I’m going to get some sleep, if anyone else is curious about anarchism the AFAQ often has answers for many of your common questions.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full
Removed by mod
Also people can always ask their questions in good faith in any of the
communities to have the chance for follow up questions.
I would only really recommend !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com.
Slrpnk is largely inactive, and has a post celebrating Chomsky .
And .ml is well .ml, not a good place for anarchists.
The part where you either assume people don’t have misaligned interests or that they do but they can resolve it in a rational way.
I think a system where everyone has a pretty similar amount of power / influence is way better in dealing with that than systems where individuals are able to hoard power and resources to further their misaligned interests.
I’m fairly certain the anti-anarchism rhetoric instilled into people is a result of long seated anti-intellectualism propaganda and policies.
Some of the biggest proponents of anarchy I have met were professors.
In our current world, the rich and powerful have a vested interest in keeping the population uninformed. Think of how hard they tried to bury communism and socialism. Anarchy, the idea of self-governing, leaves them with no wealth, no power, and nothing to contribute.
It is exactly this, and the way people argue against anarchism (at least to me) is evidence of that to me. Every time someone comes into an anarchist space to argue why anarchism wont work they almost always admit at some point that they dont know what anarchism is. They admit they have done no research and thus are choosing to argue that anarchism cant work while also admitting they dont know what anarchism is. Its like MAGA arguing why tariffs are actually good (or honestly any subject MAGAs try to argue about) or anti-vaccine/anti-maskers arguing about vaccines and COVID. They come in and repeat the same misinformation like its fact and when you argue with them they have the memory of a goldfish and you just go round and round arguing about the same fucking points.
At the end of it all, if someone isnt willing to go out on their own to learn about a topic and the other side’s perspective before arguing about it, they probably arent going to listen to your evidence in the first place. These kinds of arguments are never in good faith and will never be productive.
The part where we all die, because a foreign army invades us, and no one is doom guy.
Saying this as a green anarcho transhumanist.
How do you expect there to be a “we all” to invade without “us all” being able to take on nation-states?
Daily reminder that the Taliban managed to send the US military packing by fighting from a cave with a bunch of scraps. Guerilla is incredibly effective at turning empires into dust if you start the guerilla prepared, which any newly independent anarchist commune would automatically be by virtue of being newly independent.
I’m not sure if I consider “Afghanistan during the Taliban guerilla war” a good example of ideal anarchist living. Nor what came after that for that matter.
No, but they serve to illustrate how a guerilla can defeat the largest state military in the world, which is what the concern was.
If you want to have exact historical examples of something succeeding before supporting it, you’re never going to be first at anything. And with capitalism murdering over a hundred million of our grandchildren per year, we don’t have the luxury of patience.
Maybe we should invade them first with our ideas and acts of solidarity, so that they have to focus their armed forces on quelling their local unrest.
Anarchists can organize and fight militarily quite effectively while still maintaining bottom-up system, as demonstrated by the Anarchist militias of Makhno and Catalonia (and though not Anarchist, Rojava is an example of a decentralized army). The issue all Anarchist attempts have faced militarily is a lack of any allies on the world stage, allowing the authoritarian nations around them to crush them due to lack of supplies (or sudden betrayal of ML ‘allies’).
Of these options, the part where I don’t get to make your decisions, I guess. There’s going to be some guy who wants to shit in the drinking water, and I’m going to want to stop him.
I’m going to want to stop him.
Good, do that.
Anarchy is ‘no rulers’ not ‘no rules’. If someone is going to do something harmful for the community, you don’t just let them. You are actively incentivised to stop them, because it’s your obligation as a member of the community.
Contrast that to today’s system, where if someone wants to release factory run-offs into the local water source you can’t stop them and they’ll
bribelobby some politician to let them do it, while arresting you for protesting itRight. That sounds like it could be fine. But it seems like it would (d)evolve back into rules when people get tired of re-arguing the same conflicts repeatedly. People would have arguments, write down or remember the results, look back at them when the same kind of problem comes up, and now you’ve reinvented common law.
