- cross-posted to:
- comics@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- cross-posted to:
- comics@lemmy.blahaj.zone
You must log in or register to comment.
Was the credit cut? Bc Existential Comics really be a classic
Don’t know is EC has that signed in the image tbh. I just crossposted in this case.
If I recall correctly, a lot of the comics (at least early ones, I haven’t gotten very far) don’t have credit on them.
ah ok, I did not know that
Was the credit cut?
Is that not allowed?
It shouldn’t be. Cutting the credit is not a cool move.
Doesn’t sound much like anarchy to me!
*laughs in capital*
Not specifically (yet), it’s just good practice to credit someones work. Especially when it’s such a good (and dare I say based) webcomic series
It’s super shitty. I’m not one to make generalizations, but people who crop out credits probably rape their moms
As much as I abhor the state and wish we live like the state of Cheran (ironic of me to say state in this case, I know), anarchy will only work in a very small group, where everyone knows each other, are like-minded enough to not abuse each other’s goodwill, and respect each other’s personal boundaries.
So have a lot of small groups
Free trade and mutual cooperation between collectives, I thought this was considered the standard anarchic model?
Yes, our massive population and current way of life are not natural tendencies of our species, they are organizational forms put into place by rulers for more effecient exploitation.
And then what stops one small group from slowly becoming a giant group again?
People and ideology.
In other words, literally nothing.
the same ‘literally nothing’ that currently stops us from ending starvation, poverty, homelessness, war…
people and ideology create the institutions which (re)produce and enforce a status quo. this is not inherently bad, and it would not be significantly different under any other ‘system’. we are all the state so long as we do nothing different.
Like…? I really miss the point. Do you mean villages or genocide?
how could what they wrote mean genocide?
It’s one way to ensure there’s only a small group of people, same as suicide is the most reliable way to get rid of hiccups.
I didn’t say a small group, i said lots of small groups
That’s just lots of geno’s for the cideing.
If you want to genocide them, thats on you
Definitely not genocide. Not sure if villages is the exact way to say it, but it’s a lot closer lol
So have a lot of small groups
Holy shit guys he solved the whole problem. Where should we send the check to?
Obviously does not solve the whole problem. Imo, smaller, self-governing groups are better able to apply democratic policies, as there are not likely to be as many different ideas within the group.
As for the check, you can send it to my balls
I also wonder what happens as new generations start to become prominent, they might not have the same ideals as their parents and either move away or change the dynamics of the group.
Yeah, that’s not my favorite. I don’t really want to rely on people or be part of a close community like that. And I really like having personal property. I probably contribute the bare minimum to society outside of my taxes. Not part of any organizations, don’t give to charity. Definitely don’t give to the homeless. Don’t volunteer. I just want to work and come home to my house with my family and all my stuff. I’d make a terrible anarchist.
Why do you mention personal property? Anarchism and communism still allow ownership of personal property, but collective ownership of the means of production such as factories and schools. You could do everything you do now in a socialist or anarchist society.
What’s the alternative that works?
That’s what we’re all trying to figure out.
Anti-anarchist pretty much think
- Anarchy = chaos
This is heavily promoted by mainstream media and language
- Anarchists are pacifist
Many people seem unable to comprehend how a community might defend itself without a standing military and so assume we must be unwilling to defend ourselves.
- Nothing can be accomplished without coercion
Because most of us have grown up within strict hierarchies coerced to do things we don’t want, we have trouble imagining any other way.
- Everyone is inherently a selfish asshole
This is probably projection in most cases
How do you keep an Anarchic Utopia then? What stops Dickie McDickerson and his thugs from establishing a state on top of you?
deleted by creator
Good luck with that. You may need to substitute all humans with robots.
It’s a dream. Capitalism would be great and completely valid without some greedy fuckers trying to get everything for themselves. Communism would work without some greedy fuckers trying to get everything for themselves. Anarchism would work without… You get the jist.
Our problem is not politics, it’s the human nature. No matter how many loving hippies there are, there are always going to be some people who try to exploit everything for their own good
I’m cynical (or old) enough to agree with this sentiment to a point, but capitalism has greed built in, it’s a feature not a flaw.
It inherently incentivizes greed, it’s not built in per se. As are all traits of the dark triad. This is what makes capitalism the worst choice and really sad. It brings out the worst in us. And those who are better have no chance.
You are 100% correct.
Capitalism is greed. Acquire and accumulate at all costs. Hoarding is not just acceptable, but praiseworthy.
deleted by creator
They’d be out-competed by those who used their wealth to screw over the competition and drive small businesses under.
Greed came long before capitalism. Capitalism is the current way to organize greed.
Wealth disparity has always existed as a result of greed, not capitalism. There have always been extra wealthy and poor. There has always been nobles and serfs. Patricians and plebians. Bourgeoisie and proletariat.
Any system of economic equality cannot exist unless there is a very tight framework around it and people designated to enforce that framework, which, ipso facto, eliminates equality, as that then puts a monopoly on a legal use of force. With a legal use of force, corruption is only a matter of time.
Greedy fuckers are going to be making anything worse, but that only means that a complete utopia is impossible, not that all systems are going to be equally bad. Would you argue that the average absolute monarchy would have just as much abuse as your average liberal democracy?
deleted by creator
The problem is the human condition of greedy tuckers, so let’s keep political systems which give a few people who want all the power all the power, rather than work towards anarchism where no one gets the power?
you’re wrong my comrade
Interestingly enough, that’s literally the solution for The Culture.
Worrying about sealions on Lemmy in particular is just vanity since one really has the option to move on and ignore, or even block, at will. There is no way to force an answer, but it is perfectly okay to ask politely for one on a forum-like platform.
I’m not asking for sources, it’s a simple logic experiment with a look at history. A decentralized pacifist state is a power vacuum to certain people. We need at least the basic sketch of a larger state and acceptance of organized violence as a method to defend it.
The same that stops them from taking over a democracy. Sometimes.
If a society became anarchist enough to abolish state structures, there obviously had to exist a reason - there had to exist popular support.
Thus, someone attempting to recreate a state would face questions and opposition. People would try to persuade them of their error. If they declared a state, anarchists would not recognize it. If it claimed sovereignity above a territory, anarchists might not recognize that either.
The new state might encounter problems - unwilling residents would leave and be accepted in anarchy, annoyed anarchists would organize trade boycotts and sanctions, ultimately it could go badly and armed confrontation could follow. In some scenarios, the state might remain and attract people who want to live there. In some scenarios, war would follow - and if the majority really was anarchist, the state would lose and disappear.
deleted by creator
Oh no, you misunderstand. They’re not giving you a choice. They aren’t proponents of democracy or any kind of representative government. You have to go from an Anarchic state to resisting an organized group while they are grabbing community leaders in the middle of the night and taking young men and women to work camps.
To resist an organized group, you communicate the problem (in an anarchist society, communicating the problem of a nascent state seems like the easy part), present evidence of the nature and severity of the problem, and ask people and existing organizations to mobilize.
Whether the next step is obstructing the state peacefully or mass production of munitions, would already depend on how bad the state has got.
