plenty of bad actors doing evil suff today for a big variety of reasons. i think its safe to assume they will be there, even if they are not so numerous?
Without private property, there isn’t much ingentive to be malicious in the first place.
And as I’ve said: a community can defend itself without the need of command and control hierarchy.
Example solutions for the examples given above:
Since these assholes live in a community, diplomacy to sanction those people until they cut that shit out. But he concept of payment isn’t really a thing in a “fully anarchist” society, since those would for example run on gift economies, rendering the concept of payment a bit useless.
Crafting weapons example: Same thing. But if diplomacy doesn’t work, the weapons would have to be taken by force (i.e. by a voluntary, democratically controlled militia).
The food stuff: I’m again asking “why?”. But in general: let’s say that people can’t stop the “evil” people from being a dick by sanctions or force: People just move away. That’s how humanity did it back in hunter-gatherer times. I think it was this video which explained it quite well (but I might confuse it with another one)
how is such a thing like the aforementioned militias be organized?
assuming my country turns anarchist, how will we defend against imperialist nations? we cant just move a country over because someone else wanted what was in there.
What about things like rape or sexist crimes in general? What about crimes motivated by racism, ableism or a clashing of ideologies?
The only thing anarchists have to say about these things are a vague “the communities will handle it themselves” which sounds an awful lot like police again to me.
Just this time the police doesn’t have to follow laws at all and it’s basically my neighbours who will make up their own rules. This is a thought that runs shivers down my spine and not because of happiness.
No, it’s actually one of the most problematic points in anarchist theory. How to handle people who are cruel or who do not respect social contracts. The fact that many anarchists want to abolish police but than want to build a structure similar to police or do not discuss the topic at all is showing they don’t have a solution.
Stirner for example basically ignores the topic.
Kropotkin only addresses crimes which have the state as basis (property and political crime).
Please share which Anarchist theoretist formulated a concrete plan on how to deal with non-political crime in practice.
That’s because you can’t over-generalize these things without gausing great injustice in the process.
The communities on a ground level know best how to handle crimes in the community. If you want laws encompassing everyone in every facet of life: go read a bible or something.
You are advocating for exactly that to happen. Many bible communities would rejoice in anarchy bevause then they can enforce all their fucked up rules again and kids who are born into these communities… Well, tough luck I guess. Your community on the ground level decided it’s okay to burn people as witches who have red hair.
In the real world practice of small-scale egalitarian societies, these people either get killed, or the group packs up and goes somewhere else. That’s how humanity lived for the hundreds of thousands of years before we invented agriculture.
How we translate that into a contemporary agricultural context where private property and control of resources is a real force is beyond me, but I do think that we have to try.
You certainly seemed to think so when you brought up mad max in the first fuckin place. It’s your argument dumb dumb, if it’s idiotic it’s because you’re an idiot.
I gwess you missed the part of Fury Road where a political elite class had complete control over the means of existence for everyone else and literally owned breeding slaves.
Ahh, so now it’s mad max: fury road, even your cinematic choice is changing at this point. Yes the masked tubby fuck was an oligarch or arguably a fascist, however the female led group they’re looking for the entire movie (you know the main plot) was a commune.
I do enjoy the shit talking from someone who’s objectively wrong, wildly overconfident and hedging while trying to play flippant, it’s adorable angsty teen shit.
Doesn’t say all change what I’ve said, and yes I know there are “three” people in talking to that all have roughly the same pattern of response so far down in a comment section that no one is adding third party votes for. I’m gunna bet all three are one in the same.
To be fair, all entertainment media carries a political subtext, and Mad Max Fury Road had an interesting one - which is why it’s one of the few AAA movies made in the last decade that’s actually worth watching all the way to the end - but that’s not the kind of thing you can discuss with the “if-you-want-anarchy-go-to-Sudan” crowd.
That is simply not true. Anarchism opposes institutionalized hierarchies of command and control. There are anti-organisational cnrrents in anarchy but the vast majority of anarchists don’t oppose organization. Also, thereshave been too many anarchist organisations in history to count.
