Not all anarchists are ultra-leftists bent on controlling thoughts through the control of speech. Some even say anarchism is about individual freedom above everything else, including above "minority" groups.
1. a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems: the country has been plunged into a state of anarchy.
2. the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government;
I can't tell if you understand or not, but your "first definition" is a grammatically correct pejorative. The second is a reference to a political philosophy.
What's happening in this comment thread is that people are "confusing" a mastodon instance dedicated to the political philosophy with a group dedicated to being in a state of disorder. It's neither productive to the discussion nor witty.
It’s only come to be a pejorative in recent times. Originally it was the only definition. This goes back at least as far as Aristotle’s political theory in which he categorized systems by the number of rulers (one, few, or many) and whether or not the rulers were “correct” (working toward the greater good) or “deviant” (working toward selfish aims). Aristotle did not recognize rule by “none” or “all” within his schema.
As for the modern pejorative connotation, it’s grounded in a critique: how do anarchist societies cope with motivated and determined rule-breakers without devolving into chaos?
So you understand the difference between the two definitions and you are falsely equating them in your first comment on purpose? In order to derail the conversation? That's disappointing.
No, I’m not equating them. I’m relating them. They are related. Anarchists have yet to demonstrate that they can build a robust society grounded in their theories (second definition) that doesn’t descend into anarchy (first definition), or result in some individual/group seizing power and putting down the opposition, betraying anarchist principles.
What anarchists propose is not in principle impossible, but it’s never been demonstrated to be practical. A near-universal critique of utopias is that they are not robust in the face of sustained opposition: that is, they assume everyone is ideologically aligned.
Nations absolutely have strong hierarchical relationships with one another. The US, for example, tends to use a lot of strong-arm tactics in its foreign policy in order to force smaller nations to toe the line.
If that's the sort of society anarchists envision for individuals, I have to say they're not being very ambitious!
Nations do not have a hierarchical relationship...only power dynamics, which is the strong-arm tactics that you mention. People are not hierarchical either. If nations or people become less dependent on a hierarchy for their survival, then they are freed from the constraints of & the burden of maintaining that hierarchy or pyramid scheme. This is a reason why totalitarian governments do not want people thinking for themselves or doing things that bring independence outside of that system. A pyramid scheme needs the people to do things to claim that the pyramid scheme itself did those things. In reality, the pyramid scheme did not build the roads, people built the roads.
> If that's the sort of society anarchists envision for individuals, I have to say they're not being very ambitious!
That's a reductionist take but ok...I'm not an anarchist & take a more pragmatic view to my own circumstances but I do appreciate the contributions that the various anarchist Philosophies to contribute.
For me, it's less about envisioning a new society but more about realizing the reality of what actually is...beneath the veneer that we call society is a regime enforced with violence & the imposition of a pyramid scheme on people whether or not they want to take part in it. The government does not make anything but only transfers resources at a loss. If some people gain resources at the expense of many others, then the people gaining the resources are happy while the others who are supporting the system are downtrodden. If the downtrodden stop participating in their own exploitation, violence is committed against them to accept their servitude. Effectively, you cannot have a pyramid scheme without some sort of colonialism or slavery. When the colonized realize they can remove the imposed yoke & organize in other ways, they do. What happens then?
I'm curious to know what you would say are the necessary and sufficient conditions for any state of affairs to qualify as a social hierarchical relationship, if lopsided power dynamics do not.
This is a reason why totalitarian governments do not want people thinking for themselves or doing things that bring independence outside of that system
I think you're mistaking authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. Authoritarian regimes (such as Russia or China) seek to create an environment of depoliticization and disengagement, allowing them to go about their domestic business without any opposition. Totalitarian regimes do the opposite: extreme political mobilization of the population toward a particular aim. The difference is readily apparent when these two regime types institute a draft: disengaged people flee, mobilized people sign up to fight.
For me, it's less about envisioning a new society but more about realizing the reality of what actually is...beneath the veneer that we call society is a regime enforced with violence & the imposition of a pyramid scheme on people whether or not they want to take part in it.
Who has the monopoly on organized violence is the primary question answered by any political philosophy. My main criticism of anarchism is that it doesn't offer a solution to this problem, it merely punts. Power naturally accrues to those most willing to use it, so a diffusion of power is a vacuum, and nature abhors a vacuum.
> I'm curious to know what you would say are the necessary and sufficient conditions for any state of affairs to qualify as a social hierarchical relationship, if lopsided power dynamics do not.
An explicit organizational structure with a chain of command, often involving taxes & a locus of governing power with titles.
