db0

db0 wrote

There's always going to be some coercion involved to make people fit into the standards a community has decided for themselves. Peer-pressure is the most natural and inescapable. I.e. it happens anyway, all the time, regardless of systems.

But feel free to suggest a better alternative if you have one.

1

db0 wrote (edited )

But look at all the infighting we do as anarchists everyday. You're saying I shouldn't even be an admin on an anarchist site because you define authority differently than I do. We don't have real reason to conflict, yet somehow we manage to do it anyway. How many anarchists do you honestly get along with? There's very few I get along with tbh.

You misunderstood: I wondered why you admin an anarchist forum when you seemed to reject anarhy as an end goal :)

And we're still within a capitalist society, talking in a privileged format about armchair subjects. People who organize in meatspace tend to be much more cooperative and that work itself, feeds their sense of fulfillment, making them want more of it. I'm sure you already have experience with this.

Sure, but when you're applying 'anarchist society' to 7 billion people, who's to say they'll all be good anarchists? They could end up being the kind of anarchists that consider cops to be a 'justified authority'. And then you have an 'anarchist society' that has cops, prisons and a state because a bunch of clowns decided those things are justified.

*No! You still didn't get what I'm saying! Alright look I am getting too distracted by my obsessive mental need to correct wrong assumptions about my position, so I'm going to stop here, for my own sanity. OK? I've already burned though the whole day almost constantly distracted and refreshing this discussion, so it's getting unhealthy for me.

I don't think humans are inherently evil. I think there is no human nature. Everyone is different.

There are some common things that are evolutionary hard-wired into our brains though. Surely you acknowledge that?

0

db0 wrote

If you declare you've achieved anarchy then you're basically announcing you've retired from the struggle, and will just ignore all further authority that pops up because authority no longer exists in your mind because we have an anarchist society now.

I don't agree with this, but let's agree to disagree for now because this has gone on too long, aight? :)

You have faith in humanity and you're hoping for the best, which is great, but my cynical ass is not so convinced humans will do the logical thing when so many people crave the high of power.

Yeah, as I said, this is usually the core disagreement if you really get down to it. However experience shows us that humans change their characteristics according to their environment and have an innate rejection of inequality. So you don't have to convince people to do the logical thing. You just have to convince them that some specific forms of praxis work best for their benefit, and we already know that those praxis tends to radicalize.

I'm also not convinced the anarchist way of thinking is the default after seeing how selfish, cruel and spiteful small children can be when they haven't even experienced the horrors of the world yet.

You'd be surprised how early children pick things up.

Sorry, I did my best to understand what you were saying.

It's cool. Look if you're not sure what I really suggest, it's better to ask me to clarify than to put words in my mouth :)

1

db0 wrote (edited )

yeah, of course, but mutual aid is a core part of anarchism but not the only directive. C'mon now.

Look, our anarchistic tribal ancestors fucked each other up until they discovered agriculture and allowed a state to develop because they didn't actually have any understanding of why oppression and hierarchies are bad.

We do have that understanding and it's a core part of anarchist theory. Therefore anarchists would not have a reason to conflict with other anarchists by definition! If they would, then they wouldn't be anarchists because they go against anarchist theory! Such people would not achieve an anarchist revolution in the first place, but would likely just remain within capitalism or other oppressive systems.

Honestly, I don't even know what we're arguing anymore at this point. I think our core disagreement comes down to the classic "human nature" thing, where you think humans are inherently evil and need constant supervision to not fuck everything up, and I think humans are inherently good and need constant conditioning from childbirth to go against it.

1

db0 wrote

Because of the discoveries of anthropology on how early humans tended to organize. Because extreme cooperation is the most beneficial tactic in nature.Because of historical examples of how much violence was required to force societal structures to accept hierarchical authorities and they still never achieved it completely. Because the human brain instinctively rejects inequality.

0

db0 wrote (edited )

The difference in opinion we're having is really very simple. I don't believe people can be controlled or defined by the society construct they're boxed into, I don't believe they will always act as they're expected to act just because they exist in a self-proclaimed ancom society. You think them being in that society is all it takes to ensure liberation happens; that communism is a permanent cure for all of the planet's ills. I don't. I don't believe people can be controlled by ideology or society or "revolution". Revolution isn't a goal you achieve one day, and everyone is immediately free - it's a neverending process.

Nah, you still don't get it. I claim that the society will only turn anarchistic if via the struggles to improve our lives (and avoid ecological disaster) people radicalize enough via their own struggles to start using anarchist praxis (i.e. mutual aid & direct action in a horizontal power structure) because it works. If enough people start doing this within capitalism, then capitalism itself will collapse due to its inherent instability and if we manage to survive the counter-revolution, we will have an anarchist society.

