Law and order among the anarchists (2020)
theanarchistlibrary.org
theanarchistlibrary.org
Here's an article from a few days ago: https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/syria-turkey-kurds-roj...
It's disheartening but I guess predictable that a society which seems to be committed to democratic reforms in the Middle East is the one getting thrown under the bus.
'America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests' — HAK
For example: in my country, police can act on their own in criminal matters, but must have a court order to act on civil matters. This, to my uninformed mind, is already a proto-hierarchy. How would this sort of distinction be handled in a non-hierarchical manner?
I think courts would be private as well, and you'd live in a jurisdiction of your choice.
I also think that jurisdictions that didn't enforce court orders from other jurisdictions would be black-listed by those jurisdictions. Furthermore, individuals from a black-listed jurisdiction would be stigmatized in, or barred from entering the jurisdiction that couldn't obtain their cooperation.
There has to be a cost attached to unreasonably uncooperative behavior.
I'm pretty skeptical about whether these private courts would/could work in the long term, but it is fascinating to read the theories.
Also, the idea that hierarchies of any type cannot exist within anarchies is more socialist revisionism. Most anarchist societies over history have had hierarchies in some form or another. Somalia and Iceland's periods of anarchy are two such examples.
Anti-statism is not axiomatic to anarchism, it results from it's opposition to domination and the principle of means-ends unity, and opposing the state is not a sufficient condition for being an anarchist. It's worth noting anarchism was an offshoot of socialism - to say that this is a narrative projected backwards from anarchosocialists is incorrect.
Ownership of private property extends to a larger and larger population with each upheaval of the world's economic systems. The end result is socialism, where private property is owned by everyone, and is thus public. Why would I give you private ownership of what is, under socialism, partly my land?
I think the more credible critique of anarchy is that it is too hopelessly idealistic to occur any time soon.
There are lots of critiques of anarchy. This isn't my only one or my best one. I am only pointing out that anarchism and private property and trade are fully compatible.
Democracies often protect free speech, but a democracy without free speech protection is completely conceivable. This is concept I am trying to explain.
Anarchism isn't magic, it's entirely possible that an anarchist society fails and becomes capitalist. Just like democracy isn't magic and can fail and become a dictatorship. But that doesn't make these things compatible. My body will one day fail and I will die, but I don't consider my life to be compatible with organ failure.
I'm gathering your definition of anarchism is, "everyone does what they want, except forming a state, and therefore everything is compatible with anarchism?" Because that's not what anarchists are talking about, the classic quip being, "no government doesn't mean no governance."
The definition of anarchism I would use, given in this video essay [1], is (paraphrasing) a body of theory, method of critique, and set of practices to implement a society free of hierarchies of domination. Given that capitalism is a hierarchy whereby the wealthy are able to impose their vision on others (a concrete example being when Charlie Munger donated $1.5B in order to implement his vision of an ideal college dorm at UC Santa Barbara, one that encodes his particular ideological values) I can't see a way it is compatible with anarchism.
Certainly this is beyond the foreseeable future, but I don't think this is actually a good way to critique a vision for society. I believe it is important for us to pursue bold utopian visions, even though they are not achievable in our lifetime. Just because we do not reach it does not mean the exercise isn't valuable; it provides a guidestar to help us to see how society can be improved today.
There is also the concept in anarchism of prefiguration [1], in which you build your ideal society in miniature from within the context of the society you exist in. So for example, we're currently discussing capitalism; we probably won't live to see the end of capitalism, but we can create a microcosm of a better world in the form of a worker's cooperative. This is much more achievable and it allows for us to put our ideas to practice in a sort of "societal laboratory".
Tangentially, I personally have a hypothesis that tech companies are stifled by hierarchical decision making that stops different parts of the organization (eg sales and engineering, or different teams within those departments) from properly collaborating, and creates maladaptive behaviors. For instance, I've seen situations where different parts of the same company feel that need to lie to each other in order to get their needs met, because the systems of prioritizing work weren't functioning properly, but the politics of the company made it impossible to call out these issues.
My hypothesis is that horizontally oriented tech companies, like worker's cooperatives, would outcompete hierarchically oriented companies, all else being equal (eg, if they had equal access to investment [which they don't]). I would like to test this hypothesis by creating such a company.
If anyone is interested in this topic and would care to correspond with me about this hypothesis, including/especially people who are critical of this idea, I'd love to hear from you. Email is in my profile.
Transitioning from that to socialism would mean taking freedom away. Despite what some claim the dictatorial nature of the 20th century's socialist countries is not accidental, it is inherent to socialism.
This, right there, is inherently oppressive because it removes individual liberty and initiative and it requires enforcement. The same goes with lack of private property.
That's why, in fine oppression is inevitable.
In this same way as I think "implementing socialism" has to start by violent means.
I think some people are so idealistic that they don't, or don't want to, realise this.
Now, what liberal countries have done is to take some socialist ideas and to implement them as social policies within the liberal capitalist system. That is very different from socialism and a working approach.
