I’m politically agnostic and have moved from a slightly conservative stance to a vastly more progressive stance (european). i still dont get the more niche things like tankies and anarchists at this point but I would like to, without spending 10 hours reading endless manifests (which do have merit, no doubt, but still).
Can someone explain to me why anarchy isnt the guy (or gal, or gang, or entity) with the bigger stick making the rules?
You must log in or register to comment.
Anarchism understood as a proper model and not just “chaos” is about horizontal and distributed power structures.
The whole idea is that no single person or group has a monopoly on power. Now if you are asking how do anarchist societies prevent people or groups like that from rising up and forming monopolies of power, there are a bunch of different answers. Ultimately it’s about collective action and proper structure.
If your organization’s rules allow for a single person to rise up and take over, it isn’t formed correctly. It’s like the Fediverse, no one server or person gets to make the rules for all the other servers or developers.
Everything is federated by the choice of the instances and ultimately the users. If they don’t agree with how any instance is being run, they can start their own and run it how they want, federating with who they want assuming it is mutual.
Anybody can fork the project at any time, build it different, start a new instance, run it how they want, etc.
You build into your society, mechanisms that resist monopolies of power. It’s like how your body’s immune system has layers of protection against all kinds of germs.
Another example, in typical small company the structure is top-down with the owner usually being a single person with universal power over all their employees. They can hire and fire whoever they want whenever they want. They can shut down the company or change how any part of it operates whenever they want. Nothing in that company structure protects the employees from abuse by the owner.
There is no magic bullet to protect against everything, just like how your body despite being healthy and strong can still succumb to cancer, infection, poison, etc. That isn’t a reason to just give up on being fit and healthy, because it is about improving your odds and trying to make your life on the average better.
I was going to engage in some debate with this, but after your last paragraph I no longer find it necessary.
It illustrates one of the nastier, but also more important of life lessons. No system or even choice is going to be without its own flaws and vulnerabilities, they’ll just be different ones from system to system. So, it’s less about any one system being “right”, or even just “better”, but instead “appropriate to the circumstances/environment/goals”.
Once you acknowledge this, it becomes a lot harder to passionately defend any particular system, because you’re no longer as eager to ignore its own unique vulnerabilities. I believe deeply in democracy and freedom of information for instance, but I cannot bring myself to ignore that it creates a vulnerability for us that someone like Xi Jinping, with his powerful control over the local information space, simply does not experience.
Authoritarian systems, on the other hand, have to deal with the very basic fact that there is nothing divine or magical about that man on top, he’s as human as the rest of us. So, if you get rid of him, you may be able to take and keep his job. Where in a democracy you’d just have to face re-election within a few years.
Pros and cons, always, with pretty much everything. Then the next most important consideration imo is simply scale. Some systems work very well within very small scales, say, a small family. But when scaling these systems up, it can change the circumstances enough that their value changes.
To illustrate this I always like to use littering a banana peel. If just one person litters a banana peel, it is largely harmless. If, however, a million people litter banana peels all in one spot, you can actually create a potential problem where one did not exist before. Scaling the behavior up changes how we need to think about it. This has a lot of ramifications for business in the modern world, where scale is usually desirable. Also feeds into many civil engineering problems.
I think it is important to add that even though no system is perfect and every system has it’s pros and cons, that doesn’t make them equal. As soon as we define goals, for example equal rights, some systems will be better equipped at achieving those while others might be actively hostile to them.
IMO it’s more important to talk about the specific elements of the system, because all the successful systems have used mixes of other systems.
I don’t think you’re saying anything contrary but I wanted to make one point clear.
The democracy we live under is not unique to capitalism. In fact, our current system has less democracy than an anarchist system would. Also capitalism doesn’t have any requirement to be democratic. Whereas with anarchism, any dictatorship is directly against the core tenets of the system.
That being said, (I have not read enough theory to know for sure but) anarchism doesn’t necessarily preclude the idea of having managers or even CEO’s. It does preclude those positions having total power and control of an enterprise though. Dismantling the hierarchical structure of modern society doesn’t mean having someone be a coordinator of a larger group isn’t helpful. It just means that job isn’t given greater power or more significance than those being coordinated. Our current idea of a CEO is very dictatorial, but that’s not how it has to be.
Exactly. Syndicalism is an anarchist model and in it the union that owns the means of production may decide to have a leadership structure, but that leadership structure has to answer not just to their boss, but also to the collective. The union president might be heavily involved with the company president trying to ensure that the venture is working effectively and planning ahead while also doing right by its workers’ desires. The union leadership would likely be elected and able to either fire or call for the firing of the business leadership.
Oh, I never thought of the Fediverse being anarchic (anarchistic?), that’s a nice thought (then again servers are mostly structured hierarchical with admins and mods and users?).
I’m not sure how well it translates into societies, though. I love the principles of anarchy, I strongly believe that there should be no one ruling over or deciding for other people but I’m not sure this would work in reality since I can just see how the people with the “big stick” (armies) would just invade us while we’re endlessly debating what the best course of action is. I know this is a bleak outlook on the world but you can kind of see it happening now where Russia can just count on Europe and the US arguing among themselves (in their respective systems) while the dictatorship is just fucking shit up. I sure hope I’m proven wrong!
bear in mind here that i’m very much not well-versed in anarchist philosophy, but
servers are mostly structured hierarchical with admins and mods and users
i think even in systems like direct democracy (afaik a kind of anarchy because people directly vote on everything?) it doesn’t really scale and you end up needing to elect someone to make implementation decisions toward the overall goals of the society
the key is that it should be very easy to replace that person, and they should have no real “power” other than things that people would mostly come to the same conclusions about anyway - they’re an administrator, a knowledge worker, and their job is procedural
in the fediverse, we join servers whereby we agree to their rules. moderators and admins are a procedural role that is about interpreting and implementing those rules. we can replace them at any time by changing servers and our loss is minimal - less so on mastodon because of the account transfer feature! thus their power over us is always an individual choice and not something that is forced upon us either explicitly or implicitly
Servers are heirarchic, but heirarchy is optional; the lower level members are free to leave at any time.
It’s not a perfect model, but it’s decently close. If Lemmy had a way to distribute server ownership to a group of individuals, that would be even closer.
If I was a whiz at developing, I would love to build that kind of feature.
I understand your concern of external threats to an anarchistic society, but I would just remind you that plenty of centralized governments/societies have also been conquered by other centralized powers. Being centralized by no means protects you from that threat. I think the more relevant factor is just overall size of the opposing force.
It doesn’t matter how weak hamsters are compared to you. If enough of them attack you endlessly, eventually you will succumb, if for no other reason than pure exhaustion lol.
However, there are clear examples IRL of far smaller and weaker decentralized forces successfully resisting a much more powerful centralized force. The VietCong vs the USA in Vietnam, the Mujahideen vs the USSR in Afghanistan, the American Revolutionary forces vs England, the French Resistance vs the Nazis, etc.
I would highly recommend the YouTuber, Anark. He has fantastic content discussing all aspects of anarchism, including defense. He also has links to many other great resources to learn about Anarchism.
thank you for explaining. This makes it a lot easier to grasp.
Do you have a source that slowly zooms in on the topic so I can read stuff that helps me get an idea of more concepts regarding this?
There’s a lot of classic books on anarchy. I think Peter Kropotato[sic] has a lot of stuff written before the Russian revolution that goes heavily into why capitalism and feudalism both suck.
I mean, capitalism and feudalism is a nobrainer at this point (why they suck) but I’ll check it out. thank you! :)
I’d like to thank you for taking your time to provide such a thorough answer
Thank you for reading it :)
I am five years old and I don’t understand anything you just said.
Because no one knows anything whatsoever about actual anarchist political theory.
Largely due to it being heavily suppressed and propagandized against by States, capitalist or ‘Communist’, and their adherents.
Anarchy as thought of by the wide and vast majority of people is simply a state of chaos and violence with no clear rulers.
What Anarchy actually is is fairly simple.
Root words derive from Greek.
An- Prefix: Without
Archon: Tyrant/Cruel and Ruthless Ruler/Undefiable Authority
Non insane Anarchists are always critics of the state, corporate structures of organizing the work place, most forms of organized religion, oppressive social norms and anything that creates and maintains any kind of hierarchy in society that results in oppression, impoverishment or cruelty to any particular group of people for illegitimate reasons.
Anarchy is essentially very similar in many ways to communism as Marx envisioned it, in that it is an idealized, as yet not perfectly defined goal of a just, egalitarian and democratic society that heavily emphasizes people being adequately represented economically in their daily lives as workers, as opposed to the standard liberal capitalist model where your boss essentially has authoritarian power over you in the workplace.
Both Marxism and Anarchism are highly critical of the profit motive and the ability of a very small number of people to own all or much of the capital (means of production such as factories) of a society, for very lengthy and detailed reasons.
A very common misunderstanding is what is truly meant by ‘private property’: most people unfamiliar with Marxism or Anarchism believe that Marxists and Anarchists believe that no one should be allowed to singly, individually own /anything/.
This is false. While many different adherents have different precise definitions, generally speaking private possessions are just fine until they get to the point of owning something directly and singly that has a massive impact on the lives of others should you choose to unilateraly use your ‘property rights’ in a way that is beneficial to you personally, but harmful to a large number of other people.
Further, Marxists and Anarchists both generally agree that ‘property rights’ as we currently conceive of them really only functionally exist for the rich and powerful, and are enforced via the power of the state.
Anarchism significantly differs from many later Marxist derived theories such as Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism that generally emphasize that in order to actually achieve an ideal, non capitalist society, one must create a massive state structure (or subvert an existing one) and place all power to reorganize a capitalist economy into a class of totalitarian economic organizers and planners, and that during this process the state is entirely justified in basically any means of crushing dissent it deems necessary.
This is of course heinous to Anarchists, who view a totalitarian state as essentially criminal.
What modern Anarchists, who are, again, not insane, usually support are working both within and outside of existing norms and government structures to meaningfully improve peoples lives amd expand their rights:
Mutual Aid: Direct Involvement in you local community to feed the hungry, house the unhoused, provide aid to the sick and displaced.
Advocacy: Doing what you can to promote ideas and views that will be beneficial to the masses, or to protect at risk minorities, both within existing formal societal structures like governments and businesses, and also within society generally.
Many modern Anarchists are also very concerned about the power if states and corporations to abuse the environment and curtail freedom of expression.
Anarchy also has another useful definition in the context of a world of nation-states:
Anarchy is that same common understanding of a world without rules and chaos, but the realization that this simply describes our current world given the history of actions of and between nation states, who often engage in many harmful acts against other nation-states and their populations, and rarely actually follow any rules or norms which are supposed, but i actuality rarely do, govern affairs between states. States will often do whatever they believe they can get away with that will benefit themselves, even if it means massively harming another state or group of people.
Finally, if you want to also be a modern technologically savvy anarchist, aka a cyberpunk, you can realize that the advent of computer and digital technology means there no longer exist any actually valid reasons, in very many cases, to actually pay for software, and that you should be an advocate of open source software.
So, in summary, Anarchy is not a state of chaos, without rules.
It is a very complex and nuanced political theory of advocacy for a more equitable and more just society.
No serious Anarchist believes that the world would be better if everyone was free to rum around and do literally whatever they want on an individual scale.
What exact kind of society do they propose?
Well unfortunately that differs wildly from Anarchist to Anarchist, but again, as with how Marxist socialism is but a /process/ of transforming from a capitalist society into an as of yet not perfectly defined communism, Anarchism is a /process/ and /method of analysis/ of how to transform into a better society for everyone.
Nice explanation! Thank you. I’m kind of getting the hang of it now. Very glad I asked.
No problem.
Well, crud. I guess I am much more on the side of anarchists than I thought…
A lot of people are. We have bad press, partly our fault and partly because we’re dangerous to systems of power and those who benefit from them. The cultural idea of power doesn’t mind if everyone swaps places or if things get turned upside down. The framework of thinking persists, everyone in the system understands it. It’s easy. Destroying it though, that means basically everyone has to unlearn a lot. It demands we see the beggar and the ceo as equals influenced by their situation and circumstances.
But also I think one thing to understand that a lot of people don’t is that there’s folks I’d call optimist anarchists, and folks I’d call pessimist anarchists. Optimist anarchists believe that we as people can build a better world together because people tend to want to help people and abolishing hierarchy is the best way to enable that. Pessimist anarchists believe that power tends to fuck with your head and make you a worse person. To them abolishing hierarchy may not result in a good situation, but rather that allowing hierarchy is too high risk. The optimist may say that a benevolent dictator isn’t as good for society as a benevolent society of equals. The pessimist would say that a benevolent dictator is rare at best and highly unlikely to keep happening.
See, unlike the communist tankies who would at this moment chant ‘one of us, one of us’…
I will encourage you to aim to to good in an imperfect world where circumstances are often either morally gray, or involve complex factors that are non obvious, but very relevant and important, to learn moral and ethical theories and challenge yourself to actually answer ‘What is good?’.
I will encourage you to /never/ believe you have all the answers to everything, that there is always more than can be learned, and that there are very rarely one size fits all answers to unique and specific situations, and to know that admitting a mistake or error, and reflecting on why or how you came to be in error, is not the sign of a fool, but is the sign of a genuine person striving to be consistent froma starting point of incomplete knowledge and experience.
I will encourage you to challenge your own assumptions, but to be confident when confronted with rhetoric and theories that you yourself can prove are misleading, logically invalid, or outright justify atrocities.
As can probably be reasonably expected, there is an extremely wide range of Anarchist stances on basically the minutia of theory, as well as on what are and are not defensible or moral stances on specific current events or situations, and there are many Anarchist theoreticians who come from many different cultures and backgrounds, and many who focus much more on how Anarchist theory can or should apply to more specific features of our largely capitalist world.
I have tried here to outline the most broadly agreed upon ideas that… well again probably only really Communist Tankies would find fault with, they kind of have a whole history of incorporating anarchists into initial Social Revolutions, and then murdering them all after they have control of their newly acquired state.
They really do not like that Anarchists existed and still exist, they are very convinced, ironically, that they own the ideology that evolved out of Marx, when in truth prominent Anarchists such as Kropotkin and others actually both agreed and disagreed with each other on various issues, and helped form some of both of their views both by antagonism and agreement.
Anyway, entirely unironically:
Live Long and Prosper, and, the Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few.
Haha I’ve had the same exact realization while learning about what it actually is!
Wow, that was a very interesting and informative read, thank you!
Thanks for the compliment! =)
People tend to think of anarchism as a power vacuum. As soon as a charismatic person comes in they’ll start gaining more and more following. But that’s not really how it works. Anarchy is about filling that vacuum with everyone. If a decision needs to be made you bring in everyone the situation effects to make it. You start at the level of a household to neighborhood to watershed to biosphere. A charismatic wanabe tyrant will be frustrated every step they take towards getting more power.
Anarchists develop structures and agreements that discourage concentration of power. They enable people to guide their own lives and improve their communities. When violence occurs, when agreements are broken the community decided what is too be done.
All that assumes you’re already there. One of the primary differences between anarchists and MLMs (Marxist Leninist Maoists) isn’t necessarily their longest term goals, it’s the means by which they reach them. MLMs believe that they must use the state, capitalism, and by extension coercive control in order to reach those goals. That brings the risk of capture and co-option of those structures. They’ve also accomplished incredible feats of human uplift so I wouldn’t say their position is without merit.
Anarchists see the revolution coming about through a unity of means and ends. They create a better society by building it while the old one still stands. Their groups are horizontally organized. They create organizations to replace food production and distribution; and devlop strategies for housing distribution (squatting).
Anarchists develop structures and agreements that discourage concentration of power
MLMs believe that they must use the state, capitalism, and by extension coercive control
Are these not different words for the same fundamental concepts?
I fail to see how “the state” and “capitalism” aren’t just a more developed form of “structures” and “agreements”. And if the community decides punishment is an appropriate response to breaking an “agreement”, how is that any different from “coercive control”?
And if you’re community gets large enough (say even like a couple hundred people), how are any decisions gonna get made even remotely efficiently?
Feel like you’re a hop skip and a jump from a representative democracy. And as soon as bartering becomes too inconvenient, I’m sure a new “agreement” still be made to use some proxy as a form of current and boom now you’ve got capitalism too.
I think “more developed” is not great here. It’s assuming because it’s the most common currently and supplanted more anarchist methods that it is better. States and capitalism have benefits that anarchy does not. You can not engage in an anarchist invasion. You can not extract value from a country using colonialism in an anarchist society. This enables capitalist and state control to expand and eventually control the land that anarchist, chieftain led, and other pre state communities once controlled [1]. Capitalism and the state conquered and coerced until it held an almost universal control [2] but that doesn’t mean it’s better to live under.
One of the agreements I have in mind is trading what a farm’s workers need: insurance in case of bad harvest, tools, infrastructure, education, labor, etc for what a city or town needs: food [3]. The “punishment” for breaking such an agreement is not violence. The result is the end of the agreement. That is not coercive control because the other can go to someone else for the same need.
It probably wouldn’t be efficient at large scales [4]. That’s why you make small decisions among those the decision effects. A group might elect a recallable representative for their watershed council and the meeting notes would be distributed to everyone who wanted to read them. However, most decisions about a workplace or neighborhood could probably work by assembly [5]. It is a kind representative democracy but the purpose of anarchy is not ideological purity. The point is creating a society that eliminates as much oppression as possible and enables the most freedom possible.
Bartering, as large scale economic system, is a myth. Gift economies, slavery, stateless communism, and more were far more common. Barter between communities existed but it was the minority of economic activity. The economy I suggest has more in common with Anarcho Communism. To borrow a phrase, “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.”
- The exceptions are legion but they don’t exactly control a lot of land. The San are an example.
- Worshipping Power does a good job examining the transition if you’re interested in reading more.
- Each of those line items could be spread across a miriad of organizations and communities.
- The current system is only efficient at funneling money to the top so I’m not that worried.
- These are just possibilities but I think it’s a workable structure that I would describe as non-heirarchical.
See Democratic Confederalism. https://youtu.be/BKRHyF78j2I?si=5tHIXPtGNI0jW5Jq
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/BKRHyF78j2I?si=5tHIXPtGNI0jW5Jq
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Isn’t that just a liberal social Democratic system for people afraid of the words social and liberal?
Anarchists creating structures and agreements isn’t anarchy anymore, its… well… government.
Anarchy is liberal in the sense that it pursues individual’s freedom not only from oppression but also to act in ways that enrich themselves. It does not require total chaos as it’s detractors have tried to characterize it since the term was coined.
Anarchy is social in the sense it accepts human beings are almost always better off in groups and that society’s goals should be for the betterment of all.
It is democratic in the sense that people come together to make decisions; although, consensus is perhaps a better descriptor. Democracy has an association with first past the post voting and decisions that bind those represented.
It is not a liberal social democracy as that tends to be used to describe a capitalist society with strong social programs, a beauracracy, and police state. They also tend to be supported by colonialism abroad or petrochemical extraction but I suppose that’s not necessarily a requirement. I would agree that such a society is not anarchist.
Structure is not heirarchy. A collective farm is a structure just as much as a factory farm. An agreement where a farm exchanges food for labor, infrastructure, medicine, education, and tools from a city does not preclude anarchy. Either side breaking that agreement when the other begins acting in bad faith is not oppression or a police state.
I’m not very political or versed in the science about them, but does anarchy exclude guidelines and collaboration? I’d have thought it would enhance those things.
If there isn’t anything enforcing rules and laws, a government would be informational, making guidelines based on what people found to work best. Like a giant kickstarter paired with Wikipedia.
Many guidelines will be followed. Like, boil your chicken before eating it. Good to know, and most will do it. Some won’t, for whatever reason.
Think village assembly, fund-raisers, donations.
I might be completely off here. In my mind, people work great together, until there are rules to exploit. The best of us always comes out despite enforcing structures.
Thank you very much for elaborating. I learned a lot. :)
Like true Libertarianism, this assumes that people will be perfect, altruistic and cooperative.
They won’t be. Eventually (quickly) someone will become a cult of personality or a bully and seize power.
See: America 2016/2024.
Libertarians just want the person with more money above the ones with less. It’s a very hierarchical system in favour for assholes (people stealing or inherit a lot of money).
It is true libertarianism in the older socialist sense. It assumes most people will act in their own self interest. It assumes that most people are at their core social. It asserts that the structures of capitalist control: isolation, bigotry, corporate media and more have convinced people to act in destructive ways that neverless enable their survival. Capitalism also enables unempathetic narcissistic people to gain unjustified control over all of our lives.
Power vacuums demand to be filled. Anarchism leaves no openings. When early states began encroaching into stateless societies they had an easy time with patriarchal and other heirarchical societies. Bureaucracies and tyrants were easily subsumed by dethroning a leader and implanting a friendly local. Anarchist societies were another story. They were not habituated to authority, they fought tooth and nail to maintain their anarchy. I don’t have access to my books right now but in a couple days I’ll drop an excerpt from Worshiping Power that goes into detail on a couple of examples.
But humans have short memories. As soon as the pressure is off and the complacency sets in, someone will abuse it.
Humans have long memories when they want to. Some of the longest surviving cultures are very egalitarian. The San peoples of Africa for instance. Oral traditions have long told stories that impart moral lessons about how to treat the environment, animals, and other people. Anti-authotitarian traditions and education are quite effective. The idea that a person can own a hundred acres was, and could be again, as absurd as claiming a pig can fly not all that long ago.
You site a tribe of 65,000 primitives in Africa in a conversation about the modern, internet level, instant communication, spacefaring society of eight billion people. Their culture doesn’t scale.
You may have the right idea but you’re on the wrong path to proselytize for it. Eight billion people can’t return to a hunter/gatherer society and squat down in the dust to grind grain on a rock for dinner.
I’m definitely not advocating for a return to hunter gathering. Billions would die. But I do think they have things to teach us.
Anarchism leaves no openings.
The way I see it, anarchism leaves nothing but openings. Your egalitarian paradise only needs one family to want to seize power gather weapons and find like minded people to form a feudal military organization and they can start picking off and dominating families one by one. Individuals would not be able to stand against this centralized power and the time it would take to meet, agree, and mobilize a militia wouldn’t help.
It isn’t that anarchism evolves into feudalism, it’s that it takes centralized power to resist centralized power. And as soon as you start concentrating power, having a standing army with wages, or other centralized systems to pool community resources, that’s government. Even, yes, a descentralized non-capitalist deregulated egalitarian democracy.
It doesn’t bother me that people want this kind of system, it bothers me that people want to call this simplified form of community governance “anarchy” which is by definition “the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government” because as soon as you start imposing rules like “we can expell a murderer if everyone else votes to” it becomes a simple form of communal government and the definition no longer applies.
Long lived anarchist societies [1] have traditions and structures that resist this sort of thing. Morality tales, traditions that shame those who aim to put themselves above others, and a tradition of armed self defense serve to prevent subversion from within. These things tend to be frustrated early. If your neighbor gets “picked off” or joins a cult of personality are you going to sit around and wait for it to happen to you or are you going to get your neighbors together and put a stop to it. You’re right that individuals cannot stand up to such a threat, that’s precisely why they’ll form a militia to stop it. Ideally such things can be resolved with words but violence is a perfectly rational response to such a threat.
Centralized power is actually pretty bad at holding ground and subjugating populations. They have to build whole expensive structures of social control to ensure soldiers will fight. As soon as that structure is less convincing than a losing fight they run. The people being subjugated need no such structure. They have every reason to fight to protect themselves, their family, their community, and way of life.
Nothing I’ve described goes against your definition. A group of people deciding not to feed, house, or allow someone to stay in their midst is not a heirarchy. It’s also not government. Just as a group is free to associate it is also free to disassociate.
- They have long existed and some still persist. The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow talk about several.
So let’s say we do it. We transform our country and it becomes everything you hoped and then the neighboring country invades. How does the anarchist society stand against that? How do they have a militia that can operate beyond the immediate resources of each member (beyond begging door to door)? How do you maintain supply lines without people doing that full time? How do you buy supplies without taxes to pay for them? How do you administer supplies without someone doing that full time? How do we respond to rockets fired into our territory? Does Bob have an anti missile system in the barn?
It just seems like a nice idea but too fragile to succeed.
I see the concept but unfortunately it runs against human nature: humans have an inherent need to follow someone and the emergence of cliques among people result in power struggles for the benefit of their own group.
This is proven incorrect. While many societies throughout history have been heirarchical, many were egalitarian and rejected heirarchy. Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution, Worshipping Power, and The Dawn of Everything all talk about various early societies many of which reject authoritarian structures. One still existing group of egalitarian societies in Africa is called the San, by all accounts they’ve been around for millenia. I’m not aware of a long lasting egalitarian industrial society but the idea that human beings are incapable of living free from some authority is simply untrue.
A charismatic wanabe tyrant will be frustrated every step they take towards getting more power.
To be fair, this goes for everyone, not just a tyrant.
A lot of political theory is written in the societal equivalent of an airless room with a frictionless floor. It doesn’t take into account how humans work within the system, especially bad actors.
Which is why the only systems that have ever worked are mixed systems that account for human nature.
A 100% democratic system would have problems because nobody would have any experience or expertise, so people would govern based on ignorance. A 100% communist system doesn’t work because we don’t have a fair system to allocate resources, and as soon as someone becomes in charge of allocating resources, they allocate more for themselves. Even 100% authoritarian systems don’t work because a dictator has to sleep sometime. There may be a figurehead / leader in an authoritarian system, but unless that person delegates some power and control, they’ll be killed and replaced pretty quickly.
Historically the dictator one hasn’t worked well is because every last one has been an actual troglodyte, making moronic decisions after moronic decision. At this point I’m fairly sure only the people with a room temperature IQ want to be dictators. Like I’m sure they would get deposed if they gave out that power but that just hasn’t happened much.
Every now and then Lemmy has an actual discussion like this that gives me hope that it can become more than just an idiotic link aggregator. Thanks!
Thanks for the feedback. I enjoy it as well.
What most of the replies are missing is that there are several different conceptions of what anarchy and anarchism is, even between so-called anarchists.
Anarchy, when boiled down to most basic component, is the rejection of hierarchy. What constitutes a hierarchy is also a big matter of debate. Every political system is about the guy with the bigger stick making the rules. The difference is who holds the stick (and why). Anarchy is the rejection of the stick. I think it is a disservice to look at anarchy through the same terms as those political systems, because anarchy is not a political system. Anarchy is the rejection of political systems. Anarchy is about the possibility of change. The possibility of freedom.
I can assure you that any so-called anarchists who claim to have a plan for how society will function after the revolution are lying to both you and themselves. There will be no anarchist society after the revolution. A revolution is a fight over the stick. Somebody will be holding it when the dust clears. Anarchy, in truth, is not about the future. It is about the now. It’s about the real, existing struggle for a better present instead of the dream of a better future.
It’s important to recognize our place in the world. I live in America. My country, right now, is committing genocide. Everybody in this country is responsible for that genocide. Anarchy is about doing something to stop the genocide because I want no responsibility in what is happening. Anarchy is about doing something about the police murdering innocent people on a daily basis because there can be no justification for what is happening. It’s about providing food for people who can’t feed themselves because people don’t have to starve. Anarchy is about doing all of those things even when faced with legal consequences. Anarchy is about protecting people from the guy with the stick. That’s why it’s not a political system.
Because if it is true that for anarchists there is no difference between theory and action, as soon as the idea of social justice lights up in us, illuminates our brain even for a split second, it will never be able to extinguish itself again. Because no matter what we think we will feel guilty, will feel we are accomplices, accomplices to a process of discrimination, repression, genocide, death, a process we will never be able to feel detached from again. How could we define ourselves revolutionaries and anarchists otherwise? What freedom would we be supporting if we were to give our complicity to the assassins in power?
You see how different and critical the situation is for whoever succeeds, through deep analysis of reality or simply by chance or misfortune, in letting an idea as clear as the idea of justice penetrate their brain? There are many such ideas. For example, the idea of freedom is similar. Anyone who thinks about what freedom actually is even for a moment will never again be able to content themselves by simply doing something to slightly extend the freedom of the situations they are living in. From that moment on they will feel guilty and will try to do something to alleviate their sense of suffering. They will fear they have done wrong by not having done anything till now, and from that moment on their lives will change completely.
(Alfredo M. Bonanno, The Anarchist Tension)
To build on this, it would be accurate to say that Anarchy is the principle upon which the technologies of Anarchism are built. Rather than a political system, which inherently function through obligation of participation or subjugation, the technologies of anarchism are participatory. That is to say anarchism provides methodologies of engagement between individuals and groups to achieve outcomes without obligation or subjugation which are imposed by the system, replacing those attributes of hierarchy instead with consent, participation, and consensus which are fundamentally voluntary and opt-in in nature.
Another way to say this is that Political Systems are means by which a group forces rules upon individuals, while Anarchism is a set of methods by which individuals can perform actions as groups.
Very good read! Thank you for elaborating.
deleted by creator
Thats an interesting point. I‘ve read a lot of answers by now and I really enjoy how many different viewpoints and interpretations come together along with patterns of probably the core of the topic.
Person with big stick < A bunch of people with pockets full of rocks
Not when the big stick is made of enriched Uranium
That’s what it turns into. Anarchy is only a stable form of government on paper. Like a lot of things, it falls apart when executed in the real world. Mostly because there will always be people who are jerks.
The entire point of anarchy is that there is no government lol
No hierarchal form of government, but rather a coalition of every single person that lives in the society. Things are definitely still governed. It isn’t chaos.
Anarchy is to government what 0 is to math.
0 is really important to math.
Anarchy is important when talking about government, as can be seen in a number of comments in this post.
If your math is full of zeros you have a good time if your government is full of anarchy you will have your bronze statue take down via rope.
The jerks won’t be invited to the anarchistic society because they won’t be interested in maintaining the social contract. Enjoy exile, jerks!
That. And usually the stick is a very metaphoric one. As long as mechanisms of power exist, someone will have some kind of upper hand in any and all situations with other people.
For instance, if you’re rich, you can throw more money at a situation and buy good results. If you have a big army, you can threaten someone into doing something for you and they know you have the manpower to back the threat up with actual force. And if you have a lot of connections, you can get stuff done via good will.
Ultimately, you need a government that, as a unit, has the authority to say “WE are the top dogs and there is nothing you can do about it.” Ideally that system is malleable enough by its subjects to always act for the betterment of its subjects, and to hold its members to account.
In the absence of a formal government, that position is filled up by someone else. Either whomever shouts the loudest, has the most friend in the best places, has the biggest pile of money, has the biggest group of bullies, or some combination of those. In fact, that is how most kings’ dynasties in history probably got established.Just like nature abhors a vacuum, society abhors a power vacuum, and the moment you get rid of a king and do nothing to follow up on his removal, someone else is gonna take the throne and the crown and make himself king.
And before you start the republic spiel or the representative democracy spiel, a republic and a house of representatives are basically a royal court with more checks and balances, where the people on the outside as a whole get a say in who’s in that court. It’s basically regularly emptying and refilling thrones and having rules on how to do so.
I agree. Additional question: do we need these „jerks“?
Organized labor is the biggest stick. If workers organize themselves based on an anarchist basis, they can potentially wield this stick very gracefully to ward off or even preclude the entities that would dominate and exploit them.
The end goal is basically the same as Marxism: a stateless, classless society. It’s a fair question as to whether the anarchist route that forgoes an interim worker state is viable.
What if the workers disagree with each other? I’ve had the same question as OP for a long time with no answer.
So most of the time I talk to self proclaimed anarchist they’re actually Anarcommunists which can be broadly described as “From each their ability, to each their need.” If a conflict such as workers disagreeing arises, as it’s been described to me, a representative community council would arbitrate the disagreement and everyone would see to it’s enforcement. Personally I find it rather naive because it excludes resolving disputes between communities and focuses on incorporating communities together to settle disputes. Which is fine so long as the communities are willing to incorporate each other’s welfare into their considerations.
At that point, it isn’t anarchy as a “representative community council” with the power of enforcement is just another name for “state power”.
Of course I don’t think anarchy can truly exist in anything but hunter-gatherer societies either so it is a moot point.
Disagreements are bound to happen. Ideally, this hypothetical anarchist society would need to have a system in which to air grievances ethically and then a public forum to determine the viability of integrating the new idea or revising an old idea that folks find objectionable. Rooting out bad actors would be the challenge, not the good faith compromises required to get everyone on the same page.
If you think that all sounds like a lot of work for every single disagreement, I would counter that point by saying this hypothetical anarchist society isn’t interested in creating wealth out of thin air, nuclear proliferation or the military industrial complex, or real estate scams.
Thanks for the response. A more focused question might be: how can an anarchist society reasonably resist authoritarianism? And doesn’t the whole scheme rely on greed not being a fundamental component of humanity?
I’m not the smartest guy or the most well read or what have you, but the idea is basically that whenever someone becomes overtly greedy or authoritarian, the mutual benefits of co-operation kind of ensure that this is a non-issue. Everyone that’s co-operating would simply choose not to co-operate with that person, or that organization, and then they end up not getting very far. Maybe if it turns violent, then the same thing happens, just in that everyone kind of mutually crushes the organization, or dissolves it, or what have you.
You know I think the point most people fire back with is that authoritarianism tends to be thought of as like, more effective, right, because they can “make the trains run on time”, or some such nonsense, but I think they’re just conflating this with the idea that authoritarianism is more effective in a crisis, which is partially why authoritarianism is constantly inventing crises to combat. The idea, basically, is that if you have a singular leader, you can pivot and accommodate things more easily, make judgement calls easier, and you gain a capacity for rapid response. This is, you know, questionable, things end up being more complicated in practice, and leaving everything to a singular point of failure is a pretty easy way to make a brittle system. At the same time, even were it completely true, it’s still only true for the short term, that it’s more effective for short term gains. Long term gains, mutual co-operation, is much more effective.
Basically, the refutation is that greed isn’t really a fundamental component of humanity insomuch as it is a choice, and anarchism tends to think that greed is a pretty bad one. Not only for everyone but the greedy, but just generally, for mutual, long term gains. If you change the environment significantly enough that you can ensure this is more overwhelmingly the case at the macro scale, then you’ve kind of “won” anarchism, in a sense, you’ve won the game.
As members of the same class, workers interests should be more or less aligned and disagreements should be mostly minor. Differences can be settled by compromise or people can withdraw from the organization if not.
Huh? Organized labor can only exist when laws protect them. Otherwise companies will always find scabs, and eventually, willing long term workers.
If organized labor is the law, then they are government all over again.
Not saying positing labor as a governmental body is a bad idea.
For most of the history of capitalism, and in many cases still to this day, organized labor and various labor actions have been illegal, but it still happens.
True, but what organized labor does exist is supported by, and validated by government.
No. Organized labor exists in spite of the government. For example, in the US, sympathy strikes are illegal. Many jurisdictions have so called right-to-work laws which weaken unions. A union is its members, not the laws to which it’s subjugated.
Lol sure. Any examples of organized labor existing in the absence of government, where that group themselves does not become the enforcing, power projecting government?
What you’re describing are the symptoms of imperfect government.
The absence of government is a power vacuum that will be filled. Things like labor organization require structure, and if they have to do not have it, if they persist, they become government. (Enforcement, power projection, etc.)
What are laws other than agreed upon tenets to live one’s life by? We write them down and have a big grandiose way of announcing new legislation currently, all anarchists would do is make sure that those are baked into the social contract. Anarchists and Marxists would be the first group of people to enshrine worker protections into their society.
My point is that a governmental body, an enforcer of the social contract (whatever social contract the group wants) is required. I.e. someone with a stick.
Anarchy, in it’s purest sense, is to a system what darkness is to light. Darkness is the absence of light, not a thing in-and-of itself. Anarchy is the lack of an establishment or system, rather than a system in itself.
What this means, in practical application, is that most anarchists are simply opposed to whatever system exists currently. Human nature dictates that SOME system will exist as long as we do, so true anarchy can only exist when there are no longer humans around to perceive it.
In historical context, this almost always means that when anarchy “takes over,” what it creates is a “systemic void” which - like any vacuum - quickly gets filled. Usually by the guy with the biggest stick.
I think this is a common misconception about anarchies - that there’s no social control of any kind. If you look at actual real world anarchies like Freetown Christiania in Copenhagen they don’t believe in a complete absence of organisation. Far from it - they develop community-based committees which have no actual power in themselves but are used to develop concensus on issues that affect the whole community. So rather than abolishing all rules they’re all about human collaboration and concensus.
For instance when hard drugs became a problem in Christiana the residents got together and banned hard drugs. It’s not a law as such but everyone’s in agreement that if you try to sell hard drugs you’ll be ejected.
It’s not a perfect place and it’s hard to say that their brand of anarchy works well as a system of government. It seems to have been a mixed experience for many people who’ve lived there. But it’s definitely been an interesting social experiment.
There are plenty of documentaries on youtube if you’re interested.
they develop community-based committees which have no actual power in themselves but are used to develop concensus on issues that affect the whole community. So rather than abolishing all rules they’re all about human collaboration and concensus.
So it’s a democracy.
It doesn’t sound like there are any elections, or representatives, or bills or candidates to vote on. Just conducting an ad-hoc “all in favor say aye” type of vote doesn’t mean it’s a democracy. Just because many people come to a consensus doesn’t mean it’s a democracy.
Elections and representatives are “representative democracy”, not a true democracy. Voting on issues is democracy. Democracy literally means “the people have the power”
Hmm… so an approach that would have gotten Rodeo’s point across better might have been to say,
“so anarchy is just another name for the purest form of democracy.”
Because democracy is such a broad word that it is occasionally applied to the United States, despite the CIA’s history of coups and the FBI’s history of extrajudicial assassinations of citizens.
I’m talking about the level of organization. There’s a difference between saying “the best way to resolve this conversation is to ask everyone present for a vote” and “there’s going to be another cyclical election soon, these will be the matters we’re going to vote on.” Counting ayes and nays doesn’t make things a capital-D Democracy, it’s the institutionalization of these practices.
Democracies usually have laws and some kind of government. There are no laws in Freetown Christiania and there’s no individual who has direct power over another.
Nah that’s the stereotypical view, where anarchy = chaos. For some reason it also needs to find a dumpster and put fire on it, and ffs I never understood that reference.
Anarchists don’t agree with any of those analogies
My impression from talking to and reading stuff by anarchists is that the idea is for culture to serve in the place of sticks and rules. As for the mechanics of how this works, what such a culture would need to achieve to succeed and how it could do so, frankly most of them seem to take it on faith that this will be the easy part and naturally fall into place as soon as their oppressors are no longer mucking things up.
Which is a shame because I think it could be totally plausible and worth seeking, if you worked through the game theory and sustainability-over-time issues, despite being a monumental challenge and being about something as crudely understood as collective psychology. Human society is a system, and systems can be designed lots of different ways. It could be possible to have a culture that is powerful or clever enough to allow for a large population to function without a controlling state beating people into line.
Not directly related to this comment but I also want to mention and recommend the book The Disposessed by Ursula K. Le Guin, really thoughtful novel about anarchism.
Thank you for contributing! I will check out the book.
I’m not an expert, nor do I claim to be even moderately smart about things, but I would think anarchy devolves to other labels once there’s a bigger stick being used.
Edit: it might be a dictatorship, or a monarchy if the stick is jewel encrusted
This is correct. If society becomes a place where a few people are running everything by force it is not anarchy, even if technically there are no written down laws. A lot of anarchist philosophy is about how to achieve and maintain anarchy without it devolving back into hierarchical power structures. There are a lot of different ideas that have spawned their own subgenre of anarchy. I personally think some checks and balances combination of unions and community councils is the most likely to succeed. This is anarcho-syndicalism.
Yes, anarchy is an interrim state in which no power mechanic has yet taken hold. But naturally it will, in one way or another.
That is a misconception. Anarchism is a equal distribution of power among all participants. This will not change “naturally”. It can be changed by either efforts from within to establish a single individual or group as a ruler over the rest, or by outside forces. Neither I would classify as happening just naturally.
It’s more the idea that it can be changed that I think the previous commenter was referring to. Since anarchy is not a codified structure, it is susceptible to a plurality forming around influential figures who become de facto leaders, and suddenly the system of anarchy falls apart.
If the plurality remains influential, you’ve got a dictatorship/monarchy. The majority could work together to block the dictatorship from forming, but that would require organization and compromise to bring people with disparate priorities together, effectively creating an early stage democracy.
In such a scenario, should either side prevail, they will also want some structure that either preserves their power (in the case of dictatorship) or places checks on power (in the case of democracy) and suddenly you have a government again.
