rossimus t1_j0zvvou wrote
Reply to comment by Meta_Digital in Anarchism at the End of the World: A defence of the instinct that won’t go away by Sventipluk
That's why we've moved away from systems of government where a person rules, and into systems of government where institutions and laws rule, and the people running those institutions cycle through.
This is precisely and deliberately because people paradoxically need to be governed to some degree but also cannot reliably self-govern without mucking it all up.
Meta_Digital t1_j0zwyql wrote
And yet wealth and power remain extremely concentrated - more so than in any point in history. The institutions that rule also concentrate power at the very top - whether it's the totalitarian power of the business owners, the plutocratic power of a board of directors, the dictatorial power of some "elected" leaders like the US president, or the kleptocratic power of our democratic "representatives" who overwhelmingly belong to the owning class.
Systems of governance create the conditions which consolidate wealth and power in some hands, and strip wealth and power from others. An anarchist society is not one without structures of governance, but one which radically distributes wealth and power to the individual by critiquing and eliminating unjustified forms of dominance.
VitriolicViolet t1_j15laix wrote
>Systems of governance create the conditions which consolidate wealth and power in some hands, and strip wealth and power from others. An anarchist society is not one without structures of governance, but one which radically distributes wealth and power to the individual by critiquing and eliminating unjustified forms of dominance.
in what possible way?
how does anarchy prevent or even limit this? if you have no state at all then all it takes is a charismatic individual with resources to slowly take over, if you do have some form of state then all it takes is an individual with enough resources to co-opt whatever 'state' or institution/s.
again anarchy and libertarianism rely on fantasy versions of human behavior, where people will magically not submit to rule by others despite all of human history disagreeing (pre-agricultural humanity is utterly irrelevant, its like saying we should look to chimps for advice on structuring society).
if the whole point is to just try and never give up then no system is any better or worse than any other, literally all of them have utopian visions for someone.
personally im on the point that short of annihilating the concept of property its not possible to avoid those who have the most resources using said resources to control others (the wealthy have dismantled literally every system ever implemented, just look at what people define 'capitalism' to be vs what it actually is)
rossimus t1_j0zy0y6 wrote
>And yet wealth and power remain extremely concentrated - more so than in any point in history.
Wealth and power were far more concentrated when the world was ruled by absolute monarchs, emperors, and warlords. It's actually far more dispersed now than for most of human history. It's still very concentrated, but it's much better now than it used to be.
>An anarchist society is not one without structures of governance, but one which radically distributes wealth and power to the individual by critiquing and eliminating unjustified forms of dominance.
Until someone who wanted power seizes it and imposes their will. Power loves a vacuum, and an anarchist society would invite far greater concentrations of wealth and power because any regulatory institutions or guardrails would be gone. Power would just go to whoever was most willing to seize it by whatever means. You can't have both a government and a lack of hierarchy; who enforces the rules, if there are any?
You can't "eliminate unjustified forms of dominance" and also have no hierarchical system to enforce it. What's stopping me from gathering a handful of droogs and coming over to your house and taking your stuff? If I didn't have the stuff you have, why wouldn't I do this if it meant that my own family/community would love more comfortably and securely?
Meta_Digital t1_j1000b7 wrote
> Wealth and power were far more concentrated when the world was ruled by absolute monarchs, emperors, and warlords.
They would look on today's billionaires with an envy the rest of us couldn't imagine. Today's wealthy and powerful are like gods compared to history's tyrants.
> You can't "eliminate unjustified forms of dominance" and also have no hierarchical system to enforce it.
Ultimately, the argument is about what is and is not a justified hierarchy. In this way, anarchism isn't unique from other forms of critique of power. What anarchism is, instead, is a focus on dominance in its political form. Environmentalism, feminism, race theory, Marxism, and other forms of critiques on the justification of hierarchy exist. It's a simplistic interpretation to take these as arguments for absolutely no power dynamics. That's impossible. What they are, instead, are the shadows cast by those power dynamics. They raise questions worth answering, and in answering them, we can create a more ethical world.
Anarchy in its most extreme theoretical form isn't possible. Neither is good, truth, objectivity, etc. Ultimately, ideals are directions we move toward more than they are destinations. To abandon projects just because their most Platonic form isn't achievable in material reality is really just to abandon any meaning or purpose and fall into nihilism and despair.
rossimus t1_j102bih wrote
>They would look on today's billionaires with an envy the rest of us couldn't imagine. Today's wealthy and powerful are like gods compared to history's tyrants.
