LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Electing a hierarch sounds like it pretty much forsakes the idea of anarchism.

That's... not at all what I said, really, but considering plenty of Anarchists argue against unjust hierarchies (as in, ones that people have little/no say in, among other concerns that'd make a hierarchy unjust) but are okay with just hierarchies (something like parents:children, perhaps something like a leader that the community democratically decides on who's entirely accountable to the community, etc.) that doesn't necessarily go against Anarchism. Basically vertical hierarchies bad, horizontal ones okay.

An elected official is a vertical hierarch.

No, they couldn't. The idea of anarchism is that no one is told what to do unless they're violating the rights of others,

Right. Voluntarily agreeing on having a leader in a non-hierarchical or horizontally hierarchical role where said leader is still essentially an equal to all others isn't something that goes against Anarchist principles.

There's no way in hell every single person is going to agree. Thus, the minority are being unvoluntarily told what to do.

and no one having more authority than anyone else, right?

Technically right, with nuance as stated above.

That completely jettisons both those ideas.

Not necessarily; if the community has the collective power of democratic decision making, they could feasibly create a non-hierarchical (or horizontally hierarchical) leadership position where everyone has a turn in the role and those leading are wholly accountable to the community.

Not without either everyone agreeing perfectly, or the people who don't agree being told what to do. That is coercion, and a hierarchy. Not anarchy.

[Torrocca]

That's... not at all what I said, really, but considering plenty of Anarchists argue against unjust hierarchies (as in, ones that people have little/no say in, among other concerns that'd make a hierarchy unjust) but are okay with just hierarchies (something like parents:children, perhaps something like a leader that the community democratically decides on who's entirely accountable to the community, etc.) that doesn't necessarily go against Anarchism. Basically vertical hierarchies bad, horizontal ones okay.

An elected official is a vertical hierarch.

Not necessarily; in an Anarchist community, whoever's in a leadership role at a given time would still be accountable to the community and still need their consent to lead. They can't force or coerce someone to do something as a leader.

Right. Voluntarily agreeing on having a leader in a non-hierarchical or horizontally hierarchical role where said leader is still essentially an equal to all others isn't something that goes against Anarchist principles.

There's no way in hell every single person is going to agree. Thus, the minority are being unvoluntarily told what to do.

It's possible to achieve it, given time and debate and at the smaller scale.

Technically right, with nuance as stated above.



Not necessarily; if the community has the collective power of democratic decision making, they could feasibly create a non-hierarchical (or horizontally hierarchical) leadership position where everyone has a turn in the role and those leading are wholly accountable to the community.

Not without either everyone agreeing perfectly, or the people who don't agree being told what to do. That is coercion, and a hierarchy. Not anarchy.

But the thing is: people don't have to listen to an agreed-upon leader in Anarchism if they feel what the leader does is unjust. The leader, if such a position exists in an Anarchist community, absolutely requires the consent of the rest of the community to lead.

[Kubra]

The weird thing is people going on about what the state means in anarchism and which ones anarchy and which ones not miss out on the bits they truly dislike of anarchism, principally the abolition of wage-labour.

[Second Empire of America]

There is a type of Anarchy that's synonymous with chaos and bloodshed. It's called Anarcho-Capitalism.

delet this!

Okay.

There is a type of Anarchy that's synonymous with chaos and bloodshed. It's called Anarcho-Capitalism.

[Salus Maior]

But the thing is: people don't have to listen to an agreed-upon leader in Anarchism if they feel what the leader does is unjust. The leader, if such a position exists in an Anarchist community, absolutely requires the consent of the rest of the community to lead.

What happens when the majority agree with the leader and don't give a crap about what the minority wants?

[Kubra]

But the thing is: people don't have to listen to an agreed-upon leader in Anarchism if they feel what the leader does is unjust. The leader, if such a position exists in an Anarchist community, absolutely requires the consent of the rest of the community to lead.

What happens when the majority agree with the leader and don't give a crap about what the minority wants?

Assuming no rules and regulations are in place that protect minority opinions and identities, they get the shaft. Y'know, like any in any other polity that neglects to.

[Salus Maior]

What happens when the majority agree with the leader and don't give a crap about what the minority wants?

Assuming no rules and regulations are in place that protect minority opinions and identities, they get the shaft. Y'know, like any in any other polity that neglects to.

In which case you've just made a vertical hierarchy that either coerces or just ignores the dissenting group.

Welcome to the state.

[Torrocca]

But the thing is: people don't have to listen to an agreed-upon leader in Anarchism if they feel what the leader does is unjust. The leader, if such a position exists in an Anarchist community, absolutely requires the consent of the rest of the community to lead.

What happens when the majority agree with the leader and don't give a crap about what the minority wants?

Then something's clearly gone wrong and whatever the fuck's happening is going entirely against any and all Anarchist values in that community, in which case the minority would have every right to revolt to protect themselves and their society.

[Northern Davincia]

delet this!

Okay.

Well played, statist.

[Kubra]

Assuming no rules and regulations are in place that protect minority opinions and identities, they get the shaft. Y'know, like any in any other polity that neglects to.

In which case you've just made a vertical hierarchy that either coerces or just ignores the dissenting group.

Welcome to the state.

Oh well, shit happens, we'll put a tragic section in history textbooks on the incident. Or we won't, if it's later decided that the minority wasn't so great anyways.
We are, after all, suggesting a human society. One that humans would maybe inhabit. These things happen.

[Salus Maior]

What happens when the majority agree with the leader and don't give a crap about what the minority wants?

Then something's clearly gone wrong and whatever the fuck's happening is going entirely against any and all Anarchist values in that community, in which case the minority would have every right to revolt to protect themselves and their society.

So this Anarchist society depends on 1: everyone agreeing on what to do all the time, and 2: the majority always respecting the opinions of the minorities on every issue.

Sounds like an inevitable end.

[Second Empire of America]

How is Anarcho-Capitalism more chaotic or bloody than other schools of anarchism?

Other schools of anarchism have been tried and didn't result in bloodshed. Although anarcho-communism isn't my favorite system, societies that used it were stable and typically only fell due to external invasion. It has many flaws, but violence and chaos are not among them. On the other hand, there has never been a single functioning Anarcho-Capitalist society in history.

[Torrocca]

Then something's clearly gone wrong and whatever the fuck's happening is going entirely against any and all Anarchist values in that community, in which case the minority would have every right to revolt to protect themselves and their society.

So this Anarchist society depends on 1: everyone agreeing on what to do all the time,

Yes. It mostly doesn't mean agreeing on what was originally brought up; that'd be almost impossible. It means debating and considering ideas and making concessions until everyone's happy enough to agree, through a consensus, to something.

and 2: the majority always respecting the opinions of the minorities on every issue.

The majority overruling the minority would be a seldom-seen inevitably in the cases where the community couldn't find a general consensus.

Sounds like an inevitable end.

Seems like it's working well for the Zapatistas so far. Even works well for the CNT, which is particularly notable considering how long they've been around for, which has been far longer than the USSR was around.

[Frievolk]

How is Anarcho-Capitalism more chaotic or bloody than other schools of anarchism?

Other schools of anarchism have been tried and didn't result in bloodshed. Although anarcho-communism isn't my favorite system, societies that used it were stable and typically only fell due to external invasion. It has many flaws, but violence and chaos are not among them. On the other hand, there has never been a single functioning Anarcho-Capitalist society in history.

I mean, suggesting Anarchist Catalonia didn't end in bloodshed (some of which being its own fault, all things considered) would be a bit historical revisionist.

[Torrocca]

Other schools of anarchism have been tried and didn't result in bloodshed. Although anarcho-communism isn't my favorite system, societies that used it were stable and typically only fell due to external invasion. It has many flaws, but violence and chaos are not among them. On the other hand, there has never been a single functioning Anarcho-Capitalist society in history.

I mean, suggesting Anarchist Catalonia didn't end in bloodshed (some of which being its own fault, all things considered) would be a bit historical revisionist.

Yeah, Anarchist Catalonia definitely had recognizable flaws in regards to wanton, unnecessary, and oftentimes cruel violence against people most likely undeserving of it all. There's no avoiding that tragedy.

[The Liberated Territories]

How is Anarcho-Capitalism more chaotic or bloody than other schools of anarchism?

Other schools of anarchism have been tried and didn't result in bloodshed. Although anarcho-communism isn't my favorite system, societies that used it were stable and typically only fell due to external invasion. It has many flaws, but violence and chaos are not among them. On the other hand, there has never been a single functioning Anarcho-Capitalist society in history.

Therefore, on the account that all ancom systems have seen violence, it can be postulated that ancom systems are naturally violent, while AnCap sits at neutral-base.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Not necessarily; in an Anarchist community, whoever's in a leadership role at a given time would still be accountable to the community and still need their consent to lead. They can't force or coerce someone to do something as a leader.

If they can't force or coerce someone, what do they do?

It's possible to achieve it, given time and debate and at the smaller scale.

That might work, but only in groups of fewer than thirty, and even then, only a majority of time and not all the time. Not very feasible for metropolitan cities, or pretty much anywhere.

But the thing is: people don't have to listen to an agreed-upon leader in Anarchism if they feel what the leader does is unjust. The leader, if such a position exists in an Anarchist community, absolutely requires the consent of the rest of the community to lead.

Why have a leader or laws that you don't have to follow?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

The weird thing is people going on about what the state means in anarchism and which ones anarchy and which ones not miss out on the bits they truly dislike of anarchism, principally the abolition of wage-labour.

I do dislike that about left-anarchism, precisely because it's literally not anarchism. How can you abolish coercion and also prohibit private employment. I mean, pick one.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

How is Anarcho-Capitalism more chaotic or bloody than other schools of anarchism?

