American pseudodemocracy is easier to overthrow than authoritarian state capitalism. Things are pretty awful in America, but a lot of folks underestimate the depths of how awful a system can get. They think their worst day is the worst day that ever happened. They’re sheltered.
I saw a lot of people on Reddit in 2016 saying that Trump would shake the system up and convince people to join the left and start a revolution. Did we do it? Did we shake the system up? Were they right?
Let’s be clear, accelerationism is a morally bankrupt strategy and never works to the degree its proponents think it will. But it is also undeniable that leftist ideologies have not been this popular in America since the 1920s.
It’s not entirely due to Trump, but rather the dialectical relationship between the capitalist mode of production and the innate human rejection of oppression.
I wish I could create an alternate reality where anarchy reigns and transport all these “anarchists” to it and watch them drown the entire reality in their tears as they suffer and die.
Without the Government and Capitalism, everything would collapse and it would just be like Mad Max!
If Bosses and Cops are the only thing stopping anyone from going all Mad Max, then we would already be in that Anarchist Dystopia you’re imagining because the Mad Max Style Hooligans you imagine wouldn’t care about what the Law or some Rich Guy says.
If the only thing stopping you from going all Mad Max are cops and bosses, then I think you should examine why and maybe, perhaps, seek help, because the average person doesn’t go about going “I wanna kill people but the only thing stopping me is the Cops.”
For anarchism to work, there has to be similar enough values and cultures among different communities to trust each other. But the world is too diverse at the moment for that to happen. I mean, anarchism is possible like the Fremens in Dune, but it would take a long time for a planetary wide cultural convergence to allow anarchism to thrive.
Fremen aren’t anarchists. They’re more like a thousand tiny military dictatorships with each community picking a leader with absolute authority via trial by combat. Then Paul turns them into a theocracy.
One could argue that most of the people who want to go all Mad Max do in fact break the law to do so, and are now in jail. Or do you think that disturbed people who want to do harm to the general populace don’t exist?
I think it’s a bit straw-man-y to say that people who argue that “without law there would be chaos” are saying they want chaos. In fact, it’s the opposite. There is clearly some minority slice of humanity that just wants to cause others harm, and we need some sort of structure/order to keep those people from causing harm. I find that most people advocating for anarchy don’t really have a good answer to how we handle antisocial behavior.
There is clearly some minority slice of humanity that just wants to cause others harm, and we need some sort of structure/order to keep those people from causing harm.
I work in a position that enables me to actually confirm this to be true. There are A LOT of criminals out there. And if society started collapsing a lot of previously good people would turn into criminals out of desperation or opportunity. I honestly don’t think the average person understands how many people there are out there that have no problem with the idea of taking advantage of others and even just the threat of law enforcement is what stops them.
I find that most people advocating for anarchy don’t really have a good answer to how we handle antisocial behavior.
No, they certainly do not. Every time I’ve gotten into an argument with an anarchist their ideology falls to pieces as soon as I start asking the difficult questions.
I mean it wouldn’t devolve into mad max (at least not for long) because people would naturally organize into some sort of structure (like a government). This happens every time IRL.
Not sure what you’re going on about. You seem to have quoted something I didn’t say.
I’m not sure if you thought I meant I actually want to kill anarchists using magic. Clearly I was being sarcastic and just want them to learn from suffering under the form of existence they appear to want so badly.
And to be crystal clear, while I do have many qualms with law enforcement, I promise you that if law enforcement ceased to exist tomorrow our society would very quickly begin to collapse. Because there are A LOT of criminals out there and way, way more normal people that would become criminals out of desperation or opportunity if society began collapsing. To disagree with that is an admission of not being remotely aware of how many criminals actually exist or any familiarity with the human condition.
No sane anarchist is advocating for the collapse of society, or for law enforcement to disappear overnight. Anarchists generally advocate for new anarchic systems to be built alongside our current system, so that if/when our current system begins to collapse, the new ones will already be in place to replace it. This idea is called “dual power”, or more generally, “prefigurative politics”. It is obviously not an easy thing to do, but I think it’s worth trying; we should always be trying to build a better world.
