Comments
ganjamozart t1_j10fhbj wrote
This, Chomsky often sums it up as authority needs to justify itself, otherwise it should be dismantled.
vestigule t1_j13vtba wrote
Even Thomas Hobbes, who believed in the absolute authority of kings, believed they had to justify their authority. According to Chomsky Thomas Hobbes would be an anarchist. You’d be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn’t believe authority needs to be justified.
ganjamozart t1_j14inje wrote
I am astonished by your comment. Most people are indoctrinated by society and institutions to not question authority. Most people just get on with life with the mindset that 'this is the way the world is meant to be'.
Even take something like the family unit. Some cultures enforce absolute obedience and eliminate all capacity for critical thought.
vestigule t1_j14qsya wrote
It may shock you to learn that most people are just as capable of critical thinking as you are, and not everyone who is is so impressed by Chomsky’s intellect.
ganjamozart t1_j153ak5 wrote
I mean looking at the state of the world, I find that claim highly dubious. Even looking at global pew research poll results on things like climate change and so on, critical thinking is hardly as common as you purport it to be.
machine_elf69 t1_j1hbvdp wrote
Chomsky is resolutely not an anarchist theorist, but rather a fellow traveler--he admitted as much himself.
svoodie2 t1_j12vxtk wrote
That really is such a cop-out non idea. Liberals think liberal democratic state authority is justified. Marxists think the dictatorship of the proletariat's authority is justified. Islamists believe the authority of the caliphate is justified.
CoolCatPD t1_j12z5qu wrote
Dude you are buggin. Chomsky is controversial for sure, but raises a valid idea here. Authority has to have a purpose, a service to the people, or it's just authority for the sake of itself/ the authoritarians. There are lots of ways to interpret the justification of authority by the millions that fall on all political spectrums. Everyone who participates in a society justifies authority somehow, or at best ignores it and carries on with their lives. The talk here is about a reaction to authority that humanity seems to always fall back on, the dismantlement of it and fall/ growth(?) to anarchy.
svoodie2 t1_j150h1c wrote
"There are lots of ways to interpret the justification of authority by the millions"
Exactly. Which is why the whole idea of defining Anarchism in terms of criticism of or opposition to "unjust hierarchies" or "unjust authority" is essentially meaningless.
Pretty much all political schools of thought have some set of power relations which they oppose. Defining Anarchism in the terms of Chomsky just means that everyone is an anarchist.
CoolCatPD t1_j153wft wrote
Just because one definition of an idea differs from another it doesn't make the whole idea of defining that thing worthless. I think they're saying that anarchism is the most basic human form, which is maybe not true, but this is philosophy lol And the thing is, political or not, ALL systems have a power dynamic, even anarchism. You HAVE to have power over those that would assert themselves over others. It's a paradox, but its like the paradox of tolerance. In order for anything to work you need at least a base level of authority over others.
svoodie2 t1_j17ptmm wrote
"You HAVE to have power over those that would assert themselves over others"
I mean I agree, but that's also part of why I am a Marxist and not an Anarchist.
But that's all beside the point. My quibble here isn't with Anarchism as such. Merely Chomsky's conceptualisation of it. You are doing an exedingly poor job of convincing me that Chomsky's conceptualisation is actually useful or really meaningful in any sense.
CoolCatPD t1_j17sf6f wrote
I guess I'm just playing devils advocate. I appreciate lots of viewpoints, even ones I don't necessarily agree or identify with, like Chomsky's. I still find his insights useful as a way to view something like anarchy from a lense I wouldn't normally approach on my own. Chomsky's views are as useful to me as Hitler's; sometimes enlightened, sometimes cautionary ways NOT to think lol
svoodie2 t1_j17wm9g wrote
You've barely made mention of the central question of contention: weather Chomsky's definition of Anarchism is coherent or not. Calling that playing devil's advocate is charitable to the extreme. As it stands you haven't made any real point
I do wonder why on earth you would consider Hitler enlightened in any way.
CoolCatPD t1_j17ydwj wrote
I don't see how it's incoherent at all. As far as I'm aware he simply states that anarchism is personal freedom (or liberalism) brought to an extreme, or "natural" end, which, if I'm interpreting correctly, seems pretty coherent, even if I don't agree.
Also I wasn't saying I find Hitler enlightened lol he was my example of a perspective worth knowing and understanding so that we don't fall into pitfalls like xenophobia and nationalism. He's a teacher of what would be harmful to society and our fellow man. This perspective is important so its not repeated.
svoodie2 t1_j17zmfi wrote
"As far as I'm aware he simply states that anarchism is personal freedom (or liberalism) brought to an extreme"
You are simply not engaging with the discussion at hand. This is the description Chomsky uses, which is the actual topic of discussion:
""Primarily, [anarchism] is a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical
of domination, authority, and hierarchy. It seeks structures of
hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending
from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks
whether those systems are justified. Their authority is not
self-justifying. They have to give a reason for it, a justification."
The justification of whatever power relation, and the criticism of other sets of power relations, is fundamental to all bodies of political theory of which I am aware. Anarchists of course disagree that "God wills it" is a good enough justification, but that simply means that there is some other set of criteria by which anarchists evaluate the justification of any given power relation.
Ergo: merely questioning weather a power relationship is justified is not a defining feature of anarchism. Everyone already does that. This presupposition leads to idiotic conclusions. A Nazi screaming "The Authority of the Zionist Occupation Government is unjustified and should be dismantled" suddenly becomes a piece of anarchist political theory.
CoolCatPD t1_j183079 wrote
I feel like you're just wanting to talk AT me at this point, but I'll respond one last time here. I don't see how questioning whether a power relationship is justified or not ISN'T a defining feature of anarchism, but yes everyone sort of does that, but anarchism is still a reaction to that question, making it an essential component. You HAVE to ask that to get there. Sure maybe Chomsky's too broad here, but I don't see how its nonsensical. Anarchists would be the reactionaries to an authority they deem unjustified, and I think it's honestly as simple as that.
svoodie2 t1_j18axik wrote
You feel that way because this is the first comment you have made that is actually engaging with the topic of discussion.
"I don't see how questioning whether a power relationship is justified or not ISN'T a defining feature of anarchism"
It is. Along with every other political theory. The real thing you have to explain is how under Chomsky's definition theocracy or fascism isn't anarchist because it questions the justification of liberal democratic authority, and seek to dismantle it because they view it as unjustified.
You are merely stating that you disagree without giving me a real reason why my extrapolation of the consequences of that definition do not follow.
Something other than what Chomsky proposes is pretty obviously what separates anarchism from other political theories.
CoolCatPD t1_j19lqeb wrote
Yeah no I think I've engaged this entire time I just haven't given you a precise definition that you're happy with. It makes sense to me, and plenty of other people. I would say that yes, any group that momentarily overthrows the current authority to be somewhat anarchic. That's just how it seems to me. You don't have to agree, that's fine. Everyone has a different definition of seeking personal liberty, even if it's on their way to oppression or fascism or democracy. Dismantling an authority is being an anarchist.
svoodie2 t1_j1ahr7n wrote
At least your engaging. Finally. I do however find myself thoroughly unconvinced by your, and Chomsky's, claim by extension that Franco was 'doing an Anarchy' so to speak when he overthrew the Spanish Republic.
SirMichaelDonovan t1_j0z8r59 wrote
Excellent article, thank you, I needed something to ponder for the day.
I don't think it's fair to discuss anarchism as though it's an achievable state and this article does a really good job of laying out the challenges of that approach.
I see anarchism as being an ideal standard of living. I don't think we'll ever get to that standard but I think it's important to hold up that image of a perfect world and to ask ourselves, "What can we do in the here-and-now that will get us closer to this?"
theaselliott t1_j0zbvkv wrote
Anarchists usually perceive anarchy as a process. Something that's unattainable but should always be strived for. Malatesta explains this well if I remember correctly.
Containedmultitudes t1_j0zpmuj wrote
I’m a big fan of Chomsky’s definition. My poor attempt to paraphrase: authority is not self justifying, and authoritarian structures that can not justify their existence should be dismantled. Could probably add what authority deserves to exist should be controlled through democratic processes.
Ikhlas37 t1_j0zhv2d wrote
Any share what the ultimate anarchic society (?) Would look like?
All i think of when i here anarchist is burning the establishment down and sticking it to the man which I'm assuming is only a small part of it? (Or a completely different thing under the same umbrella)
Edit: ah good old Reddit, where someone asks a genuine question to learn more and gets downvoted for not already knowing lol
Please don't mistake this edit as a plea for upvotes. Please continue to downvote or don't. Is that anarchy? The freedom of choice. ✊
Transocialist t1_j0zwunl wrote
Anarchism as a political philosophy strives for non-hierarchical cooperation. It's hard to say what an "end-stage" anarchist society would look like - anarchism focuses more on how people should go about organizing than the results of the organization.
I tend to imagine society organized across geographies by trade and industrial unions and in localities by consensus-driven democracy with local councils handling the day to day administrative tasks. The economy would primarily function almost as a gift economy, possibly with some markets for luxury goods.
iDrGonzo t1_j103ngb wrote
I think you can get a good idea of the philosophy behind post modern anarchism from Ursula K LeGuin's-The Dispossessed and The Left Hand of Darkness.
procrastinato_r t1_j119u00 wrote
Back in the 1970's I was thinking of doing a PhD with the title "The concept of justice in anarchist political theory" then I read The Dispossessed and realised anything I was going to write would not come close to what she achieved. So she saved 3 years of my life.
glum_plum t1_j11133a wrote
I want to add another great work of fiction portraying ararchic ways of life is A Country of Ghosts by Margaret Killjoy. Oh and Walkaway by Cory Doctorow.
SnapcasterWizard t1_j10cjvo wrote
Socialism isnt anarchism. In neither is anarchy as a system really explored.
_CMDR_ t1_j10ywvb wrote
Anarcho socialism is a thing.
iDrGonzo t1_j10f81s wrote
I said "The idea of the philosophy". https://www.ursulakleguin.com/postmodern-anarchism#:~:text=And%20in%20her%201974%20masterpiece,for%20any%20contemporary%20anarchist%20project.
There are quite a few articles on the finer points of this if you want to read up on it.
dfeeney95 t1_j111xdn wrote
So my idea of anarchy is making a choice for your personal situation based on your own morals regardless of the law. When I drive home from work today there are some stretches of the interstate that normally aren’t too busy, but the speed limit is 70mph I can safely and comfortably go 80mph so when I can I do go 80mph. My view of anarchism doesn’t mean looting and burning shit. Societies since the beginning of time have used natural law before a “state” existed do no harm to others and do no harm to the earth. MLK had a really good quote in his “letter from Birmingham jail” that to me is an anarchistic ideology “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”
Comrade_pirx t1_j0zlxs7 wrote
Look up Barcelona '36
glum_plum t1_j111aun wrote
It just seems like if you did read the posted piece, you should read it again. It might help clear up your questions.
12threefall t1_j13vuyw wrote
Freedom to say no. Autonomy.
[deleted] t1_j10glrf wrote
[deleted]
Desmond_FanClub t1_j0zqe68 wrote
It would look like everyone singing kumbaya and sharing everything. There will be no prisons or strong state enforcement of law because, in anarchy-world, everyone will just be good and serial killers just need to have free food. All crime is due to poverty!
RedditExecutiveAdmin t1_j0ziqjn wrote
Isn't the lack of any modern anarchistic society an indicator it doesn't work?
