Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

not_Bezotcovschina wrote (edited )

When you are thinking about "justified hierarchies", please, think about who are justifying them. I'm pretty sure, that at some point of history, people were justifying monarchy and slavery.

If the people don't get to vote for what we want or say what we want to say, then how can this be an ideology for the common people?

Common people can say what they want and face consequences for their words without hiding behind the shield of "Free Speech". And, in the same manner, instead of voting for what they want, they can just do what they want and, again, face consequences for their actions.

Can I still be an anarchist if I support voting, democracy, freedom to speak and justified hierarchies?

No. It's not a gatekeeping or something. It's just against the whole definition of anarchy. I don't think you should worry about it too much - if it's not your cup of tea, then it would be healthy to stop clinging to it and enjoying being yourself without putting yourself into position you are uncomfortable to be in.

10

confusedarchist OP wrote

please, think about who are justifying them

Yes, exactly. That is how we tell the good from the bad hierarchies.

There are good hierarchies that don’t come from bad power structures. “Jack has a medical license” is a hierarchy, but it doesn’t create a power structure. “You should listen to Dr. Jack when he tells you to take your medicine” is kind of technically a power structure, but it’s both just and justified based solely on the actions and the relevant knowledge of one individual person who has studied for years to become a doctor, not generations of horded riches and power by Dr. Jack's family. For this reason a doctor is a just or good hierarchy, unlike a President, who is a very unjust or bad hierarchy because his power is not earned.

face consequences for their actions.

This is an argument for punishment / punitive justice over rehabilitative justice, which seems to me to be against my understanding of anarchism from Noam Chomsky, unless punitive justice is also something the raddle strain of anarchism promotes?

It's just against the whole definition of anarchy.

But why does this site get to decide what anarchism is for everyone? Every time I say what anarchism is in my opinion, all the people yell at me to read raddle and learn but the things on raddle aren't what I support, not at all. Hating free speech, democracy, rehabilitation and good hierarchies seems very reactionary to me.

1

ziq wrote

Doctoring is just a job, like baking or painting or plumbing or bicycle building. It's a skill that someone has learned and now chooses to share with their community. How does that create a hierarchy?

The only way a doctor becomes a hierarchy is if they're given power by an authority to force drugs or surgery on people who don't want them. If the doctor is forcing medical procedures on people against their will, then there's a hierarchy in place. Someone has created violent authority (most often a state) in order to force patients to submit to the will of the doctor.

If a doctor is just offering voluntary assistance, and patients can choose to refuse treatment if they want, that's not a hierarchy.

Telling people they have to leave your space because their bigoted rhetoric is harmful to you and your friends is not punitive justice. It's simple freedom of association. No one has a right to force themselves on others. If you won't respect people's boundaries then they have every right to ask you to leave their space.

Anarchy is a very simple, straight forward concept. "Against archy."

If you don't agree with that, then the logical action would be to not label yourself an anarchist, rather than try to subvert this very straightforward concept into something more in line with your pro-archy politics.

8

confusedarchist OP wrote

If a doctor is just offering voluntary assistance, and patients can choose to refuse treatment if they want, that's not a hierarchy.

But even if you agree to being treated, you're trusting Dr. Jack with your very life, so how can he not be a (good) hierarchy? Your life depends on him being good at his profession and not making a mistake that kills you. Your life is in his hands. I'm sorry but that's a hierarchy. A good one. It just is.

Another thing... What if the patient has coronavirus but refuses to quarantine? They'll need to be made to quarantine by Dr. Jack, correct? So this is another proof of good hierarchy because if Dr. Jack doesn't make the patient quarantine against his will, everyone will get sick... If the patient is refusing to be sensible, we have no choice, we have to use good hierarchy to make him stay inside, to protect the rest of the people in society.

If you won't respect people's boundaries then they have every right to ask you to leave their space.

That isn't very democratic though, is it? Who decided these people can throw me out? Who decided they have ownership of the place? Who gave them the authority to exclude me? Why should I listen to them? Who made them judge, jury and executioner and why is their opinion more important or valid than mine? Just because they say I'm a bigot? Who decides what qualifies as bigoted or what "respecting boundaries" means? What gives them the right to make these decision for everyone? Why should anyone follow their orders?

Anarchy is a very simple, straight forward concept. "Against archy."

But who defines what archy means or what to be against it means? You? Who gives you the authority to define words and to say who is and isn't an anarchist? Is Noam Chomsky not an anarchist according to raddle? A published professor with decades of experience in linguistics who has written more about politics than anyone of you? Why should we listen to raddle instead of him? Why is raddle smarter and more authoritative than the primary authority on modern anarchism who is world renowned?

