You must log in or register to comment.
ITT: Nobody has any idea what any anarchist philosopher ever said or believed and simply thinks it means no rules
They then strut victoriously, thinking they are smarter than every anarchist philosopher who has ever existed because they know that rules matter in a society, not realizing that no anarchist thinker has ever said “let’s just have no rules or organization and just see how it goes based on the vibes”
How’s about this: name me one functioning country of significant size (i.e. not just a commune) that functions on an anarchistic model. Demonstrate via examples that this system actually works in practice.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia
edit: I also think it’s important to mention that this system has not been given a fair shot, we would not do science where variables aren’t controlled, and there are outside forces that desperately want this system to fail.
Every single powerful person, every single wealthy person wants anarchism to fail desperately, because it would invalidate their reason for existing. It is impossible to name even one settlement that wasn’t attacked by very poweful outside forces.
This was the best you could come up with? A regime that lasted one full year?
I rest my case.
Anarchy sounds good to me then someone asks “Who’d fix the sewers?”
edit: This is lyrics from The Dead Kennedy’s “Where Do You Draw the Line?”
My experience organizing non-profit events have shown that most people actually have no problem doing dirty jobs for no material compensation. If the following things are true:
- They understand why the job is important
- They feel responsible for the job (usually comes from being given autonomy and trust)
- They get recognition for doing it (social rewards are actually very powerful)
- No one else is getting compensated either.
I understand that this seems foreign to a lot of people, because this is not how work is generally motivated in capitalist society. You are used to your job being rather unimportant, with little autonomy, little trust, not much recognition from society and some people definitely profiting more than others. Your primary motivator is the threat of violence (via homelessness, starvation etc.), so it’s hard to imagine what would happen if that was removed.
That to me is the core idea of Anarchism, to base your organization on volontary cooperation rather than coercion.
An interesting side-note is that the people who do the dirty jobs in these circumstances often take great pride in it, forming an identify around doing what others are not willing to and calling attention to it as a way to get more recognition.
non-profit events and mucking a sewer are very different.
I assumed it was just a very dirty, tough job requiring some specialized equipment and skills. Are you saying it’s somehow fundamentally different from other human activities?
Yes I believe organizing and doing are very different and sewer work falls firmly into an area of work that most wouldn’t do without substantial gain for that work. Humans are not inherently altruistic on that level
Perhaps it was a poor choice of words, when I said “organizing” I meant everything required to run an event (with thousands attending). From planning and programming to picking trash and cleaning toilets.
Having cleaned many toilets it is nowhere nearly as unpleasant as the life risking work that can take place in a sewer system.
Anarchist response would be “people who want functioning sewers, which should be everybody.”
Yeah it’s a dirty job. So is wiping your ass. Does someone need to threaten you to wipe your ass? Take a shower? When your toilet breaks at home do you shrug and just shit on the bathroom floor?
No, you fix the toilet. Same with the sewers.
Ok and who does that end up being?
Whoever steps up first. For a sewer, probably several people. What’s your point?
Most aren’t capable ir willing to do this work without substantial compensation above and beyond what most jobs provide.
I think you may underestimate the impact of sewage backing up into your home :D
You are right though. Tragedy of the commons is a catch22. When everything is everyone’s problem, nothing is anyone’s problem. This occurs in EVERY political system though, and they still function.
Yes, capitalist republics compensate for this by paying others more for these jobs. Authoritarian states push people into these jobs. I’m not sure how this gets addressed in an anarchistic society in practical terms.
I’m of the opinion that an anarchist society is probably the wrong way, but incorporating anarchist ideals into things, such as “no really you actually are responsible for everyTHING (not everyone) around you” and “you are the only person who is capable of being responsible for your own choices, opinions and decisions.” and “consider the consequences of your actions before doing what you are told” and “a just hierarchy is one you are free to join and leave as required, and without coersion”, we can actually improve even our current system.
Given that an anarchist society wouldn’t have capitalists, I Imagine that wages, if they still existed, would be substantially different than they are today.
I would think the desire for flush toilets would be enough, but if you think people need extrinsic motivation there is room for that.
I have mucked a sewer line before. I don’t think anyone who hasn’t actually handled sewage should really take a second to ask if they would step up to do this and are they even capable of doing so (I cannot at 50 do this anymore).
This is where anti-capitalist ideologies have a shortcoming that needs to be considered as we have to move away from capitalism.
I can’t deny there are dirty jobs that nobody would do on a lark or as a hobby or even a calling.