…there are A LOT of criminals out there…
This is absolutely the case, though I see this as an indictment on our current system more than anything. The anarchist position is that most crime is a result of people’s basic needs (food, shelter, physical or mental healthcare, etc.) not being met, rather than a result of that person being innately “bad”. You seem to at least partly agree with this position:
…way more normal people that would become criminals out of desperation or opportunity if society began collapsing.
Anarchists aim to have everyone’s basic needs met, regardless of how much or how little they contribute back to society. This of course won’t entirely eliminate antisocial behavior, so we will also need some form of anarchic community defence to intervene in such cases.
This is a society that is built around a system of forced for-profit market dependency that puts ownership enclosures over the land, commons, and productive forces into the hands of a small percentage of private capital owners then relies upon the forced dispossession of people from direct access to the means of subsistence (land, tools, resources) in order to create a class of individuals with no alternative but to sell their labor for a wage on the market so they can purchase the means of survival.
And that in order to enforce that requires a powerful state capable of using violence when necessary to uphold that.
So yeah, remove the enforcers and that system is likely to break down and a lot of people are going to try and loot and take what they need that they currently don’t have for survival in the short term.
It would also likely trigger our innate communal cooperative nature that has been key to our survival and evolution as a species.
I’m not personally an anarchist but I think you might be guilty of many of the things you accuse others of here.
From my first comment I have simply stated that anarchism is not the answer.
You don’t appear to necessarily be arguing against that. You do state that you think we can all come together and sing kumbaya if things fall apart. I’ll agree I think that could happen on an extremely small scale in very small communities, but not on a city/state/national level.
My vision for anarchy basically functions like an average friend group, there is no “leader” of the group, anyone can organize an event, whether its a hangout, a dinner, or asking for help with a project. Nobody is forced to go to any given event. If a conflict comes up, then we talk about it like adults, and come to a beneficial resolution. Each person chips in in their own ways. Honestly its pretty fucking awesome and I think the world would be a lot better place if we had this mentality.
Anarchism does not require everyone to be a doormat. If someone is a sabotaging asshole, nobody is compelled to associate with them, the problem person learns very quickly that you dont exactly do well if nobody likes you and won’t associate with you.
Or, they do super well by beating people up and taking their things? The person who happily takes from those weaker than them is often not terribly bothered by you giving them the cold shoulder. And they probably have their own coterie of hangers-on to provide them companionship. How do you handle such a person, since simple disfellowship is insufficient?
I’m not even an anarchist but this is pretty easy to simply look at history and answer
It would be like most tribal societies throughout human history. Where small to even very large societal level groups rely upon a economic and social system of mutualism/reciprocity, central planning, and social standing.
People that are able and refuse to contribute would receive little beyond their basic needs, likely socially pilloried, or in extreme cases be asked to leave. And violence against innocents would be punished like in any society.
Like the one thing almost every single human society we have had evidence for it’s social structure has had a version of the Golden Rule.
And violence against innocents would be punished like in any society.
I think this is the part I get hung up on. The way this has historically been handled is lynchings. The town thinks you murdered those kids? They lynch you. The town drunk says he saw you doing devil worship? Lynched. You piss off someone with more social capital than you? Another lynching.
While I agree that this is self-ordering in some sense, I don’t find it to be morally acceptable. Justice requires systematics that anarchy simply can’t provide. And while no justice system is perfect, I think we can all agree that going back to lynchings is probably not the right direction.
I don’t think lynchings have been the only way human groups have dealt with crimes against innocents though, historically or presently.
And most of what you are talking about is behavior under capitalist or feudalist systems.
And most crime under those systems is born out of poverty.
I have not heard of the Zapatista’s engaging in routine lynchings for example. The biggest threats to them have not been irrational lynch parties inside their society, it had been the capitalist forces outside of it trying to violently conquer them.
And again, I am not an anarchist, so I feel weird trying to speak too deeply past my own understanding of their positions or things I have some crossover beliefs in as well.
It’s worth noting that the Zapatistas aren’t an anarchist group and make no claim to being one. They do have a non-centralized leadership structure of elders who enforce a “restorative justice” system that forces people who perpetrate crimes to do community service. This does require a form of tribunal that local leaders manage.
But, to be clear, all this requires hierarchy, authority, and coercion in ways that most anarchists would reject. Which is the core of the issue.