Many pre-colonial native American tribes, e.g. The Wendat
Pretty much any immediate-return hunter gatherer people, e.g. the Hadza or the pygmy
Most of humanity cooperating is non-hierarchical. Any DnD group is non-hierarchical. There is a DM, but they can’t stop me from saying “fuck you, that doesn’t happen! My character kills Gandalf with their hypnotic tits!”
Directed by Symon Petliura also lasted less than a year.
Famously named after Emiliano Zapata and lead by same who also specifically and repeatedly have stated they are not anarchist.
Native tribes are almost all communes lead by tribal counsel, I’m native so…
As for the hadza, maybe just maybe though I don’t actually believe it myself I would have to see it in action but I can pretty much guarantee “conflict is rare” doesn’t mean absent. “pygmy” aren’t a thing, that’s Dutch colonial nonsense which actually refers to any number of people distributed throughout the world.
Not at all, your example is junk. Who do you default to in dnd when there is a dispute? The dm because the dm is the authority and thus on top with players below, amusingly the dm guides are a higher authority.
All of which developed heirarchy because all of society has heirarchy as heirarchy is a natural offshoot of society.
Why do you think I always specify “command and control”, when talking about hierarchies? What do you consider a hierarchy? Anarchists specifically focus on hierarchies of decision making power.
Controlled by a generaltariat
A delegate body that coordinates processes and that can be revoked if the community chooses to do so is something else than a boss who can fire you. Also: you probably skipped the part about "workers’ self-management.
and lasted less than a year.
Why is that relevant? Do you know why it lasted for such a short period? Is “being able to win against fashists on several fronts” now something we want to require every social system to have, because I have some bad news about parlamentary democracy concerning Weimar Germany.
Directed by Symon Petliura also lasted less than a year.
Lol, Petliura was a nationalist and opposed to the anarchist movement. (granted: I might have gotten the year wrong)
who also specifically and repeatedly have stated they are not anarchist.
They refuse to follow the european tradition, since “anarchism” is a mostly western political movement. The way they act in practice is however de facto anarchist as in bottom-up basic democratic.
Native tribes are almost all communes lead by tribal counsel
Again: I don’t think we use the same definitions of hierarchy.
As for the hadza, maybe just maybe though I don’t actually believe it myself I would have to see it in action but I can pretty much guarantee “conflict is rare” doesn’t mean absent
Never claimed anything about conflicts being absent. I was making a claim of an egalitarian society.
“pygmy” aren’t a thing, that’s Dutch colonial nonsense which actually refers to any number of people distributed throughout the world.
Ok, didn’t know that. Anthropology is not my main field, so please excuse me. However, virtually all immediate return hunter-gatherer societies are egalitarian.
Who do you default to in dnd when there is a dispute? The dm because the dm is the authority and thus on top with players below
What happens when a dm is such a dick that people don’t want to play with them anymore?
Because to explain anarchism you have to continually hedge because the system does not work.
That’s heirarchy. “a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority.” I didn’t miss it, it doesn’t matter a union is either self management and yet still utilize a heirarchical structure.
It’s relevant because a system that routinely fails in less than a year can’t exactly be called a legitimate method of governance. Yes every new government is resisted to some extent, the success of a government against those odds is what determines how effective it actually is.
I imagine you did.
Nope. They say they aren’t what you claim them to be, take their word.
: the classification of a group of people according to ability or to economic, social, or professional standing : a graded or ranked series
By either definition there is heirarchy in all but one of your examples and it is in effect a pre industrial society.
Conflict is unlikely to happen without a heirarchical structure.
Arguably yes, in practice rarely if ever.
Then the group leaves, because if the person at the top across in bad faith they people below have the choice of violent revolution or to simply leave same as any other government.
Small-scale hunting and gathering societies do have a hierarchy, but the difference is that it’s not imposed and because they are egalitarian, anyone can opt out of the hierarchy by simply leaving. Because private property doesn’t really exist in nomadic hunting and gathering societies --you only really own what you can carry-- influence over the group is determined by merit rather than by control of private property and resources.
This is the system that humanity evolved to live in over hundreds of thousands of years, and that’s why we like it so much and why you never see people deliberately leaving small egalitarian societies for larger hierarchical societies, though we do have hundreds of historical examples of people doing the opposite.
