7 ms·
> 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 But how do you
by graeme 6y ago
> 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
But how do you stop a bad person from amassing power in an anarchist system?
As a simple example, how would you deal with highway robbers? Those were omnipresent in societies before states gained strength.
- marricks 6y agoI mean, did they rob peasants or the lords of the land with their amassed stolen wealth...? A community can decide to cast someone out, reprimand them, imprison them, etc. The whole idea of restorative justice can actually exist when a community is able to address it.
- crowbahr 6y agoThey robbed anyone and everyone. Some people just give 0 fucks about anyone besides themselves. Most people give 0 fucks about anyone outside of a moderate group of acquaintances and friends.
- graeme 6y ago....any travellers. And the point is they were outside communities. Right now we take for granted that we can travel from point a to point b without worrying about such threats.
- bbarnett 6y agoWhat the? A "community" which makes "communal decisions" is a form of government, not anarchism! How can you cast someone out, without gates? Guards? Walls? How can you throw them out? Prevent them from returning? Do you think the robbers will just stop, because you said "Stop!". I feel like you're trolling here. I could of course be wrong, but it feels that way.
- rhn_mk1 6y agoAnarchism is a form of self-governance.
- bbarnett 6y agoWhich has nothing to do with a government.
- rhn_mk1 6y agoBut it has everything to do with "A "community" which makes "communal decisions"", whatever you call it. I hope Merriam-Webster clears that up: "Definition of government 1 : the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization"
- bbarnett 6y agoI specifically said that "community" which makes "communal decisions" is not anarchy. You've simply claimed it does, then mentioned "governing authority", which is not entirely in line, now is it?
- rhn_mk1 6y agoYou're right on the strength of my argument, but you're wrong on anarchy not being able to create governments (in the M-W definition above). But I'm not going to argue this any more.
- throwaway49872 6y ago> A "community" which makes "communal decisions" is a form of government, not anarchism This is exactly Anarchism. Please learn the basics before posting.
- bbarnett 6y agoOh I know basics. It's gibberish, built upon mad fantasy.
- bantunes 6y agoOn the contrary - mad fantasy is to think humans as they behave today is how they will always behave in the future. Humans used to roam around Africa and forage for food in tribes. Now I can reply to you, from another continent perhaps, by tapping my fingers on a tablet. To think humans will ever stop dreaming about more equitable systems of organization, and how to implement them, that truly is mad fantasy to me.
- bbarnett 6y agoYet, I said no such thing. I did not say humans would stop dreaming, nor that humans will always behave the same. I did say that a specific political system was madness. If you want to discuss "What about in 1000 years", yeah -- OK. But we're talking about now, humans today. And anarchy does not, and will not, work. It ignores significant human behaviour.
- bantunes 6y agoIt doesn't work for everyone, no. But just like in 1800s Europe, when monarchists died off suddenly republics were obvious. I suspect much of the same will come to pass regarding systems of government tending towards anarchism and boomers.
