I’m going to get some sleep, if anyone else is curious about anarchism the AFAQ often has answers for many of your common questions.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full
The part where that random guy with a bigger gun than mine will start making decisions for me.
What you’re describing is the current state of the world
What you’re describing is the current state of the world
Yes and no.
Yes in that international relations are considered to operate on a standard of ‘anarchy’ in that sense.
No insofar as human society has developed numerous divisions and organizations of power to prevent “Gun vs. Gun” being the main determinator of results in almost all domestic situations.
Personally, I’m not too thrilled about the idea of “States, but we restart everyone at city-state level for that high-grade endemic warfare”
Anarchist confederations make much more sense, but they run into the question of what the fundamental difference between them and a state is.
More like describing humanity.
Was there ever a time when it wasn’t like that?
At least with a centralized body, you might get lucky and get one that has the best interest in mind for the entire group. And they can use their bigger guns to scare away those who would not have the best interest in mind.
You mean what literally happens today where the US does whatever it wants? And the states with their guns makes the citizens follow its laws?
Yes, something like that. But in case of governments we have a few sources of threat, while without the governments we have millions sources of threat, half of which are completely crazy.
What extra sources of threats do you imagine with a people led system vs a ruling class led system?
The exact same threats exist.
I think the point theyre making is that our current system has a consolidation of threat. We know the exact names of every one in the 1% and government agents advertise their affiliation. In an anarchist society, every member of your current community and every outside community has to now be assessed for their likelihood to take up arms and become a threat.
In our current system, the government functions as the biggest fish. If any one person or group attempts to exert their will on the masses without the government’s approval, they become a big enough fish for the government to eat them. We in turn are the fish that survive by hiding in the shadows of the shark, too small to be a meal and too weak to exist without it, but safe from the larger dangers of the sea. To kill the shark would mean every fish bigger than us is now dangerous.
Removed by mod
And how would anarchy fix that if nothing would change?
Who said nothing would change?
We currently live in a top-down system, where a handful of rich influential people decide everything. Anarchism is a bottom-up system where the people directly decide everything.
The same people who overwhelmingly voted this shitshow into power?
This shit show one, has the electoral college (an anti-democratic institution in the first place), and two is a system where a simple majority gets to decide who’s the leader (also not a democratic system).
Lastly, then what the fuck are you suggesting? Sounds to me like youbare saying “people are what got us into this mess in the first place.” So whats your alternative? Fascism? Monarchy? Cause if your issue is that the people are stupid and thus shouldn’t be trusted, then you are either a pessimistic/cynical anarchist or an authoritarian. One of which I can sympathize with. The other I have a hard time not punching in the face
This shit show one, has the electoral college (an anti-democratic institution in the first place), and two is a system where a simple majority gets to decide who’s the leader (also not a democratic system).
“Simple majority is not democratic” raises the question of what is democratic, especially since numerous anarchist polities have had processes which are passed by majority consensus. The idea that majority consensus is insufficient necessarily privileges a conservative or passive outlook, as it presumes that most people desiring a course of action is insufficient reason to change the status quo.
Lastly, then what the fuck are you suggesting? Sounds to me like youbare saying “people are what got us into this mess in the first place.” So whats your alternative? Fascism? Monarchy? Cause if your issue is that the people are stupid and thus shouldn’t be trusted, then you are either a pessimistic/cynical anarchist or an authoritarian. One of which I can sympathize with. The other I have a hard time not punching in the face
Call me an authoritarian if you like, but people are fucking blinkered when it comes to their own, personal interests. The same way that every conservative knows a ‘good’ member of the LGBT community, or every tax-and-spend liberal starts to balk when a 1% property tax increase is proposed on their nice suburban home.
Not only that, but people make much more trouble than can be easily solved, even if they don’t mean to. It’s easier to start a fire than put it out. People spread rumors out of ignorance, out of ideological delusions, or just out of fun - if Johnsonville upriver genuinely believes water with 500ppm of whatever toxin they produce is harmless and, like most people, refuses to change their opinion based on evidence; should Tablesville downriver suffer with no more than a stern word in response?
People make their best decisions as abstracts and generalities. “We need more X, we need less Y.” People should decide goals; specialists courses of action, and oftentimes it takes several layers of specialists for the necessary precision for any given set of rules. And then the rules must be enforced evenly, upon all communities, even those who would rather continue spewing gunk downstream to save themselves an hour or two or work per day.
Christ, you don’t want me making automobile engine regulations, and you don’t want most car mechanics deciding what goes in the history books. For that matter, you don’t really want me deciding what goes in the history books for anything except a very narrow subset of history; even very educated people can be very, very uneducated about matters even slightly outside of their specialization.
(actually, as I was never anything more than an undergrad, you probably don’t want me deciding what goes into history books at all, in a specialist capacity, but you get my point, I’m sure)
This is what civilization enables. This is what modern democratic states enable, even if they still have a long fucking way to go.
The idea that small communes can enforce the same without systems of enforcement dependent on the monopoly of the community or confederation on violence I find strongly questionable.
My argument against anarchism is not so much against anarchist polities, which, historically, as libertarian socialist polities, have enforced monopoly of violence, just one with more decentralized and democratic processes than is usual; so much as it is against the idea of an ideal no-enforcement everyone-gets-along anarchy that sometimes is passed around under the justification that human society is shit because of capitalism.
Human society is shit. Capitalism is shit. Capitalism makes human society worse. But human society is not shit because of capitalism. Human society is shit because we have a limited number of tools and hours in the day with which to address all the problems of the world.
I wouldn’t call you an authoritarian. I would say you fall closer to the cynical/pessimistic anarchist. At least anarchist adjacent. I am aware anarchists have and do make decisions through majority, but I argue it is different. This system relies almost solely on majority rule, anarchism uses simple majority as a tool. Worse so because this system uses majority rule to determine who gets to have power, while anarchism uses majority rule to make individual decisions. And I definitely agree some anarchists can sometimes be utopian.
Ido think it is naive to think that there would be no need for some form of enforcement of certain rules, but I do believe that that is last resort and would not make up the norm. And that enforcement would be in situations like the one you outline, where one community infringes on the freedom and safety of another. No anarchist believes in the freedom to harm others. So a community harming another through polluted water would be breaking that rule, social contract, whatever. But it would be handled through negotiations, conflict resolution, professionals in deescalation, etc and only force as a last resort or serious emergency.
I also recognize most if not all anarchist experiments end up looking or functioning as libertarian socialist societies. Considering anarchists would and still do also call themselves libertarian socialists, I do not think most anarchists are opposed to that. There are the more extreme anatchists that would disagree, and I can empathize with them even if I don’t entirely agree with them.
I also at no point said that specialists should be the ones making certain decisions. I don’t think most anarchists would argue against that. Part of the issue I feel we have in society rn is that people who have no business being involved in a certain field are also the ones who have power over that field. Such as politicians and the education system, or politicians and pretty much anything. Or another example being literally anyone about someone else’s body and identity.
Sorry this is long and fairly unorganized.
Why would I want anarchism if it would not change this?
Then not only do I have to worry about the largest state, which may or may not want to kill me and is thousands of kilometers away. But I would also have to worry about my neighbors, which I have many at less than 100m away from me. And I would also have to worry about the largest state even more because I wouldn’t be in a state myself that could defend me against the largest one.
“My system is not worse than the current one because your concerns about my system exist in the current one” is not a valid argument when “concerns about my system” is way larger than the ones in the current one.
Its a bottom up system
You are thinking of Communism mate.
Communism the thing with a vanguard party dictating the show and a top down state?
No, that is very clearly much not it.
There is more than one way to crack an egg, and some you can do at the same time. Hence anarcho-communism
But unless we kill everyone who has access to those big guns, they’ll still have access to them after the system changes. I agree that a change needs to happen, but I can’t really wrap my head around how we’re going to stop people with city-destroying bombs, who wouldn’t hesitate to use them on American soil if their lives were at risk. We either let them live, and keep their weapons, or we try to kill them and get taken out in a firestorm of mutually assured destruction. Taking about what we’re going to do after we’ve won that battle just feels like planning a wedding before asking someone out on a date.
The ideal route to anarchist as I understand it wouldn’t be taking away the weapons, it would be taking away the concepts of power. Musk’s power is predicated on the idea that he owns more things ranked by percieved value than I do. That value is an agreed upon concept, enforced by the government that we participate in. If the stock market and dollar bill are replaced overnight with a barter system, his power would plumit to the value of assets he can physically provide himself.
Right now, oil executives have the power to dictate nations. If collectivly the majority of people just refuse to use cars, their power is now subject to a different scale. If enough of a given society makes this change fast enough, or change to something so rigorously coordinated that it cannot be exploited, then the power of the system fizzles and the ability to use force goes with it. How are you going to bomb a nation of hippy comunes if 90% of your soldiers are now in the comunes?
It’s an interesting stance, but I don’t personally buy it. It requires a level of group effort that we’re not capable of. Personally, I feel a rigid and open source technocracy would be the easier option. Computers aren’t subject to opinion or emotions and have been a billion times more capable than our best politicians for nearly a century.
