They don't really expect society. Society relies on rules and common understanding, actual anarchy would lack society.
Anarchy is order. Rules and comon understandings are kinda central to anarchist theory. Anarchy is a common understanding.
It's also impossible. All you need to overthrow the whole system is a small group of dissidents.
How would they do that?
For example by positioning themselves along a river and demanding payment from anyone who draws water.
Or by crafting weapons and demand payment from anyone who doesn't pay.
Or seek control through other threats, like poisoning food.
Really, the possibilities are endless...
An anarchist society doesn't mean that the people of that society can't defend themselves in nonviolent and violent ways.
Furthermore: why would those "dissidents" even start such behavior?
Edit (addendum):
Seriously: Do you really think that over 150 years of anarchist theory didn't think of those scenarios and how to prevent them?
plenty of bad actors doing evil suff today for a big variety of reasons. i think its safe to assume they will be there, even if they are not so numerous?
whats the theory on how to deal with this stuff?
Without private property, there isn't much ingentive to be malicious in the first place.
And as I've said: a community can defend itself without the need of command and control hierarchy.
Example solutions for the examples given above:
Since these assholes live in a community, diplomacy to sanction those people until they cut that shit out. But he concept of payment isn't really a thing in a "fully anarchist" society, since those would for example run on gift economies, rendering the concept of payment a bit useless.
Crafting weapons example: Same thing. But if diplomacy doesn't work, the weapons would have to be taken by force (i.e. by a voluntary, democratically controlled militia).
The food stuff: I'm again asking "why?". But in general: let's say that people can't stop the "evil" people from being a dick by sanctions or force: People just move away. That's how humanity did it back in hunter-gatherer times. I think it was this video which explained it quite well (but I might confuse it with another one)
how is such a thing like the aforementioned militias be organized?
assuming my country turns anarchist, how will we defend against imperialist nations? we cant just move a country over because someone else wanted what was in there.
You do realize that you can't seriosly expect an answer to such a broad question in a lemmy post, when whole books have been written about that topic and there is all but consesus on the specifics of the implementation, right?
First, the whole system is doomed to fail because a small group of "dissidents" could topple it, now The small group of dissidents becomes a whole imperialist nation. I think that's what you call "moving the goal posts". I will disengage if you keep showing not one gram of good will.
The militias are organized in a decentralized manner and will be accountable to the community (not a small group of superiors).
assuming my country turns anarchist
That's a cathegorical error right there. Don't knoweif you noticed it.
we cant just move a country over because someone else wanted what was in there.
That strategy is one of the strategies to be employed against small groups of tyrants in a nomadic society. Doesn't apply to all circumstances, but I never claimed it did.
im simply trying to understand how it would work in a broad way, therefore i ask broad questions.
from what the world is telling me right now, aggressors of all sizes and intentions will be the biggest threat to a project like this. i will give the linked material a read, but thats really the main point thats sticking for me about it.
is there definition on how society could be organized on a bigger scale, for bigger projects, like what countries are supposed to do today?
i mean, something like space programs need a huge network of different specialized and unspecialized personnel, equipment and materials to work. or the building of education systems, roads or healthcare across the country.
coordination with other nations for even bigger stuff also comes to mind.
What about things like rape or sexist crimes in general? What about crimes motivated by racism, ableism or a clashing of ideologies?
The only thing anarchists have to say about these things are a vague "the communities will handle it themselves" which sounds an awful lot like police again to me.
Just this time the police doesn't have to follow laws at all and it's basically my neighbours who will make up their own rules. This is a thought that runs shivers down my spine and not because of happiness.
If you claim that anything that resembles an answer to crimes is a "police", then you're talkino about something different than everyone else. The police as it exists today is there to fight class tensions and keep the current order of things.
Do youeknow how many cases of rape cases currently lead to a conviction? Compare that to convictions of people stealing food or not being able to pay their rent.
Crime will always exist. Currently, the way of preventing crime is by individualistic punishment, taking people away from the community they're in and the fear of the aforementioned. That is not the only way to "fight" crime. Handling crime as an injury of the community and focusing on healing that wound as a community is IMHO a way more effective way that enablino bullies to get a power high.
The police make up the law as they go all the time. Ever heard of "the blue wall of silence"? They cover for each other when someone steps out of line, because to them, group cohesion is more important than playing by the rules.
You seem to not understand what bottom-up decision making is.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what police does. Neither does it make the laws, nor is it responsible for convicting rapists.
Handling crime as an injury of the community and focusing on healing that wound as a community
Like when people were burning witches? Or what's happening right now in multiple countries which do not have police where all disputes are "solved" by clan-violence and vigilantes on the streets?
Why do you believe, when your neighbours form their little vigilante groups, that they will help you when someone rapes you? What if the rapist is a friend of them or even someone from that group? What if they believe it's okay to rape specific people or under specific circumstances?
