856
surely (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
173 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

There's the term "anarchy" describing a state of chaos, and there's the philosophical political term anarchism, which is completely separate.

You're assuming the chaos is what anarchist philosophers want, which is incorrect.

Authority would be handled democratically or rotationally in an anarchist society. As an example, the police could be voted into place at a meeting that occurs every saturday where anyone who wants can attend to decide what the people in a given region do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Chaos is a byproduct of human nature. Central authority and law is meant to kept that chaos in check.

    Given your example, what would happen if two groups in the same town both elected their own police force with wildly different directives?

    What happens when you give those cops the means to enforce their directives and they decide to enact their own rules?

    How would you even get them to do their job without a centrally backed currency?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Your response indicates you've never actually engaged with any anarchist philosophers or thought before, let me ask you this, do you really think no anarchist philosopher EVER thought of any of those points? Research the beliefs of bakunin, kropotkin, and the likes before giving strong opinions on anarchism, else you look unbelievably ignorant to anyone who actually is familiar with the material.

    Central authority and law is meant to kept that chaos in check.

    Law, sure, central authority? It does the opposite, it causes a great deal of misery and chaos. It is unchecked power held by few who won't give it up under any circumstances, it maximizes the chaos of humanity. Freedom and democracy are the only counter-balance, and anarchists just want to maximize democracy.

    Given your example, what would happen if two groups in the same town both elected their own police force with wildly different directives?

    Both groups would show up to the meeting and either reach consensus or leave it to a democratic vote. I want to point out that this has NEVER happened in any anarchist society, why do you think this is a likely scenario? If they were absolutely deadset, I suppose there could be a schism, but there's no historical reference for this, because why would this ever happen?

    Please, if you're going to try a gotcha argument like this, engage with the material and look for a historic reference. This WHAT IF THIS HAPPENS? can be done with any ideology, if there's no historic reference for it, then sure, it could cause a disaster, but it hasn't ever so why should I care? I can come up with countless theoretical disasters, and real ones for capitalism.

    What happens when you give those cops the means to enforce their directives and they decide to enact their own rules?

    They'll do poorly at the next town meeting and probably be demoted/swapped out...

    How would you even get them to do their job without a centrally backed currency?

    They can choose not to do it, of course. There's an idea of mutual aid, I scratch your back, you scratch mine, the people would be grateful for them doing a good job and would help them elsewise, as just one example. Mutualism actually has various currency-related anarchist strategies, a central authority is not needed for making a currency valid, I don't know why you believe that premise to be the case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Law, sure, central authority? It does the opposite, it causes a great deal of misery and chaos. It is unchecked power held by few who won’t give it up under any circumstances, it maximizes the chaos of humanity.

    I agree central authority has the potential to lead to complete and utter chaos, like we saw in countless wars particularly WW1 and 2.

    Both groups would show up to the meeting and either reach consensus or leave it to a democratic vote.

    Or they'd decide to cling to their own power. It all depends on which individuals get to any position of power. In an anarchic society, smaller amounts of power can go a lot further. A militia of 10000 men roaming through a decentralized federation of people has the potential to do a lot of damage. With monopolized violence that militia would have a difficult time ever forming.

    Most of my thinking is in regard to a state like America turning into an anarchist society. Given there's 350 million~ Americans, it's a certainty that there would be a plethora of groups organizing to solidify their power base. That's why there are no anarchist nation-state sized population to look to as an example for the hypotheticals I've posed. Any opportunity for anarchism has already given way to a centralized government.

    I can come up with countless theoretical disasters, and real ones for capitalism.

    Wherever humans are involved, there will inevitably be disaster. There are many, many valid critiques of capitalism, especially the digital corporate capitalism that has taken over.

    They can choose not to do it, of course. There’s an idea of mutual aid, I scratch your back, you scratch mine, the people would be grateful for them doing a good job and would help them elsewise, as just one example. Mutualism actually has various currency-related anarchist strategies, a central authority is not needed for making a currency valid, I don’t know why you believe that premise to be the case.

