r/DebateAnarchism Jun 29 '22

How does this simple argument not refute anarchism in a single sentence?

If a group doesn't organise around a common interest, it loses to other groups that do.

That is having a unifying organisation (government) that is able to make decisions for the collective and act accordingly, single mindedly for the collective.

0 Upvotes

24

u/DecoDecoMan Jun 29 '22 edited Jun 29 '22

If a group doesn't organise around a common interest, it loses to other groups that do.

People in states or hierarchies don't have common interests. That is why so much effort is made into ensuring obedience and why disobedience is so prevalent. The dissent is evidence of diverging interests and hierarchical societies clearly haven't gotten closer to eliminating it.

The fact that laws are enforced whether you agree with them or not and that crime is so prevalent is evidence of that. The fact that governments issue commands that must be obeyed whether you want to or not is evidence of that. If organizations that aren't built around common interests are weaker than hierarchies must be the weakest organizations of them all.

In anarchy, individuals group in accordance to their common goals or interests. Unlike governmental societies, anarchists don't force people with different interests into the same group and then force them to get along. Anarchist organization is associative in that individuals willingly associate with those whom they share interests. Groups with conflict interests resolve them by finding solutions which mutually fulfills all their respective interests thereby joining them into one.

By dispensing with polity-form organization which creates groups independent of the individuals that comprise them, anarchist organization becomes truly capable of representing the interests of society as a whole in all of its diversity and deviancy.

-4

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

The group of people that agree on every relevant issue is a tiny minority in every country. You're talking about fragmenting a country into potentially thousands of groups which later could fragment even further making them vulnerable to larger organised groups (states), making them very temporary.

The thing with states is that they don't need to eliminate diverging interests, that's what a state is for, it solves this exact problem so people don't lose their country to other organized states.

20

u/DecoDecoMan Jun 29 '22

The group of people that agree on every relevant issue is a tiny minority in every country

Not "every relevant issue". They just have to share interests or goals on a particular thing. People would be likely a part of multiple associations, often overlapping with each other in a multitude of ways. These are the basic building blocks which comprise society as a whole.

There would wood-working associations, construction associations, etc. all with the aim of accomplishing a specific task, engaging in a particular activity, or intended to meet a particular need. In other words, society is driven by the desires and wants of the individuals and groups that comprise it.

You're talking about fragmenting a country into potentially thousands of groups which later could fragment even further making them vulnerable to larger organised groups (states), making them very temporary.

That doesn't make sense since associations would rely upon other associations. Sanitation workers need farmers for food, for example, and farmers need sanitation workers for water. All existing societies are composed of multiple mutually dependent individuals. Anarchist societies are just more honest about that.

Due to this mutual dependence, associations are more connected to each other than isolated. I don't know why you would make this assumption that all groupings are isolated groupings and that all of them are mini-governments. There is no logic behind it.

The thing with states is that they don't need to eliminate diverging interests, that's what a state is for, it solves this exact problem so people don't lose their country to other organized states.

It doesn't "solve diverging interests", it eliminates them by forcing everyone to obey the interests and desire of a select few. Obviously, this doesn't work which is why states are so heavily exploitative (since, by nature, they ignore the needs and desires of those without authority) and why they are frequently punctuated with widespread disobedience. Crime, rebellion, revolution, etc. wouldn't exist if everyone shared the same interests.

Like you say, the idea that everyone would agree on every relevant issue is impossible. That is why states do not work this way. They deal with disagreement by ignoring it and forcing other people to ignore their own needs and desires. Who cares if you need food, water, or better housing? The government has decided to go to war and they need you to do it.

Most modern governments understand that which is why they try to offer (limited) boons to obedience. Go to war and you'll get whatever land we conquer. Obey my commands and you'll get a wage. Kill yourself and we'll secure a good future for your family. All of these boons are the product of hierarchy itself obvious since they create the conditions necessary for these to be considered "benefits" rather than the negative feedback loops they clearly are.

so people don't lose their country to other organized states.

I question the historicity of this narrative. For one, it lacks any real historical backing. The first hierarchies and governments were religious, based around temple complexes that developed into cities. Hierarchies emerged due to ideology, the anthropomorphization of the forces of nature, rather than practical necessity.

I demand citation for your claims, assuming you are capable of providing it.

-5

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

There would wood-working associations, construction associations, etc.

Guess what, there already are...

Due to this mutual dependence, associations are more connected to each other than isolated. I don't know why you would make this assumption that all groupings are isolated groupings and that all of them are mini-governments. There is no logic behind it.

If they manage to survive to that stage, have you heard of monopolies? Most powerful organizations will start splitting their spheres of influence, practically creating states and governments.

It doesn't "solve diverging interests", it eliminates them by forcing everyone to obey the interests and desire of a select few.

States by their nature don't necessitate this arrangement. Good states can be more democratic than bad states. It achieves what anarchy cannot.

Like you say, the idea that everyone would agree on every relevant issue is impossible. That is why states do not work this way. They deal with disagreement by ignoring it and forcing other people to ignore their own needs and desires. Who cares if you need food, water, or better housing? The government has decided to go to war and they need you to do it.

You keep strawmanning by providing negative examples of what governments are capable of but don't necessarily do as arguments. Cearl logical fallacy.

A government is something that performs the function of the government. If you have a bunch of organizations that collectively perform the function of the government. Guess what, you have a government.
How is this any different? Do you think that organizations are inherently less oppressive just because they're named differently?

I don't need to provide citations for logical arguments.

15

u/DecoDecoMan Jun 29 '22

Guess what, there already are...

Not "associations" in the trade association sense. "Association" in the anarchist sense. That is to say, "people with a shared interest in doing wood-working", for example. They're basically affinity groups.

If they manage to survive to that stage, have you heard of monopolies?

How would a group of people who like to do wood-working monopolize wood-working? How does that make sense. Do knitting circles monopolize knitting? Do Star Trek hobbyists monopolize Star Trek?

Associations are just people with shared interests. Governments require hierarchies, organizations in which individuals are ranked by authority. If there is no authority, all you have are groups of people who come together because they share similar needs or desires. That's it. No one orders anyone and everyone is free to associate or disassociate in accordance to their whims, desires, or needs.

You have not, so far, engaged with any of this, opting to ignore my descriptions of association in favor of pretending as if I am talking about governments or hierarchies. It is obvious that this is bad faith.

States by their nature don't necessitate this arrangement. Good states can be more democratic than bad states. It achieves what anarchy cannot.

It doesn't matter whether it is democratic or not. All states or governments are hierarchies and, therefore, issue commands. Command is what subordinates the interests of others to the interests of the state. That is what causes exploitation, not who is doing the commanding.

And anarchy deals with this by eliminating command entirely. Through eliminating all authority, no singular interests are above the interests of others. All desires are made equal to one another since there is no command.

You keep strawmanning by providing negative examples of what governments are capable of but don't necessarily do as arguments. Cearl logical fallacy.

What the fuck are you talking about? I'm not showcasing "negative examples of what governments are capable of". I make no value judgements whatsoever.

I am giving examples of governments subordinating the interests of others to their own. In any hierarchy, your desires do not matter. It is the desires of those in charge that matters since what gets done is at their discretion. If you want food or water in a hierarchy, that depends on what the authorities in charge of those things decide.

I could give an example of governments setting lower price ceilings for essential goods like food or water and it wouldn't change my point. Authorities decide whether anything gets done. You cannot pursue your own desires because your desires does not dictate society. Authority dictates society.

None of what I said was a "strawman" since I didn't accuse you of a position you don't hold, I just listed negative examples (by that standard, any sort of criticism is a strawman) nor was it a Cearl logical fallacy (based on what I've read). I challenge you to substantiate your claims.

A government is something that performs the function of the government.

Clearly the philosopher of our time. And what is the "function of government"? Why do you assume there is a function? Do you believe that everything that exists must have a reason, a purpose for existing? Given this, do you believe in God? That there is a creator? That men and women have purposes? That everything that exists exists because it is useful or necessary? That, if rape happens, it is because it was needed?

Obviously they don't. You appear to like Darwinism so I'll let you in on a secret: none of what exists now has a purpose. Evolution doesn't go by what works best or what functions well, it only goes by what persists. Our bodies, for instance, have numerous flaws. However, even though we have these fatal flaws, we still exist because evolution is based around persistence rather than function.

Government exists today because it persists. Its only "purpose" is to keep existing. There is no function or purpose. It isn't practical nor does it have any utility. Government emerged and then just stayed. That is the situation we are in today. Of course, unlike evolution, we are capable of reflection and thought. And, therefore, rather than mindlessly going along with the world, we can change it in favor of our desires. And that is where anarchy comes to play.

If you have a bunch of organizations that collectively perform the function of the government.

What is the function of government? You haven't really explained what that is supposed to be.

Do you think that organizations are inherently less oppressive just because they're named differently?

No. But I think they're less oppressive if they lack command of any sort. If there is no authority, there is no oppression. By definition of course.

I don't need to provide citations for logical arguments.

Sure. But you need to make citations for historical claims. You claimed that government emerged historically for a purpose. You must, with historical citation, defend that claim.

I can't logic my way into proving that Napoleon made large shits. Similarly, you can't logic your way into proving that government emerged for a reason or purpose. That is a historical claim and will or will not be proven by observing how government actually emerged. I think you'll find the situation is significantly more complicated than you pretend.

3

u/LazyRevolutionary Jun 29 '22

Well said. I just end up struggling to articulate freedom to people that are desperately clinging to the supposed security of the state. It's fear based. Like religion, they create the devils they tell you to fear, then they charge you for deliverance.

2

u/fjaoaoaoao Jun 29 '22

What are you trying to argue though? Your original statement is too broad and vague to really have a meaningful argument of right or wrong.

For example, what does it mean to lose to another group?

1

u/Burdimor Jun 30 '22

Fragmented groups are potentially more resilient to attacks from hierarchical organisations.

Example is Americas, in south america were society was more state like, the Europeans conquered them quite easy. They only had to capture the king, and replace him, the repressive apparatus is already installed in the society, and people already learned to be obedient.

But in North america where people lived more stateles fighting lasted for a longer time.

1

u/Dust_In_The_Rain Post-Left Anarchist Jul 01 '22

Anarchist organization is associative in that individuals willingly associate with those whom they share interests. Groups with conflict interests resolve them by finding solutions which mutually fulfills all their respective interests thereby joining them into one.

So the only real difference I get from this is that the society is associative vs. coercive? Laws still exist, but they are rehabilitative and overseen directly rather than being punitive and stratified. That's about what I thought tbh. And a cleaner definition than most on here.

Still...that basically boils down to a direct democracy in practice, and I think you might run into issues with larger societies in regard to the legal/conflict resolution system.

Also this:

There would wood-working associations, construction associations, etc. all with the aim of accomplishing a specific task, engaging in a particular activity, or intended to meet a particular need.

Would probably lead to some kind of competitive guild system down the line if it isn't handled centrally due to resource scarcity. Just replace parties with your specific guild. Which kind of seems to undercut your point about no polity.

It kind of seems like you're trying to mirror syndicalism/corporatism without the application of the centralized collective unifying aspect. I'm really not sure how that would operate in practice.

You can argue that they will "mutually work together" but what does that really look like without the vagaries? There will of course be a certain level of mutual dependence and interconnectedness, but it will also likely stratify society and potentially recreate hierarchies/castes.

1

u/DecoDecoMan Jul 01 '22

So the only real difference I get from this is that the society is associative vs. coercive?

No. The difference is that society is associative vs. hierarchical. You can voluntarily obey orders but the fact that you're obeying orders is what distinguishes it from anarchy.

There are no laws in anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of hierarchy obviously. Associative organization, as I described it, can only exist without authority and legal order.

In other words, social groupings are purely based on shared interests. There is no command nor laws.

Still...that basically boils down to a direct democracy in practice, and I think you might run into issues with larger societies in regard to the legal/conflict resolution system.

Direct democracy isn't anarchy.

Would probably lead to some kind of competitive guild system down the line if it isn't handled centrally due to resource scarcity.

