Anarchism Discussion Thread

[Kubra]

cuz then you'll make the two half-happy, and I want the lot equally unhappy with me
every time the local hoxhaists look at me in disgust I feel validated
not so much with the anarchos cuz they're hard-drinking cool guys, even if a little boring in their politics

*raises literal current beer in hand*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B96qKs4-EI8
Fun dudes, the local anarchos. After the chorus, you gotta throw back a pint.

[Renewed Dissonance]

*raises literal current beer in hand*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B96qKs4-EI8
Fun dudes, the local anarchos. After the chorus, you gotta throw back a pint.

Mind if I join?

**raises pint in hand**

(It just took me about a dozen tries to type this out on my phone. Time to quit )

[Prussia-Steinbach]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B96qKs4-EI8
Fun dudes, the local anarchos. After the chorus, you gotta throw back a pint.

Mind if I join?

**raises pint in hand**

(It just took me about a dozen tries to type this out on my phone. Time to quit )

right

I'm kind of worried I'll be shitflameposting here soon

probably time to fall asleep to anarchist folk songs

[Renewed Dissonance]

I'm a communist to anarchists and an anarchist to communists.

If communism means tacos for all, i'm in.

[Renewed Dissonance]

Mind if I join?

**raises pint in hand**

(It just took me about a dozen tries to type this out on my phone. Time to quit )

right

I'm kind of worried I'll be shitflameposting here soon

probably time to fall asleep to anarchist folk songs

https://youtu.be/wxiMrvDbq3s

#THISMACHINEKILLSFASCISTS

[Meryuma]

There is no straight answer because the question is flawed.

Say there's problem, but don't tell me the problem. Real useful. Thanks.

The concept of governing a large population as a centralized whole is begging the question. The whole point of anarchy is that it emerges from the bottom up.

No, you as a defender of the state wish to maintain a power structure and social system that allows tyrants to rise to power.

Anarchism is the first door for tyrants.

When? Cite real examples of explicitly anarchist societies.

[Conscentia]

Say there's problem, but don't tell me the problem. Real useful. Thanks.

The concept of governing a large population as a centralized whole is begging the question. The whole point of anarchy is that it emerges from the bottom up.

Never said anything about centralisation.

[Camelza]

I'm a communist to anarchists and an anarchist to communists.

Been there.

[Nameless Revolt]

Then it would not be anarchy. If people do not want anarchy, then there will not be anarchy. Through education and the experience of freedom, I would not expect this to be an issue. If an anarchist society were to exist it would have come into being through people rebelling and annihilating the old order upon anarchist principles, so logically they would not be in favour of re-establishing hierarchy (though it is a extremely important point that we would have to be vigilant in guarding against centralising, hierarchical, and authoritarian tendencies). Likely, after an anarchist revolution there will be some peoples who choose not to be part of the anarchist society, and might establish authoritarian societies among themselves - that is fine: it is not free communism if people cannot choose to live a different way. The only issue would be if such non-anarchist societies, or power-hungry elements within anarchist societies, attempt to establish authority over those who do not want it. In that case we will defend ourselves.

Defend yourselves how? Would you not being violating their "freedom"? The defence is surely coercive.

Two examples I can give you, off the top of my head.

The Spanish anarchists organised into militias to defend themselves from Franco's army. There's plenty of material available on that if you want to read more into it.

And in Britain today there is still an active far-right, who pose a threat to our freedoms in the long-term and, on the streets, often harass or even attack Muslims, gay people, foreign speaking people, or anyone else depending on how drunk they are. What we do is organise anti-fascist groups within our communities, and these groups have organised into a nationwide network so that we help each other out. Without any hierarchy or state-backing we then prevent fascists and other violent racists from having any platform to organise, and from having a presence on the streets, therefore defending ourselves against their immediate violence and their potential to oppress.

Defend yourselves how? Would you not being violating their "freedom"? The defence is surely coercive.

This is sophistry. Does freedom mean submission to oppression and violence to you? If not, then what will we do when someone commits violence against us? We defend ourselves and preserve our freedom. Has the attacker had their freedom curtailed? Only their "freedom" to dominate others, but to dominate is not a freedom, it is authority - we have denied their authority, not their freedom.