Or be very susceptible to tyranny of the majority. “We all decided you can only have the shit-water, so you can leave or fight us all.”
The way it was phrased in the meme (which, admittedly, is only a meme) makes it sound like you’re not allowed to stop other people.
Anarchy is ’no rulers’ not ’no rules’. If someone is going to do something harmful for the community, you don’t just let them. You are actively incentivised to stop them, because it’s your obligation as a member of the community.
Which reduces matters to force vs. force; and for that matter, is much more directly an individual making decisions for other individuals than most modern states.
No rulers cannot also mean no enforcement beyond individual action, because that effectively means no rules.
Direct action isn’t “force vs. force” in a vacuum it is people-led defence of a community’s survival against those who would prioritise their own interests over the collective well-being. By framing enforcement as “individual action,” you ignore the reality of mutual aid and horizontal organisation, wherein the community itself sets the standards for tolerated behaviour.
Removing the state doesn’t leave a vacuum for might makes right it replaces top-down systemic coercion with horizontal accountability; Where a community’s refusal to cooperate with a bad actor is a far more sophisticated, and less violent, regulator than a politician who can be bought to look the other way and use the state apparatus to inflict physical violence on those who oppose.
Direct action isn’t “force vs. force” in a vacuum it is people-led defence of a community’s survival against those who would prioritise their own interests over the collective well-being.
I can literally quote conservatives saying the exact same shit. The point in this is not to equate anarchism with conservatism, but pointing out that the justification of people-led defence of a community’s survival against those who would prioritize their own interests over the collective well-being is nearly universal as a justification for ideologies, including my own, and thus does not serve as much of a justification for anarchism in particular.
By framing enforcement as “individual action,” you ignore the reality of mutual aid and horizontal organisation,
My response was made directly in the context of you asserting that the individual who sees the shitter is incentivized to stop them.
wherein the community itself sets the standards for tolerated behaviour.
… so…
… wherein a group of people make decisions for the lives of individuals.
Removing the state doesn’t leave a vacuum for might makes right it replaces top-down systemic coercion with horizontal accountability; Where a community’s refusal to cooperate with a bad actor is a far more sophisticated, and less violent, regulator than a politician who can be bought to look the other way and use the state apparatus to inflict physical violence on those who oppose.
How is a community’s refusal to cooperate with a bad actor more sophisticated? Wouldn’t that mandate the community enforcing the refusal on all individuals within the community?
deleted by creator
You mean what literally happens today where the US does whatever it wants? And the states with their guns makes the citizens follow its laws?
deleted by creator
What extra sources of threats do you imagine with a people led system vs a ruling class led system?
The exact same threats exist.
Removed by mod
What you’re describing is the current state of the world
More like describing humanity.
Was there ever a time when it wasn’t like that?
At least with a centralized body, you might get lucky and get one that has the best interest in mind for the entire group. And they can use their bigger guns to scare away those who would not have the best interest in mind.
What you’re describing is the current state of the world
Yes and no.
Yes in that international relations are considered to operate on a standard of ‘anarchy’ in that sense.
No insofar as human society has developed numerous divisions and organizations of power to prevent “Gun vs. Gun” being the main determinator of results in almost all domestic situations.
Personally, I’m not too thrilled about the idea of “States, but we restart everyone at city-state level for that high-grade endemic warfare”
Anarchist confederations make much more sense, but they run into the question of what the fundamental difference between them and a state is.
Ngl, the bit about making decisions for myself is a part of anarchism I really struggle with. But that is precisely why I’m an anarchist — I understand that I struggle with this because I have been systemically deprived of the opportunity to develop my capacity to make decisions for myself, and I see the continuous practice of anarchism as something that can help me to improve that (as well as supporting others to do the same).
Freedom is haaaaaaaaard. It’s probably worth it though. I’ll let you know when I’m free.
Freedom to choose your path includes letting a friend, mentor, or math-rock decide for you
The part where I don’t get to make decisions for others.
Not really looking forward to the clash that happens when the 2/3s consensus system of Johnsonville upriver comes into conflict with the majority consensus system of Tablesville downriver over the matter of what level of water treatment is necessary before dumping.