Even this blog article really can't wrangle with the fact that you need some form of law to deal with criminal behavior
edit: I stand corrected that there does appear to be some "anarchist" societies, but many have exceptions here or there. It still appears that anarchism is more of a beginning than an end. The evolution of law is too key of an aspect of human society to let it be essentially decentralized.
rottentomatopi t1_j0zobfl wrote
No. Because to achieve an anarchistic society would require overcoming the power structures that have been in place for a really really long time. Doesn’t mean it’s impossible, just not probable in our lifetime, and maybe not in our children’s lifetime either. But what matters isn’t immediate effect, what matters is contributing to that future when it is possible.
Abolition, workers rights, women’s rights are all examples of movements that began with anarchist thought. They all involved questioning of a structural problem in society and the subsequent attempt to dismantle it. It takes time.
RedditExecutiveAdmin t1_j0zqfnt wrote
fair enough, i can respect that any anarchist society would need to overcome the existing power structures.
i do slightly disagree with the idea that abolition or civil rights "began with anarchist thought", but perhaps my definition of anarchism is different than this context. If questioning authority makes you an anarchist then sure, but then how can a stateless society enforce civil rights without state institutions?
Desmond_FanClub t1_j0zq1gv wrote
Do we consider “the fundamental social-psychological nature of the human mind” to be one of these “power structures?”
Because I agree, it will take a long time to overcome that. Like, we’d need to evolve into a different species before an anarchist social regime could ever hope to be stable and healthy
Transocialist t1_j0zx85v wrote
What parts of the "social-psychological nature of the human mind" prevent which aspects of anarchist organizing?
Desmond_FanClub t1_j0zxbvm wrote
The part that makes me devious AF and wanna vandalize your shit
You gonna call the anarchy cops?
Transocialist t1_j10074v wrote
I would defend my stuff myself or get my neighbors to help me or call the local defense council, sure. I mean, what stops you from doing that now? I see shit get vandalized every day and cops don't seem to do anything about it.
VitriolicViolet t1_j15jnnk wrote
whats to stop the local defence council from simply taking over and becoming a defacto government?
never seen any actual mechanism to prevent strongmen/warlords or the inevitable return of some form of hierarchical state, just some nebulous BS about how the 'people' would stop it.
Transocialist t1_j15pcv7 wrote
There's two parts to this:
-
How do you prevent the people with arms in your community from banding together and taking over? Well, I'd imagine you'd spread defensive readiness across different sectors of your community, embedded within the populace. You would complement seasoned volunteers and appointed or elected leaders, probably with some measure of training for all adults. Ideally you would rotate your soldiers across communities too.
-
How does a society prevent a different society from gathering enough strength to conquer them? I don't know, that's an open question. Once any society has figured this out we can talk.
Desmond_FanClub t1_j100fpt wrote
I’ll get an even BIGGER group of people to overwhelm the “local defense council” (whatever such a thing would actually, specifically look like in our modern context which anarchists never explain)
BaldrClayton t1_j103gqe wrote
Well then I'll put a trap and hide it very well so you wouldn't be able to detect it and fall into it 100% if you ever try to steal my stuff. And it would not matter how many people you'd bring because I'd just put as many traps +1
Desmond_FanClub t1_j104jvj wrote
Jokes on you, the local trap council has been paid off (by me) and all your traps are disabled
BaldrClayton t1_j1055i2 wrote
AHA ! money doesn't exist in Anarchy so you lose ! (also my dad is in the trap council)
Desmond_FanClub t1_j105u1i wrote
>My dad is in the trap council
😳 ayo?
Transocialist t1_j104bez wrote
The local defense council would be a group of people elected or appointed by the community who are responsible for training, arming and organizing members in the community. How specific are you asking? Like what level of detail would convince you?
What stops you from doing that in hierarchical societies? I mean, powerful people in our society use their wealth and power to inflict terrible pain and misery on the poor. So, what's stopping them?
SnapcasterWizard t1_j10crf4 wrote
Lol so you would call the local government in a system without authority???
Transocialist t1_j10jctb wrote
I would call the people who have volunteered to defend the community. Anarchist societies would still have institutions and organizations - but they should be organized as least-hierarchically as possible, built by the community democratically.
Anarchism is a set of ideals and organizational principles, not some utopian end goal.
silveroranges t1_j1000n4 wrote
damn, that would be a good band name. Anarchy Cops. In fact, I'm writing that down.
Desmond_FanClub t1_j10073m wrote
I’ll wait until you get big and then sue you for stealing the name
Wait, can I even do that in anarchy world?
Fuduzan t1_j10xbhy wrote
>sue you for stealing the name
>
>Wait, can I even do that in anarchy world?
Of course you can! What're they gonna to, sue you?
theaselliott t1_j0zk3qw wrote
Lack? Bro the world if full of anarchist experiments that have been going on for years. Just look it up.
Desmond_FanClub t1_j0zq6fi wrote
And every single one exists only with the blessing of non-anarchist societies.
RedditExecutiveAdmin t1_j0zkgcj wrote
feel free to cite one but they obviously aren't working lol
Containedmultitudes t1_j0zqhxu wrote
Hunter gatherer societies are in many ways anarchic and were the basis of human civilization for most of our existence. For a modern example the kibbutzim of Israel are a kind of anarchic society. There are tons of others as well. As a general matter, though, the fact that an ideology invites harsh repression doesn’t mean that ideology can’t work. Democracy didn’t exist for thousands of years and attempted democratic communities were brutally destroyed, but once democracy was able to overcome that history of oppression better societies were created.
RedditExecutiveAdmin t1_j103sf8 wrote
The Kibbutz is a very interesting read, but i'd agree it's only "kind of" anarchistic. As for the rest, I actually got to meet some EZLN members on a trip down to southern Mexico one time, got a shirt from them of Subcomandante Marcos
I think at the end of the day they're not purely anarchist though. And I'd argue hunter gatherers were not anarchist by choice. Hunter gatherers were not saying "ah, we could all form a democracy right now but things are working fine lets keep it this way"--it's just how it worked. Modern anarchists seek to reject state institutions. You cannot reject what is not there, and hunter gatherers were by that definition not really anarchist.
I also respectfully think some of these arguments miss the point that anarchy has had its chance. I really am trying to see how anarchy may exist in the future given some serious modifications in human behavior. But as you mention, democracy didn't exist for thousands of years and was even brutally suppressed. But anarchy has existed for thousands of years. Hasn't anarchy been "trying to work", or overcome the inception of other younger systems, for the entirety of life on earth? It seems misplaced to think there is a distant future where anarchy works when it's been the tried method for most of human history. How has anarchy not already had a chance to work? I'm open to a suggestion that it hasn't had a chance yet, but I personally can't come up with reasons to say it like that. It may be still trying but I think it's a stretch of reason to say anarchism hasn't already had a chance.
RedditExecutiveAdmin t1_j0zkgs8 wrote
feel free to cite one but they obviously aren't working lol
DiogenesCane t1_j104qoo wrote
I agree. My view is that Anarchism provides two things to those who understand it. The first is what you’ve said, ideals of utopian societies. The second is critical thought of power structures. Anarchism allows the individual to deconstruct any power structure in order to better understand and evaluate it. Without viewing the world in this way, titles and power and hierarchies are often misevaluated as being forces for good.
Asatas t1_j0znw9r wrote
One easy thing to do is to stop focusing on superfluous things, especially status symbols. Status signalling keeps the social hierarchy intact.
pf30146788e t1_j10u961 wrote
You should read The Dispossessed if you haven’t. One of my favorite novels of all time, and it’s got anarchism.
rossimus t1_j0zojug wrote
>I see anarchism as being an ideal standard of living. I don't think we'll ever get to that standard
Seeing how people reacted to a completely manageable crisis like COVID selfishly and counterproductively proved to me without a reasonable doubt that people as a group cannot be trusted to act rationally without guardrails or hierarchical structure.
A person is smart, rational. People are dumb panicky animals. You or I might be able to live capably in an anarchical society, but the vast majority could not, and there would always be some minority of people who would impose their own hierarchy upon their immediate area, with coercion or charisma, and then BOOM, you have warlords and cults. And now you and your neighbors need to organize a way to protect yourselves from those warlords and cults. BOOM, now you have an organized society that demands specialization and organization, and now you aren't anarchical so what was the point of all that in the first place.
Anarchism, even in its most optimistic and ideal form is inferior to organized society in every way save for an individual's desire to be unconstrained. Life is better with infrastructure and logistics. Paved roads, grocery stores, supply chains, libraries, electricity, bridges, transportation, etc are awesome and none of those would exist without large scale organization and regulation.
Meta_Digital t1_j0zuocz wrote
> Seeing how people reacted to a completely manageable crisis like COVID selfishly and counterproductively proved to me without a reasonable doubt that people as a group cannot be trusted to act rationally without guardrails or hierarchical structure.
Odd to think that because people are incapable of self-governing that they must be capable of governing others. It seems like one should have the opposite reaction.
XiphosAletheria t1_j10pmjq wrote
Why is it odd? Half of any group of a respresentative cross-section of humanity is going to be stupid. And to the extent that other traits follow a similar normal distribution, half will be lazy, emotionally unaware, criminally inclined, etc. It is precisely because people in general are not very good at self-governing that we need heirarchal systems that put those handful who are good at governing in charge. It would be odder to believe in heirarchal systems and to believe that everyone was equally good at self-governing.
Meta_Digital t1_j10sx4q wrote
I feel like the article responds to this, but who are these people that are adapt at governing others and what system actually puts them in places of power? Looking at the world around me today, I see incompetence at the top just as much or more than at the bottom.
Also, not everyone has to be good at self-governing, but if you put one person in charge of everyone else, they certainly have to be good at it due to the complexity and the consequences. The argument that a single person should be in charge of an organization seems like the belief that the best brain cell should run the entire human body. Chomsky describes the consequences of this ideology as "institutional stupidity".
XiphosAletheria t1_j10w9vr wrote
Ideally, of course, you'll have some sort of meritocracy, but any system that concentrates authority will work better than one that doesn't. And of course it won't be one person ruling really. You'll have the deep state, the bureaucracy full of thousands of civil servants, all screened through the need to get degrees and certifications, who do the heavy lifting.
And you're right! Things can go very wrong if the people at the top suck. Sure, of course. But a system where you have someone in charge coordinating a response to complex problems as they arise is still better than one where you have no one in charge hence no coordinated responses. The former may sometimes fail, even fail spectacularly, but at least it can sometimes succeed. The later can only fail, always and forever, until someone takes charge.
Meta_Digital t1_j10xjld wrote
If anarchy is a fantasy, then meritocracy is a form of insanity. There has yet to be a good definition of merit, and worse, there's hardly ever been an attempt at one. Merit gets defined by the people at the top of the system in order to preserve their position and elevate those who help them preserve their position. And so, without fail, every meritocracy is a scam, and the result is that those with something approaching a more objective definition of merit are not elevated. We're not even at the point where we can even conceive of an objective definition of merit.
For instance, merit under capitalism is profit maximization. So those elevated to the top of society are the ones who... well by and large started at the top. Even if they didn't, it turns out that you can maximize profits best by being parasitic on society and the natural environment, and so those in the greatest position of power under capitalism are also those most responsible for the world's greatest problems. This is a pretty typical result in historical attempts at a kind of meritocracy.
A society focused on the worth and autonomy of an individual person wouldn't discriminate for or against them based on merit. Ultimately, merit is just reducing a person down to the instrumental use they have for someone else's ambitions.
