Are any of y'all anarchist?

[Not_A_Seagull]

Title, it can be any kind of anarchism from Ancom, ancap, striner, etc

 

[BreakBone2BreakBond]

Yes, I would also argue that unless you're a masochist or you're living in some enlightened Shangri-la where you haven't been detained or had run-ins with the lawman for your suicidality, you must -by virtue of your suicidality- be an anarchist/libertarian too.

 

[Pessimist]

No. Anarchism is an extremist position, and I am not an extremist.

Yes, I would also argue that unless you're a masochist or you're living in some enlightened Shangri-la where you haven't been detained or had run-ins with the lawman for your suicidality, you must -by virtue of your suicidality- be an anarchist/libertarian too.

You're conflating a psychological issue with a political ideology.

 

[MMOSTHATED]

Ancom ig

 

[stopMotionSickness]

I'm kinda confused how so many people agree with it, I keep think I'm just missing something. But I find it pretty difficult to believe that no law enforcement, armies, or rich people would suddenly erase the vices of egoism, violence or greed from the human condition. Furthermore, if we ever did achieve an anarchist state, I have to ask what would stop anyone from conglomerating into a hierarchical society again? Like how do you suppose we got here in the first place, if anarchism is so superior to everything else? Wouldn't we all just be vulnerable to enslavement to the most ruthless accumulator of power?
idk I feel like it ignores some pretty basic realities about people and power.

 

[Pluto]

 

[left0vers]

I'm kinda confused how so many people agree with it, I keep think I'm just missing something. But I find it pretty difficult to believe that no law enforcement, armies, or rich people would suddenly erase the vices of egoism, violence or greed from the human condition. Furthermore, if we ever did achieve an anarchist state, I have to ask what would stop anyone from conglomerating into a hierarchical society again? Like how do you suppose we got here in the first place, if anarchism is so superior to everything else? Wouldn't we all just be vulnerable to enslavement to the most ruthless accumulator of power?
idk I feel like it ignores some pretty basic realities about people and power.

I agree. Who would be preventing violence? Or is everyone supposed to fend for themselves? If not, wouldn't the group in charge of protecting others be indistinguishable from a government?

 

[Hvergelmir]

If not, wouldn't the group in charge of protecting others be indistinguishable from a government?

That's how I think about it. We've always had anarchy, and we built systems on top. Those systems rely on peoples continued participation. In theory, everything the anarchists oppose, exists within the framework of anarchism itself.

 

[yotaka]

Title, it can be any kind of anarchism from Ancom, ancap, striner, etc

I don't like to define myself (or anyone else) in relation to any ideology since people are constantly changing, and I definitely don't know which (if any) ideology is "best." But yeah. If I could choose what kind of society I lived in, I'd choose an anarchist one (excluding anarcho-capitalist, which I think is inherently contradictory).

I'm kinda confused how so many people agree with it, I keep think I'm just missing something. But I find it pretty difficult to believe that no law enforcement, armies, or rich people would suddenly erase the vices of egoism, violence or greed from the human condition. Furthermore, if we ever did achieve an anarchist state, I have to ask what would stop anyone from conglomerating into a hierarchical society again? Like how do you suppose we got here in the first place, if anarchism is so superior to everything else? Wouldn't we all just be vulnerable to enslavement to the most ruthless accumulator of power?
idk I feel like it ignores some pretty basic realities about people and power.

I agree. Who would be preventing violence? Or is everyone supposed to fend for themselves? If not, wouldn't the group in charge of protecting others be indistinguishable from a government?

That's how I think about it. We've always had anarchy, and we built systems on top. Those systems rely on peoples continued participation. In theory, everything the anarchists oppose, exists within the framework of anarchism itself.

I don't want to presume what you are thinking, but it seems to me like the three of you might be conflating anarchy with a state of nature or complete lack of structure/order. I mean, I'm definitely not the spokesperson for anarchism, and I'm not nearly as knowledgeable on the subject as many people, so take this for what it's worth:

My understanding is that anarchism encompasses a diverse school of thought with the common thread of opposing hierarchy. There are lots of proposed ways (some of which have seen real-world implementation) of approaching issues like violence and security. Anarchism doesn't mean lack of organization. The main thing is avoiding the creation of power structures which can (and inevitably will) be taken advantage of.

If you don't mind a bit of reading, this essay puts it better than I can.

(Also, sorry for all the parenthesis).

 

[stopMotionSickness]

My understanding is that anarchism encompasses a diverse school of thought with the common thread of opposing hierarchy. There are lots of proposed ways (some of which have seen real-world implementation) of approaching issues like violence and security. Anarchism doesn't mean lack of organization. The main thing is avoiding the creation of power structures which can (and inevitably will) be taken advantage of.

Sure, that does seem to cover what I understand it to be. No hierarchies to ensure no power imbalances. From what I understand the argument from there generally goes that everything is done in a direct democracy or tribunal decision, if any cooperation is to be had.

If you don't mind a bit of reading, this essay puts it better than I can.

This was actually quite an interesting read, exactly what I was looking for. If I'm understanding correctly, they say that because we've seen slavery and serfdom cancelled immediately with no transition state, and that those transitions didn't fail due to some shortcomings of those who were oppressed, that the transition to anarchy should be just the same: uninhibited and unthreatened by shortcomings of people's character. They go on to say that it is only in an Anarchic order of things that bad people are deprived of the power they might be otherwise granted in a hierarchy; that in fact the absence of power is the more appropriate way to deal with bad people, rather than granting power to someone and trusting they'll use it to stop bad people.

That being said, I feel like my concern still stands; if we were in an anarchy, how do you actually prevent anyone from accruing power? It feels like author makes an unspoken assumption that power exclusively comes from willing cooperation with other people, but that doesn't seem true to me. Like you could wipe 100 people's brains and drop them naked in the wilderness; but the instant one of them finds out they're physically stronger than others, or they're the first to find a harder and sharper rock, or find out where there's more food, there's going to be a power imbalance and hence a hierarchy. Then at that point, what does it matter if everyone started equally? If someone else is starving, are they going to stick to Anarchist principles and die that way, or are they going to keep being alive, even if it means taking orders from the guy who found where the water is? The only way around it is if everyone else was super conscientious and good-natured, such that they could form a perfectly equal coalition to stomp out any one person gaining an upperhand. But that plays into the criticism that people in general aren't going to be that harmonious and conscientious. I feel like in the examples of Russian serfdom and Antebellum slavery, there's a huge distinction in that they were still freed into a hierarchy. They may have been free to choose what, when, and where to work, and what to do with the results of their work, but they still would be punished if they tried to, say, kill or rob someone to get ahead. That slavery ended might have removed the relevance of whips as violence on people, but it did NOT remove the state (police, armies) as externally imposed monopolies on violence, still effectively subduing those parts of human nature.

 

[starrypandabear]

I do not consider myself one but I have been told my ideal worldview is similar to
Anarcho primitivism

 

[Shiitake]

Title, it can be any kind of anarchism from Ancom, ancap, striner, etc

anarchism is just moronic

 

[jamesngggg]

Sure, that does seem to cover what I understand it to be. No hierarchies to ensure no power imbalances. From what I understand the argument from there generally goes that everything is done in a direct democracy or tribunal decision, if any cooperation is to be had.


This was actually quite an interesting read, exactly what I was looking for. If I'm understanding correctly, they say that because we've seen slavery and serfdom cancelled immediately with no transition state, and that those transitions didn't fail due to some shortcomings of those who were oppressed, that the transition to anarchy should be just the same: uninhibited and unthreatened by shortcomings of people's character. They go on to say that it is only in an Anarchic order of things that bad people are deprived of the power they might be otherwise granted in a hierarchy; that in fact the absence of power is the more appropriate way to deal with bad people, rather than granting power to someone and trusting they'll use it to stop bad people.

