3 ms·

Anarchy also has much lower baseline density. You can have anarchy between tribes in the Amazon or Far North, but not in a metropolis. Be wary that many propon

Anarchy also has much lower baseline density. You can have anarchy between tribes in the Amazon or Far North, but not in a metropolis. Be wary that many proponents of Anarchy may be the criminally inclined types, so they don't actually have any magical trick to make anarchy non-violent - it's just OK for them to live in violent society because they'll be on top. Think Makhno band.

psychoslave 3y ago
>Be wary that many proponents of Anarchy may be the criminally inclined types, so they don't actually have any magical trick to make anarchy non-violent - it's just OK for them to live in violent society because they'll be on top. Think Makhno band. I doubt that putting apart sincere pragmatic¹ pacifism, any system would be exempt of these traits in its proponents. ¹ That is using concrete non-violent methods to handle discord, like say Marshall Bertram Rosenberg proposals
- thriftwy 3y ago
  They can use non-violent methods all right when both sides are armed, but when one is not, anarchy says that it will do what the armed one wants.
  - psychoslave 3y ago
    Hmm, that’s probably true for some form of anarchy, more in the flavour of an individualist like Max Stirner than a socialist like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon or a communist one like Peter Kropotkin. Which enlighten the fact that probably anarchism is a far too large umbrella to say very specific things about it without giving more details about it. Which is also certainly about most political system that was ever proposed out there.
  - Ancapistani 3y ago
    Interesting. In addition to describing myself as an anarchist, I'm also a strident proponent of the individual's right to own and carry weapons. I wonder just how much of my stance on that topic are a natural outgrowth of my belief in non-coercion. I have some thinking to do :)
- shzhdbi09gv8ioi 3y ago
  Anarchism by definition is not organized. So you will find different anarchists with wildly different takes and ideas. You will find pacifists, and you will find proponents of civil disobedience. You will even find some who think violence against the far right is motivated. I'd say most are pacifists tho.
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    The big question is whether the antifragility described will actually apply to those kinds of anarchism. It is likely that non-violent anarchism will be actually so fragile that any disturbance will turn it to the regular, tried, violent kind.
    - shzhdbi09gv8ioi 3y ago
      Neither. The video is discussing anarchy in a philosophical context.
  - hnbad 3y ago
    > Anarchism by definition is not organized No, anarchism can be "organized" (i.e. have structures). Delegation is compatible with anarchy, representation (i.e. "voting" on a representative for the group who then gets to speak on behalf of the entire group regardless of what the individual opinion of any member of the group may be on any given issue they speak on) is not. You can even have "leaders" (e.g. CEOs, captains at sea, etc) in anarchist organizations as long as their position is contingent on the support of those they "lead" (e.g. a captain may yell orders in order to steer the ship but the crew has to agree with the course they are setting). There are antropological examples of non-hiearchical groups forming temporary command structures to tackle a crisis which would then be dissolved once the crisis had been averted or overcome. A well-known example are the Cherokee (pre-19th century) who had "red chiefs" (war chiefs) to plan and carry out hostilities and "white chiefs" to act