4 ms·

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 fi

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).
- shzhdbi09gv8ioi 3y ago
  > No, anarchism can be "organized" (i.e. have structures) I think you are talking about syndicalism.
  - hnbad 3y ago
    That's not a contradiction, that's a qualification. Anarcho-syndicalism is a form of anarchism. Anarchism only means the structures can't be hierarchical systems of domination. Even egoism allows for bottom-up organizing. I'd agree that real-world projects like Rojava while ideologically aligned with anarchism can be more accurately described as libertarian socialist or maybe mutualist (or in this case simply democratic confederalism, which it is explicitly is built on) as they're not "pure anarchism", but there's nothing in the basic ideas of anarchism that procludes organizing or the emergence of complex structures. Saying anarchism can't be "organized" just reinforces the stereotype of black clad teenagers throwing rocks at storefront windows, which, while it certainly can be fun and exciting, usually barely qualifies even as "praxis" in any meaningful way and even more rarely is informed by a coherent anarchist philosophy beyond general sentiments.

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).

shzhdbi09gv8ioi 3y ago
> No, anarchism can be "organized" (i.e. have structures) I think you are talking about syndicalism.
- hnbad 3y ago
  That's not a contradiction, that's a qualification. Anarcho-syndicalism is a form of anarchism. Anarchism only means the structures can't be hierarchical systems of domination. Even egoism allows for bottom-up organizing. I'd agree that real-world projects like Rojava while ideologically aligned with anarchism can be more accurately described as libertarian socialist or maybe mutualist (or in this case simply democratic confederalism, which it is explicitly is built on) as they're not "pure anarchism", but there's nothing in the basic ideas of anarchism that procludes organizing or the emergence of complex structures. Saying anarchism can't be "organized" just reinforces the stereotype of black clad teenagers throwing rocks at storefront windows, which, while it certainly can be fun and exciting, usually barely qualifies even as "praxis" in any meaningful way and even more rarely is informed by a coherent anarchist philosophy beyond general sentiments.