!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
I think it's important to denote that some people categorize anarchism as a distant dream regime, for convenience of course.
You can see anarchism in action in the punk movement or other community efforts. People building bridges on their own, living in a gridless community, sharing art using their own methods like cassette tapes. That's all anarchism.
I'm not at the heart of anarchism. I'm not occupying an abandoned building to help the poor, for example. But I've read a couple of books on it.
The point of anarchism is the rejection of hierarchy. If enough people reject hierarchy, they would all be on board with not filling the power vacuum. That's why establishing anarchism is much more than getting rid of the current despot. It has to be get rid of all those with power over others, get rid of the concept of hierarchy, get rid of wealth accumulation as power concentration, get rid of anyone even trying to rule over others. They would have no support with anyone, because everyone knows power corrupts and we're not taking any chances. Nobody should desire to rule over others, if (1) nobody listens to you, (2) people will fight you, and (3) you, like everybody else, knows it's morally wrong
I'm not saying all of this is practical, but that's the idea. Dismantling hierarchy is difficult, but still not sufficient to establish anarchist society. People would just build a new hierarchy if not convinced that hierarchies in themselves are the issue
Yes, but you're thinking pragmatically. Like how it would work in the real world.
Anarchy is an ideal theory. It's not a practical or pragmatic one. It is argued for in comparison to other ideal theories.
Pretty much every political theory breaks down when subjected to pragmatic real world problems.
This rings 100% true for me in regards to anarchism, communism, capitalism, socialism, feudalism... Pretty much any organisational structure that mankind has or will ever conceive.
People are difficult, irrational and unpredictable. Put a whole bunch of people together on a plot of land, multiply that 1 billion times over and you get the unfathomable clusterfuck that is modern civilization. Not even being defeatist about it, just pointing out the factual reality that the perfect society does not and will never exist, far from it. I am aware I'm rambling on and pointing out the obvious here.
well, at least until aliens invade.
people tend to be remarkable cooperative when faced with an external existential threat. most countries cohere quite well when they are in a state of war.
We got covid, and a lot of countries governments took advantage of it and spread misinformation and active vaccine denial. That's about as close to an alien invasion as we're gonna get, and we kinda failed disastrously at it.
I used to think we'd come together over an external threat too. Now I'm not so sure. In fact, we might even get people denying that it's even happening.
people tend to be remarkable cooperative when faced with an external existential threat.
Counterpoint in the US at least: Covid.
that wasn't an external threat. it was an internal one
This about the external threat.. the uniting against, was always against other humans from near around. Almost against neighbours. There is still a destruction of our planet where we are not united against. And there is even less unitedness for a fight against warmongering countries.
The issue is that it's not one problem, it's thousands. Anarchism has countless solutions for countless power vacuums, from regulating the flow of meetings to federating different Zapatista towns.
You yourself are probably engaging in anarchic power vacuum mitigation when your friend group decides when to hang out and what to do; if anyone got too much power or responsibility you would take action to make things fair again.
Generally speaking, power vacuums are dismantled by dissolving the hierarchies that can be dissolved, changing the material conditions so power is decentralized, and building a social structure to hold the remaining power conditional on not being authoritarian. You can probably remember doing these things with your friends (or former friends).
Anarchist theory is either descriptive, like critically analysing the Zapatistas, or it's putative, like sociocracy. So far we have no proven overarching theory of what works for everyone everywhere in every situation, but we do have lots of small anarchist collectives that are benefiting their members and their society in limited scopes.
Best working descriptions, with difficulties encountered are:
It could only truly happen if everyone was enlightened to the point where crime and prejudices cease to exist. Where corruption doesn't exist.
If you read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein that may give you an idea.
Otherwise, I attended Porcfest, the libertarian Porcupine Freedom Festival, back in 2016. Although it’s labeled libertarian, most folks I talked to discussed anarchy. One of the presentations I remember asserted that 8 is the optimal number of individuals in a decision making group. In his ideal anarchy individual people would assemble in groups of 8, who would then gather their groups or reps from their groups into a higher group of 8, and so on. Effectively higher level group decisions, if needed, would be made by a council that could be traced back to any individual.