as ambassadors and spokespeople towards other communities. But even those were contingent on communal support and were readily replaced if found to be inadequate or distrusted. > pacifists It's worth mentioning that pacifism as a philosophy is actually more complex than "not doing violence". There are pacifists who see self-defense as acceptable or would even make a case for defending others. "Pacifism" in political struggles is specifically a strategy based on voluntary self-sacrifice. It doesn't mean "no violence" it only means "no violence from me". I'd wager that while most anarchists may be "pacifist" in the sense that they don't support the "propaganda of the deed" (i.e. political assassinations, bombings, etc to radicalise the oppressed against their oppressors - which has historically backfired) I sincerely doubt most anarchists believe in self-sacrifice by intentionally refusing any form of self-defense when targeted by physical violence (which has historically worked at times but been shown to be far less reliable in modern times).
orwin 3y ago
Ukraine was sold to Germany by Lenin, Makhno and is friends didn't let that happen. They used guerrilla tactics (like stealing guns and ammo) to drive them off. Then the remnant imperial forces led by Denikine (probably not spelled like that in English) thought Ukraine would be an easy prey, Makhno asked support from Lenin, again received nothing, and used the same tactics. That's when he theorisized Platformism, as his partisans were as numerous as a small army at that point. Once Denikine sent back in Poland, he was once again betrayed by communist and the red army came in Ukraine, where Makhno ended up loosing, took a few bullets, and had to flee. 'criminally inclined' I don't think so. I know dissing Ukrainian historical figures is now trendy, but still,have some respect. He fought for his land.
Ancapistani 3y ago
> Anarchy also has much lower baseline density. I agree. I stated this elsewhere as "historically, coercive systems scale more easily" > You can have anarchy between tribes in the Amazon or Far North, but not in a metropolis. There is some evidence for this, but I don't believe it's a law. Consider that the republican form of government was seen in much the same way prior to the American Revolution. At the time, it had last been tried in Rome. It's actually fairly difficult to find demographics for the Roman Republic, but their census seems to show approximately 250k males eligible for military service at any given time. From there, let's say that until the ratification of the US Constitution the most successful republican state was the Roman Republic, with fewer than one million people living under it and it lasting about 400 years (from the overthrow of the monarchy in ~509 BC to Sulla being named dictator in 82 BC. Today, the US has a population of ~335m people and it is 235 years old. It's not unreasonable to think that a future implementation of an "anarchic system" might has something like the same level of success relative to historic precedent. Personally I think this is not only possible, but likely, given the changes to human social behavior as a consequence of technology. > Be wary that many proponents of Anarchy may be the criminally inclined types, so they don't actually have any magical trick to make anarchy non-violent - it's just OK for them to live in violent society because they'll be on top. Think Makhno band. I literally couldn't agree more. I'm an anarchist who views other self-described "anarchists" with approximately the same level of caution and distrust as law enforcement. People who wish to impose their will upon others are drawn to ideologies that they believe will make it easier for them to do so. That's just a fact.