What do you mean "refuse to cooperate"? Do you mean what of people who do not wish to be part of society? Then they can choose not to be, though I feel sorry for them. Do you mean disruptive elements? Dissent will always be the breeding ground of freedom. If they want to violate our freedom? We will defend ourselves, just as we fight against the powers that violate our freedom today.

I guess "disruptive elements".
How does your application of coercive force in 'defence' not constitute a majoritarian hierarchy where the majority command and dissenters obey? I mean, how is that any different from a majoritarian democracy?

Majoritarian? Defending one's freedom is not based on any quantitative justification.

Defending oneself against an oppressor does not create a hierarchy, it thwarts it. But I see now you are talking of "dissenters" rather than oppressors, despite the fact that I have not advocated suppressing dissent (and just to be clear, violating others freedom and "dissent" are two different things, in the way I understand it).

I disagree that it is a case of simply "hoping for the best". I have pointed at the concept of "building the new world in the shell of the old", in that revolution does not so much create a blank slate as remove the roadblock of tyranny and allow the ideas, relations, and practices which have brought us thus far to expand into every aspect of life as we desire and as necessary to face the challenges of life and society (what I am talking of is the social revolution, which is a process that would continue for many years after the insurrection that had cleared the way). Revolution is necessarily a rupture with the existent, it is a risk - not a gamble but the unknown of freedom.

You admit it's a risk and an unknown. I don't see how that isn't just hoping for the best.

Yes I admit it is a risk and an unknown, and I know that this is the only escape from slavery and misery. I have offered an explanation as to why I do not think it is just hoping for the best, you have only reasserted your opinion - what can I say?

Is freedom the only justification you use?
Additionally, what about laws? Do you see them as having a place in an anarchist society? If so, how are they decided and altered?

What we want is the best possible life for everybody, and we think this is best found through freedom, beginning with individual autonomy and fitting into an egalitarian social solidarity which affirms one another's liberty.

"I mean the only kind of liberty that is worthy of the name, liberty that consists in the full development of all the material, intellectual and moral powers that are latent in each person; liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those determined by the laws of our own individual nature, which cannot properly be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any outside legislator beside or above us, but are immanent and inherent, forming the very basis of our material, intellectual and moral being — they do not limit us but are the real and immediate conditions of our freedom."
-Bakunin

On the matter of laws, we run into an indistinctness of language. I understand "law" as the commands decided by a powerful minority for the benefit of that minority, enforced by violent or otherwise coercive means. Needless to say I reject law in this sense.

However I certainly do think that rules have a place in anarchist society. Some anarchists use the term "law" neutrally and differentiate between the law of a State and an anarchist form of law, but I think this muddles things and that we should make clear that we are referring to something entirely different when we talk of rules in anarchy.

There would not be a canon of rules applying everywhere and to everyone, only where they are needed or desired for the healthy functioning of society. Rules would be created, changed, or discarded through direct democracy, beginning with the commune or other voluntary association and connecting through various levels of federation. The details of how a direct democracy would function are still very much debated and experimented with in anarchist circles, and are something that, again, will be determined by those who live it, not at the decree of any anarchist theorist.

[MERIZoC]

Do any of the non-anarchists here have any sort of moral/philosophical justification for their beliefs?

[Conscentia]

This is sophistry. Does freedom mean submission to oppression and violence to you? If not, then what will we do when someone commits violence against us? We defend ourselves and preserve our freedom. Has the attacker had their freedom curtailed? Only their "freedom" to dominate others, but to dominate is not a freedom, it is authority - we have denied their authority, not their freedom.

It's not sophistry. It's confusion. It had seemed as though by "freedom" you mean "freedom from coercion". Your defense sounds like it can become coercive. If it is coercion you oppose, then it hypocritical to apply it.

A militia shooting or capturing an individual would necessarily violate that individual's freedom (most obviously, freedom to live or freedom of movement respectively) regardless of what the individual has done to provoke the militia.

Majoritarian? Defending one's freedom is not based on any quantitative justification.

