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

81–90 of 110 posts

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

#81

Post by jiriknesl »

bell-cot wrote: post #33
ancap wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes, but when you report about missteps of governments and members of ruling class, you can either frame it as:

The system (democracy for example) is good, it's bad people doing it wrong.

or

The system is bad, it attracts, and it will always attract psychopaths.

Media are using only the first approach and almost never the second.

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

#82

Post by toyg »

sumtechguy wrote: post #46
paxys wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You do not have to wait for food to run out. There is always 'that one guy trying to ice skate uphill'. They test the limits on everything and do not care about others at all. It only takes one jerk to ruin a party. I know at least 4 people like this, probably more (they hide it better). They would rob you in a heartbeat if they could get away with it and even if they cant. But in general they seem nice and happy and…

Evolutionarily, you probably want those types too. An orderly tribe might get slaughtered by some unforeseen situation that they try to fight together; whereas the individualist "I don't give a shit" type might just run away - and let his genes survive. Same in situations of starvation: the DGAS types will lie and cheat to get a bit more of this and a bit more of that, ensuring the survival of their genepool - whereas the meek will probably die out.

Evolution is not a dinner party, to misquote a certain Chinese guy.

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

#83

Post by TotalCrackpot »

posterman wrote: post #35
jampekka wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Especially so called radical liberalism was very important for development of various forms of leftism such as anarchism.

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

#84

Post by biggidywiggidy »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #36
_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…

I am willing to bet that not only does where you live have state, but plenty of it. It's like pointing at how bad the outcomes of your state are for the people and then going "see, that's why we need the state." It reads more as an indictment of the state than an indictment of anarchism.

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

#85

Post by pif »

krapp wrote: post #37
pif wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In a single family, you have parents and toddlers. Coercion and hierarchy are there for education.

What we are talking here is a community of adult people.

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

#86

Post by pif »

TotalCrackpot wrote: post #32
pif wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 repl…

> I treat anarchism as a direction to try to get nice parts of current world (scientific research, some technologies like advanced medicine) without ...

Don't fool yourself! The niceties of modern times require a critic mass that is orders of magnitude larger than what anarchism can cope with.

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

#87

Post by krapp »

pif wrote: post #85
krapp wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In a single family, you have parents and toddlers. Coercion and hierarchy are there for education. What we are talking here is a community of adult people.

Children becoming fully independent from the authority of their parents and relatives at a certain age is a uniquely modern, American idea. Everywhere else, and throughout the rest of human history, hierarchies of age and blood relation tend to be immutable and pervasive.

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

#88

Post by meristohm »

_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…

In whose interest is it to have people generally believe that they are incapable of behaving in a reasonable manner?

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

#89

Post by cwiggs »

indigochill wrote: post #39
_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 rat…

This has been my experience as well.

e.g. if you read anything on your local cities subreddit you will think everyone in the city is left leaning. You will think that anyone who isn't left leaning is the devil; they are pedophiles, conspiracy theorists, etc.

If you go out into the city 99.9% of the people are perfectly pleasant regardless of their political leanings.

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

#90

Post by denton-scratch »

mc32 wrote: post #24
_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…

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.

> Anarchy probably works okay in low density areas rich in natural resources resulting in low competition.

Anarchy, or anarchism?

In my private lexicon, "anarchy" is simply a state of social disorder. "Anarchism" on the other hand, is any of a number of political views that reject hierarchy, violence and masters (so anarcho-capitalism is capitalism, not anarchism). The maintenance of order in a society without using hierarchies or violence ironically requires a lot of organisation and "rules".

People have to opt-in to those rules, at least in the sense that you can live with them for now. Yes, there will always be people who reject all rules, and refuse to cooperate with others. They get shunned, which sounds awful; but nearly all anarchist societies are embedded in some hierarchical state, so opting out isn't that awful.

I have trouble imagining an anarchist society that encompasses an entire state or territory. I'm told that Iraqi Kurds have established something like that, but I have no experience of it, and don't know how it works. I've only known anarchism working in relatively small groups, with a surrounding non-anarchist society to absorb and deal with the opt-outs.

Post reply on HN