Here’s another hint - all ideological subdivisions of anarchism are masturbatory fantasies at best, because there will always be people who will refuse to accede to them and there will never be mechanisms to force their compliance.
As long as you’re not creating a new state, systems of domination, hierarchies, etc., then go do what you want. Anarcho-collectivism (or -communism, or -syndicalism, or mutualism) doesn’t mean imposing those frameworks of anarchist organization on the proletariat and the ecology; it just means we have a viewpoint on which mode(s) of organization have the best chance of achieving liberation.
There are really only two broad options - whatever people make up an anarchistic society will make whatever choices they make for whatever reasosns they make them, and enough of them will be conscious enough of the need to compromise to do so, and they’ll end up with a more or less stable society that might be hastily generalized in some broad and necessarily inaccurate ways, or anarchism will fail.
One of the many ways by which anarchism could fail is by ideologues digging their heels in and refusing to compromise on any of the dogma stipulated by the label to which they’ve sworn allegiance.
There are really only two broad options - whatever people make up an anarchistic society will make whatever choices they make for whatever reasosns they make them, and enough of them will be conscious enough of the need to compromise to do so, and they’ll end up with a more or less stable society that might be hastily generalized in some broad and necessarily inaccurate ways
This… sounds like anarchism succeeding. IMO, being an anarcho-communist (or whatever) is trying to persuade people to use anarchist communism (or whatever) as the framework to make better choices “for whatever reasons they make them”, because we think that this is a good framework for reasoning about an uncertain world. But if you want to think differently about anarchism, that’s completely fine, welcome even. Diversity is strength. But that doesn’t mean I’m gonna stop passionately advocating for what I think is right.
One of the many ways by which anarchism could fail is by ideologues digging their heels in and refusing to compromise on any of the dogma stipulated by the label to which they’ve sworn allegiance.
All forms of anarchism organize on the basis of free association. Again, dissatisfied parties can freely disassociate and go do their own thing. Or, they can reach a compromise. Either outcome is not a failure of anarchism.
persuade people to use anarchist communism (or whatever) as the framework to make better choices
The presumption that other people’s choices are subject to your approval is the exact foundation upon which authoritarianism is built.
It’s just a simple step from “you should convinced to do this” to “you should be compelled to do this.”
Not to mention, it’s incredibly arrogant, dismissive and disrespectful.
All forms of anarchism organize on the basis of free association.
No - not really. Anarchism does (or as I’ve come to refer to it - anarcho-anarchism), but the various ideological subdivisions actually don’t.
Again, dissatisfied parties can freely disassociate and go do their own thing.
In the first place, your conception of disassociation (and the conception common to ideological proto-anarchisms) only goes one way. You treat your collective as an entity unto itself, and cover the “free association” requirement by essentially stating that those who don’t wish to submit to the dictates of your ideology would be free to leave.
Which is a freedom the majority of the world already possesses, so rather obviously it doesn’t ensure or even imply anarchism.
And beyond that, more pointedly but less obviously, ideological collectives (as yours does) always carry with them an unstated presumption that the entity from which people would be free to disassociate would rightfully hold some property. That’s always there, lurking inder the surface, and generally comes out in little slips like saying that people would be free to “leave” or to “go.”
So you’re actually, already, envisioning an entity that would nominally rightfully govern a particular piece of property and would establish the norms that are expected of those who live there.
And to go all the way back that’s a lot of why I say ideological proto-anarchism is a masturbatory fantasy at best Dream all you want, but there is no way that such a thing could actually be implemented without empowering somebody to decree what specific norms will be in place, designating some particular borders within which those norms would be the only accepted ones, and most likely empowering someone to see to it that the norms are not violated, and that those who do violate them “freely” go somewhere else.
The first requirement for successful anarchism is people taking control of and responsibility for their own decisions and ceding the exact same control and responsibility to everyone else. As long as people continue to believe that they can and should have some say over other people’s decisions, anarchism will fail.
It’s just a simple step from “you should convinced to do this” to “you should be compelled to do this.”
It’s actually a huge step, actually. It’s like… the whole thing. It’s “here’s why it would be neat if you consented to this, but you can do something else if you like” versus “do it lol”.