XiphosAletheria t1_j11c4pv wrote
Merit is simply effectiveness at whatever task you are doing. A janitor who is on the ball and keeps everything spic and span is a meritorious janitor. A doctor who repeatedly gets the best medical outcomes for his patients is a meritorious doctor. A CEO who maximizes profit and makes his company millions is a meritorious CEO. Some qualities tend to make people more meritorious across a wide variety of tasks - being conscientious, hard working, intelligent, etc., especially in combination. And I don't think it is particularly insane to want doctors who are good at doctoring, or politicians who are good at politics, or chefs who are good at cooking. It is probably impossible to have a pure meritocracy, given our tribal tendencies, but some systems are more meritocratic than others, and we should prefer those.
Meta_Digital t1_j11djdc wrote
Okay, and I generally agree with this, but the issue seems to emerge when we're talking about organizing a society in a way that those with "merit" have undue power over those who supposedly don't.
Does Elon Musk have more merit than his Tesla or Twitter employees?
Does Joe Biden or Donald Trump have more merit than most of the US?
What even are the merits of Exxon? The Federal Reserve? The World Bank? The CIA? NATO? Do they have justification for the immense power they have over so many people's lives?
It's simple when we're talking about simple roles like a doctor or a janitor, but it gets far more complicated when we structure entire governments and massive national and transnational organizations around vague ideas of "merit". Can we even justify the existence of many of these organizations at all? What do we even mean by "merit" with reference to them?
Most of the discussion surrounding the failures of these organizations concerns the idea that the "wrong" people are at the top of them. If only Trump were president, then X would happen. If only Biden were president, then Y would happen. Yet the same system elevates both equally. Perhaps the fact that the wrong people keep getting into power comes down to the system simply working as it's supposed to work and that the ideas that went into the system are what's at fault. This would be the anarchist critique.
XiphosAletheria t1_j12npuo wrote
I think the problems you are talking about are less system specific and more a matter of scale. We evolved to live in tribes of 150 or so people, and instead live in nations of millions, or in many cases, tens of millions or hundreds of millions. And at that scale any sociopolitical system is going to suffer from terrible distortions and breakdowns. The issue with Biden and Trump isn't that one is the right person and the other is wrong. It's that one is right for millions of people and wrong for millions more, and so is the other. And there are millions more for whom they are both wrong.
Likewise, people like Musk benefit from the fact that, at high enough scales, you can add a small amount of value to a large amount of things to make an awful lot of money. And money itself in large enough amounts can be used to generate more money simply by manipulating the system rather than through generating productive value.
But no system you design is going to avoid those sorts of problems at our current scale. Any system complex enough to handle things will also provide opportunities that those running it can exploit. And the very scale means you do need someone running things, because the alternative is anarchy in the sense it's detractors mean, violent chaos leading to endless warfare.
rossimus t1_j0zvvou wrote
That's why we've moved away from systems of government where a person rules, and into systems of government where institutions and laws rule, and the people running those institutions cycle through.
This is precisely and deliberately because people paradoxically need to be governed to some degree but also cannot reliably self-govern without mucking it all up.
Meta_Digital t1_j0zwyql wrote
And yet wealth and power remain extremely concentrated - more so than in any point in history. The institutions that rule also concentrate power at the very top - whether it's the totalitarian power of the business owners, the plutocratic power of a board of directors, the dictatorial power of some "elected" leaders like the US president, or the kleptocratic power of our democratic "representatives" who overwhelmingly belong to the owning class.
Systems of governance create the conditions which consolidate wealth and power in some hands, and strip wealth and power from others. An anarchist society is not one without structures of governance, but one which radically distributes wealth and power to the individual by critiquing and eliminating unjustified forms of dominance.
VitriolicViolet t1_j15laix wrote
>Systems of governance create the conditions which consolidate wealth and power in some hands, and strip wealth and power from others. An anarchist society is not one without structures of governance, but one which radically distributes wealth and power to the individual by critiquing and eliminating unjustified forms of dominance.
in what possible way?
how does anarchy prevent or even limit this? if you have no state at all then all it takes is a charismatic individual with resources to slowly take over, if you do have some form of state then all it takes is an individual with enough resources to co-opt whatever 'state' or institution/s.
again anarchy and libertarianism rely on fantasy versions of human behavior, where people will magically not submit to rule by others despite all of human history disagreeing (pre-agricultural humanity is utterly irrelevant, its like saying we should look to chimps for advice on structuring society).
if the whole point is to just try and never give up then no system is any better or worse than any other, literally all of them have utopian visions for someone.
personally im on the point that short of annihilating the concept of property its not possible to avoid those who have the most resources using said resources to control others (the wealthy have dismantled literally every system ever implemented, just look at what people define 'capitalism' to be vs what it actually is)
rossimus t1_j0zy0y6 wrote
>And yet wealth and power remain extremely concentrated - more so than in any point in history.
Wealth and power were far more concentrated when the world was ruled by absolute monarchs, emperors, and warlords. It's actually far more dispersed now than for most of human history. It's still very concentrated, but it's much better now than it used to be.
>An anarchist society is not one without structures of governance, but one which radically distributes wealth and power to the individual by critiquing and eliminating unjustified forms of dominance.
Until someone who wanted power seizes it and imposes their will. Power loves a vacuum, and an anarchist society would invite far greater concentrations of wealth and power because any regulatory institutions or guardrails would be gone. Power would just go to whoever was most willing to seize it by whatever means. You can't have both a government and a lack of hierarchy; who enforces the rules, if there are any?
You can't "eliminate unjustified forms of dominance" and also have no hierarchical system to enforce it. What's stopping me from gathering a handful of droogs and coming over to your house and taking your stuff? If I didn't have the stuff you have, why wouldn't I do this if it meant that my own family/community would love more comfortably and securely?
Meta_Digital t1_j1000b7 wrote
> Wealth and power were far more concentrated when the world was ruled by absolute monarchs, emperors, and warlords.
They would look on today's billionaires with an envy the rest of us couldn't imagine. Today's wealthy and powerful are like gods compared to history's tyrants.
> You can't "eliminate unjustified forms of dominance" and also have no hierarchical system to enforce it.
Ultimately, the argument is about what is and is not a justified hierarchy. In this way, anarchism isn't unique from other forms of critique of power. What anarchism is, instead, is a focus on dominance in its political form. Environmentalism, feminism, race theory, Marxism, and other forms of critiques on the justification of hierarchy exist. It's a simplistic interpretation to take these as arguments for absolutely no power dynamics. That's impossible. What they are, instead, are the shadows cast by those power dynamics. They raise questions worth answering, and in answering them, we can create a more ethical world.
Anarchy in its most extreme theoretical form isn't possible. Neither is good, truth, objectivity, etc. Ultimately, ideals are directions we move toward more than they are destinations. To abandon projects just because their most Platonic form isn't achievable in material reality is really just to abandon any meaning or purpose and fall into nihilism and despair.
rossimus t1_j102bih wrote
>They would look on today's billionaires with an envy the rest of us couldn't imagine. Today's wealthy and powerful are like gods compared to history's tyrants.
By this logic, the wealthiest medieval emperor of all time would look on at a lower middle class American with intense envy; indoor plumbing, electricity, central air and heating year round, high quality food always available nearby, a combustion engine vehicle capable of speeds far in excess of any horse or carriage; but the distance between that emperor and the peasants of the day vs a modern billionaire and a middle class person, outside of the dollar amount of wealth, isn't nearly as great. Regular people have access to basically all the same comforts as a billionaire, it's just that the billionaire has more of those things and nicer versions.
>Anarchy in its most extreme theoretical form isn't possible.
Exactly. It's a fun thought experiment, but is equally as implausible in real life as it would be undesirable.
Meta_Digital t1_j103oh1 wrote
From a creature comfort standpoint, yes I think there would be some envy. From a standpoint of individual autonomy and leisure time, though, they would overwhelmingly consider working people to be slaves and not want to be us.
Plato would consider our souls too corrupted for geometry or philosophy. Roman law wouldn't consider us freemen. Even medieval serfs had more leisure time and access to more public spaces and common land.
It's not as simple as "things are better now". Some things, like comforts and the forms of escapism have improved, but other things are much worse. We don't really have privacy anymore. Our personal property has been replaced with the private property of those we are made dependent on. We have little to no public space or natural environment. It's more polluted. Our existential threats are worse than ever before.
I think it would be very hard to make the case that a historical tyrant would look at the average retail or office worker with any degree of envy.
rossimus t1_j107pjx wrote
>I think it would be very hard to make the case that a historical tyrant would look at the average retail or office worker with any degree of envy.
I would rather work 8 hours a day in retail and enjoy all the trappings of modern life than spend every hour of every day managing a realm while shitting in cold holes, drinking water filled with parasites, watching my children die young with alarming regularity, face a constant threat of assassination and power play resulting from primitive succession systems, confront the cold and dark of winter in a visceral even from within a gold studded palace, endure disease and injury without any real form of medicine, etc. Even the relatively modern history of 18th century Britain, from an aristocratic point of view, sounds boring AF from the literature describing it at the time.
But I get it. We are all subject to envy in some way; for example you envy the rich and powerful for their material comforts to such a degree that you aren't even a little satisfied with all the incredible things you do have, simply on the basis that a handful of people have more of it than you. Such relative comparisons would not be absent in an anarchist society, they would just follow different parameters. Someone will always have more than you.
The real question is, right now, would you be willing to give up everything you currently have to be more equal with someone who has much less than you? Would you accept living at the same standards as the poorest humans in the slums of Cairo or New Delhi in the name of egalitarianism?
Meta_Digital t1_j108tas wrote
I think you're presenting a false dichotomy here. Be unequal and wealthy or equal and poor.
In our extremely stratified and wasteful society, I think it is entirely reasonable to be equal without being poor. The poverty inflicted on the masses to keep them in waged labor is artificial, and many of the "luxuries" are just distractions that are bad for us (like Reddit itself).
Also, this assumes that the current structure can survive indefinitely. I do not see any reason to see that it can. I would argue that it's pretty clear at this point that continuing the capitalist mode of production is an existential threat to life on Earth, and so the choice ends up being between preserving whatever life we have now at the cost of an early death or looking for an alternative which allows us to continue to survive long term.
rossimus t1_j10et2o wrote
>I think you're presenting a false dichotomy here. Be unequal and wealthy or equal and poor.
>In our extremely stratified and wasteful society, I think it is entirely reasonable to be equal without being poor.
Ah, but therein lies the rub; how does one achieve that? What if that really is the dichotomy? So far it always has been, and every effort to change it has been unsuccessful, or indeed just reinforced the nature of that dichotomy. Besides wishful thinking and theoretical ideas, there is nothing tangible to suggest that this isn't just the way things will always be in one form or another.
We can hope it won't be, and we can make progress to that end (as I said, we are far closer to that ideal today than ever before, regardless of what reddit memes suggest), but ultimately it may be the case that some amount of inequality and stratification is an inevitable part of a functional, organized society. Someone will always have to deal with cleaning up, disposing waste, digging ditches, and working agriculture, and those will always be tasks/roles that people would prefer not to have compared to other potential options, like those that involve sitting in soft chairs in air-conditioned offices. An organized productive society will need people to do both, and it's not clear how you could dole those roles out without someone getting something "better" than someone else. How would such a division of labor be equitably organized in our hypothetical utopia?
>I would argue that it's pretty clear at this point that continuing the capitalist mode of production is an existential threat to life on Earth, and so the choice ends up being between preserving whatever life we have now at the cost of an early death or looking for an alternative which allows us to continue to survive long term.