Well you’re already adding violence back in, but honestly that’s fine. I didn’t buy that pacifism would work anyways. It’s good to practice in regards to starting stuff, but you’d have to be ready to end stuff.
And honestly I hope what you’re saying would work but now you’ve got 3 more problems to solve. You’re starting from standing and they’re already going. So they’re going to have a head start in every way. You’re asking for volunteers and you have to deal with the bystander effect. They’re coercing people to fight for them. And third, you’ve now created an army and at least some infrastructure to support it. There’s more than a few times through history that the defending army just decided it was in charge now.
And just so you know where I’m coming from I’ve always thought you need at least some of the state institutions we have for a leftist state to work. Like education, enough military to make invading too costly, enough police to tackle organized crime, a tax system to provide help in disasters and keep infrastructure working, and a civil government to manage that infrastructure. Having it all in place negates the Dicky McDickerson problem from the outset. What we really need is to scale back a lot of what we have and to classify much of what people do to get rich as organized crime.
For the US specifically we’ll also need a plan to deal with Christian Conservatives who will attempt to institute a theocracy pretty much right away.
Anarchists are pacifist
Will there be downsides?
deleted by creator
Anarchy is not by nature disorganized. Lack of hierarchy doesn’t mean lack of organization. Probably a well-functioning anarchist organization is better organized than most hierarchical ones.
If friends are not there to defend the group of three, mutual aid is missing. That’s why it failed.
Removed by mod
Actually, there seems to be a bit of a mix-up. Let me clarify.
In an anarchist group, enforcing anything goes against its fundamental principles.
If personal gain is the motive, one isn’t truly aligned with the group’s social contract and isn’t considered part of it.
Decisions are made collectively, without hierarchy. Voting or delegating organisational tasks to sub-groups is the norm.
I won’t go into words like “attacking,” “defense,” or “threats” as they are military terms, far from the anarchist ethos.
And I won’t call you “bro” or make you read theory. I feel you won’t.
Removed by mod
Why defenseless? The entire organization can defense itself from outsiders. No need of hierarchy for that.
Just one gifted sociopath dooms it from the inside…
I long for mutual aid society, but every time I have participated in any form of it, I’ve had to back away as it invariably becomes toxic. I just don’t have the energy to keep fighting, honestly.
Anarchism is really against coercion, that’s what is meant by hierarchy. Hierarchy only makes sense if it’s used for coercion of other’s behavior.
There is no reason a group of people can’t organize in a voluntary hierarchy to complete a task without the use of coercion.
Imagine a group of 10 anarchist making pizza for the homeless. Two of them make pizza for a living and 8 are there for the week to help out. There is nothing preventing those 8 people from taking instruction from the two that know how to make pizza. Nobody is coerced to be there or to do anything.
We don’t need to incentivse not selling people out. Heirarchy creates a set of incentives TO sell people out. Remove those incentives and people will for the most part not sell people out. You’ve got it exactly backwards.
Ask your buddy mao about anarchist fighting forces. He literally took anarchist tactics around decentralized militias and used them to great success. The Vietnamese as well. Or have a look at the Spanish revolution, rojava, the Ukrainian black army, or the zapatistas if you need more proof that decentralized militant forces are effective and capable. It doesn’t warrant an in detail explanation because “but how fight if democracy???” is weak as fuck.
Removed by mod
Spain was not part of WW2. Facists won before that, though.
Zapitista, Makhnovshchina, Rojava, Zomia, etc. didn’t all descend into mass crime and slaughter.
What we’ve seen is these movements benefit the people living there.
Removed by mod
YPG, the militia formed during the seperation of Rojava from the Syrian government, have been accused by Human Rights groups of using Child Soldiers.
Correct… and notably, unlike the other forces around them (Syrian dictatorship, Turkish-sponsored islamists, ISIS, etc) they responded to the accusation within a month:
In June 2020, United Nations reported the YPG/YPJ as the largest faction in the Syrian civil war by the number of recruited child soldiers with 283 child soldiers followed by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham with 245 child soldiers.[141]
On 15 July 2020, SDF issued a new military order prohibiting child recruitment. The NGO Fight For Humanity conducted multiple training sessions with hundreds of SDF commanders about the UN-SDF Action Plan To Prevent Child Recruitment, and distributed informational posters and flyers about it written in both Arabic and Kurdish, as part of an ongoing educational process. Syria-based researcher Thomas McClure observed that “SDF are less likely to engage in such practices than any of the other forces in Syria, but seek to hold themselves to a higher standard of accountability and human rights.”[142]
On 29 August 2020, SDF announced the creation of a new system that anyone can use to confidentially report to specialized Child Protection offices any suspected case of child recruitment, in accordance with the action plan that the SDF signed with the United Nations in the summer of 2019.[143][144]
What’s your plan to “remove those incentives” because think we’ve got more than enough sample data on what happens when a government falls and the disappearance of all crime and hostility is not part of it.
Are you the one that said not to say “go read theory”? Because the urge to tell you to go read theory is pretty fuckin strong. I’m not going to summarize 200 years of political philosophy and history for you. Especially because I know you’re just gonna go “no you’re wrong and my heirarchical realism is right” no matter how compelling my points are. I’ll give you a couple of places to start, I guess.
Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. E-book/PDF version. Audiobook version.
Anarchy Works, Peter Gelderloos. PDF/E-book version Audiobook version
Seeing Like a State, James C. Scott, pdf version
On YouTube: Anark (Theory essays), Andrewism (Theory and Praxis), Zoe Baker (PhD in anarchist history).
Also, the Spanish revolution is a lot more complicated than “the fascists won btw”. Your tone again suggests it’s not worth the effort of breaking it down for.you. I don’t have any specific recommendations on that other than to open a book. Have a good day and go fuck yourself
Thats a lot of words just to surrender. Are you French?
Cringe.
But sure. Look through this thread for my comment on elite panic. It’s more or less the answer to your questions about crime, failing government, etc. With some more handy links that you might find useful if you’re ever determined to not be as ignorant as you currently are
They said x and you’re somehow reading y.
deleted by creator
What does a well-functioning anarchist organization look like, though? How does one of any size prevent from fracturing into competing factions over time? If such organizations are limited to tight-knit community scales, I can’t see how it’s not eventual feudalism with extra steps.
Hierarchy isn’t the opposite of anarchy.
It’s just a type of rule. As in “an-archy”, without ruler.
There’s also “synarchy”, meaning “joint rule or government by two or more individuals or parties”, which I feel is far more what people here are advocating in the name of anarchism.
Who said anarchists and their friends will not defend from outside threats? The Spanish anarchists organized and fought for 3 years against overwhelming odds when they had to.
Yeah , but …
In Paris we fought and were massacred.
In Korea/Manchuria we fought and were massacred.
In Ukraine we fought and were massacred.
And as you say in Spain we fought, but then we were massacred.There’s more of course, but you get the idea.
Something probably should be done differently in the future.