I don’t know that that’s a good plan, but it may get your mind going on how to think about the topic.
I have often wondered about having a voting system with a chit. Like a signed token or such and someone could assign theirs to another they trusted. It would take two tokens to get to level 2 and so on with people who get to the highest level could maybe be part of a tribunal and just below that a court of 9 and below that a congress of 81. things could be passed up and down the chain with people at levels can decide on elections to go over bills. like every level could get do you want an eletion to go over legislation this year and if over 50% of the level does not want to bother then it goes to the next level and so on till the lowest level that has enough interest to do it.
It wouldn't.
Anarchism (and communism) live and die by the idea that ALL people would have a completely unrealistic level of cooperation and selflessness. As fucked up as capitalism is, it can bend when people don't play nice and there's at least a theoretical possibility of anyone gaining power (money) to impact change in the system. Money itself doesn't inherently have preferences or moral opinions on what should be. Anarchism however breaks the moment someone behaves selfishly. It can work fine in small, like-minded communities where people can always leave (or be excluded) to find other systems that better fit their ideals. However, Anarchism on a societal level would demand that there is basically no other type of society available - which would lead to Sen's paradox. The reason we don't have true anarchist (or communist) countries is that they get wiped out by powers that function in sync with people's natural inclinations for self-interest (like capitalism). People like to argue that these attitudes are DUE to capitalism, not inherent in human nature. Even if I were to entertain the idea that that's true, we currently live in this world of self-interest. Unless you can press a reset button on humanity, this is what we are working with. Solutions that rely on the idea that we can just fundamentally change how ALL people in the world currently are, are not solutions. They're idle fantasies. The "argument" that "if the world wasn't shitty, we could have an amazing utopia", is not an argument at all, it's just a tautology with no power of utility.
The way db0 handled their defederation from feddit.org is a great example of how Anarchism fails even on small scale. They espouse ideals about democratic voting and rational discourse, but the moment the organizing body of the instance had opinions on how they think things "should" be, they used propaganda and political theater to get the result they wanted. Anarchist ideals couldn't function in a low stakes online space, it has little hope of functioning where people are driven by actual survival needs (and desire for power). Whatever ideological purity drove the db0 admins to present the "democratic vote" the way they did, will be the exact same drive people tend to fall to on larger scales as well.
Same thing can be seen in the Communist instances: they rely heavily on propaganda and people sticking to the "correct" narrative. Which also brings up the conflict: there has to be an organizing body that has opinions on what is "right" and what is "wrong". This organizing body will be the authority, no matter how people try to use rhetorical slalom to get around it and trick people into thinking the spade isn't a spade.
People can start to build small grassroots communities with these ideals. Please do, and once they gain enough power (money) in the system we are currently living in, perhaps they can impact policy changes etc. that are more humanitarian. That would be wonderful. But always be aware that the ideals are fragile and break under any corruption. Capitalism works with corruption (not merely despite of), which is why it's extremely effective at being the might that makes right.
(And because I'm aware how these discussions go: I'm absolutely NOT saying "capitalism good". I'm saying it has more functional power than Anarchism. And I find Anarchism to be far more ethical and appealing in theory.)
I really dislike the idea that anarchy doesnt work because people follow their own interest, because i think it is based on a bad understanding of what anarchy is. It is not a system based on simple good will and sacrificing yourself for others. It is a system where you share help, you give it and you receive it : one grows food, one builds houses and at the end of a day, everyone get a house with food. So you have an interest in helping people, so that they help you. It works the same way as our current societies, skipping the part where someone forces you to do so or where you add the step of giving money to each other for this. If people don't play nice, either it's a few people and that's no big deal, either it's a lot and they're defederating and that's a valid possibility, anarchist systems are precisely adaptable.
Now, I perfectly understands the fear that it's not stable enough to compete with states, but it's not the same thing. It does not mean that anarchy fails by itself, it means that it fails when a state destroys it, those are two very different points. Your concluding paragraph makes me think that you are actually thinking the 2nd point, while stating the 1st as an opening.
