But you do get to participate in those decisions. We are a troupe species, after all.
Anarchism has suffered centuries of propaganda convincing people that it is synonymous with unregulated chaos, rather than more organized than authoritarian schemes. If someone shits in the water, you and all the other people who rely on that water can rightfully observe that that person is impinging on your freedoms and security, and can deal with it using the endless decision making process you’re required to have to get things done in your region.
Freedom is absolutely relative, not relatively absolute. It’s defined and negotiated, not subject to impulse and ego. Under anarchism, you are not free to attack, or shit in drinking water.
It’s funny because it’s wrong in an uninformed way, or at least an oversimplified way that expresses the common irritation of having to work with other people.
A community can collectively decide on rules, and collectively decide how to enforce those rules. If someone is harming the community and will not stop when asked, the community can decide to forcibly eject that person from the community.
Yes. The difference between our current system and Anarchism is that it is much, much harder to create a system that does not benefit the everyone, since the people who are usually negatively effected by the whims of corporations or centralized power would now have the ability to directly have a say in how their local community decides on rules and how to enforce them.
There would also be no wealthy elites who can influence things, as there would be no mechanism or ability for an individual to accumulate vast resources or wealth.
But isn’t this going to create issues for minority if what its members want is reasonable but inconveniences the majority? I don’t want to come up with a specific example, but something like improved accessibility for a disabled person that requires resources and may be seen as unnecessary by most comes to mind
Afaik it’s one of the issues with democracy: how to define what is good for everyone when people have conflicting interests and groups are disproportionate
Sounds reasonable as you’ve written it. I do worry about people’s over willingness to bend the knee, especially when they’re frightened or angry. It seems like someone with a strong personality could convince people to go along with stuff that benefits him more than them. But, no system is immune to bad actors and idiots.
But, no system is immune to bad actors and idiots.
Agreed. Though I think it would be particularly difficult for a strongman or strong personality to take hold in an Anarchist society.
If it was successfully implemented, and everyone is now receiving free housing, food, healthcare, public transport, and education all in exchange for 2 to 3 months of voluntary work (the rest being free time), I think it would be exceptionally difficult to convince that populace that actually they should actually go back to the old way where they work for him all year in exchange for some paper that would then give you access to those things which you already have for free.
I just think it would be almost impossible to put that genie back in the bottle, just as it would’ve been almost impossible for medieval kings and lords to bring back serfdom after mercantilism/capitalism was established.
If no, then your democratic council/process has a monopoly on violence,
That would depend on how that local community collectively decides to operate. Most would likely opt for community consensus for something so serious, where an individual cannot forcibly eject someone from the community if there is not community consensus.
and the question arises what differentiates it from a state.
A state is a centralized hierarchy of power that operates in a top-down structure, where the people at the top of the hierarchy have the ultimate say on what happens to those at the bottom of the hierarchy.
Anarchism’s goal is to decentralize power and make any societal structures as horizontal as possible. A local community would have final say on things that effect that local community, and if there are any people elected by a community to participate in a larger federated structure, that elected person is able to be immediately re-callable by the community that elected them if they fail at performing the duties they were tasked with. They would also be elected as a Delegate, not a Representative.
Delegation, in contrast to representation, stresses that the purpose of the delegate is instrumental. The delegate acts like a rubber belt connecting two gears; they are simply a tool for the exchange of force and influence between two greater bodies. They are not the component that creates or directs force, but only act only to guide it. The relationship of the delegate to the organization is like one of a secretary. Naturally, delegates are often just called secretaries, or the more popular, “secretariat.” They are in a relationship where they take their direction from the whole – not where they direct the whole.
Representation is the opposite. It is a system where the representative who presents the interests of their people is in full power. The delegate is seen simply as a means for directing the ideas of one group to another. It is something that can be fulfilled by anyone The representative is someone who makes the decision of what ideas the group should have altogether. It is something that requires political parties, party elections, general elections, campaigning, and an exquisite ability to measure the honesty and integrity of the candidates.
