[p2p-research] The difference between anarchism and libertarianism

[Tomas Rawlings]

Speaking as somebody who until very recently was very involved in the UK 
anarchist movement, and to a large extent still share many core believes 
with anarchism, I agree with the proposition that centralisation is not 
the future. However I feel that the anarchist notion of economics has a 
couple of core issues that it must overcome;

- Human nature; this was always a tricky one for me as I believed once 
you removed oppressive hierarchies (such as the state) from human 
relations, we could move to mutual aid. I have had this belief knocked 
from two angles; First evolutionary psychology's view of in and 
out-group behaviour, as in how we behave towards people who we consider 
part of our 'in-group' and 'out-group'. There are huge differences (both 
positive and negative) but ultimately it makes our knowledge human 
interaction much more complex that 19th century theories of it supposed; 
humans are both co-operative and combative, irrational and logical. To 
quote Stephen Pinker; "As a young teenager in proudly peaceable Canada 
during the romantic 1960s, I was a true believer in Bakunin's anarchism. 
I laughed off my parents' argument that if the government ever laid down 
its arms all hell would break loose. Our competing predictions were put 
to the test at 8:00 A.M. on October 17, 1969, when the Montreal police 
went on strike… This decisive empirical test left my politics in tatters 
(and offered a foretaste of life as a scientist)."

- John Gray's work, a British philosopher, who identified a number of 
'isms' as being secular branches of a religion, with a creed and a 
utopia at the end of a struggle. He mainly takes aim at neo-conservatism 
and communism in his excellent book 'Black Mass' but the belief in a 
heaven-like state if certain (sinful) conditions are removed, also 
applies to anarchism. His ultimate and most devastating charge is that 
all utopian political experiments leave behind a vast wreckage of human 
lives; the 'democratising of the middle east with the Iraq invasion, the 
Great leap Froward etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_N._Gray

- When anarchist ideas emerged a couple of hundred years ago, the 
function of the state in most people's lives would have been an 
oppressive. It enforced taxes to the rich, enforced monarchy etc, it is 
easy to see at this point how it's removal would have benefited most 
people. Now however, as we live in much more complex societies with a 
greater population, the state no longer has an almost entirely 
oppressive role. For me it offers the a national health service, and 
having been though a tough week when a close friend has died, the 
involvement of a semi-centralised system providing ambulances, emergency 
rooms and staff that tried unsuccessfully to save him, showed me that 
the solution to human relations can forgo all centralised structures.

Though I must stress that anarchism offers many, many valuable tools to 
help us progress; it's critique of the current system, it's enlightened 
struggle for equality and it's questioning of how the state monopoly on 
violence works - all valuable stuff!

>
> Centralization is not the future, scarcity is not the future, property
> is not the future. Anarchism is the future: freedom for all to live in
> equality and cooperation.
>
>
>