Thatbis definitely an idealistic strategy on its own…it is close to an actual anarchist strategy called syndicalism, also prefiguration. However most anarchists also believe in using other strategies on top of that. And as you said, power is control over others. The people in power are not the ones who have the nukes or the buttons to launch them. The people who push the buttons have a lot more to lose in a revolution by pressing the button than the people in power (because the people in power will lose everything either way). Now do I think calling their bluff is a good bet? Yes. Do I think its enough on its own? No. I think an important thing that is being left out is that those in power are not going to order the buttons be pushed at the slightest hint of revolution. They will wait until all hope is lost. Which means before that point, seizing nuclear launch sites and anti-nuclear defenses is a priority. The dilemma is not between status quo and nuclear annihilation. Its between status quo (with possible nuclear annihilation anyways), or revolution (with possible nuclear annihilation if we fail in a very particular way). To me thats a much easier dilemma to choose from.
The only way it would be better under anarchy is that you would no longer be shouldering the moral burden of participating.
In a democracy you need to come to terms with the fact that things are shitty. I held my nose and voted for Harris because YES she would have still allowed Israel to continue their campaign of terror against Gaza, but there’s a laundry list of terrible things that have happened under Trump that absolutely would not have under Harris.
To be an anti-democracy anarchist is to hide your head in the sand. To stand at the trolley switch without touching it, trying to convince yourself that the blood is not on your hands. Trying to pretend like we can sequester off pieces of this one planet into containers that do not impact each other.
It’s a great ideology for teenagers explore. To see things in extremes and think more abstractly without getting bigger down with the details of reality.
The only way it would be better under anarchy is that you would no longer be shouldering the moral burden of participating.
And instead would have the moral obligation to act.
In a democracy you give all power to act to others, who never do act. Yet you tell yourself ‘I did my part, I voted, it’s the politicians fault’.
The part where people with better material positions consolidate power and influence, and exercise that power over the meek.
Or the part where greedy fucks “make their own decisions” that don’t factor in externalities or the impact they have to the common good. Resulting in things like the destruction of our natural environment and ecosystem.
This take is like when people try to shit on communism by describing capitalism
While I agree with you completely, isn’t that also what we currently have and all of it is being done for the purpose of profit chasing which wouldn’t exist in a society without a government imposed system of value?
Profit chasing would not only exist, but would be allowed to run rampant and unchecked without government oversight.
Governing structures are a naturally emergent phenomenon of not only humanity, but all life.
Imagine what Bezos and Musk would do without any sort of government restriction at all? Historically speaking, those people under “anarchy” become warlords, chiefs, kings. In its simplist form, the power is held by those who are the best at violence. That is what biases almost every culture towards patriarchy in the first place. Eventually more cunning ambitious people emerge and find ways to form alliances and engage in politics. This has happened throughout all of human history and pre-dates concepts like nationalism or statehood. An example would be that the Congo was colonized by King Leopold personally, not the kingdom of Belgium.
If we dissolved every state in the world today, the world would instantly re-form into new states: X, Meta, Google, Microsoft, Amazon. Palantir might be their own state. Then you have the defense contractors.
So in my estimation if we are going to have states, those states should recognize their power comes from the people in a democratic process, not money or land. The state should be used to regulate out greed: the most successful states are the ones that remove profit incentives through regulation. The problem with pretty much every state is that we allowed money to centralize decades ago, to the point where that money can use its power to take control of the state. Eventually this leads to revolution, though whether it’s a matter of days or decades is up for debate.
The system of value is imposed by the people, otnthe government. The government is an attempt to model that system of values.
Yes, but if you’re bowling with the bumpers up and can’t hit the pins, removing the bumpers will not help. And instead of having to go through the government beaurocracy they could just do it directly.
This is a good analogy too, because in the “anarchy system”, nothing stops someone from just walking up and kicking all the pins over for a perfrect 300 game every time, while batting away all other balls.
Except of course, someone else doing that same thing, it just escalates into violence on top of the pins until one bully kills the other and continues to “bown” perfect 300 games.
Meanwhile we have a pack of people who just increasinly wonder what is the point of even playing.
There is something that stops people from doing that, it’s everyone else stopping them. Anarchism is not “do whatever you want despite it harming the community” or pacifism.
And news flash, we already live in a world of violence, the state has a monopoly on it and we see how unjust it is applied every day. They use that monopoly on violence to protect the likes of the Epstein class and murder minorities, and always have.
Profit chasing would absolutrly exist in a system without restriction and would be 1000x worse because there is a chunk of the human population that completely lacks empathy and the ability to think rationally into the future beyond instant reward “now”.
Profit chasing would absolutely not exist in an anti-capitalist system, because there would be no profit.
Is there no personal property? Do workers now not control the fruits of their own labor?
Personal property and profit are not the same thing.
Inherently, no. But accumulation of personal property can be a result of profit; profit is simply the difference between expenses and revenue, whether expressed in monetary terms or in material goods.
So long as people are allowed to dispose of the fruits of their own labor as they desire, profit remains a possibility. Which means any society must either how to deal with profit, or how to stop people from disposing of the fruits of their labor as they desire.
Oh it will be totally better then. Corrupt assholes can cut out the dollar sign middle man and just offer exploitation opportunities in exchange for not dying of starvation or disease directly instead.
And who is going to protect the corrupt arseholes from us? At the moment it’s the entire system we live under, that they control.
We cannot do any worse by destroying that system and directly fighting the corrupt arseholes.
Profit chasing would absolutrly exist in a system without restriction and would be 1000x worse
Yes, but what you’re describing is Anarcho-capitalism, or Right-wing Libertarianism, not Anarchism. Anarchists do have restrictions, and there would be no profit incentive, as money could be entirely eliminated if they wished, and instead operate on a Gift economy. This concept is wonderfully explored in Ursula LeGuin’s The Dispossessed, if you’d like to see how such a system could operate in practice.
Profit does not have to be money, it can be power or hoarding of other things.
The entire point of Socialist Anarchism is to prevent the centralization of power or the hoarding of private property. Eliminating money, and thus profit incentive, is simply another tool to prevent centralization of power or the incentive to accumulate resources.
as money could be entirely eliminated if they wished,
Money is only a quantification of wealth; most pre-modern societies are not even monetized, but have massive wealth inequality all the same. In order to eliminate profit, you must eliminate wealth; to eliminate wealth, you must eliminate personal property, not just private property.
and instead operate on a Gift economy.
As your own link notes, gift economies do not eliminate the accumulation of wealth or the desire to do so; accumulating wealth becomes a means of building social capital, which translates into power.
Accumulation of material wealth is only really possible with a hierarchy (as there is only so much an individual can realistically accumulate without underlings), and that hierarchy usually requires a power imbalance to form. A society with decentralized power as cornerstone makes it much harder (though not impossible) for those types of imbalances to happen.
In order to eliminate profit, you must eliminate wealth; to eliminate wealth, you must eliminate personal property, not just private property.
Personal property is classified as what an individual person or family can actively use themselves. If you begin hoarding more than you or your family can realistically use, the excess is no longer considered personal property, but private property, which may get you ejected from that community if you actively hoard under an Anarchist society.
Private property is how imbalances of power can explode from a small local problem to a bigger one.
Quoting someone who explained the difference between private and personal property:
I like to link the word “private” with “privation” or “deprivation”. Private property is easily identifiable by its effects on others, specifically, it’s deprivation. There are hundreds of thousands of hammers. Having one doesn’t deprive anyone of anything. At most only one person can use the hammer.
A house is usable by an entire family, and if I own it but don’t use it myself, my ownership deprives an entire family of its use. That scales to apartment buildings pretty easily. Then there’s farms where basically it’s impossible for one person to do all of the work on a farm or eat all of the products of a farm, but my ownership has the effect of depriving anyone the right to work there or the right to consume its products. A factory is truly impossible for one person to use, but my ownership of it allows me to deprive everyone of its products unless they meet my price demands and also allows me to deprive everyone of use of the factory to make anything at all.
Private property entails a deprivation of society of socially necessary commodities.
Personal property absolutely does not have to be eliminated, and does not contribute to profit incentive, hierarchies, or power imbalances. Only Private Property does that.
Accumulation of material wealth is only really possible with a hierarchy (as there is only so much an individual can realistically accumulate without underlings), and that hierarchy usually requires a power imbalance to form. A society with decentralized power as cornerstone makes it much harder (though not impossible) for those types of imbalances to happen.
… fucking what.
Accumulation of material wealth is extremely easy without hierarchy.
Personal property is classified as what an individual person or family can actively use themselves. If you begin hoarding more than you or your family can realistically use, the excess is no longer considered personal property, but private property, which may get you ejected from that community if you actively hoard under an Anarchist society.
So any jewelry, since it is not, realistically, used, will get you ejected from the anarchist society?
I ask this facetiously, not seriously, because my point is that the definition very quickly becomes murky.
Private property is how imbalances of power can explode from a small local problem to a bigger one.
No disagreement there, but I’m discussing precisely the issue of local problems. We are regarding each anarchist commune as its own entity; thus, we must regard each of these entities as being either capable or incapable of solving the fundamental problems with arise with a society.
I like to link the word “private” with “privation” or “deprivation”. Private property is easily identifiable by its effects on others, specifically, it’s deprivation. There are hundreds of thousands of hammers. Having one doesn’t deprive anyone of anything. At most only one person can use the hammer.