So? How many slave revolutions did we have before it was “technically” abolished (it’s still ongoing, but at least illegal in principle)? We had legal slavery for like ~6K years until it was abolished. Capitalism only exists for ~400 years and there were hundreds of failed democratic revolutions. Anarchism as a movement is barely over 150yo and no anarchist revolution happened before 100 years. Just because things don’t happen overnight, or even in our lifetime, doesn’t mean they’re impossible.
So, yeah, looking at those examples I’d say we should try to prevent our opponets from going fascist.
If there’s anything fascists are good at it’s murdering lots and lots of people, so Id say we should stop them from gaining a following or try to remove their following if they already got one.
Easier said then done, but, to steal your words, doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
Remains to be seen if anarchism can ever win though.
Statist forces have always triumphed.
Monarchy always triumphed over democracy until it didn’t. Slavery always triumphed over abolition until it didn’t.
But none of those triumphs were inevitable.
It’s nice to think they were: I’d rather live in a world without slavery and with democracy but there was no guarantee of success except the fact that in hindsight it was successful.
Not all forms of government have won out. Nor will all possible forms of government succeed.
Yes, but looking forward from their end, with your perspective, none of them were possible. My point is that it’s fallacious to claim that just because it hasn’t succeed yet, it can’t succeed.
Remains to be seen if anarchism can ever win though.
Statist forces have always triumphed.
Nowhere does this preclude future victory: this is an accurate representation of the current state of affairs. Anarchy has 0 victories and it remains to be seen if there will be any.
Until 1783 Democracy had no modern victories either, and it very much remained to be seen if it would.
Make a point. Don’t make me assume what your point is and then just restate random facts still without making a point.
Now we’re just waiting to see if anarchism will have that moment where they’ll triumph.
Does anyone else feel like we are in a prisoner’s dilemma with this?
Every empire’s days are numbered, it’s not like anything is destined to be forever. I wonder how many days are left for the Zapatistas?
Past performance is no indicator of future performance. It’s entirely possible that the Zapatistas cause the collapse of the Mexican government just as it’s possible that they fade away into oblivion.
The luddites were annihilated and their philosophy has never been as prevalent or popular as it was in their uprising. While there’s still a chance of a popular resurgence they still missed their best opportunity and were crushed by the state.
History has hundreds of suppressed revolts to every success.
That’s not to say it’s hopeless: just that it isn’t inevitable. We’d like to believe that with enough tries you can succeed but that is a fallacy.
Also notably, the Kronstadt anarchists held a general assembly to dicsuss the question of “shall we accept Lenin’s ultimatum, or fight a battle against the Red Army?” and decided democratically to fight.
(The battle was extremely bloody, anarchists lost and the Red Army won, at the cost of losing at least 5 times more people. Considerable numbers of anarchists escaped to Finland.)
In short: anarchists can use heavy artillery when needed, even if they know that war is not healthy - neither for them or the society they want.
mutual aid, equality or freedom are not doomed to fail: as long as human beings live in societies they will seek cooperation and justice.
Perhaps like… organised cooperation, even perhaps putting things on paper to make sure what has been agreed upon gets followed through. Maybe even assign some people to do that for the larger society, so everyone doest have to worry about it. I mean, everyone should help each other, so if someone just doesn’t anyone on purpose and even takes other’s things, they should face some sort of negative consequence, but then we’d need to assign people who verify that someone has broken the rules and some to enforce that the negative consequences actually happen.
And wow, the anarcho-syndicalist commune now has government, taxes, justice and law enforcement.
People are by nature cooperative unless fucked over, but I find it weird that the prescriptive meaning of “anarchy” is completely glossed over.
The type of society I want to live in definitely won’t happen without any sort of rules or regulations about at least some things. Otherwise we won’t have industry, and I like my toys. We can’t manage a good (and advanced) society without good regulation which requires good government.
Otherwise we won’t have industry, and I like my toys.
Your toys are being manufactured by some underpaid slave worker in china or india. Have fun playing with these in the few hours of life you got left from the industry.
So you’re saying you think it’s preferable and even possible to go back to a society without any of the amenities which require industry on the scale that regulation is necessary?
Because that’s the actual argument, not whether a person in a capitalistic system participates in said system out of necessity.
I say “toys”, but I’m talking about electronics I actually need. I prefer buying the most ethical ones, but sometimes those option’s don’t exist. And the electronics I’ve now set my eyes on are not manufactured by underpaid slave workers in India or China, but The United States of America.
Just fyi though, clothing is the number one slave industry, and me purchasing a product or two of fancy electronics a year is nothing compared to youngsters constantly buying disposable clothing made in sweatshops. My backpack is older than the average age on Lemmy (from the early 90’s), my jacket is from the 70’s, and aside from a dozen domestic made underwear and t-shirts or so, all my other clothing I’ve either gotten as a gift or bought second-hand. Wool, leather, hemp, cotton and other natural fabrics > polyester.
The main point still remains that the se idyllic cooperatives won’t happen without big time organised… organisations. Like one specifically for matters regarding governing of, say, industries and labour protection.
I wonder what one could call such “governing organisations”?
as long as human beings live in societies they will seek cooperation and justice.
You defeated your own position. Humans aren’t, nor can be perfecly just nor perfectly cooperative.
You defeat your own position, no one said perfection was necessary to achieve any kind of society, no need to let perfection be the enemy of good enough and functional.
My brother in christ, focus on the whole discussion instead of taking it one argument at a time. An imperfect society will, by necessity, fail to the issues raised previously.
If there’s some other part of the argument that supports that, I don’t see it.
I’m not a Christian, but I don’t think it’s at all possible for a society to be perfect, ever. By that metric nothing will address the issues. But issues can be addressed even partially and can be the difference between death and survival.
I’m not a Christian
Neither am I. It’s a figure of speech.
I don’t think it’s at all possible for a society to be perfect, ever.
Then you shouldn’t campaign for the one form of government which does pretty much require a perfect society.
I don’t agree with that either. If we never knew capitalism we would say the same thing, as a matter of fact we would say it’s inherently imperfect and needs regulations at every turn. On paper I’d say anarchy beats capitalism any day and I’m not even a huge fan of anarchy.
Removed by mod
Do you wait your turn in line at the store under the threat of violence? Do you only drive the speed limit because if you didn’t you would get pulled over and have your license suspended? Do you give money/food to the homeless despite it being againstl local bylaws that could land you with a fine?
Enforcement in day to day life is an illusion. People don’t need to be forced to “behave”. By and large, most of us just do because we want to get on with our day. If there is no social incentive to harm others, for the most part people.wont harm others because we simply have no desire to harm others. There are ways to account for fringe cases that don’t require a hierarchical, domineering system
Removed by mod
This is a great time to bring up elite panic. TL;DR in emergency situations (fires, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, bombing, etc.), it’s been proven time and again that individuals are not only capable of organizing impromptu mutual aid and direct action networks, but that they’re better at disaster relief than state bodies. When heirarchical enforcement rears it’s head in the form of state and military bodies, things get awful for everyone quickly. A podcast on the topic. A book on the topic.
This is a time and place where all social paradigms are shattered. You can “steal” all you want and fuck over everyone else if you so please without any threat of punishment from above. People don’t do that. They help each other, they directly distribute what they have to those who need it most and work together to ensure everyone’s wellbeing.
