Anarcho-Democracy in the Lesterian Tradition

How can anarchy improve on the systems already tried?
I see anarchy's main advantage over the system we have now is its decentralization. I think that this will encourage two things, namely personal liberty, as people will generally only be ristricted from agression, and that without a single authority for law, we are unlikely to have enforceable laws that discriminate against any particular minority. The other thing that anarchy could encourage is equality. While I don't think that this is a necessary result of anarchy, I think that in a society without a monopoly of force we will have a reduction in hierarchical organization.

I think that anarchy may be a more natural organization for our species. I envision groups that develop and direct themselves in an organic way. I think that this will, in a way, open social organiztion up to the free market of ideas, and we will thus find groups governing themselves in ways more appropriate for that group. Also, despite what many would argue, I think the principle of non-aggression is generally a natural tendency of our species within groups except in some circumstances.

While I understand that in some ways anarchy seems like idealism as much as communism or democracy does. However, I think anarchy has an advantage here also. The advantage is that anarchy would be a more flexible system and because of this will be better able to move, change, and adapt to new situations.


What are the limitations of anarchy?
I find several limitations with anarchy.

One. I'm not convinced that anarchy could prevent the rise of a new power, such as a warlord. This is not necessarily a mark against it given that what we have now is not any better. However, all of the ideas I heard about how the enforcement industry would be established seem to me prone to creating a state-like monopoly of power. In addition, I don't see a way to prevent corporate trusts.

Two. Although during the Spanish Revolution in the late 30s it was shown that a large population could manage much of a society anarchicly, I still think that anarchy will tend to encourage smaller groups. I think that this might actually be a positive thing. However, I recognize that this may make certain industrial benefits difficult, such as the manufacture of computers, etc. Although libertarians would claim that the free-market would provide such a thing, I'm not convinced. I think that the more people we involve in the process, the less libertarian the process becomes. Thus to produce the types of things that would require large armies of laborers may require an organization that is anti-anarchic.

What are the necessary conditions for an anarchic society?
I think there are a few issues that would prevent us from being able to form an anarchic society. One is nuclear weapons. As long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, it seems to me that people will want them guarded, and not by some small group of anarchists. Another condition may be greater equality. While I don't think we need perfect equality for anarchy, I think that by disolving the government, we would be handing massive amounts of power to giant corporations right now. Also, we would need a better-distributed food production system. Like we've spoken about before, without greater self-sufficiency in food production, we cannot have greater liberty.

How can we avoid the pitfalls of capitalism?
While I recognize the benefits of a free market, and I recognize that any form of anarchy will likely be unable to control a free market; I am wary of capitalism because of some of what I see as its anti-social values. And so what I advocate is something of a free market without capitalism. The free market simply means the freedom for people to enter into contracts and trades under what conditions they mutually agree on. Capitalism, however, is something different. Capitalism is a vision of how we should view the world and our role in it. Capitalism, at its root, is an ideology of constant growth. This leads to a few main problems which lead to many others. Constant growth for our species disrupts the balance of nature, and requires us to become a tyranic force acting to bend nature to our will. At the same time, this fuels population and territorial expansion. But since we live in nature and rely upon it, this is a self-destructive tendency. We see this already around us in nature.

Furthermore, socially this has caused problems such as overcrowding, inequality, crime, standing armies, etc. I think that this fundamentally fuels the profit motive, which I have already expressed my feelings against.

I think this is the fundamental fallacy of capitalism: the myth of constant growth. It is unnatural, and by following this path we are suffering consequences.

However, I feel that capitalism is a mythology that is guiding the market. And that if the market was truly free we would still see it following the path of capitalism. I say that we need to replace capitalist ideology with the ideology of a communal democracy in the Lesterian sense. A Lesterian democracy follows the following principles:

1. Principle of Non-aggression. This is basically the only standard anarchic/libertarian principle. It basically says that no one can initiate force or aggression against another. This is obviously an ideal that will not happen ideally in practice. But as long as it is followed by the vast majority of the population, I think that aggression will not necessarily crash the society.
2. Principle of Free Democratic Association. This principle states that any and all group interactions must be directed by the members of the group through direct democracy. I think that in order to have a freer and more democratic society, democracy in all things must be a fundamental principle of all organization. This includes business also, which I think will be the most dramatic implication of this principle, along with the implication that in this form of organization, we cannot consider human labor to be a commodity, for workers will not be able to sell their labor to employers, since by joining an organization, they will be owners of the organization also. I think that this will significantly mitigate the threat of massive accumulations of power, as well as corporate externalities, etc.
3. Principle of Food Commons. This principle states that food cannot be denied to those who need it. I think this is probably the most radical priciple here. I think it will require a profound rethinking of how we interact with others and how we organize ourselves. I think that this is a necessary social condition for equality and freedom. One, it is simply immoral for us to allow our fellow humans to starve when we are full. Two, only if a person has freedom from starvation, can a person have freedom to do what they would like, including participating in society.
4. Principle of Health Commons. This principle sates that medical attention cannot be denied to those who need it. My arguments for this are basically the same as above.

I put it to you that these principles, instead of describing capitalism, describe tribalism. Meaning, I am look at this from the point of view of Daniel Quinn in his Ishmael books, in which he argues that the tribal structure was an evolutionarily natural organization for our species, and that the "civilization" that we've had for the last 10,000 years is an aberation. I feel that what we have seen as feudalism, mercantilism, communism, fascism, etc. are all forms of systems that are concerned with capital growth primarily, and so I call them capitalist. I think that my principles describe the principles of living in tribal culture, which I see as being the most true opposition to capitalism. So I suppose I am proposing a new tribalism, which I will call anarcho-democracy.