Discussion Any anarchists here? 🏴 How do you practice it?

[SexyIncél]

Is anyone an anarchist? Or upon reading David Graeber's "Are You An Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You!", find themselves oddly similar to one? How do you practice it in life?

 

[sserafim]

They say I'm an anarchist

 

[DarkRange55]

How a true anarchy ever existed?
If you ask some anarchists, yes - some opinions are of feudal states and tribes (which I would argue still doesn't technically count), Iceland that 800 people or something, one of the African countries that has always ravaged by disease and civil war, and the Old West (even though they fail to realize/admit it was administered over by the federal government). It has never worked in a large society. Questions always arise like who pays for the roads, fire department, ect. It's simply human nature that you can't have more two or three people in a room without one of them trying to govern over the other(s). Humans are also group creatures. Read Lord of the Flys: without a structured society, humanity reverts to primitive savagery.

 

[SexyIncél]

They say I'm an anarchist

I'd say so too!

How a true anarchy ever existed?

Rojava (video) is a modern example of large-scale society built on anarchist principles. Bottom-up democracy instead of a 4 year king

Chomsky argues that anarchism contains concepts that are the "the proper and natural extension of classical liberalism into the era of advanced industrial society."

Said wageslavery's incompatible with modern industrial society. Cited someone who said:

"It is want that drags them to those markets where they await masters who will do them the kindness of buying them. It is want that compels them to go down on their knees to the rich man in order to get from him permission to enrich him. What effective gain has the suppression of slavery brought him? He is free, you say, that is his misfortune. These men, it is said, have no master. They have one, and the most terrible, the most imperious of masters: that is need. It is this that reduces them to the most cruel dependence."

 

[DarkRange55]

I'd say so too!


Rojava (video) is a modern example of large-scale society built on anarchist principles. Bottom-up democracy instead of a 4 year king

Chomsky argues that anarchism contains concepts that are the "the proper and natural extension of classical liberalism into the era of advanced industrial society."

Said wageslavery's incompatible with modern industrial society. Cited someone who said:

I would say its influenced by the ideals but: they have a Federal Assembly and Executive Council.

 

[SexyIncél]

I would say its influenced by the ideals but: they have a Federal Assembly and Executive Council.

Yeah, let me respond in a bit... I'm trying to upload a nifty pic explaining Rojava's formal political structure (for people who don't know it). But there's a sasu bug right now. Talking with mods

 

[Bianka]

I don't see how it could work out on a large scale. I think it's a good direction but way too radical to be realistic. It doesn't factor in human nature.

 

[DarkRange55]

My understanding is anarchy would be no governing body…
I know there are different forms like anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-communism, ect.

 

[SexyIncél]

My understanding is anarchy would be no governing body…
I know there are different forms like anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-communism, ect.

Ah, now I understand your point. Yeah, I'd say most anarchists support radical bottom-up democracy. Not top-down governments run by 4 year kings

In this 2016 diagram, note the arrows on the left. Power flows bottom-up

So, let's say your community of 36 households has a local assembly. Naturally, you wanna confederate into a neighborhood assembly. (For infrastructure, security, economies of scale...) So you send 2 delegates — always a guy & a gal — into the neighborhood assembly. And that assembly likewise sends 2 delegates to the municipal assembly

Those delegates aren't "representatives". They must consult about everything & can't make decisions on their own

 

[Pessimist]

Anarchism is a very childish ideology. All humans need to be restrained to some extent.

 

[sserafim]

How a true anarchy ever existed?
If you ask some anarchists, yes - some opinions are of feudal states and tribes (which I would argue still doesn't technically count), Iceland that 800 people or something, one of the African countries that has always ravaged by disease and civil war, and the Old West (even though they fail to realize/admit it was administered over by the federal government). It has never worked in a large society. Questions always arise like who pays for the roads, fire department, ect. It's simply human nature that you can't have more two or three people in a room without one of them trying to govern over the other(s). Humans are also group creatures. Read Lord of the Flys: without a structured society, humanity reverts to primitive savagery.

Do you think that society/civilization was a net "good" for humans? Would it have been better for humans to have stayed savages? There's a philosopher (Peter Zapffe) who believes that humans are over-evolved and I think that it's true.

 

[SexyIncél]

I don't see how it could work out on a large scale. I think it's a good direction but way too radical to be realistic. It doesn't factor in human nature.