Other schools of anarchism have been tried and didn't result in bloodshed. Although anarcho-communism isn't my favorite system, societies that used it were stable and typically only fell due to external invasion. It has many flaws, but violence and chaos are not among them. On the other hand, there has never been a single functioning Anarcho-Capitalist society in history.

Other schools of anarchism have been tried that resulted in bloodshed. No attempt at Anarcho-Capitalism has ever resulted in bloodshed because no attempt at Anarcho-Capitalism has ever been made. Except maybe the Minerva Republic, but that ended before it began (without any bloodshed, I might add).

[Frievolk]

The weird thing is people going on about what the state means in anarchism and which ones anarchy and which ones not miss out on the bits they truly dislike of anarchism, principally the abolition of wage-labour.

I do dislike that about left-anarchism, precisely because it's literally not anarchism. How can you abolish coercion and also prohibit private employment. I mean, pick one.

And the Left-anarchist will, with exactly that level of certainty, reply "How can you ave private employment and abolish coercion at the same time tho? pick one!"

[Kubra]

The weird thing is people going on about what the state means in anarchism and which ones anarchy and which ones not miss out on the bits they truly dislike of anarchism, principally the abolition of wage-labour.

I do dislike that about left-anarchism, precisely because it's literally not anarchism. How can you abolish coercion and also prohibit private employment. I mean, pick one.

Sure it is, insofar as it was kinda the big thing for the guys who first called themselves anarchism. Like, their biggest thing. It's the thing they most cared and wrote about. It was one of the main defining features of anarchism before the right wing sorts over a century later.

[Torrocca]

Not necessarily; in an Anarchist community, whoever's in a leadership role at a given time would still be accountable to the community and still need their consent to lead. They can't force or coerce someone to do something as a leader.

If they can't force or coerce someone, what do they do?

Organize things, suggest how things can be done, suggest what roles people can do, look for volunteers for certain efforts, setting an example for the community, and so on. Leadership's not just bossing around the nearest person.

It's possible to achieve it, given time and debate and at the smaller scale.

That might work, but only in groups of fewer than thirty, and even then, only a majority of time and not all the time. Not very feasible for metropolitan cities, or pretty much anywhere.

B-But... they generally avoid majority votes. It says it right there ;~;

But the thing is: people don't have to listen to an agreed-upon leader in Anarchism if they feel what the leader does is unjust. The leader, if such a position exists in an Anarchist community, absolutely requires the consent of the rest of the community to lead.

Why have a leader or laws that you don't have to follow?

Well, firstly, actually, if a given person is directly participating in and benefitting from a community in an Anarchist society, then the implication of that is that they're consenting to and promising to abide by the rules that the community democratically agrees on. Technically speaking, if they wish to continue voluntarily participating within the community, then they have to follow the rules they agreed to and decided on with the rest of their community. Since they also have a say in the decision-making process of developing rules, including the development and change of the initially-proposed rule so that the community can reach a consensus, then it's already a rule they more or less agreed to anyway, barring cases of majority votes. Essentially, they've already agreed to do what the community says is acceptable and to avoid what isn't on the basis of voluntarily participating in the community and the self-governance of it.

In regards to leaders, that's an iffier situation, but understandable why someone can refuse to listen to/follow them: if the leader, assuming an Anarchist community decides to have one, tries to coerce or force someone to do something, that is essentially the creation of an unjust hierarchy. Since Anarchists are against unjust hierarchies, the person being forced/coerced has every right in such a society to deny consent. Now, on the other hand, the leader has every right themselves to ask a fellow community member to do a certain task or something else that'd fall in a leader's purview, and in that scenario (I base this part wholly off evidence of Anarchist leadership in action as seen by George Orwell in Spain as written in Homage to Catalonia) then, it's unlikely such a leader would find someone unwilling to volunteer themselves for such a task; all the same, the importance and recognition of consent is still there, so it's ultimately the choice of the community member - not the leader - as to what they'll do.

[Mattopilos II]

Other schools of anarchism have been tried and didn't result in bloodshed. Although anarcho-communism isn't my favorite system, societies that used it were stable and typically only fell due to external invasion. It has many flaws, but violence and chaos are not among them. On the other hand, there has never been a single functioning Anarcho-Capitalist society in history.

Therefore, on the account that all ancom systems have seen violence, it can be postulated that ancom systems are naturally violent, while AnCap sits at neutral-base.

Something tells me there is too small a sample size to support either comment there.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

I mean, a person could also be chosen democratically to organize things without forsaking the whole idea of Anarchism.

I agree that the person should be chosen democratically.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Electing a hierarch sounds like it pretty much forsakes the idea of anarchism.

There are different leadership styles. A leader who implements the wishes of the democratic majority is not a hierarch (at least as I would define a hierarch).