It’s not surprising either. Mutual aid is baked into existence. Humans are capable of both cooperation and competition. Our society is built around competition. And even still you see people doing what they can for one another when they’re able to. I feel a lot of social ills are caused by alienation from community and not being able to exercise our cooperative impulses enough.
If there were no authority, people would wait in line. By and large, people want to help and labor. Most of us want to work, especially if we feel it is meaningful. If there were no authority, I think the majority of us would be better off for it
Rather than link a whole ass book why didn’t you just give at least one practical example? I feel like that actually would have been easier to do.
The 1906 San Francisco earthquake and subsequent fires. People spontaneously formed networks of mutual aid and direct action. They autonomously conducted firefighting, medical, food distribution, and rescue efforts to those afflicted. When the military showed up to provide disaster relief they were met by people managing their own affairs and clamped down on it. Killing several victims of the earthquake, jailing many more, and inadvertently starving people by not providing enough food and water to the victims. This was all made worse by the military severely punishing people who “looted” abandoned stores for food and other resources in reaction to the states failure to help effectively. The military even went as far as to level and burn entire blocks to prevent people from “stealing”.
In the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, people again formed mutual aid networks to help those in need. The state cracked down on looting (people taking what they needed from abandoned and flooded stores), killing a few. Rescue efforts by the national guard were delayed because they weren’t able to have an armed person on every rescue boat. So instead of just sending them out unarmed or only sending the armed ones, they just didn’t send any. This killed people. Rich racists went on killing sprees in their neighborhoods any time they saw black people nearby. This was ignored and in some cases encouraged by local police as “protecting their property”. The anarchist black cross was the only organized body to effectively deliver aid and defense for the people affected.
In 1964 an earthquake struck Anchorage, Alaska, levelling large portions of the city. People spontaneously organized into mutual aid and direct action networks. They were so effective, only 9 people died from injures related to the earthquake. The death toll would have been significantly higher if it weren’t for the actions of residents. It was a subject of study for years due to the swift and effective response of the locals. The police in the area scrambled in a state of panic. They attempted to enforce the rule of law. Even granting civillians with the temporary position of deputy. They gave them a gun and marked them as deputies using lipstick. These “deputies” were a gaggle of drunks in a local bar. The residents of Anchorage kindly told them to fuck off. When the military arrived to aid in rescue efforts a few days after the earthquake, there was no one left to rescue. The residents saved everyone themselves.
There’s 3 examples of what happens when people are not subject to the rule of law. When there are no power structures to enforce it’s will on the people. When they do get reintroduced, its often violent and cruel.
These are great examples. One other non-disaster one I love is the Irish Bank Strike. The banks didn’t like some regulation so they decided to go on strike thinking it would bring the economy to its knees.
It didn’t. People used cash to buy things, and if they needed bigger purchases they just used their existing checkbooks. If there was a question about someone’s credit they’d go down to the pub and the pub owner would vouch for the person writing the check.
Eventually the banks gave up and reopened.
Loving the dialogue because you specifically are willing to bring up examples of spontaneous human cooperation during times of geological hazard. It seems like regular folks do rise to the occasion.
I guess my worry is what happens during times of sociological hazard i.e. war or conflict. It’s one thing for humans to join together and help each other after disasters have happened to them specifically, but if those hazards are being speculated and predicted about so as to happen in the future, I wonder how much regular folks care about it. Look at climate change maybe and the inaction a lot of people take (a lot of action is being taken too, don’t get me wrong, but whether that action is fast enough depends).
I would say that humans have a great ability to react to geological or sociological effects, but as for preparing for or preventing geological or sociological causes, I would say it’s hit or miss.
Can you really expect the kind of behavior that emerges from a disaster to be the behavior that people would maintain forever even in the absence of some unifying horror? The disaster creates temporary community unity which allows such incredible social cohesion at scale.
Obviously not. That’s why most anarchists advocate for pre configuration and organization. If you’ve already got mutual aid networks, horizontal systems of distribution and production in place before shit goes down, your odds of a successful transition to a stateless society are much higher. The examples of elite panic were there to highlight the cooperative impulses of individuals and the malignancy of the state on those impulses
Where the fuck do you live where there is a line waiting authority?
Removed by mod
Hahahahahaha, sure mate.
“Officer he cut in line, arrest this man!”
Removed by mod
Do you only drive the speed limit because if you didn’t you would get pulled over and have your license suspended?
Yes, the practical speed limit varies wildly by location on smaller roads and they just choose the lowest one for the whole section.
If it does enforce it, then we’re no longer talking about an anarchy.
Anarchism is not anti self-defense, and that applies at the community level as well. A group of anarchist isn’t obliged to let a selfish person harm them. Self-defense is neither authority nor coercion.
You have a very skewed idea of anarchism. I won’t deny the existence of anti-organizational and pacifist anarchist groups but they’re not a majority. Social anarchism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, communalism, Marxist autonomism, council communism, neozapatismo, and especifism are all libertarian socialist ideologies that espouse the necessity of organization and self defense. I’m sure I’m missing a few too. You’re taking a silly comic as serious commentary on the ideological substance of a deep and diverse body of political theory.
Anarchism is neither inherently pacifist nor disorganized, that’s your lack of understanding showing.
The circle A anarchism logo means “order without hierarchy”.
deleted by creator
You speak as if we’re in a functional system where people are safe, getting here was smooth sailing, and I’m proposing a preposterous idea. Our system currently does not work and billions have died to get to this fucked up place. Why would you think a different system will fail because it is not like just the current failing system?
If I see a guy shoplifting and just shoot him, who is in a position to tell me that I was wrong
The community, a functional anarchist community wouldn’t tolerate this, it would become a crime in itself. A functional anarchist community would defend itself and have members ready to do so. If somebody shot another person for something like shoplifting (which wouldn’t be a thing in anarchism duh) that would be murder and that person would now be at risk of termination as a mortal threat to the community. People don’t usually desire to escalate things though, so contrived examples like this are silly.
You can’t have some lackadaisical ad hoc minute men arrangement, there are too many humans and too many competing interests for that to work in the modern world.
I’m not one of those that thinks anarchism is a drop-in replacement for capitalism or that anarchism can come from violent revolution. If anything close to anarchism could ever happen it would take at least a couple generations (of cultural change) and co-occur with degrowth. We know that our current system is unsustainable, so we’re either going to end up with something like anarcho-communism + degrowth or we won’t exist anymore. There is no way a hierarchical system that exploits that planet to support billions will be able to exist beyond the next decades, can’t happen. Even socialism just makes things more equal while we destroy the planet.
I’ve never once met an anarchist who can coherently explain how, in a practical sense, you ensure justice and order at a large scale without a state, legal framework
The scale and ways of life now are the result of an exploitative economic system. Without that it’s not our nature to form into efficiently exploitable structures. We’d form into manageable communities as humans have done for hundreds of thousands of years prior to the appearance of the state.
