I’m politically agnostic and have moved from a slightly conservative stance to a vastly more progressive stance (european). i still dont get the more niche things like tankies and anarchists at this point but I would like to, without spending 10 hours reading endless manifests (which do have merit, no doubt, but still).
Can someone explain to me why anarchy isnt the guy (or gal, or gang, or entity) with the bigger stick making the rules?
Anarchism understood as a proper model and not just “chaos” is about horizontal and distributed power structures.
The whole idea is that no single person or group has a monopoly on power. Now if you are asking how do anarchist societies prevent people or groups like that from rising up and forming monopolies of power, there are a bunch of different answers. Ultimately it’s about collective action and proper structure.
If your organization’s rules allow for a single person to rise up and take over, it isn’t formed correctly. It’s like the Fediverse, no one server or person gets to make the rules for all the other servers or developers.
Everything is federated by the choice of the instances and ultimately the users. If they don’t agree with how any instance is being run, they can start their own and run it how they want, federating with who they want assuming it is mutual.
Anybody can fork the project at any time, build it different, start a new instance, run it how they want, etc.
You build into your society, mechanisms that resist monopolies of power. It’s like how your body’s immune system has layers of protection against all kinds of germs.
Another example, in typical small company the structure is top-down with the owner usually being a single person with universal power over all their employees. They can hire and fire whoever they want whenever they want. They can shut down the company or change how any part of it operates whenever they want. Nothing in that company structure protects the employees from abuse by the owner.
There is no magic bullet to protect against everything, just like how your body despite being healthy and strong can still succumb to cancer, infection, poison, etc. That isn’t a reason to just give up on being fit and healthy, because it is about improving your odds and trying to make your life on the average better.
thank you for explaining. This makes it a lot easier to grasp.
Do you have a source that slowly zooms in on the topic so I can read stuff that helps me get an idea of more concepts regarding this?
There’s a lot of classic books on anarchy. I think Peter Kropotato[sic] has a lot of stuff written before the Russian revolution that goes heavily into why capitalism and feudalism both suck.
I mean, capitalism and feudalism is a nobrainer at this point (why they suck) but I’ll check it out. thank you! :)
I’d like to thank you for taking your time to provide such a thorough answer
Thank you for reading it :)
I am five years old and I don’t understand anything you just said.
People tend to think of anarchism as a power vacuum. As soon as a charismatic person comes in they’ll start gaining more and more following. But that’s not really how it works. Anarchy is about filling that vacuum with everyone. If a decision needs to be made you bring in everyone the situation effects to make it. You start at the level of a household to neighborhood to watershed to biosphere. A charismatic wanabe tyrant will be frustrated every step they take towards getting more power.
Anarchists develop structures and agreements that discourage concentration of power. They enable people to guide their own lives and improve their communities. When violence occurs, when agreements are broken the community decided what is too be done.
All that assumes you’re already there. One of the primary differences between anarchists and MLMs (Marxist Leninist Maoists) isn’t necessarily their longest term goals, it’s the means by which they reach them. MLMs believe that they must use the state, capitalism, and by extension coercive control in order to reach those goals. That brings the risk of capture and co-option of those structures. They’ve also accomplished incredible feats of human uplift so I wouldn’t say their position is without merit.
Anarchists see the revolution coming about through a unity of means and ends. They create a better society by building it while the old one still stands. Their groups are horizontally organized. They create organizations to replace food production and distribution; and devlop strategies for housing distribution (squatting).
Anarchists develop structures and agreements that discourage concentration of power
MLMs believe that they must use the state, capitalism, and by extension coercive control
Are these not different words for the same fundamental concepts?
I fail to see how “the state” and “capitalism” aren’t just a more developed form of “structures” and “agreements”. And if the community decides punishment is an appropriate response to breaking an “agreement”, how is that any different from “coercive control”?
And if you’re community gets large enough (say even like a couple hundred people), how are any decisions gonna get made even remotely efficiently?
