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
Thanks for your ramble on anarchism, it’s a good read, but there are some things that always puzzle me with this ideal:
How does a society prevent, or at least reduce the chance of, tipping into “everyone just does whatever they want and fucks everyone else over”?
I can see how this works when the society is small enough that everyone knows everyone else, and can get together to self-correct. Once you get past that size limit though, which is around 150 from the studies I’ve seen IIRC, you’re going to tend to get cliques and factions forming, who may well work against each other, especially if some resource is constrained.
Capitalism and, what I shall generously call, “representative” democracy as systems seem less at risk as they sort of rely on that behaviour to function. I’m not saying that’s good, but it’s resilient up to a very high level of inequality.
Absolutely! I see so many people talking about other systems, but comparatively few actually making them happen. In most places there is enough space in the current system to build small examples of different approaches and show how they work better.
The society is at a much higher chance of “everyone just does whatever they want and fucks everyone else over” when there’s an imbalance of power. Like right now, with capitalism. Global superpowers and billionaires are in fact doing just that.
In an anarchist society, no single person would be able to get close to that much power/money/influence.
The thing is that is the current system, that’s how it’s designed to work, rather than being a risk to the system. Obviously there’s a limit to that imbalance somewhere, and we may well be banging up against it, but so far the system is functioning as intended.
What happens when someone is persuasive enough get others to follow them? That allows them to consolodate both influence and potentially resources. Again, in democracy we’d probably call tgat the start of either a cult or political party, and that’s how it’s supposed to work, whereas in an anarchist system you want to avoid it.
Every governent structure could fall under someone who is persuasive enough it being a revolution or a cult emassing power or whatever there are ofc many things we can do to midigate this risk and things that would make this harder are weaved into most anarchist theorys
Absolutely, you’re right that it can subvert any government system, but I’m mostly curious as to how an anarchist system would protect itself without that working directly against the desire for minimal hierarchy.
Ideally, no single person should be able to make decisions on behalf of other people, ever. There should be a consensus required and reached so that everyone has a say in how they live. Of course, that requires that everyone has a basic minimum level of education and quality of life, that simply wasn’t possible in the societies of the past.
Sorry, I know this is probably digging into the guts of the system, but I am curious about it. I have seen the concept of “consensus” suggested as a solution to this before, but what happens when complete consensus is not possible?
Take, as a rather extreme but hopefully illustrative example, a situation where two people desperately need a replacement heart, each will certainly die soon without it, both have the same requirements, and organs that match are rare. A suitable heart arrives at the hospital both are at. Who decides which patient lives? I am certain that each patient, and their families, will insist it is them that does, and will not consent to the other receiving it in their stead. This situation could be replaced with any allocation of an important, but scarce, resource.
How is such a decision made when consensus will not occur? Should it be the medical staff who make the choice? If it is, it must eventually fall to an individual to choose unless the staff can somehow reach consensus, but in either case it is a life-or-death decision over someone else.
I realise that’s a rather extreme example, but I’m not trying to set up some “gottcha”, just trying to understand how this sort of system is expected to work. Every description I’ve read tends to just gloss over the edge cases.
Asking questions and doubting any system is right, and is the core of any anarchist movement. I don’t have a ready answer for your hypothetical, unfortunately. All we can do is to push our society forward to reduce scarcity and thus reduce the chances of such grim situations occurring. And there likely won’t be a one size fits all solution for such cases.
If there is truly no way to choose via consensus, perhaps a random chance can help ensure that at least one person survives. I realize that deciding life or death based on something like a coin toss is grim, but that would be one way to resolve the situation without escalating to blame and conflict.
Maybe the anarchist FAQ linked in the OP has a more in-depth answer to your question, though. I recommend you check that out of you’re interested.
One of the things in hear from.Anarchists is that anarchy is perhaps the most common, most “natural” form of governance. That we are all born anarchists. But historically e see this same problem over and over again.
In a society which allows violence as a means to resolve disputes, those who are the best at violence are able to accumulate resources and power. Combine this with biological trends and you get patriarchy. Eventually you get people who are good at organizing, so factions or tribes form. Eventually a class structure emerges with the organizers at the top, those.who commit violence below them, and those who are good at neither at the bottom.
I have yet to see an anarchist system with a leveling mechanism that I think could actually work scale.
I wouldn’t consider anarchy a “society which allows violence as a means to resolve disputes”. But, I can see how you might make that assumption.
I agree that the “most natural” form of governance is actually warlord-ism, the best people at violence raid from the worst people at violence, and often amass some level of power just a little beyond what a isolated community can wield. At least recent history seems to have this happen a lot when existing governments fall.
The the descriptions of anarchy I have seen, violence is only permissive in defense of the rights of self or others, in particular but not limited to bodily autonomy and is not used to resolve disputes.
Still, I’m uneasy about the leveling mechanisms I’ve seen proposed to counter the hoarding behaviors that seems to be not uncommon among humans, particularly those steeped in Capitalism like myself. I also probably have trust issues.
What does this mean? I understand you go on to list the circumstances where violence could be permitted, but who exactly is doing the permitting here and how does that work? Are we expecting everyone who feels that their rights have been violated to be responsible for their own justice? If we want to ban people from using violence to achieve their own goals, or for collectivizing violence…How do you does anyone actually stop them? There are options like economic and social consequences, but when I look at world history those things can only succeed in rare scenarios.
Who judges this in an anarchist society? This is a statement that is very easy for political philosophers to make but is incredibly difficult to translate to the real world. Even on the case of individual vs individual, physical violence.
But what about the more abstract violence? Looking back at ancient history, that could be things like overhunting, overfishing, overlogging. Hoarding rain water. People living downstream of others dealing with human waste in the river they depend upon. In modern times, who do we stop people from mining and burning fossil fuels?
High marginal tax rates funding social programs has, historically, worked. Part of what is necessary for it to work though is the collective and organized threat of violence against the wealthy, for the crime of being too wealthy.
No, you are called to defend not only yourself, but others as well. Everyone is responsible both for their own and everyone else’s justice. If you are more capable and willing to produce justice, you may produce more than you need. In many ways it is like all the other requirements of a good life: excess freely given, unmet need freely taken.
If someone wants to fit into some “heroic police officer” or even “hero vigilante” role, they will likely be celebrated and supported as long as their actions are heroic, but if they take any bad actions they will be reprimanded and resisted; they chosen role will not be a justification or mitigation.
Threats of violence are allowed to be neutralized by whatever means, including preemptive, defensive violence. All actions should be for the collective good, even as they are done by individuals. Collaboration, communication, and coordination are encouraged in whatever form the individuals find is best.
I think a lot of what is done depends too much on specifics to make general statements. But, anything from a strong talking to next time the offender interacts with the community to assassination to revolution-scale secretive, cellular, violent action might be justified.
Each person is their own conscience. Anyone may arbitrate, and others might comply or ignore it as their conscience dictates. Arbitration might call for violence, and if executed, that violence will surely be judged in turn.
Despoiling the commons is considered anti-social behavior and is subject to resistance. Generally this will start with a discussion, but if consensus can’t be reached, property damage (e.g. destroying tools and/or machinery) will stop the worst effects with no “crimes against persons”. But, persons or organizations that purposely and repeatedly engage in anti-social behavior will be treated as if they were the government and resisted potentially violently.
I don’t disagree. I’m all for bringing back to 92% marginal tax bracket, getting rid of corporate welfare (particularly for petrochemical companies), and really building a safety net that ensures no one has to go without food, water, clothing, and shelter, whether they can work or not. I can defend anarchy while still working within the existing systems. Sometimes the best way to the goal actually is building up something you later will choose to tear down.
I’m not even a committed anarchist, but I know that all of your questions, and every “gotcha” question for anarchists I’ve ever seen, has already been considered and answered in anarchist theory, sometime many, many times – often even refined through the practice of anarchist societies.
The hoarding behaviours likely can be greatly alleviated by providing every human with basic societal safety nets. If you know that you’ll have food, water, shelter and other basic amenities even if you lose your job (or get sick, or get old, or take a maternal/paternal leave etc), how likely are you to want to hoard money or other items just for the sake of it?
Of course, the small percentage of people would still do that, which is how we have the billionaires.
I know I would hoard less if I trusted the system for my basic needs. And, if I just get a few more years of good job, I might be ready to stop hoarding (and continue working, just with a lot more mutual aid and independent creator support going out).
But, I just don’t think that’s true of my father (RIP), or some of the people I met during my time in Northwest Arkansas; none of them even “millionaires” but all having a real drive to squeeze another penny out of every nickel. And, as you say, we have billionaires: any of them that aren’t just handing out money every waking hour are not behaving ethically.
I just don’t know that one the scale of 8b people, or even 300m people, that there aren’t enough natural “hoarders” to ruin everything. But, I’m also sampling from as experience where everyone I meet is steeped in the “water” of Capitalism from the cradle, so maybe there’d be fewer natural “hoarders” in if Captialism hadn’t soaked into us before puberty.
If we improve the material conditions, I believe with every generation the hoarding would diminish. Obviously, some people would need therapy or other sort of help, but I believe a very small percentage of humanity is actually irredeemable.
It all really depends on how you structure stuff some anarchist comunetys are non violent othersdo use violence but in a “controlled” manner governt by a council or other democratic organ
On the part of organizing its harder to take power where structures already use that power organizational organs wont freely give away power or infuance to warlords
Not what I said at all. Please take that argument to those that actually use it and spare me the strawman.
I see anarchist society not as past, but as future. Where technology allows everyone to have some guaranteed basic level of life and nobody is forced to do something they don’t want to do in fear of death or violence.
Of course, for that we need to start with getting rid of already existing people who amassed disproportionate amount of power.
how would any anarchist society handle the existence of all the non anarchist societies around it?
“Society” kinda implies everyone is in on it already, as in it’s the endpoint. If you’re asking how anarchist organizations coexist with the rest of humanity, please refer to the anarchist FAQ linked in the OP and to specific organizations you’re interested in.