Also i don't really understand what is the big deal with db0 defederation. I mean db0 has issues, and this was a debatable and debated action, but defederation itself is not really bad is it? You make it sound like a definitive failure, and i don't really see the bad part of it. Or is it something else alongside defederation?
It is a system where you share help, you give it and you receive it : one grows food, one builds houses and at the end of a day, everyone get a house with food.
This is exactly the problem I was highlighting. It's nice to construct the idea where people get along but how do you incentivize them to actually do that without using coercive methods? "We can make this work if everyone just gets along" is just another tautology. Unsurprisingly, any system will work if all people would just cooperate.
Not to even get to the general logistical difficulties with deciding how many carrots one should get for building a house, and if that's fair. And the free rider problem.
If people don’t play nice, either it’s a few people and that’s no big deal, either it’s a lot and they’re defederating and that’s a valid possibility, anarchist systems are precisely adaptable.
And what if the people who disagree decide to subjugate (and possibly erase) the anarchist system? What if (as is likely) people decide that they want is personal power and authority over others?
It does not mean that anarchy fails by itself, it means that it fails when a state destroys it,
It fails internally due to it's fragility in the face of corruption. And when scaled, it would have to compete with anyone who decides that might makes right (by any means necessary). Pure, non-coercive anarchism inherently cannot withstand an attack from anyone who is willing to be coercive in order to gain power.
Also i don’t really understand what is the big deal with db0 defederation.
(Also to @ageedizzle@piefed.ca)
They can defederate all they like. The problem is in the way the "democratic" vote was presented. Their method of conducting the vote (with very clear bias) shows that the Admins had a strong opinion on what the correct result of the vote should be. This is abuse of power - which should not exist in an actual Anarchist setting. The exact same driving forces can be copied and pasted to other scenarios: the organizing body of an Anarchist community has a Strong Opinion about a matter, and they put the matter to vote "democratically", but they use extremely loaded rhetoric to push their own agenda so that people vote the way they want. It's consent manufacturing, and thus, not Anarchism. I highly recommend reading Animal Farm.
And to be clear: I'm fine with db0 admins doing whatever they like, but calling it an "Anarchist" instance is then misleading. It's rather just another informal, progressive oligarchy where the appearance of democracy is used to mask centralized platform governance. Anarchism failed, because the moment they created that farce of a vote, they stopped being anarchists and became authoritarians. Anarchist ideals did not do what they needed to do for the db0 admins to get the results they wanted.
1st point : how to motivate people to do useful things ?
Because as i stated, they have an interest to do so. If they help, they get help in return. You have an interest to do your job and voluntary work because in return people will help you, either because you give them money or because they help people as volunteers.
Also people do things in their lives, mostly things helpful to themselves or others. They don't sit there waiting unless they are forced to do stuff. This point of view is obviously false, and is a premise used by bourgeois propaganda to legitimate exploitation.
2nd point : what if people try to recreate power ?
This is a whole debate, it can come to education, groups looking out for power situations like ngos do with corruption, and if need be armed struggle. But this falls under the "how to destroy power" problem rather than "how to live when there is no power", and you're right to point it out, this is one of the big problem. It's even bigger than what you point out, because we have to get rid of actual existing powers, which we'll agree is far harder than preventing new ones to emerge.
3rd point : corruption/weakness against power
I agree that anarchy is weak against power, because power is predatory and anarchy is not or is less. Preventing rise of authoritarianism would be one of the big problems, we agree. Now, again you make it seem quite absolute, like "one dude using violence would make the whole system fall" : this is not that easy, violence can be in the hands in the anarchists too if it's used against them. If one dude wants to use violence to take power, you can simply stop them with a bunch of people. Now, if they armed themselves or got a bunch of people to follow them, you get a semblance of power again, and it calls for struggle against it : either discussion to find a common ground, either violent struggle if previous is not possible.
Again, your comments make me think that you don't think that anarchy does not work, you think it does not stand against power, which is different, and which i perfectly understand.
