Is Anarchism viable?
Is Anarchism viable?
Why do you believe in it, do you approve it in theory or also in practice? I think a lot of people approve of anarchism in theory but rejects the possibility of it to be put in practice unless we live in an utopia.. which I don't think we do, unfortunately. Maybe techno-anarchism would be more practical? Technology is such badly regulated and ordinary people are punished harsher than corporate so I really think techno-anarchism deserves a lot more attention (not saying anarchism itself doesn't) I see a lot of people here are more knowledgeable than me so don't take my word so seriously, maybe I shouldn't be expressing my idiot thoughts on it, or maybe just embrace it and ask regardless of any shame I might get.
I'm not trying to be mean to anyone, just genuinely wanted to discuss with whoever is willing to chip in on the topic.
Hey, you guys showed up on “the front page” again. Real sorry about that.
But, hey. IMO, lemmy is anarchism. So there you have it.
The empirical evidence that we have available seems to indicate that anarchy is viable if people are either accustomed to it, or otherwise actively want it. This prevents a power vacuum, because people aren't seeking a ruler to guide them. In situations involving governmental collapse or some other rupturing of the social order, people are expecting that guidance and not receiving it. This allows a new, usually more violent authority to step in and take control. Obviously we want to avoid that.
Note that the examples we have of semi-anarchistic societies aren't perfect examples of what we want. Some only lasted a short time, or were small scale, or had some other flaws. They do serve to illustrate parts of anarchist theory, though. There are also various projects that do the same. The internet is one major example; a global information network used by 2/3rds of the world's population, but without a world government to create and manage it.
We have yet to see a large-scale, long-lived attempt to fully apply modern anarchism. At least part of the reason for this is that the left got intellectually derailed by Marxism and its derivatives for about a century. Prior to that, anarchism had been rising in popularity. We've been growing again for the last few decades, so we'll see what the future holds.
My thoughts about power balance, power vacuum and so on are simple.
Those who'd want to take power are usually cowards. It's no good to dead. It's no good if there's nothing remaining to have power over. The one who can destroy a thing owns it.
There's the Cold War MAD doctrine which was employed by all sides and simultaneously vilified by green, pacifist etc parties. But maybe now we can see how the world without MAD looks and see that it's better when everyone is armed to their teeth.
You can come to the truth from anywhere if you seek it honestly. It's the same with weapons - everyone arming themselves and being ready to defend themselves create a group immunity, where sociopathic behaviors get rewarded less, and sociopaths are more challenged in accumulating power. Again, the only real kind of ownership is where you can destroy your property. You own your life when you are capable of sacrificing it as you wish. When a society is armed to its teeth, then its power imposed upon any kind of power-accumulating authorities is more than theirs, and when it's disarmed, it's nothing compared to theirs.
People being accustomed to anarchy and actively wanting it are not enough. People want to try all kinds of things. People fear. People are malicious. People want worse societies when they believe they will be the ones imposing injustice upon others. People are also just stupid.
The Internet is not an example of anarchy, of course. It's nothing without its backbone cables built with participation of governments and enormous corporations and treated as strategic assets. It's no more anarchist than sea ports. There was a sprinkle of anarchy there in its transient years from an elitarian scientific thing to a common medium. That was not stable. Nothing anarchist can be stable in a system of dominating hierarchy.
I admit it was easy to buy into this fairy tale when I was a kid. In 2006 it seemed that the humanity is one step from becoming free and, well, humane.
All that said, I think eventually we win.
But we can never know, because our perception is always poisoned. It's much easier to do that than to thoroughly weed us out (it has a better characteristic considering their superior power, while the latter is not plausible to do). That's what the adversary is always doing. Any "smart and considered" action is likely wrong, because it's based on compromised perception. This is just like scammers calling you to "help catch criminals" or something.
The only way anarchism ever succeeds is by acting on rigid principle, as if fighting blindfolded.
The Internet is not an example of anarchy, of course. It's nothing without its backbone cables built with participation of governments and enormous corporations and treated as strategic assets. It's no more anarchist than sea ports. There was a sprinkle of anarchy there in its transient years from an elitarian scientific thing to a common medium. That was not stable. Nothing anarchist can be stable in a system of dominating hierarchy.