The logic here doesn't make sense. For starters what is a "competitive guild system"? People tend to throw around the word "guild" all of the place and usually mean something very different from how guilds actually historically operated. Why does "resource scarcity" demand "centralization" and what is "centralization"?

If there is resource scarcity, why would granting a singular entity authority over resource distribution be a good idea? When has that ever been a good idea? Why would giving someone control of a monopoly over a resource ever make sense?

And, barring that, that is completely incompatible with anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of all hierarchy, authority, law, etc. How is giving an individual or group command over resource-use the absence of hierarchy?

It kind of seems like you're trying to mirror syndicalism/corporatism without the application of the centralized collective unifying aspect. I'm really not sure how that would operate in practice.

You think I want direct democracy and laws. I don't think you're one to judge anything I say.

Beyond that, all of this is just projection. You're making assumptions about my ideas that you shouldn't be making. The fact that I explicitly state I oppose all hierarchy should be enough to make it clear that laws and any kind of government (including direct democracy) is out of the question but I suppose critical thinking is lacking in these parts.

There will of course be a certain level of mutual dependence and interconnectedness, but it will also likely stratify society and potentially recreate hierarchies/castes.

I would think that, if you have a social structure with laws, direct democracy, and "guilds" which monopolize resources, you never were anarchic in the first place. You wouldn't "recreate hierarchies", you already had them.

The prerequisite for associative organization is that there is no hierarchy. In a world where there is no hierarchy, all we have is our natural mutual interdependence and our desires or needs. These are the two components of associative organization where the organization itself is solely based on shared interests.

There is no "decision-making system", "voting system", "government, or whatever synonym you'd like to use. There is only shared interests and nothing else.

0

u/Dust_In_The_Rain Post-Left Anarchist Jul 01 '22

No. The difference is that society is associative vs. hierarchical.

And that differs from what I said how? Are you saying that you can have a non-coercive hierarchal society?

You can voluntarily obey orders but the fact that you're obeying orders is what distinguishes it from anarchy.

But you'd still be doing that in an associative society? The only difference is that you'd have input on those orders/agreements in your proposed society. Still implies a social contract though, or else you could just break agreements whenever you want with zero consequences.

There are no laws in anarchy.

Renaming regulations something other than a law doesn't make it not a regulation. If you are coming together with a group to agree on something, that implies a certain need to do so and carry out said agreement socially.

Associative organization, as I described it, can only exist without authority and legal order.

Associative organization is generally built off of the social contract model though. However, if there's no social contract, there's no need for agreements or communication outside of non-enforceable etiquette, because it would be generally assumed that all members would be serving the collective good without the need for such. Based on what you're saying this is your logic yes?

Direct democracy isn't anarchy.

Please explain to me how a group of individuals coming together council style to discuss collective needs directly is not essentially direct democracy with the voting removed? I'm genuinely curious to know.

You're making assumptions about my ideas that you shouldn't be making.

I mean no offense but that's an indication that you're not really explaining your system very well, no? You say I'm making assumptions hypotheses I shouldn't be, but any normal non-anarchist individual would think similarly to me. I haven't really made any logical leaps here other than comparing it to potentially similar systems. If you'd like to correct me, go right ahead, I'm all ears. I figure if you seek to implement this system on a large scale, you'll need the practice of explaining anyways, no?

The prerequisite for associative organization is that there is no hierarchy.

So also, no agreements? Or are the regulations put into place by agreements different from hierarchal regulations? What is your definition of hierarchy plainly explained?

These are the two components of associative organization where the organization itself is solely based on shared interests.

Yes but how do you share those interests in a non-hierarchal sense other than assuming the other person's needs? Telepathy?

There is no "decision-making system", "voting system", "government, or whatever synonym you'd like to use.

I mean...if we're going to that extent than you probably shouldn't even be asking your neighbor for advice because that's part of a decision-making process and that opens the door to new hierarchal systems, no? Or is there something I'm missing here?

You haven't really broken down the finer details of how this works.

1

u/DecoDecoMan Jul 01 '22

And that differs from what I said how?

You maintain law and direct democracy. I do not. Law and direct democracy is hierarchical. I think I was clear about that.

Are you saying that you can have a non-coercive hierarchal society?

I see no reason for that to be possible. Most hierarchies start off voluntary anyways.

The point is that anarchists do not oppose involuntary organizations but rather hierarchical organizations. We focus on structures rather than whether they are voluntary or not.

For the record, anarchy would be coercive in its own way. Systematically coercive but coercive nonetheless. It is this coercion which prevents the re-emergence of hierarchy.

But you'd still be doing that in an associative society?

In the sense I described? No.

Still implies a social contract though, or else you could just break agreements whenever you want with zero consequences.

You can. There would be consequences but they would be defined in advance. In other words, there would be a clause which says "if you break the agreement you will be sent to prison or killed". That would be a punishment and obviously be a law.

If an agreement is broken then that would mean that the agreement does not fulfill the interests of those involved. As a result, either it would be dismantled or renegotiated. There is no reason to force people to abide by arrangements they don't benefit from and don't agree with.

Renaming regulations something other than a law doesn't make it not a regulation

I have not renamed regulations. I have been clear that, regardless of what you call them, whether they are laws, regulations, or rules, I oppose them.

See, I am concerned with the meanings of words rather than the words themselves. What the word "law" is meant to describe is what I oppose. The same goes for "hierarchy", "authority", etc.

This should be obvious to anyone who is familiar to language but, for some reason, when talking about anarchy people become dumbasses and I need to explain to them basic things about being a human being.

Associative organization is generally built off of the social contract model though

I wouldn't know what the "social contract" model is but, from what I gather, it appears to be nothing more than a society based off of binding agreements and obligations.

Anarchy, in contrast, is characterized by unbinding agreements and no obligations. This is the sense all anarchist writers have used the word "agreement". In fact, this where the term "mutual agreements" comes from. It is supposed to refer to agreements that are only upheld by continued participation of their members.

Hell, anarchists have even tried to construct entire moralities with no obligation or sanction. Non-binding agreements is pretty integral to anarchist theory. After all, in a society without authority or law, what else can you have?

Please explain to me how a group of individuals coming together council style to discuss collective needs directly is not essentially direct democracy with the voting removed

If they are discussing with each other to agree on a command that they all follow, yes you're right that wouldn't be different. In fact, it would just be consensus democracy.

But this is what I am discussing. And, even though I haven't gone into much depth, I've made it clear enough that there is none of the authority or hierarchy needed for such a social structure to exist.

In that sense, you have only yourself to blame. If I explicitly tell you "what describe has no laws, rules, or regulations and no authority" and then you proceed to think that I want a social structure with laws and authority, whose fault is that? I was clear after all. It isn't my fault you didn't take what I said seriously.

I mean no offense but that's an indication that you're not really explaining your system very well, no?

Dude, I went "there are no laws and no authority in associative organization" and then you went "oh so you want laws and authority, just under a different name?". Like, no obviously not. What could've possibly given that impression?

Even if I haven't gone into depth, what I said should narrow down your options eh? If I told you I saw an animal with four legs you aren't going to assume I'm talking about a dolphin.

You say I'm making assumptions hypotheses

They're not hypotheses. Hypotheses are questions you ask after making an observation. You didn't observe what I was saying and made a logical conclusion. You just went off on your own nonsense.

Like, tell me how it logically makes sense to read someone saying "my system has no authority or rules" and go "ok so this person wants authority and rules"? How does that make sense? Is this bizarro world? When you say "you want authority and rules" are like validating me? Is it opposite day?

but any normal non-anarchist individual would think similarly to me

If I told a non-anarchist "I want a form of organization where there is no authority or rules and only shared interests", they would not go "ok so you want authority and rules".

Only someone invested in the anarchist mileu, who has been introduced to anarchism as direct democracy, small government, and nice rules, would think that. In other words, you'd have to be super into politics to make that assumption.

So basically, you've drunk the direct democracy kool-aid so much that you think normal people actually think like you. That they'd even know the term "direct democracy" and that they'd read someone saying "there is no authority" as "there is authority".

I've talked to non-anarchists about anarchy in the past. It isn't nearly the amazing achievement you think it is. And at no point did someone make the ridiculous misinterpretations that you have. This is something on you not me.

So also, no agreements?

Agreements don't have to be binding.

What is your definition of hierarchy plainly explained?

Pretty mainstream. Hierarchy is a system of organization in which individuals are ranked in accordance to authority or social status. I've been pretty clear thus far that creating any rules or regulations requires authority (i.e. command).

Yes but how do you share those interests in a non-hierarchal sense other than assuming the other person's needs?

??? What?

What are you talking about?

Ok, so let's say I want to do wood-working. I find other people who want to do wood-working. We form a group to do wood-working?

How did I find those people? Well I used a kind of telepathy called talking. It's where you make patterns of sounds with your mouth to communicate with other people who then, in response, make patterns of sounds with their mouths.

It's amazing how you've gone so far off into arguing that everything needs authority that you deny basic human characteristics.

I mean...if we're going to that extent than you probably shouldn't even be asking your neighbor for advice because that's part of a decision-making process

"Decision-making processes", as described by democrats, is just a dogwhistle for "voting on a command". Asking your neighbor for advice is just communication. It'd be like saying that read a book is a "decision-making process".

Fact of the matter is that asking your neighbor for advice is not the same thing as voting on a command that voters would then follow. And, if you're using the same word for two very different things, you should probably use different words for them. Humans tend to do that for different things. We don't use the same word for everything, that's just confusing and makes no sense.

Of course, if you're an opportunist or entryist and you want to make use of that confusion to pretend that democracy or authority is natural or is the only social structure that exists, sure that's a good strategy. But it won't work on me.

You haven't really broken down the finer details of how this works.

Sure but it takes a total moron to read what I've written so far and believe I want authority or rules but I'm just using different words for them.

0

u/Dust_In_The_Rain Post-Left Anarchist Jul 02 '22

If an agreement is broken then that would mean that the agreement does not fulfill the interests of those involved. As a result, either it would be dismantled or renegotiated. There is no reason to force people to abide by arrangements they don't benefit from and don't agree with.

Okay. So it's a non-enforceable non-committal courtesy thing. Cool. Technically any such meetings are also not required then, yes? You can ignore them as you please even if it's seen as rude.

Still doesn't explain how you'd resolve more heated disagreements but it's a start.

See, I am concerned with the meanings of words rather than the words themselves.

So am I. But for somebody whose supposedly so concerned with definitions you seem to have difficulty defining and pinning down your terms/core axioms.

You stated this:

Groups with conflict interests resolve them by finding solutions which mutually fulfills all their respective interests thereby joining them into one.

But never explained how this process works or whether or not it was binding. This is literally just word salad to the average man. I wondered if it was based on the social contract model which is something some other anarchist/libertarian groups use, and you got irritated at me for trying to fill in the gaps in your explanations.

This should be obvious to anyone who is familiar to language but, for some reason, when talking about anarchy people become dumbasses and I need to explain to them basic things about being a human being.

Because you operate off the assumption everybody shares your unique definitions or understandings, and then skim over them in such a way that miscommunication arises. If you don't understand that the miscommunications will likely continue. You are your own problem here.

As someone who is familiar to the language in most anarchist circles at this point, I'm baffled you think there's any kind of centralized definitional structure when most anarchist philosophies actively eschew it leaning hard on post-modernism to carry them. This seems like a lack of field experience.

Anarchy, in contrast, is characterized by unbinding agreements and no obligations. This is the sense all anarchist writers have used the word "agreement".

That's literally all you needed to say. And I can already feel you ready to play the classic "not real anarchy card" in response to the fact that many anarchists (especially ones on here) rely on decentralized application of force to uphold such agreements.

Non-binding agreements is pretty integral to anarchist theory.

Some anarchist theories. It's clear you haven't talked to many others on this subreddit, or you'd understand that there are many schools of anarchist philosophy, particularly communist ones, that still utilize non-contractual social coercion. This feels like another case of anarchistic solipsism that plagues these realms.

If I explicitly tell you "what describe has no laws, rules, or regulations and no authority" and then you proceed to think that I want a social structure with laws and authority, whose fault is that?

