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

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

#461

Post by bencollier49 » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:39 PM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #193

bencollier49 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean, decide by voting and agree on penalties for people who break the rules?

Yes! But in a way that works via consensus and that doesn't establish unnecessary hierarchies. For example, you could have people coming in voluntarily agree to the penalties and have the primary stakeholders vote on penalties.

> people coming in voluntarily agree to the penalties

In a sort of ceremony where you swear to follow the rules of the - oh I don't know, country? - that you're joining?

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

#462

Post by cortesoft » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:40 PM UTC

baconandeggs wrote: post #434

cortesoft wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is the thing... a reasonable choice for an individual is not the same as a reasonable choice for a group. A classic example is something like fishing. As an individual, it is entirely reasonable for me to catch as many fish as possible. I won’t put a dent into the fish population, and the more fish I catch, the better it is for me. However, if everyone fishes as much as they want, the fisheries will be depleted.…

Your example is wrong. All situations should be evaluated and re-evaluated at every instance, at every moment in time to account for new information and not only once at the beginning thinking it'll be the same forever. Fishing as an individual its fine until too many people start doing it, then it becomes even bad for the individual. It becomes harder to fish, the fish get smaller, the prices drop, etc. Some of thos…

> Individual choices lead the way, society only acts after enough individuals have been affected, not before.

So you are saying there is no way to act with foresight? We can’t get together and decide to curtail individual choice so that we avoid a tragedy of the commons?

I don’t think throwing our hands up in the air and just continuing to destroy commons after commons is a good strategy.

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

#463

Post by temp0826 » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:42 PM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #361

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #209

I have never believed in anarchism, as I don't believe that "human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to". But with COVID-19, I am seeing more proof than ever. In my country (but I guess it's the same in most, except perhaps some Nordic countries) bars, pubs and discos only reduce seating or close indoor spaces when forced to by law, in spite of the evidence that they c…

Eh I’m not sure politicians am have proved in recent times to be much better. And to that point, if you don’t trust your fellow person, why would you trust them to vote, or hold office? Why would you want them to wield real power? We need to fix this country. It starts with us. Vote. Run for office. Stop accepting mediocre government.

Does this not sound the slightest bit naive to you at this point? It'd take a sweeping article 5 convention or a civil war to "fix" this.

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

#464

Post by clairity » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:48 PM UTC

notso00 wrote: post #384

clairity wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's no world with humans in it that's devoid of power and coercion, so the premise of anarchism is irretrievably flawed. can it inform how we live in a power-filled and coercive world? yes, but not to any extreme.

True but also not true. Anarchism isn’t devoid of understanding of reality. Anarchisms goal as a broad social meme is to not allow an official body that coerces the public towards further erecting of tent pole power structures within society. Like we have a Constitution and abdicate legislative work to a mythical free market, where an Amazon size entity can manipulate the labor and retail markets on a whim. It seeks…

but ideologies, including anarchism, aren't roads to nirvana, they're far-flung points in a multidimensional mental space that map wholly inadequately to an even higher dimensional social space. they also systematically tend to lose nuance to fervor and identity.

for instance, while i agree that institutions (concentrations of power) can be dangerous, they've also done some amazingly good (and bad) things because of the power they coalesce. anarchism would say dismantle (large) institutions, and capitalism (or whatever) would say build 'em bigger and bolder! but the practical says do both in a chaotic, highly dynamic system of competing and cooperating interests, reaching a dynamic balance that's hard to rationalize beforehand.

yes, let's talk about these ideas and put forth observations and arguments, but in no case should be go all in on any one of them, including capitalism (which is also impractical in a pure, ideological form).

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

#465

Post by jtolmar » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:49 PM UTC

andi999 wrote: post #443

jtolmar wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The KKK enforces law outside of its community. It's not like they're involving black people in the decision of who gets lynched. Anarchists are on the opposite end of the inclusion spectrum, even including the wrongdoer in the decision process for what the punishment is, when possible.

Thanks for the answer, but what does that mean practically? Anarchy is only for anarchists (which the correct mindset)? What about all the other people?

One of the fundamental ideas behind anarchy is that legitimate authority only comes from the community that authority affects.

So, say you live in an anarchist commune, but do not believe in anarchy yourself. You're still invited to the meetings where policy is decided, and while you're not forced to, there's a lot of peer pressure to attend. You're still subject to the group's decisions.

Say you completely disagree with this and want to go do something else. The commune tries to get you to attend a meeting about how to respect your wishes to be excluded, possibly sends a delegate if you refuse to participate in even that. They do their best to accommodate whatever it is you're trying to do, within reason (and anarchists are usually very accommodating). People who are extremely stubborn and to the point of being borderline hypothetical are a problem for the anarchist system, but in the end the solution is chosen by a bunch of humans thinking about the situation, and it's not like any other system has a better source of reasoning than humans.