Feel like you’re a hop skip and a jump from a representative democracy. And as soon as bartering becomes too inconvenient, I’m sure a new “agreement” still be made to use some proxy as a form of current and boom now you’ve got capitalism too.
I think “more developed” is not great here. It’s assuming because it’s the most common currently and supplanted more anarchist methods that it is better. States and capitalism have benefits that anarchy does not. You can not engage in an anarchist invasion. You can not extract value from a country using colonialism in an anarchist society. This enables capitalist and state control to expand and eventually control the land that anarchist, chieftain led, and other pre state communities once controlled [1]. Capitalism and the state conquered and coerced until it held an almost universal control [2] but that doesn’t mean it’s better to live under.
One of the agreements I have in mind is trading what a farm’s workers need: insurance in case of bad harvest, tools, infrastructure, education, labor, etc for what a city or town needs: food [3]. The “punishment” for breaking such an agreement is not violence. The result is the end of the agreement. That is not coercive control because the other can go to someone else for the same need.
It probably wouldn’t be efficient at large scales [4]. That’s why you make small decisions among those the decision effects. A group might elect a recallable representative for their watershed council and the meeting notes would be distributed to everyone who wanted to read them. However, most decisions about a workplace or neighborhood could probably work by assembly [5]. It is a kind representative democracy but the purpose of anarchy is not ideological purity. The point is creating a society that eliminates as much oppression as possible and enables the most freedom possible.
Bartering, as large scale economic system, is a myth. Gift economies, slavery, stateless communism, and more were far more common. Barter between communities existed but it was the minority of economic activity. The economy I suggest has more in common with Anarcho Communism. To borrow a phrase, “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.”
- The exceptions are legion but they don’t exactly control a lot of land. The San are an example.
- Worshipping Power does a good job examining the transition if you’re interested in reading more.
- Each of those line items could be spread across a miriad of organizations and communities.
- The current system is only efficient at funneling money to the top so I’m not that worried.
- These are just possibilities but I think it’s a workable structure that I would describe as non-heirarchical.
See Democratic Confederalism. https://youtu.be/BKRHyF78j2I?si=5tHIXPtGNI0jW5Jq
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/BKRHyF78j2I?si=5tHIXPtGNI0jW5Jq
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Isn’t that just a liberal social Democratic system for people afraid of the words social and liberal?
Anarchists creating structures and agreements isn’t anarchy anymore, its… well… government.
Anarchy is liberal in the sense that it pursues individual’s freedom not only from oppression but also to act in ways that enrich themselves. It does not require total chaos as it’s detractors have tried to characterize it since the term was coined.
Anarchy is social in the sense it accepts human beings are almost always better off in groups and that society’s goals should be for the betterment of all.
It is democratic in the sense that people come together to make decisions; although, consensus is perhaps a better descriptor. Democracy has an association with first past the post voting and decisions that bind those represented.
It is not a liberal social democracy as that tends to be used to describe a capitalist society with strong social programs, a beauracracy, and police state. They also tend to be supported by colonialism abroad or petrochemical extraction but I suppose that’s not necessarily a requirement. I would agree that such a society is not anarchist.
Structure is not heirarchy. A collective farm is a structure just as much as a factory farm. An agreement where a farm exchanges food for labor, infrastructure, medicine, education, and tools from a city does not preclude anarchy. Either side breaking that agreement when the other begins acting in bad faith is not oppression or a police state.
I’m not very political or versed in the science about them, but does anarchy exclude guidelines and collaboration? I’d have thought it would enhance those things.
If there isn’t anything enforcing rules and laws, a government would be informational, making guidelines based on what people found to work best. Like a giant kickstarter paired with Wikipedia.
Many guidelines will be followed. Like, boil your chicken before eating it. Good to know, and most will do it. Some won’t, for whatever reason.
Think village assembly, fund-raisers, donations.