By this logic, the wealthiest medieval emperor of all time would look on at a lower middle class American with intense envy; indoor plumbing, electricity, central air and heating year round, high quality food always available nearby, a combustion engine vehicle capable of speeds far in excess of any horse or carriage; but the distance between that emperor and the peasants of the day vs a modern billionaire and a middle class person, outside of the dollar amount of wealth, isn't nearly as great. Regular people have access to basically all the same comforts as a billionaire, it's just that the billionaire has more of those things and nicer versions.
>Anarchy in its most extreme theoretical form isn't possible.
Exactly. It's a fun thought experiment, but is equally as implausible in real life as it would be undesirable.
Meta_Digital t1_j103oh1 wrote
From a creature comfort standpoint, yes I think there would be some envy. From a standpoint of individual autonomy and leisure time, though, they would overwhelmingly consider working people to be slaves and not want to be us.
Plato would consider our souls too corrupted for geometry or philosophy. Roman law wouldn't consider us freemen. Even medieval serfs had more leisure time and access to more public spaces and common land.
It's not as simple as "things are better now". Some things, like comforts and the forms of escapism have improved, but other things are much worse. We don't really have privacy anymore. Our personal property has been replaced with the private property of those we are made dependent on. We have little to no public space or natural environment. It's more polluted. Our existential threats are worse than ever before.
I think it would be very hard to make the case that a historical tyrant would look at the average retail or office worker with any degree of envy.
rossimus t1_j107pjx wrote
>I think it would be very hard to make the case that a historical tyrant would look at the average retail or office worker with any degree of envy.
I would rather work 8 hours a day in retail and enjoy all the trappings of modern life than spend every hour of every day managing a realm while shitting in cold holes, drinking water filled with parasites, watching my children die young with alarming regularity, face a constant threat of assassination and power play resulting from primitive succession systems, confront the cold and dark of winter in a visceral even from within a gold studded palace, endure disease and injury without any real form of medicine, etc. Even the relatively modern history of 18th century Britain, from an aristocratic point of view, sounds boring AF from the literature describing it at the time.
But I get it. We are all subject to envy in some way; for example you envy the rich and powerful for their material comforts to such a degree that you aren't even a little satisfied with all the incredible things you do have, simply on the basis that a handful of people have more of it than you. Such relative comparisons would not be absent in an anarchist society, they would just follow different parameters. Someone will always have more than you.
The real question is, right now, would you be willing to give up everything you currently have to be more equal with someone who has much less than you? Would you accept living at the same standards as the poorest humans in the slums of Cairo or New Delhi in the name of egalitarianism?
Meta_Digital t1_j108tas wrote
I think you're presenting a false dichotomy here. Be unequal and wealthy or equal and poor.
In our extremely stratified and wasteful society, I think it is entirely reasonable to be equal without being poor. The poverty inflicted on the masses to keep them in waged labor is artificial, and many of the "luxuries" are just distractions that are bad for us (like Reddit itself).
Also, this assumes that the current structure can survive indefinitely. I do not see any reason to see that it can. I would argue that it's pretty clear at this point that continuing the capitalist mode of production is an existential threat to life on Earth, and so the choice ends up being between preserving whatever life we have now at the cost of an early death or looking for an alternative which allows us to continue to survive long term.
rossimus t1_j10et2o wrote
>I think you're presenting a false dichotomy here. Be unequal and wealthy or equal and poor.
>In our extremely stratified and wasteful society, I think it is entirely reasonable to be equal without being poor.
Ah, but therein lies the rub; how does one achieve that? What if that really is the dichotomy? So far it always has been, and every effort to change it has been unsuccessful, or indeed just reinforced the nature of that dichotomy. Besides wishful thinking and theoretical ideas, there is nothing tangible to suggest that this isn't just the way things will always be in one form or another.
We can hope it won't be, and we can make progress to that end (as I said, we are far closer to that ideal today than ever before, regardless of what reddit memes suggest), but ultimately it may be the case that some amount of inequality and stratification is an inevitable part of a functional, organized society. Someone will always have to deal with cleaning up, disposing waste, digging ditches, and working agriculture, and those will always be tasks/roles that people would prefer not to have compared to other potential options, like those that involve sitting in soft chairs in air-conditioned offices. An organized productive society will need people to do both, and it's not clear how you could dole those roles out without someone getting something "better" than someone else. How would such a division of labor be equitably organized in our hypothetical utopia?
>I would argue that it's pretty clear at this point that continuing the capitalist mode of production is an existential threat to life on Earth, and so the choice ends up being between preserving whatever life we have now at the cost of an early death or looking for an alternative which allows us to continue to survive long term.
Moving on from the current capitalist model may indeed be inevitable, even desirable, but I think it's unreasonable to just assume that moving on from capitalism will automatically lead to a more equitable or environmentally balanced system. It was an upgrade to move from feudalistic serfdom to capitalism; it made things more equal and made life better. It follows then that whatever follows capitalism may be "better" in some or many ways, but just as capitalism has failed so many and done so much damage, in spite of being an objectively better, more efficient, more equitable system than feudalism, the next system may too fall short of utopia. Which isn't a reason not to move forward, but it's something to keep in mind as we do so.
Meta_Digital t1_j10u3gp wrote
> Besides wishful thinking and theoretical ideas, there is nothing tangible to suggest that this isn't just the way things will always be in one form or another.
Other than historical societies, which offer a wealth of alternatives to capitalism or destitution. None of this is any more "wishful thinking" than trying to be good or truthful.
> How would such a division of labor be equitably organized in our hypothetical utopia?
The focus here isn't on some fantasy of everyone being perfectly equal and having exactly the same outcome. It's about control vs. autonomy. A self-governing society would be just that; a collection of autonomous agents collectively forming a community. The material conditions of life will create some inequality, but it wouldn't be the kind of inequality imposed through force that is normal under capitalism.
> Moving on from the current capitalist model may indeed be inevitable, even desirable, but I think it's unreasonable to just assume that moving on from capitalism will automatically lead to a more equitable or environmentally balanced system.
Certainly. We're currently experiencing the decline of capitalism and the rise in the potential for alternatives - which will either move in the direction of a more egalitarian society such as in socialism or an even more stratified economy such as in fascism. The Nazis began as an anti-capitalist movement before Hitler came to power (and got rid of the original anti-capitalists along with the rest), so yes, not all alternatives are desirable.
Yet, critiques like the anarchist critique are the alternative to reactionary politics that results in worsening conditions. By ignoring the anarchist (and other) critiques, we only increase the risk of descending into something worse.
rossimus t1_j10wz8u wrote
>Other than historical societies, which offer a wealth of alternatives to capitalism or destitution. None of this is any more "wishful thinking" than trying to be good or truthful.
What are some examples of successful ones?
>The focus here isn't on some fantasy of everyone being perfectly equal and having exactly the same outcome. It's about control vs. autonomy. A self-governing society would be just that; a collection of autonomous agents collectively forming a community.
It looks like you're describing Communism, which we tried and doesn't work.
>We're currently experiencing the decline of capitalism and the rise in the potential for alternatives - which will either move in the direction of a more egalitarian society such as in socialism or an even more stratified economy such as in fascism.
But see both socialism and fascism (which isn't an economic model, but I understand what you're trying to say) are both extensions of capitalism, not new systems entirely. Marx himself saw socialism as a desirable end-state of capitalism, not an alternative. It wouldn't fundamentally change much in terms of societal stratification or environmental degradation, it would just mean worker shared ownership of capital, not the end of a system where capital is the key driving force of an economic system. Whatever follows capitalism would be something completely different. UBI is a closer approximation of what a post-capitalist society would look like (though it's also problematic).
>By ignoring the anarchist (and other) critiques, we only increase the risk of descending into something worse.
I think discussing it as an interesting thought experiment can be fun and informative, but it isn't terribly useful because it is neither practical nor desirable. It isn't accurate to say that we are doomed to back pedal as a direct result of not engaging with a hypothetical utopian fantasy.
Meta_Digital t1_j10yyym wrote
> What are some examples of successful ones?
The untold thousands of years of primitive communism, which led to the domination of the human species over the planet, is often considered an example of humanity's success as a species. We could consider the end of these cultures, often eradicated by empires through conquest and colonization, as failure, but I think an argument could also be made that conquest and colonization were a response to the failure of empire.
I like to use science as a good example of a cooperative free exchange that betters humanity, and contributes one of the greatest successes of the human race. Science constantly rubs up against hierarchy, competition, and privatization, which have all inhibited its ability to better our lives.
> It looks like you're describing Communism, which we tried and doesn't work.
This is an overly simplistic understanding of what people mean by communism. You might be thinking specifically of the USSR, which was not structured as a communist (or even socialist) society, but an attempt to eventually evolve into one. It does demonstrate the difficulty in taking a feudal society and trying to make it communist in a capitalist world, but it does not prove that communism is impossible.