And if there’s a shortage of hammers, does personal property no longer remain personal? Is personal property purely conditional in an anarchist society, based on the desires of one’s neighbors? What defines a shortage? If someone ‘hoards’ a personal hammer that they use only a few times a year, when the community could use a hammer for the second floor of the school so the janitor doesn’t have to go up and down the stairs every time he needs to make a repair, is that a shortage? What criteria are used to determine these things? Or is it simply a matter of those who are liked by the community are treated well, and those who are not extroverted are punished arbitrarily?
A house is usable by an entire family, and if I own it but don’t use it myself, my ownership deprives an entire family of its use.
Even if you own it and use it yourself, your usage deprives others of its use. How big is a house permitted to be? How fine? Since we are regarding housing as potentially personal property, do you not see how someone who simply owns and uses a fine house can accumulate favors, goodwill, connections, and even material goods in excess of someone who does not own or use a fine house?
That scales to apartment buildings pretty easily. Then there’s farms where basically it’s impossible for one person to do all of the work on a farm or eat all of the products of a farm, but my ownership has the effect of depriving anyone the right to work there or the right to consume its products. A factory is truly impossible for one person to use, but my ownership of it allows me to deprive everyone of its products unless they meet my price demands and also allows me to deprive everyone of use of the factory to make anything at all.
I think those are all pretty fair and classic examples of private property, and have no objection.
Private property entails a deprivation of society of socially necessary commodities.
But if we are to keep to that definition strictly, then profit, hierarchy, and power imbalances are all still possible.
Personal property absolutely does not have to be eliminated, and does not contribute to profit incentive, hierarchies, or power imbalances. Only Private Property does that.
How does that figure? Do you think people are only motivated to profit if they can own a factory someday? Most people who spend their time clawing desperately at their fellow man for a few extra bucks not only will never own private property in that sense, but generally do not even dream of owning private property in that sense. They want a better house than they have, more comforts than they have, more free time than they have, more respect than they have. And people leverage personal property for hierarchies and power imbalances all the damn time - from tales of personal jealousy in fucking Bronze Age folklore about villages smaller and with less range of wealth than most modern apartment buildings, to who does or does not have the Good Shoes today.
Accumulation of material wealth is extremely easy without hierarchy.
To accumulate wealth as an individual, you need other people who can help you gather or take that wealth/resources, or do so on your behalf.
So any jewelry, since it is not, realistically, used, will get you ejected from the anarchist society?
Jewelry is not an essential good to society, it’s just a bauble. Someone having a personal jewelry collection doesn’t deprive anyone else of any essential need. It would be an issue if they forcibly took someone else’s jewelry, but if they traded for it, or made it themselves, it’s just personal property, and they could reasonably collect as much of it as they want, as it is unlikely they would be able to realistically gather enough to cause a problem in society from a shortage of precious metals for some societal need.
And if there’s a shortage of hammers, does personal property no longer remain personal?
You as an individual don’t realistically need 100 or 1000 hammers. That would be hoarding. And you most certainly couldn’t individual own a large factory that made hammers (but you could collectively own it in a worker cooperative).
But a few personal hammers that you use for your own projects are your personal property, even in a hammer shortage. If you allow personal property to be confiscated for societal need, it’s little different from Marxist-Leninism.
Even if you own it and use it yourself, your usage deprives others of its use.
You are as deserving of a place to live as anyone else. You are not deserving of multiple places to potentially live if someone else is without a home. You can’t take someone else’s home that they personally use, and they can’t take a home that you personally use.
How big is a house permitted to be? How fine?
If we assume that everyone who currently lives in their existing home gets to keep it, then the style or size of a house would be determined by the people willing to build them. You could build your own house as you wish, as long as large as you can realistically construct on your own, or if you can convince a group of friends to help you build a bigger one (they may want collective ownership if they help, or they may do it as a favor to you). Otherwise you might participate in a building group that makes housing for people, like how this group in Spain operates.
Yes.
Too many anarchists (and Libertarians) are all “Your Laws are telling me what to do any taking away my free will an autonomy.”
Like no, the laws exist to stop idiots from doing stupid shit and harming others. Essentially ALL laws. The harm is not necesarily physical. It could be money, time, emotional, etc.
Essentially, at some point in time, se dumbass did something stupid, and it harmed someone else, and we, society, collectively came together and said "No, this is harmful, its not allowed, we trusted people to be good to eachother, they failed, now there is a law that “forces trust” with consequences for failing to keep that trust.
The real problem people have is that in many cases, the enforcement mechanism is not being used/is not working.
I would disagree with the “ALL” laws. Regulatory capture is a thing. There’s plenty of bad laws that exist to do things like keep new small businesses from entering into industries to compete, or to help the wealthy maintain power. I just view those as symptoms of the greater imbalance of society.
Laws are tools, and can be created and used for both evil and good.
I mean, I would love to know what laws are harmful to new small businesses that don’t also a amount to laws for “Don’t exploit your workers”.
The way tax laws are structured, big businesses generally pay much less taxes compared to smaller businesses. Non-compete laws are very much in favor of big business, as it prevents ex-workers from forming competitive smaller businesses in the same field.
Citizens United massively favors the interests of big businesses who can out-bribe smaller businesses, which allows bigger businesses to become monopolies to crush smaller businesses from out-competing them.
That feels like a way more solvable problem than removing laws.
Too many anarchists (and Libertarians) are all “Your Laws are telling me what to do any taking away my free will an autonomy.”
Do not confuse Anarchists with Right-wing libertarianism, only the latter is an advocate for complete deregulation and chaos.
Essentially, at some point in time, se dumbass did something stupid, and it harmed someone else, and we, society, collectively came together and said "No, this is harmful, its not allowed, we trusted people to be good to eachother, they failed, now there is a law that “forces trust” with consequences for failing to keep that trust.
That is what Anarchists do. Just instead of having a bunch of representatives who are corporate captured make those rules for them, A community will directly decide on those rules themselves, collectively.
The real problem people have is that in many cases, the enforcement mechanism is not being used/is not working.
Which is 99% of the time due to capitalism, as the rules are selectively enforced against the poor, and often never enforced at all against the rich and powerful.
Compare how much environmental damage is done by anarchist societies versus governed societies.
It’s illegal for us to defend ourselves.
Be sure those societies are reduced to almost no people, usually in lands that are deficient in natural resources in the first place.
Just look up for a counter-example. The Earth’s atmosphere is full of space junk now because for decades no regulatory body had the balls to tell private companies not to leave their shit up there.
Your issue is once again with capitalism, not anarchism
Dude is effectively arguing that capitalism is a natural phenomenon that emerged from human interaction. Itd be funny if it weren’t so sad
Another failure of the education system to put on the board lol
There is a regulatory body; if you try to defend everyone from these private companies, then the police will arrest you. The regulation protects them from us, but not vice versa.
Ironically, space junk doesn’t happen in a vacuum. 😜
This would require an anarchist society to exist… Or are we just making shit up now?
It’s impressive how they can both destroy the environment and also not exist.
Putting words in /u/paultimate14@lemmy.world 's mouth, I’m guessing they are referring to Libertarian de-regulation type stuff, where we have seen that Capitalists will always choose to pollute or do other external harms as long as they don’t pay the cost. That’s not the same as Anarchism, of course, but as someone not well read on either ideology it feels like the outcome would be similar.
“As someone who has no idea what I’m talking about, this is what I would think would happen.” Is what you and basically everyone else shitting on anarchism is saying. You are all talking about anarchism like capitalism would still exist, which it wouldnt. “Anarcho”-capitalism is what most of you are talking about and it is almost universally ostracized by the anarchist community.
It is nearly impossible to talk to non-anarchists about anarchism I have found because it feels like yall can only look at one part of the picture at a time, and have then forget what you were just looking at when you change focus. Genuinely just read theory and learn about actual experiments into anarchism. I recommend “At the Cafe” by Malatesta, and the documentary “Living in Utopia” on Zoe Baker’s youtube channel. Those are what took me from being a communist to an anarcho-communist. “Conquest of Bread” by Kropotkin is also a great start. But I genuinely feel like it is impossible to argue with non-anarchists about anarchists unless they actually understand what anarchism is and the logic behind it. Something that can’t be properly outlined in a meme or comment thread.
Chief, I only suggested what I thought the other person meant. I didn’t make any statements of my own on the subject in question.
I am actually reading Kropotkin just now and I’ve perused the FAQ that is often posted here, but I’m happy for your other recommendations. I’m not sure of my specific leftist identity yet, but that’s something I’m working on.
Almost everyone in the world has lived under capitalism their whole lives, and the only other major economic philosophy we westerners really learn about in school is feudalism. It’s only natural that they (we) don’t immediately grasp other systems of living. Thinking about Anarchism or Communism or Socialism etc as an alternative in the abstract is one thing, but it’s not strange to me that that it’s easier for the student to think about one piece of society at a time. By default I think that would be by comparison to the familiar system.
I wrote too much again - a common problem for me.
Anyway, just chiming in to empathize but suggest patience for the 99% of humans that haven’t put as much thought into economic and political systems as you have.
Have a good one, or don’t. I don’t claim any authority over you! Lol.
I apologize for coming off as a agitated. Its hard to read a lot of these comments and not come away feeling that way. I am super happy to hear you are reading and educating yourself, and apologize for interpreting your comment the way I did. It is hard to keep track of who says what and that is where my confusion began.