- bbarnett 6y agoThis response has put me firmly in the "you need to think about this a bit, bantunes" camp. Why? The second you mentioned 'boomers', you mentioned what is very specifically an American phenomenon. It certainly isn't a Chinese, Russian, Japanese, South African, or, well, the "rest of the world" phenomenon. To me, this makes me think you are viewing the world from a US perspective, without any attempt to see things from outside that prism. On top of that, the wild assertion that "boomers" somehow created an authoritarian government is beyond incomprehensible. While every generation has its flaws, yes every single generation, boomers were the hippie generation. Yes, hippies. The "free love" movement, anti-authoritarian counter culture that quite literally existed in highly conservative Western post-war cultures. The level of protest, anti-materialism, anti-corporate stance which hippies took, particularly in the US, far, far, far outweighs anything seen in the decades since. Of course, like every other generation since, for thousands and thousands of years, once they aged they became just like those they wanted to replace. But, let's walk away from the fact that boomers = hippies, and hippies protested, fought, and died in protests en mass, and even enacted some real change. Let's look at the overall assertion here. You're claiming republics were "obvious", and that this somehow sparked an instantaneous move from feudal, to republic. Yet in many places, these changes took literally centuries. And the powers of Kings were very gradually eroded, sometimes with blood, and other times with threat of blood. Even "revolutionary" moments in most Western cultures were smaller stepping stones, each effecting smaller sections of culture about governing, and self-governing. And really, suffrage for the "common person", for example, is less than 100 years old in many democracies. Like the UK, Canada, the US. In fact, for many cases, less than 50 years! And this change was gradual too. For example, in the UK with Lords challenging the King's right to tax, creating the "House of Lords", or the modern Senate. Or, the allowance of freemen with significant land, or land rental, being allowed to vote. It wasn't until 1918 that all white men in the UK could vote, and women/everyone else at 1928. This was a gradual, step by step change, each transformative, but each fought for. Now ... I have no doubt change will come, for there is nothing that ever remains static. However, what you are suggesting is that people will simply "all get along". Literally, that is what anarchism suggests. For, you cannot compel people to leave, or stop them from doing things you don't want, if you do not use violence as an end tool. If you have a counter to this, a realistic, logical, sensible counter to the idea that people will just all be nice to one another? I'd love to hear it. I really would.
- seventhtiger 6y agoI honestly don't understand how that is unique at all. It sounds like every government that has ever existed. Once you define the community, its mechanism of decision, and the reprimands and punishments, I'm not sure what's less government about this than current government.
- fault_lines 6y agoHow do you amass power in an anarchist system? In capitalism you generally amass power by amassing capital. What's the equivalent under anarchism?
- jokethrowaway 6y agoAnarchism and capitalism are compatible, see anarcho-capitalism. You may be interested in checking out this explanation: https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 That said, I agree with your criticism of communism / anarcho-syndacalism: if you remove capitalism, you are moving power into party politics, which creates even greater inequality to what we have today and explains the horror of communism we've seen in the past century.
- fault_lines 6y agoThey most certainly are not. Some right-libertarians have convinced themselves that they are anarchists so that they can pretend to be radicals but that does not make it so. Anarchism and capitalism are incompatible, anarchism is a left-wing ideology that among other things, seeks the end of capitalism. I don't know why you interpreted my comment as being a criticism of communism or anarcho-syndicalism (it was just a probing question to understand what somebody thought anarchism would look like), and neither does your criticism of those ideologies make much sense. I don't think you actually know what anarcho-syndicalism is if you think it involves party politics.
- nickalaso 6y agoYou still would amass capital. Guns, food, persons, other resources. The destruction of fiat currency wouldn't prevent the accumulation of valuable goods/commodities.
- natmaka 6y agoGovernments replaced those robbers, you just cannot escape nor defend yourself :-)
- akiselev 6y agoMost people couldn't escape or defend themselve from robbers if they wanted to, let alone vote against them. That's why governments replaced them.
- natmaka 6y agoAFAIK (at least in most European countries) such robbers didn't attack villages, and people willing to travel tried hard to do it in groups (pilgrims, merchants). You now have nearly no way to escape your (Occidental) government. Wherever you go, whatever you do, whoever you associate with. If you really believe you can change the power-that-be by voting let's say we disagree.
- Meekro 6y agoEscaping your government is easy. There are plenty of places on Earth you could go that have essentially no (functional) government. People tend to run from these places, not to them.
- natmaka 6y ago> Escaping your government is easy. It isn't, and technical progress (transport and communication means) made it more and more difficult. > People tend to run from these places, not to them. It depends. Historically see for example the Zomia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asian_Massif#Zomia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asian_Massif#Zomia ) , and some Spanish cities during the civil war ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain#Anarchist_presence_in_the_Spanish_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain#Anarchist_p... ). For an ongoing case take a look at Rojava ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Administration_of_North_and_East_Syria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Administration_of_N... )