psychoslave 3y ago

>Be wary that many proponents of Anarchy may be the criminally inclined types, so they don't actually have any magical trick to make anarchy non-violent - it's just OK for them to live in violent society because they'll be on top. Think Makhno band. I doubt that putting apart sincere pragmatic¹ pacifism, any system would be exempt of these traits in its proponents. ¹ That is using concrete non-violent methods to handle discord, like say Marshall Bertram Rosenberg proposals

thriftwy 3y ago
They can use non-violent methods all right when both sides are armed, but when one is not, anarchy says that it will do what the armed one wants.
- psychoslave 3y ago
  Hmm, that’s probably true for some form of anarchy, more in the flavour of an individualist like Max Stirner than a socialist like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon or a communist one like Peter Kropotkin. Which enlighten the fact that probably anarchism is a far too large umbrella to say very specific things about it without giving more details about it. Which is also certainly about most political system that was ever proposed out there.
- Ancapistani 3y ago
  Interesting. In addition to describing myself as an anarchist, I'm also a strident proponent of the individual's right to own and carry weapons. I wonder just how much of my stance on that topic are a natural outgrowth of my belief in non-coercion. I have some thinking to do :)
shzhdbi09gv8ioi 3y ago
Anarchism by definition is not organized. So you will find different anarchists with wildly different takes and ideas. You will find pacifists, and you will find proponents of civil disobedience. You will even find some who think violence against the far right is motivated. I'd say most are pacifists tho.
- thriftwy 3y ago
  The big question is whether the antifragility described will actually apply to those kinds of anarchism. It is likely that non-violent anarchism will be actually so fragile that any disturbance will turn it to the regular, tried, violent kind.
  - shzhdbi09gv8ioi 3y ago
    Neither. The video is discussing anarchy in a philosophical context.
- hnbad 3y ago
  > Anarchism by definition is not organized No, anarchism can be "organized" (i.e. have structures). Delegation is compatible with anarchy, representation (i.e. "voting" on a representative for the group who then gets to speak on behalf of the entire group regardless of what the individual opinion of any member of the group may be on any given issue they speak on) is not. You can even have "leaders" (e.g. CEOs, captains at sea, etc) in anarchist organizations as long as their position is contingent on the support of those they "lead" (e.g. a captain may yell orders in order to steer the ship but the crew has to agree with the course they are setting). There are antropological examples of non-hiearchical groups forming temporary command structures to tackle a crisis which would then be dissolved once the crisis had been averted or overcome. A well-known example are the Cherokee (pre-19th century) who had "red chiefs" (war chiefs) to plan and carry out hostilities and "white chiefs" to act as ambassadors and spokespeople towards other communities. But even those were contingent on communal support and were readily replaced if found to be inadequate or distrusted. > pacifists It's worth mentioning that pacifism as a philosophy is actually more complex than "not doing violence". There are pacifists who see self-defense as acceptable or would even make a case for defending others. "Pacifism" in political struggles is specifically a strategy based on voluntary self-sacrifice. It doesn't mean "no violence" it only means "no violence from me". I'd wager that while most anarchists may be "pacifist" in the sense that they don't support the "propaganda of the deed" (i.e. political assassinations, bombings, etc to radicalise the oppressed against their oppressors - which has historically backfired) I sincerely doubt most anarchists believe in self-sacrifice by intentionally refusing any form of self-defense when targeted by physical violence (which has historically worked at times but been shown to be far less reliable in modern times).

orwin 3y ago

Ukraine was sold to Germany by Lenin, Makhno and is friends didn't let that happen. They used guerrilla tactics (like stealing guns and ammo) to drive them off. Then the remnant imperial forces led by Denikine (probably not spelled like that in English) thought Ukraine would be an easy prey, Makhno asked support from Lenin, again received nothing, and used the same tactics. That's when he theorisized Platformism, as his partisans were as numerous as a small army at that point. Once Denikine sent back in Poland, he was once again betrayed by communist and the red army came in Ukraine, where Makhno ended up loosing, took a few bullets, and had to flee. 'criminally inclined' I don't think so. I know dissing Ukrainian historical figures is now trendy, but still,have some respect. He fought for his land.

Ancapistani 3y ago

> Anarchy also has much lower baseline density. I agree. I stated this elsewhere as "historically, coercive systems scale more easily" > You can have anarchy between tribes in the Amazon or Far North, but not in a metropolis. There is some evidence for this, but I don't believe it's a law. Consider that the republican form of government was seen in much the same way prior to the American Revolution. At the time, it had last been tried in Rome. It's actually fairly difficult to find demographics for the Roman Republic, but their census seems to show approximately 250k males eligible for military service at any given time. From there, let's say that until the ratification of the US Constitution the most successful republican state was the Roman Republic, with fewer than one million people living under it and it lasting about 400 years (from the overthrow of the monarchy in ~509 BC to Sulla being named dictator in 82 BC. Today, the US has a population of ~335m people and it is 235 years old. It's not unreasonable to think that a future implementation of an "anarchic system" might has something like the same level of success relative to historic precedent. Personally I think this is not only possible, but likely, given the changes to human social behavior as a consequence of technology. > Be wary that many proponents of Anarchy may be the criminally inclined types, so they don't actually have any magical trick to make anarchy non-violent - it's just OK for them to live in violent society because they'll be on top. Think Makhno band. I literally couldn't agree more. I'm an anarchist who views other self-described "anarchists" with approximately the same level of caution and distrust as law enforcement. People who wish to impose their will upon others are drawn to ideologies that they believe will make it easier for them to do so. That's just a fact.