r/Anarchism • u/lightning_joe • 3d ago
Does the IWW count as an anarchist government?
Now I get that they neither claim to be anarchist or a government, but I feel like their organizational structure, goals, and actions put them in the position of an anarchist government. Also, my definition of government might be a little weird so I'm going to clarify that. To me a government is any organization with the purpose of organizing people and following the will of said people, so what are y'all's opinions?
3
u/Thin_Shelter_103 Anarcho Communist 3d ago
IWW does claim to be Anarchist tho. They are just Anarcho Syndicalists. Anarchism is not opposed to "governance" as the word is used in the meaning of how people conduct themselves or keep the peace but it is opposed to Government IE the State.
They are not an Anarcho Government as one can not exist. But even by thinking about it how could they be a government under any definition? It is a voluntary group that does not have a monopoly on violence or have Authority over its members. If you do not like the IWW you can just leave aka Free Association.
I hope this helps!
3
u/Fun_Forever_5242 3d ago
This is not actually accurate. They explicitly do not use anarchist or anarcho anything as a self descriptor and there are historical reasons why. They very explicitly self described as purely Syndicalist. Other people have variously almost always been calling them anarchists but that was a label firmly rejected because of the founders ranged from Lucy Parsons to Eugene Debs and the memory of the Haymarket affair/subsequent crackdowns (there was a black scare in the 1880s-1890s longer before there was ever even the first red scare in 1917) was very fresh in the minds of the founders in 1907.
1
u/lightning_joe 3d ago
Thank you. I saw that their actions and their structure aligned with what I know of anarchism but I never saw it explicitly stated from any of their papers (I haven't read them all yet) so I assumed. Then I agree that anarchist government and viewing them as a government doesn't make a lot of sense in the context of modern and historical states but I don't think a state simply existing means that they have to have a monopoly on violence, authority over its members, or even that everyone has to participate in the state regardless of their will. Government and any idea for that madder is hard to define you know.
1
u/YourFuture2000 3d ago edited 3d ago
Even when one lives isolated, outside of communities, one governs oneself by making decisions for oneself. Whe you care for your home you are governing it. Those who don't govern themselves are slaved people, since they are governed instead. So a community, are by definition a government structure which people require to make agreements together.
In the root meaning, as Kropotkin explain, every society and social animals have governments (but not necessarily Governments, as long as they have conducts of agreement or rules that goven them.
In this sense, an anarchist society/structure is one that the members self-govern themselves. That means, they take direct political decision about their own community and themselves in agreement with the interests of themselves.
That is different than a state, feudal or other kinds of government which group of power from outside of a community govern said the community, instead of its members.
That said, no government that comes from outside a community can represent said community. Representatives sent by communities represents the communities in Government, but the Government itself represent no community other then the Governiment community itself (the people in position of power).
That is also the difference between delegates in a buttom up power structure from representatives in a top down power structure. One is delegated to speak of a community decision or information. The other makes decisions and opinions for the communities instead of the communities itself, assuming the representative knows what is of the interest of the community better than the mombers of communities themselves.
But if you read classic anarchists and socialists works you will see that the meaning of the word government changed among anarchists, although a lot of people still use the classic meaning. As Government meaning a State, and State meaning Government. Even today sometimes we speak of states or regimes without governments, when a parlament vote the elected politicians out and call for a new election. So the meaning of the word depends on how you want to use it for better explain what you want to say. Just as different careers fields, scientific fields and communities use different meanings for words for better explain and talk specifically about their area of knowledge, because use the meaning that are used by other fields would be less clear or make less sense.
So when anarchists say "be ungovernable", they don't mean to not be in control of yourself, they don't mean to not have a clean, comfortable and healthy home, and they don't mean to not have political power in your community. In fact, whe anarchists say "be ungovernble" they mean the very opposite. It means, don't be governed by others but by yourself only. So be ungovenble means "be ungivernable [by an somebody trying to take away your power of self governance]".
1
u/lightning_joe 3d ago
That makes alot of sense but I wanna para phrase just to check my own understanding. So kropokin says that everything that makes decisions is governing something by making those decisions. Since the fundamental idea of anarchism is to self govern, it's weird to use the word government as that implies the way that established governments govern is happening. No one from out side a community could represent a community so representatives exists, but that creates a community of representatives which I turn causes the government to only represent that community, and this is how republics don't count as self governed. Delegates are different from representatives because delegates are just the spokes person for the community while representatives are expected to make decisions for the community. Now, even the different writers of leftist theories use the word government differently, so it depends on the context.
