|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
anarchy
#23642274 - 09/13/16 05:06 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Contrary to what some believe, anarchy would not work, nor would it be desirable. As soon as you have an anarchic state, you're going to have individuals and groups swoop in to fill the latent power vacuum. No matter what, in every civilized society, one group has power over others at any given time. So the goal should not be an impossible anarchy, but setting up the most humane and effective government that we can.
I know we're all fed up with government, but is there really any alternative? Too much 'law and order' can be oppressive, but there is probably such a thing as not enough, no?
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
well in favor of your position is the looting that takes place during a police strike (think it happened in Canada long ago)
of course you are assuming, I imagine, what might happen in the present world?
Oddly I think the iching talks a lot about structure in society, and sees the well run family, as a model for the state. Certainly families with spoiled children show the necessity, of structure, discipline, and responsibility.
Of course the smaller the group (hunter gatherers) the less bullshit one needs, like: police, lawyers, taxes, judges, etc.
Many stories of the world after a nuclear war explore how such issues might play out.
You could also use other aspects of biology as a model, (besides the family unit), you could use information processing in the brain, or the self organizing behavior of ants or Conway's "game of life" ( a computer model), and so on ...
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Nice post.
Quote:
laughingdog said: Of course the smaller the group (hunter gatherers) the less bullshit one needs, like: police, lawyers, taxes, judges, etc.
Yes, I confine these notions to civilizations. Outside of civilization, things are clearly different.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Crumist
Stranger


Registered: 11/02/13
Posts: 781
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
|
No Gods, No masters: As all relationships are voluntary and egalitarian, there is no power vacuum. The situation you describe where warlords swoop in to fill the top of the hierarchical structure of violent dominance is a description of our current system.
It can work, it has worked: Paris Commune, Magonista Baja California, Free Territory of Ukraine, Anarchist Catalonia
-------------------- 'I am all for resources being allocated to the widowed single mother of 3, lost husband over seas fighting for our country. I am for vets getting mental health access and resources following war. I am not for free money cause a woman can't close her legs or some chump with low testosterone no going to work cause "i'm sad."' -finalexplosion Nice knowin ya'll! https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/23904704/vc/1#23904704
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
Crumist said: No Gods, No masters: As all relationships are voluntary and egalitarian, there is no power vacuum. The situation you describe where warlords swoop in to fill the top of the hierarchical structure of violent dominance is a description of our current system.
It can work, it has worked: Paris Commune, Magonista Baja California, Free Territory of Ukraine, Anarchist Catalonia
Those experiments are, I'm sure, very small, and relatively short-lived compared to larger societies. How can you stave off imbalance over time? Who controls the resources? Somebody has to administer them somehow. What form of economy is there? A true egalitarian society can only exist among hunter-gatherers. Once you introduce all of the complex variables of civilization, eventually imbalances develop and develop hard. I very much doubt those communes will be in existence for thousands of years.
Hierarchy is the entire point. Civilization is hierarchical, no matter how you administer it. You could create a commune to level it into an egalitarian structure, but over time there will be cracks. And I'm not talking a long time. Most of the communes of the sixties failed miserably because we simply haven't established a workable utopia yet, and mostly cannot even get them to work in miniature.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Crumist] 1
#23642611 - 09/13/16 06:50 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
it is doubtful that either anarchy or a structure are a guarantee of anything by themselves.
However even something, free of politics, like say a large science lab, must have all sorts of heierarchy if it wants meaningful results.
All the communes and so on are interesting I'm sure, but their very rarity would, tend to support DQ's outlook.
Take the Somlai pirates that attack shipping, without some surrounding structure, things eventually seem to go badly.
Perhaps the simplest example of the failure of anarchy generally speaking is music vs noise.
of course some music isn't much better ...
|
Crumist
Stranger


Registered: 11/02/13
Posts: 781
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
|
If we restrict our debate to civilization:Quote:
DividedQuantum said:Yes, I confine these notions to civilizations. Outside of civilization, things are clearly different.
And then define civilization as hierarchicalQuote:
DividedQuantum said:Hierarchy is the entire point. Civilization is hierarchical, no matter how you administer it.
