you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 31 points 1 year ago (20 children)

Our current socioeconomic system is basically built on many intersecting hierarchies of coercion, oppression and control - i.e. some measure of power you can use to make someone do something they otherwise wouldn't want to do. A few examples of those hierarchies include patriarchy, religious authorities, the state, and capitalism.

All of those hierarchies must be abolished. If any of them remain in place, then you will end up with exploiters and the exploited. Eventually, this will stratify over time, as we've seen through history a number of times - the rich get richer, accumulate wealth and power until it becomes unbearable, then the current ruling class are overthrown and replaced by a new ruling class.

We need to NOT create a new ruling class. We need to abolish the ruling class and NOT EVER REPLACE THEM.

That's the mistake made by communism in the USSR - replacing the existing ruling elite with another ruling elite. No matter how cool and revolutionary the leaders of the revolution are, as soon as they have power, they WILL be corrupted by it.

So the solution to our shared problem is anarchism. We need to abolish all forms of coercive control, oppression, hierarchies, ensure that no one has power over anyone else. We need to learn to co-operate, work together, instead of competing and fighting.

Humans are the most co-operative animals in the world. We don't act like it, because the powers that be discourage us from co-operating. Because if we co-operated, we'd immediately realize the problems we have are coming from above.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    The key for any successful politically and economically equalized system... Is circular oversight. Committees arranged to observe and contribute to each others decision making. Shared and necessarily equal responsibilities.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

    It goes beyond oversight, it needs to be a flat structure, where no one person has authority over any other person. It's not enough to create three groups, give them all power, and have them all watch over each-other, for example, because that would also inevitably lead to corruption. The only thing that can guarantee freedom, peace, justice, and equality for all requires the abolition of all power structures. We need anarchism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    But I can assert power over you by threatening you with a baseball bat. If I get a group of buddies with bats, we become the power structure.

    You can't eliminate power structures forever, they arise spontaneously in a population. You can't abolish power structures because abolition requires a power structure to enforce.

    The best you can do is devise power structures with multiple layers of accountability. So long as some people are bigger, stronger, meaner than others, power imbalances will exist. If you don't have a structure to regulate those imbalances, warlords and mafiosos will make their own.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    You're missing a few major pieces of the puzzle here - why would you threaten me with a bat in the first place? Most crime is a result of inequal power structures to begin with. If all of our needs are met, why would we choose to be violent? Some crimes of passion may occur, but that's not likely to create any hierarchies.

    If we have an anarchist society, then we have already been successful at dismantling power structures. Any attempts to establish new power structures can be dealt with in the same way - in fact, in a much easier way, since they won't have anywhere near as much pre-established power.

    Revolution is not a single, one-off event. Anarchism requires permenent revolution, a commitment by the society to collectively prevent the formation of new power structures. It requires serious social changes that are likely to take at least a single generation, but probably longer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    why would you threaten me with a bat in the first place?

    Some people are greedy, or jealous, or just want to be in power.

    If we have an anarchist society, then we have already been successful at dismantling power structures. Any attempts to establish new power structures can be dealt with in the same way

    That seems like circular logic that hand-waves the intrinsic difficulty of the task as a trifling detail. You're assuming a solution exists, and then assuming that solution can deal with any new threats.

    Anarchism requires permenent revolution, a commitment by the society to collectively prevent the formation of new power structures. It requires serious social changes that are likely to take at least a single generation, but probably longer.

    That just leaves the tricky transition period. What do we do in the meantime? I think a single generation is massively underselling the timescale, what you're describing is likely to take a century or more. You can't build a system off of humans suddenly having heretofore unobserved commitment to the collective good.

    We're berry-picking primates advancing too fast for our nervous systems to keep up. Anarchism is a nice utopia to think of, but it isn't much comfort for people living today.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

    Seems like your mind is made up! I think this is just going to be one of those "agree to disagree" situations. The answers to your objections can be found in the Anarchist FAQ, I'd recommend learning more about it before dismissing it!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    On the contrary, my mind is constantly open and I've read quite a bit. But what I've read generally falls into three categories:

    1. Totally hand-wavey, concerned more with guiding principles than actionable models. No attempt is made to describe how to devise a non-hierarchical system that fulfills the needs of the people.

    2. Delusional, based entirely on people suddenly being way more cooperative and efficient in group decisions than they've ever actually been observed to be en masse.

    3. Inconsequential, "non-hierarchical" is abstracted so far that most modern democracies could be described as such after relatively minor reform. These seem the most practical to me, like the proponents actually considered the mechanics of how the system would work in the material world.

