4 ms·

They lost me in the first paragraph with: “Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without ha

They lost me in the first paragraph with: “Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. It is really a very simple notion.” Having dealt with the dark side of humanity, there are lots of people who will not behave reasonably if left unchecked, due to one reason or another. And there are a lot of these people. Some of them lifelong criminals, some of them even your friendly neighbor that keeps his yard looking really nice. So you need a system of checks. You need some sort of enforcement arm that apprehend and deals violence to these people. You need some place, away from society, to secure these people. And now, you’ve more or less reinvented the current structure. Whether we like it or not, violence is the foundation upon which society ultimately sits. The threat of violence keeps everyone inline. If you resist each step of the law, ultimately, you will be dealt violence. You may choose to be a pacifist, and that is somewhat admirable, but you’ve really chosen to outsource the violence required to survive to other parties. Society provides us a useful curtain that covers the horror of nature’s rules.

sneak 6y ago
I think the main criticism is that centralizing the “legitimate” use of force to, as you say, “keep everyone in line”, is that you get all of the downsides of a violence-based society, and none of the upsides of freedom: such societies still enslave, torture, steal, violate privacy, and mass murder. Indeed, we’re witnessing an unprecedented wealth transfer right now in the US as a result of such centralization of authority. I’ve never met an anarchist that believes that by abolishing the state that society will become entirely nonviolent. It’s just a sort of standard “who will build the roads?” straw man: Policing doesn’t need police, and social contracts don’t need a statehouse.
- JacksonGariety 6y ago
  > we’re witnessing an unprecedented wealth transfer right now in the US Indeed. And it must be regarded as infinitely baffling that everyone is shouting "abolish the police" instead of "redistribute the wealth" ...
  - sneak 6y ago
    The police are the ones who are practically preventing the redistribution of the wealth. Without them, 1/30th of the vacant residential stock in the US would be filled with 100% of the homeless people in the US, for example. (There are approximately 35x as many vacant houses/apartments in the US as there are homeless.)
    - sdfin 6y ago
      Would you eliminate private property? Or are you suggesting something different?
      - tehjoker 6y ago
        Yes, both anarchists and socalists share a desire to abolish private property. The major differences are in their strategy and transition states.
        sdfin 6y ago
        Yes. I don't understand why, in the case of socialists, do they believe that the gobernment can manage wealth and resources better than private owners. And regarding anarchists, I don't understand how would they distribute scarce resources.
    - lr4444lr 6y ago
      ...until the major REITs and large private landlord corps hire private security to kick them out, with extreme violent prejudice to send a message, because who're you gonna call to stop them from brutal and unlawful eviction anyway, once you get rid of the police? It's not like the homeless can afford attorneys for eviction court.
      - JacksonGariety 6y ago
        Exactly. If you get rid of the police, the wealthy elite will just hire thugs to protect their stuff.
- username90 6y ago
  USA is one of the worst example though, there are plenty of societies which have well behaved police forces and still aren't anarchist.
  - soperj 6y ago
    name one.
    - username90 6y ago
      Norway. I live in Sweden, our police has gotten a bit worse lately but still very good. USA has problems, but you don't solve them by becoming an anarchy but by fixing the issues it has. For example instead of 3 months police academy maybe do 3 years like most of the rest of the developed world.
      - soperj 6y ago
        I'm not from the USA, and I'm not advocating anarchy. A quick google search shows multiple incidents in Sweden where police brutality has occurred and then they try to cover it up. ie: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/27/sweden-punishes-rioters-police-stockholm-riots https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/27/sweden...
marricks 6y ago
I mean, flipping that on its head where does the "dark side of humanity" end up? Looking at all the police brutality, the Epstein's, the Koch brothers, the crappy politicians... I mean the crap really seems to float to the top of society. In a society without hierarchies, an anarchist society, you still have groups and communication and working together, you just don't have people above you telling you something is OK or how it should be. Absolutely no form of government or system (anarchist 1000% included) will solve the problem of people being selfish or bad, all that anarchists contend (that I have seen) is that when there isn't those built hierarchies bad/selfish people don't amass power so everyone else can actually handle them on equal terms. And considering how Epstein was able to morph the whole political landscape to defend himself for over a decade, uh, any alternative can seem pretty reasonable.
- sdfin 6y ago
  I don't think it's realistic to believe that hierarchies wouldn't emerge one way or another. The hierarchy can arise in the form of a mafia, or in a more regulated way.
  - pydry 6y ago
    Examples of anti-hierarchical societies do exist (Catalonia, Paris Commune, etc). The problem isn't so much that hierarchies just arise naturally, the problem is more that these societies aren't very long lived because they're pretty useless at defending themselves with violence. It's not totally uncommon to find an anti-hierarchical company. It is almost impossible to find an effective anti-hierarchical military.