There's a quote, with many variants and attributed to many people, which I think holds a lot of truth: "Any man who is not a socialist at age 20 has no heart. Any man who is still a socialist at age 40 has no head.".
There's no law of physics which says society has to be changed through violence. In my lifetime I've seen the rights of LGBTQ people extended dramatically, and it hasn't been through violent means.
Regarding whether violence is necessary to "enforce" a lack of private property, please see my response elsewhere in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33965787
You're free to view me as too idealistic, you're entitled to your opinion and it doesn't disturb me, but I'd point out that the other side of this coin is being so cynical that you become blind to how society is changing and underestimate what is possible to achieve. Personally I think it's better to air on the side of optimism; I'd rather try and fail than to despair, and while cynicism can often have an aloof detachment that feels very intelligent, I think it's skin deep.
Overall, I think your reply somewhat proves my point about idealism and denial of reality. And that's fine in principle but can have dangerous consequences (road to hell is paved with good intentions kind of thing).
You're entitled to feel however you like, if you want to express that as an argument I'm happy to respond to it, if you don't feel so moved than that's fine too. But if I don't know what about my response makes you say that, there's not really anything more for me to add.
(If you do elaborate, I won't see it until tomorrow because I'm going to log off for the evening now.)
Private property is also inherently oppressive, you need to violence to maintain it.
> In this same way as I think "implementing socialism" has to start by violent means.
In a capitalist society, sure. To start implementing capitalism you also have to start with violence.
I'd also add that those with an interest in profit often end up using resources that are held in common, to the detriment of everyone else, which doesn't seem fair. But such is our politics where profit is more important than many other things.
Why should a billionaire get to buy millions of acres of beautiful natural land exclude everyone else? There are places where land belongs to everyone, where you can get a 99 year lease to use it for your lifetime, but not forever, and places where everyone has a right to roam, and land can't be walled off from the public. Why should a farmer make money depleting river waters and aquifers, and the rest of us have to pay higher water bills? Why should an industrialist be able to profit while polluting that same river? Or a media company pollute our minds and public discourse for their profit? Why should mining companies make money from a natural resource at the expense of future generations who won't have access to those resources any more? Etc.
May I ask how much familiarity you have with anarchist theory outside of anarchocapitalism?
Congratulations, you're not an anarchy anymore and are now a socialist dictatorship imposing authoritarian limits on what people can do, for the "common good".
You can put power in a "democracy" to make sure everyone is equally poor or spread it in the individuals composing a free market and accept a natural level of unbalance.
Any type of anarchy which doesn't involve capitalism as the basic tenet to drive decisions on what gets done has no way of working, unless all citizens behave perfectly.
Capitalism creates an imbalanced distribution of resources by enforcing a certain set of property relations. It isn't a law of nature. Like Gandi said, poverty is a human invention that can be abolished by humans.
Everyone might be equally poor but they'd be equally rich too. We have a massive economic capacity, largely misused to produce things of little value. We can provide for everyone. Capitalism creates no incentive to provide for everyone (as it serves capitalism well to have an underclass who will readily accept poor working conditions to survive), and market failures are frequent. Consider that public transit is much more efficient than everyone having a car, but that there is very little incentive to create good public transit systems under capitalism, not because they don't do their job well, but because they're difficult to run profitably.
DoE offers a different interpretation of archeological and historical evidence. Most of that interpretation, like the ones that came before it, are supposition as much as "showing".
I don’t really see how the former could work really well in anarchy. Like hypothetically say you “owned” a workshop that could make something useful for the community, they would probably collectively agree that… they should just walk in and start using it. What next?
On the other hand, it seems to me that the general idea of markets could be used. Like, if there was a community workshop, but you were unusually good at making shoes, and had a workstation at that workshop, presumably nothing would prevent you from trading your shoes to other people. The economic value doesn’t really come from the asset of the workstation in that case, though, it comes from your abilities, right?
How does one capitalize in an anarchist society divorced from capitalism? As in, what does capital mean? What does it mean to profit?
How can one "outcompete" a "socialist firm"? When there is no money or private property, every firm belongs to everyone who wants it.
Why is a state necessary to punish hierarchies? Presumably in an anarchist world, people have learned to distrust and dislike hierarchies on principle, refuse to partake in it and join together to punish those who do.
Free markets are a different story, since they do not require capital to be privately owned to exist and function. Left-wing free-market anarchism is a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism
I also think there is a value difference between socialism and democracy (decisions are made society-wide, by equal citizens participation) on one side and conservativism and authoritarianism on the other (decisions are made society-wide, by selected authorities/elites), even though from a liberal viewpoint (decisions are made individually by affected individuals where possible) they might seem similar (because in both the decisions are made society-wide). Measures against (a) or (b) can be designed and implemented both in democratic or authoritarian way.
And in fact, basic income is on the liberal-socialist, aka "anarchist", spectrum rather than on socialist-conservative, aka "communist", spectrum. (Both spectra offer different solutions than the current liberal-conservative, aka "capitalist", spectrum.)
