5 ms·

In that case, you really need to do something about self styled "anarchists" on social media declaring that they can do any evil to fight evil, so long as they

In that case, you really need to do something about self styled "anarchists" on social media declaring that they can do any evil to fight evil, so long as they use just a little less evil. From what I can see, thought leadership doesn't reach the "anarchist" on the street, leaving them to wallow in a toxic tribalism which is welcoming of nihilistic violence. Have all the erudite debates you want. Others are presenting a far different face to the public. The fact that the media will then dissemble and cover for such actions and attitudes then makes it all much worse. Or is it ok to use evil to fight evil, so long as you use a little less?

AndrewKemendo 8y ago
Well, Anarchism has been pretty successfully demonized, misinterpreted and put into the "evil" bin with every other -ism except for capitalism. Kind of hard to organize when you're whole philosophy is allergic to hierarchical structures. When Noam Chomsky is your most famous public personality it's hard to build a broad and passionate following. I don't see it getting anything like mainstream traction ever, as it's a lifestyle as much as it is a philosophy. I also don't think it's how people naturally behave. People seem to like to be ruled, so long as they have just enough freedom.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Well, Anarchism has been pretty successfully demonized, misinterpreted and put into the "evil" bin with every other -ism except for capitalism Plenty of people demonize capitalism. Kind of hard to organize when you're whole philosophy is allergic to hierarchical structures. So you're admitting that it's a losing proposition for getting anything done? The banner of anarchy seems to be good at organizing people into building weapons, collecting fireworks as munitions, and organizing tactics to be able to get away with assault and vandalism. You can see the violence online in videos, and I've personally been to places where those weapons are made and stored. People seem to like to be ruled, so long as they have just enough freedom. AFAICT, this is generally how people are put together.
  - JetSpiegel 8y ago
    If they are organized they are not Anarchists, right? That's the point.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Also, if they are violent identitarians, then they aren't for justice and equality. People fly false flags all the time. That doesn't make the toxic ones any less toxic or harmful.
    - acomar 8y ago
      That's nonsensical and ahistorical. Anarchism is the opposition to unjust hierarchy, those relationships that put some people over others and prioritizes their needs or whims. The liberal democratic state is one such hierarchical institution but far from the only one. Anarchists seek to replace the governance of people with the administration of things. How we ought to organize society for justice, for liberty, is the fundamental question anarchists seek to answer. That there are so many different tendencies (syndicalists, mutualists, Marxists, etc.) reveals that there are many answers.
- sabarn01 8y ago
  > People seem to like to be ruled, so long as they have just enough freedom. Look at Hobbes he lived though the chaos of the interregnum and decided that the state was all that mattered.
- bena 8y ago
  I don't think anarchists have really thought through their position or have noticed particular ironies within it. At its core, it's basically everyone doing themselves. I do my thing, you do your thing, it's all good. Until the thing I want to do interferes with your thing. And yes, we could come to some agreement. But there is going to be a certain segment of asshole that will just decide: Me strong, you weak, and just override you. And that's what you really get, a rule of the weak by the strong. Unless, of course, we gather enough of us to overwhelm the asshole. But what if, in our group, we have conflicts? Well, we have some rules. Yeah, not everyone will get exactly what they want all the time, but a tiny bit of compromise is still better than having the asshole take your stuff for the fifth time this week. But that's a winning strategy. And don't think the assholes won't notice. Then they get groups. So the groups escalate further and further. And as you bring in more and more people, there are more and more rules. Eventually, what you will have done is simply to have recreated modern governmental structures. We are living in the endgame of anarchy. So, I don't think it's so much that "people like to be ruled", as much as "people would rather there be a set of standards people are expected to follow". Someone needs to enforce the social contract. I don't think anarchism is evil, just naive.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    But there is going to be a certain segment of asshole that will just decide: Me strong, you weak, and just override you. There is a brand of "anarchist" which is doing just this in 2018. But that's a winning strategy. And don't think the assholes won't notice. Then they get groups. The history of scenes, groups, and movements of all kinds tells us that such things are started by idealists, but eventually get suborned by sociopaths. So quite often, the assholes will come over and take over your group as well. I don't think anarchism is evil, just naive. What's metaphorical and paved with best intentions?
    - bena 8y ago
      That's why you need a system designed to tolerate assholes. It's not an easy problem because where there are rules, there are ways to play to the rules. But I'm not an advocate for anarchy in any fashion. It's a situation where I can respect (some of) their desires, but don't think they've chosen the proper way to achieve those desires. And I think it's important to clarify that I don't think anarchy is inherently evil when I'm responding to someone who is trying to say that anarchy is generally thought of as "evil". (Which to be honest I don't think it is, I think it is mostly seen as juvenile.)
- briandear 8y ago
  > People seem to like to be ruled, so long as they have just enough freedom. Bread and circuses.

