You must log in or register to comment.
- What led to the Haymarket Massacre, which might have been the main catalyst behind the 8-hour workday… So I cannot hate it out of principle
- Seems reasonable but I don’t know how to actually implement it
- For some reason is more associated with Anarcho-Capitalism rather than the other variants, which I thought was… Interesting
It was the way for most of human history. And I’m not saying that in a good way, like “it’s totally normal, we should not be afraid of it.” I think the past was a uniformly awful time that’s slowly been getting better.
Anarchy working well depends on the people involved. Though at this point, we live in such a rules based world that I wonder if anyone would be able to function entirely without.
It seems foolish and young to me. Same as libertarian rules or rule by religious doctrine. None of that shit works. Just shiny little playthings to keep people distracted from real and genuine problems that cause an existential threat to all species living on earth.
Which anarchist philosophers beliefs did you find foolish and young, and why? I’d love a critique!
Strange claim, given that it’s arguably how humans have organized their society for 296,000 years until that religion you dislike fucked it all up.
Uhm, no? For most of humanity, we were in patriarcal tribes. That’s not the same as anarchy. And the moment settlements grew, there was typically some kind of hierarchy in place, some chief.
Lol, love when someone just hangs their whole ass out on every point of order.
Sure mate!
Pls no anarcho capitalism. A good breakdown of the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTN64g9lA2g&t=1
coupled with communism it’s the real shit
Responsible anarchism is a good ideal to aim for, but in pure form it’s utopian. Realistic way to get closer to this ideal is shifting to stateless/borderless societies that center around some alternative entities other than geopolitical nation-states.
Quite literally impossible to implement. Same as true “Libertarianism”. Can’t actually exist.
Look at it this way. You and your neighbours want no government. No taxes. No laws. No “authority” telling you what to do and how to do it. Great!
What happens when the road needs to be fixed? Do you fix just the road in front of your house? Or do you negotiate with your neighbours for you all to pay a fair share to get the entire road done? Congratulations…you just invented government.
So now the road is getting done, but the people doing the work really don’t want to deal with every individual for every particular decision. It’s a much better idea to elect one person to do the communicating. Congratulations…you just invented civics and beaurocracy
This person that you all agreed to handle all of this stuff doesn’t have time anymore to support himself or his family because he’s dealing with your shit, so he demands that each of you pay an amount to keep in able to feed himself while he administrates your “anarchic society.” Congratulations…you just invented taxes
Replace “roads” with literally anything else in a community and the end result is the same. Both Libertarians and Anarchists are fucking morons.
You don’t know what anarchism is or what it means and are arguing with a strawman.
anarchism means no rulers, not no rules
we would just use direct democracy for our government
we don’t even want no government, we want no state, those are different things
can you point to an anarchist philosopher who believes the nonsense you argued against?
You say they’re arguing against strawmen, but do nothing to refute the arguments or show why they’re strawmen. Let’s say you have what you want: Rules but no rulers, direct democracy, and government but no state (please explain the latter in more detail).
The local hospital needs to decide how much money (read: resources) to spend on constructing a new wing, and who should do the job. A power line has to be built to replace the one that just fell down, and your direct democracy decided last week that you want to do something to incentivise the farmers to produce healthier and more sustainable food, rather than easy to produce and unhealthy food, but you haven’t ironed out the details yet. The next option you have to affect these decisions is later today, when you’ll have some kind of meeting or vote to decide on the matters. How you will find a time and place that allows everyone to have their say is an obvious issue, but I’ll leave it to you to explain how to overcome it.
These decisions need to be made, and when everyone doesn’t agree, there needs to be a mechanism to get stuff done regardless. I haven’t even gotten started on how to deal with internal groups or outside forces that want to exploit the system or the society as a whole.
Please explain how this is solved without some kind of hierarchical system where some people make decisions and enforce those decisions on behalf of the group as a whole. These are the roles we typically assign to “rulers” or “the state” (i.e. the bureaucracy).
The local hospital needs to decide how much money (read: resources) to spend on constructing a new wing, and who should do the job.
The consensus building forum, an example of one of these that you can research are the zapatista councils of good government
A power line has to be built to replace the one that just fell down, and your direct democracy decided last week that you want to do something to incentivise the farmers to produce healthier and more sustainable food, rather than easy to produce and unhealthy food, but you haven’t ironed out the details yet. The next option you have to affect these decisions is later today, when you’ll have some kind of meeting or vote to decide on the matters. How you will find a time and place that allows everyone to have their say is an obvious issue, but I’ll leave it to you to explain how to overcome it.
