6 ms·

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

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.
  - pessimizer 2y ago
    But you can separate into smaller groups, who send representatives. That's really why all this stuff ended up organized at the level of the individual shop, the individual factory. The problem is when representatives that you send can't be recalled easily. You can think of this as a technical problem, since elections have been expensive historically to run. There are ideas in the vein of "liquid democracy" that consider how we could arrange things with instant recall: e.g. if democracy were an app on my phone, and I could remove my support from my representative between the time they cast a vote and the time the vote is finalized, and replace them with somebody who will vote properly. This could be done completely without anger; I could restore the my support to the previous person after the vote. What it does is make my representative someone who I trust with my will for the moment not someone who owns my will. It's a different perspective.
    - kstenerud 2y ago
      Yes, a different perspective on a subject that's somehow failed to materialize in any way (beyond 100 people for any reasonable length of time) after over a century of philosophical thought, theory, and attempts...
    - pixl97 2y ago
      Heh, instant recall would be great... just make some fake news and spread it around quickly and just get everyone recalled before they've had time to engage their brain. Really at the end of this day all your voting system turns into is a popularity contest of stars and rabid attention seekers that can hold the average public attention for longer than everyone else. I'm not saying our current system is good, I'm saying yours is hilariously bad.
      - photonthug 2y ago
        > your voting system turns into a popularity contest with rabid attention seekers that can hold the average public attention for longer than anyone else What? This is of course what we already have in many western democracies. Adding the hypothetical ability to "recall representatives easily" as the parent describes doesn't cause this problem. The root of the issue here is just representative vs direct democracy, and GP is obviously correct that technology could be allowing us to create/withdraw support closer to real-time than whatever the election cycle is. Not to mention just having more of a voice on more issues, like why do we need the representatives anyway? Since in the limit direct democracy basically is anarchic, these types of discussions are IMO one of the best ways to ground otherwise theoretical discussions about anarchism and avoids the trigger word. The truth is that most people on all sides of the political spectrum only want elections until their preferred king is in charge, then they become staunch royalists, supporters of dynasties/dictators/fascists, whatever you want to call it. My paradoxical observation is that people who really believe in democracy are almost always anarchists, deep down. To test yourself, just ask whether you want the government to do things "in the interest of the public", regardless of whether the public agrees that it is desirable. If you "want to protect the public" from actually having their own preferences because "they don't know better", this paternalism is right next door to fascism. It doesn't matter much whether you're forcing them to pay for good things like education programs, or for bad things like an unjust war. When you go down the road that "representatives are necessary because the people can't make decisions" or that "term limits are necessary because the public is fickle", you're really saying you just want democracy until your preferred king is installed.
smogcutter 2y ago
This is where conversations about anarchism often break down. Forgetting the language about everyone being for themselves, parent’s question boils down to “what happens when people don’t cooperate?”. The answer to that can’t be “people will cooperate”. I think when you’re thinking about social structures of all kinds a useful perspective is to ask whether you’re creating a prisoner’s dilemma, and what the consequences of that could be.
- kstenerud 2y ago
  The answer to any philosophy containing "If everyone would just XYZ" is "No."
- AndyNemmity 2y ago
  Anarchism doesn't require everyone to cooperate. Anarchism requires identifying justifiable authority, and dismantling it. Certainly unjustifiable authority won't cooperate.
  - causal 2y ago
    Trying to figure out if that really leaves any room for non-cooperation. It sounds a lot like "cooperation is voluntary but you will be dismantled if you don't"
    - AndyNemmity 2y ago
      It leaves room for non-cooperation. Although we really must define what non-cooperation means in this context. Ending Slavery didn't leave room for the decision to non-cooperate with it, by continuing to own Slaves, or to be a Slave. Certainly depends on the specifics. Just like Slavery was dismantled with no choice for those who wished it to continue.
      - causal 2y ago
        Can it tolerate someone having private property?
abdullahkhalids 2y ago
What's important to add on here is that Chomsky wasn't a revolutionary anarchist. He talked a lot about changes within the existing framework [1] - such as increased power of labor - which were consistent with anarchist principles. In general, it's important to generalize this. Most political philosophies are better understood and judged by the directions they demand existing societies move in rather than the final destination, which might never be achieved. [1] EDIT: of the society he was living in, or see better comment below.
- AndyNemmity 2y ago
  I think you're misstating it. Chomsky has always been focused on pragmatic actions within the situation you are in. If that's Spain in the 1920s, he would be a Revolutionary Anarchist. But most of the time he's speaking, it's not about Spain in the 1920s, so the specifics of actions that are pragmatic are different. Similar to what you are saying, and I agree with some of what you're saying, but it would be incorrect to define Chomsky based on the tactics he feels are valid in a given situation.
  - abdullahkhalids 2y ago
    That's fair. I have edited appropriately.
baxtr 2y ago
Thanks for the answer. I realize that the “everybody for themselves” part was not a correct assumption. Are there any well working anarchic societies today?
- AndyNemmity 2y ago
  No. There is one corporation that sort of followed the idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation Recently people working there however have said it's moving further away from the core principals though. The most successful Anarchist society was Spain, which is what the article is discussing.
- rand846633 2y ago
  Not sure about well working, but when visiting years ago, these villages here seemed more happy and prosperous than their “normal” neighbors: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_L...
goatlover 2y ago
Problem is, we had these kinds of societies in the past, and they mostly got taken over and incorporated into societies with hierarchal structures, because those had militaries and were aggressive. Maybe I'm overstating that a little bit, but there was still plenty of conquest, and I don't see how a return to decentralized communities prevents that from playing out again. Or alternatively, stops some communities from being raiders and pirates, and the eventual desire to have a stronger response that a hierarchy can bring to bear. At any rate, the current global order is very far from anarchy, and it's extremely difficult to see how it could be come about in part of the world without being taken over by countries with imperialistic ambitions. Imagine what Russia and China would do if somehow Europe and the US became anarchistic.