When a society prospers or suffers, blame or praise always go to the organizing force that directed it. Within Delegation, that blame or praise goes to the common people, who must live with their mistakes, or be elevated by their willingness to change. Within Representation, that blame or praise goes to the politician, who is so far removed from the people, that whether they’re guilty or not won’t change the situation the people are in. One system focuses on the people as the guardians of their own welfare; the other focuses on a single person to be the guardians of all.
There is more to it than simply stating that the Delegate can make no decisions and stating that the Representative can make decisions. Both of these systems have developed their own institutions for encouraging either the Authoritarian or Libertarian trends as they see fit. Within Delegation, for example, a delegate can be removed at any time, for any reason and for no reason. Since they are simply the carrier of the group’s demands, it is for the group to decide who is best at any moment for this purpose. Removing a delegate, then, is like reworking the positions of the laborers in the factory – a purely technical matter.
The Representative does not have this fear, however, of “Recall.” The Representatives of nations, from Germany to Russia to the United States to France to Britain, have always plunged their people into wars, concentration camps, and forced labor – and yet, one could be assured almost, that such miserable conquests never would have started, if these were simple delegates, and not representatives, of the people.
The Representative was elected, whereas many delegates some delegates are elected and others are chosen by random ballot. At the start of one of these imperial wars, like the Boer War or any number of the Moroccan Wars, the representative had survived party elections, regional elections, and finally, a national election. Imagine if one of their voters said, “Actually, we don’t like your ideas now, and we want someone else to carry our interests to other nations, because war is not our interest.” The representative could point to a thousand courts that would stand up for them and a million soldiers with bayonets for anyone who would still disagree.
That would depend on how that local community collectively decides to operate. Most would likely opt for community consensus for something so serious, where an individual cannot forcibly eject someone from the community if there is not community consensus.
The question of majority vs. supermajority is not the question; the question is whether that process is the only means by which the society accepts casting one of their own out.
A state is a centralized hierarchy of power that operates in a top-down structure, where the people at the top of the hierarchy have the ultimate say on what happens to those at the bottom of the hierarchy.
In which case most modern states aren’t states at all.
Delegation, in contrast to representation, stresses that the purpose of the delegate is instrumental. The delegate acts like a rubber belt connecting two gears; they are simply a tool for the exchange of force and influence between two greater bodies. They are not the component that creates or directs force, but only act only to guide it. The relationship of the delegate to the organization is like one of a secretary.
Okay, but do you not realize this is how representatives in extant systems have defined themselves since time immemorial?
What makes this incarnation different?
Representation is the opposite. It is a system where the representative who presents the interests of their people is in full power. The delegate is seen simply as a means for directing the ideas of one group to another. It is something that can be fulfilled by anyone The representative is someone who makes the decision of what ideas the group should have altogether.
Again, that’s nowhere near how most representatives or representative systems would describe themselves, or, realistically, be described.
It is something that requires political parties, party elections, general elections, campaigning, and an exquisite ability to measure the honesty and integrity of the candidates.
And… you don’t find that elections, campaigns, measuring honesty or integrity of candidates, or political tribalism is something anarchist society will have to deal with?
When a society prospers or suffers, blame or praise always go to the organizing force that directed it. Within Delegation, that blame or praise goes to the common people, who must live with their mistakes, or be elevated by their willingness to change.
You do realize that’s the exact argument we use today in representative democracies, and most people shrug it off like water off a duck’s back, right?
Within Representation, that blame or praise goes to the politician, who is so far removed from the people, that whether they’re guilty or not won’t change the situation the people are in.
And why would the people not scapegoat their delegate for any issue they felt sufficient guilt about? “It wasn’t explained clear enough, that wasn’t what we meant (and you can’t prove it was), we only meant it under very specific conditions, etc”
What is the difference, practically speaking, other than the Representative is now the PEOPLE’S Representative? And yes, that’s intentionally invoking the coat-of-paint used by ML societies. Not to equate this anarchist polity proposed with MLs, but to point out that, just as MLs often dress up their structures as though they’re new and innovative, oftentimes all they are is fundamentally the old structure with all of its previously flaws and failings - only now those flaws and failings are considered ‘politically incorrect’ to address.
One system focuses on the people as the guardians of their own welfare; the other focuses on a single person to be the guardians of all.