I admit it was easy to buy into this fairy tale when I was a kid. In 2006 it seemed that the humanity is one step from becoming free and, well, humane.
You're missing the point of the example. I'm not pushing techno-libertarian utopianism here. I'm not even talking about what the internet does, I'm talking about what it is: A globe-spanning megaproject that connects (nearly?) every country, and is used by a full 2/3rds of existing humans. And it was made without a supreme central authority forcing everyone to cooperate in its creation and maintenance. ARPANET was created by the US, but no one forced the Russians or the Chinese to adopt the IP protocol on their computers and connect to their neighbors.
This is important because a super common anti-anarchist talking point is that people won't cooperate (at least not at scale) unless an overarching authority forces them to. The existence of the internet demolishes that argument. It would be fundamentally impossible if that talking point were true.
There are plenty of anarchist communities working in real life, so, yeah, it's viable. You can join an anarchist collective, or even start your own. These collectives are the reason life under capitalism is viable in a lot of countries. These collectives exists right now in your city, helping each other and the poor. You don't need permission from the oppressor to be an anarchist, just do it, stop subjugating yourself to the oppression, stop accepting it, normalizing it, and build the life you want with others. As others pointed out, anarchy is inside you first, it's not an external system, you decide to stop participating in violence. Anarchists then, tend to find each other and form communities. Be part of one, experience human life as it should, and become ungovernable.
"All is for all! If the man and the woman bear their fair share of work, they have a right to their fair share of all that is produced by all, and that share is enough to secure them well-being. No more of such vague formulas as "The right to work," or "To each the whole result of his labour." What we proclaim is The Right to Well-Being: Well-Being for All!"
We are capable of producing far more than we as individuals consume with modern technology. It's not a question of capability, it's a question of logistics, a question of messaging, and a question of how much inequity we are willing to accept.
All is for all. It took all of us to get here, everyone deserves a share of the rewards.
We actually also don't even need to eat meat nowadays, plenty of ways to fill your vitamin needs in a healthier way.. of course, it's not cheap for everyone.
If by viable you mean able to be implemented without enormous problems, I would argue that capitalism isn't viable. I believe anarchism would be better for more people than the status quo, so I'd say it's viable in comparison
Edit: to answer the other part of your question, I practice anarchism in my daily life. Anarchism, to me, is a value more so than a political ideology. I don't believe in hierarchy, so I don't perpetuate hierarchy, and I actively work to dismantle it around me
Damn yo, i think i might be an anarchist
What are some examples of that in your day to day life? If you don't mind sharing.
Nice try, fed!
Jk, but this isn't an anonymous account, so I can't go into much detail on the praxis/direct action side of things. I will say that, as I believe the state, its laws, and its enforcers(cops, etc) are illegitimate, I give them no bearing on my behavior (i.e., I disregard laws (I'm not a sovcit though- I understand the consequences)). Similarly, I believe healthcare should be free, so I don't pay my medical bills; I believe food should be free, so
𝚁𝙴𝙳𝙰𝙲𝚃𝙴𝙳; and so on, though those are more egoist examples.A few interpersonal examples that come to mind:
As a therapist, the first thing I always do with a new minor client is clarify that they absolutely do not have to participate. I also discuss involuntary committal with new clients, and seek their consent ahead of time to make that decision for them should it come to it, and if they decline then that's that as far as I'm concerned.
I practice relationship anarchy, so I place no restrictions on my partner, and our resources are pooled.
I even avoid exerting authority/power over non-human animals if I can avoid it, including our cat and even insects and such- basically I don't touch them unless they come to me, and I also follow a vegan lifestyle.
