theory; where anarchists stay united is the belief that humanity can figure out what works best given equal uncoerced participation, and so a lot of differences are therefore simply speculative about what such people would do.

Yes, so my question in the context of how ↪TheArchitectOfTheGods was using "government", so answering my question would have required addressing the meaning of the word as relevant to my question and used by Bukanin, and not just the meaning in English in the 19th century but also in Russian.

Yeah I apologize for that I should have read the context. I thought you genuinely wanted to know the answer to the question. But I’ll trust that the translation of the term “government” was accurate, and the term hasn’t changed much since Bakunin’s time.

Government is to state as education is to religion, and anarchists are only anti-government in the way that atheists are anti-education. (If you do your education wrong and make a religion out of it, then yes, but if you do it right they’re on your side).

The difference between "state power" and an "anarchist collective power of political equals" is that state power [...] is coercive, whereas anarchist power is not coercive. — boethius

Thank you for these explanations, appreciated. It would be historically interesting to appraise though, how much of this perceived coercion is due to the fact that the countries of the early anarchist thinkers were not democracies. Because surely, exercising of power by the state of its laws is perceived differently in a universal democracy where people could have a say in making these laws, as opposed to a tyranny or partial democracy where no one or only a select part of the population can vote on the laws that are being coerced.
When you take a starting point at Weber's definition of relative Power as the probability (chance) to achieve ones own will even against the resistance of others, regardless of the underlying causes of this probability, then it is hard to see how Power could exist without a means of being enforced / coerced. Logically, a power that cannot be enforced is not a power at all, but I am happy to hear further arguments to the contrary.

It is the coercive nature of the state that anarchists have issue with, not any of it's legitimate functions. Statist argue that the legitimate functions of the state cannot be carried out without the coercive nature of the state, whereas anarchists argue there is another way to get things done — boethius

Just as an example, in such a society, how exactly would a murderer be punished if not by coercion of the collective power? The murderer, even if he knows he is guilty and was proven to be guilty, does not want to go to jail, much less receive a death penalty. How does the collective anarchy enforce a punishment here if not by coercion?

However, the issue of using the failure of states to competently organize to solve problems (as we see with Coronavirus, over fishing, global warming, soil depletion, famines, poverty, on-top of the preventable wars) anarchists would argue is a failure precisely due to the corrupt nature of the state. — boethius

Yes. And on exactly these same points, which could be termed global problem areas that transcend nation state boundaries, global statists would argue that only a global governance consisting of legislative, judiciary and executive would be able to address such problems adequately and in a democratic way. One could argue that it is not due to it's corrupt nature that a state fails to address problems of a global scope, but precisely due to their scope being global, not local.

Thank you for these explanations, appreciated. — TheArchitectOfTheGods

Thanks for asking and curiosity about anarchism.

As a general point, anarchist view that coercive authority structures corrupt moral and political language, so that "common sense" becomes the same as "obedience to the state and / or church".

Obviously "submission to the will of god", for the kind of theist that likes such a saying, is not supposed to be in practice "submission to the whims of a corrupt preacher". Likewise, "collective defense" is not supposed to be simply protecting the interests of the elite in practice. That things turn out this way is, for anarchists, reflects a very deep corruption (much deeper than other leftists are willing to consider).

Lot's of anarchists arguments are pointing out what abstract reasoning actually means in practice. Another example, most arguments justifying "law and order" you encounter are meant to be understood to justify the state. Anarchists usually want to deconstruct that sort of argument insofar as it justifies the state; however, usually anarchists then drop that terminology for something that is neutral; such as "cooperation", "organization" or "harmony" as a substitute for "law and order", which in the most abstract interpretation can mean the same thing.

However, the anarchist tradition is often to write for normal people that are currently oppressed and so don't have so much time to go into every theoretical nuance. Kropotkin, for instance, often doesn't make theoretical sense if not interpreted in a colloquial way. However, if interpreted in a colloquial way (such as what average person thinks of as "the government") then it not only makes theoretical sense but is actually readable by the people Kropotkin wants to help. Not that he's unaware of these issues, and he sometimes writes whole pamphlets disambiguating things.