Which is a freedom the majority of the world already possesses, so rather obviously it doesn’t ensure or even imply anarchism.
Privilege spotted. The majority of the world absolutely does NOT have freedom of association, even de jure.
And beyond that, more pointedly but less obviously, ideological collectives (as yours does) always carry with them an unstated presumption that the entity from which people would be free to disassociate would rightfully hold some property.
No they don’t, you’re imagining that. E.g., you can have multiple distinct anarchist collectives in the same area.
So you’re actually, already, envisioning an entity that would … establish the norms that are expected of those who live there.
1000% yes. If you join a chess club started by me, you can’t shit on the chessboards. You are free to start a chess club where shitting on the chessboards is allowed/encouraged. Establishing norms is not necessarily a system of domination or hierarchy.
As long as people continue to believe that they can and should have some say over other people’s decisions, anarchism will fail.
If someone decides to rape me, I am wrecking their shit. That’s a bad decision and I’m not gonna respect it at all. It’s not authoritarian to make and act on that judgment call. Obviously, this is perfectly in line with anarchist theory and praxis.
There are plenty of less extreme examples where someone’s decisions will harm someone else, e.g. insert an example from almost any undergraduate ethics textbook.
I gotta be so real with you: you seem like you want to do anarchism with the seriousness and care it deserves, but I suspect you’re trying to do a “clean room design” of anarchist principles. Please just do the reading. Anarchist literature is informed by generations of praxis and mistakes that you have no way of accumulating in a “clean room” within a single lifetime. There are even anarchists who make your arguments a lot more convincingly than you’re doing.
The huge step is the presumption that other people cannot simply be allowed to freely make their own decisions, and everything beyond that is simply a matter of how little or how much compulsion should be employed to get them to “choose” as one prefers instead.
As for the bulk of you response, I can very simply explain my view.
My position is that you should be seen to be entirely free to make your own choices, even if the choice you make is to rape me.
And of course, I too should be seen to be entirely free to make my own choices, including responding to the choice you’ve made in whatever way I see fit.
If each and all, or close enough as makes no meaningful difference, choose generally rationally, then the society will succeed. If not, then it will fail. It really is just that simple.
If, for whatever reason, that freedom is not ceded to each and all by each and all (or, again, close enough as makes no meaningful difference), then the society will inevitably follow the path back to institutionalized, hierarchical authoritarianism. It doesn’t matter how many well-meaning people work to see it limited - institutionalized authority rewards and thus effectively selects for those who are least constrained by morals, ethics, principles and empathy, and thus most willing and able to do whatever it takes to gain, hold and expand authority and the privilege it inherently grants, and even the tiniest opening will provide them with an opportunity they can and will exploit.
And as for the last bit, I’d simply rather invest my finite time and attention into reasoning through ideas on my own than into consuming the reasoning of others, particularly when it’s the case, as it all too often is, that I end up discovering that their reasoning has been tainted by their own authoritarian habits, presumptions or even ambitions.
Anarchy is individual and collective. Individuals are free to associate. Collectives of individuals work together because “apes strong together”. Hierarchies are horizontal. Violence is decentralized.
If you got “no true Scotsman” out of that, then you missed my point.
My only interest in a claim to anarchism is whether or not it’s practical, which is to say, whether ir not it includes ideas or positions that are innately authoritarian and will inevitably lead to the reestablishment of an institutionalized hierarchy.
And the simple reality is that most do. Authoritarian habits and presumptions, whether conscious or not, are just too widespread and deeply engrained.
And you left out “No rulers doesn’t mean no rules.”
Just so you’re aware, you aren’t the first or smartest person to think of issues with Anarchism. There are far smarter and well read Anarchists, than anyone here, who think it’s still the right idea. No one will agree on every specific, but that’s true for everything.
I could argue every system of governance is doomed to fail. Literally none of them are perfect, and none ever will be. That’s why there are so many different versions of capitalist democratic republics. Every single time there are issues, and people come up with different solutions to those issues. The real problem comes when you refuse to engage and see any pros or cons of a system. There’s always something to learn.
You’re more ignorant than any Anarchist if you write it off entirely, just because you have a poor idea of what it means. Hint: big A Anarchism is different than little a anarchism. It doesn’t mean a lack of government. It’s an attempt to remove hierarchy, where possible, because hierarchies are where most of the issues with society come from.
It doesn’t mean a lack of government. It’s an attempt to remove hierarchy, where possible,
That’s one of the most ludicrous sentences I’ve ever read.
To govern is necessarily and explicitly hierarchical, since the entire idea is that the choices an individual might make are in some way constrained. And the only possible way that they can be constrained is if it’s first stipulated that some entity has a greater say over what they may, may not, must or must not be than the person themself has.
But hey - the broad history of attempts to encourage thinking that will lead to universal freedom from the nominally rightful imposition of the wills of some upon others is in large part a history of abandoning labels as they’re each in turn captured by those who won’t stand for or can’t even envision a world in which they can’t see their preferences imposed on those who don’t share them.
You can have horizontal hierarchy, where no one has a position above others. People need to agree to certain rules. There are structures that allow for this, such as direct democracy. There will always be a need for some structure, so people know what is and isn’t allowed. Anarchism is not anarchy, as media portrays it. It’s not total chaos. It’s organization that removes vertical hierarchies.
Otherwise, you appear to be trapped in the inherently self-defeating idea that people can’t be trusted to make their own decisions so people should be empowered to constrain them, resting solely on a foundation of rhetoric and apologetics.
Yeah, the culture of anarchism feels more like a box to adapt to rather than something that is supposed to bloom our thinking. The black flag is a flag of hostility and will bring in those who shine hositlity. Hostility towards might, but hostility none the less. It is not that the shine of withermight is not needed, because might will crush us if we become a threat, but we need to emphasize that in fern to bring about such societies we need to make lettens that can cultivate them.
In other words, we need cultivating shines.
I like to forward bloom shine, samlife shine, humanity shine and samhold shine as cultivating shines. I usually call this the spiritual shoots of the oakframe.
Bloom shine is about looking at ourselves as beings of growth instead of something that is molded. To be ourselves instead of adapting to society. To shine warmness instead of coldness. Symbolized with purple as the color of spirituality and authenticity.
Samlife shine is about living with, not against. To live with our peers, with our surroundings, with nature.
Humanity shine is about centering humans instead of might. It is not to say that humans are better than any other life gleeds, but to say that society has to adapt to people, not the other way around.
Samhold shine is to stand with other human beings. To collaborate instead of compete. To grow together.
No - the problem is that I do understand what it means, as opposed to nearly everyone who wears the label, especially online.
Here’s a hint - if you think collectively, you’ve already failed.
Here’s another hint - if you look to an authority to tell you what to believe, you’ve already failed.
Anarcho-collectivists: *continues existing*
Here’s another hint - all ideological subdivisions of anarchism are masturbatory fantasies at best, because there will always be people who will refuse to accede to them and there will never be mechanisms to force their compliance.
As long as you’re not creating a new state, systems of domination, hierarchies, etc., then go do what you want. Anarcho-collectivism (or -communism, or -syndicalism, or mutualism) doesn’t mean imposing those frameworks of anarchist organization on the proletariat and the ecology; it just means we have a viewpoint on which mode(s) of organization have the best chance of achieving liberation.
Right - it’s a masturbatory fantasy.
There are really only two broad options - whatever people make up an anarchistic society will make whatever choices they make for whatever reasosns they make them, and enough of them will be conscious enough of the need to compromise to do so, and they’ll end up with a more or less stable society that might be hastily generalized in some broad and necessarily inaccurate ways, or anarchism will fail.
One of the many ways by which anarchism could fail is by ideologues digging their heels in and refusing to compromise on any of the dogma stipulated by the label to which they’ve sworn allegiance.
This… sounds like anarchism succeeding. IMO, being an anarcho-communist (or whatever) is trying to persuade people to use anarchist communism (or whatever) as the framework to make better choices “for whatever reasons they make them”, because we think that this is a good framework for reasoning about an uncertain world. But if you want to think differently about anarchism, that’s completely fine, welcome even. Diversity is strength. But that doesn’t mean I’m gonna stop passionately advocating for what I think is right.
All forms of anarchism organize on the basis of free association. Again, dissatisfied parties can freely disassociate and go do their own thing. Or, they can reach a compromise. Either outcome is not a failure of anarchism.