… that’s generally the exact opposite of how representative democracy describes itself, and, again, works.
There is more to it than simply stating that the Delegate can make no decisions and stating that the Representative can make decisions. Both of these systems have developed their own institutions for encouraging either the Authoritarian or Libertarian trends as they see fit. Within Delegation, for example, a delegate can be removed at any time, for any reason and for no reason. Since they are simply the carrier of the group’s demands, it is for the group to decide who is best at any moment for this purpose. Removing a delegate, then, is like reworking the positions of the laborers in the factory – a purely technical matter.
… you do realize that many modern polities have recall elections available for any reason, right?
The Representative does not have this fear, however, of “Recall.” The Representatives of nations, from Germany to Russia to the United States to France to Britain, have always plunged their people into wars, concentration camps, and forced labor – and yet, one could be assured almost, that such miserable conquests never would have started, if these were simple delegates, and not representatives, of the people.
In what fucking way? Other than pointing out that many polities which do have instant recall even for the executive still plunge into wars and genocide, in what way does the ‘delegate’ stop people from making self-destructive decisions? Fuck, man, the Iraq War, unjust as it was, had, what, 80% approval in the general population when it started? Whose use of recall was going to unscrew that pooch?
The Representative was elected, whereas many delegates some delegates are elected and others are chosen by random ballot. At the start of one of these imperial wars, like the Boer War or any number of the Moroccan Wars, the representative had survived party elections, regional elections, and finally, a national election. Imagine if one of their voters said, “Actually, we don’t like your ideas now, and we want someone else to carry our interests to other nations, because war is not our interest.” The representative could point to a thousand courts that would stand up for them and a million soldiers with bayonets for anyone who would still disagree.
You do realize that most wars are not started in the face of overwhelming popular opposition, right?
Then a large effort is collectively undertaken to discover where the education and communication sectors failed so spectacularly, and a program to find out what is really bugging these folk, and see if they still want to participate in the system.
A large effort undertaken by whom though? The water-drinkers are presumably the only people who care. And what’s stopping the water-shitters from counter-“education” (falsities and propaganda)?
Don’t take this as “I’m just asking questions”. I mean, I am, but I’m not making any arguments or anything, I legitimately don’t understand how anarchism as a system works. How is it distinct from a direct democracy, if it is?
But you do get to participate in those decisions. We are a troupe species, after all.
Anarchism has suffered centuries of propaganda convincing people that it is synonymous with unregulated chaos, rather than more organized than authoritarian schemes. If someone shits in the water, you and all the other people who rely on that water can rightfully observe that that person is impinging on your freedoms and security, and can deal with it using the endless decision making process you’re required to have to get things done in your region.
Freedom is absolutely relative, not relatively absolute. It’s defined and negotiated, not subject to impulse and ego. Under anarchism, you are not free to attack, or shit in drinking water.
So do I get to make their decisions for them or not?
If yes, the original post is faulty.
If no, they shit in the water.
I expect the original post is faulty because it’s a meme trying to be funny.
It’s funny because it’s wrong in an uninformed way, or at least an oversimplified way that expresses the common irritation of having to work with other people.
A community can collectively decide on rules, and collectively decide how to enforce those rules. If someone is harming the community and will not stop when asked, the community can decide to forcibly eject that person from the community.
So, yes, I (with enough backing of the community) do get to tell hypothetical-you that you can’t shit in the drinking water.
Yes. The difference between our current system and Anarchism is that it is much, much harder to create a system that does not benefit the everyone, since the people who are usually negatively effected by the whims of corporations or centralized power would now have the ability to directly have a say in how their local community decides on rules and how to enforce them.
There would also be no wealthy elites who can influence things, as there would be no mechanism or ability for an individual to accumulate vast resources or wealth.
But isn’t this going to create issues for minority if what its members want is reasonable but inconveniences the majority? I don’t want to come up with a specific example, but something like improved accessibility for a disabled person that requires resources and may be seen as unnecessary by most comes to mind
Afaik it’s one of the issues with democracy: how to define what is good for everyone when people have conflicting interests and groups are disproportionate
Sounds reasonable as you’ve written it. I do worry about people’s over willingness to bend the knee, especially when they’re frightened or angry. It seems like someone with a strong personality could convince people to go along with stuff that benefits him more than them. But, no system is immune to bad actors and idiots.