I might be completely off here. In my mind, people work great together, until there are rules to exploit. The best of us always comes out despite enforcing structures.
Thank you very much for elaborating. I learned a lot. :)
Like true Libertarianism, this assumes that people will be perfect, altruistic and cooperative.
They won’t be. Eventually (quickly) someone will become a cult of personality or a bully and seize power.
See: America 2016/2024.
Libertarians just want the person with more money above the ones with less. It’s a very hierarchical system in favour for assholes (people stealing or inherit a lot of money).
It is true libertarianism in the older socialist sense. It assumes most people will act in their own self interest. It assumes that most people are at their core social. It asserts that the structures of capitalist control: isolation, bigotry, corporate media and more have convinced people to act in destructive ways that neverless enable their survival. Capitalism also enables unempathetic narcissistic people to gain unjustified control over all of our lives.
Power vacuums demand to be filled. Anarchism leaves no openings. When early states began encroaching into stateless societies they had an easy time with patriarchal and other heirarchical societies. Bureaucracies and tyrants were easily subsumed by dethroning a leader and implanting a friendly local. Anarchist societies were another story. They were not habituated to authority, they fought tooth and nail to maintain their anarchy. I don’t have access to my books right now but in a couple days I’ll drop an excerpt from Worshiping Power that goes into detail on a couple of examples.
But humans have short memories. As soon as the pressure is off and the complacency sets in, someone will abuse it.
Humans have long memories when they want to. Some of the longest surviving cultures are very egalitarian. The San peoples of Africa for instance. Oral traditions have long told stories that impart moral lessons about how to treat the environment, animals, and other people. Anti-authotitarian traditions and education are quite effective. The idea that a person can own a hundred acres was, and could be again, as absurd as claiming a pig can fly not all that long ago.
You site a tribe of 65,000 primitives in Africa in a conversation about the modern, internet level, instant communication, spacefaring society of eight billion people. Their culture doesn’t scale.
You may have the right idea but you’re on the wrong path to proselytize for it. Eight billion people can’t return to a hunter/gatherer society and squat down in the dust to grind grain on a rock for dinner.
I’m definitely not advocating for a return to hunter gathering. Billions would die. But I do think they have things to teach us.
Anarchism leaves no openings.
The way I see it, anarchism leaves nothing but openings. Your egalitarian paradise only needs one family to want to seize power gather weapons and find like minded people to form a feudal military organization and they can start picking off and dominating families one by one. Individuals would not be able to stand against this centralized power and the time it would take to meet, agree, and mobilize a militia wouldn’t help.
It isn’t that anarchism evolves into feudalism, it’s that it takes centralized power to resist centralized power. And as soon as you start concentrating power, having a standing army with wages, or other centralized systems to pool community resources, that’s government. Even, yes, a descentralized non-capitalist deregulated egalitarian democracy.
It doesn’t bother me that people want this kind of system, it bothers me that people want to call this simplified form of community governance “anarchy” which is by definition “the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government” because as soon as you start imposing rules like “we can expell a murderer if everyone else votes to” it becomes a simple form of communal government and the definition no longer applies.
Long lived anarchist societies [1] have traditions and structures that resist this sort of thing. Morality tales, traditions that shame those who aim to put themselves above others, and a tradition of armed self defense serve to prevent subversion from within. These things tend to be frustrated early. If your neighbor gets “picked off” or joins a cult of personality are you going to sit around and wait for it to happen to you or are you going to get your neighbors together and put a stop to it. You’re right that individuals cannot stand up to such a threat, that’s precisely why they’ll form a militia to stop it. Ideally such things can be resolved with words but violence is a perfectly rational response to such a threat.
Centralized power is actually pretty bad at holding ground and subjugating populations. They have to build whole expensive structures of social control to ensure soldiers will fight. As soon as that structure is less convincing than a losing fight they run. The people being subjugated need no such structure. They have every reason to fight to protect themselves, their family, their community, and way of life.
Nothing I’ve described goes against your definition. A group of people deciding not to feed, house, or allow someone to stay in their midst is not a heirarchy. It’s also not government. Just as a group is free to associate it is also free to disassociate.
- They have long existed and some still persist. The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow talk about several.
So let’s say we do it. We transform our country and it becomes everything you hoped and then the neighboring country invades. How does the anarchist society stand against that? How do they have a militia that can operate beyond the immediate resources of each member (beyond begging door to door)? How do you maintain supply lines without people doing that full time? How do you buy supplies without taxes to pay for them? How do you administer supplies without someone doing that full time? How do we respond to rockets fired into our territory? Does Bob have an anti missile system in the barn?
It just seems like a nice idea but too fragile to succeed.
A charismatic wanabe tyrant will be frustrated every step they take towards getting more power.
To be fair, this goes for everyone, not just a tyrant.
I see the concept but unfortunately it runs against human nature: humans have an inherent need to follow someone and the emergence of cliques among people result in power struggles for the benefit of their own group.
This is proven incorrect. While many societies throughout history have been heirarchical, many were egalitarian and rejected heirarchy. Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution, Worshipping Power, and The Dawn of Everything all talk about various early societies many of which reject authoritarian structures. One still existing group of egalitarian societies in Africa is called the San, by all accounts they’ve been around for millenia. I’m not aware of a long lasting egalitarian industrial society but the idea that human beings are incapable of living free from some authority is simply untrue.
Every now and then Lemmy has an actual discussion like this that gives me hope that it can become more than just an idiotic link aggregator. Thanks!
Thanks for the feedback. I enjoy it as well.
What most of the replies are missing is that there are several different conceptions of what anarchy and anarchism is, even between so-called anarchists.
Anarchy, when boiled down to most basic component, is the rejection of hierarchy. What constitutes a hierarchy is also a big matter of debate. Every political system is about the guy with the bigger stick making the rules. The difference is who holds the stick (and why). Anarchy is the rejection of the stick. I think it is a disservice to look at anarchy through the same terms as those political systems, because anarchy is not a political system. Anarchy is the rejection of political systems. Anarchy is about the possibility of change. The possibility of freedom.
I can assure you that any so-called anarchists who claim to have a plan for how society will function after the revolution are lying to both you and themselves. There will be no anarchist society after the revolution. A revolution is a fight over the stick. Somebody will be holding it when the dust clears. Anarchy, in truth, is not about the future. It is about the now. It’s about the real, existing struggle for a better present instead of the dream of a better future.
It’s important to recognize our place in the world. I live in America. My country, right now, is committing genocide. Everybody in this country is responsible for that genocide. Anarchy is about doing something to stop the genocide because I want no responsibility in what is happening. Anarchy is about doing something about the police murdering innocent people on a daily basis because there can be no justification for what is happening. It’s about providing food for people who can’t feed themselves because people don’t have to starve. Anarchy is about doing all of those things even when faced with legal consequences. Anarchy is about protecting people from the guy with the stick. That’s why it’s not a political system.
Because if it is true that for anarchists there is no difference between theory and action, as soon as the idea of social justice lights up in us, illuminates our brain even for a split second, it will never be able to extinguish itself again. Because no matter what we think we will feel guilty, will feel we are accomplices, accomplices to a process of discrimination, repression, genocide, death, a process we will never be able to feel detached from again. How could we define ourselves revolutionaries and anarchists otherwise? What freedom would we be supporting if we were to give our complicity to the assassins in power?
You see how different and critical the situation is for whoever succeeds, through deep analysis of reality or simply by chance or misfortune, in letting an idea as clear as the idea of justice penetrate their brain? There are many such ideas. For example, the idea of freedom is similar. Anyone who thinks about what freedom actually is even for a moment will never again be able to content themselves by simply doing something to slightly extend the freedom of the situations they are living in. From that moment on they will feel guilty and will try to do something to alleviate their sense of suffering. They will fear they have done wrong by not having done anything till now, and from that moment on their lives will change completely.