Moving on from the current capitalist model may indeed be inevitable, even desirable, but I think it's unreasonable to just assume that moving on from capitalism will automatically lead to a more equitable or environmentally balanced system. It was an upgrade to move from feudalistic serfdom to capitalism; it made things more equal and made life better. It follows then that whatever follows capitalism may be "better" in some or many ways, but just as capitalism has failed so many and done so much damage, in spite of being an objectively better, more efficient, more equitable system than feudalism, the next system may too fall short of utopia. Which isn't a reason not to move forward, but it's something to keep in mind as we do so.
Meta_Digital t1_j10u3gp wrote
> Besides wishful thinking and theoretical ideas, there is nothing tangible to suggest that this isn't just the way things will always be in one form or another.
Other than historical societies, which offer a wealth of alternatives to capitalism or destitution. None of this is any more "wishful thinking" than trying to be good or truthful.
> How would such a division of labor be equitably organized in our hypothetical utopia?
The focus here isn't on some fantasy of everyone being perfectly equal and having exactly the same outcome. It's about control vs. autonomy. A self-governing society would be just that; a collection of autonomous agents collectively forming a community. The material conditions of life will create some inequality, but it wouldn't be the kind of inequality imposed through force that is normal under capitalism.
> Moving on from the current capitalist model may indeed be inevitable, even desirable, but I think it's unreasonable to just assume that moving on from capitalism will automatically lead to a more equitable or environmentally balanced system.
Certainly. We're currently experiencing the decline of capitalism and the rise in the potential for alternatives - which will either move in the direction of a more egalitarian society such as in socialism or an even more stratified economy such as in fascism. The Nazis began as an anti-capitalist movement before Hitler came to power (and got rid of the original anti-capitalists along with the rest), so yes, not all alternatives are desirable.
Yet, critiques like the anarchist critique are the alternative to reactionary politics that results in worsening conditions. By ignoring the anarchist (and other) critiques, we only increase the risk of descending into something worse.
rossimus t1_j10wz8u wrote
>Other than historical societies, which offer a wealth of alternatives to capitalism or destitution. None of this is any more "wishful thinking" than trying to be good or truthful.
What are some examples of successful ones?
>The focus here isn't on some fantasy of everyone being perfectly equal and having exactly the same outcome. It's about control vs. autonomy. A self-governing society would be just that; a collection of autonomous agents collectively forming a community.
It looks like you're describing Communism, which we tried and doesn't work.
>We're currently experiencing the decline of capitalism and the rise in the potential for alternatives - which will either move in the direction of a more egalitarian society such as in socialism or an even more stratified economy such as in fascism.
But see both socialism and fascism (which isn't an economic model, but I understand what you're trying to say) are both extensions of capitalism, not new systems entirely. Marx himself saw socialism as a desirable end-state of capitalism, not an alternative. It wouldn't fundamentally change much in terms of societal stratification or environmental degradation, it would just mean worker shared ownership of capital, not the end of a system where capital is the key driving force of an economic system. Whatever follows capitalism would be something completely different. UBI is a closer approximation of what a post-capitalist society would look like (though it's also problematic).
>By ignoring the anarchist (and other) critiques, we only increase the risk of descending into something worse.
I think discussing it as an interesting thought experiment can be fun and informative, but it isn't terribly useful because it is neither practical nor desirable. It isn't accurate to say that we are doomed to back pedal as a direct result of not engaging with a hypothetical utopian fantasy.
Meta_Digital t1_j10yyym wrote
> What are some examples of successful ones?
The untold thousands of years of primitive communism, which led to the domination of the human species over the planet, is often considered an example of humanity's success as a species. We could consider the end of these cultures, often eradicated by empires through conquest and colonization, as failure, but I think an argument could also be made that conquest and colonization were a response to the failure of empire.
I like to use science as a good example of a cooperative free exchange that betters humanity, and contributes one of the greatest successes of the human race. Science constantly rubs up against hierarchy, competition, and privatization, which have all inhibited its ability to better our lives.
> It looks like you're describing Communism, which we tried and doesn't work.
This is an overly simplistic understanding of what people mean by communism. You might be thinking specifically of the USSR, which was not structured as a communist (or even socialist) society, but an attempt to eventually evolve into one. It does demonstrate the difficulty in taking a feudal society and trying to make it communist in a capitalist world, but it does not prove that communism is impossible.
> But see both socialism and fascism (which isn't an economic model, but I understand what you're trying to say) are both extensions of capitalism, not new systems entirely.
Fascist regimes, thus far, have had capitalist economies integrated into their political system. Some have described fascism as the merging of capitalism with government.
Socialism is not capitalist as it doesn't have capital. The word "capitalism" was invented by early socialists to describe an economy system focused on capital rather than society. Socialism abolishes capital (private property, employers, employees, etc.) and thus is no more capitalist than feudalism or other alternative economies that don't contain capital.
> It isn't accurate to say that we are doomed to back pedal as a direct result of not engaging with a hypothetical utopian fantasy.
Anarchism isn't a hypothetical utopian fantasy. In fact, by definition, it is the opposite, as to presume that future generations would structure society exactly as historical thinkers imagined would be a form of inter-generational oppression. Anarchism is merely a critical framework, like feminism or environmentalism, directed at power dynamics in political structures.
rossimus t1_j11u4ny wrote
>The untold thousands of years of primitive communism
Reddit anarchists have the strangest obsession with hunter gatherer societies as some sort of aspirational mod for society which I don't think I'll ever truly understand. Even taking into account the problem of having a small group of unspecialized individuals (no doctors, engineers, etc, as all members of the group have to work towards the survival of the group), even in its best case scenario it would only work for 20-50 people in a polity. It doesn't scale and so isn't really workable in the modern world where we need systems that account for millions of people at a time.
>I like to use science as a good example of a cooperative free exchange that betters humanity, and contributes one of the greatest successes of the human race
Science is a great example of something a tribal communist/anarchist society could not have. Science requires allowing for specialization, which means one less person working towards the survival of the group. It requires equipment and material that also calls for specialists somewhere to produce; otherwise what you can do with science is limited to stuff we have long since mastered.
>This is an overly simplistic understanding of what people mean by communism. You might be thinking specifically of the USSR, which was not structured as a communist (or even socialist) society, but an attempt to eventually evolve into one.
Communism is impossible, not because every society who's tried it failed, it's impossible because it fails to account for human nature. Communism can only work if everyone always buys into the shared collective efforts of the group. But there will always be people who seek to take advantage of situations to gain advantages for themselves over the group, which is exactly what happened every single time it's been tried. Power loves a vacuum, and communism by definition is a sustained power vacuum. As long as greed or ambition are human traits, communism (beyond a small tight knit group of 20-50) is impossible. History supports this.
>It does demonstrate the difficulty in taking a feudal society and trying to make it communist in a capitalist world, but it does not prove that communism is impossible.
If communism cannot exist unless every society everywhere is also communist, then it fails because it can't compete. Democracy and capitalism were able to be born and thrive in a mostly autocratic feudal world precisely because they were preferable and competitive models; such resilience is a prerequisite for a desirable and effective economic model. Because it is neither resilient nor particularly appealing, communism fails.
>Socialism is not capitalist as it doesn't have capital.
Methinks you should brush up on your Marx. Socialism is explicitly the end-state of capitalism; a model that Marx agreed with. His gripe was merely with who owned the capital, a small class of owners or the workers themselves. But a socialist world is still essentially a capitalist one.
>Socialism abolishes capital
Again, incorrect. It gives ownership of capital to those who work it rather than those who own it. It does not remove the factory or the value that factory creates. You're thinking of communism.
>Anarchism isn't a hypothetical utopian fantasy.
It is quite simply nothing more and nothing less than a hypothetical utopian fantasy. An interesting thought experiment perhaps, but certainly nothing to actually take seriously. Unlike environmentalism and feminism, which can and do exist.
Meta_Digital t1_j126rw0 wrote
> It doesn't scale and so isn't really workable in the modern world where we need systems that account for millions of people at a time.
The thing about horizontal power structures is that, unlike hierarchical structures, they don't scale. Scaling happens when a system grows and it becomes more difficult to centrally plan and manage. Natural systems like the universe itself can be as small or large as they like for this reason. Same with animal populations. Of course such a manmade system wouldn't resemble what we have now, but that doesn't mean that such a thing can't exist. Hierarchies are the exception in nature, not the norm. To frame horizontal structures as unrealistic is to claim that reality is unrealistic.
> Science is a great example of something a tribal communist/anarchist society could not have. Science requires allowing for specialization, which means one less person working towards the survival of the group.
You mean like the specialization of Aristotle, who did philosophy, physics, metaphysics, and other subjects? Or do you mean the mathematician, philosopher, and scientist that was Isaac Newton? Perhaps you are referring to the specialization of Albert Einstein, who was a philosopher, a mathematician, and a scientist. Also a socialist.
The greatest contributors to the advancement of human knowledge rarely resemble the hyper-specialist we see under capitalism and more closely resemble the holistic thinkers of broadly talented people like Leonardo deVinci. Some degree of specialization is necessary, even in the primitive societies you're referring to, but too much specialization and there are no longer any advancements.
In fact, the factory method of industry was in part designed to keep workers so specialized that they'd never command a better wage or grow into potential competition. Like anything, specialization is not always beneficial at all levels of extremity.
> Communism is impossible, not because every society who's tried it failed, it's impossible because it fails to account for human nature. Communism can only work if everyone always buys into the shared collective efforts of the group. But there will always be people who seek to take advantage of situations to gain advantages for themselves over the group, which is exactly what happened every single time it's been tried.
This is based on the idea that because you observe capitalist behavior under capitalism that this means that capitalist behavior is "human nature". It's a common fallacy to assume that your era or culture represents the sum total of human capacity. In reality, communism represents one potential path among many that people can take. A great example of everyday communism is the household. Some households are feudal in structure where the income earner controls everything and dictates everything. More commonly, though, families in a household pool their resources and share for the benefit of the family. This is especially true in poor families that cannot afford the more authoritarian alternative. The fact that both of these kinds of households exist, though, demonstrates the amazing plasticity of so-called "human nature".
> It gives ownership of capital to those who work it rather than those who own it.
The workers use what they own and keep what they produce, the factory is no longer capital (someone else's private property) and the product is no longer capital (someone else's private property). Communism as defined by Marx takes this a step further and removes money and the state as well.
> An interesting thought experiment perhaps, but certainly nothing to actually take seriously. Unlike environmentalism and feminism, which can and do exist.
And criticism from the right of feminism is that it's a utopian fantasy about putting women in charge. Criticism from the same towards environmentalism is that it's a utopian fantasy that nature above humans. How is your critique different from this? Ultimately not. Like with the others, it's born from a misunderstanding of the subject.
All of these are frameworks which approach problems from a particular lens. Feminism from power relations between men and women. Environmentalism from power relations between humans and non-humans. Marxism from power relations between owners and workers. Anarchism from power relations between the government and the governed. None of these are proposed utopias.
rossimus t1_j12bkqa wrote
>Hierarchies are the exception in nature, not the norm
Hierarchies exist all over nature. In all social animals, in food chains, etc.
>To frame horizontal structures as unrealistic is to claim that reality is unrealistic.
You've lost me, I don't even know what you're talking about anymore.
>You mean like the specialization of Aristotle, who did philosophy, physics, metaphysics, and other subjects? Or do you mean the mathematician, philosopher, and scientist that was Isaac Newton?
Both of those guys lived in advanced hierarchical societies where they could specialize in studying. They didn't have to split time between learning and hunting for food each day. They didn't have to make their own clothing, a specialist (tailor) made them. They didn't have to build their own home, specialists (carpenters and builders) did. Specialization and division of labor is something a society can only do if it organizes. Anarchism doesn't allow for this.