That said, agriculture is a trap in the sense that once we adopted it, we could and can never go back for a set of reasons that should be obvious. The task then is to most nearly recreate the system we lived in for 99.9 percent of our existence as a species, while still accounting for the fact that we live under a new set of parameters and can never go back to those that existed before.
As I understand it, this is the puzzle that some forms of anarchy set out to solve.
Imposed or accepted it doesn’t really matter, similarly the person I responded to specifically referred to anarchism as nonheirarchical. What you described is communism or socialism, not anarchism.
If we “never see people deliberately leaving small egalitarian societies for larger hierarchical societies,” heirarchical structure l society wouldn’t exist. Similarly the hadza (an at least claimed non heirarchical/egalitarian society) constantly lose population to “modern” society.
That said, agriculture is a trap in the sense that once we adopted it, we could and can never go back for a set of reasons that should be obvious. The task then is to most nearly recreate the system we lived in for 99.9 percent of our existence as a species, while still accounting for the fact that we live under a new set of parameters and can never go back to those that existed before.
That’s communism or socialism, not anarchy.
As I understand it, this is the puzzle that some forms of anarchy set out to solve.
It’s not a puzzle though, a puzzle eventually fits together but anarchy simply doesn’t.
No anarchy doesn’t necessarily mean no contracts it’s about having faith in a society upholding contracts without a need to rely on a government. Think of crypto itself. Now imagine enabling humanity to enforce this degree of accountability in the real world.
They don’t really expect society. Society relies on rules and common understanding, actual anarchy would lack society.
Anarchy is order. Rules and comon understandings are kinda central to anarchist theory. Anarchy is a common understanding.
It’s also impossible. All you need to overthrow the whole system is a small group of dissidents.
How would they do that?
For example by positioning themselves along a river and demanding payment from anyone who draws water.
Or by crafting weapons and demand payment from anyone who doesn’t pay.
Or seek control through other threats, like poisoning food.
Really, the possibilities are endless…
An anarchist society doesn’t mean that the people of that society can’t defend themselves in nonviolent and violent ways.
Furthermore: why would those “dissidents” even start such behavior?
Edit (addendum): Seriously: Do you really think that over 150 years of anarchist theory didn’t think of those scenarios and how to prevent them?
plenty of bad actors doing evil suff today for a big variety of reasons. i think its safe to assume they will be there, even if they are not so numerous?
whats the theory on how to deal with this stuff?
Without private property, there isn’t much ingentive to be malicious in the first place.
And as I’ve said: a community can defend itself without the need of command and control hierarchy.
Example solutions for the examples given above:
Since these assholes live in a community, diplomacy to sanction those people until they cut that shit out. But he concept of payment isn’t really a thing in a “fully anarchist” society, since those would for example run on gift economies, rendering the concept of payment a bit useless.
Crafting weapons example: Same thing. But if diplomacy doesn’t work, the weapons would have to be taken by force (i.e. by a voluntary, democratically controlled militia).
The food stuff: I’m again asking “why?”. But in general: let’s say that people can’t stop the “evil” people from being a dick by sanctions or force: People just move away. That’s how humanity did it back in hunter-gatherer times. I think it was this video which explained it quite well (but I might confuse it with another one)
how is such a thing like the aforementioned militias be organized?
assuming my country turns anarchist, how will we defend against imperialist nations? we cant just move a country over because someone else wanted what was in there.
What about things like rape or sexist crimes in general? What about crimes motivated by racism, ableism or a clashing of ideologies?
The only thing anarchists have to say about these things are a vague “the communities will handle it themselves” which sounds an awful lot like police again to me.
Just this time the police doesn’t have to follow laws at all and it’s basically my neighbours who will make up their own rules. This is a thought that runs shivers down my spine and not because of happiness.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
I think it was this video which explained it quite well
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Anarchist theory almost exclusively talks about political motivated crime they propose will stop when the state and all it’s structures are abolished.
Non-political crime they mostly only brush over and suggest the communities will handle it themselves.
So no, they don’t have a concept of how people are supposed to protect themselve from crimes that aren’t politically motivated.
You haven’t actually read any anarchist theory, have you? This is a fucking joke.
No, it’s actually one of the most problematic points in anarchist theory. How to handle people who are cruel or who do not respect social contracts. The fact that many anarchists want to abolish police but than want to build a structure similar to police or do not discuss the topic at all is showing they don’t have a solution.