(Alfredo M. Bonanno, The Anarchist Tension)
To build on this, it would be accurate to say that Anarchy is the principle upon which the technologies of Anarchism are built. Rather than a political system, which inherently function through obligation of participation or subjugation, the technologies of anarchism are participatory. That is to say anarchism provides methodologies of engagement between individuals and groups to achieve outcomes without obligation or subjugation which are imposed by the system, replacing those attributes of hierarchy instead with consent, participation, and consensus which are fundamentally voluntary and opt-in in nature.
Another way to say this is that Political Systems are means by which a group forces rules upon individuals, while Anarchism is a set of methods by which individuals can perform actions as groups.
Very good read! Thank you for elaborating.
That’s what it turns into. Anarchy is only a stable form of government on paper. Like a lot of things, it falls apart when executed in the real world. Mostly because there will always be people who are jerks.
The entire point of anarchy is that there is no government lol
No hierarchal form of government, but rather a coalition of every single person that lives in the society. Things are definitely still governed. It isn’t chaos.
Anarchy is to government what 0 is to math.
0 is really important to math.
Anarchy is important when talking about government, as can be seen in a number of comments in this post.
If your math is full of zeros you have a good time if your government is full of anarchy you will have your bronze statue take down via rope.
The jerks won’t be invited to the anarchistic society because they won’t be interested in maintaining the social contract. Enjoy exile, jerks!
That. And usually the stick is a very metaphoric one. As long as mechanisms of power exist, someone will have some kind of upper hand in any and all situations with other people.
For instance, if you’re rich, you can throw more money at a situation and buy good results. If you have a big army, you can threaten someone into doing something for you and they know you have the manpower to back the threat up with actual force. And if you have a lot of connections, you can get stuff done via good will.
Ultimately, you need a government that, as a unit, has the authority to say “WE are the top dogs and there is nothing you can do about it.” Ideally that system is malleable enough by its subjects to always act for the betterment of its subjects, and to hold its members to account.
In the absence of a formal government, that position is filled up by someone else. Either whomever shouts the loudest, has the most friend in the best places, has the biggest pile of money, has the biggest group of bullies, or some combination of those. In fact, that is how most kings’ dynasties in history probably got established.Just like nature abhors a vacuum, society abhors a power vacuum, and the moment you get rid of a king and do nothing to follow up on his removal, someone else is gonna take the throne and the crown and make himself king.
And before you start the republic spiel or the representative democracy spiel, a republic and a house of representatives are basically a royal court with more checks and balances, where the people on the outside as a whole get a say in who’s in that court. It’s basically regularly emptying and refilling thrones and having rules on how to do so.
I agree. Additional question: do we need these „jerks“?
deleted by creator
Thats an interesting point. I‘ve read a lot of answers by now and I really enjoy how many different viewpoints and interpretations come together along with patterns of probably the core of the topic.
Person with big stick < A bunch of people with pockets full of rocks
Not when the big stick is made of enriched Uranium
Organized labor is the biggest stick. If workers organize themselves based on an anarchist basis, they can potentially wield this stick very gracefully to ward off or even preclude the entities that would dominate and exploit them.
The end goal is basically the same as Marxism: a stateless, classless society. It’s a fair question as to whether the anarchist route that forgoes an interim worker state is viable.
Anarchy, in it’s purest sense, is to a system what darkness is to light. Darkness is the absence of light, not a thing in-and-of itself. Anarchy is the lack of an establishment or system, rather than a system in itself.
What this means, in practical application, is that most anarchists are simply opposed to whatever system exists currently. Human nature dictates that SOME system will exist as long as we do, so true anarchy can only exist when there are no longer humans around to perceive it.