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

#466

Post by pydry » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:53 PM UTC

sdfin wrote: post #449

marricks wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, flipping that on its head where does the "dark side of humanity" end up? Looking at all the police brutality, the Epstein's, the Koch brothers, the crappy politicians... I mean the crap really seems to float to the top of society. In a society without hierarchies, an anarchist society, you still have groups and communication and working together, you just don't have people above you telling you something is O…

I don't think it's realistic to believe that hierarchies wouldn't emerge one way or another. The hierarchy can arise in the form of a mafia, or in a more regulated way.

Examples of anti-hierarchical societies do exist (Catalonia, Paris Commune, etc).

The problem isn't so much that hierarchies just arise naturally, the problem is more that these societies aren't very long lived because they're pretty useless at defending themselves with violence.

It's not totally uncommon to find an anti-hierarchical company. It is almost impossible to find an effective anti-hierarchical military.

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

#467

Post by cryptica » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:55 PM UTC

I believe that a small subset of humans are fundamentally evil and that these people are hungry for power and are therefore the most likely to get into positions of power. If you keep any system running long enough, the scum will eventually float to the top. When that happens, you have to stir the pot. We need a reset.

Any political system which will shake things up is welcome. Communism? anarchism, capital redistribution, wealth tax, universal basic income...

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

#468

Post by pravus » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:56 PM UTC

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #209

I have never believed in anarchism, as I don't believe that "human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to". But with COVID-19, I am seeing more proof than ever. In my country (but I guess it's the same in most, except perhaps some Nordic countries) bars, pubs and discos only reduce seating or close indoor spaces when forced to by law, in spite of the evidence that they c…

So if you were emperor of the world, would you throw the political class and supporters in Sweden in prison for their unreasonable response to Covid as compared to the rest of the world?

Or would you throw the rest of world's leader's and supporters in prison as the opposite of that argument?

Are you personally willing to do this? If you ask a man with a gun to do it for you are you ever worried he will turn the gun on you?

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

#469

Post by qntty » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:56 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #341

qntty wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You assumption that being (the traditional kind of) conservative is the opposite of being an anarchist would be strange to many anarchists. Noam Chomsky has said that he considers himself a conservative in the traditional sense. Also see the essay by the '60s anarchist Paul Goodman called "Notes of a Neolithic Conservative".

I believe the parent comment's point wasn't about conservatives specifically, but rather that you can just change a word or two and insert any ideology you'd like by saying that since $ideology has [insert some words here] and therefore would also form a queue at the bus station.

You could say the same about ethical theories too. They all have a way of explaining what they would do when confronted with a runaway trolley or some silly thing like that. The fact that all political ideologies have a way of explaining why they would get in a bus queue just shows that asking someone about why they line up for a bus is a good way to find out about how they think about the world politically. It's just using a simple example to illustrate how anarchists make sense of the world. There are many people who (understandably) think that they don't live their life in an "anarchist" way, and this article is just showing people that there is probably a lot about their life which is consistent with anarchism. There is probably also much which is consistent with the principles of other ideologies, but anarchism is one of the least understood, so a simple exercise like this can be informative.

[That being said, as something of an anarchist, I don't share the Graeber's conception of anarchism but that's another issue.]

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

#470

Post by lucb1e » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:57 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #245

sudosysgen wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of how an anarchic society would be run is that you would need strong social norms, and people willing to use violence in order to prevent authority from rising, which effectively deals with small antisocial minorities.

And where in the world has it played out like this? Instead of examples of peaceful anarchism, the history of the world is full of examples showing that those with the will to use violence use it for their own ends, form gangs, and militias, become warlords...

> the history of the world is full of examples

The written history, the recent past. We can observe settlements from the past but know very little about the time before farming because there were few or no settlements, which is not actually that long ago. This "will to use violence use it for their own ends, form gangs, and militias" might only be because we ran out of resources and space and shifted from "mother earth provides" to "this is mine". At least, that's what a book I'm reading hints at, but again, it acknowledges very strongly just how little we know.

There isn't a going back to before possessions, obviously, but I'm also not convinced that a majority of us are dishonest by nature. Certainly enough that we need laws and enforcement, but what would happen if we manage to get to a point where there are enough resources for everyone and automatic systems do most of the necessary work like making food? Do we still need the same level of security just to protect ourselves from a few sadists or could we have a more anarchistic society? Can we embrace some of the ideas that those unhappy with our current society propose?

Honestly I feel like most of this discussion is a definition issue. One person will say "anarchism is great" or "that isn't what anarchism is, you have to picture it this other great way" whereas another will make different assumptions and conclude it's ridiculous. It's a bit like being in a communistic country talking about switching to capitalism and arguing that human nature's greed can't be trusted or something. Rather, it might make more sense to propose incremental changes rather than talk about a completely different society where (if we're all being honest) nobody really has any friggin' clue if it'll increase median happiness.

One thing that is clear from history is that forming groups is bad. Making this about us vs them (anarchists vs ), left versus right, etc.) inherently causes disagreement when I think most everyone's goal is increasing the common good.