Hmmm. I wonder how you achieve those things in an incredibly diverse scenario with millions/billions of people with varying desires. It’s almost like you’d have to create some form of government that relied on citizens voting, potentially through elected representatives. Almost like a democracy of some sort. So, not anarchism.
I don’t think many anarchists are arguing for societies comprised of a billion people…Almost like they are explicitly wanting to go in the opposite direction and eliminate such a state.
And just again for clarity, I am not an anarchist, but I also think it’s silly to get this worked up over an ideology it’s not even clear people have ever spent any time trying to understand in good faith.
I don’t think many anarchists are arguing for societies comprised of a billion people
Well…too fucking bad. There’s 8+ billion of us. And these “anarchists” use society’s infrastructure and social services. So as long as they stay plugged in, they can take their anarchism and practice it inside their own homes, which are plugged into a non-anarchist infrastructure.
I’m not that worked up. About as worked up as any ignorant person can make me, which typically maxes out at moderate annoyance. And as far as I’m concerned, anarchists are some of the most potently ignorant people around.
I like words and their definitions. So what I think the anarchist ideology is is what the definition says it is.
Anarchism - Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that seeks to abolish institutional authority, coercion, and social hierarchies—most notably the state and capitalism—replacing them with stateless societies based on voluntary association, mutual aid, and free cooperation.
There’s pretty much nothing about anything in that definition that I agree with ideologically or think is reasonably possible to achieve.
They are cast away from the community. There’s no common ground. It’s impossible to meet their needs when their needs is going against everyone else’s needs.
They’re free to go elsewhere. Maybe they’ll like Japan.
Addendum: I personally see rehabilitatioe as the true path but you guys love strawmaning the shit out of that. As if rehabilitation is not worth it, even in our current political climate.
And if they refuse to leave? If they simply take your things by violence? What then?
Historically, the answer is to have them lynched, which does solve the problem, but I think most reasonable people would agree that isn’t something we want to bring back.
Historically Anarchists have not done that because anarchists have not had a societal opportunity to do their own thing away from other socioeconomial models, you’re thinking of tribal or even conservative communities.
I like how you had to invent a scenario to force your point across. You can do better, but it was a nice try. 6/10
You say “invent a scenario” as if people don’t use violence to get what they want all the time.
You can’t “move on without them” if they refuse to leave and continue recidivate. How do you deal with such a person in your ideal, anarchist society? It seems like your solution is to just pretend it wouldn’t be a problem, which is absurd on its face. You’re basically saying no one would decide to steal your food because everyone would just make their own instead. History shows that being incredibly unlikely.
How do you distinguish between tribal organization and anarchist society. Both are small communities that are “self governing.” What is the key difference in your mind?
While your version of anarchy works on a micro level amongst friends, unfortunately, it would not work on a macro national level. Or even state level. Or even city level.
You’re also basically describing voting. People come together and express their opinion and the opinion with the most support wins.
Anarchism - Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that seeks to abolish institutional authority, coercion, and social hierarchies—most notably the state and capitalism—replacing them with stateless societies based on voluntary association, mutual aid, and free cooperation.
Yes, in our NON-ANARCHIST society, anarchists are allowed to vote. If anarchists got what they wanted, then voting wouldn’t be a thing because the state wouldn’t be a thing.
They can vote to poll consensus but there is no mechanism to enforce a policy based on a vote; following the vote is voluntary. Not making a point here per se, just clarifying what we mean by “vote”. (Unless the above is wrong?)
I mean I don’t want to watch people suffer and die, but yeah it wouldn’t go well. I wish we could simulate or otherwise test theories like this and get probable answers without, you know, condemning hundreds to die for their flawed views.
I don’t actually want them to die. That was obvious sarcasm as creating an alternate reality isn’t…real. But it’s not like I was saying we should send them to a concentration camp. I just want them to live under the conditions they desire so they can experience it utterly fail, because of course it would, and then come crawling back to contribute to society in a meaningful way.
Interesting how your first thought is murder, isn’t it?
We know exactly what anarchy looks like in human history, it’s how every human society worked before agriculture started consolidating power in the hands of sociopaths.
It’s how some steppe tribes lived. It’s how most North Americans lived before Columbus.
Anarchism is the natural state of humanity because it’s just decentralized tribes at the end of the day. The only difference now would be that you know what antibiotics and crop rotations are.