Who makes sure my lights stay on and that my landlord didn’t use asbestos and lead pipes when…
You and your community work to keep the lights on and other needs met. For asbestos and lead pipes, the motivations to do these things come from an exploitative economic system. In anarchism, if someone sells you poison, you can defend yourself. There won’t be many people selling lead pipes when their life is on the line rather than a fine or job loss.
You can’t just have mob justice or random individuals deciding based on their own arbitrary, subjective opinion how to carry out justice at any given
So instead we should have the opinion of the rich powerful racist people enforced by people with a license to kill and who use in inordinately more often on vulnerable populations who cannot legally protect themselves?
Does that person’s wife or brother now get to shoot me?
Yes, and the community might say, “well, he deserved it, have a taco”. Our current system basically allows most men to rape women and the woman has no recourse because the state protects the rapist. This is not a working system.
I don’t think those ideas are doomed to fail. I think the idea of not having a state is doomed to fail.
The answer actually did surprise me!
AAAB.
All Anarchists Are Based.
Anarchism wouldn’t get that far in the first place lmao
Heck the state
The state (could and idealistically) be the will of the people via proper democratic systems. It’s just that right now most aren’t that democratic, and unelected corporations have too much influence. (So under capitalism, I do think actual democracy isn’t super meaningful)
I think if you want to have a functional civilisation (rather than just small communes, which with today’s population is a pipe-dream) you need some kind of taxes, and now we’ve already arrived back at needing a state.
Collective spending is required for a civilisation, end of story. Anarchy is never going to build continent spanning infrastructure, ever.
Someone trying to accumulate wealth or power is going to ruin it for you. Sold you food with lead in it? Okay, what are ya gonna do about it? At a small, community scale this is easy, at civilisation scale, forget about it. You need some court system.
If you want to go live in a commune, be my guest, that’s the only place anarchy can work.
If Putin’s and Bezos didn’t arise in every society, you wouldn’t need a government.
But they always do.
They arise because they capture that state
They arise because there will always be a small percentage of humans who are sociopaths. Simplified, this means they are willing to harm others, not just because they are starving and NEED to harm someone to get their basic needs met (which I’d argue most people are capable of), but even to take things they don’t actually need. Since most people are not willing to hurt others to take things they don’t actually need (usually even willing to bend rather than fight), sociopaths have a leg up on the rest of us. They were able to rise to power way back when the first cities were being built, and have maintained a sociopathic society ever since. Sociopathic tendencies are lauded amongst the corporate elites, and without them it is unlikely one will make it in the corporate world.
Sociopaths are incentivized only in the capitalist system. In an anarchist system, sociopathy isn’t rewarded.
deleted by creator
Sociopaths are people who take what they want and are willing to harm others to do so. These people do and will exist in literally every system anywhere literally ever.
These people become kings. They become tyrants. They do what they want and everyone else suffers.
Maybe eventually you’ll have a peasant revolt. And what can the peasants do to establish a system that mitigates this possibility in the future?
deleted by creator
They arise because the capture that economy. A state is not required to capture an economy. However, a state is required to have any hope of even remotely controlling the people controlling the economy.
Ah yes the comic that deprogrammed me on anarchism
This is so cringe.
I don’t see how anyone would be safe from thieves in anarchy.
- Stealing, when it is done by most regular people is out of desperation. Decomodification of things necessary to live, and change in the socioeconomic system from a hierarchical one to a cooperative one would very likely lead to reduction in such crimes.
- I have a gun. (/s)
You are misunderstanding why people become thieves in the first place, and how comparatively uncommon pure thievery is. The majority of theft is legal and is done in the name of capitalist profiteering. Not that break ins don’t happen, nor that everyone will be a good person and accept a society of mutual aid.
Genuine theft will still occur. The consequences of something being stolen would not be the same within an anarchist society built on mutual aid. It is much easier to recover from theft when shelter, food, water, are all guaranteed things that you don’t have to fret over. So the consequences will largely be interpersonal, grudges and disputes between people over less consequential things like valuables of some particular nature.
I am not of the opinion that violence of the community need be used on such a situation either. We aren’t the police for Christ’s sake. We can actually settle disputes in a proactive way that attempts to rectify the situation that precipitated the theft (maybe someone needs mental health help, maybe there are interpersonal issues) without kicking the shit out of anyone.
Violent crimes can be handled however the community sees fit. But things like theft or destroying someone’s clothes should be handled proactively to ensure lasting solutions for everyone involved. Violence is a pretty bad deterrent for this kind of behavior.
The state doesn’t keep you safe from thieves now. The police are a reactionary force that shows up after you’ve been robbed and then do nothing to help you. The most you get is a police report to refer your insurance company to, if your stolen belongings were insured.
A very real risk of punishment by the state if you happen to get caught is what prevents theft. Your argument conveniently left that important part out and presented a straw man argument.
The rest of these comments talk about unenforced theft like white collar crimes and other class war-like theft. Which just reinforces the idea that only state-executed enforcement of law is actually any good at preventing theft.
Not needing to steal is what keeps most people from stealing, not fear of punishment.
Do you think the homeless and hungry are the only people who steal?
High end crime happens ALL the time, and it’s not out of necessity, it’s out of the human condition of greed. Theft happens more often by rich individuals than it does by poor.
It’s a good thing the state takes that “high end” crime as seriously as smoking weed.
mob justice did that before states existed or even humans. Now the state protects one class and loots the other. And guess what? thieves fear a mob more than the state. Things change, bad people find loopholes. How laws work needs to keep changing
Your first argument works in a perfect state, which will never exist. Your second paragraph makes no fucking sense.
No rulers doesn’t mean no rules
Who has authority to enforce those rules? If no one, then how do you resolve disputes in a civil, yet binding fashion?
This is a big question, and the real answer is, “it’s up to the community to decide”. But I know that’s not very satisfying despite being correct, so here’s an example of how it could work.
The first step is to lower crime / anti-social behaviour. If everyone in the community is happy, there’s less need for anti-social behaviour. Sharing food and pooling resources, helping your neighbour out, teaching children the value of working together, etc. Most people obey the rules and want to be good people but are driven to crime through desperate circumstances [citation needed, but it seems to be true in most of my daily face-to-face interactions].
However, there are always some people who do whatever they want regardless of the cost to others, and some people who specifically want to behave badly. It should be explained to these people why what they’re doing is harmful and try to teach some empathy. The next step might be denying resources which aren’t essential to life, so that they don’t benefit from the community that they are harming. Finally, if they keep being anti-social, they can be imprisoned for the good of the community.
As it stands in my society, the police have a monopoly on legitimate violence. If you want someone physically restrained, it’s up to the police to do so. One problem with this is that the police suck balls. In an anarchist society, the solution could be to have a police force that is made up of randomly selected citizens and rotated every few years. No-one gets to keep this position of authority for long, no-one gets to refuse except because of health reasons, and they are held strictly accountable to everyone else.
But honestly, I don’t think the police will be needed often. You’ve probably seen examples of self-governing systems around you. Think of that one shitty neighbour that no-one likes. How often do you look after their plants when they’re on holiday, go shopping for them when they’re ill, lend a hand when they’re doing some building work? The only way they get through life is because they use money to pay people who don’t yet know how shitty they are. In a society without money (because money creates unjust hierarchy), a lot of their options for being shitty and still having a nice life are removed.