4th point : on db0
OK, my bad for mistaking your point. Indeed, the db0 admins are quite intense about their positions, but i do think that it is fine. The problem is that they hold power over the instance, not that they state their opinion. But it has to do with how tech works rather than anything else.
You cannot have anarchy when someone or a group physically has the system, and/or the ability to do whatever to do with it. If it was an anarchist system, they would be mandated, they could be revoked, etc., and people submitting an idea to assembly vote could be very vocal for it, to defend it (and typically would not be part of the mandated organizing people). db0 is indeed not that, it is a anarchist-themed or anarchist-leaning instance functioning by non-anarchist means. So the problem you identified has to do with power, not with anarchy. Eventually with power used by people promoting anarchy, but not anarchy itself.
Thanks for your input. This convo between you and @asofon@discuss.online is very interesting
1st point : how to motivate people to do useful things ?
Because as i stated, they have an interest to do so. If they help, they get help in return. You have an interest to do your job and voluntary work because in return people will help you...
If someone decides to take without giving, how does your system stop them? Social pressure? Then you’re admitting coercion exists. Violence? Then you’re admitting authority exists. Might makes right. Or do you just let them freeload until the system collapses? Yes, people do help others - but not universally, not equally, and not without incentives or consequences. Capitalism and states channel self-interest into productive outcomes (even if imperfectly). Anarchism relies on self-interest magically aligning with collective good. This is not a mechanism, it’s an ideal, a fantasy.
power
If anarchists need armed struggle to prevent power, they’re admitting that violence (i.e., coercion) is necessary to maintain their system. But if coercion is allowed, what makes this different (to the point of superiority) from what we currently have?
Again, your comments make me think that you don’t think that anarchy does not work, you think it does not stand against power, which is different, and which i perfectly understand.
Like I said in my first post: I’m absolutely NOT saying “capitalism good”. I’m saying it has more functional power than Anarchism.
If it was an anarchist system, they would be mandated, they could be revoked, etc., and people submitting an idea to assembly vote could be very vocal for it, to defend it
"Who watches the watchdogs" issue.
So the problem you identified has to do with power, not with anarchy. Eventually with power used by people promoting anarchy, but not anarchy itself.
The thing is that now we get to the territory where Anarchy always stays pure and perfect, because the moment people drop anarchist ideals in favor of an actually functional alternative, it's no longer Anarchism. Ideals are nice and all, but lack functional power, which I've been saying all the time.
Anarchism would work beautifully - if everyone would just agree and cooperate.
On people giving without taking : Someone taking without giving would be someone sitting around without doing anything. It does not exist, people do things, and most of them are useful to the community. But let's admit some people just sleep and eat, or let's admit that you consider people that give less than they take a problem (which it isn't in anarchy, it is not a meritocratic system) : if that's just a few (closest to reality), probably not a problem. If it is more than the community can support, then it's a problem the community has to solve with anarchic means : try talking to get some of them to do stuff, try getting help from other communities,etc. If in a very weird world, it does not change anything, then you just have the possibility to provide help and resources for participative people first.
Anarchism relies on self-interest magically aligning with collective good. No, that's precisely the point i'm trying to make. You are not helping selflessly : you are helping each others, so that they are able to help you. You can be selfish in an anarchist community : just do the bare minimum, and not help for collective actions. It does not break the system. Even if everyone does it, as long as everyone do the minimum, everyone get the minimum. This is something that works out of the box for everyone : whenever you do stuff with friends, family, neighbours, be it playing football, repairing something, preparing a party, in an informal manner, then people organize by themselves. Some do more, some do less, almost everyone does something. Unless there is a strict hierarchy in the group, when the popular friend or patriarch might then do nothing.
On preventing power : Your point is that armed struggle is necessary to prevent power, and you then equate prevent power to make the system work. Again, preventing power is not about how the system works, it's about how the system survives. The difference between current systems and anarchy is that coercion is not needed to make the system work day to day, it is needed in its most primitive force when the system is threatened. Also, you directly skipped all the solutions to try beforehand (educating the people to what power is and how and why to prevent it, watching out symptoms of power, etc.) to just sum it up to "violence", which is the last resort option. Another difference from the current systems.