If you don't agree with that, then the logical action would be to not label yourself an anarchist, rather than try to subvert this very straightforward concept into something more in line with your pro-archy politics.

You don't decide if my politics are proarchy, you don't have that right. Only I can decide if I'm an anarchist or a statist. It's not for you to label me. And I haven't decided yet.

2

ziq wrote

you're trusting Dr. Jack with your very life [...] Your life depends on him being good at his profession and not making a mistake that kills you. Your life is in his hands. I'm sorry but that's a hierarchy. A good one. It just is.

How is trust a hierarchy? I trust my partner not to murder me in my sleep. I trust a baker not to put sawdust in my pies. I trust a doctor to prescribe the right remedy to treat an illness. Trusting the various people you interact with to not kill you doesn't give them authority over you and it doesn't create hierarchy when you put your trust in them. You're basically claiming that mutual aid is hierarchy right now.

What if the patient has coronavirus but refuses to quarantine?

If someone is deliberately endangering the lives of others, like in this example where they're wilfully spreading a virus, then using force to stop them is not a hierarchy as long as there's no monopoly on violence involved.

I know if someone with covid was coughing on me, I'd fuck them up for it. That doesn't make me an authority, it just makes me someone who doesn't like being coughed on by some selfish arrogant dipshit who knows they should be isolating.

If I decide to use force to stop the person who's trying to infect people with a virus, and I ask for no backing from a structural power like a state, then how am I creating hierarchy? It's no different than me defending myself against a mugger. Are you gonna claim that's a hierarchy too?

The virus spreader is trying to do harm to me and mine, so me fighting back and stopping them from doing further harm is simply self defence. Defending myself and my people from being infected with covid doesn't make me an authority and it doesn't create hierarchy. No one pinned a badge on me and told me I have authority over anyone. I just decided, hey, this person is deliberately making people sick, putting lives in danger, so I'm gonna use some force to make sure they stay in bed for the next couple weeks. I don't suddenly become a cop because I laid some murderous asshole out.

That isn't very democratic though, is it? Who decided these people can throw me out?

See, this is why democracy can fuck right off. If people decide they don't want you in their house because you're a racist or whatever, you don't get to vote yourself in or dictate to them how to run their lives. It's their fucking house. You think you can just show up at the door and demand you be given entry? Well, tough shit. It's their house. So long as they're not laying claim to more space than they can personally use, or claiming ownership over a public resource that belongs to everyone, you should just stfu and let them be.

Who decided they have ownership of the place?

Personal property. If people live somewhere, it's their space. You don't get to move in without their say so.

Who gave them the authority to exclude me?

There is no authority stopping you from forcing yourself into their house and there is no authority stopping them from killing you for it. That's anarchy.

Why should I listen to them?

So they don't kill you for invading their personal space. It's a pretty good motivator.

Who decides what qualifies as bigoted or what "respecting boundaries" means?

They do. Their space, their rules.

What gives them the right to make these decision for everyone?

They're not making decisions for everyone, they're making decisions for themselves. They don't want you in their space. That's their decision.

Why should anyone follow their orders?

If you're an anarchist then you care about autonomy, freedom of association and self determination. That means you don't force yourself on people and invade their autonomy.

who defines what archy means or what to be against it means?

Anarchists do.

You?

For example.

Who gives you the authority to define words and to say who is and isn't an anarchist?

I never claimed to have any authority to do anything, but these words haven't been defined by me, they've been defined by generations of anarchists and by the evolution of language more generally. Whether or not my personal ideas about anarchy are accepted is up to other anarchists.

Is Noam Chomsky not an anarchist according to raddle?

I'd say that's a fair assessment of the general sentiment here.

A published professor with decades of experience in linguistics who has written more about politics than anyone of you?

You sure are assigning the guy a lot of authority right now. Seems to fly in the face of the point you're trying to make.

Why should we listen to raddle instead of him?

No one has a gun to your head.

Why is raddle smarter and more authoritative than the primary authority on modern anarchism who is world renowned?

The authority on anarchy? Are you trolling or what?

You don't decide if my politics are proarchy, you don't have that right. Only I can decide if I'm an anarchist or a statist. It's not for you to label me. And I haven't decided yet.

If I think you're not an anarchist, I'll say you're not an anarchist. Not really much you can do about it. Words mean things and if you appropriate words that I value and try to corrupt them or water them down, I'll speak up because that's who I am.