I hope you were asking your question seriously because I ended up saying quite a lot! This is something I’m quite passionate about as you can probably tell. The organisation that I volunteer with has a flat structure so it’s also something that I have a lot of experience with in a smaller way
I am being genuine in my arguments. Political discussions are no fun when the disingenuous trolls take over, even if my sarcastic nature leaks out and I come across that way sometimes.
The first step is to lower crime / anti-social behaviour. If everyone in the community is happy, there’s less need for anti-social behaviour. Sharing food and pooling resources
That first step is a doozy. And is basically the step that every political system gets kind of stuck on. The goal is simple enough, but the actual “how” of getting it done, not to mention how to maintain it once you’ve achieved it, is enormously complex.
And the society without money thing I don’t think is actually possible, unless you want to go back to a purely agrarian society. Money, at it’s core is just a placeholder for resources to simplify bartering. The systems we’ve built around it are often fucked and can go, but money itself is just a useful tool.
I don’t believe that every society / political system does seek to cut crime. For example, parts of the USA right now are seeking to criminalise sleeping outside and other forms of homelessness rather than solving the problem. It has been proven (and is also very obvious) that if you give someone housing and a stable income, they stop being homeless. It’s kinda in the name of “home less”. But a lot of powerful people in America are more interested in keeping rich people rich and people who “don’t deserve it” in the gutters - figuratively and literally. In my vision of an Anarchist Utopia Society TM, the main goal would be to keep as many people happy and healthy as possible which would, by definition, involve lowering crime, anti-social behaviour, homelessness, etc.
A good example would be the UK which offers speed awareness courses to drivers who are caught breaking the speed limit. This is sometimes cheaper for the offender and avoids getting points on your driving license (too many points means a driving ban). Drivers who took this speed awareness course are less likely to reoffend than people who chose not to take it.
As for a moneyless society, I think it is possible as part of my Anarchist Utopia Society TM and I don’t want to start another arguement about that because I have limited time and energy for online arguments. We’ll just have to agree to disagree for now :)
I really am curious what you mean by “moneyless” though. Like, is it just doing away with the money systems we’ve built (like banks, stock markets, etc) or is getting rid of the concept altogether and returning to simple bartering?
Gift based economy. I help you because I know that you will help me. If someone doesn’t pull their weight then they won’t get help. Basically everything runs on social currency and who owes who (but it’s not as strict as “I owe Jenny £5.83”, it’s more like "Jenny’s my friend so I’ll help her)
Bartering is a feature of money systems, not their origin. Andrewism summarizing David Graeber YT.
I’m trying to set up an org like that myself currently. Any good advice?
I have been thinking about your question a lot and kept saying I’d wait till I was at my computer and type out something good and thoughtful. But apparently that’s not happening so you’re getting whatever I type next at 1am and hopefully it’s helpful :P
I don’t think I can really give advice because it depends on what you want to do, the size of your organisation, and (most importantly) what you and your friends / colleagues want. What I’ll do instead is talk about the things I like and dislike at my place and hopefully you can pull something useful from it.
One of the great strengths of anarchism is how flexible it is. I mean this in two ways - firstly, it can be applied in many different forms in many different contexts. The main strength though is that you can more easily change how you work day to day. No single person should be irreplaceable. Of course, everyone has their own strengths, skills and knowledge and you should respect and cherish everyone you work alongside. But there’s no one big boss who needs to be there for anything to get done. Everyone is important; no-one is vital. Where I work, it’s easy for me to take a day off and know that the work will still get done.
I volunteer for an environmental nonprofit. I’m one of about 70 volunteers and we have 6 staff members, half of whom are part time. There does tend to be a bit of a hierarchy with staff members being viewed as more important. It’s something we all try to avoid but because they are paid to be there, they have a lot more available time and effort than those of us who have other things going on in our lives. However, I’m very grateful for the staff because they can take care of all the ‘boring but necessary’ work - things like applying for grants, paperwork for new volunteers, taking care of rent and utilities, etc. It’s useful to have people who are contractually obligated to take care of these things so that I can go about the more interesting (to me) jobs. So my first advice would be to make sure you have any strict obligations covered by someone who is invested in your project.
We have meetings once a month where everyone is invited where we tend to discuss the big-picture issues. This could be topics like “what is our vision” or applying for an award or talking about ongoing problems we might be having. We have an agenda and take minutes, and we have a newsletter and several group chats so everyone can be informed. Communication is very important. However, don’t be disappointed if not many people show. We only have about 10% of our people show up any given month. Most people only have an hour or two a week to volunteer and don’t care for flat structure, big picture, whatever. They just want to help out and have other things going on. That’s fine, because the door is always open for those who do want to have a voice.
I’m not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing, but I would say expect a lot of informal chats and decision making to end up being important. A lot of issues can be solved just by talking to your teammates, because everyone has the power to discuss and make changes. This is a good strength of flat structure! However, it can mean that sometimes you have an informal chat while working, it doesn’t stay in your mind, and one person walks away thinking the problem will be solved and the other person has completely forgotten about it. That might just be because we are always feeling overworked though!
Last thing I’ll say just because I feel like this is very long - you have to appreciate everyone’s efforts and meet them where they’re coming from. Everyone is unique and brings something important with them, and it’s important to tell them you appreciate them. If they give an hour a week, they helped and are valid. If they are joining different teams, weighing in, stepping forward, that’s great too. You have to make sure that people have the option to take leadership positions but also have the option to step back.
The place I work has really changed me for the better. It’s a journey I was already on, but my time with these wonderful people has made me more patient, understand, emotionally open, happy, able to share in the success we make together. Finding the right group of people and letting them be free to make their community better is the essence of anarchism to me
Ah I don’t have nearly enough people helping me out (especially with the bureaucratic stuff) haha. It’s a struggle trying to start an org on my own to the point that I think it’s probably not a workable idea unless I have a lot of people who want to help with the bureaucratic stuff.
If you’re anything like me then you are planning the perfect version of your project and won’t be happy unless you can get there straight away. We have a physical storefront, many people to organise, legal obligations as a business, and we work with several other charities and businesses that we need to coordinate with. That’s why I like having some people who I know are there to work on admin tasks.
When we started though, it was just three university students distributing food from the back of a car. Start small, with what you and your people can manage, and you’ll grow and adjust in time. And if it turns out that you can’t make it work, then you still made a difference in the time you were operating and you still had a good time with your friends along the way. There’s a recent post that’s very pertinent that I’ll try to find and link to
The community enforces rules?
Ok, but scale that up and try to account for bad actors. Human nature isn’t going to change, and so the are guaranteed to be people working to abuse the system. “The community will enforce” is just handwaving away the problem without actually dealing with it, just as much as bullshit like “the free market will solve x problem” is.
And how is the problem solved currently in your mind?
The difference between what we have today and what we want to see isn’t some magical world where things work perfectly, it’s one where people can make the changes directly without a ruling class deciding for us.
