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

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

#171

Post by vidarh » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 2:41 PM UTC

elgfare wrote: post #158

sudosysgen wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anarchism would mandate worker ownership of production, in the principle that ownership only ever derives from use. So factories and the like would be cooperatively owned, which makes it very very difficult for one individual to amass seriously outsized amounts of material resources. Combined with monetary policy that increases the velocity of money, the issue is fixed. As for personal property, under the principle t…

> Anarchism would mandate worker ownership of production Legitimately curious: How do you mandate anything in an anarchy?

Mandate in this case is used in the abstract: in the absence of any system to recognise and enforce private property rights, and in the face of a society that sees coercion and aggression as pretty much the only things that are wholly and totally unacceptable, they cease to exist because they only exist in the first case through the state or other means of threatening force to enforce it.

It would be more precise to say that worker control in anarchism is a consequence of dismantling the system that enforces property rights.

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

#172

Post by sudosysgen » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 2:41 PM UTC

elgfare wrote: post #158

sudosysgen wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anarchism would mandate worker ownership of production, in the principle that ownership only ever derives from use. So factories and the like would be cooperatively owned, which makes it very very difficult for one individual to amass seriously outsized amounts of material resources. Combined with monetary policy that increases the velocity of money, the issue is fixed. As for personal property, under the principle t…

> Anarchism would mandate worker ownership of production Legitimately curious: How do you mandate anything in an anarchy?

Using strong social norms and consensus. If the social norm is that hierarchy is not acceptable unless absolutely unavoidable, then a direct consequence is that the workplace must be organized cooperatively to follow that base.

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

#173

Post by PragmaticPulp » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 2:42 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #137

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…

> "> Just look at how we treat the planet and other living things in the presence of lawful order" On the contrary, it' and indictment of the current law system, it has utterally failed to protect the environment and other living things, where-as anacistic organisations, charities and protest movement have done a lot for the environment. In fact they are the only ones that have done anything at all. If a given CEO da…

> anacistic organisations, charities and protest movement have done a lot for the environment. In fact they are the only ones that have done anything at all.

This is not true at all. Protecting the environment isn’t just about actions like planting trees and buying up the occasional extra property parcel to dedicate as a land reserve. It requires government scale regulation to impose negative consequences on people and companies producing negative externalities.

You can argue that the government hasn’t done enough in this regard, but it’s demonstrably not true to claim that 3rd parties have done more than the government to regulate industry and build national park level land reserves.

This is the problem with most pro-anarchistic stances: They take too much of the current system’s benefits for granted while also assuming that less regulation would somehow produce a more regulated outcome.

I don’t understand the desire to put impossible theories of anarchy on a pedestal instead of simply making incremental improvements to the current systems.

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

#174

Post by otherme123 » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 2:44 PM UTC

csours wrote: post #133

I don't understand anarchy. Take littering for an example. Would an anarchist system (oxymoron alert) have fines for littering? How about signs and a slogan? TV advertisements? Another example: I regularly volunteer at conventions. Somewhere between 90 and 95% of people follow the rules without much prompting. 5-10% of people don't... but I sincerely believe that without volunteers watching, that number would go up s…

Taking littering: how littered is your home? Your work place? What about a Comercial Center? In an anarchy society, the littering is limited to your own property. Yes, you can live like a pig, as long as you don't litter properties of others. If you throw trash in other people property, you don't face a fine, but you will be expelled from the property and face a trial.

In our current society, littering is a problem in public spaces: streets, rivers, sea, etc. In other words: is a problem created by the government.

The main mistake of non-anarchist people is to believe that there are no rules in anarchy, or that it equates chaos or extreme individualism. But there are: the rules that people gives to themselves. An example: religions form anarchic structures. You can join and leave a religion at will, but they have a tight set of rules their members should follow. A power structure exists, but you can accept or leave it.

You might argue that a religion has a government, and thus it isn't "anarchy" according to the definition. But as I said, you can accept or reject the rules, and live under other religion rules, create your own religion or without religion at all. Anarchy equates to "stateless society based on voluntary associations".

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

#175

Post by schwax » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 2:45 PM UTC

A question I'm asking myself is: "What would it take for anarchism to work?"

(See also: "What would it take for capitalism to work for everyone?")

