In the absence of other power structures (political, legal, religious, economic, etc) whoever has the means and willingness to do violence will exert their will over others. Unstructured societies always devolve into might makes right.
That doesn't prove that not enforcing them would somehow make murder disappear, it just proves that you can't absolutely eliminate a behavior. Every action has diminishing returns.
I can remove some of the heat from an object by putting it in the fridge. I can remove more by putting it in the freezer, but that requires more energy. I can remove even more by using more and more sophisticated scientific equipment, but I can never reduce the temperature to absolute zero. That doesn't mean the soda in my fridge isn't colder than one on the counter.
Perfect results aren't obtainable except in trivial cases.
To your point though diminishing returns. When is it worth it. You've just a conceded that enforcing said laws don't actually prevent the crime. I would say enforcement never prevents any crime and enforcement is about punishment not prevention. So when is it worth it? What level totalitarianism an authoritarianism is worth it? How much abuse and Injustice is necessary to assuage your fears about the other? Surely you're not going to sit here and tell me only fear of punishment is what stops you from murdering people?
Saying "enforcement never prevents any crime" is just naive. Say what you want about the american justice system, but even over there, they've incarcerated repeat offenders of assault, robbery, etc. where the incarceration itself most definitely prevents them from harming more people.
If you're talking about actual prevention, just look to the programs enforced in several European countries that have provably been very effective in taking people who have been living off crime and turning them into productive citizens of society.
Yes, it's been shown several times that fear of punishment is extremely ineffective at preventing crime. That doesn't mean law enforcement doesn't prevent crime. Putting a person that abuses their family in jail most definitely prevents them from continuing to abuse their family.
I would say enforcement never prevents any crime and enforcement is about punishment not prevention. So when is it worth it? What level totalitarianism an authoritarianism is worth it? How much abuse and Injustice is necessary to assuage your fears about the other? Surely you're not going to sit here and tell me only fear of punishment is what stops you from murdering people?
What if we focused on resolving systemic issues that might provide motivation to prevent crime? What if we focused on rehabilitation instead of punishment for those that commit crimes anyway?
Sure, you can take any idea to an extreme strawman and shriek things like "authoritarianism!" but that means nothing.
You've just a conceded that enforcing said laws don't actually prevent the crime
Except I didn't concede that? I said enforcing laws doesn't totally eliminate crime, in the same way that putting a soda in the fridge doesn't drop the temperature to 0K. Enforcing laws reduces crime.
I would say enforcement never prevents any crime
I would say you're demonstrably incorrect.
and enforcement is about punishment not prevention.
Punishment is the method of prevention. Additionally, incarceration is in part about removing law breakers from polite society so they do not continue to break laws. We quarantine the murderers so they don't keep murdering people.
So when is it worth it?
As with most things in life, we decide on a reasonable compromise. Putting a soda in the fridge is beneficial, putting it in the freezer is too much, and causes more problems than it solves. We decide these things collectively as a society, by electing representatives to draft laws. When they overstep, we elect new representatives to change the laws.
How much abuse and Injustice is necessary to assuage your fears about the other?
What's abusive and unjust about trying to prevent murderers? Where's the justice for victims and their families if as a society we just say "Golly, sorry this guy killed your children, but if we punished him we'd be just as bad"? How do you recommend reducing the injustices people enact against each other?
Surely you're not going to sit here and tell me only fear of punishment is what stops you from murdering people?
Me personally? Of course not. But obviously some people want to do crimes. You can't build a society based on everyone behaving just like you all the time. Some people are more violent, or greedy, or deceptive. We are barely domesticated apes, jungle impulses course through us all. Some more than others. Without some mechanism to curtail that, consequences that outweigh the benefits of selfish behavior, you wind up back at might-makes-right anyway when the selfish behave selfishly with no recourse.
Theoretically maybe, but empirically, humanity was completely unstructured at the beginning and currently not a single anarchist society exists. Why do you think everyone transformed into various kinds of nation-states eventually? Because nation-states were exceptionally good at filling that "power vacuum". To overpower nation-states, something at least comparable is needed. Transnational corporations/syndicates/unions, something like that.
Which ones? There are few places on Earth that are not under practical control of a formal government and legal system, and most of those places are either unpopulated or controlled by various local power brokers.
Do those guys build their own roads, pipes for water and heat, homes, bake bread, make drugs, provide healthcare? Or do they depend on external nation-states and their economy to exist?
It seems like a pretty good reason to exclude them, considering the criticism being discuss was specifically that they would inevitably decay in to a "might makes right" situation. Communities existing in a situation where police and courts would prevent someone from taking over by force disqualifies them from disproving this hypothesis.
there simply isn't evidence of some causal mechanism by anarchist societies must decay. their hypothesis can't be proven. I didn't even know how it could be tested.
In the context of previous message I meant anarchist society comparable to state, at least very small state. Not just a club of shared interests with members living their lives in regular nation-states. Do you have any examples in mind?
I think that if humanity can manage to survive long enough, anarchism is inevitable.
It's essentially the adult stage of human society - the point at which humans collectively and consistently, rather than just individually and situationally, can be trusted to generally do the right thing simply because it's the right thing and therefore the most reasonable thing to do.
For the time being and the foreseeable future though, humanity is nowhere even close to that. Through the course of history, human society has managed to advance to about the equivalent of adolescence. There's still a long way to go.
In spite of that, I do identify as an anarchist, but my advocacy is focused on the ideal and the steps humanity as a whole has to take to achieve it. I think it's plainly obvious that it cannot be implemented, since any mechanism by which it might be inplemented would necessarily violate the very principles that define it. It can only be willingly adopted by each and all (or close enough as makes no meaningful difference), and that point will come whenever (if) it comes.
Even when people will do the right thing in 99.99% of situations, there will still need to be rules.
Just take a look at how game theory works. Anyone exploiting those mechanism in a group even if only one in a thousand, could devastate a society in no time , if it's naive enough to not have rules and norms for correct behavior, even when they are not usually needed.
I do like your thinking though, and I also have dreams of a future society where criminals are not punished but nurtured. Because it must have been awful to have been in a state of mind, to want to do something to hurt others.
I'm not sure it's possible though. But it is the ideal we should hopefully at some point strive for. But there still needs to be standards or "rules" for when people need help to be readjusted to functioning normally in society, if they get "confused".
But I still don't think anarchy will work, because so many things will need to be structured, and societies are getting bigger and more complex, which increases the need for rules to make societies work. So instead of anarchy I think we must expect more rules not fewer.
But probably in the future, many rules will be for machines and not for humans?
OK so how are the rules upheld?
A democracy is a rule by the people who are ruled. What function would make anarchy better?
Who is this ruler that isn't present? How are rules decided? Who enforces those rules?
The only way I see to perform these functions rationally is by democracy.
Democracy (proper democracy) is literally a social contract my dude. Anarchism uses democracy and consensus to make decisions. Are laws the only thing keeping you from not doing things??
In a democracy you give your vote and have no say afterwards.
In an anarchy people need to work out their social rules together.
There could also be Anarchist societies with a police force, that ensures the basic democratically created roles of that society are followed - like protecting people from just more muscle who want to rape or steal from them.
It could be? Being a democracy or using democracy as a tool for decision making doesn't mean it has to happen through government. If you've ever made a decision with a friend group via popular vote, does that make you a government? Or did you exercise authority over your friends when they all agreed popular vote was okay to decide where to eat out? I wager neither
And fyi, you're thinking of a representative democracy, which is rarely ever truly fair, especially considering the scale it's supposedly applied to.
Yes laws are the reason I drive on the right for instance. It is very practical that we all use the same laws in traffic.
Now you may think this is obvious, but compared to many other things, traffic is dead simple. Without regulations it will be chaos, and meaningful form of anarchy is chaos.
You can't have consensus on everything in any society, it's impossible, so if Anarchy is merely democracy, why than call it anarchy?
Because anarchy isn't chaos my dude. And funny you should bring up traffic laws considering many countries have different traffic laws - and yet no one has an issue with that. Hasn't disturbed anyone.