    What would this look like in practice? If you lived in what is now California and you wanted to sell to someone in current day New York, what currency would you accept in lieu of money within an anarchist society?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Can you point to any example of this happening in any major anarchist society?

    The fact there are none is proof that's exactly what happens.

    Yeah but why? Not because of any of the arguments you’re posing, but because anarchist societies have severeral disadvantages to start with, not because of anarchist philosophy, but because there’s people in power that desperately want anarchism to fail. Because if anarchism succeeded, their need for power would be in question. The bourgeois want anarchism to fail, the political elites want anarchism to fail, because if it doesn’t, they will have no reason to exist anymore, so, they will stop at nothing to destroy it. Anarchist societies are usually destroyed through militaristic means externally, not because of internal politics.

    Exactly.

    This doesn’t make your case against anarchism better, it makes it worse, if humans are given absolute power over a region, they’ll cause even more disasters than a democratic average of their wants and needs.

    I think there's been a bit of a misunderstanding. I should clarify that I do not wish that centralized government has to be the case. I wish human nature was not inherently violent and greedy. If anarchism could work, I would be happy to partake. However, I do not believe that it is possible for a sustained community to exist as an anarchy because human nature eventually pushes us to organize. We are a species dictated by game theory.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The fact there are none is proof that’s exactly what happens.

    No, that is proof SOMETHING prevents them, not at all the thing you're describing, proof the thing you're describing would be a primary source saying that happened.

    Exactly.

    That means none of the problems with anarchism are internal, which is a significant blow to the notion that we shouldn't be doing anarchism.

    I think there’s been a bit of a misunderstanding. I should clarify that I do not wish that centralized government has to be the case.

    It doesn't, considering the only thing that stops anarchism is external forces destroying it, it's completely possible.

    I wish human nature was not inherently violent and greedy. If anarchism could work, I would be happy to partake. However, I do not believe that it is possible for a sustained community to exist as an anarchy because human nature eventually pushes us to organize.

    This premise has nothing to do with anything, it doesn't matter how violent or greedy people are, anarchist philosophy has no bearing on these ideas.

    Anarchism is not disorganized, it's actually HIGHLY organized, because it's democratically managed.

    We are a species dictated by game theory.

    I don't see what that has to do with anything.

    So, first, you acknowledge that the only reason anarchism is destroyed is due to external forces, not internal politics, then, you say, see? anarchism is fundamentally flawed.

    No, the world is setup in a way that destroys peoples movements in general, this isn't a flaw with anarchist ideology, this just means it's difficult to create an anarchist society while the US is a world superpower.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    No, that is proof SOMETHING prevents them, not at all the thing you’re describing, proof the thing you’re describing would be a primary source saying that happened.

    Thousands of years of human history is enough for me.

    So, first, you acknowledge that the only reason anarchism is destroyed is due to external forces, not internal politics, then, you say, see?

    As long as people are involved, there's the possibility for something to wrong. Although, when there is no central government, there isn't as much potential for severe internal political turmoil. The stakes are much lower because the communities would be much smaller.

    I do appreciate how much hope you have.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    Thousands of years of human history is enough for me.

    By this logic, if you were a feudalist, you'd say "capitalism could never work" simply because the conditions haven't been historically right.

    As long as people are involved, there’s the possibility for something to wrong. Although, when there is no central government, there isn’t as much potential for severe internal political turmoil. The stakes are much lower because the communities would be much smaller.

    Right, so, anarchism has a reduced chance of internal strife and failure...

    I do appreciate how much hope you have.

    It has nothing to do with hope, and everything to do with reading and understanding theory and history.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    There are millions of Jimmys. Self-serving, power hungry people end up in positions of power because they are willing to do whatever it takes to get there. It's ok if you think I'm an ignorant asshole.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •