You must log in or register to comment.
ITT: Nobody has any idea what any anarchist philosopher ever said or believed and simply thinks it means no rules
They then strut victoriously, thinking they are smarter than every anarchist philosopher who has ever existed because they know that rules matter in a society, not realizing that no anarchist thinker has ever said “let’s just have no rules or organization and just see how it goes based on the vibes”
I think liberals don’t even know what it means, but insist their opinions on it need to be heard anyways, because all opinions are valid, right?
Quite literally impossible to implement. Same as true “Libertarianism”. Can’t actually exist.
Look at it this way. You and your neighbours want no government. No taxes. No laws. No “authority” telling you what to do and how to do it. Great!
What happens when the road needs to be fixed? Do you fix just the road in front of your house? Or do you negotiate with your neighbours for you all to pay a fair share to get the entire road done? Congratulations…you just invented government.
So now the road is getting done, but the people doing the work really don’t want to deal with every individual for every particular decision. It’s a much better idea to elect one person to do the communicating. Congratulations…you just invented civics and beaurocracy
This person that you all agreed to handle all of this stuff doesn’t have time anymore to support himself or his family because he’s dealing with your shit, so he demands that each of you pay an amount to keep in able to feed himself while he administrates your “anarchic society.” Congratulations…you just invented taxes
Replace “roads” with literally anything else in a community and the end result is the same. Both Libertarians and Anarchists are fucking morons.
You don’t know what anarchism is or what it means and are arguing with a strawman.
anarchism means no rulers, not no rules
we would just use direct democracy for our government
we don’t even want no government, we want no state, those are different things
can you point to an anarchist philosopher who believes the nonsense you argued against?
It seems foolish and young to me. Same as libertarian rules or rule by religious doctrine. None of that shit works. Just shiny little playthings to keep people distracted from real and genuine problems that cause an existential threat to all species living on earth.
Strange claim, given that it’s arguably how humans have organized their society for 296,000 years until that religion you dislike fucked it all up.
Uhm, no? For most of humanity, we were in patriarcal tribes. That’s not the same as anarchy. And the moment settlements grew, there was typically some kind of hierarchy in place, some chief.
Lol, love when someone just hangs their whole ass out on every point of order.
Sure mate!
In the absence of other power structures (political, legal, religious, economic, etc) whoever has the means and willingness to do violence will exert their will over others. Unstructured societies always devolve into might makes right.
There is a difference between Anomie and anarchy
Just because there are no leaders/rulers, doesn’t mean there are no social rules or morale values.
A law doesn’t keep one from doing bad stuff.
Else we wouldn’t have murderers.But society must grow and develop. At the current state anarchy probably wouldn’t work…
a law doesn’t keep one from doing bad stuff
that’s true, they need to be enforced somehow…
They’re enforced now but murder still happens.
That doesn’t prove that not enforcing them would somehow make murder disappear, it just proves that you can’t absolutely eliminate a behavior. Every action has diminishing returns.
I can remove some of the heat from an object by putting it in the fridge. I can remove more by putting it in the freezer, but that requires more energy. I can remove even more by using more and more sophisticated scientific equipment, but I can never reduce the temperature to absolute zero. That doesn’t mean the soda in my fridge isn’t colder than one on the counter.
Perfect results aren’t obtainable except in trivial cases.
To your point though diminishing returns. When is it worth it. You’ve just a conceded that enforcing said laws don’t actually prevent the crime. I would say enforcement never prevents any crime and enforcement is about punishment not prevention. So when is it worth it? What level totalitarianism an authoritarianism is worth it? How much abuse and Injustice is necessary to assuage your fears about the other? Surely you’re not going to sit here and tell me only fear of punishment is what stops you from murdering people?
What if we focused on resolving systemic issues that might provide motivation to prevent crime? What if we focused on rehabilitation instead of punishment for that that commit crimes anyway?
Sure, you can take any idea to an extreme and shriek things like “authoritarianism!” but that means nothing.
Unstructured societies always devolve into might makes right.
you can’t prove this
Technically the whole world runs on pure anarchism. No rules, only those created by local groups. With agreements between some of the groups. Most of it enforced by violence.
Laws only exist because most people believe in them. For the rest they are enforced with violence. I believe that anarchy would result in a similar system. Most people would behave but some would not. To protect everyone eventually some kind of police and laws would form again.
I think that if humanity can manage to survive long enough, anarchism is inevitable.
It’s essentially the adult stage of human society - the point at which humans collectively and consistently, rather than just individually and situationally, can be trusted to generally do the right thing simply because it’s the right thing and therefore the most reasonable thing to do.
For the time being and the foreseeable future though, humanity is nowhere even close to that. Through the course of history, human society has managed to advance to about the equivalent of adolescence. There’s still a long way to go.
In spite of that, I do identify as an anarchist, but my advocacy is focused on the ideal and the steps humanity as a whole has to take to achieve it. I think it’s plainly obvious that it cannot be implemented, since any mechanism by which it might be inplemented would necessarily violate the very principles that define it. It can only be willingly adopted by each and all (or close enough as makes no meaningful difference), and that point will come whenever (if) it comes.