Like when people were burning witches?
Why did people burn witches? Maybe because someone in a position of power was in search of a scapegoat to blame because their position was threatened?
where all disputes are "solved" by clan-violence and vigilantes on the streets
Very non-hierarchical structures you're describing here. /s
Why do you believe, when your neighbours form their little vigilante groups, that they will help you when someone rapes you? What if the rapist is a friend of them or even someone from that group? What if they believe it's okay to rape specific people or under specific circumstances?
I'm not proposing "neighbors form[ing] little vigilante groups, so... Idk? 🤷
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what police does. Neither does it make the laws, nor is it responsible for convicting rapists.
Way to miss/derail my point, smartass.
The whole justice system is based on individual punishment and taking people away from situations
Anarchist theory almost exclusively talks about political motivated crime they propose will stop when the state and all it's structures are abolished.
Non-political crime they mostly only brush over and suggest the communities will handle it themselves.
So no, they don't have a concept of how people are supposed to protect themselve from crimes that aren't politically motivated.
That's because you can't over-generalize these things without gausing great injustice in the process.
The communities on a ground level know best how to handle crimes in the community. If you want laws encompassing everyone in every facet of life: go read a bible or something.
You are advocating for exactly that to happen. Many bible communities would rejoice in anarchy bevause then they can enforce all their fucked up rules again and kids who are born into these communities.... Well, tough luck I guess. Your community on the ground level decided it's okay to burn people as witches who have red hair.
Many bible communities would rejoice in anarchy bevause then they can enforce all their fucked up rules again
Lol no. Absolutely not! Anarchists would be 100% against these kinds of structures, so they wouldn't be allowed to exist.
How would anarchists enforce that these communities "wouldn't be allowed to exist"? Seems a lot like power and authority to me.
It's not an enforcement. No one would want to make that community, and anyone trying to make it would be laughed at.
Many bible communities would rejoice in anarchy bevause then they can enforce all their fucked up rules again and kids who are born into these communities....
Yeah, because religion didn't spread through conquest. /s
Your community on the ground level decided it's okay to burn people as witches who have red hair.
You have a really fucked up image of humanity, do you know that? You do know that Hobbes was wrong with his Leviathan, right?
Explain to me this: if humanity isn't fucked up and what I suggest wouldn't happen, why is police bad? When people are so great and wonderful and nice and don't abuse their power, why do you dislike police?
You're proposing a false dichotomy: Humanity has the potential to be caring for each other or to be fucked up and only look out for themselves. It depends on what behavior is fostered in society to see if people in that society are (on average) "fucked up" or not .
I believe that fostering hierarchies of command and control teaches people to be fucked up. That being in a position of power over others fucks yowr brain up to think that you are above them and abuse that power. That is why I dislike hierarchies and by extension: the police.
That is why I believe we should build societies that should question and/or refuse these hierarchies, whenever they appear.
Hobbes believed that people are fucked up "deep down" and therefore, we need a hierarchical state to keep us in line. I think that he got it the wrong way round: That power corrupts us and makes us fucked up.
And I'm sure you know that feeling. That you had some teacher or boss in the past who treated you unfairly, because hey know they would get away with it, because they had a higher rank than you. It's quite a universal experience.
Well, I am so happy that police exists because I know I'd be fucked up without it. There is not a single society without police that doesn't oppress it's children and women. I know that a lot of people believe in a natural order and in that order I am below them. The only thing that is stopping them from enforcing their believes is that the country I live in decided that it is wrong to treat people that way and to enforce this believe they have laws and police.
I would rather not live in a world where I have to creep up my neighbour's butts in the hopes of them protecting me. I don't want to have to fit in to be free and I don't want to be scared of my neighbours all the time.
Anarchists just seem like a bunch of spoiled privileged people to me who's only concern is that someone doesn't allow them to consume drugs or whatever. I just wish they'd try living in a place without these structures in place for a while they privilege off but don't acknowledge.
Anarchist theory almost exclusively talks about political motivated crime they propose will stop when the state and all it’s structures are abolished.
You haven't actually read any anarchist theory, have you? This is a fucking joke.
No, it's actually one of the most problematic points in anarchist theory. How to handle people who are cruel or who do not respect social contracts. The fact that many anarchists want to abolish police but than want to build a structure similar to police or do not discuss the topic at all is showing they don't have a solution.
Stirner for example basically ignores the topic.
Kropotkin only addresses crimes which have the state as basis (property and political crime).
Please share which Anarchist theoretist formulated a concrete plan on how to deal with non-political crime in practice.
How to handle people who are cruel or who do not respect social contracts. The fact that many anarchists want to abolish police but than want to build a structure similar to police or do not discuss the topic at all is showing they don’t have a solution.
Again, you haven't read any theory, have you? Have you really never heard of diffuse sanctions? Stop embarrassing yourself.
In the real world practice of small-scale egalitarian societies, these people either get killed, or the group packs up and goes somewhere else. That's how humanity lived for the hundreds of thousands of years before we invented agriculture.
How we translate that into a contemporary agricultural context where private property and control of resources is a real force is beyond me, but I do think that we have to try.
Why would you need hierarchical command and controleformalized power structures (the thing anarchist oppose) for society?
Rules and common understanding naturally emerge when humans live together. You don't need a king/chief/boss/god for that.
the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
You aren't anarchistic if you're organized, that's kind of the point.
That is simply not true. Anarchism opposes institutionalized hierarchies of command and control. There are anti-organisational cnrrents in anarchy but the vast majority of anarchists don't oppose organization. Also, thereshave been too many anarchist organisations in history to count.
Name a single non hierarchical society, I'll wait and you'll make my point for me.
The CNT/FAI in 1930s Cathalonia
Anarchist Ukraine after the1918 revolution
The Zapatistas
Many pre-colonial native American tribes, e.g. The Wendat
Pretty much any immediate-return hunter gatherer people, e.g. the Hadza or the pygmy
Most of humanity cooperating is non-hierarchical. Any DnD group is non-hierarchical. There is a DM, but they can't stop me from saying "fuck you, that doesn't happen! My character kills Gandalf with their hypnotic tits!"
I don't get your point.
All of which developed heirarchy because all of society has heirarchy as heirarchy is a natural offshoot of society.
Directed by Symon Petliura also lasted less than a year.
Famously named after Emiliano Zapata and lead by same who also specifically and repeatedly have stated they are not anarchist.
Native tribes are almost all communes lead by tribal counsel, I'm native so...
As for the hadza, maybe just maybe though I don't actually believe it myself I would have to see it in action but I can pretty much guarantee "conflict is rare" doesn't mean absent. "pygmy" aren't a thing, that's Dutch colonial nonsense which actually refers to any number of people distributed throughout the world.
Not at all, your example is junk. Who do you default to in dnd when there is a dispute? The dm because the dm is the authority and thus on top with players below, amusingly the dm guides are a higher authority.
All of which developed heirarchy because all of society has heirarchy as heirarchy is a natural offshoot of society.
Why do you think I always specify "command and control", when talking about hierarchies? What do you consider a hierarchy? Anarchists specifically focus on hierarchies of decision making power.
Controlled by a generaltariat
A delegate body that coordinates processes and that can be revoked if the community chooses to do so is something else than a boss who can fire you. Also: you probably skipped the part about "workers' self-management.
and lasted less than a year.
Why is that relevant? Do you know why it lasted for such a short period? Is "being able to win against fashists on several fronts" now something we want to require every social system to have, because I have some bad news about parlamentary democracy concerning Weimar Germany.
Directed by Symon Petliura also lasted less than a year.
Lol, Petliura was a nationalist and opposed to the anarchist movement. (granted: I might have gotten the year wrong)
who also specifically and repeatedly have stated they are not anarchist.
They refuse to follow the european tradition, since "anarchism" is a mostly western political movement. The way they act in practice is however de facto anarchist as in bottom-up basic democratic.
Native tribes are almost all communes lead by tribal counsel
Again: I don't think we use the same definitions of hierarchy.
As for the hadza, maybe just maybe though I don't actually believe it myself I would have to see it in action but I can pretty much guarantee "conflict is rare" doesn't mean absent
Never claimed anything about conflicts being absent. I was making a claim of an egalitarian society.
"pygmy" aren't a thing, that's Dutch colonial nonsense which actually refers to any number of people distributed throughout the world.
Ok, didn't know that. Anthropology is not my main field, so please excuse me. However, virtually all immediate return hunter-gatherer societies are egalitarian.
Who do you default to in dnd when there is a dispute? The dm because the dm is the authority and thus on top with players below
What happens when a dm is such a dick that people don't want to play with them anymore?
Because to explain anarchism you have to continually hedge because the system does not work.
That's heirarchy. "a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority." I didn't miss it, it doesn't matter a union is either self management and yet still utilize a heirarchical structure.
It's relevant because a system that routinely fails in less than a year can't exactly be called a legitimate method of governance. Yes every new government is resisted to some extent, the success of a government against those odds is what determines how effective it actually is.
I imagine you did.
Nope. They say they aren't what you claim them to be, take their word.
: the classification of a group of people according to ability or to economic, social, or professional standing : a graded or ranked series
By either definition there is heirarchy in all but one of your examples and it is in effect a pre industrial society.
Conflict is unlikely to happen without a heirarchical structure.
Arguably yes, in practice rarely if ever.
Then the group leaves, because if the person at the top across in bad faith they people below have the choice of violent revolution or to simply leave same as any other government.
Sorry, can't porperly parse your comment anymore without further structure.
We disagree on fundamental definitions. Furthermoree you accuse me of bad faith by "hedging", so I see less and less reason to carry on arguing with you.
If you want, you can think that you "won" by slam-dunking some anarkiddie on the internet. Have a pleasant day.
It doesn't seem to be that you ever properly parsed my comments.
I didn't say you, I said in general defending anarchism is largely hedging.
I didn't start the conversation with you so save the snark.
Small-scale hunting and gathering societies do have a hierarchy, but the difference is that it's not imposed and because they are egalitarian, anyone can opt out of the hierarchy by simply leaving. Because private property doesn't really exist in nomadic hunting and gathering societies --you only really own what you can carry-- influence over the group is determined by merit rather than by control of private property and resources.
This is the system that humanity evolved to live in over hundreds of thousands of years, and that's why we like it so much and why you never see people deliberately leaving small egalitarian societies for larger hierarchical societies, though we do have hundreds of historical examples of people doing the opposite.
That said, agriculture is a trap in the sense that once we adopted it, we could and can never go back for a set of reasons that should be obvious. The task then is to most nearly recreate the system we lived in for 99.9 percent of our existence as a species, while still accounting for the fact that we live under a new set of parameters and can never go back to those that existed before.
As I understand it, this is the puzzle that some forms of anarchy set out to solve.
Imposed or accepted it doesn't really matter, similarly the person I responded to specifically referred to anarchism as nonheirarchical. What you described is communism or socialism, not anarchism.
If we "never see people deliberately leaving small egalitarian societies for larger hierarchical societies," heirarchical structure l society wouldn't exist. Similarly the hadza (an at least claimed non heirarchical/egalitarian society) constantly lose population to "modern" society.
That said, agriculture is a trap in the sense that once we adopted it, we could and can never go back for a set of reasons that should be obvious. The task then is to most nearly recreate the system we lived in for 99.9 percent of our existence as a species, while still accounting for the fact that we live under a new set of parameters and can never go back to those that existed before.
That's communism or socialism, not anarchy.
As I understand it, this is the puzzle that some forms of anarchy set out to solve.
It's not a puzzle though, a puzzle eventually fits together but anarchy simply doesn't.
You need to stop basing your political know-how on Mad Max movies.
That's not an argument that's a poorly disguised insult to wit, get fucked bud make an argument or stay quiet.
Also mad max had communism and thus society, shitty society but still.
a poorly disguised insult
No, Clyde... I made no attempt to disguise the insult.
Also mad max had communism
You need another insult?
You didn't say it straight out, you disguised it like a southern woman saying bless your heart. Similarly. ... Bless your heart.
You haven't actually made an argument, your simply being a loudouth douche, lots of bluster but zero substance.
You think this...
Also mad max had communism
...justifies some kind of argument?
You certainly seemed to think so when you brought up mad max in the first fuckin place. It's your argument dumb dumb, if it's idiotic it's because you're an idiot.
I guess that just went over your head entirely?
You know what? That's fine. I'm not going to be spending too much energy on this.
Not at all, your metaphor is idiot and inept but you do you boss.
You started it with your shitty attitude and finished it with a shitty attitude and no point, good job. Way to use your tune effectively.
You could just admit to it, you know... and spare yourself the pointless aggravation.
Admit what boo boo, you haven't had made a point of anything aside from being a contrarian douchebag.
I'm not going to be spending too much energy on this.
A liar too, amusing yet wildly unsurprising.
Admit what
That you went off on an unjustified tangent.
A liar too,
Nope. This is a pretty low-energy conversation.
That's cute, you brought up both mad max and my political opinion, so who's at fault for what tangent?
From the same people who brought you "everything I don't like is communism"
You're moron. There were a series of communes, it's like 85% of the fucking movie ya dummy.
Ed: similarly I'm a socialist so your point makes even less sense cast in that light.
I gwess you missed the part of Fury Road where a political elite class had complete control over the means of existence for everyone else and literally owned breeding slaves.
Great communism, bro! /s
Ahh, so now it's mad max: fury road, even your cinematic choice is changing at this point. Yes the masked tubby fuck was an oligarch or arguably a fascist, however the female led group they're looking for the entire movie (you know the main plot) was a commune.
I do enjoy the shit talking from someone who's objectively wrong, wildly overconfident and hedging while trying to play flippant, it's adorable angsty teen shit.
even your cinematic choice is changing at this point.
You do realize that I'm someone else, right?
Doesn't say all change what I've said, and yes I know there are "three" people in talking to that all have roughly the same pattern of response so far down in a comment section that no one is adding third party votes for. I'm gunna bet all three are one in the same.
It might not change what you said, but I never claimed anything about Mad Max. Just thought it's funny to claim that "Mad Max is communist".