. Therefore: anarchy is not civilizationoutside the bounds of discussion . Your logic is airtight, but circular. I think there is a manner of attacking both premises. Why restrict to civilization? Why must civilization be hierarchical?
I don't understand how the music analogy proves anything. Entropy always rises in the universe, therefore anarchy is truth?
-------------------- 'I am all for resources being allocated to the widowed single mother of 3, lost husband over seas fighting for our country. I am for vets getting mental health access and resources following war. I am not for free money cause a woman can't close her legs or some chump with low testosterone no going to work cause "i'm sad."' -finalexplosion Nice knowin ya'll! https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/23904704/vc/1#23904704
Edited by Crumist (09/13/16 07:10 PM)
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
Crumist said: If we restrict our debate to civilization:Quote:
DividedQuantum said:Yes, I confine these notions to civilizations. Outside of civilization, things are clearly different.
And then define civilization as hierarchicalQuote:
DividedQuantum said:Hierarchy is the entire point. Civilization is hierarchical, no matter how you administer it.
. Therefore: anarchy is not civilizationoutside the bounds of discussion . Your logic is airtight, but circular. I think there is a manner of attacking both premises. Why restrict to civilization? Why must civilization be hierarchical?
I don't understand how the music analogy proves anything. Entropy always rises in the universe, therefore anarchy is truth?
But are communes really outside of civilization? I mean, I think their physical contact sort of disqualifies them. We live on a planet now in which egalitarianism is extremely rare (and precious), but it's slowly succumbing, and it's not viable to generate it en masse, anyway. Anarchy is not at all outside the bounds of discussion in the context of civilization, if for no other reason than that it is geographically surrounded by it. Even if true, long-term egalitarian relations were in place, don't you think the bulldozers would eventually come?
One doesn't have to restrict hierarchy to civilization. All civilizations that have ever existed have been hierarchical. It's an anthropological rule. It usually comes in the form of control of resources, then spreads from there to other things, like the clergy, for example. Hell, there were even some hunter-gatherer tribes that were hierarchical. It just wants to burst through.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
Quote:
Crumist said:
It can work, it has worked: Paris Commune, Magonista Baja California, Free Territory of Ukraine, Anarchist Catalonia
apparently you have studied these things. How large were the groups? and how anarchic were they?
The idea of being free of structure is of course attractive. But on say, a submarine , it's nice if folks take their jobs seriously whether they like them or not, on Sunday morning. Same in an operating room etc. etc.
the very language we are using in this thread depends on strict rules to convey intelligible meaning. I imagine the folks in the places you mention didn't give up grammar and talk like BrendanFlock's posts, just so they could be '100% anarchic'.
|
ChristopherABrown
Human being


Registered: 07/22/16
Posts: 330
Loc: Santa Barbara California
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: Contrary to what some believe, anarchy would not work, nor would it be desirable. As soon as you have an anarchic state, you're going to have individuals and groups swoop in to fill the latent power vacuum. No matter what, in every civilized society, one group has power over others at any given time. So the goal should not be an impossible anarchy, but setting up the most humane and effective government that we can.
I know we're all fed up with government, but is there really any alternative? Too much 'law and order' can be oppressive, but there is probably such a thing as not enough, no?
I agree with all of that, but would point out that the type and function of anarchy can radically change with education. For example. If a people know everything there is to know about needs, and do not place needs over wants, the structures you point out that develop by default, end up with different natures.
-------------------- You always want what you need, but do not always need what you want. People that do not want what they need, have a problem. Can we stop doing all of the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?
|
beforethedawn
Registered: 06/19/16
Posts: 1,859
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
|
Sort of a discussion also of human nature, isn't it? What are we really? How are we supposed to be?
If we are essentially perfect then we don't need governments. What is making us otherwise? Governing our lives - socially, materially, psychologically.
-------------------- Hostile humankind Can't you see you're fucking blind?
|
HalfLight
.