7

HelpOthers wrote

If OP is serious about the post, I honestly think they might just be figuring out what they believe.

It might be that they were introduced to the idea of anarchy from Noam and it interested them. From the way I see it, they are trying to fit what they used to believe (taught to believe) in with these new ideas and are likely dealing with cognitive dissonance from their paradoxes. From their vocabulary, it sounds like they grew up in a family that held/holds traditional, American, conservative values. Although, I could be wrong.

They seemed a little upset— especially in the paragraph of questions— so I appreciate your level-headed responses to OP’s questions.

6

ziq wrote

1st time I've been called level headed.

3

mofongo wrote

That isn't very democratic though, is it? Who decided these people can throw me out? Who decided they have ownership of the place? Who gave them the authority to exclude me? Why should I listen to them? Who made them judge, jury and executioner and why is their opinion more important or valid than mine? Just because they say I'm a bigot? Who decides what qualifies as bigoted or what "respecting boundaries" means? What gives them the right to make these decision for everyone? Why should anyone follow their orders?

If a group of people tells you to GTFO, it's democratic, they decided as a group they don't want you with them. If you stick around, they will make you leave one way or another. This is something one should know by high school on experience alone.

6

nadir wrote (edited )

But who defines what archy means or what to be against it means? You? Who gives you the authority to define words and to say who is and isn't an anarchist?

Languages grow and change based on how they are used. All it takes is to convince any number of people to use words your way, but good luck getting people to work with any definition of 'anarchy' that doesn't relate to the words 'an' and 'archy', you'll probably have to convince people to redefine those too...

Is Noam Chomsky not an anarchist according to raddle?

Well you'll have to ask the official raddle spokesperson for their take on that, but as a long time raddle user (registered 5 days ago) I can share my two cents:

Noam Chomsky has many opinions that differ significantly from the ideas of other people who call themselves anarchists. Does that make him not an anarchist?
He does call himself an anarchist, but I call myself all sorts of flattering things and it doesn't really change much...

Even marxists would hesitate to call him a marxist as of 2020, but back in the day Chomsky's ideas would have positioned him amongst many people who identify as marxists. So does that make him a marxist?

A published professor with decades of experience in linguistics who has written more about politics than anyone of you? Why is raddle smarter and more authoritative than the primary authority on modern anarchism who is world renowned?

For such a "primary author on modern anarchism" he seems to have written very little on the subject...

See this very critical summary of Chomsky's writing on that topic.

Why should we listen to raddle instead of him?

Just listen to both and then make your own mind up.

I think it's fair to say that Chomsky is not an anarchist and 'anarchy' does mean 'against archy'.

6

[deleted] wrote (edited )

8

_caspar_ wrote (edited )

Indeed. he is a democratic socialist sympathetic to syndicalism.

5

confusedarchist OP wrote

That doesn't mean he's not an anarchist, just that he doesn't claim to be some kind of expert.

1

HelpOthers wrote

but as a long time raddle user (registered 5 days ago) I can share my two cents:

I fucking lost it. Thanks for the laugh

5

confusedarchist OP wrote

the official raddle spokesperson for their take on that

Who is that?

does that make him a marxist?

Yes, but I think you have to be a Marxist to be an anarchist. Both are necessary.

2

nadir wrote

But even if you agree to being treated, you're trusting Dr. Jack with your very life, so how can he not be a (good) hierarchy?

The term 'hierarchy' seems to be a point of confusion here. Maybe we could use the term 'systemically enforced power'* and then you would not be able to say that the doctor has any systemically enforced power over the patient.

So is there such a thing as a "good systemically enforced power"?

I'd say no.

* I don't stand by this term because I just threw it in there now, and it may well be horribly flawed, but hopefully it is ok for the point I'm trying to make.

6

[deleted] wrote (edited )

7

confusedarchist OP wrote

Until quite recently, in Ireland, when there were complications during birth and the doctor had to choose between saving the baby or the mother, the doctor was invested with that authority based on the religious values of that particular hospital. Countless women were killed with no choice in the matter.

It can be justified to put the baby first because it's younger / more innocent and has more years to live. I don't think it's religious values, it's just logic. The doctor has to make a choice between two lives and if he does the math, saving the baby is probably the answer. The bible doesn't say babies are more important than mothers, so it's not a Christian question.

1

not_Bezotcovschina wrote (edited )

About your example with Dr. Jack: that's not a hierarchy.

If I have an illness, and a person with a medical diploma are telling me to do X, and a person without one are telling me to do Y, then, most likely, I will do X, because I'm relying on Dr. Jack's expertise, but doctor have zero power over me. It's not a power structure, nor it's a hierarchy.