> But see both socialism and fascism (which isn't an economic model, but I understand what you're trying to say) are both extensions of capitalism, not new systems entirely.
Fascist regimes, thus far, have had capitalist economies integrated into their political system. Some have described fascism as the merging of capitalism with government.
Socialism is not capitalist as it doesn't have capital. The word "capitalism" was invented by early socialists to describe an economy system focused on capital rather than society. Socialism abolishes capital (private property, employers, employees, etc.) and thus is no more capitalist than feudalism or other alternative economies that don't contain capital.
> It isn't accurate to say that we are doomed to back pedal as a direct result of not engaging with a hypothetical utopian fantasy.
Anarchism isn't a hypothetical utopian fantasy. In fact, by definition, it is the opposite, as to presume that future generations would structure society exactly as historical thinkers imagined would be a form of inter-generational oppression. Anarchism is merely a critical framework, like feminism or environmentalism, directed at power dynamics in political structures.
rossimus t1_j11u4ny wrote
>The untold thousands of years of primitive communism
Reddit anarchists have the strangest obsession with hunter gatherer societies as some sort of aspirational mod for society which I don't think I'll ever truly understand. Even taking into account the problem of having a small group of unspecialized individuals (no doctors, engineers, etc, as all members of the group have to work towards the survival of the group), even in its best case scenario it would only work for 20-50 people in a polity. It doesn't scale and so isn't really workable in the modern world where we need systems that account for millions of people at a time.
>I like to use science as a good example of a cooperative free exchange that betters humanity, and contributes one of the greatest successes of the human race
Science is a great example of something a tribal communist/anarchist society could not have. Science requires allowing for specialization, which means one less person working towards the survival of the group. It requires equipment and material that also calls for specialists somewhere to produce; otherwise what you can do with science is limited to stuff we have long since mastered.
>This is an overly simplistic understanding of what people mean by communism. You might be thinking specifically of the USSR, which was not structured as a communist (or even socialist) society, but an attempt to eventually evolve into one.
Communism is impossible, not because every society who's tried it failed, it's impossible because it fails to account for human nature. Communism can only work if everyone always buys into the shared collective efforts of the group. But there will always be people who seek to take advantage of situations to gain advantages for themselves over the group, which is exactly what happened every single time it's been tried. Power loves a vacuum, and communism by definition is a sustained power vacuum. As long as greed or ambition are human traits, communism (beyond a small tight knit group of 20-50) is impossible. History supports this.
>It does demonstrate the difficulty in taking a feudal society and trying to make it communist in a capitalist world, but it does not prove that communism is impossible.
If communism cannot exist unless every society everywhere is also communist, then it fails because it can't compete. Democracy and capitalism were able to be born and thrive in a mostly autocratic feudal world precisely because they were preferable and competitive models; such resilience is a prerequisite for a desirable and effective economic model. Because it is neither resilient nor particularly appealing, communism fails.
>Socialism is not capitalist as it doesn't have capital.
Methinks you should brush up on your Marx. Socialism is explicitly the end-state of capitalism; a model that Marx agreed with. His gripe was merely with who owned the capital, a small class of owners or the workers themselves. But a socialist world is still essentially a capitalist one.
>Socialism abolishes capital
Again, incorrect. It gives ownership of capital to those who work it rather than those who own it. It does not remove the factory or the value that factory creates. You're thinking of communism.
>Anarchism isn't a hypothetical utopian fantasy.
It is quite simply nothing more and nothing less than a hypothetical utopian fantasy. An interesting thought experiment perhaps, but certainly nothing to actually take seriously. Unlike environmentalism and feminism, which can and do exist.
Meta_Digital t1_j126rw0 wrote
> It doesn't scale and so isn't really workable in the modern world where we need systems that account for millions of people at a time.
The thing about horizontal power structures is that, unlike hierarchical structures, they don't scale. Scaling happens when a system grows and it becomes more difficult to centrally plan and manage. Natural systems like the universe itself can be as small or large as they like for this reason. Same with animal populations. Of course such a manmade system wouldn't resemble what we have now, but that doesn't mean that such a thing can't exist. Hierarchies are the exception in nature, not the norm. To frame horizontal structures as unrealistic is to claim that reality is unrealistic.
> Science is a great example of something a tribal communist/anarchist society could not have. Science requires allowing for specialization, which means one less person working towards the survival of the group.