I agree that socialism/communism is already a leap for people to understand as it breaks away from everything they have ever known, and anarchism is even worse in that regard. My frustration comes from the lack of good faith from most people when arguing in the first place. I can be patient with ignorance. I have a much harder time being patient with arrogance (which ironically ends up making me respond arrogantly). Like I said in another comment, it often feels like arguing with anti-vaccers or MAGAs because they both argue in bad faith and from a place of ignorance. Pair that with seeing it every day in almost every comment thread related to anarchism and it becomes very hard to not become bitter.
This is all to say I appreciate your response and I am sorry for the way I reacted to your comment. You are here in good faith and I let the negativity assume you weren’t.
That’s not anarchy, it’s chaos. You’re maybe thinking of warlordism, aka ‘ancap’ or market libertarianism?
Anarchy is a lot of work for its participants. If you aren’t outsourcing management decisions about your life, neighbourhood, region, etc., you have to collaborate in making those decisions. If power is allowed to concentrate, your self-determined governing system collapses and anarchy, by definition, is lost. It’s a life of constant renegotiation.
Rojava is illustrative, as it’s established in a self-conscious anarchic process, and by all reports it’s great in many ways but a lot of daily effort, and is under direct assault currently.
Rojava is illustrative, as it’s established in a self-conscious anarchic process, and by all reports it’s great in many ways but a lot of daily effort, and is under direct assault currently.
Rojava also directly dictates the structure of local councils and delineates their power within its confederal structure.
This is not meant as a ‘jab’ at Rojava, which I deeply admire, but that even libertarian socialist polities do make decisions for other people, even local majorities which may not agree with the confederation’s central positions.
Well yes, power is never cleanly distributed and autonomy always hits a boundary, usually one of causing harm to others.
In most situations the possible solutions to a problem cause other problems. Management skill requires minimizing harm, while not crossing red lines. Rules can only be an attempt to be fair.
A functional anarchy needs federation based on rules negotiated with other polities of the same scale or order. Common principles of anarchism such as mutual aid glue things together. Enforcement and expulsion would be part of a much larger collaboration on justice.
There is no true anarchy because government emerges spontaneously from human interaction. “Anarchists” start to add these structures and fail to realize that what they are creating is just an idyllic state without using the word “state” because they don’t like it.
There is no true democracy, no true totalitarianism… no true scotsman?
No one on the inside of these systems thinks it’s idyllic, I can assure you, once they realize how much work and commitment it requires, and governance does not require privileged classes wielding centralized power to be a government.
You are conflating State with Government. They are synonymous but only similar, not the same. Self-governance requires a great deal of education along the way, and a constant flow of meetings and chores.
The first generation in restructuring both economy and governance makes a lot of mistakes. Propagandists point at this as though it proves non-viability, but that’s just deception.
I’m fairly certain the anti-anarchism rhetoric instilled into people is a result of long seated anti-intellectualism propaganda and policies.
Some of the biggest proponents of anarchy I have met were professors.
In our current world, the rich and powerful have a vested interest in keeping the population uninformed. Think of how hard they tried to bury communism and socialism. Anarchy, the idea of self-governing, leaves them with no wealth, no power, and nothing to contribute.
It is exactly this, and the way people argue against anarchism (at least to me) is evidence of that to me. Every time someone comes into an anarchist space to argue why anarchism wont work they almost always admit at some point that they dont know what anarchism is. They admit they have done no research and thus are choosing to argue that anarchism cant work while also admitting they dont know what anarchism is. Its like MAGA arguing why tariffs are actually good (or honestly any subject MAGAs try to argue about) or anti-vaccine/anti-maskers arguing about vaccines and COVID. They come in and repeat the same misinformation like its fact and when you argue with them they have the memory of a goldfish and you just go round and round arguing about the same fucking points.
At the end of it all, if someone isnt willing to go out on their own to learn about a topic and the other side’s perspective before arguing about it, they probably arent going to listen to your evidence in the first place. These kinds of arguments are never in good faith and will never be productive.
The part where I don’t get to make decisions for others.
Not really looking forward to the clash that happens when the 2/3s consensus system of Johnsonville upriver comes into conflict with the majority consensus system of Tablesville downriver over the matter of what level of water treatment is necessary before dumping.
Why would Johnsonville as a group wish to continue poisoning Tablesville’s water supply if the Tablesville community makes it clear to them that they are being harmed by Johnsonville’s lack of adequate treatment? Johnsonville would likely be receiving mutual aid from Tablesville due to their close proximity, so it’d be really weird of them to willfully screw over their downstream neighbors whom they often exchange help or supplies with?
It would make sense why Johnsonville would want to skimp on water treatment under a capitalist society, as perhaps there are some corporations that don’t want to deal with treating their waste water, so they lobby the local government to allow it. Profit motive can often overcome cooperative goodwill and empathy for others.
But in an anarchist society where there is no profit motive? Not saying it’d be impossible (perhaps Johnsonville is weirdly anti-science for some reason and won’t listen to reason?), but it’d be a damn sight less likely than the same scenario under Capitalism.
Why would Johnsonville as a group wish to continue poisoning Tablesville’s water supply if the Tablesville community makes it clear to them that they are being harmed by Johnsonville’s lack of adequate treatment?
Easy. They don’t believe it. They think Tablesville is exaggerating. They think Tablesville is confusing what is causing the polluted water. They think that pollution isn’t that bad. They think that their need to spend more time with their kids in their very short and mortal lives is worth more than Tablesville’s need to reside on a very specific piece of land that Johnsonville can’t even see the point in inhabiting. They don’t care about Tablesville. Take your pick.
Johnsonville would likely be receiving mutual aid from Tablesville due to their close proximity, so it’d be really weird of them to willfully screw over their downstream neighbors whom they often exchange help or supplies with?
That presumes that the level of mutual aid is substantial and bidirectional. If Johnsonville is in a good position and largely helps, rather than is helped, while Tablesville is a barren little scrap of swamp, what need does Johnsonville have of Tablesville’s good will?
It would make sense why Johnsonville would want to skimp on water treatment under a capitalist society, as perhaps there are some corporations that don’t want to deal with treating their waste water, so they lobby the local government to allow it. Profit motive can often overcome cooperative goodwill and empathy for others.
Bruh, people will put other lives at risk to end a job - not a capitalist job, but everything from volunteer work to self-improvement - a fucking hour early.
You don’t need capitalism to provide a motive for overcoming goodwill and empathy.
But in an anarchist society where there is no profit motive? Not saying it’d be impossible (perhaps Johnsonville is weirdly anti-science for some reason and won’t listen to reason?), but it’d be a damn sight less likely than the same scenario under Capitalism.
You could make that argument, but that presumes that this is a binary choice between anarchism (in this distinctly non-enforcement sense rather than libertarian socialist sense) and anarcho-capitalism, and that’s not the case.
A democratic socialist state has the obligation to enforce the laws made by common agreement upon all members of the polity, even those that disagree. Even a libertarian socialist polity has that same obligation, it just has more layers of decentralization which prolongs how long a problem must linger at low-level resolution before the central polity comes in.
Easy. They don’t believe it. They think Tablesville is exaggerating. They think Tablesville is confusing what is causing the polluted water. They think that pollution isn’t that bad.They don’t care about Tablesville. Take your pick.
So that’s assuming that Johnsville is naturally deeply uneducated, unwilling to listen to any evidence presented, won’t test their own waste treatment output, or are majority sociopathic (lacking empathy for others), or a combination of all the above.
I could see perhaps a very insular and small religious fundamentalist town perhaps being capable of totally ignoring the problem, but any larger settlement tends to attract more education amongst the population. Our current system usually puts the sociopaths in leadership positions which can then override a community’s wishes, but under an Anarchist system it would be highly unusual that the majority care so little about others to the point of not wanting to help whatsoever.
They think that their need to spend more time with their kids in their very short and mortal lives is worth more than Tablesville’s need to reside on a very specific piece of land that Johnsonville can’t even see the point in inhabiting.
In an Anarchist society, people would only really need to contribute about 2 to 3 months of work per year to have a functioning society that is able to provide everyone’s basic needs for free. That would leave 10 to 9 months out of the year as completely free time for everyone to do with as they please, which would make it even more difficult to justify not spending a little extra time to treat your waste water properly for the sake not actively poisoning others.
If Johnsonville is in a good position and largely helps, rather than is helped, while Tablesville is a barren little scrap of swamp, what need does Johnsonville have of Tablesville’s good will?
If they become so uncooperative and hostile to their neighbors, than they could receive negative perception or treatment from other federating communities near them, which would probably go a long way to encouraging them to just treat their waste water better.
Bruh, people will put other lives at risk to end a job - not a capitalist job, but everything from volunteer work to self-improvement - a fucking hour early.
People are desperate to stop working an hour early because our current society gives them virtually no free time to enjoy life, to rest properly, or to not worry about needing to make ends meat just to survive and not become homeless. Most of their waking hours they are exploited with the majority of their effort going to the benefit of a few undeserving folk.
Would they be so desperate not to help if they were now afforded most of the year to themselves? I think many would find meaning in helping out in some of their spare time, since it is not longer exploitative or coerced.
You don’t need capitalism to provide a motive for overcoming goodwill and empathy.
It’s doing the heavily lifting for most of society.
