You must log in or register to comment.
That it’s basically the lefty equivalent to a libertarian. Both of those philosophies seem juvenile to me in a “I don’t want to, and you can’t make me” kind of way. Call me old fashioned, but I like structure as long as it’s not totalitarian. I’m happy to pay taxes as long as they’re going toward the benefit of society. Granted, that largely hasn’t been the case, but I don’t think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater either.
Recent events have also highlighted how much my taxes actually were going toward the betterment of society (though still not nearly enough), and that I had taken them for granted until they were recently axed/defunded.
Anarchists aren’t against government, or even taxes, they’re against the state, which is different.
you defeated a strawman, no anarchist philosopher would disagree that that would be stupid
You got it. Both anarchist and libertarian systems are what children come up with once they mature just enough to see how governments work.
Which anarchist philosophers did you read to come to that conclusion?
- What led to the Haymarket Massacre, which might have been the main catalyst behind the 8-hour workday… So I cannot hate it out of principle
- Seems reasonable but I don’t know how to actually implement it
- For some reason is more associated with Anarcho-Capitalism rather than the other variants, which I thought was… Interesting
coupled with communism it’s the real shit
Nestor Makhno and his Makhnovists weren’t perfect but I think its probably the closest we’re going to get to seeing a working anarchist society. It seemed like it worked for a short time.
Also note the mutial aid systems that spring up in the wake of some disasters could probably be considered temporary anarchist societies. Rebecca Solenit wrote a book about this but I haven’t gotten a chance to read it yet. A Paradise Built in Hell. I hear its good but I can’t say that with firsthand knowledge
I think there’s a reason anarchists aren’t migrating in droves to anarchies like Haiti or Somalia.
Naive Understanding of the topic detected like
Where did you learn this talking point?
I’m going to play devil’s advocate because I think this is a learning opportunity and I want to set someone up to give a good answer.
A lot of people hear “anarchy” and equate it with a lack of government. Haiti has not had a functioning government for quite some time. What distinguishes Haiti’s situation from anarchy?
hierarchy
Literally everything, nothing about either of those places even resemble anything any anarchist philosopher ever said, anarchists aren’t even against government in the first place so the premise is nonsense.
being ruled by warlords is not anarchist.
The point stands though. Pure Anarchism is a power vacuum. There is no way to achieve a power vacuum, it will be quickly filled — the most basic way it is filled is by dictators and warlords. You want to live in a power vacuum? Ask yourself how you will enforce it and suddenly you’re no longer talking about anarchy.
The point stands though.
no, it doesn’t
Oh okay, thanks for that enlightening response.
any time.
Pure Anarchism is a power vacuum
power vacuums are fictions deployed by imperialist forces to justify regime change
How did gangs take control of Haiti? How did warlords take control of Somalia? I guess those governments just decided to dissolve and hand over their monopolies on violence to other groups.
I don’t know the particular histories you’re talking about, but I bet it involves private property, prisons, and policing. none of that is anarchy.
? No, power vacuums can exist and are quickly filled by any group with a modicum of power. Look at ISIS. The US deposed the Iraqi government. The new government was weak and those with a stockpile of weapons and funding from other interested countries quickly swept in and took control of large swaths of territory. They also took territory in Syria after the Arab Spring put Assad on his back foot, unable to maintain power in the east.
power vacuums are a myth
Why are they a myth?
they are a story that people tell to explain the world. but they are not a phenomenon that can be empirically tested.
Ask yourself how you will enforce it and suddenly you’re no longer talking about anarchy.
this is a no true Scotsman.
No we’re talking about definitions. You’re advocating for anarchy being a viable state for humankind, I’m saying practically you can’t enforce or defend its existence without turning it in to something that it is not by definition. It is practically impossible to defend a state of anarchy as it will and always has been overpowered by a more organized, hierarchical force.
it will and always has been overpowered by a more organized, hierarchical force.
you can’t prove this
You are arguing against a complete strawman, and seem to know nothing about anarchism.
Anarchism is not against government, or even some heirarchy, it’s about the abolishment of unjust heirarchy.
Pure anarchism? How do you define that, and which philosophers did you read to get to that definition?
Absence of government; the state of society where there is no law or supreme power; a state of lawlessness; political confusion.
https://gcide.gnu.org.ua/?q=Anarchy&define=Define&strategy=.