Ok, if you think that you're talking to one person with two alt accounts for some reason, I guess you're free to be wrong, I guess. I don't care to (and logically can't) prove that's not the case to your paranoid ass.
I gwess you missed the part of Fury Road where a political elite class had complete control over the means of existence for everyone else and literally owned breeding slaves.>
Yep, never said anything at all huh?
Sure, sure bud. I'm not refusing to talk to any of you so I dunno, make a point and stop crying.
Yep, never said anything at all huh?
I meant before that.
Someone else: Stop thinking mad max is real
You: Mad Max is literally communism
Me (thinking that it's funny to claim that Mad Max is communism, when all four movies have quite different societal structures depicted): Lol, Fury Road much?
You: You're changing movies! >:(
There's that hedging again.
I never said it was real, you're gaslighting because you don't have an actual argument.
No, I said mad max had communism, it does.
Again I didn't say it was communism if nothing else but because it's an incredibly stupid way to phrase it.
You literally changed the movie bud, that's a fact.
To be fair, all entertainment media carries a political subtext, and Mad Max Fury Road had an interesting one - which is why it's one of the few AAA movies made in the last decade that's actually worth watching all the way to the end - but that's not the kind of thing you can discuss with the "if-you-want-anarchy-go-to-Sudan" crowd.
No anarchy doesn't necessarily mean no contracts it's about having faith in a society upholding contracts without a need to rely on a government. Think of crypto itself. Now imagine enabling humanity to enforce this degree of accountability in the real world.
They don't really expect society. Society relies on rules and common understanding, actual anarchy would lack society.
Anarchy is order. Rules and comon understandings are kinda central to anarchist theory. Anarchy is a common understanding.
It's also impossible. All you need to overthrow the whole system is a small group of dissidents.
How would they do that?
For example by positioning themselves along a river and demanding payment from anyone who draws water.
Or by crafting weapons and demand payment from anyone who doesn't pay.
Or seek control through other threats, like poisoning food.
Really, the possibilities are endless...
An anarchist society doesn't mean that the people of that society can't defend themselves in nonviolent and violent ways.
Furthermore: why would those "dissidents" even start such behavior?
Edit (addendum): Seriously: Do you really think that over 150 years of anarchist theory didn't think of those scenarios and how to prevent them?
plenty of bad actors doing evil suff today for a big variety of reasons. i think its safe to assume they will be there, even if they are not so numerous?
whats the theory on how to deal with this stuff?
Without private property, there isn't much ingentive to be malicious in the first place.
And as I've said: a community can defend itself without the need of command and control hierarchy.
Example solutions for the examples given above:
Since these assholes live in a community, diplomacy to sanction those people until they cut that shit out. But he concept of payment isn't really a thing in a "fully anarchist" society, since those would for example run on gift economies, rendering the concept of payment a bit useless.
Crafting weapons example: Same thing. But if diplomacy doesn't work, the weapons would have to be taken by force (i.e. by a voluntary, democratically controlled militia).
The food stuff: I'm again asking "why?". But in general: let's say that people can't stop the "evil" people from being a dick by sanctions or force: People just move away. That's how humanity did it back in hunter-gatherer times. I think it was this video which explained it quite well (but I might confuse it with another one)
how is such a thing like the aforementioned militias be organized?
assuming my country turns anarchist, how will we defend against imperialist nations? we cant just move a country over because someone else wanted what was in there.
You do realize that you can't seriosly expect an answer to such a broad question in a lemmy post, when whole books have been written about that topic and there is all but consesus on the specifics of the implementation, right?
First, the whole system is doomed to fail because a small group of "dissidents" could topple it, now The small group of dissidents becomes a whole imperialist nation. I think that's what you call "moving the goal posts". I will disengage if you keep showing not one gram of good will.
The militias are organized in a decentralized manner and will be accountable to the community (not a small group of superiors).
That's a cathegorical error right there. Don't knoweif you noticed it.
Again: quite a broad question. Allow me to point you to an essay with a proposal, if you're so inclined.
That strategy is one of the strategies to be employed against small groups of tyrants in a nomadic society. Doesn't apply to all circumstances, but I never claimed it did.
im simply trying to understand how it would work in a broad way, therefore i ask broad questions.
from what the world is telling me right now, aggressors of all sizes and intentions will be the biggest threat to a project like this. i will give the linked material a read, but thats really the main point thats sticking for me about it.
is there definition on how society could be organized on a bigger scale, for bigger projects, like what countries are supposed to do today?
i mean, something like space programs need a huge network of different specialized and unspecialized personnel, equipment and materials to work. or the building of education systems, roads or healthcare across the country.
coordination with other nations for even bigger stuff also comes to mind.
What about things like rape or sexist crimes in general? What about crimes motivated by racism, ableism or a clashing of ideologies?
