Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

OdiousOutlaw wrote (edited )

I genuinely don't understand how the absence of rulership would = order.

Order requires some form of overseer(s) to judge whether or not society is arranged in the way it's "supposed" to be (an arrogant position in of itself; the policing of the lives and intercourse between a given group of people), which will lead to the necessity of policing "errant elements" in order to enforce and preserve order, otherwise the overseer(s) would be seen as "equal" to its subjects, which would make their suppositions "opinions"; subjective, relative and therefor meaningless to the "errant element".

Even if you hyper-specify the definition of "order" to mean harmony, your goal would be to eliminate all dissent and enforce conformity; sure, you can hide behind anti-fascist rhetoric to this end, but at what point does disagreement become too adjacent to discord ("disorder", "chaos", what-have-you)? When do I become a fascist, who determines that I am, and what makes them better at determining that than myself? What if I don't agree with how the majority of people do things? What if, rather than stew about it impotently, I decide to do something about it (or at least, disrupt it in a way that grants me a catharsis)? Do meekly submit to the authority of mob rule or do I get to actually exercise some actual autonomy and take action to do what I will? Must the disadvantaged continue to rely on the "tender mercies" of the majority in order to live their lives? Do we continue under farcical trials and systems derived, if not outright taken, from those crafted by the oppressive society we had torn down for being too authoritarian and corrupt?

Order is familiar; it's secure; but that just means that it's reliant on a lack of meaningful change.

5

ziq OP wrote (edited )

their ideology presupposes that order will be created by the collective i.e. everybody will use democracy to rule everybody. nothing will be legal unless the collective (the new government) consents

Do we continue under farcical trials and systems derived, if not outright taken, from those crafted by the oppressive society we had torn down for being too authoritarian and corrupt?

yes, but we rename them and restructure them so we can pretend they're something else

5

OdiousOutlaw wrote

their ideology presupposes that order will be created by the collective

See, that's the thing, though; I'm too many minorities at once to believe that this will do me any good!

yes, but we rename them and restructure them so we can pretend they're something else

"It's not 'neo-colonialist extractivism', it's 'Global anarcho-communist resource distribution', besides we're giving them jobs!"

I'm sure after decades of exploiting the brown people under the red-black regime, we'll eventually have the means to get rare metals from rocks in outer space, somehow.

5

kin wrote

I used to think that "Anarchy is Order" would mean something as abstract as the Liberal Invisible Hand of the Market, that somehow Order is the fundamental state of the Human Spirit.

That's some hopeful thinking originating from all the positivism and the whole 19th century philosophy. We used to think in abstractions like human civilization in the brink of total domination of the future, the engineering of society and Anarchist from that period bought this ideology the same way we indulge ourselves with pessimistic apocalyptic blues nowadays.

Remember Circle A, when the explanation is that the circle is Anarchy contained by the circle/letter O(rder).

Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution - is the opposite os social darwinism but with the same kind of arguments.

On the other hand we have source and individuals that keep challenging these notions.

2