>This is based on the idea that because you observe capitalist behavior under capitalism that this means that capitalist behavior is "human nature"
Did greed and ambition not exist in humans before capitalism?
>And criticism from the right of feminism is that it's a utopian fantasy about putting women in charge. Criticism from the same towards environmentalism is that it's a utopian fantasy that nature above humans. How is your critique different from this?
Well, mainly that feminism and environmentalism exist and function. A successful modern anarchist society does not.
>All of these are frameworks which approach problems from a particular lens. Feminism from power relations between men and women. Environmentalism from power relations between humans and non-humans. Marxism from power relations between owners and workers. Anarchism from power relations between the government and the governed.
Indeed, I'm glad to see that we can agree that anarchism is purely a fun theoretical framework and little more. Good thought experiment, terrible real life idea.
GameMusic t1_j0zzaij wrote
This is why I like the idea of some voluntary system of actual social contracts - some basic minimal law plus a legal framework you sign
Right now something similar would be moving to states with laws that reconcile with your values but that is not practical for most
But technology could make this viable
Imagine economic and governmental systems competing for members in the same geographic area but a baseline legal minimum and systems of tariff to prevent one system from bypassing the regulation of another
SirMichaelDonovan t1_j0zptr8 wrote
>A person is smart, rational. People are dumb panicky animals.
Yeah, as I was rereading the article, I kept thinking "But how exactly could anyone organize an educational system without a hierarchical (i.e. dominant) structure of some kind? I trust a doctor to give me medical care or to cut me open on the basis of the existing power structures within our educational system (which help ensure certain standards are met).
Like I said, I don't think a purely anarchistic society is feasible (and certainly not at the scale of an entire nation); but there are idealistic elements to it that I think we absolutely should focus on (including to the point of restructuring our existing societies to be more equitable and less dominating).
Containedmultitudes t1_j0zuyk7 wrote
It’s funny you should mention education as it’s one of Noam Chomsky’s go to examples of a fairly anarchic power structure. Departmental leadership is regularly cycled while curricula are developed through consensus. Anarchism does not have to mean the complete absence of hierarchical power structures.
alienvalentine t1_j103wqa wrote
The mistake is that many people consider anarchism as inherently anti hierarchical, as opposed to anti coercive.
I listen to my doctor's advice because he knows more than me, creating a natural hierarchy, but I wouldn't allow him to make decisions without my consent, as that would be coercive.
Hierarchical relationships are completely compatible with anarchy, so long as they are voluntary to both enter and leave.
OffDutyWiiFitTrainer t1_j104enz wrote
There's actually two kinds of hierarchies (as defined by Graeber). There's the authority based hierarchies that anarchists argue against, and 'self-resolving' hierarchies, like Parent-Child, Teacher-Student, or Doctor-Patient that are inevitable and unproblematic. The difference is that the role of the parent is to raise the child, once the child is an adult the parent need not raise them more. They have become equals, and the hierarchy is dissolved. The student becomes educated and outgrows the teacher, the patient becomes well. These self-resolving hierarchies are fundamentally different than those based on continued authority and domination.
F33dR t1_j11ri37 wrote
*Uneducated people can't be trusted. Trained and educated people can. In high level cadres, trust is the foundation. Eg. Special forces.
GameMusic t1_j0zxlpf wrote
This is the best thing I have seen posted on this sub
I would put some things with different words or argue for some compromise that keeps the good of civilization - medicine or technology or scientific method - but his general point is useful
_CMDR_ t1_j10yten wrote
Anarchism has existed in real societies with real problems like war and diplomacy. The idea that it is an unattainable ideal is a lie. The Iroquois Confederacy springs to mind as the first example.
[deleted] t1_j0zj6su wrote
[deleted]
Beginning-Panic188 t1_j109qkp wrote
You can find some ideas to what it will take to achieve the next level of philosophical evolution in the book
Homo Unus: Successor to Homo Sapiens
GameMusic t1_j0zxmsc wrote
This is the best thing I have seen posted on this sub
I would put some things with different words or argue for some compromise that keeps the good of civilization - medicine or technology or scientific method - but his general point is useful
NovaPokeDad t1_j13smbc wrote
The author makes the point that “technology” is far too broad of a category to be considered an unmitigated good, and once you allow something through the door simply because it is higher technology you’re basically fucked.
KaladinThrasher t1_j15jy4g wrote
this right here. it's presumed that more or better technology will improve outcome's for society, yet if we observe the world there are technologies that are clearly not so, such as the nuke. but then, digging deeper into the nuance, "society" is always conflated with the state, as all the state is, is a representation of "society" (even though both empirically and logically that hasn't nor ever will be the case, else you wouldn't really need different words for it, now would you?)
plus, digging deeper, there's even technology nowadays that is antagonistic even to the state, so even taking that definition is troublesome.
this is why fundamentally we need to view technology as a multiplier, but a multiplier of what, need's to be questioned and ascertained. we need to consciously understand that most technology isn't "ideologically unbiased", that moral imperative's are usually baked into not only the technology we use, but also the very science they are based on.
mczucchini t1_j18k5ma wrote
Yep, if technology is the here all end all then why did the.industrial and technological revolutions and machine age result in people working more and more even with women entering the workforce.
ValyrianJedi t1_j0zcfh6 wrote
This seems pretty full of circular reasoning, and half of the arguments seem to be based on redefining words...
Seems to get stuck in one major loop of "nobody can dominate anybody unless that person is dominating somebody, in which case they can be dominated"... Expecting a world where nobody has any say over anyone else's actions seems both impossible and wildly impractical...
Then it makes the claim that authority would still exist, they just can't tell people what to do. Which in most uses of the word would mean that they aren't actually an authority...
Then since it lists exceptions where it is OK to dominate someone and control their actions (stopping murders, thieves, etc) that opens up a pretty big problem of who decides when it's OK and when it isn't.
Also, the opening line of "Anarchism is the only way of life that has ever worked or ever can" is beyond a stretch, and is likely a great way to lose 90% of your readers before the first paragraph is over.
DreamerofDays t1_j0zno7h wrote
> and half of the arguments seem to be based on redefining words
I would add to this a slavish dedication to purity of concept, both broadly philosophically, but more specifically, linguistically.
> And yet life is anarchic, and all good things within it; including you.
> Nature is anarchic
This is, indeed, an idea that won’t go away— an appeal to nature divorced from knowledge of it.
It’s an argument that’s been used probably as long as we’ve been making arguments. It’s been used to prop up authority, anarchism, domination, freedom, creationism… you name it, we’ve cited “Nature” as our example and our proof.
“Nature”, which so often seems to exclude us or the things we make.(the word therein defined as just being “anything non-human”).
Nature is not your rhetorical monkey(mine neither, for that matter). It is rigid systems to your randomness, randomness to your rigid systems.
It is symptomatic of the author’s overall method here— craning back from their conclusion, anarchy is THE right state of being— to justify it through cherry-picked examples and fatuous pontification.
To be fair, this isn’t the first time I’ve felt this way running into anarchistic argumentation. I don’t know if that speaks to bias on my part, a commonality of those arguments, or both.
trainface_ t1_j0zq2lw wrote
Nature is the blue-footed booby, watching impassively as the larger of her two chicks slowly fights with the smaller for solitude in her shadow.
And she remains so, as the smaller--now just outside her shadow--slowly dies of exposure baking under the hot sun. struggling, and calling for help.
Avemetatarsalia t1_j1032dh wrote
In many areas of modern intellectual thought, the concept of nature has shifted from the old victorian framework of 'red in tooth and claw' to 'nigh-perfect, beautifully optimized clockwork masterpiece of creation that is the ideal state of all things.'
The irony of course is that this newer perception of nature can exist in great part because we as westerners are so shielded from its full fury. We often interact with it in very controlled settings, Toiling away in a suburban garden; taking a pleasant hike through a local park with upkept nature trails and no predators bigger than the occasional skittish coyote; gawking at exotic beasts at the zoo behind the safety of glass and concrete. Every so often we get an unwelcome reminder when a tornado rips through a town or a mountain lion decides to snack on some pets, but otherwise we really don't deal with it in the way our ancestors (or even a sizeable chunk of the world population living in poor rural areas) did/do.
Anyone who actually deeply studies and/or works with nature (myself included) is very aware that nature is absolutely beautiful and incredibly complex, but also devilishly brutal and uncaring in equal measure.
PostponeIdiocracy t1_j1107f1 wrote
People who appeal to nature should be shown the top 10 from r/natureismetal
libretumente t1_j0zynzh wrote
Profound
trainface_ t1_j11oobx wrote
Lol. But it is true. It is the reason the great gay fruit flies debate of the early 2000's felt so stupid, but was spoken about so seriously.
What do I care how fruit flies fuck?
Maybe the world of evolution and animal behavior is not the best place from which to rely for an ethical north star.
tcl33 t1_j0zzj1q wrote
And according to the author’s definition of anarchy as the absence of domination. But nature is nothing BUT domination—strength having its way with weakness. This article is a synthesis of delusion and word salad.
jeffroddit t1_j11ljw2 wrote
>nature is nothing BUT domination—strength having its way with weakness.
lol, did somebody drink too much redbull and listen to too much black metal today?
tcl33 t1_j11mi9z wrote
No, I’ve just seen nature shows.
jeffroddit t1_j121yof wrote
You've never seen a nature show about clownfish and sea anemones? Mycorrhizas, nitrogen fixing bacteria, or pollinators? No cleaner fish, probiotics, or even just a coral reef?
tcl33 t1_j129ter wrote
Ok. Saying nature is nothing BUT strength dominating weakness is slightly hyperbolic. But only slightly. My retort to the author survives.
jeffroddit t1_j12oey7 wrote
And my examples were similarly exaggerated examples of symbiosis. But have you ever been in nature? What is trying to dominate you on even a semi regular basis?
I yelled at a bear once in 4 decades. Does that even count? Yes I carry spray and/or boomsticks for the .01% of the time you might really need to exert some power, but that's pretty much my point. Actual conflict is rare and brief. Think of bunnies. Do they occasionally get disappeared and decapitated by death on wings? Yup, 2 seconds of terror out of 86,000 seconds in their final day. Do they get spooked and run like bunnies from any imagined threat? Sure. And they still spend 99% of their lives asleep or hippity hopping along eating from nature's bounty.
tcl33 t1_j1467ge wrote
Brutal inter-species dominance hierarchies pervade the natural world. E.g., the food chain. And brutal intra-species competition for resources and mates determines who eats, and who fucks.
The fact that I happen to be a human at the top of the food chain just makes me an exception that proves the rule. I dominate most of the rest of the natural world.
But even I don't dominate all of it. Bacteria are constantly attempting to dominate me and my fellow humans. And sometimes they win.
The author said that an anarchism without domination is natural. It is not.
jeffroddit t1_j14vhwg wrote
I can see over a dozen animal species and hundreds of non-animal species at this very second. Guess how much brutality I see?
But by all means, keep anthropomorphizing nature and pretending you are better than people who do it slightly differently than you do.
Sventipluk OP t1_j0ze1yw wrote
> Then it makes the claim that authority would still exist, they just can't tell people what to do. Which in most uses of the word would mean that they aren't actually an authority...
The article makes the distinction between being an authority and being in authority. In the first case one is forced to obey, in the second one does so voluntarily.
ValyrianJedi t1_j0zec1n wrote
Right. I'm saying that the latter isn't really authority by most uses of the word.