The only thing anarchists have to say about these things are a vague "the communities will handle it themselves" which sounds an awful lot like police again to me.
Just this time the police doesn't have to follow laws at all and it's basically my neighbours who will make up their own rules. This is a thought that runs shivers down my spine and not because of happiness.
If you claim that anything that resembles an answer to crimes is a "police", then you're talkino about something different than everyone else. The police as it exists today is there to fight class tensions and keep the current order of things.
Do youeknow how many cases of rape cases currently lead to a conviction? Compare that to convictions of people stealing food or not being able to pay their rent.
Crime will always exist. Currently, the way of preventing crime is by individualistic punishment, taking people away from the community they're in and the fear of the aforementioned. That is not the only way to "fight" crime. Handling crime as an injury of the community and focusing on healing that wound as a community is IMHO a way more effective way that enablino bullies to get a power high.
The police make up the law as they go all the time. Ever heard of "the blue wall of silence"? They cover for each other when someone steps out of line, because to them, group cohesion is more important than playing by the rules.
You seem to not understand what bottom-up decision making is.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what police does. Neither does it make the laws, nor is it responsible for convicting rapists.
Like when people were burning witches? Or what's happening right now in multiple countries which do not have police where all disputes are "solved" by clan-violence and vigilantes on the streets?
Why do you believe, when your neighbours form their little vigilante groups, that they will help you when someone rapes you? What if the rapist is a friend of them or even someone from that group? What if they believe it's okay to rape specific people or under specific circumstances?
Why did people burn witches? Maybe because someone in a position of power was in search of a scapegoat to blame because their position was threatened?
Very non-hierarchical structures you're describing here. /s
I'm not proposing "neighbors form[ing] little vigilante groups, so... Idk? 🤷
Way to miss/derail my point, smartass.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
I think it was this video which explained it quite well
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Anarchist theory almost exclusively talks about political motivated crime they propose will stop when the state and all it's structures are abolished.
Non-political crime they mostly only brush over and suggest the communities will handle it themselves.
So no, they don't have a concept of how people are supposed to protect themselve from crimes that aren't politically motivated.
That's because you can't over-generalize these things without gausing great injustice in the process.
The communities on a ground level know best how to handle crimes in the community. If you want laws encompassing everyone in every facet of life: go read a bible or something.
You are advocating for exactly that to happen. Many bible communities would rejoice in anarchy bevause then they can enforce all their fucked up rules again and kids who are born into these communities.... Well, tough luck I guess. Your community on the ground level decided it's okay to burn people as witches who have red hair.
Lol no. Absolutely not! Anarchists would be 100% against these kinds of structures, so they wouldn't be allowed to exist.
How would anarchists enforce that these communities "wouldn't be allowed to exist"? Seems a lot like power and authority to me.
It's not an enforcement. No one would want to make that community, and anyone trying to make it would be laughed at.
Yeah, because religion didn't spread through conquest. /s
You have a really fucked up image of humanity, do you know that? You do know that Hobbes was wrong with his Leviathan, right?
Explain to me this: if humanity isn't fucked up and what I suggest wouldn't happen, why is police bad? When people are so great and wonderful and nice and don't abuse their power, why do you dislike police?
You're proposing a false dichotomy: Humanity has the potential to be caring for each other or to be fucked up and only look out for themselves. It depends on what behavior is fostered in society to see if people in that society are (on average) "fucked up" or not .
I believe that fostering hierarchies of command and control teaches people to be fucked up. That being in a position of power over others fucks yowr brain up to think that you are above them and abuse that power. That is why I dislike hierarchies and by extension: the police.
That is why I believe we should build societies that should question and/or refuse these hierarchies, whenever they appear.
Hobbes believed that people are fucked up "deep down" and therefore, we need a hierarchical state to keep us in line. I think that he got it the wrong way round: That power corrupts us and makes us fucked up.
And I'm sure you know that feeling. That you had some teacher or boss in the past who treated you unfairly, because hey know they would get away with it, because they had a higher rank than you. It's quite a universal experience.
Well, I am so happy that police exists because I know I'd be fucked up without it. There is not a single society without police that doesn't oppress it's children and women. I know that a lot of people believe in a natural order and in that order I am below them. The only thing that is stopping them from enforcing their believes is that the country I live in decided that it is wrong to treat people that way and to enforce this believe they have laws and police.
I would rather not live in a world where I have to creep up my neighbour's butts in the hopes of them protecting me. I don't want to have to fit in to be free and I don't want to be scared of my neighbours all the time.
Anarchists just seem like a bunch of spoiled privileged people to me who's only concern is that someone doesn't allow them to consume drugs or whatever. I just wish they'd try living in a place without these structures in place for a while they privilege off but don't acknowledge.
You haven't actually read any anarchist theory, have you? This is a fucking joke.
No, it's actually one of the most problematic points in anarchist theory. How to handle people who are cruel or who do not respect social contracts. The fact that many anarchists want to abolish police but than want to build a structure similar to police or do not discuss the topic at all is showing they don't have a solution.
Stirner for example basically ignores the topic. Kropotkin only addresses crimes which have the state as basis (property and political crime).
Please share which Anarchist theoretist formulated a concrete plan on how to deal with non-political crime in practice.
Again, you haven't read any theory, have you? Have you really never heard of diffuse sanctions? Stop embarrassing yourself.
In the real world practice of small-scale egalitarian societies, these people either get killed, or the group packs up and goes somewhere else. That's how humanity lived for the hundreds of thousands of years before we invented agriculture.
How we translate that into a contemporary agricultural context where private property and control of resources is a real force is beyond me, but I do think that we have to try.
These two statements seem at odds.
Agreed.
Why would you need hierarchical command and controleformalized power structures (the thing anarchist oppose) for society?
Rules and common understanding naturally emerge when humans live together. You don't need a king/chief/boss/god for that.
You aren't anarchistic if you're organized, that's kind of the point.
That is simply not true. Anarchism opposes institutionalized hierarchies of command and control. There are anti-organisational cnrrents in anarchy but the vast majority of anarchists don't oppose organization. Also, thereshave been too many anarchist organisations in history to count.
Name a single non hierarchical society, I'll wait and you'll make my point for me.
Most of humanity cooperating is non-hierarchical. Any DnD group is non-hierarchical. There is a DM, but they can't stop me from saying "fuck you, that doesn't happen! My character kills Gandalf with their hypnotic tits!"
I don't get your point.
All of which developed heirarchy because all of society has heirarchy as heirarchy is a natural offshoot of society.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia
Controlled by a generaltariat and lasted less than a year.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symon_Petliura
Directed by Symon Petliura also lasted less than a year.
Famously named after Emiliano Zapata and lead by same who also specifically and repeatedly have stated they are not anarchist.
Native tribes are almost all communes lead by tribal counsel, I'm native so...
As for the hadza, maybe just maybe though I don't actually believe it myself I would have to see it in action but I can pretty much guarantee "conflict is rare" doesn't mean absent. "pygmy" aren't a thing, that's Dutch colonial nonsense which actually refers to any number of people distributed throughout the world.
Not at all, your example is junk. Who do you default to in dnd when there is a dispute? The dm because the dm is the authority and thus on top with players below, amusingly the dm guides are a higher authority.
Why do you think I always specify "command and control", when talking about hierarchies? What do you consider a hierarchy? Anarchists specifically focus on hierarchies of decision making power.
A delegate body that coordinates processes and that can be revoked if the community chooses to do so is something else than a boss who can fire you. Also: you probably skipped the part about "workers' self-management.
Lol, Petliura was a nationalist and opposed to the anarchist movement. (granted: I might have gotten the year wrong)
They refuse to follow the european tradition, since "anarchism" is a mostly western political movement. The way they act in practice is however de facto anarchist as in bottom-up basic democratic.
Again: I don't think we use the same definitions of hierarchy.
Never claimed anything about conflicts being absent. I was making a claim of an egalitarian society.
Ok, didn't know that. Anthropology is not my main field, so please excuse me. However, virtually all immediate return hunter-gatherer societies are egalitarian.
What happens when a dm is such a dick that people don't want to play with them anymore?
Because to explain anarchism you have to continually hedge because the system does not work.
That's heirarchy. "a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority." I didn't miss it, it doesn't matter a union is either self management and yet still utilize a heirarchical structure.
It's relevant because a system that routinely fails in less than a year can't exactly be called a legitimate method of governance. Yes every new government is resisted to some extent, the success of a government against those odds is what determines how effective it actually is.
I imagine you did.
Nope. They say they aren't what you claim them to be, take their word.
: the classification of a group of people according to ability or to economic, social, or professional standing : a graded or ranked series
By either definition there is heirarchy in all but one of your examples and it is in effect a pre industrial society.
Conflict is unlikely to happen without a heirarchical structure.
Arguably yes, in practice rarely if ever.
Then the group leaves, because if the person at the top across in bad faith they people below have the choice of violent revolution or to simply leave same as any other government.
Sorry, can't porperly parse your comment anymore without further structure.
We disagree on fundamental definitions. Furthermoree you accuse me of bad faith by "hedging", so I see less and less reason to carry on arguing with you.
If you want, you can think that you "won" by slam-dunking some anarkiddie on the internet. Have a pleasant day.
It doesn't seem to be that you ever properly parsed my comments.
I didn't say you, I said in general defending anarchism is largely hedging.
I didn't start the conversation with you so save the snark.