Why would Johnsonville as a group wish to continue poisoning Tablesville’s water supply if the Tablesville community makes it clear to them that they are being harmed by Johnsonville’s lack of adequate treatment? Johnsonville would likely be receiving mutual aid from Tablesville due to their close proximity, so it’d be really weird of them to willfully screw over their downstream neighbors whom they often exchange help or supplies with?
It would make sense why Johnsonville would want to skimp on water treatment under a capitalist society, as perhaps there are some corporations that don’t want to deal with treating their waste water, so they lobby the local government to allow it. Profit motive can often overcome cooperative goodwill and empathy for others.
But in an anarchist society where there is no profit motive? Not saying it’d be impossible (perhaps Johnsonville is weirdly anti-science for some reason and won’t listen to reason?), but it’d be a damn sight less likely than the same scenario under Capitalism.
Why would Johnsonville as a group wish to continue poisoning Tablesville’s water supply if the Tablesville community makes it clear to them that they are being harmed by Johnsonville’s lack of adequate treatment?
Easy. They don’t believe it. They think Tablesville is exaggerating. They think Tablesville is confusing what is causing the polluted water. They think that pollution isn’t that bad. They think that their need to spend more time with their kids in their very short and mortal lives is worth more than Tablesville’s need to reside on a very specific piece of land that Johnsonville can’t even see the point in inhabiting. They don’t care about Tablesville. Take your pick.
Johnsonville would likely be receiving mutual aid from Tablesville due to their close proximity, so it’d be really weird of them to willfully screw over their downstream neighbors whom they often exchange help or supplies with?
That presumes that the level of mutual aid is substantial and bidirectional. If Johnsonville is in a good position and largely helps, rather than is helped, while Tablesville is a barren little scrap of swamp, what need does Johnsonville have of Tablesville’s good will?
It would make sense why Johnsonville would want to skimp on water treatment under a capitalist society, as perhaps there are some corporations that don’t want to deal with treating their waste water, so they lobby the local government to allow it. Profit motive can often overcome cooperative goodwill and empathy for others.
Bruh, people will put other lives at risk to end a job - not a capitalist job, but everything from volunteer work to self-improvement - a fucking hour early.
You don’t need capitalism to provide a motive for overcoming goodwill and empathy.
But in an anarchist society where there is no profit motive? Not saying it’d be impossible (perhaps Johnsonville is weirdly anti-science for some reason and won’t listen to reason?), but it’d be a damn sight less likely than the same scenario under Capitalism.
You could make that argument, but that presumes that this is a binary choice between anarchism (in this distinctly non-enforcement sense rather than libertarian socialist sense) and anarcho-capitalism, and that’s not the case.
A democratic socialist state has the obligation to enforce the laws made by common agreement upon all members of the polity, even those that disagree. Even a libertarian socialist polity has that same obligation, it just has more layers of decentralization which prolongs how long a problem must linger at low-level resolution before the central polity comes in.
Easy. They don’t believe it. They think Tablesville is exaggerating. They think Tablesville is confusing what is causing the polluted water. They think that pollution isn’t that bad.They don’t care about Tablesville. Take your pick.
So that’s assuming that Johnsville is naturally deeply uneducated, unwilling to listen to any evidence presented, won’t test their own waste treatment output, or are majority sociopathic (lacking empathy for others), or a combination of all the above.
I could see perhaps a very insular and small religious fundamentalist town perhaps being capable of totally ignoring the problem, but any larger settlement tends to attract more education amongst the population. Our current system usually puts the sociopaths in leadership positions which can then override a community’s wishes, but under an Anarchist system it would be highly unusual that the majority care so little about others to the point of not wanting to help whatsoever.
They think that their need to spend more time with their kids in their very short and mortal lives is worth more than Tablesville’s need to reside on a very specific piece of land that Johnsonville can’t even see the point in inhabiting.