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.
- pessimizer 2y ago
  But you can separate into smaller groups, who send representatives. That's really why all this stuff ended up organized at the level of the individual shop, the individual factory. The problem is when representatives that you send can't be recalled easily. You can think of this as a technical problem, since elections have been expensive historically to run. There are ideas in the vein of "liquid democracy" that consider how we could arrange things with instant recall: e.g. if democracy were an app on my phone, and I could remove my support from my representative between the time they cast a vote and the time the vote is finalized, and replace them with somebody who will vote properly. This could be done completely without anger; I could restore the my support to the previous person after the vote. What it does is make my representative someone who I trust with my will for the moment not someone who owns my will. It's a different perspective.
  - kstenerud 2y ago
    Yes, a different perspective on a subject that's somehow failed to materialize in any way (beyond 100 people for any reasonable length of time) after over a century of philosophical thought, theory, and attempts...
  - pixl97 2y ago
    Heh, instant recall would be great... just make some fake news and spread it around quickly and just get everyone recalled before they've had time to engage their brain. Really at the end of this day all your voting system turns into is a popularity contest of stars and rabid attention seekers that can hold the average public attention for longer than everyone else. I'm not saying our current system is good, I'm saying yours is hilariously bad.
    - photonthug 2y ago
      > your voting system turns into a popularity contest with rabid attention seekers that can hold the average public attention for longer than anyone else What? This is of course what we already have in many western democracies. Adding the hypothetical ability to "recall representatives easily" as the parent describes doesn't cause this problem. The root of the issue here is just representative vs direct democracy, and GP is obviously correct that technology could be allowing us to create/withdraw support closer to real-time than whatever the election cycle is. Not to mention just having more of a voice on more issues, like why do we need the representatives anyway? Since in the limit direct democracy basically is anarchic, these types of discussions are IMO one of the best ways to ground otherwise theoretical discussions about anarchism and avoids the trigger word. The truth is that most people on all sides of the political spectrum only want elections until their preferred king is in charge, then they become staunch royalists, supporters of dynasties/dictators/fascists, whatever you want to call it. My paradoxical observation is that people who really believe in democracy are almost always anarchists, deep down. To test yourself, just ask whether you want the government to do things "in the interest of the public", regardless of whether the public agrees that it is desirable. If you "want to protect the public" from actually having their own preferences because "they don't know better", this paternalism is right next door to fascism. It doesn't matter much whether you're forcing them to pay for good things like education programs, or for bad things like an unjust war. When you go down the road that "representatives are necessary because the people can't make decisions" or that "term limits are necessary because the public is fickle", you're really saying you just want democracy until your preferred king is installed.