OldGentleBen t1_j0zkiga wrote
Which word would be better suited and cause less confusion?
GameMusic t1_j0zx588 wrote
You attack the thought by your objection with his wording but that is pretty much compatible with his point
Words are built in systems and making original points requires either new words or a temporary best fit redefinition
It does not matter whether authority can be classified within one word but two different ideas by the linguistic taste you have personally developed
The difference was stated without confusion either way
OctopusButter t1_j10cpet wrote
Now we just moved on from talking about the subject and just started going all pedantic on grammar. He has a point, you can't just use words and decide they mean something different for you. In and an authority makes no difference if it is voluntary for me to obey. Where is the authority?
GameMusic t1_j10ew6t wrote
"Doctor Expert is an authority on healthy habits"
jeffroddit t1_j11mfrq wrote
I'm widely regarded as an authority in the design of smoke detectors. Yet nobody regards me as the smoke detector authority.
Also, I'm not really an authority on smoke detectors, but I have used it as a disguise before. Turns out most people really don't know anything about smoke detectors so you can sound authoritative with a minimum of research.
VitriolicViolet t1_j15o24t wrote
so what happens when someone decides not to?
if i choose 'no' and happen to be the largest producer of food for x region i can simply dominate. offer food to enough people to form my own militia and then only give food to those who do what i want.
you have no answer to this that isnt itself facing the same issue (the defence force is the easiest way to get your own militia, even if you didnt bribe them what if they did the same thing? were up to minor civil war now).
how do you prevent someone with resources using those resources to slowly gain control?
anarchy and libertarianism both rely on far too much hippy BS to ever function (no system ever conceived has survived the wealthy, ever)
unripenedboyparts t1_j0zu6cd wrote
>Also, the opening line of "Anarchism is the only way of life that has ever worked or ever can" is beyond a stretch, and is likely a great way to lose 90% of your readers before the first paragraph is over.
I dunno, I might have lost interest if it weren't for that insufferably contrarian take. I'm tempted to think it's bait and I fell for it.
The only way I can redeem that claim is by arguing that anarchism has never truly been instituted, and therefore has a lower failure rate than other systems. Sort of like communism as Marx envisioned it.
Fluggernuffin t1_j11334v wrote
It's been said already that anarchism is not an end, rather a process by which we make what we have better.
Anarchy as a system will never be a thing institutionally, as that is contrary to the very nature of anarchy. The author points this out, that anarchy isn't organized in the traditional sense, but rather organically. I think he actually illustrates this well by using examples of friendship. People don't generally take well to a forced friendship; they would rather happen upon it organically--if it happens, it happens. Anarchy supposes this as a universal good. If life can thrive organically without a dominant, that life is better for it.
I don't think anyone could successfully argue that anarchy in its purest form, without any dominant, is possible. Rather, how can we remove the most pervasive dominants that we no longer require to thrive?
unripenedboyparts t1_j13g322 wrote
Oh, I'm not saying there's no redeeming qualities to the piece, just that some of its assertions are ludicrous. Especially the ones made in the beginning. Sort of reminds me of the Motte and Bailey thing where someone pushes their luck and then backtracks to a more reasonable claim.
ICLazeru t1_j0zzyy0 wrote
Yes, in my experience arguments for anarchy as a workable system rely heavily on like...everyone just being cool, man. Which might work in a small community but is just not going to work on any scale much beyond Dunbar's number.
onlycrazypeoplesmile t1_j0zxaod wrote
It's always okay to stop a murder or a theft. These are abhorrent actions against humanity.
triggerpuller666 t1_j106ujh wrote
No one, and I mean no one, gives philosophical anarchism its due, because that potato is just a little too hot to touch.
Wait until you ask most people what their ideal society looks like.
And then ask them why it sounds like anarchism. Happy holidays mates 🍻🤘
NoYgrittesOlly t1_j0zgrak wrote
This essay is so egregious, I don’t even have the words. In the first paragraph, they define anarchy as casting off ‘domination’. Then literally states ‘anarchy’ can only work if certain groups are dominated. If murderers or rapists aren’t restrained, the system doesn’t work…so they admit complete anarchy doesn’t work?!
In an additional caveat, the very next sentence also states those who have no self-control, like drunkards or sleep-walkers, must also be dominated, for they ‘lack control over themselves’. But then in their contrived ‘Seven Dominants’, Ego is one of the systems of control.
Well guess what. In their inclusion of Freudian psychology, casting off our ego would leave us with our Id. The unconscious mind. The very state they would dominate because we can’t fundamentally be trusted to make decisions for we wouldn’t truly have ‘control’ over our actions. Casting off the most essential ‘Dominant’ would lead to a necessitation for dominance.
They also use the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy so many times it’s comedic. ‘Genuine’ authoritarians. ‘Actual’ libertarians. ‘True’ Anarchists. They forego entire movements and ideologies if it doesn’t meet their own self-crafted definitions.
Which of course make up 90% of the essay, where tackling the very definitions of the word anarchy seems to be the purpose of this author. Convincing us their interpretation and word choice doesn’t actual contradict the very term itself. They would have an easier time (and maybe an actual argument) simply making up and defining a new term then convincing the masses of the entire world that the word as we know and understand it is ‘wrong’.
In their closing statement, they even ask who of us would choose order, or to enforce laws when with friends. They then immediately, freely and self-admittedly confess, yes some would. But then in the very next sentence assert all of us would not.
In addition to the crass verbiage and laughably off examples used in the essay, this was just simply, not a pleasant read. Striving for an utopian system where people can live without fetters is something we should of course strive for. But the sole purpose of this essay seems to be the reclamation of the term anarchy. And for what reason, I truly do not know.
GameMusic t1_j101fhs wrote
I will great that his defense of caveats was poor but the rest has value
‘Genuine’ authoritarians. ‘Actual’ libertarians. ‘True’ Anarchists. They forego entire movements and ideologies if it doesn’t meet their own self-crafted definitions.
His usage is compatible with the early usage of those words
Any political language is incredibly propagandized and you always have to balance the challenges of creating different words or redefinition from the popular usage
The fact is nothing can be said in politics or philosophy without either creating local definition within your work or assuming your audience shares your personal language
People who avoid this often have propagandistic motives
In popular usage most political words mean everything and nothing
NoYgrittesOlly t1_j102afa wrote
> Any political language is incredibly propagandized and you always have to balance the challenges of creating different words or redefinition from the popular usage
>The fact is nothing can be said in politics or philosophy without either creating local definition within your work or assuming your audience shares your personal language
That’s fair. While I do disagree on your first point, that may also be a difference in our personal language, and how we define value. If nothing else, I suppose it did at least lead to this discourse.
Sventipluk OP t1_j0zi0y3 wrote
I can’t see the problem with caveats, or with expanding or deepening the use a word and, thereby, giving us a new understanding of it.
NoYgrittesOlly t1_j0zo5ns wrote
When your terminology is so unwavering in its definition, when your ideology is supposedly so absolute, just a single caveat or exception shows it’s fallacy and conceptual failure. If it is a universal truth, then there shouldn’t be any exceptions to the rule. If there are, then your stance isn’t unassailable, and you need to re-examine why that is. If certain people needed to be dominated EVEN in an anarchist society, then how can domination be cast off? Don’t they prove that domination and control is NECESSARY for society to function in their very first paragraph?
And I am not a stickler on language. It’s a living organism, it evolves and grows. But if everyone understands the word ‘horse’ to mean a certain animal, why waste so much of an argument asserting that ‘true’ horses are actually deer? It just further obfuscates the topic and point you’re trying to make. Language should be clear and concise. It’s purpose is to convey meaning. Even after reading their points, I still vehemently disagree that ‘anarchy’ is the term they’re looking for, regardless of the strength of their essay or if their ideology is even attainable.
Sventipluk OP t1_j0zq9ra wrote
> If it is a universal truth, then there shouldn’t be any exceptions to the rule.
Have you give that much thought?
> But if everyone understands the word ‘horse’ to mean a certain animal, why waste so much of an argument asserting that ‘true’ horses are actually deer?
A horse is a concrete object; hardly a contentious matter. A better analogy would be the word ‘love’. Nothing wrong with pointing out that few people use the word in anything but a disastrously superficial sense — many of our admired thinkers have said as much.
SooooooMeta t1_j0ztwjg wrote
I thought the ideas on anarchy were kind of sloppy and poorly developed. However, I did like the idea of listing the things that tend to “dominate” us (and certainly anarchy is about trying to minimize these things). I wish that it had not just listed a potpourri of modern contenders to being in charge, but focused on more fundamental components that things are composed of.
For instance, socialist-democratic seems like it actually appeals to the mass/majority (as shown through votes and public discussion), the institution (an appeal to a long-functioning institutions that has shown stability) and the technocratic system (tax codes, legal codes, the educational system standing in for the arbitrary judgements of individuals).
I think it’s extremely odd the author doesn’t even mention the threat of physical coercion, kind of the big daddy of all coercion with tons of thinking around the state holding a monopoly on violence and all that.
Fluggernuffin t1_j113rcy wrote
I think the author would make the argument that all of the dominants he listed have as a feature the threat of physical coercion. Granted, it doesn't include the bully down the street who wants your lunch money, but you could make the argument that the bully is on some level, a monarch. He rules his sidewalk with an iron fist, and only a bigger force will depose him.
I won't say the list is perfect, but I do think it goes beyond simply listing modern authorities.
MaxChaplin t1_j10svvt wrote
In the list of the seven dominants, the author has neglected the eighth - society. Nepotism, tribalism, old boy network, cliques, cults, and coolness all figure into it. This force exists in institutions (usually regarded as an undesirable aberration), but it's exposed in its raw form when the other forces are absent, at times when, according to the author, anarchism really shines through - in gathering of friends, in the workplace when the boss is absent, in a high-school recess. This force allows some people to undeservedly have more influence and garner more sympathy than others, for reasons that can't be squarely pinned down like wealth, race or gender.
The author clamors for a natural organization, but "natural" in this case means only what people consider natural; a natural leader is basically just the most charismatic person around. He condemns civilization's aspiration to make everything under the sun legible, but illegibility is the best friend of social power, which runs unopposed when the legible forces of domination are dismantled.
I suspect anarchists don't see raw social power as a problem because they're the kind of people who navigate smoothly through it and use it as their primary mean of understanding and interacting with the world, kinda like how right-libertarians don't see raw economic power as oppressive.
GuiltyandCharged t1_j139fge wrote
It is very insightful to equate charisma with a form of wealth and domination. To live free from the tangles of politics and government, it takes a creative resourcefulness to manifest opportunities that often hinge on those with authority, ironically. In my travels, living as a permanent immigrant (i would say expat but that word has a strange connotation these days) from the US, I am saved over and over again by my ability to persuade and adapt to all situations. Some form of generational wealth likely aided that process, which is not negligible, and it is a high bar to expect others to live the way I do; I am paid well to do online freelance work that took significant education to acquire, because I had connections in the company who I also bargained with for better pay.
So you're absolutely right and I'm guilty of using that system which the world silently condones, as a means to grease the wheels of its behemoth machinations.
timbgray t1_j0zlav7 wrote
I thought it worth a quick read. Two points:
“the foundational recognition that nature, including conscious human nature, is inherently intelligent”; If this is foundational, then the argument topples quickly. Nature is “selective” not intelligent. Lots of good arguments for the idea that we didn’t evolve to be rational, we evolved to survive. Intelligence and rationality are consequential, or emergent, not fundamental.
Second: given the way the world works, including our basic biology, hierarchies are inevitable, and ubiquitous. A functional anarchist society would be populated by non-humans.