Agreed. Though I think it would be particularly difficult for a strongman or strong personality to take hold in an Anarchist society.
If it was successfully implemented, and everyone is now receiving free housing, food, healthcare, public transport, and education all in exchange for 2 to 3 months of voluntary work (the rest being free time), I think it would be exceptionally difficult to convince that populace that actually they should actually go back to the old way where they work for him all year in exchange for some paper that would then give you access to those things which you already have for free.
I just think it would be almost impossible to put that genie back in the bottle, just as it would’ve been almost impossible for medieval kings and lords to bring back serfdom after mercantilism/capitalism was established.
Can anyone else decide to forcibly eject a person from the community?
If no, then your democratic council/process has a monopoly on violence, and the question arises what differentiates it from a state.
If yes, that raises many more questions.
That would depend on how that local community collectively decides to operate. Most would likely opt for community consensus for something so serious, where an individual cannot forcibly eject someone from the community if there is not community consensus.
A state is a centralized hierarchy of power that operates in a top-down structure, where the people at the top of the hierarchy have the ultimate say on what happens to those at the bottom of the hierarchy.
Anarchism’s goal is to decentralize power and make any societal structures as horizontal as possible. A local community would have final say on things that effect that local community, and if there are any people elected by a community to participate in a larger federated structure, that elected person is able to be immediately re-callable by the community that elected them if they fail at performing the duties they were tasked with. They would also be elected as a Delegate, not a Representative.
The question of majority vs. supermajority is not the question; the question is whether that process is the only means by which the society accepts casting one of their own out.
In which case most modern states aren’t states at all.
Okay, but do you not realize this is how representatives in extant systems have defined themselves since time immemorial?
What makes this incarnation different?
Again, that’s nowhere near how most representatives or representative systems would describe themselves, or, realistically, be described.
And… you don’t find that elections, campaigns, measuring honesty or integrity of candidates, or political tribalism is something anarchist society will have to deal with?
You do realize that’s the exact argument we use today in representative democracies, and most people shrug it off like water off a duck’s back, right?
And why would the people not scapegoat their delegate for any issue they felt sufficient guilt about? “It wasn’t explained clear enough, that wasn’t what we meant (and you can’t prove it was), we only meant it under very specific conditions, etc”
What is the difference, practically speaking, other than the Representative is now the PEOPLE’S Representative? And yes, that’s intentionally invoking the coat-of-paint used by ML societies. Not to equate this anarchist polity proposed with MLs, but to point out that, just as MLs often dress up their structures as though they’re new and innovative, oftentimes all they are is fundamentally the old structure with all of its previously flaws and failings - only now those flaws and failings are considered ‘politically incorrect’ to address.
… that’s generally the exact opposite of how representative democracy describes itself, and, again, works.
… you do realize that many modern polities have recall elections available for any reason, right?
In what fucking way? Other than pointing out that many polities which do have instant recall even for the executive still plunge into wars and genocide, in what way does the ‘delegate’ stop people from making self-destructive decisions? Fuck, man, the Iraq War, unjust as it was, had, what, 80% approval in the general population when it started? Whose use of recall was going to unscrew that pooch?
You do realize that most wars are not started in the face of overwhelming popular opposition, right?
… right…?
What if the water-shitters out-number the water-drinkers? This is a question about covid-19
Then a large effort is collectively undertaken to discover where the education and communication sectors failed so spectacularly, and a program to find out what is really bugging these folk, and see if they still want to participate in the system.
A large effort undertaken by whom though? The water-drinkers are presumably the only people who care. And what’s stopping the water-shitters from counter-“education” (falsities and propaganda)?
Don’t take this as “I’m just asking questions”. I mean, I am, but I’m not making any arguments or anything, I legitimately don’t understand how anarchism as a system works. How is it distinct from a direct democracy, if it is?
What if the water-drinkers out-number the water-shitters, but the water-shitters are the ones in control? This is a question about democracy
Then you are no longer talking about anarchism. Different thread.
edit: [email protected] seems pretty dead… for now.