I think you have a VERY warped view of native american history. These people had entire cities, there was definitely tribal hierarchy and I’m gonna be real (although I blame the education system, not you) but the perception that they were just wandering around in structureless harmony is wrong and kinda racist.
Interesting how your first thought is murder, isn’t it?
Lol. My scenario included literal magic. Literal magic to create an alternate reality. I know people be dumb and that’s why you have to use /s when you’re being sarcastic on the internet, but I thought people would grasp that a literal magical scenario was sarcastic. Guess I gave you too much credit. To be clear, I want them to suffer under the conditions they want for everyone else so they can hopefully learn and be less ignorant going forward.
it’s how every human society worked before agriculture
So when people used to raid other settlements and rape, murder, and enslave the occupants and take their resources for their own and you’d be lucky to live to 40 and it was probably a pretty painful 40 years. Great example you’ve got there. Sounds like a sweet reality to live in. Pre-agriculture human life was short and largely comprised of suffering.
it’s just decentralized tribes at the end of the day.
Yes, modern civilization with 8+ billion people is just tribes. Very simple. It’s all just very simple in your mind, isn’t it?
The only difference now would be that you know what antibiotics and crop rotations are.
I think that you’re not wrong, but the historical way that these societies have handled antisocial behavior is via lynchings. I don’t know that this model works if you don’t bring back lynchings, which I personally find unpalatable.
Would you rather a small group of power hungry psychopath oligarchs be in charge of the lynchings according to their isolated, self-serving, sheltered, and privileged reasonings in order to maintain their status and authority? Or do you think there is some stupid super intelligence governor floating out there somewhere we need to appease for some stupid reason so it’ll invite us to the private party it’s throwing that doesn’t like it when we do that?
Meanwhile the Anarchists are like…
Well, easier to overthrow one than the other.
Is it tho
Ah, yes, I forgot. Those two famously still in power people… checks notes… Barak Obama and Joe Biden.
They meant system, but I’ll bite, Mao “stepped down” after his failed cultural revolution
American pseudodemocracy is easier to overthrow than authoritarian state capitalism. Things are pretty awful in America, but a lot of folks underestimate the depths of how awful a system can get. They think their worst day is the worst day that ever happened. They’re sheltered.
I saw a lot of people on Reddit in 2016 saying that Trump would shake the system up and convince people to join the left and start a revolution. Did we do it? Did we shake the system up? Were they right?
Let’s be clear, accelerationism is a morally bankrupt strategy and never works to the degree its proponents think it will. But it is also undeniable that leftist ideologies have not been this popular in America since the 1920s.
It’s not entirely due to Trump, but rather the dialectical relationship between the capitalist mode of production and the innate human rejection of oppression.
Anarchism? Wasn’t that made illegal in the US after the Haymarket bombing?
Well you see the thing about Anarchists…
I wish I could create an alternate reality where anarchy reigns and transport all these “anarchists” to it and watch them drown the entire reality in their tears as they suffer and die.
If Bosses and Cops are the only thing stopping anyone from going all Mad Max, then we would already be in that Anarchist Dystopia you’re imagining because the Mad Max Style Hooligans you imagine wouldn’t care about what the Law or some Rich Guy says.
If the only thing stopping you from going all Mad Max are cops and bosses, then I think you should examine why and maybe, perhaps, seek help, because the average person doesn’t go about going “I wanna kill people but the only thing stopping me is the Cops.”
For anarchism to work, there has to be similar enough values and cultures among different communities to trust each other. But the world is too diverse at the moment for that to happen. I mean, anarchism is possible like the Fremens in Dune, but it would take a long time for a planetary wide cultural convergence to allow anarchism to thrive.
Fremen aren’t anarchists. They’re more like a thousand tiny military dictatorships with each community picking a leader with absolute authority via trial by combat. Then Paul turns them into a theocracy.
I mean we have multicultural anarchism at the global scale, there is no single world government and international law is more a set of recommendations
It would also certainly have to be federated.
One could argue that most of the people who want to go all Mad Max do in fact break the law to do so, and are now in jail. Or do you think that disturbed people who want to do harm to the general populace don’t exist?
I think it’s a bit straw-man-y to say that people who argue that “without law there would be chaos” are saying they want chaos. In fact, it’s the opposite. There is clearly some minority slice of humanity that just wants to cause others harm, and we need some sort of structure/order to keep those people from causing harm. I find that most people advocating for anarchy don’t really have a good answer to how we handle antisocial behavior.