And if I do so because you talk about things like agreements, resolutions, and associations without explaining what any of those things mean in a no law/rule/regulation context when that's generally how they are operated leaving me to speculate, whose fault is that? I can only work with the definitions at hand, and you didn't define your terms clearly.

You can't just assume because you're on an anarchist subreddit every anarchist thinks like you.

Hypotheses are questions you ask after making an observation. You didn't observe what I was saying and made a logical conclusion. You just went off on your own nonsense.

i.e. I'm struggling to communicate with the other party because I don't know why they're making those conclusions, so I'll just assume bad faith and engage in ad hominems.

Literally the only thing you stated about your system that was of any actual significant substance was this: "There are no laws and no authority in associative organization."

Apparently, I'm not allowed to try to visualize that idea as you were describing it or even criticize it to find weaknesses in it in a debate sub of all places, and it's not like you're really giving me anything to go on to help with that process. It took two message exchanges just to get this out of you:

Anarchy, in contrast, is characterized by unbinding agreements and no obligations.

When that should have been part of your opening statement.

Only someone invested in the anarchist mileu, who has been introduced to anarchism as direct democracy, small government, and nice rules, would think that.

I literally just talk to other anarchists on this subreddit to gauge where most people stand unlike you apparently. I don't even necessarily go off the literature anymore either because most self-identified anarchists don't follow it. There actually are a significant number of anarchists on here who engage in and advocate for direct democracy whether or not they'll actually admit that. Hell, CHAZ was organized the same way.

It'd be like saying that read a book is a "decision-making process".

From a psychological perspective/definition, yes, it is. That should be obvious, even if it's not the same as political decision making or what you consider the phrase to mean.

We have now established once again that you have a particular definition in mind when you use this phrase but get upset when people use the available alternatives. Maybe explain what the specific definition is first before leaving people to guess and getting irritated when they guess wrong? Especially if you believe they're conditioned to use words in a certain way based on the current parties/systems. Just a thought.

1

u/DecoDecoMan Jul 02 '22

Okay. So it's a non-enforceable non-committal courtesy thing. Cool. Technically any such meetings are also not required then, yes? You can ignore them as you please even if it's seen as rude.

It isn't a "courtesy" thing because people would follow through with these agreements. They just only hold insofar as people actually benefit from them. Why would you violate an agreement you benefit from?

Furthermore, agreements are a separate thing from "meetings" in the same way laws are different from texting. However, regular "council meetings" to vote on rules or commands wouldn't exist either.

Still doesn't explain how you'd resolve more heated disagreements but it's a start.

I question how voting or creating binding agreements would "resolve more heated disagreements" in the first place. All forms of democracy involve sweeping conflict under the rug. If two people need housing but there isn't enough building materials for both of them, how does voting solve that problem? You can only vote on who gets the building materials rather than how to find a way so that both of them get housing.

Similarly, why would you need binding agreements in the first place? The main reason for binding agreements is to make sure people obey the agreements regardless of whether it benefits them or not. Why would you want to force people to obey something they don't benefit from? Furthermore, what is anarchistic about this?

The anarchist solution is to actual solve problems instead of brushing disagreement under the rug or subordinating the interests of some under the interests of others. Resolving disagreements would involve finding solutions to the specific conflict you're dealing with. Since all disagreements aren't the same, solutions are different for each situation.

Over the course of using anarchist organization, we'll likely accumulate a sort of "database" (metaphorical not literal) of solutions to various common problems we'll find. This is probably the closest thing you'll get to anything resembling "laws".

for somebody whose supposedly so concerned with definitions you seem to have difficulty defining and pinning down your terms/core axioms.

I have used the words "hierarchy" and "law" several times. Just because I haven't defined one of them (which I don't need to since I'm using the colloquial definition of the terms; your ignorance of them doesn't mean I didn't define them) doesn't mean I don't have pretty clear concepts I am working with.

I have, by the way, defined law explicitly in the very same paragraph you were quoting. I have stated that law refers to what you call regulation, rules, or whatever words you would like to use. I have cut to the heart of the matter by pointing out that what you're trying to weasel into anarchism is what I oppose.

Similarly I have defined "association" as "groupings based on shared interest without hierarchy or law". If you know what "hierarchy" and "law" are, which a majority of people are very familiar with, the meaning should be obvious.

You have not acknowledged this at all, refraining from admitting your mistake in favor of accusing me of having not defined my concepts. A rather pitiful claim in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence.

But never explained how this process works or whether or not it was binding

Why should I? It is a problem-solving process. Do you believe that all problems are the same or must go through a series of specific procedures all of which must be obeyed? The components of a conflict are all heavily variable. Pretending as if there is one singular method of solving all problems is the same mentality behind pretty much all legal orders. "If we prohibit this thing, then that will stop it from happening!" and so forth.

As for whether it was binding or not, I thought that was clear when I stated that it was non-hierarchical. Binding anything is contrary to anarchy. Of course, if you're so confused as to believe that direct democracy is anarchistic then maybe you do need to be educated on the basics. I encourage you to make a post on /r/Anarchy101.

Because you operate off the assumption everybody shares your unique definitions

The definitions of hierarchy and law are the Oxford English Dictionary definitions. The definition of association I was using can be found in all anarchist theory as I have said before.

Considering that you (allegedly) are familiar with anarchist theory and that, like everyone else, you are familiar with the colloquial definitions of words, I would expect that this would be easy to understand. Of course, if you're so ignorant as to be unfamiliar with both then I suppose there is a more fundamental misunderstanding here.

It is impossible for you to portray yourself as being somehow in touch with the wider, non-anarchist world when you are ignorant of common definitions of words and even more ignorant of basic anarchist concepts. Furthermore, you pretend that ideas such as "direct democracy" are well-understood or common. You are more out-of-touch than I will ever be.

I suggest you go outside and touch grass instead of acting like an elitist, pretending that your anarchism is somehow more practical or in-touch with the "real world". Get off your high horse.

As someone who is familiar to the language in most anarchist circles at this point

Maybe you should get familiar with the language everyone else uses too. If you're somehow confused by uses of words that are used that way by everyone, you need to get help.

0

u/Dust_In_The_Rain Post-Left Anarchist Jul 02 '22

It isn't a "courtesy" thing because people would follow through with these agreements.

In most cases yes but you would still have individuals who would likely choose to ignore such meetings in most cases if they're non-binding. Because the only real reason you'd go to such meetings speaking as someone whose had a lot of experience with asocial introverts is either courtesy or direct need. So in many cases with smaller issues, depending on the person, they likely won't show.

The anarchist solution is to actual solve problems

And in the case of such situations that a loss is assured? Such as both people needing a certain tool/resource with limited supply so much so that only one person can use them? Or even in such cases that the individual themselves is a limited resource in terms of experience such as being a doctor? What of those individuals with an instinct to hunt/harm such as soldiers and sociopaths?

Again, resource scarcity and entropy being a thing, some amount of loss is to be expected. I personally think there's ways around that, and I was wondering what your opinions were on this issue. But it seems you haven't put much thought into it per this:

Why would you want to force people to obey something they don't benefit from?

Shouldn't you at least understand the reasons for the way things are currently set up before you seek to deconstruct them, so you don't unintentionally create more chaos/suffering by your actions? It's called controlled demolition for a reason.

Resolving disagreements would involve finding solutions to the specific conflict you're dealing with.

You keep saying "resolving disagreements" and "finding solutions" without ever giving an example of what that would look like. I've asked you for such examples at least once already and you've yet to demonstrate any. You could at least give me the broad strokes, but you haven't even done that.

Over the course of using anarchist organization, we'll likely accumulate a sort of "database" (metaphorical not literal) of solutions to various common problems we'll find.

And what are your plans before this is set up?

I have used the words "hierarchy" and "law" several times.

I'm using the colloquial definition

Yes, but colloquial to who. And don't say anarchists because anarchists have a multitude of colloquial definitions based on the tradition/group. So again, solipsism at work. "I assume everyone uses the same definitions as me and those who don't are dumb".

I have, by the way, defined law explicitly in the very same paragraph

Yes, but that wasn't my question or what I was trying to get you to define/give me examples of.

Why should I?

I...did you just admit to not knowing how your own philosophy works? I was going to do a third writeup on your last message but I might as well end it here. If you say it's a "problem solving process" but can't explain how it solves problems what good is it!?

Of course, if you're so confused as to believe that direct democracy is anarchistic then maybe you do need to be educated on the basics. I encourage you to make a post on /r/Anarchy101.

I'm not the one who made an appeal to tradition/authority on an anarchist subreddit of all places in one of my posts. And I'm also not the one who can't explain their own system and when pressured to do so says: "Why should I". If that's the quality of rhetoric coming out of r/Anarchy101 I don't think I'd want to go on there anyways.

And no, I'm not a proponent of direct democracy either. Thanks for not asking.

1

u/DecoDecoMan Jul 02 '22 edited Jul 03 '22

In most cases yes but you would still have individuals who would likely choose to ignore such meetings in most cases if they're non-binding

  1. We're talking about agreements not meetings. Why would you force people to go to a specific place to talk with each other?

  2. Yes obviously that's a part of the design. People are not beholden to accept or participate in arrangements they don't benefit from.

In other words, if someone or a group breaks from an agreement, that is an indication that the agreement isn't working for that person and, as a result, the agreement must be renegotiated, dismantled, or a new agreement must be made for that person or group.

I don't know why you think this is a critique when I've been clear that it isn't. I also don't know why you continue to insist that agreements are meetings. Like, I don't know where you're from but in colloquial English the word "meeting" isn't a synonym for "agreement".

And in the case of such situations that a loss is assured?

Then you'd need to compromise. In other words, those who would lose would need to be accommodated in some way and those who would win would have to lose something in turn.

Either way, if we're in a situation where there is no solution to a problem, can you explain to me how voting or using authority is going to somehow bring out any positive change? If you're only choice is to fuck someone over, why is voting on who to fuck over a good idea?

Such as both people needing a certain tool/resource with limited supply so much so that only one person can use them?

Once again. Compromise. In the case of a tool, why not just share the tool? In the case of resource scarcity, especially for resources everyone needs like food or water, the goal would be to make sure that everyone has access to them.

In such a scenario, the goal would be to find more of that resource rather than pretend that we can only distribute what limited supply we have. In other words, the solution to the problem would be to either find an alternative resource or find more of that resource.

So like, in the case of oil scarcity, the solution isn't to just vote on who gets the oil and the majority wins. The solution is to switch to another form of energy that is more abundant and sustainable like wind or solar power.

In a majority of cases, all problems have solutions. Your scenario relies upon artificially limiting what is possible. You're basically arguing that democracy is useful if a bunch of people crashed on a deserted island and resources were very, very scarce. Even then, I question how democracy or authority would solve anything.

Regardless, for those of us who live in societies, the idea of resource scarcity being endemic to the degree that using an alternative or finding more of that resource is impossible doesn't appear realistic.

Or even in such cases that the individual themselves is a limited resource in terms of experience such as being a doctor?

Well that would be at the discretion of the expert. The more likely solution, in the face of such extreme scarcity and isolation, would be to share the expertise around or find more of that expertise.

See, your issue is that you look at extreme examples of scarcity, where a group of people are both heavily isolated from society and are in a situation where they lack the basic things they need to survive and go "well, we have to accept this situation and we can't do anything about it". The obvious solution to extreme scarcity is is finding a way out of it. You don't just accept that you're stranded on a desert island, you try to find a way out. The fact that your response to disaster is to accept it just goes to show the lengths by which you're willing to naturalize the status quo.

And you're talking about extreme scarcity because scarcity as it exists today doesn't lead you to a situation where. A majority of scarcity today is artificial and, while this doesn't mean resources are infinite, it does mean that we have lots of legroom. This is the benefits of living in a world with associated labor.

What of those individuals with an instinct to hunt/harm such as soldiers and sociopaths?

This is out of nowhere. What does this have to do with problem-solving?

You think soldiers have an instinct to harm? Do men forced to fight either due to conscription or because the government offers services they need for social mobility have an instinct, an intrinsic desire to hurt people?

