Comment on Just give me someone to vote for who is normal
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 2 weeks agoOkay, how exactly do you think things like crime, inequality, or general societal order should be handled?
Comment on Just give me someone to vote for who is normal
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 2 weeks agoOkay, how exactly do you think things like crime, inequality, or general societal order should be handled?
BennyTheExplorer@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
That’s a hard one. And I will admit, that I don’t know everything. I generally think of anarchism not as a perfectly thought out system, that I could implement tomorrow, but as a utopian vision, we should strive towards. But I will give my best shot at answering this.
I’ll start with the easiest one: inequality. My vision of anarchism is very inspired by the ideas of Marx, so I believe that all economic activity should be full owned and controlled by workers in some kind of democratic system. My idea would be to organize the economy via “workers councils” where decisions are reached through mutual negotiations ideally with concencus based decision making. In these councils, every worker, that would be affected by the decisions could participate and have equal power. Of course there would ideally be mechanisms to encourage all to partipate in these decision making processes etc.
There would of course be no one at the top, that makes much more than other people so I don’t really see a way, where inequality would meaningfully arise.
The general societal order (I guess you mean decision making processes) would be handled in a similar way, so in councils where everyone can participate.
Crime, and general disturbances to the social order would have to be handled through social conditioning and preventative action. One important factor in this is that most crimes happen due to inequality and people acting out of desperation. That source would be probably mostly eliminated. Things like bigotry or rape or something are also, in my opinion happening in a lot of cases because of external social conditioning, so we would have to radically rethink things like education, parenting etc. The capital class also loves to push racism, sexism etc. through the media they controll to protect their own interests. The bugiorsy would of course not exist in my vision of anarchism. Trauma from war or other forms of capitalist exploitation, which could cause you to be sick and do crimes would of course also not exist, because there would be no capitalism nor imperialist nation states.
And still, we could not control for everything. For these cases, we would have to come together as the affected communities and decide on a cases by case basis. There should of course be general rules the community agreed on, but the circumstances should also be considered. A potential action for these cases could be rehabilitation, therapy ect., helping the victims fix the harm caused by the crime and in extreme cases maybe shunning an individual from a community. Maybe we would also need something prison-like for really extreme cases, but I am not really sure about that.
If you want to look at some real world examples, of how (imperfect, but still impressive) real world implementations of this could look like, look at anarchist Spain, Rojava or the Zapatistas. I will note though, that Rojava and the Zapatistas don’t call themselves anarchist, but their ideas are still really closely aligned with what I am talking about.
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
My question to you is this, what vision should we strive for in your opinion? No system is ever perfect, but it does need to have a considerable degree of practicality in order to exist in the real world for an extended period of time.
But this a contradictory notion, is it not? Marxism is an inherently authortarian ideology in both theory and practice, which is why every attempt at it in history has resulted in some tyrannical regime. The idea that you can collectivize an entire economy and redistribute resource as the “collective” (read: government) deems necessary is simply impossible without a great deal of violence, coercion, and theft involved. The only way this idea could work without tyranny is if everybody in a society can magically agree to everything, which again, is impossible. There will always be people who will disagree, people who will resist, and people who will refuse to participate. That’s just how humans are. But if these types of people are allowed to do as they wish, then the system collapses in on itself. This is why communist regimes end up killing so many people in their quest to achieve communism, but that in of itself is the reason why communism is widely considered a failure as an ideology.
I think you misunderstood the point that I was making in my scenarios. I was pointing out how you can’t have order without inequality. One of the hallmark defining features of civilization is inequality, not in the sense of wealth, but in the sense of power. In order for people to organize in a society there needs to be people who have disporportaite levels of power and authority that grants them the ability to oversee, manage, and instruct people to act in certains ways in order achieve predefined goals. In other words, if you want a functional society, you need heiarchies.
Also, social heirarchies don’t exist because of capitalism, they exist because it’s an incredibly useful trait that social animals like humans evolved to better survive in the wild.
Like I was saying earlier, things like this don’t exist because of capitalism. If your claims about capitalism were true then there wouldn’t be any notion of things like war, racism, crime, and so on before the 17th and 18th centuries when capitalism formed, but that’s clearly not the case because these all existed long before recorded history were a thing. In fact, a lot of these traits can be found in our closest ape relatives, which means that they’re a product of our evolution.
