TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Can somebody explain Anarchy to me?

Go To

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#426: Aug 5th 2013 at 8:13:23 AM

"unless it's the kinds that have communism and socialism thrown in"

A little note: That was the only kind dp recognised. More then that, he wanted to reclaim Communism as an anarchist term...

And where is dp?

Keep Rolling On
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#427: Aug 5th 2013 at 9:03:23 PM

Presumably busy doing stuff in meatspace because he hasn't posted here the past couple days. He'll show up again when he feels like it.

Anyway, bread, I don't think you can enforce an accreditation process in any field without having a legal authority that confers the license on the person trying to be an engineer. That sort of thing requires infrastructure, and infrastructure requires someone to allocate resources (usually lots of someones), and it requires that someone recognize those people have the authority to move those resources about. That right there is a very basic form of government fulfilling one of its functions. Even if that's not how it began, people would very easily form a government out of that basic chain of command.

Mandemo Since: Apr, 2010
#428: Aug 6th 2013 at 5:15:19 AM

AFAIK only licensed schools can hand out educations that are recognized by the state.

Say, you got your engineering degree from Lolcat University, which is not recognized by the state and other guy has it from Harvard, a recognized university, they are going to pick the the guy from Harvard.

Though in Anarchy, there would he no state or government saying which schools are recognized and locals need to guess whenever or someones degrees are real and not some "I spend 2 weeks studying bible. I am now a certified engineer in electronics!"

breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#429: Aug 8th 2013 at 7:57:54 PM

Accreditation is done by PEO, a global organisation run by engineers, not the State/Province. So the process is actually well suited for anarchism because the government makes no difference.

Similarly, many labour rules can be run by the community. Take Sweden for instance. Who sets minimum wage? The worker unions do (by industry). Corporations abide by those rules. No government forces them to do anything.

As far as skill-based hiring goes, I believe the complain is that "today it's about who you know but your system is worse". I'm not sure. Unfortunately, the real reason America is so terrible at hiring is because the culture values "who you know" and "networking". Check the top 10 business articles at social media websites. What do they say? Get to know more people. Go check out top articles in other countries; they're about skill. This isn't an issue about what system is in place, it's an issue about what people exist in your society. There is no systematic cure to an American culture of rewarding charisma over skill. (Why do corporations vote liberal in Canada but republican in USA?)

All I can say is that, I create a social order based on hiring on skill. Bureaucratic and worker morale depends on hiring practices that are fair and sound; not faulting people for lack of charisma.

As for politicians listening to bureaucracy and making choices, that's what intellectuals wish they would do but never actually do so. I have no guarantee that a community is any more willing to listen to technical experts than a politician. Afterall, people vote in politicians who make stupid decisions and we keep voting them back in. But the idea of anarchism can flow down several routes:

a) Handing organisation and logistics to experts and maintain a culture of revoking power should abuse occur.

b) Direct democracy and discussion at a low level.

c) Unionisation or bureaucratic organisations delineated by skill or industry such that the power of any single group can only control one sector of the economy (and thus be unable to force their will).

There is of course more such as the anarcho-capitalism where just any business goes!

I get my degree from Lolcat University, another from MIT. We're both NOT engineers because nobody took the licensing exam yet offered by the PEO. :)

edited 8th Aug '13 7:59:09 PM by breadloaf

Mandemo Since: Apr, 2010
#430: Aug 8th 2013 at 10:13:09 PM

Wait, your solution for government organizations is to create een bigger organizations? How do you prevent these from coming an "entranched" power? How do you choose who runs those organizations? What is their rikard? How do you prevent internal politics from being formed ?

Also, in Nordic countries government can enforce rules if they are being broken. Fines are mostly use.

edited 25th Jan '17 5:27:42 AM by Mandemo

PacalII Since: Jan, 2013
#431: Aug 13th 2013 at 7:13:44 AM

I'm kind of an anarchist. It's not though that I consider governement to be the biggest problem just because of goverment. It's more that I'm against violence, by which I mean using force against others, threat, and theft. It's just that governements happen to be the mains perpetrators of violence in the world. It's estimated that goverments caused the death of a quarter million people in the 20th century, and if you add war victims the numbers double. On the other hand we have about ten million "private murders", which is of course also tragic. You have to take into account though that goverments are also responsible for many of those, we wouldn't have so much organised crime without drug prohibition and we wouldn't have so many criminals if not for the economic failures caused by governemenst. But in the end I'm against all forms of violence or rather it's initiation, I think most people will consider self-defence justified. And this takes into account not only governemenst, but also mafias, criminals, corporations which lobby for specific regulations in their favor, terrorists, bullies and so on.