In historical context, this almost always means that when anarchy “takes over,” what it creates is a “systemic void” which - like any vacuum - quickly gets filled. Usually by the guy with the biggest stick.
I think this is a common misconception about anarchies - that there’s no social control of any kind. If you look at actual real world anarchies like Freetown Christiania in Copenhagen they don’t believe in a complete absence of organisation. Far from it - they develop community-based committees which have no actual power in themselves but are used to develop concensus on issues that affect the whole community. So rather than abolishing all rules they’re all about human collaboration and concensus.
For instance when hard drugs became a problem in Christiana the residents got together and banned hard drugs. It’s not a law as such but everyone’s in agreement that if you try to sell hard drugs you’ll be ejected.
It’s not a perfect place and it’s hard to say that their brand of anarchy works well as a system of government. It seems to have been a mixed experience for many people who’ve lived there. But it’s definitely been an interesting social experiment.
There are plenty of documentaries on youtube if you’re interested.
they develop community-based committees which have no actual power in themselves but are used to develop concensus on issues that affect the whole community. So rather than abolishing all rules they’re all about human collaboration and concensus.
So it’s a democracy.
It doesn’t sound like there are any elections, or representatives, or bills or candidates to vote on. Just conducting an ad-hoc “all in favor say aye” type of vote doesn’t mean it’s a democracy. Just because many people come to a consensus doesn’t mean it’s a democracy.
Elections and representatives are “representative democracy”, not a true democracy. Voting on issues is democracy. Democracy literally means “the people have the power”
Hmm… so an approach that would have gotten Rodeo’s point across better might have been to say,
“so anarchy is just another name for the purest form of democracy.”
Because democracy is such a broad word that it is occasionally applied to the United States, despite the CIA’s history of coups and the FBI’s history of extrajudicial assassinations of citizens.
I’m talking about the level of organization. There’s a difference between saying “the best way to resolve this conversation is to ask everyone present for a vote” and “there’s going to be another cyclical election soon, these will be the matters we’re going to vote on.” Counting ayes and nays doesn’t make things a capital-D Democracy, it’s the institutionalization of these practices.
Democracies usually have laws and some kind of government. There are no laws in Freetown Christiania and there’s no individual who has direct power over another.
Nah that’s the stereotypical view, where anarchy = chaos. For some reason it also needs to find a dumpster and put fire on it, and ffs I never understood that reference.
Anarchists don’t agree with any of those analogies
I’m not an expert, nor do I claim to be even moderately smart about things, but I would think anarchy devolves to other labels once there’s a bigger stick being used.
Edit: it might be a dictatorship, or a monarchy if the stick is jewel encrusted
This is correct. If society becomes a place where a few people are running everything by force it is not anarchy, even if technically there are no written down laws. A lot of anarchist philosophy is about how to achieve and maintain anarchy without it devolving back into hierarchical power structures. There are a lot of different ideas that have spawned their own subgenre of anarchy. I personally think some checks and balances combination of unions and community councils is the most likely to succeed. This is anarcho-syndicalism.
Yes, anarchy is an interrim state in which no power mechanic has yet taken hold. But naturally it will, in one way or another.
That is a misconception. Anarchism is a equal distribution of power among all participants. This will not change “naturally”. It can be changed by either efforts from within to establish a single individual or group as a ruler over the rest, or by outside forces. Neither I would classify as happening just naturally.
It’s more the idea that it can be changed that I think the previous commenter was referring to. Since anarchy is not a codified structure, it is susceptible to a plurality forming around influential figures who become de facto leaders, and suddenly the system of anarchy falls apart.
If the plurality remains influential, you’ve got a dictatorship/monarchy. The majority could work together to block the dictatorship from forming, but that would require organization and compromise to bring people with disparate priorities together, effectively creating an early stage democracy.
In such a scenario, should either side prevail, they will also want some structure that either preserves their power (in the case of dictatorship) or places checks on power (in the case of democracy) and suddenly you have a government again.
