Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
Danish police say a 30-year-old man has been killed and four other people inured in a shooting in a Copenhagen neighborhood known for its counterculture vibe and flourishing hashish trade
The difference is than in an ideal anarchist polity, the minority can secede, even down to the individual. “Majority rule” only happens to the extent that the minority doesn’t find secession to be a worthwhile option. Whereas under democracy, the land and resources of the minority, and even the people themselves are considered to rightfully belong to the state. Any serious attempt at secession is met with violence.
Actually-existing “anarchistic” societies may not completely live up to this ideal, but it is what we strive for. Anarchists consider freedom of association and freedom of disassociation to be paramount.
That’s a nice concept that maybe could work if you live in a society without any shared resource, no infrastructure at all and no things that are built in a shared way, since everyone needs to be independent and self-sufficient enough to secede at any time.
I think, even at neolithic times we might have been too advanced for that to work.
It doesn’t mean that people can’t coordinate, just that the coordination needs to be voluntary. Think networks rather than hierarchies.
It’s similar to how the fediverse is organized. Any instance can defederate from any other for any reason, but we all try to mostly stick together, because there’s benefits to doing so. Those that are dissatisfied with the policies of the instance that they’re on can break off and form their own (ideally we’d have account migration too, but that’ll take time). No one is forced to connect, but the whole thing works regardless.
Infinitely dividable secession sounds sort of like capitalism’s limitless growth. There’s only so many square meters of land, how can everyone have their own private anarcho-commune?
Well, it’s not infinite. The individual can’t be divided, by definition. But also I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that more land would be required? It doesn’t mean no more high-density housing. You just shouldn’t be forced into an undesirable political association with your neighbors, beyond the practical minimum coordination involved in living in the same building.
If every individual is fully independent and self sufficient everyone needs land to grow potatos and go to bed. You can’t be truly independent. Anarchist society is inherently contradictory because society means having rules and standards we all have to abide by. If everyone is that independent then who is making the building they’re sharing in your example? Are they all just sort of taking care of their own corner? And when the boundaries conflict? Major structural damage, who pays to fix that? If the resources can’t be found then some just get wet when the roof leaks? Independence is bunk. Dependency is bunk.Interdependence has a chance of working. Anarchy is just a libertarian wet dream about existing in a vacuum with infinite resources. Instead of trying to create a hypothetical null set civilization we could improve the one that exists, and that allows for MASSIVE changes but they all presuppose that we agree collective society is a good thing.
It seems like you think I’m advocating for something that I’m not? “People should be free to choose who they associate with” does not mean “people should not cooperate with each other”.
There are plenty of natural incentives to cooperate, and people mostly do so by default. They just shouldn’t be forced to stay in organizations that abuse them. Being opposed to abusive relationships doesn’t not imply that one is opposed to relationships in general.
No, some people will want to cooperate. But others will not. Bad actors will organize and ruin what’s built unless there are systems in place. The second you have systems it isn’t anarchy because somebody is making decisions for somebody else.
Second comment: the thing about anarchy is we tried it. It was the natural state of things before Homo sapiens was very different from any other hominid. Bonobos may have an idyllic anarchist society but they have no defenses against those homo sapiens who show up and wreck shit. Maybe if the bonobos had organized.
The difference is than in an ideal anarchist polity, the minority can secede, even down to the individual. “Majority rule” only happens to the extent that the minority doesn’t find secession to be a worthwhile option. Whereas under democracy, the land and resources of the minority, and even the people themselves are considered to rightfully belong to the state. Any serious attempt at secession is met with violence.
Actually-existing “anarchistic” societies may not completely live up to this ideal, but it is what we strive for. Anarchists consider freedom of association and freedom of disassociation to be paramount.
That’s a nice concept that maybe could work if you live in a society without any shared resource, no infrastructure at all and no things that are built in a shared way, since everyone needs to be independent and self-sufficient enough to secede at any time.
I think, even at neolithic times we might have been too advanced for that to work.
It doesn’t mean that people can’t coordinate, just that the coordination needs to be voluntary. Think networks rather than hierarchies.
It’s similar to how the fediverse is organized. Any instance can defederate from any other for any reason, but we all try to mostly stick together, because there’s benefits to doing so. Those that are dissatisfied with the policies of the instance that they’re on can break off and form their own (ideally we’d have account migration too, but that’ll take time). No one is forced to connect, but the whole thing works regardless.
Infinitely dividable secession sounds sort of like capitalism’s limitless growth. There’s only so many square meters of land, how can everyone have their own private anarcho-commune?
Well, it’s not infinite. The individual can’t be divided, by definition. But also I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that more land would be required? It doesn’t mean no more high-density housing. You just shouldn’t be forced into an undesirable political association with your neighbors, beyond the practical minimum coordination involved in living in the same building.
If every individual is fully independent and self sufficient everyone needs land to grow potatos and go to bed. You can’t be truly independent. Anarchist society is inherently contradictory because society means having rules and standards we all have to abide by. If everyone is that independent then who is making the building they’re sharing in your example? Are they all just sort of taking care of their own corner? And when the boundaries conflict? Major structural damage, who pays to fix that? If the resources can’t be found then some just get wet when the roof leaks? Independence is bunk. Dependency is bunk.Interdependence has a chance of working. Anarchy is just a libertarian wet dream about existing in a vacuum with infinite resources. Instead of trying to create a hypothetical null set civilization we could improve the one that exists, and that allows for MASSIVE changes but they all presuppose that we agree collective society is a good thing.
It seems like you think I’m advocating for something that I’m not? “People should be free to choose who they associate with” does not mean “people should not cooperate with each other”.
There are plenty of natural incentives to cooperate, and people mostly do so by default. They just shouldn’t be forced to stay in organizations that abuse them. Being opposed to abusive relationships doesn’t not imply that one is opposed to relationships in general.
No, some people will want to cooperate. But others will not. Bad actors will organize and ruin what’s built unless there are systems in place. The second you have systems it isn’t anarchy because somebody is making decisions for somebody else.
Second comment: the thing about anarchy is we tried it. It was the natural state of things before Homo sapiens was very different from any other hominid. Bonobos may have an idyllic anarchist society but they have no defenses against those homo sapiens who show up and wreck shit. Maybe if the bonobos had organized.