Anarchy isn't just democracy (which technically, democracy is a no-cracy since the "power" being in the hands of the people - aka everyone - makes it obsolete, so there isn't really a -cracy). Anarchism looks at existing systems and unravels them little by little and pinpoints which aspects of our behaviour and our lives have been dictated by what - and how they would be different if no one forced them to be so. In an anarchist society there wouldn't be much to agree on concerning traffic safety because, simply put, it would follow the standard method of figuring out what works, like how traffic laws are mostly made now. Only difference is if a rule was deemed unhelpful or harmful, the people could contest it a lot more easily because they give a shit about their loved one's safety
funny you should bring up traffic laws considering many countries have different traffic laws - and yet no one has an issue with that. Hasn’t disturbed anyone.
Oh boy maybe I should just rest my case here. Who claimed the rules had to be the same in different countries? Choosing to drive on the left or right is completely arbitrary, which is why a decision needs to be made to improve the flow of traffic and lower accidents. Without rules for traffic it would be chaotic.
Your response is arguing a complete strawman, why the fuck would I have a problem with a tiny island like Japan and Great Britain drive on the left?
What I DO have an issue with is ghost drivers on the Autobahn that drive in the wrong side of the road at high speed.
How is that not obvious? ... Well I guess it's not obvious in much the same way it's not obvious to you that anarchy can't work at scale much beyond small tribal groups.
You can’t have consensus on everything in any society, it’s impossible, so if Anarchy is merely democracy, why than call it anarchy?
That's why you default to a vote in cases where consensus is impossible
because it's about the abolishment of unjust heirarchy, please read the work of proudhon, bakunin, or kropotkin before giving your opinions on anarchism.
next you'll say "but there are so many laws and so little time for normal people, how can we vote and do consensus on everything?"
to which I will respond, can you point me to a historical example of this being a problem?
You may then say, there's never been any anarchist societies
Oh boy I love how the Freetown Christiania is first on that list. Since that's a place I actually know very well.
You list is bullshit, that's like saying 5 friends are an anarchist society. Those are NOT self governing societies. They are under the rules of countries.
If any are not, they are probably just very small cult like communities.
They do not run factories power-plants, electricity grids, infrastructure or anything of any serious scale, and are in no way models for how to run a country.
Freetown Christiania had lots of problems with crime, and they also had huge problem of elitism as in very few people actually decided everything, the power structure is/was very much based on who had lived there from the beginning.
All this anarchy idealism/ideology is bullshit that doesn't work in real self governing societies. Of course it can work for small groups, like what the fuck, just because I live in a street where we help each other, we don't form a government and police for that!
Christiana may have called themselves autonomous, but they never where in any meaningful sense of the word. And the truth is they needed help from criminal rocker gangs to get rid of widespread sales of hard drugs. And later they chose to legalize according to Danish law, and called on help from the real police to get rid of the remaining drug sales. Christiana today a mostly normal part of Copenhagen today, but maybe still influenced more than average by the 70's flower power roots, although there was never any flower power in the way that society was run.
Christiania was always 100% depending on the normal society they existed within, the dependence wasn't superficial either but for EVERYTHING, Jobs, hospitals, doctors, sewage, electricity.
Christiania was never much more than a football club deciding to play by their own rules. They can do that, but they still live in a society where everything is governed by the rules of the country and the city.
I'm sorry, but your dream is an impossible lie. And you just proved your complete inability to demonstrate any self governing society of any significant size that function by a system of anarchy. By significant size, I'd say it needs to be at least 50000 people, to have any significance to show it as a working model at a scale above a tiny tribal community where everybody mostly know each other.
That it's basically the lefty equivalent to a libertarian. Both of those philosophies seem juvenile to me in a "I don't want to, and you can't make me" kind of way. Call me old fashioned, but I like structure as long as it's not totalitarian. I'm happy to pay taxes as long as they're going toward the benefit of society. Granted, that largely hasn't been the case, but I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater either.
Recent events have also highlighted how much my taxes actually were going toward the betterment of society (though still not nearly enough), and that I had taken them for granted until they were recently axed/defunded.
ITT: Nobody has any idea what any anarchist philosopher ever said or believed and simply thinks it means no rules
They then strut victoriously, thinking they are smarter than every anarchist philosopher who has ever existed because they know that rules matter in a society, not realizing that no anarchist thinker has ever said "let's just have no rules or organization and just see how it goes based on the vibes"
How’s about this: name me one functioning country of significant size (i.e. not just a commune) that functions on an anarchistic model. Demonstrate via examples that this system actually works in practice.
edit: I also think it's important to mention that this system has not been given a fair shot, we would not do science where variables aren't controlled, and there are outside forces that desperately want this system to fail.
Every single powerful person, every single wealthy person wants anarchism to fail desperately, because it would invalidate their reason for existing. It is impossible to name even one settlement that wasn't attacked/influenced by very poweful outside forces.
Anarchist response would be "people who want functioning sewers, which should be everybody."
Yeah it's a dirty job. So is wiping your ass. Does someone need to threaten you to wipe your ass? Take a shower? When your toilet breaks at home do you shrug and just shit on the bathroom floor?
I think you may underestimate the impact of sewage backing up into your home :D
You are right though. Tragedy of the commons is a catch22. When everything is everyone's problem, nothing is anyone's problem. This occurs in EVERY political system though, and they still function.
Yes, capitalist republics compensate for this by paying others more for these jobs. Authoritarian states push people into these jobs. I’m not sure how this gets addressed in an anarchistic society in practical terms.
I'm of the opinion that an anarchist society is probably the wrong way, but incorporating anarchist ideals into things, such as "no really you actually are responsible for everyTHING (not everyone) around you" and "you are the only person who is capable of being responsible for your own choices, opinions and decisions." and "consider the consequences of your actions before doing what you are told" and "a just hierarchy is one you are free to join and leave as required, and without coersion", we can actually improve even our current system.
honestly people like to talk about about moneyless societies but I'd imagine it would still be around for a while. I imagine a system where people chip into a fund to provide a bounty of sorts for jobs that require extreme skill or a strong stomach.
Given that an anarchist society wouldn't have capitalists, I Imagine that wages, if they still existed, would be substantially different than they are today.
I would think the desire for flush toilets would be enough, but if you think people need extrinsic motivation there is room for that.
I have mucked a sewer line before. I don’t think anyone who hasn’t actually handled sewage should really take a second to ask if they would step up to do this and are they even capable of doing so (I cannot at 50 do this anymore).
This is where anti-capitalist ideologies have a shortcoming that needs to be considered as we have to move away from capitalism.
I can't deny there are dirty jobs that nobody would do on a lark or as a hobby or even a calling.
A busted sewer is a community emergency. You can ask the infirm, the pregnant, the elderly "what are you willing to do to support our efforts to fix the sewer?" And the answer might be cook some large meals, care for the children, or take someone's regular job for a week
Yes, everyone will be side eyeing young, strong, men (and maybe women) to take the lead on fixing the sewer. There might be promises to make it up to them later. A fifty year old with carpentry experience might offer to expand a house install new cabinets if they will help with the sewer. I do think there are things that others can do to support a major effort like that.
My experience organizing non-profit events have shown that most people actually have no problem doing dirty jobs for no material compensation. If the following things are true:
They understand why the job is important
They feel responsible for the job (usually comes from being given autonomy and trust)
They get recognition for doing it (social rewards are actually very powerful)
No one else is getting compensated either.
I understand that this seems foreign to a lot of people, because this is not how work is generally motivated in capitalist society. You are used to your job being rather unimportant, with little autonomy, little trust, not much recognition from society and some people definitely profiting more than others. Your primary motivator is the threat of violence (via homelessness, starvation etc.), so it's hard to imagine what would happen if that was removed.
That to me is the core idea of Anarchism, to base your organization on volontary cooperation rather than coercion.
An interesting side-note is that the people who do the dirty jobs in these circumstances often take great pride in it, forming an identify around doing what others are not willing to and calling attention to it as a way to get more recognition.
I assumed it was just a very dirty, tough job requiring some specialized equipment and skills. Are you saying it's somehow fundamentally different from other human activities?
