6 ms·

Help me out. I have never understood the logic of anarchy. So everybody for themselves, ok. But what if two form a group and start oppressing the one who thoug

• pessimizer 2y ago
  Anarchism means no unearned hierarchy, it doesn't mean no cooperation. It means no kings, it doesn't mean no leaders. Everybody for themselves would be a demand that a king would make. Normal people cooperate.
  • Analemma_ 2y ago
    In decades of being on the internet, I have yet to meet two anarchists who use the same definition of "anarchism". Certainly I know plenty of people who would excoriate you for saying it "means no unearned hierarchy". It's impossible to philosophically engage with anarchism, because every anarchist rewrites its definition on-the-fly to win whatever argument they happen to be in at that moment.
    • teddyh 2y ago
      In decades of also being on the internet, I have also yet to meet two people who use the same definition of "democracy".
      • ein0p 2y ago
        Especially now when there’s often talk of criminalizing political speech and protest to, ostensibly, “protect _our_ democracy”. Who’s democracy it is is never explicitly stated, but I think it’s not mine.
        • teddyh 2y ago
          There was always talk like that, but from only one side, so you probably did not hear it or take it seriously then. Now, however, it has shifted to come from the other side as well. I mused at length about this here some months ago: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38119795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38119795>
          • rightbyte 2y ago
            Great write up. However, I believe there has been a shift in what kind of people are filtered into the top. Like, there seems to be this trend selecting for "meta players" to some greater extent internally in the parties as well as quarrelsome over cooperative. I dunno what the mechanism for this is.
            • ein0p 2y ago
              My pet theory is that the only major change is that there’s now much less of a filter over the information that reaches the populace. The regime can’t quite figure out yet how to deal with this without undermining its own legitimacy, flimsy as it may be. It used to be you had to go through the newspapers or tv to get anything out, and both are controlled by a very small group of people. To the extent that there was diversity of opinion it was because the two wings of the uniparty disagreed with one another. Nowadays trust in the press is at historic lows and actually reading it makes one _less_ informed than not reading anything at all. So people turn to social media and personalities they trust there. End result: an actual democracy could break out for the first time since Ancient Greece. The Uniparty can’t tolerate risking tens of trillions in money flows on some highfalutin’ bullshit like that.
    • coliveira 2y ago
      I agree with this. For anarchism to be successful, the first step would be to relabel itself to something else other than anarchism, because this word is currently almost meaningless. An almost similar thing also happened to communism, every group has a different definition to the point that they cannot agree anymore on what communism is.
      • AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        Maybe some authoritative figure could write a manifesto or something...
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • beaeglebeachedd 2y ago
    That's one interpretation. Another us the idea that only voluntary interactions and transactions are legitimate -- i.e. taxation or forceful socialist takeover of capital is archist. The common thread is the idea of decentralized, ideally evenly distributed, power.
    • pessimizer 2y ago
      > Another is the idea that only voluntary interactions and transactions are legitimate -- i.e. taxation or forceful socialist takeover of capital is archist. That's not another idea, that's really the same idea. Voluntary interactions are not unearned. The only problem with that is that it accepts kings (i.e. the legitimacy of primitive accumulation and the fencing off of the commons.) If you just say that King Charles owns England, and everything within it, he can even force you into a contract in order to use his roads to leave. But of course anarcho-capitalism is a legitimate Anarchist strain. As it is now, it exists with a fake pedigree from Objectivists and Libertarians, who are simply Republican anti-communists minus the Christianity, but you can see the same beliefs within what was at the time accepted as fairly orthodox anarchism in Benjamin Tucker.* There are still interesting libertarians that don't accept primitive accumulation, and simply think that the creation of interlocking markets is a better way to organize a free society than the glorification of wage-laborers. I'm largely a Rudolf Rocker anarchist myself, and Homage to Catalonia changed my life as well. Speaking of groups, I was a card-carrying anarchist who volunteered at the 223 infoshop in Portland during the 90s. I had always suspected that Chomsky was an anarchist, and the confirmation was when he spoke in town and made his first political donation to that same infoshop. It was his first occasion making a political donation of that type, and everybody in left politics noticed. edit: A quote from John Zerzan, an primitivist (or the primitivist) anarchist who hated Chomsky, illustrating how impactful that donation was: > In the fall of 1995, Chomsky donated much of the proceeds from a well-attended speech on U.S. foreign policy to Portland’s 223 Freedom and Mutual Aid Center, better known as the local anarchist infoshop. As if to honor its generous benefactor appropriately, the infoshop spent the money first of all on a computer system, and several months later financed a booklet promoting the infoshop and the ideas behind it. Among the most prominent quotes adorning the pamphlet is one that begins, “The task for a modern industrial society is to achieve what is now technically realizable...” The attentive reader may not need me to name the author of these words, nor to point out this less than qualitatively radical influence. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/john-zerzan-who-is-chomsky https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/john-zerzan-who-is-c... ----- * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker edit: I would also mention that Benjamin Tucker was almost entirely in line with current Libertarian thought, still thought of himself as an anarchist and a socialist, and was one of the biggest misogynists possible. When people seriously engage with ideas instead of stereotypes, they come out in weird places. When you seriously engage with ideas instead of conventions, you start to realize that we're already in a weird place.