    - bccdee 6y ago
      As far as I'm aware, both of those had hierarchical leadership structures. The Paris Commune was run democratically through universal suffrage, and the CNT-FAI had its own leadership structures. Now, these societies sought to minimize hierarchy, sure, but I think it's important to recognize that an entirely non-hierarchical society is essentially impossible.
soperj 6y ago
>You need some sort of enforcement arm that apprehend and deals violence to these people You really don't. Violence is completely unnecessary. Like honestly, will you learn math better if someone is whipping you when you get the wrong answer? The fact that there are lifelong criminals completely disproves your belief that "the threat of violence keeps everyone inline".
- vladTheInhaler 6y ago
  The fact that you gave an example of a situation where violence isn't necessary doesn't preclude situations where violence is still necessary. Suppose somebody decides that they want your house, and they don't really want to share it with you. It's much nicer than the one they have now. You ask them to reconsider, and they politely decline. Now they are pushing you toward the door. What do you do? You can pretty much either let them do what they want, or not let them do it. "Not letting people do what they are determined to do", is, in some sense, the definition of violence. In this scenario, you could either enact it yourself, by pushing them out the front door, or you could leave it to professional violence-doers, such as the police. Either way the result is the same - the person is no longer able to do the thing which they still very much want to do. The fact that there are lifelong criminals completely proves that the threat of violence is necessary - there are people who may never be dissuaded from trying to hurt people. I fully support a restorative and rehabilitative approach to justice, but no amount of rehabilitation will let us release the golden state killer back into society. And as long as you keep him locked up, you are doing so through violence. The prison walls aren't really the thing keeping him in there - those can be subverted with enough patience and planning - ultimately it's the people in uniforms who will tackle him and drag him back in if he tries to leave.
  - soperj 6y ago
    > is, in some sense, the definition of violence No. Words have meaning. Violence's actual definition: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. >professional violence-doers, such as the police That shouldn't be their role. Violence just leads to more violence. They are breaking the laws they're paid to uphold otherwise. >The fact that there are lifelong criminals completely proves that the threat of violence is necessary. It doesn't. If it was, they wouldn't be lifelong criminals. >there are people who may never be dissuaded from trying to hurt people Then how does the threat of violence help? It doesn't.
conception 6y ago
Your comment ties into the idea that some large percent (1-5%) of the population are sociopaths. (Link has some sources https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-people-are-psychopaths-sociopaths https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-people-are-psychopa...) Quite simply many people behave without remorse of empathy and those traits are useful for gaining and taking power and using it against other.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  Substantially more than 5% will align themselves with sociopaths, out of self-interest (greed or desperation)
srtjstjsj 6y ago
The problem with the intro is that it's flat out wrong. It shot say > Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are always behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. Which is the fundamental flaw of anarchism.
- torb-xyz 6y ago
  Anarchist societies certainly have rules and means of enforcing them, but the process of how the rules are radically more democratic than any liberal democracy. Look up EZLN or Rojava if you want to see practicing anarchist-like societies existing today. I don't mean to be rude, but it frustrates me that whenever anarchism is discussed so many of the counter arguments are (intentionally or not) strawmen.
LoSboccacc 6y ago
basically anarchy works as long as you ignore everything we know about the human nature, interpersonal relationships and the logistic that make possible for a section of the population to hyperspecialize and drive progress.
blablabla123 6y ago
There is a wide spectrum between a full-blown authoritarian state and anarchism. I'd argue that democracy in its various forms takes a large fraction of that spectrum. There is parliamentary democracy, semi-direct democracy like in the economically well-off Switzerland and direct democracy that is not in place at any state yet. Any serious summary about a form of politics will emphasize that certain preconditions on economy and society are necessary, otherwise it will not work. Example: after the UdSSR ended, there was parliamentary democracy and a free market economy. But it was incredibly unstable - now Russia is close to being an authoritarian state. China tried to prevent the same fault and instead opened only the economy in a first step. That said, even for direct democracy things need to happen. A vast majority of the population would have to get informed about major political issues sufficiently well. Also there is not "the Anarchy", rather it's a mixed pool of in part incompatible theories, that can very well have democratic structures. I think there are good ideas, but obviously right now in 2020 nothing of this would work.

