8 ms·

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 th

by 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.)
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    The characters in Lord of the Flies were just being juvenile.
    - bena 8y ago
      And fictional.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        And remarkably revealing of human nature, as great fiction often does.
        bena 8y ago
        To a degree, it's a parable. But we can also say they weren't exactly anarchists. They've developed a system of government, leaders, factions, etc.
petre 8y ago
We have assholes anyway with organized society and voting, especially in presidential republics. Because asshole psychopaths will do anything in their power to rise and rule over others. Just look at Erdogan. The only solution to that is direct democracy backed up by people bearing arms. Maybe Switzerland is the closest modern equivalent. With anarchism you'd probably end up with factions fighthing amongst each other and then one faction rising over them and assuming control. You just have to look at the history of medieval Japan to see that: civil war, factions fighting amongst each other, then the reunification followed by the peaceful Edo period.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Because asshole psychopaths will do anything in their power to rise and rule over others. I'd bet good money psychopaths and sociopaths absolutely thrive in anarchies which are engaged in "action" which includes violence.
pdonis 8y ago
> At its core, it's basically everyone doing themselves. No, it isn't. Anarchists can cooperate; in fact, rational anarchists will certainly cooperate with each other, to reap the benefits of specialization and trade and comparative advantage. What anarchists object to is being forced to cooperate when, if left to themselves, they would choose not to. > there is going to be a certain segment of asshole that will just decide: Me strong, you weak, and just override you. These people exist whether society is an anarchy or not. The difference is, in an anarchy, they have no way to capture more resources and power by, for example, becoming politicians or regulators or lobbyists or heads of corporations getting government favors. Whereas, in the system we have now... In other words, anarchists are basically pointing out that trying to "fix" the problem of assholes by having a government is a "cure" that is worse than the disease. > Someone needs to enforce the social contract. You enforce the social contract socially: by refusing to deal with people who do not respect it. In an anarchy, everyone has that option; and therefore people who do not respect the social contract quickly find themselves ostracized and powerless. Whereas, in the system we have now, people can break the social contract with impunity without losing anything, if they can get themselves into certain privileged positions.
- mrkstu 8y ago
  But in an anarchistic society there is no mechanism to stop those who collectivize to monopolize the fruits of the commons. Strong-arm thugs can follow a leader to extort as desired the things they wish- ostracism is no response at all to roving pillagers.
  - pdonis 8y ago
    > in an anarchistic society there is no mechanism to stop those who collectivize to monopolize the fruits of the commons Sure there is: citizens with guns. In an anarchy, there is no centralized power, so thugs have no advantage in that respect over armed law-abiding citizens. And thugs have a big disadvantage: they do not cooperate in productive endeavors, so they don't accumulate wealth. > ostracism is no response at all to roving pillagers. Sure, but it's not the only available response either. See above.
int_19h 8y ago
> I don't think anarchists have really thought through their position or have noticed particular ironies within it. Anarchism is an ideology that has been formalized over 150 years ago, with numerous books and treatises on the subject. I'm not an anarchist, and not particularly sympathetic to them, but to claim that "they haven't really thought trough their position" is more than a tad condescending. BTW, if you want a not-so-dry treatment of how an anarchist society might work, read Le Guin's "The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia". It specifically answers your questions about conflicts. Maybe not the way you like - not even the way some anarchists in the story like - but it's an answer.

by bena 8y ago

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.)
- stcredzero 8y ago
  The characters in Lord of the Flies were just being juvenile.
  - bena 8y ago
    And fictional.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      And remarkably revealing of human nature, as great fiction often does.
      - bena 8y ago
        To a degree, it's a parable. But we can also say they weren't exactly anarchists. They've developed a system of government, leaders, factions, etc.

petre 8y ago

We have assholes anyway with organized society and voting, especially in presidential republics. Because asshole psychopaths will do anything in their power to rise and rule over others. Just look at Erdogan. The only solution to that is direct democracy backed up by people bearing arms. Maybe Switzerland is the closest modern equivalent. With anarchism you'd probably end up with factions fighthing amongst each other and then one faction rising over them and assuming control. You just have to look at the history of medieval Japan to see that: civil war, factions fighting amongst each other, then the reunification followed by the peaceful Edo period.

stcredzero 8y ago
Because asshole psychopaths will do anything in their power to rise and rule over others. I'd bet good money psychopaths and sociopaths absolutely thrive in anarchies which are engaged in "action" which includes violence.

pdonis 8y ago

> At its core, it's basically everyone doing themselves. No, it isn't. Anarchists can cooperate; in fact, rational anarchists will certainly cooperate with each other, to reap the benefits of specialization and trade and comparative advantage. What anarchists object to is being forced to cooperate when, if left to themselves, they would choose not to. > there is going to be a certain segment of asshole that will just decide: Me strong, you weak, and just override you. These people exist whether society is an anarchy or not. The difference is, in an anarchy, they have no way to capture more resources and power by, for example, becoming politicians or regulators or lobbyists or heads of corporations getting government favors. Whereas, in the system we have now... In other words, anarchists are basically pointing out that trying to "fix" the problem of assholes by having a government is a "cure" that is worse than the disease. > Someone needs to enforce the social contract. You enforce the social contract socially: by refusing to deal with people who do not respect it. In an anarchy, everyone has that option; and therefore people who do not respect the social contract quickly find themselves ostracized and powerless. Whereas, in the system we have now, people can break the social contract with impunity without losing anything, if they can get themselves into certain privileged positions.

mrkstu 8y ago
But in an anarchistic society there is no mechanism to stop those who collectivize to monopolize the fruits of the commons. Strong-arm thugs can follow a leader to extort as desired the things they wish- ostracism is no response at all to roving pillagers.
- pdonis 8y ago
  > in an anarchistic society there is no mechanism to stop those who collectivize to monopolize the fruits of the commons Sure there is: citizens with guns. In an anarchy, there is no centralized power, so thugs have no advantage in that respect over armed law-abiding citizens. And thugs have a big disadvantage: they do not cooperate in productive endeavors, so they don't accumulate wealth. > ostracism is no response at all to roving pillagers. Sure, but it's not the only available response either. See above.

int_19h 8y ago

> I don't think anarchists have really thought through their position or have noticed particular ironies within it. Anarchism is an ideology that has been formalized over 150 years ago, with numerous books and treatises on the subject. I'm not an anarchist, and not particularly sympathetic to them, but to claim that "they haven't really thought trough their position" is more than a tad condescending. BTW, if you want a not-so-dry treatment of how an anarchist society might work, read Le Guin's "The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia". It specifically answers your questions about conflicts. Maybe not the way you like - not even the way some anarchists in the story like - but it's an answer.