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

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

#501

Post by bccdee » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:22 PM UTC

pydry wrote: post #466

sdfin wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As far as I'm aware, both of those had hierarchical leadership structures. The Paris Commune was run democratically through universal suffrage, and the CNT-FAI had its own leadership structures. Now, these societies sought to minimize hierarchy, sure, but I think it's important to recognize that an entirely non-hierarchical society is essentially impossible.

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

#502

Post by soperj » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:23 PM UTC

username90 wrote: post #439

soperj wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

name one.

Norway. I live in Sweden, our police has gotten a bit worse lately but still very good. USA has problems, but you don't solve them by becoming an anarchy but by fixing the issues it has. For example instead of 3 months police academy maybe do 3 years like most of the rest of the developed world.

I'm not from the USA, and I'm not advocating anarchy.

A quick google search shows multiple incidents in Sweden where police brutality has occurred and then they try to cover it up.

ie: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/27/sweden...

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

#503

Post by bccdee » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:24 PM UTC

soperj wrote: post #498

vladTheInhaler wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 comple…

> Violence's actual definition: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

So do you think that forcibly abducting someone and locking them in jail isn't violent?

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

#504

Post by tehjoker » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:25 PM UTC

sdfin wrote: post #455

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.)

Would you eliminate private property? Or are you suggesting something different?

Yes, both anarchists and socalists share a desire to abolish private property. The major differences are in their strategy and transition states.

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

#505

Post by baconandeggs » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:26 PM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #462

baconandeggs wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> So you are saying there is no way to act with foresight?

No, I didn't say any of that. All I said is what is bad for society is also bad for the individual.

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

#506

Post by marricks » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:26 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.

Well, if you have an area of high inequality suppressed by an outside force I'm sure some "bad" groups could form because they want to challenge those outside forces.

If you have an example of a mafia formed in a stable area without inequality or hierarchies I'd be pretty interested. People in general like the path of least resistance and only turn "violent" when they feel they have to.

However, if your view is most people are just bad and will do bad things on their own then sure, perhaps you want hierarchies in place but I have no clue why someone would think the bad/selfish people wouldn't just rise to the top and just become worse.

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

#507

Post by bccdee » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:27 PM UTC

auston wrote: post #493

wolco wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But without anyone to engage in fiscal or monetary policy to protect the value of BTC, it'd be vulnerable to huge swings in value.

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

#508

Post by jtolmar » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:28 PM UTC

andi999 wrote: post #481

jtolmar wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And who makes sure that the authority comes only from the community this authority affects?

Everyone else having similar structures.

This is starting to sound less like good-faith questions than it did when it started. Are you trying to poke holes, or are you trying to understand how this is something someone could actually believe would work? Are you asking yourself how your questions are resolved in existing power structures?

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

#509

Post by tehjoker » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:29 PM UTC

lr4444lr wrote: post #485

zanny wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism is fundamentally built on competition, it pits all participants against one another. It stratifies social bonds and breaks people apart because any cooperation represents unrealized exploitation. Its why people are so miserable en masse, hostile, and chomping at the bit for targets to attack and hate. Its worse in America because theres almost no socialism at all to raise the floor of society - the country…

You think socialist and communist counties don't have drug addiction problems?

They do if they are poorly run. The critique a socialist would make is that it is mechanically impossible to run a capitalist society in a fashion that reduces desperation to an appreciably low level. There are fewer theoretical reasons a socialist society should have this problem though practically any particular government and situation can get messed up.

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

#510

Post by oblio » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:32 PM UTC

brobdingnagians wrote: post #346

HoveringOrb wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There are different viewpoints and pilosophies on what would work out best. In this case, it mostly seems to be a difference between what Joe Blow says and what actual epidemiologists say. One of these is decidedly more valid than the other. I'm sure the experts disagree on some points, but these are details compared to the difference between the overall message they offer and what some self-centered goob or conspir…

Even experts disagree. Countries have taken different actions precisely because of that. And even then, it can quickly devolve to "rule by experts" in every area of our life. I can listen to experts, I can learn from them, and I can make my own judgement call. > difference between what Joe Blow says and what actual epidemiologists say That's my point. It is a radical step to let Joe Blow, however silly or stupid I ma…

The thing is, the countries which have chosen an unorthodox approach to handling this epidemic have by all indicators we can find, failed.

Just because there are alternative approaches, does not mean they have equal merit.