You must log in or register to comment.
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?
Anarchy doesn’t mean no rules, it means no rulers.
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??
Anarchism uses democracy and consensus to make decisions
Genuine question: Is that not a democracy?
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.
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.In a democracy you give your vote and have no say afterwards.
You’re restricting democracy to mean representative democracy?
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.
It depends on the definition
The definition is whatever you want the definition to be. Don’t let others force a definition on you.
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?”
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.
Ok and who does that end up being?
Whoever steps up first. For a sewer, probably several people. What’s your point?
Most aren’t capable ir willing to do this work without substantial compensation above and beyond what most jobs provide.
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.
non-profit events and mucking a sewer are very different.
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.
Having cleaned many toilets it is nowhere nearly as unpleasant as the life risking work that can take place in a sewer system.
Someone doesn’t understand what anarchism is. Opinion discarded. Please read a book and return.
This is the opportunity to share resources and give them a direction to head, and you missed it.
deleted by creator
The end goal of civilization.
Stateless, Egalitarian societies.
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.
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.
coupled with communism it’s the real shit
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.
Pls no anarcho capitalism. A good breakdown of the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTN64g9lA2g&t=1
I see it as a guideline for how society could be structured after the elimination of class.
I don’t think practically you could end up with a state of anarchism because it implies that humans can exist in a power vacuum. Something will always fill that vacuum. Now, the question is what is that thing? It can take a lot of forms. The goal should be to make it serve the qualitative needs of most people - food, shelter, well being, safety. People advocating for true anarchy are usually doing so from a naive idealism. Idealism is often good, but sometimes ignores other factors that make the ideal impossible to achieve.
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
Fuck yeah, I’d wear a cloak.
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
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
- What led to the Haymarket Massacre, which might have been the main catalyst behind the 8-hour workday… So I cannot hate it out of principle
- Seems reasonable but I don’t know how to actually implement it
- For some reason is more associated with Anarcho-Capitalism rather than the other variants, which I thought was… Interesting
