[removed]

Look up Barcelona '36

I thought it worth a quick read. Two points:

“the foundational recognition that nature, including conscious human nature, is inherently intelligent”; If this is foundational, then the argument topples quickly. Nature is “selective” not intelligent. Lots of good arguments for the idea that we didn’t evolve to be rational, we evolved to survive. Intelligence and rationality are consequential, or emergent, not fundamental.

Second: given the way the world works, including our basic biology, hierarchies are inevitable, and ubiquitous. A functional anarchist society would be populated by non-humans.

Recognizing the truth of the claim that if you have to resort to analogy, you’ve lost the argument, I’m unable to avoid suggesting that an ant colony or bee hive is …more like… (but not equivalent to) an anarchistic society than any potential human anachronistic society could be. See my next/last point, but the ants and bees do what they do without force or coercion, or the execution of power, ie absent all the so called shortcomings supposedly ameliorated by anarchism. They are simply driven, as a species, as we are, as a species in aggregate, by biology.

And finally, I get the feeling that if the argument went further it could be easily repurposed as an attempt to evidence libertarian free will.

[removed]

> The word "obligation" was never a part of my comment. That's your distortion.

"The second is one who believes we all have an obligation to "help each other make it to the end.""

https://i.imgur.com/aJun2k3.png

With every passing day, it is becoming increasingly difficult to believe that this is not a simulation.

Which word would be better suited and cause less confusion?

feel free to cite one but they obviously aren't working lol

feel free to cite one but they obviously aren't working lol

[removed]

Lack? Bro the world if full of anarchist experiments that have been going on for years. Just look it up.

Liberalism is built on capitalism, which is an economic totalitarian (using the article's wording) hierarchy. Anarchism is fundamentally incompatible with capitalism (as is any egalitarian society).

[deleted]

Isn't the lack of any modern anarchistic society an indicator it doesn't work?

Even this blog article really can't wrangle with the fact that you need some form of law to deal with criminal behavior

edit: I stand corrected that there does appear to be some "anarchist" societies, but many have exceptions here or there. It still appears that anarchism is more of a beginning than an end. The evolution of law is too key of an aspect of human society to let it be essentially decentralized.

I can’t see the problem with caveats, or with expanding or deepening the use a word and, thereby, giving us a new understanding of it.

I guess what I’m not sure about is why a properly functioning liberal democracy wouldnt be an appropriate approximation of at least what this person says anarchy is all about ?

Its a balancing of interests, respect for both individual and collective will with legitimate organs of control.

Not to say that liberal democracies dont exhibit a range and some are more fair than others but it seems to me at least for this anarchist author, they should be working to strengthen and improve the institutions that are already in place. This would serve the goals best in my view

Any share what the ultimate anarchic society (?) Would look like?

All i think of when i here anarchist is burning the establishment down and sticking it to the man which I'm assuming is only a small part of it? (Or a completely different thing under the same umbrella)

Edit: ah good old Reddit, where someone asks a genuine question to learn more and gets downvoted for not already knowing lol

Please don't mistake this edit as a plea for upvotes. Please continue to downvote or don't. Is that anarchy? The freedom of choice. ✊

This essay is so egregious, I don’t even have the words. In the first paragraph, they define anarchy as casting off ‘domination’. Then literally states ‘anarchy’ can only work if certain groups are dominated. If murderers or rapists aren’t restrained, the system doesn’t work…so they admit complete anarchy doesn’t work?!

In an additional caveat, the very next sentence also states those who have no self-control, like drunkards or sleep-walkers, must also be dominated, for they ‘lack control over themselves’. But then in their contrived ‘Seven Dominants’, Ego is one of the systems of control.

Well guess what. In their inclusion of Freudian psychology, casting off our ego would leave us with our Id. The unconscious mind. The very state they would dominate because we can’t fundamentally be trusted to make decisions for we wouldn’t truly have ‘control’ over our actions. Casting off the most essential ‘Dominant’ would lead to a necessitation for dominance.

They also use the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy so many times it’s comedic. ‘Genuine’ authoritarians. ‘Actual’ libertarians. ‘True’ Anarchists. They forego entire movements and ideologies if it doesn’t meet their own self-crafted definitions.

Which of course make up 90% of the essay, where tackling the very definitions of the word anarchy seems to be the purpose of this author. Convincing us their interpretation and word choice doesn’t actual contradict the very term itself. They would have an easier time (and maybe an actual argument) simply making up and defining a new term then convincing the masses of the entire world that the word as we know and understand it is ‘wrong’.

In their closing statement, they even ask who of us would choose order, or to enforce laws when with friends. They then immediately, freely and self-admittedly confess, yes some would. But then in the very next sentence assert all of us would not.

In addition to the crass verbiage and laughably off examples used in the essay, this was just simply, not a pleasant read. Striving for an utopian system where people can live without fetters is something we should of course strive for. But the sole purpose of this essay seems to be the reclamation of the term anarchy. And for what reason, I truly do not know.

Right. I'm saying that the latter isn't really authority by most uses of the word.

> Then it makes the claim that authority would still exist, they just can't tell people what to do. Which in most uses of the word would mean that they aren't actually an authority...

The article makes the distinction between being an authority and being in authority. In the first case one is forced to obey, in the second one does so voluntarily.

[deleted]

This seems pretty full of circular reasoning, and half of the arguments seem to be based on redefining words...

Seems to get stuck in one major loop of "nobody can dominate anybody unless that person is dominating somebody, in which case they can be dominated"... Expecting a world where nobody has any say over anyone else's actions seems both impossible and wildly impractical...

Then it makes the claim that authority would still exist, they just can't tell people what to do. Which in most uses of the word would mean that they aren't actually an authority...

Then since it lists exceptions where it is OK to dominate someone and control their actions (stopping murders, thieves, etc) that opens up a pretty big problem of who decides when it's OK and when it isn't.

Also, the opening line of "Anarchism is the only way of life that has ever worked or ever can" is beyond a stretch, and is likely a great way to lose 90% of your readers before the first paragraph is over.

[removed]

Anarchists usually perceive anarchy as a process. Something that's unattainable but should always be strived for. Malatesta explains this well if I remember correctly.

The word "obligation" was never a part of my comment. That's your distortion.

Excellent article, thank you, I needed something to ponder for the day.

I don't think it's fair to discuss anarchism as though it's an achievable state and this article does a really good job of laying out the challenges of that approach.

I see anarchism as being an ideal standard of living. I don't think we'll ever get to that standard but I think it's important to hold up that image of a perfect world and to ask ourselves, "What can we do in the here-and-now that will get us closer to this?"