Registered: 06/03/13
Posts: 2,322
Loc: Black Flag
|
|
The argument that a regional event of anarchy would lead to a power vacuum that would replaced with some other form of governing hierarchy is self-defeating. If anarchy functions (by whatever standard anyone may place on functionality) before intervention by such an institution or group, then anarchy does work, and government is the failure, not anarchy itself. Try to observe not anarchy as the vacuum, but government. What anarchist group/event has committed genocide, dropped nukes, inflated currency, stole people's labour via taxation, halted innovation via regulation, and eliminated the human right to free travel via borders? One might use the Red Death during the Spanish Civil War to argue this, but George Orwell himself has stated that these mass-murders were directed and conducted by KGB agents that had infiltrated the resistance against Franco.
If any such societal vacuum does exist, it exists in the form of governing institutions, and aggressive militant groups.
It may be informative to take a look at the modern political structure of West Kurdistan as an example of anarchy/left libertarianism's success despite overwhelming odds and the negative impact of foreign nations' intervention in the region. On a basis of ratios, the Kurds are defending themselves from ISIS more successfully than the governments of Iraq and Syria, while maintaining a significantly more equitable society. Perhaps it will not last due to the intervention of these various violent governments (some of which have been trying to literally exterminate the Kurds for centuries), but the fact that it has lasted this long while maintaining autonomy and very loose centralization is a point of significance.
|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
|
I know we're all fed up with government, but is there really any alternative?
Free market capitalism is an alternative, but probably not a very good one if there is no government to supply necessary services like criminal justice or health care. Of course you could just privatise these services, but then what happens if their is a prison bubble in the economy and all the prisons fail, do we just let all the rapists and murders free? A mixed economy is a far better way to manage services.
-------------------- Kupo said: let's fuel the robots with psilocybin. cez said: everyone should smoke dmt for religion. dustinthewind13 said: euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building. White Beard said: if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
HalfLight said: The argument that a regional event of anarchy would lead to a power vacuum that would replaced with some other form of governing hierarchy is self-defeating. If anarchy functions (by whatever standard anyone may place on functionality) before intervention by such an institution or group, then anarchy does work, and government is the failure, not anarchy itself. Try to observe not anarchy as the vacuum, but government. What anarchist group/event has committed genocide, dropped nukes, inflated currency, stole people's labour via taxation, halted innovation via regulation, and eliminated the human right to free travel via borders? One might use the Red Death during the Spanish Civil War to argue this, but George Orwell himself has stated that these mass-murders were directed and conducted by KGB agents that had infiltrated the resistance against Franco.
If any such societal vacuum does exist, it exists in the form of governing institutions, and aggressive militant groups.
It may be informative to take a look at the modern political structure of West Kurdistan as an example of anarchy/left libertarianism's success despite overwhelming odds and the negative impact of foreign nations' intervention in the region. On a basis of ratios, the Kurds are defending themselves from ISIS more successfully than the governments of Iraq and Syria, while maintaining a significantly more equitable society. Perhaps it will not last due to the intervention of these various violent governments (some of which have been trying to literally exterminate the Kurds for centuries), but the fact that it has lasted this long while maintaining autonomy and very loose centralization is a point of significance.
I dunno, I guess I'm of the opinion that, nine times out of ten, if there is an opportunity for an aspiring party or group to assume a power role over others -- if there is that opportunity -- it will be taken. I'm afraid I don't follow your notion that government exists as a vacuum. Over the long term, power structures will emerge in any civilized society. The Kurds are a fine example of what can happen, but as you say, it's a very precarious situation and likely to fall apart. And that's just what I'm talking about.
Humans being humans, if influence or power over others can be taken, it will be assumed by someone. That is true throughout history. I don't believe humans are evolved enough at this point to make intentional communities, or new egalitarian societies, work on a meaningful scale.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
beforethedawn said: Sort of a discussion also of human nature, isn't it? What are we really? How are we supposed to be?
If we are essentially perfect then we don't need governments. What is making us otherwise? Governing our lives - socially, materially, psychologically.
Good questions.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
Quote:
laughingdog said:
the very language we are using in this thread depends on strict rules to convey intelligible meaning.
even the brain is very ordered, when order vanishes things like epilepsy happen.
even cells obey rules, when they don't it's called cancer
even DNA obeys rules, when it doesn't we get genetic disease, mutations, 2 headed calves, death, etc.
even atoms have very specific structures, hence we have elements and chemistry
even space has rules (Only 17 wallpaper groups, 2 object can't occupy the same space etc.)