As someone already posted, I don't agree with the means most anarchists propose. Abolishing the goverment through force will only cause another one to form. So I think we should rather rely on technology to render traditional economies absolete, so that society doesn't have to rely on force in achieving it's goals.

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#432: Aug 13th 2013 at 7:26:47 AM

[up]Government may be the largest causers of violence in the world, but that's because governments are big, governments are probably also some of the biggest preventers of violence in the world. You can't measure how much violence government prevents, but at a guess I'd say that many western governments prevent more than they cause, not only via law and order but also by giving people things that they might otherwise take though violence, by enabling people to solve disputes without resorting to violence and many other ways.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Ringsea He Who Got Gud from Fly-Over Country,USA Since: Aug, 2012 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
He Who Got Gud
#433: Aug 13th 2013 at 7:29:48 AM

[up][up]Historically, when a government falls more violence seems to occur. Somalia, Afghanistan, etc.

The most edgy person on the Internet.
Mandemo Since: Apr, 2010
#434: Aug 13th 2013 at 7:31:22 AM

Saying that "Governments themselves are cause of violence" is pretty stupid.

Ideologies, religions, conflicting interest, these are causes of conflict. Governments merely make it more centralized.

In fact, if there weren't governments to, I don't know, enforcing peace inside their borders as well as discouraging attacks against themselves, we would see a lot more violence as people would raid each others for resources.

PacalII Since: Jan, 2013
#435: Aug 13th 2013 at 9:13:32 AM

Government may be the largest causers of violence in the world, but that's because governments are big, governments are probably also some of the biggest preventers of violence in the world. You can't measure how much violence government prevents, but at a guess I'd say that many western governments prevent more than they cause, not only via law and order but also by giving people things that they might otherwise take though violence, by enabling people to solve disputes without resorting to violence and many other ways.
The thing is that it uses violence to enable many of those things. But... I agree with you, in the sence that modern western governements are much better than they were in the past, and better than most in the Middle East, latin America or Africa. On the other hand I would say that the west is better of, by most part thanks to our cultural and technological advances. We modernised our agriculture to do the point were we don't have outbrakes of famine every year. Industrial technology made our life easier giving cheaper energy, communication and trasporation. The information evolution allowed caused even the industrial sector to decreases and allowed people to not only satisfy more easily our needs of food and health, but also of culture, education and general self-improvement. I think these factors had a much bigger positive impact on peoples lives than any, even most sophisticated governement. And who knows, maybe one day we will actually have governements which don't rely on the intiation of force at all. Although I don't know if such an institution could be called a governement at all.
Historically, when a government falls more violence seems to occur. Somalia, Afghanistan, etc.
I would agree with you, that's why my post had a second part. If you read it, you'll see that I clearly wrote abolishing a governement isn't the answer. Btw, do you know what Somalia was like before 1991?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Democratic_Republic

Civil wars don't break out just for the heck of it.

Saying that "Governments themselves are cause of violence" is pretty stupid.
Who are you quoting? Because I certainly wrote no such thing.

edited 13th Aug '13 9:13:55 AM by PacalII

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#436: Aug 13th 2013 at 9:13:54 AM

In fact, if there weren't governments to, I don't know, enforcing peace inside their borders as well as discouraging attacks against themselves, we would see a lot more violence as people would raid each others for resources.

You'd also see a lot of old scores being settled — both on a personal and societal level.

Keep Rolling On
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#437: Aug 13th 2013 at 2:39:46 PM

Anarchy, ultimately, is just tribalism, and tribalism is the natural state of man. The violent, horrific, destructive natural state of man, because nature is violent, horrific, and destructive. Nature is anarchy.