There is a lot of confusion around anarchism, because it is a negative description: It’s a collective without leader, without governing institutions. It doesn’t say much about how this collective organizes instead. So you could call the chaotic state after a government coup Anarchy. But that isn’t what anarchists are talking about and I don’t think that is what OP meant either.
Anarchy as a deliberate system is when a group of people decides to work or live together without selecting a leader or any other form of government, instead resolving decisions that affect everyone together. In that sense it is not an interim state, a leadership-vacuum just waiting to be filled. Although of course Anarchy can transition into another system by various means, but so can every other system as well.
Right, it’s just that there is no component inherent to anarchy which prevents a leader from rising anyways. Someone who is charismatic and skilled at what they do will naturally attract followers, and suddenly factionalism takes hold.
Anarchy can be deliberate, but if it is being proposed as a long-term format for society, it would need some form of protection in place to prevent the entire thing from falling apart the moment a faction of enough mass decides they know what is best for everyone. That’s usually the role a government fulfils, but anarchy doesn’t have that.
It is natural. Any particular individual’s actions are not natural - but the fact that, amongst a large, diverse group of people, there will be someone who would try to establish themselves or their group as rulers - is just a statistical property. So any anarchic system needs a mechanism to counter that.
Not necessarily. Anarchy doesn’t imply chaos or complete absence of societal structures.
It mostly means no central ruling group/class or individual holds the monopoly on violence and government.i’m also not super educated on this but this much i know
Because that’s called despotism, which anarchists historically oppose.
Thanks. I have been reading and listening to a lot of stuff from other comments by now. Really cool discussion imo.
Because the moment anarchy starts making rules, it’s no longer anarchy.
Anarchy is not the absence of rules but the absence of authority.
And without authority to back up the rules- the rules are easily dismissed without consequence. And easily dismissed rules with no consequence is anarchy.
Therefore- rules negate anarchy.
Anarchists tend to think that fear of the state is not the main reason why we don’t murder each other. In other words, following rules that are understood does not require the stick. Anarchists also tend to think that authority mostly enforce rules to maintain itself, and that the common good actually relies on something else.
How does an anarchy society enforce the rules? Say, murders.
Let’s say you risk nothing if you murder. Would you start right away going on a killing spree ? Chances you think “I won’t but others will” and others actually think the same. An anarchist would probably analyse this by saying that destroying trust between indivuals living together is a basic tool power use to justify its domination. A pedantic anarchist would get his Latin out at this point. Divide et impera.
You misunderstood my question. I did not mean to ask why there would be no murderers. My question is this:
- If anarchism is not against rules but rather authority, how would you deal with murderers? If there is no authority to sentence them, would they remain free individuals?
Anarchists usually think that a lot of murderers actually get away with it in our actual world, be it through war crimes, neglecting sanitary or safety rules to maximise profit; you can extend this list with a lot of legal murders.
Anarchism definitely does not define a specific rule for what to do with murderers. Different communities might want to handle that differently. They usually think that prison does not solve anything though, and that only the poor get sent there anyway.
I think a mistake is to think that anarchism is a “feature-complete” view of the world, when it really is the realisation that power corrupts, and that we should keep this in mind when organising ourselves. Arguably, over the long run, anarchist views are winning: institutions that prevent - in theory - crazy psychopath from taking absolute power, churches losing power over our lives, women considered as human beings; these are things anarchists have pushed for, for 2 centuries. This short essay might give you more insight: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-are-you-an-anarchist-the-answer-may-surprise-you
By that logic, there either never has been a murder in human history or governments cause people to murder.
Anarchy isn’t some deep philosophy, it’s just a lack of any sort of life experience.
By your logic, murders don’t happen anymore in liberal democracies?
It isn’t some deep philosophy indeed. It’s very practical and not a church in any way. Anarchists usually don’t care about people calling themselves anarchists, but consider that some stuff like counter measures to absolute power that our institutions have, gender equality and some other stuff are things they’ve been pushing for a while.
At its very core, anarchism is the refusal of any fundamental dogma, and in some ways very related to the scientific method and rationalism. This is probably a more personal take than what I’ve written so far ;-)
Chill out man, we aren’t coming to behead you or anything. <3
All murders happen because of emotional (killing someone in anger), economical (Theft gone wrong) or psychological (Doesn’t realize it’s wrong) reasons. none of these is prevented by sticking the murderer in a box after the murder.
All of these are prevented by building strong social network to manage any harmful impulses before something happens, which is something any reasonable anarchist would agree with.
Also If you think the list is incomplete then feel free to give another example.
Oh yeah also political assassinations and wars. But your comment already addresses those.
I think a better wording is that anarchy is naive. And I’d rather be naive than accept that this is the best we can come up with, because that’s depressing.
Rules don’t negate anarchy. I don’t follow rules for fear of punishment, but because they make sense. If they don’t make sense, I seek explanation. If there isn’t a good one, I ignore it.
Is this the Rules version for No Morality without God?
That sounds like anarchy is the societal equivalent of a radioactive element. It is what it is, until some random amount of time when some shit kicks off and it becomes something else.
Yes, and those who has grown a community or company will understand this. The emergence of power structures isn’t a matter of if, but when.
Which is a property of all things
deleted by creator
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=fibDNwF8bjs
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Abort! Abort! Didn’t mean to link to a reactionary reposter.
The current status quo is the guy with the bigger stick making the rules. You’re asking how that would be different under an anarchistic society? Anarchy works best with small to medium groups of like minded individuals. The idea is that nobody in your village has authority over anyone else, and that you’ve struck a social contract to help each other out with each other’s individual skills ie. the guy who’s really good at baking bakes bread for the village, the person who’s really good at building tables builds tables for the village etc. Of course, if a violent antisocial person wanted to, they could threaten that balance, hence why it’s a good idea for anarchistic societies to of course still protect themselves.
Sounds like a great place :)
Is this distinct from commune ism