I try to think of systems that are stable and can scale up to cover everyone (this is also a pipe dream, since people aren’t purely rational). The idea of no one in charge, and the community deciding and enforcing everything can work up to a small town level, but a national or global level, it falls apart.
Some things, like major infrastructure for example, are necessary to have, but impossible to fund through voluntary means. No individual or small community has the money to build it on their own, and getting everyone to agree on what exactly should be done for any given project is damn near impossible. There needs to be a central planning authority of some sort, and they need to have the funding to execute these types of projects. Now what scale and format that planning authority has is the heart of every debate on which political system is best.
The community is in charge. It’s democracy without a class of rulers. Its people working together because it brings them mutual benefit instead of a system built on exploiting others for personal gain.
You can have a “central planning authority”, it would just be voluntarily made up of those small town level groups.
As long as the apps at the top of the app stores and songs on the top of the charts are the ones that corporations most advertised, and as long as people will listen to conspiracy theories from Q Anon and demand freedom of speech from Twitter, I genuinely do not trust people to have direct access to decision making. Ask middle class Americans think the biggest political issue right now is the tik tok ban
So instead you prefer the decision making to be in the hands of a small group of people all paid for and owned by the corporations, and who pander to the conspiracy nuts?
I genuinely do not trust people to have direct access to decision making
I wonder what you think politicians are, and whose interests they’re acting on (hint: it isn’t yours, and depending on how much
“lobbying” moneybribes they’ve gotten, it might not even be their own, see those who serve the oil lobby for example)
Human nature isn’t going to change
The people who taught you what “human nature” is, have a vested interest specifically in you thinking that humans are naturally greedy cut throat creatures, because that serves their systems of exploitation and oppression which they need you to continue to participle[ate in not because it’s fact.
Beyond that, your argument is 100% appeal to tradition, and you not being able to imagine existence outside of the social constructs that have been around in some cases for a mere couple of hundred, in other cases for, at most, 4-5 thousand years, doesn’t mean it isn’t possible, only that you’ve been indoctrinated well enough in to believing that is the case.You’ve completely misunderstood what I mean when I say “human nature isn’t going to change”. I’m not saying that all humans are greedy, or going to abuse the system. The “human nature” I’m talking about is the variability of peoples’ personalities. This guarantees that at some point, no matter how idyllic the society you’ve created is, someone is going to come along to break it. And they may not even be acting out of malice. It might simply be that they think they can do it even better. Any system you set up needs to have mechanisms to deal with that.
Oh no, I never considered human nature! My whole worldview is ruined!
What’s to stop the community from getting it horrendously wrong, as human communities have done so many times in the past?
What stops it currently?
Laws (at least somewhat) and the state’s monopoly on violence
Oh states don’t get anything horrendously wrong?
Huh, didn’t know that.
“The community” usually doesn’t. The most likely result is the bystander effect.
So you’re saying for nearly 200,000 years people sat around feeling zero sense of responsibility for their group and never acted?
How much of the bystander effect is in part because we are disenfranchised from managing ourselves and our communities? “Oh that’s not my job, I’ll sit here being useless because the cops/&tc will come along and manage it for me”.
For 200,000 years, the world was an extremely violent place, where slavery, genocide, etc were the norm. The idea is usually to try to move away from that.
Of course, there are not more people in slavery today than at any other time in the past, nor does genocide go on especially not in industrial scales.
So you’re saying for nearly 200,000 years people sat around feeling zero sense of responsibility for their group and never acted?
Uhhh… yes, for any community large enough that they didn’t know everyone in it.
the bystander effect
Which has been debunked, as is mentioned further down the link you yourself posted
So basically mob-justice.
Because witch hunts have never gone wrong and were always justified.
“This man loves other men, that’s weird, let’s kill him.” - apparently no one ever
Also relevant meme:
“justice is not handed down from above and is therefore unfair” < words of the utterly deranged
You mean the process, that is democratically decided by elections with a bunch of checks and balances in the process?
Just lol. Is that why there’s billionaires hoarding all the wealth while billions starve? Is that why Palestine is being genocided? Is that why we’re headed full-steam for a climate apocalypse?
There’s no “democracy” nor “checks and balances”. There’s only a sad farce.
Yes, because the democratic nations have democratically decided, that we want to consume more than is wise, that we want to retaliate for Oct 7 and that private property is cool, even if a few have more.
I agree, that mob-rule would remove billionaires, but how would it stop climate change, if there are no regulations against emissions?
Palestinians idk. In nationless anarchy it would not be a structured military, but let’s not pretend there wouldn’t be massive amounts of bloodshed.
None of that is “democratically elected”. Those elections are a farce and I would go as far as to argue that no democracy which decides to kill 30.000 children and perform genocide is legitimate.
And nobody is talking about “mob rule”. We’re talking about anarchism.
Half elected officials with power are appointed not elected. The Supreme Court took away women’s bodily autonomy. There was no popular vote for any of them not a single one. Also just because I vote someone in doesn’t mean I agree with everything they do. Wouldn’t it be more expedient to just use direct democracy so I can actually have a say?
“Your options are conservative A or B, and whatever actions they take are necessarily ones you voted for and agree with!”
Yes, because the democratic nations have democratically decided, that we want to consume more than is wise, that we want to retaliate for Oct 7 and that private property is cool, even if a few have more.
Which party is against this? I live in a blue state in America and will gladly vote for them.
Homophobia comes mainly from the will to govern over other people, by shaming their natural and harmless sexual behavior, and is often dictated by some religion. As power structures like to cooperate, be they corporations, states, or churches; sometimes they like to push each others.
Before you ask: yes, some corporations are doing pride shit to appeal to a wider audience and legitimize their power in the modern world. But others like Xitter are helping state and church powers, as they have a common interest in keeping and expanding their own power.
If you also ask: many churches flourish when the state defunds social safety networks, as they can step in to replace them with church-based charities. I work in a state-owned retirement home, and I can first-hand experience it. Secularism is very compromised as churches had to step in to donate stuff, but that was never a charity, as they demanded the secular state of the institution to slowly eroding, because “religion provides comfort to the soul”, and thus mental health care gets the axe first.
Authoritarians in general are excel in giving simple answers to complicated questions. Science? No, god did it. Our economical system is inherently flawed? No, a cabal of evil Jews that don’t want to go back to the holy land did it. An anti-authoritarian project failed due to complicated reasons? No, they simply weren’t authoritarian, and didn’t have a good tyrant to stop the bad tyrants.
Which would you rather? One king/governed/whoever that says being gay is bad, or a majority of the population that says being gay is bad?
At least in the second example, you have >50% of the population being happy. And more likely >80% would be happy otherwise you’d just have the 49% fight back and make life miserable for everyone.
If you had 50% saying stuff like that, you wouldn’t even have an anarchist society anyway.
Exactly. We have ~50% saying that now, whoch is why I think an anarchist society on a large scale isn’t feasible to transition to anytime within the next few decades at least.
There’s years in which nothing happens, and then there’s weeks in which years happen. Don’t underestimate how quickly radicalization can happen.
Historically, most revolutions have been a new upper class replacing an old one.