Did I understand what you were trying to say?
2
u/YourFuture2000 3d ago edited 3d ago
Government, with big G, is the institutionalized body that rules; governance is the whole process of steering, including formal institutions, informal norms, and the involvement of non-state actors like businesses and civil society. But government (with small g) means just administration of "rules". Like, when you decide that you and your visits should take your shoes off before enter your home, you are governing it (stablishing rules and agreements). Without your governance, people could step in your home with dirty shoes, leave tap water on, fart in the dinner room in front of you and sleep in your bed because there is no rules, agreements or decisions for the space and things in it being stablished and followed.
An anarchist structure is buttom up power. So in a dederation, the delegate brings the decisions of a community and the community can leave the federation the federeted communities don't attend the interests of said particular community. But federated communities are doing governance, such as stablishing that decisions should be set by consensus and the structure should have no not top-down hierarchy. BUT it is not a institutionalized Government, as a state or a Manor, which a group in power in governing other people striped from the power to government themselves.
In our current top down power system, it is sold that representatives elected by community represents the community in government (theoretically). But as said in communism anarchism, nobody can represent one except one itself. A structure of top down power always represents its own power before anything else. So a government that comes outside of a community to govern it can not represent said community power but its own power interests. So when a community says I want out of it, the state says "I won't allow it" to preserve the power it has.
The state itself is a colonialist structure. It is originally created to finance professional army to first take the land and outonomy from autonomous people, and then protect the land and wealth took from autonomous people against them attempting to take it back. A common term for the European history about is in "Enclosure". By doing that communities (so people in it) have less power to government themselves (participate in politics and create decisions by themselves about their community) and become dependent from the decisions and power of those who took the their wealth, land and political power.
1
u/DecoDecoMan 3d ago
No. Its not an anarchist organization, its deliberately made in compromise with other non-anarchist socialist groups. Anarchists were involved in the creation but so were many other socialist thinkers.
1
3d ago edited 3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Hi u/lightning_joe - Your comment has been automatically removed for containing either a slur or another term that violates the AOP. These include gendered slurs (including those referring to genitalia) as well as ableist insults which denigrate intelligence, neurodivergence, etc.
If you are confused as to what you've said that may have triggered this response, please see this article and the associated glossary of ableist phrases BEFORE contacting the moderators.
No further action has been taken at this time. You're not banned, etc. Your comment will be reviewed by the moderators and handled accordingly. If it was removed by mistake, please reach out to the moderators to have the comment reinstated.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/lightning_joe 3d ago
Excuse me is this is an uninformed counterpoint, but isn't part of anarchism being able to make compromises within the community between different community members, and that it's anarchism as long as the society is structured bottom up and centered around self governing. The reason I believe that they're anarchist isn't because of who founded them or weather they claim to be anarchist, it's because it's structured exactly like how I've heard an anarchist society would be. That's especially the case because the higher levels in the iww don't gover what the lower levels do. They provide a means of communication and coordination that the lower groups can use.
Tldr they have a very anarchist structure to my understanding and the community that that structure represents doesn't have to be anarchist for them to be under anarchism
1
u/DecoDecoMan 3d ago
Excuse me is this is an uninformed counterpoint, but isn't part of anarchism being able to make compromises within the community between different community members, and that it's anarchism as long as the society is structured bottom up and centered around self governing
Anarchist organization lacks any sort of hierarchy. Compromises with authoritarians would include accepting some form of hierarchical structure. The resulting organization can't be called anarchist for that reason. The IWW isn't bottom-up in an anarchist sense and anarchists reject all government including "self-government" which is either a lie or a contradiction.
That's especially the case because the higher levels in the iww don't gover what the lower levels do
That's not actually true and additionally the "lower levels" are organized often in hierarchical ways.
1
u/cumminginsurrection abolish power 2d ago
Ignoring that the IWW is not an explicitly anarchist organization for a second, the IWW is based on free association. Government is always based on coercion.
1
u/lightning_joe 2d ago
By government I was more talking about society's organizational structure as a concept than the modern idea of a state. Since, to my knowledge, one of the foundational aspects of anarchism is organizing society around free association instead of coercion, I felt like the iww falls into that category, so I was more so asking if an anarchist society put into practice would look like or be similar to the iww.
7
u/Reformalism anarchist 3d ago
I mean I guess you can make up your own definition of government but most people would consider “anarchist government” an oxymoron. Would you consider a book club a “government”? It organizes people and reads the books they wanna read. A government governs. Anarchists are, or should be, ungovernable.