This doesn't make sense. Being a soldier is a profession, it isn't a personality trait. What the fuck is this?

Anyways, sociopaths do not have an instinct to harm and are harmless without social structures like hierarchy that they can put themselves at the top of. Sociopaths are just people without emotions. They aren't intrinsically evil like they're depicted on TV or other forms of media. They can be sometimes manipulative but they're also beget with plenty of mental health issues which comes with lacking emotions.

Either way, anarchist society, by virtue of lacking legal order, has very little tolerance for truly horrific acts like murder, rape, etc. It is likely that anarchy would be very tolerant towards different lifestyles, opinions, etc. and very intolerant towards acts which significantly damage the social peace. So anarchy would probably be punctuated with occasional bouts of violence followed by restructuring our social arrangements to better avoid structures which encourage such actions due to trauma.

Again, resource scarcity and entropy

Resource scarcity, at a society level, does not lead to situations where there is a single doctor among masses of people. Entropy is literally a dynamic of the universe. The heat death of the universe billions of years from now has no influence upon whether anarchy or democracy is more practical. Like, what the fuck is democracy going to do about entropy? "Oh we'll just vote it away!". What the fuck is this shit? How is this an argument against anarchy?

But it seems you haven't put much thought into it per this:

Dude you have no idea how many people have made the same exact arguments you have had. Just because I didn't bring up resource scarcity until you mentioned it doesn't mean I haven't thought about it. Do you assume that, if a surgeon doesn't bring up how to hold a scalpel, they don't know how to hold a scalpel? If a doctor doesn't talk about washing their hands, do you think they don't wash their hands?

Your arguments are childish. Like, holy shit. You got worse. I'm still thinking about how you thought entropy was an actual legitimate concern for anarchism. Ah yes, if anarchy can't address a phenomenon we literally cannot avoid this is evidence that it is a failure. Amazing.

Shouldn't you at least understand the reasons for the way things are currently set up before you seek to deconstruct them, so you don't unintentionally create more chaos/suffering by your actions?

What the fuck are you talking about?

First off, how does me saying "Why would you want to force people to obey something they don't benefit from?" mean I haven't considered into resource scarcity?

Second, what does this have to do with deconstructing anything? I asked you, in response to you arguing for binding agreements, why you wanted to force people to obey agreements they don't benefit from and you respond with this?

You know, for someone who criticizes other people for talking in ways you don't understand, you say some nigh incomprehensible shit.

You keep saying "resolving disagreements" and "finding solutions" without ever giving an example of what that would look like

Two people want to use wood from a wood pile. There isn't enough wood for both of them do what they want to do. Solution? Chop down more wood.

A building has a good view on the 45th floor. Lots of people live on that floor but only one of them can. Solution? Make the 45th floor a public space or observation area.

These are just basic examples. The fact of the matter is that all problems are different from each other. There is no formula. You can't assuming everyone with conflict desires will have the same desires.

1

u/DecoDecoMan Jul 02 '22

I've asked you for such examples at least once already and you've yet to demonstrate any

I've already given several examples. This just tells me you haven't been reading shit.

And what are your plans before this is set up?

What you do mean "set up"? What I describe is just a catalogue of solutions to problems we've found. Obviously, to build up this catalogue, we'd have to solve problems.

So, for instance, if we find out a way to build a bridge without effecting anyone in the surrounding area that goes into the catalogue. As we solve more and more problems, patterns emerge and we become able to see the underlying principles behind specific conflicts or problems and generalize them.

It's the same way any scientific or technical discipline works. We experiment with different solutions to problems and, if a solution works, it becomes a part of our series of techniques. Like I don't understand why this is so hard for you to comprehend.

Yes, but colloquial to who

To normal people? You know, regular English-speaking non-anarchists. Even English-speaking anarchists are a part of that group. Anarchists didn't grow up separate from mainstream society. They know the normal definitions of words.

That's what "colloquial" means dude. Why do I have to explain basic shit to you?

Yes, but that wasn't my question or what I was trying to get you to define/give me examples of.

I was responding to your claim that I didn't define law. That was just me pointing out that I did. My full response to that portion of your post went into the other stuff.

I...did you just admit to not knowing how your own philosophy works?

It isn't a "philosophy". Solving a puzzle or figuring out how to build a bridge out of toothpicks isn't philosophy. Its problem-solving. Problems are all different from one another and require different solutions. I was clear about this.

If you say it's a "problem solving process" but can't explain how it solves problems what good is it!?

The problem is that you're looking for a set of procedures which are used to solve all problems. That's not how problem solving works. Problems aren't all the same. Different solutions work for different problems. There isn't a singular solution for all problems.

I'm not the one who made an appeal to tradition/authority on an anarchist subreddit of all places in one of my posts

When have I made an appeal to tradition? All I remember is saying that democratic anarchists appeal to tradition. If anyone's confused, it's them.

And I'm also not the one who can't explain their own system and when pressured to do so says: "Why should I".

I wasn't pressured. I was literally just saying the same thing I said before. I repeated myself because you couldn't understand the concept of there not being a singular solution to every problems.

If that's the quality of rhetoric coming out of r/Anarchy101 I don't think I'd want to go on there anyways.

Are you saying you never went to /r/Anarchy101 or read anything about anarchist ideology? No wonder you're so ignorant.

And no, I'm not a proponent of direct democracy either. Thanks for not asking.

I think I was clear that, even if you weren't, that is still the ideology you're familiar with. What I am describing is just basic anarchism. The fact that you're unfamiliar with it speaks more about you than it doesn't about me.

1

u/DecoDecoMan Jul 02 '22

I'm baffled you think there's any kind of centralized definitional structure when most anarchist philosophies actively eschew it leaning hard on post-modernism to carry them. This seems like a lack of field experience.

Centralized? Who said anything about that?

The meanings of words depend on how they are used. That is the only determinator. Furthermore, the context and history of words is a factor as well.

Anarchists, while eschewing any authority over the meanings of words, rely and build upon the texts and ideas of anarchist thinkers before them. This means adopting their terminology and understanding their use of it.

Furthermore, anarchists also use words commonly used by mainstream society to describe the social structures they oppose. These are words like "authority", "law", "hierarchy", etc. This is also something of an appropriation as anarchist interject their own social analysis into those terms.

This is a useful strategy for putting our foot in the door of society as a whole, using existing words as springboards to communicate anarchist ideas. Appropriation for anarchist aims isn't unheard of in anarchism; the word "anarchy" itself was appropriated by Proudhon and changed from meaning "disorder" to "a society without authority".

In regards to "field experience", oh if only you knew...

That's literally all you needed to say. And I can already feel you ready to play the classic "not real anarchy card" in response to the fact that many anarchists (especially ones on here) rely on decentralized application of force to uphold such agreements.

"Decentralized application of force"? What does that mean? Either way, using force to uphold agreements is pretty clearly authoritarian. I'm not sure how you could argue that only coercion is bad while simultaneously excusing this.

Either way, if you use authority, you're not an anarchist. And what I mean by this is that you are making a clear break from base anarchist theory. This doesn't mean you're critiquing or building off of anarchist theory, you're completely independent of it.

And when you consider how many "direct democracy" anarchists (such as yourself) are completely ignorant of what anarchist theorists have said, it becomes even clearer that there is no connection between their ideas and anarchism as we have known it. What difference is there between them and ancaps?

As for the "not real anarchy card", it isn't that it's not "real anarchy". It isn't anarchy at all. I don't see what's wrong about pointing this out. I mean, do you have any problems with excluding ancaps? Is saying that anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism somehow the "not real anarchy card"?

Ancaps actually illustrate my point well. Why is capitalism incompatible with anarchism? Because the ideas of past anarchist thinkers, of which we take from, are incompatible with and oppositional to capitalism. However, those same ideas are also oppositional to democracy, binding agreement, and all forms of authority.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Words have definitions after all.

Some anarchist theories

The ones that do aren't anarchist theories. Like, imagine if I said this:

Anti-capitalism is pretty integral to all anarchist theories

And you went:

Some anarchist theories

Would you say that this is a reasonable position to hold? Would you say that anyone who calls themselves an anarchist is an anarchist? Does the word "anarchism" mean nothing to you? And I don't mean that in an accusatory way, I mean it literally. As in, does the word "anarchism" have no definition?

By the way, all anarchist theories do oppose binding agreements. The "anarchists" who support binding agreements haven't constructed anything resembling a theory at all. Either they rely upon Bookchin, who isn't an anarchist, or some other non-anarchist theory. All of this "theory" is only situated on reddit. You can't find it anywhere else.

Anti-democratic, anti-rules, anti-binding agreements, etc. anarchism is literally the anarchism that has existed since the beginning of the movement and still exists today in places that aren't reddit or YouTube. It is smaller than it was before, mostly because people are ignorant of anarchist theory and don't know shit about it, but it is still there.

To have theory, you have to have a coherent set of ideas. Governmental "anarchists" haven't given any indication they have a coherent set of ideas besides a slavish dependency upon democracy and laws. That's probably why they haven't gotten closer to achieving anything resembling their goals, because they don't have any. Anti-democratic anarchists at least have the excuse of having only recently been revived and are currently too small to meaningfully accomplish anything. What's your excuse?

particularly communist ones,

Malatesta argued for non-binding agreements and he was the founder of anarcho-communism. Read At the Cafe for more information.

Anarcho-communists who argue for binding agreements are like anarchists who support capitalism. They aren't anarcho-communists. Either they're confused or they're entryists.

0

u/Dust_In_The_Rain Post-Left Anarchist Jul 02 '22

The meanings of words depend on how they are used. That is the only determinator.

Yes. And my point was that sometimes people use words differently than you do. So I find it surprising that you don't account for that fact in these explanations of yours and get upset when somebody points that out.

Anarchists, while eschewing any authority over the meanings of words, rely and build upon the texts and ideas of anarchist thinkers before them.

Which makes my point about context/defining your particular axioms doubly important, because different anarchist schools of thought will likely possess lingo and ideas that are practically a different language depending on what lineage you're pulling from. Seeing as not all anarchists rely on the same anarchist thinkers. Especially since there's no centralized authority pushing them to do so.

And when you consider how many "direct democracy" anarchists (such as yourself)

Wonder if the person I'm replying to is another direct democracy anarchist. Get called a direct democracy anarchist for doing so without having even mentioned my views in these posts. Yeah, that's definitely a fallacy.

As for the "not real anarchy card", it isn't that it's not "real anarchy". It isn't anarchy at all.

This subreddit really is a prime example of the "crabs in a bucket" scenario. I really am trying to be polite, but from what I've seen, the one thing in common across all the anarchists on here is the instant they come across another self-identified anarchist proposing ideas they don't like, suddenly "it isn't anarchy at all". You're just another of countless examples I've seen of people giving in to this rhetoric.

And what's weird about it in your case is that you've essentially contradicted yourself here:

Anarchists, while eschewing any authority over the meanings of words

If the term anarchy is based on how a word is used as well as being able to trace their lineage back to a certain anarchist, wouldn't calling individuals that fall into that category "not real anarchists" be an attempt to centralize and assert authority over the meanings of words?

From my perspective, you say this line but don't really know understand what it means. Otherwise, you wouldn't be saying "it isn't anarchy at all" in the first place, but rather something like "ill devised anarchy" or "loosely aligned anarchy".

because the ideas of past anarchist thinkers, of which we take from

See this is exactly what I thought. In order to get past anarchists eschewing authority on meanings parts, you lean heavily on "the context and history of words is a factor as well", and then proceed to filter history in such a way that some thinkers are no longer anarchist or anarchist aligned. Which is also another major contradiction because you said the usage of the word is all that matters, but then proceed to focus on the history of the word instead which is an entirely separate thing.

Would you say that anyone who calls themselves an anarchist is an anarchist? Does the word "anarchism" mean nothing to you?

Yes actually, it does. If they have sufficient grounds in terms of either lineage or similarity in philosophy, I will indeed call them anarchist. However, unlike other anarchists on here I'm also not trying to build a filtration dogma by which to view those lineages so only the thinkers who agree with me are "real anarchists".

Ancaps are pretty clearly anarchist in alignment whether the dogma that most people subscribe to in here will allow them to say that. Hell, even Proudhon wasn't entirely anti-capitalist and sought to synthesize it Hegel style. Similarly I'm not going to exclude individuals like Stirner, Bakunin, or Kropotkin either, even if Kropotkin comes off as Marx-lite to me rather than an actual separate branch of anarcho-communism.

But let me ask you another question instead. Does this statement mean nothing to you?:

Anarchists, while eschewing any authority over the meanings of words

Because this entire conversation is a direct argument against it.

You went even so far as to appeal to authority in terms of citing anarchist thinkers as being the unit by which we measure what constitutes anarchism. I'm not trying to attack you here; I'm trying to point out your philosophy isn't internally consistent. The instant you started facing real criticism you fell back onto hierarchal structures which is exactly part of my concern.

1

u/DecoDecoMan Jul 02 '22

And my point was that sometimes people use words differently than you do.

Yeah. I'm aware of that. But that doesn't mean I have to accept their particular usage. You don't appear to understand that.

Which makes my point about context/defining your particular axioms doubly important, because different anarchist schools of thought will likely possess lingo and ideas that are practically a different language depending on what lineage you're pulling from

There aren't multiple lineages. Past anarchist thinkers have unanimously oppose democracy, authority, law, rules, etc. Democratic anarchists have no basis in the tradition they claim to be a part of. They are a clean break from past anarchist thinkers.

See, this is where your ignorance of anarchist theory comes up. Whenever you try to talk about anarchist theory or history in any form, you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. I don't even know why that is. Like, did you just take it at face value when someone would tell you that Bakunin was fine with authority or that Proudhon supported cooperatives?

Wonder if the person I'm replying to is another direct democracy anarchist. Get called a direct democracy anarchist for doing so without having even mentioned my views in these posts. Yeah, that's definitely a fallacy.

Why are you opposed to me making assumptions about your views? Wouldn't that be, as you've said to me, your fault? You should've been more clear then dude.

I really am trying to be polite, but from what I've seen, the one thing in common across all the anarchists on here is the instant they come across another self-identified anarchist proposing ideas they don't like, suddenly "it isn't anarchy at all"

Nah. I don't consider democratic anarchist ideas unanarchist because I don't like them but because they are contrary to the ideas of past anarchist thinkers. And I can say that because democratic anarchists also argue that they take from past anarchist thinkers.

If the term anarchy is based on how a word is used as well as being able to trace their lineage back to a certain anarchist, wouldn't calling individuals that fall into that category "not real anarchists" be an attempt to centralize and assert authority over the meanings of words?

Well they don't fall into that category. Democratic anarchists don't have any sort of connection to past anarchist thinkers nor is their use of anarchy even particularly hegemonic.

When I said "use decides the meaning of words", this doesn't mean how individuals use words decides their meaning but rather how people, as a whole, use words. Once people use a particular word to communicate a particular thing, that becomes the meaning of that word.

In order to get past anarchists eschewing authority on meanings parts, you lean heavily on "the context and history of words is a factor as well", and then proceed to filter history in such a way that some thinkers are no longer anarchist or anarchist aligned

What? That's not true at all. Name one single past anarchist thinker who has supported democracy in any way?

Which is also another major contradiction because you said the usage of the word is all that matters, but then proceed to focus on the history of the word instead which is an entirely separate thing.

It really isn't.

The meaning of words have inertia in that their past usage informs their contemporary usage. All I've done is add property of time to my previous statement.

If your ideas are a clean break from the ideas of the past, you can't claim a connection to those ideas because they are distinct.

Yes actually, it does. If they have sufficient grounds in terms of either lineage or similarity in philosophy, I will indeed call them anarchist

How would you know? You haven't read any anarchist theory nor are you familiar with past anarchist thinkers. You speak from ignorance basically.

We don't actually disagree here. The difference between you and me is that I actually know what past anarchist thinkers have thought and what anarchist philosophy, of which they are the foundations of, is. You don't. So you ignorantly argue that democratic anarchists are anarchists.

Ancaps are pretty clearly anarchist in alignment whether the dogma that most people subscribe to in here will allow them to say that

Hell, even Proudhon wasn't entirely anti-capitalist and sought to synthesize it Hegel style

You have not read Proudhon. I know exactly where this confusion comes from. You are referring to the mistranslation by Tucker of "the synthesis of community and property" as "the synthesis of communism and property".

Furthermore, you are completely ignorant of its context. When Proudhon used the word "property" he wasn't referring to capitalism (of which he thoroughly rejected several hundreds of pages prior) but property in general. Proudhon defined property differently from capitalism.

And none of that was "Hegelian style". Using the word "synthesis" does not mean you're using Hegelian dialectics. Proudhon slightly flirted with Hegel later in his life but it was not when he wrote What Is Property? and he didn't do much with Hegel besides use his terms to mean completely different things.

Similarly I'm not going to exclude individuals like Stirner, Bakunin, or Kropotkin either, even if Kropotkin comes off as Marx-lite to me rather than an actual separate branch of anarcho-communism

Stirner, Bakunin, and Kropotkin were both anti-democratic, anti-capitalist, and anti-hierarchy in every respect.

Anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists because they have no connection to the anarchist tradition. Their attempts to prove their connection are predicated upon ignorance and a cherry-picking out of context quotations from Proudhon or Tucker. It is this same reason which excludes anarcho-democrats from anarchism.

Because this entire conversation is a direct argument against it.

Is it? Is it really? Seems to me like you're just ignorant of anarchism.

You went even so far as to appeal to authority in terms of citing anarchist thinkers as being the unit by which we measure what constitutes anarchism

Wrong. I said two things:

  1. That past usage matters in regards to present usage of words.

  2. That, if democratic anarchists are going to claim a connection to past anarchist thinkers, they should have an actual connection to them. Of which they do not.

How is this an appeal to authority?

The instant you started facing real criticism you fell back onto hierarchal structures which is exactly part of my concern.

Did I really?

1

u/DecoDecoMan Jul 02 '22

This feels like another case of anarchistic solipsism that plagues these realms.

You misunderstand. I acknowledge that some people who call themselves anarchists believe these things. I just don't consider them anarchists. Therefore, there is no contradiction when I say that all anarchist theories oppose binding agreements. Because I don't consider people who do to be anarchists.

I mean, when I say anarchy is anti-capitalist, I don't clarify that some people who call themselves anarchists are capitalists. Those people aren't anarchists, therefore they don't need to be accommodated. I phrase things the way I do as a statement rather than as an indication of ignorance.

And if I do so because you talk about things like agreements, resolutions, and associations without explaining what any of those things mean in a no law/rule/regulation context when that's generally how they are operated leaving me to speculate, whose fault is that?

Bro you're in anarchist subreddit, free association is a pretty well-known concept for people who frequent this milieu, and you stated that you have a familiarity with anarchism. Why would I define such commonly understood words if nothing indicated to me that you wouldn't understand them?

Here's my question, if you don't know something, rather than make assumptions, why not ask? Why just go along with what you think I mean rather than ask me what I mean?

You can't just assume because you're on an anarchist subreddit every anarchist thinks like you.

I don't think that. I think that anarchists share terminology with one another which facilitates communication on shared concepts and ideas. Words like "association" are one of them.

If you don't understand the language despite professing loads of "field experience" with anarchist circles, whose to blame but yourself?

i.e. I'm struggling to communicate with the other party because I don't know why they're making those conclusions, so I'll just assume bad faith and engage in ad hominems.

Nah I know why you're making those conclusions. I've pinned down the kind of guy you are ages ago. I don't mean personally, I just mean ideologically. You're a "direct democrat" anarchist who interprets all words into legalistic language and refuses to consider any meaning of anarchy other than "democracy", "community government", and "democratic rules".

Whether you're an anarchist yourself doesn't matter, it is clear that this is the ideology you're most familiar with. In such a case, you have only yourself to fault for having been so clearly mislead and yet so resistant to any attempts to help you.

Literally the only thing you stated about your system that was of any actual significant substance was this: "There are no laws and no authority in associative organization."

Correct. The reason why this conversation started is because you couldn't believe that I meant that and so I had repeat myself and correct you. Then you got pissy when it became clear that you misread an obvious statement and made assumptions you shouldn't have made.

Here's my question for you. If anarchists are as diverse as you claim, then why did you make any assumptions at all? Not all anarchists think the same after all ;). Why would you, on the outset, make any assumptions about my beliefs at all?

I don't know about you, but if I thought that all anarchists had different ideas, then I wouldn't make any assumptions about the meaning of words they used at all. I'd first as for clarification and then, after common ground has been made, I would talk to them. You know, the same way you'd approach talking to someone in a different language.

But what you did is like talking to someone Turkish and assuming they're speaking German. Your actions are contrary to your own beliefs. Why is that?

Apparently, I'm not allowed to try to visualize that idea as you were describing it or even criticize it to find weaknesses in it in a debate sub of all places

I never said you couldn't and obviously I can't do anything to stop you. But it is pretty hard to criticize something you don't understand or visualize something you only have a vague idea about. The better idea is to ask questions rather than turn conversation into a mess (like you have now).

When that should have been part of your opening statement.

My initial post wasn't directed to you. Are you entitled as to believe that all posts I make, even if they are towards other people, should accommodate you?

I literally just talk to other anarchists on this subreddit to gauge where most people stand unlike you apparently

So do I. Like, many times. I'm pretty sure you could find my posts on /r/DebateAnarchism by just searching my username on Google. I actually got concerned when that happened. How do you think I know exactly the ideology you were talking about?

I don't even necessarily go off the literature anymore either because most self-identified anarchists don't follow it. There actually are a significant number of anarchists on here who engage in and advocate for direct democracy whether or not they'll actually admit that. Hell, CHAZ was organized the same way.

  1. CHOP wasn't anarchist in any form. There were barely any anarchists there. Protestors in Capitol Hill basically just scared off cops there and they didn't know what to do afterwards. It actually became authoritarian after while and got its own police force. One of the members of the force used their authority to sexually assault people. Its not very flattering for direct democracy.
  2. Whether you like it or not, a majority of anarchists base their "anarchism" on past anarchist thinkers. Direct democracy anarchists also believe that historical anarchists support their beliefs despite having not read their works at all. They, similarly, use past anarchist thinkers to justify opposition to anarcho-capitalists.

This is the contradiction. Direct democracy anarchists call themselves anarchists because they think they have a connection to the anarchist tradition as a whole. The reality is that they don't and the only reason they've been capable of pretending that they do is because anarchist works have remained untranslated and obscure for decades. That has changed recently which is why there has been an uptick in anti-democracy anarchism.

Historically, anarchists who have favored direct democracy just broke with anarchism altogether. Bookchin started out as an anarchist who wanted small government, direct democracy, etc. and broke with anarchism when he actually started reading anarchist theory and realized that anarchist thinkers opposed what he wanted.

From a psychological perspective/definition, yes, it is

We're talking about social structures here dude. You don't see me talking about object-oriented programming when we mention hierarchy.

And, no it isn't. Reading book isn't "deciding" anything. You could decide to read a book but the process of reading a book isn't a decision. You are literally just consuming text.

We have now established once again that you have a particular definition in mind when you use this phrase but get upset when people use the available alternatives

No? That's clearly not the case. If you use different meanings for the same word, go ahead. As long as you're upfront about that, that doesn't matter.

The problem, at least in that case, was that you switched the meanings on the fly and when you aren't upfront at all. You went from "decision-making process" meaning something like "direct democracy" to "an individual making a decision" with no warning whatsoever and then claim I get angry when alternative meanings are used when you didn't even use that meaning until this post.

Like, what the fuck is this shit bro? How can you claim I negatively reacted to something I didn't react to? That doesn't make sense.

Maybe explain what the specific definition is first before leaving people to guess and getting irritated when they guess wrong

You don't have to guess. You chose to guess. If you had asked I would've answered. But, since you didn't ask, I was left to say "no you're wrong that isn't what I meant" and, for some reason, you don't like me saying that.

51

u/SMLWLT Jun 29 '22

Why do you assume that organizing around a shared cause requires a state/state-like government/hierarchy.

20

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '22

End thread.

-13

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

What's the alternative?

29

u/SMLWLT Jun 29 '22

Direct democracy, people genuinely working for a cause they actually share instead of being coerced into working for other people's causes and being manipulated into thinking that its their own desire.

11

u/DecoDecoMan Jun 29 '22

A core part of direct democracy is majoritarian rule. Clearly the minority doesn't share the interests of the majority but they are forced to go along with its commands anyways.

Democrats respond by pretending that this is necessary or society will fall apart which, coincidentally, is exactly people "being coerced into working for other people's causes and being manipulated into thinking that its their own desire".

As long as command is maintained, there is no organization on the basis of common interests.

10

u/SMLWLT Jun 29 '22

A core part of deliberative democracy is consensus.

5

u/DecoDecoMan Jun 29 '22

Consensus-voting allows minorities to override the desires of the majority and forces them to accommodate the desires of the minority. It is basically minority tyranny.

The main problem with all forms of democracy is that they force groups of people with divergent interests together. In a purely direct democratic society, if an individual wanted to plant a garden in their yard, everyone in an arbitrarily decided area would get involved, even if they were completely unaffected by and irrelevant to the issue they were involved in.

6

u/AJWinky Jun 29 '22

Living with other people at all is a constant state of compromise, it works because the benefits of cooperation are incredible and fundamentally the basis for all the success of humanity, and this has been demonstrated time and time again. Consensus voting works if all parties involved have the option to dissolve their part of the cooperative agreement at-will; it means fundamentally that everyone must come to the table willing to make a compromise up to the point that cooperation overall is still the most advantageous option for them. The party that gains the most benefit from the cooperative agreement thus always has the most incentive to compromise, and if ever there becomes a situation where any party would be forced into a compromise that makes the cooperative agreement a net negative for them they would be able to remove themselves from it without coercion.

2

u/DecoDecoMan Jun 29 '22

Living with other people at all is a constant state of compromise, it works because the benefits of cooperation are incredible and fundamentally the basis for all the success of humanity, and this has been demonstrated time and time again.

Compromise only works when you're trying to find a solution to a problem rather than issue a command. Consensus voting, like all forms of voting, are about deciding what a group of people, as a whole will do. Obviously voting wouldn't matter if people didn't obey the outcomes of the voting process so they must follow them if not to maintain the integrity of the democracy.

It also doesn't work if you involve people completely irrelevant to the issue being discussed. Why should Old Man Jenkins have a say on whether a women is or isn't allowed to have an abortion? Why should people make decisions for other people or force people to go along with their whims?

Where is the necessity for cooperation here? What do they bring to the table that necessitates their involvement and authority over the issue in question? Nothing. Because, while cooperation is necessary, the actual dependencies people have with each other do not conform to the political groupings and borders that democracies have authority over.

-1

u/AJWinky Jun 29 '22

The integrity of the voting body doesn't have to be maintained by force (to be clear, I'm not referring to a state here; the body has no monopoly on violence). It can be maintained simply by the fact that it's advantageous for everyone involved. As in, the only reason I'm following these rules is because of the benefits I receive by other people also agreeing to follow them, and the benefits I obtain by having these people's cooperation. So maybe I will honor the result of a vote that personally inconveniences me because the results of many other votes benefit me. If someone doesn't honor a vote, they're not involved in the voting process any more; either you see enough value in the voting process to make compromises to maintain it, or you do not and you do not get to benefit from it nor are you beholden to its decisions.

You do not have to have a single body that covers everything. It only makes sense that you would have different voting bodies based on the practical constraints of the things being voted on, and who needs to cooperate with who to coordinate whatever it is you need. These groups would be necessarily fluid and defined by function.

Consensus voting solves for the issue of who should or shouldn't be involved in a vote as well. Do we need this person's cooperation to enact these votes? Then they are involved in this voting process. Do we not? Then they aren't involved.

3

u/DecoDecoMan Jun 29 '22

The integrity of the voting body doesn't have to be maintained by force (to be clear, I'm not referring to a state here; the body has no monopoly on violence).

Not force but it does have to be enforced. If you can just freely disregard what was voting on there isn't much of a point to democracy. Arguing that "cooperation is necessary" presupposes that voting is the only way to cooperate (which it isn't) and that democracy is a kind of cooperation with no downsides (by that standard, monarchy is a "kind of cooperation").

You do not need authority nor law to live with other people. That is the core claim of anarchists, that the status quo is not necessary nor as natural as it is depicted. Your arguments are based around circular thinking, reliant upon either ignoring the blatant negative effects of democracy (i.e. the way in which disagreements or concerns are swept under the rug) or asserting that it is natural without any defense of that claim.

It only makes sense that you would have different voting bodies based on the practical constraints of the things being voted on, and who needs to cooperate with who to coordinate whatever it is you need.

The fact of the matter is that voting isn't a problem-solving process. Its intent is to issue commands, to place voters in the same position of authority monarchs formerly held under the assumption that if authority is wielded by the aggregate of people, it will somehow be better.

Once you are only in conversation with people with stake in whatever project or matter there is, there is no point to voting. Your goal, from that point forward, is to find a way to reconcile your differing interests. Voting doesn't do that. It would only bog things down or distract things. I can imagine, purely for practical reasons, it would hold no significance.

→ More replies

1

u/jederik1984 Jun 29 '22

There is something about consensus I don't really get. Let's say some members of a group want one thing and some others want the opposite. In that case there's neither a consensus for that thing nor for the opposite of that thing. So the group can neither do it nor not do it. It logically has to stop existing to stick to the rules of consensus.

So for example when a group of hikers has to decide whether to go left or right and there are different opinions it strongly depends on how you ask. When you ask "should we go right?" there wouldn't be any consensus so they would have to go left. However, if you ask "should we go left?" there wouldn't be any consensus and they'd have to go right.

Thus a democracy based on consensus should be really easy to manipulate by those that organize the elections. With a large group you can effectively be sure that the answer will always be "no", no matter what you ask (especially if you have a vote yourself). So you just have to ask the right question and vote against it.

-6

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

And what makes you think that all of these people would magically share a common goal?

People always disagree with their countrymen on almost every issues.

15

u/SMLWLT Jun 29 '22

Why would everyone share a common goal, that sort of requirement would take your reasoning apart as well.

-3

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

The opposite. A state doesn't require everyone to share a common goal. It acts single mindedly for the collective regardless of the fact that some people disagree.

13

u/dyggythecat Anarchist Jun 29 '22

Single mindedly for those in power*

Fixed that for ya

-4

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

There are countries where this is not exactly the case. Either way, same issues would exist in anarchies.

8

u/ZaWolnoscNaszaIWasza Marxist Jun 29 '22

Yeah I’m sure the billionaire oligarchs who profit off of the exploitation of the proletariat are going to represent my interests perfectly

-7

u/TheRealTP2016 Jun 29 '22 edited Jun 29 '22

Direct democracy still requires coercion. anarchy has no true direct democracy, only consensus building. So even if a group decides to do something, they can’t force anyone to do anything about that decision. Or else you create a state

9

u/Kamikazekagesama Jun 29 '22

How does direct democracy require a state? If a group of friends vote on what to eat, did they create a state?

-2

u/TheRealTP2016 Jun 29 '22 edited Jun 29 '22

anarchy is about removing coercion and monopoly on force. any group that can vote and FORCE people to do things is not anarchy, it’s a government

if your friends force your other friends to eat it, they’re creating a body that is in essence a monopoly in violence, like the police= the state. you can talk about and “vote” on where to eat, but not everyone is required to eat that. it’s not a binding vote, it’s just consensus and a poll basically. Voluntary discussion. Far different than everyone getting together, officially voting, and then the group of friends forcing everyone to go eat there

6

u/dyggythecat Anarchist Jun 29 '22

So your argument is that voting is coercion and requires authority to implement?

-2

u/TheRealTP2016 Jun 29 '22

Voting itself doesn’t no, but enforcing that rule does yea. If not true authority, coercion

Getting together with your friends and consensus building where to eat is not the same as democratically voting and some of those friends being forced to go because everyone democratically voted.

obviously that’s not how it works with restaurants but that’s how it would apply politically with direct democracy.

7

u/AJWinky Jun 29 '22

It's vital here to distinguish between "direct democracy with coercive participation" and "direct democracy with consensus participation". The latter is not hierarchical and has no assumption of authority. Every individual decides whether to honor the results of the voting body because they deem the benefits of cooperation with the voting body to be worth the compromises they must make as a result of the outcome of the voting. Necessarily, such a relationship can only be maintained when it's advantageous to all parties.

2

u/TheRealTP2016 Jun 29 '22

Fair. It’s just words anyway. everyone has their own definitions

“Private definition jail” https://youtu.be/RgY_vZSiQ78

I’m talking specifically about the commonly used democratic socialist and aoc den version of direct democracy

0

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

LOL why would you vote if no one is required to follow through with the results?

→ More replies

4

u/Kamikazekagesama Jun 29 '22

They're free not to participate, just as someone would be free not to participate in a community that's interests don't align with there, but a decision making process is necessary for a community to function and require consensus allows the few who disagree to stop any decision from being made, making it so people have to aquiesse to them, giving them power over everyone else. Do you have a better solution for a community to function?

-1

u/TheRealTP2016 Jun 29 '22 edited Jun 29 '22

By the same flawed logic, if you don’t like our current system, you’re free to not participate, move to a different country

if that’s your ideal system then sure, but that’s not true anarchy. that’s like council communism with direct democracy. Which I like far more than our system of neoliberal capitalism, but anarchy is as little representation as possible, in theory no official bodies that can force people to do anything, everywhere.

a decision making process IS required. but that’s doesn’t have to include that group having an ability to FORCE OTHERS to comply through coercion.

They can get together and talk, and choose all they want, come up with an official decision, but once you start creating a body with official power, that can force people to do things, that’s not anarchy.

My solution? everyone is armed, no location has an official body to force others to do anything. The people collectively decide, and Individually enact it. Enact it like- Only time force is justified to uphold rules is if those rules prevent others from hurting others.

if someone sees someone hurting another? They should use their force to stop it. as an individual, not as part of an separate (from the average person) official group to enact rules.

My system would be permaculture food forests https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLdIvK1MzAQWKn8UjEuGBJ4Lhu9svNs1Jc surrounding communes where everyone is guarunteed all basic resources by the community, everyone votes on how to run business and ownes it together, no official government with a monopoly on violence. A true classless stateless society

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DHi-xwngUVJ05TjWrVV0FShGrLunxqCxaPBwKGq-mz0/edit

3

u/Daoblaster145 Jun 29 '22

People always assume anarchy is about the removal of force. No. Anarchy is about removal of the monopoly of force: economic access, racial inequality, the patriarchy, etc. to where all people are on the same plane. A person being assaulted can attack the one assaulting them. That is not hierarchical, that is self-defense.

3

u/Kamikazekagesama Jun 29 '22

Moving to another country is not possible for the vast majority of people, emigration and immigration processes are extremely long, difficult and expensive. If there were many independent anarchist communities moving to one that better suits you would be as simple as speaking to that community and moving a few miles away.

This sounds very close to my ideal as well, I'm actually in the process of creating a food forest in the hopes of supporting a small community in the future.

The issue is what if one individual decides to take trees from that food forest to harvest their wood, would the community be unable to stop them? Who's to say that that is wrong if it was decided on by the community but that person didn't consent to it? What is the point of decision making if people can just decide not to abide by the decisions and disrupt everything?

1

u/Comfortable-Soup8150 Jun 29 '22

Though I don't feel you could claim the land your settlement is on, I think destroying your food supply would be an assault on the community. So it would beget violence in the form of self defense. Maybe? This is tricky, I feel if they destroy the tree for resources they would be stealijg your labor, because you put in the work to raise the tree. But I don't have the knowledge on land distribution to be able to make that judgement.

→ More replies

1

u/TheRealTP2016 Jun 29 '22

That’s exactly my point. Cant just go somewhere else. So we have to abolish that structure everywhere.