Stirner for example basically ignores the topic. Kropotkin only addresses crimes which have the state as basis (property and political crime).
Please share which Anarchist theoretist formulated a concrete plan on how to deal with non-political crime in practice.
That’s because you can’t over-generalize these things without gausing great injustice in the process.
The communities on a ground level know best how to handle crimes in the community. If you want laws encompassing everyone in every facet of life: go read a bible or something.
You are advocating for exactly that to happen. Many bible communities would rejoice in anarchy bevause then they can enforce all their fucked up rules again and kids who are born into these communities… Well, tough luck I guess. Your community on the ground level decided it’s okay to burn people as witches who have red hair.
In the real world practice of small-scale egalitarian societies, these people either get killed, or the group packs up and goes somewhere else. That’s how humanity lived for the hundreds of thousands of years before we invented agriculture.
How we translate that into a contemporary agricultural context where private property and control of resources is a real force is beyond me, but I do think that we have to try.
These two statements seem at odds.
Agreed.
You need to stop basing your political know-how on Mad Max movies.
That’s not an argument that’s a poorly disguised insult to wit, get fucked bud make an argument or stay quiet.
Also mad max had communism and thus society, shitty society but still.
No, Clyde… I made no attempt to disguise the insult.
You need another insult?
You didn’t say it straight out, you disguised it like a southern woman saying bless your heart. Similarly. … Bless your heart.
You haven’t actually made an argument, your simply being a loudouth douche, lots of bluster but zero substance.
You think this…
…justifies some kind of argument?
You certainly seemed to think so when you brought up mad max in the first fuckin place. It’s your argument dumb dumb, if it’s idiotic it’s because you’re an idiot.
I guess that just went over your head entirely?
You know what? That’s fine. I’m not going to be spending too much energy on this.
Not at all, your metaphor is idiot and inept but you do you boss.
You started it with your shitty attitude and finished it with a shitty attitude and no point, good job. Way to use your tune effectively.
“Mad Max had communism”
From the same people who brought you “everything I don’t like is communism”
You’re moron. There were a series of communes, it’s like 85% of the fucking movie ya dummy.
Ed: similarly I’m a socialist so your point makes even less sense cast in that light.
I gwess you missed the part of Fury Road where a political elite class had complete control over the means of existence for everyone else and literally owned breeding slaves.
Great communism, bro! /s
Ahh, so now it’s mad max: fury road, even your cinematic choice is changing at this point. Yes the masked tubby fuck was an oligarch or arguably a fascist, however the female led group they’re looking for the entire movie (you know the main plot) was a commune.
I do enjoy the shit talking from someone who’s objectively wrong, wildly overconfident and hedging while trying to play flippant, it’s adorable angsty teen shit.
You do realize that I’m someone else, right?
Doesn’t say all change what I’ve said, and yes I know there are “three” people in talking to that all have roughly the same pattern of response so far down in a comment section that no one is adding third party votes for. I’m gunna bet all three are one in the same.
Agreed
To be fair, all entertainment media carries a political subtext, and Mad Max Fury Road had an interesting one - which is why it’s one of the few AAA movies made in the last decade that’s actually worth watching all the way to the end - but that’s not the kind of thing you can discuss with the “if-you-want-anarchy-go-to-Sudan” crowd.
Why would you need hierarchical command and controleformalized power structures (the thing anarchist oppose) for society?
Rules and common understanding naturally emerge when humans live together. You don’t need a king/chief/boss/god for that.
You aren’t anarchistic if you’re organized, that’s kind of the point.
That is simply not true. Anarchism opposes institutionalized hierarchies of command and control. There are anti-organisational cnrrents in anarchy but the vast majority of anarchists don’t oppose organization. Also, thereshave been too many anarchist organisations in history to count.
Name a single non hierarchical society, I’ll wait and you’ll make my point for me.
Most of humanity cooperating is non-hierarchical. Any DnD group is non-hierarchical. There is a DM, but they can’t stop me from saying “fuck you, that doesn’t happen! My character kills Gandalf with their hypnotic tits!”
I don’t get your point.