  • hyperliner 2y ago
    [dead]
• Miner49er 2y ago
  > So everybody for themselves, ok. This has nothing to do with anarchism. Anarchism is simply organizing society to have as little hierarchy as possible.
  • beaeglebeachedd 2y ago
    Which is what the articles of confederation were moving closer towards, decentralized affiliated states. It was a move closer towards anarchism but ironically many anarchists would have a meltdown if we suggested going from what we've now to that.
    • Miner49er 2y ago
      True, anarchism has such a broad definition that some anarchists will be unhappy with any implementation. I consider myself an anarchist and I think federalism can be an important part of it. You'll also find that many people involved with building the Fediverse seem to have anarchist beliefs, for example.
• rand846633 2y ago
  While there are many good answers to your question, here is mine, trying to answer as generic as possible: Anarchy doesn't mean "everybody for themselves" in a chaotic sense. It advocates for the absence of a formal, hierarchical government, aiming for self-managed societies based on voluntary, cooperative institutions. Here are key points: 1. Mutual Aid: Anarchists believe in mutual aid and voluntary cooperation rather than competition and individualism. 2. Horizontal Structures: They support horizontal organization without hierarchies, promoting collective decision-making. 3. Community Defense: Anarchist communities often organize collective defense mechanisms to protect individuals from oppression. The concern about groups oppressing individuals is valid, but anarchists argue that decentralized, community-based approaches can mitigate this better than centralized power structures, which often lead to greater systemic oppression.
  • pixl97 2y ago
    I mean this is great in theory, but in practice the first group that centralizes use of its resources quickly destroys each of the small groups in succession forcing the remaining groups to centralize. The centralized enemies will spend a massive amount in convincing your citizens that mutual/voluntary cooperation is bad (see Russia vs NATO). Anarchists suffer the same problems as (actual) communists, fascist power seeking dickheads ruin reality for everyone. Power seeking behaviors have to be actively countered lest they pass an infection point they become self sustaining which requires a massive amount of coordination between parties.
    • kstenerud 2y ago
      This is precisely why these kinds of movements only work at small scale, or only for a short time at large scale before evolving into a power structure (by necessity). Large scale horizontal structures simply don't work once the population exceeds the human capacity to remember everyone and their relationships to each other (approx 100-110 people). That's why ancient human foraging clans were always splitting at around 80-100 people until agrarian societies provided enough concentrated food and energy for specialization and hierarchy. It's why horizontally organized companies start to fray after they grow beyond 100 people.
• AndrewKemendo 2y ago
  Anarchism is explicitly not about everyone for themselves Pierre Prudhon, who was basically the first anarchist wrote about all of our social obligations in all of his works - read chapter 4 of “what is property” to see what this looks like applied to interrelaional labor exchange Further, Adam Smith, who you could also argue was also an early anarchist wrote in the theory of moral sentiments about the same thing similarly for Emma Goldman similarly for Kropotkin etc.. So there is a fundamental lack of understanding about what anarchist philosophy actually is, it would seem, that prevents an actual discussion about it
  • dingnuts 2y ago
    > there is a fundamental lack of understanding about what anarchist philosophy actually is this problem is ever-present among ideologues, and may be one of the ways you can identify a from-first-principles totalizing ideology and differentiate it from legitimate schools of philosophy Many political -isms suffer from this problem, and the "true believers" all inevitably hold in their head what they believe to be the correct definition, about which they will always correct non-believers and bicker about with comrades. Regardless, it's all a waste of time, because if you can't even define your ideology you will never see it manifested.
