this is post is based on a conversation i had with someone about whether we positively connect our anarchism to democracy or not, because on one hand the democratic ideal, of everyone being in power and making decisions together is pretty neat and anarchist, and that’s also what many people think of when they hear democracy, but then democracies (as in democratic organisations and states) since the greek inception of the word also have almost exclusively been the ruling of a privileged few over the rest, with just enought power (or illusion of power) handed back to us that we wouldnt rebel. as one argument goes: if “democracy” literally means “rulership of the people” then who are the people?
sadly we did not kiss after the conversation :<
but i think we agreed that honestly either is fine ฅ>⩊<ฅ
and now: me rambling about anarchy :3
if you are wondering now “anarchy? isnt that when everyone just does whatever they want and fucks everyone else over?? isnt that just destructive chaos?”
then well, that is one definition of anarchy but it is not the anarchy that anarchists desire ;3
anarchy as anarchists understand it is a society organizing itself by anarchist principles. this expesses itself through things such as mutual aide, free association, absence or minimalization of hierarchies and direct action.
basically people getting together in all areas of their lives, to together fulfill their needs, help each other, make decisions among those affected and resolve conflicts together. it’s ofc not always glamourus, no society is, but we believe that it is a better way of living and organizing and we can start building it here and now by just doing those things
important values of anarchy are equality, freedom, solidarity, consent, and uniqueness. those are also shared (or claimed to be shared) by other political movements and organizations, but i would argue that most put other things first such as upholding the current system, maintaining and extending the rulers power and such.
ofc not all anarchists think alike so at the end of the day this is just one perspective out of many
if u are intrigued now and wanna hear more about anarchism, you could check out the anarchist faq or ask in the comments but pws don’t be mean
Under an anarchist state, how do utilities and infrastructure work?
lol “anarchist state”
That’s the point as to why anarchy is at best a pipe dream of children with no life experience.
i’m mostly impressed with someone being so clueless on the topic as to put those words together, and then you doubled down and called it childish so it was a real double whammy
Could have been the state in the marxist way :) /j
Notice how you didn’t inform me on the subject or refute what I said?
you come in here, behave like an asshole, ask bad faith questions, and then pretend like people not wanting to explain things to u in good faith proves them wrong
go troll somwhere else
I didn’t ask a bad faith question, I genuinely want to know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
Yep. Not what I’m doing.
yeah because it’s not my job to educate you and i wouldn’t get anything out of a discussion
Because,. just like every other anarchist I’ve met,. you can’t. Because you can’t answer questions like “how does the infrastructure work?” or “Who clears the road in a snowstorm?” are questions that can’t be answered by anarchy.
Check out “Anarchy Works” by Peter Gelderloos, available for free here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
i’m not an anarchist. i’m just surprised that you are so willing to ask questions but so unwilling to learn.
Been trying to learn for years. Have never gotten a straight answer.
well oki to answer ur question with a potential solution: when people realise a need for certain infrastructure, they
regarding maintanance, same thing, less steps. those affected by infrustructure will have an intrinsic interest in it’s maintance. other might just help cause it’s a good thing. people will have an eye on enough people being available to work on it, and if there arent anymore, they can ask around and inform everyon of the consequences of the infrastructure going unmaintained. i doubt anything would go unmaintained unless no one needs it, or there simply is not enough capacity to maintain everything due to crisis, so things have to be triaged, which can be deliberated on with those affected.
this is just one potential answer. the real answer is that people will figure it out as they go. honestly people already figured it out, as there are already anarchist infrastructure projects today.
you brought up the example situation of who would clear the roads during a snowstorm and well if clear roads during snowstorms are generally deemed important and people can be convinced to do it. hell i would do it if i received the necessary training and a decent explanation for why it’s important. why should it go unmaintained if people need it? it’s like asking who will wash my dishes. well i will cause yknow i need clean dishes. threat of homelessness and starvation should not be needed to motivate people to do basic necessities. i think the ideas that it would is a result of the extreme alienation we experience under capitalism, where the reason to do anything that is not pure pleasure has become coercion.
fuck you if you now just go and make some snarky remarks and shit on my answer
This answer only makes sense if you are completely detached from reality.
Maintaining any kind of infrastructure long-term is a high-skill task that requires lifetimes of study and experience (e.g. healthcare, waste disposal, railways, electrical service, etc). People can’t just decide to help out with it one day and then fuck off next week. The overwhelming majority of people who depend on the infrastructure won’t have the slightest knowledge about how it works, how to keep it working, or how to fix it when it breaks, and they won’t have 20 years to get a degree and a professional certification in the field.
Long-term projects require long-term planning and long-term investement, which means management (e.g. authority figures) and public funding (taxes). There is no way around this requirement.
This is why I’m a communist, because I believe planned production for use instead of profit is possible. The same stuff that plans the capitalist economy, like finance, can be seized and turned into the apparatus of economic planning under socialism. The thing that withers away under communism is the state’s monopoly on violence, not centralized economic planning. The thing that organizes society is the interests of the working class (all of humanity under communism), not the interests of individual humans.