A busted sewer is a community emergency. You can ask the infirm, the pregnant, the elderly “what are you willing to do to support our efforts to fix the sewer?” And the answer might be cook some large meals, care for the children, or take someone’s regular job for a week
Yes, everyone will be side eyeing young, strong, men (and maybe women) to take the lead on fixing the sewer. There might be promises to make it up to them later. A fifty year old with carpentry experience might offer to expand a house install new cabinets if they will help with the sewer. I do think there are things that others can do to support a major effort like that.
honestly people like to talk about about moneyless societies but I’d imagine it would still be around for a while. I imagine a system where people chip into a fund to provide a bounty of sorts for jobs that require extreme skill or a strong stomach.
Someone doesn’t understand what anarchism is. Opinion discarded. Please read a book and return.
This is the opportunity to share resources and give them a direction to head, and you missed it.
deleted by creator
Probably the people who own the sewers.
Let me rephrase the question, who will fix the potholes?
It’s a Dead Kennedy’s song and do people own the sewers in anarchist societies?
who will fix the potholes?
Make the libertarians do it! /s
Idk, ive fixed a pothole or two that bothered me near home, but yeah, I’m not doing a whole city lol
I think though that once people realize the onus is on them to fix things, people will start to fix things. Provided of course, that they have the means and ability to do so.
And then, there are still companies which can be hired to do these things, provided someone is willing to pay them
Thats something I find fascinating. People hear anarchy and assume the end of commerce because it would inherently mean an end to capitalism, presuming we arent talking about some weird ancap philosophy that I can’t make sense.
Commerce has happened for forever, and changing forms of government will not change that.
Thats not the part I find fascinating though, its that people discussing anarchy tend to cede this argument without a fight.
If you do so, an implied argument of anarchy gets lost: “there is no such thing as unskilled labor.”
This isnt generally considered a point for anarchy, but it is. In an anarchist system, you have the agency to decide your role in your community. This means you WILL specialize, as we all do as humans; even the generalists of us aren’t generalists at everything. I for one would make a shitty translator, as i only speak English.
There would need to be some means of getting labor done by someone who knew how to do it, this ought to feel natural to most of us anyway… I mean I assume you guys try to help your friends at stuff you are good at that they aren’t. I similarly assume you’re generally compensated for this behavior, even if it isnt with currency as we generally consider it.
deleted by creator
A lot of people think it means total chaos, but it really just means an opposition to hierarchy.
People living comfortable lives will rationalize any critique of the system away, even if that comfort is built upon emiseration and exploitation.
Genuinely thought that said “anachronism” and was ready to go on a tirade about how cool cloaks are and how they should make a comeback
Fuck yeah, I’d wear a cloak.
People calling themselves anarchists seem to reliably be less of a red flag than when they call themselves communists.
I think there’s a lot of sentiment to sympathize with and a lot of ideas to learn about.
Implementation of anarchism seems hard and maybe sometimes a bit naïve, but on the other hand I don’t actually understand the specifics nor is there any one opinion.
Anarvhism refers to a vlass of ideologies moreso than any one in specific.
It seems foolish and young to me. Same as libertarian rules or rule by religious doctrine. None of that shit works. Just shiny little playthings to keep people distracted from real and genuine problems that cause an existential threat to all species living on earth.
Which anarchist philosophers beliefs did you find foolish and young, and why? I’d love a critique!
Strange claim, given that it’s arguably how humans have organized their society for 296,000 years until that religion you dislike fucked it all up.
Uhm, no? For most of humanity, we were in patriarcal tribes. That’s not the same as anarchy. And the moment settlements grew, there was typically some kind of hierarchy in place, some chief.
Lol, love when someone just hangs their whole ass out on every point of order.
Sure mate!
When I was younger, I believed that it was an ideal worth striving for. Now I don’t have that much faith in people anymore and I think that the best you can ask for is to try to live life your way and stay true to your beliefs and morals as best you can, according to whatever circumstances that you’ve been given.
Its interesting idea but i wonder if humans are capable of running it beyond so small groups that it wouldnt matter. It would require huge amount of planning and creative thinking to get anarchy working in such way it would benefit everyone and to mitigate its problems.
Then there is also the problem of our current system influencing the new system. Lets say we manage somehow overthrow the current opression and start implementing somekind of anarchy that has been planned in such way it functions beneficially for everyone. By its nature, there couldnt be any authority that defines what anarchy is by its core since it would be up to the people themselves.
I can imagine anarchy easily fragmenting into pieces and then some pieces gaining more support than others and then we would have several competing ideas. Ultimately one would win and others might or might not survive too. And then we would have new ruling system that is probably not anarchy. I dont mean this would happen immediately but eventually. So there would need to be somekind of defensive system against that that would prevent harmful ideas from gaining power, but how to make something like that without it becoming oppressive? And how do you restrict anarchy in the first place since the whole point is there is no central authority? And if you try to have authority that isnt central, you end up with multiple ones that become central authority within their area of influence.