All of which developed heirarchy because all of society has heirarchy as heirarchy is a natural offshoot of society.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia
Controlled by a generaltariat and lasted less than a year.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symon_Petliura
Directed by Symon Petliura also lasted less than a year.
Famously named after Emiliano Zapata and lead by same who also specifically and repeatedly have stated they are not anarchist.
Native tribes are almost all communes lead by tribal counsel, I’m native so…
As for the hadza, maybe just maybe though I don’t actually believe it myself I would have to see it in action but I can pretty much guarantee “conflict is rare” doesn’t mean absent. “pygmy” aren’t a thing, that’s Dutch colonial nonsense which actually refers to any number of people distributed throughout the world.
Not at all, your example is junk. Who do you default to in dnd when there is a dispute? The dm because the dm is the authority and thus on top with players below, amusingly the dm guides are a higher authority.
Why do you think I always specify “command and control”, when talking about hierarchies? What do you consider a hierarchy? Anarchists specifically focus on hierarchies of decision making power.
A delegate body that coordinates processes and that can be revoked if the community chooses to do so is something else than a boss who can fire you. Also: you probably skipped the part about "workers’ self-management.
Lol, Petliura was a nationalist and opposed to the anarchist movement. (granted: I might have gotten the year wrong)
They refuse to follow the european tradition, since “anarchism” is a mostly western political movement. The way they act in practice is however de facto anarchist as in bottom-up basic democratic.
Again: I don’t think we use the same definitions of hierarchy.
Never claimed anything about conflicts being absent. I was making a claim of an egalitarian society.
Ok, didn’t know that. Anthropology is not my main field, so please excuse me. However, virtually all immediate return hunter-gatherer societies are egalitarian.
What happens when a dm is such a dick that people don’t want to play with them anymore?
Because to explain anarchism you have to continually hedge because the system does not work.
That’s heirarchy. “a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority.” I didn’t miss it, it doesn’t matter a union is either self management and yet still utilize a heirarchical structure.
It’s relevant because a system that routinely fails in less than a year can’t exactly be called a legitimate method of governance. Yes every new government is resisted to some extent, the success of a government against those odds is what determines how effective it actually is.
I imagine you did.
Nope. They say they aren’t what you claim them to be, take their word.
: the classification of a group of people according to ability or to economic, social, or professional standing : a graded or ranked series
By either definition there is heirarchy in all but one of your examples and it is in effect a pre industrial society.
Conflict is unlikely to happen without a heirarchical structure.
Arguably yes, in practice rarely if ever.
Then the group leaves, because if the person at the top across in bad faith they people below have the choice of violent revolution or to simply leave same as any other government.
Small-scale hunting and gathering societies do have a hierarchy, but the difference is that it’s not imposed and because they are egalitarian, anyone can opt out of the hierarchy by simply leaving. Because private property doesn’t really exist in nomadic hunting and gathering societies --you only really own what you can carry-- influence over the group is determined by merit rather than by control of private property and resources.
This is the system that humanity evolved to live in over hundreds of thousands of years, and that’s why we like it so much and why you never see people deliberately leaving small egalitarian societies for larger hierarchical societies, though we do have hundreds of historical examples of people doing the opposite.
That said, agriculture is a trap in the sense that once we adopted it, we could and can never go back for a set of reasons that should be obvious. The task then is to most nearly recreate the system we lived in for 99.9 percent of our existence as a species, while still accounting for the fact that we live under a new set of parameters and can never go back to those that existed before.
As I understand it, this is the puzzle that some forms of anarchy set out to solve.
Imposed or accepted it doesn’t really matter, similarly the person I responded to specifically referred to anarchism as nonheirarchical. What you described is communism or socialism, not anarchism.
If we “never see people deliberately leaving small egalitarian societies for larger hierarchical societies,” heirarchical structure l society wouldn’t exist. Similarly the hadza (an at least claimed non heirarchical/egalitarian society) constantly lose population to “modern” society.
That’s communism or socialism, not anarchy.
It’s not a puzzle though, a puzzle eventually fits together but anarchy simply doesn’t.
No anarchy doesn’t necessarily mean no contracts it’s about having faith in a society upholding contracts without a need to rely on a government. Think of crypto itself. Now imagine enabling humanity to enforce this degree of accountability in the real world.