A democratic socialist state has the obligation to enforce the laws made by common agreement upon all members of the polity, even those that disagree.
A society of self governing communes could still federate with each other, and with that federation agree to some standards to become a part of that federation, such as adequate waste water treatment.
So that’s assuming that Johnsville is naturally deeply uneducated, unwilling to listen to any evidence presented, won’t test their own waste treatment output, or are majority sociopathic (lacking empathy for others), or a combination of all the above.
No, man, people are very capable of being blinkered without needing to be uneducated or sociopathic.
I could see perhaps a very insular and small religious fundamentalist town perhaps being capable of totally ignoring the problem, but any larger settlement tends to attract more education amongst the population. Our current system usually puts the sociopaths in leadership positions which can then override a community’s wishes, but under an Anarchist system it would be highly unusual that the majority care so little about others to the point of not wanting to help whatsoever.
… would it? Man, every one of us on here chooses our own comfort and entertainment over the lives of others every day of our lives. What makes you think we’d act differently under an anarchist system?
Have you ever been involved in local government? Genuine question.
In an Anarchist society, people would only really need to contribute about 2 to 3 months of work per year to have a functioning society that is able to provide everyone’s basic needs for free.
That’s extremely questionable, especially if you get into issues of distribution/access, that what people regard as basic needs change, etc.
That would leave 10 to 9 months out of the year as completely free time for everyone to do with as they please, which would make it even more difficult to justify not spending a little extra time to treat your waste water properly for the sake not actively poisoning others.
Fuck, people have ample free time now and choose to poison others rather than take on a little extra burden.
If they become so uncooperative and hostile to their neighbors, than they could receive negative perception or treatment from other federating communities near them, which would probably go a long way to encouraging them to just treat their waste water better.
And if it’s just towards Tablesville? What incentive does everyone else have to get involved and degrade their own quality of life and their own relationships with people in Johnsonville for the sake of Tablesville? What makes you think that prejudices won’t cause people to agree with Johnsonville? People tend to make decisions based on their pre-existing relationships; if Johnsonville is a ‘giver’ and adamant on this point, the natural tendency will be for many of those Johnsonville ‘gives’ to to side with them on the issue from an emotional standpoint.
People are desperate to stop working an hour early because our current society gives them virtually no free time to enjoy life, to rest properly, or to not worry about needing to make ends meat just to survive and not become homeless. Most of their waking hours they are exploited with the majority of their effort going to the benefit of a few undeserving folk.
Do you understand just how little it would take to live at a lowered standard of living for most people?
We work ourselves like dogs and normalize it because previous standards aren’t good enough. What was idyllic in 90 AD is torture in 1990 AD. And this is good! It encourages society to ever move onward, to not be satisfied with what it has.
… but the reason why people are overworked is not because society ‘gives’ us too little to not work ourselves to death; it’s because people value things other than free time. I grew up in a poor area, in a poor family - “People are hard-put upon” and “People are not working simply to keep themselves full, clothed, and with a roof over their head” are not mutually exclusive.
Would they be so desperate not to help if they were now afforded most of the year to themselves? I think many would find meaning in helping out in some of their spare time, since it is not longer exploitative or coerced.
Many find meaning now in helping out in their spare time, yet still will shirk other work - or even cut corners during their volunteer work, as I previously pointed out - to the detriment of others. We are creatures with very limited lifespans, and every hour becomes precious when considered.
A society of self governing communes could still federate with each other, and with that federation agree to some standards to become a part of that federation, such as adequate waste water treatment.
So how does it enforce that?
I think a big issue here is that you’re operating under the assumption that humanity as a whole is incredibly selfish, uncaring, and unable to operate cooperatively without a centralized force that is able to adequately threaten people to cooperate against their natural instincts. If that is your base assumption, then you will have to conclude that Anarchism isn’t viable because it doesn’t have enough threats or sticks to keep people from reverting to some base-level of antagonism, laziness, or self interest.
Where on the other end, due to the evidence I’ve seen of how humans organized in egalitarian societies as the norm until around 8000 years ago (from compelling evidence put forward in David Graeber’s and David Wengrow’s The Dawn of Everything), as well as the success of the Anarchist Society in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil war, I believe that humans would demonstrate their true nature is cooperation and egalitarianism if finally provided a society that does not actively incentivize our worst traits like our current one does.
We work ourselves like dogs and normalize it because previous standards aren’t good enough. What was idyllic in 90 AD is torture in 1990 AD. And this is good! It encourages society to ever move onward, to not be satisfied with what it has.
Most people in the US are barely able to afford basic food, housing, and transportation. They are working harder now than they did in the 1970’s without any meaningful wage growth since that period, despite their actual productive capacity increasing tremendously since that time.
You really think most would choose to continue struggling with bills, or to be two paychecks away from homelessness vs. a society where all of your basic material concerns are guaranteed as a human right?
And you realize those people can choose to do whatever they want with the those 9 months of free time? They can still choose to become doctors, or engineers, or scientists, or to create the things that give meaning to their lives? They just won’t have the threat of homelessness weighing above their heads if they don’t instead choose to work for someone else to make them richer.
We are creatures with very limited lifespans, and every hour becomes precious when considered.
All the more reason to question the utility of capitalism, if only a minority are able to achieve the fruits of all the time spent doing things we’d rather not be doing, if every hour is so to be considered.
… but the reason why people are overworked is not because society ‘gives’ us too little to not work ourselves to death; it’s because people value things other than free time.
If you truly believe that, then our entire worldviews are completely incompatible. I don’t mean this as an insult, but from my perspective your judgements on why people work so hard are quite detached from reality.
I think a big issue here is that you’re operating under the assumption that humanity as a whole is incredibly selfish, uncaring, and unable to operate cooperatively without a centralized force that is able to adequately threaten people to cooperate against their natural instincts. If that is your base assumption, then you will have to conclude that Anarchism isn’t viable because it doesn’t have enough threats or sticks to keep people from reverting to some base-level of antagonism, laziness, or self interest.
No, man, I’m assuming that humanity as a whole operates as it has since the beginning of recorded history - with limited resources, including limited time, energy, motivation, and perspective. Unless your proposal for anarchism is radically transhumanist, you aren’t going to get rid of that issue. This isn’t a question about “What if people don’t care about each other???”; this entire scenario presumes that the polities in question are functioning along anarchist lines. The question that is being brought here is, "Do you really expect people to value those they don’t know over those they personally know and care about, themselves included?"
And if your answer is ‘yes’, I invite you to talk to some parents sometime.
Where on the other end, due to the evidence I’ve seen of how humans organized in egalitarian societies as the norm until around 8000 years ago (from compelling evidence put forward in David Graeber’s and David Wengrow’s The Dawn of Everything), as well as the success of the Anarchist Society in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil war, I believe that humans would demonstrate their true nature is cooperation and egalitarianism if finally provided a society that does not actively incentivize our worst traits like our current one does.
Other than my own extreme issues with The Dawn of Everything, which would lead to a much broader discussion…
Anarchist Catalonia is a prime example of what I mean in multiple ways.
First off, it was not shy about enforcement. In the least.
Second, it was commonly observed that regionalism of the sort described was a problem that caused severe issues for them.
Third, many of its structures were oriented around war necessity; I don’t know if you would find the same willingness of people to submit to seizure and arbitrary justice if literal warfare was not a stone’s throw away.
Most people in the US are barely able to afford basic food, housing, and transportation.
… have you ever actually lived in the USA?
They are working harder now than they did in the 1970’s without any meaningful wage growth since that period, despite their actual productive capacity increasing tremendously since that time.
That’s true. Wages have been largely stagnant, in terms of buying power and relative income distribution, since the 1970s. But in the 1970s, most people weren’t barely able to afford subsistence-level living. In the 1970s, most people struggled because, as in the modern day, they want more. And as I said, they are not incorrect in wanting this, and it is good that they want this, but it is an issue you have to think about when considering a complete reorganization of society.
You really think most would choose to continue struggling with bills, or to be two paychecks away from homelessness vs. a society where all of your basic material concerns are guaranteed as a human right?
That’s not even vaguely relevant to the question I proposed. The issue of whether they prefer a socialist system or a capitalist one is not relevant. The issue being disputed is the idea that provision for one’s basic needs is enough to stop one from desiring more, with you saying, and I quote:
People are desperate to stop working an hour early because our current society gives them virtually no free time to enjoy life, to rest properly, or to not worry about needing to make ends meat just to survive and not become homeless. Most of their waking hours they are exploited with the majority of their effort going to the benefit of a few undeserving folk.
And you realize those people can choose to do whatever they want with the those 9 months of free time? They can still choose to become doctors, or engineers, or scientists, or to create the things that give meaning to their lives? They just won’t have the threat of homelessness weighing above their heads if they don’t instead choose to work for someone else to make them richer.
A-fucking-gain, I’m not at all disputing whether people prefer a socialist system to a capitalist one, assuming they weren’t pig-brained morons. That’s not the issue being disputed here. The issue being disputed here is the notion that people will no longer want more, more comfort, more success, more free time as in the core example used that you responded to, in an anarchist system.
All the more reason to question the utility of capitalism, if only a minority are able to achieve the fruits of all the time spent doing things we’d rather not be doing, if every hour is so to be considered.
I’m not a fucking capitalist. I largely tend towards democratic socialism. My issue being raised here is fundamentally one of conflict resolution, not economic orientation.