sneak 6y ago

I think the main criticism is that centralizing the “legitimate” use of force to, as you say, “keep everyone in line”, is that you get all of the downsides of a violence-based society, and none of the upsides of freedom: such societies still enslave, torture, steal, violate privacy, and mass murder. Indeed, we’re witnessing an unprecedented wealth transfer right now in the US as a result of such centralization of authority. I’ve never met an anarchist that believes that by abolishing the state that society will become entirely nonviolent. It’s just a sort of standard “who will build the roads?” straw man: Policing doesn’t need police, and social contracts don’t need a statehouse.

JacksonGariety 6y ago
> we’re witnessing an unprecedented wealth transfer right now in the US Indeed. And it must be regarded as infinitely baffling that everyone is shouting "abolish the police" instead of "redistribute the wealth" ...
- sneak 6y ago
  The police are the ones who are practically preventing the redistribution of the wealth. Without them, 1/30th of the vacant residential stock in the US would be filled with 100% of the homeless people in the US, for example. (There are approximately 35x as many vacant houses/apartments in the US as there are homeless.)
  - sdfin 6y ago
    Would you eliminate private property? Or are you suggesting something different?
    - tehjoker 6y ago
      Yes, both anarchists and socalists share a desire to abolish private property. The major differences are in their strategy and transition states.
      - sdfin 6y ago
        Yes. I don't understand why, in the case of socialists, do they believe that the gobernment can manage wealth and resources better than private owners. And regarding anarchists, I don't understand how would they distribute scarce resources.
  - lr4444lr 6y ago
    ...until the major REITs and large private landlord corps hire private security to kick them out, with extreme violent prejudice to send a message, because who're you gonna call to stop them from brutal and unlawful eviction anyway, once you get rid of the police? It's not like the homeless can afford attorneys for eviction court.
    - JacksonGariety 6y ago
      Exactly. If you get rid of the police, the wealthy elite will just hire thugs to protect their stuff.
username90 6y ago
USA is one of the worst example though, there are plenty of societies which have well behaved police forces and still aren't anarchist.
- soperj 6y ago
  name one.
  - username90 6y ago
    Norway. I live in Sweden, our police has gotten a bit worse lately but still very good. USA has problems, but you don't solve them by becoming an anarchy but by fixing the issues it has. For example instead of 3 months police academy maybe do 3 years like most of the rest of the developed world.
    - soperj 6y ago
      I'm not from the USA, and I'm not advocating anarchy. A quick google search shows multiple incidents in Sweden where police brutality has occurred and then they try to cover it up. ie: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/27/sweden-punishes-rioters-police-stockholm-riots https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/27/sweden...

marricks 6y ago

I mean, flipping that on its head where does the "dark side of humanity" end up? Looking at all the police brutality, the Epstein's, the Koch brothers, the crappy politicians... I mean the crap really seems to float to the top of society. In a society without hierarchies, an anarchist society, you still have groups and communication and working together, you just don't have people above you telling you something is OK or how it should be. Absolutely no form of government or system (anarchist 1000% included) will solve the problem of people being selfish or bad, all that anarchists contend (that I have seen) is that when there isn't those built hierarchies bad/selfish people don't amass power so everyone else can actually handle them on equal terms. And considering how Epstein was able to morph the whole political landscape to defend himself for over a decade, uh, any alternative can seem pretty reasonable.

sdfin 6y ago
I don't think it's realistic to believe that hierarchies wouldn't emerge one way or another. The hierarchy can arise in the form of a mafia, or in a more regulated way.
- pydry 6y ago
  Examples of anti-hierarchical societies do exist (Catalonia, Paris Commune, etc). The problem isn't so much that hierarchies just arise naturally, the problem is more that these societies aren't very long lived because they're pretty useless at defending themselves with violence. It's not totally uncommon to find an anti-hierarchical company. It is almost impossible to find an effective anti-hierarchical military.
  - bccdee 6y ago
    As far as I'm aware, both of those had hierarchical leadership structures. The Paris Commune was run democratically through universal suffrage, and the CNT-FAI had its own leadership structures. Now, these societies sought to minimize hierarchy, sure, but I think it's important to recognize that an entirely non-hierarchical society is essentially impossible.