Maybe i’m not as well versed on anarchy as i should to be throwing these thoughts around, but these are some thoughts i have on the subject. As far as i know, anarchism is that people make the rules themselves instead of there being central authority that tells them what to do.
So ultimately anarchism is idea that would require a lot of planning and researching to be even considered worth trying if you want to implement it in controlled way. And i dont see any government allowing such planning to happen since it would be direct threat to them if you manage to create something that is worth trying. And very likely if they still were to allow it, they would just want to influence your work in such way they gain more power from it at the expense of others. And if we had some government that would want it because they want what is good for everyone, then wouldnt that government type be what you wanted to have with anarchy in the first place? Anarchy for sake of itself doesnt seem very useful.
And if you want to implement it “naturally” by just removing all authorities and allowing people to settle things by themselves, i think we can all imagine how that would go.
When I think about it that way, anarchism seems more like “initialization” or starting point where you start building something more complex. Everything we currently have is founded on anarchism afterall, at least i dont think first humans could have had any other system. You cant really hold on to it because it will change either by the people or by the power that wants to preserve it.
Now this turned into kind of an essay
- What led to the Haymarket Massacre, which might have been the main catalyst behind the 8-hour workday… So I cannot hate it out of principle
- Seems reasonable but I don’t know how to actually implement it
- For some reason is more associated with Anarcho-Capitalism rather than the other variants, which I thought was… Interesting
It was the way for most of human history. And I’m not saying that in a good way, like “it’s totally normal, we should not be afraid of it.” I think the past was a uniformly awful time that’s slowly been getting better.
Anarchy working well depends on the people involved. Though at this point, we live in such a rules based world that I wonder if anyone would be able to function entirely without.
It rules!
I think liberals don’t even know what it means, but insist their opinions on it need to be heard anyways, because all opinions are valid, right?
I thought it was quite cool when I was a teenager. Then I grew up.
Aka you heard about it, did no reading on theory and slowly the capitalist culture you lived in burned your brain down. That’s what happens when you don’t have any actual education about something.
No, I’m quite aware of what it is … and concluded it to be a terrible idea.
What is it then, define it?
Guys, he’s quite aware. All anarchist philosophy is dead! The great Concluder has spoken!
Of course not. There is still plenty of teenagers and homeless punks around.
Guys, he actually doesn’t know about anarchism. Bro nobody mention the zapatistas or WW2 Catalonia Spain to this guy. George Orwell, more like George nobody amiright? Bro actually thinks anarchism is when you’re homeless.
Yes, reapeating “you don’t now about anarchism” over and over again is a great argument. (I really mean it, you don’t got much else to work with).
Bro didn’t even read the last comment. Your man’s is coping, in shambles.
Bro thinks this is an argument lol, nah big dawg it’s a belittlement.
At its best it would be the most well functioning democracy possible, at its worst it would give way into centralisation (and infighting)
I don’t think anarchist states are impossible, but I do think it wouldn’t be as comfortable of a life compared to something more centralised.
It would. An anarchist system requires participation at all ends from just about everyone. If you forfeith your vote once, you’ll forfeight it again, not because of a conscious choice, but because you empowered others to make your choice for you in the first place.
Anarchy is not about comfort. Its about freedom, as nebulous as that term is, and freedom, as has been said many many times, is not free.
In the absence of other power structures (political, legal, religious, economic, etc) whoever has the means and willingness to do violence will exert their will over others. Unstructured societies always devolve into might makes right.
There is a difference between Anomie and anarchy
Just because there are no leaders/rulers, doesn’t mean there are no social rules or morale values.
A law doesn’t keep one from doing bad stuff.
Else we wouldn’t have murderers.But society must grow and develop. At the current state anarchy probably wouldn’t work…
a law doesn’t keep one from doing bad stuff
that’s true, they need to be enforced somehow…
They’re enforced now but murder still happens.
That doesn’t prove that not enforcing them would somehow make murder disappear, it just proves that you can’t absolutely eliminate a behavior. Every action has diminishing returns.
I can remove some of the heat from an object by putting it in the fridge. I can remove more by putting it in the freezer, but that requires more energy. I can remove even more by using more and more sophisticated scientific equipment, but I can never reduce the temperature to absolute zero. That doesn’t mean the soda in my fridge isn’t colder than one on the counter.
Perfect results aren’t obtainable except in trivial cases.
To your point though diminishing returns. When is it worth it. You’ve just a conceded that enforcing said laws don’t actually prevent the crime. I would say enforcement never prevents any crime and enforcement is about punishment not prevention. So when is it worth it? What level totalitarianism an authoritarianism is worth it? How much abuse and Injustice is necessary to assuage your fears about the other? Surely you’re not going to sit here and tell me only fear of punishment is what stops you from murdering people?