That being said, I feel like my concern still stands; if we were in an anarchy, how do you actually prevent anyone from accruing power? It feels like author makes an unspoken assumption that power exclusively comes from willing cooperation with other people, but that doesn't seem true to me. Like you could wipe 100 people's brains and drop them naked in the wilderness; but the instant one of them finds out they're physically stronger than others, or they're the first to find a harder and sharper rock, or find out where there's more food, there's going to be a power imbalance and hence a hierarchy. Then at that point, what does it matter if everyone started equally? If someone else is starving, are they going to stick to Anarchist principles and die that way, or are they going to keep being alive, even if it means taking orders from the guy who found where the water is? The only way around it is if everyone else was super conscientious and good-natured, such that they could form a perfectly equal coalition to stomp out any one person gaining an upperhand. But that plays into the criticism that people in general aren't going to be that harmonious and conscientious. I feel like in the examples of Russian serfdom and Antebellum slavery, there's a huge distinction in that they were still freed into a hierarchy. They may have been free to choose what, when, and where to work, and what to do with the results of their work, but they still would be punished if they tried to, say, kill or rob someone to get ahead. That slavery ended might have removed the relevance of whips as violence on people, but it did NOT remove the state (police, armies) as externally imposed monopolies on violence, still effectively subduing those parts of human nature.

People must know how to recognise and prevent it in the first place since they are the ones that dismantled the hierachy. The superior/lucky can keep it for themselves or contribute to the society, not abuse it.

 

[stopMotionSickness]

People must know how to recognise and prevent it in the first place since they are the ones that dismantled the hierachy. The superior/lucky can keep it for themselves or contribute to the society, not abuse it.

But then what happens when the revolutionary generation hands it off to the next generation? And what about the overwhelming majority of humanity that won't care about fixing the world, and just want to stick to getting by with their own work, family, and friends? And what if the superior/lucky DO choose to abuse it? And what if the top 1% of lucky people comes out to 80 million people, and there's suddenly nothing left for everyone else to go on?

To put it more succinctly, Power is an unstable system. Definitionally, power will be granted to those who want it and already have more power than others. Even if a coalition is made, it presents a vulnerability that any one person can exploit (like while everyone is fighting, go steal their food and run off with it). At that point, it doesn't even need to be an evil person, but could be a desperate or apathetic person, which are both more common.

 

[Not_A_Seagull]

Sure, that does seem to cover what I understand it to be. No hierarchies to ensure no power imbalances. From what I understand the argument from there generally goes that everything is done in a direct democracy or tribunal decision, if any cooperation is to be had.


This was actually quite an interesting read, exactly what I was looking for. If I'm understanding correctly, they say that because we've seen slavery and serfdom cancelled immediately with no transition state, and that those transitions didn't fail due to some shortcomings of those who were oppressed, that the transition to anarchy should be just the same: uninhibited and unthreatened by shortcomings of people's character. They go on to say that it is only in an Anarchic order of things that bad people are deprived of the power they might be otherwise granted in a hierarchy; that in fact the absence of power is the more appropriate way to deal with bad people, rather than granting power to someone and trusting they'll use it to stop bad people.

That being said, I feel like my concern still stands; if we were in an anarchy, how do you actually prevent anyone from accruing power? It feels like author makes an unspoken assumption that power exclusively comes from willing cooperation with other people, but that doesn't seem true to me. Like you could wipe 100 people's brains and drop them naked in the wilderness; but the instant one of them finds out they're physically stronger than others, or they're the first to find a harder and sharper rock, or find out where there's more food, there's going to be a power imbalance and hence a hierarchy. Then at that point, what does it matter if everyone started equally? If someone else is starving, are they going to stick to Anarchist principles and die that way, or are they going to keep being alive, even if it means taking orders from the guy who found where the water is? The only way around it is if everyone else was super conscientious and good-natured, such that they could form a perfectly equal coalition to stomp out any one person gaining an upperhand. But that plays into the criticism that people in general aren't going to be that harmonious and conscientious. I feel like in the examples of Russian serfdom and Antebellum slavery, there's a huge distinction in that they were still freed into a hierarchy. They may have been free to choose what, when, and where to work, and what to do with the results of their work, but they still would be punished if they tried to, say, kill or rob someone to get ahead. That slavery ended might have removed the relevance of whips as violence on people, but it did NOT remove the state (police, armies) as externally imposed monopolies on violence, still effectively subduing those parts of human nature.

its not like it'd matter much anyway, we're all going to blow our brains out one way or another.