BUT of course excess rigidity is not the best way to do things, and kids learn language without school ... anyway ...
Theory aside, at this point, no way are the NSA, CIA, IRS, The FED, Police, WMF, KGB etc. going to pack their bags go home and say: 'sorry guys have a hippie party or join the Hell's Angels or gang bangers if you're feeling really nasty today.' Anit gonna happen. And how many political revolutions have ended up as tyrannies? Some worse than before...
|
HalfLight
.



Registered: 06/03/13
Posts: 2,322
Loc: Black Flag
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:
Quote:
HalfLight said: The argument that a regional event of anarchy would lead to a power vacuum that would replaced with some other form of governing hierarchy is self-defeating. If anarchy functions (by whatever standard anyone may place on functionality) before intervention by such an institution or group, then anarchy does work, and government is the failure, not anarchy itself. Try to observe not anarchy as the vacuum, but government. What anarchist group/event has committed genocide, dropped nukes, inflated currency, stole people's labour via taxation, halted innovation via regulation, and eliminated the human right to free travel via borders? One might use the Red Death during the Spanish Civil War to argue this, but George Orwell himself has stated that these mass-murders were directed and conducted by KGB agents that had infiltrated the resistance against Franco.
If any such societal vacuum does exist, it exists in the form of governing institutions, and aggressive militant groups.
It may be informative to take a look at the modern political structure of West Kurdistan as an example of anarchy/left libertarianism's success despite overwhelming odds and the negative impact of foreign nations' intervention in the region. On a basis of ratios, the Kurds are defending themselves from ISIS more successfully than the governments of Iraq and Syria, while maintaining a significantly more equitable society. Perhaps it will not last due to the intervention of these various violent governments (some of which have been trying to literally exterminate the Kurds for centuries), but the fact that it has lasted this long while maintaining autonomy and very loose centralization is a point of significance.
I dunno, I guess I'm of the opinion that, nine times out of ten, if there is an opportunity for an aspiring party or group to assume a power role over others -- if there is that opportunity -- it will be taken. I'm afraid I don't follow your notion that government exists as a vacuum. Over the long term, power structures will emerge in any civilized society. The Kurds are a fine example of what can happen, but as you say, it's a very precarious situation and likely to fall apart. And that's just what I'm talking about.
Humans being humans, if influence or power over others can be taken, it will be assumed by someone. That is true throughout history. I don't believe humans are evolved enough at this point to make intentional communities, or new egalitarian societies, work on a meaningful scale.
Man I Hate this site on mobile. How does one define a vacuum? By laws of geothermodynamics? Is a vacuum 0 degrees kelvin? Or is it simply a large force composed of smaller pieces trying to take away little bits of us one at a time? Either way, has absolute self-determination been the result of or resulted in violence? From where do you source this info? As far as actually defining "vacuum", see Hiroshima, where thousands had the atoms that their molecularly structured life-formes split by nuclear fission.
Sometimes, access to the vacuum is power, and thus power and the vacuum become synonymous.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
When I say vacuum, I mean that if one removed from society all of the authority structures, and all of the instruments of those structures, and erased all laws, almost immediately, new ones would begin to form. And they would very likely be more oppressive than the ones they replaced.
If there is the opportunity, in an anarchic situation, to gain power in some way, someone will inevitably take it. It only takes one bad apple to spoil the whole bunch.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
TameMe
Stranger



Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 2,734
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
|
|
why do you assume that a power vaccum would be open to be consumed by some greedy power?
do you not think people could collectively decide how to handle their affairs in local settings?
I think your assumptions are just that.....and are propagating things staying the same. i don't propose a mad maxx lawlessness...but i do believe if we were left to our own devices...people wouldn't degenerate to their worst and eat each other...we'd work together...
and eventually be a lot more efficient without middle man hierarchy and the few hording resources/power.
Edited by TameMe (09/14/16 09:03 PM)
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: anarchy [Re: TameMe]
#23645814 - 09/14/16 09:04 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
As I said, it only takes one bad apple to spoil the whole bunch. If anarchy worked there would be more of it.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
|