Defending oneself against an oppressor does not create a hierarchy, it thwarts it. But I see now you are talking of "dissenters" rather than oppressors, despite the fact that I have not advocated suppressing dissent (and just to be clear, violating others freedom and "dissent" are two different things, in the way I understand it).

So it's not even majoritarian. It's just might makes right? You'd prevent dissenters from being successful, even if they were in the majority to protect your freedom?
Sounds like you'd impose law onto them. Laws designed to protect freedom, but laws enforced coercively nonetheless - and the "anarchists" would be the authority enforcing them.

I was initially thinking of killers, thieves, fraudsters, and such types. However, this seems to apply to dissenters who turn thoughts into action also.

Yes I admit it is a risk and an unknown, and I know that this is the only escape from slavery and misery. I have offered an explanation as to why I do not think it is just hoping for the best, you have only reasserted your opinion - what can I say?

I didn't think your explanation demonstrated how it's not just optimistic hope.

What we want is the best possible life for everybody, and we think this is best found through freedom, beginning with individual autonomy and fitting into an egalitarian social solidarity which affirms one another's liberty.

"I mean the only kind of liberty that is worthy of the name, liberty that consists in the full development of all the material, intellectual and moral powers that are latent in each person; liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those determined by the laws of our own individual nature, which cannot properly be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any outside legislator beside or above us, but are immanent and inherent, forming the very basis of our material, intellectual and moral being — they do not limit us but are the real and immediate conditions of our freedom."
-Bakunin

On the matter of laws, we run into an indistinctness of language. I understand "law" as the commands decided by a powerful minority for the benefit of that minority, enforced by violent or otherwise coercive means. Needless to say I reject law in this sense.

However I certainly do think that rules have a place in anarchist society. Some anarchists use the term "law" neutrally and differentiate between the law of a State and an anarchist form of law, but I think this muddles things and that we should make clear that we are referring to something entirely different when we talk of rules in anarchy.

There would not be a canon of rules applying everywhere and to everyone, only where they are needed or desired for the healthy functioning of society. Rules would be created, changed, or discarded through direct democracy, beginning with the commune or other voluntary association and connecting through various levels of federation. The details of how a direct democracy would function are still very much debated and experimented with in anarchist circles, and are something that, again, will be determined by those who live it, not at the decree of any anarchist theorist.

How is this federation not simply a state governed by direct democracy? It creates rules, and presumably therefore enforces them.

[Sociobiology]

except modern states, unlike what you are advocating, actually have systems to limit the power of such individuals, we have laws, even laws for lawmakers.

And have you seen the effectiveness of such laws? Yeah.

yes they are amazingly effective compared to other attempts, people in a state has way more personal freedom than someone in other forms of society. band, tribes, and cheifdoms have no way to really handle plurality well.

[Novsvacro]

And have you seen the effectiveness of such laws? Yeah.

yes they are amazingly effective compared to other attempts, people in a state has way more personal freedom than someone in other forms of society. band, tribes, and cheifdoms have no way to really handle plurality well.

States have been hegemonic for a large part of recorded history, so we don't really have a point of comparison. Even then, states have no had the best historical track record when it comes to combating corruption and favoritism.

[Sociobiology]

variation still exists, everything from who is more charismatic to who owns the better land. all your doing is enabling exploitation of those differences, unless you are going back to band society population levels, in which case you can kiss modern technology goodbye.

in small societies cheaters and hoarders are punished because everyone knows everyone else, as soon Bob cheats on deal or tries to hoard foot, everyone in the society knows so Bob gets shunned or killed. but in large societies Bob can find a steady supply of complete strangers for his whole life, there are just too many degrees of separation for enough people to know and care about Bob to do anything. Hence laws which are enforced and investigated independently, its a one stop social network so to speak. large societies make up for burden created by this by being able to support lots of specialists and thus highly advanced technology and intensive infrastructure. but by its very nature you can't have the huge numbers of people needed to have so many specialists and still rely on direct interpersonal knowledge like small societies.

