Hacker News Reader

Comment by graeme | Hacker News Reader

> is that when there isn't those built hierarchies bad/selfish people don't amass power so everyone else can actually handle them on equal terms

But how do you stop a bad person from amassing power in an anarchist system?

As a simple example, how would you deal with highway robbers? Those were omnipresent in societies before states gained strength.

View on HN

I mean, did they rob peasants or the lords of the land with their amassed stolen wealth...?

A community can decide to cast someone out, reprimand them, imprison them, etc. The whole idea of restorative justice can actually exist when a community is able to address it.

....any travellers. And the point is they were outside communities. Right now we take for granted that we can travel from point a to point b without worrying about such threats.

What the? A "community" which makes "communal decisions" is a form of government, not anarchism! How can you cast someone out, without gates? Guards? Walls?

How can you throw them out? Prevent them from returning?

Do you think the robbers will just stop, because you said "Stop!". I feel like you're trolling here. I could of course be wrong, but it feels that way.

Anarchism is a form of self-governance.

Which has nothing to do with a government.

But it has everything to do with "A "community" which makes "communal decisions"", whatever you call it.

I hope Merriam-Webster clears that up:

"Definition of government

1 : the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization"

I specifically said that "community" which makes "communal decisions" is not anarchy. You've simply claimed it does, then mentioned "governing authority", which is not entirely in line, now is it?

You're right on the strength of my argument, but you're wrong on anarchy not being able to create governments (in the M-W definition above). But I'm not going to argue this any more.

They robbed anyone and everyone.

Some people just give 0 fucks about anyone besides themselves.

Most people give 0 fucks about anyone outside of a moderate group of acquaintances and friends.

I honestly don't understand how that is unique at all. It sounds like every government that has ever existed. Once you define the community, its mechanism of decision, and the reprimands and punishments, I'm not sure what's less government about this than current government.

Governments replaced those robbers, you just cannot escape nor defend yourself :-)

Most people couldn't escape or defend themselve from robbers if they wanted to, let alone vote against them. That's why governments replaced them.

AFAIK (at least in most European countries) such robbers didn't attack villages, and people willing to travel tried hard to do it in groups (pilgrims, merchants).

You now have nearly no way to escape your (Occidental) government. Wherever you go, whatever you do, whoever you associate with.

If you really believe you can change the power-that-be by voting let's say we disagree.

Escaping your government is easy. There are plenty of places on Earth you could go that have essentially no (functional) government. People tend to run from these places, not to them.

> Escaping your government is easy.

It isn't, and technical progress (transport and communication means) made it more and more difficult.

> People tend to run from these places, not to them.

It depends. Historically see for example the Zomia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asian_Massif#Zomia ) , and some Spanish cities during the civil war ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain#Anarchist_p... ). For an ongoing case take a look at Rojava ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Administration_of_N... )

How do you amass power in an anarchist system? In capitalism you generally amass power by amassing capital. What's the equivalent under anarchism?

Anarchism and capitalism are compatible, see anarcho-capitalism. You may be interested in checking out this explanation: https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

That said, I agree with your criticism of communism / anarcho-syndacalism: if you remove capitalism, you are moving power into party politics, which creates even greater inequality to what we have today and explains the horror of communism we've seen in the past century.

They most certainly are not. Some right-libertarians have convinced themselves that they are anarchists so that they can pretend to be radicals but that does not make it so. Anarchism and capitalism are incompatible, anarchism is a left-wing ideology that among other things, seeks the end of capitalism.

I don't know why you interpreted my comment as being a criticism of communism or anarcho-syndicalism (it was just a probing question to understand what somebody thought anarchism would look like), and neither does your criticism of those ideologies make much sense. I don't think you actually know what anarcho-syndicalism is if you think it involves party politics.

You still would amass capital. Guns, food, persons, other resources.

The destruction of fiat currency wouldn't prevent the accumulation of valuable goods/commodities.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com