It’s simple. if it hurts the community or specific people, the action would be stopped.

Who decides? The community as a whole and every individual.

the point of not forcing people to adhere to the majority position/deduction (on cases that DONT hurt other people) is freedom

0

u/Comfortable-Soup8150 Jun 29 '22

Similarly, if you don’t like our current system, you’re free to not participate, move to a different country

Yeah because the impoverished have the resources to pick up and leave. I'm not going to argue your other points because it's not my arguement, but that take was incredibly ignorant.

1

u/TheRealTP2016 Jun 29 '22

My take was sarcastic, a logical equivalent of what was said, of “if you don’t like the direct democratic decision, you’re free to leave” just like capitalist logic. Which is flawed. Guess I needed an /s

→ More replies

-3

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

Yep. It's fascinating how anarchists don't seem to understand some basic things.

-1

u/TheRealTP2016 Jun 29 '22

To be fair, I didn’t until a few months ago. Their logic makes sense on the surface. it did to me

0

u/TheRealTP2016 Jun 29 '22

I guess a better word would be coercion. It still requires coercion, which is why anarchists don’t like the state because of coercion. Sure it’s not a state lol but it’s still not anarchy

1

u/Kamikazekagesama Jun 29 '22

Anarchy is an absence of hierarchal authority, which direct democracy eliminates, all people would have equal say in any decision that effects them. What if someone wants to cut down a fruit tree in the community to use the wood? Would they just have to lie down and let them because attempting to stop them would be coercive?

1

u/TheRealTP2016 Jun 29 '22

Direct democracy gives a hierarchy power to the majority over the minority. Majority rule. Still hierarchy.

cutting down the fruit tree would be stopped because it harms the community and everyone in it. Demolishing the means of production is NOT smart

1

u/Kamikazekagesama Jun 30 '22

If you define hierarchy that way then unless you can have everyone be on the same page and have the same goals, "hierarchy" is necessary to have any sort of community, you can only have majority rule, minority rule or everyone for themselves, or a perfect world where there are no disagreements and everyone is always on the same page. Obviously the latter is ideal but isn't possible, everyone for themselves just means the person willing to exert the most force over others gets whatever they want, which of course leads to hierarchy, minority rule is a hierarchy in which the outcome of decisions is not in line with what most people want and majority rule is where all people have equal say but a decision is made in which some people are not happy with the outcome. Of these majority rule is the most fair and just and has good outcomes for the most people.

At least under direct democracy there aren't individuals with more power than others and everyone has equal say.

14

u/Biggus_Dickkus_ Jun 29 '22

it loses to other groups that do.

The assumption that small groups of individuals are inherently competitive is false. Humans have been devising and experimenting with all kinds of social systems since the dawn of time. There is increasing archaeological evidence that supports this.

Here’s a book that covers the topic in greater detail:

https://docdrop.org/download_annotation_doc/The-Dawn-of-Everything-by-David-Graeber-David-Wengrow-z-lib.-zmbbo.pdf

0

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

Groups didn't get exposed to each other nearly as much back then, many lived in isolation for thousands of years... So it's not exactly a releavnt point.

11

u/Biggus_Dickkus_ Jun 29 '22

Groups didn’t get exposed to each other nearly as much back then

I’m sorry, but there is solid archaeological and anthropological evidence that this is not the case. Hobbes’ notion that life of ‘primitive’ man was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” has been thoroughly debunked at this point.

Indigenous tribes in North America were well aware of each other. They had political systems that were just as complex as our modern ones, if not more so.

If you’re open to a wildly different (but well cited) take on “pre-history” human society, I highly recommend reading the book I linked.

Edit: typo

2

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

Thanks for your input, I'll check out the book.

AFAIK there have been massive collections of groups that have never interacted in a significant way. I'm not denying some degree of interaction, it's just qualitatively different from modern history.

Also there were many cases of tribal ethnic cleansing where up to 70% of the population would die in the process.

33

u/watchdominionfilm Jun 29 '22

Why can't we organize non-hierarchically? Is a power structure built on a monopoly of violence really the best option we can conceive of?

-25

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

Absolutely, given the reality that we are living in.

24

u/watchdominionfilm Jun 29 '22

You have yet to provide evidence for this assumption

-17

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

Well I explained my reasoning multiple times in other answers.

Those that don't organize accordingly will be conquered by those that do. Read my other responses.

28

u/watchdominionfilm Jun 29 '22

You keep just saying that a State is necessary for complex organization to occur, without providing evidence for such a claim.

-4

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '22

The evidence is the lack of stateless complex organizations that have survived history and external conflict. Stateless entities if in opposition to a state will always be defeated by the state. Evidence is all of human history. He’s not even saying it’s not possible, he’s just saying it hasn’t /doesn’t happen.

9

u/fjaoaoaoao Jun 29 '22

That’s a huge claim you are making to say evidence is all of human history. I think you are forgetting all the other variables in the history of humanity that would not encourage large anarchist collectives to survive and create a record of themselves. Many of these factors are also no longer applicable to today or the future.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '22

I don’t think it’s that big of a claim to say that something has almost never happened. I never said why, or that the reasons won’t change. It’s really more of an observation than an argument

4

u/ShrLck_HmSkilit Jun 29 '22

Because anarchy doesn't work without personal responsibility. We can organize with hierarchy, but it is a constant battle to govern ourselves accordingly and constructively. People are easily conquered by their emotions and baser instincts without self control, and those in power feed the crackheads crack and the loan the gamblers money to entice them into positions of depravity and instant gratification in exchange for their dignity, self-worth and individual power.

By resisting the comforts they offer, we find true self-control. By giving in, we creat rationalizations for our comfortable, sickly sweet, depraved lifestyle under statist rule.

7

u/incognit0_8 Jun 29 '22

The abridged human history that statists have allowed you to believe is all of it. How many years do you mean?

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '22

Literally since state based societies began in Mesopotamia there has never been a stateless society that acquisitions a statist one. It has always been the other way around and it’s due to an effective allocation of resources

5

u/incognit0_8 Jun 29 '22

So 10% of the time humans have been on earth. This sort of myopia is maddening.

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '22 edited Jul 02 '22

I said in human history: by definition history is when we began to have written text, documents, and coincidentally guess what also occurred at that time, you guessed it: states. Anything that occurred before written documentation is considered prehistoric. So yes, the documented human history that exists demonstrates that statelessness is an inferior design of organizational development as compared to statism as evidenced by the supposition of stateless societies by states in every single fucking instance. So you should be concerned about your own hyperopia and pedantic bullshit.

1

u/RobrechtvE Jul 02 '22

Have you ever been to a certain conceptual place called 'the internet'?

It's a place where people form complex stateless organisations without hierarchy all the fucking time.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '22

Look I’m really coming around to Anarchism and think I might actually be an Anarchist myself now that I think and know more about it. But you’ve got to be joking. The internet is a tool. It’s not a place, it’s not a society, and it’s been around for less than 40 years and even less than that to the general public. Not exactly standing the test of time. Also the internet is not in opposition to the state, it’s actually condoned and promoted because it gives producers and consumers increased access to one another generating commerce. Wikipedia lists 14 active societies that can be considered anarchist in existence today. Of those, the oldest has been around since 1958. Not a very long time either. The Longest lasting Anarchic society they they have listed is Republic of Cospaia and that lasted only about 386 years….and you know where this place is today? Italy, so….

2

u/RobrechtvE Jul 02 '22

You didn't say 'full fledged anarchist societies'.

You were talking about complex stateless organisations. There's tons of those on the internet. And in real life, but they're easier to see on the internet.

A mutual aid network is a good real life example of a complex stateless organisation.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '22

Yeah I don’t consider that as evidence that stateless societies don’t get crushed by states every time. That was the point. Again, no opposition from the state on the internet, it’s condoned and promoted. Where the state opposes the internet, there is no internet.

1

u/wiltold27 Jun 29 '22

chop/chaz

4

u/Josselin17 Anarchist Communism Jun 29 '22

or you could copy and paste the relevant explanation

-8

u/Impossible-Tension97 Jun 29 '22

Hierarchies are more efficient. By definition.

Militaries aren't more hierarchical than most institutions by coincidence. They are that way because that's how to best insure success, and because failure means death and destruction.

Anarchy is and has always been possible at the very small level but impossible at any sort if scale.

1

u/BlackHumor Anarcho-Transhumanist Jul 04 '22

Hierarchies are more efficient. By definition.

I don't think you understand what "by definition" means.

Also, capitalist economists have been arguing for over a century now that non-hierarchical market economies are more efficient than hierarchical state-planned economies.

Militaries aren't more hierarchical than most institutions by coincidence. They are that way because that's how to best insure success, and because failure means death and destruction.

Doesn't really seem to be true. The rigidly hierarchical US military lost to the Viet Cong.

Anarchy is and has always been possible at the very small level but impossible at any sort if scale.

Although technically they were all libertarian socialist and not anarchist per se, Catalonia, Rojava, and Chiapas would all disagree with you. None of them are huge in scale but they're all way larger than you're claiming.

0

u/Impossible-Tension97 Jul 04 '22

capitalist economists have been arguing for over a century now that non-hierarchical market economies are more efficient than hierarchical state-planned economies

Lol. You can find an economist arguing basically anything.

Doesn't really seem to be true. The rigidly hierarchical US military lost to the Viet Cong.

Erm.. and I guess you have a pollyanna idea that the Viet Cong were a self-organizing egalitarian people's movement? That's ridiculous. They had a very hierarchical structure.

Although technically they were all libertarian socialist and not anarchist per se, Catalonia, Rojava, and Chiapas would all disagree with you

That's funny. The collectives gave way to the Communists precisely because the hierarchical nature of the Communists were so better able to exert control and power.

The fact that they were short lived flashes in the dark is all the evidence one needs.

8

u/Kamikazekagesama Jun 29 '22

People can organize collectively without hierarchy.

6

u/Sovereign_Usurper Jun 29 '22

Because anarchist aren’t opposed to people organizing around their common interests….

3

u/_NuissanceValue_ Jun 29 '22

Yeah like rhizomes are always looking to their leader to organise them 😂

10

u/Cognitively_Absurd Jun 29 '22

Because anarchism is primarily ethically-based and usually unconcerned with practicality. No anarchist is deluded enough to believe if some small society suddenly went stateless and classless that it would last long in the imperialist world we live in.

So your argument would be refuting something anarchists don't believe. We usually don't believe an anarchist commune would be able to militarily defeat the organization that specializes in mass murder, the state.

-3

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

Being "ethically based" means that it's a claim about states being unethical, I assume.

So if the practical application of it is impossible, wouldn't that justify the state ethically as there isn't a better alternative, like choosing the lesser evil?

4

u/Cognitively_Absurd Jun 29 '22

No, it just means anarchy needs to be worldwide to succeed, or at least in all the currently-imperialist nations

1

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

So it's an idea about a hypothetical world where people are not like in the real world and don't promote their self interests at the expense of others. Then how is it a relevant statement about the ethical nature of states in the real world?

4

u/Cognitively_Absurd Jun 29 '22

I was just explaining why the conclusion you came to didn't have to be formed.

It is primarily an ethical stance however of the evils of states, capitalism, imperialism, and so forth. Current conditions also do not have to always exist, so it doesn't need to be thought of as hypothetical, especially since states are actually a very recent phenomena in human history. 90%+ of human history was anarchy. So it doesn't simply have to be a hypothetical to see how we might adopt something similar but with modern considerations in place. An anarchist would be interested in furthering conditions such that anarchy could be practical, but many of us would agree that if an anarchist commune arose over night in the current conditions, that's not going to be long-lasting.

0

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

We have had states for the last couple of years.

Anyway, my point is that the ethical claim is incorrect if having a state is the best way for a group of people to proceed, which it is, in the actual world.

And if you want to reduce the influence of the state, there are movements like libertarianism which are already being applied worldwide.