Humans are tribal beings, and our ape brains are literally designed to ensure our survival in the wild. The way that we survived in nature is by forming small communities that we depended on our survival. If you lost your community, you’re screwed. Therefore, we evolved to become very protective of our tribes. We are inately catious change and hostile to outsiders because they could threaten the stability of our community, and thus our survival. In modern times tribalism comes in different forms whether its religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, political affilation, nationality, and so on. Even if you manage to eradicate one, another will come and take its place. Obviously we should strive to treat everybody with equal kindness and respect, but we also have to acknowledge that this isn’t something that be conditioned away with a change in economics or politics.
That’s already the case now, it’s called the justice system. However, you can’t have a justice system without a government that monoplizes violence. You need a government to have a police force that enforces rules and carries out punishments… but if that’s the case then we’re no longer in anarchist situation.
Impressive how? I think all three are considerable failures. They didn’t manage to last long and they didn’t achieve anything notable.
BennyTheExplorer@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Also the crime thing, what I meant about coming together as a community was assembling councils of people that have expertise in how to handle this, who decide together and enforcing the decisions not through state violence but through collective action by the community.
BennyTheExplorer@lemmy.world 1 week ago
The problem of anarchism is that it goes basically against everything, that we were taught to assume about the world, because the system can only work, if the people, who are oppressed by it think, that it couldn’t have been different. We need to work hard to be open minded and challenge our most basic assumptions.
That is just wrong. Marx was actually stonchly against authoritarianism, he argued for workplace democracy and was against nation states as a concept. He defined communism as a stateless, classless society. So, even though the Soviet Union pretended to be Marxist or communist, they were wrong. At least if you go by what most leftists thinkers understand as communism.
You seem to be conflating authoritarianism and violence. Yeah, a revolution might be violent. But the status quo is already incredibly violent, so it might be the most sensible option we have.
What makes you think that? There is actually quite a bit of evidence pointing to the contrary (newrepublic.com/…/dawn-everything-book-review-ear…) (while I find the evidence cited in that article to be quite interressting, I don’t agree with all the conclusions they come to).
Community does not necessarily need violence towards outsiders. In fact, according to a lot of scientists, human societies were very peaceful for a very long time (ancient-origins.net/…/debate-continues-stone-age-…). So the claim, that war or racism is in our human nature is ridiculous.
Almost as if there were other authoritarian systems, that tried to protect the interests of their ruling classes before capitalism.
Apes are racist and wage war? That seems interesting, where can I learn more?
Almost as if every capitalist government is doing everything they can to strike down these attempts because if they became successful, they would make other systems look bad.
But also, the Zapatistas still exist and have existed since 1994, so we don’t know yet, how long they will last. And yeah, it is really impressive to build an egalitarian, system with flat power structures amidst overwhelming resistance by governments with hugely powerful military force.
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Kind of, but I was wondering if there more to it than just Marxist communism?
But wouldn’t the same apply to you?
What? This is just pure misinformation. Marx was a notorious authoritarian. This isn’t some secret either, he was very, very vocal about it. He went out of his way to criticize, mock, and demean the pacifist socialists of his era as being naive, stupid, and weak. Just look at criticisms of Pierre Joseph Proudhon or Charles Fourier or Henri de Saint Simon. He’s literally famous for favoring violence over peaceful alternative in his works.
Communism was just his idea of a utopian society, it’s not his ideology. Marx’s ideology is about how he thought societies should get to this utopia of his. His ideology instructed that a society should overthrow capitalism in a revolution, workers should seize all property and means of production by force and kill all those who resist, and then establish a transitional socialist state that represents the workers that rules with an iron fist in order to bring about the social climate necessary to realize communism (dictatorship of the proletariat). Since communism is a utopia, it’ll never be achieved, and that’s why all the attempts at it in history have always stopped at the tyrannical transitional socialist state stage… the Soviet Union was such an example, Maoist China would be another.
So you’re not an anarchist, but a Marxist? Anarchy as a philosophy is fundamentally opposed to the idea of using organized violence to coerce society into doing things that are against people’s will.
I wasn’t giving an opinion there. That’s literally how civilization is defined:
“All civilizations have certain characteristics. These include: large population centers; monumental architecture and unique art styles; shared communication strategies; systems for administering territories; a complex division of labor; and the division of people into social and economic classes.”
