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?)
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.
Anarchism; it works until you start thinking about it.