In an Anarchist society, people would only really need to contribute about 2 to 3 months of work per year to have a functioning society that is able to provide everyone’s basic needs for free. That would leave 10 to 9 months out of the year as completely free time for everyone to do with as they please, which would make it even more difficult to justify not spending a little extra time to treat your waste water properly for the sake not actively poisoning others.
If Johnsonville is in a good position and largely helps, rather than is helped, while Tablesville is a barren little scrap of swamp, what need does Johnsonville have of Tablesville’s good will?
If they become so uncooperative and hostile to their neighbors, than they could receive negative perception or treatment from other federating communities near them, which would probably go a long way to encouraging them to just treat their waste water better.
Bruh, people will put other lives at risk to end a job - not a capitalist job, but everything from volunteer work to self-improvement - a fucking hour early.
People are desperate to stop working an hour early because our current society gives them virtually no free time to enjoy life, to rest properly, or to not worry about needing to make ends meat just to survive and not become homeless. Most of their waking hours they are exploited with the majority of their effort going to the benefit of a few undeserving folk.
Would they be so desperate not to help if they were now afforded most of the year to themselves? I think many would find meaning in helping out in some of their spare time, since it is not longer exploitative or coerced.
You don’t need capitalism to provide a motive for overcoming goodwill and empathy.
It’s doing the heavily lifting for most of society.
A democratic socialist state has the obligation to enforce the laws made by common agreement upon all members of the polity, even those that disagree.
A society of self governing communes could still federate with each other, and with that federation agree to some standards to become a part of that federation, such as adequate waste water treatment.
So that’s assuming that Johnsville is naturally deeply uneducated, unwilling to listen to any evidence presented, won’t test their own waste treatment output, or are majority sociopathic (lacking empathy for others), or a combination of all the above.
No, man, people are very capable of being blinkered without needing to be uneducated or sociopathic.
I could see perhaps a very insular and small religious fundamentalist town perhaps being capable of totally ignoring the problem, but any larger settlement tends to attract more education amongst the population. Our current system usually puts the sociopaths in leadership positions which can then override a community’s wishes, but under an Anarchist system it would be highly unusual that the majority care so little about others to the point of not wanting to help whatsoever.
… would it? Man, every one of us on here chooses our own comfort and entertainment over the lives of others every day of our lives. What makes you think we’d act differently under an anarchist system?
Have you ever been involved in local government? Genuine question.
In an Anarchist society, people would only really need to contribute about 2 to 3 months of work per year to have a functioning society that is able to provide everyone’s basic needs for free.
That’s extremely questionable, especially if you get into issues of distribution/access, that what people regard as basic needs change, etc.
That would leave 10 to 9 months out of the year as completely free time for everyone to do with as they please, which would make it even more difficult to justify not spending a little extra time to treat your waste water properly for the sake not actively poisoning others.
Fuck, people have ample free time now and choose to poison others rather than take on a little extra burden.
If they become so uncooperative and hostile to their neighbors, than they could receive negative perception or treatment from other federating communities near them, which would probably go a long way to encouraging them to just treat their waste water better.
And if it’s just towards Tablesville? What incentive does everyone else have to get involved and degrade their own quality of life and their own relationships with people in Johnsonville for the sake of Tablesville? What makes you think that prejudices won’t cause people to agree with Johnsonville? People tend to make decisions based on their pre-existing relationships; if Johnsonville is a ‘giver’ and adamant on this point, the natural tendency will be for many of those Johnsonville ‘gives’ to to side with them on the issue from an emotional standpoint.
People are desperate to stop working an hour early because our current society gives them virtually no free time to enjoy life, to rest properly, or to not worry about needing to make ends meat just to survive and not become homeless. Most of their waking hours they are exploited with the majority of their effort going to the benefit of a few undeserving folk.
Do you understand just how little it would take to live at a lowered standard of living for most people?
We work ourselves like dogs and normalize it because previous standards aren’t good enough. What was idyllic in 90 AD is torture in 1990 AD. And this is good! It encourages society to ever move onward, to not be satisfied with what it has.
… but the reason why people are overworked is not because society ‘gives’ us too little to not work ourselves to death; it’s because people value things other than free time. I grew up in a poor area, in a poor family - “People are hard-put upon” and “People are not working simply to keep themselves full, clothed, and with a roof over their head” are not mutually exclusive.