Small-scale hunting and gathering societies do have a hierarchy, but the difference is that it's not imposed and because they are egalitarian, anyone can opt out of the hierarchy by simply leaving. Because private property doesn't really exist in nomadic hunting and gathering societies --you only really own what you can carry-- influence over the group is determined by merit rather than by control of private property and resources.
This is the system that humanity evolved to live in over hundreds of thousands of years, and that's why we like it so much and why you never see people deliberately leaving small egalitarian societies for larger hierarchical societies, though we do have hundreds of historical examples of people doing the opposite.
That said, agriculture is a trap in the sense that once we adopted it, we could and can never go back for a set of reasons that should be obvious. The task then is to most nearly recreate the system we lived in for 99.9 percent of our existence as a species, while still accounting for the fact that we live under a new set of parameters and can never go back to those that existed before.
As I understand it, this is the puzzle that some forms of anarchy set out to solve.
Imposed or accepted it doesn't really matter, similarly the person I responded to specifically referred to anarchism as nonheirarchical. What you described is communism or socialism, not anarchism.
If we "never see people deliberately leaving small egalitarian societies for larger hierarchical societies," heirarchical structure l society wouldn't exist. Similarly the hadza (an at least claimed non heirarchical/egalitarian society) constantly lose population to "modern" society.
That's communism or socialism, not anarchy.
It's not a puzzle though, a puzzle eventually fits together but anarchy simply doesn't.
You need to stop basing your political know-how on Mad Max movies.
That's not an argument that's a poorly disguised insult to wit, get fucked bud make an argument or stay quiet.
Also mad max had communism and thus society, shitty society but still.
No, Clyde... I made no attempt to disguise the insult.
You need another insult?
You didn't say it straight out, you disguised it like a southern woman saying bless your heart. Similarly. ... Bless your heart.
You haven't actually made an argument, your simply being a loudouth douche, lots of bluster but zero substance.
You think this...
...justifies some kind of argument?
You certainly seemed to think so when you brought up mad max in the first fuckin place. It's your argument dumb dumb, if it's idiotic it's because you're an idiot.
I guess that just went over your head entirely?
You know what? That's fine. I'm not going to be spending too much energy on this.
Not at all, your metaphor is idiot and inept but you do you boss.
You started it with your shitty attitude and finished it with a shitty attitude and no point, good job. Way to use your tune effectively.
You could just admit to it, you know... and spare yourself the pointless aggravation.
Admit what boo boo, you haven't had made a point of anything aside from being a contrarian douchebag.
A liar too, amusing yet wildly unsurprising.
That you went off on an unjustified tangent.
Nope. This is a pretty low-energy conversation.
That's cute, you brought up both mad max and my political opinion, so who's at fault for what tangent?
I imagine most of your life is low energy.
"Mad Max had communism"
From the same people who brought you "everything I don't like is communism"
You're moron. There were a series of communes, it's like 85% of the fucking movie ya dummy.
Ed: similarly I'm a socialist so your point makes even less sense cast in that light.
I gwess you missed the part of Fury Road where a political elite class had complete control over the means of existence for everyone else and literally owned breeding slaves.
Great communism, bro! /s
Ahh, so now it's mad max: fury road, even your cinematic choice is changing at this point. Yes the masked tubby fuck was an oligarch or arguably a fascist, however the female led group they're looking for the entire movie (you know the main plot) was a commune.
I do enjoy the shit talking from someone who's objectively wrong, wildly overconfident and hedging while trying to play flippant, it's adorable angsty teen shit.
You do realize that I'm someone else, right?
Doesn't say all change what I've said, and yes I know there are "three" people in talking to that all have roughly the same pattern of response so far down in a comment section that no one is adding third party votes for. I'm gunna bet all three are one in the same.
It might not change what you said, but I never claimed anything about Mad Max. Just thought it's funny to claim that "Mad Max is communist".
Ok, if you think that you're talking to one person with two alt accounts for some reason, I guess you're free to be wrong, I guess. I don't care to (and logically can't) prove that's not the case to your paranoid ass.
Yep, never said anything at all huh?
Sure, sure bud. I'm not refusing to talk to any of you so I dunno, make a point and stop crying.
I meant before that.
There's that hedging again.
I never said it was real, you're gaslighting because you don't have an actual argument.
No, I said mad max had communism, it does.
Again I didn't say it was communism if nothing else but because it's an incredibly stupid way to phrase it.
You literally changed the movie bud, that's a fact.
Agreed
To be fair, all entertainment media carries a political subtext, and Mad Max Fury Road had an interesting one - which is why it's one of the few AAA movies made in the last decade that's actually worth watching all the way to the end - but that's not the kind of thing you can discuss with the "if-you-want-anarchy-go-to-Sudan" crowd.
No anarchy doesn't necessarily mean no contracts it's about having faith in a society upholding contracts without a need to rely on a government. Think of crypto itself. Now imagine enabling humanity to enforce this degree of accountability in the real world.