If you truly believe that, then our entire worldviews are completely incompatible. I don’t mean this as an insult, but from my perspective your judgements on why people work so hard are quite detached from reality.
Man, I’ve fucking lived on flour and water for days at a time. My area of specialization is an era when people worked more hours for fewer material gains and in much more endangered scenarios.
People work more because they want more, because it’s normalized to want more. Housing crisis aside, people by and large spend their money on things that are not strictly needed, but nonetheless, they desire - and should be entitled to. At no point do I dispute they’re being exploited - my point is only that it is not their needs being unfulfilled which drive most people; it is a desire for more than their basic needs, which would not go away if they stopped being exploited.
… have you ever actually lived in the USA?
You think most people wouldn’t become homeless if they spent less time working?
The issue being disputed is the idea that provision for one’s basic needs is enough to stop one from desiring more
That is not the argument I was making. People can still desire more even under an Anarchist society, the difference is that anything more they want they either have to make themselves, make it collectively under a worker cooperative, or trade with another person with something they acquired by their own means or as the fruit of a cooperative effort.
You can still create computers, build fancy chairs, make a cooperative factory to produce a desired good, etc, but you just wouldn’t be able to hang food, housing, and healthcare over somebody else to effectively force them to do that stuff for you. Under an anarchist society, you could only convince someone to work with you on something if they felt it was a democratic endeavor where they had an equal say and an equal reward as you or anyone else who helps you gets.
That ensures that no one can effectively exploit anyone else, or create a power imbalance with a hierarchy. Everyone gets access to the same baseline for a happy life, and 9 months our of the year to do with as they please, whether that be to improve their house, make jewelry, paint, write, or spend time with their friends or family, they can personally decide what they want to spend that time doing, instead of laboring all year for just those basics.
Do you presume that an anarchist leaning society couldnt have any structures in place to protect the whole? (Such as an environmental protections agency.) Its all a sliding scale, and you dont need to embrace total anarchy in order to avoid the problems associated with authoritarianism.
No, no, not at all, I’m generally quite positive towards libertarian socialism. I love Anarchist Catalonia, the Makhnovists in Ukraine, Rojava. But I do also think it’s important to keep a realistic view of what such a society looks like and entails, and such societies inevitably include… well, making decisions for other people. My argument is against a utopian view of anarchy which will be dismissed by most people, even unprejudiced, and result in disillusionment when experiments fail to run as planned.
I mean, fuck, this the classic ‘group project’ or ‘local government’ issue dialed up to life-or-death. Getting people on the same page is not always easy, especially when strong personalities - with social connections - are involved.
You could say I’m taking a meme too seriously, and perhaps I am, but there are arguments laid out in this comment section which more clearly and distinctly express the exact sentiment in the meme I’m objecting to.
Genuine question because my understanding of anarchism is cursory, but how does anarchism prevent ‘might makes right’ from being the prevailing ideology? If there is no system of laws, how do we protect against rapists and murderers? Does it require everyone to be armed to the teeth at all times just to protect themselves?
Also, how does anarchism ensure we can regulate food safety and medicine? Is the expectation that everyone produce their own food? How do we protect ourselves against the 1%? They have far more resources than the rest of us, so couldn’t they basically muscle their way to the top and cement themselves there, with no hope of being toppled without some sort of systemic change?
How does anarchism prevent ‘might makes right’ from being the prevailing ideology?
How does the world currently prevent that? It doesn’t, the largest states do as they wish to the smaller ones, and internally the states do what they wish to the citizens. Under anarchism you would defend your community and your communities would defend each other. You can see this in action in places like the Chiapas were communities defend themselves from the state and cartels.
If there is no system of laws
Anarchism is not a world devoid of rules, in fact it’s all about rules. Except these are rules mutually-agreed upon by members of the community rather than dictated by politicians with no interest in the well-being of the community.
how do we protect against rapists and murderers? Does it require everyone to be armed to the teeth at all times just to protect themselves?
How do you protect against rapists and murderers? How do you today, do you ring the cops and wait 30 minutes? Under anarchism the community would ensure its own defence, you and your neighbours and everyone else would be empowered to protect yourselves, and you would want to because its your community. At present you must wait for the bastards to show up and maybe do something to help, if not make the situation actively worse.
Also, how does anarchism ensure we can regulate food safety and medicine?
Why would you want to produce unsafe foods and medicines, there is no profit motive to cut-corners and you are only hurting yourselves.
Is the expectation that everyone produce their own food?
The expectation is communities would produce resources for themselves, and co-operate with neighbouring communities to share what’s needed.
How do we protect ourselves against the 1%? They have far more resources than the rest of us, so couldn’t they basically muscle their way to the top and cement themselves there, with no hope of being toppled without some sort of systemic change?
How do you protect yourselves against the 1% today? You don’t.
Under anarchism, you actively fight them.
I’m not sure anarchism could work as well on paper as it would in real life. I think close examples are when a country loses it’s hierarchical structure and the void is typically filled with extremists or the most violent and well armed individuals who than instate a new hierarchy. The people have a chance to establish an anarchist society, but are never able to or incapable of doing so.
If you look at governing systems like these as organisms. Anarchism is too weak to defend against stronger power struggles and will always be consumed from within and without by a larger status quo, just because human nature is to establish systems and group together. Eventually that grows so much conflicts on ideals on how the opposing systems should operate arise, one sees the other as counter to their ways and conflict eventually ensues.
Even in Anarchism there are different ideals on how it should be achieved. With those nuance differences that would eventually come to some immovable beliefs that would cause larger systems to develop to overpower differences.
A lot of people don’t want to govern themselves or be involved in the complexity of making community decisions. They’d rather have someone else do that and eventually that someone else becomes a leader and that path leads to a hierarchy.
I think the age of simplicity that Anarchism brings is left in the past of our evolutionary progress of organized systems. Great idea, but proven it will never hold because it’s more of a transitional state that will eventually grow into complexity it’s principles can’t answer anymore.
I think the age of simplicity that Anarchism brings is left in the past of our evolutionary progress of organized systems. Great idea, but proven it will never hold because it’s more of a transitional state that will eventually grow into complexity it’s principles can’t answer anymore.
Anarchism is the next step in that path. Instead of rigid systems that are immutable, anarchism is a fluidic organisational system that can adapt and respond based on the needs at the time. It’s biology vs circuity. One is etched into plastic forever unchanging, the other grows new branches and drops old as needed.
Simply by being here on the Fediverse you are showing a preference for this dynamic interconnected system over a rigid top-down controlled one.
Removed by mod
Yeah I think this is the core problem that most people discussing anarchism, for and against, miss.
Outsourcing governance to authority is less work, on the surface. Of course, that then creates endless other problems, but the connection of these issues to outsourcing governance is not obvious.
So by that sentiment the world is as it should exist under anarchism. The strongest groups overpowered the lesser groups amd this is where it sits.
Thats the thing. We walked out of the forest under this “system” and kingships, gangs, fiefdoms, and religious conclaves was all we got out of it. What makes you think, particularly in the current climate, that humanity has changed at all enough to not do the exact same thing again.
Removed by mod
No, that’s not anarchism, it’s kleptocracy, by definition.
Anarchism means more rules, more intimate regulation of public works, not less. For power to spread out, you have to work to prevent its concentration, or you are just catalyzing a transitional moment in history.
What makes me think we can overcome the sociopathy is that culture has progressed along with our knowledge of the mind, and that the spirit of liberty never dies. A minority are authoritarian, even if it’s a large minority. We do have to counteract the immense amount of propaganda and ideology, however.
Ok, so how do these “more rules” come into existence without some centralized body?
Who gets to decide that? It might seem romantic to say that “everybody does”, but how would that go practically?
Like who, comes up with those? Who will explain those rules to others? And most importantly, who will make sure others follow them properly?
Because if everyone gets to decide that on their own if they want to follow a rule or not, then you might as well have no rules since everyone will just do whatever they want.
Like who, comes up with those? Who will explain those rules to others? And most importantly, who will make sure others follow them properly?
Rules are decided on at community-level. That could mean a village comes together to collectively decide on rules for their community, which the entire village can participate in. Once everyone is happy with the rules, and with the methods of enforcement chosen, the entire village will be familiar with them, and can then explain those rules to others. They may also federate with other villages and agree to follow a larger set of rules or standards.
You can see a form of this style of society in practice in Rojava (there’s also this video for an even more in-depth look at how different aspects of Rojava function).
It’s just meeting after meeting, allow the way down. DIY governance is a lot of negotiation.
Removed by mod
I don’t think that’s fair, though it is funny. Lumpen feels like a dedicated Anarchism propogandist to me.
(I don’t attach any positive or negative connotation to “propogandist” here)
Well, you could say ‘advocate’ instead, as propagandist is pejorative in common usage, this is a forum not a private journal.
I suppose that’s fair. Thanks.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
It is definitely them not being able to control you.
Removed by mod
The truth it hurts.
Because anarchism only works when everyone is perfectly rational and cooperative. Maybe you are, but many people aren’t. The decisions those people make should be controlled: starting fires for fun, dumping waste into drinking water, etc.
That’s consensus you are talking about, and it is indeed a myth, at scale.
