3 ms·

>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

>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).

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).