On capitalism : it's all good, i get your point of "it's the more likely regime to survive, so be it", and i'm fine with it, it's a valid point of view, especially nowadays. I'm just struggling with why you need to establish that anarchy has to fail on its own (rather than against power/capitalism) to prove it.
On "pure" anarchism : You could be right to call out "purity" behaviours, they are common in far left movments, i acknowledge that, especially for myself. But here that's not the case : they are clearly not functioning with anarchist principles, like i explained it's simply impossible to do because of the concept of server. They are anarchists using non-anarchists means, just like some royalist parties take part in republican systems.
As you are very cautious about what your intentions are, i should be too, my bad if it comes late in the discussion : i'm not saying anarchy is the best system for every one, i'm not saying it's viable as it is, i'm not saying it is a perfect thing that hurts no one. I think it is the best for me, would be the best for most people weren't they born under capitalism, and that's it's one of the less dangerous form of politics. I understand it has to face powers far more violent and dangerous and therefore far more likely to survive, and i also understand that it has to be conceived from within societies full of capitalist and pro-state assumptions. My main goal is to get you and people to a nuanced take on anarchy, notably that it does not fail inevitably on its own, but is very likely to fail because of capitalism, and is likely to fail on its own if you want (but not inevitably, that's the absolute i'm trying to fight here).
My main goal is to get you and people to a nuanced take on anarchy, notably that it does not fail inevitably on its own, but is very likely to fail because of capitalism, and is likely to fail on its own if you want (but not inevitably, that’s the absolute i’m trying to fight here).
As I've said multiple times in different words, Anarchism would work beautifully in ideal, perfect conditions.
Interesting comment, thanks.
The way db0 handled their defederation from feddit.org is a great example of how Anarchism fails even on small scale. They espouse ideals about democratic voting and rational discourse, but the moment the organizing body of the instance had opinions on how they think things "should" be, they used propaganda and political theater to get the result they wanted.
Was there some funky business with the vote or are you more referring to the fact that the mod conducting the vote had a clear preference for banning feddit.org?
There was no funky business that person doesn't understand anarchism whatsoever and uses that failed understanding to claim it doesn't work. Ridiculous statements that the admins should be enlightened centrists or some shite.
The post was basically:
feddit.org is a Nazi/Zionist-Bar, let's vote if dbzer0 should block the community xyz (it was not a vote about defederation).
And the "voting" was done by upvoting/downvoting the post, not through comments. Funnily enough the top comments were complaints against the situation and when this was pointed out it was put aside as "only upvoted because of feddit.org Trolls". I actually counted and while there were upvotes from feddit.org, the upvote/downvote ratio from only dbzer0-users was 2:1.
Then they said if enough people want to defederate they will put that in consideration. After multiple comments calling for that they decided on it without an extra vote.
It's like putting an ad on TV with a heavy bias and asking people to press a button on a remote. My idea was that anarchists are supposed to inform themselves about topics that get voted on but I'm pretty sure a lot of them just went with the flow.
To be honest, I've read a lot of fictional representations of 'anarchist' or 'libertarian' societies and they all fall apart if you look at them too closely.
"The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" is a science fiction classic and a fun read, but the 'free' society it envisions depends on everything being controlled by a single giant computer. It's set on Luna 200 years after the Moon became the prison of choice for all Earth nations. No prison gangs for 'reasons.'
Taking the definition at its etymological root, all anarchy means is "without rule".
In my head-canon, that doesn't necessarily mean the lack of laws, state, institutions or governance; the implication is that there are no citizens or individuals with permanently elevated authority in the polity of government. Without rulers.
Many, of course, disagree with this mostly on the basis of practicality, but I'd like to think it's another way to describe the concept of "No gods, no kings, no masters, no slaves."
Democracy is supposed to be that, but the citizenry doesn't participate like they should so it devolves to where things are now.