Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[delphonso]

It is, but to address your point, institutionalizing more anarchism is merely to flatten the hierarchy in society. Lift the weakest while pulling down the most powerful. That can be done within any current society without toppling it.

Pure anarchism would require dismantling current governments. Looking at anarchism as a lovely ideal does not.

How is it anarchism when there is still a hierarchy? Isn't the meaning of the word, "no ruler"? I support more equality of course, but more in a, more meritocratic way where people get government positions not because they're rich, but because they have skills useful, to the position.

Pure anarchism, in any of its forms would not have hierarchies (except, I guess, the paradoxically names Anarchocapitalism). The argument I'm making is some amount of anarchism being introduced is in line with most peoples ideals - simply, less hierarchy.

[Reelya]

Like a lot of things, there are plenty of resources to read to overcome that specific cognitive dissonance.

There is a bit of circular reasoning here. Someone says they support anarchism as a political ideology, other people point out their own personal definition of anarchism and the problems that would arise, then the original person points out that that's not what they're talking about, and then the other person says "but that's not 'really' anarchism then", as if this somehow means they just won the argument, when in fact they failed to actually address any of the original ideas whatsoever.

Sure, ok if you (generalized you, not a specific you here) want to define the word anarchism to exclude the actual idea of anarchists then that's your prerogative. But you don't get to do that and reject their ideas in the same breath, that's not how coherent argument works.

They've been debating this since around the 1860s. "but how will they police if anarchism?" is a solved problem. You have to be pretty silly to think that you can just ask basic questions like that and it's a "gotcha" question that no anarchist has ever thought to cover. Gee, I wonder in the last 150 years whether any anarchist ever got asked that specific question and worked out some policies for that eventuality.

The specific issues that are being discussed as "unsolved" by anarchists are actually things the anarchists already solved back in the 19th century. There is no issue here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism#Anarchism

Anarchists are against the state, but they are not against political organization or "governance", so long as it is self-governance utilizing direct democracy. The mode of political organization preferred by anarchists, in general, is federalism or confederalism. However, the anarchist definition of federalism tends to differ from the definition of federalism assumed by pro-state political scientists. The following is a brief description of federalism from section I.5 of An Anarchist FAQ:
...

So, read the history, to say Anarchists have never addressed any of the issues here is to basically ignore the last 150 years worth of writing on the topic.

In practice, the direct democracy thing means recallable delegates. The main difference between that and representatives, is that recallable delegates can be terminated by the originating body at any time. So individuals are elected to represent groups of people but that originating group can then vote to effectively impeach them at any time if they're not making decisions in line with community expectations. So, having representative councils to make decisions isn't against anarchist principles, as long as there are the correct checks and balances. So things like being elected for a set term and having near-dictatorial decision making power during that period would be against these principles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_council

[overseer05-15]

My brother just got back from the doctor. He might have covid, test is coming back in a few days

[heydude6]

If we are talking about direct democracy, then I have to ask, have anarchists figured out a solution to the "idiot voter" problem (forgive the language, it's just the most concise way to put it)? I know Trump is more of a consequence of the two-party system, but we've also got things like Brexit.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Voters are largely irrational due to systems of entrenched propaganda - religion, nationalism, racism, tradition, etc which anarchists generally seek the destruction of anyway.

That's a big ask, but I think there's some truth to it. There's a vast and clear difference in talking to someone who is merely ignorant and someone who's finished having their brain pan-seared by Fox News.

[kaijyuu]

Most of propaganda is incentivized by the power struggle. Practically speaking we can probably never eliminate power struggles, but as we reduce them we'll reduce propaganda machines too.

Like many nitpicks of anarchism, we need some experience and data to hammer out all the details. Democracy wasn't perfect when people implemented it, either.

[delphonso]

My brother just got back from the doctor. He might have covid, test is coming back in a few days

Best of luck to you and your family. My cousin is likely having a second bout of it...