I work in a position that enables me to actually confirm this to be true. There are A LOT of criminals out there. And if society started collapsing a lot of previously good people would turn into criminals out of desperation or opportunity. I honestly don’t think the average person understands how many people there are out there that have no problem with the idea of taking advantage of others and even just the threat of law enforcement is what stops them.
No, they certainly do not. Every time I’ve gotten into an argument with an anarchist their ideology falls to pieces as soon as I start asking the difficult questions.
I mean it wouldn’t devolve into mad max (at least not for long) because people would naturally organize into some sort of structure (like a government). This happens every time IRL.
Not sure what you’re going on about. You seem to have quoted something I didn’t say.
I’m not sure if you thought I meant I actually want to kill anarchists using magic. Clearly I was being sarcastic and just want them to learn from suffering under the form of existence they appear to want so badly.
And to be crystal clear, while I do have many qualms with law enforcement, I promise you that if law enforcement ceased to exist tomorrow our society would very quickly begin to collapse. Because there are A LOT of criminals out there and way, way more normal people that would become criminals out of desperation or opportunity if society began collapsing. To disagree with that is an admission of not being remotely aware of how many criminals actually exist or any familiarity with the human condition.
No sane anarchist is advocating for the collapse of society, or for law enforcement to disappear overnight. Anarchists generally advocate for new anarchic systems to be built alongside our current system, so that if/when our current system begins to collapse, the new ones will already be in place to replace it. This idea is called “dual power”, or more generally, “prefigurative politics”. It is obviously not an easy thing to do, but I think it’s worth trying; we should always be trying to build a better world.
This is absolutely the case, though I see this as an indictment on our current system more than anything. The anarchist position is that most crime is a result of people’s basic needs (food, shelter, physical or mental healthcare, etc.) not being met, rather than a result of that person being innately “bad”. You seem to at least partly agree with this position:
Anarchists aim to have everyone’s basic needs met, regardless of how much or how little they contribute back to society. This of course won’t entirely eliminate antisocial behavior, so we will also need some form of anarchic community defence to intervene in such cases.
This is a society that is built around a system of forced for-profit market dependency that puts ownership enclosures over the land, commons, and productive forces into the hands of a small percentage of private capital owners then relies upon the forced dispossession of people from direct access to the means of subsistence (land, tools, resources) in order to create a class of individuals with no alternative but to sell their labor for a wage on the market so they can purchase the means of survival.
And that in order to enforce that requires a powerful state capable of using violence when necessary to uphold that.
So yeah, remove the enforcers and that system is likely to break down and a lot of people are going to try and loot and take what they need that they currently don’t have for survival in the short term.
It would also likely trigger our innate communal cooperative nature that has been key to our survival and evolution as a species.
I’m not personally an anarchist but I think you might be guilty of many of the things you accuse others of here.
From my first comment I have simply stated that anarchism is not the answer.
You don’t appear to necessarily be arguing against that. You do state that you think we can all come together and sing kumbaya if things fall apart. I’ll agree I think that could happen on an extremely small scale in very small communities, but not on a city/state/national level.
My vision for anarchy basically functions like an average friend group, there is no “leader” of the group, anyone can organize an event, whether its a hangout, a dinner, or asking for help with a project. Nobody is forced to go to any given event. If a conflict comes up, then we talk about it like adults, and come to a beneficial resolution. Each person chips in in their own ways. Honestly its pretty fucking awesome and I think the world would be a lot better place if we had this mentality.
What happens when someone selfishly refuses to contribute to the common good? Or worse, actively attempts to disrupt it?
Anarchism does not require everyone to be a doormat. If someone is a sabotaging asshole, nobody is compelled to associate with them, the problem person learns very quickly that you dont exactly do well if nobody likes you and won’t associate with you.
Or, they do super well by beating people up and taking their things? The person who happily takes from those weaker than them is often not terribly bothered by you giving them the cold shoulder. And they probably have their own coterie of hangers-on to provide them companionship. How do you handle such a person, since simple disfellowship is insufficient?
