Are you an anarchist? The answer may surprise you (2000) • Hacker News Board

Re: Are you an anarchist? The answer may surprise you (2000)

#81

Post by brbrodude » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:40 PM UTC

oxymoran wrote: post #11

“Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to.” My anarchist sympathies want this to be true but this is a demonstrably false fairy tale. Just look at how we treat the planet and other living things in the presence of lawful order. Why would you assume that we would act righteously in the absence of law? It is painfully obvious th…

This is where I see one of the most striking arguments for anarchist philosophy. That is: It takes, and it took, an immensurable ammount of violence to make the status quo, 'lawful order' is a very shaky concept there. From this perspective it's way clearer that the unbalances and the unlawlessness of a big chunk of the "order" are themselves the sources of so much messed up stuff we have to deal with and try hopelessly to justify(ending up just evading cowardly). So to me anarchism is much more about recognizing dystopia already here and demistifying and dismantling that than some gaseous utopian end state. The way I see it, platonics are kind of irrelevant in this context.

Maybe if there's one, for me, then it'd be that humans already come from nature with capacity for self-determination, conflict resolution, sociability, organization. All those other structures mostly hijacks that and messes it up with imbalances, most obviously by abuse of power, hierarchy being the main instrument for making that. That power itself depended on (some): trust, sociability, harmony & etc to establish itself. I.e.: there are things which should not be decoupled, decouple it, you'll get dystopia. The more I research and get older(32 now) the clearer it is, IMO. Hardest part is getting past all the noise.

A very good introduction to this kind of radical(literally) perspective to me would be Ishmael by Daniel Quinn.

P.s.: by the way don't miss that anarchism in this sense is not the same as 'anarchy' as commonly understood. As Chomsky says in a video(youtube "chomsky anarchism"): anarchism would actually ammount to a highly organized society.

Re: Are you an anarchist? The answer may surprise you (2000)

#82

Post by eyko » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:41 PM UTC

oxymoran wrote: post #11

“Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to.” My anarchist sympathies want this to be true but this is a demonstrably false fairy tale. Just look at how we treat the planet and other living things in the presence of lawful order. Why would you assume that we would act righteously in the absence of law? It is painfully obvious th…

As Thomas Hobbes beautifully described what in his understanding would be the natural condition of mankind:

"In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently no culture of the earth, no navigation nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and, which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."[1]

Societies exist as a natural evolution of human connectedness and dependence on each other. Laws as a natural evolution of complex societies attempting to find fair ways to settle disputes. Law enforcement as a natural evolution of societes that come up with laws that not everyone agrees to abide by. The idea that, were we to be left to our own devices would be model citizens is, as you very well put, "demonstrably false fairy tale". The fact that we have laws and law enforcement in the first place is evidence of that.

That being said, ever since I came across the works of Bakunin, Berkman, Goldman, Tolstoy, Camus, etc. as a teenager, I've considered myself very much an anarchist in the traditional and philosophical sense, but definitely not in the cultural sense. That is to say I don't believe that law and law enforcement are incompatible with anarchy: I do share the fundamental believe that all humans are created equal, and that there should be no hierarchies besides those that are natural and organic (e.g. my parents have certain authority over me in the family context, but my parents could equally become my students and I would have some academic authority over them in terms of mentorship, in my field of expertise). Organic hierarchies are the fabric of society and being human. We're not solitary animals, and hierarchies will always form in groups. We can agree that nobody should have any more rights and privileges than others based on claims of nobility, birth, ethnicity, gender, or any sort of social or cultural position, whilst at the same time accepting that in all human gatherings, certain group dynamics will emerge and that's okay as long as we respect each other as individuals and agree to abide by a common set of rules. But I definitely don't believe that humans are good by nature and that society corrupts us -- we are selfish by nature, self preservation has got us here. We're perfect at survival, even if that may mean taking another life, human or otherwise.

I read somewhere that mankind's success is as a result of our capacity for violence. Unfortunately it feels very accurate.