Voters are largely irrational due to systems of entrenched propaganda - religion, nationalism, racism, tradition, etc which anarchists generally seek the destruction of anyway.

Anarchical societies have less power located in fewer decisions as well. I.E. when power is widely spread, the consequences of poor choices are dampened. That's basically the premise of democracy over monarchy.

[Reelya]

If we are talking about direct democracy, then I have to ask, have anarchists figured out a solution to the "idiot voter" problem (forgive the language, it's just the most concise way to put it)? I know Trump is more of a consequence of the two-party system, but we've also got things like Brexit.

It works a bit differently to that. anarchists aren't just saying "direct voting" when they say "direct democracy" they're talking about distributed decision-making through delegates. Those delegates are recallable at any time, so a mass event such as a referendum might not even make sense under such a system. Referendum are needed because voters only infrequently get a say.

Consider the example of Trump, elected by idiot voters. Is the problem here that we vote too often, or not often enough? Imagine if every time Trump did an executive order, there was a referendum on just that order. Things would regress more towards averages then, blunting the more extreme stuff. That's the difference between a "direct vote" every 4 years for a nominal dictator vs "direct democracy" in which regular people get a say in specific decisions that affect them. The problem isn't the idiot voters it's that the things you're getting to make decisions about are too coarsely grained, and that's wildly magnifying the effects of each vote. There's no nuance to voting because it's all-or-nothing.

https://libcom.org/library/direct-democracy-anarchist-alternative-voting

[TheSteppeWolf]

religion, nationalism, racism, tradition

I value all of those minus racism (of course), which is another reason why I oppose anarchism. I'm not giving my culture up for some crappy soulless "utopia". Yes I see the appeal of anarchism but it's... just not for me, you know?

As for actual mild sad things, and the reason, I posted here... one of my friends probably has the Coronavirus. I have no idea how considering he has stayed at home for a long time. He's getting tested.

[wierd]

I dunno.

Religion CAN be harmless, but more often than not, it is used as a justification to enshrine an "US vs THEM!" mindset-- such as "HEATHEN SINNERS vs Godly Followers!", et al. 

Nationalism is basically the same thing, just minus the supernatural aspects, and closer to earth in its motivations for "US vs THEM!" as a motive.

Racism is still the same thing, just taken to a genetic/etymological standpoint-- Still basically "US vs THEM!", just in a more absurd wrapper.

And finally, you have tradition-- which at least is less about "US vs THEM!" and more "the way things have always been!", which more often than not, is used as justification for sustaining afore mentioned "US vs THEM!" ideological powerhouses.


Given that the behavioral patterns of "US vs THEM!" causes so much waste, causes so much suffering, is not good for either the incrowd OR the outcrowd, and exists almost exclusively so that people can be dicks to each other and feel comfortable doing it, I fail to see why they should be respected in a strong manner.

Again, religion CAN be practiced without that behavioral bent, but it seems to be human nature to want to segregate at a certain level, and then to abuse religion in such a fashion.  I give exception to religious practice that does not devolve in that direction, since it causes no true harm, but once it does-- NOPE, no respect for it, since it is no longer about respecting a divine order, and all about enshrining "My god said I could abuse other people I don't like" which is not something that can fly in the modern world.

[TheSteppeWolf]

Ah I think you misunderstood. I meant nationalism in the sense of harmless patriotism, as in, "I like my country and I'm proud of it". And by tradition, I meant culture in general, not culture used to justify conservatism. Progress and tradition aren't, usually, mutually exclusive and I support increasing human rights.

[Egan_BW]

I'm not a fan of nations in general.

[TheSteppeWolf]

I'm not a fan of nations in general.

And this is where we disagree then. If any organization tried to abolish nations and came close to succeeding... I would fight them with anything I have.

[Egan_BW]

A nation isn't a physical thing. It is by its nature divisive.

[TheSteppeWolf]

A nation isn't a physical thing. It is by its nature divisive.

Yes and? I don't care.