AndrewKemendo 8y ago

Well, Anarchism has been pretty successfully demonized, misinterpreted and put into the "evil" bin with every other -ism except for capitalism. Kind of hard to organize when you're whole philosophy is allergic to hierarchical structures. When Noam Chomsky is your most famous public personality it's hard to build a broad and passionate following. I don't see it getting anything like mainstream traction ever, as it's a lifestyle as much as it is a philosophy. I also don't think it's how people naturally behave. People seem to like to be ruled, so long as they have just enough freedom.

stcredzero 8y ago
Well, Anarchism has been pretty successfully demonized, misinterpreted and put into the "evil" bin with every other -ism except for capitalism Plenty of people demonize capitalism. Kind of hard to organize when you're whole philosophy is allergic to hierarchical structures. So you're admitting that it's a losing proposition for getting anything done? The banner of anarchy seems to be good at organizing people into building weapons, collecting fireworks as munitions, and organizing tactics to be able to get away with assault and vandalism. You can see the violence online in videos, and I've personally been to places where those weapons are made and stored. People seem to like to be ruled, so long as they have just enough freedom. AFAICT, this is generally how people are put together.
- JetSpiegel 8y ago
  If they are organized they are not Anarchists, right? That's the point.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Also, if they are violent identitarians, then they aren't for justice and equality. People fly false flags all the time. That doesn't make the toxic ones any less toxic or harmful.
  - acomar 8y ago
    That's nonsensical and ahistorical. Anarchism is the opposition to unjust hierarchy, those relationships that put some people over others and prioritizes their needs or whims. The liberal democratic state is one such hierarchical institution but far from the only one. Anarchists seek to replace the governance of people with the administration of things. How we ought to organize society for justice, for liberty, is the fundamental question anarchists seek to answer. That there are so many different tendencies (syndicalists, mutualists, Marxists, etc.) reveals that there are many answers.
sabarn01 8y ago
> People seem to like to be ruled, so long as they have just enough freedom. Look at Hobbes he lived though the chaos of the interregnum and decided that the state was all that mattered.
bena 8y ago
I don't think anarchists have really thought through their position or have noticed particular ironies within it. At its core, it's basically everyone doing themselves. I do my thing, you do your thing, it's all good. Until the thing I want to do interferes with your thing. And yes, we could come to some agreement. But there is going to be a certain segment of asshole that will just decide: Me strong, you weak, and just override you. And that's what you really get, a rule of the weak by the strong. Unless, of course, we gather enough of us to overwhelm the asshole. But what if, in our group, we have conflicts? Well, we have some rules. Yeah, not everyone will get exactly what they want all the time, but a tiny bit of compromise is still better than having the asshole take your stuff for the fifth time this week. But that's a winning strategy. And don't think the assholes won't notice. Then they get groups. So the groups escalate further and further. And as you bring in more and more people, there are more and more rules. Eventually, what you will have done is simply to have recreated modern governmental structures. We are living in the endgame of anarchy. So, I don't think it's so much that "people like to be ruled", as much as "people would rather there be a set of standards people are expected to follow". Someone needs to enforce the social contract. I don't think anarchism is evil, just naive.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  But there is going to be a certain segment of asshole that will just decide: Me strong, you weak, and just override you. There is a brand of "anarchist" which is doing just this in 2018. But that's a winning strategy. And don't think the assholes won't notice. Then they get groups. The history of scenes, groups, and movements of all kinds tells us that such things are started by idealists, but eventually get suborned by sociopaths. So quite often, the assholes will come over and take over your group as well. I don't think anarchism is evil, just naive. What's metaphorical and paved with best intentions?
  - bena 8y ago
    That's why you need a system designed to tolerate assholes. It's not an easy problem because where there are rules, there are ways to play to the rules. But I'm not an advocate for anarchy in any fashion. It's a situation where I can respect (some of) their desires, but don't think they've chosen the proper way to achieve those desires. And I think it's important to clarify that I don't think anarchy is inherently evil when I'm responding to someone who is trying to say that anarchy is generally thought of as "evil". (Which to be honest I don't think it is, I think it is mostly seen as juvenile.)
briandear 8y ago
> People seem to like to be ruled, so long as they have just enough freedom. Bread and circuses.