Theivery is a result of material needs unfulfilled, not some random genetic drive to go stealing.
Some people are born evil. More than most of us would care to think too hard about.
“The greatest crimes are not those committed for the sake of necessity but those committed for the sake of superfluity. One does not become a tyrant to avoid exposure to the cold.” – Aristotle
How do you believe anyone is “born evil”? What does that mean? Would you support eugenics if this ‘evil gene’ could be identified?
“Slavery is both expedient and right” - Aristotle
Probably a bad idea to quote Aristotle as a moral authority on anything but the rules of rhetoric.
Clearly he was wrong sometimes.
Was he wrong about the magnitude of crimes committed for the sake of excess being greater than crimes committed for survival? Who steals more - the capitalist class, or the Jean ValJeans of the world?
Said the guy arguing that some people are “born evil” and pretending they can’t follow the logical chain from that assumption.
What an idealistic, immaterial look at the world. No, people are not born evil with an addiction to stealing, lol.
Does the billionaire that steals the excess production of the working class do so out of necessity?
Does the cop who steals cash from motorists and lies about smelling drugs do so because that cop is underprivileged and disenfranchised by the system?
Not all humans have working moral compasses. Its an unpleasant reality that can be hard for some people to come to grips with and integrate into their worldview, but failure to understand a problem is unlikely to lead to effective solutions.
People are products of their environment and their material conditions, exactly. You aren’t genetically a billionaire or a cop, lmao.
What empty, vague idealism.
You’re really not wrong, and I’m not entirely sure why you’re being downvoted. Thievery is largely a product of unfulfilled needs or unchecked hoarding of wealth, one could even argue that the latter is just a reaction to living through or fear of the former. An anarchist society solves both of those problems inherently. How do you steal what can be gotten as a matter of course? I feel like the smallest outlier doing such things in a community would just be a mild inconvenience and caught pretty quickly.
Because shitlibs are on Lemmy now.
You are free to steal. And the rest of the community is free to beat the shit out of you.
If that’s how it works, then a stable anarchist society is impossible. The first asshole that comes along with a bigger gun than everyone else will have it right back to a dictatorship.
The community will band against the dictator as much as the thief
They most likely follow the dictator, at the very least to sate their blood thirst.
Their “blood thirst” of not wanting thieves and murderers in their society? You realize that our current society is orders more “blood thirsty” than what we describe but only that you hide the violence through the police and the brutal wars and genocides against other nations?
You’re making their point for them
And you’d rather have mobs kill criminals themselves? Enact the death penalty for petty thieves while they celebrate billionaires like they do today?
No?
The free market will regulate itself! We’ll all have open and fair access
wtf are you on about?
You’re at the magical thinking “And then of course we will all…” crutch that a lot of philosophies lean on
Capitalism: We’ll deregulate and open the market to everyone, and then there will be “perfect competition” in a “free market”
Communism: We have state socialism until society is prepared, and then transition to communism
Anarchism: We won’t have a central authority to prevent aggression, obviously we will work together as mutual interest aligns. And 100% no roving bands of raiders or warlords will ever ruin our society!
We won’t have a central authority to prevent aggression, obviously we will work together as mutual interest aligns.
Yes, by definition that’s how anarchism works. If if wasn’t like this, it wouldn’t be anarchism. Not sure why this is a difficult concept to handle.
And 100% no roving bands of raiders or warlords will ever ruin our society!
Nobody said that external dangers are not a potential issue, but the plan is to oppose them. Not a difficult concept to grasp either.
That’s true for all types of society. But it also means that a completely anarchist society is more stable than the rest because the means of self defence are equally distributed and that everyone would rise against such authoritarian attack.
the means of self defence are equally distributed
That has never been, and will never be true. You could magically eliminate all weapons on the planet simultaneously and it still won’t be true, since some people are bigger and stronger than others.
And in case you haven’t been paying attention to history; authoritarians very rarely just show up out of nowhere and take over. They are usually installed as leader after some form of revolution, then the title just gets transferred once the authoritarian system is in place. It’s usually far more insidious than just some guy the village has to band together to fight off.
It doesn’t mean that every person has equal ability to physically defend themselves, but that society has the mechanisms to defend everyone that is being attacked. A grandma doesn’t need to be able to self defend against a thug in the street if the people nearby do it for her.
The second paragraph is not relevant as there are no historical examples of a dictator getting into power from within an anarchist society.
Are there any historical examples of a large-scale anarchist society in the first place?
Thats why were actually in a “anarchy always has been” meme.
We are free to ignore the law and to object any direct order.
We are free to join a police force and protect the state, to join a police force and kill a civilian, free to take a firearm and kill a police officer, free to be killed by a police officer
We are free to organize institutions and support those.
You are free to join a line of thinking which brings you to a state of servitude.
You are free to comply, others are free to hurt you based on but also regardless of what you do.
Anarchy always has been, always will be.
Sooner we realize how inevitable it is the quicker we can overcome the hurdle and to accept that: Only by also helping others can we truly better ourselves.
This, but much more importantly - when everyone’s needs are met, and there is no hierarchy to try and get to the top of at the expense of others, people will have no reason to do shit like steal in the first place.
And what about the long road it takes to get to everyone’s needs being met? How will you ever get to that point? It doesn’t just happen overnight.
That may be no reason to do shit like that once everyone’s needs are being met, but there will be until you get to that point, and because of that, there’s no reason to think you would.
You do realise ambition and greed are two sides of the same coin. Yes, resource scarcity effects this, but there will ALWAYS be people who want more
A thief is safer under a state because the state can punish those who defend themselves. The point of the state is to be the only ones able to dispense justice.
If someone stole from me, me or my community can dispense justice without fear of the state. Communities tend to not fuck with each other too much lest they start battles, which nobody wants. Humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years without states.
The age of tribes was fucking brutal. They attacked and extinguished each other regularly.
There’s just as much or more evidence for groups living mostly peacefully also.
There is no perfect world where nobody dies. We are just way more efficient at at now and at keeping the mess in places where there are mostly non-wealthy people. Is that an improvement?
Ah, so fair process only lynch mops? Great.
Anarchism is the result of controlled opposition brainworms that the bourgeoisie spread to prevent socialism from taking hold
Because everybody knows, anarchism is complete dog shit
Also, modern age anarchists suspiciously rant more about “red fash” than they ever stand up to actual fascism
Fuck them lol
deleted by creator
I doubt that. I think the pushback starts when you threaten somebody’s cash flow. The women thing is a red herring.
So… as soon as the society based on mutual aid starts?
Speaking entirely seriously, the reduction of societal relations in a capitalist economy to purely or even primarily material concerns conceals and denies the very real and very prominent place personal and cultural biases have. Oftentimes materially damaging movements are ignored until they begin to threaten cultural norms.
BUT… think about the PROOOfits
narodnics joined the chat
I don’t get it
It’s supposed to be funny bc the failed idealism of the Narodniks later lead to the individual terrorist approach of the “Narodnaya Volya” (“Peoples Will”)
(this is not meant to be a jab at anarchists btw, just thought it was midly relevant and funny/ironic)