Yes, that’s a co-opted definition that doesn’t come from any anarchist philosophers. The definition has changed because people use the word differently. Note, anarchy is completely different from the political philosophy of anarchism.
There is not a single anarchist philosopher that means that definition when they say they are an anarchist, the first anarchists did not use anything resembling that definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
Proudhon would be rolling in his grave if he knew people were saying that’s what anarchism was. There’s never been an argument made by anarchist philosophers in support of that, as it would be stupid and obviously terrible.
There’s a million terms where the definition in the dictionary has nothing to do with the academic study of it… this happens all the time in politics. The language may change, but the academic usage of the term is already established, dictionaries stay up to date with language changes, rather than using academic definitions.
Another example: the marxist definition of private property has nothing to do with the current definition, what marx meant when he said private property is property that generates capital, not your toothbrush.
You can’t prove that
it’s tautological
Prove that it is
anarchism is a system without rulers. warlords are rulers. ipso facto.
Correct. So, what happens when you have, as you say, pure anarchy without rulers and then some folks interested in power notice that you have no organized way to defend yourself? They take the power easily. These people are often warlords. That’s why anarchy is so closely associated with such things, because anarchy is a power vacuum. That vacuum is easily filled. The most rudimentary thing that can fill it are warlords.
power vacuums do not exist in fact. you’re telling a story based on a myth.
what makes you think a community would not keep the means to defend itself and it’s neighbors?
I thought it was quite cool when I was a teenager. Then I grew up.
Aka you heard about it, did no reading on theory and slowly the capitalist culture you lived in burned your brain down. That’s what happens when you don’t have any actual education about something.
No, I’m quite aware of what it is … and concluded it to be a terrible idea.
Guys, he’s quite aware. All anarchist philosophy is dead! The great Concluder has spoken!
Of course not. There is still plenty of teenagers and homeless punks around.
Guys, he actually doesn’t know about anarchism. Bro nobody mention the zapatistas or WW2 Catalonia Spain to this guy. George Orwell, more like George nobody amiright? Bro actually thinks anarchism is when you’re homeless.
Yes, reapeating “you don’t now about anarchism” over and over again is a great argument. (I really mean it, you don’t got much else to work with).
Bro didn’t even read the last comment. Your man’s is coping, in shambles.
Bro thinks this is an argument lol, nah big dawg it’s a belittlement.
What is it then, define it?
A lot of people think it means total chaos, but it really just means an opposition to hierarchy.
People living comfortable lives will rationalize any critique of the system away, even if that comfort is built upon emiseration and exploitation.
I think liberals don’t even know what it means, but insist their opinions on it need to be heard anyways, because all opinions are valid, right?
Genuinely thought that said “anachronism” and was ready to go on a tirade about how cool cloaks are and how they should make a comeback
Quite literally impossible to implement. Same as true “Libertarianism”. Can’t actually exist.
Look at it this way. You and your neighbours want no government. No taxes. No laws. No “authority” telling you what to do and how to do it. Great!
What happens when the road needs to be fixed? Do you fix just the road in front of your house? Or do you negotiate with your neighbours for you all to pay a fair share to get the entire road done? Congratulations…you just invented government.
So now the road is getting done, but the people doing the work really don’t want to deal with every individual for every particular decision. It’s a much better idea to elect one person to do the communicating. Congratulations…you just invented civics and beaurocracy
This person that you all agreed to handle all of this stuff doesn’t have time anymore to support himself or his family because he’s dealing with your shit, so he demands that each of you pay an amount to keep in able to feed himself while he administrates your “anarchic society.” Congratulations…you just invented taxes
Replace “roads” with literally anything else in a community and the end result is the same. Both Libertarians and Anarchists are fucking morons.
Anarchism isn’t “no government”. I don’t think your larger assessment is incorrect in that anarchism is utopian in nature and unrealistic on a larger scale but your understanding of the ideology is flawed.
You don’t know what anarchism is or what it means and are arguing with a strawman.
anarchism means no rulers, not no rules
we would just use direct democracy for our government
we don’t even want no government, we want no state, those are different things
can you point to an anarchist philosopher who believes the nonsense you argued against?