The people who are still clinging to hierarchical and oppressive norms, will by definition at this point be in the minority, at which point they will either discard their existing way of thinking, or be ostracized. With the former being the most likely due to peer-pressure. Historical examples back me up on this, even in their nascent forms.

Once at this point, of course, society will further evolve their structure to match current issues they face (ecological or social), so in that sense, yes, anarchism is a perpetual movement which will evolve, but nevertheless, as long as the society is using a majority anarchist praxis, then it will condition people to enforce those norms, because this is the natural way for humans to live happily.

Humans instinctively reject hierarchies and unjust authorities which is why capitalism and religion requires conditioning from childhood to accept (and it required immense violence to enforce in the first place), and you still have a buncha anarchists popping up regardless.

Your anarchy is a clear singular goal - a communist society where you grant authority and control to people you think deserve it using democracy.

I keep telling you that you're just assuming what I believe and you keep missing the mark.

2

db0 wrote (edited )

lol what the fuck. are sex slaves not a type of slave in the modern understanding of the word?

Man I fucking knew y'all were going to get hung up on this particular quote. Look, in a theoretical hunter-gatherer society which is patriarchical and does raids for "sex slaves" (which is a big-ass theory, as early human societies tended to be polygamous and matriarchical with little reasons to raid others for "sex slaves"), these women would not be able top be kept in captivity because they would need to work as much as everyone else to produce enough to survive on, because that lifestyle required everyone pulling their own weight. In that context, they would not even be "sex slaves" in the first place. But again, this is a fucking ridiculous scenario made out of patriachic-as-fuck context with little to no regard for actual anthropology. But very good at doing "gotcha"s

I think the question is how're you going to decide whether your trade partner is or isn't anarchist? I think ziq is interpreting this as "if they call themselves anarchist" but I don't think you're suggesting this, so how would you know? are you going to send someone to investigate?

Yes? I mean, shit's not nuclear science. It's not like human exploitation can be hidden when you're supposed to be an anarchist society.

0

db0 wrote (edited )

I've researched and written in depth about both Russia and China's failed attempts to establish communism.

And yet you claim that it was an anarchist failing...So you blatantly disregard how in Russia that the chaos of the World War and the inexperience with Authoritarian forms of Socialism led the soviets to accept Leninist rule and how Anarchists were slaughtered for opposing it?

7 billion people aren't going to act in unison to put some dead man's theory into practice exactly as he envisioned. In the real world, theory doesn't play out the way it does on paper because people are unpredictable and impossible to control.

That's why anarchists don't suggest everyone to learn of the "good way" and then start doing it at the same. This is what you expect however since you think you can somehow convince 7 billion people to choose death for some primmie ideals...

Anarchists actually propose changing people via praxis. By using organizations that actually improve their lives and in the process radicalize them.

Anarchy literally mean "against authority". It's baffling to me that any anarchist would be pro-authority or try to redefine authority into something positive.

Anarchism literally means "without leaders", which effectively means "no hierarchical authority". Not to mention that political theories are not defined by dictionary.

The first slaves were women captured during raids by non-agrarian tribes. They raided settlements, killed the men and took the women and children.

Those women/men/children were not slaves in the modern understanding of the word as that was literally impossible due to the realities of subsistence hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

You by assuming anarchists in some faraway land aren't exploiting anyone when you import their goods out of convenience.

Are we going around in circles now? Not if they're importing from anarchists.

There is no anarchist society. That would require all hierarchy to cease to exist. Anarchy is a perpetual struggle against authority. The moment you declare you've achieved anarchist society is the moment you become Mao.

Why are you even running an anarchist forum? Dafuq?!

It really isn't. You think everyone will act the way you want then to act because communism. You have no control over the direction society will take. Declaring anarcho-communism won't mean everything will work out.

Are you just declaring your frustration now? This is both irrelevant to the example we were discussing ("starve of exploit") and not what I actually believe.

0

db0 wrote (edited )

But they DO have coercive power to enforce their authority. They have coercive power based on the peer pressure the other workers would put on objecting workers to defer to the group decision already taken. They can of course just choose to oppose the peer pressure coercion for any number of reasons, but just because you oppose a form of coercion does not make it any less coercive.

0

db0 wrote

An expert has authority on their area of expertise. I.e. when building a house, the workers don't collectively decide how to build it. Instead they defer to the authority of their civil engineers during that task. They can collectively decide who is a civil engineer, but once it's decided, you have to defer to their authority.

This is not a conflation, this is how we understand this concept.

0

db0 wrote

It doesn't matter what pseudonymous people inside a forum within a capitalist system say. You have to think about what the incentives within an anarchist society will be and why something like Roundup might be used.

You keep transposing the incentives of the capitalist system into a hypothetical anarchist society.