Yes I believe organizing and doing are very different and sewer work falls firmly into an area of work that most wouldn't do without substantial gain for that work. Humans are not inherently altruistic on that level
Perhaps it was a poor choice of words, when I said "organizing" I meant everything required to run an event (with thousands attending). From planning and programming to picking trash and cleaning toilets.
Idk, ive fixed a pothole or two that bothered me near home, but yeah, I'm not doing a whole city lol
I think though that once people realize the onus is on them to fix things, people will start to fix things. Provided of course, that they have the means and ability to do so.
And then, there are still companies which can be hired to do these things, provided someone is willing to pay them
Thats something I find fascinating. People hear anarchy and assume the end of commerce because it would inherently mean an end to capitalism, presuming we arent talking about some weird ancap philosophy that I can't make sense.
Commerce has happened for forever, and changing forms of government will not change that.
Thats not the part I find fascinating though, its that people discussing anarchy tend to cede this argument without a fight.
If you do so, an implied argument of anarchy gets lost: "there is no such thing as unskilled labor."
This isnt generally considered a point for anarchy, but it is. In an anarchist system, you have the agency to decide your role in your community. This means you WILL specialize, as we all do as humans; even the generalists of us aren't generalists at everything. I for one would make a shitty translator, as i only speak English.
There would need to be some means of getting labor done by someone who knew how to do it, this ought to feel natural to most of us anyway... I mean I assume you guys try to help your friends at stuff you are good at that they aren't. I similarly assume you're generally compensated for this behavior, even if it isnt with currency as we generally consider it.
People calling themselves anarchists seem to reliably be less of a red flag than when they call themselves communists.
I think there's a lot of sentiment to sympathize with and a lot of ideas to learn about.
Implementation of anarchism seems hard and maybe sometimes a bit naïve, but on the other hand I don't actually understand the specifics nor is there any one opinion.
Anarvhism refers to a vlass of ideologies moreso than any one in specific.
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.
Anarchists are not against government, they're against the state, and these are two different things.
They are also not against rules, there's no power vacuum because power is held by consensus. I don't think you've ever read an anarchist philosopher, based on this take.
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.
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.
I should not have to change that i'm an anarchist when I know what the word means, just because people are using it to mean something else, it's the political philosophers that established it that get to own the term, not colloquial speech.
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.
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.
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.
Technically the whole world runs on pure anarchism. No rules, only those created by local groups. With agreements between some of the groups. Most of it enforced by violence.
Laws only exist because most people believe in them. For the rest they are enforced with violence. I believe that anarchy would result in a similar system. Most people would behave but some would not. To protect everyone eventually some kind of police and laws would form again.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
When I was younger, I believed that it was an ideal worth striving for. Now I don't have that much faith in people anymore and I think that the best you can ask for is to try to live life your way and stay true to your beliefs and morals as best you can, according to whatever circumstances that you've been given.
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.
Nestor Makhno and his Makhnovists weren't perfect but I think its probably the closest we're going to get to seeing a working anarchist society. It seemed like it worked for a short time.
Also note the mutial aid systems that spring up in the wake of some disasters could probably be considered temporary anarchist societies. Rebecca Solenit wrote a book about this but I haven't gotten a chance to read it yet. A Paradise Built in Hell. I hear its good but I can't say that with firsthand knowledge
Its interesting idea but i wonder if humans are capable of running it beyond so small groups that it wouldnt matter. It would require huge amount of planning and creative thinking to get anarchy working in such way it would benefit everyone and to mitigate its problems.
Then there is also the problem of our current system influencing the new system. Lets say we manage somehow overthrow the current opression and start implementing somekind of anarchy that has been planned in such way it functions beneficially for everyone. By its nature, there couldnt be any authority that defines what anarchy is by its core since it would be up to the people themselves.
I can imagine anarchy easily fragmenting into pieces and then some pieces gaining more support than others and then we would have several competing ideas. Ultimately one would win and others might or might not survive too. And then we would have new ruling system that is probably not anarchy. I dont mean this would happen immediately but eventually. So there would need to be somekind of defensive system against that that would prevent harmful ideas from gaining power, but how to make something like that without it becoming oppressive? And how do you restrict anarchy in the first place since the whole point is there is no central authority? And if you try to have authority that isnt central, you end up with multiple ones that become central authority within their area of influence.
Maybe i'm not as well versed on anarchy as i should to be throwing these thoughts around, but these are some thoughts i have on the subject. As far as i know, anarchism is that people make the rules themselves instead of there being central authority that tells them what to do.
So ultimately anarchism is idea that would require a lot of planning and researching to be even considered worth trying if you want to implement it in controlled way. And i dont see any government allowing such planning to happen since it would be direct threat to them if you manage to create something that is worth trying. And very likely if they still were to allow it, they would just want to influence your work in such way they gain more power from it at the expense of others. And if we had some government that would want it because they want what is good for everyone, then wouldnt that government type be what you wanted to have with anarchy in the first place? Anarchy for sake of itself doesnt seem very useful.
And if you want to implement it "naturally" by just removing all authorities and allowing people to settle things by themselves, i think we can all imagine how that would go.
When I think about it that way, anarchism seems more like "initialization" or starting point where you start building something more complex. Everything we currently have is founded on anarchism afterall, at least i dont think first humans could have had any other system. You cant really hold on to it because it will change either by the people or by the power that wants to preserve it.
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.
Aka you heard about it, did no reading on theory and slowly the capitalist culture you lived in burned your brain down. That's what happens when you don't have any actual education about something.
Guys, he actually doesn't know about anarchism. Bro nobody mention the zapatistas or WW2 Catalonia Spain to this guy. George Orwell, more like George nobody amiright? Bro actually thinks anarchism is when you're homeless.
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 would. An anarchist system requires participation at all ends from just about everyone. If you forfeith your vote once, you'll forfeight it again, not because of a conscious choice, but because you empowered others to make your choice for you in the first place.
Anarchy is not about comfort. Its about freedom, as nebulous as that term is, and freedom, as has been said many many times, is not free.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Anarchy is the worst a society can devolve into.
And people who believe that certain anarchy "models" can work, know nothing about the psychology of larger groups.
When large groups of people need to live together there needs to be structure and rules that must be respected, and the rules need to be upheld by a governing body.
The best way we have to form that governing body is democracy.
When large groups of people need to live together there needs to be structure and rules that must be respected, and the rules need to be upheld by a governing body.
As I stated, people defending anarchy doesn't understand the psychology of larger groups.
I can only say that EVERY successful society has a central government. If Anarchy could work as well, how come there are no successful anarchy societies?
Not as in so few, but NONE! If it should work so well, why has no country ever even tried?
When a country is thrown into anarchy because the government is removed, and nothing replaces it. It always turns out the same. Extreme violence, theft and hunger.
That's what is shown to happen when Anarchy reigns.
In December 2008, the murder of 15-year-old Alexandros Grigoropoulos by a policeman in Exarcheia caused rioting throughout Greece.
I have no idea what you are trying to argue here, but as far as I can tell Exarcheia is neither self governing or has anarchy and it isn't in Paris, but in Greece???
You are extremely sloppy at trying to arguing your point.
I'm not sure, but I think maybe you are using USA as the norm, but USA is not a good example of a democracy, it is ranked as a FLAWED democracy. And it's been my opinion for more than a decade that USA is ranked way too high. An essentially 2 party system is not a real democracy.
Life is untenable for the majority already, it will get worse.
All the countries with the highest democracy ranks, have way less poverty than USA, also when USA is the far richer country, all have healthcare for all, free education, and also generally people have high satisfaction about their lives.
I agree USA has devolved badly in many ways since the start of the 80's. Hopefully it will turn around at some point. But it's hard to see it taking on a lasting course for improvements without a pretty serious modernization of their democracy, and cleaning up the corruption and exaggerated power of the super rich.
Oh you mean a democracy that isn't flawed like the USA.
Scandinavian countries have direct democracy, as in voting on their representatives directly, and they are in no way anarchist.
Maybe you mean general elections on every detail of law, but again, that's impossible, it's stupid, it's a waste of time and resources to have people decide how farmers interact with suppliers and dairy, something 99.9% of all people have no knowledge of.
It's stupid because it's impossible. You could also say it's decidedly insane.