There is a lot of confusion around anarchism, because it is a negative description: It’s a collective without leader, without governing institutions. It doesn’t say much about how this collective organizes instead. So you could call the chaotic state after a government coup Anarchy. But that isn’t what anarchists are talking about and I don’t think that is what OP meant either.
Anarchy as a deliberate system is when a group of people decides to work or live together without selecting a leader or any other form of government, instead resolving decisions that affect everyone together. In that sense it is not an interim state, a leadership-vacuum just waiting to be filled. Although of course Anarchy can transition into another system by various means, but so can every other system as well.
Right, it’s just that there is no component inherent to anarchy which prevents a leader from rising anyways. Someone who is charismatic and skilled at what they do will naturally attract followers, and suddenly factionalism takes hold.
Anarchy can be deliberate, but if it is being proposed as a long-term format for society, it would need some form of protection in place to prevent the entire thing from falling apart the moment a faction of enough mass decides they know what is best for everyone. That’s usually the role a government fulfils, but anarchy doesn’t have that.
It is natural. Any particular individual’s actions are not natural - but the fact that, amongst a large, diverse group of people, there will be someone who would try to establish themselves or their group as rulers - is just a statistical property. So any anarchic system needs a mechanism to counter that.
Not necessarily. Anarchy doesn’t imply chaos or complete absence of societal structures.
It mostly means no central ruling group/class or individual holds the monopoly on violence and government.i’m also not super educated on this but this much i know
Because that’s called despotism, which anarchists historically oppose.
Thanks. I have been reading and listening to a lot of stuff from other comments by now. Really cool discussion imo.
Because the moment anarchy starts making rules, it’s no longer anarchy.
Anarchy is not the absence of rules but the absence of authority.
And without authority to back up the rules- the rules are easily dismissed without consequence. And easily dismissed rules with no consequence is anarchy.
Therefore- rules negate anarchy.
Anarchists tend to think that fear of the state is not the main reason why we don’t murder each other. In other words, following rules that are understood does not require the stick. Anarchists also tend to think that authority mostly enforce rules to maintain itself, and that the common good actually relies on something else.
How does an anarchy society enforce the rules? Say, murders.
Let’s say you risk nothing if you murder. Would you start right away going on a killing spree ? Chances you think “I won’t but others will” and others actually think the same. An anarchist would probably analyse this by saying that destroying trust between indivuals living together is a basic tool power use to justify its domination. A pedantic anarchist would get his Latin out at this point. Divide et impera.
You misunderstood my question. I did not mean to ask why there would be no murderers. My question is this:
- If anarchism is not against rules but rather authority, how would you deal with murderers? If there is no authority to sentence them, would they remain free individuals?
Anarchists usually think that a lot of murderers actually get away with it in our actual world, be it through war crimes, neglecting sanitary or safety rules to maximise profit; you can extend this list with a lot of legal murders.
Anarchism definitely does not define a specific rule for what to do with murderers. Different communities might want to handle that differently. They usually think that prison does not solve anything though, and that only the poor get sent there anyway.
I think a mistake is to think that anarchism is a “feature-complete” view of the world, when it really is the realisation that power corrupts, and that we should keep this in mind when organising ourselves. Arguably, over the long run, anarchist views are winning: institutions that prevent - in theory - crazy psychopath from taking absolute power, churches losing power over our lives, women considered as human beings; these are things anarchists have pushed for, for 2 centuries. This short essay might give you more insight: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-are-you-an-anarchist-the-answer-may-surprise-you
By that logic, there either never has been a murder in human history or governments cause people to murder.
Anarchy isn’t some deep philosophy, it’s just a lack of any sort of life experience.
By your logic, murders don’t happen anymore in liberal democracies?