Every consensus run organization I have seen chokes up at some point due to a failure of psychology. Statistically, something like more than 10% of the population are guaranteed to be a problem for cohesion, for various reasons. Many are just contrarians and self-identifying as an outsider requires social sabotage. Some are cruel, stupid, or violent. Many are “dark triad” and dangerously deceptive.
So any functional and sustainable system has to acknowledge that fact and plan around never having consensus. There are many approaches to this, and anarchism can work without everyone in lockstep, and still get things done and maintain principles.
Your statement suggests you think that anarchism is hands-off laissez-faire, it’s the opposite. Self governance is DIY and thus constant maintenance of rules and arrangements and goals, and solving problems mutually. An endless hands-on meeting, at least until we are able to automate such things.
See, self-governance involves mutual self-defense, and violence by poison is a mutual problem which requires a lot of coordination to solve, so people will be motivated to get it resolved quickly; dumping might be a very dangerous decision. Anarchism doesn’t let you be a lone wolf, you have to deal with groups of equals and mutual dependence everywhere you go.
See, self-governance involves mutual self-defense, and violence by poison is a mutual problem which requires a lot of coordination to solve, so people will be motivated to get it resolved quickly; dumping might be a very dangerous decision.
I’ve got some very bad news for you about the intransigence of human beings.
Intransigence is an annoying problem. An obstacle, not an invalidation.
Obstacles must be confronted, or the path will remain impassable.
Yeah… I guess it’s just a bigger topic than I have time to tackle right now.
Enforcement would range from relentless requests to stop, and maybe blockade of some kinds, to sanction and exclusion. Self defence rules would be well agreed upon and might be physical. There is always a limit where coercion is necessary, anarchists just want it waaaay over there.
Justice discussions are harder than most, but we have a lot of rights documents to draw from.
Exclusion from a well organized community you live in or next to would make life very challenging.
Identifying dark triad individuals and redirecting them to other non-destructive tasks would help a lot.
Ngl, the bit about making decisions for myself is a part of anarchism I really struggle with. But that is precisely why I’m an anarchist — I understand that I struggle with this because I have been systemically deprived of the opportunity to develop my capacity to make decisions for myself, and I see the continuous practice of anarchism as something that can help me to improve that (as well as supporting others to do the same).
Freedom is haaaaaaaaard. It’s probably worth it though. I’ll let you know when I’m free.
I wonder how old you are. Gen X was raised, rather uniquely, to make our own decisions. Schools allowed even kindergartners to make simple decisions, and we had to deal with it if we fucked up. Same for being latchkey kids. We were alone after school, had to decide what to do for ourselves and live with the consequences.
Had a stepson in elementary 20 years ago; my own kids are now 11 and 13. Schools are a fucking horror show. Kids don’t even get a locker! We had to be responsible for getting books and whatever else was needed between classes. In 2nd grade, once that final bell rang, we were on our own. We could play in the creek, walk, skate or bike home, whatever. Now you’re not leaving without a parent the teacher recognizes or on a bus. In high school we could leave campus at lunch, but you better be back on time, no excuses for poor decisions. You could light up with your teacher in the smoke hole. (An example of allowing bad decisions! Lord.)
Kids are no longer taught to think and solve problems. They are taught to pass standardized tests. Teachers are culled if they don’t toe the party line, so the best are mostly gone. Neither the kids nor the teachers get to make decisions any longer. It’s like the meat grinder from The Wall.
No rose colored glasses here! Teachers could beat the shit out of us. The number of pedophile teachers in my middle school was horrifying once we hit college and looked back. Hell, pedophiles were tolerated as mere weirdos!
But at least we were trained, perhaps inadvertently, to make decisions.
Freedom to choose your path includes letting a friend, mentor, or math-rock decide for you
For me it’s that anarchists are moral purists which often dont align with a leftist slightly less radical or outside of their worldview, in a society that will likely never accept anarchism.
I believe in leftism now, as opposed to “not voting because voting means you believe in people ruling over you.” Which is the summary of many anarchists have told me.
Other than that I dont mind anarchists, but if we want change, participating in current society by voting and organizing now is the only way.
Gonna be honest, you sound more like a liberal, not a leftist. Liberals are not left, no matter how much they like to think they are.
Even communists aren’t electoralists who believe voting will bring about the revolution. And as any leftist would tell you, voting and especially campaigning is a waste of time and energy that could be better spent elsewhere.
If you want to spend 20 minutes in line to “harm minimise” or whatever fantasy you think it achieves go for it, no one is going to care. If you want to promote voting as a solution, that’s where leftists have an issue.
The part where you either assume people don’t have misaligned interests or that they do but they can resolve it in a rational way.
Of these options, the part where I don’t get to make your decisions, I guess. There’s going to be some guy who wants to shit in the drinking water, and I’m going to want to stop him.
I’m going to want to stop him.
Good, do that.
Anarchy is ‘no rulers’ not ‘no rules’. If someone is going to do something harmful for the community, you don’t just let them. You are actively incentivised to stop them, because it’s your obligation as a member of the community.
Contrast that to today’s system, where if someone wants to release factory run-offs into the local water source you can’t stop them and they’ll
bribelobby some politician to let them do it, while arresting you for protesting itRight. That sounds like it could be fine. But it seems like it would (d)evolve back into rules when people get tired of re-arguing the same conflicts repeatedly. People would have arguments, write down or remember the results, look back at them when the same kind of problem comes up, and now you’ve reinvented common law.
Or be very susceptible to tyranny of the majority. “We all decided you can only have the shit-water, so you can leave or fight us all.”
The way it was phrased in the meme (which, admittedly, is only a meme) makes it sound like you’re not allowed to stop other people.
Anarchy is ’no rulers’ not ’no rules’. If someone is going to do something harmful for the community, you don’t just let them. You are actively incentivised to stop them, because it’s your obligation as a member of the community.
Which reduces matters to force vs. force; and for that matter, is much more directly an individual making decisions for other individuals than most modern states.
No rulers cannot also mean no enforcement beyond individual action, because that effectively means no rules.
Direct action isn’t “force vs. force” in a vacuum it is people-led defence of a community’s survival against those who would prioritise their own interests over the collective well-being. By framing enforcement as “individual action,” you ignore the reality of mutual aid and horizontal organisation, wherein the community itself sets the standards for tolerated behaviour.
Removing the state doesn’t leave a vacuum for might makes right it replaces top-down systemic coercion with horizontal accountability; Where a community’s refusal to cooperate with a bad actor is a far more sophisticated, and less violent, regulator than a politician who can be bought to look the other way and use the state apparatus to inflict physical violence on those who oppose.
Direct action isn’t “force vs. force” in a vacuum it is people-led defence of a community’s survival against those who would prioritise their own interests over the collective well-being.
I can literally quote conservatives saying the exact same shit. The point in this is not to equate anarchism with conservatism, but pointing out that the justification of people-led defence of a community’s survival against those who would prioritize their own interests over the collective well-being is nearly universal as a justification for ideologies, including my own, and thus does not serve as much of a justification for anarchism in particular.
By framing enforcement as “individual action,” you ignore the reality of mutual aid and horizontal organisation,
My response was made directly in the context of you asserting that the individual who sees the shitter is incentivized to stop them.
wherein the community itself sets the standards for tolerated behaviour.
… so…
… wherein a group of people make decisions for the lives of individuals.
Removing the state doesn’t leave a vacuum for might makes right it replaces top-down systemic coercion with horizontal accountability; Where a community’s refusal to cooperate with a bad actor is a far more sophisticated, and less violent, regulator than a politician who can be bought to look the other way and use the state apparatus to inflict physical violence on those who oppose.
How is a community’s refusal to cooperate with a bad actor more sophisticated? Wouldn’t that mandate the community enforcing the refusal on all individuals within the community?
But you do get to participate in those decisions. We are a troupe species, after all.
Anarchism has suffered centuries of propaganda convincing people that it is synonymous with unregulated chaos, rather than more organized than authoritarian schemes. If someone shits in the water, you and all the other people who rely on that water can rightfully observe that that person is impinging on your freedoms and security, and can deal with it using the endless decision making process you’re required to have to get things done in your region.
Freedom is absolutely relative, not relatively absolute. It’s defined and negotiated, not subject to impulse and ego. Under anarchism, you are not free to attack, or shit in drinking water.
So do I get to make their decisions for them or not?
If yes, the original post is faulty.
If no, they shit in the water.
I expect the original post is faulty because it’s a meme trying to be funny.
A community can collectively decide on rules, and collectively decide how to enforce those rules. If someone is harming the community and will not stop when asked, the community can decide to forcibly eject that person from the community.
So, yes, I (with enough backing of the community) do get to tell hypothetical-you that you can’t shit in the drinking water.
Yes. The difference between our current system and Anarchism is that it is much, much harder to create a system that does not benefit the everyone, since the people who are usually negatively effected by the whims of corporations or centralized power would now have the ability to directly have a say in how their local community decides on rules and how to enforce them.
There would also be no wealthy elites who can influence things, as there would be no mechanism or ability for an individual to accumulate vast resources or wealth.
Sounds reasonable as you’ve written it. I do worry about people’s over willingness to bend the knee, especially when they’re frightened or angry. It seems like someone with a strong personality could convince people to go along with stuff that benefits him more than them. But, no system is immune to bad actors and idiots.
But, no system is immune to bad actors and idiots.
