this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
280 points (92.7% liked)
Asklemmy
43916 readers
871 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
People tend to think of anarchism as a power vacuum. As soon as a charismatic person comes in they'll start gaining more and more following. But that's not really how it works. Anarchy is about filling that vacuum with everyone. If a decision needs to be made you bring in everyone the situation effects to make it. You start at the level of a household to neighborhood to watershed to biosphere. A charismatic wanabe tyrant will be frustrated every step they take towards getting more power.
Anarchists develop structures and agreements that discourage concentration of power. They enable people to guide their own lives and improve their communities. When violence occurs, when agreements are broken the community decided what is too be done.
All that assumes you're already there. One of the primary differences between anarchists and MLMs (Marxist Leninist Maoists) isn't necessarily their longest term goals, it's the means by which they reach them. MLMs believe that they must use the state, capitalism, and by extension coercive control in order to reach those goals. That brings the risk of capture and co-option of those structures. They've also accomplished incredible feats of human uplift so I wouldn't say their position is without merit.
Anarchists see the revolution coming about through a unity of means and ends. They create a better society by building it while the old one still stands. Their groups are horizontally organized. They create organizations to replace food production and distribution; and devlop strategies for housing distribution (squatting).
Are these not different words for the same fundamental concepts?
I fail to see how "the state" and "capitalism" aren't just a more developed form of "structures" and "agreements". And if the community decides punishment is an appropriate response to breaking an "agreement", how is that any different from "coercive control"?
And if you're community gets large enough (say even like a couple hundred people), how are any decisions gonna get made even remotely efficiently?
Feel like you're a hop skip and a jump from a representative democracy. And as soon as bartering becomes too inconvenient, I'm sure a new "agreement" still be made to use some proxy as a form of current and boom now you've got capitalism too.
I think "more developed" is not great here. It's assuming because it's the most common currently and supplanted more anarchist methods that it is better. States and capitalism have benefits that anarchy does not. You can not engage in an anarchist invasion. You can not extract value from a country using colonialism in an anarchist society. This enables capitalist and state control to expand and eventually control the land that anarchist, chieftain led, and other pre state communities once controlled [1]. Capitalism and the state conquered and coerced until it held an almost universal control [2] but that doesn't mean it's better to live under.
One of the agreements I have in mind is trading what a farm's workers need: insurance in case of bad harvest, tools, infrastructure, education, labor, etc for what a city or town needs: food [3]. The "punishment" for breaking such an agreement is not violence. The result is the end of the agreement. That is not coercive control because the other can go to someone else for the same need.
It probably wouldn't be efficient at large scales [4]. That's why you make small decisions among those the decision effects. A group might elect a recallable representative for their watershed council and the meeting notes would be distributed to everyone who wanted to read them. However, most decisions about a workplace or neighborhood could probably work by assembly [5]. It is a kind representative democracy but the purpose of anarchy is not ideological purity. The point is creating a society that eliminates as much oppression as possible and enables the most freedom possible.
Bartering, as large scale economic system, is a myth. Gift economies, slavery, stateless communism, and more were far more common. Barter between communities existed but it was the minority of economic activity. The economy I suggest has more in common with Anarcho Communism. To borrow a phrase, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need."
See Democratic Confederalism. https://youtu.be/BKRHyF78j2I?si=5tHIXPtGNI0jW5Jq
Isn't that just a liberal social Democratic system for people afraid of the words social and liberal?
Anarchists creating structures and agreements isn't anarchy anymore, its... well... government.
Anarchy is liberal in the sense that it pursues individual's freedom not only from oppression but also to act in ways that enrich themselves. It does not require total chaos as it's detractors have tried to characterize it since the term was coined.
Anarchy is social in the sense it accepts human beings are almost always better off in groups and that society's goals should be for the betterment of all.
It is democratic in the sense that people come together to make decisions; although, consensus is perhaps a better descriptor. Democracy has an association with first past the post voting and decisions that bind those represented.
It is not a liberal social democracy as that tends to be used to describe a capitalist society with strong social programs, a beauracracy, and police state. They also tend to be supported by colonialism abroad or petrochemical extraction but I suppose that's not necessarily a requirement. I would agree that such a society is not anarchist.
Structure is not heirarchy. A collective farm is a structure just as much as a factory farm. An agreement where a farm exchanges food for labor, infrastructure, medicine, education, and tools from a city does not preclude anarchy. Either side breaking that agreement when the other begins acting in bad faith is not oppression or a police state.
I'm not very political or versed in the science about them, but does anarchy exclude guidelines and collaboration? I'd have thought it would enhance those things.
If there isn't anything enforcing rules and laws, a government would be informational, making guidelines based on what people found to work best. Like a giant kickstarter paired with Wikipedia.
Many guidelines will be followed. Like, boil your chicken before eating it. Good to know, and most will do it. Some won't, for whatever reason.
Think village assembly, fund-raisers, donations.
I might be completely off here. In my mind, people work great together, until there are rules to exploit. The best of us always comes out despite enforcing structures.