Some ideas to consider:

1. @visakanv on assholes:

> Assholes make up about 1% of most groups, cause about 75% of the damage, and ruin everybody’s experience. [1]

2. Dale Pendell on a long-term formulation of anarchism he calls "Horizon Anarchism":

> I want to see the president, when it comes time to sign a bill, even if the bill may be necessary, to recognize—instead of being proud of every piece of legislation that’s passed—to recognize that it represents a failure of our collective social nature. And, instead of giving away all these pens with fanfare, he should light a stick of incense and say, “My fellow Americans, it is with deep regret that I must announce to you that, because we could not solve this problem on our own, we have had to enact another piece of legislation. Let us pray we can recover our senses and repeal it as soon as possible.” [2]

3. Another question to ask is "Why are some people willing to cooperate, but not others?"

Theories of developmental stages give us useful models to understand the prerequisites. What cultural, psychological, and physical needs must be meet?

I've found a good starting point in this area in Reinventing Organizations by Frederic Laloux [3], which draws heavily on Ken Wilber's integral theory and other research on developmental stages that came before it [4].

[1] http://www.visakanv.com/blog/assholes/

[2] https://psychedelicsalon.com/podcast-055-horizon-anarchism/

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcS04BI2sbk

[4] https://reinventingorganizationswiki.com/Developmental_Persp...

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

#176

Post by oblio » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 2:45 PM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #157

oblio wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but the real world is about compromises and lesser evils. Formal authority is quite often better than arbitrary, informal authority. And make no mistake, humans are social, their natural congregations are hierarchical.

I'm not sure this is true. Not only were humans very loosely hierarchical essentially until the invention of agriculture, but anarchism doesn't advocate for arbitrary and informal authority, but for limited in any authority at all unless absolutely necessary, in which case it must be directly kept in check.

Regarding humans being organized very loosely until agriculture personally I wouldn't consider that as a plus.

We're on HN, just think about the pace of human development before agriculture and after. We were pretty much doing the same thing for half a million years and then in 10000 years: rockets in space! ;-)

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

#177

Post by feralimal » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 2:46 PM UTC

INGELRII wrote: post #100

feralimal wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm against "entirely" anything. There are no fixed solutions for organizing society. We don't know what it is to be a human (only strict ideologies are certain what humanity wants and what the goal is). Allowing changes and feedback is the key.

> There are no fixed solutions for organizing society.

Quite. But who says it is for anyone to organise 'society'?

You're missing the point of anarchism, I think. The only person you need to 'organise' and take responsibility for, is yourself. Most people look to government (not themselves) to take responsibility. And that is the problem.

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

#178

Post by Lowgain » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 2:46 PM UTC

almost_usual wrote: post #139

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…

I see this when dispersed camping, simple things like cleaning up at the campsite before leaving. Most people don’t have a problem with it but there are small groups who don’t care about anything. Those small groups tend to ruin it for everyone. You don’t see that at managed campgrounds because you will be fined.

>I see this when dispersed camping, simple things like cleaning up at the campsite before leaving. Most people don’t have a problem with it but there are small groups who don’t care about anything. Those small groups tend to ruin it for everyone.

As I understand it, an anarchist camping group (for lack of a better name) could still collectively agree on and enforce rules - in many ways still a "managed" campground, just with more shared ownership

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

#179

Post by mistermann » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 2:47 PM UTC

murgindrag wrote: post #163

Mary-Jane wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tens of thousands of years of human history. Feuding warlords, and slaves, rather than everyone acting together in unity. ummm, both of your specific examples are actually examples of those with power abusing it.

> ummm, both of your specific examples are actually examples of those with power abusing it Precisely. Those are examples of how, unless you place explicit constraints on people's ability to amass power and abuse it, people will amass power and abuse it. The whole history of progress in political systems could be oversimplified as a search for laws, structures, checks, and balances to prevent this from happening. In…

> Those are examples of how, unless you place explicit constraints on people's ability to amass power and abuse it, people will amass power and abuse it.

They will always do this? What is the source of this knowledge? And I ask that in the literal sense, not rhetorically.

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

#180

Post by vidarh » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 2:49 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #51

fallingfrog wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody aside from hardened sociopaths would do that.

How many hardened sociopaths can an anarchy sustain before it either collapses or becomes a mockery of its own self-direction and mutualism principles?

Is it not a good thing if there are no structures in place for those people to abuse to oppress others? We've seen states captured by murderous lunatics time and time again. It seems having structures in place for those kinds of people to abuse has worked very poorly.