Depends on what anarchism means. If it's the mainstream media's image of bombers & looters, well sure that's not exactly a basis for next-level civilizations. But if we're talking about real-world anarchist movements that aim at bottom-up forms of decisionmaking... maybe they're worth examining & seeing if they have elements better than present societies

Anarchism is a very childish ideology. All humans need to be restrained to some extent.

No doubt most anarchists would point out that any real-world form of social organization would feature coercion to some extent. Zero coercion's undesirable. For example, how to deal with the random axe murderer?

Any system that doesn't defend itself against psychopaths, will be ruled by them. That is, it's a predictable outcome of the system

Anyway, Rojava sure restrained (destroyed) Daesh sex-slaving fascists who threatened Israel:

"In a rare public dissent with U.S. President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered humanitarian aid to the "gallant Kurdish people" on Oct. 10, saying they faced possible "ethnic cleansing" by Turkey and its Syrian allies. [...] "The possible collapse of the Kurdish hold in north Syria is a negative and dangerous scenario as far as Israel is concerned. It is absolutely clear that such an event would bring about a bolstering of negative elements in the area, headed by Iran.""

 

[DarkRange55]

Do you think that society/civilization was a net "good" for humans? Would it have been better for humans to have stayed savages? There's a philosopher (Peter Zapffe) who believes that humans are over-evolved and I think that it's true.

"Peter Zapffe likens humanity to the Irish elk, whose massive oversized antlers eventually caused its extinction. Its antlers evolved to become too big to be beneficial and instead became a hindrance, much like our brains and how we have so much consciousness and awareness that it can be detrimental to our well-being (nihilism, etc). Other animals don't search for meaning or question existence, only humans do."

Detrimental? The search for something beyond daily life brought us science, which brought technology, and will bring us to the stars!
It will only be detrimental when there is no more "beyond".

Depends on what anarchism means. If it's the mainstream media's image of bombers & looters, well sure that's not exactly a basis for next-level civilizations. But if we're talking about real-world anarchist movements that aim at bottom-up forms of decisionmaking... maybe they're worth examining & seeing if they have elements better than present societies


No doubt most anarchists would point out that any real-world form of social organization would feature coercion to some extent. Zero coercion's undesirable. For example, how to deal with the random axe murderer?

Any system that doesn't defend itself against psychopaths, will be ruled by them. That is, it's a predictable outcome of the system

Anyway, Rojava sure restrained (destroyed) Daesh sex-slaving fascists who threatened Israel:

Ohh, okay, so you're referring to a true democracy and not to a stateless, lawless sovereignty without any form of social structure?
probably just a miscommunication!

 

[sserafim]

"Peter Zapffe likens humanity to the Irish elk, whose massive oversized antlers eventually caused its extinction. Its antlers evolved to become too big to be beneficial and instead became a hindrance, much like our brains and how we have so much consciousness and awareness that it can be detrimental to our well-being (nihilism, etc). Other animals don't search for meaning or question existence, only humans do."

Detrimental? The search for something beyond daily life brought us science, which brought technology, and will bring us to the stars!
It will only be detrimental when there is no more "beyond".

Ohh, okay, so you're referring to a true democracy and not to a stateless, lawless sovereignty without any form of social structure?
probably just a miscommunication!

Lol that's what I wrote in my thread on here, right? I think that consciousness is a net negative for humans though. Personally I believe that people shouldn't have evolved beyond Homo erectus…

 

[DarkRange55]

Lol that's what I wrote in my thread on here, right? I think that consciousness is a net negative for humans though. Personally I believe that people shouldn't have evolved beyond Homo erectus…

Why is that?

Lol that's what I wrote in my thread on here, right? I think that consciousness is a net negative for humans though. Personally I believe that people shouldn't have evolved beyond Homo erectus…

We do not know if humans are alone in experiencing existential dread, and it might be an avoidance mechanism rather than a bug...

 

[Argo]

We do not know if humans are alone in experiencing existential dread, and it might be an avoidance mechanism rather than a bug...

There's this vlogger who documented her dog on one of those language sound boards for a while where people try to teach their pets to communicate using buttons that play a recording of the word in English. She put a mirror in front of the soundboard. The dog began asking why to everything, looking in the mirror and then asking why, why is it a dog, what love is, why isn't it a human instead, etc. Eventually it went on drugs for generalized anxiety disorder and you can find footage of it asking for drugs using the soundboard.


(re: Anarchy, uhh... I guess I'll say I don't think any political narrative matters because ultimately power dictates everything and I believe power is functionally the same as evil, long story short. The opposite of what protagonist/antagonist fiction teaches, basically. The purpose of politics is narrative, which functions to unify and mask, not to actually express the values of said narrative. Democracy and therefore voting is a farce, but that's no different from any other "System" since behind it sits power)

I guess I'll just add a tentative thought that just arrived after being forced to think about anarchy a bit more. I think I'd prefer the opposite, like a monarchy. Then, atleast there's less masking. You still have potential for the whole fake emperor bullshit problem and a hidden decentralized hierarchy hiding behind a prop hierarchy(the purpose of this is to counter the move of simply killing the king, which is a confused solution since it doesn't understand that you can't win by killing the king, you only create selection pressure and make stronger kings and eventually, stronger more tyrannical/robust political systems-- this is not theoretical but literal history), but at least then the message is more clear: "The function of reality is a power hierarchy". When reality is more clear I think we're empowered to solve problems, including problems that have no solution. I believe power is a problem with no solution so simply embracing it seems ideal to masking it(which seems to doom us into onion layers, simulations, bullshit, confusion, solutions to confusion, more problems, etc)

 

[DarkRange55]

There's this vlogger who documented her dog on one of those language sound boards for a while where people try to teach their pets to communicate using buttons that play a recording of the word in English. She put a mirror in front of the soundboard. The dog began asking why to everything, looking in the mirror and then asking why, why is it a dog, what love is, why isn't it a human instead, etc. Eventually it went on drugs for generalized anxiety disorder and you can find footage of it asking for drugs using the soundboard.


(re: Anarchy, uhh... I guess I'll say I don't think any political narrative matters because ultimately power dictates everything and I believe power is functionally the same as evil, long story short. The opposite of what protagonist/antagonist fiction teaches, basically. The purpose of politics is narrative, which functions to unify and mask, not to actually express the values of said narrative. Democracy and therefore voting is a farce, but that's no different from any other "System" since behind it sits power)

I will follow up on this soon…

 

[DarkRange55]

I don't see how it could work out on a large scale. I think it's a good direction but way too radical to be realistic. It doesn't factor in human nature.

I agree, society itself cannot exist without some form of control. At least to some extent. Especially in the world we live in now. We have tones of money going everywhere and things move quickly. Complex trade routes, treaties and stuff like that. Without government how are you going to regulate trade? You have to have government provide some sort of system to keep society together. Somebody has to build the roads, the schools, make sure there's hospitals and military to protect everybody. Everybody individually its just not going to happen. There would not have been a freeway system in the United States if there had been no government to have it built. There would be none of these systems that keep us so fat and happy and let us live relatively comfortable lives. Far left is no better than far right. Communism is very far left and that is just as oppressive as far right. You go too far in either direction and its oppression. Communism sounds awesome on paper. The idea of it. If there was no example of how communism put in place can go so terribly wrong you would think that it would be a perfect way to run a country. But all these ideas rely on people to not seek power. With a classless, governmentless society you create a power-vacuum. Somebody is going to rise to the top and it just becomes a cycle. Even tribes and villages have some form of government and class systems. We are social creatures and even social creatures like bees and stuff have what you could describe as classes. Its just how we work together and whats necessary. If everyone just lived by themselves or in a family group scattered around randomly then yeah it would work. But the way that are population is setup it would be total chaos. I understand thats not what they want but its very idealistic and it doesn't work that when put to reality.
I think some of these concepts would work really well in a small group like a commune or a village or a town. But let's say we're building a cross-country freeway system. Who's paying for this? Is everyone volunteering money? Will it be recouped by tolls? How are tou gettinf the works to there? Contracting a company or using workers from regions? Who's paying for that? Who agrees which company to use? There's so many conflicting opinions in this situation and there's no central group to sort it out. Who's going to get the asphalt, the raw materials to make the asphalt, where will it be mixed, who's gonna pay for the trucks to get it there? How are you going to standardize the grade of roads? Who's gonna make the schedules? Let's say half the workers don't want to work on Fridays? Do you elect a boss? Does he get payed extra for the extra responsibility? I think a lot of these ideas would work great in a small community. But the vastness of the population and the way that the population is centered. More different ideas about what they want to do. I get the idea subscribed governments that are not geographic in nature and that's interesting, its compelling to me but what if a person that belongs to one group is having a dispute with someone else that belongs to another group? Do you have a third party come in? Do they fight it out amongst themselves? Different individual currencies that would be worth the same as a big currency because their gonna be backed by commodities like gold, silver and copper. They're not equally distributed around the country. Wouldn't that put the people there in an unnaturally high position in terms of money? Michigan has one of the largest copper mines, for example. How do you make that fair to a group in Kansas?

The key thing to remember is that in these places thats its worked is they are either A. Not very developed or B. Having very low population or both.

To be clear, I'm referring to a classless, completely government-free society. Not a bottom up democracy or whatever.

 

[BlessedBeTheFlame]

Alexander Berkman in the ABCs of anarchism defined anarchism as a society without coercion. To me, that is a world without capitalism, bigotry or state authority (like police or prisons). Examples like the Walpole prison strike or Elinor Ostroms Nobel-winning research convinced me of the possibility, while reading Marx and Bookchin convinced me of the necessity. Ultimately I've been moving back and forth between calling myself a communalist and an outright anarchist for years now. I would describe my politics as a mix of communalism and anarcho-syndicalism in the style of the IWW. I believe that change can come by building up a dual power to snatch more and more power away from the government and economy, while dismantling it behind our backs. Organized action is absolutely necessary. While I'm economically a socialist, I've never been sure there is a perfect solution. In that sense, I see mutualism and communism as equal solutions, even if I personally favor communism. I've also referred to myself as a queer anarchist, anarcho-feminist and anarcho-transhumanist.

 

[Pessimist]

Israel

Is it antisemitic to bring pro-Palestinian protests into Jewish museums?

 

[Temporal_Anchorite]

Anarchism is a pie in the sky philosophy whose unobtainable ideals only appeal to that of naive & politically illiterate children.

 

[SexyIncél]

For anyone going ad hominem with zero analysis, recent anarchists include:

• Noam Chomsky, the most cited living intellectual & founder of modern linguistics
• David Graeber, the era's highest-profile anthropologist

Plus, many use anarchist lit without identifying publicly as anarchists. To avoid knee-jerk reactions. Now obviously, it doesn't matter what some Great Man thinks. But they have some nuanced views maybe worth reading, when evaluating anarchism. They're not ivory tower people; but public intellectuals who talk with anyone

 

[GhostShell]

I wish I was healthy enough to practice anything besides lying in bed all day and playing shitty 2d flash games. Try for change while you can.

But back when I was healthy I led a trans rights non-profit, volunteered in a cat shelter from which we adopted a cat, was vegan (and still am, its the ultimate practice what you preach when it comes to moral values), was in contact with politicians regarding food labelling regulations and did some direct action at a few protests. All of that is but a memory now.

 

[Sivit]

I don't believe in being anything when it comes to politics unless you have the status and the strength to do so.
If I was an Anarchist I would most likely be a very passive one and thats as effective as peaceful protests in my opinion.
You can just ignore them.

 

[DarkRange55]

 

[leloyon]

I would generally describe myself as an individualist/post-left anarchist.

 

[DarkRange55]

Why is that?

We do not know if humans are alone in experiencing existential dread, and it might be an avoidance mechanism rather than a bug...

Twice, while driving, I have come across a creature that has been struck by a previous car and is lying in the highway unable to move but still conscious.
In both cases, I have seen the look of existential dread in the eyes of the animal. The dread was so obvious that in both cases I have moved the animal out of the road so that it can die in peace.

However, AFAIK humans are the only creatures that dwell on existential dread for extended periods.
I find that the dread usually starts as a beneficial avoidance mechanism, but can persist far too long and become detrimental.

 

[Ferdinand Bardamu]

Reddit ideology for redditors.

I don't see how it could work out on a large scale. I think it's a good direction but way too radical to be realistic. It doesn't factor in human nature.

Isn't that solved by the commune thing?

 

[DarkRange55]

Reddit ideology for redditors.

Isn't that solved by the commune thing?

Speaking of communes, I worked (volunteered) on a kibbutz in Israel. I helped manage the olive farm. and no, I'm not Jewish lol (because I know you asked that question (probably facetiously) on a different thread) - if you count that

 

[Ferdinand Bardamu]

Speaking of communes, I worked (volunteered) on a kibbutz in Israel. I helped manage the olive farm. and no, I'm not Jewish lol (because I know you asked that question (probably facetiously) on a different thread) - if you count that

Why were you in Israel?