Maybe you mean general elections on every detail of law, but again, that's impossible, it's stupid, it's a waste of time and resources to have people decide how farmers interact with suppliers and dairy, something 99.9% of all people have no knowledge of.
this is not a problem in any real world anarchist society that has ever existed, can you give one example of this being a problem? What actually happens is building law through consensus, look at the way the zapatistas organize for example.
showing up to the meetings isn't mandatory, but they have one day off where everyone is allowed to participate, in the event of a tie, they vote, but most decisions are made through consensus.
also I think you vastly overestimate how much laws need to be changed, lawmakers will not endlessly go back and forth about unimportant things. did you know most members of congress in the US don't even read the bills they sign? How much work is it really to help with making law once a week or so?
representative democracy is not direct democracy to be clear
Oh boy I love how the Freetown Christiania is first on that list. Since that's a place I actually know very well.
You list is bullshit, that's like saying 5 friends are an anarchist society. Those are NOT self governing societies. They are under the rules of countries.
If any are not, they are probably just very small cult like communities.
They do not run factories power-plants, electricity grids, infrastructure or anything of any serious scale, and are in no way models for how to run a country.
Freetown Christiania had lots of problems with crime, and they also had huge problem of elitism as in very few people actually decided everything, the power structure is/was very much based on who had lived there from the beginning.
All this anarchy idealism/ideology is bullshit that doesn't work in real self governing societies. Of course it can work for small groups, like what the fuck, just because I live in a street where we help each other, we don't form a government and police for that!
Christiana may have called themselves autonomous, but they never where in any meaningful sense of the word. And the truth is they needed help from criminal rocker gangs to get rid of widespread sales of hard drugs. And later they chose to legalize according to Danish law, and called on help from the real police to get rid of the remaining drug sales. Christiana today a mostly normal part of Copenhagen today, but maybe still influenced more than average by the 70's flower power roots, although there was never any flower power in the way that society was run.
Christiania was always 100% depending on the normal society they existed within, the dependence wasn't superficial either but for EVERYTHING, Jobs, hospitals, doctors, sewage, electricity.
Christiania was never much more than a football club deciding to play by their own rules. They can do that, but they still live in a society where everything is governed by the rules of the country and the city.
I'm sorry, but your dream is an impossible lie. And you just proved your complete inability to demonstrate any self governing society of any significant size that function by a system of anarchy. By significant size, I'd say it needs to be at least 50000 people, to have any significance to show it as a working model at a scale above a tiny tribal community where everybody mostly know each other.
I don't know anything about or care about christiana, so, i'll just assume you're right about all that, but it really doesn't matter. Problems with one society do not mean the ideology is fundamentally flawed, it just means that society was flawed, you'll have to demonstrate issues with the fundamental ideology that apply to all anarchist societies, not some of them.
"They are usually destroyed by outside forces"
By significant size, I’d say it needs to be at least 50000 people
again you haven't even begun to research the topic, but are very confident.
before you say, revolutionary catalonia doesn't exist anymore, yeah, that's what happens when fascists destroy you with a military, you'll note none of the issue was internal politics...
Every single capitalist country immediately dogpiles and tries to destroy any anarchist movement, that doesn't mean anarchism is fundamentally flawed.
198 Comments
NaibofTabr@infosec.pub · 43 pts · 1y
In the absence of other power structures (political, legal, religious, economic, etc) whoever has the means and willingness to do violence will exert their will over others. Unstructured societies always devolve into might makes right.
naeap@sopuli.xyz · 18 pts · 1y
There is a difference between Anomie and anarchy
Just because there are no leaders/rulers, doesn't mean there are no social rules or morale values.
A law doesn't keep one from doing bad stuff.
Else we wouldn't have murderers.
But society must grow and develop. At the current state anarchy probably wouldn't work...
breadcat@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 1y
that's true, they need to be enforced somehow....
njm1314@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1y
They're enforced now but murder still happens.
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 1y
That doesn't prove that not enforcing them would somehow make murder disappear, it just proves that you can't absolutely eliminate a behavior. Every action has diminishing returns.
I can remove some of the heat from an object by putting it in the fridge. I can remove more by putting it in the freezer, but that requires more energy. I can remove even more by using more and more sophisticated scientific equipment, but I can never reduce the temperature to absolute zero. That doesn't mean the soda in my fridge isn't colder than one on the counter.
Perfect results aren't obtainable except in trivial cases.
njm1314@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 1y
To your point though diminishing returns. When is it worth it. You've just a conceded that enforcing said laws don't actually prevent the crime. I would say enforcement never prevents any crime and enforcement is about punishment not prevention. So when is it worth it? What level totalitarianism an authoritarianism is worth it? How much abuse and Injustice is necessary to assuage your fears about the other? Surely you're not going to sit here and tell me only fear of punishment is what stops you from murdering people?
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
Saying "enforcement never prevents any crime" is just naive. Say what you want about the american justice system, but even over there, they've incarcerated repeat offenders of assault, robbery, etc. where the incarceration itself most definitely prevents them from harming more people.
If you're talking about actual prevention, just look to the programs enforced in several European countries that have provably been very effective in taking people who have been living off crime and turning them into productive citizens of society.
Yes, it's been shown several times that fear of punishment is extremely ineffective at preventing crime. That doesn't mean law enforcement doesn't prevent crime. Putting a person that abuses their family in jail most definitely prevents them from continuing to abuse their family.
theparadox@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
What if we focused on resolving systemic issues that might provide motivation to prevent crime? What if we focused on rehabilitation instead of punishment for those that commit crimes anyway?
Sure, you can take any idea to an extreme strawman and shriek things like "authoritarianism!" but that means nothing.
breadcat@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1y
we should do all that and have law enforcement
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 1y
Except I didn't concede that? I said enforcing laws doesn't totally eliminate crime, in the same way that putting a soda in the fridge doesn't drop the temperature to 0K. Enforcing laws reduces crime.
I would say you're demonstrably incorrect.
Punishment is the method of prevention. Additionally, incarceration is in part about removing law breakers from polite society so they do not continue to break laws. We quarantine the murderers so they don't keep murdering people.
As with most things in life, we decide on a reasonable compromise. Putting a soda in the fridge is beneficial, putting it in the freezer is too much, and causes more problems than it solves. We decide these things collectively as a society, by electing representatives to draft laws. When they overstep, we elect new representatives to change the laws.
What's abusive and unjust about trying to prevent murderers? Where's the justice for victims and their families if as a society we just say "Golly, sorry this guy killed your children, but if we punished him we'd be just as bad"? How do you recommend reducing the injustices people enact against each other?
Me personally? Of course not. But obviously some people want to do crimes. You can't build a society based on everyone behaving just like you all the time. Some people are more violent, or greedy, or deceptive. We are barely domesticated apes, jungle impulses course through us all. Some more than others. Without some mechanism to curtail that, consequences that outweigh the benefits of selfish behavior, you wind up back at might-makes-right anyway when the selfish behave selfishly with no recourse.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 2 pts · 1y
In anarchism, usually policing is handled rotationally, like most positions of authority.
breadcat@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1y
what do you do if there's not enough people that want and are skilled enough to fill the positions
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 4 pts · 1y
What do you do if that happens in non-anarchist societies?
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 1y
you can't prove this
hisao@ani.social · 7 pts · 1y
Theoretically maybe, but empirically, humanity was completely unstructured at the beginning and currently not a single anarchist society exists. Why do you think everyone transformed into various kinds of nation-states eventually? Because nation-states were exceptionally good at filling that "power vacuum". To overpower nation-states, something at least comparable is needed. Transnational corporations/syndicates/unions, something like that.
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 1y
that's a lie
jrs100000@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
Which ones? There are few places on Earth that are not under practical control of a formal government and legal system, and most of those places are either unpopulated or controlled by various local power brokers.
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 1y
exarcheia and anabaptist sects come directly to mind, but you've just excluded them for some reason. it seems like no-true Scotsman to me.
hisao@ani.social · 5 pts · 1y
Do those guys build their own roads, pipes for water and heat, homes, bake bread, make drugs, provide healthcare? Or do they depend on external nation-states and their economy to exist?
jrs100000@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
It seems like a pretty good reason to exclude them, considering the criticism being discuss was specifically that they would inevitably decay in to a "might makes right" situation. Communities existing in a situation where police and courts would prevent someone from taking over by force disqualifies them from disproving this hypothesis.