Agreed. Though I think it would be particularly difficult for a strongman or strong personality to take hold in an Anarchist society.
If it was successfully implemented, and everyone is now receiving free housing, food, healthcare, public transport, and education all in exchange for 2 to 3 months of voluntary work (the rest being free time), I think it would be exceptionally difficult to convince that populace that actually they should actually go back to the old way where they work for him all year in exchange for some paper that would then give you access to those things which you already have for free.
I just think it would be almost impossible to put that genie back in the bottle, just as it would’ve been almost impossible for medieval kings and lords to bring back serfdom after mercantilism/capitalism was established.
If someone is harming the community and will not stop when asked, the community can decide to forcibly eject that person from the community.
Can anyone else decide to forcibly eject a person from the community?
If no, then your democratic council/process has a monopoly on violence, and the question arises what differentiates it from a state.
If yes, that raises many more questions.
If no, then your democratic council/process has a monopoly on violence,
That would depend on how that local community collectively decides to operate. Most would likely opt for community consensus for something so serious, where an individual cannot forcibly eject someone from the community if there is not community consensus.
and the question arises what differentiates it from a state.
A state is a centralized hierarchy of power that operates in a top-down structure, where the people at the top of the hierarchy have the ultimate say on what happens to those at the bottom of the hierarchy.
Anarchism’s goal is to decentralize power and make any societal structures as horizontal as possible. A local community would have final say on things that effect that local community, and if there are any people elected by a community to participate in a larger federated structure, that elected person is able to be immediately re-callable by the community that elected them if they fail at performing the duties they were tasked with. They would also be elected as a Delegate, not a Representative.
Delegation, in contrast to representation, stresses that the purpose of the delegate is instrumental. The delegate acts like a rubber belt connecting two gears; they are simply a tool for the exchange of force and influence between two greater bodies. They are not the component that creates or directs force, but only act only to guide it. The relationship of the delegate to the organization is like one of a secretary. Naturally, delegates are often just called secretaries, or the more popular, “secretariat.” They are in a relationship where they take their direction from the whole – not where they direct the whole.
Representation is the opposite. It is a system where the representative who presents the interests of their people is in full power. The delegate is seen simply as a means for directing the ideas of one group to another. It is something that can be fulfilled by anyone The representative is someone who makes the decision of what ideas the group should have altogether. It is something that requires political parties, party elections, general elections, campaigning, and an exquisite ability to measure the honesty and integrity of the candidates.
When a society prospers or suffers, blame or praise always go to the organizing force that directed it. Within Delegation, that blame or praise goes to the common people, who must live with their mistakes, or be elevated by their willingness to change. Within Representation, that blame or praise goes to the politician, who is so far removed from the people, that whether they’re guilty or not won’t change the situation the people are in. One system focuses on the people as the guardians of their own welfare; the other focuses on a single person to be the guardians of all.
There is more to it than simply stating that the Delegate can make no decisions and stating that the Representative can make decisions. Both of these systems have developed their own institutions for encouraging either the Authoritarian or Libertarian trends as they see fit. Within Delegation, for example, a delegate can be removed at any time, for any reason and for no reason. Since they are simply the carrier of the group’s demands, it is for the group to decide who is best at any moment for this purpose. Removing a delegate, then, is like reworking the positions of the laborers in the factory – a purely technical matter.
The Representative does not have this fear, however, of “Recall.” The Representatives of nations, from Germany to Russia to the United States to France to Britain, have always plunged their people into wars, concentration camps, and forced labor – and yet, one could be assured almost, that such miserable conquests never would have started, if these were simple delegates, and not representatives, of the people.
The Representative was elected, whereas many delegates some delegates are elected and others are chosen by random ballot. At the start of one of these imperial wars, like the Boer War or any number of the Moroccan Wars, the representative had survived party elections, regional elections, and finally, a national election. Imagine if one of their voters said, “Actually, we don’t like your ideas now, and we want someone else to carry our interests to other nations, because war is not our interest.” The representative could point to a thousand courts that would stand up for them and a million soldiers with bayonets for anyone who would still disagree.
That would depend on how that local community collectively decides to operate. Most would likely opt for community consensus for something so serious, where an individual cannot forcibly eject someone from the community if there is not community consensus.
The question of majority vs. supermajority is not the question; the question is whether that process is the only means by which the society accepts casting one of their own out.
A state is a centralized hierarchy of power that operates in a top-down structure, where the people at the top of the hierarchy have the ultimate say on what happens to those at the bottom of the hierarchy.
In which case most modern states aren’t states at all.
Delegation, in contrast to representation, stresses that the purpose of the delegate is instrumental. The delegate acts like a rubber belt connecting two gears; they are simply a tool for the exchange of force and influence between two greater bodies. They are not the component that creates or directs force, but only act only to guide it. The relationship of the delegate to the organization is like one of a secretary.
Okay, but do you not realize this is how representatives in extant systems have defined themselves since time immemorial?
What makes this incarnation different?
Representation is the opposite. It is a system where the representative who presents the interests of their people is in full power. The delegate is seen simply as a means for directing the ideas of one group to another. It is something that can be fulfilled by anyone The representative is someone who makes the decision of what ideas the group should have altogether.
Again, that’s nowhere near how most representatives or representative systems would describe themselves, or, realistically, be described.
It is something that requires political parties, party elections, general elections, campaigning, and an exquisite ability to measure the honesty and integrity of the candidates.
And… you don’t find that elections, campaigns, measuring honesty or integrity of candidates, or political tribalism is something anarchist society will have to deal with?
When a society prospers or suffers, blame or praise always go to the organizing force that directed it. Within Delegation, that blame or praise goes to the common people, who must live with their mistakes, or be elevated by their willingness to change.
You do realize that’s the exact argument we use today in representative democracies, and most people shrug it off like water off a duck’s back, right?
Within Representation, that blame or praise goes to the politician, who is so far removed from the people, that whether they’re guilty or not won’t change the situation the people are in.
And why would the people not scapegoat their delegate for any issue they felt sufficient guilt about? “It wasn’t explained clear enough, that wasn’t what we meant (and you can’t prove it was), we only meant it under very specific conditions, etc”
What is the difference, practically speaking, other than the Representative is now the PEOPLE’S Representative? And yes, that’s intentionally invoking the coat-of-paint used by ML societies. Not to equate this anarchist polity proposed with MLs, but to point out that, just as MLs often dress up their structures as though they’re new and innovative, oftentimes all they are is fundamentally the old structure with all of its previously flaws and failings - only now those flaws and failings are considered ‘politically incorrect’ to address.
One system focuses on the people as the guardians of their own welfare; the other focuses on a single person to be the guardians of all.
… that’s generally the exact opposite of how representative democracy describes itself, and, again, works.
There is more to it than simply stating that the Delegate can make no decisions and stating that the Representative can make decisions. Both of these systems have developed their own institutions for encouraging either the Authoritarian or Libertarian trends as they see fit. Within Delegation, for example, a delegate can be removed at any time, for any reason and for no reason. Since they are simply the carrier of the group’s demands, it is for the group to decide who is best at any moment for this purpose. Removing a delegate, then, is like reworking the positions of the laborers in the factory – a purely technical matter.
… you do realize that many modern polities have recall elections available for any reason, right?
The Representative does not have this fear, however, of “Recall.” The Representatives of nations, from Germany to Russia to the United States to France to Britain, have always plunged their people into wars, concentration camps, and forced labor – and yet, one could be assured almost, that such miserable conquests never would have started, if these were simple delegates, and not representatives, of the people.
In what fucking way? Other than pointing out that many polities which do have instant recall even for the executive still plunge into wars and genocide, in what way does the ‘delegate’ stop people from making self-destructive decisions? Fuck, man, the Iraq War, unjust as it was, had, what, 80% approval in the general population when it started? Whose use of recall was going to unscrew that pooch?
The Representative was elected, whereas many delegates some delegates are elected and others are chosen by random ballot. At the start of one of these imperial wars, like the Boer War or any number of the Moroccan Wars, the representative had survived party elections, regional elections, and finally, a national election. Imagine if one of their voters said, “Actually, we don’t like your ideas now, and we want someone else to carry our interests to other nations, because war is not our interest.” The representative could point to a thousand courts that would stand up for them and a million soldiers with bayonets for anyone who would still disagree.
You do realize that most wars are not started in the face of overwhelming popular opposition, right?
… right…?
It’s funny because it’s wrong in an uninformed way, or at least an oversimplified way that expresses the common irritation of having to work with other people.
What if the water-shitters out-number the water-drinkers? This is a question about covid-19
What if the water-drinkers out-number the water-shitters, but the water-shitters are the ones in control? This is a question about democracy
Then you are no longer talking about anarchism. Different thread.
edit: political_revolution@lemm.ee seems pretty dead… for now.
Then a large effort is collectively undertaken to discover where the education and communication sectors failed so spectacularly, and a program to find out what is really bugging these folk, and see if they still want to participate in the system.
A large effort undertaken by whom though? The water-drinkers are presumably the only people who care. And what’s stopping the water-shitters from counter-“education” (falsities and propaganda)?
Don’t take this as “I’m just asking questions”. I mean, I am, but I’m not making any arguments or anything, I legitimately don’t understand how anarchism as a system works. How is it distinct from a direct democracy, if it is?