This has never been an issue in any anarchist society that has ever existed. If you have a historical example, please point to it! They simply set aside a day of the week to allow people to form consensus, they would discuss the issue and anyone that wants to say something about it can, and then there’s either a vote on the matter, or a consensus decision.
These decisions need to be made, and when everyone doesn’t agree, there needs to be a mechanism to get stuff done regardless. I haven’t even gotten started on how to deal with internal groups or outside forces that want to exploit the system or the society as a whole.
Yeah, in zapatista councils if everyone doesn’t agree they leave it to a vote. Outside forces are definitely a problem for sure, but I see no reason to believe it’s an unsolveable one, and it certainly doesn’t mean you aren’t completely strawmanning the anarchist argument.
Please explain how this is solved without some kind of hierarchical system where some people make decisions and enforce those decisions on behalf of the group as a whole. These are the roles we typically assign to “rulers” or “the state” (i.e. the bureaucracy).
Anarchists are for the abolishment of all unjust heirarchy, not all heirarchy in general, this is also a strawman. In an anarchist society this would often be done with a weekly or monthly randomly assigned rotation, although there are tons of methods.
Please actually bother to take a moment and read the works of proudhon, bakunin, and kropotkin, even a summary, before you talk about your strong opinions about anarchism. You simply don’t know enough to begin to have an argument, I wouldn’t give strong opinions about something I don’t even know the basics of. You don’t even know the difference between a government and a state and that’s covered in anarchism 101.
Anarchism isn’t “no government”. I don’t think your larger assessment is incorrect in that anarchism is utopian in nature and unrealistic on a larger scale but your understanding of the ideology is flawed.
I think there’s a reason anarchists aren’t migrating in droves to anarchies like Haiti or Somalia.
being ruled by warlords is not anarchist.
The point stands though. Pure Anarchism is a power vacuum. There is no way to achieve a power vacuum, it will be quickly filled — the most basic way it is filled is by dictators and warlords. You want to live in a power vacuum? Ask yourself how you will enforce it and suddenly you’re no longer talking about anarchy.
Ask yourself how you will enforce it and suddenly you’re no longer talking about anarchy.
this is a no true Scotsman.
No we’re talking about definitions. You’re advocating for anarchy being a viable state for humankind, I’m saying practically you can’t enforce or defend its existence without turning it in to something that it is not by definition. It is practically impossible to defend a state of anarchy as it will and always has been overpowered by a more organized, hierarchical force.
it will and always has been overpowered by a more organized, hierarchical force.
you can’t prove this
You are arguing against a complete strawman, and seem to know nothing about anarchism.
Anarchism is not against government, or even some heirarchy, it’s about the abolishment of unjust heirarchy.
Pure anarchism? How do you define that, and which philosophers did you read to get to that definition?
Absence of government; the state of society where there is no law or supreme power; a state of lawlessness; political confusion.
https://gcide.gnu.org.ua/?q=Anarchy&define=Define&strategy=.
Yes, that’s a co-opted definition that doesn’t come from any anarchist philosophers. The definition has changed because people use the word differently. Note, anarchy is completely different from the political philosophy of anarchism.
There is not a single anarchist philosopher that means that definition when they say they are an anarchist, the first anarchists did not use anything resembling that definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
Proudhon would be rolling in his grave if he knew people were saying that’s what anarchism was. There’s never been an argument made by anarchist philosophers in support of that, as it would be stupid and obviously terrible.
There’s a million terms where the definition in the dictionary has nothing to do with the academic study of it… this happens all the time in politics. The language may change, but the academic usage of the term is already established, dictionaries stay up to date with language changes, rather than using academic definitions.
Another example: the marxist definition of private property has nothing to do with the current definition, what marx meant when he said private property is property that generates capital, not your toothbrush.
Pure Anarchism is a power vacuum
power vacuums are fictions deployed by imperialist forces to justify regime change
? No, power vacuums can exist and are quickly filled by any group with a modicum of power. Look at ISIS. The US deposed the Iraqi government. The new government was weak and those with a stockpile of weapons and funding from other interested countries quickly swept in and took control of large swaths of territory. They also took territory in Syria after the Arab Spring put Assad on his back foot, unable to maintain power in the east.
power vacuums are a myth
Why are they a myth?
they are a story that people tell to explain the world. but they are not a phenomenon that can be empirically tested.
How did gangs take control of Haiti? How did warlords take control of Somalia? I guess those governments just decided to dissolve and hand over their monopolies on violence to other groups.