I’m not even an anarchist but this is pretty easy to simply look at history and answer
It would be like most tribal societies throughout human history. Where small to even very large societal level groups rely upon a economic and social system of mutualism/reciprocity, central planning, and social standing.
People that are able and refuse to contribute would receive little beyond their basic needs, likely socially pilloried, or in extreme cases be asked to leave. And violence against innocents would be punished like in any society.
Like the one thing almost every single human society we have had evidence for it’s social structure has had a version of the Golden Rule.
I think this is the part I get hung up on. The way this has historically been handled is lynchings. The town thinks you murdered those kids? They lynch you. The town drunk says he saw you doing devil worship? Lynched. You piss off someone with more social capital than you? Another lynching.
While I agree that this is self-ordering in some sense, I don’t find it to be morally acceptable. Justice requires systematics that anarchy simply can’t provide. And while no justice system is perfect, I think we can all agree that going back to lynchings is probably not the right direction.
I don’t think lynchings have been the only way human groups have dealt with crimes against innocents though, historically or presently.
And most of what you are talking about is behavior under capitalist or feudalist systems.
And most crime under those systems is born out of poverty.
I have not heard of the Zapatista’s engaging in routine lynchings for example. The biggest threats to them have not been irrational lynch parties inside their society, it had been the capitalist forces outside of it trying to violently conquer them.
And again, I am not an anarchist, so I feel weird trying to speak too deeply past my own understanding of their positions or things I have some crossover beliefs in as well.
It’s worth noting that the Zapatistas aren’t an anarchist group and make no claim to being one. They do have a non-centralized leadership structure of elders who enforce a “restorative justice” system that forces people who perpetrate crimes to do community service. This does require a form of tribunal that local leaders manage.
But, to be clear, all this requires hierarchy, authority, and coercion in ways that most anarchists would reject. Which is the core of the issue.
Hmmm. I wonder how you achieve those things in an incredibly diverse scenario with millions/billions of people with varying desires. It’s almost like you’d have to create some form of government that relied on citizens voting, potentially through elected representatives. Almost like a democracy of some sort. So, not anarchism.
I don’t think many anarchists are arguing for societies comprised of a billion people…Almost like they are explicitly wanting to go in the opposite direction and eliminate such a state.
And just again for clarity, I am not an anarchist, but I also think it’s silly to get this worked up over an ideology it’s not even clear people have ever spent any time trying to understand in good faith.
Well…too fucking bad. There’s 8+ billion of us. And these “anarchists” use society’s infrastructure and social services. So as long as they stay plugged in, they can take their anarchism and practice it inside their own homes, which are plugged into a non-anarchist infrastructure.
I’m not that worked up. About as worked up as any ignorant person can make me, which typically maxes out at moderate annoyance. And as far as I’m concerned, anarchists are some of the most potently ignorant people around.
Then their ideology completely falls apart. Lol.
Could you explain for me what you think that ideology is and what specifically I said would dismantle that and why?
I like words and their definitions. So what I think the anarchist ideology is is what the definition says it is.
Anarchism - Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that seeks to abolish institutional authority, coercion, and social hierarchies—most notably the state and capitalism—replacing them with stateless societies based on voluntary association, mutual aid, and free cooperation.
There’s pretty much nothing about anything in that definition that I agree with ideologically or think is reasonably possible to achieve.
They are cast away from the community. There’s no common ground. It’s impossible to meet their needs when their needs is going against everyone else’s needs.
They’re free to go elsewhere. Maybe they’ll like Japan.
Addendum: I personally see rehabilitatioe as the true path but you guys love strawmaning the shit out of that. As if rehabilitation is not worth it, even in our current political climate.
And if they refuse to leave? If they simply take your things by violence? What then?
Historically, the answer is to have them lynched, which does solve the problem, but I think most reasonable people would agree that isn’t something we want to bring back.
They the community moves on without them.
Historically Anarchists have not done that because anarchists have not had a societal opportunity to do their own thing away from other socioeconomial models, you’re thinking of tribal or even conservative communities.
I like how you had to invent a scenario to force your point across. You can do better, but it was a nice try. 6/10
You say “invent a scenario” as if people don’t use violence to get what they want all the time.
You can’t “move on without them” if they refuse to leave and continue recidivate. How do you deal with such a person in your ideal, anarchist society? It seems like your solution is to just pretend it wouldn’t be a problem, which is absurd on its face. You’re basically saying no one would decide to steal your food because everyone would just make their own instead. History shows that being incredibly unlikely.