soperj 6y ago

>You need some sort of enforcement arm that apprehend and deals violence to these people You really don't. Violence is completely unnecessary. Like honestly, will you learn math better if someone is whipping you when you get the wrong answer? The fact that there are lifelong criminals completely disproves your belief that "the threat of violence keeps everyone inline".

vladTheInhaler 6y ago
The fact that you gave an example of a situation where violence isn't necessary doesn't preclude situations where violence is still necessary. Suppose somebody decides that they want your house, and they don't really want to share it with you. It's much nicer than the one they have now. You ask them to reconsider, and they politely decline. Now they are pushing you toward the door. What do you do? You can pretty much either let them do what they want, or not let them do it. "Not letting people do what they are determined to do", is, in some sense, the definition of violence. In this scenario, you could either enact it yourself, by pushing them out the front door, or you could leave it to professional violence-doers, such as the police. Either way the result is the same - the person is no longer able to do the thing which they still very much want to do. The fact that there are lifelong criminals completely proves that the threat of violence is necessary - there are people who may never be dissuaded from trying to hurt people. I fully support a restorative and rehabilitative approach to justice, but no amount of rehabilitation will let us release the golden state killer back into society. And as long as you keep him locked up, you are doing so through violence. The prison walls aren't really the thing keeping him in there - those can be subverted with enough patience and planning - ultimately it's the people in uniforms who will tackle him and drag him back in if he tries to leave.
- soperj 6y ago
  > is, in some sense, the definition of violence No. Words have meaning. Violence's actual definition: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. >professional violence-doers, such as the police That shouldn't be their role. Violence just leads to more violence. They are breaking the laws they're paid to uphold otherwise. >The fact that there are lifelong criminals completely proves that the threat of violence is necessary. It doesn't. If it was, they wouldn't be lifelong criminals. >there are people who may never be dissuaded from trying to hurt people Then how does the threat of violence help? It doesn't.

conception 6y ago

Your comment ties into the idea that some large percent (1-5%) of the population are sociopaths. (Link has some sources https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-people-are-psychopaths-sociopaths https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-people-are-psychopa...) Quite simply many people behave without remorse of empathy and those traits are useful for gaining and taking power and using it against other.

srtjstjsj 6y ago
Substantially more than 5% will align themselves with sociopaths, out of self-interest (greed or desperation)

srtjstjsj 6y ago

The problem with the intro is that it's flat out wrong. It shot say > Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are always behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. Which is the fundamental flaw of anarchism.

torb-xyz 6y ago
Anarchist societies certainly have rules and means of enforcing them, but the process of how the rules are radically more democratic than any liberal democracy. Look up EZLN or Rojava if you want to see practicing anarchist-like societies existing today. I don't mean to be rude, but it frustrates me that whenever anarchism is discussed so many of the counter arguments are (intentionally or not) strawmen.

LoSboccacc 6y ago

basically anarchy works as long as you ignore everything we know about the human nature, interpersonal relationships and the logistic that make possible for a section of the population to hyperspecialize and drive progress.

blablabla123 6y ago

There is a wide spectrum between a full-blown authoritarian state and anarchism. I'd argue that democracy in its various forms takes a large fraction of that spectrum. There is parliamentary democracy, semi-direct democracy like in the economically well-off Switzerland and direct democracy that is not in place at any state yet. Any serious summary about a form of politics will emphasize that certain preconditions on economy and society are necessary, otherwise it will not work. Example: after the UdSSR ended, there was parliamentary democracy and a free market economy. But it was incredibly unstable - now Russia is close to being an authoritarian state. China tried to prevent the same fault and instead opened only the economy in a first step. That said, even for direct democracy things need to happen. A vast majority of the population would have to get informed about major political issues sufficiently well. Also there is not "the Anarchy", rather it's a mixed pool of in part incompatible theories, that can very well have democratic structures. I think there are good ideas, but obviously right now in 2020 nothing of this would work.