I don’t know the particular histories you’re talking about, but I bet it involves private property, prisons, and policing. none of that is anarchy.
The point stands though.
no, it doesn’t
Oh okay, thanks for that enlightening response.
any time.
You can’t prove that
it’s tautological
Prove that it is
anarchism is a system without rulers. warlords are rulers. ipso facto.
Correct. So, what happens when you have, as you say, pure anarchy without rulers and then some folks interested in power notice that you have no organized way to defend yourself? They take the power easily. These people are often warlords. That’s why anarchy is so closely associated with such things, because anarchy is a power vacuum. That vacuum is easily filled. The most rudimentary thing that can fill it are warlords.
power vacuums do not exist in fact. you’re telling a story based on a myth.
what makes you think a community would not keep the means to defend itself and it’s neighbors?
Naive Understanding of the topic detected like
Where did you learn this talking point?
I’m going to play devil’s advocate because I think this is a learning opportunity and I want to set someone up to give a good answer.
A lot of people hear “anarchy” and equate it with a lack of government. Haiti has not had a functioning government for quite some time. What distinguishes Haiti’s situation from anarchy?
hierarchy
Literally everything, nothing about either of those places even resemble anything any anarchist philosopher ever said, anarchists aren’t even against government in the first place so the premise is nonsense.
I consider myself an anarcho-pragmatist. It would be nice not to have any rulers or an hierarchy. But I also know people well enough to know that unless we defer any decision making to a supercomputer everyone trusts, we’re going to need some form of societal structure.
No one will unanimously trust a computer model. People will try to undermine and destroy it. So, the question would then be, how do you stop that? And suddenly you’re not really talking about anarchy. The computer will need to enforce its existence through violence.
There are already people living this lifestyle, unfortunately one only has the choice if you have lots of money.
Lots of money? Do you actually know any anarchists? Living in communal squat houses and dumpster diving for food is the lifestyle that comes to mind for me.
So you don’t know any anarchists either, just the image you’ve seen in movies.
Yes I know anarchists. I organize with them in real life.
I think it’s one gun away from a dictatorship.
For power to be safely devolved to the people there need to be resilient structures in place to prevent a bad actor from simply wresting control by force.
Also, I think that while it solves societal issues well for the most personal of personal liberties it fails to properly add in protections from the liberties of others that may be imposed on you… i.e. a spouse trying to escape an abusive relationship will find sparse services to support them.
Lastly, I like trains. Trains don’t happen in a reasonable time-frame without a strong centralized government. In the UK a coop recently opened a new train line… I think it took them 30+ years.
For power to be safely devolved to the people there need to be resilient structures in place to prevent a bad actor from simply wresting control by force.
Why do you think this is incompatible with anarchism?
Also, I think that while it solves societal issues well for the most personal of personal liberties it fails to properly add in protections from the liberties of others that may be imposed on you… i.e. a spouse trying to escape an abusive relationship will find sparse services to support them.
Why can’t they simply vote on such laws being absolute, and hard to change, like we currently do in non-anarchist democracies?
Trains don’t happen in a reasonable time-frame without a strong centralized government. In the UK a coop recently opened a new train line… I think it took them 30+ years.
Why did it take them 30+ years? Why couldn’t an anarchist society simply vote to build a new train line?
For power to be safely devolved to the people there need to be resilient structures in place to prevent a bad actor from simply wresting control by force.
Why do you think this is incompatible with anarchism?
There still must be a state with the capacity for violence to prevent strongman takeovers. Most descriptions of anarchism generally exclude the existence of a unified state and often exclude any form of non-individual violence.
Also, I think that while it solves societal issues well for the most personal of personal liberties it fails to properly add in protections from the liberties of others that may be imposed on you… i.e. a spouse trying to escape an abusive relationship will find sparse services to support them.
Why can’t they simply vote on such laws being absolute, and hard to change, like we currently do in non-anarchist democracies?
What state apparatus would be preserved into anarchism that would provide these supports and how would it be funded? Additionally, how would we reconcile the lack of a state with the need for apparatuses to oppose individual suppression that are necessarily authoritarian and imbued with violence. Think first about a village of good people with one abusive relationship - that village can perhaps support the spouse in escaping that relationship. Think now about an evangelical or Mormon community with widespread and socially accepted spousal abuse - a solution to that abuse will almost never emerge internally. An outside authority imbued with the power of violence by a large populace is required to make that situation just - and that justice will come against the majority opinion of that locale.
Shit like this has happened in the past - most cult raids you’ve heard of were breaking up situations where everyone made a voluntary choice with the assistance of coercion and other disabling factors.