Would they be so desperate not to help if they were now afforded most of the year to themselves? I think many would find meaning in helping out in some of their spare time, since it is not longer exploitative or coerced.
Many find meaning now in helping out in their spare time, yet still will shirk other work - or even cut corners during their volunteer work, as I previously pointed out - to the detriment of others. We are creatures with very limited lifespans, and every hour becomes precious when considered.
A society of self governing communes could still federate with each other, and with that federation agree to some standards to become a part of that federation, such as adequate waste water treatment.
So how does it enforce that?
I think a big issue here is that you’re operating under the assumption that humanity as a whole is incredibly selfish, uncaring, and unable to operate cooperatively without a centralized force that is able to adequately threaten people to cooperate against their natural instincts. If that is your base assumption, then you will have to conclude that Anarchism isn’t viable because it doesn’t have enough threats or sticks to keep people from reverting to some base-level of antagonism, laziness, or self interest.
Where on the other end, due to the evidence I’ve seen of how humans organized in egalitarian societies as the norm until around 8000 years ago (from compelling evidence put forward in David Graeber’s and David Wengrow’s The Dawn of Everything), as well as the success of the Anarchist Society in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil war, I believe that humans would demonstrate their true nature is cooperation and egalitarianism if finally provided a society that does not actively incentivize our worst traits like our current one does.
We work ourselves like dogs and normalize it because previous standards aren’t good enough. What was idyllic in 90 AD is torture in 1990 AD. And this is good! It encourages society to ever move onward, to not be satisfied with what it has.
Most people in the US are barely able to afford basic food, housing, and transportation. They are working harder now than they did in the 1970’s without any meaningful wage growth since that period, despite their actual productive capacity increasing tremendously since that time.
You really think most would choose to continue struggling with bills, or to be two paychecks away from homelessness vs. a society where all of your basic material concerns are guaranteed as a human right?
And you realize those people can choose to do whatever they want with the those 9 months of free time? They can still choose to become doctors, or engineers, or scientists, or to create the things that give meaning to their lives? They just won’t have the threat of homelessness weighing above their heads if they don’t instead choose to work for someone else to make them richer.
We are creatures with very limited lifespans, and every hour becomes precious when considered.
All the more reason to question the utility of capitalism, if only a minority are able to achieve the fruits of all the time spent doing things we’d rather not be doing, if every hour is so to be considered.
… but the reason why people are overworked is not because society ‘gives’ us too little to not work ourselves to death; it’s because people value things other than free time.
If you truly believe that, then our entire worldviews are completely incompatible. I don’t mean this as an insult, but from my perspective your judgements on why people work so hard are quite detached from reality.
I think a big issue here is that you’re operating under the assumption that humanity as a whole is incredibly selfish, uncaring, and unable to operate cooperatively without a centralized force that is able to adequately threaten people to cooperate against their natural instincts. If that is your base assumption, then you will have to conclude that Anarchism isn’t viable because it doesn’t have enough threats or sticks to keep people from reverting to some base-level of antagonism, laziness, or self interest.
No, man, I’m assuming that humanity as a whole operates as it has since the beginning of recorded history - with limited resources, including limited time, energy, motivation, and perspective. Unless your proposal for anarchism is radically transhumanist, you aren’t going to get rid of that issue. This isn’t a question about “What if people don’t care about each other???”; this entire scenario presumes that the polities in question are functioning along anarchist lines. The question that is being brought here is, "Do you really expect people to value those they don’t know over those they personally know and care about, themselves included?"
And if your answer is ‘yes’, I invite you to talk to some parents sometime.
Where on the other end, due to the evidence I’ve seen of how humans organized in egalitarian societies as the norm until around 8000 years ago (from compelling evidence put forward in David Graeber’s and David Wengrow’s The Dawn of Everything), as well as the success of the Anarchist Society in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil war, I believe that humans would demonstrate their true nature is cooperation and egalitarianism if finally provided a society that does not actively incentivize our worst traits like our current one does.