It isn’t some deep philosophy indeed. It’s very practical and not a church in any way. Anarchists usually don’t care about people calling themselves anarchists, but consider that some stuff like counter measures to absolute power that our institutions have, gender equality and some other stuff are things they’ve been pushing for a while.
At its very core, anarchism is the refusal of any fundamental dogma, and in some ways very related to the scientific method and rationalism. This is probably a more personal take than what I’ve written so far ;-)
Chill out man, we aren’t coming to behead you or anything. <3
All murders happen because of emotional (killing someone in anger), economical (Theft gone wrong) or psychological (Doesn’t realize it’s wrong) reasons. none of these is prevented by sticking the murderer in a box after the murder.
All of these are prevented by building strong social network to manage any harmful impulses before something happens, which is something any reasonable anarchist would agree with.
Also If you think the list is incomplete then feel free to give another example.
Oh yeah also political assassinations and wars. But your comment already addresses those.
I think a better wording is that anarchy is naive. And I’d rather be naive than accept that this is the best we can come up with, because that’s depressing.
Rules don’t negate anarchy. I don’t follow rules for fear of punishment, but because they make sense. If they don’t make sense, I seek explanation. If there isn’t a good one, I ignore it.
Is this the Rules version for No Morality without God?
That sounds like anarchy is the societal equivalent of a radioactive element. It is what it is, until some random amount of time when some shit kicks off and it becomes something else.
Yes, and those who has grown a community or company will understand this. The emergence of power structures isn’t a matter of if, but when.
deleted by creator
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=fibDNwF8bjs
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Abort! Abort! Didn’t mean to link to a reactionary reposter.
My impression from talking to and reading stuff by anarchists is that the idea is for culture to serve in the place of sticks and rules. As for the mechanics of how this works, what such a culture would need to achieve to succeed and how it could do so, frankly most of them seem to take it on faith that this will be the easy part and naturally fall into place as soon as their oppressors are no longer mucking things up.
Which is a shame because I think it could be totally plausible and worth seeking, if you worked through the game theory and sustainability-over-time issues, despite being a monumental challenge and being about something as crudely understood as collective psychology. Human society is a system, and systems can be designed lots of different ways. It could be possible to have a culture that is powerful or clever enough to allow for a large population to function without a controlling state beating people into line.
Not directly related to this comment but I also want to mention and recommend the book The Disposessed by Ursula K. Le Guin, really thoughtful novel about anarchism.
Thank you for contributing! I will check out the book.
I mean are you looking for theory or actual anarchist practice?
Because in practice the best anarchism has done is war communism but less organized, less democratic, and less efficient than the communists, and the worst they’ve done is basically a military dictatorship that accidentally empowered kulaks to do pogroms, and if you ask modern anarchists the takeaways from these programs and what to do better in the future, 9/10 times(being generous) they’ll just repeat a “stabbed in the back by tankies” narrative which shows they really haven’t learned from their history.
Oh wow. Now we’re getting into interesting waters. I probably need to read a lot.
To add a disclaimer, I am specifically talking about the largest and more stable projects, anarchosyndicalism during the Spanish civil war and the free ukrainian state during the Russian Revolution
The current status quo is the guy with the bigger stick making the rules. You’re asking how that would be different under an anarchistic society? Anarchy works best with small to medium groups of like minded individuals. The idea is that nobody in your village has authority over anyone else, and that you’ve struck a social contract to help each other out with each other’s individual skills ie. the guy who’s really good at baking bakes bread for the village, the person who’s really good at building tables builds tables for the village etc. Of course, if a violent antisocial person wanted to, they could threaten that balance, hence why it’s a good idea for anarchistic societies to of course still protect themselves.
Sounds like a great place :)
Is this distinct from commune ism
My take on anarchism is that it’s valuable as a criticism of any form of social organization, but not valuable as its own form of organization. I would never vote for an anarchist or join an anarchist movement because I don’t want to put criticism first. Something must exist before it can be criticized. But anarchists offer truly great insight into out social structures