 

[jamesngggg]

But then what happens when the revolutionary generation hands it off to the next generation? And what about the overwhelming majority of humanity that won't care about fixing the world, and just want to stick to getting by with their own work, family, and friends? And what if the superior/lucky DO choose to abuse it?

So you're assuming there's no education?

And what if the top 1% of lucky people comes out to 80 million people, and there's suddenly nothing left for everyone else to go on?

To put it more succinctly, Power is an unstable system. Definitionally, power will be granted to those who want it and already have more power than others. Even if a coalition is made, it presents a vulnerability that any one person can exploit (like while everyone is fighting, go steal their food and run off with it). At that point, it doesn't even need to be an evil person, but could be a desperate or apathetic person, which are both more common.

I don't get what you're talking about here. What are the exploits? Stealing?

 

[stopMotionSickness]

So you're assuming there's no education?

Education is one thing (though idk how you're going to create an institution or how you'd decide who fills in childrens' understanding of the world, all without a trace of power or hierarchy), but constant violent overthrow of any threat would take experience beyond education. Like you know that a gun shoots people and roughly how WW2 went, but does that mean you'd be able to land on Normandy? If it depends on stomping out violence, it's not just the education, but the urgency and experience that will be required, and idk how you pass that on.

I don't get what you're talking about here. What are the exploits? Stealing?

I meant in the scenario someone with an advantage decides to leverage it to take advantage of others, and thereby gain more of an advantage. In the case where everyone has an equal amount of power, one person getting slightly more power gives them the advantage to keep gaining more power, and no one will have the ability to stop them (because no one else has power). It's like balancing on top of a ball; if everything is perfectly aligned, it would be "balanced", but the slightest displacement would accelerate and tumble the whole system.

 

[jamesngggg]

Education is one thing (though idk how you're going to create an institution or how you'd decide who fills in childrens' understanding of the world, all without a trace of power or hierarchy), but constant violent overthrow of any threat would take experience beyond education. Like you know that a gun shoots people and roughly how WW2 went, but does that mean you'd be able to land on Normandy? If it depends on stomping out violence, it's not just the education, but the urgency and experience that will be required, and idk how you pass that on.

Study and practise at home and/or institutions (about anarchist society, weapon usage, how to recognise and fight against aggressors,...):

Whatever specific form it takes is really no matter so long as it is/has:

1. Totally voluntary; people can join or exit at will, and are not punished for doing so nor gatekept in any way;
2. No standardization, no rigid/hierarchical grading systems, no rigid deadlines, no distinction between "grades" (years);
3. Built upon play, experimentation, and willful discovery, rather than rote memorization and rigid curriculums; no rigid testing curriculums or placement exams (e.g., the SATs);
4. No hierarchical governance structures overseeing the school; should be a voluntary and fluid union built upon the teachers and students both (and the line between teacher and student should be as blurred as possible). If student is child, parents may be involved in Union (but to be frank, the typical family system needs destroyed and children deserve much more autonomy and trust);
5. No age limits; if an 8yr old wants to attend a physics lecture, so be it, even if they cannot understand it, conversely, if a 50yr old needs to retake a basic (say 2nd grade level) language or math course, so be it, even if its just to remember something small.

So long as it possesses these traits, it will be a good anarchist school.

I meant in the scenario someone with an advantage decides to leverage it to take advantage of others, and thereby gain more of an advantage. In the case where everyone has an equal amount of power, one person getting slightly more power gives them the advantage to keep gaining more power, and no one will have the ability to stop them (because no one else has power). It's like balancing on top of a ball; if everything is perfectly aligned, it would be "balanced", but the slightest displacement would accelerate and tumble the whole system.