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 1y
there simply isn't evidence of some causal mechanism by anarchist societies must decay. their hypothesis can't be proven. I didn't even know how it could be tested.
hisao@ani.social · 1 pts · 1y
In the context of previous message I meant anarchist society comparable to state, at least very small state. Not just a club of shared interests with members living their lives in regular nation-states. Do you have any examples in mind?
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 1y
a what?!
hisao@ani.social · 2 pts · 1y
Something that can replace state, at least basic stuff like economy and infrastructure.
breadcat@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 1y
they're going to say rojava lol
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 2 pts · 1y
https://anarwiki.org/List_of_Anarchist_Societies
Also, you list syndicates as an example, which is an anarchist belief.
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 1y
can you cite this?
WatDabney@sopuli.xyz · 29 pts · 1y
I think that if humanity can manage to survive long enough, anarchism is inevitable.
It's essentially the adult stage of human society - the point at which humans collectively and consistently, rather than just individually and situationally, can be trusted to generally do the right thing simply because it's the right thing and therefore the most reasonable thing to do.
For the time being and the foreseeable future though, humanity is nowhere even close to that. Through the course of history, human society has managed to advance to about the equivalent of adolescence. There's still a long way to go.
In spite of that, I do identify as an anarchist, but my advocacy is focused on the ideal and the steps humanity as a whole has to take to achieve it. I think it's plainly obvious that it cannot be implemented, since any mechanism by which it might be inplemented would necessarily violate the very principles that define it. It can only be willingly adopted by each and all (or close enough as makes no meaningful difference), and that point will come whenever (if) it comes.
Buffalox@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1y
Even when people will do the right thing in 99.99% of situations, there will still need to be rules.
Just take a look at how game theory works. Anyone exploiting those mechanism in a group even if only one in a thousand, could devastate a society in no time , if it's naive enough to not have rules and norms for correct behavior, even when they are not usually needed.
I do like your thinking though, and I also have dreams of a future society where criminals are not punished but nurtured. Because it must have been awful to have been in a state of mind, to want to do something to hurt others.
I'm not sure it's possible though. But it is the ideal we should hopefully at some point strive for. But there still needs to be standards or "rules" for when people need help to be readjusted to functioning normally in society, if they get "confused".
But I still don't think anarchy will work, because so many things will need to be structured, and societies are getting bigger and more complex, which increases the need for rules to make societies work. So instead of anarchy I think we must expect more rules not fewer.
But probably in the future, many rules will be for machines and not for humans?
Nemo@slrpnk.net · 21 pts · 1y
Anarchy doesn't mean no rules, it means no rulers.
Buffalox@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
OK so how are the rules upheld?
A democracy is a rule by the people who are ruled. What function would make anarchy better?
Who is this ruler that isn't present? How are rules decided? Who enforces those rules?
The only way I see to perform these functions rationally is by democracy.
pip@slrpnk.net · 11 pts · 1y
Democracy (proper democracy) is literally a social contract my dude. Anarchism uses democracy and consensus to make decisions. Are laws the only thing keeping you from not doing things??
Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 1y
naeap@sopuli.xyz · 7 pts · 1y
No, as there are no leaders
In a democracy you give your vote and have no say afterwards.
In an anarchy people need to work out their social rules together.
There could also be Anarchist societies with a police force, that ensures the basic democratically created roles of that society are followed - like protecting people from just more muscle who want to rape or steal from them.
iii@mander.xyz · 5 pts · 1y
You're restricting democracy to mean representative democracy?
pip@slrpnk.net · 6 pts · 1y
It could be? Being a democracy or using democracy as a tool for decision making doesn't mean it has to happen through government. If you've ever made a decision with a friend group via popular vote, does that make you a government? Or did you exercise authority over your friends when they all agreed popular vote was okay to decide where to eat out? I wager neither
And fyi, you're thinking of a representative democracy, which is rarely ever truly fair, especially considering the scale it's supposedly applied to.
Buffalox@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
Yes laws are the reason I drive on the right for instance. It is very practical that we all use the same laws in traffic.
Now you may think this is obvious, but compared to many other things, traffic is dead simple. Without regulations it will be chaos, and meaningful form of anarchy is chaos.
You can't have consensus on everything in any society, it's impossible, so if Anarchy is merely democracy, why than call it anarchy?
pip@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 1y
Because anarchy isn't chaos my dude. And funny you should bring up traffic laws considering many countries have different traffic laws - and yet no one has an issue with that. Hasn't disturbed anyone.
Anarchy isn't just democracy (which technically, democracy is a no-cracy since the "power" being in the hands of the people - aka everyone - makes it obsolete, so there isn't really a -cracy). Anarchism looks at existing systems and unravels them little by little and pinpoints which aspects of our behaviour and our lives have been dictated by what - and how they would be different if no one forced them to be so. In an anarchist society there wouldn't be much to agree on concerning traffic safety because, simply put, it would follow the standard method of figuring out what works, like how traffic laws are mostly made now. Only difference is if a rule was deemed unhelpful or harmful, the people could contest it a lot more easily because they give a shit about their loved one's safety
Buffalox@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
Oh boy maybe I should just rest my case here. Who claimed the rules had to be the same in different countries? Choosing to drive on the left or right is completely arbitrary, which is why a decision needs to be made to improve the flow of traffic and lower accidents. Without rules for traffic it would be chaotic.
Your response is arguing a complete strawman, why the fuck would I have a problem with a tiny island like Japan and Great Britain drive on the left?
What I DO have an issue with is ghost drivers on the Autobahn that drive in the wrong side of the road at high speed. How is that not obvious? ... Well I guess it's not obvious in much the same way it's not obvious to you that anarchy can't work at scale much beyond small tribal groups.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 1 pts · 1y
next you'll say "but there are so many laws and so little time for normal people, how can we vote and do consensus on everything?"
to which I will respond, can you point me to a historical example of this being a problem?
You may then say, there's never been any anarchist societies
https://anarwiki.org/List_of_Anarchist_Societies
Buffalox@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
Oh boy I love how the Freetown Christiania is first on that list. Since that's a place I actually know very well.
You list is bullshit, that's like saying 5 friends are an anarchist society. Those are NOT self governing societies. They are under the rules of countries.
If any are not, they are probably just very small cult like communities.
They do not run factories power-plants, electricity grids, infrastructure or anything of any serious scale, and are in no way models for how to run a country.
Freetown Christiania had lots of problems with crime, and they also had huge problem of elitism as in very few people actually decided everything, the power structure is/was very much based on who had lived there from the beginning.
All this anarchy idealism/ideology is bullshit that doesn't work in real self governing societies. Of course it can work for small groups, like what the fuck, just because I live in a street where we help each other, we don't form a government and police for that!
Christiana may have called themselves autonomous, but they never where in any meaningful sense of the word. And the truth is they needed help from criminal rocker gangs to get rid of widespread sales of hard drugs. And later they chose to legalize according to Danish law, and called on help from the real police to get rid of the remaining drug sales. Christiana today a mostly normal part of Copenhagen today, but maybe still influenced more than average by the 70's flower power roots, although there was never any flower power in the way that society was run.
Christiania was always 100% depending on the normal society they existed within, the dependence wasn't superficial either but for EVERYTHING, Jobs, hospitals, doctors, sewage, electricity. Christiania was never much more than a football club deciding to play by their own rules. They can do that, but they still live in a society where everything is governed by the rules of the country and the city.
I'm sorry, but your dream is an impossible lie. And you just proved your complete inability to demonstrate any self governing society of any significant size that function by a system of anarchy. By significant size, I'd say it needs to be at least 50000 people, to have any significance to show it as a working model at a scale above a tiny tribal community where everybody mostly know each other.
ptz@dubvee.org · 21 pts · 1y
That it's basically the lefty equivalent to a libertarian. Both of those philosophies seem juvenile to me in a "I don't want to, and you can't make me" kind of way. Call me old fashioned, but I like structure as long as it's not totalitarian. I'm happy to pay taxes as long as they're going toward the benefit of society. Granted, that largely hasn't been the case, but I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater either.