Trains don’t happen in a reasonable time-frame without a strong centralized government. In the UK a coop recently opened a new train line… I think it took them 30+ years.
Why did it take them 30+ years? Why couldn’t an anarchist society simply vote to build a new train line?
It took them 30+ years because they needed to privately fund it. I think you may be confusing anarchy with council republics or other devolved and federated forms of governments (like Lenin’s idealized Soviets - not to be confused with the USSR).
It’s important also to look at the costs of devolution of power. After the first Trump term human rights around reproductive care were devolved to be the decision of the states - that devolution of power resulted in less freedoms for individuals.
People like to focus on the “I can do…” freedoms in US political thought but I think some of our most important freedoms are “I can refuse to have … done to me” freedoms - and those two freedoms are always in opposition. Someone wants to not be murdered and someone else wants to murder them - no matter the outcome someone is having their freedom restrained.
There still must be a state with the capacity for violence to prevent strongman takeovers. Most descriptions of anarchism generally exclude the existence of a unified state and often exclude any form of non-individual violence.
Yeah, against the state, but not a government, which in anarchist philosophy are two different things.
What state apparatus would be preserved into anarchism that would provide these supports and how would it be funded?
None, but plenty of government apparatuses would exist with funding through taxes…
Additionally, how would we reconcile the lack of a state with the need for apparatuses to oppose individual suppression that are necessarily authoritarian and imbued with violence.
Usually through rotational authority, again, this shows you haven’t read any anarchist philosophy.
Think first about a village of good people with one abusive relationship - that village can perhaps support the spouse in escaping that relationship. Think now about an evangelical or Mormon community with widespread and socially accepted spousal abuse - a solution to that abuse will almost never emerge internally. An outside authority imbued with the power of violence by a large populace is required to make that situation just - and that justice will come against the majority opinion of that locale.
rotational. authority.
Shit like this has happened in the past - most cult raids you’ve heard of were breaking up situations where everyone made a voluntary choice with the assistance of coercion and other disabling factors.
no anarchist philosophers supported cult-like systems.
It took them 30+ years because they needed to privately fund it. I think you may be confusing anarchy with council republics or other devolved and federated forms of governments (like Lenin’s idealized Soviets - not to be confused with the USSR).
Their need to privately fund it only exists in a society that isn’t anarchist. I’m not confusing anarchy, I’ve read my anarchist philosophy, and could talk to you about the beliefs of bakunin, proudhon, and kropotkin, there’s others, but those are the basic ones.
It’s important also to look at the costs of devolution of power. After the first Trump term human rights around reproductive care were devolved to be the decision of the states - that devolution of power resulted in less freedoms for individuals.
Sure, it is important, but I don’t see what that has to do with our discussion.
People like to focus on the “I can do…” freedoms in US political thought but I think some of our most important freedoms are “I can refuse to have … done to me” freedoms - and those two freedoms are always in opposition. Someone wants to not be murdered and someone else wants to murder them - no matter the outcome someone is having their freedom restrained.
yup, that’s true, don’t know what it has to do with anything though.
I see it as a guideline for how society could be structured after the elimination of class.
It depends on the definition
The definition is whatever you want the definition to be. Don’t let others force a definition on you.
I think it’s great. We should fucking try it.
Seriously, though, I think it would be nice but it’s going to be impossible unless you can fully get rid of greedy, corrupt, power hungry pieces of shit with zero empathy.
Don’t forget the morons who keep worshipping said pieces of shit. Even now, I run into Musk cultists regularly.
So as long as the the greedy, power-hungry pieces of shit have at least some empathy, we can make it work?
It at least shows they could possibly be rehabilitated.
I guess what I’m saying is that an individual with lack of empathy is much less of a problem for an egalitarian society than one that seeks power. And yes, even empathic individuals seek power.
The problem is one of human nature. We need a society that works for humans, and that means a system that puts limits on the worst parts of human nature. Saying “this will work when people behave better” means it’s never going to work.
And to be clear: I think this is one of the big advantages that anarchism has over, say, socialism. With no power apparatus to corrupt, there’s less of a target for the corrupt power-seekers.
But it needs to be structured in a way that reinforces eusocial behavior and disincentivizes antisocial behavior; further, the mechanisms for those reinforcements and disincentives needs to be communal rather than centralized, or someone will steal the reinforcement apparatus for their own selfish ends.
Honestly, I don’t really understand what it is. I don’t understand socialism, communism, hell I hardly understand capitalism and I’m living in it.
I know the “it’s chaos” interpretation isn’t really correct though