Other than my own extreme issues with The Dawn of Everything, which would lead to a much broader discussion…
Anarchist Catalonia is a prime example of what I mean in multiple ways.
First off, it was not shy about enforcement. In the least.
Second, it was commonly observed that regionalism of the sort described was a problem that caused severe issues for them.
Third, many of its structures were oriented around war necessity; I don’t know if you would find the same willingness of people to submit to seizure and arbitrary justice if literal warfare was not a stone’s throw away.
Most people in the US are barely able to afford basic food, housing, and transportation.
… have you ever actually lived in the USA?
They are working harder now than they did in the 1970’s without any meaningful wage growth since that period, despite their actual productive capacity increasing tremendously since that time.
That’s true. Wages have been largely stagnant, in terms of buying power and relative income distribution, since the 1970s. But in the 1970s, most people weren’t barely able to afford subsistence-level living. In the 1970s, most people struggled because, as in the modern day, they want more. And as I said, they are not incorrect in wanting this, and it is good that they want this, but it is an issue you have to think about when considering a complete reorganization of society.
You really think most would choose to continue struggling with bills, or to be two paychecks away from homelessness vs. a society where all of your basic material concerns are guaranteed as a human right?
That’s not even vaguely relevant to the question I proposed. The issue of whether they prefer a socialist system or a capitalist one is not relevant. The issue being disputed is the idea that provision for one’s basic needs is enough to stop one from desiring more, with you saying, and I quote:
People are desperate to stop working an hour early because our current society gives them virtually no free time to enjoy life, to rest properly, or to not worry about needing to make ends meat just to survive and not become homeless. Most of their waking hours they are exploited with the majority of their effort going to the benefit of a few undeserving folk.
And you realize those people can choose to do whatever they want with the those 9 months of free time? They can still choose to become doctors, or engineers, or scientists, or to create the things that give meaning to their lives? They just won’t have the threat of homelessness weighing above their heads if they don’t instead choose to work for someone else to make them richer.
A-fucking-gain, I’m not at all disputing whether people prefer a socialist system to a capitalist one, assuming they weren’t pig-brained morons. That’s not the issue being disputed here. The issue being disputed here is the notion that people will no longer want more, more comfort, more success, more free time as in the core example used that you responded to, in an anarchist system.
All the more reason to question the utility of capitalism, if only a minority are able to achieve the fruits of all the time spent doing things we’d rather not be doing, if every hour is so to be considered.
I’m not a fucking capitalist. I largely tend towards democratic socialism. My issue being raised here is fundamentally one of conflict resolution, not economic orientation.
If you truly believe that, then our entire worldviews are completely incompatible. I don’t mean this as an insult, but from my perspective your judgements on why people work so hard are quite detached from reality.
Man, I’ve fucking lived on flour and water for days at a time. My area of specialization is an era when people worked more hours for fewer material gains and in much more endangered scenarios.
People work more because they want more, because it’s normalized to want more. Housing crisis aside, people by and large spend their money on things that are not strictly needed, but nonetheless, they desire - and should be entitled to. At no point do I dispute they’re being exploited - my point is only that it is not their needs being unfulfilled which drive most people; it is a desire for more than their basic needs, which would not go away if they stopped being exploited.
… have you ever actually lived in the USA?
You think most people wouldn’t become homeless if they spent less time working?
The issue being disputed is the idea that provision for one’s basic needs is enough to stop one from desiring more
That is not the argument I was making. People can still desire more even under an Anarchist society, the difference is that anything more they want they either have to make themselves, make it collectively under a worker cooperative, or trade with another person with something they acquired by their own means or as the fruit of a cooperative effort.
You can still create computers, build fancy chairs, make a cooperative factory to produce a desired good, etc, but you just wouldn’t be able to hang food, housing, and healthcare over somebody else to effectively force them to do that stuff for you. Under an anarchist society, you could only convince someone to work with you on something if they felt it was a democratic endeavor where they had an equal say and an equal reward as you or anyone else who helps you gets.