How do you distinguish between tribal organization and anarchist society. Both are small communities that are “self governing.” What is the key difference in your mind?
Thank the gods. You just made it sound significantly more awful than I had already imagined.
Yup. Because prisons are SO much better. Right?
While your version of anarchy works on a micro level amongst friends, unfortunately, it would not work on a macro national level. Or even state level. Or even city level.
You’re also basically describing voting. People come together and express their opinion and the opinion with the most support wins.
So, not anarchism.
Anarchists are allowed to vote. What are you talking about?
Anarchism - Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that seeks to abolish institutional authority, coercion, and social hierarchies—most notably the state and capitalism—replacing them with stateless societies based on voluntary association, mutual aid, and free cooperation.
Yes, in our NON-ANARCHIST society, anarchists are allowed to vote. If anarchists got what they wanted, then voting wouldn’t be a thing because the state wouldn’t be a thing.
They can vote to poll consensus but there is no mechanism to enforce a policy based on a vote; following the vote is voluntary. Not making a point here per se, just clarifying what we mean by “vote”. (Unless the above is wrong?)
All of anarchism is technically voluntary. The community would come up with a way to emforce it.
Ah yes, the classic anarchist move. To simply state “we’d figure it out”, when presented with the difficult questions.
Wouldn’t having a decision enforced on you make following it not a voluntary choice?
If the community can enforce involuntary decisions on someone as the result of a vote, isn’t that democracy, not anarchy?
Correct- but anarchists are either 15 year olds, or completely mentally fried druggies. They don’t think that far ahead.
I mean I don’t want to watch people suffer and die, but yeah it wouldn’t go well. I wish we could simulate or otherwise test theories like this and get probable answers without, you know, condemning hundreds to die for their flawed views.
I don’t actually want them to die. That was obvious sarcasm as creating an alternate reality isn’t…real. But it’s not like I was saying we should send them to a concentration camp. I just want them to live under the conditions they desire so they can experience it utterly fail, because of course it would, and then come crawling back to contribute to society in a meaningful way.
Interesting how your first thought is murder, isn’t it?
We know exactly what anarchy looks like in human history, it’s how every human society worked before agriculture started consolidating power in the hands of sociopaths.
It’s how some steppe tribes lived. It’s how most North Americans lived before Columbus.
Anarchism is the natural state of humanity because it’s just decentralized tribes at the end of the day. The only difference now would be that you know what antibiotics and crop rotations are.
I think you have a VERY warped view of native american history. These people had entire cities, there was definitely tribal hierarchy and I’m gonna be real (although I blame the education system, not you) but the perception that they were just wandering around in structureless harmony is wrong and kinda racist.
Lol. My scenario included literal magic. Literal magic to create an alternate reality. I know people be dumb and that’s why you have to use /s when you’re being sarcastic on the internet, but I thought people would grasp that a literal magical scenario was sarcastic. Guess I gave you too much credit. To be clear, I want them to suffer under the conditions they want for everyone else so they can hopefully learn and be less ignorant going forward.
So when people used to raid other settlements and rape, murder, and enslave the occupants and take their resources for their own and you’d be lucky to live to 40 and it was probably a pretty painful 40 years. Great example you’ve got there. Sounds like a sweet reality to live in. Pre-agriculture human life was short and largely comprised of suffering.
Yes, modern civilization with 8+ billion people is just tribes. Very simple. It’s all just very simple in your mind, isn’t it?
Yes, those are the only differences…
I think that you’re not wrong, but the historical way that these societies have handled antisocial behavior is via lynchings. I don’t know that this model works if you don’t bring back lynchings, which I personally find unpalatable.
Would you rather a small group of power hungry psychopath oligarchs be in charge of the lynchings according to their isolated, self-serving, sheltered, and privileged reasonings in order to maintain their status and authority? Or do you think there is some stupid super intelligence governor floating out there somewhere we need to appease for some stupid reason so it’ll invite us to the private party it’s throwing that doesn’t like it when we do that?
This isn’t an either/or situation. It isn’t have anarchy or have psychopath oligarchs be in charge.
The fact that you need to create this obscene scenario to prove your point indicates how weak your point is.