Genuinely curious. How do true anarchists propose to prevent crime syndicates from gaining power and becoming a de facto government, committing extortion, racketeering, and human trafficking?
Or are they just running on the assumption that after the collapse of society, people’s appetites for wealth, power, and influence will simply evaporate?
Anarchism is a philosophy, not a means of governing.
But any anarchist would tell you that all actions have consequences. In one scenario - where human trafficking is discovered, a group of anarchists might play Dredd to bring justice to the syndicate. That group would then face consequences and be subject to investigation by the community. It could even look like a trial.
What if the human traffickers are more powerful than them? Have more resources, firepower, etc.?
Also, that system sounds a lot like vigilantism. How is there any guarantee that every commune will use that power responsibly and not abuse it? What’s stopping the most powerful communes from taking over and punishing dissenters, or any smaller communes that won’t submit to them?
To me, it just seems to set the stage for a return to neofeudalism. The most powerful communes become the barons, and smaller communes become vassals. Over time, I don’t see it turning out any other way. The system isn’t stable.
Isn’t it better to have an institution that protects against that, a system governed by rule of law to prevent abuses of authority?
I’m aware that the current systems have done a bad job of that, but humans are capable of learning and improving. And civilization has come a long way since the time of kings and empires; it would be a shame to throw out all that progress just because we haven’t got it perfectly right quite yet.
No one said stability was a goal. The idea is to always approach better, which involves change. I disagree with rapid revolutionary change because those often result in authoritarians cropping up.
Optimally there would be a balance between stability and progress. After all, what’s the point in crafting a perfect society if a few decades later someone can come along and overturn all the principles that made it great, and convert it back into an oppressive system?
The problem with the US Constitution isn’t that it enshrined immutable human rights; the problem was that it took compliance for granted and didn’t build in enough safeguards for enforcement. Yes, there needs to be a mechanism to improve upon what’s already been done (such as making constitutional amendments), but it also needs to be permanent enough that the progress can’t simply be overturned.
The problem with anarchy is that there’s no guarantee that civility will be an enduring principle. There’s nothing in place to prevent a powerful individual with enough followers from installing a new oppressive regime.
The trial part?
I said it would look like a trial. The community is self-governing so the community would have to be involved in agreeing with the consequences.
Well when I think of a trial I think of laws and statutes and torts and legislation that go along with legal proceedings.
So is it basically mega democracy where everyone gets involved? how will the majority ensure the minority will be protected? like that pesky john family who refuse to let us eat their dogs?
Anarchy can only exist when everyone is at an equitable level.
Minority oppression arises from someone becoming an authority. That someone could be an organization that has formed, and that organization would have to be dismantled.
Edit: also - anarchists believe in property possession, rather than ownership. So you would not be entitled to eat anyone’s dogs but your own. How they got the dogs isn’t of importancez what is of importance is who is feeding and caring for them.
wishful thinking mostly. it’s a form of escapism/fantasizing about a better future, rather than actually dealing with the complex problems of ones current reality.
just like a lot of poor people gamble their disposable income in the hope they will become rich, because saving it and investing it is too abstract/difficult of a concept for them. and the momentary hope/high of the activity is provides immediate gratification.
where as richer people see gambling as a leisure activity, they don’t see it as a path to riches. they understand getting richer requires saving their income and investing it and waiting for the payout 10-20 years in the future when those investments double/triple in value.
I mean, I was super into communist/anarchistic when I was a teenager. Then I went to college and realized the world is way more complex/chaotic than anything those theories can cope with, and most theory is really. But generally I prefer theories that acknowledge the basic truths of reality and don’t pretend there is a ideal form of anything.
Sometimes I see people say stuff like “Anyone who says ‘the situation is more complex than that’ is just using it as a cop out because they don’t want to face the solution”
And I’m like, can we not normalize seeking simple solutions to complex problems? That’s partly what got us here today, and every “simple solution” that people try only ends up adding another layer of complexity to the problem for someone else to try to figure out later.
Anyone who thinks the world and its problems aren’t complex is too ignorant to be in a position to demand everyone accept their simplistic solutions.
Yes, but those people are also the ones most prone to violence. Because rather than acknowledge ea complex reality (and feel dumb/inadequate) they would rather use force to compel others to agree with them.
Hence why ‘implementation’ of simplistic theories into a government… comes with a big helping mass murder, incarceration, and a police state.
One of the most telling social trends I’ve noticed of late, is how now for some reason it’s viewed as a weakness to acknowledge the other’s viewpoint that you don’t agree with, or even to preemptively discuss counterargument to your own point. Both of which things that are classically encouraged in literature on healthy debate skills.
But now, as soon as you say “I hear that you’re saying _____, but…” it’s like you get cut off and they think the conversation is over and they just won. Like, no, not at all. Why is society rewarding that behavior?
Another one is addressing intrinsic biases. Like, you practice self-awareness by saying “I may be biased in this respect, but…” and then they go, “See! You’re biased! I win!” Like they’re missing the whole point that everyone has biases, and by pretending to be unbiased they’re actually revealing the extent of their ignorance and lack of self-awareness. But for some reason society today tends to favor the people who don’t admit to having biases, as if it means that person is the unbiased one.
It’s infuriating, but I don’t even try to talk to people anymore. There’s just no good faith discussion left to be had in the world, it seems…
Genuinely curious. How do true anarchists propose to prevent crime syndicates from gaining power and becoming a de facto government, committing extortion, racketeering, and human trafficking?
Or are they just running on the assumption that after the collapse of society, people’s appetites for wealth, power, and influence will simply evaporate?
Anarchism is a philosophy, not a means of governing.