Source: National Geographic
Did you read the article that you linked? It doesn’t make this claim. It’s saying that we have new evidence of prehistoric wars, but it’s still too limited and vague to determine the origin of warfare, because the interpretation of that means is also too vague. It doesn’t say that humans were more peaceful or more warlike.
Humans, like all the other great apes, can be violent and can have physical fights between different tribes, and we did. Evidence for human on human violence is present in every era and everywhere. It just that it used to be that human communities were small and nomadic, and if they ran into people, they would just move to another area. The only times people fought was if a group was threatening another group or if there were scarce resources. However, around 10,000 years ago, we developed agriculture and people depended on the land they were on. Population and population density both increased due to the increased food production, which demanded more land and resources… and it’s not hard to see why competition, and ultimately war, became more intense.
Yes, and Marxist socialism was no different. Instead of the elite being royalty and nobility or economic tycoons or the clergy, it became the rulers of the new socialist government. Every single Marxist attempt in history devolved into being a dictatorship of sorts where immense power was concentrated in the hands of a few who had all the say and no oversight who ended up wrecking havoc on society. This is actually one of the biggest reasons why Eastern European countries despise communism as much as fascism, and rightfully so.
I know you’re being facetious, but what I said is factual. Obviously apes aren’t racist, you just misinterpreted what I said. I said that humans, like the other great apes, are tribalistic. For us modern humans, that has manifested itself in the form of something like racism or whatever other type of bigotry. The point is that the underlying cause for it stems from evolutionary trait that we evolved in nature. The same goes for war. Great apes, specifically chimps, our closest relatives, do have wars of their own.
Again, I’m not babbling nonsense, this is something that’s both well studied and well known. This research is literally what made Jane Goodall famous. She studied the Gombe chimps in Tanzania for 50 years, and she found that chimps are very similar in behavior to humans. They made and modified tools, the had complex social hierarchies, they had wars, they were tribalistic, they ate meat, they share bonds and emotions like people, and so on. You’ll be surprised by how much of our behavior is actually evolved rather than conditioned. Human nature is very complex and runs very deep.
You can’t blanket blame capitalism for everything, that’s just lazy and dishonest. During the cold war, for example, the Soviet Union spent a comical amount of effort trying to take down capitalist societies. They committed genocides, overthrew democratically elected governments, started civil wars, invaded sovereign nations, installed puppet dictators, launched countless propaganda campaigns, and the list goes on and on. They were after all the other half of the cold war. Yet despite their efforts, which were on par with the US, they failed and capitalism came out on top. That didn’t happen because of the CIA, it happened because capitalism just happens to be a better, more functional, and more resilient system than socialism. Accountability is often better than deflection.
In this case, Rojava was actually supported by Western capitalist democracies, and it got taken down by islamists backed by Turkey. The anarchists in Spain were on the side of the Republicans who were defeated by Franco and his fascist army, who were supported by fascist Germany and Italy, so there wasn’t any notable capitalist society that opposed them. As for the Zapatistas, they were never sovereign, they’re just a rebel group that hasn’t really done much. Even the Mexican government doesn’t care about them. You talk of a grand conspiracy against anarchist attempts by the big evil capitalist governments, but there really isn’t any evidence to support that. They failed to achieve anything, they failed to sustain their movements, and they failed to defend themselves when it mattered.
But they didn’t do this. The Mexican government controls all of the territory they claim, and Mexican law is the rule of the land. Do you have any actual evidence that they achieved this? More importantly, do you have any evidence that this led to anything tangible at all? As far as I’m aware, they only make grand claims, they haven’t done much. They didn’t build infrastructure, improve healthcare, raise the standards of living, advance science, build universities, decrease crime, they didn’t gain sovereignty, or anything really. If anything they did the opposite. They opposed a train project by the government to connect them to the rest of the country in 2020. They dissolved the Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities because they couldn’t get a handle crime in 2023. They seceded their claims to sovereignty by trying to participate in Mexican elections in 2018, only for their candidate to not be able to garner enough signatures to even show up on the ballot. This is impressive to you? Like come on, what are we even talking about?
I pasted this from your other comment for convenience. Based on your evasive wording, I think we both understand that fundamental flaw with the ideology here. Societies require order in order to keep the peace, however order can only be achieved with a certain degree of force (i.e. threat of punishment for breaking the law)… but that directly contradicts anarchism as a concept because anarchy is against order in general because its inherently hierarchal. So you can either have a functional society or you can have anarchy, not both.