Government exists as an alternative to anarchy. I don't know why we would ever want to go back.

edited 13th Aug '13 2:40:58 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Mandemo Since: Apr, 2010
#438: Aug 13th 2013 at 10:10:50 PM

Well, technically governments are extensions of tribalism. They are "over-tribes".

Using Crusader Kings 2 example, normally we would have Tribe Satakuntas, Tribe Tavastians, Kvens, etc. all these numerous tribes around.

Then we form first governments, in which three tribes belong. Now we got this "over-tribe" called Finland.

In essences, it's simply tribes inside tribes. In Finland, there are still sometimes references to other people based on ancient tribes, even if nobody no longer considers them their "main" tribe, since they see themselves "Tribe Finns".

breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#439: Aug 15th 2013 at 1:08:19 AM

Hm, I'm unsure how to respond to your retort against me, Mandemo. I am unclear how my post indicated that I wish for larger government organisations? Maybe I'll just explain the reason why I don't think the engineering association example is a good counter point.

The example with engineering is not well suited as an argument against anarchism because it is a perfect example of rational, technically skilled individuals self-organising in a way that is highly beneficial to society (accreditation to maintain a level of skill to be called a professional engineer, self-policing to remove bad apples that lies atop existing judicial structures etc). It is rather an example of how self-organising and a social order created by cultural rules can be just as strong as a nation-state organ.

It is why parts of Spain that are anarchist (and in other places that remain anarchist) do not devolve into lawless anarchy. Anarchism is about removing entrenchment of power but not about abolishing the ability of humans to socialise or organise into groups. It's about free association and potentially the ousting of bad leaders (I say potentially because the different anarchist ideologies differ greatly on that matter).

Additionally, no one pretends that the global PEO and its daughter organisations are saintly and infallible. Nor does anyone expect engineers to never make mistakes. But one does expect that such an organisation be as good as possible. If someone fails their responsibility to society, the number one priority of an engineer, their licence is revoked (and sometimes permanently). There is no government forcing anyone's hand in doing so. It is the pride and honour and the face of engineers that has to be maintained and the professional organisations do this through extrajudicial manners. The leadership is decided through vote-based democracy.

So, in fact, this is less government not more.

edited 15th Aug '13 1:08:35 AM by breadloaf

Mandemo Since: Apr, 2010
#440: Aug 15th 2013 at 1:21:38 AM

Problem is, that only way to prevent entrenchment of power, is to make sure is no power. Otherwise, the power will always be entrenched, unless you magically remove all ambition from humans. Someone will always want power and all systems described are essentially systems we have today. Except that somehow, now they aren't.

You see, democracy is about ability to remove bad leaders too. It's about who people choose. Yet, for anarchist, this is bad because "it allows entrenchment"...

When you create any power structure, where you don't kill off the previous leaders(and even then...), you create a system which relies on everyone thinking the same way and nobody ever wanting the power. Because all systems are open for entrenchment. You can't create a system, without changing the fundamental nature of mankind.

breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#441: Aug 15th 2013 at 1:33:35 AM

I wanted to expand on the notion and concept of anarchism here because I feel that the viewpoint of "it's just anti-government" is an inaccurate depiction of the overall social organisation that the various forms of anarchism calls for.

For instance, "democracy is bad". Anarchism does not rule out democracy. In fact, I just noted how the PEO democratically votes for its leadership.

There is a significant difference between an all encompassing government which provides for all social functions and the ways in which anarchists would want to arrange themselves. A capitalist anarchist (like libertarians) would focus on government having powers only in enforcing contracts that were agreed upon (and thus have some of the requirements of providing police, court systems and probably record keeping of some sort). Union based anarchists would wish to have industries divided between unions and arrange society in that manner (I used the example of how Sweden sets minimum wages via industry self-regulation where unions and corporations negotiate on it). Communal base anarchists believe in having smaller political structures such that you don't deal with bad leaders by voting them out but via emigration (something akin to tribal times).

We needn't go into a philosophical discussion of human nature and power entrenchment. I give real world examples of working systems. Sweden's unions. Our professional engineering associations. Spain's cooperative based worker democracy industries. America's elected justice and police officials.