Even when people will do the right thing in 99.99% of situations, there will still need to be rules.
Just take a look at how game theory works. Anyone exploiting those mechanism in a group even if only one in a thousand, could devastate a society in no time , if it’s naive enough to not have rules and norms for correct behavior, even when they are not usually needed.I do like your thinking though, and I also have dreams of a future society where criminals are not punished but nurtured. Because it must have been awful to have been in a state of mind, to want to do something to hurt others.
I’m not sure it’s possible though. But it is the ideal we should hopefully at some point strive for. But there still needs to be standards or “rules” for when people need help to be readjusted to functioning normally in society, if they get “confused”.
But I still don’t think anarchy will work, because so many things will need to be structured, and societies are getting bigger and more complex, which increases the need for rules to make societies work. So instead of anarchy I think we must expect more rules not fewer.
But probably in the future, many rules will be for machines and not for humans?
Anarchy doesn’t mean no rules, it means no rulers.
OK so how are the rules upheld?
A democracy is a rule by the people who are ruled. What function would make anarchy better?
Who is this ruler that isn’t present? How are rules decided? Who enforces those rules?
The only way I see to perform these functions rationally is by democracy.Democracy (proper democracy) is literally a social contract my dude. Anarchism uses democracy and consensus to make decisions. Are laws the only thing keeping you from not doing things??
Yes laws are the reason I drive on the right for instance. It is very practical that we all use the same laws in traffic.
Now you may think this is obvious, but compared to many other things, traffic is dead simple. Without regulations it will be chaos, and meaningful form of anarchy is chaos.You can’t have consensus on everything in any society, it’s impossible, so if Anarchy is merely democracy, why than call it anarchy?
Anarchism uses democracy and consensus to make decisions
Genuine question: Is that not a democracy?
It could be? Being a democracy or using democracy as a tool for decision making doesn’t mean it has to happen through government. If you’ve ever made a decision with a friend group via popular vote, does that make you a government? Or did you exercise authority over your friends when they all agreed popular vote was okay to decide where to eat out? I wager neither
And fyi, you’re thinking of a representative democracy, which is rarely ever truly fair, especially considering the scale it’s supposedly applied to.
No, as there are no leaders
In a democracy you give your vote and have no say afterwards.
In an anarchy people need to work out their social rules together.
There could also be Anarchist societies with a police force, that ensures the basic democratically created roles of that society are followed - like protecting people from just more muscle who want to rape or steal from them.In a democracy you give your vote and have no say afterwards.
You’re restricting democracy to mean representative democracy?
It depends on the definition
The definition is whatever you want the definition to be. Don’t let others force a definition on you.
The end goal of civilization.
Stateless, Egalitarian societies.
I think it’s great. We should fucking try it.
Seriously, though, I think it would be nice but it’s going to be impossible unless you can fully get rid of greedy, corrupt, power hungry pieces of shit with zero empathy.
Don’t forget the morons who keep worshipping said pieces of shit. Even now, I run into Musk cultists regularly.
So as long as the the greedy, power-hungry pieces of shit have at least some empathy, we can make it work?
It at least shows they could possibly be rehabilitated.
I guess what I’m saying is that an individual with lack of empathy is much less of a problem for an egalitarian society than one that seeks power. And yes, even empathic individuals seek power.
The problem is one of human nature. We need a society that works for humans, and that means a system that puts limits on the worst parts of human nature. Saying “this will work when people behave better” means it’s never going to work.
And to be clear: I think this is one of the big advantages that anarchism has over, say, socialism. With no power apparatus to corrupt, there’s less of a target for the corrupt power-seekers.
But it needs to be structured in a way that reinforces eusocial behavior and disincentivizes antisocial behavior; further, the mechanisms for those reinforcements and disincentives needs to be communal rather than centralized, or someone will steal the reinforcement apparatus for their own selfish ends.
coupled with communism it’s the real shit
Pls no anarcho capitalism. A good breakdown of the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTN64g9lA2g&t=1
There are already people living this lifestyle, unfortunately one only has the choice if you have lots of money.
Lots of money? Do you actually know any anarchists? Living in communal squat houses and dumpster diving for food is the lifestyle that comes to mind for me.
So you don’t know any anarchists either, just the image you’ve seen in movies.
Honestly, I don’t really understand what it is. I don’t understand socialism, communism, hell I hardly understand capitalism and I’m living in it.
I know the “it’s chaos” interpretation isn’t really correct though
I consider myself an anarcho-pragmatist. It would be nice not to have any rulers or an hierarchy. But I also know people well enough to know that unless we defer any decision making to a supercomputer everyone trusts, we’re going to need some form of societal structure.
No one will unanimously trust a computer model. People will try to undermine and destroy it. So, the question would then be, how do you stop that? And suddenly you’re not really talking about anarchy. The computer will need to enforce its existence through violence.