The presumption that other people’s choices are subject to your approval is the exact foundation upon which authoritarianism is built.
It’s just a simple step from “you should convinced to do this” to “you should be compelled to do this.”
Not to mention, it’s incredibly arrogant, dismissive and disrespectful.
No - not really. Anarchism does (or as I’ve come to refer to it - anarcho-anarchism), but the various ideological subdivisions actually don’t.
In the first place, your conception of disassociation (and the conception common to ideological proto-anarchisms) only goes one way. You treat your collective as an entity unto itself, and cover the “free association” requirement by essentially stating that those who don’t wish to submit to the dictates of your ideology would be free to leave.
Which is a freedom the majority of the world already possesses, so rather obviously it doesn’t ensure or even imply anarchism.
And beyond that, more pointedly but less obviously, ideological collectives (as yours does) always carry with them an unstated presumption that the entity from which people would be free to disassociate would rightfully hold some property. That’s always there, lurking inder the surface, and generally comes out in little slips like saying that people would be free to “leave” or to “go.”
So you’re actually, already, envisioning an entity that would nominally rightfully govern a particular piece of property and would establish the norms that are expected of those who live there.
And to go all the way back that’s a lot of why I say ideological proto-anarchism is a masturbatory fantasy at best Dream all you want, but there is no way that such a thing could actually be implemented without empowering somebody to decree what specific norms will be in place, designating some particular borders within which those norms would be the only accepted ones, and most likely empowering someone to see to it that the norms are not violated, and that those who do violate them “freely” go somewhere else.
The first requirement for successful anarchism is people taking control of and responsibility for their own decisions and ceding the exact same control and responsibility to everyone else. As long as people continue to believe that they can and should have some say over other people’s decisions, anarchism will fail.
It’s actually a huge step, actually. It’s like… the whole thing. It’s “here’s why it would be neat if you consented to this, but you can do something else if you like” versus “do it lol”.
Privilege spotted. The majority of the world absolutely does NOT have freedom of association, even de jure.
No they don’t, you’re imagining that. E.g., you can have multiple distinct anarchist collectives in the same area.
1000% yes. If you join a chess club started by me, you can’t shit on the chessboards. You are free to start a chess club where shitting on the chessboards is allowed/encouraged. Establishing norms is not necessarily a system of domination or hierarchy.
If someone decides to rape me, I am wrecking their shit. That’s a bad decision and I’m not gonna respect it at all. It’s not authoritarian to make and act on that judgment call. Obviously, this is perfectly in line with anarchist theory and praxis.
There are plenty of less extreme examples where someone’s decisions will harm someone else, e.g. insert an example from almost any undergraduate ethics textbook.
I gotta be so real with you: you seem like you want to do anarchism with the seriousness and care it deserves, but I suspect you’re trying to do a “clean room design” of anarchist principles. Please just do the reading. Anarchist literature is informed by generations of praxis and mistakes that you have no way of accumulating in a “clean room” within a single lifetime. There are even anarchists who make your arguments a lot more convincingly than you’re doing.
No it’s really not.
The huge step is the presumption that other people cannot simply be allowed to freely make their own decisions, and everything beyond that is simply a matter of how little or how much compulsion should be employed to get them to “choose” as one prefers instead.
As for the bulk of you response, I can very simply explain my view.
My position is that you should be seen to be entirely free to make your own choices, even if the choice you make is to rape me.
And of course, I too should be seen to be entirely free to make my own choices, including responding to the choice you’ve made in whatever way I see fit.
If each and all, or close enough as makes no meaningful difference, choose generally rationally, then the society will succeed. If not, then it will fail. It really is just that simple.
If, for whatever reason, that freedom is not ceded to each and all by each and all (or, again, close enough as makes no meaningful difference), then the society will inevitably follow the path back to institutionalized, hierarchical authoritarianism. It doesn’t matter how many well-meaning people work to see it limited - institutionalized authority rewards and thus effectively selects for those who are least constrained by morals, ethics, principles and empathy, and thus most willing and able to do whatever it takes to gain, hold and expand authority and the privilege it inherently grants, and even the tiniest opening will provide them with an opportunity they can and will exploit.