When you take a starting point at Weber's definition of relative Power as the probability (chance) to achieve ones own will even against the resistance of others, regardless of the underlying causes of this probability, then it is hard to see how Power could exist without a means of being enforced / coerced. Logically, a power that cannot be enforced is not a power at all, but I am happy to hear further arguments to the contrary. — TheArchitectOfTheGods

Yes, anarchists have no issue with self defense nor with people voting against "rape and murder" and then voting for a system that would deal with when it happens.

People unwilling to use violence even in self defense, are best called radical pacifists. Of course, radical pacifists are also generally in agreement with anarchists on how things "should be", but anarchists as a tradition are not very close to radical pacifism.

Indeed, that anarchists are "not pacifist enough", too violent and too ready to take justice into their own hands, not just letting this task to the state, is often the first criticism of anarchism. So, it's a sort of propaganda tour de force that the second rebuke is that anarchists are not violent enough to be willing to deal with murderers and imagine a world where murderers and rapists run rampant.

Anarchists are not principled pacifist unwilling to use violence.

Anarchists critique the state in creating far more violence than free people would create and, above all, requiring coercive violence to maintain the state, but they do not argue that violence would simply never happen in an anarchist society.

There is a key difference with coercion and violence in self defense.

Coercion is manipulative whereas violence can be honest and direct "if you try to rape me, I'll try to kill you". The latter self-defense statement is not intrinsically manipulative, just saying what one is going to do.

When anarchists talk of free association of individuals they don't mean somehow to exclude free association for self-defense purposes. Indeed, when anarchists associate, how best to defend against agents of the state is a primary concern; but this does not somehow exclude the need to deal with violence between members of their free association.

Of course, if we go "abstract enough" we can view "I will try to kill you if you try to kill me or anyone else here" as a form of coercion and manipulation to dissuade the murderer. Moreso if the would-be-murderer is captured; "Put down the gun!" can be interpreted in such a manipulative way.

The major difference is that without genuine political participation the state is simply no longer a collective self defense pact, but the main threat to (the people who run) the state becomes the general population. The state claims the same collective self defense justification, but is not; and using state power to make people believe that is clearly a far more extreme form of coercion than "put down the gun!".

Just as an example, in such a society, how exactly would a murderer be punished if not by coercion of the collective power? — TheArchitectOfTheGods

There is no need to mentally manipulate the murderer. This would be the critical difference.

The large majority of anarchists do not have a problem killing a murderer to prevent murder, and if possible capturing the murderer if killing them isn't necessary.

This is just stating what will be done about murder, it is not mental manipulation. It is giving the murderer a choice and making clear what actions will be met with what choice. True, capturing the murderer requires coercive force, but is preferable to killing them outright if that's unnecessary.

Anarchists argue that "punishment" as a deterrent is however mentally manipulative; such as executions and physical and emotionally painful imprisonment.

Making this difference between physical and mental coercion, then anarchism can be best described as wanting to minimize physical coercion (the force needed to deal with violence sufficiently) and not use mental coercion at all.

Anarchists make the argument these deterrence can be taken away and the result would be less criminals rather than more; rehabilitation based justice systems is an implementation of this anarchists theory, and simply work. Constrained freedom of the murderer in such systems is not argued to be punishment in the sense of an unpleasant experience to deter more murders from the same person as well as others but a precautionary measure justified by self defense of the community in which the goal is reintegration of the criminal as soon as responsibly feasible.

For instance, in Scandinavia you can murder someone and then go to what US criminals would consider a vacation resort, yet there is not a rampant murdering problem due to a lack of painful deterrents; "prisons" often do not have walls, are co-ed (as single sex environments are not mentally healthy), and prisoners can generally go into town during the day to work. Rehabilitation programs are also not forced, but based on the moral agency of the prisoner to want to free-associate with society and learn to manage whatever went wrong in that regard and other new skills to re-integrate in the community. Scandinavian prisons and schools follow plans, principles and theories developed by anarchists; they don't say so, but it's easy to verify the anarchist school were central to these developments.

So, there is a large difference between forced labour (i.e. slavery) as practiced in the US and the Scandinavian justice system. There is clearly a difference of degree of coercion as well as type of coercion. Indeed, it is now common wisdom in the US that US prisons "make more and hardened criminals at war with society"; this is exactly the argument of the anarchist school (which was certainly not common wisdom when first proposed).