smogcutter 2y ago

This is where conversations about anarchism often break down. Forgetting the language about everyone being for themselves, parent’s question boils down to “what happens when people don’t cooperate?”. The answer to that can’t be “people will cooperate”. I think when you’re thinking about social structures of all kinds a useful perspective is to ask whether you’re creating a prisoner’s dilemma, and what the consequences of that could be.

kstenerud 2y ago
The answer to any philosophy containing "If everyone would just XYZ" is "No."
AndyNemmity 2y ago
Anarchism doesn't require everyone to cooperate. Anarchism requires identifying justifiable authority, and dismantling it. Certainly unjustifiable authority won't cooperate.
- causal 2y ago
  Trying to figure out if that really leaves any room for non-cooperation. It sounds a lot like "cooperation is voluntary but you will be dismantled if you don't"
  - AndyNemmity 2y ago
    It leaves room for non-cooperation. Although we really must define what non-cooperation means in this context. Ending Slavery didn't leave room for the decision to non-cooperate with it, by continuing to own Slaves, or to be a Slave. Certainly depends on the specifics. Just like Slavery was dismantled with no choice for those who wished it to continue.
    - causal 2y ago
      Can it tolerate someone having private property?

abdullahkhalids 2y ago

What's important to add on here is that Chomsky wasn't a revolutionary anarchist. He talked a lot about changes within the existing framework [1] - such as increased power of labor - which were consistent with anarchist principles. In general, it's important to generalize this. Most political philosophies are better understood and judged by the directions they demand existing societies move in rather than the final destination, which might never be achieved. [1] EDIT: of the society he was living in, or see better comment below.

AndyNemmity 2y ago
I think you're misstating it. Chomsky has always been focused on pragmatic actions within the situation you are in. If that's Spain in the 1920s, he would be a Revolutionary Anarchist. But most of the time he's speaking, it's not about Spain in the 1920s, so the specifics of actions that are pragmatic are different. Similar to what you are saying, and I agree with some of what you're saying, but it would be incorrect to define Chomsky based on the tactics he feels are valid in a given situation.
- abdullahkhalids 2y ago
  That's fair. I have edited appropriately.

baxtr 2y ago

Thanks for the answer. I realize that the “everybody for themselves” part was not a correct assumption. Are there any well working anarchic societies today?

AndyNemmity 2y ago
No. There is one corporation that sort of followed the idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation Recently people working there however have said it's moving further away from the core principals though. The most successful Anarchist society was Spain, which is what the article is discussing.
rand846633 2y ago
Not sure about well working, but when visiting years ago, these villages here seemed more happy and prosperous than their “normal” neighbors: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_L...

goatlover 2y ago

Problem is, we had these kinds of societies in the past, and they mostly got taken over and incorporated into societies with hierarchal structures, because those had militaries and were aggressive. Maybe I'm overstating that a little bit, but there was still plenty of conquest, and I don't see how a return to decentralized communities prevents that from playing out again. Or alternatively, stops some communities from being raiders and pirates, and the eventual desire to have a stronger response that a hierarchy can bring to bear. At any rate, the current global order is very far from anarchy, and it's extremely difficult to see how it could be come about in part of the world without being taken over by countries with imperialistic ambitions. Imagine what Russia and China would do if somehow Europe and the US became anarchistic.