And as for the last bit, I’d simply rather invest my finite time and attention into reasoning through ideas on my own than into consuming the reasoning of others, particularly when it’s the case, as it all too often is, that I end up discovering that their reasoning has been tainted by their own authoritarian habits, presumptions or even ambitions.
Thanks for the response.
Never met a “no true Scotsman” anarchist.
Anarchy is individual and collective. Individuals are free to associate. Collectives of individuals work together because “apes strong together”. Hierarchies are horizontal. Violence is decentralized.
If you got “no true Scotsman” out of that, then you missed my point.
My only interest in a claim to anarchism is whether or not it’s practical, which is to say, whether ir not it includes ideas or positions that are innately authoritarian and will inevitably lead to the reestablishment of an institutionalized hierarchy.
And the simple reality is that most do. Authoritarian habits and presumptions, whether conscious or not, are just too widespread and deeply engrained.
And you left out “No rulers doesn’t mean no rules.”
Just so you’re aware, you aren’t the first or smartest person to think of issues with Anarchism. There are far smarter and well read Anarchists, than anyone here, who think it’s still the right idea. No one will agree on every specific, but that’s true for everything.
I could argue every system of governance is doomed to fail. Literally none of them are perfect, and none ever will be. That’s why there are so many different versions of capitalist democratic republics. Every single time there are issues, and people come up with different solutions to those issues. The real problem comes when you refuse to engage and see any pros or cons of a system. There’s always something to learn.
You’re more ignorant than any Anarchist if you write it off entirely, just because you have a poor idea of what it means. Hint: big A Anarchism is different than little a anarchism. It doesn’t mean a lack of government. It’s an attempt to remove hierarchy, where possible, because hierarchies are where most of the issues with society come from.
Seriously WTF?
That’s one of the most ludicrous sentences I’ve ever read.
To govern is necessarily and explicitly hierarchical, since the entire idea is that the choices an individual might make are in some way constrained. And the only possible way that they can be constrained is if it’s first stipulated that some entity has a greater say over what they may, may not, must or must not be than the person themself has.
But hey - the broad history of attempts to encourage thinking that will lead to universal freedom from the nominally rightful imposition of the wills of some upon others is in large part a history of abandoning labels as they’re each in turn captured by those who won’t stand for or can’t even envision a world in which they can’t see their preferences imposed on those who don’t share them.
You can have horizontal hierarchy, where no one has a position above others. People need to agree to certain rules. There are structures that allow for this, such as direct democracy. There will always be a need for some structure, so people know what is and isn’t allowed. Anarchism is not anarchy, as media portrays it. It’s not total chaos. It’s organization that removes vertical hierarchies.
https://anarwiki.org/wiki/Category:Concepts
IMO, this is the only part you got right.
Otherwise, you appear to be trapped in the inherently self-defeating idea that people can’t be trusted to make their own decisions so people should be empowered to constrain them, resting solely on a foundation of rhetoric and apologetics.
Yeah, the culture of anarchism feels more like a box to adapt to rather than something that is supposed to bloom our thinking. The black flag is a flag of hostility and will bring in those who shine hositlity. Hostility towards might, but hostility none the less. It is not that the shine of withermight is not needed, because might will crush us if we become a threat, but we need to emphasize that in fern to bring about such societies we need to make lettens that can cultivate them.
In other words, we need cultivating shines.
I like to forward bloom shine, samlife shine, humanity shine and samhold shine as cultivating shines. I usually call this the spiritual shoots of the oakframe.
Bloom shine is about looking at ourselves as beings of growth instead of something that is molded. To be ourselves instead of adapting to society. To shine warmness instead of coldness. Symbolized with purple as the color of spirituality and authenticity.
Samlife shine is about living with, not against. To live with our peers, with our surroundings, with nature.
Humanity shine is about centering humans instead of might. It is not to say that humans are better than any other life gleeds, but to say that society has to adapt to people, not the other way around.
Samhold shine is to stand with other human beings. To collaborate instead of compete. To grow together.
Ahhh, Stirner fan, I see
As a stirner fan myself, I believe collectivism is in my own self interest 😤
Thank you so much for saying this one key phrase