Sorry if its a dumb question, but if its to compare to another political spectrum in regards to what it can do to more peoppe, wouldn't it be better to compare with social democracy? Finland is social democrat, people has affordable healthcare etc (except mental health access - not impossible but harder than anything else), they tax the rich, rich committing crimes punishable by fines get a way bigger fine compared to the middle class. Do you mean hierarchy is bad in any case? In regards to technology, I'd be inclined to say people in power are doing a shitty job, but anything else depends subjectively, I find Nordic countries a better reference to compare than countries like USA/Germany/France, you can see people on the happiness index (said by many its more of feeling gratitude and satisfied) many of the countries on top are Nordic countries, they also regulate tech better compared to other countries (for example, Iceland - referring to them as a good example of a country properly regulating tech, its not perfect but its not like the rest of the world isn't setting a really low bar)
No such thing as a dumb question!
Money functions as a points system to facilitate class hierarchy, so I don't believe money should exist. Social democracies are still capitalist.
Some people prefer to distinguish "justified" hierarchies, e.g., hierarchies of expertise (like teacher-student type relationships)- i.e., someone being in charge is okay if it's well justified.
Others however, like myself, prefer to focus on the underlying power dynamics. I don't think society or its institutions should ever be granting anyone power over another person
When I look at these countries you mention, rather than seeing efficient and equal distribution of resources, what I see is a lot of unnecessary mediating factors, embedded in an inherently unjust structure- the state itself. The people there may be relatively happy, but they're not free
My heart says anarchy and my brain says communism. I can't live without either, so you can't make me choose. I'll maintain a materialist outlook and continue to act accordingly.
Not if you take the traditional definition no. All natural life tends towards organization of some kind, which implies that organization is a consequence of life until proven otherwise.
If you take a more modern definition of anarchy where you mean decentralized rules, then I could imagine a situation in which it occurs. Though it's a far stretch to say that replacing a ruler with rules inherently solves the issue of power imbalance. Wether I am playing the game against an intelligent being or a logical system is irrelevant if the rules are unfair.
Having rules, means we need to be sure everyone follows it. And having a condition in which everyone wants to and strives to follow it, is also something utopian.
So even if the rules turn out to be desirable, a deterrent would be required. Now of course, for the thoughtful, the deterrent would be the possibility of losing long term stability, but for those who only think of immediate gains, you either have to band up (which eventually causes formation of communities and states) or they band up (= bandits) and eventually become kings (the problematic kind).
And then these things come into play:
Cooperation game Pretty good linking of thoughts by VeritasionThen comes the most important point (or at least what I consider so). Technological progress. Science is very much viable in Anarchy, with most scientist-scientist interactions not really requiring a state in the first place. You just need an incentive structure that is good enough to make maintenance (including prevention of loss of knowledge) and further improvements, a desirable endeavour. And science can take a lot of resources, while not showing any return for a long time.
Depending upon the case, this might incite frustration in those, investing in it for those working on it.
And stagnation is not a possibility. Any attempts at that will just cause a slow downfall.
Well let's see. The concept of the state Is roughly 3,000 years old, and humanity is roughly 300,000 years old so.
But implementing it on any sort of scale alongside nuclear extractionist states would be pretty tricky. At the very least they would start dumping their waste into these zones if not openly land grabbing and hunting anarchists for sport.
Finland gave away land to Russia to keep peace and they never asked for it back, Sweden could still be an empire but it isn't, they're not nuclead states but they are not 3rd world country either, in fact, their political crisis seem like a joke when you compare to how the rest of the world is when they are in the midst of a political crisis I think Nordic countries are a lot better to debate when it comes to this than what UK, Portugal, US, Germany, France, Russia, China has been doing for pretty long or used to, they definitely set the bar really low so every argument against state seem even enraging, rightfully
I could just being biased so don't take it any of my say as a good point, I just want to discuss in regards to it, you do have good points
While this is true, homogeneous culture combined with comparatively harsh conditions throughout Scandinavia along with the typical standing armies that would be difficult to maintain under an anarchic coalition or syndicate certainly play a role. I think the world has a lot to learn from the Nordic models, but am skeptical about their long-term viability as American hegemony sunsets.
No.
Unless this is the anarchism communi- . . it is?
Yes.
I agree, I think.
too disillusioned to even talk about it. I think it would be condescending of me to believe that masses that vote for asses deserve anything else.
Yes. Next question, please.