You know the whole basis of anarchism is the questioning of unequal power structures, right? If someone who was especially eloquent started demanding submission, people what most likely write him off as an idiot, which is exactly what they would be.

so you don't know anything about dictatorships, good to know.
dictators don't start out demanding submission, that is something they do after they have amassed power, which inequality lets them do.
it can be something as simple as who has the best grazing land, or who knows how to smelt iron that can quickly create massive power imbalances.

[Sociobiology]

yes they are amazingly effective compared to other attempts, people in a state has way more personal freedom than someone in other forms of society. band, tribes, and cheifdoms have no way to really handle plurality well.

States have been hegemonic for a large part of recorded history, so we don't really have a point of comparison.

no we have lots of comparison, just because you are ignorant of anthropology don't assume other are.

Even then, states have no had the best historical track record when it comes to combating corruption and favoritism.

I never said they are perfect, they are just way better than the alternatives.

[Novsvacro]

You know the whole basis of anarchism is the questioning of unequal power structures, right? If someone who was especially eloquent started demanding submission, people what most likely write him off as an idiot, which is exactly what they would be.

so you don't know anything about dictatorships, good to know.
dictators don't start out demanding submission, that is something they do after they have amassed power, which inequality lets them do.
it can be something as simple as who has the best grazing land, or who knows how to smelt iron that can quickly create massive power imbalances.

If you have a politically conscious citizenry, and you had purposely constructed an anarchist society, then what would be the point of submitting to a crackpot? Even then, if someone doesn't want to live in anarchy, so be it. We aren't forcing people to do so.

[Novsvacro]

States have been hegemonic for a large part of recorded history, so we don't really have a point of comparison.

no we have lots of comparison, just because you are ignorant of anthropology don't assume other are.

Even then, states have no had the best historical track record when it comes to combating corruption and favoritism.

I never said they are perfect, they are just way better than the alternatives.

Show me an example of the alternative not working.

[Sociobiology]

so you don't know anything about dictatorships, good to know.
dictators don't start out demanding submission, that is something they do after they have amassed power, which inequality lets them do.
it can be something as simple as who has the best grazing land, or who knows how to smelt iron that can quickly create massive power imbalances.

If you have a politically conscious citizenry,

which you can't have without either extremely small size or an extremely large sized population supporting specialists.
that's assuming you can have it at all. people are lazy, and the more well off they are the more lazy they are.
its one of the major failings of our species, but also a completely understandable one given our evolutionary history.

and you had purposely constructed an anarchist society,

which is meaningless unless you have have a system to maintain it, at which point it is a state again.

then what would be the point of submitting to a crackpot?

because he would not be a crackpot he would be the guy who has something you need, when you don't have anything he needs.

Even then, if someone doesn't want to live in anarchy, so be it. We aren't forcing people to do so.

no one is forcing you to live in a state either, if anything the state makes it far easier to emigrate than it is in non-state societies.

[Sociobiology]

no we have lots of comparison, just because you are ignorant of anthropology don't assume other are.


I never said they are perfect, they are just way better than the alternatives.

Show me an example of the alternative not working.

I never said they don't work, stop trying to put words in my mouth.
I said they are less desirable.
Band societies work just fine, but I'm not willing to give up modern technology and I am guessing neither are you.
technology requires specialists lots of them which means you need absolutely huge populations which prevent interpersonal relationships from being effective from of behavior modification like it is in bands, just to many strangers. So you need specialized enforcement, not the generalized enforcement of band societies.

All societies use coercion to modify behavior, states just use specialists for enforcement and policy which allows for much much larger populations.
we see this with band societies when they grow they either split or change their form of society.

[Novsvacro]

If you have a politically conscious citizenry,

1. which you can't have without either extremely small size or an extremely large sized population supporting specialists.
that's assuming you can have it at all. people are lazy, and the more well off they are the more lazy they are.
its one of the major failings of our species, but also a completely understandable one given our evolutionary history.

and you had purposely constructed an anarchist society,

2. which is meaningless unless you have have a system to maintain it, at which point it is a state again.

then what would be the point of submitting to a crackpot?

3. because he would not be a crackpot he would be the guy who has something you need, when you don't have anything he needs.

Even then, if someone doesn't want to live in anarchy, so be it. We aren't forcing people to do so.

4. no one is forcing you to live in a state either, if anything the state makes it far easier to emigrate than it is in non-state societies.

1. I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

2. There is a difference between justified authority (eg. defense), and unjustified authority, right?

3. That's why we have this thing called forced expropriation. The wonders of actually reading anarchist theory.

4. So I can choose to not live in a state? Sweet, sign me up. Too bad that's impossible presently.

[Novsvacro]

Show me an example of the alternative not working.

I never said they don't work, stop trying to put words in my mouth.
I said they are less desirable.
Band societies work just fine, but I'm not willing to give up modern technology and I am guessing neither are you.
technology requires specialists lots of them which means you need absolutely huge populations which prevent interpersonal relationships from being effective from of behavior modification like it is in bands, just to many strangers. So you need specialized enforcement, not the specialized enforcement of band societies.

All societies use coercion to modify behavior, states just use specialists for enforcement and policy which allows for much much larger populations.
we see this with band societies when they grow they either split or change their form of society.

Anarchists are actively advocating for the reduction of the division of labor, so thus you wouldn't have 'specialists'. Again, the magic of reading anarchist writings.

[The Liberated Territories]

Do any of the non-anarchists here have any sort of moral/philosophical justification for their beliefs?

Yes

[Sociobiology]

1. which you can't have without either extremely small size or an extremely large sized population supporting specialists.
that's assuming you can have it at all. people are lazy, and the more well off they are the more lazy they are.
its one of the major failings of our species, but also a completely understandable one given our evolutionary history.


2. which is meaningless unless you have have a system to maintain it, at which point it is a state again.


3. because he would not be a crackpot he would be the guy who has something you need, when you don't have anything he needs.


4. no one is forcing you to live in a state either, if anything the state makes it far easier to emigrate than it is in non-state societies.

1. I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

a strongly invested society is either a well informed society requires specialized education which again requires large size, OR they are really really small so every decision and interaction effects everyone else.

2. There is a difference between justified authority (eg. defense), and unjustified authority, right?

yeah and it varies from person to person, what is justified to one will not be to another so you have to solve that conflict, which you can do one of two ways, you can either have everyone agree which requires a very small population without plurality OR you can have a specialized group who decides, ideally with some form of restraint or counter balance. that allows for more freedom because not everyone has to agree, they just need to know what the rules are.

3. That's why we have this thing called forced expropriation. The wonders of actually reading anarchist theory.

which makes it either a state or a really isolationist band community.
again if dissent can't exist your society can't support specialists for very long, so it will collapse technologically
the whole concept is self-refuting.
you can't have it both ways you can't have uniformity AND large populations at the same time.

4. So I can choose to not live in a state? Sweet, sign me up. Too bad that's impossible presently.

sure it is there are several tribal communities you could move too, you just have to give up technology and hope they accept you.
I recommend one of the pacific island societies, at least the weather will be nice.

[New Werpland]

Do any of the non-anarchists here have any sort of moral/philosophical justification for their beliefs?

Yes

I thought you were a consequentialist?

[Sociobiology]

I never said they don't work, stop trying to put words in my mouth.
I said they are less desirable.
Band societies work just fine, but I'm not willing to give up modern technology and I am guessing neither are you.
technology requires specialists lots of them which means you need absolutely huge populations which prevent interpersonal relationships from being effective from of behavior modification like it is in bands, just to many strangers. So you need specialized enforcement, not the specialized enforcement of band societies.

All societies use coercion to modify behavior, states just use specialists for enforcement and policy which allows for much much larger populations.
we see this with band societies when they grow they either split or change their form of society.

Anarchists are actively advocating for the reduction of the division of labor, so thus you wouldn't have 'specialists'. Again, the magic of reading anarchist writings.

there are so many different flavors of anarchists, I never assume I know what a specific one is advocating. you guys play "no true scottsman" with each other way too much.

reducing the division of labor would be a form of anarcho-primitivism whether you intend it or not.
no thank you I like MRI machines, heart surgeons, and the internet.