That ensures that no one can effectively exploit anyone else, or create a power imbalance with a hierarchy. Everyone gets access to the same baseline for a happy life, and 9 months our of the year to do with as they please, whether that be to improve their house, make jewelry, paint, write, or spend time with their friends or family, they can personally decide what they want to spend that time doing, instead of laboring all year for just those basics.
Do you presume that an anarchist leaning society couldnt have any structures in place to protect the whole? (Such as an environmental protections agency.) Its all a sliding scale, and you dont need to embrace total anarchy in order to avoid the problems associated with authoritarianism.
No, no, not at all, I’m generally quite positive towards libertarian socialism. I love Anarchist Catalonia, the Makhnovists in Ukraine, Rojava. But I do also think it’s important to keep a realistic view of what such a society looks like and entails, and such societies inevitably include… well, making decisions for other people. My argument is against a utopian view of anarchy which will be dismissed by most people, even unprejudiced, and result in disillusionment when experiments fail to run as planned.
I mean, fuck, this the classic ‘group project’ or ‘local government’ issue dialed up to life-or-death. Getting people on the same page is not always easy, especially when strong personalities - with social connections - are involved.
You could say I’m taking a meme too seriously, and perhaps I am, but there are arguments laid out in this comment section which more clearly and distinctly express the exact sentiment in the meme I’m objecting to.
Nah, you’re not taking a meme too seriously when the op is rampaging about the thread, telling people they’re not leftist enough.
Maybe instead of making up problems, spend some time thinking or researching how you would try to deal with that issue using anarchist principles. What would you try to do and how would you reasonably rate your chances of success?
Personally I would assume close proximity between those places and lots of back and forth travelling which would result in the residents of both places having a shared interest in maintaining similar levels of access to clean water etc. Simply shwing the visitors from Johnsonsville the problem would be sufficient if they had a pretty similar perspective on water cleanliness. Which is pretty likely considering their close proximity, generally good relationship and them themselves actually having clean water.
I think this is an reasonable assumption and saying otherwise would be pretty much just trying to further think about an unlikely scenario. But I am really interested, what would you do?
The “not making decisions for me” part is a very Trump-like thing to say. Society only works by compromise.
A federalist democracy is probably the closest we get to a free society, and one difficult part of it is, that you have to make decisions for others.
The “not making decisions for me” part is a very Trump-like thing to say. Society only works by compromise.
Society only works by consent. If the people do not consent to the laws, they are authoritarian and should be resisted.
Any top-down system of governance will never be free by its very nature.
The only free society we will get is an anarchist one where people agree to work together and create rules that they can all abide by. Those who don’t want to abide by the communities rules can leave.
When I shoot a Nazi in the face, I am taking away his choice to shoot trans people in the face. If the Nazi does not consent to the law of not shooting trans people in the face, I will still shoot him in the face. If the Nazi argues that I am taking away his ability to make the decision to shoot trans people in the face, I will still shoot him in the face.
And if the Nazi argues that he is part of a community I am not in and that community has a law about shooting trans people in the face, I will still shoot him in the face.
Society only works by mutual aid. If you will not help me when I am vulnerable, why should I waste my time building a relationship with you?
Consent is secondary. A specific form of helping someone by creating a smooth exit with them if they don’t want to be there anymore. Which means it can be overruled if aid is more important. You can push someone out of the way of a moving bus without asking. You can raise a child who isn’t capable of consent yet. You can shoot a Nazi in the face.
Which unfortunately means that a community where people agree to work together and create rules they can all abide by is not necessarily in the clear. If that community produces far more CO2 emissions than their fair share, they are causing harm through climate change and should (IMO) be stopped. If they are on stolen land and refuse entry to native people, if they poison the river downstream, if they abuse children, if they put barbed wire fences across a natural area, if they factory farm animals, if they dry out a natural aquifer for frivolous consumption - if they raid the commons or cause harm to others in any way, they should (IMO) be stopped.