Most nation-states of today have aspects of anarchism in them much like they have aspects of communism (public education for instance) or socialism (unionised labour, welfare programs, agricultural subsidies) and everything else. Would it all work if we tried to combine everything? I'm not entirely sure. As stated throughout this thread, the only real roadblock to anarchism has been state-sponsored violence. That is something which will slowly go away as our technology improves.

Mandemo Since: Apr, 2010
#442: Aug 15th 2013 at 2:20:44 AM

Swedens unions work because there is an existing , entrenched government/power structure enforcing the law they made. Furthermore, these unions are equally vulnerable to creating an entrenched power base. First two unions unite, then they add more and more... until there is only one union to negotiate with. Or, alternatively, internal politics cause the system to become entrenched.

Who says one union does not make a deal with companies, that they offer "the best" offers and drive other unions to ground, by having companies refuse to hire anyone not in the union? With this, companies and this union can create, two way entrenched power: There is The Union and then there is the companies union. Not much of a choice, especially if these two keep driving any competition away.

How do you prevent any sort of organization, in absence of already existing entrenched power to enforce rules, from becoming an entrenched power?

breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#443: Aug 17th 2013 at 4:57:28 PM

But those are hypotheticals. I'm showing real world examples. As that has not happened then I have no real material to discuss with.

The government did not enforce the union rules. That is very much the opposite of what the government did. The Swedish history is very much the same as Canada or the United States. As far as government and union goes, they have never gotten along and only grudgingly accept one another today. The entrenched powers of Sweden violently rejected union power.

I'm not going to say that the situation of union coalescing into one mega one is not impossible but seeing as how it has not happened and does not appear to be likely any time in the next few decades, I can only say that your situation is too hypothetical to contemplate. I could come up with dozens of different social systems to "logically" do away with such entrenchment but those arguments are as weak as yours; that somehow and in some way, something will happen even though we've never seen it before in history.

edited 17th Aug '13 4:58:19 PM by breadloaf

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#444: Aug 17th 2013 at 10:00:03 PM

I think you may need to define entrenchment more clearly. If someone is in a position wher they have authority, and they stay in that position for several decades, doesn't that make them pretty entrenched?

PacalII Since: Jan, 2013
#445: Aug 18th 2013 at 10:49:59 AM

The fact that the governement opposed the unions doesn't mean they are not connected now. The roman empire persecuted christians and then became christian itself. The point is union laws are enforced through state laws. So union laws are very much statist nowadays.

breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#446: Aug 19th 2013 at 7:20:34 PM

Minimum wage laws are not enforced by the government in Sweden, they are enforced by the unions. That situation came about through the hard work of unions, not the government. The current system is therefore brought on by the workers not the government. There's a difference between the government not actively attacking worker rights and actually be a promoter of them. So no, they are not backed by state laws. They are backed by workers who would rile up against the government should the state move against them. That's a big difference.

A person in power for a long period of time is not entrenchment. This is moving the goal post for anarchism, much like "having anyone in charge is not anarchism". I know of no such forms of anarchism where nobody is in charge of anything. This form of "aha!" argument is not really all that relevant. You defined your own anarchism and then argue against its existence; so what?

Entrenchment is when authorities continue their power of authority in ways unrelated to the performance of their job. For instance, if you are to decide who leads a hunting pack and you continue to choose a person who has demonstrably lost the ability to lead hunts well but continue to do so for political reasons (such as, his father is a powerful person in the village or he has bribed people to continue voting for him to lead the hunt).

In most societies, the development of cultural rules and social organs serve to lessen the frustration of people and power entrenchment. For instance, in many hunter societies you might expect that the hunter receives high praise for a successful hunt. In fact, most such hunter societies do no such thing because it creates a prestige problem that leads to power entrenchment. Instead, most hunter societies congratulate a person OTHER than the hunter; for instance, the dart maker who created the weapon that killed the animal.

The actual specifics of a society and how it deals with people matter a lot. If in America you value blonde hair leaders with high charisma and then you subsequently complain that "leaders who do not have the relevant skill consistently obtain positions they are not qualified for", the fault is with your culture and unfortunately whether you are anarchist or not, your problem remains. There is in fact no worsening of the problem under anarchism. I have not really seen any strong arm tactics by the US government to eliminate bureaucratic or political inefficiency through the institution of technocratic solutions. You may prove me wrong but basically if no such thing happens under the current American government, why exactly is there a belief that anarchism is better or worse in that regard?

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#447: Aug 19th 2013 at 9:50:36 PM

But the thing is, people will rarely ever admit they've given someone an important position for political reasons; they'll always have some justification for why this person is qualified. Obviously some justifications are more convincing than others, but it still comes down to whose opinion you trust.

And, again, the sort of society you're describing is not something I would consider anarchist, no more than I'd describe contemporary China as communist. "More anarchic" might be a better descriptor.

Mandemo Since: Apr, 2010
#448: Aug 19th 2013 at 10:51:33 PM

So how are the governments any more entrenched than unions? Both are, essentially, run by bureaucrats. Different levels, but the job is same at the core. They maintain relationship outside their group (nation-nation or union-union level) and govern their own group.

Nobody will step out and say "Hey, I want this job even if I am totally not qualified for it!". No, if they want the job, they will do their best to claim they are the most qualified, regardless of the truth.

Even then, in the modern era, your entrenchment definition is very sketchy. We have this system called democracy, where people have X years to get shit done, or have people vote them out.

Or are you saying that people should be fired right away, with no "test" periods or "You have X years to work"? That all hire/fire decisions are to be made "Here and NOW"?

breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#449: Aug 21st 2013 at 12:04:03 AM

I am merely describing anarchist systems that are in place right here right now as an example of what systems can be run under anarchist systems. Moving the goal post on description of power, entrenchment or heck even holding a semantic discussion of what is a bureaucrat has been the majority of counterpoints to everything I have said. What I'd like to impress upon you is that anarchism is not what you seem to believe it to be and this thread is about explaining the various forms of it and I'd like you to come away with the thought that perhaps anarchism isn't "no leaders, no organisation and nobody in charge".

For the union example, the unions *can* develop power structures, unions *can* become corrupt, unions *can* cheat its members or non-members from good jobs. But does it happen? The answer is: it depends. In Sweden? No problem. Germany? Still good. France? Pretty good. USA? Terrible. Canada? Quite bad.

The question isn't whether to have unions, the question to ask first is "do I want unions" and then if yes, "how do I set up my unions?".

Similarly, if one were to say, I do not want a particular behaviour to be policed. Then the next question is, "how do I maintain a situation where everyone comes away happy?". For instance, we do not use police to have people line up orderly into queues at grocery checkouts. People do that naturally. So the solution was cultural rules.

Or, take for instance, human capital development (education, work skills etc). In Germany the corporations that operate there pay out of their own pocket to fund vast apprenticeship and internship programs (all fully paid) in order to train the next generation of workers. Businesses developed a long-term thinking culture without any helping dollars from government and hammered out agreements with schools to train up workers with real world experience. But, you look at United States? Businesses could do exactly the same but compared to having 50-70% of German students graduating with work experience and then many immediately getting a job, American students have less than a percent go into internship programs and have one of the highest youth unemployment rates in the west. Neither situation was one run by government. This was by private individuals crafting a culture.

So, ultimately, I'm saying that you shouldn't get hung up on hypothetical evil mastermind schemes to gain power under these systems but worry more about the people participating in them and the culture they develop. Anarchism is a view and a set of systems that asks you to depend more on good culture and social order versus the heavier hand of state forces or monopoly of violence.

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#450: Aug 21st 2013 at 1:37:03 AM

Re: lines in a grocery store: But the store's management can make you wait orderly in line and/or kick you out for being disorderly. Most people never see any need to test them on that, but that power does exist.

And what you seem to be suggesting is that, if you can peacefully convince someone to do what you want, there's no need to use force and/or the law to make them do what you want. Which is a very good creed, I just don't think following it is enough to classify a society as an anarchy. That's like saying America is a theocracy because government offices shut down on the Christian sabbath.


Total posts: 512
Top