But any anarchist would tell you that all actions have consequences. In one scenario - where human trafficking is discovered, a group of anarchists might play Dredd to bring justice to the syndicate. That group would then face consequences and be subject to investigation by the community. It could even look like a trial.
What if the human traffickers are more powerful than them? Have more resources, firepower, etc.?
Also, that system sounds a lot like vigilantism. How is there any guarantee that every commune will use that power responsibly and not abuse it? What’s stopping the most powerful communes from taking over and punishing dissenters, or any smaller communes that won’t submit to them?
To me, it just seems to set the stage for a return to neofeudalism. The most powerful communes become the barons, and smaller communes become vassals. Over time, I don’t see it turning out any other way. The system isn’t stable.
Isn’t it better to have an institution that protects against that, a system governed by rule of law to prevent abuses of authority?
I’m aware that the current systems have done a bad job of that, but humans are capable of learning and improving. And civilization has come a long way since the time of kings and empires; it would be a shame to throw out all that progress just because we haven’t got it perfectly right quite yet.
No one said stability was a goal. The idea is to always approach better, which involves change. I disagree with rapid revolutionary change because those often result in authoritarians cropping up.
Optimally there would be a balance between stability and progress. After all, what’s the point in crafting a perfect society if a few decades later someone can come along and overturn all the principles that made it great, and convert it back into an oppressive system?
The problem with the US Constitution isn’t that it enshrined immutable human rights; the problem was that it took compliance for granted and didn’t build in enough safeguards for enforcement. Yes, there needs to be a mechanism to improve upon what’s already been done (such as making constitutional amendments), but it also needs to be permanent enough that the progress can’t simply be overturned.
The problem with anarchy is that there’s no guarantee that civility will be an enduring principle. There’s nothing in place to prevent a powerful individual with enough followers from installing a new oppressive regime.
So the group of dredd anarchists create a government?
What? Where did you get that?
The trial part? I said it would look like a trial. The community is self-governing so the community would have to be involved in agreeing with the consequences.
Well when I think of a trial I think of laws and statutes and torts and legislation that go along with legal proceedings.
So is it basically mega democracy where everyone gets involved? how will the majority ensure the minority will be protected? like that pesky john family who refuse to let us eat their dogs?
Yes it is a mega democracy.
Anarchy can only exist when everyone is at an equitable level.
Minority oppression arises from someone becoming an authority. That someone could be an organization that has formed, and that organization would have to be dismantled.
Edit: also - anarchists believe in property possession, rather than ownership. So you would not be entitled to eat anyone’s dogs but your own. How they got the dogs isn’t of importancez what is of importance is who is feeding and caring for them.
hm. tangibly related, but I’m curious what you think of the Plurbs from Pluribus, if you’ve seen that show. Is perfect anarchism peace on Earth?
I haven’t seen the show, but peace without needing to enforce it is the ultimate goal.
they don’t. they, like communists, tend to ignore human nature and think their ideal society will have no scarcity or struggle.
they basically ignore human psychology and social behavior
Why do you reckon that is? Naivety?
wishful thinking mostly. it’s a form of escapism/fantasizing about a better future, rather than actually dealing with the complex problems of ones current reality.
just like a lot of poor people gamble their disposable income in the hope they will become rich, because saving it and investing it is too abstract/difficult of a concept for them. and the momentary hope/high of the activity is provides immediate gratification.
where as richer people see gambling as a leisure activity, they don’t see it as a path to riches. they understand getting richer requires saving their income and investing it and waiting for the payout 10-20 years in the future when those investments double/triple in value.
I mean, I was super into communist/anarchistic when I was a teenager. Then I went to college and realized the world is way more complex/chaotic than anything those theories can cope with, and most theory is really. But generally I prefer theories that acknowledge the basic truths of reality and don’t pretend there is a ideal form of anything.
Sometimes I see people say stuff like “Anyone who says ‘the situation is more complex than that’ is just using it as a cop out because they don’t want to face the solution”
And I’m like, can we not normalize seeking simple solutions to complex problems? That’s partly what got us here today, and every “simple solution” that people try only ends up adding another layer of complexity to the problem for someone else to try to figure out later.
Anyone who thinks the world and its problems aren’t complex is too ignorant to be in a position to demand everyone accept their simplistic solutions.
Yes, but those people are also the ones most prone to violence. Because rather than acknowledge ea complex reality (and feel dumb/inadequate) they would rather use force to compel others to agree with them.
Hence why ‘implementation’ of simplistic theories into a government… comes with a big helping mass murder, incarceration, and a police state.
One of the most telling social trends I’ve noticed of late, is how now for some reason it’s viewed as a weakness to acknowledge the other’s viewpoint that you don’t agree with, or even to preemptively discuss counterargument to your own point. Both of which things that are classically encouraged in literature on healthy debate skills.
But now, as soon as you say “I hear that you’re saying _____, but…” it’s like you get cut off and they think the conversation is over and they just won. Like, no, not at all. Why is society rewarding that behavior?
Another one is addressing intrinsic biases. Like, you practice self-awareness by saying “I may be biased in this respect, but…” and then they go, “See! You’re biased! I win!” Like they’re missing the whole point that everyone has biases, and by pretending to be unbiased they’re actually revealing the extent of their ignorance and lack of self-awareness. But for some reason society today tends to favor the people who don’t admit to having biases, as if it means that person is the unbiased one.
It’s infuriating, but I don’t even try to talk to people anymore. There’s just no good faith discussion left to be had in the world, it seems…
That’s concerning. And yet they call anyone a fascist who doesn’t support their cause. Tsk tsk. Projection at its finest.