7 ms·

That is always the question asked. They would argue that things could be voluntarily self organized, instead of structured in coercive heirarchies. In other w

That is always the question asked. They would argue that things could be voluntarily self organized, instead of structured in coercive heirarchies. In other words, they would say that people who are capable of being doctors should provide medical care, and organize themselves in a way to make sure that care gets provided sensibly. When potholes need fixing the community should meet and figure out how to get it done. They believe we can do all of these things with out needing an organized state that gets to dictate anything, money to incentivize, or police as coercive enforcement. I'm sure I'm butchering it a bit. It might not be quite that simple, but it's along those lines. And yes, it's idealistic as hell. That said, I know a lot of anarchist activists and damn, do those guys know how to get shit done.

jschwartzi 9y ago
The rub is that your need leaders in the sense of initiating things, but that you're without an organized class of people who are paid to lead.
- dbingham 9y ago
  You actually don't need leaders. I've been part of plenty of leaderless flat heirarchies that self organized pretty damned well. People just stepped up to do things that needed doing. The problem isn't that people can't function with out leaders. The issue is more that, those sorts of flat heirarchies don't tend to scale well. But that doesn't necessarily mean they couldn't, if we put some effort and education into training people how to operate in them better. I'm less skeptical of the idea that we could operate in self organized non-heirarchies than I am of the idea that would could do away with the money and all formal organizations. The idea that we could do everything by informal agreement just seems really unstable to me. Like you'd never quite know what the rules were and like they could change at any moment.
eeZah7Ux 9y ago
> And yes, it's idealistic as hell. Not really. In countless rural societies, throughout the world and through history, it's been commonplace for people to help each other with building their homes, making dirt roads and small bridges, making food and many other tasks - without charging each other for money or bartering. Essentially a small village can work much like a very large family and people would use money almost only when interacting with strangers in a different village.
- lifeformed 9y ago
  That can work for small communities, but you wouldn't ever be able to accomplish large scale tasks with that limited scale of organization. And not just big buildings and bridges (which one could argue are unnecessary), but projects like research in medicine and agriculture which benefit everyone, but require a large centralization of resources, leadership, and lots of time to create. That doesn't seem like something that could emerge from a anarchist society.
  - hermitdev 9y ago
    > ... and bridges (which one could argue are unnecessary) I'm pretty sure you're referring to the Bridge to Nowhere [1] here (~$400M), but one could argue for a number of public works projects that are unnecessary, stupid, or the cause of recurring large expenditures. Chicago, built on a swamp, still constantly has flooding issues. The Deep Tunnel project [2] is currently at > $4B, and still can't handle a relatively common spring storm without dumping sewage into either Lake Michigan or the Illinois-Michigan Sanitation Canal. Not to mention the other regional estuaries that get polluted by overflows such as the Des Plaines River or the Salt Creek (which just happens to run by the Chicago area's premier zoo: Brookfield). Also, Washington DC, also built on a swamp (literal, not the figurative "drain the swamp"). Not sure what measures the city takes to prevent/handle flooding. Also potential hurricane target. New Orleans, built below sea level...right next to the sea, and also a prime target for hurricanes, the worst in recent memory being Katrina. Response to that? Rebuild. Should have been relocate. First search from Google I found says costs from the recovery on that were ~$108B [3] (I don't know the accuracy of this - first time I've ever visited the site). I don't know how much the Army Corps of Engineers has spent rebuilding the dikes & levies that failed after Katrina, but I'd put money down that it is far beyond the $400M spent on the "Bridge to Nowhere". Point is, the Federal government is there to help all citizens, those in small & large communities/cities alike. Infrastructure projects cost money, period. They're actually cheaper in rural areas due to cheaper local labor, sometimes material, and usually (but not always) less corruption and cronyism (road repairs around Chicago are generally of very poor quality, do not last long and are poorly planned - e.g. in Cook County, a road will often be repaired one week, and then promptly torn up the next to replace a sewer/water/gas main). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge [2] http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/367.html http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/367.html [3] https://www.thebalance.com/hurricane-katrina-facts-damage-and-economic-effects-3306023 https://www.thebalance.com/hurricane-katrina-facts-damage-an...
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
> When potholes need fixing the community should meet and figure out how to get it done. OK. > They believe we can do all of these things with out needing an organized state Well, see, we met and decided that that's how we're going to get things done. It happens at the time a town decides to incorporate. How does it decide to do that? Usually by a referendum passing among the town's voters.

jschwartzi 9y ago

The rub is that your need leaders in the sense of initiating things, but that you're without an organized class of people who are paid to lead.

dbingham 9y ago
You actually don't need leaders. I've been part of plenty of leaderless flat heirarchies that self organized pretty damned well. People just stepped up to do things that needed doing. The problem isn't that people can't function with out leaders. The issue is more that, those sorts of flat heirarchies don't tend to scale well. But that doesn't necessarily mean they couldn't, if we put some effort and education into training people how to operate in them better. I'm less skeptical of the idea that we could operate in self organized non-heirarchies than I am of the idea that would could do away with the money and all formal organizations. The idea that we could do everything by informal agreement just seems really unstable to me. Like you'd never quite know what the rules were and like they could change at any moment.

eeZah7Ux 9y ago

> And yes, it's idealistic as hell. Not really. In countless rural societies, throughout the world and through history, it's been commonplace for people to help each other with building their homes, making dirt roads and small bridges, making food and many other tasks - without charging each other for money or bartering. Essentially a small village can work much like a very large family and people would use money almost only when interacting with strangers in a different village.

lifeformed 9y ago
That can work for small communities, but you wouldn't ever be able to accomplish large scale tasks with that limited scale of organization. And not just big buildings and bridges (which one could argue are unnecessary), but projects like research in medicine and agriculture which benefit everyone, but require a large centralization of resources, leadership, and lots of time to create. That doesn't seem like something that could emerge from a anarchist society.
- hermitdev 9y ago
  > ... and bridges (which one could argue are unnecessary) I'm pretty sure you're referring to the Bridge to Nowhere [1] here (~$400M), but one could argue for a number of public works projects that are unnecessary, stupid, or the cause of recurring large expenditures. Chicago, built on a swamp, still constantly has flooding issues. The Deep Tunnel project [2] is currently at > $4B, and still can't handle a relatively common spring storm without dumping sewage into either Lake Michigan or the Illinois-Michigan Sanitation Canal. Not to mention the other regional estuaries that get polluted by overflows such as the Des Plaines River or the Salt Creek (which just happens to run by the Chicago area's premier zoo: Brookfield). Also, Washington DC, also built on a swamp (literal, not the figurative "drain the swamp"). Not sure what measures the city takes to prevent/handle flooding. Also potential hurricane target. New Orleans, built below sea level...right next to the sea, and also a prime target for hurricanes, the worst in recent memory being Katrina. Response to that? Rebuild. Should have been relocate. First search from Google I found says costs from the recovery on that were ~$108B [3] (I don't know the accuracy of this - first time I've ever visited the site). I don't know how much the Army Corps of Engineers has spent rebuilding the dikes & levies that failed after Katrina, but I'd put money down that it is far beyond the $400M spent on the "Bridge to Nowhere". Point is, the Federal government is there to help all citizens, those in small & large communities/cities alike. Infrastructure projects cost money, period. They're actually cheaper in rural areas due to cheaper local labor, sometimes material, and usually (but not always) less corruption and cronyism (road repairs around Chicago are generally of very poor quality, do not last long and are poorly planned - e.g. in Cook County, a road will often be repaired one week, and then promptly torn up the next to replace a sewer/water/gas main). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge [2] http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/367.html http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/367.html [3] https://www.thebalance.com/hurricane-katrina-facts-damage-and-economic-effects-3306023 https://www.thebalance.com/hurricane-katrina-facts-damage-an...

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

> When potholes need fixing the community should meet and figure out how to get it done. OK. > They believe we can do all of these things with out needing an organized state Well, see, we met and decided that that's how we're going to get things done. It happens at the time a town decides to incorporate. How does it decide to do that? Usually by a referendum passing among the town's voters.