    I'm not trying to dismiss it, but everything I've read either makes it sound like a fantasy, or a minor change.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Again, humans are incredibly co-operative, but we've all been subject to brainwashing from childhood against our better natures. We can act against that brainwashing. It absolutely requires a social revolution - we need to be honest about our society and culture. If you think co-operation is delusional, I'd recommend learning a bit about paleolithic and neolithic human societies.

    Anyways, I'm sure you won't change your mind, the brainwashing is real, I get it, it's tough. As long as you're anti-capitalist, that's fine with me, you'll get there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Paleolithic and neolithic societies didn't have millions of people. The small percentage of greedy people becomes a much greater problem at that scale.

    I find it pretty offensive that you can't conceive of any disagreement that isn't the result of brainwashing. It's extremely counterproductive

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    There is no productive conversation to be had. I've stated my case and you've stated yours. I'm convinced I'm right, you're convinced that you're right. There's nothing I can do to change your mind. I'm not insulting you or whatever, it's just the reality of the situation. Your beliefs are built from your experiences and you believe that humans can't put aside greed to co-operate. It's sad that you believe that, but I'm unable to change it. Only you can do that, and I'm not seeing any interest, you just want what you currently believe to be correct, and to not have to change your world view. I understand that because I've been in the same place. I can only hope something I've said has taken root in your mind and will sprout some time in the future.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Right but you equally aren't interested in changing your worldview. I also used to believe the things you did. Why do you assume it's me that's brainwashed and not you? I changed my mind because of interacting with people in many contexts. I've witnessed them be selfish, lazy, combative, for no reason other than emotional response.

    The fact that you're so stubborn proves my point. Here we are, you refusing to cooperate to find new ground, unwilling to believe that my perspective comes from experience and not propaganda. It's ironic. How do you expect an entire civilization to cooperate if you can't find common ground in a simple conversation?

  • source
  • parent
  • Maybe this could work, but only if you divide the military across the committees. If it's just an advisory role, it's meaningless. That's the problem we're seeing with the Supreme Court and Congress in America.

    Even with those safeguards in place, what's to stop the committees from working together to turn on the people? Maybe this doesn't happen immediately, but what about in 300 years across many changes of power?

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 6 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    There's a lot of questions in there, and I'm genuinely really sorry to say, there's way more than I can hope to address with the limited amount of time and energy I have, but I think you're imagining an "anarchist state" or something like that - that's still thinking with a non-anarchist mindset. There is no country to invade, there's an amorphous blob of land, which I suppose another nation could attempt to impose itself upon, but in that case, all the working class needs to do is overthrow the new would-be autocracy. Why would a standing military force be more effective than an informal, organized resistance, fighting for their own land? You're imagining pitched battles and the like, instead imagine trying to occupy land where there's not really any clear military targets, but everywhere you attempt to impose control, your soldiers end up getting shot, stabbed, or having molatov cocktails thrown on them/their vehicles. Militarism does not protecting the people who live in a country, they're a tool of the ruling class to fight other nations. This is just my opinion, though - ask ten anarchists, you'll probably get twenty answers. We believe in creating a better society through consensus, which makes it a little tricky for anarchists to talk about solutions to specific problems on an individual basis.

    I'd recommend you check out the anarchist FAQ if you have more questions - https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/index.html

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    That makes sense, except that a very simple solution to the "how do I occupy the land" is "kill everyone there", since an anarchist place thing would most likely have less developped firepower since, like you said, militarism sucks for everyone not on top. Thing is, I do really agree with the principles of anarchism, and I think we should strive for a greater devolution of power. Just, maybe in a different way than what's often presented.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    If we made an anarchist society and we all get wiped out by genocide, at least we would die as free men and women, fighting for our homes and our lives. In the present we die as slaves and give our lives to increase shareholder value.

    People are so scared of uncertainty, and all of these "what if" questions are just thinly veiled fear and insecurity. I get it. But if we want to live in a better world, we need to find the courage to act.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I personally am fully capable of leading a fulfilling life, it's what I'm doing right now.

    I'm not throwing that away to be more "free", it's simply not worth the risk for me.

    I will work to get my current society towards more like what I want it to be though. Remember, the UK went from absolute monarchy to democracy without a revolution, if they were able to do that it's possible to do the same with other systems.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    We need to abolish all forms of coercive control, oppression, hierarchies, ensure that no one has power over anyone else. We need to learn to co-operate, work together, instead of competing and fighting.

    Any system that has any hope of being sustainable, after the destabilization of heirarchies, needs to distribute resources across and not from the top down. It's exhausting watching capitalists and democratic socialists fight against each other in western countries, with little to no anarchist presence whatsoever, when they both miss the point in a pretty glaring way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment