You must log in or register to comment.
But I like doctors telling me how not to die.
Okay, so choose to listen to them.
At the same time, be aware that you do not have to listen to them, especially when they bias, gaslight, or misdiagnose you because you’re a woman or PoC.
Health care professionals are amazing, but they are not a source of authority.
Dr. Oz says you should stick bleach in yout bum.
Dr. Phil agrees.
Unfortunately this philosophy all falls apart in the real world when people stop paying taxes, then government that can defend you from people using force against you no longer exists
Anarchism is not pacifism.
Never said anything about that
Do you not understand what you, yourself, wrote?
Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to.
I don’t believe this. I don’t believe the rapists and murderers will stop being rapists and murderers if we get rid of laws and law enforcement.
Yeah, I mean, yeah, but… the problem with anarchism isn’t that it’s stupid, it’s that people are stupid. Most anarchists are smart and see the world through their perspective, which is, people are empathetic, rational, and interested in nuance and complexity. Unfortunately, a large number of the populace is not that smart, nor that interested. Anarchist societies don’t exist or if they do, they don’t last, because the premise is wisdom, which so many people lack, that they would rather have a king, than deal with the complexities of being one’s own master.
People are not “stupid”, they are ignorant.
People have a learnt behaviour, they only know the system they live in. And that is one where civic duties are outsourced to nebulous entities while they wring their hands of responsibility.
Historically this has not always been the case and there are active societies today who are considered examples of anarchism.
The issue is not that people are unintelligent, it’s that their whole life has been telling them the only way to survive is what you currently know.
Ignorance can be overcome with education and practicing different ways of existence.
People are pretty fucking stupid. Have never been to walmart or wendy’s?
I dunno, I’ve met some pretty fucking stupid people. Idiocy and ignorance go hand in hand.
I’m firmly on team "humans en masse are too stupid and selfish for anarchism to work on any scale beyond the neighborhood.
Explain how you deal with or prevent rape and murder in an anarchist society.
We don’t prevent or deal with rape in our current society, you do realize? It’s one of the most ignored crimes.
I’ll link and quote the relevant part of an anarchist FAQ for you:
When people object to anarchy, they often ask about those who would steal, murder, rape and so forth and seem to assume that such people would be free to act as they like. This is, needless to say, an utter misunderstanding of both our ideas and freedom in general. Simply put, if people impose themselves by force on others then “they will be the government” and “we will oppose them with force” for “if today we want to make a revolution against the government, it is not in order to submit ourselves supinely to new oppressors.”
It should be remembered that just because the state monopolises or organises a (public) service, it does not mean that the abolition of the state means the abolition of what useful things it provided. For example, many states own and run the train network but the abolition of the state does not mean that there will no longer be any trains! In a free society management of the railways would be done by the rail workers themselves, in association with the community. The same applies to anti-social behaviour and so we find Kropotkin, for example, pointing to how “voluntary associations” would “substitute themselves for the State in all its functions,” including “mutual protection” and “defence of the territory.”
So, in simple terms, we would prevent murder and rape. We, the people. It’s definitely worth reading the FAQ more as it also covers why rapes and murders occur, and why anarchism would dramatically reduce the incedence rate of those crimes.
voluntary associations [to resolve anti-social behavior]
Sounds like mob justice to me, but maybe I’m a cynic.
And democracy was criticized as “mob rule” in the days of the divine right of kings. Most people today - though they acknowledge its flaws - agree that democracy is better than the alternatives.
“Mob justice” is better than the punitive false justice system we have now.
Could you explain how a formal police force with a monopoly on violence isn’t mob justice, but a voluntary association would be?
The police is constrained, at least in theory, by the threat of losing their livelihood, being sued, or going to jail. Powers that be tend to put their fingers on the scale except in the most egregious examples, but at least there’s some sort of counterweight, unlike with a lynch mob.
The police is constrained, at least in theory, by the threat of losing their livelihood, being sued, or going to jail.
Well, to begin with, as you well know, that doesn’t work in practice.
Who constrains the police? You mentioned they are under threat - where does that threat come from?
are you saying a formal police force isn’t voluntary?
Many people are excluded from serving in the police force, yes. Also, an anarchist voluntary association would have no powers beyond those of everyday citizens.
Do we really have a justice system now? (I’m in US, so forgive me if you are in a more civilized place)
Maybe a group of grandmas could be the “mob justice”. I’d trust them more than cops and judges.
Every post of yours in this community has been some edgy bad faith take. Why would I bother wasting time answering this question for you?
Google it yourself, it’s been asked a million times before and you personally are not worth my time any further now that I’ve seen what you are.
Vast majority of crimes can be prevented by just providing people with basic resources, education and emotional support.
Good argument I’ll gladly and openly discuss further. You state that the main reason is ignorance and people can be educated out of it. My counter claim is that much of that ignorance is either willful, or a product of the lack in intelligence of those people. If a person, having access to the education currently provided in modern states, is still ignorant, then that is a choice or a result of lack of intelligence. Every school child today is taught Socrates’ cave analogy, but most dismiss it as a story without realizing it applies to their world view. Who hears the story and starts questioning? Those who are naturally question-Askers, which is one characteristic of intelligence. As you say, and I agree, they follow the default, the reason being, the default is easy, and most people want easy. They want to outsource difficult tasks to institutions, that is easy for them. Of course it is also easier to survive by not questioning.
Modern schools are institutions of indoctrination. Along with what you think they are supposed to learn they also learn nationalistic, pro capitalist sentiments. And those indoctrinated as children are the hardest to sway as adults. The ignorance isn’t always technical often it’s the awareness that this isn’t the only way. Who teaches that? To me it’s an emergent property built on the experience of the failure of hierarchies of power. Original sin is a farce of control.
Which societies active today are considered examples of anarchism? As far as I’m aware there was only one in post-aasad Syria and they got decimated by other regional factions.
Anarchism poses the ultimate threat to the ruling class, and so they are obviously incentivized to destroy it. That doesn’t mean it isn’t worth trying!
The Zapatistas are a modern anarchist society existing today, but you are right that many historical examples such as the Spanish Commune have been ruthlessly repressed, by fascists and communists alike.
Some people chose ignorance because of laziness.
But the real problem IMO are the entitled soulless egomaniacs without empathy that trashes any society because they are so fundamentally broken and hateful. Remove them and we can all live harmouniously together, or so I think.
The real problem is capitalism and how it promotes those traits.
So steps 1 kill all the people?
Step one is Agitate, Educate, Organise. The goal is to make people politically aware, educated on solutions, and organised to see them implemented.
Lots of anarchist societies don’t last not because of lack of wisdom, but because of deliberate backstabbing by authorities that initially seem to support them. For example, Ukrainian anarchists during 1910s had a pretty successful time until Bolsheviks decided they weren’t needed any more.
Anarchists are simply people who believe [that] human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to.
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.
Yeah, it’s nice in theory, but a bit idealistic.
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).
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.
The Right keeps winning because the Right focuses on what actually gives them power.
A televangelist named Jerry Falwell created the ‘Moral Majority’ back in the 1970s. They had a simple plan. If the local GOP club had had twenty people at their last meeting, the MMs would show up with fifty. They started small, getting county clerks, sheriffs, and dog catchers elected. Soon, they were getting Congress members elected.
Mamdani and AOC figured out how to work inside the DNC power structure.
imho, stop debating which Utopia is best and work on actual progress in the real world. And by ‘actual progress’ I mean winning elections.
Fuck no. Elections will never bring the change needed because the system cannot be dismantled from inside it. Stop wasting your time on them and focus on what will actually destroy capitalism - revolution.
I’ll bet conservatives love it when you say this. “Throw away one of our tools, it’s dirty”
Why not vote before the revolution to make changes while you can and work towards the revolution as well?
They do.
Revolution has historically happened between factions of people already in power, and has not always lead to long-lasting positive change.
The Right keeps winning because the Right focuses on what actually gives them power.
Where does it say you can’t work on voting and revolution at the same time?
The right wins because the system is right. They literally cannot lose no matter who wins an election, capitalism will still be there.
You can vote because it takes a few minutes to do, effort however should not be wasted on campaigning or platforming and instead applied to revolutionary goals.
Unfortunately, I don’t believe many humans can act in a reasonable fashion without being forced to.
It’s nice to dream, but that’s an impossible utopia.
Dumb people exist and dumb people will do dumb things.
Wouldn’t it be better to live in a world where dumb people don’t get to have disproportionate amount of influence over other people’s lives?
Yes, it would be. Unfortunately, the smartest dumb people will still end up with the influence because of all the dumbest dumb people.
I’d prefer a world without idiots, anyway.
Man, I wish I believed in people like that.
Love this. Anarchism is the only truly optimistic and empathetic political philosophy.