Recent events have also highlighted how much my taxes actually were going toward the betterment of society (though still not nearly enough), and that I had taken them for granted until they were recently axed/defunded.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 6 pts · 1y
Anarchists aren't against government, or even taxes, they're against the state, which is different.
you defeated a strawman, no anarchist philosopher would disagree that that would be stupid
shalafi@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 1y
You got it. Both anarchist and libertarian systems are what children come up with once they mature just enough to see how governments work.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 3 pts · 1y
Which anarchist philosophers did you read to come to that conclusion?
SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works · 19 pts · 1y
It depends on the definition
iii@mander.xyz · -5 pts · 1y
The definition is whatever you want the definition to be. Don't let others force a definition on you.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 19 pts · 1y
ITT: Nobody has any idea what any anarchist philosopher ever said or believed and simply thinks it means no rules
They then strut victoriously, thinking they are smarter than every anarchist philosopher who has ever existed because they know that rules matter in a society, not realizing that no anarchist thinker has ever said "let's just have no rules or organization and just see how it goes based on the vibes"
Tedesche@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
How’s about this: name me one functioning country of significant size (i.e. not just a commune) that functions on an anarchistic model. Demonstrate via examples that this system actually works in practice.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 0 pts · 1y
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia
edit: I also think it's important to mention that this system has not been given a fair shot, we would not do science where variables aren't controlled, and there are outside forces that desperately want this system to fail.
Every single powerful person, every single wealthy person wants anarchism to fail desperately, because it would invalidate their reason for existing. It is impossible to name even one settlement that wasn't attacked/influenced by very poweful outside forces.
Tedesche@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
This was the best you could come up with? A regime that lasted one full year?
I rest my case.
MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 1y
Anarchy sounds good to me then someone asks "Who'd fix the sewers?"
edit: This is lyrics from The Dead Kennedy’s “Where Do You Draw the Line?”
Triasha@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1y
Anarchist response would be "people who want functioning sewers, which should be everybody."
Yeah it's a dirty job. So is wiping your ass. Does someone need to threaten you to wipe your ass? Take a shower? When your toilet breaks at home do you shrug and just shit on the bathroom floor?
No, you fix the toilet. Same with the sewers.
MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1y
Ok and who does that end up being?
Triasha@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
Whoever steps up first. For a sewer, probably several people. What's your point?
MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1y
Most aren’t capable ir willing to do this work without substantial compensation above and beyond what most jobs provide.
Baaahb@feddit.nl · 6 pts · 1y
I think you may underestimate the impact of sewage backing up into your home :D
You are right though. Tragedy of the commons is a catch22. When everything is everyone's problem, nothing is anyone's problem. This occurs in EVERY political system though, and they still function.
MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1y
Yes, capitalist republics compensate for this by paying others more for these jobs. Authoritarian states push people into these jobs. I’m not sure how this gets addressed in an anarchistic society in practical terms.
Baaahb@feddit.nl · 5 pts · 1y
I'm of the opinion that an anarchist society is probably the wrong way, but incorporating anarchist ideals into things, such as "no really you actually are responsible for everyTHING (not everyone) around you" and "you are the only person who is capable of being responsible for your own choices, opinions and decisions." and "consider the consequences of your actions before doing what you are told" and "a just hierarchy is one you are free to join and leave as required, and without coersion", we can actually improve even our current system.
rami@ani.social · 5 pts · 1y
honestly people like to talk about about moneyless societies but I'd imagine it would still be around for a while. I imagine a system where people chip into a fund to provide a bounty of sorts for jobs that require extreme skill or a strong stomach.
Triasha@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
Given that an anarchist society wouldn't have capitalists, I Imagine that wages, if they still existed, would be substantially different than they are today.
I would think the desire for flush toilets would be enough, but if you think people need extrinsic motivation there is room for that.
MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
I have mucked a sewer line before. I don’t think anyone who hasn’t actually handled sewage should really take a second to ask if they would step up to do this and are they even capable of doing so (I cannot at 50 do this anymore).
This is where anti-capitalist ideologies have a shortcoming that needs to be considered as we have to move away from capitalism.
Triasha@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
I can't deny there are dirty jobs that nobody would do on a lark or as a hobby or even a calling.
A busted sewer is a community emergency. You can ask the infirm, the pregnant, the elderly "what are you willing to do to support our efforts to fix the sewer?" And the answer might be cook some large meals, care for the children, or take someone's regular job for a week
Yes, everyone will be side eyeing young, strong, men (and maybe women) to take the lead on fixing the sewer. There might be promises to make it up to them later. A fifty year old with carpentry experience might offer to expand a house install new cabinets if they will help with the sewer. I do think there are things that others can do to support a major effort like that.
kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 1y
My experience organizing non-profit events have shown that most people actually have no problem doing dirty jobs for no material compensation. If the following things are true:
I understand that this seems foreign to a lot of people, because this is not how work is generally motivated in capitalist society. You are used to your job being rather unimportant, with little autonomy, little trust, not much recognition from society and some people definitely profiting more than others. Your primary motivator is the threat of violence (via homelessness, starvation etc.), so it's hard to imagine what would happen if that was removed.
That to me is the core idea of Anarchism, to base your organization on volontary cooperation rather than coercion.
An interesting side-note is that the people who do the dirty jobs in these circumstances often take great pride in it, forming an identify around doing what others are not willing to and calling attention to it as a way to get more recognition.
MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
non-profit events and mucking a sewer are very different.
kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 1y
I assumed it was just a very dirty, tough job requiring some specialized equipment and skills. Are you saying it's somehow fundamentally different from other human activities?
MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
Yes I believe organizing and doing are very different and sewer work falls firmly into an area of work that most wouldn't do without substantial gain for that work. Humans are not inherently altruistic on that level
kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 1y
Perhaps it was a poor choice of words, when I said "organizing" I meant everything required to run an event (with thousands attending). From planning and programming to picking trash and cleaning toilets.
MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
Having cleaned many toilets it is nowhere nearly as unpleasant as the life risking work that can take place in a sewer system.
sarchar@programming.dev · 0 pts · 1y
Probably the people who own the sewers.
Let me rephrase the question, who will fix the potholes?
y0kai@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 1y
Make the libertarians do it! /s
Idk, ive fixed a pothole or two that bothered me near home, but yeah, I'm not doing a whole city lol
I think though that once people realize the onus is on them to fix things, people will start to fix things. Provided of course, that they have the means and ability to do so.
And then, there are still companies which can be hired to do these things, provided someone is willing to pay them
Baaahb@feddit.nl · 3 pts · 1y
Thats something I find fascinating. People hear anarchy and assume the end of commerce because it would inherently mean an end to capitalism, presuming we arent talking about some weird ancap philosophy that I can't make sense.
Commerce has happened for forever, and changing forms of government will not change that.
Thats not the part I find fascinating though, its that people discussing anarchy tend to cede this argument without a fight.
If you do so, an implied argument of anarchy gets lost: "there is no such thing as unskilled labor."
This isnt generally considered a point for anarchy, but it is. In an anarchist system, you have the agency to decide your role in your community. This means you WILL specialize, as we all do as humans; even the generalists of us aren't generalists at everything. I for one would make a shitty translator, as i only speak English.
There would need to be some means of getting labor done by someone who knew how to do it, this ought to feel natural to most of us anyway... I mean I assume you guys try to help your friends at stuff you are good at that they aren't. I similarly assume you're generally compensated for this behavior, even if it isnt with currency as we generally consider it.
MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
It’s a Dead Kennedy’s song and do people own the sewers in anarchist societies?
MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world · -12 pts · 1y
Someone doesn't understand what anarchism is. Opinion discarded. Please read a book and return.
DerArzt@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 1y
This is the opportunity to share resources and give them a direction to head, and you missed it.
MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 13 pts · 1y
banghida@lemm.ee · 10 pts · 1y
Pls no anarcho capitalism. A good breakdown of the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTN64g9lA2g&t=1
NaNin@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 10 pts · 1y
A lot of people think it means total chaos, but it really just means an opposition to hierarchy.