Not really. It's really the other way around - the existence of private capital requires the state to enforce it. The only thing that makes, say, a privately owned factory actually "owned" is the fact that the owner can get the police to evict anyone trying to use it without the authorization, and drag any such miscreants to the courts. If society simply refuses to recognize private ownership of capital, and, as a consequence, refuses to enforce ownership claims, how is that authoritarian? There's strictly less use of force involved.
I would also argue that "democratic" and "authoritarian" are not actually opposites - it's entirely possible for a democratic majority to use authoritarian measures to keep the minority in check.
In particular — humans tend to cooperate, know we work better when we specialize, and have a natural sense of fairness (sometimes inaccurate!) so I can definitely see trade and markets happening under basically any system. I mean it has proven impossible to stop trade, if it isn’t in the open you’ll immediately get black markets.
But I can’t see a community collectively and voluntarily agreeing to respect property claims if they grow to the point that they are inconvenient.
Competition is not cooperation. Profit is not cooperation. Privatization is not cooperation.
But that sure sounds like a recipe for CEOs to become autocrats.
Let's not paint with a broad brush, it's unfair to the people we're debating with (most of whom aren't fascists) and it just makes us look like fools who see fascists behind every idea we don't like. Which makes it difficult to argue that specific people really are fascists when we need it.
That's similar to the definition of countries, international treaties and frontiers.
*Cough* ICC *cough*?
I've always thought this is important. So much of modern day politics is far removed, abstract, and/or impersonal.
In our current system we've become used to listening to media pundits arguing about things happening on the other side of the country, our votes mixed in with hundreds of thousands of other people, across dozens of issues, for a blue or red team representative, representatives that often seem more beholden to political parties and lobbyist than to voters, the winning 51% lording it over the other 49% for a couple years.
It's completely different having a few dozen or a few hundred people together in a room, people who are your friends and family and neighbors, listening to different viewpoints, coming to consensus on issues that matter to the group.
(lawyers might be more difficult to rotate? but if the legal code were simple enough, maybe almost all cases would come down to questions of fact instead of questions of law, enabling pro se representation? I suspect our anarchist citizens would have be substantially better educated than current modal standards.
cf RA Lafferty, Primary Education of the Camiroi)
If people can just get the things they need or want straightforwardly I don't think many would choose to get them by force. I don't think people form mafias because they're just looking for something to do, I think mafias usually form because a certain ethnic group or social class isn't able to get what they require through licit means. Eg, when Italians arrived in the United States, they faced immense prejudice and discrimination in hiring. In my view this is a mirror image of the hierarchy that was oppressing them to begin with.
Will there be super sophisticated criminals who need dedicated, specialist investigators to pursue? It seems like reasonable speculation. In that case though, these specialists don't need to be the same people as beat cops. A big problem with the police is that their mission is too broad and they can't possibly to a good job across the board. If we have a big computer crime problem we can form a computer crime investigation team, with various checks and balances, and all they're empowered to do is investigate and to present their findings to the other mechanisms of the justice system.
If they try to form a mafia it'll need to be broken up through the most peaceful means available. The earlier you're able to intervene, the more peaceful the means you're able to use. So for instance of someone is having trouble managing their rage and depression, and their community recognizes this in their adolescence, there's a lot that can be done to help them. In our current society, these things generally go unnoticed and when they are noticed, it's treated as an individual failing, and you're more likely to be abandoned than offered empathy and assistance. In my experience, hurt people hurt people.
If a mature mafia forms and is causing a ruckus, we'll need to overwhelm them with numbers and strategy, abolish their mafia, and take measures to prevent them from doing more harm. I believe that this would be rare, however. People aren't generally cruel to each other, and when they are it's often because they've suffered abuse. So it's a virtuous cycle, as we eliminate sources of abuse, abuse becomes rarer. I don't pretend it'll disappear entirely, but all we need to do to form a good society is reduce it to a manageable level and constantly be improving. Perfection is impossible, but it is not required.
What about turning this criticism around? Some people desire to abuse other people and to have power over them. Okay. What does that say about the structure of our current society? If we take this to be true, doesn't that suggest we should reform or abolish institutions that enable people like that? What happens if we take that to it's logical conclusion?
I was trying not to be too wordy and long winded (as I have a tendency to do), but I realized this could come off rather ominous. So just to be crystal clear, I'm am advocate of nonviolence.
If you limit those priviledges in time and make them part of civil duties you not only get a more ephatic, educated public (as they learn what a police force has to deal with first hand) you avoid them developing into a paramilitary structure within your society.
Or so goes the theory. Would be interesting to try this one out in practise.
The immediate drawback I notice is that in my country, local police have substantial training: 2 years full time (IIRC) so they must sign contracts beforehand such that if they were to quit before X years they would owe their jurisdiction the prorated amount of their training costs.
(OTOH, IIUC US County Deputies have almost no requirements, so YMMV)
Another thing to consider is that, at least in my country, police have a huge mandate. If we narrow the scope of the mission, we can reduce the amount of training necessary.
(come to think of it, that's not too far off from the apprenticeship model of many trades and professions in my country, except it would tend to develop T or even W shaped people instead of just I shaped...)