Pretty much every political system works great if everyone is capable of acting in a reasonable fashion.
Monarchy works great if the king is reasonable and surrounds himself with reasonable advisors that help make the kingdom a better place.
Republics work great when the senators are reasonable and act in the benefit of the citizens.
Pure democracy works great when the people are reasonable and work to make life better for everyone.
The problem is that everyone isn’t reasonable. “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals”. The egalitarian success of a political system is directly proportional to how well it manages the large number of unreasonable people within it. If your system is authoritarian, unreasonable people will gravitate to official positions of power. If your system is toothless, unreasonable people will develop their own positions of power through physical force or social influence. You can hypothesize emergent self-regulation all day, but if your system doesn’t account for exceptionally unreasonable people, it will become their plaything.
Humanity started as anarchic. Every system of oppression developed from that naturally anarchic system.
That is the fundamental precept of anarchism, that people will prioritize self-interest, and thus we need to make a society which accounts for that fact, rather than trusting rulers not to abuse power for their own gain.
I strongly recommend checking out an anarchist FAQ to learn more, because anarchism is the only ideology which can permenently liberate the working class.
Oh, I believe that individual humans are capable of treating other humans with compassion and otherwise being generally well-behaved. There are even people who would sooner die than defend themselves against violence.
But I don’t believe that human society at large is capable of existing without violence. I believe that all of our recorded history demonstrates this quite thoroughly.
Also, I will tell you that you don’t know what you yourself are capable of until you’ve gone more than three days without food with uncertainty about when or how you’re going to eat next (fasting by choice, which you know will end with the opportunity to eat again, doesn’t count).
But I don’t believe that human society at large is capable of existing without violence.
Agreed. Anarchists don’t claim to be able to eliminate violence. That would be almost impossible.
Also, I will tell you that you don’t know what you yourself are capable of until you’ve gone more than three days without food…
I also agree with you here. This is part of the reason anarchists believe there would be less violence under anarchy. Withholding food from another person would not be allowed, as that would be a form of hierarchical authority. Food is withheld from millions of people in our current system simply because they cannot afford it.
This is part of the reason anarchists believe there would be less violence under anarchy. Withholding food from another person would not be allowed,
Er, and who would enforce this?
Agreed. Anarchists don’t claim to be able to eliminate violence. That would be almost impossible.
Also, the measures necessary to enforce it at large scale would probably be unethical.
Food is withheld from millions of people in our current system simply because they cannot afford it.
Well OK, this is getting more into socialism or communism, but the next obvious question is where is this food coming from, if people are not required to pay for its production?
Even if you want some sort of idealized currency-free economy, it costs resources to grow food and to distribute it to the people who want to eat it (land, water, infrastructure, time, labor, etc). Does everyone contribute to food production with their own labor? Is this a purely agrarian society? Is food withheld from people who do not contribute labor?
Large-scale farming as it is done today depends highly on the socioeconomic structure around it. Sure, there’s a lot of waste, but the system also supports a large population who do not have to participate in agriculture in order to eat.
While I’m sure other systems are possible, I’m not sure that other systems can operate at a similar scale. Which is to say that the impression I get from everyone who argues for such things is that they carry some form of idealized “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need” agrarian society in their head, some romantic idea about small-scale farming and simple life. Mostly these are people who have never worked on a farm themselves. The whole idea sounds regressive to me, practically tradlife conservative.
Also, the measures necessary to enforce it at large scale would probably be unethical.
I believe what you are referring to there is a state. States enforce laws at a large scale. All anarchists oppose the existence of states.
Er, and who would enforce this?
It is everyone’s responsibility to oppose hierarchical authority wherever it appears. There are probably hundreds of ways to do this, and some methods will work better than others depending on the situation. The rapid response networks in Minneapolis are a great example of this.
I have grown up near and worked in orchards, potatoes, beef and dairy cows. Even with that experience, I do not tell experts how to do their work. Workers are better at managing resources than bosses who haven’t spent a day in the field.
Food is wasted due to being commercially unviable. There were potatoes that were too big left to rot in a field. The potatoes were bagged by the community separate from the commercial entity and handed out as gifts. I produce too much fruit to preserve and have to give it away. Gift economies predate capitalism.
I find the argument strange that under anarchy there would be no technology or infrastructure. The form may be different to decentralize power. Technology and infrastructure under capitalism is designed to benefit the capital class.
Workers are better at managing resources than bosses who haven’t spent a day in the field.
But a worker who works in e.g. growing potatoes is not better at managing distribution across multiple counties. Those are different task areas, and logistics networks are not flat organizations, they require management.
If you’ll re-read my previous post you’ll see that my point is mostly about infrastructure, not about the expertise in producing any particular food. It’s the infrastructure that allows production and distribution scale, to the point where agriculture represents ~1% of labor. A lot of people (99%) are able to spend their time doing other productive things besides growing food, and are still able to eat. That is a highly successful system.
Food is wasted due to being commercially unviable.
Food is also wasted due to logistics problems. It’s great that you can produce so much food that you can give some of it away, but can you give some of it away two states over? The people who would most benefit from the excess food you produce don’t live in your zip code.
I find the argument strange that under anarchy there would be no technology or infrastructure.
I said nothing about technology. I’m addressing that here and I’m going to ignore it as a straw man.
Infrastructure never works as a flat organizational structure. It requires management and oversight. It requires overall design, a broad range of skillsets, and long-term maintenance. At some point someone has to make decisions about which experts put their expertise where and when, and which spare parts are most critical for which areas, and you cannot wait for the entire community affected by those decisions to make a collective decision. The infrastructure will rot before useful choices are made. Someone (one) must make management decisions about where other people spend their time and effort on which resources.
There is no historical evidence to support this conclusion.
Yeah, it’s nice in theory, but a bit idealistic. The majority of people are always going to prioritise self interest over all else
Pretty much every political system works great if everyone is capable of acting in a reasonable fashion.
Monarchy works great if the king is reasonable and surrounds himself with reasonable advisors that help make the kingdom a better place.
Republics work great when the senators are reasonable and act in the benefit of the citizens.
Pure democracy works great when the people are reasonable and work to make life better for everyone.
The problem is that everyone isn’t reasonable. “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals”. The egalitarian success of a political system is directly proportional to how well it manages the large number of unreasonable people within it. If your system is authoritarian, unreasonable people will gravitate to official positions of power. If your system is toothless, unreasonable people will develop their own positions of power through physical force or social influence. You can hypothesize emergent self-regulation all day, but if your system doesn’t account for exceptionally unreasonable people, it will become their plaything.
Humanity started as anarchic. Every system of oppression developed from that naturally anarchic system.
That is the fundamental precept of anarchism, that people will prioritize self-interest, and thus we need to make a society which accounts for that fact, rather than trusting rulers not to abuse power for their own gain.
I strongly recommend checking out an anarchist FAQ to learn more, because anarchism is the only ideology which can permenently liberate the working class.
It is Disney-movie levels of romantic idealism.
Every human that grew up in this world and still has even an ounce of compassion and solidarity in them is the living evidence of that conclusion.
Also, do you think you yourself have to be forved to behauve reasonable?
Oh, I believe that individual humans are capable of treating other humans with compassion and otherwise being generally well-behaved. There are even people who would sooner die than defend themselves against violence.
But I don’t believe that human society at large is capable of existing without violence. I believe that all of our recorded history demonstrates this quite thoroughly.
Also, I will tell you that you don’t know what you yourself are capable of until you’ve gone more than three days without food with uncertainty about when or how you’re going to eat next (fasting by choice, which you know will end with the opportunity to eat again, doesn’t count).
Agreed. Anarchists don’t claim to be able to eliminate violence. That would be almost impossible.
I also agree with you here. This is part of the reason anarchists believe there would be less violence under anarchy. Withholding food from another person would not be allowed, as that would be a form of hierarchical authority. Food is withheld from millions of people in our current system simply because they cannot afford it.
Er, and who would enforce this?
Also, the measures necessary to enforce it at large scale would probably be unethical.
Well OK, this is getting more into socialism or communism, but the next obvious question is where is this food coming from, if people are not required to pay for its production?
Even if you want some sort of idealized currency-free economy, it costs resources to grow food and to distribute it to the people who want to eat it (land, water, infrastructure, time, labor, etc). Does everyone contribute to food production with their own labor? Is this a purely agrarian society? Is food withheld from people who do not contribute labor?
Large-scale farming as it is done today depends highly on the socioeconomic structure around it. Sure, there’s a lot of waste, but the system also supports a large population who do not have to participate in agriculture in order to eat.
While I’m sure other systems are possible, I’m not sure that other systems can operate at a similar scale. Which is to say that the impression I get from everyone who argues for such things is that they carry some form of idealized “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need” agrarian society in their head, some romantic idea about small-scale farming and simple life. Mostly these are people who have never worked on a farm themselves. The whole idea sounds regressive to me, practically tradlife conservative.
I believe what you are referring to there is a state. States enforce laws at a large scale. All anarchists oppose the existence of states.
It is everyone’s responsibility to oppose hierarchical authority wherever it appears. There are probably hundreds of ways to do this, and some methods will work better than others depending on the situation. The rapid response networks in Minneapolis are a great example of this.
I have grown up near and worked in orchards, potatoes, beef and dairy cows. Even with that experience, I do not tell experts how to do their work. Workers are better at managing resources than bosses who haven’t spent a day in the field.
Food is wasted due to being commercially unviable. There were potatoes that were too big left to rot in a field. The potatoes were bagged by the community separate from the commercial entity and handed out as gifts. I produce too much fruit to preserve and have to give it away. Gift economies predate capitalism.
I find the argument strange that under anarchy there would be no technology or infrastructure. The form may be different to decentralize power. Technology and infrastructure under capitalism is designed to benefit the capital class.
But a worker who works in e.g. growing potatoes is not better at managing distribution across multiple counties. Those are different task areas, and logistics networks are not flat organizations, they require management.
If you’ll re-read my previous post you’ll see that my point is mostly about infrastructure, not about the expertise in producing any particular food. It’s the infrastructure that allows production and distribution scale, to the point where agriculture represents ~1% of labor. A lot of people (99%) are able to spend their time doing other productive things besides growing food, and are still able to eat. That is a highly successful system.
Food is also wasted due to logistics problems. It’s great that you can produce so much food that you can give some of it away, but can you give some of it away two states over? The people who would most benefit from the excess food you produce don’t live in your zip code.