People living comfortable lives will rationalize any critique of the system away, even if that comfort is built upon emiseration and exploitation.
Sivecano@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 1y
People calling themselves anarchists seem to reliably be less of a red flag than when they call themselves communists.
I think there's a lot of sentiment to sympathize with and a lot of ideas to learn about.
Implementation of anarchism seems hard and maybe sometimes a bit naïve, but on the other hand I don't actually understand the specifics nor is there any one opinion.
Anarvhism refers to a vlass of ideologies moreso than any one in specific.
xmunk@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 1y
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.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 1 pts · 1y
Why do you think this is incompatible with anarchism?
Why can't they simply vote on such laws being absolute, and hard to change, like we currently do in non-anarchist democracies?
Why did it take them 30+ years? Why couldn't an anarchist society simply vote to build a new train line?
xmunk@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 1y
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.
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.
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.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 1 pts · 1y
Yeah, against the state, but not a government, which in anarchist philosophy are two different things.
None, but plenty of government apparatuses would exist with funding through taxes...
Usually through rotational authority, again, this shows you haven't read any anarchist philosophy.
rotational. authority.
no anarchist philosophers supported cult-like systems.
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.
Sure, it is important, but I don't see what that has to do with our discussion.
yup, that's true, don't know what it has to do with anything though.
MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 1y
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 1 pts · 1y
Anarchists are not against government, they're against the state, and these are two different things.
They are also not against rules, there's no power vacuum because power is held by consensus. I don't think you've ever read an anarchist philosopher, based on this take.
MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 1 pts · 1y
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.
I should not have to change that i'm an anarchist when I know what the word means, just because people are using it to mean something else, it's the political philosophers that established it that get to own the term, not colloquial speech.
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.
Wahots@pawb.social · 9 pts · 1y
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.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 2 pts · 1y
Which anarchist philosophers beliefs did you find foolish and young, and why? I'd love a critique!
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · -1 pts · 1y
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.
jol@discuss.tchncs.de · 6 pts · 1y
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.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · -2 pts · 1y
Lol, love when someone just hangs their whole ass out on every point of order.
jol@discuss.tchncs.de · 4 pts · 1y
Sure mate!
frankenswine@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 1y
coupled with communism it's the real shit
bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de · 8 pts · 1y
Technically the whole world runs on pure anarchism. No rules, only those created by local groups. With agreements between some of the groups. Most of it enforced by violence.
Laws only exist because most people believe in them. For the rest they are enforced with violence. I believe that anarchy would result in a similar system. Most people would behave but some would not. To protect everyone eventually some kind of police and laws would form again.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 1 pts · 1y
Anarchism has nothing to do with "no rules"
sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 1y
I see it as a guideline for how society could be structured after the elimination of class.
hisao@ani.social · 7 pts · 1y
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.
DrownedRats@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1y
Genuinely thought that said "anachronism" and was ready to go on a tirade about how cool cloaks are and how they should make a comeback
waz@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1y
Fuck yeah, I'd wear a cloak.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 6 pts · 1y
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.
kubok@fedia.io · 1 pts · 1y
Don't forget the morons who keep worshipping said pieces of shit. Even now, I run into Musk cultists regularly.
Nemo@slrpnk.net · -2 pts · 1y
So as long as the the greedy, power-hungry pieces of shit have at least some empathy, we can make it work?
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 0 pts · 1y
It at least shows they could possibly be rehabilitated.
Nemo@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 1y
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.
Adderbox76@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 1y
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.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 6 pts · 1y
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?
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
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).
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 1 pts · 1y
The consensus building forum, an example of one of these that you can research are the zapatista councils of good government
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.
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.
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.
MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
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.
Zero22xx@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 1y
When I was younger, I believed that it was an ideal worth striving for. Now I don't have that much faith in people anymore and I think that the best you can ask for is to try to live life your way and stay true to your beliefs and morals as best you can, according to whatever circumstances that you've been given.
neidu3@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 1y
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.
MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
TriflingToad@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 1y
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
Glifted@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
Nestor Makhno and his Makhnovists weren't perfect but I think its probably the closest we're going to get to seeing a working anarchist society. It seemed like it worked for a short time.
Also note the mutial aid systems that spring up in the wake of some disasters could probably be considered temporary anarchist societies. Rebecca Solenit wrote a book about this but I haven't gotten a chance to read it yet. A Paradise Built in Hell. I hear its good but I can't say that with firsthand knowledge
zlatiah@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
reksas@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 1y
Its interesting idea but i wonder if humans are capable of running it beyond so small groups that it wouldnt matter. It would require huge amount of planning and creative thinking to get anarchy working in such way it would benefit everyone and to mitigate its problems.
Then there is also the problem of our current system influencing the new system. Lets say we manage somehow overthrow the current opression and start implementing somekind of anarchy that has been planned in such way it functions beneficially for everyone. By its nature, there couldnt be any authority that defines what anarchy is by its core since it would be up to the people themselves.
I can imagine anarchy easily fragmenting into pieces and then some pieces gaining more support than others and then we would have several competing ideas. Ultimately one would win and others might or might not survive too. And then we would have new ruling system that is probably not anarchy. I dont mean this would happen immediately but eventually. So there would need to be somekind of defensive system against that that would prevent harmful ideas from gaining power, but how to make something like that without it becoming oppressive? And how do you restrict anarchy in the first place since the whole point is there is no central authority? And if you try to have authority that isnt central, you end up with multiple ones that become central authority within their area of influence.
Maybe i'm not as well versed on anarchy as i should to be throwing these thoughts around, but these are some thoughts i have on the subject. As far as i know, anarchism is that people make the rules themselves instead of there being central authority that tells them what to do.
So ultimately anarchism is idea that would require a lot of planning and researching to be even considered worth trying if you want to implement it in controlled way. And i dont see any government allowing such planning to happen since it would be direct threat to them if you manage to create something that is worth trying. And very likely if they still were to allow it, they would just want to influence your work in such way they gain more power from it at the expense of others. And if we had some government that would want it because they want what is good for everyone, then wouldnt that government type be what you wanted to have with anarchy in the first place? Anarchy for sake of itself doesnt seem very useful.
And if you want to implement it "naturally" by just removing all authorities and allowing people to settle things by themselves, i think we can all imagine how that would go.
When I think about it that way, anarchism seems more like "initialization" or starting point where you start building something more complex. Everything we currently have is founded on anarchism afterall, at least i dont think first humans could have had any other system. You cant really hold on to it because it will change either by the people or by the power that wants to preserve it.
Now this turned into kind of an essay
gimmelemmy@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
It rules!
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · 2 pts · 1y
I think liberals don't even know what it means, but insist their opinions on it need to be heard anyways, because all opinions are valid, right?
pepperprepper@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
There are already people living this lifestyle, unfortunately one only has the choice if you have lots of money.
electric_nan@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 1y
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.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · 0 pts · 1y
So you don't know any anarchists either, just the image you've seen in movies.
electric_nan@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 1y
Yes I know anarchists. I organize with them in real life.
remon@ani.social · 1 pts · 1y
I thought it was quite cool when I was a teenager. Then I grew up.
SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1y
Aka you heard about it, did no reading on theory and slowly the capitalist culture you lived in burned your brain down. That's what happens when you don't have any actual education about something.
remon@ani.social · 0 pts · 1y
No, I'm quite aware of what it is ... and concluded it to be a terrible idea.
SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
Guys, he's quite aware. All anarchist philosophy is dead! The great Concluder has spoken!
remon@ani.social · -1 pts · 1y
Of course not. There is still plenty of teenagers and homeless punks around.
SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1y
Guys, he actually doesn't know about anarchism. Bro nobody mention the zapatistas or WW2 Catalonia Spain to this guy. George Orwell, more like George nobody amiright? Bro actually thinks anarchism is when you're homeless.
remon@ani.social · 1 pts · 1y
Yes, reapeating "you don't now about anarchism" over and over again is a great argument. (I really mean it, you don't got much else to work with).
SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1y
Bro didn't even read the last comment. Your man's is coping, in shambles.