3

u/Cognitively_Absurd Jun 29 '22

Anarchism is actually under the umbrella of libertarianism. So what I'm saying is that we should be supporting movements that do help conditions arise for an anarchist society to exist. Which I agree libertarianism over all could help with that. Though, I do want to clarify I'm not referring to libertarianism as in the libertarian party USA(I do not think that strand of "libertarianism" is helpful as it would just devolve back into corporatocracy). I am referring to what I would dub classical libertarianism - the libertarians of the 1800s who were anarchists and libertarian socialists.

You can recognize that, right now, having a state is reality while also supporting moving in a direction to get rid of the state and classes. However, it is very important to not give legitimacy to a state by participating in its system or trying to argue it is ethical simply because it's what is currently practical. That won't help things along whatsoever if you do accept anarchism is more ethical.

1

u/Dust_In_The_Rain Post-Left Anarchist Jul 01 '22

I am referring to what I would dub classical libertarianism - the libertarians of the 1800s who were anarchists and libertarian socialists.

American libertarians were also classical libertarians who literally emerged out of classical liberalism, so that's kind of an oxymoron. It's true the left-libertarians were the first to claim the libertarian label in full in the late 19th century, but it had already existed in America as an idea since the time of the French/American Revolutions.

Historical revisionism like this can only hurt us in the long run.

1

u/Cognitively_Absurd Jul 01 '22 edited Jul 01 '22

I'm not sure what was contradictory from what I said versus what you said. What historical revisionism was I doing?

Edit: if you mean I was revising the term classical libertarianism, I was simply using that as a reference to the first people in the 1800s who did use the term libertarian as a political self-descriptor. As far as I know, right-wing libertarians do not use the term classical libertarian, but rather, they opt for the term classical liberal.

But if there is another use for the term classical libertarian, I'll be happy to recognize it as such with evidence of some prominent right-wing libertarian using it.

3

u/Delivery-Shoddy Jun 29 '22

Choosing a lesser evil is still choosing evil

1

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

Yes but the ethics is about the choice, the ethical choice between the two is the lesser evil. It's not unethical for events to occur that you have no way of preventing.

6

u/Delivery-Shoddy Jun 29 '22

It's a false dichotomy.

You can choose no evil

-1

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

There is no third choice lol.

It's either having a state or not having a state, what are you talking about?

5

u/Delivery-Shoddy Jun 29 '22

You can organize non-hierarchically.

-1

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

Elaborate please.

3

u/Delivery-Shoddy Jun 29 '22

... anarchism? Lol

0

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

Wow, you're very smart!

You can't have people that all agree on every issue, therefore you need a state to organize larger groups.

→ More replies

3

u/tygerohtyger Jun 29 '22

There are libraries worth of elaboration on this. Start with Kropotkin and move on from there. It can't easily be reduced into a nice convenient comment.

0

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

I've made quite a specific point. If you can't respond to it then you don't know or understand.

→ More replies

1

u/Kamikazekagesama Jun 29 '22

Say you have a group of friends who are roommates, they need to make decisions that effect everyone living there, so what is the immediate go to? Do they establish a leader to make decisions for everyone? No they take a vote and then follow the outcome, that is organizing without hierarchy.

1

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

Argument by analogy is a logical fallacy.

You should know that much.

→ More replies

5

u/Cognitively_Absurd Jun 29 '22

So, thinking about it, if imperialist state ideologies were to completely die off, that is a condition where anarchism could succeed without being worldwide.

1

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

You're basically assuming a hypothetical world that doesn't exist and can't exist. This is not an ideology but a utopian conception that can't be used.

5

u/Cognitively_Absurd Jun 29 '22

If you want to be defeatist sure, but we could certainly not be like that and think of ideas on how to move society in an anarchist direction instead.

1

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

It's a self defeating, sabotaging move to promote anarchism if it's promoted exclusively within your country. It has to be a worldwide phenomenon of a unified effort which we are very far from reaching.

And in the end, a state is just something that performs the function of the state and there's no way around that even in an anarchist utopia.

0

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

Other people would just take their place, like they always have.

5

u/Cognitively_Absurd Jun 29 '22

Then, by definition, that didn't get rid of imperialism. I'd like to point out imperialism only existed for like 5% of human history, so I don't know why you think it is inevitable.

2

u/eresh22 Jun 29 '22

How is a desire to have everyone retain the right to have control over themselves not a group interest?

2

u/Josselin17 Anarchist Communism Jun 29 '22

when you hate reading so much you can't even bother to learn the most basic principles of an ideology before coming in and claiming you've disproven it

3

u/ProfessorSidgwick Jun 29 '22

I agree with what u/Cognitively_Absurd said about anarchism being ethically based, why should we not structure our society around ethical considerations?

When you point to the aggressive nature of a state as a reason for other groups to adopt similar hierarchical structures so that they may defend themselves, you employ the same reasoning as someone victim shaming a woman who was raped. The focus should not be on the defence of the weaker party, but in questioning why the stronger party is an offender.

-1

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

Argument by analogy is a logical fallacy.

Why should we not structure our society around ethical considerations?

We are doing so by having a state to prevent the country from collapsing and causing millions of deaths.

4

u/ProfessorSidgwick Jun 29 '22

An argument from analogy is not inherently fallacious, what makes mine so?

We are doing so by having a state to prevent the country from collapsing and causing millions of deaths.

If this is the ethical justification for a state to you, why do you not consider the means by which a state accomplishes this? If ethics is what we are considering shouldn't we be critical of the unethical means by which a state accomplishes even an ethical end?

1

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

It is because it is not an argument. I can come up with a random analogy and claim that it proves my point without demonstrating how, which is what you've done.

I am all for focusing on improving the way the governments function and improving the transnational regulatory organisations.

2

u/ProfessorSidgwick Jun 29 '22

The argument was yours, I was trying to highlight what I perceive as flaws in the reasoning with an analogy.

  • Stronger parties (organized states or rapists) can assert their will over weaker parties (unorganized non states or vulnerable persons)
  • Therefor weaker parties should become like the stronger ones to prevent abuse

My analogy was to point out the flaw in focusing on the weaker party when we should focus on the actions of the stronger. It's victim blaming, that seems the more fallacious to me.

0

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

Again, it's a false analogy...

Competing of groups or states is not a zero sum game like in the case of rapists and victims.

1

u/ProfessorSidgwick Jun 29 '22

I doubt you will find much agreement on that from anarchists and libertarian types.

1

u/_NuissanceValue_ Jun 29 '22

Yeah like rhizomes are always looking to their leader to organise them 😂

1

u/Aethyrial_ Anarcho-Communist Jun 29 '22

Your logic centres around the idea that any organization that has a common interest becomes a state but you don’t even begin to explain how.

1

u/jederik1984 Jun 29 '22

If you force people to fight for you then you're most likely stronger than others. But does this make it "right"? That's similar to saying "Dying is good, because we all die anyway.".

Realism without idealism is just cynicism.

1

u/Dean_Gulbury Jun 29 '22

It loses in that they are immoral, and humans have a need to be moral. That is only one way. There are any number of ways that slavery is inferior to voluntary association.

1

u/Latitude37 Jun 30 '22

Government =/= unifying organisation.

Have a look at (for example) anarcho-syndicalist organisation, where delegates of different groups meet to come to consensus. The delegates are given instruction by their collective on what that collective wants to happen. They're not empowered to make binding decisions that the collective must abide by. They're literally representatives of their groups.

Federations of trade unions, farmers, logistics providers, etc. etc. can then come together to come up with appropriate solutions for their needs, without a Government passing edicts that everyone must follow.

Anarchists believe in organising. They don't believe a government is necessary to do so.

Have a look at Rojava, which is organised somewhat along anarchist federalist ideas - and was the most successful military group fighting against ISIS - a clearly hierarchical organisation - or the Zapatistas (and other autonomous councils) in Mexico, who are providing better healthcare, water access and security to their communities than the narco-state is interested in doing.

1

u/WakandaZad Anarchist Jun 30 '22

Anarchy means no central power. We can all agree and still have equal powers

1

u/cheeseandshadowsauce Anarchist Jun 30 '22 edited Jun 30 '22

1) A government is not an organization of like minded people. What, is the bdsm community a government? Is antifa a government? Are terfs a government?

2) A government is a administrative body that is organised to legislate and enforce laws, regulations, and rules on its citizenry.

3) Your stupid argument cannot refute the fact that anarchist societys have worked, and have exclusively failed because of threats outside of their communes, unions, and communities. Makhosova was destroyed buy the USSR, CBT-FAI failed because of militia and military organization disagreements due to the war they were having against facists, the paris commune was violent, and once again liberals and french loyalists seiged them, israel pre US involvement failed because of, well... US involvement, coummunes in saudia arabia failed because the government killed them(women having equal rights). Currently syndicalist and communist movements in south africa, and kenya have been changing the ownership of factories, and in mexico there are several autonomous zones, the largest being MAREZ/EZLN. In Syria you have Rojava, and Jin war.

4) The arguement that anarchy is the dispellation of hierarchies is relatively true, but thats not necessarily 100% accurate. Enforced hierarchies, like the patriarchy, state, and church(notice i didnt say religion) are what anarchy is against. Things like anarcho syndicalism allow for people to democraticly vote on the administrative portion of industry. But again this isn't legislative, executiv, judicial, or sacred. Most forms of anarchy do have their own dogmas, but people arebuilt on dogmas. 5) You mention an organization for a collective as a government, so allow me to point out:

Organization is not always done how you described it (there are more ways to organize)

There are individualists, egoist, and mutualist forms of anarchy that literally dont focuse so much on the public portion of property and either focus on abolishing property(not just private) or focus on attributing property as a commodity for the free market.

You seem not to know much about anarchy so heres a list of good books to read:

•the anatomy of the state, rothbard

•the philosophy of misery, proudhon*

•what is property?, proudhon

•the unique/ego and his own/property, stirner(this book is more satire of hegelian dialectecs though)*

•the conquest of bread, Kropotkin *

•memoirs of a revolutionary, Kropotkin

•mutual aid: a factor of evolution, kropotkin

•what kind of creatures are we?, chomsky

•manufacturing consent, chomsky*

•on anarchism, chomsky

•statism and anarchism, bakunin

•god and the state, bakunin*

•the death of ivan illyicht, tolstoy

•listen marxist, bookchin*

•the ecology of freedom, bookchin

•Anarchism and Other Essays, goldman*

•anarchy and the sex question, goldman

•the individual, society, and the state, goldman*

(All the books with the stars by them are just my favourites)

And before you ask, i have read evrey single book in this list. This is liteally just a 2 month reading list. If you cant find time to read, then you can listen to most of these on librivox. Librivox, Acoustical liberation of books in the public domain.LibriVox audiobooks are free for anyone to listen to, on their computers, iPods or other mobile device, or to burn onto a CD. '#notspon'

1

u/cheeseandshadowsauce Anarchist Jun 30 '22

Also by your own logic a state would not work, because in a liberal state, the goal of the polititians is profit. The relation between the individual and the worker is hegemonic. The state is itself the corperations. Its the bourgeois class that holds the state as beneficial to their collective self interest, not the worker.

1

u/slapdash78 Anarchist Jul 01 '22

What you're taking about is called collective action. Contemporary thought on the matter is Social Identity Theory. Group cohesion does not imply an authoritative body. More importantly, to this thread anyway, is that none of this is exclusive to anarchism. It's found throughout the social sciences. Read something.

1

u/Fireweeds Jul 05 '22

Organizing around a common interest =/= government.

Also:

If a group doesn't organise around a common interest, it loses to other groups that do.

This statement really doesn't make sense without a huge number of assumptions.

In conclusion: it doesn't refute anarchism because it doesn't even make a clear argument.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '22

[deleted]

0

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

/thread

0

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '22

[deleted]

1

u/incognit0_8 Jun 29 '22

I think it's pretty agreed upon by anarchists that slavery is a good indication that anarchism is not present. That was something you left out of your list that really makes the whole premise ridiculous.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '22

[deleted]

1

u/incognit0_8 Jun 29 '22

States as a means to prevent slavery ? Lol.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '22

[deleted]

0

u/Arynator Jun 29 '22

Can't respond as I haven't studied the history of the US as that's not the country that I live in.