No. Not even in that impossible scenario. Even if, some how, a group of "psychopaths" that all fanatically hate their current society where they have everything they could ever need, they can work any job, learn any thing, or do nothing at all, but instead they all believe they should should enslave people... and some how, magically, this group has superior weapons to all of the millions of people in society...and they all found each other, and tried to take over. They would be killed. They might take a lot of people with them, but they would definitely die. Chances are they would never even get close and would be killed before they even tried anything.

 

[bender]

Yup, made a few bombs too.

 

[PanaxMan]

Title, it can be any kind of anarchism from Ancom, ancap, striner, etc

Pure destruction sounds fun for my radical mansplannning on why I'll start a war for no reason

 

[Hvergelmir]

Whatever specific form it takes is really no matter so long as it is/has:

1. Totally voluntary; people can join or exit at will, and are not punished for doing so nor gatekept in any way;
2. No standardization, no rigid/hierarchical grading systems, no rigid deadlines, no distinction between "grades" (years);
3. Built upon play, experimentation, and willful discovery, rather than rote memorization and rigid curriculums; no rigid testing curriculums or placement exams (e.g., the SATs);
4. No hierarchical governance structures overseeing the school; should be a voluntary and fluid union built upon the teachers and students both (and the line between teacher and student should be as blurred as possible). If student is child, parents may be involved in Union (but to be frank, the typical family system needs destroyed and children deserve much more autonomy and trust);
5. No age limits; if an 8yr old wants to attend a physics lecture, so be it, even if they cannot understand it, conversely, if a 50yr old needs to retake a basic (say 2nd grade level) language or math course, so be it, even if its just to remember something small.

So long as it possesses these traits, it will be a good anarchist school.

1. Totally voluntary; people can join or exit at will, and are not punished for doing so nor gatekept in any way;

Fair idea, and implemented in some places.

2. No standardization, no rigid/hierarchical grading systems, no rigid deadlines, no distinction between "grades" (years);

Then there will be no distinction between a successful student and a failing one. Competence and incompetence, productivity and destructivity, will all be be considered equal.
You will have to prove your value outside school, and social privileges and networks will be even more important than they are in a traditional school.

3. Built upon play, experimentation, and willful discovery, rather than rote memorization and rigid curriculums; no rigid testing curriculums or placement exams (e.g., the SATs);

This is how hobbyists learn. Education built on this principle is freely available on the Internet.
It often leaves big knowledge gaps, as one tend to skip difficult or boring parts.

5. No age limits; if an 8yr old wants to attend a physics lecture, so be it, even if they cannot understand it, conversely, if a 50yr old needs to retake a basic (say 2nd grade level) language or math course, so be it, even if its just to remember something small.

If a 50 year old need to brush up their elementary grade math, of course they should! At least where I live, they also can.

Mixing student of widely different comprehension levels and maturity is a bad idea though!
8-year-olds attending advanced physics classes would just create a noisy distracting environment. School is for students, and they would just be a group of children, pretending to be physicists.
What about the laboratory parts? We don't want children anywhere near radio active materials, x-ray machines, and strong lasers.

You also don't want a group of 50 year old men, who like beer and dirty jokes, to attend a class for children.

It's much better to split things into comprehension and maturity brackets, with very selective exceptions.

Study and practise at home and/or institutions (about anarchist society, weapon usage, how to recognise and fight against aggressors,...):

The problem with this anarchist education is that it's limited to educating guerilla fighters and artisans.
For a modern nation to be prosperous we need much more advanced specialists.

We can't have kids, skipping the boring parts, and start piloting airliners.

 

[AshenRose]

No, I find anarchy dangerous and useless. Society needs rules, in my opinion.

 

[bl33ding_heart]

Definitely, the way in which the world operates is far more evil than most can comprehend. The only way to truly enact change would be to overthrow the current people in power. Although that is likely impossible for the foreseeable future for various reasons.