This is an argument for punishment / punitive justice over rehabilitative justice

Consequences could be in a form of rehabilitative justice, why not?

punitive justice is also something the raddle strain of anarchism promotes

We aren't ideologically monolithic here. What you have read on wiki - is just a view of a specific person. It might or might not reflect views of other raddle users. However, I'm admiting that, personally for me, for an easy example, punching nazi in a face is more preferable then engaging in a rehabilitative justice, and I'm happily promoting this.

But why does this site get to decide what anarchism is for everyone?

Ok, fuck it, who am I to stop you? Call yourself an anarchist, but prepare to be mocked at any occasion.

EDIT:

Every time I say what anarchism is in my opinion, all the people yell at me to read raddle and learn

People are yelling at a confused person: "Read raddle!" There is something... satisfying in this.

5

confusedarchist OP wrote

If I have an illness, and a person with a medical diploma are telling me to do X, and a person without one are telling me to do Y, then, most likely, I will do X, because I'm relying on Dr. Jack's expertise, but doctor have zero power over me. It's not a power structure, nor it's a hierarchy.

That's pure idiocy. If you are trusting Dr. Jack because he knows more than you, then that's a hierarchy. You admit he is your superior.

Consequences could be in a form of rehabilitative justice, why not?

Because speech / democratic will shouldn't be something that is illegal and policed. We shouldn't be punished for saying what we think or for participating in the democratic process.

Ok, fuck it, who am I to stop you? Call yourself an anarchist, but prepare to be mocked at any occasion.

That's not very anarchist either, bullying someone for refusing to conform to reactionary ideology that is anti freedom.

3

polpotisevil2 wrote

We shouldn't be punished for saying what we think or for participating in the democratic process.

You realize the democratic process is punishing people right? Those who disagree with the outcome or are otherwise alienated by the process?

So why would someone who is subject to an authority, "democratic" or not, fighting against that authority, be somehow not anarchist to you?

As has been stated by others, if you don't like what anarchy is stop trying to appropriate and cling to the term anarchist, because it only pisses us off. In the end, if your idealistic society ever was reached, we'd still be fighting against your "anarchist" "democratic" process, by any means necessary.

6

confusedarchist OP wrote

If they disagree they are free to, but the will of the people has to be paramount. If they don't respect the democratic process they can leave the society.

Maybe you guys are the ones clinging to the term anarchist when you're not since you hate democracy so much.

−2

polpotisevil2 wrote

Herein lies the problem. You are someone who believes in the "will of the people" and "democracy" and don't give a shit about those marginalized by it. Leave the society, to what? The other "democratic" societies? That's a pointless endeavor.

Democracy is irrelevant to anarchy

Let me ask you this, what books, documentaries, or people other than a noam chomsky interview have you read, watched, or listened to about anarchism?

8

Bezotcovschina wrote (edited )

If you are trusting Dr. Jack because he knows more than you, then that's a hierarchy.

It's just trust, no? If I trust my partner to watch my back while I'm a torching prosecutor's car, this doesn't mean they have a hierarchy over me or making them my superior. Same with doctors. Please, give me your definition of hierarchy.

We shouldn't be punished for saying what we think or for participating in the democratic process.

False. If I'll find your words or actions harmful - then I'll use any means necessary to stop you. Preferably, restorative. That's what anarchy is for me.

That's not very anarchist either, bullying someone for refusing to conform to reactionary ideology that is anti freedom.

Fucking nerd.

5

nadir wrote (edited )

Speech / democratic will shouldn't be something that is illegal and policed.

What is being said about free speech here is two things:

  • What you call 'free speech' is actually far from free.
  • People should not be forced to put up with verbal abuse. So a universal rule making all verbal abusers immune from being held accountable is a bad idea.

Do you disagree with either of those points?

4

confusedarchist OP wrote

Yes of course. Free speech is absolutely free. It's the freedom to say what you want without being persecuted. It's the most basic freedom we have.

You don't have to put up with verbal abuse, you can just leave the conversation if you don't like what I'm saying.

2

onymous wrote

Meant to add this when I first saw this thread. In addition to what others have said, doctoring is also deeply flawed, and it's because of its existence as an authoritarian institution that alienates one from their own body. See the tag #DoctorsAreDickheads on Twitter for firsthand accounts from primarily disabled people

2

ziq wrote

personally i go to an unlicensed doc who works out of the back of his van. says he had the grades to get into medical school but he had too much shit to do

3