You mean like the specialization of Aristotle, who did philosophy, physics, metaphysics, and other subjects? Or do you mean the mathematician, philosopher, and scientist that was Isaac Newton? Perhaps you are referring to the specialization of Albert Einstein, who was a philosopher, a mathematician, and a scientist. Also a socialist.
The greatest contributors to the advancement of human knowledge rarely resemble the hyper-specialist we see under capitalism and more closely resemble the holistic thinkers of broadly talented people like Leonardo deVinci. Some degree of specialization is necessary, even in the primitive societies you're referring to, but too much specialization and there are no longer any advancements.
In fact, the factory method of industry was in part designed to keep workers so specialized that they'd never command a better wage or grow into potential competition. Like anything, specialization is not always beneficial at all levels of extremity.
> Communism is impossible, not because every society who's tried it failed, it's impossible because it fails to account for human nature. Communism can only work if everyone always buys into the shared collective efforts of the group. But there will always be people who seek to take advantage of situations to gain advantages for themselves over the group, which is exactly what happened every single time it's been tried.
This is based on the idea that because you observe capitalist behavior under capitalism that this means that capitalist behavior is "human nature". It's a common fallacy to assume that your era or culture represents the sum total of human capacity. In reality, communism represents one potential path among many that people can take. A great example of everyday communism is the household. Some households are feudal in structure where the income earner controls everything and dictates everything. More commonly, though, families in a household pool their resources and share for the benefit of the family. This is especially true in poor families that cannot afford the more authoritarian alternative. The fact that both of these kinds of households exist, though, demonstrates the amazing plasticity of so-called "human nature".
> It gives ownership of capital to those who work it rather than those who own it.
The workers use what they own and keep what they produce, the factory is no longer capital (someone else's private property) and the product is no longer capital (someone else's private property). Communism as defined by Marx takes this a step further and removes money and the state as well.
> An interesting thought experiment perhaps, but certainly nothing to actually take seriously. Unlike environmentalism and feminism, which can and do exist.
And criticism from the right of feminism is that it's a utopian fantasy about putting women in charge. Criticism from the same towards environmentalism is that it's a utopian fantasy that nature above humans. How is your critique different from this? Ultimately not. Like with the others, it's born from a misunderstanding of the subject.
All of these are frameworks which approach problems from a particular lens. Feminism from power relations between men and women. Environmentalism from power relations between humans and non-humans. Marxism from power relations between owners and workers. Anarchism from power relations between the government and the governed. None of these are proposed utopias.
rossimus t1_j12bkqa wrote
>Hierarchies are the exception in nature, not the norm
Hierarchies exist all over nature. In all social animals, in food chains, etc.
>To frame horizontal structures as unrealistic is to claim that reality is unrealistic.
You've lost me, I don't even know what you're talking about anymore.
>You mean like the specialization of Aristotle, who did philosophy, physics, metaphysics, and other subjects? Or do you mean the mathematician, philosopher, and scientist that was Isaac Newton?
Both of those guys lived in advanced hierarchical societies where they could specialize in studying. They didn't have to split time between learning and hunting for food each day. They didn't have to make their own clothing, a specialist (tailor) made them. They didn't have to build their own home, specialists (carpenters and builders) did. Specialization and division of labor is something a society can only do if it organizes. Anarchism doesn't allow for this.
>This is based on the idea that because you observe capitalist behavior under capitalism that this means that capitalist behavior is "human nature"
Did greed and ambition not exist in humans before capitalism?
>And criticism from the right of feminism is that it's a utopian fantasy about putting women in charge. Criticism from the same towards environmentalism is that it's a utopian fantasy that nature above humans. How is your critique different from this?
Well, mainly that feminism and environmentalism exist and function. A successful modern anarchist society does not.
>All of these are frameworks which approach problems from a particular lens. Feminism from power relations between men and women. Environmentalism from power relations between humans and non-humans. Marxism from power relations between owners and workers. Anarchism from power relations between the government and the governed.
Indeed, I'm glad to see that we can agree that anarchism is purely a fun theoretical framework and little more. Good thought experiment, terrible real life idea.
GameMusic t1_j0zzaij wrote
This is why I like the idea of some voluntary system of actual social contracts - some basic minimal law plus a legal framework you sign
Right now something similar would be moving to states with laws that reconcile with your values but that is not practical for most
But technology could make this viable
Imagine economic and governmental systems competing for members in the same geographic area but a baseline legal minimum and systems of tariff to prevent one system from bypassing the regulation of another
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments