Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are You an Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You by David Graeber (2000)

theanarchistlibrary.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 110 posts

Re: Are You an Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You by David Graeber (2000)

#31

Post by krapp »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #3

Another question: do you consider yourself neither left nor right on the political spectrum, because you believe that society is fundamentally broken and both sides just further consumerism in different ways (the right supports big business directly, and the left tries to create equal opportunities for everyone to further consumerism)? If so, then you may be an anarchist.

>do you consider yourself neither left nor right on the political spectrum, because you believe that society is fundamentally broken and both sides just further consumerism in different ways (the right supports big business directly, and the left tries to create equal opportunities for everyone to further consumerism)

No, because I find that extremely reductionist, simplistic and naive. In my experience points of view that abandon nuance in favor of equivocation and cynicism tend themselves to be attempts at propaganda and control.

It is true, if you adopt the left/right political model (which you don't even need to, it is itself a propaganda tool meant to normalize the two party paradigm in American politics) that both the Democratic and Republican parties in the US serve the needs of capitalism and the military industrial complex. It is not, however, true that all leftist ideology and all right-wing ideology are essentially the same as a result, and that neither have any purpose or value beyond simply being vehicles for capitalism.

Re: Are You an Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You by David Graeber (2000)

#32

Post by TotalCrackpot »

pif wrote: post #30
mc32 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anarchy probably works okay in low density areas rich in natural resources resulting in low competition. The pastoral idyll, the hunter gatherers, etc. Once you get high density, anonymity, etc. that comes with towns and cities it probably breaks down quite a bit and you need a force to keep it from imploding.

Indeed, anarchy was the default state of human nature until communities reached Dunbar's number, i.e. around 150 people. Then, they did invent civilization for a reason!

This civilization meant exploitation of peasants, genocide of Native Americans, slavery, exploitation of women. It created a lot of wars and suffering. I treat anarchism as a direction to try to get nice parts of current world (scientific research, some technologies like advanced medicine) without the inequalities and suffering that was done along the way. Anarchists postulate structures, a lot of them postulate replacing current structures with federated decentralized structures utilizing various horizontal ways of making decision with the possibility to delegate someone to a task where they have certain autonomy and they can get instantly recalled if for some reason they are not adequate to the task.

Re: Are You an Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You by David Graeber (2000)

#33

Post by bell-cot »

ancap wrote: post #29
_benj wrote: post #15

> Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. I find this definition interesting because it seems to me there’s a very prevalent portrayal in media pointing towards the opposite, that is that humans left alone (read, without some powerful/wealthy authority) will unravel into the most depraved state imaginable. Reading the book f…

> I find this definition interesting because it seems to me there’s a very prevalent portrayal in media pointing towards the opposite, that is that humans left alone (read, without some powerful/wealthy authority) will unravel into the most depraved state imaginable. That's not surprising as the media, speaking generally, is a class which aligns itself closely with the ruling class and is incentivized to maintain the…

Um...how many stories in the media, from the front page of the NYTimes to top-grossing movies, are about the incompetence & evils of governments & members of ruling classes?

I'm thinking that the problem is audience bias. Outside of a few little niches, running "All Is Well in Happy Valley"-type stories does not pay the bills.

Re: Are You an Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You by David Graeber (2000)

#34

Post by TotalCrackpot »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #3

Another question: do you consider yourself neither left nor right on the political spectrum, because you believe that society is fundamentally broken and both sides just further consumerism in different ways (the right supports big business directly, and the left tries to create equal opportunities for everyone to further consumerism)? If so, then you may be an anarchist.

Most anarchists consider themselves far-left. Most of them are a libertarian wing of far-left.

Re: Are You an Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You by David Graeber (2000)

#35

Post by posterman »

jampekka wrote: post #27
posterman wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well, they wouldn't be left wing if they presented centrist liberal ideals would they? you, too, may be confusing liberalism with leftism. almost as if it was the intended function of the liberal project...

"Left" is a relative concept. The original French revolution left was liberalist. Liberalism is the core ideology of the current western world. Both Democrats and Republicans are liberalists. Even Putin is predominantly a liberalist.

yes, this is what i am saying. modern liberalism is indeed a "core ideology", or put another way, a hegemonic centrist ideal. it is definitionally not leftist. i think it is well understood that most leftist political ideologies recognize the importance of a liberal movement as a precursor. to the original comment this stems from, leftism is in no way an endorsement of consumerism.

