Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Anarchist Critique of Democracy (2005)

theanarchistlibrary.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–88 of 88 posts

Re: An Anarchist Critique of Democracy (2005)

#81

Post by mercer »

Top19 wrote: post #8
aaron-lebo wrote: post #6

With all due respect, if this is the best the anarchists have (and this article is from a respected individual and is decently written), you're fucked. These critiques are not new or without response. The problem is, this is 1000+ words of arguments about human nature, special pleading, etc, with NO sources. They describe known phenomena like control of the agenda and never call it that, I'm not sure if that's becaus…

I very much enjoyed (and even laughed) reading your response. It’s very concerning to see people talk so positively about anarchy. Another word for anarchy is “nihilism”, which is its philosophical twin. Neither of these words are used a lot today, but “nihilism” you’ll see mentioned a lot in the build-up to WWII. Am currently reading the below book, which argues in its final chapter that a German invasion of Poland…

I could see how anarchism is compatible with (zen) buddhism, but I don't really see a clear link with nihilism.

Re: An Anarchist Critique of Democracy (2005)

#82

Post by the_cyber_pass »

jessaustin wrote: post #79
the_cyber_pass wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to comment on this. A common google search would have pointed out that your ideas about local police forces are largely incorrect. Police have been a thing for much longer. The big thing that happened in more recent history (Meaning 1700s) is separating them from the private market, the military or unregulated local mobs. You can trace the enforcers of civil law through force all the way back to ancient Babylon…

The Romans had slaves. What are the chances that "Cohortes Urbanae" prioritized their interests? Do you argue here that police now are not different in significant ways from whatever those forces were? BLM might agree with you (me too!), but that isn't an argument against anarchism... This is how fearful people fool themselves. They paint over the authoritarian excess of the past with anachronistic illusions of the p…

My argument was that you said police were invented largely as a force in the 19th century for "largely questionable purposes such as racism and anti-unionism." I brought up a pretty clear example of a police force existing in the time of Augustus which had no ties at all to the modern climate. I'm not arguing for or against anarchism. I am arguing for historical accuracy. You can define it as taking the authorities shit as much as you want, but I'm sure I could hear plenty of reasonable counter arguments from state loving people as well about how enforcement of the rule of law provides a stable framework for settling legal disputes and references to Hobbes.

Re: An Anarchist Critique of Democracy (2005)

#83

Post by kirk781 »

lacker wrote: post #73
kirk781 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Churchill was a straight up racist. He was also indirectly responsible for the Bengal famine of 1942. On being told about the famine, his only response was "Isn't Gandhi dead yet". Of course, it helps that he ended up on the winning side of the war. What confuses me is that his contemporary, Stalin also ended up on the winning side though later on, his deeds[mis-deeds] came to the fore and he is now known as one of t…

Churchill, however, was voted the Greatest Briton of 20th century for some reason. Well, Britain didn't get taken over by the Nazis. That's kind of a good accomplishment

Soviet Union too didn't get over-run by Nazis and they infact, contributed largely to the war effort[much more than the British]. By your logic, Stalin should be the most worshipped guy of the last century.

Re: An Anarchist Critique of Democracy (2005)

#84

Post by mattmaroon »

confounded wrote: post #38
mattmaroon wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we tried anarchy plenty. Power, unfortunately, abhors a vacuum.

Anarchism is much more than the absence of a national government. When and where was it tried plenty?

From the dawn of humanity until a few thousand years ago. So roughly the first 99% of our existence, not to mention the hominids from which we evolved.

Re: An Anarchist Critique of Democracy (2005)

#85

Post by mattmaroon »

taneq wrote: post #44
mattmaroon wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't take things because they need them. They take things because it's a biological imperative. Lack of scarcity won't change the nature of an animal whose psyche is the product of millions of years of scarcity.

"We are adaptation-executors, not fitness-optimisers."

That is so incredibly true that you only have to explain it to people like anarchists who wish it weren't. By their logic men everywhere would have lost their sex drive the minute women got the pill.

There are just so many examples of predictable human irrationality attributable to this that it's hard to believe anyone doesn't understand it.

We keep executing our adaptations thousands of years after they cease to be useful.

Re: An Anarchist Critique of Democracy (2005)

#86

Post by jessaustin »

mattmaroon wrote: post #84
confounded wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anarchism is much more than the absence of a national government. When and where was it tried plenty?

From the dawn of humanity until a few thousand years ago. So roughly the first 99% of our existence, not to mention the hominids from which we evolved.

Could we say, then, that anarchism is better for the environment than most systems of government?

Re: An Anarchist Critique of Democracy (2005)

#87

Post by rad88 »

wybiral wrote: post #25
danharaj wrote: post #4

> Anarchists believe in unmediated relations between free individuals, the absence of any coercive or alienating forces in societies, and an unquestionable, universal right to self-determination. If that sounds difficult to implement, I agree! I'm an anarchist because I think the principles so succinctly put are a good pole star for my personal life. At the scale of society I see Marxism as just as important. How to…

Not to get too philosophical, but the problem with anarchism is rooted in our evolution and in natural selection itself. Our strength and security comes from our ability to assemble and organize. Then there's also some game theory involved with the state of the world right now. If we all agree to dismantle our organizational apparatus and military infrastructure then the last group to do so would be at quite an advan…

Human nature is exactly what we make of it and nothing more. Evolutionary forces tending our nations towards oligarchy, or more recently representative government, would be group selection which is largely debunked. In fact it's a much more dubious idea than that, since even group selection theorists don't assert that those forces apply at the scale of entire cities or nations.

Re: An Anarchist Critique of Democracy (2005)

#88

Post by abiox »

mr_spothawk wrote: post #69
abiox wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the 100 million meme seems like such lame propaganda. when stalin starved ukraine, were those deaths "because of communism"?

well.. Stalinism is a subset of Socialism, i guess. [1] and i don't know anything but lame propaganda, so i'm left to ask wikipedia about the starvation pieces too: > Some scholars believe that the famine was planned by Joseph Stalin to eliminate a Ukrainian independence movement. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

to be clear, i wasn't suggesting that starving ukraine was fake or propaganda. my point is about how such an event is used in propaganda.

dictatorship is dictatorship, regardless of any claims to social or economic organization.

Post reply on HN