Recognizing the truth of the claim that if you have to resort to analogy, you’ve lost the argument, I’m unable to avoid suggesting that an ant colony or bee hive is …more like… (but not equivalent to) an anarchistic society than any potential human anachronistic society could be. See my next/last point, but the ants and bees do what they do without force or coercion, or the execution of power, ie absent all the so called shortcomings supposedly ameliorated by anarchism. They are simply driven, as a species, as we are, as a species in aggregate, by biology.
And finally, I get the feeling that if the argument went further it could be easily repurposed as an attempt to evidence libertarian free will.
Fluggernuffin t1_j115y6z wrote
I would argue that there is a difference in the way we behave versus "nature" in the sense that human beings reject things that are beneficial or even critical to their survival, in the pursuit of less concrete aims.
Your example of the beehive got me thinking about that film with Jerry Seinfeld, The Bee Movie. The plot of the film anthropomorphizes the human ideal of freedom of choice on a worker bee. From a natural perspective, this makes no sense. Worker bees simply do not question their nature. However, the idea of being born to simply perform a task until we die sits poorly on the human mind.
Purplekeyboard t1_j10udbc wrote
The problem I have with anarchism is that it seems to be more of a wish fulfillment fantasy than any sort of reasonable political philosophy.
The obvious response to anarchism goes along the lines of, "What happens to your anarchist society when the tanks come rolling over the border and you get invaded?" And anarchists either get unrealistic, and say "We could fight off a well trained powerful modern military with sticks and hunting rifles", or they admit they have no solution to this and say "But maybe someday".
When the primary criticism of your proposed system of government says that it is impossible to achieve, and your response is, "yes, it is impossible, but maybe some day it will become possible", I have to wonder what the point is of even talking about it.
So anarchists end up claiming their system is impossible to achieve (today), while also claiming it is an ideal to reach for. Why not focus instead on whatever actually is possible? If we can't have anarchy because the powerful will take advantage of it and seize control, then what can we have which is both reasonable and in keeping with the values that anarchists have?
viper5delta t1_j10a3y0 wrote
I've never understood the issue that anarchists have with money. It can certainly be used coercively, but fundamentally it is just a representation and abstraction of human labor and productivity.
Claiming that money as a concept should be abolished seems tantamount to saying that the trade of goods and services between individuals should be abolished.
The other part that really stood out to me was >anarcho-primitivism does not entail the ludicrous refusal of all technology (such as fire, pottery or even agriculture, which, incidentally predates the horrors of state-run farms)... >it certainly doesn’t entail, as some critics like to believe, a recommendation for the extermination of mankind.
Which seems to be trying to have it's cake and eat it too. Quite simply, the world can not sustain its current population with the extremely limited agricultural technology proposed. Advocating for a return to the primitive agricultural technology proposed is either profound ignorance or advocating for the death of billions.
There were other minor quibbles where I don't believe it would turn out as the author proposes, but those were two things that really stood out to me.
ridgecoyote t1_j12rupp wrote
TIL what Anarchism is and that I am one
[deleted] t1_j12gvg0 wrote
[deleted]
third-time-charmed t1_j14jhks wrote
I agree with the central tenet he puts forward- that fully existing in the world and experiencing it is a radical act of good.
He does an okay job at refuting many common objections, but not all. My biggest concern being his contempt for medical science. To the extent where he rejects the germ theory of disease? (Society doesn't give people HIV, a virus does my dude).
Also missing from this is any discussion of how it's decided that someone is too young/stupid to make decisions. There's a lot of ways that can break bad extremely quickly.
Sventipluk OP t1_j14mtzl wrote
> To the extent where he rejects the germ theory of disease?
I missed that. Where?
third-time-charmed t1_j14pir7 wrote
"and medical professionals have nothing to do when the causes of sickness and madness are removed."
Also the bigger idea that public health is public. People's right to not vaccinate does not matter more to me than the preservation of herd immunity from disease, for eg.
Sventipluk OP t1_j14r1nw wrote
Nothing on germ theory there. Just common sense. Make society healthy and we don’t need professional interventions to keep us operational.
third-time-charmed t1_j15hs12 wrote
While that might be true for some things, such as situational depressions or disabilities that fit the social model better- the flu isn't societal. Cancer isn't societal (there are prehistoric skeletal remains with bone cancer). Norovirus, strep throat, measles, mumps. None of those are societal. Claiming otherwise is a rejection of the germ theory of disease, implicitly.
Sventipluk OP t1_j15kcbu wrote
> Cancer isn't societal (there are prehistoric skeletal remains with bone cancer).
The rarity of cancer in antiquity remains undisputed..
> Claiming otherwise is a rejection of the germ theory of disease, implicitly.
The author isn’t claiming otherwise.
[deleted] t1_j0zwh35 wrote
[deleted]
elmonero t1_j115aa9 wrote
Fascinating read, thanks for sharing!
[deleted] t1_j0zcgdh wrote
[deleted]
chrispd01 t1_j0zhz4r wrote
I guess what I’m not sure about is why a properly functioning liberal democracy wouldnt be an appropriate approximation of at least what this person says anarchy is all about ?
Its a balancing of interests, respect for both individual and collective will with legitimate organs of control.
Not to say that liberal democracies dont exhibit a range and some are more fair than others but it seems to me at least for this anarchist author, they should be working to strengthen and improve the institutions that are already in place. This would serve the goals best in my view
Meta_Digital t1_j0zjhfe wrote
Liberalism is built on capitalism, which is an economic totalitarian (using the article's wording) hierarchy. Anarchism is fundamentally incompatible with capitalism (as is any egalitarian society).
chrispd01 t1_j0znmp7 wrote
Could you lay that out in a little more detail ? Seems to me like you are asserting some ideas and drawing connections which are not beyond dispute. You may be corect but I cant really follow - this is not so much an explanation asnan assertion
Which I gotta say is really ironic given the subject if this thread and the article
Meta_Digital t1_j0zs2ey wrote
Liberalism as a political ideology grew from thinkers like John Locke (the supposed "Father of Liberalism") and Adam Smith during the Enlightenment.
This is the very early days of capitalism, before socialists would coin the term, and theorists were just attempting to objectively describe economics. They didn't yet fully understand that they were describing a particular mode of economics. You can see this confusion to this day, where many just assume that "capitalism" means "markets" and that "free market" means "freedom". This is a leftover from those early thinkers.
Liberalism, as a political ideology, takes these economic assumptions and integrates them into a political and moral theory. For instance, Locke's idea of personal rights and property rights being essentially the same can be found in liberal democracies (and was a justification for voting rights being connected with land ownership). This is where we also see the argument for laissez-faire economics, or the idea that a government should let the market regulate the economy of a nation (every prior system restrained markets with a heavier hand since markets regularly commit atrocities for profit). It's also where you see the idea of the "tyranny of the majority", which references the fear of the "agrarian" population (the working class at the time), and how if they had democratic power, they'd vote away the private property of the ruling class (the founding fathers of the US specifically write about this).
The result is a preservation of the autocratic caste system of capitalism which divides everyone into employer (owner) and employee (worker) where the former has all the wealth and makes all the decisions, and the latter does all the work and makes none of the decisions. Liberalism specifically preserves this arrangement through democratic suppression of workers (look up the history of worker's rights; they weren't won democratically), often through state violence. The police are one such institution, which exist primarily to protect private property rights, because it is impossible for private property owners to protect their own property, and it is unprofitable to pay for that expense yourself, so it becomes subsidized by tax payers under liberal democracy to maintain the caste system of capitalism.
That's a very brief overview of the subject, but you can find a little more information on the Wikipedia page. It's not going to be as direct a response, but you should be able to verify what I've said here.
chrispd01 t1_j0zvzmh wrote
I was not 100% sure where you were going with that but I appreciate you laying this out.
It seems to me, though that there are a couple of ways of looking at this development. , see the development of liberal democracy, increasing recognition within certain spheres of an individual. That is individual has a certain dignity and worth and independence that cannot be abrogated. I don’t think it’s wrong to see political development as the increasing expansion of that zone. So you see things like the Magna Carta before locke as beginning to impose limits on arbitrary rule, and that trend continuing.
For my own self, I think the notion of private property can be overstated and can warp itself through disproportionate political influence and act to a bridge the autonomy of others.
But I’m not sure that problem isn’t found, and just the institution itself. That is to say the remedy for all the ills you identify are thoighbthe exercise of political power
If you tell me that because of economics, there is disproportionate, political power, I would agree. But I would also say that that is not liberal democracy. That is the warping of liberal democracy to a different end
Meta_Digital t1_j0zypy8 wrote
Liberalism is very specifically the combination of democracy with capitalism. What we are living through is the natural consequence of trying to merge democracy with its opposite. Either you end up with a society that abolishes capitalism for some form of socialism (democracy in the economy), or you end up with a society that abolishes democracy in favor of some form of capitalism (some kind of corporate feudalism or fascism). We are living through the latter today.
I agree that over time there is an expansion of the moral sphere, but the path to moral expansion is treacherous, and we are currently in a period of backsliding. Victories won in the past are being rolled back. Some are new victories, like abortion rights in the US. Some are ancient victories, like acceptance of gay or trans people. I do agree that in general there is an expansion of this sphere, but only over very long periods of time, and in the short term it expands and contracts, sometimes violently.
We have this narrative of progress, which is an Enlightenment thought, which paints history as backwards and primitive while painting the present as progressive and advanced. Sadly, the real world is much more complicated than that. Some progress is made and some progress is lost as time marches on. It's convenient for those in power to paint the past as being worse because this is a much easier (and more profitable) strategy than actually making the present better. Be wary of progress narratives because, more often than not, they're misleading.
The world today has many wonders, but it also has more inequality than any historical period, the rising threat of nuclear war, and global ecological collapse. These are all the result of not only failure to progress, but serious regress. The point of critiquing liberal democracy is to ask how we got to such a dire situation and work towards something better than this. Anarchism is one, of several, such responses.
chrispd01 t1_j100evg wrote
Yeah. But from the article I read, it seems to suggest that the answer to the problem is not really anarchism, but just better liberal democracy. That is a liberal democracy that is less influenced by special interests.
Meta_Digital t1_j101v4y wrote
Yeah, I agree actually. The article seems to conflate socialism with "when the government does stuff". Socialism is, instead, just the democratic organization of an economy. Thus it's incompatible with liberalism.
Take the Zapatistas in Mexico. They control an anarchist autonomous zone, and their economic system is socialist in structure. Socialism and anarchism are perfectly compatible, though socialism is not necessary. One could have a communist economy that functions as a sharing or gifting economy instead, for instance.
Or, look at the autonomous zone in Syria, Rojava. It is also founded on anarchist principles, and once again, its economic structure is socialist.
Basically, if you're going to take an anarchist stance, it's also going to be anti-capitalist. That's why anarchists universally don't consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism, because that ideology (which is mostly a byproduct of online tests like the political compass which nobody should take seriously) doesn't actually apply the anarchist critique to capitalism (which is often its primary target).
tcl33 t1_j100nnp wrote
If we allow people to engage in voluntary market exchange, something looking like capitalism will organically emerge. It takes authoritarianism to disrupt that. You have to use force to stop it, or to rearrange it.
Meta_Digital t1_j1027cz wrote
Voluntary market exchanges existed for thousands of years before the creation of private property and capital. It actually took an extreme amount of violence to create private property. It was absolutely not the result of some natural tendency.
tcl33 t1_j106bp3 wrote
To me private property means that when I give you A and you give me B, you are entitled to keep A, I am entitled to keep B, and society recognizes those entitlements and stands ready to use force to repel anybody who attempts to initiate force to seize A from you or B from me. How does market exchange work without that?