1

db0 wrote

They didn't start out as Marxist-Leninist societies. They started out trying to establish communism but ended up with Marxist-XCompromiseism because authority reared its ugly head as it always does when you try to structure people into a mass society.

I suggest you look into the actual history of those revolutions instead of the abstracted notions you assume. Also look into the lessons anarchists learned and why we most of us don't believe in "leftist unity" anymore.

Just because I'm an anarchist doesn't mean I have to buy into ancommunism. If every attempt at an industrial communist society in history started with noble intentions but resulted in rampant abuse, then there's no reason to assume a so-called anarcho-communist society would actually result in anarchy.

The reason to assume it is the actual theory of praxis that they suggest we follow and then you evaluate whether that makes sense.

If no one's managed to do it in 120 years, it's pretty much a lost cause.

Nonsense.

What you call liberal talking points - a healthy scepticism of stale ideological structures is something every anarchist should strive for or we'll just keep repeating the same mistakes again and again.

Anarchists HAVE learned of mistakes of the past. But the actual praxis we've supported didn't have to change a lot because it has been shown to work. What has changed is more our understanding on who is an ally and how to maintain e revolution.

You're just hand-waving everything because it hasn't happened yet.

Like I wrote in w/democracy, I favor people doing what they want to do with people that share their ideas instead of asking the entire community for approval and then compromising their plan and all their values to get that approval.

Then you already favour democracy among smaller groups and eventually normal democracy assuming you ever interact with people outside your circle. Or do you think you'll never have a disagreement with people with whom you share ideas?

Please read this, it'll take too long to explain it here, but you couldn't be more mistaken about this. There is no justified authority.

I started reading it and quickly realized it's an exercise in equivocation. You call it 'expertise', I call it 'authority'. Same thing and just because you follow expertise/authority, it doesn't mean it's a power-differential.

It's only a non-issue if you don't care about anarchy. They literally have/had tribe rulers in most cases, as well as patriarchy and in some cases slavery.

Slavery was impossible before agriculture. I suggest you re-examine the actual origins human social structures.

A lot of shitty people call themselves anarchists without having any idea what anarchy entails. Just like all the fascists that called themselves socialists or the state capitalists that called themselves communists. Calling something anarchist doesn't make it so.

Who said that anarchists are going to judge people based on their self-identification. We can judge by actions.

Anarchists are people. People do shitty things everyday, including destroying their own ecosystem for temporary comforts. Them deciding to call themselves anarchists won't change that.

Again, there is no motive within anarchist society to do that. I have to keep repeating that faults of capitalism are not faults of anarchism.

Humanity might go extinct due to climate change, yes, and it is completely outside my power and your power to change that.

This is Irrelevant to our discussion

1

db0 wrote

Every "communist" society started with good intentions and ended up much like China. There's a reason anarcho-communism has never been enacted - Industrial society breeds hierarchy and kills anarchy.

Every Maxist-Leninist society you mean. I can't believe I'm hearing liberal talking points from an anarchist.

There's no "anarchist" democracy. Democracy is an authoritarian institution designed to control people by giving them the illusion of free will. w/democracy

Not all all, but just for the sake of discussion, what is your preference instead of democracy?

Hierarchy creates authority. Even pre-agriculture, hierarchy existed within tribal societies.

You are confusing your concepts. Hierarchy IS authority, but it's unjustified authority. Anarchism has no issue with authority as long as it's justified. E.g. the authority of your doctor or the engineer in their respective fields.

So that fact that authority existed in tribal societies is a non-issue. However they did not tend to have hierarchies.

But you're basically arguing we need to do away with agriculture / industry / civilization to find anarchy... Which I agree with. Anarcho-communism doesn't agree with that tho. Anarcho-communism mistakenly argues industry and agriculture are compatible with anarchy.

No, I'm not arguing that. I just said that the lack of hierarchy comes naturally to humans.

And technology is compatible with anarchism, yes.

There's no way to know how the food was produced unless it was produced locally.

Assuming you're trading with anarchist communities, it's a safe bet to make that it wasn't produced exploitatively or at the expense of the environment of the commune producing it.

Also, in the world we've inherited, there is no such thing as sustainable logging. We need every single tree we have and trillions more if we're going to avert ecological catastrophe.

If that is what is needed, then anarchists will do that out of self-preservation.

Nope. Just anarchy. Which is to say civilization collapsing and the memory of the old world burned from the human consciousness.

You're arguing something else now. In the context your example, humanity would go extinct because they would starve. Nothing you can propose would deal with your example.

−1

db0 wrote

You know, there can be no discussion if you only negatively criticize other's positions (badly) without you ever presenting your own. I understand how easy it is to do so though, as you avoid making yourself vulnerable.

1