Re: Are You an Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You by David Graeber (2000)

#36

Post by ajsnigrutin »

_benj wrote: post #15

> Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. I find this definition interesting because it seems to me there’s a very prevalent portrayal in media pointing towards the opposite, that is that humans left alone (read, without some powerful/wealthy authority) will unravel into the most depraved state imaginable. Reading the book f…

People can't even manage an intersection with traffic lights without someone enforcing rules... sadly.

I live in a capital of a small chicken-shaped european country, where we have a couple of intersections where basically all life stops during rush hour. As soon as the light turns green, people rush into an already full intersections, honk at people alreday stuck there, then wave angrily at the next batch of people honking at them, when the lights change and noone has moved a bit.

Then one day, our rich and corrupt mayor had to pass there, and had to exit his car to wave at people and yell at bus drivers (city employees) stuck there too.

So, the next day (and a few weeks after), police was patrolling that intersection, literally stopping cars from entering a blocked intersection (even if their light was green), and driving there was finally managable, if you drove into a non-clogged direction, you could actually drive through. A few weeks later, no police anymore, chaos is back.

Same for parking... city streets and city police (actually two branches that can give out fines), you get fined within five minutes of parking where you shouldn't or parking and not paying. Hofer (=Aldi) parking, where noone enforces parking: https://old.reddit.com/r/Slovenia/comments/188zh49/malo_de%C... (no, these are not parking spots, but it was raining a bit, and some drivers think they'll melt if water touches them).

So yeah... a human can behave nice, people as a group? Nope.

Re: Are You an Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You by David Graeber (2000)

#37

Post by krapp »

pif wrote: post #30
mc32 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anarchy probably works okay in low density areas rich in natural resources resulting in low competition. The pastoral idyll, the hunter gatherers, etc. Once you get high density, anonymity, etc. that comes with towns and cities it probably breaks down quite a bit and you need a force to keep it from imploding.

Indeed, anarchy was the default state of human nature until communities reached Dunbar's number, i.e. around 150 people. Then, they did invent civilization for a reason!

That doesn't pass the sniff test for me. The smallest possible human "community" would be a single family, and families are definitely coercive and hierarchical.

Re: Are You an Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You by David Graeber (2000)

#38

Post by tgv »

_benj wrote: post #15

> Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. I find this definition interesting because it seems to me there’s a very prevalent portrayal in media pointing towards the opposite, that is that humans left alone (read, without some powerful/wealthy authority) will unravel into the most depraved state imaginable. Reading the book f…

You don't need many bad actors to turn an unpoliced society into fiefdoms. While you could squint a bit and believe that most people behave in a reasonable fashion, the reason is that they are conflict averse. They can be coerced to serve anyone who is willing to resort to (enough) violence.

Re: Are You an Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You by David Graeber (2000)

#39

Post by indigochill »

_benj wrote: post #15

> Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. I find this definition interesting because it seems to me there’s a very prevalent portrayal in media pointing towards the opposite, that is that humans left alone (read, without some powerful/wealthy authority) will unravel into the most depraved state imaginable. Reading the book f…

Something I'm coming to realize is even independent of the whole "engagement" thing, media in general (that also goes for movies, TV, video games, etc) are manipulating our brains into expecting higher highs and lower lows than most of us will regularly directly encounter in our real lives (and when I say "expect" I mean in the sense that when we don't get that, we experience that as a negative feeling of boredom rather than a positive feeling of freedom to start doing something interesting).

When you get off that diet and start interacting with people more in real life and use "boring" time as an opportunity to try new things (again in real life, offline), it feels good. Like eating fresh veggies after subsisting on fast food for so long you forgot what real food tastes like.

I'm kinda preaching this to myself since I grew up on all that stuff and am trying to maintain the awareness of this different perspective in order to improve my own mindset (I was tempted to say productivity, but raw output isn't the goal so much as using that "boredom" feeling as a trigger for exploration).

Re: Are You an Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You by David Graeber (2000)

#40

Post by paxys »

_benj wrote: post #15

> Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. I find this definition interesting because it seems to me there’s a very prevalent portrayal in media pointing towards the opposite, that is that humans left alone (read, without some powerful/wealthy authority) will unravel into the most depraved state imaginable. Reading the book f…

It's impossible to generalize this without factoring in the external environment.

Put a group of mentally stable people together in a safe, hospitable community with unlimited resources and yes the theory will probably hold true.

But what happens when the food runs out? If there's a natural disaster? A plague? Some other crisis? What if they get invaded by a neighboring tribe whose intentions aren't so great?

That's the true test of anarchy, and humans have shown throughout history that they soundly fail it.

Post reply on HN