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

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

#491

Post by srtjstjsj » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:13 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…

Why don't all anarchists live as free people in the woods?

Is it perhaps because they enjoy food, shelters and medicine that anarchism cannot create?

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

#492

Post by JacksonGariety » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:15 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #441

JacksonGariety wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we’re witnessing an unprecedented wealth transfer right now in the US Indeed. And it must be regarded as infinitely baffling that everyone is shouting "abolish the police" instead of "redistribute the wealth" ...

The police are the ones who are practically preventing the redistribution of the wealth. Without them, 1/30th of the vacant residential stock in the US would be filled with 100% of the homeless people in the US, for example. (There are approximately 35x as many vacant houses/apartments in the US as there are homeless.)

> The police are the ones who are practically preventing the redistribution of the wealth.

Policing prevents, and makes possible, all sorts of things. It is a function of law. By abolishing policing you throw out the baby (the law) with the bathwater (laws that facilitate the concentration of wealth).

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

#493

Post by auston » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:15 PM UTC

wolco wrote: post #408

wongarsu wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you implement anarchism, you haven't automatically abolished capitalism. Bars would still be privately owned, and the owners would have incentive to keep them open in order to earn money to buy food (and protection etc). In theory you could institute socialism in an arachic society. But that seems ... ill advised for anything larger than a small community. I can at least imagine socialism working in an e…

Wait did you say money? Money doesn't exist in the situation you describe. Who is issuing the money? At best trading for good is the best possible.

bitcoin does though

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

#494

Post by srtjstjsj » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:17 PM UTC

amscanne wrote: post #393

TulliusCicero wrote: post #354

> Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. It is really a very simple notion. This can sound reasonable when you think of it in terms of, " most people behaving in a reasonable fashion, most of the time". But anarchists don't want to eliminate hierarchical use of force for most cases, but for all of them. Any time I've heard…

The other flaw with that example is that there is obvious social pressure. If you try to cut the line, people will likely confront you. Situations where there’s no social pressure are different. During University, I was a believer in co-ops as a form of organization. I lived in and was actively involved in student housing co-ops. During grad school, I lived in a large house with 12 other people. I was the house organ…

This is much like the theorists on HN who explain how they pirate digital content because the legal providers are too incompetent to make it easy to use.

I wonder if your friend is on of the white people getting into gunfights with other white people at BLM protests they crash.

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

#495

Post by luckylion » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:17 PM UTC

aarpmcgee wrote: post #339

luckylion wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would the anarchist alternative be, provided everybody still needs to eat. Let's keep money as a simple placeholder for value. If the reasonable people wouldn't open the clubs, how would they make money? Okay, their landlords are reasonable as well, and don't charge rent. And their grocery store gives them food for free? How would they determine who is so reasonable they get the reason-treatment of free food eve…

To me it seems that you seem to be imagining anarchy only within the context of the current state of reality with the sole difference of anarchy being set to ‘true’. I think a world in which anarchy were dominant would be structured quite differently and involve humans with fundamentally nonviolent dispositions. My belief is that this is possible.

Are resources still scarce in an anarchist society? Then you will still have conflict. And changing fundamental biology is probably possible, but neither a quick thing nor an easy one.

"Humans will be biologically different once we live in a new society" gets filed under magic in my opinion. Communists tend to use that as an explanation as well, and it didn't happen, and not for lack of trying or lack of commitment, I believe.

I understand most anarchists favor very localized constructs in general, what's your take why we aren't seeing a lot of anarchist communities? Is it that there would still be "the state" in the world that surrounds them, collecting federal taxes and stopping them from governing themselves, giving themselves the kinds of laws they want etc?

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

#496

Post by JacksonGariety » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:17 PM UTC

lr4444lr wrote: post #482

sneak wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The police are the ones who are practically preventing the redistribution of the wealth. Without them, 1/30th of the vacant residential stock in the US would be filled with 100% of the homeless people in the US, for example. (There are approximately 35x as many vacant houses/apartments in the US as there are homeless.)

...until the major REITs and large private landlord corps hire private security to kick them out, with extreme violent prejudice to send a message, because who're you gonna call to stop them from brutal and unlawful eviction anyway, once you get rid of the police? It's not like the homeless can afford attorneys for eviction court.

Exactly. If you get rid of the police, the wealthy elite will just hire thugs to protect their stuff.

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

#497

Post by aksss » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:18 PM UTC

Click-bait headlines now?

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

#498

Post by soperj » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:19 PM UTC

vladTheInhaler wrote: post #472

soperj wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You need some sort of enforcement arm that apprehend and deals violence to these people You really don't. Violence is completely unnecessary. Like honestly, will you learn math better if someone is whipping you when you get the wrong answer? The fact that there are lifelong criminals completely disproves your belief that "the threat of violence keeps everyone inline".

The fact that you gave an example of a situation where violence isn't necessary doesn't preclude situations where violence is still necessary. Suppose somebody decides that they want your house, and they don't really want to share it with you. It's much nicer than the one they have now. You ask them to reconsider, and they politely decline. Now they are pushing you toward the door. What do you do? You can pretty much…

> is, in some sense, the definition of violence

No. Words have meaning. Violence's actual definition: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

>professional violence-doers, such as the police That shouldn't be their role. Violence just leads to more violence. They are breaking the laws they're paid to uphold otherwise.

>The fact that there are lifelong criminals completely proves that the threat of violence is necessary.

It doesn't. If it was, they wouldn't be lifelong criminals.

>there are people who may never be dissuaded from trying to hurt people

Then how does the threat of violence help? It doesn't.

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

#499

Post by srtjstjsj » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:20 PM UTC

thomasahle wrote: post #435

TulliusCicero wrote: post #354

> Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. It is really a very simple notion. This can sound reasonable when you think of it in terms of, " most people behaving in a reasonable fashion, most of the time". But anarchists don't want to eliminate hierarchical use of force for most cases, but for all of them. Any time I've heard…

I think lots of anarchists are perfectly fine with putting some people in jail. Chomsky usually defines anarchism [1] by saying powers and hierarchies have to justify themselves. Keeping people safe can be a reasonable such justification. The point is just that such powers should never be taken for natural, and always be questioned. If jailing doesn't probably make people safer, then it loses its justification. [1] h…

That's sophomoric rhetoric. In USA Hierarchy is justified by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. That's not enough to satisfy anarchists.

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

#500

Post by tdeck » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:20 PM UTC

elindbe2 wrote: post #294

kiliantics wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this argument loses a lot of nuance. The idea behind anarchism, I think, is that people will generally be good to each other and support each other when left to their own devices. In fact, if you think about it, the capacity for doing harm is only very large when you have highly centralised power structures. The fact that people aren't perfect and can do harm at all means, to anarchists, that we should not gi…

"the capacity for doing harm is only very large when you have highly centralised power structures" I don't think this is true. Look at the Mongols. A few nomadic tribes got together and conquered most of Asia. They created a highly centralized power center by force but they didn't start out with one.

I'm not sure that's a good example because these tribes themselves were autocratic in governance before they conquered other nations.