Bro thinks this is an argument lol, nah big dawg it's a belittlement.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 1 pts · 1y
What is it then, define it?
scarabic@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1y
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.
OmegaLemmy@discuss.online · -1 pts · 1y
At its best it would be the most well functioning democracy possible, at its worst it would give way into centralisation (and infighting)
I don't think anarchist states are impossible, but I do think it wouldn't be as comfortable of a life compared to something more centralised.
Baaahb@feddit.nl · 0 pts · 1y
It would. An anarchist system requires participation at all ends from just about everyone. If you forfeith your vote once, you'll forfeight it again, not because of a conscious choice, but because you empowered others to make your choice for you in the first place.
Anarchy is not about comfort. Its about freedom, as nebulous as that term is, and freedom, as has been said many many times, is not free.
count_dongulus@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 1y
I think there's a reason anarchists aren't migrating in droves to anarchies like Haiti or Somalia.
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 1y
being ruled by warlords is not anarchist.
MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1y
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 1y
power vacuums are fictions deployed by imperialist forces to justify regime change
count_dongulus@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
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.
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 1y
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.
MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 1y
power vacuums are a myth
MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 1y
they are a story that people tell to explain the world. but they are not a phenomenon that can be empirically tested.
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 1y
this is a no true Scotsman.
MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1y
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -2 pts · 1y
you can't prove this
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 1 pts · 1y
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?
MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 1 pts · 1y
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.
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 1y
no, it doesn't
MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1y
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 1y
any time.
iii@mander.xyz · 2 pts · 1y
You can't prove that
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -2 pts · 1y
it's tautological
iii@mander.xyz · 2 pts · 1y
Prove that it is
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 1y
anarchism is a system without rulers. warlords are rulers. ipso facto.
MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 1y
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?
sunzu2@thebrainbin.org · 2 pts · 1y
kersploosh@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 1y
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?
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 1 pts · 1y
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.
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 1y
hierarchy
Buffalox@lemmy.world · -8 pts · 1y
Anarchy is the worst a society can devolve into.
And people who believe that certain anarchy "models" can work, know nothing about the psychology of larger groups.
When large groups of people need to live together there needs to be structure and rules that must be respected, and the rules need to be upheld by a governing body.
The best way we have to form that governing body is democracy.
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 1y
you can't prove this.
Buffalox@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
As I stated, people defending anarchy doesn't understand the psychology of larger groups.
I can only say that EVERY successful society has a central government. If Anarchy could work as well, how come there are no successful anarchy societies?
Not as in so few, but NONE! If it should work so well, why has no country ever even tried? When a country is thrown into anarchy because the government is removed, and nothing replaces it. It always turns out the same. Extreme violence, theft and hunger.
That's what is shown to happen when Anarchy reigns.
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 1y
there are
Buffalox@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
Bullshit.
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 1y
exarcheia, the Paris commune, and the swamp maroons come right to mind, as well as anabaptists
Buffalox@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
This is what I get when I search "Exarcheia paris"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exarcheia
I have no idea what you are trying to argue here, but as far as I can tell Exarcheia is neither self governing or has anarchy and it isn't in Paris, but in Greece???
You are extremely sloppy at trying to arguing your point.
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 1y
if you don't know exarcheia and the Paris commune are separate societies, you're not qualified to discuss the practicality of if anarchism
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 1y
you don't define success.
Buffalox@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
I absolutely do, as in NOT being dominated by Extreme violence, theft and hunger.
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 1y
you're describing capitalism
Buffalox@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
So how do you imagine Anarchy could work without capitalism. Even communist countries have a capitalist element.
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 1y
communism is stateless. whatever you're talking about isn't communist. anarchy works through mutual aid.
sunzu2@thebrainbin.org · 4 pts · 1y
Buffalox@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 1y
I'm not sure, but I think maybe you are using USA as the norm, but USA is not a good example of a democracy, it is ranked as a FLAWED democracy. And it's been my opinion for more than a decade that USA is ranked way too high. An essentially 2 party system is not a real democracy.
Democracies that actually work are for instance the Scandinavian countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index
All the countries with the highest democracy ranks, have way less poverty than USA, also when USA is the far richer country, all have healthcare for all, free education, and also generally people have high satisfaction about their lives.
I agree USA has devolved badly in many ways since the start of the 80's. Hopefully it will turn around at some point. But it's hard to see it taking on a lasting course for improvements without a pretty serious modernization of their democracy, and cleaning up the corruption and exaggerated power of the super rich.
sunzu2@thebrainbin.org · 2 pts · 1y
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 2 pts · 1y
Anarchists believe in a government with direct democracy, you are arguing against a strawman
Buffalox@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
Oh you mean a democracy that isn't flawed like the USA.
Scandinavian countries have direct democracy, as in voting on their representatives directly, and they are in no way anarchist.
Maybe you mean general elections on every detail of law, but again, that's impossible, it's stupid, it's a waste of time and resources to have people decide how farmers interact with suppliers and dairy, something 99.9% of all people have no knowledge of.
It's stupid because it's impossible. You could also say it's decidedly insane.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 2 pts · 1y
this is not a problem in any real world anarchist society that has ever existed, can you give one example of this being a problem? What actually happens is building law through consensus, look at the way the zapatistas organize for example.
showing up to the meetings isn't mandatory, but they have one day off where everyone is allowed to participate, in the event of a tie, they vote, but most decisions are made through consensus.
also I think you vastly overestimate how much laws need to be changed, lawmakers will not endlessly go back and forth about unimportant things. did you know most members of congress in the US don't even read the bills they sign? How much work is it really to help with making law once a week or so?
representative democracy is not direct democracy to be clear
Buffalox@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
As in none.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 1 pts · 1y
There are tons, they just are usually destroyed by outside forces
https://anarwiki.org/List_of_Anarchist_Societies
Buffalox@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
Oh boy I love how the Freetown Christiania is first on that list. Since that's a place I actually know very well.
You list is bullshit, that's like saying 5 friends are an anarchist society. Those are NOT self governing societies. They are under the rules of countries.
If any are not, they are probably just very small cult like communities.
They do not run factories power-plants, electricity grids, infrastructure or anything of any serious scale, and are in no way models for how to run a country.
Freetown Christiania had lots of problems with crime, and they also had huge problem of elitism as in very few people actually decided everything, the power structure is/was very much based on who had lived there from the beginning.
All this anarchy idealism/ideology is bullshit that doesn't work in real self governing societies. Of course it can work for small groups, like what the fuck, just because I live in a street where we help each other, we don't form a government and police for that!
Christiana may have called themselves autonomous, but they never where in any meaningful sense of the word. And the truth is they needed help from criminal rocker gangs to get rid of widespread sales of hard drugs. And later they chose to legalize according to Danish law, and called on help from the real police to get rid of the remaining drug sales. Christiana today a mostly normal part of Copenhagen today, but maybe still influenced more than average by the 70's flower power roots, although there was never any flower power in the way that society was run.
Christiania was always 100% depending on the normal society they existed within, the dependence wasn't superficial either but for EVERYTHING, Jobs, hospitals, doctors, sewage, electricity. Christiania was never much more than a football club deciding to play by their own rules. They can do that, but they still live in a society where everything is governed by the rules of the country and the city.
I'm sorry, but your dream is an impossible lie. And you just proved your complete inability to demonstrate any self governing society of any significant size that function by a system of anarchy. By significant size, I'd say it needs to be at least 50000 people, to have any significance to show it as a working model at a scale above a tiny tribal community where everybody mostly know each other.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 1 pts · 1y
I don't know anything about or care about christiana, so, i'll just assume you're right about all that, but it really doesn't matter. Problems with one society do not mean the ideology is fundamentally flawed, it just means that society was flawed, you'll have to demonstrate issues with the fundamental ideology that apply to all anarchist societies, not some of them.
"They are usually destroyed by outside forces"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia
again you haven't even begun to research the topic, but are very confident.
before you say, revolutionary catalonia doesn't exist anymore, yeah, that's what happens when fascists destroy you with a military, you'll note none of the issue was internal politics...
Every single capitalist country immediately dogpiles and tries to destroy any anarchist movement, that doesn't mean anarchism is fundamentally flawed.