Meta_Digital t1_j107v3u wrote
Private property is a specific kind of property.
So, let's use a house as an easy example. If I buy a house (outright, it's totally paid for), then it becomes my personal property. I can do with it what I want and my ownership is legally protected based on where I am.
If I rent my home, then it is not my personal property, it is someone else's private property. There might be some tenet rights that I have, depending on where I live, but overall the private property owner (who does not use the property for anything other than making money) has the property rights.
Similarly, if I take a mortgage on the house, then it is the bank's private property. The bank will for the most part not interfere too much, but at the end of the day, the home is not my property, it is the property of the bank for the purpose of making money. That is, the bank's private property.
And from this you should be able to understand what private property is. It's property you own, but do not use, for the sake of collecting some kind of passive income. It's the central feature of a capitalist economy. I own land and charge rent for someone else to use it. I own a building and charge someone else to use it. I have an idea and charge anyone else who uses it. In essence, I am allowed to hold something hostage from society unless they pay me. Maybe it's a national or international business, where I do not myself work, but from which I become independently wealthy. Like Elon Musk buying Tesla and then getting complete control over the company and personally collecting its profits. That's capitalism, and it's intrinsically totalitarian, as the article points out.
Markets, where stuff is traded or bought and sold, predate capitalism and will continue long after capitalism is gone. What the market is allowed to do is determined by the economic system that it's in. For instance, a slave economy is a kind of "free market" where humans can be bought and sold as property in a slave market. Feudal societies had markets. Tribal societies can setup markets. No capitalism is required for markets or property to exist. Private property, however, is a unique feature of capitalism.
tcl33 t1_j10iaqh wrote
OK. I get your definition of private property.
I originally said:
> If we allow people to engage in voluntary market exchange, something looking like capitalism will organically emerge. It takes authoritarianism to disrupt that. You have to use force to stop it, or to rearrange it.
And I'll add to that, something like capitalism and private property (according to your definition) will organically emerge.
It will emerge the moment someone notices that foreign visitors to a particular town would like a place to bathe, eat, and sleep for the night, and that they don't want to buy a home. That someone will buy a or build a structure of some sort and charge people to stay there for the night, and he will call it an inn. At that moment, private property has organically come online. He has created capital that he uses to generate income for himself.
And the only way it doesn't come online is if you establish an authoritarian enforcement regime to tell the would-be capitalist that, "You are allowed to build or buy a structure for your own use, and you can sell it to someone else so they can use it, but you can't charge someone to use it temporarily. It doesn't matter if there are visitors to this town pleading for someone to build an inn so they have a place to sleep for the night. You are not allowed to do that, and if you try, we will use force to stop you."
That's how it has to go. If you're for it, and you believe this enforcement regime makes for a better world, fine. Just argue for that. But it does involve dominance. It does involve the threat of force.
The author argues that anarchy is the absence of dominance. But this is not the absence of dominance.
Meta_Digital t1_j10t90k wrote
In some countries, governments provide housing on a temporary basis for people who need or want it; thus replacing the need for private landlords. One could also institute a rationing or sharing system by removing housing as a commodity from the economy. There's historically an unlimited number of options to this issue and in no way are we limited to feudal landlordism nor is capitalism predetermined.
tcl33 t1_j10uoe3 wrote
But let's just be clear, you do endorse the existence of a regime sufficiently dominant to forcefully prevent the establishment of an inn? And therefore you reject the author's call for an "anarchy" that precludes dominance? Furthermore you agree with my original claim that...
> If we allow people to engage in voluntary market exchange, something looking like capitalism will organically emerge. It takes authoritarianism to disrupt that. You have to use force to stop it, or to rearrange it.
...and you believe that this is a good thing?
Meta_Digital t1_j10vju5 wrote
No, I do not think capitalism is predetermined by the existence of markets. Capitalism didn't emerge organically; it emerged through violence. The enclosure of land and the privatization of the world was militaristic; as was the suppression of labor and of women, who were burned as witches. Even today witches are burned where capitalism is getting established. This is not something that just happened on its own.
Yes, some forms of authority are going to exist, but that isn't contradictory to anarchism. Just like authoritarianism doesn't mean pure 100% control over the oppressed (which is impossible), it's opposite is not 100% pure freedom from control. What anarchism represents is the minimizing of hierarchy and control. Instead of thinking about this as a struggle between two imaginary extreme ways of being, think of it as the struggle between two opposing processes of movement - one towards greater control over others and the other towards lesser control over others.
tcl33 t1_j12ny6w wrote
> I do not think capitalism is predetermined by the existence of markets.
But according to your definition of capitalism (which is owning things you don't use to produce an income for yourself) the moment someone's ranch, farm, plantation, or vineyard produces more meat, wheat, spice, cotton, or grapes than the owner uses, and he sells them for income, capitalism emerges. In what world is that not virtually guaranteed to happen for somebody?
And then, if in addition to simply producing goods out of the earth, some enterprising people see an opportunity to build something people will pay to use (like an inn or a stable), will they not build it if they have the means and incentive? Will someone not build a boat to ferry people across a river, for a fee? Will someone not build a carriage to pull with a horse to transport goods for a fee? Is it not virtually guaranteed all of this will organically happen for somebody because people need/want all of it to happen?
> Yes, some forms of authority are going to exist, but that isn't contradictory to anarchism. Just like authoritarianism doesn't mean pure 100% control over the oppressed (which is impossible), it's opposite is not 100% pure freedom from control.
OK, but to all the owners of goods/service producing farms, ranches, plantations, vineyards, inns, stables, ferry or delivery services, what you think of as "minimizing hierarchy and control" is going to look like some pretty strict control. Basically, you want to make all of that illegal, and you stand ready to deploy state violence to ensure none of it is allowed.
> one towards greater control over others and the other towards lesser control over others.
It sounds to me like you're all for greater control over others as long as "others" are people who create things people want to pay for. And you need a strong state to ensure that this control is effective.
But your state is going to need to be even stronger than that. Not only is it going to have to enforce these prohibitions on capitalism, now without anybody else to do them, the state is going to have to provide all of these goods and services itself. And a state that powerful is going to need a well defined command and control hierarchy if it's going to work at all. And now you've just brought the Soviet Union back online.
This isn't anarchism at all.
What am I missing?
Meta_Digital t1_j146rje wrote
> In what world is that not virtually guaranteed to happen for somebody?
No, capitalism is merely the existence of capital. Capital is a very complex concept, but it can be easily understood as private property which exists only for the purpose of producing more capital. So, a ranch is a capitalist ranch if it's someone's private property. If there's an employer and employees (which only exist under capitalism, as lords and serfs only do under feudalism). If the employee produces someone else's property through their labor which is sold as capital for the sake of capital accumulation.
> Basically, you want to make all of that illegal, and you stand ready to deploy state violence to ensure none of it is allowed.
No. Simply the secession of state protection of private property through violence (such as through the police) makes the existence of private property impossible. It requires violence to preserve, not end.
> Not only is it going to have to enforce these prohibitions on capitalism, now without anybody else to do them, the state is going to have to provide all of these goods and services itself.
Again, no. Capitalism has to be preserved by a powerful state able to enclose land and protect property through the state apparatus. No it's not as easy as just getting rid of the state, nor is it as easy as what the USSR attempted (they killed anarchists along the way you know). I'd recommend maybe A Conquest of Bread for a more thorough explanation of what an anarchist society might look like and how we might get there. It's not such a small subject that a Reddit post can be sufficient.
tcl33 t1_j14blea wrote
> Again, no. Capitalism has to be preserved by a powerful state able to enclose land and protect property through the state apparatus.
For capitalism to stabilize into something durable and predictable, and therefore to scale, what you're saying is true.
But this does no violence to my original point which is that capitalism will form organically. You can see the types of examples I outlined in places lacking an effective state apparatus. Consider Somalia. Or the American frontier (in particular Deadwood style illegal settlements in Indian territory).
Again, without an effective state to nurture and preserve it, capitalism is unstable and unlikely to scale. But it will occur organically. That's all I'm saying.
> Capital is a very complex concept, but it can be easily understood as private property which exists only for the purpose of producing more capital. So, a ranch is a capitalist ranch if it's someone's private property. If there's an employer and employees (which only exist under capitalism, as lords and serfs only do under feudalism). If the employee produces someone else's property through their labor which is sold as capital for the sake of capital accumulation.
All of this happens at a limited scale in the absence of an effective state. It will occur spontaneously, because that's what happens when people want to buy and sell things, and hire and work for wages. It just happens. It's been happening for thousands of years.
Meta_Digital t1_j14d74f wrote
I think what's happening here is the conflation of a seed and a plant, or an egg with a chicken.
Everything in the universal contains potentialities. A thing has the potential within it to become other things, as a seed could become a plant (or be an ingredient in a meal).
So what you're seeing here is that. The capacity for capitalism exists within certain dynamics. The seeds of capitalism existed within the feudal system, for instance, and they matured through the adolescence of mercantilism. This was a potential which was unleashed through historical events like the Bubonic Plague and technologies like the steel plow or steam engine or ideologies like the Enlightenment. Historical events seemed to predetermine a capitalist system, which is pretty much what Marx and Engels argued.
But other potentialities also existed, and still exist. What could mature into capitalism could mature also into something else. Humanity is roughly 100,000 years old and capitalism makes up about 300 of those years. It doesn't look like it's going to make it much longer than that either due to its unstable nature. So it could be that capitalism is just a potential, a very rare potential, for human populations. The conditions were met, and opposing forces were incapable of stopping it (they certainly tried), and so we get it for a short time. But it's not inevitable, and it's not permanent. It just seems like that because it's the globally dominant system and has been for some time now, and that makes it hard to imagine that the world was or could be any other way.
Offintotheworld t1_j0zxo2o wrote
Unfortunately everyone knows anarchism is unachievable but sees some nobility in fighting for it regardless. This is very sad to me because it stops people from fighting for an actually achievable socialism, by obfuscating class dynamics, and creating pure ideals of liberty vs. authority that do not materially exist. This is unfortunately a victory of the capitalist class. Make the tool of Marxism sound scary and bad through decades of propaganda, and instead divert people's revolutionary energy into spinning their ideological wheels. The FBI even dispersed anarchist media in the 60s. Look at countries in the global south and notice that Anarchism isn't a thing there, and that people are fighting and have successfully fought for socialism. Anarchism ultimately is a white western trend in imperial core countries that have suffered the most from McCarthyism and red scare.
highly recommend this short and easy book: Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti
KFAAM t1_j118e6p wrote
I bet everyone who downvoted this hasn't read that book lol
Offintotheworld t1_j11ar6l wrote
Yeah I mean reddit is a political echochamber and can't handle disagreement so it's unsurprising. Either way this comment exists and will hopefully pique at least someone's interest. It's a fantastic book
[deleted] t1_j100xuh wrote
[removed]
Intellectuallygifted t1_j0zw7hp wrote
Anarchism is an approach and critique of domination, in its many guises and forms. It’s not a telos, meaning it’s not an end point or fulfillment. Sure we can look to the Spanish Revolution as a way it’s been expressed, but it’s not a program. I always considered anarchism to be an approach or relationship to authority, rather than a step-by-step approach in which to organize human society. I’m not sure that’s even a possibility or something we should strive for to be quite honest. Many moving parts would need to be put into place before that kind of thinking could even emerge.