Saying “enforcement never prevents any crime” is just naive. Say what you want about the american justice system, but even over there, they’ve incarcerated repeat offenders of assault, robbery, etc. where the incarceration itself most definitely prevents them from harming more people.
If you’re talking about actual prevention, just look to the programs enforced in several European countries that have provably been very effective in taking people who have been living off crime and turning them into productive citizens of society.
Yes, it’s been shown several times that fear of punishment is extremely ineffective at preventing crime. That doesn’t mean law enforcement doesn’t prevent crime. Putting a person that abuses their family in jail most definitely prevents them from continuing to abuse their family.
I would say enforcement never prevents any crime and enforcement is about punishment not prevention. So when is it worth it? What level totalitarianism an authoritarianism is worth it? How much abuse and Injustice is necessary to assuage your fears about the other? Surely you’re not going to sit here and tell me only fear of punishment is what stops you from murdering people?
What if we focused on resolving systemic issues that might provide motivation to prevent crime? What if we focused on rehabilitation instead of punishment for those that commit crimes anyway?
Sure, you can take any idea to an extreme strawman and shriek things like “authoritarianism!” but that means nothing.
we should do all that and have law enforcement
You’ve just a conceded that enforcing said laws don’t actually prevent the crime
Except I didn’t concede that? I said enforcing laws doesn’t totally eliminate crime, in the same way that putting a soda in the fridge doesn’t drop the temperature to 0K. Enforcing laws reduces crime.
I would say enforcement never prevents any crime
I would say you’re demonstrably incorrect.
and enforcement is about punishment not prevention.
Punishment is the method of prevention. Additionally, incarceration is in part about removing law breakers from polite society so they do not continue to break laws. We quarantine the murderers so they don’t keep murdering people.
So when is it worth it?
As with most things in life, we decide on a reasonable compromise. Putting a soda in the fridge is beneficial, putting it in the freezer is too much, and causes more problems than it solves. We decide these things collectively as a society, by electing representatives to draft laws. When they overstep, we elect new representatives to change the laws.
How much abuse and Injustice is necessary to assuage your fears about the other?
What’s abusive and unjust about trying to prevent murderers? Where’s the justice for victims and their families if as a society we just say “Golly, sorry this guy killed your children, but if we punished him we’d be just as bad”? How do you recommend reducing the injustices people enact against each other?
Surely you’re not going to sit here and tell me only fear of punishment is what stops you from murdering people?
Me personally? Of course not. But obviously some people want to do crimes. You can’t build a society based on everyone behaving just like you all the time. Some people are more violent, or greedy, or deceptive. We are barely domesticated apes, jungle impulses course through us all. Some more than others. Without some mechanism to curtail that, consequences that outweigh the benefits of selfish behavior, you wind up back at might-makes-right anyway when the selfish behave selfishly with no recourse.
In anarchism, usually policing is handled rotationally, like most positions of authority.
what do you do if there’s not enough people that want and are skilled enough to fill the positions
What do you do if that happens in non-anarchist societies?
Unstructured societies always devolve into might makes right.
you can’t prove this
Theoretically maybe, but empirically, humanity was completely unstructured at the beginning and currently not a single anarchist society exists. Why do you think everyone transformed into various kinds of nation-states eventually? Because nation-states were exceptionally good at filling that “power vacuum”. To overpower nation-states, something at least comparable is needed. Transnational corporations/syndicates/unions, something like that.
https://anarwiki.org/List_of_Anarchist_Societies
Also, you list syndicates as an example, which is an anarchist belief.
currently not a single anarchist society exists.
that’s a lie
Which ones? There are few places on Earth that are not under practical control of a formal government and legal system, and most of those places are either unpopulated or controlled by various local power brokers.
exarcheia and anabaptist sects come directly to mind, but you’ve just excluded them for some reason. it seems like no-true Scotsman to me.
exarcheia and anabaptist
Do those guys build their own roads, pipes for water and heat, homes, bake bread, make drugs, provide healthcare? Or do they depend on external nation-states and their economy to exist?
It seems like a pretty good reason to exclude them, considering the criticism being discuss was specifically that they would inevitably decay in to a “might makes right” situation. Communities existing in a situation where police and courts would prevent someone from taking over by force disqualifies them from disproving this hypothesis.
there simply isn’t evidence of some causal mechanism by anarchist societies must decay. their hypothesis can’t be proven. I didn’t even know how it could be tested.
In the context of previous message I meant anarchist society comparable to state, at least very small state. Not just a club of shared interests with members living their lives in regular nation-states. Do you have any examples in mind?
anarchist society comparable to state
a what?!
Something that can replace state, at least basic stuff like economy and infrastructure.
they’re going to say rojava lol
humanity was completely unstructured at the beginning
can you cite this?