History still moves forward but it ceases to be a conflict between classes, and starts being a conflict with communist society, its individual members, and its external reality. The focus becomes on solving stuff like misery, early death, disease, quality of life, etc.
most of what you say does not have to be at all in contradiction with what i said :3
people can help long term with projects that they don’t personally rely.
right now most people who rely on infrastructure might not be involved in it’s maintanance, but that is not needed as long as there are enough people maintaining it and that can also change. i think capitalism alienates us from the things we rely on, outsourcing all work. i’d argue that typically the infrustructure maintance in settlements is done by the people who live there though.
just because someone is not knowledgeable enough on a type of work, to help with it, does not mean they can’t pitch a project, which can then be developed by those who have the skill.
i know there are many people who are happy to do the same work for their whole life and get really good at it, but if people should ever not be in for the joy of it, there is still necassity and a solidarity to drive them.
regarding it needing long term planning and investment: yeah sure but management does not need to be authority, it can simple be a position someone is delegated into, like any other work. it does not require command and control. taxes are also not the only way to get public funding. everything is publically funded in economy that produces and distributes based on need and collective deliberation.
it seems to me that you are so caught up in how things are done right now, in authoritarian systems, that you make the mistake to assume that it is the only way they could possibly ever be done.
as intwesting as it is to think about and respond to your arguments and as much as i can emphasize with how you might have gotten to certain positions, it is kinda draining to argue, especially since you seem kinda hostile. i think i will disengage from this thread and not respond to any further questions or allegations.
You’ve gotta read more about scientific socialism vs. utopian socialism and why utopian socialism goes nowhere. You’ve gotta be a materialist.
You’ve gotta do more than say anarchism is good, you’ve gotta be able to articulate what the system is without getting tripped up, and argue that anarchism is the solution to the contradictions inherent to the capitalist system.
Now how do you convince people to go along with that?
If you are genuinely curious, here is one of many places you can start: https://crimethinc.com/2016/09/28/feature-the-secret-is-to-begin-getting-started-further-resources-frequently-asked-questions#faq
Nothing here really touches on utilities or infrastructure. I am actually currious, so I’ll rephrase the question;
How does an anarchist polity handle utilities and infrastructure?
“In the terms of public utilities, such as water and power suppliers, they could be self-managed by their workers in association with municipal co-operatives — based on one member, one vote — which would be a much better alternative than privatising what is obviously a natural monopoly” – https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full
I know I can’t speak for every professional, but a lot of them are more than willing to mentor the next generation of infrastructure maintainers, and many of them got involved in their profession because they enjoy the work, and would do it for the good of the community without pay, if only themselves and their family could live comfortably.
People that are currently doing what they are doing to maximize their income will likely not find a position like that in any anarchist society, but they also might find freed from the positional goods of Capitalism they might enjoy doing other productive things at least some of the time.
Syndicates would replace standardization organizations like IEEE and NIST and infrastructure that would benefit from intra-community compatibility will naturally benefit by alignment with those standards.
I could give you an answer. I have a couple prepared: “The same way it does right now except without the state or capitalism”, “Councils set up that co-ordinate efforts between different local groups and, for lack of a better word, contractors that actually do the work”.
But a better answer is I don’t know. I can’t know because I don’t have any experience with infrastructure construction or maintenance. I can only guess. But I do know that an anarchist who does have the experience will be able to answer these questions and I will help them any way I can. Anarchism isn’t about listening to a single persons answers. It’s about collecting the knowledge and experience of everyone involved and have them come up with solutions together. Any answer from a single person is flawed, by combining our ideas together we could make something least flawed. That’s what anarchy is about.
Every one of those answers assumes that people magically become better. Like I said, a pipe dream of people with no life experience.
we live in a horrible society which pushes ppl to be horrible to each other. assuming that people would be as horrible in a better sociaty is unrealistically pessimistic. i don’t blame you too much for the assumption, cause its kinda what we are taught but, it is defo bs
It’s been the rule for the entirety of human history.
no i dont think it is a “rule for the entirety of human existance” there have been plenty of rulerless societys and there have been plenty of better ppl its js that the folks willing to murder ant impirialize are gonna grow quicker and push there views onto other folks
“plenty of rulerless societies”
Such as?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stateless_societies
Real quick googeling so it might not be the best information but something to get you started :)
You sound historically illiterate. That certainly has not been the case.
Name some successful anarchistic societies then.
A quick Google search (or your search engine of choice) could do that, but I’d like to highlight the Zapatistas. Though they don’t define themselves as such, as “anarchism” as it is defined is connected to Western civilization, they display many anarchist adjacent values and organization. They’ve been very successful. No police, no state.
Edit: Also like, the majority of human history. Centralized governance with monopoly on the use of force is a relatively new concept, in the grand scheme of human history.
First you need to have a solid measure of both “success” and “anarchistic”. Does the CNT/FAI count? Rojava/DAANES? Paris commune? Tribal societies basically anywhere pre-civilisation?
There are reasons to discard every anarchist experiment or society because you do not deem them “successful”. Especially if you measure success in an archic way.
Or maybe you just lack faith in people due to only being exposed to the worst of them. As my (yes, very short) life experience as only proven that people are more than capable of living anarchicly. Have you ever been to an anarchist bookfair? Sat in an anarchist cafe and listen to a passionate presentation about pigeons? Or sit in that same cafe playing cards into the night? I feel like I have more than enough experience to know that people are capable of organising and acting anarchicly.