Thank you very much for elaborating. I learned a lot. :)
Like true Libertarianism, this assumes that people will be perfect, altruistic and cooperative.
They won't be. Eventually (quickly) someone will become a cult of personality or a bully and seize power.
See: America 2016/2024.
Libertarians just want the person with more money above the ones with less. It's a very hierarchical system in favour for assholes (people stealing or inherit a lot of money).
It is true libertarianism in the older socialist sense. It assumes most people will act in their own self interest. It assumes that most people are at their core social. It asserts that the structures of capitalist control: isolation, bigotry, corporate media and more have convinced people to act in destructive ways that neverless enable their survival. Capitalism also enables unempathetic narcissistic people to gain unjustified control over all of our lives.
Power vacuums demand to be filled. Anarchism leaves no openings. When early states began encroaching into stateless societies they had an easy time with patriarchal and other heirarchical societies. Bureaucracies and tyrants were easily subsumed by dethroning a leader and implanting a friendly local. Anarchist societies were another story. They were not habituated to authority, they fought tooth and nail to maintain their anarchy. I don't have access to my books right now but in a couple days I'll drop an excerpt from Worshiping Power that goes into detail on a couple of examples.
But humans have short memories. As soon as the pressure is off and the complacency sets in, someone will abuse it.
Humans have long memories when they want to. Some of the longest surviving cultures are very egalitarian. The San peoples of Africa for instance. Oral traditions have long told stories that impart moral lessons about how to treat the environment, animals, and other people. Anti-authotitarian traditions and education are quite effective. The idea that a person can own a hundred acres was, and could be again, as absurd as claiming a pig can fly not all that long ago.
You site a tribe of 65,000 primitives in Africa in a conversation about the modern, internet level, instant communication, spacefaring society of eight billion people. Their culture doesn't scale.
You may have the right idea but you're on the wrong path to proselytize for it. Eight billion people can't return to a hunter/gatherer society and squat down in the dust to grind grain on a rock for dinner.
I'm definitely not advocating for a return to hunter gathering. Billions would die. But I do think they have things to teach us.
The way I see it, anarchism leaves nothing but openings. Your egalitarian paradise only needs one family to want to seize power gather weapons and find like minded people to form a feudal military organization and they can start picking off and dominating families one by one. Individuals would not be able to stand against this centralized power and the time it would take to meet, agree, and mobilize a militia wouldn't help.
It isn't that anarchism evolves into feudalism, it's that it takes centralized power to resist centralized power. And as soon as you start concentrating power, having a standing army with wages, or other centralized systems to pool community resources, that's government. Even, yes, a descentralized non-capitalist deregulated egalitarian democracy.
It doesn't bother me that people want this kind of system, it bothers me that people want to call this simplified form of community governance "anarchy" which is by definition "the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government" because as soon as you start imposing rules like "we can expell a murderer if everyone else votes to" it becomes a simple form of communal government and the definition no longer applies.
Long lived anarchist societies [1] have traditions and structures that resist this sort of thing. Morality tales, traditions that shame those who aim to put themselves above others, and a tradition of armed self defense serve to prevent subversion from within. These things tend to be frustrated early. If your neighbor gets "picked off" or joins a cult of personality are you going to sit around and wait for it to happen to you or are you going to get your neighbors together and put a stop to it. You're right that individuals cannot stand up to such a threat, that's precisely why they'll form a militia to stop it. Ideally such things can be resolved with words but violence is a perfectly rational response to such a threat.
Centralized power is actually pretty bad at holding ground and subjugating populations. They have to build whole expensive structures of social control to ensure soldiers will fight. As soon as that structure is less convincing than a losing fight they run. The people being subjugated need no such structure. They have every reason to fight to protect themselves, their family, their community, and way of life.
Nothing I've described goes against your definition. A group of people deciding not to feed, house, or allow someone to stay in their midst is not a heirarchy. It's also not government. Just as a group is free to associate it is also free to disassociate.
So let's say we do it. We transform our country and it becomes everything you hoped and then the neighboring country invades. How does the anarchist society stand against that? How do they have a militia that can operate beyond the immediate resources of each member (beyond begging door to door)? How do you maintain supply lines without people doing that full time? How do you buy supplies without taxes to pay for them? How do you administer supplies without someone doing that full time? How do we respond to rockets fired into our territory? Does Bob have an anti missile system in the barn?
It just seems like a nice idea but too fragile to succeed.
I see the concept but unfortunately it runs against human nature: humans have an inherent need to follow someone and the emergence of cliques among people result in power struggles for the benefit of their own group.
This is proven incorrect. While many societies throughout history have been heirarchical, many were egalitarian and rejected heirarchy. Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution, Worshipping Power, and The Dawn of Everything all talk about various early societies many of which reject authoritarian structures. One still existing group of egalitarian societies in Africa is called the San, by all accounts they've been around for millenia. I'm not aware of a long lasting egalitarian industrial society but the idea that human beings are incapable of living free from some authority is simply untrue.
To be fair, this goes for everyone, not just a tyrant.