> I think you're mistaking authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. Authoritarian regimes (such as Russia or China) seek to create an environment of depoliticization and disengagement, allowing them to go about their domestic business without any opposition. Totalitarian regimes do the opposite: extreme political mobilization of the population toward a particular aim. The difference is readily apparent when these two regime types institute a draft: disengaged people flee, mobilized people sign up to fight.
I tend to delineate a given prescriptive title from the descriptive attributes of action. With that in mind, the West & Democratic processes can be Totalitarian. A 51% of the vote to institute totaltiarianism is a Totalitarian government in my opinion. A bureaucratic rule by experts, prevalent in the west, often avoids Democratic processes anyways, leading to a fascist structure of public/private partnerships where corporations, franchised by the state, wield enormous political control over the lives of the people. The scientific process itself becomes corrupted to work within the framework of funding potential instead of inquiry for knowledge. With that said, personal autonomy, freedom, & liberty are key principles to uphold to avoid Totalitarianism. This includes the freedom not to be imposed on by others. The application of these principles change over time as there are no absolutes.
Pyramid structures are inherently unstable as the importance of necessary work is deincentivized in favor of power grabbing. An example of the consequences is how planned obselecence & profit seeking has diminished the combat capacity of the West. Russia is very successful in the Ukraine war against NATO despite having a fraction of the military budget of NATO. Another example is the dissonance between elites & the working class.
> Who has the monopoly on organized violence is the primary question answered by any political philosophy. My main criticism of anarchism is that it doesn't offer a solution to this problem, it merely punts. Power naturally accrues to those most willing to use it, so a diffusion of power is a vacuum, and nature abhors a vacuum.
My take is that Anarchism is a reaction to the political & social climate. The attractor is distribution of power & force rather than a monopoly. The problem with monopolies is that the locus of power attracts the Psychopaths & Sociopaths who will eventually take over the seats of power & leverage the concentrations of power. If the structures of power were more distributed, then Psychopaths & Sociopaths have less leverage & are more incentivized to do work that benefits their communities. Human nature does not change & people work within a framework of incentives. Centralized power incentivizes grabbing power due to the benefits of being at the top of the Pyramid scheme without having to do work that benefits the community...If the pyramid schemes were less powerful & overarching, there would be less incentive & impact to climb to the top of the pyramid & more incentive to provide value to the community.
Nature abhors a vacuum, but with distributed power, there would be no vacuum. Violence is used to consolidate power & is a net loss, so measures to disincentivize violence can be created within the community...including non-cooperation, ostricization, & even ganging up on an actor harming others. Ganging up on people happens today in the political realm, where some people are deemed "enemies of the State" & "domestic terrorists" despite not being violent. In that case, the principles have been corrupted to suit political ambition, rallying the apparatus of the state to commit violence against people with a different worldview & opinion.
> Russia is very successful in the Ukraine war against NATO despite having a fraction of the military budget of NATO. Another example is the dissonance between elites & the working class.
You mean the war where Russia is getting so desperate that they are using tanks as VBIEDs, which is the same war that NATO has yet to participate in?.
You may want to read The Tyranny of Structurelessness [1] by feminist Jo Freeman. She explains in detail what happens when you abolish formal hierarchies. Spoiler: informal hierarchies replace them (which you do not recognize as hierarchies, but which nevertheless exist).
Psychopaths and sociopaths will always exist (barring some totalitarian mass genetic engineering project). They will always be looking to pry open the cracks in society and find an advantage. The benefit of formal power structures is not that they prevent tyranny (they don’t) but that they make it legible. A legible tyranny at least stands a chance of being held to account.
Nations are highly-organized grouping of people. So what you're saying is, very large and cohesive groups of people can relate to one another without overt rules, therefore, so can individuals. That's a non sequitur.
I recall him saying something in his works about not caring if his writings led to complete disorder and destruction, because it is irrelevant to him so long as he pleases his ego by writing.
Edit, here's the quote from The Ego and Its Own:
"Do I write out of love to men? No, I write because I want to procure for my thoughts an existence in the world; and, even if I foresaw that these thoughts would deprive you of your rest and your peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the fall of many generations springing up from this seed of thought – I would nevertheless scatter it. Do with it what you will and can, that is your affair and does not trouble me. You will perhaps have only trouble, combat, and death from it, very few will draw joy from it."
Yeah I guess that's one interpretation of that but I would interpret that rather as pessimism and staunch authenticity while he actually did want a better world (which is what all anarchism is really about.)