1. Leviathan, Part 1: "Of Man". c. 13 https://www.bartleby.com/34/5/13.html

Re: Are you an anarchist? The answer may surprise you (2000)

#83

Post by pmachinery » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:41 PM UTC

lucideer wrote: post #38

oxymoran wrote: post #11

“Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to.” My anarchist sympathies want this to be true but this is a demonstrably false fairy tale. Just look at how we treat the planet and other living things in the presence of lawful order. Why would you assume that we would act righteously in the absence of law? It is painfully obvious th…

> this is a demonstrably false fairy tale Demonstrably how? > Why would you assume that we would act righteously in the absence of law? What is a demonstrably false fairy tale is that we don't act righteously when law enforcement is present. So asking what would happen in its absence seems irrelevant. > It is painfully obvious that we would act much worse under anarchy. Above you said it was "demonstrable" but now se…

> Demonstrably how?

The existence/necessity of laws to deter bad behaviour.

Re: Are you an anarchist? The answer may surprise you (2000)

#84

Post by feralimal » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:41 PM UTC

INGELRII wrote: post #55

I'M NOT AN ANARCHIST. Consider the difference between a faceless government and something with a face. Faceless means impartial, once removed, not having skin in the game. Faceless means not having to take aside. Faceless allows more formality. Face means somebody who knows you personally. Anarchism means a governing body with a face. People close to you. Society 'freely organizing itself' means politics and people g…

Well, how does a technocratic government suit you? Entirely faceless, run by a bunch of 'scientists' that you can't even vote out, but who know what's best for you.

That's where we are heading. And many on this site are building that future.

Re: Are you an anarchist? The answer may surprise you (2000)

#85

Post by vidarh » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:43 PM UTC

andybak wrote: post #54

amadeuspagel wrote: post #25

I wonder how a similar essay for other ideologies would look like. Do you buy things? You're a capitalist. Do you keep some things the way they are? You're a conservative. Do you clean your room? You're a fascist. But I doubt someone would bother writing such essays, and if someone did, I doubt it would get upvoted to the HN frontpage. What is it about this that appeals to people? An ideology that feels edgy, but doe…

I think it's an particularly interesting thing posted here at the moment because of the protests and the frequent demonisation of anarchism in the media. But it's also interesting on hacker news because of the popularity of libertarianism amongst some here. It must be obvious how close anarchism and libertarianism are. In fact when I was first made aware of libertarianism many years ago it was regarded as a branch of…

Libertarianism started on the far left - Dejaque criticised Proudhon for being a 'moderate anarchist, liberal, but not libertarian' and went on to publish the first libertarian paper.

Parts of the Socialist League who counted William Morris, Friedrich Engels and Eleanor Marx as members were libertarian.

Right wing libertarianism first became a thing ca 1950s and was explicitly a project by Rothbard to bring together anti-authoritarian groups on both the left and the right.

The primary distinction tends to be that right libertarians see property rights as one of the things the state must protect, while left libertarians tends to see property rights as fundamentally oppressive.

Re: Are you an anarchist? The answer may surprise you (2000)

#86

Post by yodsanklai » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:43 PM UTC

To me, anarchism is simply an ideal view which is the opposite of authoritarianism. We all sit somewhere in between these two extreme points of view.

In that sense, one can lean toward anarchism, e.g. they value personal freedom and question unnecessary authority, but don't necessarily believe in a more extreme form of anarchy without government and so on.

Re: Are you an anarchist? The answer may surprise you (2000)

#87

Post by onion2k » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:45 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #71

onion2k wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The line you quoted doesn't say that people will act reasonably, but rather that they are capable of acting reasonably. The interesting (and massive) problem is figuring out why some people act unreasonably in the same situation as someone else who doesn't. If it's something that can be addressed through mechanisms like the provision of healthcare, UBI, equality, or addressing inequality then perhaps society can be s…

> addressed through mechanisms like the provision of healthcare, UBI, equality, or addressing inequality then perhaps society can be structured to have a very minimal government The (most likely/obvious implementation of the) first half of that seems diametrically opposite of “very minimal government”.

Having a government that's there to do no more than take in tax receipts and spend the money on essentials would be minimal compared to what we have at the moment. Right now the government involves itself in practically every aspect of people's lives. It doesn't have to be that way.

Re: Are you an anarchist? The answer may surprise you (2000)

#88

Post by browserface » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:46 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #77

browserface wrote: post #43

Anyone who has ever lived in a share house (or next to one) knows that without laws civilization will descend into absolute chaos and endless tit for tat revenge warfare. Try parenting with anarchist principles. At some point you run into limits. The point is, what imposes those limits? Physics, gravity, society or yourself? Ideally the limits you put on yourself should mean you never encounter (negatively or destruc…

Anarchism does not suggest no rules, but voluntary association. A flat share is a perfect example in that if ypu don't like the rules you find other people to share with - the rules are not imposed from above, but the result of negotiation and entered into voluntarily. I'm not an anarchist though I share some of the views, but so much of the criticism of anarchism comes from misrepresenting anarchism as rejecting all…

I get that you see it that way. I think that might be shifting the goalposts of anarchism in the face of criticism, and I suspect the appeal to "zero rules" can be brought back later in less critical contexts.

But I appreciate the expanded perspective you've given me. So...voluntary association, but still having rules and organizing. OK, sounds alright.

How is that different to the current global system? I mean it like, I was born in country A, then traveled to country B and C, and discovered actually I didn't like the culture and rules in country A, so I came to live in countries B and C. I can go where I like to choose the system of governance that suits me. None of these countries are anarchist....If anarchism speaks more to the relationship between an individual and a system, and less to the system itself, is it really a system of organization that could replace a social/political system, isn't it more just like a "guiding philosophy" for some individuals? Or a way of describing a set of things that some people might do, even if they are not "anarchists".

It might be me, but anarchy seems to be having an identity crisis.

Re: Are you an anarchist? The answer may surprise you (2000)

#89

Post by luckylion » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:46 PM UTC

JackFr wrote: post #40

scandox wrote: post #8

Most people do behave "decently" in this sense. However some do not. Under an open system, these outliers will eventually eat the decent. It strikes me this is likely the exact journey we have come on to arrive where we are. We have created a structure in which the monsters can eat a certain proportion of us in order that we may not be eaten.

> Most people do behave "decently" in this sense. It’s even worse than that. Most people believe that they act decently. But to paraphrase Feynman, the easiest person to deceive is ourselves. No one (or at least vanishingly few) believe that they are the villain in their own narrative. And yet evil persists in the world.

I'm not sure that is true. While I don't know (or rather, I don't know that I know) anyone who's actually a villain of some sort, I know quite a few people in SEO affiliate marketing. Their businesses generally don't add any value, they buy links, use cheap copy writers that produce mediocre content often full of factual errors, Google eats it up like it was the best thing ever (because of the links they bought), people get directed to their sites from search queries and buy at the shops the recommend. They essentially inject themselves between Google and the shop, but they're not adding any value - if anything, they're reducing value (by influencing buying decision with lies - not just marketing "women will find you more attractive if you have this car", actual lies as in "this product can do X" when it can't).

And they know it, and when you ask them about it, they'll happily say so. They don't believe that they are providing a service, and they're not telling that to themselves either. Why do they do it, then? Because they get money for it. They are well aware that they aren't adding value, but they're doing it because it pays.

I don't believe that e.g. a thief, thugs or fraudster go around thinking they do nothing wrong or that they act decently. They know, they are fully aware that they are a net-negative to society. What I find more interesting in that regard is this: do they realize they are abnormal in that regard, or do they believe that everybody acts like them?

Re: Are you an anarchist? The answer may surprise you (2000)

#90

Post by boomboomsubban » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:46 PM UTC

x87678r wrote: post #60

I still have no idea what Anarchists want. In an ideal anarchist society are there laws? Who enforces? Do you pay taxes? Can you own property or you just build a house wherever you want and defend it? Is there money and who organizes it? Something like a big hydro dam, factories, ships - who owns/builds these and why? Even googling now gives no straight answer.

There is no "straight answer" as there are a variety of viewpoints that could he considered "anarchism" and their responses to these questions differ. This is true of whatever viewpoint you follow too, your personal beliefs differ from the accepted dogma at certain points.

In as small of a description as possible, anarchism generally favors a democratic city state.