• pxc 2y ago
  > So everybody for themselves, ok. Not really. Anarchism is a historically leftist movement. It's about rejecting hierarchy and coercion, not necessarily rejecting all notions of social duty, shared fate, cooperation, human care and support, etc.
• godelski 2y ago
  Its much closer to libertarianism. In fact, many of the hard core libertarians are more accurately described as anarchists. Realistically if we use the (poor) political compass, "anarchy" is everything below the center line. That's the vertical axis: anarchy-authority. There's also a good discussion from Moxie Marlinspike (creator of Signal)[0]. He discusses some of the things you're asking and I think this can answer better than a comment. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXbjdTZjBQQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXbjdTZjBQQ
  • vidarh 2y ago
    Libertarianism was indeed first started by the anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacque, who described Proudhon as a "moderate anarchist, liberal, but not libertarian"[1]. But modern US-style libertarianism has one very central difference: Support for private property, which was anathema to Dejacque, who firmly supported Proudhon's infamous "property is robbery". https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/joseph-dejacque-on-the-human-being-male-and-female https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/joseph-dejacque-on-t...
• SonicScrub 2y ago
  The "A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry" blog (frequently posted on HackerNews) has an interesting series on how non-state societies organize to achieve collective action, like raising an army. The series focuses on the Celtic people in contrast to the Romans. I do find it quite interesting how this particular implementation of an agrarian non-state society has very different outcomes than typically envisioned by anarchist theorists, particularly in regards to power/wealth/influence concentration, the emergence of social hierarchy, warlords, and the poor living conditions experienced by those at the bottom. https://acoup.blog/2024/06/07/collections-how-to-raise-a-tribal-army-in-pre-roman-europe-part-i-aristocrats-retainers-and-clients/ https://acoup.blog/2024/06/07/collections-how-to-raise-a-tri...
• arrosenberg 2y ago
  A bunch of people are trying to explain philosophy here, but you have hit the nail on the head. Anarchy very quickly turns into warlords. Even when described philosophically in other comments all I can see is feudal and tribal structures with never-ending conflicts (or the republican equivalent, like the Italian city-states in the 1400-1500s).
  • kyletns 2y ago
    I might suggest reading the text in question. Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" will give a much more three dimensional view of "anarchism" than what we tend imagine from first principles. Even just the first few chapters are well worth the read: https://files.libcom.org/files/Homage%20to%20Catalonia%20-%20George%20Orwell.pdf https://files.libcom.org/files/Homage%20to%20Catalonia%20-%2...
    • arrosenberg 2y ago
      I think I get it, it's radical egalitarianism. It just turns out that hierarchical decision making works better for running complex organizations (e.g. an army), so anarchism (i.e. a vacuum of centralized power) nearly always leads to a warlord taking power. The US basically got lucky that Washington didn't want it and set a republican precedent for other colonial independence movements.
      • AndyNemmity 2y ago
        There is no evidence that hierarchical decision making works better for complex organizations. It's possibly true, but there's no evidence it is. I guess the question also depends on what is "better". Certainly it's better for those with authority, but it's very difficult to compare that with another structure.
        • arrosenberg 2y ago
          > It's possibly true, but there's no evidence it is. I mean, which leftist revolutions lead to a radically egalitarian society instead of an authoritarian? If there is one, I'd love to read about it. "Better" as in, more likely to prevail in real terms. You can obviously go too far with that and paralyze yourself within a hierarchy, but some is better than none.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• AndyNemmity 2y ago
  Anarchism has nothing to do with everybody for themselves, so that would be the first part of not understanding it. Anarchism is dependent on group organization.
• jcranmer 2y ago
  > Group formation seems to be natural way humans organize up to a state level. Not quite. There have been many alternatives to state societies in history, so states are far from the only way to organize even largish society. That said, state societies have spontaneously arisen at least 6 times and perhaps a dozen times. And the rise of states tends to either motivate neighboring polities to form states in response or pretty inevitably get extinguished by the states. Given the frequency of spontaneous reinvention of states, and the seeming inevitability of their expansion, even if states are not the only way to organize large polities, they do seem to a local if not global maximum.