I’m ready to admit this is less free for those local societies than if they could pollute everyone into extinction. Anarchism isn’t about perfect freedom, it’s about abolishing hierarchy. You will attend the weekly meetings and you will help the community make informed decisions. You will avoid causing harm and you will avoid violating consent. Not because someone told you to, but because “everyone” told you to. Horizontal accountability, and horizontal enforcement if necessary.
The only free society we will get is an anarchist one where people agree to work together and create rules that they can all abide by. Those who don’t want to abide by the communities rules can leave.
That’s not anarchy. That’s some form of democracy.
Any top-down system of governance will never be free by its very nature.
That’s exactly the kind of logic bullies use to inflict their freedom on others.
Society only works by consent. If the people do not consent to the laws, they are authoritarian and should be resisted.
Real “I’m 14 and this is deep” energy here. Laws and governance of any kind are inherently rooted in consent to authority. Hell, even being a good citizen in an anarchy is about consenting to the authority of etiquette, basically the tyranny of empathy over free will. Authority invites resistance, arguing for resistance to authority simply because it exists is an empty nothing burger of a philosophy.
This all feels like a libertarian dog whistle to excuse politics lacking any empathy.
That is literally anarchy. You obviously do not know what anarchy is.
Removed by mod
For me it’s that anarchists are moral purists which often dont align with a leftist slightly less radical or outside of their worldview, in a society that will likely never accept anarchism.
I believe in leftism now, as opposed to “not voting because voting means you believe in people ruling over you.” Which is the summary of many anarchists have told me.
Other than that I dont mind anarchists, but if we want change, participating in current society by voting and organizing now is the only way.
Gonna be honest, you sound more like a liberal, not a leftist. Liberals are not left, no matter how much they like to think they are.
Even communists aren’t electoralists who believe voting will bring about the revolution. And as any leftist would tell you, voting and especially campaigning is a waste of time and energy that could be better spent elsewhere.
If you want to spend 20 minutes in line to “harm minimise” or whatever fantasy you think it achieves go for it, no one is going to care. If you want to promote voting as a solution, that’s where leftists have an issue.
And as any leftist would tell you, voting and especially campaigning is a waste of time
You’ve taken a tiny delusional fraction of the left and mistaken them for the entire left.
No sane leftist thinks electoralism is the solution to everything, but most leftists, realize that nothing gets done without it.
Do you think Democrats are the left?
It is definitely them not being able to control you.
Removed by mod
My problem with anarchy is that your freedom doesn’t end where mine begins.
That makes zero sense. I’m sure subverting the saying sounded cool, but it doesn’t convey a meaning.
“Your rights end where another’s rights begin.” According to that logic, the more people there are, the less freedom.
But freedom is not a tiny bubble of personal rights. We cannot be distinguished from each other so easily. Yawning and laughter are contagious; so are enthusiasm and despair. I am composed of the clichés that roll off my tongue, the songs that catch in my head, the moods I contract from my companions. When I drive a car, it releases pollution into the atmosphere you breathe; when you use pharmaceuticals, they filter into the water everyone drinks. The system everyone else accepts is the one you have to live under—but when other people challenge it, you get a chance to renegotiate your reality as well. Your freedom begins where mine begins, and ends where mine ends. […]
Freedom is not a possession or a property; it is a relation. It is not a matter of being protected from the outside world, but of intersecting in a way that maximizes the possibilities. That doesn’t mean we have to seek consensus for its own sake; both conflict and consensus can expand and ennoble us, so long as no centralized power is able to compel agreement or transform conflict into winner-takes-all competition. But rather than breaking the world into tiny fiefdoms, let’s make the most of our interconnection.
Citing crimethinc as an answer to this
According to that logic, the more people there are, the less freedom.
This is only true to a certain extent. People have rights that align.
I didn’t have more freedom when I lived in my small 38 pop vilage than I have now.
It is correct that a car releases pollution in the atmosphere everyone breathes. This is why in most civilized countries, there are regulations that people have to follow.
Regulations are meaningless without enforcement.
You are concerned by the pharmaceutical stuff that filters into the water… Such a miniscule non-issue.
In your anarchy world, what are you going to do when some community upstream decides that the river is a perfectly good place to dump their waste?