You say they’re arguing against strawmen, but do nothing to refute the arguments or show why they’re strawmen. Let’s say you have what you want: Rules but no rulers, direct democracy, and government but no state (please explain the latter in more detail).
The local hospital needs to decide how much money (read: resources) to spend on constructing a new wing, and who should do the job. A power line has to be built to replace the one that just fell down, and your direct democracy decided last week that you want to do something to incentivise the farmers to produce healthier and more sustainable food, rather than easy to produce and unhealthy food, but you haven’t ironed out the details yet. The next option you have to affect these decisions is later today, when you’ll have some kind of meeting or vote to decide on the matters. How you will find a time and place that allows everyone to have their say is an obvious issue, but I’ll leave it to you to explain how to overcome it.
These decisions need to be made, and when everyone doesn’t agree, there needs to be a mechanism to get stuff done regardless. I haven’t even gotten started on how to deal with internal groups or outside forces that want to exploit the system or the society as a whole.
Please explain how this is solved without some kind of hierarchical system where some people make decisions and enforce those decisions on behalf of the group as a whole. These are the roles we typically assign to “rulers” or “the state” (i.e. the bureaucracy).
The local hospital needs to decide how much money (read: resources) to spend on constructing a new wing, and who should do the job.
The consensus building forum, an example of one of these that you can research are the zapatista councils of good government
A power line has to be built to replace the one that just fell down, and your direct democracy decided last week that you want to do something to incentivise the farmers to produce healthier and more sustainable food, rather than easy to produce and unhealthy food, but you haven’t ironed out the details yet. The next option you have to affect these decisions is later today, when you’ll have some kind of meeting or vote to decide on the matters. How you will find a time and place that allows everyone to have their say is an obvious issue, but I’ll leave it to you to explain how to overcome it.
This has never been an issue in any anarchist society that has ever existed. If you have a historical example, please point to it! They simply set aside a day of the week to allow people to form consensus, they would discuss the issue and anyone that wants to say something about it can, and then there’s either a vote on the matter, or a consensus decision.
These decisions need to be made, and when everyone doesn’t agree, there needs to be a mechanism to get stuff done regardless. I haven’t even gotten started on how to deal with internal groups or outside forces that want to exploit the system or the society as a whole.
Yeah, in zapatista councils if everyone doesn’t agree they leave it to a vote. Outside forces are definitely a problem for sure, but I see no reason to believe it’s an unsolveable one, and it certainly doesn’t mean you aren’t completely strawmanning the anarchist argument.
Please explain how this is solved without some kind of hierarchical system where some people make decisions and enforce those decisions on behalf of the group as a whole. These are the roles we typically assign to “rulers” or “the state” (i.e. the bureaucracy).
Anarchists are for the abolishment of all unjust heirarchy, not all heirarchy in general, this is also a strawman. In an anarchist society this would often be done with a weekly or monthly randomly assigned rotation, although there are tons of methods.
Please actually bother to take a moment and read the works of proudhon, bakunin, and kropotkin, even a summary, before you talk about your strong opinions about anarchism. You simply don’t know enough to begin to have an argument, I wouldn’t give strong opinions about something I don’t even know the basics of. You don’t even know the difference between a government and a state and that’s covered in anarchism 101.
The end goal of civilization.
Stateless, Egalitarian societies.
People calling themselves anarchists seem to reliably be less of a red flag than when they call themselves communists.
I think there’s a lot of sentiment to sympathize with and a lot of ideas to learn about.
Implementation of anarchism seems hard and maybe sometimes a bit naïve, but on the other hand I don’t actually understand the specifics nor is there any one opinion.
Anarvhism refers to a vlass of ideologies moreso than any one in specific.
At its best it would be the most well functioning democracy possible, at its worst it would give way into centralisation (and infighting)
I don’t think anarchist states are impossible, but I do think it wouldn’t be as comfortable of a life compared to something more centralised.
It would. An anarchist system requires participation at all ends from just about everyone. If you forfeith your vote once, you’ll forfeight it again, not because of a conscious choice, but because you empowered others to make your choice for you in the first place.
Anarchy is not about comfort. Its about freedom, as nebulous as that term is, and freedom, as has been said many many times, is not free.
It rules!
I see it as a guideline for how society could be structured after the elimination of class.
